Marko Kloos
New member
Do share. What's the current definition of "win"?
Ron Paul as a leader
- Thread starter dwc1973
- Start date
- Status
Do share. What's the current definition of "win"?
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
Wow. You must have watched a different debate than I did. It appeared to me that the Mad Doctor was closer to the edge of instability than ever last night.
He has some wonderful ideas, but he is way too crazy to be in the Oval Office. (except maybe on a White House tour)
Militarily we are winning already. Dramatic and consistent success are a current reality. There may be a new thread on the topic opened so that it can be thoroughly looked at some more. The debate has shifted from 'quagmire' to 'political reconciliation' . Petraeus has implemented a brilliant plan. He took the situation from what Democrat leadership said was already lost to indisputable success. Political reconciliation will always be arguable as we don't even enjoy what could be called a politically reconciled central (Federal) government. The fruit there will happen when provincial elections take place. That is the next step forward in the local to central plan Petraeus has implemented to great success so far. The local political reconciliation is what is fueling the military success.
Without blood there doesn't seem to be an interest in the mass media to cover Iraq. Unfortunate but true that what is happening in Iraq is still thought to be what WAS happening in Iraq due to lack of mass coverage.
As for Paul conveying a capacity for leadershi[p on this matter, he has not.
Without blood there doesn't seem to be an interest in the mass media to cover Iraq. Unfortunate but true that what is happening in Iraq is still thought to be what WAS happening in Iraq due to lack of mass coverage.
As for Paul conveying a capacity for leadershi[p on this matter, he has not.
I'm still confused about the subject of "charisma", that's the sort of thing my 87 year old mother uses to determine who to vote for. She won't vote for anyone with a beard or moustache, says "those people" look sneaky. In reality what she means is that facial hair diminishes their charsima.
Lack of charisma is just about the last thing we Americans should use to judge a candidate, used car salesmen have charisma, as do many dictators world wide.
What we want, or should want, is a man with dedication to prinicples. Principles that are demonstrated by a record in congress, say about 20 years duration, one that is consistent and lawful.
To me, that's the genuine article, I don't need "charisma" in that man.
Edit: An additional comment about Ron Paul's intellectual level compared to the "others". Tom DiLorenzo is a professor of economics.
Lack of charisma is just about the last thing we Americans should use to judge a candidate, used car salesmen have charisma, as do many dictators world wide.
What we want, or should want, is a man with dedication to prinicples. Principles that are demonstrated by a record in congress, say about 20 years duration, one that is consistent and lawful.
To me, that's the genuine article, I don't need "charisma" in that man.
Edit: An additional comment about Ron Paul's intellectual level compared to the "others". Tom DiLorenzo is a professor of economics.
Last edited:
Then you miss the boat entirely. Charisma, with the exception of the veto, is the most important power a president has. Wielded correctly, it can sway congress, the general public, or foreign governments.
Ron Paul would not have been able to sit down with Gorbachev and accomplish what Reagan did. He won't be able to work with democratic (or even republican) congressional leaders.
As so many have pointed out here, being a single congressman gives one the luxury of stamping their foot and saying no, regardless of how unrealistic it is. A president doesn't have this option.
Should Paul be elected he would get nothing through congress and would likely have the honor of being the president with the most overridden vetos. 2/3's is a small threshold when both parties are united.
Finally and most importantly I didn't see you mention anything about Paul's comments about the iranian boats. To say that 5 fast boats with unknown weaponry approaching our navy is not big deal is the height of ignorance and stupidity. Bigger boats are not invincible simply because of their size. History has proven this time and again.
thunderkyss
New member
Win
Just point to Paul's leadership abilities please or accept that the lack of such abilities is the problem. Not the neocons or an ignorant electorate.
This scurrying around in a frenzy frothing about a grand scheme or making a frankly ignorant claim that the President doesn't NEED to be a leader points out another problem for the Paul campaign. His supporters have a dire need to show a bit of dignity. Shrug it off as useless posturing or accept that it is necessary if you wish to have others feel comfortable being associated with you. It is something that is so needed if this message isn't going to forever be tainted by 'OH...that PAUL message...maniacs...no thanks' in the future should another candidate run with this message.
So please, examples and/or a cessation of mania please.
This scurrying around in a frenzy frothing about a grand scheme or making a frankly ignorant claim that the President doesn't NEED to be a leader points out another problem for the Paul campaign. His supporters have a dire need to show a bit of dignity. Shrug it off as useless posturing or accept that it is necessary if you wish to have others feel comfortable being associated with you. It is something that is so needed if this message isn't going to forever be tainted by 'OH...that PAUL message...maniacs...no thanks' in the future should another candidate run with this message.
So please, examples and/or a cessation of mania please.
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
(emphasis by me)
Isn't it funny how the Paulestinians set the requirements for President around the Mad Doctor's "qualifications"?
I agree that he has vigorously and consistently defended the Constitution. There can be no disputing his integrity in that matter.
He has a 20 year record and a Presidential campaign to reference. In that time where are the demonstrations of leadership ability. The subject gets changed but the problem of the campaign not succeeding despite an outstanding message. Blame blame blame, mania, frenzy froth. But the reason isn't smearbunds (whatever the heck that is. I think it's someone pointing on things you don't like seeing.) neocons, international bankers, the GOP, or ignorant voters. It boils down to lack of leadership ability and if this message gets indelibly connected to the above mentioned traits, it will be very difficult for a future candidate to pick up without having to deal with the residue left on it.
He has a 20 year record and a Presidential campaign to reference. In that time where are the demonstrations of leadership ability. The subject gets changed but the problem of the campaign not succeeding despite an outstanding message. Blame blame blame, mania, frenzy froth. But the reason isn't smearbunds (whatever the heck that is. I think it's someone pointing on things you don't like seeing.) neocons, international bankers, the GOP, or ignorant voters. It boils down to lack of leadership ability and if this message gets indelibly connected to the above mentioned traits, it will be very difficult for a future candidate to pick up without having to deal with the residue left on it.
thunderkyss
New member
even outside his leadership ability, or lack thereof(Jimmy Carter couldn't be called a leader could he??).
I liked what he said about the economy.
But when he talked about anything else, immigration, foreign policy, whatever, he sounded like he was too far out there.
I liked what he said about the economy.
But when he talked about anything else, immigration, foreign policy, whatever, he sounded like he was too far out there.
Has anyone noticed after the past 3 or so republican debates that Ron Paul has dominated the text voting results by a landslide? Of course, we all can agree on the fact that a good percentage of his debate text votes come from a lot of democrats that hate the republican status quo so much that they will reach out to any candidate that agrees to pull out of Iraq.
Let's look at the reality here. A lot of democrat voters aren't exactly thrilled about having to vote for Obama or Hillary, but will vote for them anyway because in their eyes, either of these two would be a better choice than any of the republican "frontrunners". They do however, seem willing to "cross" party lines to support Ron Paul in these post debate text voting polls. On the other hand, how many conseratives do you see crossing over to support anyone on the democrat side in their post debate text polls?
I can bet you that the ratio is probably 100 to 1. This seems to indicate the possibility of winning a lot of swing voters that typically vote democrat.
Ron Paul has been a guest on a number of "liberal" leaning talk shows such as "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher". Even these liberal audiences love the ideals and freedoms that Ron Paul stands for and they don't view him as as the typical mainstream republican that they all despise. There are a lot of "soft" democrat voters out there that are not exactly happy with their own party right now and would be willing to cross party lines to vote for someone like Ron Paul.
Right now the republicans do not have enough support from their own disgruntled conservative base to defeat the Obama/Hillary machine in November. What they need to do is to stand behind a candidate like Ron Paul that can take enough votes away from the democrats to ensure a victory in November. The republicans will not win by pushing the "frontrunners" that they are pushing now. The ones the RNC are trying to push now are the ones that will keep the "great military industrial complex" running on and on because they have a vested intrest in it. If they can put their own greed aside and get behind Ron Paul, they can defeat the gun-grabbing democrats in November.
Let's look at the reality here. A lot of democrat voters aren't exactly thrilled about having to vote for Obama or Hillary, but will vote for them anyway because in their eyes, either of these two would be a better choice than any of the republican "frontrunners". They do however, seem willing to "cross" party lines to support Ron Paul in these post debate text voting polls. On the other hand, how many conseratives do you see crossing over to support anyone on the democrat side in their post debate text polls?
I can bet you that the ratio is probably 100 to 1. This seems to indicate the possibility of winning a lot of swing voters that typically vote democrat.
Ron Paul has been a guest on a number of "liberal" leaning talk shows such as "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher". Even these liberal audiences love the ideals and freedoms that Ron Paul stands for and they don't view him as as the typical mainstream republican that they all despise. There are a lot of "soft" democrat voters out there that are not exactly happy with their own party right now and would be willing to cross party lines to vote for someone like Ron Paul.
Right now the republicans do not have enough support from their own disgruntled conservative base to defeat the Obama/Hillary machine in November. What they need to do is to stand behind a candidate like Ron Paul that can take enough votes away from the democrats to ensure a victory in November. The republicans will not win by pushing the "frontrunners" that they are pushing now. The ones the RNC are trying to push now are the ones that will keep the "great military industrial complex" running on and on because they have a vested intrest in it. If they can put their own greed aside and get behind Ron Paul, they can defeat the gun-grabbing democrats in November.
I also at the time did not like his response on the Iranian speedboats. But after finding this stuff today:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/73455/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
he just may be right. At least he's the only one up there to question our government.
As for winning the war, that has to be defined before it can be won. Who is the enemy? Can anyone here honestly tell me who it is that we are fighting? Sunnis? Shiites? Al Qaeda? Iranian fighters? All of the above? And when will we know we have "won"? As long as we are there, there will be fighting.
We went in to depose Sadaam and secure any possible WMDs. We did that. That mission IS accomplished. What are we doing now? Can anyone here truly say? And say who the enemy is (and I don't want to simply hear "terrorists"). If the Iraqis cannot get their act together and unite as a country (and I probably would not either if I had been oppressed for decades by a ruthless dictator), after 5 years, it is not our problem any more. It is not up to us to lose our lives and money for them if they can't get their crap together.
If our reason for going in was justified, then we also do not need to feel guilty about the results.
As for leaving a vacuum. Any terrorists will simply go where we are not, it doesn't matter where. And then, if we ever find them, we reserve the authority to take them out whenever we can, wherever they are.
And as for all this talk about it being the congress that has all the control and not the president, are you saying GWB has had no effect on our foreign policy, our spending, our rising deficit (all enabled by the Fed, causing a falling dollar, and causing our inflation), and the direction of our country and our allied countries?
You cannot tell me that this spending and overuse of our military is not weakening us. Meanwhile, China keeps taking all of our money, via Walmart, while it builds it military, up to 2 million active and 7 million reserve, while we decimate ours for Iraq.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/73455/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
he just may be right. At least he's the only one up there to question our government.
As for winning the war, that has to be defined before it can be won. Who is the enemy? Can anyone here honestly tell me who it is that we are fighting? Sunnis? Shiites? Al Qaeda? Iranian fighters? All of the above? And when will we know we have "won"? As long as we are there, there will be fighting.
We went in to depose Sadaam and secure any possible WMDs. We did that. That mission IS accomplished. What are we doing now? Can anyone here truly say? And say who the enemy is (and I don't want to simply hear "terrorists"). If the Iraqis cannot get their act together and unite as a country (and I probably would not either if I had been oppressed for decades by a ruthless dictator), after 5 years, it is not our problem any more. It is not up to us to lose our lives and money for them if they can't get their crap together.
If our reason for going in was justified, then we also do not need to feel guilty about the results.
As for leaving a vacuum. Any terrorists will simply go where we are not, it doesn't matter where. And then, if we ever find them, we reserve the authority to take them out whenever we can, wherever they are.
And as for all this talk about it being the congress that has all the control and not the president, are you saying GWB has had no effect on our foreign policy, our spending, our rising deficit (all enabled by the Fed, causing a falling dollar, and causing our inflation), and the direction of our country and our allied countries?
You cannot tell me that this spending and overuse of our military is not weakening us. Meanwhile, China keeps taking all of our money, via Walmart, while it builds it military, up to 2 million active and 7 million reserve, while we decimate ours for Iraq.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
No, most of the post debate voting is attributable to the small, shrill, manic cadre of supporters that has collected around Ron Paul who are driven to spam any poll or message board thay can find.
I think you're correct. Ron Paul will capture the Reagan Democrats that were so important in both Reagan victories. None of the other candidates running as Republicans will be able to do that.
Now that Bill Richardson has dropped out, the last of those who could keep conservative Democrats on the reservation is gone. There are too many Republicans that will drive them back to vote Democrat, all but one.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Ron Paul has proven himself to have no integrity on that score at all.
His racist views, published in his own newsletters over the course of decades, demonstrate that he does not favor equal protection under the law as set forth in the Constitution.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Sure thing partner, you're absolutely right.Ron Paul has a broad base of support that cuts across all party lines. Why, even Democrats will drop the coin necessary to participate in a post-Republican debate text message poll in order to show their deep support for this great man.
BTW- What flavor of Kool-Aid are they serving at the Ron Paul rallies these days? and do they still give blimp rides?
Redneck with a 40
New member
What Ron Paul said in the GOP debate in South Carolina, concerning Iran and its threat to our naval vessels, was completely assanine. He said "What is a speedboat going to do to one of our destroyers, come on".:barf: Remember the USS Cole, jackass? A speedboat packed full of explosives ramming the hull of that ship, would severely damage it, or possible sink it. Ron Paul made a very dumb ass, naive remark concerning this, doesn't he know that this is the tactic that they use? The destroyer should have blasted those idiots right out of the water, f***'em is what I say. We need a president who is not going to take any crap off these thugs, and Ron Paul is not the man.
*Awaiting incoming fire from the Ron Paul supporters*. I have a right not to like him.
We need a president who is not going to take any crap off these thugs, and Ron Paul is not the man.*Awaiting incoming fire from the Ron Paul supporters*.
I have a right not to like him.- Status