close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

What has happened to the GOP?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by troutbum, Sep 21, 2012.

  1. Some of you may have seen this...but for the rest of you:



    No real need to have a Convention anymore. It's a coronation. If you don't understand what was happening, the Ron Paul delegates were acting within the framework of the party's rules to nominate a candidate.

    Be very careful Republicans of what you are letting your party do.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2015
  2. Oh the Ronulans never stop do they!! Ron Paul is NEVER going to be President and if he were it would be a nightmare. His followers are more blind than Obama's. :yikes:
     

  3. We've gone from the Party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower to being dominated by religious zealots financed by the elite rich who run rigged conventions.

    I had hoped that our convention would have thrown out Romney and drafted someone intelligent and useful in handling our nation's problems. Instead... we got Mitt "I'll explain what I'm going to do AFTER I'm elected" Romney.

    Huntsman was a better choice.
     
  4. No they do not. It may be because they try to make an educated vote for a candidate that understands they live in a constitutional representative republic- and don't vote for a candidate solely because they "think" he can win. That goes for the candidacy and the presidency.

    Using that logic, why remove Paul's delegates unless someone "thought" he might win? If there was no way he could win, what were they afraid of?
     
  5. Yep.....

    The left/right paradigm is destroying our country, and even though he may not recieve enough votes to win, he generates enough for the people to notice. He has gained votes and supporters like that progressively throughout the years. Its about spreading awareness, and its spreading. Voting for the left/right just because they are the only who will win right now is only supporting the detriment to the intended system, not making a supportive or correct decision.

    Black Dog Bowfishing Pro Staff
     
  6. I agree. What kills me is that he is clearly the most "republican" candidate in a traditional sense. This kind same thing happened to democrats 10 years ago. Remember Zell Miller?
     
  7. What don't you like about Ron Paul?

    Anyone who doesn't like him can also reply.


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  8. You know, when you actually think about it, its very sad how incredibly under educated our country is. Im not saying that in reference to which candidate anyone supports, I respect all opinions. Its just incredibly sad that most people can name more broadhead manufacturers than ammendments. Its sad people can explain the field dressing process more accurately than due process. I say this because, if you dont know the Constitution and the basis for our governmental setup, how can you believe you are making an accurate choice for the person charged with carrying out the direction of the Constitution? People make their decisions for voting on what these politicians say they will do in regard to abortion, guns, gay marraige, etc. Shouldnt the biggest factor in choosing a candidate be whether or not they follow the foundation of our country, and then let the other factors follow?

    Black Dog Bowfishing Pro Staff
     
  9. That's exactly right, and they can't make an accurate choice without knowing how our gov is actually supposed to work. I don't believe in "perfect" candidates, but I trust Ron Paul because he knows the limits of his authority, and his record the past 20+ reinforces his character. Actions speak louder than words.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2012
  10. First of all I'm no Romney fanboy and I'm VERY educated in our constitution and our republic. I agree with Ron Paul on many issues I just disagree too strongly on the issues like his stance on foreign policy for one. We tried this thing called "isolationism" in the late 1930's and it resulted in a man by the name of Adolf Hitler marching across Europe. If it weren't for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor I'm afraid by the time we would have entered WWII it would have been far too late. Also, he has put in hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks in bills that he votes against but knows will pass. This is disingenuous. He is also on the record stating that Iran should be allowed to achieve a nuclear weapon and that no country is a threat to the U.S. I think he said we could protect the whole country with "a couple submarines". There now you have it. I respect much of what he stands for but he's not for me.
     
  11. Toker - I was not referring to you, I was making a statement about the general American populace, and I even added a disclaimer of sorts by noting that it wasnt based on who you support. I respect all views and opinions, as long as they are based on educational value. Your post earlier did not provide any information on how or what you base your views on, so I can assure you that my statement was only generalized and in no way directed toward you.

    Black Dog Bowfishing Pro Staff
     
  12. Not seating delegates wasn't nearly as bad as the SCRIPTED via teleprompter rule change that will now make the little ppls voice no longer count during a GOP primary season or platform vote etc etc..Had the new rule been in place in 76,Reagan would not have ever ended up POTUS ..

    Dont worry though the DNC screwed up an scripted a vote at the convention they had,and got busted just like the RNC...



    Here is a couple FACTUAL and UNBIASED videos for ya's too look over..





     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2015
  13. Isolationism for the most part is poor policy, detrimental to global commerce and economic survival, for all countries, not just the United States. However, extreme changes need to be made to our foreign policy, and neither the left nor right show any promise for the positive.

    The reduction in military force is not feasible, and actually contrary to his idea of tightening border security. There is no way Congress would allow such a massive force reduction, nor would the United Nations. Not voicing support for the UN, but we just have to many global support obligations. Pulling out of those would destroy our foreign policy, and in todays world, the fact of the matter is you just have to rely on good policy.

    The system of checks and balances would generally level out alot of someone like RP's extremism.

    Black Dog Bowfishing Pro Staff
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2012
  14. Mr toker clearly doesnt know the difference between Isolationism an a Non-intervention policy..But Im sure you do Joe:biggrin:
     
  15. The problem is, our goobers calling the shots have an extremely blurred the definition of intervention and acting on behalf of our own interests. Unfortunately, we are committing the second and calling it the first all too often...



    Black Dog Bowfishing Pro Staff
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2012
  16. Ok then you tell me what's "Non-intervention"?? Allowing muslim radicals to burn our embassys and kill our citizens while ignoring them and turning the other cheek? Ron Paul has stated he wants to close our bases in places like Korea, Germany, Japan etc. etc. Does he not realize these were fought for by servicemen who gave their lives in these countries and that someday they could be used strategically against a formittable enemy i.e. Russia and China? Do you know that Russia and China have a joint exercise every year together? Who do you think they are pretending to be fighting that it would take them both together, Taiwan?? Now go pollish your Ron Paul 2016 buttons, I'm sure he will run again in four years if he's still alive. I'm still waiting to see your rebuttal to the fact that he has put HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF EARMARKS in bills that he voted against but knew would pass. I thought he was against earmarks....................... I'm also concerned that he doesn't seem to realize the significance of a radical Islamic government like Iran possessing nuclear weapons, they would be launching that sucker as soon as the last screw was in it or worse they would sell it to a terrorist group and park it here in this country. The fact is we live in a world where there are evil people who wish to do evil upon us as a country. You can call it non-intervention, isolationism or whatever but it's still dangerous policy and will get lots and lots of people killed.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2012
  17. Actually, Mr Paul has spoken of all those things the media use to try to scare you. He is not against war, we would fight with him as POTUS in a place like Europe/Pacific in WWII. He would not decimate our military it would still be far, far ahead of anyone else. It would be pulled out of some places overseas and brought stateside. We would actually have more bases open here in the US. We have had Global Strike capabilities for over 30 years. We are a Republic not an Empire, and we can fight anytime we want to- within the framework of declaring war through congress. We have a Pres, not a Dictator.

    All countries exercise their military, that's normal. It seemed I was doing it every month for years. In places like Turkey, Bahrain, S Korea, Morocco...and I used to load nukes. Iran ain't doing anything to anyone if it gets a nuke, trust me.
     
  18. Ok, I trust you that Iran won't use a nuke so let's let them have 50 or maybe 100??!! Why not?? Tell that to Israel that Iran won't use a nuke. The better question is this.... Why would you take the chance? What do you think Pes. Reagan would have done to the middle east if they were burning embassies and killing our diplomats? Remember he dropped bombs on Libya's a** for ONE BOMB IN A DISCO!! We are the last beacon of light in the world for what is good and just. We have an obligation not to be passive and weak. And don't worry about Iran, Israel will take care of them by Christmas.
     
  19. troutbum, Your last post is right on the mark....

    R. Toker, I think you need to read a little more in stead of watching the Fox network... Some of the info your throwing out there sounds like thats where it came from.

    Ron Paul would of been better for this country than any of the canadates hands down. We are hated around the world and it isn't for no reason. "because of what we stand for" Not!!! In that part of the world we bring death. Our pre-emptive strikes, suporting dictators because he is one we can control, hell we have suported both sides in a mid-east war. It is not a secret.

    Do you really think he is going to abandon all the bases No. The UN is in place for a reason. We do not have to be the police man of the world. We can not aford it nor is it our right..

    Very few understand how handle our money problems but he I think he would be the best canadate. Oh wait he was a doctor? Yes, I am sure he is educated in that field and could help fix that problem. Military yes. Realizes how bad of a pickle we are in as a country? yea, he gets that to...

    Sorry, I am a big Ron Paul supporter.... I am sicken by how they treated him..
     
  20. I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm a huge supporter of Israel. That's why I 100% behind Ron Paul's strategy in the M East. I always laugh when I see on TV of "lowly and scared Israel, all surrounded by her enemies." Israel is a complete bulldog when it comes to her security. She's done it time and time again. It's the US that gets in her way. Let all those countries try to fight her again (they've tried a few times), if they think they are as tough as their rhetoric. They're in for a world of hurt, if they are that stupid. And I believe you are right about the Israelis stopping Iran from getting a nuke anyways. I think they're better equipped to do it than we are anyways. Let's stay out of their way, it's in their interest as a sovereign nation, not ours. We can help them, but they can deal with Iran as they see fit. Israel is vicious and decisive when they go to war.