Santorum, really? Screw you Kansas.

[p1k3]

Besides, i think Ron Paul is just trolling when he talks about the gold standard. Trying to initiate a paradigm shift. Wake people up. Make them think about what weve let happen to ourselves.

[kstatefreak42]

I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14

He can win.

[Panjandrum]

Explain please.  You stopped reading because of bad grammar?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I stopped reading because the gold standard is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Do you realize that by combating inflation through the use of a gold standard, you also put a limit on the wealth that country can generate?

Do you realize that NO country in the world utilizes a gold standard?

Do you realize that the largest producer of gold in the world is China?

Anyone running for President that stands at a podium and advocates the gold standard should be looked at like some jackass that stands up there and says they don't believe in evolution.

And before the Ron Paul fan boys start jumping me for calling him a jackass, I don't think he's a jackass, personally, but he's being a jackass on that point.

Back on point, Rick Santorum is a jackass in all facets of everything.

It's pretty ridiculous to pinpoint one flaw that you have with a candidate and dismiss them because of that.  It's really absurd, especially when like Hein said, Ron Paul won't get the country back on the Gold Standard. Even still, are you seriously weighing that one area of difference so heavily that it puts him behind the other candidates? Seriously?  Gimme a break pan.

Let me be very clear.  I wouldn't vote for any of them under any circumstance, ever.  This is all purely for entertainment purposes.

I already know who I'm voting for in November.  And I live in a swing state.

 

[nicname]

Barry O?

meh.

[p1k3]

It doesnt matter who you vote for. The candidates will be bought and paid for by the same corporations. False right/left paradigm lives on. Illusion of choice etc. RP is the only one that can save us.

[Panjandrum]

It doesnt matter who you vote for. The candidates will be bought and paid for by the same corporations. False right/left paradigm lives on. Illusion of choice etc. RP is the only one that can save us.

Really?  That seems a bit dramatic.

[p1k3]

It doesnt matter who you vote for. The candidates will be bought and paid for by the same corporations. False right/left paradigm lives on. Illusion of choice etc. RP is the only one that can save us.

Really?  That seems a bit dramatic.

Why? He's the only one not working for anyone else. That's why the establishment has done everything in their power (short of jfk treatment) to marginalize him.

[HeinBallz]

I find this entertaining because I think this is going to end up an open convention.  At that point whatever the GOP chooses will be hilarious.  I fully expect Ron Paul to be running as an independent at that point - after he's used the Republican candidacy race for all it's worth. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeinBallz]

Explain please.  You stopped reading because of bad grammar?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I stopped reading because the gold standard is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Do you realize that by combating inflation through the use of a gold standard, you also put a limit on the wealth that country can generate?

Do you realize that NO country in the world utilizes a gold standard?

Do you realize that the largest producer of gold in the world is China?

Anyone running for President that stands at a podium and advocates the gold standard should be looked at like some jackass that stands up there and says they don't believe in evolution.

And before the Ron Paul fan boys start jumping me for calling him a jackass, I don't think he's a jackass, personally, but he's being a jackass on that point.

Back on point, Rick Santorum is a jackass in all facets of everything.

It's pretty ridiculous to pinpoint one flaw that you have with a candidate and dismiss them because of that.  It's really absurd, especially when like Hein said, Ron Paul won't get the country back on the Gold Standard. Even still, are you seriously weighing that one area of difference so heavily that it puts him behind the other candidates? Seriously?  Gimme a break pan.

Let me be very clear.  I wouldn't vote for any of them under any circumstance, ever.  This is all purely for entertainment purposes.

I already know who I'm voting for in November.  And I live in a swing state.

 

Out of curiosity - who?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14

He can win.

Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.

[p1k3]

I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14

He can win.

Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.

Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.

[HeinBallz]

I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14

He can win.

Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.

Popular misconception.  There are hundreds of Ron Paul supporters working their asses off to become delegates for their state GOP.  If this ends up as an open convention - there is nothing that requires them to declare a republican nominee in accordance with their states caucus results.  They are indeed allowed to nominate whoever they feel is most likely to win the presidency and if many Ron Paul supporters are able to become delegates, you could see Ron Paul receive the republican nominee.  That's why the debacle in Missouri Saturday was so important for Ron Paul.  The GOP knows the people want Ron and the GOP is willing to break the rules and have people arrested to keep them from participating in these caucuses.  The phrase "freedom is popular" apparently isn't true for people afraid of losing control and Ron Paul supporters are trying to beat them at their own game. Missouri this last Saturday is proof of how scared big government is of Ron Paul.  Every caucus vote for Ron is still a step closer to an open convention and a possible chance at the world seeing Ron Paul take on Obama. Never lose hope. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeinBallz]

I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14

He can win.

Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.

Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.

Amen brother.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14

He can win.

Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.

Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.

Ron Paul is the true conservative. There has never been a time where the views of the Republican party were in line with the views of Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is the true Republican.

[nicname]

I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14

He can win.

Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.

Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.

Ron Paul is the true conservative. There has never been a time where the views of the Republican party were in line with the views of Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is the true Republican.

Yeah, pretty much.  Also, he has an extremely small chance to win.  I mean, there is a small chance with the convention and delegates, etc. but really unlikely.  That really doesn't matter though.  He has done a great service to the country just spreading the message.  Good things will come in time and he will be the one who really started it all.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14

He can win.

Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.

Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.

Ron Paul is the true conservative. There has never been a time where the views of the Republican party were in line with the views of Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is the true Republican.

Yeah, pretty much.  Also, he has an extremely small chance to win.  I mean, there is a small chance with the convention and delegates, etc. but really unlikely.  That really doesn't matter though.  He has done a great service to the country just spreading the message.  Good things will come in time and he will be the one who really started it all.

Ron Paul winning the nomination via a brokered convention would be bullshit. I think it would be great because the Republican party absolutely deserves to be hijacked, but it would fly in the face of democracy.

[HeinBallz]

I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14

He can win.

Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.

Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.

Ron Paul is the true conservative. There has never been a time where the views of the Republican party were in line with the views of Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is the true Republican.

Yeah, pretty much.  Also, he has an extremely small chance to win.  I mean, there is a small chance with the convention and delegates, etc. but really unlikely.  That really doesn't matter though.  He has done a great service to the country just spreading the message.  Good things will come in time and he will be the one who really started it all.

Ron Paul winning the nomination via a brokered convention would be bullshit. I think it would be great because the Republican party absolutely deserves to be hijacked, but it would fly in the face of democracy.

It already flies in the face of democracy when people are bullied and barred from participating in conventions/caucuses/GOP events


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

I really like Ron Paul and would love to see him get the nomination. I only voted for Romney in the primary because realistically Paul has no chance and the thought of President Santorum terrifies me. Romney is status quo, and we could do much worse than status quo with Santorum.

you do realize in late february Paul was beating obama in a national poll and the most recent one had him down vs obama by 1 percent or some crap. So i dont buy that he "cant win"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trio-of-polls-show-ron-paul-most-viable-alternative-to-romney-v-obama-2012-03-14

He can win.

Ron Paul's problem is that he isn't really a republican. He has absolutely no chance of ever getting the nomination. I agree that if he were on a ballot against Obama for President and there was not a republican also running, Paul would have a pretty good shot.

Ron Paul is the true Republican, the rest are basically moderate Democrats. The party has changed a lot and Ron Paul just didnt change with it.

Ron Paul is the true conservative. There has never been a time where the views of the Republican party were in line with the views of Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is the true Republican.

Yeah, pretty much.  Also, he has an extremely small chance to win.  I mean, there is a small chance with the convention and delegates, etc. but really unlikely.  That really doesn't matter though.  He has done a great service to the country just spreading the message.  Good things will come in time and he will be the one who really started it all.

Ron Paul winning the nomination via a brokered convention would be bullshit. I think it would be great because the Republican party absolutely deserves to be hijacked, but it would fly in the face of democracy.

It already flies in the face of democracy when people are bullied and barred from participating in conventions/caucuses/GOP events


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I agree. It's very disheartening.

[HeinBallz]

Ron Paul winning the nomination via a brokered convention would be bullshit. I think it would be great because the Republican party absolutely deserves to be hijacked, but it would fly in the face of democracy.

I'll be damned if I didn't log into facebook just now and see that this article had been posted.   It is a direct response to your statement and is very interesting.  Not sure of the validity - but It is something I'll definatley read more into it.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/mar/19/ron-pauls-caucus-strategy-authentic-republicanism/

TAMPA, March 19, 2012—Give yourself a test. Without doing a web search or whipping out that pocket U.S. Constitution that a wild-eyed Tea Partier handed you, fill in the blank in the following sentence: The U.S. Constitution guarantees to every state in the union a _____form of government.

If you are like ninety percent of the American electorate, you answered “democratic” and you were wrong. The answer is “a republican form of government.” There is a drastic difference between the two and one would think that the Republican Party would know it. Instead, they are identical to their rivals in not only ignoring the distinction but promoting democracy instead.

In a democracy, the will of the majority is the law. Fifty-one percent of the vote empowers the winners to exercise any power they wish. Not so in a republic. The reason the founders constructed a constitutional republic was to protect Americans from democracy.

That may sound like sacrilege to most 21st century Americans, but it’s true. James Madison called democracy “the most vile form of government.” Thomas Jefferson said that when majorities oppress an individual they “break up the foundations of society.” Benjamin Franklin mused that democracy was like “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”

Republicanism is the logical form of government for conservatives. Conservatism at its best protects property rights from an unchecked majority plundering the individual. Liberalism at its best protects property rights from the wealthy conspiring with the government to plunder the masses. At their worst, both conservatism and liberalism legitimize plunder; the former for the few, the latter for the many.

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign strategy is rooted in republicanism. He has deliberately focused his efforts on the states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because caucuses do not let the majority rule unchecked. Instead of merely pulling a few levers behind a curtain, caucus participants must complete a multi-tiered process that occurs for months after the popular vote before being chosen for the national convention. Who can doubt that these delegates are more informed than the typical primary voter? The essence of republicanism is for reason to triumph over the transient passion of the majority.

Paul’s platform likewise represents what is best about conservatism. Without exception, it protects the individual from oppression by the majority. He is the only Republican presidential candidate that has actually said the words “role of government” during any debate. That’s because he is the only candidate that seems to recognize that the government’s role is limited; that even a majority vote cannot sanction it to exercise power beyond those limits. Throughout all of human history, conservatives have defended this principle against the ungoverned passion of the majority.

Yet, conservatives today sound just like liberals when they decry Paul’s supporters using the republican nature of the caucuses to overturn the decisions of uninformed majorities. Their opposition to both Paul’s platform and his political strategy begs the question: Does the Republican Party still believe in a republican form of government? Do they still believe that the power of the majority has limits? Or are they just Democrats with a different supporter base?

George W. Bush never once referred to the United States of America as “a republic.” He consistently referred to it as “a democracy” and like Woodrow Wilson claimed to be defending democracy all over the world. If he was representative of what the Republican Party now stands for, then how is it substantively different from the Democratic Party?

These same questions apply to the issues. If the Republican Party truly favors the big government alternatives to Ron Paul, candidates who all supported the expansion of the federal government in the past and who refuse to commit to any meaningful cuts now, then what is the debate about?

The federal government doesn’t need a manicure. It needs reconstructive surgery. Make that deconstructive surgery. You don’t turn $1.5 trillion deficits into surpluses by tweaking the way that federal departments are managed. You do so by completely eliminating departments and redefining the role of government. Only Ron Paul is proposing to do so. If there is anything left of what made the Republican Party different from the Democrats, they should support both Ron Paul’s platform and his political strategy.[/qoute]

[Rage Against the McKee]

Ron Paul winning the nomination via a brokered convention would be bullshit. I think it would be great because the Republican party absolutely deserves to be hijacked, but it would fly in the face of democracy.

I'll be damned if I didn't log into facebook just now and see that this article had been posted.   It is a direct response to your statement and is very interesting.  Not sure of the validity - but It is something I'll definatley read more into it.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/mar/19/ron-pauls-caucus-strategy-authentic-republicanism/

TAMPA, March 19, 2012—Give yourself a test. Without doing a web search or whipping out that pocket U.S. Constitution that a wild-eyed Tea Partier handed you, fill in the blank in the following sentence: The U.S. Constitution guarantees to every state in the union a _____form of government.

If you are like ninety percent of the American electorate, you answered “democratic” and you were wrong. The answer is “a republican form of government.” There is a drastic difference between the two and one would think that the Republican Party would know it. Instead, they are identical to their rivals in not only ignoring the distinction but promoting democracy instead.

In a democracy, the will of the majority is the law. Fifty-one percent of the vote empowers the winners to exercise any power they wish. Not so in a republic. The reason the founders constructed a constitutional republic was to protect Americans from democracy.

That may sound like sacrilege to most 21st century Americans, but it’s true. James Madison called democracy “the most vile form of government.” Thomas Jefferson said that when majorities oppress an individual they “break up the foundations of society.” Benjamin Franklin mused that democracy was like “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”

Republicanism is the logical form of government for conservatives. Conservatism at its best protects property rights from an unchecked majority plundering the individual. Liberalism at its best protects property rights from the wealthy conspiring with the government to plunder the masses. At their worst, both conservatism and liberalism legitimize plunder; the former for the few, the latter for the many.

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign strategy is rooted in republicanism. He has deliberately focused his efforts on the states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because caucuses do not let the majority rule unchecked. Instead of merely pulling a few levers behind a curtain, caucus participants must complete a multi-tiered process that occurs for months after the popular vote before being chosen for the national convention. Who can doubt that these delegates are more informed than the typical primary voter? The essence of republicanism is for reason to triumph over the transient passion of the majority.

Paul’s platform likewise represents what is best about conservatism. Without exception, it protects the individual from oppression by the majority. He is the only Republican presidential candidate that has actually said the words “role of government” during any debate. That’s because he is the only candidate that seems to recognize that the government’s role is limited; that even a majority vote cannot sanction it to exercise power beyond those limits. Throughout all of human history, conservatives have defended this principle against the ungoverned passion of the majority.

Yet, conservatives today sound just like liberals when they decry Paul’s supporters using the republican nature of the caucuses to overturn the decisions of uninformed majorities. Their opposition to both Paul’s platform and his political strategy begs the question: Does the Republican Party still believe in a republican form of government? Do they still believe that the power of the majority has limits? Or are they just Democrats with a different supporter base?

George W. Bush never once referred to the United States of America as “a republic.” He consistently referred to it as “a democracy” and like Woodrow Wilson claimed to be defending democracy all over the world. If he was representative of what the Republican Party now stands for, then how is it substantively different from the Democratic Party?

These same questions apply to the issues. If the Republican Party truly favors the big government alternatives to Ron Paul, candidates who all supported the expansion of the federal government in the past and who refuse to commit to any meaningful cuts now, then what is the debate about?

The federal government doesn’t need a manicure. It needs reconstructive surgery. Make that deconstructive surgery. You don’t turn $1.5 trillion deficits into surpluses by tweaking the way that federal departments are managed. You do so by completely eliminating departments and redefining the role of government. Only Ron Paul is proposing to do so. If there is anything left of what made the Republican Party different from the Democrats, they should support both Ron Paul’s platform and his political strategy.[/qoute]

Yes, we have a republic where democratically elected officials make decisions of the state with no popular vote. The problem comes when you take away the democratic process of electing those officials.

[HeinBallz]

I was mostly responding to you making the statement that Ron getting the nomination through an open convention would fly in the face of democracy.  What this article says is thats exactly how our government is set up.  People can bitch and moan all they want and all any one could respond with is: read the constitution bitch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

I was mostly responding to you making the statement that Ron getting the nomination through an open convention would fly in the face of democracy.  What this article says is thats exactly how our government is set up.  People can bitch and moan all they want and all any one could respond with is: read the constitution bitch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What does the constitution say about the nomination process for the republican presidential candidate?

[HeinBallz]

This article also implies that anyone that says Santorum is the only true republican and the party has not changed while Ron Paul is not a republican is wrong and doesn't know their history.  But like I said, I would like to read more into it before I base arguments off of one article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nicname]

Paul has started something great.  I look for someone else to grab the torch.  South Carolina State Sen. Tom Davis is primed for big movement imo.

[HeinBallz]

I was mostly responding to you making the statement that Ron getting the nomination through an open convention would fly in the face of democracy.  What this article says is thats exactly how our government is set up.  People can bitch and moan all they want and all any one could respond with is: read the constitution bitch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What does the constitution say about the nomination process for the republican presidential candidate?

I don't know.  But I would imagine democrats are more democratic, while Republicans follow a republic styled philosophy more.  But I wasn't an English major so who knows how each party decided to name themselves.  Maybe it was opposites day and republicans believe in a democracy over a republic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk