Republican 2012 Presidential Nominee

[Gretzky's Mullet]

It's pretty much too late unless we replace the entire Karzai regime and provincial governments with politicians who respect human rights and are not corrupt.

On top of that, we somehow need to get Pakistan onside. The Taliban probably would have been contained by now were not it for Pakistan and their covert support. However, Pakistan and USA relations are at an all time low because Obama is continuing Bush policies of drone attacks into Pakistan's borders which are killing Pakistani civilians. Obama doesn't seem to care much about Pakistan's sovereignty as witnessed during the 2008 election.

[The Situation]

You are grossly oversimplifying the situation with Pakistan. That's a country that receives billions in foreign aid from the USA and yet was harbouring their most wanted enemy within their borders. What exactly would you have had Obama do? They are most certainly Taliban sympathizers, and probably the most powerful country hostile to the United States (which they definitely are). It's a far more difficult situation than you're making it out to be, one with no obvious solution as I can see it.

[The Situation]

Pakistan is supporting the Taliban because the current Afghan regime is heavily influenced by India and they seek a counter balance. India is investing heavily in Afghanistan and I don't suppose we can just ask them to leave so Pakistan can stop supporting the Taliban.

This whole mess doesn't have any likely solution so it seems we have to stay indefinitely in Afghanistan.

[Navyblue]

I'm not as much of a conspiracy theorist as you are, but I also think they are being strongly influenced by others. However, I think it's silly to think it would be any different under Ron Paul. Sure, from an outsider's perch, Paul denounces war, etc. So did Obama, and he most certainly didn't ride to power in 2008 on a wave of support from the military, who to a man probably voted for John McCain and funneled a lot more money into his campaign. However, when you get put in that situation, things go a little differently. As much as you want to equate Obama to Bush (which makes no sense to me), Barack has started zero wars and ended one, and aside from ones he inherited, hasn't sent troops any place new, excepting a brief covert incursion into Pakistan, which as others in this thread has pointed out, was a decision that any president would've made under the circumstances.

[Gretzky's Mullet]

Everyone who loves Ron Paul, do you agree with abolishing FEMA and letting disaster struck people fend for themselves? Ron does:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/13/166233/ron-paul-abolish-fema/?mobile=nc

I'm sure you think he's a real nice guy despite the fact that he thinks all blacks are criminals right?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/

Or you're delusional enough to think that legalizing heroin will reduce its nefarious impact on society, just in the name of "liberty". Or that property rights are more important than civil rights (see 4:30).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

The man is a lunatic plain and simple.

[key2thecup]

How many US troops are there in Iraq incidentally?

And unfortunately, while the decision to invade Afghanistan may have been misguided, the decision to stay is probably the right one. If you're going to leave the rest of the World to their own devices fine, but if you aren't, it's better to at least make sure to fulfill your objectives, rather than leaving them worse off than when you started. The situation in Afghanistan still isn't pretty, but if there's any positive, it's that women do have rights there now. Would you deny them that to save tax dollars?

[The Situation]

Everyone who loves Ron Paul, do you agree with abolishing FEMA and letting disaster struck people fend for themselves? Ron does:

http://thinkprogress...fema/?mobile=nc

I'm sure you think he's a real nice guy despite the fact that he thinks all blacks are criminals right?

http://www.theatlant...defense/250256/

Or you're delusional enough to think that legalizing heroin will reduce its nefarious impact on society, just in the name of "liberty". Or that property rights are more important than civil rights (see 4:30).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

The man is a lunatic plain and simple.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Everyone who loves Ron Paul, do you agree with abolishing FEMA and letting disaster struck people fend for themselves? Ron does:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/13/166233/ron-paul-abolish-fema/?mobile=nc

I'm sure you think he's a real nice guy despite the fact that he thinks all blacks are criminals right?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/

Or you're delusional enough to think that legalizing heroin will reduce its nefarious impact on society, just in the name of "liberty". Or that property rights are more important than civil rights (see 4:30).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

The man is a lunatic plain and simple.

[FeStealth]

Everyone who loves Ron Paul, do you agree with abolishing FEMA and letting disaster struck people fend for themselves? Ron does:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/13/166233/ron-paul-abolish-fema/?mobile=nc

I'm sure you think he's a real nice guy despite the fact that he thinks all blacks are criminals right?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/

Or you're delusional enough to think that legalizing heroin will reduce its nefarious impact on society, just in the name of "liberty". Or that property rights are more important than civil rights (see 4:30).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

The man is a lunatic plain and simple.

[The Situation]

Because FEMA handled the Katrina situation well? lol

[KoreanHockeyFan]

Everyone who loves Ron Paul, do you agree with abolishing FEMA and letting disaster struck people fend for themselves? Ron does:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/13/166233/ron-paul-abolish-fema/?mobile=nc

I'm sure you think he's a real nice guy despite the fact that he thinks all blacks are criminals right?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/

Or you're delusional enough to think that legalizing heroin will reduce its nefarious impact on society, just in the name of "liberty". Or that property rights are more important than civil rights (see 4:30).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

The man is a lunatic plain and simple.

[Columbo]

Why has this whole thread turned into a Ron Paul debate thread? I hate to break it to his supporters, but he has no chance to win.

Ron Paul is the most consistent candidate in the Republican field. I mean this in two ways - first, he's the most honest, and he consistently sticks to his beliefs, which is great. But second, he's very consistent in the polls. While Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum have all at some point seen huge surges in their popularity that make them the "flavour of the day," Ron Paul is consistently around 15% and will never make that surge. Nor, on the other hand, will he dip to single-digits that will force him to drop out, as with Bachmann, Perry, etc. He's not conservative enough to win over super-conservative voters; at the same time he's consistent enough to maintain his current fan base. His popularity will neither grow nor shrink, and there's no chance of a surge happening that will carry him to the nomination. Even candidates like Santorum have a better chance than him, because although he's a moron he's a big enough conservative and as such could catch wave at the right time. Paul has his base, it's not quite big enough and it won't grow, and that's all there is too it.

[The Situation]

Why has this whole thread turned into a Ron Paul debate thread? I hate to break it to his supporters, but he has no chance to win.

[The Situation]

Now here is a good read from the Wall Street Journal.

It's the GOP Insurgents vs. Establishment

By GERALD F. SEIB

Mitt Romney, welcome to John Boehner's world.

Both men—one the presidential candidate just stung in South Carolina, the other the speaker of the House—are fairly conventional leaders attempting to ride herd on a restless Republican Party that seems more interested in insurgent leaders. Let's just say they are having limited success.

That's the real lesson of South Carolina's Saturday primary, where Newt Gingrich, the Ché Guevara of the right, always interested in leading a rebellion, smashed Mr. Romney, the Harvard M.B.A. interested in carefully calibrated, data-driven change. The South Carolina story—and the story going forward from here—isn't so much Newt vs. Mitt as it is the insurgents vs. the establishment.

In fact, that has been the story of the Republican Party since the tea-party uprising began in 2009. The drama now will play out anew in the remaining Republican primary calendar.

The tea-party movement sprang up spontaneously among Americans angry at deficits, debts and joblessness, but it took root within a Republican Party whose members were angry at the party's failures in the latest presidential election year and skeptical of those in the lead. Whether the Republican Party co-opted the tea-party movement or the movement co-opted the Republican Party is a question that can be debated endlessly, but the fact is that Republicans and tea partiers hitched up for the 2010 elections.

Gingrich Takes South Carolina

Newt Gingrich came from behind to overtake front-runner Mitt Romney in South Carolina's primary.

View Slideshow

Getty Images

• More photos and interactive graphics

This occasionally proved frustrating to a party establishment that discovered it couldn't control the uprising. Party leaders, for example, didn't want tea-party favorites Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada to be the GOP nominees for Senate seats, and for good reason. Both lost very winnable elections and helped cost Republicans control of the Senate.

But elsewhere the tea-party movement brought a shot of populist anger and energy to the party and led to a takeover of the House and the ascension of Mr. Boehner to speaker.

What Mr. Boehner has discovered, however, is that the House Republican freshmen who rode in on the tea-party wave aren't much interested in taking orders from party leaders, including him. Particularly on negotiating a deficit deal with Obama White House and extending a payroll-tax cut, they have, in fact, defied the speaker. Many House freshmen believe they represent a party that is, down among the ranks, angry and uninterested in what Washington considers reasonable compromise, and they act accordingly.

That is the mood that emerged in South Carolina's primary and the rejection of Mr. Romney, so clearly the establishment favorite and the kind of experienced and competent figure who likely would be sliding easily to the nomination in another year. Even the support of Gov. Nikki Haley, herself a tea-party favorite in 2010, wasn't enough to change the antiestablishment flow.

Most likely, the pivot point came in the first South Carolina debate, sponsored by The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, when Mr. Gingrich angrily confronted questioner Juan Williams on a question about poverty and race and declared, "I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job." The audience cheered, and many party regulars seemed to have found the angry messenger to match their mood.

It isn't just the improbable rebirth of Mr. Gingrich and his victory in South Carolina that illustrates this mood, however. In some ways, the remarkable breadth and depth of support for Rep. Ron Paul illustrates the dynamic just as well.

Mr. Paul is just as much an antiestablishment figure as Mr. Gingrich, perhaps more so. And he and his libertarian message of slashing the size of the federal government are finding a much more welcome reception this year than they did just four years ago.

In the three nominating contests held so far—Iowa's caucuses and the primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina—Mr. Paul has won well over three times the number of votes he did in 2008. The one thing you know for sure about Mr. Paul is that he hasn't changed his message to fit the times, which tells you the times have changed to meet his message.

So where do things go from here? First, the terrain improves for Mr. Romney after conservative South Carolina. He'll also surely do more to get in front of the antiestablishment mood, likely by reminding voters that, for all his anti-Washington rhetoric, Mr. Gingrich is the one who actually has lived in Washington for 33 years.

Second, you can be sure that the party establishment will be doing all it can to portray Mr. Gingrich as a flashy but ultimately flawed messenger, the kind of candidate who would, like some of those failed 2010 tea-party candidates, make Republicans feel good all the way to defeat.

You can also be sure that Mr. Gingrich, ever the rebel leader, will relish the fight.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204624204577176732170676546.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[key2thecup]

Here's the post speech's after SC primary.

***

***

***

***

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3AaO5BVCbI

[Gretzky's Mullet]

Because FEMA handled the Katrina situation well? lol

[Gretzky's Mullet]

I'd rather FEMA goes the way of the Dodo than another Muslim child get murdered by a drone strike. That's just me though.

You should find a neat video I posted a few pages back, where Paul addresses the racism issue on CNN. For a guy who "thinks all blacks are criminals", he openly stated he's let all non-violent offenders out, which consist mostly of minorities and, gasp, black people. It's okay, not like we didn't see a deliberate actions by media to misrepresent and ignore Paul's message. Right? Right?

Lastly, to suggest legalizing heroin will have a more detrimental effect on society is bullsh!t. Unsupported, ideological, ignorant bullsh!t. Heroin, along with other drugs, is a matter of demand. Until you root out demand, you'll never root out heroin. What you will do is enrich criminals, help 47,000 Mexicans get slaughtered, and waste tax payer dollars. Portugal decriminalized heroin and use went down. Crime went down. Fatalities went down. But no... we can't legalize heroin and cocaine for adults, because then everyone will do it! Right?

[Satan's Evil Twin]

You know just about everything was legal in the Wild West of the previous century. Everyone had the freedom to do as they pleased, pursue their riches and enjoy their personal rights.

I'm sick of being made out to be a warmonger, a proponent of the war on drugs, a pro-establishment corporate lackey, a police-state interventionist or anything else by a gang of 10 of you ganging up on me and twisting my words on everything. You're all way too drunk on the Ron Paul kool-aid to see him for what he is: a fringe candidate, with a few good ideas but a lot of wacky unworkable ones, completely unsuited for the job, and not quite the saint you make him out to be. For example, here's Ron posing with Don Black, former KKK Grand Wizard and noted white supremacist.

Someone post a youtube clip explaining that photo for me, I'll wait.

He's got some sensible ideas, but most would never make it through a Republican house. And he's got a few really disturbing ones which just might.

Say whatever you like about Barack Obama, but he's the only person running for President that I see as being acceptable, and I'd just as soon he get another shot with a Congress that can actually do something positive for once, because this time he knows better than to try and build bipartisan support for stuff that will never get it.

[Gurn]

Do you have any idea how many pictures any politician has taken in a day?Do you have any link to that picture that has confirmation that Mr Paul knew who he was posing with? Do we even know that it was a "pose" and not some guy yelling " Hi Ron " as Ron walked towards the bar to get cola?

I need some more info than just a picture with out words.

[The Situation]

You know just about everything was legal in the Wild West of the previous century. Everyone had the freedom to do as they pleased, pursue their riches and enjoy their personal rights.

I'm sick of being made out to be a warmonger, a proponent of the war on drugs, a pro-establishment corporate lackey, a police-state interventionist or anything else by a gang of 10 of you ganging up on me and twisting my words on everything. You're all way too drunk on the Ron Paul kool-aid to see him for what he is: a fringe candidate, with a few good ideas but a lot of wacky unworkable ones, completely unsuited for the job, and not quite the saint you make him out to be. For example, here's Ron posing with Don Black, former KKK Grand Wizard and noted white supremacist.

Someone post a youtube clip explaining that photo for me, I'll wait.

He's got some sensible ideas, but most would never make it through a Republican house. And he's got a few really disturbing ones which just might.

Say whatever you like about Barack Obama, but he's the only person running for President that I see as being acceptable, and I'd just as soon he get another shot with a Congress that can actually do something positive for once, because this time he knows better than to try and build bipartisan support for stuff that will never get it.