Ron Paul in re-election trouble

Thorgrim · 08-17-2006, 05:17 PM

TX-14 is 60% different than it was in 2004.

Only 33% of voters want to re-elect Ron Paul, whereas 48% want to elect someone new

MyDD :: Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics

Aw, I'd hate to see him go

beez · 08-17-2006, 05:25 PM

Too bad. He's about the only decent Congressman in DC.

Thorgrim · 08-17-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by beez

Too bad. He's about the only decent Congressman in DC.

He's a Republican, he knows how corrupt the GOP is, and he still sides with them

nothing decent about that

lew · 08-17-2006, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He's a Republican, he knows how corrupt the GOP is, and he still sides with them

nothing decent about that

He doesn't "side" with them.

It'll be a sad day if he gets ousted. One of the few actual great statesmen of our time.

motivez · 08-17-2006, 06:27 PM

It's cool that he's one of the few people who tries to base his decisions off of the constitution, but most Americans don't care about things like that.

Ardentfrost · 08-17-2006, 06:58 PM

Aww, I'd hate to see him go. It'd be testament to people not caring about the constitution though. Some of his quotes are awesome.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.

hsmith · 08-17-2006, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He's a Republican, he knows how corrupt the GOP is, and he still sides with them

nothing decent about that

Next time, back up your argument with "fact," he doesn't "side with them"

lew · 08-17-2006, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

It's cool that he's one of the few people who tries to base his decisions off of the constitution, but most Americans don't care about things like that.

Unfortunately, that's true.

I mean, look at the link Throgrim posted:

There's a reason why he's called "Dr. No." Ron Paul has voted against:

Hurricane relief for his Gulf Coast district
Social Security and Medicare
Veteran's benefits and funding the VA
The Voting Rights Act
The Violence Against Women Act
The Stem Cell bill
Campaign finance reform

But yet, it's said to be bad on that page that he voted against these things on the page.

Plus this little gem:

Ron Paul's old district might have enjoyed his out-of-touch Libertarian views, but 74% of TX-14 voters prefer a Congressman who will bring home federal money and jobs over one who promotes a personal ideological agenda.

What the fuck is wrong with people?

Someone stands for constitutional government, and people say he's "out of touch" because he does so? Yet, the hypocritical Left do like him on some issues since he's against Iraq and the Patriot Act and the REAL ID Act.

Thorgrim · 08-17-2006, 07:11 PM

its not hypocritical at all...he won't caucus with us...we need to win as many seats as possible

Which would the left rather see...2 more years of the GOP controlling the house, senate and WH...or 2 years of houes oversight by the Dems while losing Ron Paul

the logic and morality is simple

we are in this to win because losing has cost us so much

motivez · 08-17-2006, 07:12 PM

Those are some good quotes

hsmith · 08-17-2006, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

its not hypocritical at all...he won't caucus with us...we need to win as many seats as possible

Which would the left rather see...2 more years of the GOP controlling the house, senate and WH...or 2 years of houes oversight by the Dems while losing Ron Paul

the logic and morality is simple

we are in this to win because losing has cost us so much

He has more in common with true conservatives than he does true liberals.

True conservatives are "republican" even if the party has departed from that.

Thus, he is "with" the republican party, even though he doesn't vote along with them.

lew · 08-17-2006, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

its not hypocritical at all...he won't caucus with us...we need to win as many seats as possible

Which would the left rather see...2 more years of the GOP controlling the house, senate and WH...or 2 years of houes oversight by the Dems while losing Ron Paul

the logic and morality is simple

we are in this to win because losing has cost us so much

So let me ask it this way: Would you rather have Ron Paul or Tom DeLay in that seat, if those were the only two choices?

Thorgrim · 08-17-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by lew

So let me ask it this way: Would you rather have Ron Paul or Tom DeLay in that seat, if those were the only two choices?

Ron Paul...however he already won the GOP Primary (go him) so its either the Democrat or the Republican (RP)

Ardentfrost · 08-17-2006, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Ron Paul...however he already won the GOP Primary (go him) so its either the Democrat or the Republican (RP)

I completely understand you going for a democrat... Ron Paul would never go for socialist programs either, so he might side with Dems in opposing the GOP on a lot of issues, but he's certainly not going to be with you on all issues either. Putting a democrat in office stengthens Dem congressional power.

thomez · 08-17-2006, 08:17 PM

if he doesn't get re-elected it will be just another reason to rightly declare that Texas sucks