The Official Ron Paul Thread

[SentinelMind]

I searched for Ron Paul thread...and I couldn't find one...

seriously? that's a crime right there...(unless I just can't find it)

so much ado...here's the Ron Paul Thread...

 

[SentinelMind]

Don't be fooled

Gary Johnson...while respectable, decent politician...is no Ron Paul....

Major Differences:

1. Gary Johnson supports "humanitarian" wars....Ron Paul doesn't.

2. Gary Johnson is pro-abortion at federal level, Ron Paul is pro-life and thinks abortion should be a state matter.

3. Gary Johnson believes all states should accept gay marriage, Ron Paul supports letting states decide and not forcing one state to accept another state's marriage...

4. Gary Johnson supports keeping Guantanamo Bay open. Ron Paul wants to close it.

 

[moviedoors]

Well, 2 out of 4 ain't bad.

 

[SentinelMind]

5. Ron Paul...get rid of IRS and have a small, if necessary sales tax
/ Gary Johnson....replace income tax with 23% sales tax.

 

[SV Fan]

Don't be fooled

Gary Johnson...while respectable, decent politician...is no Ron Paul....

Major Differences:

1. Gary Johnson supports "humanitarian" wars....Ron Paul doesn't.

2. Gary Johnson is pro-abortion at federal level, Ron Paul is pro-life and thinks abortion should be a state matter.

3. Gary Johnson believes all states should accept gay marriage, Ron Paul supports letting states decide and not forcing one state to accept another state's marriage...

4. Gary Johnson supports keeping Guantanamo Bay open. Ron Paul wants to close it.

Other then #4 I actually am more on Gary Johnson's side for all those points(although #1 depends on the situation)

 

[enterthemadness]

5. Ron Paul...get rid of IRS and have a small, if necessary sales tax
/ Gary Johnson....replace income tax with 23% sales tax.

Please get your info right next time.

Gary Johnson is for the Fair Tax, a National Sales Tax basically.

Gets rid of...

IRS
Income Tax
Withholding
Capital Gains Tax
Corporate Taxes.

Replace all of that with one simple 23% sales tax on what you buy. Everybody keeps their entire paycheck and pay for the year. People close to poverty or in that area get a $200 check a month($2400) to help cover the new tax.

The best thing Ron Paul can do now is endorse Gary Johnson. Him winning RNC would be a miracle. He can't run 3rd party as he missed deadlines and only 15 states count write-ins.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Paul endorsing Johnson would be one of the worst things for him to do. You fail to take into account that he has his son to think about.

 

[enterthemadness]

Paul endorsing Johnson would be one of the worst things for him to do. You fail to take into account that he has his son to think about.

Rand isn't gonna win the GOP in 2016 or 2020. He is a sell out. Not only that, the GOP pays lip service to the Libertarians. If Paul cares about the movement, he'll go 3rd party via endorsing Johnson.

 

[8wid]

Don't be fooled

Gary Johnson...while respectable, decent politician...is no Ron Paul....

Major Differences:

1. Gary Johnson supports "humanitarian" wars....Ron Paul doesn't.

2. Gary Johnson is pro-abortion at federal level, Ron Paul is pro-life and thinks abortion should be a state matter.

3. Gary Johnson believes all states should accept gay marriage, Ron Paul supports letting states decide and not forcing one state to accept another state's marriage...

4. Gary Johnson supports keeping Guantanamo Bay open. Ron Paul wants to close it.

This makes me not want to support Gary Johnson anymore especially the parts about not wanting to close Guantanamo and being in favor of fighting wars overseas on the basis of humanitarian needs. I think this directs me towards Obama completely unless Ron Paul decides to run third party after the nomination. Either way neither candidate is going to win.

 

[enterthemadness]

This makes me not want to support Gary Johnson anymore especially the parts about not wanting to close Guantanamo and being in favor of fighting wars overseas on the basis of humanitarian needs. I think this directs me towards Obama completely unless Ron Paul decides to run third party after the nomination. Either way neither candidate is going to win.

Obama...seriously...because Johnson is for G-Town and humantarian wars. There is nothing wrong with Humantarian wars. If it's to prevent a holocaust. We don't need another Hitler or Stalin. We have a duty to prevent that from happening. Besides that duty, we need to pull out of wars and only go to war when we are at threat. Iran is no threat to us.

Gary Johnson has a much better record than Obama and Romney. No he isn't perfect...just give him a chance. If you want to vote for Obama, that is fine. He is much better than Romney. In some areas at least. With Obama SOPA and PIPA died. And CISPA may die as well.

 

[8wid]

Is it too radical to say that I don't think the United States should have ever interfered with Japan's conquest of Manchuria by placing an oil embargo on that nation and cut off trade with Great Britain until the end of the war? Then the Japanese would have been satisfied with their new imperial territories and Britain may or may not have fallen to German hands. Even so America was already a global military power after the Spanish-American War and was going to be involved in some sort of arms race in the middle of the 20th century no matter if it was the Greater German Reich, Japan or Red China and the Soviet Union. Germany had no chance of winning the war after invading the Soviet Union even it would have lasted until 1947 or 48. Japan would not have been able to keep its assests in China for more than a few decades. All America had to do was maintain a strong national defense and response and it would have really been in no danger. If the US didn't develop the bomb, the Germans certainly were not going to, and the Japanese would not have had the manpower to do so. The Soviet Union maybe in a decade or so, but not triggered by an arms race.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Rand isn't gonna win the GOP in 2016 or 2020. He is a sell out. Not only that, the GOP pays lip service to the Libertarians. If Paul cares about the movement, he'll go 3rd party via endorsing Johnson.

Rand isn't going to be a Presidential nominee, but Ron Paul supporting a third party candidate will sabotage his son's Senate career and any potential Senate prospects for his other son Robert.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Is it too radical to say that I don't think the United States should have ever interfered with Japan's conquest of Manchuria by placing an oil embargo on that nation and cut off trade with Great Britain until the end of the war? Then the Japanese would have been satisfied with their new imperial territories and Britain may or may not have fallen to German hands. Even so America was already a global military power after the Spanish-American War and was going to be involved in some sort of arms race in the middle of the 20th century no matter if it was the Greater German Reich, Japan or Red China and the Soviet Union. Germany had no chance of winning the war after invading the Soviet Union even it would have lasted until 1947 or 48. Japan would not have been able to keep its assests in China for more than a few decades. All America had to do was maintain a strong national defense and response and it would have really been in no danger. If the US didn't develop the bomb, the Germans certainly were not going to, and the Japanese would not have had the manpower to do so. The Soviet Union maybe in a decade or so, but not triggered by an arms race.

1. Great Britain never fell to Germany.

2. The United States never cut off trade with Great Britain. As a matter in fact, even before the United States entered the war, the United States was pretty much the one who was funding and supplying the British.

3. Japan would not have been satisfied with just Manchuria. They were in the process of trying to get all of China in the 1930's and would have certainly expanded into European colonies by the 1940's regardless. They wanted to control all of East Asia.

4. The United States developing the atomic bomb was in response to Germany's attempts to develop it, not the other way around.

5. Russia has always had a history of being an imperialistic expansionist power. It's why the Europeans have always been afraid of them. An arms race with them was always inevitable.

 

[Schlosser85]

Don't be fooled

Gary Johnson...while respectable, decent politician...is no Ron Paul....

Major Differences:

1. Gary Johnson supports "humanitarian" wars....Ron Paul doesn't.

2. Gary Johnson is pro-abortion at federal level, Ron Paul is pro-life and thinks abortion should be a state matter.

3. Gary Johnson believes all states should accept gay marriage, Ron Paul supports letting states decide and not forcing one state to accept another state's marriage...

4. Gary Johnson supports keeping Guantanamo Bay open. Ron Paul wants to close it.

I'm with Johnson on 2 and 3, and Paul on 1 and 4.

 

[8wid]

1. Great Britain never fell to Germany.

2. The United States never cut off trade with Great Britain. As a matter in fact, even before the United States entered the war, the United States was pretty much the one who was funding and supplying the British.

3. Japan would not have been satisfied with just Manchuria. They were in the process of trying to get all of China in the 1930's and would have certainly expanded into European colonies by the 1940's regardless. They wanted to control all of East Asia.

4. The United States developing the atomic bomb was in response to Germany's attempts to develop it, not the other way around.

5. Russia has always had a history of being an imperialistic expansionist power. It's why the Europeans have always been afraid of them. An arms race with them was always inevitable.

Which does nothing to address the points I brought up in the first place. Except Japan was interested more in China for its conquest because that's all it needed to supply its people and to get the natural resources it needed to stave off the Great Depression. The only reason they thought to expand passed the Philippines was because they needed the oil of the Dutch East Indies to keep conquering East China. If they did that they feared the US would act militarily to invade Dutch colonies because they were friendly and a war would be started.

 

[moviedoors]

I'm with Johnson on 2 and 3, and Paul on 1 and 4.

Yeah, that.

 

[enterthemadness]

Soooo...

http://www.examiner.com/article/rom...-ron-paul-s-win-maine-making-paul-ineligible?

ROMNEY LAWYERS TAKE AWAY MAINE, PAUL DENY BEING ON NOMINATION BALLOT.

This is the GOP saying: Go and vote for Gary Johnson...we dare you.'

Meanwhile Gary Johnson makes a final play at gaining massive Paul supporters. Tomorrow at 4:30pm he makes a speech at P.A.U.L Festival in Florida. The two estimates I've seen are 11k or 13K expected at the event. His VP Judge Jim Gray makes a speech Sunday as well.

http://www.examiner.com/article/libertarians-gather-at-p-a-u-l-festival-tampa?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Which does nothing to address the points I brought up in the first place. Except Japan was interested more in China for its conquest because that's all it needed to supply its people and to get the natural resources it needed to stave off the Great Depression. The only reason they thought to expand passed the Philippines was because they needed the oil of the Dutch East Indies to keep conquering East China. If they did that they feared the US would act militarily to invade Dutch colonies because they were friendly and a war would be started.

Japan would have continued to expand. They wanted to completely dominate Eastern Asia and then some. The would have gone into French Indochina, the Malay Peninsula, and whatnot regardless. In terms of expansionism, Japan was just like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Now you can certainly debate about the morals of the war and various actions about it, but Japan's intentions were pretty clear, they were expansionist and like the various other totalitarian powers, had no intention of being stopped. It would be a better argument to say that if the Allies didn't screw over Germany, Italy, and Japan in the Treaty of Versailles, World War II would have never happened at all.

 

[8wid]

^That's true the Treaty of Versaille did have the biggest impact on World War II, but the United States didn't sign it, only Britain and France did. There US Senate was against it and the a private armistice was signed. I'm only bringing it from the American role in the war.

I think the Pacific War was inevitable because the Japanese were expansive, but all America should have done was reclaimed its territories, destroyed the Japanese navy as a threat, and then signed an armistice leaving them with their colonial assets in China and Korea. The US had no business sending ground troops to Britain to launch D-Day and then rush for Berlin. They only needed to defend their shipping lanes from U-boats and nothing more. Another armistice would have worked there too. Like Ron Paul said about the Civil War... why did so many US soldiers have to die for something not even in the interest of the US? They should have given the Solomon Islands, Guam, the Philippines, and the others to the Japanese because there was no need to maintain them.

 

[hippie_hunter]

^That's true the Treaty of Versaille did have the biggest impact on World War II, but the United States didn't sign it, only Britain and France did. There US Senate was against it and the a private armistice was signed. I'm only bringing it from the American role in the war.

Woodrow Wilson helped take part in blowing off Italy and Japan. Wilson in particular pissed off Vittorio Orlando to the point where Italy left the Paris Peace Conference. And the Western powers, including the United States, refused to take Japan seriously.

I think the Pacific War was inevitable because the Japanese were expansive, but all America should have done was reclaimed its territories, destroyed the Japanese navy as a threat, and then signed an armistice leaving them with their colonial assets in China and Korea. The US had no business sending ground troops to Britain to launch D-Day and then rush for Berlin. They only needed to defend their shipping lanes from U-boats and nothing more. Another armistice would have worked there too.

The reason why we got fully involved in Europe was because Germany declared war on us. They kinda started it.

Like Ron Paul said about the Civil War... why did so many US soldiers have to die for something not even in the interest of the US? They should have given the Solomon Islands, Guam, the Philippines, and the others to the Japanese because there was no need to maintain them.

And you seriously think that we should just give up sovereign territory of the United States to an aggressive power? Those islands also served the foreign interests of the United States as well. They gave resources, helped with the travel times, and whatnot.

 

[8wid]

^Even if Germany did declare war it should have only been through naval combat to defend shipping lanes in the Atlantic. There was no need for a ground invasion whatsoever or bombing Europe.

Japan was upset with Britain and America for creating the security pact they had done in the Pacific and not to mention were expansive just like Italy and Germany as a means of reprieving the Great Depression.

America would have been fine without its Pacific territories perhaps with the exception of Hawaii. They could have been sparred because it was never possible during the war that the Japanese or Germans could have attacked the US mainland through sea or air. Eventually the war would have ended as the Soviets marched on Berlin and forced a surrender that would have stopped the fighting in the Atlantic. Japan on the other hand would have been no friend to the communists once they had won in Europe and the arms race would have been more in that direction. America would have boostered its military position somewhat for defense, but the Japanese Empire would have been much less a threat than Red China.

 

[enterthemadness]

Since this is PAUL Festival, thought I'd post this here as well.


Gary Johnson speech at PAUL Fest. Very moving. t: crowd loved it. At least 1K was there. Not the 13K that was expected, but the people there were greatly into it. My hopes are lifted, wind blowing in my sails. He may not win, but my goodness, he just got the Paul crowd behind him. Another 4K watched it live on ustream as well.


[YT]4tLN5NBZ5KU&feature=plcp[/YT]

 

[enterthemadness]

BREAKING NEWS. RON PAUL ON THE TONIGHT SHOW SEPT 4TH, MAJOR ANNOUCEMENT.



Holy **** guys, is he gonna endorse Gary Johnson or announce 3rd party run? Cause he missed the deadlines...he can only do a 15 state write in campaign.

If he endorses Romney I swear, I might crap my pants.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I don't see Paul endorsing Romney. It's just not gonna happen. And he's not gonna endorse Johnson or run for third party due to his son.

 

[enterthemadness]

I don't see Paul endorsing Romney. It's just not gonna happen. And he's not gonna endorse Johnson or run for third party due to his son.

One could say since Rand endorsed Romney, he has no future, cause his Libertarian support went bye bye.