Lifestyle > Train of Thought
I officially predict Ron Paul wont' win a fucking thing
Elevz:
--- Quote from: Trauma-san on January 07, 2008, 05:38:45 AM ---No. He doesn't subscribe to Republican politics, he subscribes to Libertarian Politics.
--- End quote ---
Then what would 'Republican politics' be? Should that follow the guidelines of 'republicanism' or something? Well, peep game:
"Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule by the people, and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. Republicanism always stands in opposition to aristocracy, oligarchy, and dictatorship. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government."
Then tell me, how is Ron Paul opposing to that?
--- Quote from: Trauma-san on January 07, 2008, 05:38:45 AM ---He's ran as a libertarian, but the label libertarian tips everybody off that you're ineffective, so he changed his political affiliation to Republican, in order to be able to win votes.
The dumbass above is chiding me for voting for someone who has the potential to win. Ron Paul changes his entire political affiliation based on his potential to win.
--- End quote ---
It just so happens that the USA have a very stiff constitutional system with only two big parties. If Ron Paul's a Republican libertarian, why shouldn't he run for Republican nominee? It's true, the Libertarian Party isn't likely to ever bring forth a president. Neither is the Green Party or the Constitution Party. Third party members simply don't get the attention it takes. It has very little to do with those parties not being trustworthy, and all the more with people such as yourself who live with a tunnel vision and who refuse to look any further than the obvious options.
So yeah, Ron Paul's a Republican libertarian. He's different from all the other candidates the Republicans have had in the past so many years. Does it matter though? Would you say the votes he's getting now aren't legitimate because of that? That if he gets elected, it's for fraudulent reasons - that people still don't approve of his political views and that they were mislead? Get real now.
Primo:
Ron Paul is actually the closest to a traditional republican than all of the other establishment candidates.
jeromechickenbone:
--- Quote from: Trauma-san on January 07, 2008, 05:38:45 AM ---No. He doesn't subscribe to Republican politics, he subscribes to Libertarian Politics. He's ran as a libertarian, but the label libertarian tips everybody off that you're ineffective, so he changed his political affiliation to Republican, in order to be able to win votes.
The dumbass above is chiding me for voting for someone who has the potential to win. Ron Paul changes his entire political affiliation based on his potential to win.
--- End quote ---
You cumstain, the traditional republicans were small government and non-interventionalist. Your gods, the neocons, hijacked the party and changed it into a bunch of radical christians hell bent on war and bloated government in order to feed the Military Industrial Complex and Corporatism. And they've conditioned you into believing that that is the definition of a Republican. You do realize that the United States was founded as a REPUBLIC and not a democracy right? And our founders were, get this, for a small federal government and states rights, and non-interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul is more Republican than any alleged Republican in years.
In case you haven't noticed, our political system is EXTREMELY biased towards a two party system. I don't give a shit who you are, it's next to impossible to run and win as a third party candidate. You can't get into debates, you can't get your name on ballots across the country, etc.
I'm not chiding you for supporting someone who has the potential to win. I'm chiding you because your lack of independant thought lets others decide who is electable and who isn't. It's called having integrity and principals. Maybe someday you'll develop those personality traits. You view politics as a game and somehow feel better about yourself if the person you pick is the same as the majority. Did you have a lot of trouble being accepted growing up? Maybe didn't really have opinions of your own, just went with the crowd in order to fit in?
And no, Paul hasn't won anything. And I never made the claim that he would. I just made the claim that whether you or anyone else think he is electable has zero impact on the fact that I'm supporting him. I'm not a follower, I'm a leader. You on the other hand, claimed that Hillary would win and so far she has lost. Remember when you made all your bitchmade posts "I'm a winner, I pick winners". Well looks like you ended up looking like a dumb fuck once again. So keep on chasing fads and support who you think is going to win. I mean how does somebody go from a staunch George Bush supporter to a Hillary Clinton supporter? You're a joke bro.
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: Ron Paul = greatest American since Thomas Jefferson on January 07, 2008, 05:07:51 PM ---
--- Quote from: Trauma-san on January 07, 2008, 05:38:45 AM ---No. He doesn't subscribe to Republican politics, he subscribes to Libertarian Politics. He's ran as a libertarian, but the label libertarian tips everybody off that you're ineffective, so he changed his political affiliation to Republican, in order to be able to win votes.
The dumbass above is chiding me for voting for someone who has the potential to win. Ron Paul changes his entire political affiliation based on his potential to win.
--- End quote ---
You cumstain, the traditional republicans were small government and non-interventionalist. Your gods, the neocons, hijacked the party and changed it into a bunch of radical christians hell bent on war and bloated government in order to feed the Military Industrial Complex and Corporatism. And they've conditioned you into believing that that is the definition of a Republican. You do realize that the United States was founded as a REPUBLIC and not a democracy right? And our founders were, get this, for a small federal government and states rights, and non-interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul is more Republican than any alleged Republican in years.
In case you haven't noticed, our political system is EXTREMELY biased towards a two party system. I don't give a shit who you are, it's next to impossible to run and win as a third party candidate. You can't get into debates, you can't get your name on ballots across the country, etc.
I'm not chiding you for supporting someone who has the potential to win. I'm chiding you because your lack of independant thought lets others decide who is electable and who isn't. It's called having integrity and principals. Maybe someday you'll develop those personality traits. You view politics as a game and somehow feel better about yourself if the person you pick is the same as the majority. Did you have a lot of trouble being accepted growing up? Maybe didn't really have opinions of your own, just went with the crowd in order to fit in?
And no, Paul hasn't won anything. And I never made the claim that he would. I just made the claim that whether you or anyone else think he is electable has zero impact on the fact that I'm supporting him. I'm not a follower, I'm a leader. You on the other hand, claimed that Hillary would win and so far she has lost. Remember when you made all your bitchmade posts "I'm a winner, I pick winners". Well looks like you ended up looking like a dumb fuck once again. So keep on chasing fads and support who you think is going to win. I mean how does somebody go from a staunch George Bush supporter to a Hillary Clinton supporter? You're a joke bro.
--- End quote ---
NO, the traditional Republican are people like the Rocafellers and George Bush Sr. Ronald Reagan changed the Republican party forever, and now it's more libertarian leaning, but it's NEVER been a libertarian party. Eisenhower was more liberal than Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon wanted to work on health care and expand on education, and long time Republican leader was Gerald Ford who never looked like a libertarian. Reagan himself was not a total libertarian himself.
Trauma-san:
I just checked, looks like Ron Paul is running wayyyyyy behind in New Hampshire. For those keeping track, here's what's happend so far.
1. Iowa - Ron Paul Lost.
2. Wyoming - Ron Paul Lost.
3. New Hampshire - Ron Paul is in the process of losing.
By the end of the day, I should be able to update on the situation in New Hampshire, but by all accounts and measures, it looks like the outcome is going to be that Ron Paul Loses.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version