RON PAUL Changes the Republican Party, or Not?

Graewoulf | January 10, 2012 | Graewoulf

[Graewoulf]

Rep. Dr. Ron Paul is the only Candidate now running who:

1.) Has a comprehensive platform that will cut BASELINE Federal spending.

2.) Insists that all of the planks in his platform are consistent with the US Constitution.

3.) Accepts the fact that the USA can no longer financially afford to be the World’s policeman.

4.) Fully understands how to dismantle the disastrous Federal medical “entitlements” of Medicare, Medicaid, and the illegal Obama”care.”

5.) Has a comprehensive plan to abolish or dramatically shrink 5 Federal Departments, or Bureaus.

These positions set Dr. Paul apart from the rest of the Candidates who stubbornly cling to the time-honored traditions of "The Bipartisan Cave-In" by the RINO Political Party. (Democrats NEVER cave-in, but they still call it Bipartisan.)

I enjoy reading about the furor caused by Ron Paul rocking the boat. Paul offers a clear philosophical break to the leadership of the RINO Party, and thus has triggered the fear emotion of “fight or flight” among many faithful RINOs.

Four years from now, Senator Rand Paul will probably run for POTUS. Watch closely this year, and compare what you see to what Rand will be saying 4 years from now.

As usual, the “most electable” RINO will be chosen as the Party Nominee in Tampa, a failed and time-tested method of “playing not to lose,” just like the way losing teams do in football.

Nonetheless, Rep. Paul has defined a platform that the RINO Party must take some planks from to avoid going the way of the Whig Political Party.

[svcw]

Ok, how sad for you that you have gone from trumpeting Paul as the best to now trumpeting Romney/Paul as the best team.
Your family must be devastated that you no longer live in the real world with them, they must miss you.

[ejonesie22]

So suck it up FReepers?

Nice...

You Paulitards are so much fun.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Rep. Dr. Ron Paul is the only Candidate now running who: 6. Will get us nuked.

[hocndoc]

Ron Paul is not all that healthy if I had to guess from the tremor and slurred speech. Nevertheless, he’s 76 years old and will be 77 by election day, Lord willing.

Secondly, he didn’t have a clue about how to build the coalitions he spoke of last night for the 26 years he’s been in Congress. There’s no reason to believe he’ll suddenly learn about working with others.

His followers are openly soliciting leftists to vote for him in the primaries, as I saw them do in ‘08. They still don’t have enough backing to win.

[Owl558]

“Thomas Jefferson did not want a Navy to start Preemptive wars with other countries.”

Iran has been at war with us for decades. Nothing preemptive about that.

Remember, the Barbary Pirates declared war un the US first. Jefferson even unilaterly authorized the overthrow of their government without Congressional authorization.

Washington personally lead an army against western Pennsylvania without Congressional approval in order to put down an insurrection many many decades before the Civil War.

John Adams fought an undeclared navel war with France.

James Madison fought the second Barbary War without a declaration of war. Congress authorized use of force like was done in Vietnam, Iraq, etc., but did not issue a declaration.

Jackson simply invaded Spanish florida.

What you think you know about the founding fathers is questionable. Learn what they DID as well as what they wrote.

The point, which you aptly demonstrate, is that too many Paul supporters bury their heads in the sand when it comes to actual American History and the real threats facing our country.

And, please, nobody disagrees with the point that Congress should be declaring war, but as a point of fact, the founding father’s actions were often at odds with Constitutional principles.

The imaginary republic you think existed, never really did.

[Graewoulf]

” - - - They still don’t have enough backing to win.”

Maybe not, but if Dr. Paul in Tampa is second in votes cast, would he then be a good check and balance Veep for Willy Romney?

[Sprite518]

Declarations of wars are for sending our Troops to foreign countries to invade.

You don’t need a declaration of war in your own country or if the war is at Sea. So to point out that George Washington sending some troops into Western Pennsylvania, John Adams naval war (another war at Sea), or Thomas Jefferson war with the Pirates is rubbish.

It’s even more B.S. to suggest that the founding father were ALL ABOUT being the police man of the world by preemptive war.

While it is true are last official Declaration of War was in World War II. Look at what happened to the countries we did not declare war with... All it leads to is endless wars and when we leave the country it eventually falls.

I have no problem if we are attacked to defend ourselves. However, I do not want our country to be the police man of the world.

All points aside for a minute. We can’t afford. We are going broke. Have you seen this link?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[hocndoc]

Oh, yeah, sure like Biden is a “good check and balance Veep” for Obama. GIGO counts in politics as much as anywhere.

[Owl558]

I knew a proper discussion would be difficult. The constitution provides for militia to be called out in the case of insurrection, not regular army like Washington used. The Barbary war was was a land war with American marines invading the Ottoman Empire. "Shores of Tripoli..." Congress still must "...define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;" Presidents do not have the power to engage in Naval wars without Congress. Andrew Jackson simply invaded Florida. More to your point, I think, is that NOBODY has suggested that the founders were for the US being the world's policeman. This is a straw arguement on your part. What the founders did was act pragmatically in American interests at home and abroad. They recognized threats and acted in what they thought were the best interests of the country. Sometimes their actions fell outside the Constitution. Again, the pure constitutional republic you pine for never really existed. I'm not advocating what these people did, simply trying to clarify historical misconceptions that get repeated ad nauseum by Paul supporters (and many other self-proclamed constitutionalists).

[Sprite518]

The Marines went to the Harbor of Tripoli. They did not invade the country. That is why they say the “shores” of Tripoli.

At any rate thanks for the good reply, nice points, but I disagree with your summary.

[Owl558]

“At any rate thanks for the good reply, nice points, but I disagree with your summary.”

Thank you for the discussion as well. I think we agree on the broad point that the United States is NOT the world’s policeman.

Cheers

[John D]

The medical doctor as Veep could in just ONE year set up the blueprint to downsize the medical entitlements,

The thing is the surrender monkey is never going to do anything. He has been in Washington well over a quarter century and never done anything except acquire earmarks, complain, and blame America or Israel for every problem in the world. What makes you think he would change now?

[Graewoulf]

Thanks for the hotlink to the National Debt Clock.

I often wonder why only Dr. Paul brings our National Debt into every speech he makes.

Maybe it is a Doctor thing? You know, recognizing sick patients (read: US Treasury).

[Graewoulf]

Dr. Paul is the second best Republican vote getter. That puts him in the running to be the Nominee’s Veep.

What effect do you think Veep Candidate Paul would have on the Republican Party voting in 11-2012?

[John D]

Dr. Paul is the second best Republican vote getter.

Only in open primaries where his democratic base can vote.

What effect do you think Veep Candidate Paul would have on the Republican Party voting in 11-2012?

It would scare off all the conservative voters. What conservative would ever vote for someone who blames America for every problem in the world, endorses OWS and Cynthia McKinney, acquires more earmarks than any candidate running, from both parties, wants to experiment with perverts in the military, wants to legalize all drugs and prostitution, plus endorsing many more anti-conservative positions?
I doubt if there are any. He may get some support from his base (the very far left) who think Obama is too conservative, but not much.