Ron Paul Folks.....

fragileblake
fragileblake Posts: 716
edited April 2008 in A Moving Train
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.
http://blakepnw.blogspot.com/
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    Those Paul supporters are bullshit. Ron Paul has stated that he wouldnt support McCain for president.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    Nevermind wrote:
    Those Paul supporters are bullshit. Ron Paul has stated that he wouldnt support McCain for president.

    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.
    My whole life
    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
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    I only voted in the Republican primary because Ron Paul was running. If he's not on the ballot, I'm not voting Republican - I'll be voting Libertarian. So nope, no McCain for me.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Those supporters are free to back who ever they want but if they truly believed in the message that Ron Paul was sending and in his ideals they would never back McCain. While McCain may say he is the only true conservative candidate in the race he is not. Ron Paul was, and still is, the only true conservative.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Key part of the article: "a few".

    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.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Furthermore, I certainly will not be supporting John McCain in the general election.

    why not?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    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.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I tend to not vote for people who dig war,

    ok
    farfromglorified wrote:
    pass silly populist bills sacrificing good sense in the name of "bipartisanship",

    which bill(s) are you referring to?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    have no concept of federal vs state powers,

    this would be nice
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    which bill(s) are you referring to?

    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.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    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.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    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.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    there are no politicians who do not accept large campaign contributions.

    This isn't true. Plenty of politicians over the years have refused large or certain kinds of contributions.
    I respect a guy for trying to put a fair standard in place.

    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"?
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    farfromglorified wrote:
    This isn't true. Plenty of politicians over the years have refused large or certain kinds of contributions.
    such as? but first we need to agree on whats considered "large" no?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    such as? but first we need to agree on whats considered "large" no?

    Look no further than Russ Feingold -- he refused large soft money contributions in 1998 and still won reelection.
    we are talking about salaries, we are talking about donated money from corporations. not sure why you would use this comparison

    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.
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Look no further than Russ Feingold -- he refused large soft money contributions in 1998 and still won reelection.

    you mean the same feingold that teamed with mccain to right the bill? ;)
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    lazymoon13 wrote:
    you mean the same feingold that teamed with mccain to right the bill? ;)

    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.
    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.

    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?
  • lazymoon13
    lazymoon13 Posts: 838
    farfromglorified wrote:

    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.

Categories