1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Ron Paul for President, a good choice!

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by perazzitms, Nov 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. perazzitms

    perazzitms TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    521
    For him to get all this done as President would involve a military coup.
     
  2. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    While I can applaud Ron Paul for his stalwart support of the Second Amendment and his maverick stance on Government waste and corruption; he's way out there on some other issues and I think he makes a fine Congressman, but can't pull enough general election base support to make him a successful candidate to run against Hillary.

    My own pick would be Fred Thompson, but I am losing faith in his ability to campaign effectively and I question whether his heart is really intent on wanting to be President.

    It is looking more and more like I will need to hold my nose, and I (sadly) predict, Guiliani will win the Republican nomination. I personally don't like Guiliani, but I know as President, he will be a less dangerous choice than Hillary.

    Is Guiliani our "friend" on Second Amendment issues? No he isn't. He's a wishy washy flip flopping political PROFESSIONAL who says what he needs to in order to appeal to his perceived base at the time. When he was mayor of NYC, he was anti gun; because NYC has a population of almost 9 million people, 8.5 million of which, are liberal, anti gun because they were never raised around firearms and only know of them from crimes. Pick up a Manhattan yellow pages and look up guns, gun stores and gun ranges. Maybe two entries?

    And I didn't care for his stunt of having his wife (if it was his wife and not a pre-arranged campaign worker stunt) call him during his address to the NRA. He and his strategists may have thought it to be cute and comical, but it was pure diversion to shift focus away from anything meaningful.

    But at least Guiliani, unlike Mayor Bloomberg - is a real Republican, not leaving the party after securing a nomination. And, as NYC Mayor, Guiliani wasn't running a personal crusade against gun dealers from other states like Bloomberg has.

    Guiliani understands what it will take to win the nomination AND the election.
    He's a pro and election winning is a game. We don't always get what we want; but in this election - consider the alternative.

    Can any of you out there right now, if you were asked today - to make a choice for the Republican nomination, knowing full well the Democratic nominee will be Hillary Clinton, knowing we need to nominate someone who knows the game, is eloquent, can sparr effectively with Hillary in any debate, recommend anyone other than Guiliani?

    Put your personal tastes aside. Put away your unwielding and respectable defense of the Second Amendment. Think of this election as a game with the highest possible stakes. Who among the candidates on the slate has the ability?

    You have one shot. One choice. Right now, today... to pick someone who can muster 50.1% of the US popular vote vs. Hillary's given 49.9% - (and the magic number of 270 in the electoral column) whom would you pick??? The 2008 election is not predicted so far to be a blow out like W's re-election was. It is predicted to be a cliff hanging, every vote will count squeaker, like 2000.

    Think about those electoral votes for a minute.

    How many is New York worth, again??? Do any of you out there think for one minute that anyone other than Guiliani can beat Hillary in New York??? California?? Can you see Gov. Schwarzenegger standing side by side with anyone other than Guiliani for a presidential endorsement to win the electoral votes in that state?

    Back in 2000, Hillary won because Guiliani wasn't available to run against her because he had prostate cancer. Second string JP Morgan Chase trust fund baby Rick Lazio was subbed in at the 11th hour, taking all the wind out of the sails.

    Remember, whoever wins, will likely gain allies in Senate and House seats and will be appointing federal judges. If Hillary gets into power, her circus side show freak trailer wagon will have more power than EVER.

    Ron Paul???? No Way. I like his stance on many things, but he won't cut it.

    Duncan Hunter?? Very eloquent and informed speaker. Sounds smoother than Thompson and has more facts - too bad no one knows who he is.

    Mitt Romney ?? No way.

    Fred Thompson - my personal favorite, but I can't see him winning

    Mike Huckabee - very forthright, self accomplished man; conscientous, 2d Amendment supporter; self motivator with his personal life (losing weight and regaining his health). If I lived in Arkansas - I would campaign for him to remain governor - I can't see him beating Hillary in a Presidential race.

    Tom Tancredo? - Also, agree with him on many of his points, especially illegal aliens; however, have you ever heard him speak???? C'mon! Hillary will eat him for lunch.

    John McCain? The Manchurian candidate? He's so alienated from the Republican base - half of the red state republicans would stay home if he ran. I never knew a naval aviator who was anti gun? (then again, there's John Glenn - the ONLY US MARINE to vote anti gun!)- proof that extended prison camp stays and cosmic rays can do permanent brain damage.

    then there's ...... Guiliani. 30 years experience in New York and federal legal systems, high profile prosecutor from the 70s and 80s; smooth politician.

    Don't like him.... but he would be my pick to beat Hillary, gain some Congressional seats and maybe appoint a few rationalist judges.

    That is the truth. And if we want to slam the door shut in Hillary's face - Guiliani is the guy who can pull it off
     
  3. Gunnerandbabe

    Gunnerandbabe TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    224
    #### Gulliani i like Ron Paul myself.
     
  4. wolfram

    wolfram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,258
    Actually I believe Ron Paul is the only person that can beat out Hillary. Dr. Paul is getting support from both republicans and democrats and if it is possible for someone to bring this country together at least on a few issues this guy has the best shot. Check out his fund raising results and keep in mind that this money is coming from the ordinary Joe and Jane not from some wacked out Hollyweird group or some ficticious company backed by big buisness. I don't want to settle for the lesser of two evils again. It is time for us to use our votes and our checkbooks wisely.
     
  5. FranzSodia

    FranzSodia TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    67
    I personally think Chuck Hagel from Nebraska would make an excellent running mate to Ron Paul. I could vote for those two guys. John E.
     
  6. Billster

    Billster TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    200
    Rudy's got too many skeletons in his closet that will be drawn out in the final race. He's too slick. IMHO Huckabee's the man. We've GOT to keep the dhimmicrats out of office. Whoever gets the prize needs to have a firm grip/understanding of our enemy - islamofascism. That's the key. I don't see anyone running that is educated on that most important issue. I WISH John Bolton would run. He's what we need now.
     
  7. JasonH

    JasonH TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    52
    I like Ron Paul, and am telling everyone I know about him. He is just right about everything he stands for, and as a younger man I hope his ideas catch on with the Rep party. Politics has gotten crazy with what the government thinks it should be doing, and not how it should be doing less when it comes to certian things.
     
  8. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    Gordon-you're not reading my point. Telling me to keep Giuliani "out my way near NYC and whipping back at me with do I think Obama would be better" - tells me your being too superficial and taking umbrage unecessarily to that fact that I disagree that Ron Paul could win the nomination, never mind the Presidency.

    NY is worth what- 38 or 40 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win and you have an entrenched Hillary Clinton there who managed to get herself elected
    after moving in six months before? You think NY unaffilliates and undecideds are going to walk into the polls in Nov of '08 and pull the lever for Ron Paul?

    No. They won't. and there goes 40-something or close to 40-something electoral votes out of the 270 needed to win. If Giuliani had not left the 2000 senate race early - Hillary may never have become elected to begin with. My point is Giuliani has a chance at winning NY; He has a chance at winning CA; TX will vote Republican regardless of who is running.

    You know guys, I agree with you on many of the "second tier" candidates being closer ideologically to our point of view. Of course, I agree more with Ron Paul on the Second Amendment than Giuliani - you guys are missing my point.

    The point is the election is a "game" and needs to be won by the most "electable" candidate.

    It's a game with very high stakes. Granted.

    I don't think Ron Paul, or Mike Huckabee, or Tom Tancredo, or Duncan Hunter on tier 2; nor McCain and Romney on tier 1, and that this point, I don't even think Thompson is still in the game - I don't believe any of these guys can beat Hillary. Only Giuliani currently has the machine, the experience, the notariety, etc. to WIN THE ELECTION.

    Again, I'm not saying I love the guy - I don't. I'm saying the choice is going to boil down to Giuliani vs Clinton and based on that who would you rather see?

    Yes there will be some hard headed people who may vote third party because they see Giuliani as the RINO who should stay in NY as Gordon says, toward my way (as if I'm to blame for NY's liberality) and those people will vote Libertarian if Giuliani or Romney or McCain gets the nomination and they will cost us electoral votes in traditionally Republican strongholds.

    But the big electoral vote points are in NY, CA & TX. And we've been losing states like PA - (the tier 2 electoral vote count states)in recent elections.

    New yorkers and Californians who are on the fence or are just going to vote with who they think is popular are not going to vote for Ron Paul, I'm sorry.
    I don't mean to stick a pin and pop your balloon. Nor for that matter are they going to vote for a Mike Huckabee or a Fred Thompson. Thompson is drying up like a dead grape leaf on picked over grape vine.

    And if we want any chance of keeping Hillary and her freak show out of the White House and controlling Congress, the Treasury, The DoD, The FBI and the Attorney General's office, you have got to get behind someone who can WIN.

    I see Giuliani as having that potential.
     
  9. Cherokee Kid

    Cherokee Kid TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    291
    Ron Paul is a nutjob and has zero chance of winning anything. Why don't you guys get real and back a viable candidate? You are wasting time, breath and money on a for sure loser.
     
  10. perazzitms

    perazzitms TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    521
    I'm with Steve also.

    Sometimes you have to play to win, even if it's not your preferred game.

    The G-man is well known, liked, by most, and is proven. Like it or not, the election is simply the worlds biggest popularity contest.

    Remember Perot? 10 years later, he's the reason people even know who Hillary Rodham Clinton is......period. Take the votes he siphoned off Bush 41, and Clinton looses without question. No Clinton presidency, and she's doing a Betty Crocker impersonation in Arkansas right now.

    We, as a similar minded group, can't afford to be stupid in this election. Giuliani may not be the 'ideal' man in many minds, but I think he'll be open to WORKING with people; not steamrolling them like clinton.
     
  11. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    Thank you perazzitms - point well taken.

    Remember, voting for Giuliani (assuming he becomes nominated) is not an individual mandate of personal acceptance of him completely, or his views on a given topic, like the Second Amendment.

    We must remember with the President comes a new administration, maybe a new balance of power in the Congress and Senate; the potential for appointing judges; the appointment of Cabinet officers and Federal Agency Directors.Who do we suppose Hillary Clinton may seek to appoint to be Sec. of State? Or Atty Gen.? How about FBI Director? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? How about a director for the BATF(E)? What might we presume those agendas to be under a Hillary Clinton administration?

    I hope Gordon and others here standing up for Ron Paul and the other "Tier-2" names, can see what I'm driving at. We're much better off with a Giuliani administration than a Clinton one, for sure. And Giuliani has the best chance of any to secure the Republican nomination and has a fighting chance to WIN THE ELECTION.
     
  12. BustClays

    BustClays Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    437
    Isn't he related to Pat Paulsen?

    <a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank">[​IMG]</a>



    bustclays
     
  13. Gunnerandbabe

    Gunnerandbabe TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    224
    I still want Ron Paul.
     
  14. hmb

    hmb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,416
    Who is Ron Paul? HMB
     
  15. claybrdr

    claybrdr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,269
    Is he the guy that saw flying saucers? If so, you might want to rethink your support.
     
  16. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    Gordy, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate the honesty in Ron Paul. If I lived in his district, I'd vote for him and campaign for him to stay in Congress.

    But IMO.... Ron Paul isn't going to pull votes. Hillary would demolish him in a Presidential election. There aren't enough voters nationwide with your deep personal convictions, or my deep personal convictions to foster a "Ron Paul Republican Revolution". Not that I agree with Ron Paul 100% either, and I do think he is a little nutty on some issues.

    If you think about it, we really haven't had an actively progun, participating
    shooting sportsman president since THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

    The infamous, GCA '68 passed under NIXON's first watch. That stupid law, based in a 1930s Nazi German law, proposed by (D) Thomas Dodd, (Chris Dodd's father)
    banned the Walther PPK from importation; assigned stupid "point" criteria for handgun imports - gave you stupid thumbrest left grip panels on .22 and .25 caliber pocket guns that had to have ridiculous 4" barrels and adjustable sights on them to get them to pass muster - and moreover, set the precenent
    for "Sporting Criteria" among firearms.

    Would you say Gordy, that in 1968 we would have all been better off if we had elected Hubert Humprhey in 1968, or George McGovern in 1972?

    Even Reagan, who many here would argue was the best conservative president we've had in the past century, if not our entire national history, signed a bill into law in 1986 that effectively froze transferrable machine guns. (That was in order to get some ammunition records lifted and it was slipped in as a rider and they decided to vote for the bill rather than veto it)

    Bush-1 passed a 1989 gun ban via Exec Order on foreign made military appearing rifles and proposed a 15 rd magazine capacity limit (that he knew would not be supported) Gordy, would we have been better off if we had elected Michael Dukakis, (D) of MA instead?

    Perot emerged as the spoiler in 1992, pulling 18% of the vote and allowing Bill Clinton to become elected by a plurality of ....43% Bush 1 had 37%.
    And we all know how happy us gun owners were from 1994 to 2004, correct?
    If it weren't for Perot, Clinton would have lost. Should we have voted for Perot, instead and maybe gotten him up to 25% of the vote?

    Bush 2 emerged and quietly allowed the 1994 Clinton AW ban to expire.
    Would we have been better off under an Al Gore administration in 2000? or a John Kerry administration in 2004?

    I don't expect Giuliani to aggressively persue further firearm restrictions.
    I do fully expect Hillary Clinton to do just that (among a million other things that are bad for us and our freedoms)

    Again, Gordy, how do you think it is possible Ron Paul will get the Republican nomination? What if he doesn't? Are you going to sit home and not vote because Giuliani isn't as pro gun as Ron Paul? Or vote third party to take votes away from Giuliani to help ensure a Clinton victory, like Perot did in 1992?

    Who do you think Giuliani will appoint to the Supreme Court; to the director of the FBI and ATF?

    Who do you think Hillary would put in charge of the ATF? What do you suppose their focus would be? Maybe the legal counsel to Sara Brady's group?

    Who would Hillary appoint as Supreme Court justices?
    Chuck Schumer? Janet Reno? Or the clown on the 9th "circus" court of appeals in San Francisco who wants GOD taken out of the plege of allegiance again?

    Who would she appoint as Sec. of State - Obama, perhaps? Who stands there with his hands in his pockets refusing to face the flag and put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played?

    Seriously Gordy, I appreciate your conscientous support of Ron Paul, but dude, he ain't gonna make it.....
     
  17. WGB

    WGB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    191
    Ron Paul is a nut job. A vote for him is a vote for Hillary.

    Rudy is tough, mean, articulate and he can beat Hillary. My kind of guy.
     
  18. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    Hey Gordy, I thought you were for socialized medicine?? How can Ron Paul then be your man? All the Libertarians I know would be appalled by the idea of government controlled health care.
     
  19. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    Thank you, Gordy. Sorry for my long tirades on it - I hope you understand I am not dumping on you for supporting Ron Paul. I too, respect his ideals, and agree with the major ones, particularly his support for the Second Amendment.

    What I was doing was putting the issue in the context of who can beat Hillary in an election, and what kinds of people will be installed along with the elected president who will steer policy. Hence, my effort in trying to get that across.

    To your credit, at least you are standing up in a positive light for SOMEBODY who wants to represent and lead our great nation, which is a lot more than most people are doing these days.

    Shoot Well and Keep the Faith

    Steve
     
  20. Cray

    Cray Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    468
    I Nominate Neil Winston. Cray
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.