What If Ron Paul Wins Iowa? What Then?
- Thread starter SparrowHawk
- Start date
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
Paul will not be a monarch. As Jim stated he is one part of a machine. Congress will not just let him have what he wants. They also have mandates from their constituency. Paul as others presidents will not be able to accomplish most of what he wants or promised. I seriously doubt Paul would be assinated. I doubt he would get a second term though.
I do believe this conversation is moot. The odds of him getting the nomination much less winning the WH in my opinion is remote at best.
Some of his views are inconsistent (comes rights). Some of his views will scare people (military and SS/MC) and he just does not present well. Wind him up like Bachmann did and he gets all whiny. And frustrated.
Romney just got Criss endorsement and he wants to be VP. That would be a string ticket. Paul has made a good showing but he will not make into the end in my opinion.
I do believe this conversation is moot. The odds of him getting the nomination much less winning the WH in my opinion is remote at best.
Some of his views are inconsistent (comes rights). Some of his views will scare people (military and SS/MC) and he just does not present well. Wind him up like Bachmann did and he gets all whiny. And frustrated.
Romney just got Criss endorsement and he wants to be VP. That would be a string ticket. Paul has made a good showing but he will not make into the end in my opinion.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
I honestly don't know as to be very frank I never thought he'd get this far. Something is different, maybe it's the recession, National Debt or maybe a percentage of the population is waking up to what Libertarians in general have been saying straight away.
He's gaining traction and given the Monkey See, Monkey Do nature of politics and a lot of other things in this country that would be the last thing you think would happen.
One thing that "Main Streamers" like yourself have trouble with when it comes to Libertarians and their stance on Individual Liberty is the fact that our personal views on an issue may be polar opposite of our political stance. I'll just give two of my personal examples.
Gay Marriage - I'm personally opposed to it due to my Southern Baptist upbringing and personal moral code that I adhere to. However, when one looks at the issue based upon what the COTUS says it's not even a Federal issue, it's one that belongs in the hands of the states and the residents of that state. Iowa interestingly enough feels that gays should be allowed to marry and has put laws in place to permit it.
Abortion - To me this is clear cut, Abortion is murder. However you slice it though it comes down to your personal beliefs as to when life begins. Equally clear IMO is the role of the Federal Government in this matter, namely that they have no role. Again it is up to the states to decide based upon the will of the people in that state.
If I were running for office, you could count on me opposing every Federal Law that interferes with the Personal Liberty of the citizens of this nation. The rule of law however must prevail at the state level. The real issue with Gay marriages are the tort laws regarding things like medical decisions, estate matters and the like. Truth is this goes for anyone regardless of orientation. It's YOUR Money, Your Health etc etc and it is the appropriate role of government to ensure that these Liberties are protected. There is no role for government other than to make sure your wishes are carried out under penalty of law if need be. Same with abortion. The role of government is to preserve Liberty and safety of it's citizens. There should be little to no interference from the Government over what is an elective surgical procedure, albeit one with moral implications. Equally important is the state not interfering with the rights of parents. If a child of 16 can not legally enter into a contract, consent to sex then she shouldn't be able to have an abortion without parental permission, She couldn't get a tit job, why an abortion? Additionally the Government should not pay for abortions as it is at its root an elective procedure. Not because of the moral implications surrounding the procedure.
When you promote Individual Liberty society prospers both emotionally and financially. It is IMO the only way to maintain our status in the world by being the beacon of Freedom and Liberty to the point where other countries want to be like us not fearful of being bombed by us.
townpete
Corn Field
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,654
- Reaction score
- 3,634
So it appears. Ron Paul's prospects look pretty grim these days. Even the Iowa governor stated that if Ron Paul wins, ignore it and look at who finishes second.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Well he said that about a week ago. Has anyone seen a more recent poll? I haven't looked. Fox News was the one who said a Paul victory in Iowa would discredit the caucus. So we shall have to wait and see I think.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
The polls seem to be all over the place.
Not to disparage Paul but I think the main reason that Paul is doing as well as he is doing is because the RNC has already gone through everyone else who is running and not running. Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Trump....and there is no one else left. Everyone is looking at everyone else but the one guy whonseems to have the best chance at beating Obama.
When the spot light really hits Paul I think he will flame out like the rest. Local races are a whole different ball game than a national race.
Not to disparage Paul but I think the main reason that Paul is doing as well as he is doing is because the RNC has already gone through everyone else who is running and not running. Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Trump....and there is no one else left. Everyone is looking at everyone else but the one guy whonseems to have the best chance at beating Obama.
When the spot light really hits Paul I think he will flame out like the rest. Local races are a whole different ball game than a national race.
Stick a fork in him. He is done!
Bombshell: Ron Paul Scheduled to Appear on White Supremacist Radio Show in 2006
The story so far: apparently Ron Paul was scheduled to appear on the notorious radio show “The Political Cesspool,” a talk show in Kentucky connected to the white separatist Council of Conservative Citizens and the Holocaust denial group Institute for Historical Review.
The announcement of Ron Paul’s appearance was posted on the blog of Political Cesspool co-founder Austin Farley:Congressman Ron Paul TONIGHT On The Cesspool.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Ron Paul responds and is STILL the front runner in IOWA. On a side note Donald Trump changed his registration to Independent.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Just when we had enough of pathetic idolization of Obama, the paultards best him with nutter obsession syndrome with stupid crap like this.
jimntx
Veteran
Considering that the far-right wing of the Republican Party appears to be in control, there is always Sarah Palin waiting in the wings to "save" the Party.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
The "Far Right" is making a lot of noise, much to the consternation of the East Coast elite who are used to being in charge of their half of the parasite political class. Palin has to many negatives to ever make a serious run against Obama.
What is giving the East Coast Elites AND the Tea Party fits is the rise of Ron Paul and his Libertarian views. His message has something for everyone. Hate the war and Foreign Policy on the far left? Ron has a position for you. Hate the Fed & IRS? Ron's your guy. Want fiscal responsibility? Ron is all over that.
The open question is will enough who love a portion of his views hold their nose regarding what they don't like and vote for the guy? In Iowa it looks like the answer is YES.
What's interesting is the racism charges don't seem to be sticking. Perhaps people feel it's a hatchet job on a guy who has a great deal of character and integrity.
I NEVER thought he would get as far as he has. If he gets the nomination he may be the next Barry Goldwater which isn't totally bad as he redefined who the Republican Party was,
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
jimntx
Veteran
Sparrowhawk, The one thing you seem to keep missing vis-a-vis a Ron Paul candidacy. Yes, he has an answer for everything. Question is...are they workable answers? I think not.
But, not because I don't think some of his ideas are good. The answers are not workable given the sense of entitlement of the American public. Yes, they all agree that Social Security is a bottomless financial pit--as long as...
1. I get to collect mine, the people behind me will just have to learn to do without.
2. fixing" Social Security does NOT mean that we'll have to go back to the "good ole days" and have my parents move in with me when they retire.
3. if a relative becomes unemployed, I don't have to provide them with food and shelter.
I fully agree that taxes need to be done away with. Tbe government needs to find some other way to finance the military that protects my butt. And, pay for the firemen who come when my house is on fire. Or, the policemen that protect me from criminals. Or, the teachers who educate my children. Oh, and you had better not do away with government guarantees of my mortgage, a la FHA.
As long as my employer isn't Halliburton or one of the other companies that are making a fortune on the Middle Eastern conflicts, then we need to do away with troops in the Middle East.
Everyone seems to want someone else's ox gored in the government cutbacks. I'm not sure there is any candidate that can accomplish what the American people really want.
But, not because I don't think some of his ideas are good. The answers are not workable given the sense of entitlement of the American public. Yes, they all agree that Social Security is a bottomless financial pit--as long as...
1. I get to collect mine, the people behind me will just have to learn to do without.
2. fixing" Social Security does NOT mean that we'll have to go back to the "good ole days" and have my parents move in with me when they retire.
3. if a relative becomes unemployed, I don't have to provide them with food and shelter.
I fully agree that taxes need to be done away with. Tbe government needs to find some other way to finance the military that protects my butt. And, pay for the firemen who come when my house is on fire. Or, the policemen that protect me from criminals. Or, the teachers who educate my children. Oh, and you had better not do away with government guarantees of my mortgage, a la FHA.
As long as my employer isn't Halliburton or one of the other companies that are making a fortune on the Middle Eastern conflicts, then we need to do away with troops in the Middle East.
Everyone seems to want someone else's ox gored in the government cutbacks. I'm not sure there is any candidate that can accomplish what the American people really want.
