TGP Republican Primary Vote

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I think they have the wrong guy. I could buy Santorum being a white supremicist, but not Paul.

[badgers 380]

If I had a vote right now, it'd be to Paul simply because none of the other candidates are any good, except maybe Romney.

 

One problem with Paul is his isolationist views. Now before you all get all "WE DON'T NEED TO CONTROL THE WORLD" on me, just hear me out.

 

Even though our country is pretty flawed we are still the one major super power in this world. We need to be in the middle east to influence what's going on because without us there, it's complete anarchy.

 

And the last time we were an isolationist country was pre-World war 2. We ended up having to bail the rest of the world out, but it was too late and because we weren't around to stop that, millions upon millions of people were killed.

 

Will another World War happen? Idk. It depends if North Korea has the balls to do it, because I'm still not convinced that China will give them military support. I think they fear what happens to them because they're not batshit crazy enough to go against America, Russia, UK, Germany, etc.

 

Anyways back to my main point I think we might see problems if Paul is elected in 2012, and he starts withdrawing the majority of our soldiers from other places in the world. Believe me I'd love nothing more than to not need to occupy all those other countries but history has shown that if we aren't out there making our presence known, bad shit goes down.

 

And FYI I don't follow politics too much. Most of my argument is based upon me being worried about possibly repeating history haha..

 

Take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Edited February 2, 2012 by badgers

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I think they have the wrong guy. I could buy Santorum being a white supremicist, but not Paul.

 

It's not really surprising to me, though. They have been trying to paint Ron Paul as a racist for DECADES now. He has so many supporters around the country that if he fins himself within 100 miles of racist that they are going to find a way to connect the two.

 

Then they go on about how he is anti-immigrant and that's why he hates non-whites and stuff.. It's all been said before. Not the first time, and not the last. This is the only thing that they have ever been able to even remotely dig up on Doctor Paul and they have been trying to get it to stick for a looong time.

 

The candidate who most rallies around the Constitution and individual liberty is a racist? Eh. Hard for me to grasp, but maybe that's my homerism for Paul showing?

[Thanatos 2,847]

Lol.

 

Accusing someone of racism and trying to make the charge stick is what politics have degenerated to when you can't actually answer the other person's claims.

 

Ron Paul is not racist.

 

Link 1: A history of what Ron Paul has said and done that proves he is not racist: http://ronpaulracistimpossible.blogspot.com

Link 2: A direct rebuttal of the "racist newsletters" attack: http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters

 

I'm not gonna paste the entire story because it's very long, but this entire idea is just laughable.

 

Edit 1: As well, I'm not entirely sure this is actually Anonymous. Since a friend of mine that frequents their IRC channel has said they denied anything about Ron Paul, and I haven't gotten anything from an official site or member of Anon.

 

Every single candidate in this election has been accused of racism, even President Obama. As Ben Swann, (the author of the story in that second link), puts it: "Calling someone a racist is the lowest form of political discourse. How about this election we have a discussion about the issues, substances, and facts, instead of just calling each other names?"

 

Edit 2: Anon, if this is Anon, calls Ron Paul viciously anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, and anti-immigrant, and that his racist policies are "well-known." This is a bunch of absolute bullshit. Leaving something up to the states and believing the federal government should not be involved is not being viciously against it, that's just a complete and willful misunderstanding of Paul's policies. As for his racist policies being well-known, I assume that's a reference to the newsletters, for a rebuttal of that, see my second link.

 

Note that despite what the story implies, saying that A3P has a presidential candidate in the campaign, it's not Ron Paul and the very idea that it is, is just completely ridiculous. Their candidate is one Merlin Miller.

 

Here's the entirety of what Anon pulled from A3P's website:

http://pastebin.com/MCmzw7aR

 

Edit 3: Basically, here is my response after reading through that entire thing.

 

First off, Anon misrepresented the idea that Ron Paul had "conference calls" with their board of directors. No, it's talking about him hosting a radio show, or being a guest of a radio show, and the board of directors, or rather a member of the board of directors, calls in to ask him questions and/or to offer support.

 

Secondly, the entirety of the the rest of it is A3P members talking about certain positions of Paul's that they like, though there is one suggestion of going after "some characters in Ron Paul's family" if he didn't apologize to, I believe Kelso himself, for being "treated unfairly" by some "weird Paul flunky."

 

So what we have here is a white supremacist group, some of whose high-ranking members like Ron Paul's followers, because they believe they can convert them over to follow their own presidential candidate and start their own little revolution.

 

Which I respond to with a big "So what?"

 

As some of you may recall, Hamas supported Barack Obama last election. I'm sure we could go find a black panther site whose members adore Obama and send people to attend his rallies. That doesn't mean Obama approves of them or shares the rest of their views, and it would be a completely idiotic argument that would rightly be laughed out of the political arena were it brought up as "evidence" that Obama was himself a black panther.

 

When this highly circumstantial evidence is weighed against the ridiculous amount of anti-racist things Paul has said and done over his years as a Congressman, (see my first link), it should be dismissed out of hand as absurd, and I'm highly disappointed that Anonymous tried to smear Ron Paul in this way.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

One problem with Paul is his isolationist views. Now before you all get all "WE DON'T NEED TO CONTROL THE WORLD" on me, just hear me out.

 

Even though our country is pretty flawed we are still the one major super power in this world. We need to be in the middle east to influence what's going on because without us there, it's complete anarchy.

 

And the last time we were an isolationist country was pre-World war 2. We ended up having to bail the rest of the world out, but it was too late and because we weren't around to stop that, millions upon millions of people were killed.

 

Will another World War happen? Idk. It depends if North Korea has the balls to do it, because I'm still not convinced that China will give them military support. I think they fear what happens to them because they're not batshit crazy enough to go against America, Russia, UK, Germany, etc.

 

Except he isn't an isolationist. Being isolationist means just being our own, self sufficient nation. We cut off nearly all communications with the outside world.

 

This isn't what Ron Paul wants. He is an non-interventionist. Some people don't know the difference, but it's a huge one.

 

Ron Paul believes in the free market(s), and wants to not only keep all of our current trade partners, but actually increase the amount we trade and even open it up to new nations that we currently don't trade much with.

 

What Ron Paul DOES NOT want is a United States that interjects into other nations politics, somewhere we don't belong. We invade these countries, stage a coup, put a guy in power that WE WANT there, and continue to nation build. We've done this so many times in the history of the USA that it is nothing short of disgusting.

 

Let these other nations live their lives, and in return we won't unnecessarily risk the lives of American soldiers.

 

Bring our troops home and keep them here. Obama is beginning to plan an exit strategy for Afghanistan.. Convenient timing? Absolutely, and it could very well win him the election.

 

I don't even understand the hatred surrounding Paul's foreign policy. It's BY FAR the best foreign policy in the campaign today and arguably the best on the campaign trail in decades. It's one of the reasons I love Ron Paul so much.. His foreign policy is absolutely top notch.

 

Let's stop worrying about everyone else and instead focus on the issues here at home.

 

Lol.

 

Accusing someone of racism and trying to make the charge stick is what politics have degenerated to when you can't actually answer the other person's claims.

 

 

I deleted the post because it was so long, but epic response, bro. One of the better posts not only in the politics section, but on the entire board in my 5 years here.

[WindyCitySports 407]

As a libertarian conservative, I am happy to share that I am a Ron Paul supporter. He is the only one who will lower taxes, cut $1 trillion in one year, return issues that aren't expressed powers to the states, and bring the troops home.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

 

Also, LMAO @ one of the top comments:

 

Ron Paul would easily win that race. Because let's look at the facts:

-Gingrich probably doesn't even know how to ride a bike.

-Romney would probably try and fire his bike

-And Santorum would probably try and convert his bike to Christianity.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

 

Rick Santorum may want to reconsider his view on contraception, considering how badly he got fucked in that debate.

[RazorStar 4,025]

 

Fractional Reserve Banking.

[Shotgun 442]

Ron Paul Might Have Won Maine: Maine GOP says some vote counts reportedly ended up in the spam folder

 

There's a chance Ron Paul won Maine after all.

 

Maine's republican party announced Friday that it will recount votes cast in the state's non-binding GOP caucus, which initially showed a 194-vote victory for Mitt Romney.

 

The state's GOP chairman Charles Webster released a statement Friday announcing the party is working "diligently to contact town chairmen throughout Maine" to independently verify the results from each of the counties' caucuses.

 

Webster told Politico that the state party made clerical errors during vote tabulation Saturday, and that some E-mailed results filtered into a spam folder.

 

Webster has said he doubts newly counted votes will change the outcome of the caucus.

 

The Paul campaign, which invested heavily in the Maine caucus, admonished state GOP officials for cancelling the Washington county caucus because of a snowstorm.

 

"That's right. A prediction of 3-4 inches--that turned into nothing more than a dusting--was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn't be reported tonight," spokesman Gary Howard wrote in an E-mail to supporters.

 

"This is MAINE we're talking about. The GIRL SCOUTS had an event today in Washington County that wasn't cancelled!" he wrote.

 

Washington county plans to hold its caucus Saturday, but Webster has said repeatedly the population is so small that he doubts it will change the results.

 

It's unclear whether the party's clerical errors and an additional county caucus will yield a victory for Paul, but a win would mark the second incorrectly called Republican contest in the 2012 election.

 

Source

 

 

Fight the powerz

[BwareDWare94 723]

I'm baffled as how to how Ron Paul is seen as "anti-military." To me, he simple understands that if you take a piss on top of an anthill, the littler fuckers are gonna crawl up your leg.

[Shotgun 442]

He's anti-war but non-supporters can't say that because it sounds good. So they use anti-military as a replacement word because it has a negative connotation. Even though it technically doesn't make any sense, it's more than enough to sway the opinions of any uneducated Republicans.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

He's anti-war but non-supporters can't say that because it sounds good. So they use anti-military as a replacement word because it has a negative connotation. Even though it technically doesn't make any sense, it's more than enough to sway the opinions of any uneducated Republicans.

 

Ya, I find it so ironic that Obama won on an anti-war campaign (in part)... Yet Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that is anti-war and it is one of the biggest issues used against him.

 

Newt, Romney, and especially Santorum have all voiced their concerns over Iran and have said they will take whatever action is necessary. And Santorum has included other nations he will be watching closely, like Cuba.

 

They (again, spearheaded by Santorum) practically want WWIII and they get cheered. While Ron Paul calls them a non-threat and wants our troops home to defend our borders and he gets booed.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

And at the very least I think Ron Paul got it right when he said, if you're going to go to war, and you're going to fight, at least do it right and ask Congress for an official declaration of war. Tired of this "military intervention" bullshit.