Ron Paul in 2008 Supporters

[orlywhy]

Looking better every month....

[bzbatl]

I dropped off the Paul bandwagon and will now be supporting Huckabee.

Only a *slightly* better chance of getting the nomination. But my agenda is the FairTax passing.

[Xenohunter]

I agree, was driving on one of our major highways here in Michigan and I saw many billboards, signs and posters of ron paul and his site. Yes its getting better and better!

Way to go Faux! I'm watching the debates right now and did you notice how they totally ignored paul regarding immigration. It's because he's the toughest on immigration and because he wants to deport illegals.

[orlywhy]

Originally Posted by Xenohunter

I agree, was driving on one of our major highways here in Michigan and I saw many billboards, signs and posters of ron paul and his site. Yes its getting better and better!

Way to go Faux! I'm watching the debates right now and did you notice how they totally ignored paul regarding immigration. It's because he's the toughest on immigration and because he wants to deport illegals.

Fox news made me sick tonight.

[orlywhy]

Originally Posted by bzbatl

I dropped off the Paul bandwagon and will now be supporting Huckabee.

Only a *slightly* better chance of getting the nomination. But my agenda is the FairTax passing.

I hope you change your mind.

[bzbatl]

Why? He has zero chance of getting the nomination.

Huckabee slightly better chance, and has a "good enough" stance on most subjects I (or any Libertarian) should care about.

- 2nd amendment supporter
- school choice
- against "universal" healthcare
- supports fairtax
- reduced government size in Arkansas

His faults are the faith based horseshit, gay marriage horseshit, and abortion bullshit.

But I can certainly live with those little issues that do not concern me or anyone in my family... with the reality of a smaller, less controlling government and the FairTax in place.


I will concede he is not as ideal as Ron Paul, but he is viable, and that puts him up a notch for my realistic vote.

To be clear: I have never voted Libertarian when I believed my vote for another candidate would actually be worth something. Otherwise, voting Libertarian is just making a statement while throwing your vote away.

[Wakey]

I would think you are throwing away your vote when you start considering who has a better chance of winning as a reason on whom to vote for.

Political people eat and drink polling and when 3rd party candidates get votes it drags turds on the fringes closer to the center.

[bzbatl]

I don't think you understand my reasoning.

Ron Paul is not the best Libertarian candidate. George Phillies or Steve Kubby are (currently).

Here in Georgia, the Republican will take the vote no matter who I vote for. So therefore, I will vote for Phillies or Kubby come time in 2008.

However, we're talking about the Republican primary. In the Republican primary, Ron Paul is the best centrist candidate that runs as a true Republican. But Mike Huckabee has a more realistic shot at becoming the Republican candidate, and has an agenda that I am in favor of... the points I listed above.

Huckabee is kind of what you describe, in the one that got dragged to the center. He's still technically a right winger, socially, but his economic policy is centrist (and perfect when you consider the FairTax stance). And he has a far better chance of succeeding at the Republican nomination than Paul does.

Therefore, Huckabee gets my vote when the primaries come up.


Edit: One big mark against Ron Paul is that he has not committed to a viable tax reform. He just claims to want to "lower taxes". You saw how well that worked out (higher tax revenue, government expansion), when Bush did it.

[bush]

Originally Posted by bzbatl

Edit: One big mark against Ron Paul is that he has not committed to a viable tax reform. He just claims to want to "lower taxes". You saw how well that worked out (higher tax revenue, government expansion), when Bush did it.

Consider the source, sweetie.

The Bush family has had their fingers in business and investments for decades. It's been in their best interests to expand government and spend money, in the name of making money of course.

I too agree that using probability as any measure of who to vote for isn't really a good thing, because it's not nearly as important as what they stand for and the message it sends when a fringe candidate makes the splash that Paul is making.

[bzbatl]

It's money (in many senses of that word) and freedoms that I'm looking for, and I'd rather have a fighting chance at it than be stuck in a quagmire with utopian ideals.

Think about this "message" you're sending. How is it ANY different than the message sent to politicians about illegal immigrants? Did we get heard? Has something been done about it? Noooooope.

Think of it this way:

Huckabee - realistic chance of getting 3/4 of what you want
Paul - you send a message that'll the political elite already ignores



The dream world is great. I like Ron Paul. I'd love to live in the dream world that he'd run.

It's unfortunate that I live in the real world.

[FastNinja76]

Originally Posted by orlywhy

Looking better every month....

Really? Are you serious?

I watched the debate too, and Paul came off the least credible in my opinion.
I agree with his tough anti-immigrant stance, but thats about it.

He probably thrilled the conservatives who just hate this war and want out-no matter what. His "mind our own business" statement really threw me though. That is exactly the mindset that put us on the defense instead of the offense in this war. He was so concerned with politics and how the war is negatively affecting their party.

I guess a candidate has to pander to someone...too bad it was to pussy republicans and lib democrats.

Huckabee on the other hand...

Never noticed him before, have to research further.

[EEfz6]

Huckabee has actually been my second choice for a while now, but I am still pulling for Paul.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by bzbatl

I dropped off the Paul bandwagon and will now be supporting Huckabee.

Only a *slightly* better chance of getting the nomination. But my agenda is the FairTax passing.

Seems to me that lower taxes are better than just rearranged taxes.

Originally Posted by bzbatl

I don't think you understand my reasoning.

Ron Paul is not the best Libertarian candidate. George Phillies or Steve Kubby are (currently).

Here in Georgia, the Republican will take the vote no matter who I vote for. So therefore, I will vote for Phillies or Kubby come time in 2008.

However, we're talking about the Republican primary. In the Republican primary, Ron Paul is the best centrist candidate that runs as a true Republican. But Mike Huckabee has a more realistic shot at becoming the Republican candidate, and has an agenda that I am in favor of... the points I listed above.

Huckabee is kind of what you describe, in the one that got dragged to the center. He's still technically a right winger, socially, but his economic policy is centrist (and perfect when you consider the FairTax stance). And he has a far better chance of succeeding at the Republican nomination than Paul does.

Therefore, Huckabee gets my vote when the primaries come up.

Edit: One big mark against Ron Paul is that he has not committed to a viable tax reform. He just claims to want to "lower taxes". You saw how well that worked out (higher tax revenue, government expansion), when Bush did it.

a) Ron Paul has a much better chance of getting elected than either Kubby or Phillies.
b) Even though his chances are very slim, the bigger splash Ron Paul can make and the better support he can show, the more the Republican Party will have to pay some attention to the issues he is raising.
c) I don't see at all that Huckabee has a better chance than Paul; Paul leads everyone but Romney and Giuliani on most measures, even being ahead of former media darling McCain in many ways.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between Paul and Bush; Paul favors lowering taxes AND spending, and will work to do just exactly that. Bush favored lowering taxes, but increasing spending and government, which predictably was a bad combination. (But not as bad as those who favor increasing *both* taxes and spending.) To compare Paul's message to Bush's and claim that Paul can't succeed because Bush screwed it up is not rational.

I expect that, come the main election, the Republicans will have set up their usual puppet, and I'll vote for the LP guy (preferably Kubby; he's sharp). But I'm helping push Paul as far as he can go. He's getting real coverage and raising real issues far more effectively than any LP candidate has ever managed, and is making a real difference in the political landscape.

PhilB

[mikem317]

I didn't know that Paul wants to eliminate half of the government agencies, like the CIA, FBI, IRS, etc. I enjoyed the debate though last night, although I think it reaffirmed by belief that he is in fact an isolationist.