Ron Paul victory in Iowa? What would it mean?
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
how would a ron paul victory in iowa or multiple states change things?
im as left wing as they come, and have long been fascinated by ron paul. i voted nader in 2004 and 2008 and would have wanted a paul/nader ticket in 2008.
How would his victory in iowa alter the 2012 race?
It was mind boggling to me in 2008, when paul was basically the most left wing candidate FROM EITHER PARTY except for kucinich.
His stances on gay marriage are troubling, it was clear from his appearance in Bruno that it was a problem, and i also think the rumblings of racism are troubling as well. his stance on abortion is also scary, wanting to repeal Roe vs wade.
But in terms of some core issues, the guy is solidly antiwar. he not only wants to end the wars in iraq and afghanistan, but has since day 1. He wants troops home tomorrow out of all countries, that is as i said, as left wing as they come, no other candidate save kucinich and nader offered such a proposal. pauls stance on the patriot act also from day 1 has been he has been opposed to it. again he differs from every single candidate running. his stance on the drug war is brilliant, wanting legalization of all drugs and ending the racist and failed drug war. his foreign policy is do to other countries as we want done to us.
What would it mean to have a republican/independent party major party person like paul, be the republican party nomination for 2012 and have him be the most radical and left wing politician we've seen ever get this close to a nomination? what would it mean if Obama and Paul faced of in 2012, and you had a republican who was more left wing than the democrat? since the civil war when the parties changed their meanings and stances, ie Lincoln was a republican, has their ever been such a situation, where someone like Paul is more radical and left wing that a democrat, and basically any other candidate? How surreal would that be? Obama would be seen as the centrist/right wing democrat that he has always been.
I think alot of people are fed up with Obama and that both parties and most people see him as the person he is, a clueless failure, someone who is as clueless as the guy from Texas who previously called the White House home.
will that translate to Ron Paul getting the nomination? And will he win the presidency? will democrats hold their nose and vote for obama even though he is everything they oppose? Will democrats and more left wing folks vote obama just becuase they dont want to vote republican? Will Ron Paul attract the activist antiwar crowd? will people like me ignore pauls awkward stance on alot of issues, in order to get someome who is actually left wing on foreign policy into office?
Personally i think obama;s a one term president.
im as left wing as they come, and have long been fascinated by ron paul. i voted nader in 2004 and 2008 and would have wanted a paul/nader ticket in 2008.
How would his victory in iowa alter the 2012 race?
It was mind boggling to me in 2008, when paul was basically the most left wing candidate FROM EITHER PARTY except for kucinich.
His stances on gay marriage are troubling, it was clear from his appearance in Bruno that it was a problem, and i also think the rumblings of racism are troubling as well. his stance on abortion is also scary, wanting to repeal Roe vs wade.
But in terms of some core issues, the guy is solidly antiwar. he not only wants to end the wars in iraq and afghanistan, but has since day 1. He wants troops home tomorrow out of all countries, that is as i said, as left wing as they come, no other candidate save kucinich and nader offered such a proposal. pauls stance on the patriot act also from day 1 has been he has been opposed to it. again he differs from every single candidate running. his stance on the drug war is brilliant, wanting legalization of all drugs and ending the racist and failed drug war. his foreign policy is do to other countries as we want done to us.
What would it mean to have a republican/independent party major party person like paul, be the republican party nomination for 2012 and have him be the most radical and left wing politician we've seen ever get this close to a nomination? what would it mean if Obama and Paul faced of in 2012, and you had a republican who was more left wing than the democrat? since the civil war when the parties changed their meanings and stances, ie Lincoln was a republican, has their ever been such a situation, where someone like Paul is more radical and left wing that a democrat, and basically any other candidate? How surreal would that be? Obama would be seen as the centrist/right wing democrat that he has always been.
I think alot of people are fed up with Obama and that both parties and most people see him as the person he is, a clueless failure, someone who is as clueless as the guy from Texas who previously called the White House home.
will that translate to Ron Paul getting the nomination? And will he win the presidency? will democrats hold their nose and vote for obama even though he is everything they oppose? Will democrats and more left wing folks vote obama just becuase they dont want to vote republican? Will Ron Paul attract the activist antiwar crowd? will people like me ignore pauls awkward stance on alot of issues, in order to get someome who is actually left wing on foreign policy into office?
Personally i think obama;s a one term president.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
the media is even saying that if paul wins the white house his economic policies will be nearly universally opposed by both sides of the aisle in congress, which would be even worse for this country than the unilateral total opposition against obama that we have had the last 2 years...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i support his foreign policy ideas, but that alone will not make me vote for him. he is the only candidate that has publicly said he would not give israel the $4 billion a year, which i would also support. that said, i am dead opposed to most of his economic policy ideas. as much as i love his foreign policy ideas, i hate his domestic policy ideas just as much. that to me makes him unelectable.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i disagree about the economic policy. while i dont really agree or totally understand ron pauls economic policy, i think its insane to suggest that he could do any worse than obama. His economic policy, obamas that is, has been his undoing. when i refered to him as clueless, this is one example of that. Obama could have gone alot of ways when he went in office, he could have done an FDR and put a ton of people, millions to work, set up a bunch of programs for a new new deal style thing, and get people jobs and fix the economy. instead he escalated the war and bailed out the banks and corporations.
Ive long stated, obama really has no clue, nor does any other politician about the reality of the economy. the guy is a priveledged politician who lived in a mansion in chicago, and now lives in a mansion as well. How many people does he come across each day who have lost jobs, who cant find jobs, whove had to sell their houses, whove lost everything? he doesnt come across many, if any at all. He doesnt have a clue.
Additionally, you dont think obama's economic policy is universally disliked? Ive long argued Obama is more hated than bush ever was. Bush never had the republicans against him. Obama is hated equally by both sides. Its not just racist republicans who dislike him. Its everyone. In fact I really cant see anyone coming up with a poorer way to handle the world situation than Obama has. He came into office knowing that Bush started a war that is the longest and most disasterous and most opposed war in our nations history, and he came in knowing that we were in the worst economy since the great depression. The fact that we are worse of in 2012 than we were under Bush says all you need to know. Even Bush wasnt as militant about the war as obama is.
Obama is a total failure. My main argument from the start was, to balance out a radical right winger like Bush we needed a radical left winger in office. Instead Obama got us more mired in an unwinnable and illegal and unpopular war, and watched as our country sinks deeper into economic debt and crisis. he's not a leader. i dont think he ever was one
people will lose their homes, their medical benefits, their small government stipend, etc.
they would be unable to purchase food. and starving people do desperate things to survive. violent crime would increase.
people will start a bloody, bloody revolution.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I think people are generally fed up with it all. thats why the occupy movement started. people dont feel represented AT ALL. by any party or by any politician.
and what the hell do you want him to do with the economy? he has a jobs plan right now to put people to work and work on our crumbling infrastructure, and guess who is opposing that along partisan lines....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
What if we don't have the choice, though? As long as the printing presses run, the currency further devalues and the dollar risks losing its reserve currency status. Paper money is there until it isn't.
im sort of curious what you think is going on right now? so people arent in 2012 losing their homes, medical benefits etc..? Isnt that the whole point of all this stuff? No politican, no one at all is doing anything.
How is people losing their homes and medical benefits under obama any different than them losing their homes and medical benefits under a ron paul administration or a Mitt Romney Administration?
Im all for medicare, social security and welfare. I support it. But you really think all those things havent been eroded beyond repair under Bush and now Obama? Obama doesnt give a damn about people on welfare or people on social security. Ive got some land i want to sell ya if you think he does care. As I said, he's a priveledged millionaire politician. Sasha and Malia will never have to work a day in their lives, neither will Obama and Michelle. Sasha and Malia can get into any school in the world. Meanwhile the rest of us have bigger issues!
you can either help the elderly and less fortunate or neglect them and let them slowly come to their own end.
i would like to think that my country is not cruel enough to do the latter, no matter what the cost.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
They didn't finish the job, seeing as how there was no mission. They left, which is what he should've done shortly after taking office. And, or course, "leaving" means several thousand armed "consultants" and a shiny new billion dollar embassy.
Shaking your fist in the air and claiming the moral high ground does not get us out of debt. Money is there until it isn't.
So the answer to solving an unwinnable illegal and immoral war is sending more troops in and getting us more mired in the war and quagmire? There were other candidates, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel,Nader who all argued
that we should end the war IMMEDIAtELY, not 2 years into ones presidency. Plus, obama didnt end the war. troops are still in iraq and afghanistan.
Obama is opposed by both parties and by a majority of americans. Its not just stingy republicans who are blocking him, people have seen he has done nothing at all, hasnt ended the war, hasnt ended or even tried to fix the economy, hasnt ended our countries policy on torture and gitmo and secret trials and habeus corpus. He;'s done nothing at all.
For someone that has a John Lennon lyric as their username and a doctored photo of abbie hoffman as their avatar its sort of shocking you wouldnt be more radical. sounds like you are some party supporter.
and
but all of this is moot because even if paul wins iowa it does not mean he will get the nomination.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This^^^^^ In the newspaper didnt they even saw you know two sentences after, Obama pulled the last troops out of iraq, but thousands remain.
Anyone who thinks obama is antiwar or opposed to war, or even more basic, is committed to ending this war hasnt investigated further.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
If any business goes under, their assets are liquidated and purchased. Businesses go under all the time and those assets are properly valued; they don't just drop to zero. There is no single business that would even make a dent in the economy, as the fine folks in Washington would have you believe. If you're proposing continuing to hand over billions for executives to stuff in their pockets, I would suggest you investigate how well that's worked thus far and dive into an economics textbook.
Mostly true. We left on the originally agreed upon date after Obama offered to stay longer and Maliki declined.
and what happened to those candidates??? they LOST, so their position is now moot. i wanted kucinich to win and would have voted for him if i had the chance.
obama is opposed by progressives because he has not gone far enough. he has not been liberal enough. universal single payer was not even an option on the table. he does shit like that...he does not ask for more than he think he can get. but then again, he is going against an uncompromising tea party and gop in congress.
he has tried to fix the economy but it didn't work. stimulus anyone?
nice shot at my name and photo. stick to the issue.
and the issue is that ron paul is not going to win the nomination.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
anyone care to get into that?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
wow you are a party supporter. Wow. So, the economy is in the tank, forclosures are rampant, and the answer if you were running things would be to continue on this path with obama? what so things continue to spiral out of control? I do think it has something to do with the other. I agree. And that something is our current presidents policies on virtually everything, and the consequence of that is the foreclosires, the economic crisis, the expansion of the war, and the occupy movement. Again, why do you think people are joining the occupy movement? It aint because they want to prevent a Ron Paul administration, although they dont seem to support any politician at all, but i think the point is, they arent out there screaming "more of the same, lets keep the same foreign policy and economic policy, because under obama medicare, social security have been so good".
Its amazing to me even after all this, people would still support obama. Makes no sense at all. yep, lets continue on this path of endless war, and mindless violence and ignoring the economic crisis. Yep lets do that people. I agree completely.
That was my whole point. Even under bush I dont think the country was this bad. Obama hasnt done anything to undo what bush did, he's not even made any effort at all. what makes you or anyone else think voting him in again, or any similar politican would change things around.
Assuming you and everyone else is in agreement with me, that we want an end to the war, all wars, that we want jobs and a good economy, we dont want to lose our homes, we dont want to be taken advantage of, we want to treat others fairly and kindly nonviolently, how in the hell is any of that viable or an option under Obama?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Obama hasnt been liberal enough? He hasnt been liberal or left wing AT ALL. AT ALL. He isnt a left winger. Never was. Never was anti war. Never was anti Iraq or afghnaistan war. Never was. He's never been for gay marriage. Never been for ending the drug war and ending the racist policies that result from it, DESPITE saying his favorite show is The wire. He;s never been for getting people back to work and getting them jobs.
Somewhere along the line, i think people assumed just because someone is a good speaker and is young that they will be different from past politicians. I think the proof was in the pudding in this case. I wish he would have proved me wrong. but the reason i voted for nader and not Obama was precisely because i knew this to be true. i knew he wasnt going to end the war. I knew he was just another politician.
All right here:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/r ... e-america/
You can also see where he stands on a range of issues individually.
and as far as the underlined part, what is ron pauls plan to fix things?
it is not like a "hands off approach" is going to change anything either...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Exactly...we're saying the same thing.