Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

[WeWantMore]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Believes but doesn't act in accordance with the constitution. He would say the constitution states that there should be no say on the matter and hence a no vote

Maybe I'm a bit ignorant here, what are you referring to?

which leads me to this... that's also irrelevant. Its not in the constitution and he knows this. He takes a dishonest position of "but if we're going to do it anyways..." if we're going to do it anyways I'm going to get something out of it or I'm going to have it my way and then vote for it.

Fair enough, I agree his point is relatively weak here. I will say that I'd rather have 535 people in charge of the money, rather than 1 guy in the White House.

Want to agrue the ideas... go ahead. But you'll have to admit that Ron Paul has glaring problems which will prevent him from being the leader of the free world and they aren't small problems.

No way could he win an election to be leader of the free world. If he won 10% of the vote in an election hell would probably have already frozen over.

However, I think the views of libertarian minded people like Paul are marginalized for no reason at times - simply because they aren't part of the big two parties.
For instance, if you asked someone their positions on spending, troops overseas, size of government, drug policy they'd agree with the libertarian position on a sizable chunk of issues.

Hopefully Gary Johnson runs in 2012.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

You can buy into the ideas of a man and not buy into the man himself.

I think that's why I would have a problem voting for him. I like his stance on a lot of things but man, he comes off like a complete whackjob.

[Patman]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

He worked in a hospital and saw aborted, still breathing children tossed in a bucket in the corner. Understandably, this experience lead to his pro-life beliefs, however he thinks that the federal government should play no role in the matter either way. I believe that is in accordance with the Constitution.

Believes but doesn't act in accordance with the constitution. He would say the constitution states that there should be no say on the matter and hence a no vote

Please point out a pork project that he brought to his district that was unwarranted.

which leads me to this... that's also irrelevant. Its not in the constitution and he knows this. He takes a dishonest position of "but if we're going to do it anyways..." if we're going to do it anyways I'm going to get something out of it or I'm going to have it my way and then vote for it.

As for the "people he courted" , I don't believe that argument. I'm sure he was connected to some nasty characters, I defy you to find me a politician who wasn't. However I think to paint him as a racist is taking the easy way out.

And its also accurate. Is it the easy way out on philosophic questions... sure, but we're talking about opinion polls on the leader of the free world. I don't want somebody who is so conniving that he makes such deals with the scum of humanity. He has in the past, so what does that say in the future.

You can buy into the ideas of a man and not buy into the man himself. Ron Paul has many problems with hypocrisy and with his history as a fringe politician. Moreover, his followers have not moved far beyond the man as the movement into moving the idea. the problem is once they start moving the idea itself you run into the issue that the idea isn't well accepted and moreover rejected. The movement relies on the confidence that there are people out there who also agree with the Paul-idealized movement.

Want to agrue the ideas... go ahead. But you'll have to admit that Ron Paul has glaring problems which will prevent him from being the leader of the free world and they aren't small problems.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

so that I didn't look like some doe-eyed fan boy.

Doe-eyed fan boy, I don't know why but that absolutely cracked me up.

I keep picturing bambi holding up a copy of the constitution and citing economic theory.

[WeWantMore]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

You mean like his support for pro-life positions? What kind of calls are there in the constitution that might affect the people he courted in the 80s and 90s? Are his votes for pork found within the dicta of the constitution?

He worked in a hospital and saw aborted, still breathing children tossed in a bucket in the corner. Understandably, this experience lead to his pro-life beliefs, however he thinks that the federal government should play no role in the matter either way. I believe that is in accordance with the Constitution.

As for the "people he courted" , I don't believe that argument. I'm sure he was connected to some nasty characters, I defy you to find me a politician who wasn't. However I think to paint him as a racist is taking the easy way out.

Please point out a pork project that he brought to his district that was unwarranted.

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

I just stuck that in there so that I didn't look like some doe-eyed fan boy. I certainly don't hold the guy up as perfect, but I do think a lot of people fail to give his ideas a fair shake.

My apologies. I read that quickly and got the exact opposite meaning from the statement

[Patman]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Like him or no (and there are reasons not to) all his positions are firmly based in the Constitution.

You mean like his support for pro-life positions? What kind of calls are there in the constitution that might affect the people he courted in the 80s and 90s? Are his votes for pork found within the dicta of the constitution?

[Kepler]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

Weirdly, it's a great result for both parties. Not bad for the country, either.

[St. Clown]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

A lot of his positions get distorted in this way. He doesn't need to "accept" or "reject" gay marriage. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to ban it or to pass the DoMA, so he's against those things.
Like him or no (and there are reasons not to) all his positions are firmly based in the Constitution.

I'm really on the fence with Ron Paul for this very reason. His supporters like to state that he's going to govern by the Constitution and then offer stated opinions from that perspective. That's fine, I like that he would look to the Constitution for guidance rather than to figure out how it inhibits or prohibits a political agenda. What I don't like is that his personal opinions are never discussed.

Take for instance DOMA & gay marriage. Stating that he will take no action due to a lack of Federal authority is one thing. Going beyond that, what are his personal opinions on the matter?

The reason I would like to know such things is that there will be at least one occasion during a president's term where the Constitution and subsequent legal interpretations will be vague on an issue. How would he act then? In what direction would he take the Federal government?

[WeWantMore]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

You realize language like this basic red flag in any argument that there are probably plenty of reasons not to like the man. Beware anyone who starts there argument with "It goes without saying...", cause it usually doesn't.

I just stuck that in there so that I didn't look like some doe-eyed fan boy. I certainly don't hold the guy up as perfect, but I do think a lot of people fail to give his ideas a fair shake.

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

A lot of his positions get distorted in this way. He doesn't need to "accept" or "reject" gay marriage. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to ban it or to pass the DoMA, so he's against those things.
Like him or no (and there are reasons not to) all his positions are firmly based in the Constitution.

You realize language like this is basically a red flag in any argument that there are probably plenty of reasons not to like the man. Beware anyone who starts there argument with "It goes without saying...", cause it usually doesn't.

[WeWantMore]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

I wonder if the CPAC folks remember Paul's past support for stem cell research, and at least grudging acceptance of gay marriage.

A lot of his positions get distorted in this way. He doesn't need to "accept" or "reject" gay marriage. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to ban it or to pass the DoMA, so he's against those things.
Like him or no (and there are reasons not to) all his positions are firmly based in the Constitution.

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

I wonder if the CPAC folks remember Paul's past support for stem cell research, and at least grudging acceptance of gay marriage.

Wouldn't they have to be worried about Romney as well who seems to flip flop more than Kerry depending on the electorate he's pandering too. Some of the social conservative true believers probably have doubts about him as well and the Mormonism thing won't help.

Its unfortunate because the Mitt "Massachusetts" Romney was someone I would've been happy to vote for.

[ScottM]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

I wonder if the CPAC folks remember Paul's past support for stem cell research, and at least grudging acceptance of gay marriage.

[Patman]

Re: Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Poll

I don't think you can call Ron Paul a favorite for the nomination, but I think it is interesting to show the direction of the Party.

From years and years of "next in line" and candidates like McCain, and last year's 1/2 Romney and Jindal, who are really "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans, that the Social and Extreme Libertarian tea party wing of the party seems to be gaining IMMENSE influence.

While it is probably smart politics for the Republicans to channel and co-opt Tea Party anger and activism for the midterms, at some point they are going to have to exert some control. You can't run a presidential campaign on the "THE CIA IS GOING TO PUT MICROCHIPS IN YOUR BRAIN!!!" platform. This is nearing the point that the Tea Partiers are going to have a hard time lining up behind Romney or whatever "establishment" candidate ends up getting the nomination.

I think the whole tea party thing is that its a bunch of people who are running out of those they feel they can trust to represent them. The Tea Party types don't seem to fall in line behind Paul who himself represents an economic movement that most of them don't understand (due to lack of exposure and not the ability to comprehend)... as it is those who fall behind Paul only grasp onto a limited set of Paul's ideals and they find themselves largely trying to accommodate themselves to the rest of his opinions (econ theory).

The last few months haven't shown much of a social con influence but they are lurking beneath the surface... and they will surface because they'll demand attention. The social-con is the 3rd rail right now especially when econ-con is such an incredibly winning position and for **** good reason. The "tea party" movement isn't really rooted in social conservatism which is why you saw the Massachusetts effect... nobody in Mass is going to rally to an evangelical's desire to bring Christ's will to a nation but they'll rally behind a cause when they feel that the economy and state of the nation is at stake.

IMO, even CPAC seemed to be on the whole non-religious bent. I really hope those types remain on the sidelines because there really is so much at stake beyond Christian moralism.