Why is Paul Running as a Republican? - Page 10

Borodog · #91 10-23-2007, 07:35 PM

You seriously can't tell how ridiculous you sound in this thread?

elwoodblues · #92 10-23-2007, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You seriously can't tell how ridiculous you sound in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt that I sound ridiculous to you.

Would you think Ron Paul was selling out if he ran as a Democrat? Would you have any problem with that or see it is a weakening of his ideals?

ALawPoker · #93 10-23-2007, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you could conveniently not have to partake in the consequence of that group's beliefs, then sure you should just not play along.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really sure what you're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that since mainstream political rhetoric will have tangible effects, it makes sense to engage yourself in that process even if you entirely disagree with what they're saying.

If the Republicans thought we should kill 50% of all men and the Democrats thought we should kill 50% of all women, and everyone marched to the whim of these parties, I would not consider myself a hypocrite or any sort of sellout for running under one of these parties on the platform that we should not be killing anyone.

[ QUOTE ]
I think he would be more effective if he ran as a true outsider.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would that be more effective? "True outsiders" can't get into debates and their disadvantage should be pretty obvious. You're just upset that he's crashing your show and that not everyone is willing to lay over and let the BS parade run unchecked.

[ QUOTE ]
As it is now, he's playing a little game by wanting the benefits of being an "outsider" without the costs. He's being disingenuous, in my opinion, to call himself a republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Yes, Ron Paul is the one "playing a little game." Gimme a break. I love how you assume here that anyone who is not part of one of two mainstream views is SUPPOSED to have costs against him.

Really, your line of thinking makes me sick. Like I really feel semi-nauseous.

You admit that two main groups have the advantage and everyone else has a "cost" to overcome if they want their voice to be heard. And you believe that the two main groups should be comprised of only people who think a certain way.

Add these two things up and then tell me you're not shamed of yourself. I'm done responding to you for now. It's really just gross.

Borodog · #94 10-23-2007, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seriously can't tell how ridiculous you sound in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt that I sound ridiculous to you.

Would you think Ron Paul was selling out if he ran as a Democrat? Would you have any problem with that or see it is a weakening of his ideals?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There's a Democratic version of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Can't recall the name. Got to run.

Edit: In fact, since Dr. Paul is really most closely politically aligned with Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic founding fathers, he's the only REAL Democrat running for President!

elwoodblues · #95 10-23-2007, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Paul supports the old right. The old right was much more libraterian.

Could the republican party lose its libraterian support? Maybe. Up until now it has relied on the fact that libraterians would never vote socialist, but I think the likely situation at this point is that they just choose not to vote.

If that happens they will lose all the rocky mountain states, and maybe even a few midwest box states. The republican party will be reduced to racist bible thumpers in the south.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assume that you are right. Which is more likely to create long-term change. The scenario you outlined above or Paul running as a Republican and losing in dramatic fashion?

elwoodblues · #96 10-23-2007, 08:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're just upset that he's crashing your show and that not everyone is willing to lay over and let the BS parade run unchecked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just talking out of your ass. That you think I am upset in any way by anything Ron Paul has ever said on any topic whatsoever is a laughable assertion.

AlexM · #97 10-23-2007, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
2.) Telephone polling is way, way more accurate than call-in and online polls, not to mention scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if people aren't asking biased questions, which is never. You obviously need to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

AlexM · #98 10-23-2007, 08:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul and his supporters (at least his supporters here) are much more likely to see that there is precisely one answer to every political problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. Just because people like to argue one thing doesn't mean they don't accept other possible solutions. For example, most libertarians would support a decentralized government that allowed states to do their own thing and allow Californians to have the most super socialized state ever and Texans to have the most super Republican state ever as long as they got a chance to have their libertarian state. Nobody talks about this answer to things, but that doesn't mean it's not there and valid. Also, your statement is just as true for every other point of view discussed here. Mainly, people who discuss politics tend to take a specific position because it's the best position in their minds, whether they see other possible answers or not. This is entirely perception.

Case Closed · #99 10-23-2007, 08:39 PM

Alawpoker,

I don't think we will get too far discussing whether or not we think the green's platform is something that real people would support if they had an opportunity to experience it. It derails the thread quite a bit from the topic at hand.

No matter, I really want to address your point on the green party as a pacifist party. We do feel that the country should be able to defend ourselves if another country is looking to invade us. As for you defending yourself, as far as the greens are concerned you can defend yourself.

Also, you cited wikipedia, I cited the national green party website. I would hope that if you're interested in finding out reliable information about the greens you would look to their actual written word first.

ALawPoker · #**100** 10-23-2007, 08:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you cited wikipedia, I cited the national green party website. I would hope that if you're interested in finding out reliable information about the greens you would look to their actual written word first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not too interested haha. I just went to wiki cause it's quick and easy, and I figured you'd (passively) let me know if there were any discrepancies.