Who do you feel Pittsburghers would prefer more? (Republic: place, rain)

[mike02]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Correct, because his views on far too many policy issues, including core issues of international relationship and economic policy, are unacceptable to far too many voters.

I suppose policing the world, getting involved in everyone's business, starting unnecessary wars, and having all these bases around the globe including wealthy nations like Japan, Germany, and South Korea (which also costs trillions of dollars) is sensible foreign policy for MANY voters

[mike02]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Glad you agree with what I said. He resigned or extended it. He is the same as bush in most ways.

Obama and Bush would be appropriately described as "Imperial Presidents," which is a danger to our constitutional liberties. The Executive Branch was never intended to have that much power. But, you'll see some posts on here defending him at all costs . If the election comes down to Obama and Romney there will be fierce competition for the uneducated, ignorant, and easily manipulated voters.

[BrianTH]

Supporters like mike02 are also not helping Paul's cause.

Anyway, there is indeed an audience for Paul's anti-militarism, although the Republican primaries are not necessarily the best place to find such an audience. But things like Paul's UN conspiracy theories, and his general aversion to peaceful international cooperation, would be deal-breakers for most of that audience. That leaves the intersecting set of people who would find his entire set of views on foreign policy issues acceptable very small.

Or, in other words, the John Birch worldview remains a fringe worldview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X554O6TwiYM

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by mike02

Never say never. But I know the GOP strategy is to keep propping up a "not-Romney" candidate each week. First we had Cain, then Newt, then Santorum, and now it appears Huntsman's polling is increasing in NH. Of course the GOP doesn't want Ron Paul. Nor does the mainstream media. But the people? That's questionable at this point. Don't forget that Ron Paul has been attracting support from independents and former Obama supporters (especially those against the wars and nation building).

BTW, did you quote Donald Trump? He said something similar.

From what I saw with tonight. Huntsman was 3rd tonight so he doesn't look likely to be gaining steam. I think Newt and Perry will definitely be bowing out now with another awful finish for both tonight. While I may not agree with Ron Paul on a few things, I do respect him as someone is always telling the truth on how they see something and doesn't cave into what other people would want him to say.

[mike02]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Supporters like mike02 are also not helping Paul's cause.

Anyway, there is indeed an audience for Paul's anti-militarism, although the Republican primaries are not necessarily the best place to find such an audience. But things like Paul's UN conspiracy theories, and his general aversion to peaceful international cooperation, would be deal-breakers for most of that audience. That leaves the intersecting set of people who would find his entire set of views on foreign policy issues acceptable very small.

Or, in other words, the John Birch worldview remains a fringe worldview:


Ron Paul in 1998 John Birch Society Documentary on the UN Plot to take over America - YouTube

Supporters like BrianTH are not helping Obama's cause.

Paul might have a point about the UN.

Democrats Oppose Obama-U.N. Gun Control Treaty - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

Researchers predict UN Arms Trade Treaty will be finalized by summer - National gun rights | Examiner.com

And a great youtube video of Obama being upfront and honest about his foreign policy plans if elected (circa 2007-2008)


Obama filmed lying - YouTube

I can't wait to see his campaign promises this time around when he visits all 57 states!

Should I mention "Fast & Furious?"

"Fast And Furious" Just Might Be President Obama's Watergate - Forbes

[mike02]

It appears Mitt Romney won New Hampshire with Ron Paul in 2nd place. What happened to Paul having no chance in hell? It's just the beginning folks.

[Scott2187]

Originally Posted by mike02

It appears Mitt Romney won New Hampshire with Ron Paul in 2nd place. What happened to Paul having no chance in hell? It's just the beginning folks.

Rick Santorum had no chance in hell in Iowa... doesn't mean a lot.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Correct, because his views on far too many policy issues, including core issues of international relationship and economic policy, are unacceptable to far too many voters.

So you feel if Paul got voted in, he wouldn't be allowed to be president? Kind of scary. Are we now just a full fledged military complex that strong-arms its people into whatever they want?

[gg]

Originally Posted by mike02

It appears Mitt Romney won New Hampshire with Ron Paul in 2nd place. What happened to Paul having no chance in hell? It's just the beginning folks.

Paul's best chance is as an independent. I know a lot of Democrats that are looking at him as someone to vote for. I am one of them. I like many of his ideas, but of course there are plenty I don't like. That would be true with everyone I have voted for though. Never agree with 100% of what they say. Not that it matters though because non of them follow through with it anyway.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Sadly, if any stance that goes against the status quo of the same old American politician is viewed as "fringe" there is little hope for this country going forward regardless of candidate.

This isn't even about Paul really, if Americans are complacent with being fed the same pile of crap they've been eating for years then what's the point of the whole dog and pony show anyway?