Why Candidate Ron Paul is Candidate Barack Obama and they will be very similar Presidents.

Yes, Obama is full of rhetoric anyone with half a brain can see that. There are similarities between Ron Paul's faults VS Obama's similarities so I'll just lump them all together.

Ron Paul says Iran is not a threat and 9/11 was our fault because we shouldn't be in the Middle East in the first place is a very dangerous world view point. We can't escape our war-mongering ways in one quick move. We have to gradually pull out of all the wars we are in. That usually can't happen in four years.

Obama said that we should pull out of Iraq completely. Bring our troops home. He wanted to drastically cut military spending as well, (which of course he didn't do) but this is the candidate Obama I am talking about. Very similar to Ron Paul

Ron Paul's Campaign message is "Restore America Now," Obama's Campaign message was, "Change we can believe in." See the difference? I do not!

It's still up in the air weather Ron Paul can actually get the Government and the media to listen to him if he somehow manages to get into the White House. Can he actually cut $1 Trillion from the budget and pass it through Congress? Obama has saved the taxpayers $40!!!! Yeah $40!!!! I don't think Ron Paul is going to get much past them, since they all hate him anyway. Name me one thing that he has passed???

No you can't at least Obama has done a FEW things, even when he was a senator!

And another thing, How could Ron Paul actually convince people to listen to him using only the power of the constitution? When ALL of Washington is evil and corrupt and hate HIM? By using things outside the Constitution like government mandates and special interest groups. Trust me, Ron Paul is no angel or God!

Ron Paul has a larger Ego than Obama does, because he actually believes that he has all this power? to change everything and everyone in the government and in power. Candidate Obama at least wanted to try to make everyone work together and to sort of come to a similar goal in mind.

See all the media/wall street support that Barack Obama got?

See all the media/wall street support that Ron Paul is getting?

Very similar too right?

This is getting ridiculous.

With him in power he will make it easier for YOU THE PEOPLE to kick out the said corrupt "elected" officials if you do not agree with them. He cannot do anything alone, but he sure as hell will make it possible for YOU to help.

If congress does not follow the advice of the president on behalf of the people who's to blame? Surely not the Pres....

reply to post by jjf3rd77
Thanks jjf3rd77, this is the kind of anti-Paul thread I can appreciate as you're relaying your actual concerns instead of simply lobbing attacks or making claims that fall apart with any actual review.

Ron Paul says Iran is not a threat and 9/11 was our fault because we shouldn't be in the Middle East in the first place is a very dangerous world view point. We can't escape our war-mongering ways in one quick move. We have to gradually pull out of all the wars we are in. That usually can't happen in four years.

As to Iran, they honestly aren't a threat. Their perceived 'aggression' is a result of our tinkering in their country going all the way back to 1953, our continued military activity in the muslim world, and our continued threats against them. We can elaborate on this as you like.

As to 9/11 - not exactly...our policies did prompt the retaliation, though, as the CIA confirms and even Bush alluded when he blocked Israel from attacking Iran a few years ago because of the feared response to us and our forces by muslims.

And could you clarify why you think we can't just come home, if we just marched in? The people in these nations pretty much want us to do just that.

Obama said that we should pull out of Iraq completely. Bring our troops home. He wanted to drastically cut military spending as well, (which of course he didn't do) but this is the candidate Obama I am talking about. Very similar to Ron Paul

Obama started welching on getting out of Iraq before all the elections last time around - a good many of us knew it wasn't going to happen. As far as military spending - if we start bring our troops home from and closing down the bulk of our approx. 900 bases in about 130 countries as well as end our aggressive campaigns, why would this not curtail military spending, which we could then re-direct into paying down our debts while also shoring up entitlement programs?

Ron Paul's Campaign message is "Restore America Now," Obama's Campaign message was, "Change we can believe in." See the difference? I do not!

Ron's record is quite a bit more trustworthy than Obama's, on both intent and consistency. His campaign message is exactly what he plans to do, and is what he's been saying for 30 years.

It's still up in the air weather Ron Paul can actually get the Government and the media to listen to him if he somehow manages to get into the White House. Can he actually cut $1 Trillion from the budget and pass it through Congress? Obama has saved the taxpayers $40!!!! Yeah $40!!!! I don't think Ron Paul is going to get much past them, since they all hate him anyway. Name me one thing that he has passed???

Legislative success generally seems to go hand-in-hand with corruption and screwing the taxpayers. Blame the corrupt and powerful in congress for his bills not passing, not him - have you looked at his legislation? Do you not agree with most of it, and are you not upset with your representatives for not supporting it? I certainly am.

As far as getting government to go along with the plan, Paul's election would first off signal a change of thinking in Washington and likely cause some to get on board off the bat, but even if he gets stonewalled by Congress on his other plans, there is a LOT of good the president can do on his own:

1) order the troops home, end the wars, stop the involved money from being wasted, and prevent further loss of civilian life and lessen desire for retaliation against the US.
2) revoke all prior overreaching and unconstitutional executive directives.
3) order the DOJ to stop interfering with states' rights regarding their own laws on medi MJ, foods, and the rest.
4) pardon non-violent "offender" victims of the drug war.
5) shrink big government by refusing to fill non-essential position vacancies (attrition).
6) use the bully pulpit of the Executive Office to educate the american people and push for rational change via their representatives
7) restore some dignity to the office finally - no crappy gifts to foreign heads of state that don't even work in their nation, no bowing to foreign leaders, HONESTY AND FRANKNESS WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE for a change, no Bush-style embarassments...ugh, bushisms...
8) I suppose it's important to add one of the most obvious powers in vetoing unconstitutional, unhelpful, or stupid legislation as well as unbalanced budgets.

Ron Paul has a larger Ego than Obama does, because he actually believes that he has all this power? to change everything and everyone in the government and in power. Candidate Obama at least wanted to try to make everyone work together and to sort of come to a similar goal in mind.

Paul understands the powers of (a constitutional) presidency I already mentioned...

reply to post by Praetorius
...and is aware he can't do the rest on his own without Congress. So I have to dispute the claim of ego as he addresses this as follows:

No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright—thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

...Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties. One test to determine if a vacant job needs to be filled is the “essential employees test.” Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government orders all “non-essential” federal personal to stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day purposes, the country can probably survive if that position is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day!

He addresses this topic further, and others, in his article My Plan for a Freedom President if you're interested in looking further into it.

But as I've said elsewhere, if he can actually accomplish nothing more than only what the presidency itself has control over as mentioned before - that is enough for me, with what we're facing.

Take care, friend.

reply to post by godfather420


you meant to write "this IS ridicilous"....

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Did Obama have a 30 year voting record backing up his talk? I don't think so!

Is Ron Pauls campaign being funded by Goldman Sachs? I don't think so!

Did Obama challenge the status quo on the level that Ron Paul does, by calling for a reform our monetary policy, foreign policy, and the trend of violating the Constitution? I don't think so!

Did Obama talk about ending the Drug War? I don't think so!

Did Obama take seriously his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? I don't think so! But Ron Paul has done that for his 30 years in politics, and he is often basically the lone voice in Congress decrying legislation as unconstitutional in a sea of corruption and ignorance.

Obama was pandering to a popular opinion about an ongoing war.
RP is opposing an oncoming conflict that is popular to support among conservative circles(who he currently has to win over).
How is that similar?

Obama's change involved further expansion of the federal government and more spending...because government "can work for the people" (right).
RP's restoration would involve shrinking the federal government and cutting spending.... because, realistically, a large centralized government only better enables corruption and advancement of the elite at the expense of the common man.
Not sure how those messages are anything but opposite actually.

A president could easily cut a massive amount without Congressional help. He controls the use of the military. If bases are closed, wars ended, etc, there is no appropriation justification for the spending. He can also abolish whatever cabinet positions and departments he wants with no congressional approval whatsoever...Education (the beginning of forced American ignorance), Energy (taxpayer funding for for oil, construction, and engineering firms), Commerce(ensuring the bankers get their share of taxpayer monies), Homeland Security (Papers Please!!!!!!), etc could be abolished in 1 day. Obviously their funding would not need congressional appropriation at that point.

Whether RP does these things or not, I'm not sure of, but he certainly could, and at this point, he is the last hope for the average American citizen.

Ron Paul is the extreme opposite of Obama and Romney.

I'll bite...
OP, while you are fully justified in not putting trust in a politician (hell I don't trust any of 'em either), I'd have to question your intent?

Why not compare Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Cain, etc. with Obama as well while you're at it?
Ron Paul is a man, and no man is perfect, Obama included.

If we are to vote for a POTUS, I think it would be prudent to vote for the guy with the best record.
Let's face it, we don't have George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt. So let's work with what we've got.

But as I see it, if we are to continue to put faith in our current political system (sans revolution), who would you like to see in office in 2012?

You can sugar coat it all you want, but the fact still remains. He has had a pretty consistent record of doing nothing for 30 years!!! Name me one thing he has passed. I still haven't seen an example.

Yes, the Congress and the Media hate Ron Paul, so how is becoming President going to help that?

At least the Repubs applauded the country for electing a black President (at first). Then after his first mistake whichever that was, they started attacking him for his failed policies! Who's to say this won't happen with Ron Paul, since the majority don't like his stances even before the nomination?

Ron Paul as President will make our country look like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Obama all combined.

reply to post by bojimbo


I want Jon Huntsman in even if he's got no chance. Romney's proven that he can actually work with Dems and knows something about business and the economy. Herman Cain knew a lot about economics but not much else. Honestly I would like to see all the candidates in the White House. I just don't see Ron Paul leading or possibly even in that pack.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

Okay, I'll bite and give you the attention you sorely crave.

First off, as to the troops, Dr Paul has said,"As fast as we can get the ships there, they will come home", when referring to Afghanistan. I know, your response will be something like this, "Well, if we pull the troops out of Afghanistan, the country will go to hell". You mean like Iraq where bomb after bomb is going off since we pulled out last week? Ten years of occupation, billions of dollars spent, a million plus Iraqi's killed, and over 3000 of our troops killed(not to mention, over 25,000 wounded). So OP, what did we really solve by invading and occupying Iraq for a decade?

WMD's discovered? Nope!
Left the country in better shape than we got there? Nope
Oh yeah, we did kill Saddam, who was put in place by our meddling there in the first place.



As for the "dueling" slogans, Obama's "Hope and Change" didn't happen, at least not what he promised.

Ron Paul's "Restore America" is just a tad bit different. He wants to get back to actually following the Constitution, not rewriting it. Restore America is about returning to the principles that made this country great.


It's that simple OP and I hope you aren't just posting this as a joke to enlicit responses from pro-Ron Pauler's.

BTW, this is off-topic OP, but did you see your boy Obama played 7 hrs of golf yesterday with his buddy who was just recently convicted of solicitation of prostitution? Judge a man by the company he keeps!











Go Ron Go!

reply to post by freedom12


Hmmm... Maybe you are confused. I am not talking about what Obama did. I am talking about what he promised us and the rhetoric Ron Paul is promising us!!!! I hate Obama about as much as I hate Ron Paul. Because I know that if Ron Paul ever sets foot in the White House as President he will be a do nothing President. He even said he will veto everything when he was on Jay Leno. I'm glad he speaks the truth but sometimes the truth is a very bad policy making practice.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

Reread my post s..l...o...w....l...y. I addressed 2 points you attempted to make in your OP. Obama's broken promise to bring the troops home right away and his "Hope and Change" slogan vs the good Dr's.


Go Ron GO!

reply to post by freedom12


Because people taught Obama and perhaps he himself knew that that promise is unreasonable. you cannot just pull out of a country that you have been in for eight years even if we weren't supposed to be there in the first place. It's not right to the people there that we are trying to help even if it's a stupid way to help them out. I don't want to discuss the finer points of foreign policy here because that's a different thread.

Obama's campaign slogan and Ron Paul's campaign slogan are very similar to each other. It doesn't matter what Obama did afterwards. That's the slogan he ran under. And the media ate it up. Although, I think the media is avoiding campaign slogans now, because of their grave mistake they made in 2008 choosing a President based solely on his slogan.

reply to post by jjf3rd77
1) He has a consistent record of fighting stupid policies, corruption in Washington, the fleecing of the taxpayers, and counter-productive actions that invite reprisal - not "nothing".

2) Presidents don't legislate, they sign legislation into law. And I've already addressed the other very valid (and needed!) things a president can do all on his own.

3) Exactly which stances of Paul's does "the majority" not like? The majority of the country is with him on the war issue, pretty much all of the republicans are with him on the economic issues, pretty much all of the democrats are with him on the foreign policy and social issues...which policies are you referring to, exactly?

reply to post by Praetorius


Yes the Republicans are with him on the economic issues but because of his conspiracy like attitude towards foreign affairs it's going to make him unelectable in the middle of the country where the die hard republicans are. He will probably lose many states in the south too, making him unelectable in the long run anyway. You've heard it here first Ron Paul fans. He will not win the election. So Dems cannot even vote for him in the primary elections but they hate his economic policies and the fact that he wants to cut all those government programs that are "necessary."

Trust me Ron Paul made a big mistake not running libertarian. He might have gotten more Republican votes coming his way, but no he can't win.

Ok then in that case Ron Paul = Tea Party before they turned republican and OWS before they turn into whatever they turn into.

reply to post by jjf3rd77



"It's not right to the people there that we are trying to help "-jjf3rd77



Just how exactly did we help the people of Iraq out?
a)by slaughtering innocents
b)by destroying most of their country
c)by leaving it worse than we found it
d)to take their oil
e)all of the above

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
You can sugar coat it all you want, but the fact still remains. He has had a pretty consistent record of doing nothing for 30 years!!! Name me one thing he has passed. I still haven't seen an example.

Yes, the Congress and the Media hate Ron Paul, so how is becoming President going to help that?

At least the Repubs applauded the country for electing a black President (at first). Then after his first mistake whichever that was, they started attacking him for his failed policies! Who's to say this won't happen with Ron Paul, since the majority don't like his stances even before the nomination?

Ron Paul as President will make our country look like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Obama all combined.

That's kind of the point. If he was enacting any legislation that wasn't just repealing legislation, it would clearly be the opposite of his whole message. We need a Congress that does at least 80% less than what it does now

reply to post by freedom12


And look at what happened the day we left. Terrorist activities increased as well as suicide bombers. I'd rather leave 3000 troops there to maintain stability and protect the citizens as we have been doing for the past half year, maybe more.