Is There Anyone Running That You Actually Like???

[Annie]

1. Are you in favor of protecting the borders of other nations but leaving our's wide open? Pick anyone but Paul then.

2. Are you in favor of taking money from struggling families here in American and sending it to rich dictators of other nations that hate us and Israel? Pick anyone but Paul.

3. Are you in favor of growing the size of government? Pick anyone but Paul.

4. Are you in favor of the continual undermining of the Constitution and state's rights? Pick anyone but Paul.

These are broad statements that make great rhetoric...lots of smoke and heat here, but little substance and light. Paul is not the only candidate who has promised to institute plans/policies that address all of these issues. Paul makes a lot of noise about issues that he knows are the pet peeves of certain groups; that's why he attracts the following he does.

That's all there is to it, the differences between the three stooges and Obama are really not that substantial, they're all going to continue to destroy our nation in these areas. A person can always find reasons to not vote for anyone, but I'm continually amazed how they'll so easily overlook the above points because of stupid things that make little to no difference.

The above statements aren't "points"; they're simply rhetoric. The fact that Paul makes the most noise about these things (that he knows are "pet issues" along with drug legalization) doesn't negate the fact that the other candidates are also considering and addressing these issues.

[John81]

The question here isn't as much "who" donated the money in this particular instance, although that question can be revealing...but "why" they did, and how many more people like this (who have an area of commonality with these people) have donated to his campaign. With Paul, there's a pattern of support by drug users (mostly college students) who want to elect someone who will legalize their degeneracy. You can talk all you want to about "turning it over to the states," but the reason these people support him is that he has given the impression that he will allow legalization of hallucinogenic drugs that enslave the mind, cause child neglect, and destroy the lives of not only those who use them, but also of their loved ones.

If you follow every presidential cycle, and some non-presidential cycles, there are always various groups who send money to certain candidates. Their most common reason for doing so is an attempt to get free press.

During the last election cycle, for instance, "neo-nazis" and others similar to them donated to Hillary Clinton. Does anyone think they really expected to get any favors from her or that she would govern according to their philosophy? Of course not! The same applies to Ron Paul and the others as well. It's all about attempts to get free press.

The funny thing is, most often the national press will ignore such things because they are so common, unless they want to try and hurt a candidate. They did this with Patrick J. Buchanan when he ran against Bush the First, they did this with Hillary when she was running against Obama, and they do it with Ron Paul.

I've known someone who worked on some national campaigns and he says it's amazing the donations they get from crazies and fringe groups.

It's also like the more honest ones who work in politics point out, no body pays any real attention to small donations, it's only those who donate seriously huge amounts who get any notice and can ever expect to get anything back from theri donation.

[Brother Rick]

These are broad statements that make great rhetoric...lots of smoke and heat here, but little substance and light. Paul is not the only candidate who has promised to institute plans/policies that address all of these issues.

Paul is the only candidate that backs up the promises he's made in these areas with a record that supports his statements.

NONE of the others have anything that actually proves that they will back up what they are saying to get your vote.

[John81]

Paul is the only candidate that backs up the promises he's made in these areas with a record that supports his statements.

NONE of the others have anything that actually proves that they will back up what they are saying to get your vote.

Actually, the history of Romney, Gingrich and Santorum would greatly suggest they will not abide by the words they use to get elected.

Some of the main things discussed recently with these candidates is the belief Romney will compromise in order to "get stuff done". That always means the left gets most of what they want.

Gingrich calls attention to his ability to compromise in order to "get things done". Again, such compromise typically means the left gets most of what they want.

Santorum points out that while he was in congress he was willing to compromise his beliefs and vote for things he was against just to be a "good" Republican.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul has decades of records showing that he has consistently held to the same beliefs and voted accordingly.

No one things Ron Paul is perfect, but he's certainly the most honest candidate running and also appears to be the only GOP candidate running who has a true core set of principles they actually believe and live by.

[Annie]

Actually, the history of Romney, Gingrich and Santorum would greatly suggest they will not abide by the words they use to get elected.

Some of the main things discussed recently with these candidates is the belief Romney will compromise in order to "get stuff done". That always means the left gets most of what they want.

Gingrich calls attention to his ability to compromise in order to "get things done". Again, such compromise typically means the left gets most of what they want.

Santorum points out that while he was in congress he was willing to compromise his beliefs and vote for things he was against just to be a "good" Republican.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul has decades of records showing that he has consistently held to the same beliefs and voted accordingly.

No one things Ron Paul is perfect, but he's certainly the most honest candidate running and also appears to be the only GOP candidate running who has a true core set of principles they actually believe and live by.

The truth is that in order to get anything done, you have to compromise. You have to be able to work together with people who don't agree with you (which, for Paul, would be almost everyone in Washington). Paul would never be able to institute all of his policies as stated in his campaign; he just wouldn't. That's not the way it works. Inability to compromise and negotiate is not a positive characteristic; it only leads to gridlock and a do-nothing presidency. You either have to be really good at persuading people (like a majority senators and representatives) to go along with you, or you have to compromise in order to get some good done. Ron Paul is good at neither of these approaches. Edited March 6, 2012 by Annie

[John81]

The truth is that in order to get anything done, you have to compromise. You have to be able to work together with people who don't agree with you (which, for Paul, would be almost everyone in Washington). Paul would never be able to institute all of his policies as stated in his campaign; he just wouldn't. That's not the way it works. Inability to compromise and negotiate is not a positive characteristic; it only leads to gridlock and a do-nothing presidency. You either have to be really good at persuading people (like a majority senators and representatives) to go along with you, or you have to compromise in order to get some good done. Ron Paul is good at neither of these approaches.

There is a vast difference between working together and compromising ones principles or the principles they claim to be for.

None of the candidates could get everything they put forth, most wouldn't even try, of those that would try some of it they would be too quick to compromise away the best of it while accepting much bad in return.

Of all the candidates, Paul is the only one who actually try to bring about meaningful reformation. All the other candidates would allow the government to continue to grow, the budget to continue to increase, the deficit to continue to balloon, and American continue playing world cop, most often in a judge, jurey and executionor manner.

One of the best things that could happen, if we can't have a president who can bring about needed real reformation is a president who would stymie congress to the point where at least no more damage could be done.

Either way, history is against America and it's likely the best we can hope for (outside of another Great Revival) is a very temporary reprieve from the fast ride into the canyon. Ron Paul could potentially be that temporary detour, all the other candidates will continue America on the suicide ride.

[Brother Rick]

Yes! Let's vote for the guys who lie about what they believe in and compromise thier principles! Never mind the guy who actually believes something and has a voting record that lines up with the Constitution!

[Annie]

There is a vast difference between working together and compromising ones principles or the principles they claim to be for.

None of the candidates could get everything they put forth, most wouldn't even try, of those that would try some of it they would be too quick to compromise away the best of it while accepting much bad in return.

Of all the candidates, Paul is the only one who actually try to bring about meaningful reformation. All the other candidates would allow the government to continue to grow, the budget to continue to increase, the deficit to continue to balloon, and American continue playing world cop, most often in a judge, jurey and executionor manner.

One of the best things that could happen, if we can't have a president who can bring about needed real reformation is a president who would stymie congress to the point where at least no more damage could be done.

Either way, history is against America and it's likely the best we can hope for (outside of another Great Revival) is a very temporary reprieve from the fast ride into the canyon. Ron Paul could potentially be that temporary detour, all the other candidates will continue America on the suicide ride.

I agree with your statement about compromise. The "working together" is the kind of compromise I was talking about. A president can compromise on a bill--sign it even though it he's not completely happy with everything about it, because it will help advance his principles--without compromising those principles. Ron Paul is the last person who could bring about meaningful reformation, IMO. He hasn't convinced me that he's able to lead anyone, or get anyone in Washington to work with him. His ideas (as portrayed by himself) are so far "out there" that he would never be able to implement them. HIs would be a do-nothing presidency, IMO. He'd be like a lame duck, occupying the Oval Office but unable to get anything done or make any real changes. (And I don't even like the changes he's suggesting...so, I wouldn't vote for him in a primary.)

[John81]

The whole point is, only Ron Paul has put forth a plan that would actually shrink the government, shrink the budget and reduce the deficit.

The plans put forth by all of the other candidates would increase all three.

So, if we were to start with Paul, we would at least be starting with a plan that would bring about real, positive change.

If we start with any of the others we would find ourselves looking at plans that begin with increasing all the problems we already have.

Why vote for those who have plans that start with making things worse? Really, that doesn't even make any sense at all.

[Brother Rick]

The Mormons were out in force last night and Romney won Idaho. Paul came 30 votes shy of taking second place.

The good thing is that Romney is still right of McCain, which is who we had last time. I'm hoping that Ron Paul and the Tea Partiers have had enough of an influence to push us a little to the right, if nothing else...

[Wilchbla]

If we're going to judge a man by who gives him money, then consider the fact that Paul gets nine times as many donations from soldiers than all other GOP candidates combined.

The troops support Ron Paul because they're tired of dying to protect people that hate us or don't appreciate it, and they're tired of us sending money to people that hate us. Why should we be taking money from people who are hurting and struggling financially in this country and give it to rich scumbags in other countries?

It's not so much his taking money from these people as is his atitude towards them. I just don't trust a man whom the Neo-Nazi's feel they can cozy up to. I don't like his position on the drugs and prostitutes either. I just don't see how a believer can support these positions. And please don't wave the Constitution in my face about it. Try waving the bible. A believer should not be supporting these things. The Constitition was for a righteous people not for a people who want to legalized every form of wickedness in the name of it. As far as the argument that Paul only wants to leave it in the hands of the state is a rogue. All libertarians are for the legalization of all drugs and prostitution. Just try watching John Stossel on FOXNews sometime. Anyway, we see how leaving it in the hands of the states is doing. The states all eventually made MLK day into an holy day and now you see the states dropping one by one to the gay marriage issue. Why people think that the state governments are so great is beyond me. Most are as messed up and in debt as the Federal gov. is. This isn't 1860 anymore.

Without a doubt Romney will get the nomination anyway so the whole agrument is moot. Edited March 8, 2012 by Wilchbla

[John81]

It's not so much his taking money from these people as is his atitude towards them. I just don't trust a man whom the Neo-Nazi's feel they can cozy up to. I don't like his position on the drugs and prostitutes either. I just don't see how a believer can support these positions. And please don't wave the Constitution in my face about it. Try waving the bible. A believer should not be supporting these things. The Constitition was for a righteous people not for a people who want to legalized every form of wickedness in the name of it. As far as the argument that Paul only wants to leave it in the hands of the state is a rogue. All libertarians are for the legalization of all drugs and prostitution. Just try watching John Stossel on FOXNews sometime. Anyway, we see how leaving it in the hands of the states is doing. The states all eventually made MLK day into an holy day and now you see the states dropping one by one to the gay marriage issue. Why people think that the state governments are so great is beyond me. Most are as messed up and in debt as the Federal gov. is. This isn't 1860 anymore.

Without a doubt Romney will get the nomination anyway so the whole agrument is moot.

The "neo-nazis" are not cozying up to him, they also gave money to Hillary Clinton, GW Bush and a host of other politicians. They do this mostly in attempts to get some free press. Their donations are minimal but the free local press they can get, and occasionally some state, regional or national coverage, makes that tiny donation worth it for them.

Ron Paul's perspective on drugs and homosexuality is the constitutional one, that neither fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Both issues, according to the Constitution, are left for the States and people to handle.

If anyone doesn't like how the Constitution aportions things, there is built into the Constittuion the means to propose amendments, that if passed, will change how the Constitution reads.

[Brother Rick]

The reason our founding fathers left those sort of decisions in the hands of local government is the same reason we're not ruled by England: what business does a foreign power (in this case the Federal Government in liberal D.C.) have telling people in Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, and Texas what we should do and think about Religious and moral issues?

What happens when liberals in D.C. decide that conservatives in Idaho, Texas, and Georgia have to stop preaching against homosexuality, as is the case already in Canada? You can bet your bottom dollar I trust my fellow Idahoans than I do them!

As the states continue to hand their sovereignty to the Federal government, so too in turn does the Federal Government hand it over to the United Nations! Do you see the direction things are headed and why it's important to go the other way?????? Does freedom and our children's futures not matter anymore?

The founding fathers were not stupid when they set up this country.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Rick Schworer

[Invicta]

The founding fathers were not stupid when they set up this country.

Are you sure?

[John81]

Are you sure?

I'm pretty sure they were not stupid. They certainly were not perfect, as history proves, but they were not stupid.