How to Save America (the ron paul way)

Change your party affiliation.

That's right. Ron Paul is doing a very special thing by raising all sorts of awareness simply by being an honest traditional conservative republican. He is appealing to Independents and Democrats across the nation. Unfortunately, he is going against what every other trusted republican candidate is officially standing for, not to mention the fact that the GOP tried to ban him from the debates.

Because you're a Democrat, Independent, or anything other than republican, odds are you won't be able to vote in the republican primaries where Paul is most vulnerable. You won't be able to lend your vote until the generals, but by then he will be dead in the water.

So, change your party affiliation. Become a republican if you believe in smaller government, states rights, the things that ron paul believes. Then vote for him in the primaries. At least then he'll have a fighting chance to matter.

Even if he doesn't get the republican nomination, the sheer buzz that will surround him making such a huge splash should be enough to make him a serious contender as an Independent candidate in the 2008 general election.

Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination. His own party hates him. How crazy is that? Its as crazy as me still being a Republican.

anyway..

The beauty of Ron Paul running is that he has the opportunity to interject unpleasant and very real truths into phony debates. He is the Kucinich or Gravel of the GOP.

And he's great.

Saw Ron Paul on The Colbert Report. He was great.

I'd vote for Ron Paul for president. Especially if Chillary gets the Dem nomination.

He'd be a great president.

It's too bad the MSM will somehow kill him for the Republicans.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Saw Ron Paul on The Colbert Report. He was great.

I'd vote for Ron Paul for president. Especially if Chillary gets the Dem nomination.

He'd be a great president.

Honestly, I think the only way Ron Paul has a shot is if his supporters (likely democrats and independents) switch their party affiliation to republican so they can vote for him in the primaries. If he won the primaries i think even the GOP would have a hard time rejecting it. If they did, i think that would be a huge blow to the Republican party in general. Of course, i don't see democrats and independents mobilizing to the point where they'll actually do the work to change their affiliation to republican.

The other long-shot (and they're both long shots) is if this social media buzz surrounding Ron Paul grows to the point where it is significant. They're talking about the internet and the role it could play in the 2008 election, but it remains to be seen how much of an impact it will have on the people who utilize the internet, the untapped young voters. Ron Paul would then lose the primaries, but he would easily be the main third party candidate in the general election, and he might just have enough notoriety at that point to be involved in the general election debates as well.

Who knows. At some point the people are going to understand that today's republicans are not conservative, and do not stand for traditional republican ideals. Republican now means big government, while Democrat means a laundry list of rules. They're all Democrats!

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination. His own party hates him. How crazy is that? Its as crazy as me still being a Republican.

anyway..

The beauty of Ron Paul running is that he has the opportunity to interject unpleasant and very real truths into phony debates. He is the Kucinich or Gravel of the GOP.

And he's great.

Ron Paul's support has grown exponentially since the first debate. His site is now getting over 1 million visits and he has raised over 5 million dollars only from donations from regular people, no big corporations like the other candidates. I'd say he does have a chance, he just needs to gets his message out so that more people get to know him and his ideas. Once that happens, his support is going to keep increasing even at a faster rate.

Unfortunately, it won't grow fast enuff or substantially enuff.

But the internet is the great equalizer.

America needs Al Gore to run. He's the one guy with the clout to change things and make better things happen.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Unfortunately, it won't grow fast enuff or substantially enuff.

How can you be so sure?

If his support continues to grow at the current rate, I tell you he has a pretty good chance. Just take a look at these statistics:

Based on the responses, we have concluded that approximately one-third of Internet visitors have learned about Ron Paul in the past 2 months. This represents a 50% growth. If you extrapolate that over the next 6 months, his online familiarity would be approximately 350% greater.

But that does not tell the whole story. The interest in the election will also grow in parallel. If visitors to online political websites grow by a factor of 5 near the election, we will be looking at an almost 1400% increase in familiarity on the Internet.

This is essential for a candidate that still has the lowest familiarity rating among all the Republicans.

www.usaelectionpolls.com...

Don't be giving up on him so early on the race, there's still plenty of time and much work to be done.

I love your hope. But its naive.

There is a framework that people have to work inside. Like it or not. Fringe candidates (however great they are) are excluded.

An Al Gore ( or Bloomberg) are strangely big enuff to shatter that framework.

This upcoming election will be historic.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
America needs Al Gore to run. He's the one guy with the clout to change things and make better things happen.

I admire his charisma, but in all honesty all I can see about his ideas is a bunch of stuff on Global Warming. I mean, I can guess through the fact that he's a Democrat, but that would be presumptuous.

And while I don't want to turn this into a Global Warming debate, I think that I can safely say that his support for things like the Kyoto Protocol are enough to really make me dislike the guy. All we need now is to damage our economy (and yes, it will damage it, though just how much can be debated) because of a theory that's only supported through vague correlation (and sometimes not even).

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
America needs Al Gore to run. He's the one guy with the clout to change things and make better things happen.

I admire his charisma, but in all honesty all I can see about his ideas is a bunch of stuff on Global Warming.

Al Gore is the most experienced. War vet, Senator, Vice prez, Oscar winner, hopefully nobel winner (come Oct.).

He is the most tested on foreign policy. He served as an enlisted soldier in Vietnam, served on foreign policy committees in congress, voted for the Gulf War and was AGAINST the Iraq invasion (which proved to be 100% accurate in his assessment pre-war).

He is by far more qualified than all Dem and Repub. candidates combined.

He is also by far more far-sighted and knowledgeable than his peers on any number of issues. Trade, economics, science, history, business and most importantly TECHNOLOGY!

And the impending national security nightmare that is our dependence on foreign oil (which is tied to global warming). Our next president has got to enact a comprehensive national energy policy/program on the level of our space program under Kennedy.

Al Gore will do that. He knows who to go to, he has great respect and reservoirs of good will among many sectors and he has the passion for the greatness of this nation. You tell me who has more passion right now on such an array of issues than Al Gore....

There is no one who can match him at this time.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Al Gore is the most experienced. War vet, Senator, Vice prez, Oscar winner, hopefully nobel winner (come Oct.).

Vice president is good, as is senator. Being enlisted doesn't say as much as it could, though it's still great, if he was an officer.

Winning an Oscar for his movie (which was 10% science, 90% self-loving politics) doesn't mean crap. Being a Nobel Prize winner for talking about Global Warming doesn't impress me either.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
He is the most tested on foreign policy. He served as an enlisted soldier in Vietnam, served on foreign policy committees in congress, voted for the Gulf War and was AGAINST the Iraq invasion (which proved to be 100% accurate in his assessment pre-war).

Again, serving as an enlisted field reporter isn't too impressive, though still admirable. I don't think that voting for the Gulf War was a good idea.


That's all great, but really, if his policies are bad I don't care how "qualified" he is. The fact is that he wants to implement the Kyoto Protocol which will do little to solve the Global Warming problem of little factual existence while doing a good deal of harm to the economy. Unless you want to make less money and pay more.

Can you fill me in on some of his political views?

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Johnmike]

I regard Ron as more of a Libertarian rather then a member of the Republican party which has painted itself into a corner and dug itself in a hole at the same time. Ron's heart is in the right the place but he seems to ignore the lesson from Pearl Harbour an Isolationists foreign policy wont protect the US from its enemy's or make the world a better place.

As for Gore we might see him enter late in the race in an attempted upset the apple cart but I wouldn't count on it. I disagree with Gore on the causes of climate change but he seems to be back on track with his latest offering . The Republican party is in real trouble at this stage its core supporter base is unmotivated and Rudy the candidate who would have the shot at winning in 08 has to survive the primary's.

Originally posted by xpert11
Ron's heart is in the right the place but he seems to ignore the lesson from Pearl Harbour an Isolationists foreign policy wont protect the US from its enemy's or make the world a better place.

And screwing around in third world, largely religious extremist countries is 'making the world a better place'?
And before you go 'Iraq/Afghanistan attacked the U.S. in 9/11!' I am not referring to that. Instead I am referring to the Shah in Iran (former Persia), Mujhadden rebels in Afghanistan and supporting Iran/Iraq against Iraq/Iran etc etc.

That aside I hope that Ron Paul wins both the Primaries and the actual election, though I'm not sure either is feasible.

Just my thoughts.

Sure there have been a few mistakes along the road but overall considering the US won the first Cold War and IMO the Islamic extremists would still be a threat to the free world even if the US hadn't aided them in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Interestingly there is an historical precedence during WW2 the British armed and trained Communist gorillas to fights the japs in places like Burma. Post war the Communist gorillas turned on there masters and were eventually defeated by British and Commonwealth forces.

Back to the topic..

Ron answer is Isolationists rather then smart intervention to make the world a better place. I cant see Ron winning the primary so that would rule his chances of wining in 08.

Originally posted by xpert11
I regard Ron as more of a Libertarian rather then a member of the Republican party which has painted itself into a corner and dug itself in a hole at the same time. Ron's heart is in the right the place but he seems to ignore the lesson from Pearl Harbour an Isolationists foreign policy wont protect the US from its enemy's or make the world a better place.

This country was never isolationist. Rather, it was non-interventionist for a time, though this ceased before World War I and World War II, getting us into both wars and costing us countless lives. The United States had been supplying the Allied Powers vast amounts of war material through Lend-Lease since nine months before Pearl Harbor. That was, on it's own, involvement in the war. Additionally, we gave loans to China and actually covertly allowed the recruitment of U.S. fighter pilots to join (create, really) the Flying Tigers ("mercenary" unit in China that was funded by the United States). This planning for the Flying Tigers began in the 1940's, with most pilots arriving months before Pearl Harbor, though they didn't actually see combat until December 20th. We pressured Japan into attacking us by placing an embargo on it. As Japan lacked the resources it needed to continue the war effort, they were forced to choose between withdrawal or attempting to conquer places where these resources were found. We know which one they chose (though attacking was never justified on their part, don't get me wrong).

So no, when you're told that "isolationism" or even "noninterventionism" led to either of the World Wars, you can say that that's bull. We had taken sides long before we were attacked.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Johnmike

I admire his charisma, but in all honesty all I can see about his ideas is a bunch of stuff on Global Warming.

The only thing that is causing Al Gore to have "charisma" is his popularity due to his documentary "Inconvenient Truth." Remember the Al Gore of 2000? If you ask me, the man has the charisma of a light pole.

If he were to campaign right now, he might have a chance due to his found "popularity." However, as he turns back into the person he really is, dull, boring, yada,yada, he is likely to lose his luster.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Being enlisted doesn't say as much as it could, though it's still great, if he was an officer.

Winning an Oscar for his movie (which was 10% science, 90% self-loving politics) doesn't mean crap. Being a Nobel Prize winner for talking about Global Warming doesn't impress me either.

I was an enlisted soldier in the Army (Gulf War). It was the best political science class I ever had. I accurately predicted what a fiasco the invasion of Iraq would become. Cos I saw it from the ground up.

As did Al Gore. And its important to note, Gore thot the invasion of Iraq was um, a bad idea.

All being an officer proves is that you can lick boot. BTW.

He won an Oscar. That's cool beans. Winning a Nobel Prize would be golden. Whether you understand the gravity of that or not.

Al Gore is perfect because, at this point, he needs no script. He's like Reagan in that way. Shooting from the hip.

EastCoastKid I could just see you starting a group called Republicans for Al Gore the only problem would be that you would be the only member.
The leadership draught that the US has suffered certainty began when the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Bush in 2000.

Al Gore does shoot from the hip, but that ain't a .45 he's holding.

Gore has the environment issue, and that's a really nice talking point. Or not. No president has been elected on the environment. It gets you through the primaries nicely, but leaves you with nothing in the general.

Gore may or may not have passion for other areas of presidential interest, i don't know his stance on the issues. Why? Because he's boring! He doesn't have any charisma, none at all. Everyone admires him for An Inconvenient Truth, but he's preaching to the choir. He isn't changing minds. If he isn't changing minds, then he's just distracting voters from a quality candidate.

Originally posted by xpert11
EastCoastKid I could just see you starting a group called Republicans for Al Gore the only problem would be that you would be the only member.

And yet, there would be an army of Independents and Dems behind this cause.