Ron Paul is going to have a pretty special day on Sunday (1 Viewer)

[Shawn]

There's going to be a succesful terrorist attack no matter who is in office. It doesn't matter, it will only change the way people spin it.

Rest assured, if there's a Republican in office, you'll hear that the GOP mismanaged the ware with bad policies, blah blah blah. If it's a Democrat, you'll hear how there were no more attacks while the Republicans were in office, and electing a Democrat emboldened the terrorists. If Paul is in office, everyone will gang up on him and call him a big fat loser.

 

[workhorse]

straw polls

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

vs.

media polls

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html


:16:

Forgive me, but I think the polls on ronpaul2008.com are a little skewed. That's like coming to the saints forum and asking who is your favorite team.

All the other polls shows him 4th or 5th at best.

 

[gumbeau]

I got Ron Paul's foreign policy stance from Ron Paul's published information. Of course, lately he has been changing his tune, withdrawing from his earlier, sillier stuff.

I don't like any politician that does that which makes it pretty tough to find someone to vote for this go round.

The United States has been using it's military to protect its commerce since 1801. Before that the US paid bribes to avoid war because it was thought to be cheaper at the time. Now this might be Ron Paul's foreign policy except he specifically states he is against foreign aid to anybody that doesn't meet his rather strict requirements of :
1. Loved by all
2. No possibility of ever turning against the US.


RebSaint is reading my other posts into this one hence his reply. I am someone that believes in American Empire and that doesn't bother me one bit. I believe there is plenty of history to support my theory that the world is one long series of imperial struggles for supremacy. I'm not an idealist. There is going to be empires in competition. I much prefer the US to be a lone hyper-power exercising hegemony over areas important to US interests. I guess that makes me a 'Neocon' but I think they are pretty late to the party. Besides no one really even knows what 'Neocon' means anymore. Its just another meaningless label.

I've read plenty of history. History backs my viewpoint. I certainly understand people who idealistically wish for us 'to all get along'. I just don't believe it will ever happen. It certainly never has in the past recorded history.

I believe Ron Paul is playing on people's prejudices when you take his issues as a whole package. His foreign policy is downright naive and foolish.

As for reading the Founders, I have checked that box. I've also read what the founders did after they got what they were writing and fighting for. When you consider how weak the US was militarily during the first 50 years of existence the foreign policy looks astoundingly brash. And their foreign policy looked a lot more like Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Teddy, Franklin, and George W. Bush than it looks like Ron Paul's. Ron Paul's brand gets defeated at the polls most of the time. The American people aren't stupid, thank god.

The history of the United States is a history of intervention in the affairs of other nations from the time of the birth of the country.

From Ron Paul's Issues page......

War and Foreign Policy

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. Paul is going to talk about how we support hated regimes only a few paragraphs after this one. I suppose the Iraqis loved ole Saddam. So Paul's policy is we don't support regimes hated be their populations but neither will we commit to direct action to remove them. Not isolationist.......

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution. Since he mentions Jefferson lets talk some about that. In 1785, Jefferson was all for war against the Barbary states. John Adams opposed it on the grounds that we would have to fight them forever once we started. He doesn't seem to particularly upset about interfering in the affairs of other nations. He thinks he wold be cheaper to pay bribes to the Barbary states than fight. Jefferson dispatched the Navy in 1801 on a mission in which they were authorized to use force against a foreign power without a declaration of war. His Attorney General objected that only Congress could declare war and Jefferson proceeded to to send the Navy to fight anyway. It worked out that war had been declared against the US by the time the Navy got there so this little constitutional crisis is easily dismissed. The United States Marines have landed on foreign shores in excess of 150 times without a declaration of war. This began in 1805 and continues to this day.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. If Congress is the only body authorized to commit troops to combat this statement is pretty unnecessary.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price. Let me translate. Don't support any government that isn't popular. Don't support anyone that could possibly turn on us later on. That's not isolationist? It doesn't exactly allow us to support anyone if those tests are applied.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. This part makes me chuckle. We are generous but we cannot give aid to any government despised by someone. We are generous but we can't aid any group that may later turn this aid against us. We are going to conduct open trade but we are not going to commit our military overseas or on the high seas to protect the trade routes and infrastructure.

How, exactly, do we accomplish the last paragraph of Paul's issue statement after reading everything above it?

 

[bclemms]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_...(United_States)_presidential_nomination,_2008

Take notice of the recent polls. Some of these are old.

The only places Ron Paul has been advertising is the NE and Iowa. He can go toe to toe with anyone in the Republican party with dollars.

This next week I expect Paul's numbers to jump significantly after the media attention from the Tea Party and Blimp. Las Vegas has Paul at 6:1 odds. Yes, you can gamble on politics.

They also have the over under for Paul's fundraising tomorrow set at $6 million. They had the $12 million over/under for the quarter removed because he is already at $11.5 million with the Tea Party tomorrow. There is a slight chance he can hit $20 million in the 4th quarter without taking any donations from lobbyists. This total does not include money collected from the Blimp, meet up groups that are spending hundreds of thousands on local levels and the full page ad in the USA Today.

This money is coming from somewhere. Even the SR polls have Ron Paul winning (not that it really means anything) but the Ron Paul supporters are out there more than any other candidate. It may not make a difference but you never know what is going to happen when you have a $50 million dollar snowball rolling with huge amounts of momentum.

The credit crisis, slumping dollar and inflation the last quarter have opened a lot of eyes. Even Jim Cramer got behind Paul last night on Mad Money (A very Republican leaning show). The Republican Convention isn't until September, let's see what people think after inflation and recession starts streaming down to the consumers. I'm not saying he is going to be a lock or there wont be bumps along the way but I think there is a very good chance he can win this thing.

Go to www.RonPaulforums.com and just look around to see what these people are doing. This is a very coordinated grassroots effort with very educated and dedicated people.

When you get a large group of educated, dedicated, passionate people with money together in America then amazing things can be accomplished. Just look what this site did for the Saints a couple years ago. Now imagine millions of people with the same type of dedication.

The more people hear of the corruption, the powerful lobbyists, the sinking dollar, the inflation woes, the problems in Iraq and even immigration they will think about Ron Paul. When people are paying out billions of dollars for tax season they will think of Ron Paul.

Again, I am not saying he will win but I am saying he is going to make a much larger impact on this election than most could fathom. I will even go as far as saying if the election was today then he would really surprise at the polls but I don't think he would have a chance of actually winning. However, 9-11 months from now there is no telling what can happen, especially considering we are sliding into recession, we are at war and the dollar is in very dangerous grounds.

The people at www.ronpaulforums have put themselves in great position to be delegates and they can already go heads up with any other Republican. Paul has a huge following and will be getting a lot of press over the next year because he can't go anywhere without thousands showing up being loud and proud. It is almost like he has home field advantage everywhere he goes.


Here is the Mad Money segment last night with a big endorsement from Jim Cramer. This was not just a mention in passing or a 30 second interview but over 7 minutes.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8teEHdCrFqE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8teEHdCrFqE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says but I do know he doesn't change his stance, his vote has always followed his word to the T and he doesn't accept bribes (lobbyists donations). I understand if people disagree with his policy but will never understand how people can simply follow party blinders and if nothing else he will allow more people to see more than black the next election.

 

[HouDat]

the problem I have with Paul is that he and his supporters seem to cling to some idea of a golden age of the USA prior to, say, the New Deal. You know, the time when an 8th grade education was unheard of in many parts of the country, when 12 year olds worked 16 hour days, when you would have bank runs every decade or so leading to depressions. I'd imagine he even dislikes the anti-trust laws instituted around the turn of the century. Good times indeed!

Some would argue that Paul advocates a return to said era, this time armed with the knowledge of right and wrong gained over a couple of centuries of progress. (Compare it to most guys' wish of going back to high school or college, armed with the life knowledge and experience of a decade plus of social evolution and maturation.)

I think many are quick to write off Paul, as he basically represents a political ideology which strips power from the power-mad, the word parsers, the lobbyists, and so on and so forth. Demagogues would be left out in the cold while the big kids get to the business of fixing the mess made by decades of mismanagement from both parties.

And I think that's great.

 

[JimEverett]

Some would argue that Paul advocates a return to said era, this time armed with the knowledge of right and wrong gained over a couple of centuries of progress. (Compare it to most guys' wish of going back to high school or college, armed with the life knowledge and experience of a decade plus of social evolution and maturation.)

I think many are quick to write off Paul, as he basically represents a political ideology which strips power from the power-mad, the word parsers, the lobbyists, and so on and so forth. Demagogues would be left out in the cold while the big kids get to the business of fixing the mess made by decades of mismanagement from both parties.

And I think that's great.

of course, virtually any fan of any candidate can say similar things. The devil is in the details.

For better or worse Paul has set himself up, to some extent, as a person who wishes to dismantle the social welfare state that produced the largest middle class in world history. I would expect his supporters to have a little more ammo then the ubiquitous rallying cry that he is the most principled candidate in the field.

 

[bclemms]

of course, virtually any fan of any candidate can say similar things. The devil is in the details.

For better or worse Paul has set himself up, to some extent, as a person who wishes to dismantle the social welfare state that produced the largest middle class in world history. I would expect his supporters to have a little more ammo then the ubiquitous rallying cry that he is the most principled candidate in the field.

Wow, are we paying the poor enought to call them middle class now?

The data I'm finding has shown that the middle class has shrunk since 1970. It is also showing that inflation since 1970 has increased drastically more than the salaries. It just so happens the US went off the gold standard in 1971.

I don't think it is by chance that inflation has grown significantly more in the last 35 years than any other 35 year period. I also don't think it is by chance the middle class wages have struggled the most to keep pace with inflation.

Try again.

 

[Lord Scyther]

You can track Ron Paul's fundraising all of today, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, as he tries to beat his own single-day fundraising record of $4.3 million. At 12:00 AM ET, the start of this glorious day, Paul had raised $11,552,561.57. You can go to https://www.ronpaul2008.com/ where it has up to the second updates of his 4th quarter fundraising total. To find out how much he has raised today, Dec 16th, simply subtract $11,552,561.57 from the given updated total on the website. As of 6:24 A.M. ET, he has raised $12,607,866.77 for the 4th quarter, which means that...

Today Ron Paul has raised $1,055,305 in a span of 6 hours...in the wee hours of the morning! We still have 17:32 to go!!!

I have already contributed today; you need to as well!

 

[JimEverett]

Wow, are we paying the poor enought to call them middle class now?

The data I'm finding has shown that the middle class has shrunk since 1970. It is also showing that inflation since 1970 has increased drastically more than the salaries. It just so happens the US went off the gold standard in 1971.

I don't think it is by chance that inflation has grown significantly more in the last 35 years than any other 35 year period. I also don't think it is by chance the middle class wages have struggled the most to keep pace with inflation.

Try again.

First of all, I am not sure what data you are talking about, but I think it is undeniable that the United States has the largest middle class in the world, and that middle class saw its growth, both in size and in money, during the years of the social welfare state. And that social welfare state was and is primarily a function of the federal government.
Not only that, but look at every major industrialized country on earth, look at the richest countries on earth on a per capita basis - and the results stay the same - the social welfare state countries are at the top of the list. And maybe more to the point - outperformed their previous incarnations as decentralized, less-regulated predecessors.

 

[bclemms]

First of all, I am not sure what data you are talking about, but I think it is undeniable that the United States has the largest middle class in the world, and that middle class saw its growth, both in size and in money, during the years of the social welfare state. And that social welfare state was and is primarily a function of the federal government.
Not only that, but look at every major industrialized country on earth, look at the richest countries on earth on a per capita basis - and the results stay the same - the social welfare state countries are at the top of the list. And maybe more to the point - outperformed their previous incarnations as decentralized, less-regulated predecessors.

No doubt the US has the largest middle class in the world. I was pointing out that our middle class is shrinking.

 

[bclemms]

The average Inheritance has declined 40% over the last ten years. Not only has the number declined but after factoring in inflation that number is close to 65%. On top of that the upper class inheritance has increased while the rest has decreased.

The average savings of the middle class has decreased drastically while the debt has increased.

The average salary has decreased and inflation has increased leaving the middle class standard of living much lower.

The middle class is paying significantly more taxes

The dow Jones average has increased from 800 in 1970 to 13,500 in 37 years. Our economy has seen a surge of new dollars but the middle class isn't seing these dollar.

The middle class is struggling to get health insurance which is a HUGE problem.


Read this.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul191.html

 

[bclemms]

He has already raised 2.1 million today. Paul is on pace for between $7-$8 million.

 

[bclemms]

For those interested you can watch the donation totals for the quarter on a live graph here.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/

He started today with about $11,510,000 so everything beyond that is today's donations.

 

[gumbeau]

The average Inheritance has declined 40% over the last ten years. Not only has the number declined but after factoring in inflation that number is close to 65%. On top of that the upper class inheritance has increased while the rest has decreased.

The average savings of the middle class has decreased drastically while the debt has increased.

The average salary has decreased and inflation has increased leaving the middle class standard of living much lower.

The middle class is paying significantly more taxes

The dow Jones average has increased from 800 in 1970 to 13,500 in 37 years. Our economy has seen a surge of new dollars but the middle class isn't seing these dollar.

The middle class is struggling to get health insurance which is a HUGE problem.


Read this.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul191.html

Your post puts the lie to Ron Paul's campaign or at least to your support. If Ron Paul stood for the things his supporters claim you wouldn't support him if the things you posted above are what you believe in.

You are a Democrat looking for a candidate with a strong stance on moral issues. Ron Paul isn't it. Lieberman would be a better fit based on what you posted here. Of course he isn't running.

Huckabee would be a good choice based on your post out of what is available.

 

[bclemms]

Your post puts the lie to Ron Paul's campaign or at least to your support. If Ron Paul stood for the things his supporters claim you wouldn't support him if the things you posted above are what you believe in.

You are a Democrat looking for a candidate with a strong stance on moral issues. Ron Paul isn't it. Lieberman would be a better fit based on what you posted here. Of course he isn't running.

Huckabee would be a good choice based on your post out of what is available.

What are you talking about?