Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina
I like Ron Paul a lot.  If I even bother to vote this time around, I'll probably write him in as my choice for president, since he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at getting the Republican nomination.

However, I've noticed a lot of buzz around him lately.  He's appeared on both the Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher in the last month.  He's made numerous other appearances (both televised and not) beyond the amount of attention you'd expect from a second-tier candidate.  Still, I want to clear something up....  He is NOT as popular as some online polls would have you believe.

What these polls demonstrate is the devotion Paul's supporters have for the cause.  He tends to attract people that are equally as passionate about the issues and smaller government in general as he is himself.  They are well-organized and often well-educated.  They also tend to vote regularly.  Still, this underground popularity in contrast to his mainstream coverage is not indicative of a conspiracy.  Rather, it suggests that most people aren't as supportive of small government as they think they are.

Ron Paul is one of the few politicians who consistently votes against the majority of spending that Congress initiates.  He's one of the few that really practices what he preaches in fighting government waste.  Most people when asked about his principles seem to agree with the general idea of minimizing government, but ironically, they tend to still vote for politicians that increase spending rather than decrease it.

Think about it...  The average Republican politician may claim to believe in smaller government, but a lot of them still send tax money to corporate interests, whether it's through war or some pet project that supposedly benefits his or her home state.  The average Democrat claims to stand for the interests of the working man but still can't bring himself or herself to repeal corporate tax cuts in favor of giving small business owners (the people who actually need tax cuts) tax relief.

To make matters worse, a typical Republican voter will claim to support smaller government, but it doesn't take much to get them to voice support for increased military spending and interventionism.  A typical Democrat will claim to support the common man, but too often, he or she will get caught up in defending illegal citizens more than working class LEGAL citizens (and the immigrants who actually had the dignity to follow our laws).

So really, this is a billionaire's game.  This isn't a contest that is won by principled leaders who practice what they preach.  This is a game won by opportunistic corporate whores due to the complacent, uneducated electorate that elects them to power.

Ron Paul is still the kind of man I will support until the bitter end, but I do so knowing full well that he will be overshadowed by the bastards who always seize power.

There is a scene near the end of the recent movie "Shooter" where the protagonist kills a Senator.  The first thing that came to my mind at that point was....  "1 down, 99 to go..."

So...  am I right?  Is Ron Paul unelectable because of his consistent and sincere approach?  Is supporting consistently smaller government a pipe dream due to the special interests that lobby so hard for OUR hard-earned money?  If so...  what options do we have other than a few well-placed sniper rounds?
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

Ron Paul makes people believe they will get something different.  He does not have enough money to sell that.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

usmarine2005 wrote:

Ron Paul makes people believe they will get something different.  He does not have enough money to sell that.
Agreed...  He doesn't have enough exposure, and he's too dynamic for most people's tastes.

Still, you do support smaller government, right?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

It seems you are confusing conservatives with the Republican party (Smaller Gov..etc) The Republican party abandoned conservatives awhile ago. Amnesty would be another obvious current example.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

It seems you are confusing conservatives with the Republican party (Smaller Gov..etc) The Republican party abandoned conservatives awhile ago. Amnesty would be another obvious current example.
Agreed...  It kind of sucks to be a "Goldwater" conservative right now, doesn't it?...
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

usmarine2005 wrote:

Ron Paul makes people believe they will get something different.  He does not have enough money to sell that.
People voted in a new Congress last go around because they wanted something "different". It isn't until recently everyone has noticed their lack of action and any kind of plan. Their approval ratings reflect it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6551|the dank(super) side of Oregon
they would kill him before he ever became president.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Ron Paul makes people believe they will get something different.  He does not have enough money to sell that.
People voted in a new Congress last go around because they wanted something "different". It isn't until recently everyone has noticed their lack of action and any kind of plan. Their approval ratings reflect it.
I didn't mean it was worth buying.  It is just some people have better resources to sell ice to Eskimos.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It seems you are confusing conservatives with the Republican party (Smaller Gov..etc) The Republican party abandoned conservatives awhile ago. Amnesty would be another obvious current example.
Agreed...  It kind of sucks to be a "Goldwater" conservative right now, doesn't it?...
I'm no longer amazed at the tools in office.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

usmarine2005 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Ron Paul makes people believe they will get something different.  He does not have enough money to sell that.
People voted in a new Congress last go around because they wanted something "different". It isn't until recently everyone has noticed their lack of action and any kind of plan. Their approval ratings reflect it.
I didn't mean it was worth buying.  It is just some people have better resources to sell ice to Eskimos.
Paul is one of the few who has a proven record of supporting small government though.  Why do you think he's lying?....   Hell, about the only thing he's running on is principle at this point, since he really doesn't have much in the way of funds.....
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


People voted in a new Congress last go around because they wanted something "different". It isn't until recently everyone has noticed their lack of action and any kind of plan. Their approval ratings reflect it.
I didn't mean it was worth buying.  It is just some people have better resources to sell ice to Eskimos.
Paul is one of the few who has a proven record of supporting small government though.  Why do you think he's lying?....   Hell, about the only thing he's running on is principle at this point, since he really doesn't have much in the way of funds.....
Lying is a strong term.

He got in the mix somehow right?  Money and influence have to play a role.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


I didn't mean it was worth buying.  It is just some people have better resources to sell ice to Eskimos.
Paul is one of the few who has a proven record of supporting small government though.  Why do you think he's lying?....   Hell, about the only thing he's running on is principle at this point, since he really doesn't have much in the way of funds.....
Lying is a strong term.

He got in the mix somehow right?  Money and influence have to play a role.
Sure...  but he was a flight doctor, not an oil baron.  I'd say his background is a lot less sketchy than 99% of the people currently in office.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

Fred Thompson might be the most Conservative out of the bunch. I have yet to scour through his voting record though. He bases his ideas on Federalism which endorses smaller government (more power to the States, not the Feds).
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Fred Thompson might be the most Conservative out of the bunch. I have yet to scour through his voting record though. He bases his ideas on Federalism which endorses smaller government (more power to the States, not the Feds).
Yes and no.  Ontheissues.org rates him as a moderate conservative.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm

If he believes in more power to the states and less to the feds, then he is an Anti-Federalist.  I'm not sure if you could classify him as one though...
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Fred Thompson might be the most Conservative out of the bunch. I have yet to scour through his voting record though. He bases his ideas on Federalism which endorses smaller government (more power to the States, not the Feds).
Yes and no.  Ontheissues.org rates him as a moderate conservative.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm

If he believes in more power to the states and less to the feds, then he is an Anti-Federalist.  I'm not sure if you could classify him as one though...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ … d_Thompson
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2 … detail.asp

By "most" conservative I was judging him against his Republican peers..lol

# Opposes amnesty in any form. (Jun 2007)
# Nation loses sovereignty if it cannot secure its own borders. (Apr 2007)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Fred Thompson might be the most Conservative out of the bunch. I have yet to scour through his voting record though. He bases his ideas on Federalism which endorses smaller government (more power to the States, not the Feds).
Yes and no.  Ontheissues.org rates him as a moderate conservative.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm

If he believes in more power to the states and less to the feds, then he is an Anti-Federalist.  I'm not sure if you could classify him as one though...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ … d_Thompson
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2 … detail.asp

By most conservative I was judging him against his republican peers..lol

# Opposes amnesty in any form. (Jun 2007)
# Nation loses sovereignty if it cannot secure its own borders. (Apr 2007) 
http://i17.tinypic.com/4y4yhki.jpg
Interesting stuff...  I can agree with him on that.  I just am not a fan of Federalism.  Anti-Federalism is really the core of smaller government.

However, Federalism is a great ideology with regard to enforcing things like immigration laws.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

With a Nation as diverse and as large as the United States I believe in local/regional (State, County, City) government. On most issues that is.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

With a Nation as diverse and as large as the United States I believe in local/regional (State, County, City) government. On most issues that is.
Same here...  As Tip O'Neill once said, "All politics are local."  That's certainly true of social policy.
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6169

Turquoise wrote:

So...  am I right?  Is Ron Paul unelectable because of his consistent and sincere approach?  Is supporting consistently smaller government a pipe dream due to the special interests that lobby so hard for OUR hard-earned money?  If so...  what options do we have other than a few well-placed sniper rounds?
Ron Paul is electable.. you have to keep the faith. spread the word.. people outside the internet don't know about him, they don't see him on TV, they don't talk about him on the radios and papers.. but everything is possible ...  buy bumper stickers.. talk about him.. but most importantly DONATE to his campaign..
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So...  am I right?  Is Ron Paul unelectable because of his consistent and sincere approach?  Is supporting consistently smaller government a pipe dream due to the special interests that lobby so hard for OUR hard-earned money?  If so...  what options do we have other than a few well-placed sniper rounds?
Ron Paul is electable.. you have to keep the faith. spread the word.. people outside the internet don't know about him, they don't see him on TV, they don't talk about him on the radios and papers.. but everything is possible ...  buy bumper stickers.. talk about him.. but most importantly DONATE to his campaign..
I hear ya, but I guess my thing is this...  Most of Ron Paul's support comes from younger people who believe strongly in his ideals and from the people of his Congressional District.  He's very popular in certain areas of Texas, and he's by far one of the most popular figures among Libertarians.

It's just that I get the feeling that he's not mainstream enough to win something this big.  The American people have been conditioned to believe that they need the government to do so much for them.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-06-16 20:41:54)

S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6417|Chicago, IL

Turquoise wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So...  am I right?  Is Ron Paul unelectable because of his consistent and sincere approach?  Is supporting consistently smaller government a pipe dream due to the special interests that lobby so hard for OUR hard-earned money?  If so...  what options do we have other than a few well-placed sniper rounds?
Ron Paul is electable.. you have to keep the faith. spread the word.. people outside the internet don't know about him, they don't see him on TV, they don't talk about him on the radios and papers.. but everything is possible ...  buy bumper stickers.. talk about him.. but most importantly DONATE to his campaign..
I hear ya, but I guess my thing is this...  Most of Ron Paul's support comes from younger people who believe strongly in his ideals and from the people of his Congressional District.  He's very popular in certain areas of Texas, and he's by far one of the most popular figures among Libertarians.

It's just that I get the feeling that he's not mainstream enough to win something this big.  The American people have been conditioned to believe that they need the government to do so much for them.
Thats it, Ron Paul is what the true conservatives (not Bush & friends) want in a candidate, but he's not a populsist candidate, and that would kill him in any american election.

The fact that he has virtually no name recognition outside of political circles doesn't help either.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina
Pretty much...  What makes things equally as awkward for me is that I'm a small government liberal.

Not only does Paul appeal to true conservatives, he also appeals to those of us who prefer more decentralization of government and less interference in our personal lives when it comes to government policy.
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6417|Chicago, IL

Turquoise wrote:

Pretty much...  What makes things equally as awkward for me is that I'm a small government liberal.

Not only does Paul appeal to true conservatives, he also appeals to those of us who prefer more decentralization of government and less interference in our personal lives when it comes to government policy.
Well, the president has more control over government policy than social policy, so he's just the candidate for you.  (assuming you won't vote Hillary in the main election)

Last edited by S.Lythberg (2007-06-16 20:53:20)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

S.Lythberg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Pretty much...  What makes things equally as awkward for me is that I'm a small government liberal.

Not only does Paul appeal to true conservatives, he also appeals to those of us who prefer more decentralization of government and less interference in our personal lives when it comes to government policy.
Well, the president has more control over government policy than social policy, so he's just the candidate for you.  (assuming you won't vote Hillary in the main election)
There are few candidates who are bad enough to force me to vote for Hillary.  Now, if Sam Brownback wins the Republican nomination, I might have to....
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6417|Chicago, IL

Turquoise wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Pretty much...  What makes things equally as awkward for me is that I'm a small government liberal.

Not only does Paul appeal to true conservatives, he also appeals to those of us who prefer more decentralization of government and less interference in our personal lives when it comes to government policy.
Well, the president has more control over government policy than social policy, so he's just the candidate for you.  (assuming you won't vote Hillary in the main election)
There are few candidates who are bad enough to force me to vote for Hillary.  Now, if Sam Brownback wins the Republican nomination, I might have to....
Yeah right, people know him even less than Paul, and i don't want another religious fanatic in the white house either.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard