Posted on 12/27/2011 11:35:45 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Go to any Ron Paul event and the audience is part of the tale. They’re younger, rowdier, more socially diverse than Republican rally regulars. Any one of them might have driven across the state to see Paul speak or be able to riff at length about Austrian economic theory. Any one of them also might be a Democrat or an independent, a fact that’s poised to play a big role in Paul’s story in 2012.
...The fact that roughly half of Paul’s primary supporters are Democrats or independents is probably an asset in selling his general election viability, which his fellow Republicans have frequently called into question. In a recent CNN survey that polled hypothetical head-to-heads between Obama and Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich respectively, Paul tied Romney in performing best against the President in large part because he outperformed all the other GOP candidates among Democrats, independents, 18- to 34-year-olds and non-white voters....
(Excerpt) Read more at swampland.time.com ...
These are radical, Code Pink anti-war, OWS protesting, dope smoking, Meth sucking miscreants, who believe that Paul will get the Government out of their Meth/dope pipes and let them live without the fear of war, or to threaten their potential draft status.
This is no “guessing game” either. the facts about who and what the Pauls supporters are, is on the record.
I am simply tired of this insanity. I get home everyday to relax by FR and all I see is forty RP name calling threads. I just ask myself why.. then I ask on the thread. Really? Don’t we have more important things to discuss than any one person’s sanity or lack thereof. I have faith in God, who would not allow the earth to drop out of the sky if he was elected. I have these same discussions with my dh who thinks Israel would immediately vaporize. I love Israel, but she is in G-ds hands. Just like my children and other loved ones, He is far more capable of caring for the world than any government.
That’s why I ask these vitriolic posters if they are afraid of running out of other people’s money or what? Do they work for the Fed, or the government? There must be something driving it.. cause we have more important things to discuss rather than pimp candidates. Sorry for the rant.
While I do think you’re on to something there, I still think Bachmann, Santorum, and perhaps even Cain have a reasoned view of it, and want to adhere to it.
Paul does get high marks there, but if you really think about it, his take on the military is not exactly sound since the Constitution does recognize the Military as one of the items justified for fed spending.
We supposedly spend a little over a trillion dollars on the War on Terrorism, and Paul savagely attacks that frequently. He says the nation can’t survive the war costs. Strangely he remains mute in the public arena on Welfare spending that is at least five times as large.
He may attack that too on the internet, but his passion is clearly the military, and something debatable that is 500% worse, he remains mute on in public.
One is constitutional. The other is not.
I got some poll calls yesterday from Newt.
Normally I would not even listen to them, but I listened to Newtys canned message long enough to get a human being on the line,
Then I said “No Newt” and hung up
“The fact that roughly half of Paul’s primary supporters are Democrats or independents is probably an asset in selling his general election viability, which his fellow Republicans have frequently called into question. “
I expect they’re getting a lot of, “No Newt!”
Interesting aint it?
Newt canvasing Texas the day after Christmas.
Not one call, but two...
CW [Post #1] “............................So Ron Paul is their cup of tea. They’re only one step away from OWS (most likely have a foot in both camps already). If Ron Paul definitively said, “I will not run third Party,” much of his support would evaporate today. Which is precisely why he has not ruled it out.”
Paul’s their “cup of tea” until Obama pushes their well programmed LIBERAL indoctrination buttons.
FDR said the same thing...Churchill said the same thing...None of our Presidents moved American troops to Darfur to save the millions who were slaughtered there...
Is this the kind candidate for “President” You want to support? I don't think that even Obama is that radical or stupid!
Are you kidding me? Code Pink has a stronger National Defense stand than Paul does. Paul has made that abundantly clear in several exchanges from the debates.
Exactly my point...Do you know Paul's position of our military and foreign policy, or am I supposed to make a decision based on your idea that Code Pink has a stronger National Defense???
MONEY
He's in a world of money hurt.
The entire thing struck me as “desperate”
Here’s a Newtkle....5c..
I can only address what Ron has expressed in public.
1. He doesn’t think we should have entered Iraq or Afghanistan.
2. He doesn’t want our troops involved in over 100 nations around the planet.
3. He doesn’t want us to pay out foreign aid.
1. So Ron states that we should have a military strong enough to defend us, but gets upset when we use our military after an attack that took down the World Trade Center Twin Towers, one other building, and made another so unsound that we had to destroy it too. This attack accounted for an approximate 30% evaporation of Wall Street liquidity, the exact number of trillions I’m not sure. I believe the total property damage probably exceeded several trillion dollars too. If this trigger wasn’t sound enough, what trigger would it take for Ron to sign on to our using the military to make sure it didn’t happen again?
2. We have troops in many nations. When I first learned of it, I didn’t like it. Then I thought about what would happen if we pulled those troops out. We have those troops there to keep contact with these governments, and to help the citizens of those nations. If we don’t send our troops to do this, will another nation do it? Should we be prepared to allow China to follow in behind us and develop contacts in those nations in our absence?
3. We pay out a considerable amount of foreign policy aid. I’m not real thrilled about it. I am not convinced that ending it really pays off to the degree folks think. Some of that aid helps buy favorable policy decisions on behalf of us and our allies. If we didn’t pay it, in theory we could could find ourselves having to introduce troops to quell a hot spot. In short order that runs up tremendous costs. Military operations can also contribute to a negative impression of the U. S. too. Is foreign aid a constitutional premise? I don’t think so. If it is considered to be an off-shoot of our military expenditures, it might be seen differently. Is it better to pay out a billion or two here or there, or is it better to put 10,000 troops on the ground for six months? IMO, it is debatable.
Rick Perry says lets set foreign aid to zero and then state your case.
Three problems we had in Vietnam, were: 1: the high body count on our side, 2: the corrupt unstable government we were there to shore up, 3: not going in for the kill in the North.
1. We did get the body count right this time around. Even if you add in the injured troops, the count was much lower than in Vietnam.
2. In Iraq (and probably not Afghanistan) we set up a reasoned government and held free elections. The government was rather stable. I believe it needed more time to stabilize and move forward. Afghanistan is still problematic, and I’m not happy about the rules of engagement. It seems to me we need to be more assertive with the Afghanistan government. If we aren’t, the prognosis for long term stability is reduced significantly.
3. As for the third problem, I believe we have allowed Iran to game the system for political and military gain. We should have warned them early on. Then we should have taken punitive measures if it wouldn’t stay out. Training, arming, and sending in terrorists, should have garnered Iran some heavy penalties.
I am sensitive to your reference to the U. N. and globalist concessions we make in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. As it applies to Iran, I have a problem with it there too.
In Iraq, I think we did a rather admirable job. There were factional problems there. We kept the Sunnis and Shiites fairly well balanced. We kept the Kurds fairly satisfied.
I was not impressed with the inclusion of women in government, or their inclusion in the vote. It’s not that I have a problem with women voting, but Iraq was not the U. S., and it really wasn’t any of our business who voted there.
As for the U. N. and globalist demands, I’d tell them to go blank themselves if they even opened their yaps. I agree with you there.
Not one call, but two..."
I got three in one day last week, and another today.
I pressed "2" each time.
“Strangely he remains mute in the public arena on Welfare spending that is at least five times as large.”
No, not really mute on welfare.
“The US Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.”
I think Iraq was a noble ambition.
We could have divided the middle east with freedom, from Turkey to the Persian gulf.
We basically had it done until Obama gave it away
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.