Ron Paul Folks.....
fragileblake
Posts: 716
Are you guys really down with this?
Ron Paul Supporters For John McCain?
By Sarah Lai Stirland EmailApril 21, 2008 | 7:24:56 PMCategories: Election '08
Texas congressman Ron Paul is still officially in the presidential race, despite Arizona Republican John McCain winning enough delegates to become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
But with Paul's long shot bid for the White House now a no-shot bid, a few of Paul's supporters appear to have started a new web project called Join, or Die 08. They're rallying behind McCain.
Given many of Paul supporters' staunch and vocal opposition to the war in Iraq, and some supporters' rocky relationship with much of the of the Republican party, this call for unity to support McCain is surprising.
The group's site uses Benjamin Franklin's famous cartoon to rally support around McCain, and has posted its first You Tube Video.
Ron Paul Supporters For John McCain?
By Sarah Lai Stirland EmailApril 21, 2008 | 7:24:56 PMCategories: Election '08
Texas congressman Ron Paul is still officially in the presidential race, despite Arizona Republican John McCain winning enough delegates to become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
But with Paul's long shot bid for the White House now a no-shot bid, a few of Paul's supporters appear to have started a new web project called Join, or Die 08. They're rallying behind McCain.
Given many of Paul supporters' staunch and vocal opposition to the war in Iraq, and some supporters' rocky relationship with much of the of the Republican party, this call for unity to support McCain is surprising.
The group's site uses Benjamin Franklin's famous cartoon to rally support around McCain, and has posted its first You Tube Video.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Yeah... McCain is pretty damn far from Paul. Maybe now that the revolution isn't popular anymore, this segment needed a new bandwagon to jump on.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I certainly supported Ron Paul (and will still be voting for him if I opt to vote in the Republican primary here). Furthermore, I certainly will not be supporting John McCain in the general election.
why not?
I tend to not vote for people who dig war, pass silly populist bills sacrificing good sense in the name of "bipartisanship", have no concept of federal vs state powers, and who generally can't be trusted any further than they can be thrown. I find McCain to be foolish, short sighted, unpredictable and generally distasteful.
ok
which bill(s) are you referring to?
this would be nice
ok
Campaign finance, No Child Left Behind, Line-Item Veto, Aviation and Transportation Security Act, specifically. It's a shame that he's already started to disown under popular pressure the only bill of his I liked, his immigration bill.
cool. campaign finance? what don't you like about that one?
First, I find it endlessly hilarious that politicians have to pass a law to prevent themselves from taking certain kinds of money. Second, campaign finance simply hasn't fixed any of the problems with the influence peddling in Washington. It's been a waste of everyone's time.
lol I agree its ridiculous that they need a LAW for that. I'm not sure on the details of how it has done but at least i can respect a senator to draft such a bill
Why would you "respect" such a thing? If the entire premise of the bill is that large campaign contributions are bad, and that voters want candidates who are not party to such contributions, then the respectable action is to put your money where your mouth is -- do not accept those contributions and let voters decide. McCain, rather, decided to take the coward's way out -- force everyone to accept his standards and then shove it down the throat of the electorate.
there are no politicians who do not accept large campaign contributions. I respect a guy for trying to put a fair standard in place.
This isn't true. Plenty of politicians over the years have refused large or certain kinds of contributions.
So if one of your coworkers proposed that salaries be standardized in your workplace, would you "respect the guy for trying to put a fair standard in place"?
we are talking about salaries, we are talking about donated money from corporations. not sure why you would use this comparison
Look no further than Russ Feingold -- he refused large soft money contributions in 1998 and still won reelection.
You said you "respect a guy for trying to put a fair standard in place". This implies that you like fair standards. Does this only apply to politics then? Or corporate campaign contributions? Please help me understand when you see "putting a fair standard in place" to be respectable and when you see it as unrespectable.
you mean the same feingold that teamed with mccain to right the bill?
sorry I guess I needed to be more clear. I respect a guy for trying to put a fair standard for campaign finance in place.
I am not implying that I like fair standards in general. please don't generalize. I'm going to have to be more clear I guess.
Absolutely! I have lots of respect for Feingold's actions in the 90s, but none for the silly bill that he proved, through his own actions, to be unnecessary.
Saying what you mean is always a good thing -- thanks for the clarification. So, how would you feel about a law that forced a donor to give to all competing campaigns equally if he or she was going to donate to any? Would that be a "fair standard" that you would respect?
absolutely not. I think there should be a cap or limit. not a single "standard" amount.
Ok. Would you classify that proposal as "unfair". If so, why?
no its not unfair. its unreasonable.
Ok. Why is it "unreasonable"?
because its forcing only 1 choice. 1 amount.
It doesn't force only 1 choice or 1 amount. It forces you to donate equally to all if you're going to donate to one. You have 2 primary choices: donate or don't and you may donate any amount. So it's not just 1 choice and 1 amount.
ok I misunderstood. now that I know what you meant, I'm not really sure. In theory it is fair. but IMO still not reasonable. people/corps should be able to donate any amount they wish to any person/party they wish, but with a cap.
Ok. I'm certainly not suggesting this is a good proposal. I'm just trying to get to the root of what you actually think. Considering that you think this proposal is "fair", but still unreasonable, we're left with the fact that your standard is not "a fair standard" nor "a fair standard for campaign finance", but something else altogether. Care to reword?
I would like to see a limit to donations. a cap if you will. i.e. microsoft can donate $2500 max to any candidate they wish. $2500 to mccain and $10 to hilary if they wish. (just making up numbers)
Ok, so you just want a cap. That's fine, though I certainly disagree. I believe candidates should be able to take donations as large or as small as they'd like and that voters should decide whether or not their behavior is acceptable. I fail to see what the cap has accomplished. Are politicians less corrupt? Less subservient to special interests? Less wasteful?