Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I disagree. I think you have every right to run whatever campaign you choose. Considering 95% of the people on the planet identify with some religious faith, it is hard to say it should not be involved in the political spectrum. Unfortunately whenever Christ gets involved in political debates the arguing always boils down to the differences in man-made religious beliefs. Not Christ himself.
 
Politics by definition has to be secular. One American that isn't Christian will have his rights infringed if 99.9999999999999999999999999 of Americans are Christian and agree with the Christianizing of policy making.





Plus these coded messages he and Bush make in their speeches to evangelicals are scary.





"Let's get vertical?" Mmmhmm.
 
Looks like Mitt is doing quite well in New Hampshire and overall.


It would be great if Ron Paul and him could team up..what a team!





<a href="http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=728841">mitt-tv.mittromney.com/</a>





<a href="http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=728847">mitt-tv.mittromney.com/</a>





<a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/">www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/</a>
 
<p>jw-</p>

<p>Politics "has to be secular"? isn't that 0.0000000000000000000000001 of Americans infringing on the free speech rights of the rest of America? And your argument makes the assumption that Christianizing happens at some point. What if no Christianizing happens? Is it ok then?</p>

<p>Here's the deal: You have the right to take your case to court if your rights are infringed by the Big,Bad Religious people. That's what the courts are there to do. Now, I'll grant that it does require you to have standing and an actionable cause, but that shouldn't be a problem if there is actual infringement, and not just the paranoid delusion that somehow a Christmas tree is a sure sign that 'they' are coming to brainwash you into believing that some form of God exists. </p>
 
Having lived in the Bible Belt, I will tell you that evangelical Christians would take over and write laws based on their religion if given the opportunity. The only difference between them and the Taliban is the evangelicals are not violent for the most part. One of the biggest myths in our country is that the Pilgrims came to the New World seeking religious freedom. The "freedom" they were seeking was the ability to impose their religion and religious views on everyone else. That is why they were booted out of England.





All that being said, I do believe our country has a fairly durable wall separating Church and State, and although evangelicals do not like it, it actually serves to protect them. Evangelicals think if the wall between Church and State were removed it is <em>their </em>Church that would take over. They may find this assumption is in error. It is like the issue of Prayer in public schools. All the religious people think it is a good idea, and all of them imagine it would be <em>their </em>prayer that would be spoken. If prayer ever were allowed in school, it would be open warfare over which prayer would be used.
 
<p>I think the country is becoming more and more secular, at least for politics purposes. Even those in churches have begun to differentiate between religion and politics. There was a news report on CBS a few weeks back where it profiled a young church whose pastor stated that he was not going to talk about politics at his church. He did not believe that it was an appropriate place to do it. Additionally, many young people in churches (like me) no longer believe that being Christian equates to being Republican. Many young church-goers are actually latching on to a more liberal agenda of helping others and to more tolerant of other beliefs and lifestyles. </p>

<p>I actually do not understand the justification for allowing church within schools. Why the need? It is clear that the founding fathers did not want religion in the government (i.e. England) because they saw religion as a corrupting force on politics and vice versa (i.e. King of England was also the head of the Anglican church.) To me, people who promote "church" in school is no different than those trying to promote Islam in the Middle East as the only way. IR is right, conservative Christians really do not understand that other religions exist. They assume that they have the only way and that it needs to be taught and present everywhere.</p>
 
<p>IR and IC,</p>

<p>I think the 18th Amendment is a perfect example of law being driven by religion and imposing morality on others. It does continue to amaze me that abortion is legal but prostitution isn't, since the legal reasoning being put forth for one can easily be applied to the other. Yet, one is still demonized while the other has dominated center stage in national politics for a generation. We are a country full of archaic laws with religious roots that still dominate the political stage: gay marriage, drug prohibition, dry counties, etc. I'm not advocating a return to 19th century morality, nor am I denouncing secularism in general. My point is that the effort to remove religion from politics would require a ban on free speech in campaigns, which is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment, and ignores the obvious solution: <strong>Don't vote for them!</strong> I would rather have the Huckster spouting his religion on national TV and lose the election than have it revealed once in office and suffer the consequences for 4 years.</p>

<p>Misrepresenting the meaning and intent of the 1st Amendment was what got me off on this tangent. We are a country of rights, but with those rights come responsibilities and requirements. In this case, the right of free speech comes with the requirement that you allow other to say things with which you vehemently disagree. No one can unilaterally decide that thier rights are superior to those of their opposition. I won't vote for Huckabee based on his published intentions to push a constitutional ban on abortion, a constituional ban on gay marriage, and his populistic policies will cost more money than we are currently spending. But how much of that would we know about if he was forbidden from mentioning religion during his campaign?</p>
 
<em>-- Sen. Hillary Clinton will win the New Hampshire primary after a tight race with Sen. Barack Obama, CNN projects.





</em>
 
<p>I think it's funny that Rudy and Ron are are sperated by a mere 2206 votes with 95% reporting. Not too put too fine a point on it, but when you are barely beating the fringe candidate you need to reassess your strategy.</p>

<p> </p>
 
Hi, Everyone,





I just sent this e-mail comment to Lou Dobbs and thought I'd share:





I watched your election coverage


last night on CNN. I have one major criticism:





After it was noted that the economy was the biggest issue for voters on both the Republican and Democratic sides, this exchange occurred:





DOBBS: It is a wonder that it's not on the minds of these candidates and the issues that they're discussing.





SCHNEIDER: Yeah. The economy, I mean they have talked about it. They've offered various plans. The economy doesn't seem to be an issue that it was like the issue for Bill Clinton in 1992. His issue was the economy. I wouldn't say the economy is any one candidate's issue really in either party in this election.





DOBBS: My guess is, once it's clear that this is a principle issue for the voters of both parties, it will become, if one of these candidates wants to be president, a principal issue for them.





I take issue with these comments. There is ONE candidate who has had the courage to discuss the economy despite constant ridicule from the other candidates and the press. That candidate is RON PAUL.





Ron Paul has been discussing the falling dollar, what it means for the U.S. economy, and how to fix it. It may not be good news. It may not be what people want to hear, but it is the truth.





Ron Paul has stated numerous times that the economy is of the utmost concern to him. In fact, it was the motivating factor for him entering politics.





Crowds unite behind him because of his views on monetary policy and the economy. Hence the crowd cheering what sounded like "End the Fed" at his post-primary get together.





In my opinion, the other candidates just show their ignorance (especially Fred Thompson) when they snicker at Ron Paul.'s comments on economic matters.





They should not snicker. Here's a link to an article from last summer, that, in my opinion, demonstrates the need for Ron Paul to be elected and fix the economy --http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/80fa0a2c-49ef-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1





Unfortunately, the article says that the Comptroller General will not discuss this matter with the "presidential candidates" until "next Spring" -- a little too late to matter in the primaries don't you think?





With every passing debate, I've found the other candidates taking Ron Paul's positions (calling themselves "Constitutionalists", for "smaller government" , and "states' rights"). The only thing they hadn't yet copied were his positions on monetary policy and the war. Well, guess what, that seems to be changing. Here's a link to an article saying Mike Huckabee is now taking a page from Ron Paul's play book on monetary policy. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry3680193.shtml





In sum, it is unfair to say/imply that none of the candidates has made the economy a primary issue. Ron Paul has made the economy a primary issue, only, he's been ridiculed by the other candidates and silenced by the press.





If the press actually did its job and spent more time covering the candidates' positions on the issues instead of "charisma, change, dynasty, momentum and likability " and the latest polls, the people would be able to make well-informed decisions. They'd make their minds up based on the substance of the candidates' positions, rather than who currently may be in the lead.





I think the results of your "Quick Vote" will show what the people want. Stop covering the horse race and start telling us about the horses.





Finally, one "compliment" for CNN -- Unlike FOX and MSNBC who pretend that Dr. Paul does not exist, at least your reporters mention Ron Paul's name (even if it is usually condescendingly -- e.g. Anderson Cooper's comment/tone about Giuliani being in a fight for fourth with Ron Paul). Which brings me to another criticism-- CNN again did not have Ron Paul's name on the pie chart even though he was sometimes less than 100 votes behind Giuliani. Why not be fair and put all of the candidates' names that are registering at least one percent on the pie chart? It's not like there are so many that they won't fit.





Thanks for letting me speak my mind!
 
<p>Yeah, but I think Thompson is doing the Giuliani thing where they are only going for the big states like FLA, NY, and CA</p>

<p>Since I care not about those greedy Republicans, I am going to talk about Obama v. Hillary. </p>

<p>(Stump. . .on Stump)</p>

<p>I was annoyed yesterday about how everyone assumed that Hillary would lose NH. It was ridiculous. In most polls, Obama and Hillary were tied and people forget that Hillary has a high profile there since she is the senator from NY. But for the "unrealistic" expectations, Obama supporter would have been elated to be within 2 points of Hillary. It has always been a two person race and now it is bearing out. S.C. will probably go to obama but the rest is a crap shoot.</p>

<p>If Hillary wins, she needs to pick up Obama as the V.P. This could set the Democrats up for 16 years. If Hillary does not screw it up, Obama would be a lock since his biggest "flaw" is the lack of national experience. As a V.P. you really cannot do anything to screw up.</p>

<p>Now, if Obama win, he has to pick Edwards as his V.P. This may also set the Democrats up for 16 years depending on how President Obama work out.</p>

<p>To be honest with you, McCain is the only person that can beat Hillary and Obama because he is more in the middle. Anyone else (Giuliani, Huckabee, or Romney) would get slaughtered.</p>
 
<p><em>If Hillary wins, she needs to pick up Obama as the V.P.</em></p>

<p>Ah, but if Hillary lags or the race gets too close, she and Edwards can bury the hatchet early to dust off Obama.</p>

<p>I think a Hillary/Obama ticket may get surprising resistance. Somehow it just smacks of too much PC nose counting calculation.</p>

<p>Frankly, my biggest concern are the candidates that are trying to be all things to all to people. I was frankly disgusted when everybody climbed on the I'm a change agent wagon the day after Iowa.</p>

<p>Between my libertarian leanings and Ron Paul's lack of pandering it's probably why I like him best inspite of some of his kookier comments.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>IC-</p>

<p>Another way to look at it is: If Edwards dropped out, who would benefit? Obama or Hillary? I think Obama would, and if Edwards were to continue to get 2nd and 3rd place in the coming primaries, he would be in a position to dictate where his delegates go in the convention. If he were to strike a deal with Obama now, and drop out, the votes would probably swing to Obama early, but Clinton would undoubtedly gain most of them in the later races. So the biggest question facing the Democrats, aside from whom to support, is "what is Edwards going to do?" How shocking would it be for him to collect enough delegates to swing the nomination from Clinton to Obama right before the convention with the promise of a Obama/Edwards ticket?</p>

<p>McCain can't beat anyone. He is the Republican version of John Kerry with a better war record. He's too middle-of-the-road for real conservatives, to conservative for conservative Dems, and carries too much baggage from 2000 and the recent immigration fiasco to gather in the undecided. Looking over the field of Republicans, I secretly hope none of them win and the RNC drafts Newt.</p>
 
<p>Edwards has already aligned himself with Obama. . .He is trying to ride the "change" train and distant himself from Hillary. Hillary's ace card is the same one that George W. Bush and John Kerry had which the "establishment" had predetermined the winner. There was no reason why Kerry should have been the nominee in 2004 but the Democratic establishment thought he was the best person for the job. Bush did the same thing in 2000 and beat McCain.</p>

<p>McCain will pick up the conservative vote because they rather vote for him than for Obama or Hillary. I think Obama lost to Clinton last night in part because McCain took the independent votes away from Obama.</p>

<p>NSR: I agree that the Hillary/Obama ticket would make some cringe but it would be extremely energizing to people who do not usually vote. I mean the first woman presidential candidate matched up with a black v.p. candidate? I mean Oprah could have 5 shows on the topic. </p>

<p>About Paul, I just cannot get over how everything is about our oversea prescence. Health care issues-America's oversea prescence, Global warming-America's oversea presence, Illegal immigration-America's oversa presence. I get some of the connections but we have be overseas for 100 years, I think the U.S. has done okay.</p>
 
<p>True IC. However I suspect the next President has a high probability of being a one hit wonder, in and out in four years regardless of who wins. Say hello to the next Jimmy Carter.</p>

<p>The economic mess will have the die cast by the time we vote. If we are in recession, we'll just be starting it. If not, likely it is breathing down our necks. With the housing softness just starting and frankly not ending for years, American's will experience, pain and sacrifice for the first time in decades with no external cause. Just our own excesses to blame. By the time the economy starts to recover, I suspect the next President will already be in lame duck mode branded a failure.</p>

<p>But perhaps I'm wrong, they could be branded the greatest President ever if they, Bernanke, China and global financial community somehow steer a course to prevent stagnation, deflation and all out economic warfare.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Ah, good ole 'Newt....left his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer. Now there's someone I would vote for !</p>

<p>Not to mention, the sheer SIZE of his head creeps me out.</p>
 
I only mentioned Fred Thompson because of his comments to Ron Paul during the ABC debate in response to Ron Paul talking about the Fed printing money. It just showed his complete ignorance. (and really annoyed me)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top