How does Ron Paul look now?

[farmerbyron]

We can all argue over how far RP would have us go, but I think it's insanity to think we shouldn't at least turn around and start marching in that *direction* for awhile. We don't need the Second Coming of Calvin Coolidge...we just need to start peeling the onion, as it were.

We don't need "isolationism", but do we need hundreds of military bases defending Europe and Japan so they can NOT spend their own money on their own defense?

Now don't go bringing reason into the thread.

I may not agree with 100% of RP but I agree with him far more than anything either party has thrown out there in the past 20-30 years.

 

[henschman]

Republican precinct meetings will be held state-wide soon, mostly on February 7. We Ron Paul Republicans are going to try to take over the state party, and we could use your help. "Less statist than the Democrats" is not going to cut it anymore. It's time to get off the hamster wheel.

 

[okietom]

I hear "nut-job" a lot, but strangely, nobody seems to say how.

Can you elaborate how Ron Paul is a nut-job?

A nut-job is almost the same as a he*d-job only the nuts get more attention. Ron Paul was seen by some as nut that was getting more attention than a head would have.

I really like a lot of the libertarian ideas. Paul would have been a good president. He would not have beat Borat Insane Obama.

 

[farmerbyron]

It's kind of funny seeing some of you say RP would have gotten beaten worse when you guys have selected consecutive losing candidates that were indiscernible from the democratic offering. I would imagine most of the hardcore Rs saying that RP would get his ass handed to him would vote RP over Obama every day of the week so long as he headed the repub ticket.

RP experiences a great deal of support from the younger generation that can see the writing on the wall about these ponzi scheme social entitlement programs. I'm not as worried about foreign policy because our domestic fiscal situation is going to sink us far before some foreign power takes us over. For me, I agree with about 85% of the RP/libertarian philosophy and that is far better than anything else out there.

 

[TerryMiller]

I think it can be said that because Ron Paul hardly got any Republican votes, that it would be likely in a general election that a Democrat, Obama or otherwise, would have smoked him handily.

Ron Paul definitely has some good points, but he also has some major bad points, many of which have been discussed in the OSA forums for a long time. I'm not even going to try to bring all those up again. In my view, Paul's bad points led me to not vote for him. If you look at the quote in my signature, you can see that I don't choose a candidate to vote for just because of one good point.

 

[mons meg]

Now don't go bringing reason into the thread.

I may not agree with 100% of RP but I agree with him far more than anything either party has thrown out there in the past 20-30 years.

Sorry, I forgot to check my brain at the door when entering the forums.

 

[michaelnc4444]

Ron Paul may have lost, and it might have been worse than Romney, but I SERIOUSLY doubt it. As a matter of fact, I would say him losing would have truly been an impossibility. There are millions of moderate Democrats who would vote for him in a hot minute, and I seriously doubt even one Republican would have chosen Obama over Ron Paul. The only reason not to like the guy, is because you take issue with some part of the Constitution. He wants to follow it, to the letter. So, if you disagree with the man, you disagree with parts of the Constitution. Which makes you no better than the gun grabbers out there. They disagree with parts of the Constitution too, it just happens to be the parts you like. I like ALL of it, I would like to see someone in the Oval Office who does too, not a Neocon.

I also wanted to add the fact that the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received 1.1 million votes as well. Every one of those votes would have gone to RP as well. The idea that he would have lost really is fairly laughable, he would have crushed Obama. The media have fooled you into believing the hype.

Ah...I have found the disgruntled Libertarian thread.
Bulbboy is correct - RP would have lost by an even larger gap than Romney.
RP did, practically, stand for isolationism -- which does not mean no trade - never has, that is a neo-Libertarian definition.
In many years of following US national politics the Libertarian party has never called for no trade but it has been isolationist in international affairs.
It goes well beyond non-interventionism which should, I agree, be the default US position in most areas.
While I did support RP's call to closer following of the Constitution's original intent that doesn't mean I necessarily came to the same conclusions about specific actions - any more than when someone says he's "Bible Believing" that you can tell what that means on any specific topic in advance.

The biggest "issue" I had is that the US's leadership in the international arena is vital - because the alternative is that regional powers like China or Russia will start filling a void left by the US if we simply withdraw. There should still be a debate about how/when to take actions and under what authority but RP seemed inclined to ignore what are manifestly important events - at least it seemed so to me and to many Conservatives.

 

[flybeech]

I would like to see if those who know Ron Paul would have been beaten worse than the guy that lost to the guy that lost to Obama and then lost again could kindly give me next week's lottery numbers. We all know Romney was a liberal clone and that's why the GOP had it's ass handed to them.

For those who liked some of Ron Paul's ideas, but cannot actually say they why they don't like the others, why is that? Why do Ron Paul detractors say he's crazy without elaborating even a little? Does the Constitution mean anything to you, or not?

 

[mugsy]

Ron Paul may have lost, and it might have been worse than Romney, but I SERIOUSLY doubt it. As a matter of fact, I would say him losing would have truly been an impossibility. There are millions of moderate Democrats who would vote for him in a hot minute, and I seriously doubt even one Republican would have chosen Obama over Ron Paul. The only reason not to like the guy, is because you take issue with some part of the Constitution. He wants to follow it, to the letter. So, if you disagree with the man, you disagree with parts of the Constitution. Which makes you no better than the gun grabbers out there. They disagree with parts of the Constitution too, it just happens to be the parts you like. I like ALL of it, I would like to see someone in the Oval Office who does too, not a Neocon.

I also wanted to add the fact that the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received 1.1 million votes as well. Every one of those votes would have gone to RP as well. The idea that he would have lost really is fairly laughable, he would have crushed Obama. The media have fooled you into believing the hype.

The media hasn't fooled me into thinking anything. This is cold hard analysis of how voters actually voted this past election - it is analysis with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight - the best kind of analysis!

I understand that you disagree but, as has been stated many times here by others as well, while RP would have garnered some Republican support and some Libertarian support - he would have been able to peel off very little of Obama's support which was substantial. The 1.1 million votes gained by Gary Johnson proves very little - that's about the same number that the Communists got during the height of the depression, and that from a much smaller electorate, indicating to me that Libertarian talk, while a big deal among a subset of the Republican Party, is actually not all that widespread among Democrats or Independents. Maybe it will change in the future - maybe but you cannot reasonably maintain that RP would have taken those 1.1 million and another 60 million or so to be able to win against Obama - at least you cannot with any factual or analysis based assessment.

 

[flybeech]

The media hasn't fooled me into thinking anything. This is cold hard analysis of how voters actually voted this past election - it is analysis with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight - the best kind of analysis!

I understand that you disagree but, as has been stated many times here by others as well, while RP would have garnered some Republican support and some Libertarian support - he would have been able to peel off very little of Obama's support which was substantial. The 1.1 million votes gained by Gary Johnson proves very little - that's about the same number that the Communists got during the height of the depression, and that from a much smaller electorate, indicating to me that Libertarian talk, while a big deal among a subset of the Republican Party, is actually not all that widespread among Democrats or Independents. Maybe it will change in the future - maybe but you cannot reasonably maintain that RP would have taken those 1.1 million and another 60 million or so to be able to win against Obama - at least you cannot with any factual or analysis based assessment.

If you like the Romney formula, stick with it.