• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ron Paul for president

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,714
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Let me repeat myself:

I was responding to the argument that it was best not to vote at all.

Others in this thread have said that they never vote at all.... for instance, these quote:

I never voted in my life but I will vote Ron Paul
I went through a long time of not voting, because I didn't want to feel like I was part of the corrupt political machine we have today.
I will not endorse a turd sandwich or a douchbag just because they are our only choices.

The only thing I've said is that it is better to vote than not to vote, even when there are no real good choices. I never defended the status-quo. If you think I'm a fan of the current government, you are mistaken.

Not voting at all won't do a thing to change the status-quo. Further, I did not say nor imply that YOU were cool with the idea of allowing a greater evil to prevail. I was talking about people who do not vote. If a person does not vote, yet can clearly see that one candidate is a more evil choice than an other, he must not care too much about the prospect of that greater evil occurring if it is not worth his time to cast a ballot.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Let me repeat myself:

I was responding to the argument that it was best not to vote at all.

Others in this thread have said that they never vote at all.... for instance, these quote:





The only thing I've said is that it is better to vote than not to vote, even when there are no real good choices. I never defended the status-quo. If you think I'm a fan of the current government, you are mistaken.

Not voting at all won't do a thing to change the status-quo. Further, I did not say nor imply that YOU were cool with the idea of allowing a greater evil to prevail. I was talking about people who do not vote. If a person does not vote, yet can clearly see that one candidate is a more evil choice than an other, he must not care too much about the prospect of that greater evil occurring if it is not worth his time to cast a ballot.

Since you quoted me let me clear that I didn't ever say I saw one person as clearly more evil than the other. To me Ron Paul isn't beholden to party politics and special interest and hence not evil and why he will get my vote. I wonder why instead of celebrating that I have decided to partake in a system that has so delusion ed me, I am derided for not voting before? Is it because my candidate I choose is also pretty much an anomaly outside of the two party system?

And we can go back to your old lady analogy, she is getting beat to death, and you give me a choice she gets beat to death by leather strap or a chain. And then get mad because I don't choose what you view as the lesser of two evils?

Should I choose the one the ends her life quickly or should I choose the one the painfully extends it? Or do I find other means that subvert the "two party" (we all know its one party) system to hopefully give us all a better choice and and possibly saves the old lady's life?

Just some out of the box thinking for those insist there is only one way.

I just gave a "stump speech" at a TEA Party forum on this subject, and I think I possibly may have given the politicians in attendance something to think about, on how to stop the apathy, and even though I flubbed my main point a little they got the point, and most of them came up to me and talked to me afterward.

I felt that I represented those of us that don't have an agenda wan't to be left alone and so don't have a "party". And thanks to you and others who disagreed with some of us non partakers position you actually inspired me to do something about it, even if was to publicly state many of my views from this very thread?:lol: (And the fact that the TEA party has lost my public support in many ways)

P.S. And I did this while OC'ing :lol:
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
I got my US Citizenship in 1970. I registered to vote as a Republician, and was fairly active (at the precinct level) untill 1988, the Republicians did not endorse Ron Paul for pres that year, and I did, so I voted Libertarian (Ron) for President in 1988. I did not approve of either the Republician or Democrat presidential candidates. If you don't like any of them, write in your own name, that is a true negative vote against business as usual.

I vote for the person, not his party. Am I throwing away my vote? Absolutely not. If you were into the last election during the republician nomination process you would have seen what Ron Paul was all about. It is called political influence. If he could have picked up a couple states (Eastern WA, ID and MT came close) his influence could have been huge. This next election we will try even harder.

If you do not vote, and do not like the republocrats, that is fine, vote for someone like Ron Paul and shake their "business as usual" up. If the Libertarian party can keep itself on track, and not bend to any special interests that go against the party base, follow them. True libertarians do not recognize any special interests. It is basically, what the Consitution says is law, what it does not address is excess and should not be there.

How much support the non "in" person garners is noticed, especially someone like Ron Paul, believe me. People can be influenced, not everyone is a sheep.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,714
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Since you quoted me let me clear that I didn't ever say I saw one person as clearly more evil than the other. To me Ron Paul isn't beholden to party politics and special interest and hence not evil and why he will get my vote. I wonder why instead of celebrating that I have decided to partake in a system that has so delusion ed me, I am derided for not voting before? Is it because my candidate I choose is also pretty much an anomaly outside of the two party system?
I don't mean to deride you personally, only to argue in favor of voting, even when there are no good candidates. If there is truly a lesser of evils, the lesser of evils is always preferable to the greater of evils. If you saw the evils as completely equal, then I suppose there was no reason to vote.

I think it would be great if Paul wins the Republican nomination, personally. I'm all for small government.

To give credit where it is due, the old lady analogy was Shlitz, (and I think it is a good analogy for those who choose not to vote for a lesser evil when they know in fact one is lesser... you've made your point about how one might feel the evils are equal and that there may not be a lesser evil.)
 
Last edited:

SovereignAxe

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
791
Location
Elizabethton, TN
Heck yeah I'm voting for him!

He's also the most pro-gun presidential candidate so that fit's in with OCDO quite nicely. Only Ron thinks airlines should be able to allow private citizens to carry protection on flights. 9-11 may never have happened had that been allowed, or at least if the pilots had been allowed.

Here's the problem with guns on an airplane: explosive decompression.

If they were restricted to say, nothing more powerful than 9mm and shotshell rounds only...maybe. A missed shot on a hijacked airplane could do more harm than good. But I'm sure there's a way around it. Tasers, maybe.

As much as I'd like to see Ron Paul in the White House I hold little hope of his winning. That's mostly because the leftstream media will make him a non-contender by not giving him any coverage, like they did in '08.

IMHO, the 2012 election is going to be a "get Oblamer out of office at all costs" event more that it'll be to get a good Conservative as POTUS. Sadly, there dos'nt appear to be any decient candidates to run against the turd. Anyway, I'm going to vote for whoever, barring Romney, has the best chance of defeating Oretard.

I did that with Obama to keep Palin out of office, as I'm sure most swing voters did. Look where that got us.

I will never compromise when it comes to voting ever again. I may or may not vote for RP, but I can tell you with near certainty that I probably wont be voting for any candidate that runs with a D or and R in front of their name.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Here's the problem with guns on an airplane: explosive decompression.

If they were restricted to say, nothing more powerful than 9mm and shotshell rounds only...maybe. A missed shot on a hijacked airplane could do more harm than good. But I'm sure there's a way around it. Tasers, maybe...

Do you have any facts, or even anecdotes, to back up your irrational fear of explosive decompression?

Mythbusters did a lot of experimentation and determined that gunshot holes won't create explosive decompression. Of course, that doesn't stand up to the intellectual weight of the mythology that the movies and TV have created on the subject.

Facts and ration, folks. Facts and ration.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Eye beat me to the Mythbusters reference. It's a myth, unless you'r using a grenade launcher. IIRC, it took a pretty significant amount of explosives to get an explosive decompression. Plus, there are always frangibles.

Oh, and P.S. Ron Paul is running on the R ticket. No other way to get into the debates. We have a corrupt system to work with unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

sFe

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Laurinburg, North Carolina, USA
Do you have any facts, or even anecdotes, to back up your irrational fear of explosive decompression?

Mythbusters did a lot of experimentation and determined that gunshot holes won't create explosive decompression. Of course, that doesn't stand up to the intellectual weight of the mythology that the movies and TV have created on the subject.

Facts and ration, folks. Facts and ration.

Facts and an allocated amount?
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Eye beat me to the Mythbusters reference. It's a myth, unless you'r using a grenade launcher. IIRC, it took a pretty significant amount of explosives to get an explosive decompression. Plus, there are always frangibles.

Oh, and P.S. Ron Paul is running on the R ticket. No other way to get into the debates. We have a corrupt system to work with unfortunately.

The republican party is supposed to represent the principles RP endorses. That's why he's in that party right? Or does he understand the the 3rd party idea would fractionalize the center-right enough to empower the moonbats like it seems to have done in the UK? Either way those of us who cling to libertarian principles should be doing our damnedest to exert the most influence over the GOP than the "right wing" elitists who enjoy being social with the marxist elitists. The "religious right" needs to suck up their morality based policies and focus them in thei home states. If they want to outlaw abortions and gay sex in Alabama, fine. If they want to make abortions and gay sex mandatory in California, fine. As long as you're free to leave at least one of the 50 states will have what you're looking for.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
WOW! Great video. Thanks!

Also, I didn't realize there were so many Ron Paul videos on YouTube. If you all don't hear from me for a while, you'll know its because I'm following up and watching those other videos. :D

Yes, for sure. YouTube is actually the first place I send people to learn more about Ron. There are thousands of his videos on there.

Back on forum subject....Hey looky here, Romney is pro-assault weapons ban. Who'd a thunk it? http://www.ammoland.com/2011/08/08/good-news-bad-news-of-presidential-candidates-gun-politics/

Paul scored 100% in pro-gunnedness... :)
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
The republican party is supposed to represent the principles RP endorses. That's why he's in that party right? Or does he understand the the 3rd party idea would fractionalize the center-right enough to empower the moonbats like it seems to have done in the UK? Either way those of us who cling to libertarian principles should be doing our damnedest to exert the most influence over the GOP than the "right wing" elitists who enjoy being social with the marxist elitists. The "religious right" needs to suck up their morality based policies and focus them in thei home states. If they want to outlaw abortions and gay sex in Alabama, fine. If they want to make abortions and gay sex mandatory in California, fine. As long as you're free to leave at least one of the 50 states will have what you're looking for.

Yes, you're right on the first count but the problem with running third party isn't that you are taking votes away from one candidate or another but that you can't get any media coverage or get into the debates. The Commision on Presidential Debates which puts them on is CONTROLLED by the R and D parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates It was formed after the 1988 debates, which coincidently was the last time Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian.

On the last part of your post, I believe that you are talking about constitutionalist principles rather than libertarian ones. Although state and local control is much more preferable to libertarians than the current powerful federal government, it should be noted that libertarians prefer all government stay out of the private lives of the people as long as they aren't hurting anyone. That would include all government at all levels getting out of marriage and only treating it as any other contract.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to do all we can to bend the GOP back over to what they once stood for and even further towards libertarian principles if I had my way. The Religious right also needs to get on board and hopefully jump the sinking ship of the neocons. They need to understand that the best defense of their religion is to allow others to practice theirs or their lack of it.

Ron is in 3rd in Iowa (and on his way up IMHO)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...a/iowa_caucus_bachmann_romney_and_paul_on_top
He's also running 3rd nationally according to gallup.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-08-08-poll-gallup-election_n.htm?csp=34news

Hopefully that "electablility" crap can stop soon.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
If it comes down to Paul v. Obama, I'll hold my nose and vote for Paul. He is a whack-a-doodle that will get zero support from me in the primary process.

Actually, in the general election, it would be more a matter of my voting against Obama than voting for Paul. In the last election, I voted for Palin for Veep, not for McCain for prez.

If the devil himself runs against obooba, not only will I vote for him, but I'll send a campaign contribution. Paul is an interesting footnote, that's all, to the election.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Do you have any facts, or even anecdotes, to back up your irrational fear of explosive decompression?

Mythbusters did a lot of experimentation and determined that gunshot holes won't create explosive decompression. Of course, that doesn't stand up to the intellectual weight of the mythology that the movies and TV have created on the subject.

Facts and ration, folks. Facts and ration.

As a former Air Force Aviator I can assure you it's pure Urban Legend. A magazine or piece of cardboard placed in front of a .50 BMG bullet hole will stop the cabin losing pressure. You get up to 57mm and above, it may be a different story. But no pistol rounds are going to do anything but irritate people with the high pitched sound of escaping air--until they are (easily) plugged.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Yes, you're right on the first count but the problem with running third party isn't that you are taking votes away from one candidate or another but that you can't get any media coverage or get into the debates. The Commision on Presidential Debates which puts them on is CONTROLLED by the R and D parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates It was formed after the 1988 debates, which coincidently was the last time Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian.

On the last part of your post, I believe that you are talking about constitutionalist principles rather than libertarian ones. Although state and local control is much more preferable to libertarians than the current powerful federal government, it should be noted that libertarians prefer all government stay out of the private lives of the people as long as they aren't hurting anyone. That would include all government at all levels getting out of marriage and only treating it as any other contract.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to do all we can to bend the GOP back over to what they once stood for and even further towards libertarian principles if I had my way. The Religious right also needs to get on board and hopefully jump the sinking ship of the neocons. They need to understand that the best defense of their religion is to allow others to practice theirs or their lack of it.

Ron is in 3rd in Iowa (and on his way up IMHO)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...a/iowa_caucus_bachmann_romney_and_paul_on_top
He's also running 3rd nationally according to gallup.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-08-08-poll-gallup-election_n.htm?csp=34news

Hopefully that "electablility" crap can stop soon.

Jeff Knox had a good point on the "electability" crap:

Dear Republicans
Could we please have a serious, pro-rights, pro-Constitution candidate for the office of President this time? For the past several elections you have passed over good, pro-rights, pro-Constitution candidates – or never come up with any – in favor of wishy-washy “moderates” with poll-based values and elastic principles. Make no mistake: the rights movement, and the wide array of activists concerned about constitutional liberty and restoration of the Republic, will not endorse, support, or actively work for any candidate who does not have a proven record of personal commitment to the Constitution and individual liberty.
Please do not be suckered into nominating another bland “moderate” based on the lie of “electability.” The question of a person’s electability can only be definitively answered in a flat-out run for office. Anything short of that is just speculation.
Granted, some would-be candidates are clearly unelectable from the start. Others are obviously long shots. But the only way to get a candidate’s true measure is to give your support to the candidate – or candidates – who best represent your values and vision for the nation and do your best to push that – or those – candidate(s) to the top of the list in the primaries, straw polls, and other preliminary popularity contests. Don’t let the pundits, the experts, pragmatists, “moderates,” or the mainstream media convince you that you should throw your support behind a candidate who doesn’t reflect your values and vision based on a wholly manufactured concept of electability.
To understand the Electability Hoax you need to understand the arguments about electability.
The assumption is that a hard right, or extremely conservative candidate is not electable in larger cities, statewide elections for Senate and Governor, and definitely unelectable for the office of President of the United States. Why? Because, the electability theory assumes that the voting public is neatly divided into three relatively equal segments: Republicans, Democrats, and independents/others and it is the independents/others who ultimately decide who the President (or Senator, or Governor) will be. Since this third voting bloc divides the Republicans and the Democrats, the pushers of “electability,” including most of the media, paint it as being in the middle philosophically and politically. That is the central fallacy at the heart of the Electability Hoax: the myth of the independent, centrist voter.
The fact is that while more people have decided to officially disassociate themselves from formal party affiliation, most of those voters are just as ideologically driven as they ever were. Rather than reflecting some mythical middle-ground of political philosophy, they mirror the ratio of broad political opinions found in declared partisans.
A smaller, but nonetheless slice of independent voters make up the so-called third parties. None of those parties is called the Wishy-Washy Compromiser Party. Nor is there one called the Middle-of-the-Road-a-Little-Republican-and-a-Little-Democrat Party. These independent parties range from the Communist, Socialist, and Green parties on the “more government, less liberty” side to the Constitution, Natural Law, and Libertarian parties on the “less government, more liberty” side. The net effect is two core political philosophies, which are relatively evenly split with a slight advantage shifting from one side to the other.
The next fallacy within the Electability Hoax is the idea that whoever ends up being the Republican candidate will receive the same level of support – during the campaign and at the ballot box – from the Republican base its core interest groups. That is absolutely, utterly, and completely not true, and you Republicans should know better by now.
In a race between an anti-rights Democrat and a moderately pro-rights Republican, rights advocates will certainly trail along toward the side of the Republican, but they will not do it with gusto and a good many of them will simply walk away in disgust – as they did when Republicans offered George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain.
Certainly it is essential that a Republican presidential candidate be able to draw votes from Democrats, independents, and third parties, but the key to those votes does not lie in moving away from core Republican values and issues, and toward those of Democrats. Moving toward the “middle” might pick up a few votes, but those gains are more than offset by the loss of enthusiastic support from the Republican base and natural allies.
We in the rights community desperately want a different President, but we don’t want it bad enough to get excited about a wishy-washy, unprincipled compromiser. If that’s what you offer us, Republicans, you can expect wishy-washy support from the rights community. But if you’ll do your part, we’ll do ours.
Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit and link is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
Copyright © 2011 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
If the devil himself runs against obooba, not only will I vote for him, but I'll send a campaign contribution. Paul is an interesting footnote, that's all, to the election.

I am authorized by His Infernalness to accept your offer.

I believe His terms are already well understood. Your soul, for Eternity in His service.

Please write out your proposal, signed in the customary way--your blood; no substitutes, please.

I will be by tonight at midnight to pick up the signed instrument.

Welcome to Hell's Cadre. Lawyers are always welcome.




:D
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
SNIP
Welcome to Hell's Cadre. Lawyers are always welcome.
:D

Yes, but they have their own spot known as Litigation Fire Lake where they spend all day arguing the legality of their detention in Hell and filing motions for their release.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Yes, but they have their own spot known as Litigation Fire Lake where they spend all day arguing the legality of their detention in Hell and filing motions for their release.

Not the one's who volunteer. Oh, no. They are not just detainees. Uh-uh. No sense wasting that talent. We put those fellas to work on, shall we say, suitably infernal projects.

How do you think I got here?

:D
 
Top