Ron Paul withdraws, but continues a grassroots campaign

[Black.Ice]

I knew the end of his campaign was coming for a while, but I didn't think I would be as depressed as I am. Even though he withdrew from the campaign today, he's continuing his 'campaign for liberty'. Right now, I'm not sure what he's aiming for, or what will actually come from it, but I admire the guy for actually continuing the fight and continue his message.

I was still clinging to Paul but I guess I'm going to have to switch to Obama now. I'll have to look more into a lot of his issues. Oh well, it's not like I have a wide variety of people to chose from.

What are your thoughts about Ron Paul, and his new campaign?

Here are links to his withdrawal as well as his new campaign.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com
http://www.campaignforliberty.com


(I know that Battlecruiser was a RP supporter, but I don't think anyone else was.)

[GenocideAlive]

Switch to Obama from RP? That's a hell of a switch. Obama would be happy you're not white, though.

[Ender]

Can I ask why you supported Ron Paul?

[Nephi]

ya Ron Paul to Obama? Did you even care about the issues? Ron Paul is about the polar opposite of Obama. To each his own but with Ron Paul out I think Bob Barr is my guy.

[Battlecruiser]

I watched bits and pieces of his speech yesterday but my computer is slow as hell and kept freezing up. On one hand, I am excited that he is shifting his campaign into a movement that can last for much longer than any campaign can. But on the other hand, I'm sad that the campaign through which I learned a lot about politics has ended. I thought he would go on until the GOP convention but since he is calling his own convention at that time because he wasn't invited to the GOP's, I guess there is no point.

I've already signed up at the Campaign for Liberty site. From what I've heard, they're trying to hit a 100,000 supporters by September, but they've already got 30,000 in less than 20 hours.

As for who to vote on the election, I think I'm going to write in Paul regardless of him ending his campaign. I was considering Obama, but I just can't understand his policy of continuing to subsidize Israel and fight wars for it or expanding the military from it's already bloated size. And that's just the start of it, but I'm not going to go into that here. But I've always preferred Obama over Hillary, and definitely over McCain. But he won't be getting my vote unless it becomes very close between McCain and Obama, which is about as likely as Dunchy being sober since I live in NY, a "blue" state. And even voting for Obama in that scenario, I'm not sure about. But I do know I don't want to vote for a lesser evil, because a lesser evil is still evil.

I'm not voting for Bob Barr either because I don't feel he represents libertarians well. He voted for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and is a strong supporter of the Drug War. Is a neocon convert the best the LP can do? No thanks.

[Gunmonk]

I've been talking to a delegate here in texas, and he said that paul has a fighting chance in texas. The convention is this weekend, might be interesting

[Prozerran]

I keep saying that if there's ever a chance for an Independent to run and win, it's this election. It's just a case of whether the people understand what they are voting for and why, which I can't really hold any confidence in because people, by and by, are politically stupid.

Well, forget politically stupid. The American Public is one of the worst educated of the free nations of the world, and it goes without saying that we can't rely on the majority of Americans to vote for any intelligent reason.

If Obama doesn't have the votes that go to the Independent nominees, we might as well just write most of them off to McCain. I know that's a generally arrogant statement, but when you look at the electoral college and you see what happens to minority votes, it's a pretty factual statement. Paul is probably the best candidate, but he's backed by the public that supports him. Both Obama and McCain have party funding and recognition backing their campaigns. The two-party system is, by and large, the very reason we face this problem. Yet no analysts really want to say anything but the contrary on national television, even if they know damn well why we keep revisiting the same, tired issues year after year.

Democrats (and now Republicans) seem to want to spend, spend, spend their way out of every problem instead of deal with it responsibly. They'd rather spend, spend, spend to satisfy the special interest groups that back their incumbent campaigns. Then there's political pressure from the party after that because of the special interest financing that contributes to the financial backing of the party itself for the next Presidential Nominee.

And I'm on my soapbox, so just bare with me. You'd think a political candidate would come along and push for legislation that would correct this paradigm. Problem is, it's a well-oiled machine, and there are deep pockets in every facet of the political process, from the Executive Branch to the Legislature. Why fight it when you can simply go with the flow and make your millions?

[Neo]

I'm confused as to why switching from RP to Obama would be bad?

At this point we have to choose between Obama and McCain, and between McCains inconsistencies (and/or possible senility? -- is this just me?) Obama is the better choice between the two.

-Neo

[Dark_Magneto]

I was still clinging to Paul but I guess I'm going to have to switch to Obama now.

Vote absentee and write in Ron Paul.

I'm confused as to why switching from RP to Obama would be bad?

Because you're going from limited government, pro freedom and fiscal sanity to big government, anti second amendment and social programs.

[Neo]

But going to McCain is a better idea?

-Neo

[Prozerran]

Neo:

He said to write in an absentee ballot for Paul, not switch your vote to McCain.

[Neo]

So throw your vote away then is the answer?

-Neo

[Prozerran]

Yep. For the most part. At least it's not because you didn't do your part. It's just that no one realizes that an independent candidate is the best candidate to vote for at this point. At the very least, we need a new party to stand against the Dems and Reps. Generally, if you have three funded parties each with their own view of the world, you have the paper/rock/scissors affect on politics. Surely that could happen one day. We can only hope.

[Dark_Magneto]

But going to McCain is a better idea?

-Neo

Voting Obama is a really, really, really bad idea.

Voting McCain is just pure insanity.

I'd vote independent, write in a preferred candidate, or just plain not vote before voting for either of them

[Neo]

Yeah personally I'd rather see the person I don't want in office lose, rather then to make a useless gesture like wasting my vote, or throwing it away completely.

Guess I'm just kinda weird though.

-Neo

[Dark_Magneto]

I'd rather vote on principle than perpetuate the flawed republicrat system that shafts us with 2 big government candidates and effectively excludes everything else.

I also hate the voting philosophy of going out and getting the fingernail ripped out that will be the least painful by casting one's vote for who they hate the least.

http://bookstoysgames.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cthulhu4prez-preview1.png?w=420&h=420p

[Neo]

Well I intend to vote for Obama because at least he doesn't have an asinine or retarded view on the internet.

I'm not even sure McCain even knows what the internet is to be honest.

And Ron Paul is just... I don't know. There was a time that I liked him, and his platform, but now? I dunno.

It seems kind of wrong to raise all that money and then just stop. We all knew he didn't have a chance in hell, but he could've fought all the way to the end.

-Neo

[Dark_Magneto]

It was abundantly clear that he wasn't going to get the nomination, so his money and efforts are better spent spreading his message rather than squandering them on a nomination he couldn't get.

[Neo]

So the whole campaigning for the presidency was just a lie and everyone bought that and now he can step down and say "nice try, we'll try again next time?" but managed to add in a "don't stop donating!"

??

-Neo

[Dark_Magneto]

No. As the figures come in, you get a better picture of how well you're doing. He wasn't doing well enough due to the media largely blackballing him and many people didn't even know who he was, so he made a calculated decision to withdraw as the numbers were totally against him. I didn't expect him to get the nomination at any rate, but at least he got his name out there some.

[Rifleman223]

Alright the big problem with Obama is that he doesn't care about the U.S. Many of the Citizens in the U.S. thinks that Obama would be working with Iranian President. From the scoops i heard is that Obama will allow Iran to have nuclear Power which IS A BIG FUCKING MISTAKE! McCain is better because he will solve the energy crisis by using nuclear power, and he will not allow the withdrawal of Iraq, both of those are big pluses.

McCain should win the election, but then again people only vote for Obama cause of racial reasons. McCain is a veteran and a General there for he has experience in leading. While OBAMA doesn't

[Neo]

No. As the figures come in, you get a better picture of how well you're doing. He wasn't doing well enough due to the media largely blackballing him and many people didn't even know who he was, so he made a calculated decision to withdraw as the numbers were totally against him. I didn't expect him to get the nomination at any rate, but at least he got his name out there some.

I'm not sure if I'm using this term correctly, but isn't this what apologists do? It's the Media's fault totally? >.>;;

Alright the big problem with Obama is that he doesn't care about the U.S. Many of the Citizens in the U.S. thinks that Obama would be working with Iranian President. From the scoops i heard is that Obama will allow Iran to have nuclear Power which IS A BIG FUCKING MISTAKE! McCain is better because he will solve the energy crisis by using nuclear power, and he will not allow the withdrawal of Iraq, both of those are big pluses.

McCain should win the election, but then again people only vote for Obama cause of racial reasons. McCain is a veteran and a General there for he has experience in leading. While OBAMA doesn't

Wow. So watch fox news much?

I vote for candidates for many reasons. However race doesn't factor into it.

I won't vote for McCain because it seems he would support invading Iran. I'm still not seeing the benefit to us for staying in Iraq to be honest.

And that whole bullshit about Obama not having enough experience is just a stupid argument.

McCain's past as a General or a POW bears no relevance to his candidacy for the presidency.

McCain also has a non-view about certain technological issues (Internet, DRM, etc...) while Obama has some clear stances on these issues.

Besides, I personally would rather not live through another 4 years of Bush-Style administration.

Hell, if we get to bring in the past of the Candidates, then what about McCain's Pastor? What about the douchey way he treated his Exwife? I won't vote for McCain because I don't agree with him on a few topics. While granted I don't totally agree with Obama either, his stance on the major stuff is something I do agree with.

I just, I don't understand how someone can claim that Obama only gets votes because of his race. Or how people could believe he's Muslim, or why it's such a big deal about his Preacher, while we ignore the hate spewed by McCain's Pastor.

Seriously, kind of hypocritical don't you think?

Claiming that Obama doesn't care about the US is pretty asinine IMO. I mean really, wtf. Do you honestly think he'd be where he is now if he didn't care about America?

-Neo

[DoctorZettabyte]

McCain was not a general. Before you go around slandering other candidates, take the time to know yours.

From the scoops i heard is that Obama will allow Iran to have nuclear Power which IS A BIG FUCKING MISTAKE! McCain is better because he will solve the energy crisis by using nuclear power, and he will not allow the withdrawal of Iraq, both of those are big pluses.

I'd like everyone to read that paragraph really, really carefully. Let's dissect it for those of us who thinks it is well thought out and means something.

First off, I'm really disliking the word "scoops". Doesn't fit there. Try "Fox News story" or "John McCain's Website" instead.

Getting into the actual paragraph, it is said that Obama will allow Iran to have nuclear power. I can't find a single result on Google that states this. Even after slight tweaking, I come up with an interesting result. Google "Obama to allow Iran to have Nuclear Power" without the quotations and read off the second result to yourself. You don't even have to click it. If elected president of the US, one of the most powerful positions in the world, Barack Obama would do everything in his power to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Sorry, "nucular weapons".

On to your second sentence, and we quickly find that it has absolutely fucking nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It's the energy crisis that matters to John McCain, with absolutely no mention of Iran's nuclear program at all. Nuclear power only provides around 19% of our energy, anyway, so by building more nuclear power plants, he's hoping to solve the energy crisis. McCain would have eight years, tops, to build five times the amount of nuclear power plants than we have already, and the last power plant to become operational was the Watts Bar 1, in 1996.

withdrawal of Iraq

Where is Iraq going to withdraw to? It's a country -- nobody in recorded history has been able to pick one up and simply withdraw it to an unknown destination before.

both of those are big pluses.
If you have no clue what you're talking about, yeah, sure they are.


I'd like a slice of apple pie with a side of patriotism, please.

-DocTera







EDIT ADD: Ooh, there's a second paragraph!

McCain should win the election, but then again people only vote for Obama cause of racial reasons.

People do not vote for Obama for "racial reasons". I vote for him because I support and agree with his platform (for the most part), what he stands for, his devotion to his cause, charismatic charm, and a slew of other reasons. I'd like to help make history by voting for the first African-American president, hell yes, I do, but that is not the sole reason why I'm voting for him. I'm also pretty sick of seeing the same gravity-pulled, old white guys on the news day after day.

While OBAMA doesn't
"OBAMA" doesn't appreciate unfinished sentences like yours? I wouldn't, either.

[Sambo83]

lol that's so hillarious the Paul supporters switching to Obama. Makes no sense at all.. as others have said they are complete opposites on every issue. Paul is an isolationist, Obama wants to make friends with the world. Paul wants to reduce the size of the government and eliminate income tax. Obama wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts and expand the government as rapidly as humanly possible. Paul wants to put limits on jury awards for medical malpractice suits. Obama wants to institute socialized medicine. rofl.

I was a Paul supporter. I still will be if he ever gets on a major party ticket. As it is, I always vote for the best candidate who has a chance of winning. I've never liked McCain's politics, he's far too liberal - although he seems to be moving rightward, but it might just be a bunch of smoke he's blowing to shore up his base. But I'll vote for McCain, because he's promised to install strict constructionists to the supreme court if any retire during his term, which 2 of them are definately going to within the next 8 years. I feel that the most important issue in America today is to put an end to judicial activism. Since the Supremes just made it clear that only 5 of them know how to read, adding 2 strict constructionists to the court would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

[Rifleman223]

John McCain will win

[Neo]

John McCain will win

we'll see.

I originally thought Hillary would get the nomination. I was wrong though, pretty surprising actually.

As this campaign goes forward, I predict we'll see more and more of McCain's fumbles.

Like, you know, that whole weird statement he made about helping out military vets; I think Jon Stewart made a joke about it. McCain says "if we do this, we'll see a 7% drop in people staying in the military from this study" -- yet, from the same study, it shows that volunteers for the military would increase by 7%.

Besides McCain has flopped a few to many times for my liking.

But then again I guess it doesn't matter, since people can't be bothered to think beyond their party or use their brains before voting.

Frankly it frightens me that McCain and co. seem to want to invade Iran. Afgahnistan and Iraq were one thing, but moving into Iran? Like we aren't wasting enough money?

and you know, the whole possibility of them having nuclear capabilities is pretty scary to.

-Neo

[Sambo83]

heh.. I like that reasoning. "Iran might soon have nuclear capabilities.. I'm too scared to invade them."

I think it's instructional to ask yourself this question when you're going to the polls this November: Who would Osama bin Laden vote for? The obvious answer is Obama. Then you have to ask yourself, "Do I hate America?" Most liberals will obviously answer yes, and thus have no problem voting Obama.

[Oblongato]

I agreed with Paul on almost everything except abortion. (What is he going to do, handcuff women who want to abort to a bed and force-feed them until they deliver? He would take from women the liberty to control their own bodies - and he calls it libertarianism?)

I think it's instructional to ask yourself this question when you're going to the polls this November: Who would Osama bin Laden vote for? The obvious answer is Obama. Then you have to ask yourself, "Do I hate America?" Most liberals will obviously answer yes, and thus have no problem voting Obama.

By your logic, if a psychopathic, one-armed drug addict with a third grade reading level calling for the extermination of all Muslims were running, we should vote for him, since bin Laden would then prefer McCain.

A better question than "do I hate America?" would be "do I have a black-and-white view of everything?"

I think if you took a survey of psychopathic, one-armed drug addicts with a third grade reading level calling for the extermination of all Muslims, most of these, too, would have a black-and-white view of the issues.

With anything above a third-grade reading level, you begin to notice that there are many issues that are not black and white.

[Battlecruiser]

I agreed with Paul on almost everything except abortion. (What is he going to do, handcuff women who want to abort to a bed and force-feed them until they deliver? He would take from women the liberty to control their own bodies - and he calls it libertarianism?)

His position on abortion was that it would not be regulated at the federal level. It would be up to the states whether or not they would want to regulate abortion, banning it or allowing it.

Abortion is a tough topic because it is the only situation in a world where you have one person entirely inside another person. Does the outside person have complete authority and rights? Does the inside person (fetus) have no rights? But it its a person, it should have rights. If a drunk driver gets into an accident with a pregnant lady, and kills the lady, is the driver killing just the mother or is he also killing a second person, the fetus.

And I'm not even going to address the rest of the non-Ron Paul foolish discussion going on.

[Oblongato]

While you may be able to make the case for Paul's stance on privacy rights (i.e. criminalizing of homosexuality) by pointing to the fact that he did not call for state laws to criminalize homosexuality, his position on abortion appears to be quite different. Yes, he does argue that it is a matter for the states to decide, but only as a basis for criminalizing abortion at the state level.

I am strongly pro life. Life begins at conception ... but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level.


Yet the constitution does provide a basis for Roe vs. Wade in the Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Here is the basis for the right of a woman to control her own body (i.e. prohibition of deprivation of liberty). The issue becomes more complex, however, when determining at what point a sperm and egg become a natural person.

The idea that a fertilized egg is a person seems largely to be a religious argument, since it is clear that a blastosphere possesses none of the attributes generally associated with persons. (It is not as simple as saying that you have a person inside of another person.)

For so-called "strict constructionists" the matter of personhood should be simple. In the days of the founding fathers, one's existence as a person began with birth. No birth, no person.

In that case, a woman's right to liberty would automatically trump the rights of a the blastosphere / embryo / fetus.

If we had stuck by this definition and not gotten wrapped up in questions of viability, we would not have the nasty debate that rages today.

What is clear regardless of the debate is that the pregnant women is a person with a right to liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution. This makes any abridgment of this liberty a federal matter, and on this basis I consider Paul's position wrong.

[Protogod]

heh.. I like that reasoning. "Iran might soon have nuclear capabilities.. I'm too scared to invade them."

I think it's instructional to ask yourself this question when you're going to the polls this November: Who would Osama bin Laden vote for? The obvious answer is Obama. Then you have to ask yourself, "Do I hate America?" Most liberals will obviously answer yes, and thus have no problem voting Obama.

Because that isnt offensive a all. BEcause that is a totally apt example/view of the world.

Your ludicrously obvious bias makes any point youre trying to make appear feeble and unsubstantiated. Facts > theoretical scare tactics.

[Sambo83]

For so-called "strict constructionists" the matter of personhood should be simple. In the days of the founding fathers, one's existence as a person began with birth. No birth, no person.
lol... while that may indeed be true, a strict constructionist would never read abortion rights into a constitution that makes no mention of it and was written at a time before abortion was even concieved of. A strict constructionist would instead rely on the 10th ammendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
To be a strict constructionist means that you take a textual approach to the constitution. Meaning that you believe that the constitution says what it means, and means what it says. Nothing more. Nothing less. Rather than trying to twist the words of the constitution to suit whatever political agenda you wish to promote as judicial activists do.

I'm not saying abortion should be illegal. I'm saying Roe v Wade was an act of judicial activism, and abortion is an issue that should be handled by the states. In some states, like Massachusetts and California, abortion would undoubtedly enjoy great protection, but in other states like Alabama, it would probably be illegal entirely. Most states would fall somewhere in-between. This is Reagan-style politics (and remember 80% of the nation voted for him). His main theory was to have less matters in the hands of the federal government and let each state become it's own social experiment. States will learn and change based on the success or failure of policies tried in other states.

[Dark_Magneto]

I'm not sure if I'm using this term correctly, but isn't this what apologists do? It's the Media's fault totally? >.>;;

I'm sure some people will blame the media entirely. There are people that don't agree with his platform and want more of what Bush has delivered to us over the last 2 terms so they're obvioulsy not going to support him since he stands in stark defiance of all of that; but the media issue is a valid one indeed. If you take a look at how much coverage the other candidates and nominees got vs. Ron Paul, it's appaling. It's almost like the media was making a deliberate effort to minimize his exposure.

I think, in the interest of fairness, all candidates should get equal time. That would eliminate this bullshit we have now where you get a few candidates that get all sorts of hype by the media and everyone else gets largely ignored.

Paul is an isolationist...

You have a serious misunderstanding of what isolationism is if you think that Ron Paul fits that definition.

[Sambo83]

You have a serious misunderstanding of what isolationism is if you think that Ron Paul fits that definition.
Maybe I should've said "most isolationist candidate we've seen since the 19th century?"
He wants to pull out of the UN, end free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT, and end world government organizations like the ICC and WTO..

[Neo]

heh.. I like that reasoning. "Iran might soon have nuclear capabilities.. I'm too scared to invade them."

I think it's instructional to ask yourself this question when you're going to the polls this November: Who would Osama bin Laden vote for? The obvious answer is Obama. Then you have to ask yourself, "Do I hate America?" Most liberals will obviously answer yes, and thus have no problem voting Obama.

totally right.

if you are against a, b, and/or c, then you are against the entire alphabet.

i totally hate america because I don't think we should over extend ourselves by going into iran.

i'm also totally against the US of A, because I'd like to see our troops brought back home.

I'm also entirely unpatriotic because I think we should let the rest of the world burn so we can take care of ourselves.

yup totally.

it'd be nice to hear reasons why you think osama would vote for Barack (unless you just think osama would do so because he would misread the ballot and assume it was supposed to say "osama" instead).

i won't vote for mccain because I think he's to old, and I don't agree with him on a few topics. those, of course, that he actually commits to. plus I believe if you can do something so cruel to your ex then you're capable of damn near anything, and would prefer you be kept away from the ability to control the military.

seriously am I the only one who thinks mccain is a bit senile?

-Neo

[Sambo83]

i'm also totally against the US of A, because I'd like to see our troops brought back home.
I wouldn't be opposed to removing our troops from the middle east. Provided we also release our restrictions on Israel and let the middle east play it out themselves without any interference from us. (i.e. what would happen is Israel would conquer the entire region in a matter of months and exterminate all the muslims for us.) If we just leave now and our Israel policy remains the same, all that's going to happen is Iran will conquer Iraq, take control of Iraqi oil, and setup a huge, wealthy, powerful, anti-US, terror-sponsoring Sharia dictatorship.

The reason why I say people who want to leave Iraq hate America is because only someone who hates America could possibly believe the ramifications of leaving are preferable to staying.. Either that, or they are simply too ignorant to understand what's going to happen. And I would never want to call a fellow poster ignorant.

it'd be nice to hear reasons why you think osama would vote for Barack (unless you just think osama would do so because he would misread the ballot and assume it was supposed to say "osama" instead).
bin Laden would vote for Obama because Obama is soft on terrorism. He wants to give up on the war, and has no plan of action whatsoever. It would be one thing if he said, "I don't think Iraq is the best theater to fight the war on terror, and this is what we should do instead." But he has no solutions. Just bring the troops home.

His pie in the sky idea idea of engaging in diplomacy with Iran and Syria is absurd. How do you negotiate with people who simply want to kill you because you don't worship their god, and your women dress like sluts and are allowed to speak out of turn?