GOP Would Rather Lose Than See Ron Paul Nominated

[dgridley]

Last night's Fox News poll showed Ron Paul as the winner of Republican debate last night with 34% yet I'll wager the GOP would rather lose the election than see Ron Paul nominated or elected.

The GOP has lost all vestiges of it's former thrust of smaller government, less taxes, less federal influence and so forth in favor of a vast corporate/military/industrial complex driven government and economy.. all of which Paul is against.

Many states are apparently changing the primary rules by mandating that only Republicans can vote in Republican primaries, thereby effectively disallowing votes by independents and the like.

Pretty bad when your own party is out gunning for you..

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49739&fb=1

 

[briman1970]

The whole thing makes me sick to my core. America NEEDS Ron Paul... if only to remind us that the Constitution is slowly and methodically being pried from our collective fingers.

 

[dgridley]

America DOES need someone like Ron Paul in office.. but I'm thinking when you talk of shutting down things like the Dept of Education, the IRS, curbing military spending, etc., the boys currently in power will do whatever they can to make sure he doesn't make it in.. let's hope he gets plenty of Kevlar for Christmas.. he may need it.

The whole thing makes me sick to my core. America NEEDS Ron Paul... if only to remind us that the Constitution is slowly and methodically being pried from our collective fingers.

 

[lpstong]

He may win the debate. But in reality. We all know that Ron Paul will not win. Period. Might as well get a dog, Ross Perot, Al Gore and Bozo the Clown to jump on the band wagon. I am sure it will be a 3 way tie with the dog, Ron Paul and Bozo the Clown, with Al Gore claiming the win due to his popularity.

Its just wasted votes.

 

[deleted984054565403]

I'd love to see him elected, and I think it's possible. Even within the past week, the media has given him a little more attention and respect as a serious candidate.

Money talks, and Paul earned $5 million last quarter. 49% of that consisted of donations under $200. He's got a goal of $12 million by the end of the year, which is certainly realistic with his growing popularity. He brought in as much through donations as John McCain last quarter.

 

[whitebark]

His move to introduce a bill reinstating of the US constitution is bloody brilliant. Great politics on his part. Like the Republicans ready to yell at anybody for not supporting the troops over any bill passed or not, Paul can use the results of his own bill for his own electioneering. Those that try to hold up the bill or actually vote against it make perfect election season fodder.

Ron Paul has it going on - the leading fund-raiser for Republicans from military donors! What does that tell you? The other candidates are all screaming to nuke Iran and to bomb Syria and others, whilst their very military is siding with the anti-war candidate... hmmm.

American elections are so much fun.

 

[dgridley]

He does seem to slowly be getting some mainstream attention, yet you can find reviews of the debates online that don't even mention Paul (!?).. that's crazy, eh?

I think the Republican party needs to throw in behind Paul or they'll almost assuredly lose the election. Then again, Clinton is more like them than Paul is.

I'd love to see him elected, and I think it's possible. Even within the past week, the media has given him a little more attention and respect as a serious candidate.

Money talks, and Paul earned $5 million last quarter. 49% of that consisted of donations under $200. He's got a goal of $12 million by the end of the year, which is certainly realistic with his growing popularity. He brought in as much through donations as John McCain last quarter.

 

[briman1970]

He may win the debate. But in reality. We all know that Ron Paul will not win. Period. Might as well get a dog, Ross Perot, Al Gore and Bozo the Clown to jump on the band wagon. I am sure it will be a 3 way tie with the dog, Ron Paul and Bozo the Clown, with Al Gore claiming the win due to his popularity.

Its just wasted votes.

I disagree. Your opinion is exactly what the media would like everyone to believe. I think Ron has a chance of winning. His following on the internet is bordering on legendary. He has donations coming in like wildfire. He kicks ass when he's in a debate. He's tapping into the hearts and minds of students, first-time voters and the war weary. His campaign slogans, "Hope for America" and "Ron Paul Revolution" are brilliant, and in many ways, so is he.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that I've ever considered donating money to. The more I consider how important it is to get him in the running, the less pessimism I feel about his chances in the 2008 election. He is curing my apathy and that is important... even if he doesn't win.

I'd love to see him elected, and I think it's possible. Even within the past week, the media has given him a little more attention and respect as a serious candidate.

Money talks, and Paul earned $5 million last quarter. 49% of that consisted of donations under $200. He's got a goal of $12 million by the end of the year, which is certainly realistic with his growing popularity. He brought in as much through donations as John McCain last quarter.

Check this site out... I'd love for them to reach their goal. Wouldn't that be something.

 

[lpstong]

The only things I would really have to agree with Mr. Paul is his stand on illegal immigration, abortion and the US withdrawel from NATO. The rest is just blah to me. And he has been a House of Representatives. As well as running for US President since the early 80's. He also has jumped political parties like there was no tomorrow. He didnt just do it once but atleast 2 or 3 times.

His opinion on drugs as well as other domestic affairs are way off the charts for me to even consider him ever.

BTW - Briman I am soooooo far from being a media watcher on politics. I barely get a 30 minutes in of news. And I do watch most of the presidential debates from both sides. Democrat and Republican. Much of what I get my information is from the debates, researching books, news related items online and from my college course work.

Again he is a wasted time of votes. The only good thing about what he is trying to do is bring awareness to the debates and the US, just like Perot and Gore did.

 

[deleted984054565403]

The only things I would really have to agree with Mr. Paul is his stand on illegal immigration, abortion and the US withdrawel from NATO. The rest is just blah to me. And he has been a House of Representatives. As well as running for US President since the early 80's. He also has jumped political parties like there was no tomorrow. He didnt just do it once but atleast 2 or 3 times.

His opinion on drugs as well as other domestic affairs are way off the charts for me to even consider him ever.

BTW - Briman I am soooooo far from being a media watcher on politics. I barely get a 30 minutes in of news. And I do watch most of the presidential debates from both sides. Democrat and Republican. Much of what I get my information is from the debates, researching books, news related items online and from my college course work.

Again he is a wasted time of votes. The only good thing about what he is trying to do is bring awareness to the debates and the US, just like Perot and Gore did.

Paul's stance on drugs is a pretty interesting way to cut back spending. Law enforcement spends so much money on people that have been arrested for simple possession, and giving up the losing battle on drugs would allow law enforcement, the states and communities to spend their money on programs that would actually benefit society in general. :gl: