Ron Paul could have won this election.
- Thread starter KINGOFSHORTS
- Start date
In fairness to Paul, he did raise (for him) a large amount of money, which he promptly used to pay his family:
"One granddaughter got $17,157 for helping to organize fund-raisers. Another got $2,724 for helping ship Paul merchandise. A grandson gets $3,251 for managing Paul's MySpace profile. A daughter got $2,224 for helping with campaign logistics, according to the Post's story.
"Two sons and a daughter have been paid for travel and surrogate speaking appearances. Paul's brother and daughter have been paid $62,740 to handle the bookkeeping on all these numbers and relatives."
The rest of the money he fundraised, as I understand it, will be used for him to start a business.
big dave, you get five stars for being the first person on this board to point that out. I have been prodding the Paulites to do this themselves but they just couldn't bring themselves to do it. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that they totally ignore this too.
You just committed blasphemy against the Paulite's demigod. Prepare to suffer their wrath, (but for god's sake just don't remind them of all the AOL polls they posted showing Ron Paul winning in a landslide).
You really gotta wonder about an electorate that votes their emotions instead of the issues.
Issue # 1 for me is ending the Iraq war.Obama is closer to Paul on that issue then Mccain is
Obama is also less likely to start other Wars and possibly World War 3,A real concern I have with Mccain
As a fellow Republican Mccain could not get Paul's endorsement,Paul even tried to take light off McCain's convention by holding his own
Obama may not share Paul's views,but he closer to Paul's foreign policy then Mccain is
Many liberals think that forum members are exaggerating when they claims Barry is going to raise taxes, double the size of government, get as many people on government handouts as possible, etc.
Ron Paul really is extreme like that, but the other way and much further. The Libertarian party doesn't want to reform welfare, or cut it. They want to eliminate it. They don't want to cut regulation, they want it all gone. They don't want to scale back affimative action, they want it gone. They want to eliminate food stamps. Eliminate unemployment insurance.
And SCOTUS nominations? How about justices that do not interpret the "provide for the welfare of the people" so broadly? Or think that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means exactly that?
States rights? All the way. Civil rights? Bye bye. The libertarians think government should not be in the business of telling you who you must serve.
Obama is an ultra elite uber socialist looter compared to Ron Paul. To say you would vote for him over Obama is to say you have much more in common with conservative ideals than liberal, and more in common with Rush Limbaugh than Nancy Pelosi. Note that I said conservative and not republican. Many politicians in the GOP have more in common with Pelosi than with Ronald Reagan. Even JFK was to the right of half the current GOP. But that's a rant for another time.
This is where we part company. I hope you're right but my intuition is Obama is going to be a war monger like past Dem greats FDR, HST, LBJ.....
Historically accurate till 2000, The conservative wing of the republican party always preached a non-interventionist foreign policy The republicans were elected to stop both the Korean, Vietnam war....Then a few NeoCons hijacked the foreign policy, you all know what happened....
The GOP lost its way.
Right to bear arms was settled earlier this year. Relax. it's no longer an issue
State rights only help your types when you want to stop civil right legislation,when it comes to Gay marriage ban, you're fine with a constitutional amendment. hypocrites
Rush Limbaugh is to Conservatism
What abusing Oxycontin to Health.