Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

inthemiddle · Jul 3, 2007, 02:27 pm

Granted Ron Paul stands for the things any libertarian or true republican would ideally want, but I think at this point we need to face reality that a change like that is not going to exist anytime soon. At least not in this Ccountry.

We all also need to face the fact that the actual possibility of Ron Paul winning anything is incredibly slim to none, and even if he did win, the governent would probably find some way to change the election results or something to make him lose. It's already happened at least once.

It'd be nice to have less government oversight and taxes in our life, and have instead more freedom and self governance, but he's not going to win.

Even if he did, he'd be the biggest lame duck president in history, the congress is not going to do back him up and pass his agenda. Get real.

What we really need to be debating, is what VIABLE candidate we should all get behind and back. One that comes closest to our ideal without being extreme. And try to choose one with an actual chance of winning.

It's better than getting some other people out there into office. Could you imagine 4 years of Fred Thompson? Hed be as bad or worse than Bush (if thats possible)

So who do you all think the best viable candidate is in 2008?

The Dunedan · Jul 3, 2007, 02:43 pm

You know, I keep seeing people say that Dr. Paul has no chance, he's a flash in the pan, it's all a pipe-dream...

...meanwhile, Dr. Paul brings in more money, looks better and better every time he goes on TV, is exploding all over the internet, and I'm even hearing his name mentioned here in Prague. It's worth noting that he has utterly dominated every internet-based poll I've seen* so far and his supporters have been able to get at least one major debate sponsor to change his mind about inviting the Dr. He's drawing support from right and left and is the only credible anti-war candidate the Repubs have produced; and believe me, this is a -big- draw within the Republican party right now. And as I watch Dr. Paul's war-chest grow and message spread, I hear the squeals of protest and denial getting louder as well.

It's also worth noting that if all the people who said "Well, I'd vote for him, but he doesn't have a chance..." voted for him, he'd have a chance. If the Republican party hands itself over to Rudy McRomney, they'll have only themselves to blame for the outcome.

*Some anti-Paul folks will say that this is because Paul supporters are numerous and tech-savvy. I'd say it's a sign that Paul is attracting a large, dynamic, dedicated, and well-organized set of voters...one wonders why the other candidates have utterly failed to reproduce Paul's results. Remember, the "official" polls are conducted over land-line telephones; how many of you folks even -have- one of those anymore? Always check the biases, folks.

rez · Jul 3, 2007, 02:46 pm

Quote:

Quote by: inthemiddle

Granted Ron Paul stands for the things any libertarian or true republican would ideally want, but I think at this point we need to face reality that a change like that is not going to exist anytime soon. At least not in this Ccountry.

We all also need to face the fact that the actual possibility of Ron Paul winning anything is incredibly slim to none, and even if he did win, the governent would probably find some way to change the election results or something to make him lose. It's already happened at least once.

It'd be nice to have less government oversight and taxes in our life, and have instead more freedom and self governance, but he's not going to win.

Even if he did, he'd be the biggest lame duck president in history, the congress is not going to do back him up and pass his agenda. Get real.

What we really need to be debating, is what VIABLE candidate we should all get behind and back. One that comes closest to our ideal without being extreme. And try to choose one with an actual chance of winning.

It's better than getting some other people out there into office. Could you imagine 4 years of Fred Thompson? Hed be as bad or worse than Bush (if thats possible)

So who do you all think the best viable candidate is in 2008?

The viable candidate is the candidate that shares the same beliefs as you share. Your usage of the word "extreme" is rather vague and insinuates that any candidate that comes closet to your ideals is a radical. What is telling about this is the fact that you never had the chance to vote for a politician that you can honestly agree with all around. What is interesting is the fact that you fear that the candidate that does represent your beliefs will not have a chance to win, so voting for him is a waste of a vote. Astonishingly, you view this election like you are betting on a football game where you will only place your money on the team that has the best chance to win. Sadly, the majority of Americans have been hypnotized to think this way and it seems there is no breaking the brainwashing.

I am voting for the candidate that can articulate and solve problems to the best of their abilities, despite their chances of actually getting votes from the majority of the electoral college.

inthemiddle · Jul 3, 2007, 03:57 pm

Quote:

Quote by: rez

The viable candidate is the candidate that shares the same beliefs as you share. Your usage of the word "extreme" is rather vague and insinuates that any candidate that comes closet to your ideals is a radical. What is telling about this is the fact that you never had the chance to vote for a politician that you can honestly agree with all around. What is interesting is the fact that you fear that the candidate that does represent your beliefs will not have a chance to win, so voting for him is a waste of a vote. Astonishingly, you view this election like you are betting on a football game where you will only place your money on the team that has the best chance to win. Sadly, the majority of Americans have been hypnotized to think this way and it seems there is no breaking the brainwashing.

I am voting for the candidate that can articulate and solve problems to the best of their abilities, despite their chances of actually getting votes from the majority of the electoral college.

And thats fine, go a head and do that. I like Ron Paul. I've watched many of his senate speeches, and read quite a fe of them on his website. He's great. Hes a true governmental and fiscal conservative, and he is also pro choice candidate.

I love all that, and so do most people. (some dont even realize it)

What I'm trying to say, is that the people of the US are not going to vote for him. You may, or I may, but it wont be enough to do the trick.

Even if he did win the electoral vote in 08, the congress, and the rest of government (and the media) would crucify him. They'd try to call voter fraud or do something else to stop him from being president.

But it wont even get that far. He has about 6 months beofre the primaries start, and he just doesn't have a chance. Your dreaming.

The real debate should be about what is worse Barack or Hillary or Gore (if he runs...or Guilianna Thompson or Romney. Or maybe Bloomberg if he runs. Take the best of that group. I'd rather have someone I agree with on two issues than one i disagree with on all the issues.

And I'll vote for paul in the primaries...but it wont do any good, and in the end ill have to pick on of the other candidates listed above

the media has already decided that for us...

inthemiddle · Jul 3, 2007, 05:00 pm

Quote:

Quote by: The Dunedan

.... If the Republican party hands itself over to Rudy McRomney, they'll have only themselves to blame for the outcome..

Yes, but maybe thats better than handing the country over to someone like Hillary who will increase the size of government and raise taxes.

Or maybe having a Democrat in to get the troops out is better than a Republican who wants to bomb Iran.

O-dehlay · Jul 4, 2007, 04:01 pm

Wait since when do we vote for who we think has a chance of winning as opposed with whos views we agree with.

Osborn F Enready · Jul 5, 2007, 09:28 am

Quote:

O-dehlay said:
Wait since when do we vote for who we think has a chance of winning as opposed with whos views we agree with.

Since the lesser of two evils mentality has been pushed by the bi-partisan coalition to further their monopoly on power, in all elected seats, for every campaign, for the last 100+ years.

Sheeple see, sheeple do.

One of the main reasons I like Paul and Gravel, are because their respective and opposing parties despise them. That means both have refused to tout the "bi-partisan" agenda.

Republicans can't stand Paul (R), almost as much as Democrats.
Democrats can't stand Gravel (D), almost as much as Republicans.

I would like to see a Ron Paul run for President with Mike Gravel as his VP Running Mate.

This would appease the sheeple from both parties who INSIST on voting only for a major party canidate, as well as actually ALLOW CHANGE by voting in two non-program, non-lobbyist whores who value the Constitution above the CFR and UN Agendas.

nm420 · Jul 5, 2007, 05:09 pm

Quote:

Quote by: inthemiddle

The real debate should be about what is worse Barack or Hillary or Gore (if he runs...or Guilianna Thompson or Romney. Or maybe Bloomberg if he runs. Take the best of that group. I'd rather have someone I agree with on two issues than one i disagree with on all the issues.

Who is the best of that group? The mention of any one of those names sends shudders down my spine. If you wish to be so fatalist about the election, why bother getting behind anybody in the first place?

Mia · Jul 5, 2007, 06:11 pm

Why do White Nationalists like Ron Paul so much?

O-dehlay · Jul 5, 2007, 07:28 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Mia

Why do White Nationalists like Ron Paul so much?

You tell me? Never heard about this?

Clarence · Jul 5, 2007, 07:35 pm

I just looked this up. They apperently think he's great because of his non-inetventionalist stance. He'd cut funding to Israel and they speculate he'd cut funding for africa and such. Oddly, from what I read, most of these white nationalists supported Bush in the last two elections and have gone sour on him.

Paul's libertarian background could be another reason for thier support. Oh, and his immigration policy requires we secure our borders.

I would be very turned off if he had a racist agenda.

Osborn F Enready · Jul 5, 2007, 08:16 pm

Paul doesn't have a racist agenda that I know of.

Mia · Jul 6, 2007, 07:17 am

Quote:

Quote by: Clarence

I just looked this up. They apperently think he's great because of his non-inetventionalist stance. He'd cut funding to Israel and they speculate he'd cut funding for africa and such. Oddly, from what I read, most of these white nationalists supported Bush in the last two elections and have gone sour on him.

Paul's libertarian background could be another reason for thier support. Oh, and his immigration policy requires we secure our borders.

I would be very turned off if he had a racist agenda.

That makes sense, thank you.

Jul 3, 2007, 02:27 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
inthemiddle Molten Ash Posts: 40	Ron Paul in 2008?? seriously??? Come one, get REAL!! Granted Ron Paul stands for the things any libertarian or true republican would ideally want, but I think at this point we need to face reality that a change like that is not going to exist anytime soon. At least not in this Ccountry. We all also need to face the fact that the actual possibility of Ron Paul winning anything is incredibly slim to none, and even if he did win, the governent would probably find some way to change the election results or something to make him lose. It's already happened at least once. It'd be nice to have less government oversight and taxes in our life, and have instead more freedom and self governance, but he's not going to win. Even if he did, he'd be the biggest lame duck president in history, the congress is not going to do back him up and pass his agenda. Get real. What we really need to be debating, is what VIABLE candidate we should all get behind and back. One that comes closest to our ideal without being extreme. And try to choose one with an actual chance of winning. It's better than getting some other people out there into office. Could you imagine 4 years of Fred Thompson? Hed be as bad or worse than Bush (if thats possible) So who do you all think the best viable candidate is in 2008?

Jul 5, 2007, 06:11 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Why do White Nationalists like Ron Paul so much? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Jul 5, 2007, 08:16 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Paul doesn't have a racist agenda that I know of. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jul 3, 2007, 02:43 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 925	You know, I keep seeing people say that Dr. Paul has no chance, he's a flash in the pan, it's all a pipe-dream... ...meanwhile, Dr. Paul brings in more money, looks better and better every time he goes on TV, is exploding all over the internet, and I'm even hearing his name mentioned here in Prague. It's worth noting that he has utterly dominated every internet-based poll I've seen* so far and his supporters have been able to get at least one major debate sponsor to change his mind about inviting the Dr. He's drawing support from right and left and is the only credible anti-war candidate the Repubs have produced; and believe me, this is a -big- draw within the Republican party right now. And as I watch Dr. Paul's war-chest grow and message spread, I hear the squeals of protest and denial getting louder as well. It's also worth noting that if all the people who said "Well, I'd vote for him, but he doesn't have a chance..." voted for him, he'd have a chance. If the Republican party hands itself over to Rudy McRomney, they'll have only themselves to blame for the outcome. *Some anti-Paul folks will say that this is because Paul supporters are numerous and tech-savvy. I'd say it's a sign that Paul is attracting a large, dynamic, dedicated, and well-organized set of voters...one wonders why the other candidates have utterly failed to reproduce Paul's results. Remember, the "official" polls are conducted over land-line telephones; how many of you folks even -have- one of those anymore? Always check the biases, folks.

Jul 4, 2007, 04:01 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
O-dehlay Molten Ash Posts: 59	Wait since when do we vote for who we think has a chance of winning as opposed with whos views we agree with.

Jul 5, 2007, 07:35 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Clarence pregnant with truth Posts: 2,350	I just looked this up. They apperently think he's great because of his non-inetventionalist stance. He'd cut funding to Israel and they speculate he'd cut funding for africa and such. Oddly, from what I read, most of these white nationalists supported Bush in the last two elections and have gone sour on him. Paul's libertarian background could be another reason for thier support. Oh, and his immigration policy requires we secure our borders. I would be very turned off if he had a racist agenda.