Ron Paul voters

[Tam]

Could the decent American comment from Newt mean anyone that thinks the US as the only super power has a responsibility to protect those being attacked by their own leaders, terrorist groups or a lunitic dictator from a neighboring country. Whether it is a Republican or a Democrat in the Oval Office the party supporters have always supported intervention on humanitarian reasons. The right supporters Bush when he went into Iraq to protect that country's citizens from the Genocide by Saddam while the Dems b*tched about him going in to protect US oil interest. But when the tables were turned and it was Obama that went into Libya, a country with more oil, the Dems claimed he did so to protect the citizens from the Gadaffi's military that was killing Libyan citizens. These two examples show both party supporters support humanitarian intervention but will Ron Paul intervene with his attitude that if US interest are not in danger then no US military action will be taken? Sorry but turning your back on genocide because the victims are not US CITIZENS is not decent and that is what Ron Paul in promoting is he not? He says he doesn't care if Iran gets a Nuke and will not stop them as he doesn't THINK they will use it. This after the leader of that country claimed he wanted nothing more than to wipe another country off the map, But as long as it is not the US Ron Paul has said he will not send in US troops.

Lonecowboy you keep saying that Ron Paul is a principled man and he stands by what he believes so I have to ask you why is Ron Paul still in Washington? :?

According to the article you posted

The congressman named Ron Paul has served in the House off and on since the 1970s

Wouldn't a man that believes in term limits and has proposed a term limit bill several times live up to his beliefs and leave DC after a couple terms? Yet he is still there after 4 decades so does he really believe in term limits? He also claims there should be no career politicans but look at his family he is still in Congress after 4 decades and now his son is in Washington. What does that say about his belief on no career politicans?

Then we have the newsletter he started under his name that printed racist comments and he claims he doesn't know who wrote the offending comments. Would a principled man allow racist remarks be REPEATEDLY printed under his banner without ever finding out who wrote them and stop them if he didn't agree with said comments?

Tam- find in our Constitution where the president has the authority to send our troops to police a foreign country and post it please.

term limits- now there is a catch 22, if you are no longer there to push the bill- hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Would a principled man allow racist remarks be REPEATEDLY printed under his banner without ever finding out who wrote them and stop them if he didn't agree with said comments

is 22 years ago long enough? :shock:


Tam - which dog do you like in this fight?..... and why? What makes them any different than what we've had for the last 20 years?

As the Commander and Chief of the Military Obama used the War Powers Act of 1941 to enter Libya on humanitarian reasons so if Obama can do it Ron Paul would also have that power as President. BUT Ron Paul will never do it as he believes that unless US citizens are in danger he will not act. Again I doubt many from either party or many independent are going to be proud of a President that would stand aside and let a dictator use his millitary to kill anyone that doesn't fall in line with him or is the wrong religion or color. You might but I doubt a majority would.

And the way around the term limit catch 22 and still live up to what you believe is, spend your time in Washington and when you leave campaign for a person that will continue the fight to see to it that term limits are passed and enforced. If you can't get it done after a decade then step aside and let someone else try, don't stick around for 4 decades being a hypocrite by preaching you believe in term limits. :roll:

Do you really think

is 22 years ago long enough?

is going to be a good enough excuse to stop the Obama campaign and his supporters from using the racist comments against him? He can claim all he wants that it was 20 years ago and he wasn't involve with the writing of them but the facts are they were printed and released to the public by him through a newsletter with his name. That is like blood in the water to the sharks waiting to go in for the kill.

Oh and while we are at it just how fisally responsible will Ron Paul be with his record of earmarks and his defence of said record?

As for who I like in the fight, I can tell you who I wish had run but who I will vote for it is still to early. I wish Huckabee was running and I wish Palin was his running mate.

 

[Steve]

3rd, or even 4th parties, work great in Canada.....we even kill off the odd liberal type party ever once in awhile :lol:

we could have a vibrant third party system with a small change to election law.. a runoff of the top two if the top vote getter fails to get 50.1 %

How about a system where whatever party gets what ever % they get? The minority can can throw them out if they have enough seats to vote "no confidence"

Why does the "winner" have to get 50%? How about just gaining the majority/plurality of votes?

With a constitutional republic we don't have the "no confidence" vote..

as for the plurality of vote..that is fine at the general elections for the senate/congress and lower voting, but it could encourage spoilers running, those who split the vote .. such as in Alaska last year.. she couldn't win the primary so she ran anyways.. nothing wrong with a person running but what is the point of a primary to whittle down the field if some will ignore the will of their party..

with a three or four party system a person could win with a little over 25% of the vote.. by requiring a run off the person would at least have a majority support when elected.

in the presidential race it gets more complicated as a president has to win electoral votes, as determined by the states, if they fail to garner the majority the congress decides..

Contingent presidential election by House

Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President if no candidate for President receives a majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes).

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc - its members have a single vote collectively (and the District of Columbia does not receive a vote). A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Theoretically, the 26 least populous states could vote in bloc and elect the President. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a President.

The House of Representatives has chosen the President only twice: once under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (in 1801) and once under the Twelfth Amendment (in 1825).

Contingent vice presidential election by Senate

If no candidate for Vice President receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the Senate must go into session to elect a Vice President. The Senate is limited to choosing from only the top two candidates to have received electoral votes (one fewer than the number to which the House is limited). The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case (i.e., ballots are individually cast by each Senator, not by state delegations). However, two-thirds of the Senators must be present for voting to take place.

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that a "majority of the whole number" of Senators (currently 51 of 100) is necessary for election.[47] Further, the language requiring an absolute majority of Senate votes precludes the sitting Vice President from breaking any tie which might occur,[48] although this is disputed by some legal scholars.[49]

The only time the Senate chose the Vice President was in 1837. In that instance, the Senate adopted an alphabetical roll call and voting aloud. The rules further stated, "f a majority of the number of Senators shall vote for either the said Richard M. Johnson or Francis Granger, he shall be declared by the presiding officer of the Senate constitutionally elected Vice President of the United States..." (Johnson won).

Deadlocked chambers

If the House of Representatives has not chosen a President-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President until the House should select a President. If the winner of the vice presidential election is also not known by then, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the sitting Speaker of the House would become Acting President until either the House should select a President or the Senate should select a Vice President. None of these situations has ever occurred.

the idea of the congress and senate making the decision is enough to get almost anyone to forget about trying to make it a three or four party race..

 

[TSR]

IMHO, Ron Paul scares me. His foreign policy scares me. His blind followers are scary. He thinks 9/11 was an inside job. I haven't decided who I want for president. I will keep on listening and researching.

He scares me too as he is to far out of the mainstream to be a true Republican. What I don't understand about him is why is he even running in the Republican primaries? He is a Libertarian and they have their own party so why not run for his own party's nomination?

As Loomixguy says, we can't afford a 3rd party. It will only split up the votes and Obama will get re-elected. Ross Perot was on a third party ticket and Clinton beat George H W Bush when he was seeking his 2nd term.

So Hanta did someone split the vote allowing Gore to be beaten and Bush to be elected???

 

[Larrry]

He scares me too as he is to far out of the mainstream to be a true Republican. What I don't understand about him is why is he even running in the Republican primaries? He is a Libertarian and they have their own party so why not run for his own party's nomination?

As Loomixguy says, we can't afford a 3rd party. It will only split up the votes and Obama will get re-elected. Ross Perot was on a third party ticket and Clinton beat George H W Bush when he was seeking his 2nd term.

So Hanta did someone split the vote allowing Gore to be beaten and Bush to be elected???

I think it was those dead Dems that failed to vote. They got some of the dead out to vote for Gore but not enough.

 

[TSR]

As Loomixguy says, we can't afford a 3rd party. It will only split up the votes and Obama will get re-elected. Ross Perot was on a third party ticket and Clinton beat George H W Bush when he was seeking his 2nd term.

So Hanta did someone split the vote allowing Gore to be beaten and Bush to be elected???

I think it was those dead Dems that failed to vote. They got some of the dead out to vote for Gore but not enough.

By Golly those same dead voters keep showing up don't they Larry? Seems ok as long as the party you like gets elected. Right???

 

[Larrry]

So Hanta did someone split the vote allowing Gore to be beaten and Bush to be elected???

I think it was those dead Dems that failed to vote. They got some of the dead out to vote for Gore but not enough.

By Golly those same dead voters keep showing up don't they Larry? Seems ok as long as the party you like gets elected. Right???

Absolutely not, and I never said that either

 

[Steve]

He scares me too as he is to far out of the mainstream to be a true Republican. What I don't understand about him is why is he even running in the Republican primaries? He is a Libertarian and they have their own party so why not run for his own party's nomination?

As Loomixguy says, we can't afford a 3rd party. It will only split up the votes and Obama will get re-elected. Ross Perot was on a third party ticket and Clinton beat George H W Bush when he was seeking his 2nd term.

So Hanta did someone split the vote allowing Gore to be beaten and Bush to be elected???

didn't Ralph Nader take a percent or two?

the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points.

even though there is an attempt to downplay the impact..

 

[hypocritexposer]

So Hanta did someone split the vote allowing Gore to be beaten and Bush to be elected???

I think it was those dead Dems that failed to vote. They got some of the dead out to vote for Gore but not enough.

By Golly those same dead voters keep showing up don't they Larry? Seems ok as long as the party you like gets elected. Right???

should "dead voters" and illegals be allowed to vote TSR?

would you agree with a Federal "voter ID" law, or a state sanctioned "voter ID" law??