Free Republic

There is a lot of negativity on this post towards Rand. Either Rand or Ted would be excellent as president. However, only Rand could win the general election, in my opinion. Ted is not as likable by anyone who is not a strong conservative. Strong conservatives are only 10% of the vote.

Rand is as anti-establishment as Ted, but does a better job not making other R’s look as bad. Rand even endorsed Romney over his own dad. He is also well liked outside of the conservative circle and could easily win the youth vote over the disgusting “hag” named Hillary.

I think Ted would be great, but I live in Texas and people HERE call Ted and extremist. I think just about anyone could beat Hillary, but let’s not mess this up.

Only definite way to lose to the dems:
Jeb

Too scary to call:
Ted

Landslide victory for Republicans:
Rand

There are four branches of government:

1. Legislative
2. Executive
3. Judicial
4. Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve has no elected officials, but it is the most powerful of the four branches... of course.

This is genious. This forces Obama's hand and puts the blame on him. Obama is refusing to fund anything until Obamacare is funded first.

Republicans should stand their ground forever. Keep putting in funding bills one at a time... just NEVER one with Obamacare. This means that the Dems would have to take blame. Especially if they refuse to sign anything... even "essential" items... until Obamacare is funded first.

Like other posters said, this is also a FANTASTIC idea to cut unconstitutional or crappy programs like the EPA or IRS. Just don't fund them. Let's address everything again... ONE AT A TIME. If it's not at the top of the list then it's not a priority and it dies on the vine!

The support for Republicans would swell and they would be heroes to the American people.

If the dems refuse everything then THEY TAKE THE BLAME... all for their wildly unpopular Obamacare.

Boehner should announce this publicly. Something like, "Doing things like we always have has resulted in out of control spending and a national debt that can never be repaid. We are taking this opportunity to listen to the will of the people and stop out of control spending. We have decided that it is best at this point to focus on essential programs and we will handle them on a case by case basis. We hope that Obama will understand that there are other priorities to address and that refusing to sign any legislation until his program is funded first is just plain selfish."

It is possible some libertarian minded people did not vote, but voter turnout for both Obama and Romney were down from the 2008 numbers.

This is precisely why Romney lost. No one was enthusiastic about him, so no one came out to vote. Why the GOPe put McCain 2.0 (aka Romney) up against Obama makes no sense to me.

Ron Paul is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian.

Actually, Ron Paul is pro-life, a devout Christian, voted against all bailouts, and wants to massively cut all of the liberal social programs. The reason you all shoot him down is two fold:

1. He thinks states should handle all social issues, exactly as James Madison intended and as is clarified in the 10th amendment. Sorry to tell you, but this means that States get to decide things like gay marriage, marijuana, and health care.

2. He thinks that the President needs Congressional approval to attack any country, as required in the Constitution.

Just how angry were you when the UN wanted to come and monitor elections? Imagine if China sent a whole army to ensure a "fair" election? How would you feel? Do you think the other countries like us being on their soil?

Just because he believes that states get to decide their own fate makes him a Libertarian? I think not. I think that he is a Constitutional Conservative, whereas most of the people here are conservatives who believe that in order to "save our country", we need to overlook a few key issues in our Constitution.

You can't have it both ways. You are either for the Constitution or against it. States have the right to do stupid things, or great things. The feds need to stay out it it. It's a Constitution thing.

So they way I see it, I am a conservative, Ron Paul is a conservative, and you are a conservative. The difference is whether or not you think it is necessary to force people in liberal states to believe the same thing you do.

I think that is a losing battle and why people vote against Republicans. They think Republicans are trying to control what they do in the bedroom.

The big deal here, though, is that the greatest threat to our existence as a nation is our currency. It's not Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Iran... and you won't be able to afford any of that anyway once the currency is gone.

Losing focus of the most important issue has already doomed this country. It's not a big deal... when there is no money for anything then the system will correct itself. But it's going to hurt like heck.

Correct. Romney and Obama are identical. The GOPe didn’t learn their lesson last time, so they repeated it. Beyond stupid.

No big deal, the economy will collapse very soon anyway. Better to collapse under a D than an D pretending to be an R.

Look at Iceland. Rather than do a stimulus package and give money to the banks, they actually forgave all mortgage debt greater than 110% of the value of the home. Then they threw the bankers in jail. Guess what? Their economy corrected itself and they are one of the only economies that is actually GROWING now. They don’t even want to join the EU anymore since they are doing so well.

However, all of these government bailouts by the govern,ent have stagnated the economy... just like every government bailout before it. If the government would have let things crash four years ago, then our economy would be booming by now... just like Iceland.

Scary, and true. Anyone who shops in the grocery store knows the dollar is tanking. This guy also knows that the government cost of living calc is a sham and he has recalculated cost of living based on the way they did it pre-1990’s. And it’s not pretty. As soon as people realize this is true then everyone is going to empty their IRA’s and the dollar is dead.

The sad part is that neither Obama nor Romney talk about important issues like this. Issues that are vitally important to our existance as a nation.

I think they pad polls so that they can rig the election machines without anyone questioning the results.

I think they pad polls so that they can rig the election machines without anyone questioning the results.

They also wouldn't allow any other candidate to be nominated. For example, Paul never would have won, but he was nominated which would have put his name on the board and allowed him 15 minutes to speak. From NY Times:

Delegates from Nevada tried to nominate Mr. Paul from the floor, submitting petitions from their own state as well as Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska and the Virgin Islands. That should have done the trick: Rules require signatures from just five states. But the party changed the rules on the spot. Henceforth, delegates must gather petitions from eight states.

If it could happen to Paul, it could also happen to Palin or any other conservative the GOPe doesn't want. We can never nominate a conservative candidate. It will always be who the GOPe selects.

Well maybe they should change the delegate process to reflect a public survey poll instead, because that all the caucus was. The real voting booth was the meeting after the caucus and they are complaining because only Ron Paul supporters showed up for the real vote?

In my opinion, you give delegates to the team willing to show up. No one cared about Romney. They have just handed every future nomination to the GOPe. Candidates like Palin will now never be nominated.

If you're a young voter, you have the energy to join the Party and change it. Point out our shortcomings, but come with some ideas for fixing them. What better option do you have?

They just tried that. Intelligent, educated young people showed up in large numbers to the conventions this year. Several of them were even elected to delegate positions. They fought for the Constitution, sound fiscal policy, stopping government invasion of our lives, extreme government spending cuts, a foreign policy like Reagan's, and ending the Federal Reserve. They were not welcomed.

Ballots were stuffed at the conventions for Romney, rules were broken so that these supporters would not have a voice, they were kicked out, and the Romney campaign forced these duly elected delegates from their positions and replaced them with their hand-picked candidates after the conventions.

Why would Republicans turn away the new, youthful voice of America? They were Ron Paul supporters.

I have to say that most of the conventions disgraced this party. After 20 years of being a Republican, I have to say I am very disappointed in the Romney nomination and the entire process. We need these youth and we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

"...who couldn’t get himself elected as dog catcher if he ran unopposed ?"

Well, Ron Paul won re-election about 11 times. He is also tied with Obama in the latest Rasmussen poll. Your unlectability "argument" is a total fail.

Well, I am glad you think that name calling will win your argument.

I despise abortion. Right now, all 50 states are required to allow abortion.
If you allow the states to decide, then you will save millions. This is an easier argument to win, since abortion IS NOT in the Constitution

Or, you can stick to your dream that somehow the federal government has this authority and therefore allow millions of unborn babies to die while you stick to your dream.

Please tell me how you plan on manipulating the U.S. Constitution to find a loophole for abortion.

The Constitution allows sovereign states to do some pretty stupid things. Even slavery was legal until the 13th amendment. However, it restricts those stupid ideas to the states. If you give those powers to the federal government, then we are all doomed to those ideas.

Like I said, you are either for the Constitution or against it. Choose wisely.

I think that this was a great article. I also really enjoy the posts in this article and the arguments against Ron Paul:
1. Legalization of marijuana
2. Abortion
3. Foreign Policy

The first two issues ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION and are THEREFORE STATE ISSUES.
As for the third item, the President is NOT a King. Declaration of War comes from CONGRESS.

I know that you all don't like drugs, abortion, or non-interventionalism, BUT you are EITHER FOR THE CONSTITION or you are AGAINST IT. You CANNOT pick and choose which ideas you like or dislike. Unless you want a Constitutional Amendment, SOCIAL ISSUES, in particular, MUST BE ARGUED at the state level.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite…The powers reserved to the states will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state." - James Madison, father of the U.S. Constitution

I asked, specifically, if you'll be supporting the actual Republican nominee in the general election.

And I answered you. Read my response. I said yes. I will vote for whoever has the best chance to beat Obama... so YES, of it really matters to you. The Republican candidate will likely have the best chance. However, right now, all polling I can find (Rasmussen, PPP) shows that Paul would outperform Romney in the general election.

The truth is, he's been your candidate all through the primary and your still working to get him some extra delegates.

Half right. I did like the rest of us... supported Cain then Newt at the start. Then Paul. I actually like Paul now and I know he would be better than Obamney. Anyone supporting the Constitution is my candidate. If you support the Constitution, then conservatism WILL follow. And yes, the more Paul delegates the better.

So you'll be voting for the Republican nominee then? Even when it's not Ron Paul?

I will support whoever has the best chance of beating Obama, yes. Right now, that's Ron Paul.

Come on, you were going to vote for Paul no matter what.

Incorrect. Palin trumps Paul.

by their obsession with the Fed

Yep, you got me on that one. The Federal Reserve is robbing us blind and destroying our currency. At least audit the thing.

Paul's philosophy is almost worse (flawed Federalist) in that it creates 50 tyrannies with no protection of individual rights. Something true federalists never would support.

You are funny. Would you rather have a few states make a stupid decision (thereby restricting the stupid decision to the few states), or would you rather the federal government make a stupid decision, thereby forcing all 50 states to suffer?
The reason democrats and republicans hate each other is because they are always trying to control the other states and their particular culture. You need to petition your State government if you want to change things.

The 2nd amendment is a protected individual right. You are correct, other amendments in the bill of rights were intended to only restrict Congress (i.e. "Congress shall make no law...). In any case, NRA gives Ron Paul an A+.

You are a glass half empty guy. If you allow the states to pick abortion then you save lives. Right now: 50 states are pro-abortion by Supreme Court mandate. If states are allowed to decide to illegalize abortion then that is a huge step in the right direction. Constitutional amendment is next.