Thread: If Ron Paul runs as an Independent....

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Originally Posted by Jonathan

His position on the war repeatedly elicited boos during the debates.

Uhm, he elicited just as many cheers for that position. Screw the Iraqis. Let them fix their own damn country. Our currently open borders leave us just as vulnerable to terrorists. In the meantime the Iraq war has put us in debt up to our eyeballs and the value of the dollar has gone down more than 50% since the start of the war.

Right, but the point remains that Paul supports the Dem position on the war and thereby opposes the conservative position, and this is why most conservatives will not support Paul. We need another 3rd party candidate that does not divide the conservative vote on the war issue. Or at least one that soft pedals the issue.

I plan to write-in Paul's name if he doesn't win the Republican nomination, and I'll vote for him if he goes third-party. I'd like to see a Paul/Dobbs ticket or vice-versa, but I don't think they would be fully compatible. It'd be a neat idea, though.

Ostrich

I have a question for those of you who still believe the War of Northern Aggression was fought over slavery.

If the War of Northern Aggression was fought over slavery, why did Abraham Lincoln's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln keep slaves all the way until the 14 the amendment was ratified?

Why did Ulysses S. Grant make the statement " If I thought this war was being fought over slavery I would have gladly offered my services to the south.'?

Anyone?

Right, but the point remains that Paul supports the Dem position on the war and thereby opposes the conservative position, and this is why most conservatives will not support Paul

Conservatives supported going after Osama Bin Laden, with those who offered to stand with us, against those who attacked us. They never supported going to war to change regimes and bring Democracy to the middle east.

If the US goes to war it should be declared a war and fought as a war. "Police actions" accomplish nothing but get our people killed.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Right, but the point remains that Paul supports the Dem position on the war and thereby opposes the conservative position, and this is why most conservatives will not support Paul. We need another 3rd party candidate that does not divide the conservative vote on the war issue. Or at least one that soft pedals the issue.

No, he supports the traditional conservative position. Buchanan has the same position as Ron Paul on the Iraq war, is Buchanan not a "conservative"? Actually it is pretty funny, I've read comments on townhall under a Buchanan article about Iraq where the posters call him a "liberal". That's funny.

The Democrats are against the war because it is unpopular and they tricked the Republicans into going to war undeclared, so they could backtrack later and blame it on the Bush Administration.

Ron Paul has always been against the war because it is undeclared, unnecessary and causing us to go bankrupt. That is not the democrat position.

I've been out canvassing for votes for him for months --in real life, door to door off voter lists. I've have come across LOTS of old-school republicans that agree with him. His biggest problem has been the virtual media blackout.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Originally Posted by Jonathan

His position on the war repeatedly elicited boos during the debates.

Uhm, he elicited just as many cheers for that position. Screw the Iraqis. Let them fix their own damn country. Our currently open borders leave us just as vulnerable to terrorists. In the meantime the Iraq war has put us in debt up to our eyeballs and the value of the dollar has gone down more than 50% since the start of the war.

Right, but the point remains that Paul supports the Dem position on the war and thereby opposes the conservative position, and this is why most conservatives will not support Paul. We need another 3rd party candidate that does not divide the conservative vote on the war issue. Or at least one that soft pedals the issue.

But that can work to his benefit. I know a lot of Democrats that re-registered as a Republican just to vote for Ron Paul. He attracts Republicans, Democrats, and Independants. Plus, 70% of Americans oppose the war and almost ALL Americans are concerned about our economy.

Dr. Paul did not campaign hardly in FL, but don't count him out. I read somewhere that Dr. Paul placed second in Nevada and 1st in the Louisiana caucus.

Originally Posted by slyhunter

People seem to forget he only got 3% of the vote in Florida Primaries.

Other people don't seem to realize that he didn't campaign in Florida, because it is very expensive and it is a winner-take-all-the-delegates state.

Check out www.redtelegram.com .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Right, but the point remains that Paul supports the Dem position on the war and thereby opposes the conservative position, and this is why most conservatives will not support Paul. We need another 3rd party candidate that does not divide the conservative vote on the war issue. Or at least one that soft pedals the issue.

We have no business in Iraq. They did not attack us, they posed no threat to is, and it is costing us billions and billions of dollars. They had nothing to do with 9/11.

Ron Paul is the only candidate promising to resume the hint for Bin Laden - remember him?

You apparently have a dfferent view of what "conservative" means, because when I was a kid it was the Democrats who were the war mongers. In fact, look up the fanatical statements the "conservatives" made when Clinton was invading.

Originally Posted by slyhunter

I got no one to vote for. I can't vote for anyone who will give amnesty to illegal aliens. I also won't vote for anyone who thinks we live on an island and shouldn't fight for the best interests of our country and our allies.

Then apparently you would not have approved of the Founding Fathers, who absolutely told us not make entangling alliances for reasons just like this.

And it's a violation of the Geneva Convention to invade over natural resources, if those are the interests you're thinking of.

Originally Posted by theclassics

If the War of Northern Aggression was fought over slavery, why did Abraham Lincoln's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln keep slaves all the way until the 14 the amendment was ratified??

There is also Lincoln's speech where he said: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery - it was just 'rebranded' (much like politics today) to make the cause seem more moral.