Ron Paul to end campaign for President!

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: techs

Wow! Despite leading by huge margins in the internet polls and especially polls here in this forum Paul is dropping out!
WTF? I know the polls were fair and represented the actual support for Ron Paul because his supporters told me so in hundreds of posts right in this forum.
Is Ron Paul insane to drop out with such large support?

Well, at least we won't be seeing any more Ron Paul "moneybomb" threads.
For that, I am thankful

Physician, heal theyself. You are the same person who said, ad nauseum, that Hilary had the Democratic nomination locked up and that Obama should withdraw from the race. You simply have no credibility with which to mock Paul supporters IMO.

And might I add, Techs.... You really need to go back to troll school. Your flamebait is getting quite un-original.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Leading in the pole by 80%? What pole do you speak of? He's not even been a contender amongst the republicans. It's all McCain.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: techs
Wow! Despite leading by huge margins in the internet polls and especially polls here in this forum Paul is dropping out!
WTF? I know the polls were fair and represented the actual support for Ron Paul because his supporters told me so in hundreds of posts right in this forum.
Is Ron Paul insane to drop out with such large support?


Well, at least we won't be seeing any more Ron Paul "moneybomb" threads.
For that, I am thankful

I never figured you to BE A Coward or a SUCKER who would keep voting for the same old tired liars OVER AND OVER AND OVER

You really think Democrats and Republicans are so much different that they really care about AMERICA

They
BOTH voted for the War
Allowed Gitmo to stay open
Didn't bring down Gonzalez and others who allowed TORTURE to happen IN YOUR NAME
Both BANKRUPTED America and the middle class housing
on and on and on...

Go ahead retards.. vote for Dem or Rep.. basically the same thing

yeah but obama is black. so whats your point

 

[Infohawk]

Barack supporters should keep the lesson of the Paul campaign in mind. Internet popularity is great for raising money but it doesn't translate into significant share of the electorate.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Barack supporters should keep the lesson of the Paul campaign in mind. Internet popularity is great for raising money but it doesn't translate into significant share of the electorate.

In all fairness, Obama, unlike Paul, proved it where it mattered - at the polls. Obviously we don't know what will happen in the actual election, but he has been great at generating voter turnout so far.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Guys like Ron Paul work OK when in served small quantities. Then he acts as a balance for the mainstream - but he's nowhere near pragmatic enough to be put in power. To me, he comes across as borderline anarchist, and that's just from looking in his legalization record.

There's a good difference between reforms and a revolution - and most people are afraid of the latter. Apart from the temporary economical issues that plague the US - as well as the rest of the world, in different forms - I think people are quite happy to live in the US. They are not looking for revolutions which might shake their small life. And that's understandable.

His paradigm, sound as it might be, will only be relevant once the person on the street is bothered by the same things as Ron Paul - namely, the federalization, and the US policy across the world. And when that happens, the large parties are likely to address these subjects too - as dumb as mainstream politicians are, they have consultants to point their agenda at what troubling the average person.

As for his foreign policy - It strikes me a little odd. Why, after the lesson of WWII, would anyone want to leave the world to the mercy of other superpowers? Will China or Russia adopt the same non-interventional policy of RP were he in power? Unlikely. Like it or not, the US is still a part of the world, today more than ever. The US acts as the primary stabilizing factor. With NATO dissolving, the EU will have to nurture a military force of it's own, and China/Russia will do so as well. They know they don't stand a chance against NATO at present, but once the US pulls out, they won't sit idly.

He's essentially saying, "lets leave what's going on in the world to the other guys - we don't need them; lets focus on America". This approach strikes me a bit childish, honestly.

 

[BansheeX]

To me, he comes across as borderline anarchist, and that's just from looking in his legalization record.

You don't even know what an anarchist is then. Libertarians still believe in government to prevent the infringment of rights, provide a system of courts for recourse, and legitimate national defense, among other things.

Why, after the lesson of WWII, would anyone want to leave the world to the mercy of other superpowers?

Paul is a non-interventionist, meaning that WWII and Afghanistan for Bin Laden were justified because we were attacked. In fact, WWII was the last time we officially declared war. You'd be hard pressed to argue for any other intervention. Let's put it more simply. No American citizen should have to die or send their children to die for any other reason than an immediate threat to THEIR life and liberty. That is the only just and moral way for government to send people over to die in war. It isn't to send your children over to die to save person A from person B. That's called a blood trade.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

To me, he comes across as borderline anarchist, and that's just from looking in his legalization record.

You don't even know what an anarchist is then. Libertarians still believe in government to prevent the infringment of rights, provide a system of courts for recourse, and legitimate national defense, among other things.

Why, after the lesson of WWII, would anyone want to leave the world to the mercy of other superpowers?

Paul is a non-interventionist, meaning that WWII and Afghanistan for Bin Laden were justified because we were attacked. In fact, WWII was the last time we officially declared war. You'd be hard pressed to argue for any other intervention. Let's put it more simply. No American citizen should have to die or send their children to die for any other reason than an immediate threat to THEIR life and liberty. That is the only just and moral way for government to send people over to die in war. It isn't to send your children over to die to save person A from person B. That's called a blood trade.

:thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
To me, he comes across as borderline anarchist

Paul is no more an of an Anarchist than our founders. Are you sure you know what Anarchy is?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Barack supporters should keep the lesson of the Paul campaign in mind. Internet popularity is great for raising money but it doesn't translate into significant share of the electorate.

Except Obama won his party's primary and had about 18.5 million votes cast for him along the way.

Edit: My feelings on Ron Paul are mixed. On the one hand, he's motivated lots of people to take a passionate interest in the future of the country. He's raised a lot of good questions. His answers to a lot of the country's problems are short-sighted (like I've said - I don't want to argue) and I think he's helped propagate several half-truths about the state of our country and the necessity of certain federal organizations.

THAT being said, we, as a country, and myself included, should welcome his ideas to the table. The more passionate people we have contributing to the future of our country, the better off we are - even if I don't agree with their ideas.