Thread: To the Ron Paul Campaign--Where do you Stand?

Originally Posted by tancredofan

I can say that this issue was fought out in great detail in Rep. Tancredo's 1998 Congressional election. I understand some people not voting for Rep. Tancredo because of this issue. I consider immigration and illegal immigration to be the number one issue facing the country. I want legal immigration reduced and I want illegal immigration stopped. I am proud that Rep. Tancredo had the courage in a presidential debate to stay that legal immigration must be reduced. Because of his position on legal and illegal immigration, as well as the fact that he is the most conservative candidate running for president, I will be voting for Rep. Tancredo.

Thanks for your respsonse.

I agree. With me, it is ALL about illegal immigration. At the core of the issue is our culture. Tom understands this in a way that no other does. I respect Paul's adherance to the constitution. But if we do not get in touch with our cultural core as Americans, get the illegals out, and as you said, reduce legal immigration -- we will have no constitution. All of these Third Worlders we supposedly need for our economy will overwhelm our nation, destroy our culture, and rip the constitution in peices. IMHO Paul puts the cart before the horse.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by tancredofan

I can say that this issue was fought out in great detail in Rep. Tancredo's 1998 Congressional election. I understand some people not voting for Rep. Tancredo because of this issue. I consider immigration and illegal immigration to be the number one issue facing the country. I want legal immigration reduced and I want illegal immigration stopped. I am proud that Rep. Tancredo had the courage in a presidential debate to stay that legal immigration must be reduced. Because of his position on legal and illegal immigration, as well as the fact that he is the most conservative candidate running for president, I will be voting for Rep. Tancredo.

Thanks for your respsonse.

I agree. With me, it is ALL about illegal immigration. At the core of the issue is our culture. Tom understands this in a way that no other does. I respect Paul's adherance to the constitution. But if we do not get in touch with our cultural core as Americans, get the illegals out, and as you said, reduce legal immigration -- we will have no constitution. All of these Third Worlders we supposedly need for our economy will overwhelm our nation, destroy our culture, and rip the constitution in peices. IMHO Paul puts the cart before the horse.

Greatly reducing legal immigration is extremely important. Most legal immigration comes from thrid world countries. I've not heard any other candidate for president, Democrat or Republican, talk about reducing legal immigration during the debates. I'm not saying none of the others have mentioned it during the debates. I'm simply saying that I haven't heard anyone else say it. However, I certainly have not heard every minute of every debate. If another candidate has indicated his or her support for reducing legal immigration during the debates, I would enjoy reading about their comments.

It seems to me, though, that you can count on one hand and maybe even two fingers the number of candidates or potential candidates that support reducing legal immigration.

Originally Posted by tancredofan

[Greatly reducing legal immigration is extremely important. Most legal immigration comes from thrid world countries. I've not heard any other candidate for president, Democrat or Republican, talk about reducing legal immigration during the debates. I'm not saying none of the others have mentioned it during the debates. I'm simply saying that I haven't heard anyone else say it. However, I certainly have not heard every minute of every debate. If another candidate has indicated his or her support for reducing legal immigration during the debates, I would enjoy reading about their comments.

It seems to me, though, that you can count on one hand and maybe even two fingers the number of candidates or potential candidates that support reducing legal immigration.

:P

Tom is #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree w/most of you that Tom is #1 in my book. The thing is everyone should be thinking about what happens if Tom DOESN'T make it through the primaries. What then? Ron Paul? Duncan Hunter?

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Tom is #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Sam-I-am

I agree w/most of you that Tom is #1 in my book. The thing is everyone should be thinking about what happens if Tom DOESN'T make it through the primaries. What then? Ron Paul? Duncan Hunter?

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Tom is #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hunter....Tom VP

I would like to leave a rational note here,
We have 3 candidates we can vote for,
Tom Tamcredo for me can be # 1, but I don't believe with his OPENLY comments against the illegals , against Florida he can win (we have many hispanic voting),
Duncan Hunter as well has a very big problem with his support for the war (a lot of Americans want our troops back, including me) and for traitor bush
Ron Paul as you say also has a lot of problems, as you posted here.
Finally WHO are we going to UNITE to vote for ? .
If for us is difficult, how are we going to support a patrot to SAVE our country ?

In my opinion and observation, Tancredo, Paul and Hunter are all good men. They are human and like all of us are not perfect, but I think they all love this country and would not sell out the American people for the all mighty dollar, which is more than I can say for the other politicians. I hope one of these guys makes it to the white house.

My personal favorite is Tancredo ,however I see great qualities in both Paul and Hunter. Instead of attacking the good guys, maybe the focus of anger should be on the bad candidates whose goal it is to sell out this nation and walk all over the American people such as McCain and Clinton, at least they deserve it.

Interesting point Minnie. I wonder if some sort of alliance between ALL the anti-amnesty, anti-illegal immigration movements might not be a bad idea?
A huge block of votes such an alliance would provide might be enough to let our movement dictate who the next president is going to be.
A consensus on WHO our movement should support NOW, might make all the difference, since we have so much lead time before the primaries.

Originally Posted by minnie

I would like to leave a rational note here,
We have 3 candidates we can vote for,
Tom Tamcredo for me can be # 1, but I don't believe with his OPENLY comments against the illegals , against Florida he can win (we have many hispanic voting),
Duncan Hunter as well has a very big problem with his support for the war (a lot of Americans want our troops back, including me) and for traitor bush
Ron Paul as you say also has a lot of problems, as you posted here.
Finally WHO are we going to UNITE to vote for ? .
If for us is difficult, how are we going to support a patrot to SAVE our country ?

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by tancredofan

I can say that this issue was fought out in great detail in Rep. Tancredo's 1998 Congressional election. I understand some people not voting for Rep. Tancredo because of this issue. I consider immigration and illegal immigration to be the number one issue facing the country. I want legal immigration reduced and I want illegal immigration stopped. I am proud that Rep. Tancredo had the courage in a presidential debate to stay that legal immigration must be reduced. Because of his position on legal and illegal immigration, as well as the fact that he is the most conservative candidate running for president, I will be voting for Rep. Tancredo.

Thanks for your respsonse.

I agree. With me, it is ALL about illegal immigration. At the core of the issue is our culture. Tom understands this in a way that no other does. I respect Paul's adherance to the constitution. But if we do not get in touch with our cultural core as Americans, get the illegals out, and as you said, reduce legal immigration -- we will have no constitution. All of these Third Worlders we supposedly need for our economy will overwhelm our nation, destroy our culture, and rip the constitution in peices. IMHO Paul puts the cart before the horse.

A few things to keep in mind. Tom Tancredo never told any physician that he had a history of mental illness. That information was falsely included in the Wikipedia article and was not part of the Denver Post article that was listed as the source of the information for that portion of the Wikipedia article that contained that allegation. No credible newspaper, including even the extremely liberal anti-Tancredo Denver Post, has ever sajd that Rep. Tancredo was a draft dodger. He didn't tear up his draft card. He didn't go to Canada. He reported for his physical. He didn't participate in anti-Vietnam war protests in which American flags were often burned. He supported the troops. I fully understand persons not supporting Rep. Tancredo's candidacy because of those events and I fully understand persons wanting a candidate to be a military veteran to earn their vote for president.

Rather than spreading our votes all over the place, we should be encouraging the 'awsome three' to come together, even though only two are needed. They must decide what will be the pair in order to combat the neocons and the demobrats. I think it should be

Duncan Hunter for President
Tom Tancredo for Vice President

He reported for his physical. He didn't participate in anti-Vietnam war protests in which American flags were often burned. He supported the troops. I fully understand persons not supporting Rep. Tancredo's candidacy because of those events and I fully understand persons wanting a candidate to be a military veteran to earn their vote for president.

Personally, I think anyone who tore up their draft card in the sixties did the right thing. What kind of war would it have turned out to be if nobody protested that war or avoided the draft? Where would we be as a nation now? The VN war was nothing more than a money making scheme for the rich, an unjust war at that.