I didn’t see a bucket for Asylum Inmate.
Have I been remiss?
:D
Easily for Governor. Thats the one place his WOT views wouldn’t matter. And unfortunately in Texas, we need a non-globalist (Trans-Texas Corridor), non-intrusive (forced vaccinations) politician. However, that being Perry’s record, I trust him a whole hell of a lot more than any Texas politician with more than 1 last name, and especially more than one who will support their gender over their ideology. We need a new Sam Houston.
You should have also asked how many are 9/11 truthers.
No, No, No, OBGYN for my wife, Maybe.. As long as pork or spam, or wild shrimp spam wasn’t involved.
If he wants to run on his personality, no. This is because he cannot win, and even if he could, he could not run the government on his own.
This is why he has to run other people in lesser office, but with his ideas.
No third party or outsider can bear to do this—to build their party momentum before they even try for the presidency. They always make the same error, which is why they always fail.
Were I to advise Ron Paul, the first piece of advice would be to name his party after his philosophy, not himself. The second piece of advice would be to strongly sponsor—throw all your weight behind—a dozen House of Representative candidates. A mid-term election is better than a presidential election.
Run them in places where both major parties are weak, and make all of them publicly swear to a “Ten Commandments” of government—that looks like the Contract With America. Simple, concise and popular 10 issues only. Make it so people in other States *wish* they could vote for a Ron Paul candidate.
With luck, he could get three or four into office. And that is not enough at first. But they must be a disciplined caucus, and work as a team on all issues. Even though they are congressmen, they are not yet national—all they do they do for the folks who elected them.
Yes, to put it bluntly, both poll driven and stubborn as mules with their core ideas. They stay away from both Democrats and Republicans, who are very skilled at corrupting novices to government. If they are approached by anyone, it is as a group, not individually.
They must be very, very disciplined to survive. But the election after that, if they have made themselves respected by their voters, they will need less support—and can give more support, hopefully to get more congressmen in those same States.
Once a critical number of party congressmen have been elected, the party has finally become national, because it is the “marginal vote” between the two major parties. From this point, it begins to win, because without its backing, neither of the two major parties has a solid majority.
The majority of issues congress deals with are petty and unimportant, so the Ron Paul congressmen can build up IOUs for supporting things they don’t care about. In exchange, they have an unfair amount of leverage to advance their issues.
Suddenly, the White House is not so far away after all.
No, no and no.
For President, definitely not. The other three are up to Texas.
Fourth Category: Nut.
I love Ron Paul’s domestic ideas, but on foreign policy he’s a bit too isolationist. Sometimes you have to fight for your interests and self defense half a world away.
No, no and no.
“Attack the paleos” flamebait. No thanks.
Why support someone who constantly votes in line with the Constitution? We’d rather vote for people who say all the right things, look good and then proceed to do all they can to destroy us and the US.
No, not one.
However, if I got to pick my candidate for President in 2012(or now for that matter)it would be Sarah Palin or Michelle Brachman(sp?). Mainly because more people respect them than they do Paul and I like their overall thinking a little better.
I don't hold Paul's interpretation of the constitution against him as many do because, believe it or not, he has it right. Either you believe in the constitution or you don't. If you pick and choose the parts you want to believe in then you are no better than a liberal.
I wrote off the Ron Paul when he insisted that troops collapsing trench lines with armored bulldozers in the 1990 gulf combat was a war crime. Instead of bayonet charges evidently.
Irrelevant. Take away his lunatic “support” and he fared no better than Hunter, Tancredo, et. al. Even with the pretense of groundswell support driven by the loons, he still barely registered a blip on the radar.
Time to find a real conservative who is right on domestic policy AND on defense. Not optimistic about Hunter but at least he is worth supporting.
When Ahmadinejad spoke in NY a yr. ago, congress voted to condemn with his anti American, anti Jewish, and wanting to see Israel leveled off the map.
L Ron Paul voted against condemning this terrorist supply store to the IslamOfascists.
Today, congress voted to condemn the Iranian Government for its recent actions against the those Iranians protesting in the streets for some form of freedom.
the only one voting against this and in vafor of the terrorists dictators was L Ron Paul
L Ron Paul is a por excuse for a human being.
he is the best friend the Marxist and neo nazis have in congress.
L Ron Paul isn’t fit to serve in congress or any position.