2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

reply to post by donwhite


I don't have the patience to sift through this thread to find what you guys don't like about Ron Paul's actual platform, but here is a great speech by his son that I think speaks the conservative message very well.



I understand a lot of you don't like his supporters or chances, but isn't he the most conservative candidate and proven politician up there? How can you be sure that Romney or McCain will uphold the conservative platform given their records? Do you guys really think Republicans can win if they support George Bush? It seems to me like republicans would rather sink the ship then change course.

If you could give me a quick run down on why you think Romney or McCain would be a better president then Ron Paul, I'd appreciate it.

I'd like to hear something of substance against Ron Paul for a change, so I can understand why I keep getting referred to as a 'worshiper'.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by captainplanet]

reply to post by captainplanet

I don't have the patience to sift through this thread to find what you guys don't like about Ron Paul's actual platform, but here is a great speech by his son that I think speaks the conservative message very well. I understand a lot of you don't like his supporters or chances, but isn't he the most conservative candidate and proven politician up there? How can you be sure that Romney or McCain will uphold the conservative platform given their records? Do you guys really think Republicans can win if they support George Bush? It seems to me like republicans would rather sink the ship then change course.

Here’s my take on Ron Paul. He is a nice guy. He is a smart guy. He alone of all candidates on both sides is having FUN. He knows he cannot win but occasionally he gets to remind the voters of the REAL issues facing our country. He is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian. He runs on the Republican ticket in Texas to avoid confusing the voters in his district. They love his honesty and straight talk. He tells it like it is. (I disagree sharply with his proposed solutions, however).

The GOP lets him use the GOP label because he votes 100% with the GOP and he is a sure winner. I’m not certain how Libertarians differ from Republicans. As a Democrat, I see government as the solution to most of the problems facing America. Republicans begrudgingly accept some government, but Libertarians want next to no government at all. That is just plainly unrealistic if not unreasonable.

[edit on 2/2/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


I didn't realize you were a democrat, that makes more sense in why you wouldn't support him. It's a matter of Big Gov vs Small Gov, and that's another thread.

How did he vote himself out of office as a Republican though? I can understand that from a Democrat point of view, but I still don't see how his platform differs from the conservative Republican platform.

That's what I don't get, if someone is a conservative Republican and they look at Paul, McCain, and Romney's histories, how could they not like Ron Paul the most?

If there's a conservative reading this, could you maybe watch that video and tell me what you didn't like, it touches on a lot of conservative and republican issues. I just don't see how Romney or McCain are more conservative or republican and this is the thread about the conservative candidate.

[edit]
spelling

[edit on 2-2-2008 by captainplanet]

reply to post by captainplanet



I kept an open mind about Ron until he refused to refund a donation from Neo Nazis and didn't speak out against there beliefs. That is when I lost all respect for Ron and his supporters who defended his actions in the name of Libertarianism. For me that is more important any of Ron policy's or what he says or does. See Historical note below.

In more general terms I don't agree with the idea that solutions from two hundred years ago will solve today problems.


I regard Ron as a Libertarian or old school Goldwater Conservative take your pick. If the Republican candidate who wins there party nomination and there VP pick only hope will be to distance themselves from Bush. Romney is a flip flop . I respect the fact that McCain can reach across the fence but when he has done this his ideas have misfired .

I refer to Ron Paul supporters as Ron Paul worshippers because they treat like Ron like the US and there personal savour.

Would Paul be a better president then Romney or McCain ?
Well even if Ron was elected he would be a lame duck president . That issue aside I think that Ron heart is in the right place but he is misguided to a lesser degree I think the same thing of McCain.

I don't enough about Romney ability to make good decisions or if he is up to the presidency to make a judgement call.

Historical Note
My Grandfather is Dutch and spend time in a Nazi work camp . His sewing skills may have saved his life.

reply to post by captainplanet

I didn't realize you were a Democrat, that makes more sense in why you wouldn't support him. It's a matter of Big Gov vs Small Gov, and that another thread.

I would have been a Federalist in the 1780s-1790s. Then I’d have been a Whig. I’d like to think I’d have been a Republican in 1860 and1864. I prefer to use the term STRONG central government rather than “big.”

How did he vote himself out of office as a Republican though?

My snappy headline does not fully convey my thinking. I meant that Paul’s advocacy of the Libertarian political philosophy would end with no need for any government in W-DC which would put him out of job.

That's what I don't get, if someone is a conservative Republican and they look at Paul, McCain, and Romney’'s histories, how could they not like Ron Paul the most? If there's a conservative reading this, could you maybe watch that video and tell me what you didn't like, it touches on a lot of conservative and Republican issues. I just don't see how Romney or McCain are more conservative or Republican and this is the thread about the conservative candidate.

Mr. Paul is TOO extreme. It’s one thing to bad-mouth the Federal government but it’s too much to seriously advocate to dismantle it. Main-line GOPs have found it politically profitable to bad-mouth the Federal government but once in office they find it is not all that bad. It does things that have to be done. Like it or not. They can’t live with it, they can’t live without it.

The debate that has survived the longest is referred to by libertarians as the anarchist/miniarchist debate. In 1974, anarchists and miniarchists within the Party agreed to "cease fire" about the specific question of whether governments should exist at all, and focus on promoting voluntary solutions to the problems caused by government instead.

A related internal discussion concerns the philosophical divide over whether the Party should aim to be mainstream and pragmatic, or whether it should focus on being consistent and principled. members who identify themselves as principled have dominated the party since the early 1980s. The departure of Ed Crane and David H. Koch (of the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank) is held up as an example.

Occasionally, media outlets incorrectly label Lyndon LaRouche as a Libertarian in articles about the controversy he generates. Mistakes such as this are problematic for any political party, but have a heavier impact on a smaller party which generally gets less press coverage overall. However, LaRouche has never sought the Libertarian nomination for President.
en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

[edit on 2/2/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by xpert11

I kept an open mind about Ron until he refused to refund a donation from Neo Nazis and didn't speak out against there beliefs.

At about 3:20 when Neil gets done asking him about Christmas ads, he asks him about the donation



"why give it back to him if he has bad view points"

"I don't endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses. They come to me to endorse Freedom, the constitution and limited government."

I don't see how anyone could hold a 500 dollar donation from an individual against him when other candidates get hundreds of thousands of dollars from special interest groups. He said in another interview how he doesn't worry about who is giving him money because he's not worried about who's going to influence him. Like he said, they give him money to support his message, not so he can support theirs.

What could Romney or McCain accomplish that my lame duck could not? Spending more money? Don't waste money or use the fed to infringe on people’s rights and you could pass anything that you want. Nothing else should make it through. There are also more people running for congress under his platform as we speak, and their numbers aren‘t shrinking. It’s not the radical platform people make it out to be, it’s just not what people are used to hearing.

Ron Paul would cut spending by 15 billion dollars a year if you let him. Romney would spend 19 billion more and McCain would spend 14 billion more. They are not fiscal conservatives in my mind.

reply to post by donwhite


I don’t see how people can advocate change and pass up on the candidate that will absolutely be pushing for it. He has transition plans for all his ideas and none would happen on his power alone. It’s not as simple as, “oh we’ll just throw that away” and he knows that. He’s not an anarchist.

reply to post by captainplanet


Sorry but Ron statement isnt a defence . Not refunding the money is in effect saying that the views of the Neo Nazis are OK . The same Freedom that Ron refers to also gives him the right to refund the money and speak out against the donors .

McCain or Romney would stand a reasonable chance of having the bills needed to implement there policy's passed by Congress. The same can not be said for Ron. Being fiscal conservative isnt enough to get elected if the spending cuts come from programs they support. Before the US can have fiscal conservativeism(SP?) the US has to have fiscal sanity.

Its not really feasible or desirable to go from the status qua to Ron's policy's .
Change has to be a measured decision for the better.
Personally I don't view Paul policy's as change because they come from the past. IMO any genuine change in the US would involve the country becoming a representative democracy .

reply to post by xpert11

Sorry but Ron statement isnt a defence . Not refunding the money is in effect saying that the views of the Neo Nazis are OK . The same Freedom that Ron refers to also gives him the right to refund the money and speak out against the donors .

Refunding the money is one thing he has the Freedom to do, another thing he has the Freedom to do is keep the money and move on, not giving that individual anymore media exposure or thought. If you want to know how Ron Paul feels about collectivism then go to RonPaul2008.com, click the tab that says issues, then click on racism. Or just click this:

www.ronpaul2008.com...

McCain or Romney would stand a reasonable chance of having the bills needed to implement there policy's passed by Congress. The same can not be said for Ron.

But it can not really be said about McCain or Romney either with a Democrat House and Senate.

Being fiscal conservative isnt enough to get elected if the spending cuts come from programs they support. Before the US can have fiscal conservativeism(SP?) the US has to have fiscal sanity.

Here’s the analysis the National Taxpayers Union used to decide he could cut 150 billion dollars(I said 15 before):

www.ntu.org...

You can read that and tell me which ideas you don’t like, just read what he has to say about it first and try to keep alternative solutions and transition periods in mind.

Its not really feasible or desirable to go from the status qua to Ron's policy's .
Change has to be a measured decision for the better.

He said, yesterday, that you cannot just cut the domestic programs that people have come to rely on, but they need to be weaned off with transition programs after you cut the overseas spending.

IMO any genuine change in the US would involve the country becoming a representative democracy

I couldn’t agree more with that sentiment, people should have much better representation on questionable subjects. Minimal federal mandating = Flexibility in local decisions.

I think we could end up agreeing if you feel strongly about representative democracy, because it exists more purely when laws that don’t need to be federal are local.

[edit]
spelling

[edit on 3-2-2008 by captainplanet]

I have stated on this thread that corporate socialism in the US needs to end including the agricultural subsides . Kiwi farmers have operated in the Free Market for about twenty years and it hasn't done them any harm.

But even thou I do agree with Ron on some issues I still have to take a stand in line with my conscience . Don't take this personally but I feel that I would dishonour my grandfather and anyone else who suffered at the hands of the Nazis if I supported Ron from a far.

On the majority of social issues I hold Libertarian views but doesn't mean that I wont take a stand when I feel necessary.

You might find this post by don to be of interest .

The dems may or may not retain control of the house. I think that if McCain or Romney was assertive with Congress no matter who is at the helm they would stand a reasonable chance as any of getting there agenda passed. On the other hand Ron policy agenda is so far from what the establishment is interested in it would be near impossible for him to get any where with Congress.

Note Bush mistake was that he was passive with Congress including his own party . Flag this thread it deserves more attention.


[edit on 3-2-2008 by xpert11]

reply to post by donwhite

I prefer to use the term STRONG central government rather than “big.”

What do you think the general role of the federal government is supposed to be or should be?

reply to post by xpert11


If Ron Paul were president there would be plenty of people in congress supporting his views voted in. If he had the popularity to win the presidency, his ideas could certainly win house seats.

With Romney, I don’t know how good he can prove a case because he always just stutters or laughs his way out of it. McCain’s good at talking so slow that you’re afraid to ask him another question. I’ve seen Ron Paul take abuse when he's allowed to talk back, and he sticks to the point and doesn’t accept distractions.

I can accept your moral grounds for not supporting him personally, but would you agree that his platform is the most conservative?

reply to post by captainplanet

What do you think the general role of the federal government is supposed to be or should be?

I actually believe in the Preamble to the United States Constitution. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I disdain the 1954 addition of “under God” as insulting to God, but I do remind of the Pledge of Allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and TO the Republic for which it stands, ONE NATION (under God) INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice for all." All too many people place all their emphasis on ‘Under God" and do not even know or understand the other words they are just mimicking.

I also hold in the highest regard the 14th Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States .. are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.” See Foot Note.

States, in particular the 11 states of the Confederacy, have violated the 14th Amendment more times than anyone can count. Indeed, we are still arguing the outcome of the War of the Rebellion - a/k/a the Civil War. Terrorism was practiced in America without legal restraint, indeed, in many instances the law enforcers were also the terrorists. The most ignoble group among many was the Ku Klux Klan in its several incarnations. Between 1866 and 1966, over 4,700 black men were lynched. Not all in the South.

Lynching by the way is not the supposed humane ‘hanging” used to perform legal executions. Hanging implies “snapping the neck” to bring about near instant death. Lynching on the other hand means strangulation, that is, choking to death. That can take from 1 to 3 minutes. That is not only murder it is torture. Fewer than one-half dozen of the 4,700 instigators of lynchings were ever brought to trial. Numbers are from Southern Poverty Law Center.

There is much more but I’ll not overload my reply here.


Foot Note. Pay attention that both the word CITIZEN and PERSONS are used. This shows the TWO classes have different rights and protections. I contend that PERSONS includes the captives held at Guantanamo Bay and other secret prisons around the world as no territorial limitations are expressed.

[edit on 2/3/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Well I'm down for a more perfect union, as I think everyone who votes is. One Nation Indivisible depends on what you're trying to impose on the entire nation. I don't think you should ever sacrifice people's right to act independently from their government as long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights.

People being born here and getting automatic citizenship has gotten complicated with the way people in other countries abuse it, but I personally don't really care either way to be honest. Here's a quick video of Ron Paul on the 14th amendment:



I pretty much agree with you though, and I don't think you're that out of line with his views.

Originally posted by captainplanet
I can accept your moral grounds for not supporting him personally, but would you agree that his platform is the most conservative?

Thanks for the understanding.
To answer your question Paul is the most clear cut Conservative / Libertarian in the race. Romney is a flip flop and if you go three or four pages back you will see that I posted a video of McCain stating that no more US troops should die in Somalia.

reply to post by captainplanet


Commentary: There is no distinction between the original document and any of the subsequent amendments. All have equal standing. Should any conflict occur, the later in point of time would prevail. Paul should not have implied such a distinction when he referenced the 14th Amendment.

Then Paul asserted that drug dealers here illegally are NOT under the jurisdiction of the US Government and therefore, their children born here are NOT citizens. Au contraire! First, we are not talking about drug dealers. We are talking about children born on our shores. There is no “jurisdiction” issue. It is simply birth and where did it happen?

Aside: Everybody on our soil is under the jurisdiction of the US government. Excepting foreign embassies and their staffing. The US may not be able to catch them, but they are still under our jurisdiction nevertheless. In fact, we even claimed that Manuel Noriega of Panama was under our jurisdiction. And he was in Panama!

Ron Paul is muddying the waters. I don’t know if he's doing it on purpose or not. But he has misunderstood or is misstating “jurisdiction” as it is used in the 14th Amendment to define natural born citizens.

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . .

Surely any new-born baby is under the jurisdiction of the United States?

[edit on 2/3/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite

Then Paul asserted that drug dealers here illegally are NOT under the jurisdiction of the US Government and therefore, their children born here are NOT citizens. Au contraire! First, we are not talking about drug dealers. We are talking about children born on our shores. There is no “jurisdiction” issue.

That’s why he put forth a bill and an amendment, because he thinks it should different. He refers to the original constitution, historical interpretation, and an example of why it should change to try and prove his point. There is nothing unconstitutional about wanting to amend the constitution. You may disagree with him, but that doesn’t make him unconstitutional. If that one's a bad idea, it more then likely would never make through. I don’t have a strong opinion on that one, so I wont defend it.

He shouldn’t have made a distinction between the two, but he never implied his distinction had any legal bearing, he didn‘t say the current policy isn’t legal. I think you’d find much worse cases of slight handedness then that if you look at his competition.

Ann Coulter has endorsed Romney in a round about way and with greater punch by saying that she would vote for Hillary before she voted for McCain. Since I treat Ann as a media version of a troll so I don't know what impact her rant will have if any.

See this thread for more on this matter.

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by xpert11

Ann Coulter has endorsed Romney in a round about way and with greater punch by saying that she would vote for Hillary before she voted for McCain. Since I treat Ann as a media version of a troll so I don't know what impact her rant will have if any.

Ann Coulter, like Rush Limbaugh, has a much higher estimation of herself than any other rational person. Never beautiful, 20 years ago she was cute in coquettish sort of way but now she is looking long in the tooth. She also like Rush has never had an original thought. She’s a joke. I do not go to her website as I’m wary I’d be put on the right wing mailing list.

Impact? None to next to none.

[edit on 2/4/2008 by donwhite]

How much impact will the talking heads have on Super Tuesday. It's true tha they have a large following, but really...how much impact do you think they can really have?

Justin I am afraid I have to ask who or what you are referring to in this case ?

So unless there are plans to Burn the House down I am confused.