Ron Paul running as an independent?

[Vertnut]

The first part of your post had me interested. I was digging this morning and finding stuff that kind of substantiated it, giving your earlier posts credence and making me say hmmm.

Then the end of your post totally made me say screw you. Because I/we have a preference in the race that has faults like all the others, you're belittling me/us. Nice.

After the way you guys talk about Romney? Santorum? Really? I just think some RP followers a little thin-skinned when it comes to his short-comings being brought forth...and here's a prime example. I've followed him for 20 years, and it's always been that way. They (you) don't want to admit (or just ignore) his faults. They are big faults. Sure, all candidates have them, but I acknowledge them.

I'm not out to convince anyone of anything, and I damn sure wasn't trying to belittle. If I was, I wouldn't beat around the bush.

Plus, I already said I would vote for the nutsy old bastard. I just don't/won't blindly follow him.

[mikec]

Nahh, not really. I've said in the past his foreign policy sucks. And all I've said about Romney is that he was anti gun and I didn't like him for that reason. Maybe others, not me.

At the end of the day I'll be voting for whomever the establishment picks. Just don't think it's going to make any difference, as I've lost all faith in the legitimacy of the system.

And just because I like him over others doesn't mean that I 'blindly follow' him...

[slow99]

RP an "economic expert"? Romney has a business track record that is pretty brilliant.

This...who the fuck has deemed RP an "economic expert"? I'd like to think I know a little something about the subject matter and his ideas scare the living piss out of me.

[Vertnut]

Nahh, not really. I've said in the past his foreign policy sucks. And all I've said about Romney is that he was anti gun and I didn't like him for that reason. Maybe others, not me.

At the end of the day I'll be voting for whomever the establishment picks. Just don't think it's going to make any difference, as I've lost all faith in the legitimacy of the system.

And just because I like him over others doesn't mean that I 'blindly follow' him...

I just think we sometimes forget that every one of these guys are politicians, regardless of party or policy.

[Forever_frost]

I just think we sometimes forget that every one of these guys are politicians, regardless of party or policy.

Very true. What I have an issue with RP guys is this:

They want us to believe he can run a country but RP has never run for governor. Why? According to the 10th amendment, the states have more power than the federal government. He could stop the fed more effectively at the state level than as President.

RP is for term limits. He's been in office what? 30 years? If he's for term limits, why hasn't he enforced them on himself?

[jw33]

Very true. What I have an issue with RP guys is this:

They want us to believe he can run a country but RP has never run for governor. Why? According to the 10th amendment, the states have more power than the federal government. He could stop the fed more effectively at the state level than as President.

RP is for term limits. He's been in office what? 30 years? If he's for term limits, why hasn't he enforced them on himself?

Here is some information on the second part of your question.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10943

You normally wouldn't expect a 10-term Congressman to be a big term limits supporter but, as this year's primary campaign made clear, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) isn't a typical Congressman.

I ran into the Congressman on the campaign trail in Fort Lauderdale last year where we chatted briefly about the prospects for Congressional term limits. Yes, he's still on board, he assured me. He also inquired about Paul Jacob, the former executive director of U.S. Term Limits.

Rep. Paul most recently reiterated his support for term limits publically in his Dec. 23, 2007, appearance on Meet the Press, where interviewer Tim Russert grilled the Congressman for the alleged contradiction between his tenure and his support for limits on tenure.

"I support term limits," Rep. Paul told Russert. But Rep. Paul pointed out that he does not and has never supported the idea of self-limiting, but only a term limit requirement on the entire Congress.

"Matter of fact, some of the best people that I worked with, who were the most principled, came in on voluntary term limits," said Paul. "So some of the good people left." To get the institutional benefits of term limits, it has to be applied to the whole body.

So is this just political double-speak? Not in Rep. Paul's case. In his first stint in Congress (1976-1984), well before the term limits explosion of the early 1990s, he was the first representative in modern history to submit a term limits bill for Congress. He voted for all the term limits bills during the Contract with America era and continues to publically support the idea.

He says term limits are a first step, but insists that we must go further.

"To restrict and reduce the power of incumbency, we should address the sweeping powers that the federal government possesses," he wrote in a pro-term limits press release some years back. He also called for the abolition of the lucrative Congressional pension plan which he does not participate in.

[Vertnut]

This...who the fuck has deemed RP an "economic expert"? I'd like to think I know a little something about the subject matter and his ideas scare the living piss out of me.

That's kind of my point, Jody. Some knuckle-head prints out election propaganda and people think because it's printed somewhere, that it's true. Just like that phony list earlier in this thread showing all the issues that Romney and Barry supposedly see eye-to-eye on. It's rediculous. What's more rediculous is grown men believe all that horse-shit.

[jw33]

This...who the fuck has deemed RP an "economic expert"? I'd like to think I know a little something about the subject matter and his ideas scare the living piss out of me.

I don't think I would use the term "economic expert" however when most people in Washington are talking about a federal budget that breaks even in 20-30 yrs. the guy who comes out and says that's pretty much all bullshit seems fairly legit. It's all subjective anyways. What makes someone an economic expert? Having a lot of money, economic predictions, certificates hanging on the wall? I do think Paul can make the argument where most "commoners" will start to mildly understand that for example, there may be something going on with the Federal Reserve that needs to be looked into or our government is deciding what companies will get special treatment if they get into a bad financial situation.

[mikec]

Rediculous is what's ridiculous.

[line-em-up]

...

All of the politicians have faults. They can talk all they want about what they will do and who is an expert at economics. What I look at is their voting record. Ron Paul's voting record is much more inline with what I want.

http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm

http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/?compare=Paul&vs=Romney

[Forever_frost]

Here is some information on the second part of your question.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10943

Right. It's like Obama saying the wealthy should pay more, while paying 20.5% himself. If he's not willing to first subject himself to that which he wants others to be held to, why should we trust him? Obama's talking about the wealthy like him need to pay more but he isn't volunteering to go first, makes him a lair and bad leader.

Paul saying there should be term limits while staying in office 30 years and not putting limits on himself first makes him a liar and bad leader.

[matts5.0]

Right. It's like Obama saying the wealthy should pay more, while paying 20.5% himself. If he's not willing to first subject himself to that which he wants others to be held to, why should we trust him? Obama's talking about the wealthy like him need to pay more but he isn't volunteering to go first, makes him a lair and bad leader.

Paul saying there should be term limits while staying in office 30 years and not putting limits on himself first makes him a liar and bad leader.

so anyone who has ever lied shouldnt lead.. hmm.

[Forever_frost]

so anyone who has ever lied shouldnt lead.. hmm.

Didn't say that. I said if he's going to say there should be term limits, he should lead by example. Same with Obama. If he feels he's not paying enough, he should start with him. Hold everyone to the same standard. If they want everyone else to do it, they should first

[line-em-up]

...

Didn't say that. I said if he's going to say there should be term limits, he should lead by example. Same with Obama. If he feels he's not paying enough, he should start with him. Hold everyone to the same standard. If they want everyone else to do it, they should first

I understand the point about leading by example, but it is a unique situation. He and others may want term limits, but if they quit in order to lead by example, then the only people that will be left are those who don't want term limits and then that law will never get changed. He and others would be better served to try to stay and convince others to vote the same way until they are successfull.

[Forever_frost]

I understand the point about leading by example, but it is a unique situation. He and others may want term limits, but if they quit in order to lead by example, then the only people that will be left are those who don't want term limits and then that law will never get changed. He and others would be better served to try to stay and convince others to vote the same way until they are successfull.

That's the risk of leading by example. That's why in the Revolutionary War Washington not only rode at the front but rode a huge white horse. If he's going to fight, he's going to be the biggest target and inspire the troops. If you're a leader, you understand that sometimes, you're going to take one for the team. By calling for term limits, calling for removing earmarks and then staying for 30 years while putting up earmarks for himself, he looks like a hypocrite.

And then there's the fact that he wants us to believe he can run a country but he has never tried to run for governor. Before we see you run the country, why don't we see how you run a state? We've seen what someone with no executive experience does when they put their well intentioned but untried and ineffective idealizations into effect on a national level without trying it at a state level first like the Constitution calls for.