Crossing the Line for Paul

[RakuraiTenjin]

Okay how many of you have actually adjusted your party affiliation in the voter identification/registration so that you can vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary of your state? Don't forget to do so before the deadline for your state. This doesn't mean you have to vote for the party in the general election, but you usually need to do so to participate in that party's primary election.

Don't forget! Iowa is next week, Ron Paul is going to win and take New Hampshire. Make sure you help him to win for your state, regardless of your political leanings. Even if you're going to vote for Obummer in the general election, would you rather it come down to Paul vs Obama or INSERTNAMEHERE vs Obama. Think about the consequences of your candidate losing, who the other party's candidate will be.

Don't forget, do it today!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Just mailed in my Arizona ballot marked with a vote for Ron Paul. Make sure you vote for him, even without a win, he can seize enough delegates at the convention to force the party to respect his views!

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Keep fighting the good fight, there, Rakz.

EDIT: Maybe I should just to help stop all the mess santorum is making.

 

[ríomhaire]

To be honest due to America still using a first past the post system having Ron Paul as your second favourite and Obama has your favourite it would be a disaster to see Ron Paul actually getting the Republican nomination. I've read a bit about the Republican party candidates and Ron Paul seems like the only one who is at all electable (unless the US at large has gone full retard, in which case does it really matter any longer?) because having someone who could actually make some people cross the party line is going to be horrendous for Obama due to splitting the vote (which is why first past the post is retarded).

 

[[Dragoon]]

While I like a lot of his political leanings, there are plenty of things about him to dislike. Ron Paul is against net neutrality (voted against this amendment), is pro-life ("one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade"), is against gay marriage (he's a bit unclear on this issue; he, personally, is against gay marriage, and when asked how he would, theoretically, vote on CA's Prop 8 he said "Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman," but it seems he favors states' rights in this case)...

And there's the possible link to white supremacist groups and all, if that turns out to be legit.

 

[The Monkey]

Seriously though, I can never understand why neo-liberals like Ron Paul (or libertarians as Americans like to call them) assume that freedom for the individual entails minimal government and maximum corporate freedom. The ability to succeed financially depends just as much on what class you belong to as to how hard you work. The liberty of the individual is no more curtailed by government regulation and taxation, than it is by the shackles of social stratification.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

To be honest due to America still using a first past the post system having Ron Paul as your second favourite and Obama has your favourite it would be a disaster to see Ron Paul actually getting the Republican nomination. I've read a bit about the Republican party candidates and Ron Paul seems like the only one who is at all electable (unless the US at large has gone full retard, in which case does it really matter any longer?) because having someone who could actually make some people cross the party line is going to be horrendous for Obama due to splitting the vote (which is why first past the post is retarded).

Listen, Obama is going to lose.

You may believe that it's due to the US going "full retard" but it's due to domestic policies. I can definately see why the rest of the world doesn't see that- because on foreign issues he's not really all too different than other Presidents. There are a lot of issues that infuriate Americans like blocking the Keystone Oil Pipeline, etc. Of course thats a matter for rigorous debate, but those issues aren't what this thread is about, another one can be made for them. My point is that he is going to lose, most polls show this even when he's pitted against "Any Nominated Republican" as dumb as that sounds (yes, I agree it's dumb to say youd vote for 'anyone' else because the next guy could be worse)

Due to that, it's important to nominate Paul for the Republican ticket. Now that may not happen, but he is going to at least get a lot of delegates at the GOP Convention where they decide the nominee. When that happens, depending on how many he gets, the GOP will be forced to respect the platform of strict constitutionality, or at least recognize that a large chunk of the voting party has those views and that they need to nurture them, not neglect them. What's more important, 'our guy' getting elected, or making actual platform changes to these parties that are more in line with what's right and legal in America? The latter will cause more change for the better in this country.

As far as Paul's views on marriage, etc, it IS a state issue, the Constitution outlines that. Frankly the federal government has no place regulating marriage (nor a vast majority of the things they do), as the constitution does not explicitly give them that power. Any powers not given to the feds are for the states. Ironically, if you look at 'on the issues' websites, etc, it seems of all people RICK PERRY was one of the only other candidates that understood this concept, and it shows in his answers to medical marijuana, etc. For example Rick Perry says CA has every right to have medical or even legal marijuana, but he definately would not want either in Texas, etc. He mentions the right to vote with your feet between states and that's something important the founding fathers wanted for this nation. It's funny now I've heard people within the Republican party who are pro Romney, against Paul, etc call those of us with these views "Confederates" etc and not in the style of Lincoln's federalism. They use that insult to try to dredge up negative connotations but the role of the states and their soveirgnty is VERY important and this issue should be raised.

I'll say again what matters is the final vote these candidates took on issues, and how they say they'd administrate. Paul is a strict constitutionalist and we need that to roll back the corruption that has been eating away the Federal government. Most people his age are personally going to be against gay marriage, drug use, etc, but I guarantee you he would never support a federal law regarding either of those things- the Feds have no authority to regulate them per the Constitution. The constitution can always be amended, and back in the day it was actually done the right way. For example the original Alcohol prohibition, however stupid, was passed legally by doing an amendment to the constitution. Today's drug prohibition is done illegally, with no real Federal authority to do so! Nothing gives the Feds the right to regulate drugs, etc, the only exception being smuggling over borders, not trade/sale of drugs WITHIN a state. That is actually a job for each state (whether they want to make legal, illegal, etc is up to them.)

As funny as the above picture post is, it's TRUE! The federal government has no right to make these regulatory laws, it IS a job for the states. You're supposed to be able to move where you PREFER to live based on the rules, but still be within the USA

 

[CptStern]

Listen, Obama is going to lose

lol to whom? Ron paul? the GOP wont nominate him. his only chance of losing is to Mitt Romney. Paul doesnt have a chance in hell

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

lol to whom? Ron paul? the GOP wont nominate him. his only chance of losing is to Mitt Romney. Paul doesnt have a chance in hell

He's polled as losing to any nominated GOP candidate. And he will probably be facing Romney. Like I said, Paul has a chance but he may not win, but it's still important to vote for him so he reels in the delegates to make a change in the views party leadership adopts.

 

[Krynn72]

If Paul doesn't win the Republican Nomination, Obama will win. If Paul does win, Obama will still probably win. I dont see how any of the other baffoons can even delude themselves into thinking they have a legitimate chance whatsoever.

I will bet you $100 that Obama wins.

 

[Eejit]

I don't see the Republican candidates pulling in many floating or cross-party voters, but Democratic voter apathy may be a big problem for Obama.

 

[Krynn72]

Any democrat who pays even a little attention to politics will be disgusted by the republican entries. I'd choose McCain over any of them, as long as he didnt choose Palin as VP again.

 

[Absinthe]

I know a number of people who felt driven to vote for Obama when Palin was selected as McCain's VP.

Democrats may not be crazy over voting for Obama, but they may not have a hard time voting against Romney.

 

[Maestro]

This discussion is going to get ugly.

 

[Krynn72]

I know a number of people who felt driven to vote for Obama when Palin was selected as McCain's VP.

I respected him right up until that point. I wouldn't have voted for him, but I didn't feel like he'd be a terrible president, like I do with any of the current Republican runners. But when he chose Palin as his VP, that respect ended in a heartbeat.

Democrats may not be crazy over voting for Obama, but they may not have a hard time voting against Romney.

Precisely. I havent been too thrilled with Obama during his first term, but I'm quite motivated to vote against any potential republican nomination after watching some of the republican debates.

 

[the-one-free-man]

He's polled as losing to any nominated GOP candidate. And he will probably be facing Romney. Like I said, Paul has a chance but he may not win, but it's still important to vote for him so he reels in the delegates to make a change in the views party leadership adopts.

What poll are you talking about?

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/obama-leads-romney-by-five-points-nationally.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

 

[Krynn72]

Haha, polls.

Go back throughout our election history and tell me, straight faced, that the pre-election polls reflected the actual outcome. There's only one poll that matters and that actually reflects who is favored, and thats the actual election poll.

 

[The Monkey]

Haha, polls.

Go back throughout our election history and tell me, straight faced, that the pre-election polls reflected the actual outcome. There's only one poll that matters and that actually reflects who is favored, and thats the actual election poll.

That's a crock of shit. While no sane person hold the polls to be perfectly accurate of the actual opinion climate, they do offer a valuable hint about the outcomes. The degree of this value obviously varies depending on the poll, and the quality of the methodology employed.

 

[Eejit]

They also tend to be less accurate the longer it is before the vote. It's not so bad to dismiss the ones we're seeing now as those in election week

 

[The Monkey]

They also tend to be less accurate the longer it is before the vote. It's not so bad to dismiss the ones we're seeing now as those in election week

I'm not commenting on the quality of this poll in particular, I just think it's foolish to dismiss the method entirely.

 

[the-one-free-man]

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't think too much of the polls before the republicans have an official candidate. I just wanted to make it clear that Obama is definitely not behind in the polls.

 

[Stigmata]

Polls aren't meant to be an indicator of the outcome of the election, they're just a barometer of how people feel at that instant. Polling before and after a big mid-campaign speech still yields useful data.

 

[Maestro]

Polls also neglect our retarded winner-take-all poll system known as the electoral college. 55% of votes in the nation can easily equate to 30% of the electoral college. The nationwide split was just above 50/50 for Obama/McCain, but Obama WRECKED him in the electoral college votes. 300-something to 100 if I recall. Shit, Bush won one of his campaigns despite having a MINORITY.

 

[Krynn72]

That's a crock of shit. While no sane person hold the polls to be perfectly accurate of the actual opinion climate, they do offer a valuable hint about the outcomes. The degree of this value obviously varies depending on the poll, and the quality of the methodology employed.

They also tend to be less accurate the longer it is before the vote. It's not so bad to dismiss the ones we're seeing now as those in election week

My admittedly hyperbolic post was more reflecting my views on the kinds of polls we're seeing right now, and which are being utilized as "evidence" to back up the type of claims which Rakurai made. My point is that if you are certain that Obama will lose because the current polls suggest it, then you're just dumb.