View Full Version : Ron Paul's In
Perot Part II...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/ron-paul-launches-presidential-campaign-20110425
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he's going to try a third time.
Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaign’s leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year.
Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote. After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his “money bomb” fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.
Paul took 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and 8 percent in New Hampshire’s primary. He finished second, with 14 percent of the vote, in the Nevada caucuses, and eventually finished fourth in the Republican nominating process with 5.6 percent of the total vote. Paul’s campaign book, The Revolution: A Manifesto also reached No. 1 on The New York Times best-seller list in 2008.
This would seem to be an ideal year for Paul: Since the last election, the Republican Party has moved much closer to his view on deficit reduction, which made him an early tea party favorite. All of the party's top-tier presidential hopefuls are focusing on lowering debt, government spending, and tax rates, issues Paul has long advocated.
Another nut to be added to the political fruit bowl of candidates seeking to participate in our next round of national election chutes and ladders. Swell.
Richard :munchin
Roguish Lawyer
04-26-2011, 09:55
Agreed, this guy is a complete nut job. I agree with him on a number of issues, but he doesn't understand our financial system and is otherwise crazy.
Agreed, this guy is a complete nut job. I agree with him on a number of issues, but he doesn't understand our financial system and is otherwise crazy.
Roger that. Problem is the percentage of fed-up Cons who'll support him next year.
Streck-Fu
04-26-2011, 11:55
Just enough people may be pissed at Obama and not support whomever the Republicans nominate to actually vote for Paul and get Obama reelected.
Peregrino
04-26-2011, 12:43
Just enough people may be pissed at Obama and not support whomever the Republicans nominate to actually vote for Paul and get Obama reelected.
Shades of Ross Perot. :mad:
DC is a crazy and nutty place, filled with criminally insane egomaniacs. But I look at Ron Paul as naive, but well intentioned and he is one of the few in DC that doesn't have a degree in Legal Shape shifting and theft through legalese..
he doesn't understand our financial system
In all seriousness, I would question whether anyone in DC, or potential candidates understands our financial system. I am not sure there is anyone who has a grasp of our financial system with exception that it is broken.
I doubt I would vote for him, but could Ron Paul be worse than what we already have???
Peregrino
04-26-2011, 20:37
DC is a crazy and nutty place, filled with criminally insane egomaniacs. But I look at Ron Paul as naive, but well intentioned and he is one of the few in DC that doesn't have a degree in Legal Shape shifting and theft through legalese..
In all seriousness, I would question whether anyone in DC, or potential candidates understands our financial system. I am not sure there is anyone who has a grasp of our financial system with exception that it is broken.
I doubt I would vote for him, but could Ron Paul be worse than what we already have???
No, but his candidacy could guarantee "more of the same" if it dilutes the Republican vote sufficiently. Hence my comment about the potential for another Ross Perot disaster.
No, but his candidacy could guarantee "more of the same" if it dilutes the Republican vote sufficiently. Hence my comment about the potential for another Ross Perot disaster.
But do we vote for the lesser of evils again and more of the same same ole crap were the only real difference between the candidates is the party name they affiliate themselves with.
If we could find a few Alan West's in the mix I'd be a bit more optimistic about the 2012 prospectus.
GratefulCitizen
04-26-2011, 21:59
There's too much power vested in the federal government right now.
It doesn't matter who is elected as the power will corrupt them.
Maybe it's time to vote "none of the above".
An article V convention is looking to be a less risky option by comparison.
It doesn't matter who is elected as the power will corrupt them.
Maybe it's time to vote "none of the above".
Not sure I agree with your p'lice work there, GC; this BS is cyclical.
I refer you to Reagan after Carter, as well as W after BJ.
Problems this time:
1. Blacks who vote by reason of race. (Nearly all of them.)
2. Women who vote by reason of sex appeal. (See BJ Clinton and BH Obama.)
3. Latinos who vote for entitlements. (Could be different in '12. They're not stupid.)
4. Third party voters. (Biggest potential SNAFU.)
We can't as voters just curl up in the fetal position under a tree with our thumbs stuck in our mouths until the leaves cover us up, We do, however, have to unite under one strong leader, because I don't believe we'll survive another Democrat intact.
, We do, however, have to unite under one strong leader
It is early in the game, but the present crop of Artists I find unimpressive thus far. Trump is putting on a show and the rest are saying the 'right things'. Ron Paul is obsessed with the Fed and he doesn't have that showman quality.......that isn't all bad, but it doesn't get you elected for the Top Job.
I am not looking forward to using my Tolerable Egg Scale for 2012, so my fingers are crossed that someone emerges that glaringly sits themselves apart from the other candidates and the incumbent.
There's too much power vested in the federal government right now.
It doesn't matter who is elected as the power will corrupt them.
Maybe it's time to vote "none of the above".
An article V convention is looking to be a less risky option by comparison.
Maybe it's time for a POTUS 2012 Prediction thread ;)
It is early in the game, but the present crop of Artists I find unimpressive thus far. Trump is putting on a show and the rest are saying the 'right things'. Ron Paul is obsessed with the Fed and he doesn't have that showman quality.......that isn't all bad, but it doesn't get you elected for the Top Job.
I am not looking forward to using my Tolerable Egg Scale for 2012, so my fingers are crossed that someone emerges that glaringly sits themselves apart from the other candidates and the incumbent.
Maybe it's time for a POTUS 2012 Prediction thread ;)
I'll start. Anybody but a liberal.
GratefulCitizen
04-27-2011, 22:43
Not sure I agree with your p'lice work there, GC; this BS is cyclical.
The federal government is losing some forms of power.
They are desperately seeking ways to replace/consolidate it.
This is dangerous.
Not sure what the consequences will be when the pendulum cycles left again.
Not sure what the consequences will be when the pendulum cycles left again.
Soylent Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green) :D
The federal government is losing some forms of power.
They are desperately seeking ways to replace/consolidate it.
This is dangerous.
Not sure what the consequences will be when the pendulum cycles left again.
It's our responsiblility as grateful citizens to do everything we can to prevent it.:cool:
GratefulCitizen
04-28-2011, 14:18
It's our responsiblility as grateful citizens to do everything we can to prevent it.:cool:
Due to the presence of many professionals, quiet and otherwise, I do not fear tyranny.
However, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I think so. He'd withdraw support from Israel and would not be pragmatic at all. Obama is an ideological leftist, but he is not a nut, and upon becoming president, he has become more pragmatic to the degree that his ideology will let him be on certain issues.
For this reason I doubt Paul would be elected though if he somehow won the Republican primary. I honestly think I'd vote for Obama over Paul.
I definitely would not cast a vote for the Community Activist known as Obama. More than likely I will/would grab a lawn chair, cooler of beer, my Gats and stay home, not cast a vote for either and watch Rome continue to burn.
Actually I would prefer dying in a gas chamber before I voted for the seditious Obama.
I think so. He'd withdraw support from Israel and would not be pragmatic at all. Obama is an ideological leftist, but he is not a nut, and upon becoming president, he has become more pragmatic to the degree that his ideology will let him be on certain issues.
For this reason I doubt Paul would be elected though if he somehow won the Republican primary. I honestly think I'd vote for Obama over Paul.
lol WTF, the American public didn't have anything to do with it, heh?:D:D:D
Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/05/cnn-poll-still-no-front-runner-in-the-battle-for-the-gop-nomination/
Yeah, CNN's trying to pick our nominee again.
Old Dog New Trick
05-05-2011, 19:10
FOX News Republican Debate on right now.
Flame Magnet
05-05-2011, 19:14
Not sure I agree with your p'lice work there, GC; this BS is cyclical.
I refer you to Reagan after Carter, as well as W after BJ.
Problems this time:
1. Blacks who vote by reason of race. (Nearly all of them.)
2. Women who vote by reason of sex appeal. (See BJ Clinton and BH Obama.)
3. Latinos who vote for entitlements. (Could be different in '12. They're not stupid.)
4. Third party voters. (Biggest potential SNAFU.)
We can't as voters just curl up in the fetal position under a tree with our thumbs stuck in our mouths until the leaves cover us up, We do, however, have to unite under one strong leader, because I don't believe we'll survive another Democrat intact.
1. Wow...
1. Wow...
Every President for 219 years has been white. Can you blame them (as long as he's supposedly qualified)? If I were born black, I guarantee you I would, because I'd be so proud to have a member of my race...wait-that'd be racist!:rolleyes:
Flame Magnet
05-05-2011, 19:32
Every President for 219 years has been white. Can you blame them (as long as he's supposedly qualified)? If I were born black, I guarantee you I would, because I'd be so proud to have a member of my race...wait-that'd be racist!:rolleyes:
LOL:D
Old Dog New Trick
05-05-2011, 20:28
My ranking of who did best in the Fox News Republican Presidential Debate.
#1 Herman Cain
#2 Rick Santorum
#3 Ron Paul
#4 Tim Pawlenty
#5 Gary Johnson
Note: Paul and Santorum were a tough call for position could be a tie. Really impressed with Mr. Cain - Sharp guy well spoken, smart!
My ranking of who did best in the Fox News Republican Presidential Debate.
#1 Herman Cain
#2 Rick Santorum
#3 Ron Paul
#4 Tim Pawlenty
#5 Gary Johnson
Note: Paul and Santorum were a tough call for position could be a tie. Really impressed with Mr. Cain - Sharp guy well spoken, smart!
I would love to wake up that Wednesday, pull up Drudge and see a headline declaring Cain, Santorum OR Pawlenty the winner. :cool:
Paul running as something other than a Republican will assure that doesn't happen, IMO.
I tell you again, we're fucked if we don't unite around somebody. The lamestream press is already into "manipulation" phase, and Dems as a whole are infused with a sense of false cockiness because of the OBL/BHO propaganda.
GratefulCitizen
05-06-2011, 12:12
My ranking of who did best in the Fox News Republican Presidential Debate.
#1 Herman Cain
#2 Rick Santorum
#3 Ron Paul
#4 Tim Pawlenty
#5 Gary Johnson
Note: Paul and Santorum were a tough call for position could be a tie. Really impressed with Mr. Cain - Sharp guy well spoken, smart!
Been following Cain since before he announced his exploratory committee.
He's been around for quite awhile, just not in public office.
He taught clinton some basic economics back in '94.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WP5dYfBBzU
My support of Cain is purely a matter of prejudice.
I vote for my own kind--people who majored in mathematics. :D
CloseDanger
05-06-2011, 12:27
Been following Cain since before he announced his exploratory committee.
He's been around for quite awhile, just not in public office.
He taught clinton some basic economics back in '94.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WP5dYfBBzU
My support of Cain is purely a matter of prejudice.
I vote for my own kind--people who majored in mathematics. :D
That idiot Ron Paul has been warming a seat in the congress for what? 20 years?
Hi sits on the board charged with the Federal Reserve at this very minute. He SUCKS.
Herman Cain is the GodFather of Economics. He speaks my language - American.
Thats my horse, and I Am not leaving him.
That idiot Ron Paul has been warming a seat in the congress for what? 20 years?
Hi sits on the board charged with the Federal Reserve at this very minute. He SUCKS.
Herman Cain is the GodFather of Economics. He speaks my language - American.
Thats my horse, and I Am not leaving him.
I'm a fan of Cain's-ian Economics, myself.:cool:
Wow, that kind of debate is almost unheard of today. If only President Obama could have answered some questions like that (although I bet he wouldn't have been able to).
I like Herman Cain, however during the debate last night, they said that he had called one of his opponents pro-choice because he (the opponent) supported abortion in the case of rape or incest. If that is true, that could kill any chance Cain could have of being elected if the media harped on about it I think.
The other thing I am weasy about is that if the Republicans run a black candidate this time, many may say or think it is just a cynical attempt at trying to beat Barack Obama by running another black man against him.
Or it could be that we truly don't give a fuck what color a man is while the Demwits truly do.
The Reaper
05-06-2011, 19:44
Wow, that kind of debate is almost unheard of today. If only President Obama could have answered some questions like that (although I bet he wouldn't have been able to).
I like Herman Cain, however during the debate last night, they said that he had called one of his opponents pro-choice because he (the opponent) supported abortion in the case of rape or incest. If that is true, that could kill any chance Cain could have of being elected if the media harped on about it I think.
The other thing I am weasy about is that if the Republicans run a black candidate this time, many may say or think it is just a cynical attempt at trying to beat Barack Obama by running another black man against him.
I care more about the quality of his character then the color of his skin.
IMHO, the current POTUS could be improved upon in so many ways, I cannot cover all of them. If I had to define myself and my positions, I would think it would suffice to say that I am his polar opposite.
I didn't like Obama or his positions before I knew he was black, I think that I would support any conservative candidate, to include Herman Cain, Condi Rice, Allen West, or JC Watt without caring about their race either.
TR
CloseDanger
05-06-2011, 21:46
I care more about the quality of his character then the color of his skin.
IMHO, the current POTUS could be improved upon in so many ways, I cannot cover all of them. If I had to define myself and my positions, I would think it would suffice to say that I am his polar opposite.
I didn't like Obama or his positions before I knew he was black, I think that I would support any conservative candidate, to include Herman Cain, Condi Rice, Allen West, or JC Watt without caring about their race either.
TR
I know we are not petty enough to discriminate, we are educated, hard working, and strong. Embrace the candidate that emulates US.
We are all out of race cards anyways.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/12/rep-ron-paul-wont-seek-congressional-seat-in-2012/
Rep. Ron Paul announced Tuesday that he won't seek re-election to the Texas U.S. House seat he's presented for nearly 24 years, and instead will concentrate on getting the Republican nomination for president to run against President Obama in 2012.
Paul made the announcement via Twitter, and linked to a local Texas newspaper to share the details.
"I felt it was better that I concentrate on one election," Paul told The Facts, a news service covering Brazoria County, Texas, a portion of which Paul represents. "It's about that time when I should change tactics."
Paul, 75, has run for the presidency three times, and cultivated a substantial following in the 2008 primary race running on the themes of limited government and less federal spending as well as personal liberties and a limited role in international conflicts.
Paul told the newspaper that he thinks his chances in 2012 for the GOP nomination are better than they were in 2008.
"We have a lot more support right now," he reportedly said. "Things are doing well for us."
An obstetrician by profession, Paul served four terms in the U.S. House between 1976-1984, then ran again as part of the 1994 Republican Revolution. His departure leaves the race for the seat wide open.