It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why isnt Ron Paul, the only true Republican, nominee?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:21 AM
Look it is obvious that the majority of right wingers chose McCain to be their nominee over Romney and Ron Paul. I dont believe it was some conspiracy and I dont like this excuse that the media is to blame, he got only a small fraction of the total GOP votes.

Now Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate in the Republican party, I may be an Obama supporter but I know republican values and Ron Paul seemed to have stood for every one of them. If you did not vote in Ron Paul then why? And if you did vote in Ron Paul then why do you think he was not chosen as the nominee despite him being the only true conservative? I dont want to hear excuses or some conspiracy, we hear that too much from emotionally charged former supporters. I want to know why you think the majority of conservatives chose not to vote for him.

Is it because of his policies? Because their true to Republican values, more so than any candidate since Reagan.

Is it because of his connection to the 9/11 truthers that got pro-Bush voters turned off?

Why is it that this near to perfect conservative true to the original Republican foundation got voted out in favour of somebody that has turned their backs to party values?

[edit on 27-8-2008 by southern_Guardian]

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:35 PM
Ron Paul...a true Republican?

Didn't he run as a Libertarian in 1988?

Ron Paul only got noticed this year because he opposed the Iraq war.

I don't know of any true Republicans that actually gave this guy a chance. His base was a bunch of left wing anti-war internet kooks.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:40 PM
I'm a Republican and I voted for Ron Paul. I also used to be a Libertarian, and I'm seriously thinking about reverting.

I think the reason he was not voted in was definitely because he supports a strong interpretation of the Constitution, and Americans today are patsy pushover wimps with no backbones and don't deserve their freedom... That's why it's being taken away from them by the Neo-cons.

I have an answer to our national debt, too. Write in Ron Paul. Watch him expose the truth. Take all of our gold back from the Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Chases, Stanleys, and World Banks; And charge them all with treason or conspiracies against humanity, and have them hung (like we did Saddam Hussein). World Peace, Economy, and problem solved.

Why did we go in debt $4,000,000,000,000+ to the world banks while doing practically nothing about world terrorism (there's more terrorists), instead of just fixing the real problem, which is getting rid of those rich pigs that started it (the real terrorists). We could have solved world hunger, world health, world peace, and world education for that amount of money.

We can allow these roughly 1000 people to enslave the World, or we, the 6.7 billion people of the world (that they don't care about) can take care of that zit on the face of the world, and haul them all to court and sue them for everything they have (which is all the world's money). They fear us, because we're righteous, and they know that we know that they've been starting wars for centuries. We have all the evidence we need. Let's get some justice! And, write laws against this stuff happening again. It's OUR GOLD they STOLE!

I mean, come on, how gullible are you? Are you a man or are you a mouse?

"America the Suckers"

My 2c,

[edit on 27-8-2008 by dnbaudio]

[edit on 27-8-2008 by dnbaudio]

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:14 PM
how about you list some things that are "left wing and kooky" because i beg to differ...give me 3 reasons not to vote for ron paul.....and please give me at least 2 things that show why he is not a true republican conservative....
lets see..the man has a rediculously perfect voting record. his economic plans are the only thing that actually makes sence in this day and age...and if you even dare to respond to that please make sure to include where his economic or any other plans fall short...i am soooo sick of people bagging ron paul and listing so actual reasons or examples of why ihe is not a good candidate....granted i think obama is the lesser of the evils left in the race..but come on....everyone thinks he is some saint whose gonna change the world.....lets see...hes a member of the CFR (north american union anyone) and if you are still blind thinking that the NAU isnt going to happen.....i fell so sorry for you. lets see..what else....he constantly says how hes been against the iraq war form the beginning but yet every chance hes had to vote on it is announced Not Present....(what a coincidence) i mean..those 2 reasons right there is enough for me to not vote for himbased purely on morals and my personal obligation to this far as im concerned (and i know plenty of you will agree) a vote for an member of the CFR is a vote to send this country down the toilet......

and for those who dont believe it......just just wait.....europe didnt believe the european union was going to happen either and bam one day it smacked them in the face....

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:16 PM
Ron Paul might be the definition of an 1800's republican, but in this day and age, he is the epitome of a libertarian.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:10 AM
But, are not Republican values, I mean true Republican values essentially libertarian. For example, minimal government, and the axiom that markets are the only efficient allocaters of scarce resources, and that we must maximize the least amount of interference by government (negative liberty), and finally, forever and always protect individual liberties and the freedom to choose. These are the things that Ron Paul believes, as does any Republican, or, so I thought. Ron Paul's economics is rooted in the Austrian school, but, nevertheless remain principled along Republican views. I guess my question to any Republican is "When did it become ok, or acceptable to Republicans to have an agency independent of any oversight, to manage the Nation's money supply....without consent?" This, in my estimation is not a Republican virtue, rather it is a measure employed to fleece its citizenry on a regular basis. In short, I am disappointed with current American values (I am Canadian). You (Republicans) had an opportunity to really move your Party and your country forward, and I think with the selections you have made for President and vice President candidates will most certainly set your party back for at least a generation. Look forward to Obama's tax initiatives, intensified regulations, public (and expensive) inefficient healthcare (trust me on that), marginalized innovation in anything as his domestic policies will destroy the very incentive needed for innovation, and pseudo French diplomacy. Wow. You will be so tired of the socialist rhetoric that you will actually come to believe it, and I suppose thats what scares me. Don't get me wrong. Bush royally screwed your country 6 ways to Sunday, but, I fear a move to Obama will only solidify this knee jerk reaction to neo-cons that disguised themselves as true Americans for the last 8 years. The fact is, you were betrayed by leadership and now you are jaded by anything that could be interpreted as a product or initiative of the neo-conservative agenda. I have always admired the American resolve. Your history is remarkable, protection of liberties, rights, and freedoms, commendable, and your aspiration to always succeed, speaks to the spirit of a nation that is always proud. I fear, however, that this is about to change, not because you chose it, but because you really had no choice. And I suppose that is the tragedy. So, know that when I think of a great America, I am really thinking of an America that aspires to the principles of economic liberty, those principles that Ron Paul so eloquently speaks of (you guys are so lucky to have him!!). Be well and God bless.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Ron Paul might be the definition of an 1800's republican, but in this day and age, he is the epitome of a libertarian.

I would say that is correct. That's because the Republican party has been infested with Leftist Ideology, beginning with the Trotskyist leaving the Democrats and calling themselves Neoconservatives. Funny thing though is that they are nothing neo or new since they are nothing more than old-leftists, nor are they conservative.

The reason why Republicans vote for Neoconservatives is because they have been duped. This is changing though, there is a growing tied against Neoconservativism, I wouldn't doubt they'll be soon expunged from the Republican party, they have this financial, and military mess on their heads, if it's on thing I'm grateful for is that thanks to Neocons like Kristol, Bush, Cheney, et. al. will forever be known as the guys who forced people to learn about what REAL conservativism means.

Soon the Neocons will crawl back under their leftist ROCK where they belong.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Gateway]

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:32 AM
Ron Paul wants to disband the Federal Reserve and keep America.

That interferes with the international bankers plans. The bank is thier vehicle to destroy all national sovrienties and bring about a unified world under the command of one man.

Both McCain and Obama are loyal to the bankers plans.

Obama received his indoctrination from his instructors at the University of Chicago and McCain received his (Probably neuro reprogramming) while he was a POW in Vietnam.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by In nothing we trust]

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:34 AM
I voted for Paul. The reason he failed was his opposition to the war. By opposing the war it gave his opponents a chance to paint him in a negative light, and in today's media driven political culture, that is a killer.

I disagreed with Paul on the war. As someone who lost family in Iraq, I have studied the rational for the war and its implimentation very closely. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were good wars well executed until the very end when everyone quit before the job was done.

On all other issues I agree with Paul. We need to restore the gold standard, halt the Latin migration (lest we suffer the fate of all other nations which faced a migration of people into their area - it will hurt everyone if we don't), and limit the power and scope of government by dismantling many of the departments we have now.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:47 AM
I'm a Republican and I voted for Paul. I thought that trying to return the party to its roots would be a better cause than jumping ship and becoming a Libertarian and clawing for recognition.

I once thought that working with the system in CT I could get some of my rights back especially since the state constitution explicitly protected those rights but after years of that hell I jumped ship for NH.

I guess I'll be jumping ship for the Libertarian party sooner than later.

It's sad really. How hard is it to keep government small and mind your own business? I mean, it takes no effort at all to do nothing. They had to try to screw it all up and they worked hard and screwed it royally. Now the (D) and the (R) are the same thing. With the exception of the AWB of course. The one thing that the (R) has over the (D)'s for my vote in my very close state.

So sad that with all the crap thats going on nobody has any solution other than controlling and all-knowing socialism to make it all worse and the only plus side to me out there is the chance that I'll get to keep my guns. With any luck I'll get to spend some time at the range while the world burns.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:13 PM
I actually do agree with the other poster regarding Pauls foreign policies. The mere fact he was opposed to it I think may have lost him votes.. But then again I really get the feeling that even if the Iraq war was non-existent he still wouldnt be voted in.

It is probably this oldish style of conservatism I guess.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:02 PM
reply to post by papabryant

I'm just wondering if you could elaborate some on what your studies have found that required us to go into Iraq. IMO its because of failed policy going back several decades that put us in that position.

There was a long line of failed intelligence, denial or outright ignoring of intelligence leading up to 9/11. I think RP is against the entire system that led up to the Iraq war. He believes in a strong military and I think people see him as someone would make us weaker.

On the contrary, I think his policy would make us stronger and not so spread out and in the end safer here at home. And his foreign policy would go a lot further in preventing an atmosphere that would make us susceptible to foreign attack.

new topics

top topics


log in