RonPaulbots voting for Obama? That doesn't indicate to me that they
cherish the Constitution.
I cannot imagine a sincere Ron Paul supporter would ever vote for BO. That
defies all logic. I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I have some reservations about
Mitt Romney, but I'd certainly vote for him over the present president. The
problem with supporting Ron Paul is that he doesn't have enough support. It
is a sad dilemma, but the bottom line is that we don't have enough people
who do care about constitutional principles.
@ JLFuller 3:08 p.m. May 1, 2012The only ones I see throwing
tantrums are those blindly following Mitt for "demographic" reasons
because Dr Paul is being a fly in the vasoline that is the American political
process.To which I say, Good for Dr Paul. p.s. What is
it Reagan said about the status quo?
Competition? Not according to the Republican National Committee. But then Ron
Paul never has been a real Republican. He is a Libertarian running in the
Republican Party because his own Libertarian Party can pay its own rent let
alone put up a legitimate presidential candidate. People voting for Paul are
just acting out, kind of like a 14 year old whose parents won't let her go
out on a school night.
I don't support Ron Paul, but he is consistent and has opposed the stupid
middle east wars. He is the class of the GOP field.
@ RockOn 11:16 a.m. May 1, 2012"these Orwellian Paulatrons are a
bit hard to stomach. They need to "wake up" and all those other cliches
they love to throw around after their seance in planet UnObtainia."And there are no partisan hacks (Limbaugh, Carville, etc...) or goofy cliches
trotted out by either major party?"You are now either part of
the problem or part of the solution, guys... So, will you throw a snit and stay
home or vote for Obama or vote from Romney."Paul is the
beginning of the solution. Having 2 Ivy League grads as the candidates for POTUS
again is the problem. I plan on voting for Former NM Gov Johnson who should get
the Libertarian nomination.
rvalens2I agree 100% Well said. People have to learn to accept
change outside the bounds of mainstream conservatism and liberalism if they
truly want this country and our freedoms back. But yet they cling to insanity by
voting for the establishment republican or democrat and expecting different
There is a guy who sings in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir who looks just like Ron
Paul, I think Ron Paul has more of a chance to be that guys double, then he does
to become president. Oh, he would have to become a Mormon, and that was in my
factoring of his chances to be the GOP candidate or President. But I do like
Ron Paul and do feel he has some very good points.
rvalens2,Isolationism? No, North Korea is isolationist. I
don't think you know what you're talking about. You probably heard
something about isolationism in your high school U.S. History course 20 years
ago, and now you feel like you can throw the term around. Non-interventionist
more accurately describes Ron Paul's position (which you obviously do not
understand anyway). It's the difference between North Korea and, say,
Switzerland. Also, who, pray tell, is going to be the big bad "bully"
to the United States? China? We've already sold our economic souls to
them, so that's already been done. Oh, you mean Iran...yeah...SO scared of
little old Iran. Let them cross the Atlantic and do something to us and see how
that works out when we have secure borders, and a strong military at home.
Ron Paul has some very great ideas if you believe in freedom and understand
prosperity. However, he will not be the nominee, and will never be president.
But for ANY of his supporters to say that if he doesn't get the nomination,
they might as well vote for Obama--shows just how naive some of these folks
really are. Romney isn't perfect, and I don't agree with all his
stances on everything past or present. However, he's so far ahead of Obama
that they're not even in the same league. Obama is all about government
running everything, jacking up deficits, increasing taxes, introducing
burdensome regulations on every facet of business or innovation, letting
invaders flood in here and take everything they want, putting incompetent and
corrupt people in positions of authority and even calling them "czars,"
pandering to big campaign contributors and special interest groups, opposing
anything tied to Christianity or any other morale foundation, etc., etc. Romney
is basically the opposite.
Aren't we all tired of:Undeclared WarsDeficit Spending900+ overseas military installations.Businesses which are too big to
fail.Laws that are passed before anyone reads them.A government too
willing to "spread" our wealth.A Federal Reserve that doesn't
want to be audited.Candidates who don't live up to their campaign
promises.A Federal government that doesn't follow the
Constitution.Spying on U.S. born and raised citizens without a court
order.Candidates who flip/flop their positions in order to win votes.Bank bailouts even while they foreclose on hundreds of thousands of homes.Huge bonuses for Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac executives while both lose
money.As Americans, we know that the above things are wrong! And
yet, we keep electing the "same types of individuals" who keep leading
us down the same pathway.America needs a change in direction, and
that isn't going to come from Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama; both are just
flip sides of the same coin.Ron Paul is the only real change, left
in this election.
@IdahoStranger--You are right to put Ron Paul's foreign policy here in
black and white for clarification. It still looks to me like it can be summed up
as isolationism. In a perfect world, isolationism is a reasonable and appealing
approach to life. In reality it's leaves us dangerously exposed and
vulnerable to the bullies, despots and empire-builders of the world. Bullies
don't refrain from building alliances. There are plenty of corrupt
governments who are more than willing to listen to and collaborate on power
schemes that will allow them access to the world stage and fill their coffers.
Bullies tell lies and make compelling promises in order to muster their
coalitions.Because we know the corrupting nature of power and money, and
because there will always be evil leaders, it behooves us to be wise and
proactive in forging alliances of our own, not only for assistance when
attacked, but also to serve as a deterrent to the world's aggressors.Ron Paul preaches isolationism because it appeals to our peace-loving nature,
but his willingness to ignore the lessons history has to teach us is his
I just find that Ron Pauls ideals embrace gospel principles a lot more than
Romneys. There are many people out there who draw near the constiution from
their lips but their hearts are far from it when they support things like the
patriot act, TSA groping, attacking foreign countries with no clear goal in mind
and Cybersecurity. All of these thing have more in common with Nazi Germany than
Ok to all the Paulbots out there yes he has a five state plurality. How ever
Rick santorum and newt will pledge their delegates to Mitt. By may 22 Mitt will
surpass the 1,444 count and so there will be no brokered convention. To trigger
rule number 40 subsection b in to motion. Then what are you going to do? Run
turd party? just so you assure a victory in November for Obama? If you write in
Ron Paul it is a vote for Obama if you sit out and pout it is a vote for Obama.
If Ron Paul really loved this nation the best thing he could do right now is
check his ego and support Mitt. and encourage his minions to support Mitt.
I'm not selling my soul by voting for Obama or Romney. Ron Paul has my vote
no matter what. The only thing Obama and Romney will bring is more
of the same. Real change will never happen with these bought and paid for clowns
Ok, let me make the most basic argument about Romney besting Obama. And this is
why I will pick the former over the latter - even after the latter’s three
years of being president. And anyone with a fair and functional brain will
make, at least start, with this comparison. Strip Obama and Romney of their
positions on issues and things, strip them of their achievements, in business
and politics (though Romney will also outdo Obama in that category 8 to 1).
Let’s look at their core qualifications pertaining to the POTUS as an
executive post.Obama when he ran in 2008 had almost no applicable
experience. And such ineptness has shown in his three years as president. Using
that as our most basic premise of being successful (as president), Romney will
have done a much better job. And considering the mess America is in now,
economically, Romney becomes even more relevant. Common sense should at the very
least remind America who the better man is at THIS VERY TIME to lead our
country. Romney trumps Obama. Case closed. As for Ron Paul, sorry, next time!
Unlike Santorum and Gingrich, I think Paul's continued candidacy is about
getting out the ideas of Libertarianism. Paul has energized younger voters with
Libertarian ideals. Yes, Romeny will be the nominee but Paul has played an
important role in getting younger conservative and Libertarian type voters
engaged again in politics and thinking about these issues. This is a good thing.
What Romney did in saving the 2002 Winter Olympics from their economically
disastrous beginnings is more important than anything he did as Governor or any
other thing that may sound like he is going to indulge the nation in continued
extravagant spending. He is not. He has the ability and the desire to curb the
spending and allow states the power to enact their own solutions to more local
problems. No matter how idealistic Ron Paul may be, he just doesn't have
the expertise with economics that Romney has. The only concern I have about
Romney facing Obama in the fall is that too many Americans don't feel like
they can trust Romney because they have been taught to distrust all Mormons.
This prejudice is far worse than it was for Kennedy in 1960.
Romney should agree to appoint Ron Paul either the director or secretary of the
Federal Reserve or the Department of Education. And give him carte blanche.That I'd like, but, these Orwellian Paulatrons are a bit hard to
stomach. They need to "wake up" and all those other cliches they love to
throw around after their seance in planet UnObtainia.You are now
either part of the problem or part of the solution, guys. You've had your
fun with Ron Paul but now the election is strictly between keeping Obama or not.
Romney is on the ticket and you will not be. So, will you throw a snit and stay
home or vote for Obama or vote from Romney.Life must always be
"compared to what."
I hear a lot about Ron Paul's "crazy" foreign policy ideas. But
when I hear him talk about war, and just causes for war, it sounds a lot like
what I read being taught in the Book of Mormon. To wit, we may use violence to
defend ourselves, our homes, our families, our freedom of religion; but not
otherwise. Is this "crazy" talk?Of course war policy is
distinct from foreign aid, offering to help people suffering deprivation -- but
shouldn't that help come from voluntary citizens, rather than being
mandated by Congress and enforced by the IRS? Is the latter not the definition
of socialism? But I personally am not nearly as concerned with the
aid issue (it is humanitarian, and it is a tiny fraction of the budget) as I am
with the war issue, and the massive military-industrial complex.
I would no more vote for Romney because he is a "Mormon" than I would
vote for Nancy Peolosi because she is a "woman" or Obama because he is
half black and half white. In fact I tend to agree with those Protestants who
see Romney as Mormon but insufficiently so.Reading the statements of
successive presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on the
subjects of War and Provident Living I see a far greater similarity between them
and Ron Paul than they and Romney. In fact they are similar to Paul and
dissimilar to Romney.I usually snigger at those who say that
"you can do anything you really want to or that you truly believe"
envisaging users of hallucinogens jumping out of high rise buildings truly
believing they can fly and hitting the sidewalk like flies on a windscreen, and
candidates who mostly say they are "the next president of the United States
of America" when obviously only one of them can be.Somehow their
infallible beliefs and dreams disintegrate at the possibility of a Paul
presidency, something definitely still possible if somewhat unlikely given the
fatalism and defeatism of his countrymen.
Dear Tenx,There are hundreds of other countries for you to choose to
live in. Take your pick.
Re: "People are already beginning to see through the smoke and mirrors of
the mainstream candidates."I've seen no evidence of that
whatever. The vast majority of Americans are on political autopilot. Plodding
on, projecting their own beliefs onto whatever candidate seems most attractive
to them, caring little for the effect of their vote on our Nation.Politicians are counting on the fact that, only the unusual voter takes the
time to analyze the positions of a candidate, look hard at the people and
advisers he surrounds himself with, or examine the actions the candidates take
when they think no one is looking.That's what sadddest about
this, and pretty much every other election -- the only choices are between bad,
and not as bad.Modern American politics would be a much more
palatable and honorable pursuit, and would attract more decent people, if it
weren't so heavily populated by politicians.
Well, no doubt about it - we are definitely winning the War on Drugs! NOT!We have thrown billions at this problem and are not making any headway,
unless you count filling up our prisons and making the drug business very
lucrative for the drug lords.Why don't we handle the drug
problem like we do the "other drug problem" we have in society?That of course would be alcohol. Did prohibition stop alcohol use? Nope.
Did the money to be made in it go up? Yep. Did crime go up? Yep.Take
the big money out of it and a huge part of the problem will disappear. The cost
of producing these drugs is not that much. What makes them expensive is that
they are illegal and some people will do anything to get at something that is
illegal. Passing laws usually doesn't stop them.Make them
available in a state regulated store just as alcohol is. Take the big money out
of it.About 3% will partake and then we will have to deal with the health
issues it creates. We already do that with alcohol. Not a perfect system, but
much better than now. Your ideas?
per David King 10:32 p.m. April 30, 2012"then you will get
exactly what you desire, a general election between two candidates who pretend
to represent vastly different views and philosophies of government, who actually
agree on a host of fundamental issues such as: individual mandates, bailouts for
banks, government stimulus bills, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, fighting undeclared
preventative wars of agression, protecting the Federal Reserve, and in short,
growing both the size and scope of government."Agreed. I hate to
beat the same drum again yet when the 2012 candidates for Potus are IVY league
Grads what do you expect?per Aggie238 11:20 p.m. April 30, 2012Could not have said it any better. Dr. Paul is that lone voice in crying
out in the political wilderness. I'm tempted to make a biblical analogy but
won't. Until a candidate (a Libertarian or Independent with strong
Libertarian leanings) rises up and shakes both major political parties to their
core nothing good will come of American politics. You think things have
been strange since 1988; they are about to get even more ridiculous.
Democrates "and" Republicans are the problem. They have the power to
make the changes necessary but instead their efforts go to fill their own bank
accounts at the expense of us tax-payers. Use your head a little bit. If you are
happy with what you have, just keep voting for them. If not, anyone is better
than more of the same. As I see it, Ron Paul is the only POSSIBLE solution we
voters have. We cannot continue financing forign aid, forign wars, lobbyists,
paying farmers not to farm, oil depletion allowances, insurance companies to rob
us blind and laws made to keep lawyers working. The war on drugs is a joke and
needs to be cleaned up. Right now it just serves to make drug dealers rich.
I'm writting in Ron Paul and will do my best to point out the problems
subsidized by the Democrates and Republicans every chance I get.
Examining Ron Paul's so-called "dangerous foreign policy ideas":Wiki-pedia states:"Paul's stance on foreign policy
is one of consistent non-intervention, opposing wars of aggression and
entangling alliances with other nations.Paul advocates bringing
troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others.
He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending what he deems massive, unaccountable
foreign aid."From Ron Paul's official website:*
Make securing our borders the top national security priority.* End
the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and
sacrificing lives with no end in sight.* Follow the Constitution by
asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.* Only send our
military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to
complete the job – and then bring them home."If these are
"dangerous", then I wonder what one would call all the death and
destruction of our no-win, undeclared wars?President Washington
warned against entangling alliances - we should listen!"What on
earth is wrong with the United States simply minding its own business?"
Robert WelchSupport our troops by bringing them home and defending
Both major parties are irrelevant! No political party or man, including ron
paul, will change people that are already blinded by their own ignorance and
willfulness! Very little will change with the coming election. Barack Obama
just makes the worse changes(He has done more damage than any president in
American history) come a little sooner!
higv,Exactly how are Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas dangerous?
Do you even know what they are? Sounds to me like you're just repeating
tired talking points you heard from Glen Beck like all the other rank and file
As I read the comments, it appears to me that many people are repeating the same
information that is on the lamestream media. Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE who
stands for freedom, and will not be bought off by globalist united nations
agenda corporate America. I can tell people here do not realize these globalist
are on a fast track to take away all of our freedoms and kill the constitution.
No matter what, I will be voting for the ONLY ONE who stands strong for our
Constitution, Bill of Rights, and freedom to run our own lives. Parent rights
are under attack, private property is under threat and many have had their
property taken away from them in this country, non-toxic cancer treatments are
kept off the market by Big Pharma and Chemical, we are forced to eat genetically
modified foods without our consent or knowledge, that will destroy our health,
and it goes on and on. Our country is on a fast track to being totally taken
over, and I suggest that people do more research on the global threats we are
under. I will vote for Ron Paul regardless of outcome.
@aceroinox, President Reagan (who most recognize as a "Republican")
stated that "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of
conservatism is libertarianism . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for
less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual
freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism
is."In other words, it's absolutely silly to chase people
off into these non-viable third parties of Big-L "Libertarians" and
"Constitutionalists". If the Republican party can't embrace
liberty and binding down far-away centralized government to its Constitutionally
limited functions, then the Republican Party has truly lost already.
Pauls ideas of foreign policy are dangerous and will do more harm than good. He
is in the Republican party because he can receive more voter there than he can
as a general election candidate in the Libertarian party. He has no chance to
I've never yet met a Ron Paul supporter that voted Obama in 2008 or that
plans to vote Obama in the general in 2012. If there were some who believed his
Obama claiming that he was different than McCain or Romney on foreign policy and
civil liberties in 2008, they have no reason to believe such hollow promises
this go round. U of U's Chambless obviously has no idea what he's
talking about. And Roche doesn't appear to have checked with any of
Paul's many supporters. It's not like they're hard to find.
:)Chambless has it half-right, it's a tough pill to swallow to
support Republican nominees who campaign on fiscal discipline and Constitutional
limits to government but who really advocate unsustainable deficits, sending our
defense forces into pointless and unjustified conflicts, and growing the scope,
cost, and powers of the centralized Federal government.In 2008, this
active Republican Ron Paul supporter did not support McCain in the general, but
neither did I support Obama. In 2012, if Romney doesn't listen to the
well-reasoned 20%+ that support Paul, I can't see supportig Romney either.
@BroChuck:I am a Democrat, and proud to be, but there is absolutely
no way anyone, even a former President of the United States, can definitively
state what another President would or would not do in a given situation. Do I blame George Bush for a lot of the problems in handling the wars we
find ourselves in? Yes. Do I think President Obama should have done more to to
get us out of Afghanistan? Yes. Do I think Mitt Romney is the best choice for
President? No. I will still vote for President Obama in the next election, but
that doesn't mean I am going to make pronouncements about what Mitt Romney
will or will not do in order to score points on an emotional level. You
can't win an election simply by voting 'against' a person. You
can only really win an election by voting for someone, and people should really
put some effort into minimizing all of the end-of-the-world hyperbole, on both
I would NEVER vote for BO. But Romney is McCain warmed over. What a sad state
of affairs. I am beginning to feel there is no hope for us.
I find it hilarious to watch Republicans embrace Ron Paul only to be hocked by
his willingness to allow pot and other ills of society. It just proves
Republicans want to interfere with our lives despite saying they are for less
@Paul supportersI've heard it theorized one step further beyond
what some of you are saying about spreading his message... Ron Paul has a rather
logical successor, Rand Paul. Do you see Rand running for president in 2020
(give or take a cycle depending on how things shake out in these elections)?
A1994,I think you are missing the point. Most Paul supporters like
myself don't really expect that Ron Paul will win the nomination. Probably
not ever, as he's getting up there in years. The point is to force people
to listen to his message as much and as long as possible by sticking in the race
until someone else forces him out. People are already beginning to see through
the smoke and mirrors of the mainstream candidates. This election has been a
testament to that fact, as he has garnered exponentially more support than in
times past. Many of my friends and family, on both sides of the political
aisle, who scoffed at Ron Paul's philosophies 10 years ago, are now seeing
that there was more to those ideas than they chose to admit. Another point to
consider is that Paul commands an overwhelming lead among young people. A few
years from now, we will make up the majority of voters, and when we do
we're going to clean house. It's not about Ron Paul. It's about
freedom. We're not going to quit, and in the long haul we are playing to
The whole concept of a Ron Paul candidacy is skewed. Ron Paul is, and always has
been, a libertarian, not a Republican. Because only a very small percentage of
Americans have any interest in embracing libertarianism, the Libertarian Party
has always floundered. As a result Congressman Paul and his supporters have made
a valiant effort to drag the GOP toward libertarian positions and ideology, but
to no avail. Time to abandon the attempt and return to your native party.The GOP will survive or "become irrelevant" quite nicely all on
@David KingI think many of Ron Paul's ideas are dead on. But
he's never going to be the nominee. The title of this article is 'Ron
Paul supporters say Mitt Romney still has competition'My point
ins that Ron Pauls supporters are wrong. Mitt Romney is the nominee. Ron Paul
is wasting money if he thinks he's going to win the nomination. If he is
just trying to bring awareness to the issues, fine. But he is not relevant to
the actual race at this point. I think his supporters think there are more Ron
Paul supporters than there really are.
@ Brother ChuckDearest Brother Chuck... On the honesty
point, Politifact reports that President Obama has kept only 162 out of over 500
promises he has made to the American people. Those darn facts getting in the
way. Also, I happen to remember that you voted for Mitt Romney in
FL primaries and confessed it to us friendly neighbors here on the DN comment
boards. I understand that you may have changed your mind, but really, be
balanced when talking about Obama and lets not over use the K-street or Koch
brothers anymore. Most of us Republicans are just hoping the government will
balance their checkbooks like we do and are not anywhere near the 1% and
don't live on any K streets.Finally, the Huffington Post is
about as liberal leaning as any website I have read in my life. Which is fine,
but I might use other sources if you want to be convincing. I think they also
came to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is a thug, thief, and likely
murderer.LoveComment board friends
@A1994Before you make the declaration that "Ron Paul is
irrelevant" you should ask yourself the question "is he right?" I
suggest a video that can be found on the internet if you search for "Ron
Paul-the Philosopher's Stone". It shows some of the predictions that
Ron Paul has made about the current state of our economy and also the growth in
both the size and spending of the federal government. If after watching that
short video, you still feel that Dr. Paul is "irrelevant", then you will
get exactly what you desire, a general election between two candidates who
pretend to represent vastly different views and philosophies of government, who
actually agree on a host of fundamental issues such as: individual mandates,
bailouts for banks, government stimulus bills, the Patriot Act, the NDAA,
fighting undeclared preventative wars of agression, protecting the Federal
Reserve, and in short, growing both the size and scope of government.
1) Ron Paul is officially irrelevant. He's not ever going to be the
President of the United States....ever. Ever...Never.2) Mitt Romney
would absolutely have made the decision to get rid of bin Laden. ANY American
President, post 9-11, would have done that. To say otherwise is dishonest.
Great to see an article about Ron Paul in this paper. Many Utah Republicans
claim to care about the Constitution, but will ignore Mitt Romney's support
of things like the Patriot Act, the NDAA, or going to war without a declaration
of war by Congress. When Ron Paul says he cares about the Constitution, he has
a thirty year record to back it up. You might say we need Mitt Romney because
we need "someone who understands the economy" but did you know that Ron
Paul was talking about the collapse in housing prices and coming recession long
before any of his Republican counterparts? Ron Paul has never supported an
individual mandate to purchase health insurance. In contrast, Mitt Romney
suggested tax penalties for those not purchasing health insurance as part of
national reform. (search Mitt Romney USA Today health insurance op-ed 2009)
Ron Paul never supported the TARP done by President Bush or the stimulus package
by President Obama. At the end of the day, only Ron Paul has been a consistent
and clear voice for individual liberty and fiscal conservatism.
Sorry DNews, to burst your private small bubble, about YOUR "poster
child" Mitt Romney, but, Ron Paul supporters say Mitt Romney still has
competition, and Obama is it, Romney can't beat Obama in the only 3
debates he's got. Romney's done before he gets started. No matter who
he picks for a veep running mate. That's the TRUTH and that's my
civil dialogue among DNews readers. You may now censor me and block all my
truth's. Like my thoughtful comments or not. I don't care.Here's why we need Obama in 2012Arianna Huffington, founder
of the popular news site The Huffington Post, has criticized the Obama campaign
for an ad suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have killed terrorism
kingpin Osama bin Laden, calling the move "despicable." In
May 2011 President Barack Obama authorized the raid that did away with the
al-Qaida leader. But a video ad released by the Obama campaign last week, which
included former President Bill Clinton trumpeting Obama's achievement, also
had wording which suggested that presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mormon
Romney would not have made the same decision. The GOP lie to much.