This is what a democrat had to say about Ron Paul in relation to Obama & election 2012.

I live in California, I talk to a lot of dems and indies, this is pretty much the same thought that goes on in the minds of most that I converse with.

Republicans, please take notes, Ron Paul is the only one that can beat Obama, the only one even on the radar of Indies and Dems.

This is undeniable.

I can't fathom voting for romney, santorum, or newt.

Ron Paul doesn't seem like an idiot. I'm a democrat, and I did vote for Obama, I don't think he's doing a bad job considering what he started with, but time will tell if it's good, or just good smoke an mirrors. Ron Paul, however would make me consider voting for someone else. All of my democrat friends are happy as can be about ron paul not being ahead in the polls. Because honestly, Obama is only offensive to the republicans. And they aren't putting any candidate that would even stand a chance against Obama. The republicans don't decide the elections, it's the majority of the people in the middle. When a Candidate, ANY candidate can make a member of the "other" party go "meh, he might not be so bad" There's something to talk about. Ron Paul is that person for the GOP, and not only do they not know it, they don't even care. I think it will be an interesting election time.

reply to post by eLPresidente

You might be right, it's hard for me to tell. I have to admit that I get doubtful when someone says "This is undeniable" about anything. I'm also curious about the post you quoted. Was that from a thread here on ATS? Is it you that wrote it, or the friend you mentioned?

Obama is only offensive to the republicans.

Sorry, I can't buy that. Usually 30% to 40% of Americans call themselves Republican. Yet Obama's disapproval rating is usually 50% or above. Somebody else must not like him.

Right now, at any rate, Obama could be in a very tight race or even lose against either Romney or Santorum if the polls are accurate. It may be different on election day.

Agreed. Right now Paul is the only candidate that can arguably win the favor of the Republicans and at the same time steal away the will of the Independents and non-hardline Democrats to oppose him. Even if many Republicans don't vote after a Paul nomination (not all that likely, since the Republican camp wants Obama out now), Ron could still very well win the Independent vote and even take a lot away from the Democrats to steal the win.

Not only that, but with Obama using illegal recess appointments, and Obamacare due to be tested in the Supreme Court, I would say that Paul is very well the best candidate to go up against Obama. Not only does Paul's fierce constitutionality counter Obama's imperialist Presidency very well, but Paul's voting record does well to blow Obama's questionable history out of the water. It's almost like the stars have lined up and fate has prepared the world for this hour.

Honestly, I can't see anybody but Paul winning this. Obama betrayed the group that arguably won him the Presidency to begin with, and since last year has started backing himself into a corner, fiercely attempting to cater to a few poor minority groups and alienating anybody else, including a very large religious group. Then the Republican camp is split up between somebody who is basically a RINO Obama who only a third or so of the Republicans approve of, and then Paul, plus a couple of other guys who nobody seems to take seriously, and who don't even currently have the delegates to compete against either Paul or Romeny.

OK Democrats like Ron Paul.

Maybe this is the reason he isn't doing so well with Republicans.

Anti-war and Pro-drug plays much better in the Democrat Party than it does in the Republican Party.

Go figure.

My next question would be how does Paul win the nomination? If the GOP establishment is against him, and the media is ignoring him, what does he have to do to get above third and fourth place finishes?

If the OP's case is credible, then Ron Paul should make an independent run, because it sounds like he would take many more votes away from Obama than from the Republican nominee.

Originally posted by charles1952
My next question would be how does Paul win the nomination? If the GOP establishment is against him, and the media is ignoring him, what does he have to do to get above third and fourth place finishes?

Ballsy True-American Delegates for the Win, Charles?

reply to post by eLPresidente


I've known plenty of registered democrats and independents who claim they'd much prefer Ron Paul above all the other republican candidates. Many of them even say they may vote for him above Obama if he becomes nominee, until I explain to them his domestic policies, his stance on roe v wade, Brown vs board of education, his history of domestic positions, and then they all suddenly back away. Ron Paul is a smart cookie, he is very careful to market himself especially to independents and liberals. From my view he tends to focus mostly on his foreign policy position, his 'bring the troops home' position, which hits on level with democrats. I can promise you though, if he were to become nominee, his domestic policies would be put right in front, and he'll end up probably turning more democrats off than Romney would. This is the scenario I see.

To me and my political friends, domestic policies are just as important as foreign policy. I use to have a soft spot for Ron Paul, until I did research on him over the last 3 years, and then I found myself more so turned of by him. Once you become the nominee, all the lights shine on you, every position you have taken over the years will be scrutinized, Ron Paul will not survive.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


His stance on Row vs Wade issues is that it should be a matter left up to the individual states, which is not too difficult to digest for many pro-choicers. What specific domestic policies of his would Democrats balk at? What concerns you?

Most people really only know two things about Ron Paul...he is anti-war and he is pro-legalization.

And this is what his supporters push most of the time...they try to dazzle people with these two points...and on the surface people are like "wow...yeah that sounds good".

But like Southern Guardian said...anyone who is liberal will be absolutely disgusted by his domestic policies. No regulations, tax cuts for corporations and the rich, handing very controversial social issues to the states to "decide" (read...create huge divides among the states), get rid of social security, get rid of medicare, get rid of any and all social programs, and completely tank the economy by wanting to move to the gold standard.


This is why I say, as a liberal, that if I wanted to see Obama have an easy win...I would be cheering for Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

His stance on Row vs Wade issues is that it should be a matter left up to the individual states,

Which is exactly what Liberals have been opposing for years, and something Republicans have been pushing for. Your point?

which is not too difficult to digest for many pro-choicers. What specific domestic policies of his would Democrats balk at? What concerns you?

To put it simply, his position to maximize the powers of States. I want my rights to protected from an envasive government, State and Federal. This isn't too hard to understand.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

His stance on Row vs Wade issues is that it should be a matter left up to the individual states,

Which is exactly what Liberals have been opposing for years, and something Republicans have been pushing for. Your point?

No point to make, I am asking you for clarification on your specific insights. But the point I will make now is that might be a reasonable compromise, so long as no one entirely loses the choice to decide that as a personal issue for themselves. Some would want to make abortion a capital offense.

What specific domestic policies of his would Democrats balk at? What concerns you?

To put it simply, his position to maximize the powers of States. I want my rights to protected from an envasive government, State and Federal. This isn't too hard to understand.

You already have the Federal government overriding State decisions, those not even protected by the Constitution to all Americans. We could use medical mj as a specific example. How would giving more power to the Federal make government any less intrusive?

Paul's policies sound like reasonable compromises for anyone who is not at the very far extremes.

Just for the record, I am a registered Republican that tends to vote Democratic most often. I typically vote for maximum personal liberty, independence, and shun anything that takes away form personal privacies or are intrusive policies. Most politicians from either wing tend to be collectivists and IMO should be avoided. It sounds as if you may have similar tendencies.

For a moment I thought you may have important insights to impart. Sorry for the mistake. Your reply was rather weak and lacked addressing specific issues you seemed to have been alluding to. Carry on with your Paul bashing.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Most people really only know two things about Ron Paul...he is anti-war and he is pro-legalization.

And this is what his supporters push most of the time...they try to dazzle people with these two points...and on the surface people are like "wow...yeah that sounds good".

But like Southern Guardian said...anyone who is liberal will be absolutely disgusted by his domestic policies. No regulations, tax cuts for corporations and the rich, handing very controversial social issues to the states to "decide" (read...create huge divides among the states), get rid of social security, get rid of medicare, get rid of any and all social programs, and completely tank the economy by wanting to move to the gold standard.


This is why I say, as a liberal, that if I wanted to see Obama have an easy win...I would be cheering for Ron Paul.

Almost hidden within your rhetoric you bring up a couple of important points that would be good for any concerned individuals to chew over. Specifically tax cuts and States issues -

States rights. My leaning is toward the states having control over their domestic issues. I find nothing wrong with "huge divides among the states" and them having social autonomy to decide, wet or dry states or counties, smoke or smoke-free, life or choice, etc. Certainly better, IMO, than a Federal one-size-fits-all government. Having 50 different states and finding one that has a good fit and feel to any individual is something to strive for. I do not want to see a situation where something like abortion, smoking, etc., gets banned in ALL states and US territories - which does sound like what could happen with Federal rule of all States issues.

Tax cuts. Do you oppose tax cuts, for anyone? Do you prefer cut in spending over tax cuts? I prefer to see a balanced program for both as a way to work out of deficit. Again, I believe that could better be achieved if the States had autonomy over their programs and budgeting. To go that could allow for cuts in Federal taxes, though depending on programs desired it could mean substantial increases in State taxes, but the person would have a right to relocate to that better fitting state for them. Do you favor lower taxes for the individual only, none to the companies?

Any comments or insights offered on these States vs Federal, Jeffersonian vs Hamiltonian issues would be welcomed. Otherwise carry-on with your pointless Paul bashing. Sometimes it's entertaining. It's not convincing, however.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

States rights. My leaning is toward the states having control over their domestic issues. I find nothing wrong with "huge divides among the states"

And I don't share that philosophy. Which is why I will never support Ron Paul. This isn't a matter of who is "right" or "wrong" on this issue...it is a matter of preference and opinion.

You seem to support the idea that one state could have wildly different laws than another...I don't. I don't want to live in a loose union of 50 different mini countries...I want to live in a strong union with 50 similar states. I don't want to potentially get a job offer in a state, but may not be able to take it because the laws there would prevent me from living there. I wouldn't want to have to plan a vacation around each states laws because I may want, or have to, avoid that state. I don't want states to be able to decide things like civil rights, womens rights, drug laws, or anything else. I am for a strong central government.

And a lot of liberals are the same way..."states rights" is a right wing philosophy...mostly because they want to get away from those "liberal" laws that are in the federal government. So philosophically...I am just totally opposed to Ron Paul's libertarian views on states rights. Personally on Ron Paul's view...I think he uses this "states rights" argument on issues he knows people would be against if he came right out and stated his prefered position...so instead he just says he will leave it up to the states.

Tax cuts. Do you oppose tax cuts, for anyone? Do you prefer cut in spending over tax cuts? I prefer to see a balanced program for both as a way to work out of deficit. Again, I believe that could better be achieved if the States had autonomy over their programs and budgeting. To go that could allow for cuts in Federal taxes, though depending on programs desired it could mean substantial increases in State taxes, but the person would have a right to relocate to that better fitting state for them. Do you favor lower taxes for the individual only, none to the companies?

Ron Paul's tax cuts only from him cutting out the majority of social programs and federal regulation that most liberals support. I think the federal government absolutely needs to be in charge of certain programs. I think we need a stronger FDA, EPA, and federal financial regulation. I believe that if there need to be tax increases, they should be applied to those who can afford to pay a little more...wealthier people can pay a little more and not be in danger of not paying their rent or feeding their families...even middle class at this point do not have that luxury.

I do support decreasing spending...but mostly in defense and foriegn aid/spending. I don't support cutting domestic spending...I am fine with decreasing waste in our domestic spending which is a significant problem. So I agree with Ron Paul, or libertarians, on one thing and that is we need to stop spending money on wars and foreign interests. But that is one issue...and it is not enough to override all the other things I disagree with him about.



Again...all of this is a difference in philosophy...not difference in candidate preference. Ron Paul supporters seem to take personal offense if someone doesn't support exactly what they support. People have different philosophies, different beliefs, and different priorities. It doesn't mean one person is right and the other person is wrong....it doesn't mean that if one person doesn't support what you support that they are a shill, an idiot, or a "traitor" to the country. The fact is that there are a lot of "liberals" in this country, there are a lot of "conservatives" in this country...and there are a small group of "libertarians".

I am not bashing Ron Paul...I am discussing his positions and how they don't line up with my beliefs and philosophy. Ron Paul supporters may attract more support if they would drop this anger for anyone who doesn't agree with them...and instead of lashing out and attacking them...maybe show some understanding that not everyone thinks alike and respect those differences in people.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

States rights. My leaning is toward the states having control over their domestic issues. I find nothing wrong with "huge divides among the states"

And I don't share that philosophy. Which is why I will never support Ron Paul. This isn't a matter of who is "right" or "wrong" on this issue...it is a matter of preference and opinion.

You seem to support the idea that one state could have wildly different laws than another...I don't. ... I wouldn't want to have to plan a vacation around each states laws because I may want, or have to, avoid that state. I don't want states to be able to decide things like civil rights, womens rights, drug laws, or anything else. I am for a strong central government.

Again...all of this is a difference in philosophy...not difference in candidate preference.

Ron Paul supporters may attract more support if they would drop this anger for anyone who doesn't agree with them...and instead of lashing out and attacking them...maybe show some understanding that not everyone thinks alike and respect those differences in people.

Though I don't follow your posts I have run across a slew of them, particularly among the Ron Paul threads. I respect a persons right to his own preferrences and lifestyle choices, however this is the first time I have heard you voice yours, other than merely expressing a dis-like of Ron Paul. I am glad to now have heard you address your concerns. We obviously have strong differences about the type of government(s) we prefer. Ron Paul does not suit you but he does me, and it is not a matter of not being aware of what he stands for. Fine.

As a former lifelong Californian I liked being able to drive into the state of Nevada where many vices and pleasant diversions are catered to. It may be pleasureable for a person to arrive there and entertain himself while divulging his penchant for gambling, and then returning home where such a fever at his fingertips could lead to problems. That helps illustrate the glory I find in having a variety among the states. I spent three of my youthful years living and working in Las Vegas, and though I enjoyed it and my very moderate habits and desires allowed me to live there pleasurably I did know of many that could handle so few restrictions.

I do not like a one-size-fits-all form of government that we have under a strong Federal control, especially when there are so many states that would enjoy more autonomy. Some will always desire their nannies to keep them straight and running clean. I realize I am in a minority as a libertarian and so found it preferrable to leave the US to enjoy greater personal freedoms. I acknowledge it requires self-discipline to successfully live my lifestyle, but I have founds the rewards very worthwhile. I wish I could have found that freedom in my native country, and still have hopes that might one day be possible again as it was 40 years ago.

I still hold out hope there will someday be enough Americans who would wish to live without their nanny government, and while some states could continue providing that for those who desire it that others of us could find places to live free. While I might expect there will be some problems arise due to greater personal liberties I would rather deal with those problems that arise because of too much freedom than deal with those problems arising because of a lack of it.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
I am asking you for clarification on your specific insights. But the point I will make now is that might be a reasonable compromise, so long as no one entirely loses the choice to decide that as a personal issue for themselves.

Liberals like myself oppose giving state governments the power to establish 'special laws' over pregnant women, Ron Paul and his supporters a staunchly behind giving states the powers to implement such laws. What compromises did you have in mind?

You already have the Federal government overriding State decisions, those not even protected by the Constitution to all Americans.

Roe V Wade was a ruling made by the supreme court. If you consider the supreme court just another arm of the federal government, well then, this is your position.

Paul's policies sound like reasonable compromises for anyone who is not at the very far extremes.

What compromises? Explain to me exactly what compromise on the abortion issue has Paul made that other Republicans have not??

I typically vote for maximum personal liberty,

What is more important then, the rights of the individual, or the rights of the State government?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Liberals like myself oppose giving state governments the power to establish 'special laws' over pregnant women, Ron Paul and his supporters a staunchly behind giving states the powers to implement such laws. What compromises did you have in mind?

I am pro-choice. I understand it is a divisive issue and some would oppose my stand considering it the taking of a human life and punishable as a capital crime, on the other extreme. The compromise I would accept is for individual states to permit or reject abortion. However I would expect Federal powers to prevent the practice from being abolished in all states.

What is more important then, the rights of the individual, or the rights of the State government?

That's like asking which is more important, day or night? Answer is they both are important and inter-dependent with one or the other having its greatest importance within particular circumstances. Obviously night time is more important for star-gazing.

On my profile page I have a rough sketch texted-out for a more ideal society where minority preferrences and aberrations have their areas to be carried-out. It would require federal and local level governments working in coordination to provide those locations. In my model, thievery for example, would not be a punishable offense but seen as a common aberration and communities of thieves would exist for them to live among other thieves who accept that as part of their lifestyle. The same could be applied to other aberrations such as with drunk drivers, or whatever.

On first offense in a more polite society one might have the option of rejecting that as his lifestyle and decide to remain and reform, second-time offenders would not have such a choice, though he may have an opportunity to reform at a later time. Where are these communities and who decides where? It may come down to taking nation-wide crime stats and assigning to those cities where such practices already exist in high numbers. I describe the societal-aberational side here but this would apply to other lifestyle preferrences. Myself, I'd rather live around potheads and far away from obnoxious drunks, or at least live in a community where the entire nightlife didn't center around that particular form of recreational drug use. I believe various communities could be customized to our preferrences and not all living under one strict rule of law for everyone, no more democratic tyrrany of the majority as minorities would have their outlets also.

Justice would then be a matter of finding a place for everything. Administration of justice would be putting things in their place. That idea may sound simplistic and radical but I assure you mass incarceration is much more simplistic and radical a notion. Living in our great cities may require those individuals to be the most self-disciplined and impeccable of our species. I have the highest respect for an individual to live as he pleases but it may require an effort or compromise on that individual's part. Travel to other communities may require those persons to behave in a particular manner in public there, or the inability to do so would require travel restrictions for some, for a small minority who couldn't othewise conform to other community standards. Keep in mind today's prisons have even more restrictive travel regulations.

Sorry, I didn't envision I would post this but your questions did not seem they could be satisfied with a very short answer. I have some personal writings on this where the idea is fleshed-out in more depth so this was a short answer.

Agreed..I have maintained it from the very beginning. THE THING people need to do is secure the votes for the upcoming elections. Until that happens, then there are just millions on youtube videos. I dont know if that is possible but pushing for non-electronic voting may work. The votes will continue to go miscounted. I know this post is RIGHT ON because I attended the Myrtle Beach S.C. rally and I KNOW how many people were there, not to mention Charleston. The masses without Computer and internet are the most succeptible to media hypnosis and censorship. Who knew there was a march in D.C. ? Much less marches all over the country for Ron Paul like San francisco, Florida parade,and D.C. march in 07 I think..I am counting on Cali, Oregon and Idaho to do something we couldnt,maybe the Hawaiians are honest? please excuse my spelling Im on a small phone.