Posted on 04/26/2011 7:09:29 PM PDT by Bokababe
....Part of Paul's fervent support in 2008 was grounded in college-aged voters, a constituency that also largely favored Barack Obama. In this campaign, the 75-year-old Paul said today, Mr. Obama won't be able to hang on to the youth vote.
"I think that Obama will not be able to hang on to that enthusiasm of the young people because of what's happened in the last couple years," Paul said in Des Moines, Iowa, after his exploratory committee was announced.
The financial crisis, the bloated deficit and the ongoing wars make the libertarian views Paul is known for -- such as his anti-interventionist foreign policy and his antipathy toward the Federal Reserve -- even more relevant than in 2008, Paul suggested....
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
I liked Rand for president in 2012 because he was aggressive, though well-spoken enough he could do it without being caustic, beyond supporting his views. I think, unless someone in the regular Republican camp steps it up soon, things could go Mr. Trump’s way because he’s the most outspoken, the most able and willing to take it right to the incumbent and the source of the problem, even if what he sees as the problem doesn’t coincide perfectly with many conservatives. But you’re right, it is early days. In any event, I think Ron Paul and Donald Trump are good for the national debate by being involved.
Until very recently, the voting age was 21 and I think that should be reinstated; though given the choice, I would raise that to at least 25.
He rails against PORK, yet he loads up Bills, he know will pass, with his own pet projects, then votes against them, so he can claim that he doesn't "like" PORK.
Ron Paul's candidcy isn't "good" for anything! He added nothing to the debates, last time around, except the GOP's version of Denis Kucinich.
R-U-N Paul - what a complete waste of skin - and votes.
Alright, this is answering the question I asked. I'm hoping for specifics though - do you have an article or a link going into detail on this?
Ron Paul's candidacy isn't "good" for anything!
Ron Paul's candidacy is good for getting the spotlight on shady business at the 'Federal' Reserve, you'd have to admit. No?
Please explain what you mean by "similar to Washington's". The first president, or the people in charge in the nation's capital ATTOW?
Someone remind me again why Ron Paul’s not a conservative? . . . He has libertarian qualities, sure, and that’s what he’s usually classed as, but isn’t his attitude on foreign intervention the same or similar to Washington’s?
As things look to me, he's pro-choice state by state; he only opposes federal funding for abortion. He also opposes a federal ban on abortion. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways, yes?
And he’s very much pro-life, with his personal experience as an obstetrician and gynecologist to back it up
Please explain what you mean by "similar to Washington's". The first president, or the people in charge in the nation's capital ATTOW?
Someone remind me again why Ron Paul’s not a conservative? . . . He has libertarian qualities, sure, and that’s what he’s usually classed as, but isn’t his attitude on foreign intervention the same or similar to Washington’s?
As things look to me, he's pro-choice state by state; he only opposes federal funding for abortion. He also opposes a federal ban on abortion. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways, yes?
And he’s very much pro-life, with his personal experience as an obstetrician and gynecologist to back it up
Retire Ron you a$$!
He keeps doing it, so perhaps if you look for threads about him, some will pop up, as I know that there were some posted here, not all that long ago.
As to your final query...the answer is not just no, but HELL NO! Having him in a debate wastes valuable time, which more serious candidates could talk.
Paul is pro-leaglizing of illicit substances, antiwar, was for the GZ Mosque, and he will never be anything other than a KOOK and a joke, to the vast majority of Americans.His rapid supporters are a rag tag bunch and many of them are no more than hooligans, whose behavior, on '08, was highly objectionable and to some extent, violent.
Thanks for the link. I’m reading through it now.
By Washington, I should have been clearer that I meant George Washington, though I thought following it with this: “Any differing policy after that is by definition also not conservative.” I meant to say here that Washington’s policies, generally Federalist, or proto-Federalist as he was against political parties, were generally not those of Jefferson, and in his farewell address warned of passionate attachments to foreign nations. I’ve been instructed he meant especially France there, but it extends to all others, Britain, Russia, etc. And Israel is a foreign country, even if not in existence then, so passionate attachments to it would have also been contrary to Washington’s warning and his policy, and also wouldn’t qualify as conservative, in reference to him.
So Ron Paul’s wanting to withdraw American financial support from Israel, something I’m told Israel both doesn’t need and increasingly questions taking, has to be seen in light of that and of his wanting to withdraw American financial support of foreign countries across the board.
I’ll look for that specific resolution against the mullahs he voted against - it sounds like it’s in keeping with this Washingtonian policy, but it’s concerning if he was the only ‘nay’ vote and if it was hypocritical.
Rand Paul, his son, was for going into Afghanistan but not going into Iraq - except that once in we have to win. I agree with that. I had thought Ron Paul’s view was similar. Operations in Iraq are winding down (an Army Major I know told me it’s ‘over’). It would be irresponsible to de-fund, and thus leave, before things were secure, so if he didn’t say something like that as well it’s a concern. What do you mean around ‘supporting the Gaza blockade’? That seems to me to be Israel’s endeavor, not America’s.
You can leave off snarky comments, also. They’re generally not well-received, and I’m no exception. It also won’t help that you’ve named yourself after a type of troll. I don’t have a strong opinion about Ron Paul because I haven’t run across the same things that have apparently provoked such a strong reaction in you, nor been so impressed by the kind of things he says that lead some people to be such strong followers of his. Right now though, for me personally, the count of those opposed to him acting obnoxiously is higher than those for him doing so. That doesn’t say everything, but it does make a person wonder when asking genuine questions.
“Articles about Paul’s PORK SCAM has been all over FR for years.”
Are the keywords ‘Ron Paul Pork Scam’ going to bring them up? I’ll have a look.
I’m using the word ‘debate’ more generally than I think it came across. I mean that while he’s campaigning, he issues statements, talks to people, is interviewed, which raises issues other candidates might not have thought they needed to address, but would, because in running against him they need to win by drawing as much of his support as possible. I didn’t mean in particular he’d be in a formal debate, and that was his contribution. But with that, as with the other things, it’s pretty easy to get another beer or whatever when he’s on, if that’s your preference.
That mosque issue near the Trade Center is problematic for me. I’ll find more on that and what he said. Many of those illicit substances were once licit, but people had enough self-control and less desire to escape reality for that to not be a problem. I don’t think it’s appropriate now to legalize, but in the future it might be. I think we have a long way to go before even considering that though. He’s a medical doctor, so his statements aren’t uninformed, but I’ll see if I can find those too. I do appreciate links and specific quotes though. I had heard of one of his supporters stepping on the neck of a semi-professional agitator at one of his meetings, but I haven’t heard anything else. What else was there?
Come out of your cave Drango, this isn't 2008 anymore!
Besides, most of Ron Paul's agenda is already coming out of the mouths of Republicans -- smaller government, lower taxes, end the Fed, tackle the debt. It's the follow through that they have a problem with.
Completely disagree with him on that one, but I understand why he said it.
Ronnie Paulie, give up, dude, you ain’t gonna win!
Ron Paul is not pro abortion.
Ron Paul did very well with the youth vote in 2008, or, where he was strongest, if anywhere, was with the youth vote. All that internet enthusiasm, the polls that he would win. Young people. There were concerts in rock clubs for Ron Paul.
Oh, then yes, you misused the word "debate", but no matter, what you have assumed has never happened anyway. And when he was in the debates, in '08, nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, ever picked up on what you imagine would have sparked further debate.
I don't drink beer..........I just change the channel or shut off the sound when he's on; though I did watch every single moment of the debates, both the GOP and Dem ones, in '08.
What I was specifically referring to was when his rabid, thuggish supporters threw snowballs at Sean Hannity and his crew and attempted to harm them in other ways, as they were exiting a debate ( I think it was in N.H., maybe not...there was lots of snow ) back in '08, that Ron Paul hadn't been invited to and they blamed him. And, as a personal aside, from what I saw of them, myself, in action, at a different political venue.
When illicit drugs were legal, most people had little idea how addicting they were and recreational drug taking was confined to the fringe of the fringe; mostly outcasts and "Bohemians", the Demi-Mode and the Demi-Modains,as well as a few of the upper crust, who were simply thrill seekers. There are records though, of nannies and day care ( which was called BABY FARMING back then ) giving babies and young children laudanum, just to keep them semiconscious; many times almost or killing them.
By making them legal now, would take away whatever little stigma there is to it left, and things would only be worse.
With regards to abortion. Wouldn’t that be the Constitutional answer. it is not under a federal power and belongs to the states. Thats how I read it.
“I suggest that you use the key words: Ron Paul, PORK, and PORK in Bills; perhaps even Paul’s voting record.”
Thanks, I’ll have a look, probably tomorrow as it’s late.
“Oh, then yes, you misused the word “debate”, but no matter,”
I could have been clearer if it was confusing to you, but it’s not actually a misuse of ‘debate’. If it were, it’s in wide enough circulation and accepted ubiquitously so that limiting its use only to a formal debate would be the idiosyncratic usage.
“what you have assumed has never happened anyway. And when he was in the debates, in ‘08, nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, ever picked up on what you imagine would have sparked further debate.”
I admire your confidence with sweeping generalizations unless you’re only limiting this statement to the formal debates.
If it were only snowballs then maybe it wasn’t that serious, but if they were harassing them in other ways in addition to that, it doesn’t look good to me. After writing before, I remembered seeing on video one group of Ron Paul supporters at CPAC harass another supporter of Ron Paul because they didn’t like his other views, to the point where he left for his own safety. They say that the plural of anecdote is data, so your own observations are valid. He will have to do more to reign them in if he’s concerned by this, as I am.
Laudanum was a pharmaceutical medication used as a sedative, so its abuse in nurseries or day-cares of the day would be more similar to pharmaceutical abuse today, like over-prescribing Ritalin or otherwise chemical-warehousing of people. I was more referring to hemp’s flowers and the resin from it, and coca leaves like in things like Vin Mariani, the predecessor of Coca-Cola. But we both agree, at minimum, it’s not something that could even be up for discussion presently.
“By making them legal now, it would take away whatever little stigma there is to it left, and things would only be worse.”
Right, that’s a significant reason why.
Just like four years ago....we had the Paulbots barking about how he was going to surprise everybody and get the GOP nomination and go on to win the White House.
Oh, well...it makes for some good entertainment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.