Ron Paul or no one else?

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Ron Paul, libertarian progressive RINO

If Ron Paul was not available, I would not vote. No one but no one can compel me to sic on my fellows some big-spending, debt-raising, rights-encroaching politician. Both parties are just two wings of the same party: Big Government.

Ron Paul would be a libertarian and thus a progressive, just like Obama.

He is a RINO for access to the two party scam. The Republicans and Democrats are the right and left wings of the Ruling Class. Read Angelo Codevilla's essay America's Ruling Class: And the Perils of Revolution.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

I would vote for Republican Gingrich or Republican Paul. Absent those choices, I will vote Constitution Party.

The Tree of Liberty is parched. The cracked Liberty Bell, silent, is useless. Better me, while my blood is hot and my grip firm, than my daughter - or any graduate of the army of one, oxymorons.

 

[()pen(arry]

After all, a federal individual mandate to purchase health insurance was first proposed by Republicans during the Clinton administration's push for "Hillarycare". Poor Mitt fought for the party in Massachusetts, and now he's getting shafted by the changing political winds.

Y'all go ahead and keep pretending Republicans are better than Democrats. Them boots need lickin'.

EDIT: Actually, it was first proposed under good ole Herbert, four years earlier, then proposed as an alternative to Clinton's plan.

 

[jbone]

The conservative voters will line up behind whoever is running against the Democrat candidate, and vice versa..

I believe Obama fits nowhere into that cookie cutter.

 

[Hunterdave]

Food for Thought

Without Republican appointees on SCOTUS we would have already lost
the 2A completely.

Without Republican appointees on SCOTUS, McDonald and Heller would

have turned out much differently.

Could you imagine a SCOTUS with 9 Kagan's???

For that reason alone I'll vote for whomever is nominated on
the Republican side.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Not picking on Jayspapa here, just commenting generally and using his post to work from.

I think this is a too common problem in this country. The conservative voters will line up behind whoever is running against the Democrat candidate, and vice versa.

When the fact is, when you do a little digging, you find out both parties are just as bad as the other. They pander to different bases, but once in power (and neither is ever completely out of power) no matter which programs they push to the pander-ee's, they both also drive the national debt to the moon, depreciate the dollar via inflation, enact laws without reading them, encroach on freedom, hand out favors to their donors, etc. Neither party is in it to represent the people; with very few individual exceptions, they're in it for themselves.

The whoever that runs against the current incumbent could easily be just as bad as the incumbent. People should please take a look at the actual history--the voting records, the policies, the effects on the economy, the growth of the national debt, etc--of both parties.

I agree with everything you have posted here, and would add: running "anyone but Obama" WILL NOT win this next election!

Republicans are too confident in their position; Romney as the likely nominee is indicative of what has been an over-confident Republican party..IMO of course.

 

[jayspapa]

Just to be clear , through out the years of my going to vote , I have worked both sides of the ticket . I don't blindly follow the republican ticket. I do , however , want Obama out of office and I will vote for whoever is running against him on the Republican ticket this time around.

I don't care for any of the top runners on the Republican side but I dislike the current President even more. The sad thing is that it won't matter because the electoral votes will go to The Dem. side anyway here in Illinois.

 

[Citizen]

Just to be clear , through out the years of my going to vote , I have worked both sides of the ticket . I don't blindly follow the republican ticket. I do , however , want Obama out of office and I will vote for whoever is running against him on the Republican ticket this time around.

I don't care for any of the top runners on the Republican side but I dislike the current President even more. The sad thing is that it won't matter because the electoral votes will go to The Dem. side anyway here in Illinois.

This is the thing I cannot understand. Santorum and Romney are just as bad as Obama. They're just as much a part of the big-government machine as Obama. Just a different side of the aisle. When one looks closely at what they do, not their rhetoric, what they do, they're both big government, big spending, panderers.

Just because Obama sets one's anti-socialist teeth on edge doesn't mean the other two won't drive the national debt to the moon, increase spending, come up with a million new regulations, let the bankers off the hook, increase the security state, diminishing rights, and contribute to depreciating the dollar (meaning your dollar buys less by way of price inflation.)

The republicans sometimes talk a good talk, but its always the same old business-as-usual once they get in office.

And, if one knows how bad they really are, how can a fella afflict his fellows by deliberately actively affirmatively voting for one of them? This I just don't understand. There is nobody I hate so much that I would sic one of these people on them to diminish their liberty and coercively seize massive amounts of their pay (taxation.)

 

[OC for ME]

The goal is to wrest the Senate from the clutches of the democrat party. Romney will follow the 'guidance' of congress.

 

[DangerClose]

The goal is to wrest the Senate from the clutches of the democrat party. Romney will follow the 'guidance' of congress.

The same Congress that keeps raising the debt ceiling, passing Paul Ryan budgets that add trillions to the debt and don't balance the budget until the year 2040, and who all passed NDAA? Awesome.

 

[OC for ME]

The debt ceiling has been raised, by congress, because the democrat controlled senate has not passed a budget in over three years. Obama's budget was voted down in the HR 0-414, even Obama's budget did not go to the senate. So, your misplaced angst is....well, misplaced.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The debt ceiling has been raised, by congress, because the democrat controlled senate has not passed a budget in over three years. Obama's budget was voted down in the HR 0-414, even Obama's budget did not go to the senate. So, your misplaced angst is....well, misplaced.

All of the blame will land on the Republicans this election. If you don't believe me, stay tuned! (I could be wrong).

Personally, I can't wait to see all the hard-core anti-Obamites biting the bullet and voting for Romney; the irony--there are no words to aptly describe it.

McCain didn't rally the troops in 2008...even with Palin on board. Romney is further left than McCain; I wonder how Romney will balance out that political equation--Cheney on-board for VP?; just one heartbeat away from the White House.

I have to say that this campaign season on the Republican side has been an interesting, and telling watch.

For all of you out there standing on your so-called Principles, have they eroded to the point that it is "anyone but Obama"?; or is that where you were to begin with?

 

[DangerClose]

The debt ceiling has been raised, by congress, because the democrat controlled senate has not passed a budget in over three years. Obama's budget was voted down in the HR 0-414, even Obama's budget did not go to the senate. So, your misplaced angst is....well, misplaced.

Sounds like you missed all that debate and voting on whether to raise the debt ceiling or not. The debate and voting where some of the new Republican recruits told Boehner and the "business as usual" establishment to stick it.

The debt ceiling is a connected, but separate, issue than passing budgets.

Guess what, if Paul Ryan's big-government budget gets passed, they'd have to raise the debt ceiling to at least 20 trillion to accommodate how much it will add to the debt.

The Democrats pass no budget, and the Republicans pass budgets that add trillions to the debt and don't balance the budget for 30 years. Where's a real small-government conservative when you need one? Oh, he was speaking in front of 10,000 people at UCLA yesterday.

 

[georg jetson]

This is the thing I cannot understand. Santorum and Romney are just as bad as Obama. They're just as much a part of the big-government machine as Obama. Just a different side of the aisle. When one looks closely at what they do, not their rhetoric, what they do, they're both big government, big spending, panderers.

Just because Obama sets one's anti-socialist teeth on edge doesn't mean the other two won't drive the national debt to the moon, increase spending, come up with a million new regulations, let the bankers off the hook, increase the security state, diminishing rights, and contribute to depreciating the dollar (meaning your dollar buys less by way of price inflation.)

The republicans sometimes talk a good talk, but its always the same old business-as-usual once they get in office.

And, if one knows how bad they really are, how can a fella afflict his fellows by deliberately actively affirmatively voting for one of them? This I just don't understand. There is nobody I hate so much that I would sic one of these people on them to diminish their liberty and coercively seize massive amounts of their pay (taxation.)

If there is ever anything useful that comes from the Social Lounge, let it be the consideration by many of the words above.

It's not about getting the latest bad guy out of office. It's about getting good guys elected. So...

Ron Paul or no one else? Well, YES if only the Republican candidates are considered.

 

[()pen(arry]

Personally, I can't wait to see all the hard-core anti-Obamites biting the bullet and voting for Romney; the irony--there are no words to aptly describe it.

For all of you out there standing on your so-called Principles, have they eroded to the point that it is "anyone but Obama"?; or is that where you were to begin with?

You persist in this myopic view of the world. You continue to suppose that anyone opposed to Obama, whatever they might say, will inevitably vote for whomever the Republicans nominate. You will not reconsider this ridiculous notion of yours that everyone invariably ends up voting for one party or the other. It is clearly unfathomable to you that anyone could oppose the nominee from both parties, even before they're nominated, and never vote for either.

I am an independent. I have, and act upon, well-considered and clearly-defined principles. There is no person the Republicans or Democrats will ever nominate for President for whom I will ever vote. This was true before any candidates entered the race for the Republican nomination (and for many elections prior). It will remain true for the rest of my life.

I will repeat that very clearly: I have never, and will never, vote for a Republican or Democrat nominee for President.

 

[Citizen]

The debt ceiling has been raised, by congress, because the democrat controlled senate has not passed a budget in over three years. Obama's budget was voted down in the HR 0-414, even Obama's budget did not go to the senate. So, your misplaced angst is....well, misplaced.

As if a debt limit meant anything. Congress having a debt limit is like a habitual drunk setting his own limit on how much whisky he'll imbibe this evening. Congress can just raise the limit whenever they want. Which is just another way of saying they can over-spend any time they want. They can over spend any time they want, with or without a debt limit. Which is another way of saying they can stop overspending any time they want, debt limit or not.

In fact, OCforMe's post highlighted something for me. I wonder if the failure to pass a budget is not really a failure, but a deliberate ploy to throw lots spending onto the debt. And, if that is occurring, cui bono? Who benefits? And, how? And, why?

How would large amounts of spending being thrown into the debt category help someone? Interest payments to the banking sector? Keeping taxes lower (since only the interest on the spending has to be paid, not the spending itself) temporarily resulting in political benefits? A ploy to allow employment numbers to improve by keeping taxes down, while keeping spending up and injecting tons of newly minted money into the economy? Oh ho ho. I'll bet that last one is in the ballpark.

Somebody has gotta already be thinking about this since it's been occurring for a while now.

Any thoughts?*





*I mean besides the astounding observation that knuckle-dragging gun guys discuss economics and banking.

 

[noname762]

Ron Paul, The RIGHT MAN at The RIGHT TIME

+1 I will not vote to afflict other human beings with the likes of those.*

In this election, the only candidate I can vote for is Ron Paul. The rest are just predators in panderer plummage.




If Ron Paul was not available, I would not vote. No one but no one can compel me to sic on my fellows some big-spending, debt-raising, rights-encroaching politician. Both parties are just two wings of the same party: Big Government.

I'll be standing alongside Citizen in Nov 2012. Why?? Here's why.
In 2008 It was McCain or Obamy. I wouldn't vote for McCain for 2 main reasons. He had been a POW of North Vietnam for way too long. Plenty long enough for the NVA to have turned him into a mole with their interrogation and torture methods. Plus in my view he was/is a RINO so screw him. Which brings me to Obamy. I caught him in several lies. Flat out I didn't trust him. Little things like he lied about where/when he was born. I still don't trust him. So for the first time in more than 30 years while I did vote in the Presential Election I flat out didn't vote for either candidate.

For many years in both county, state and national elections I often voted for the 'lesser of two evils'. Often it seemed to make no difference. The people would no sooner vote out one bum and the next person voted in would just give us 2 or 4 or 6 years more of the same or worse BS. While I started out as a Republican I began to rethink that in the early 90s. Tho I don't consider myself a member of one particular party I side with the Libertarian/Constitutionalist/Independents.

Many times for just as many years I've heard people say "don't waste your vote" voting for the underdog. Well now I wasted my vote in 2008. I won't waste my vote in 2012.
If every man jack among us (ladies too) were to vote for Ron Paul across our once great country and he actually WON think about it. Dr Paul is for ending The Fed. He is for getting us OUT of the UN. He is for SMALLER GOVERNMENT. He is for THE SECOND AMENDMENT. He is for ENDING THE WAR ON DRUGS. He is for ending the BULLSHYT wars we are in and BRINGING OUR PEOPLE HOME. He is for a BALANCED BUDGET and LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS as a Nation. If he were to win the election and just accomplish these 7 items America would be well on her way once again to lead the world.

WHO'S WITH ME???

Ron Paul in 2012

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You persist in this myopic view of the world. You continue to suppose that anyone opposed to Obama, whatever they might say, will inevitably vote for whomever the Republicans nominate. You will not reconsider this ridiculous notion of yours that everyone invariably ends up voting for one party or the other. It is clearly unfathomable to you that anyone could oppose the nominee from both parties, even before they're nominated, and never vote for either.

I am an independent. I have, and act upon, well-considered and clearly-defined principles. There is no person the Republicans or Democrats will ever nominate for President for whom I will ever vote. This was true before any candidates entered the race for the Republican nomination (and for many elections prior). It will remain true for the rest of my life.

I will repeat that very clearly: I have never, and will never, vote for a Republican or Democrat nominee for President.

I didn't state that all of 'them' will bite the bullet; most will.

Before you start flinging "myopic" about your post, you ought to reconsider what you type in response. The latter portion of your post--isn't 'it' a bit myopic?; are you unable to see beyond the near-future, that quite possibly that "never" you choose to state might not be so absolute?

You stated that you "...act upon, well-considered and clearly-defined principles....". And then you state that you "...will never, vote for a Republican or Democrat nominee for President.". What if: There is either a Democrat, or Republican that aligns with your Principles?--or is it too myopic of your inclinations to acknowledge the possibility of such a two-party candidate?

 

[noname762]

Ron paul in 2012

After years of wasting my vote voting for various liars of of the Repubs or the Demorats and nothing good coming of it I've decide ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

I've seen the 'change' Obamy promised 4 years ago. Yup Yup...America is more fouled up than she was before. Why would anyone be willing to put up with 4 more years of nonsense with this rat basturd??? Not me fella.............

RON PAUL in 2012

 

[PrayingForWar]

Suppose Ron Paul endorses Romney, the 2 of them haven't been at each other's throats like all the others. I think it's plausible they could have some sort of agreement behind the scene.

 

[()pen(arry]

Before you start flinging "myopic" about your post, you ought to reconsider what you type in response.

Originally, when I was writing that post, I had included qualification allowing for a radical paradigm shift in one party or the other. I decided to delete it, because it was cumbersome and pointless. I figured someone might try to manufacture something interesting to say by pointing out the theoretical possibility of a good candidate, but rational people realize that 1) such a radical change would of course merit reconsideration, and 2) such a radical change will never occur.

So your attempt to distract from your failure objectively to understand the political landscape was predictable, and predictably pointless.

I'm sure you'll keep trying.