TexasCHLforum.com

Well, Ron Paul officially dropped out of the race for President. Not that this wasn't expected, but I'm glad he finished out all the primaries, to get his message across to as many people as possible.

It is unfortunate that he ultimately lost, but I think his message resonates with a lot of people, especially Republicans who are alarmed at the direction their party is heading. At least for me, it was nice to feel so gung-ho about a particular candidate, even if it was just for a little while. Anyways, here's to hoping much of his ideals get worked back into his party.

Time to bring the barf bag with me to the polls in November.

Just to be hyper-technical, he didn't drop out; he "suspended his race", just like Romney. This means he retains his delegates, who will vote for him at the convention in September.

Meanwhile, go sign up:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com

I was hoping he'd stay active through the convention, in order to have a chance at a big speech there as well.

dukesean wrote:It is unfortunate that he ultimately lost, but I think his message resonates with a lot of people, especially Republicans who are alarmed at the direction their party is heading.

This is exactly how I feel/felt about Rep. Paul. However, my uber-GOP friend (who is the mix of strong-defense, social-conservative, small-government-leaning - but in that order - that is the bread and butter of the GOP) is very active in Republican politics and he maintains & insists, no matter what I say, that the huge following that Paul was able to attract was made up of 95% single-issue folks who were anti-Iraq War (he repeatedly calls them head-in-the-sand-isolationists), and only 5% were the vastly-limited-government-this-is-what-the-GOP-should-be-about types like myself and my dad. All I can really tell him is my own anecdotal experience that says, "of the websites I frequent, I see very few of the single-issue antiwar folks behind Ron Paul, and almost exclusively the principled-limited-government folks like me". But it's hard to call him wrong 'cause I know he's much more deeply involved and much more well-connected than I am.

thejtrain wrote:However, my uber-GOP friend (who is the mix of strong-defense, social-conservative, small-government-leaning - but in that order - that is the bread and butter of the GOP) is very active in Republican politics and he maintains & insists, no matter what I say, that the huge following that Paul was able to attract was made up of 95% single-issue folks who were anti-Iraq War (he repeatedly calls them head-in-the-sand-isolationists), and only 5% were the vastly-limited-government-this-is-what-the-GOP-should-be-about types like myself and my dad. All I can really tell him is my own anecdotal experience that says, "of the websites I frequent, I see very few of the single-issue antiwar folks behind Ron Paul, and almost exclusively the principled-limited-government folks like me". But it's hard to call him wrong 'cause I know he's much more deeply involved and much more well-connected than I am.

So he's a head-in-the-Republican-Party isolationist who can't see the Republicans for the trees.

thejtrain wrote:However, my uber-GOP friend ... maintains & insists, no matter what I say, that the huge following that Paul was able to attract was made up of 95% single-issue folks who were anti-Iraq War (he repeatedly calls them head-in-the-sand-isolationists),...

I personally don't know anyone who supported Dr. Paul specifically because he is opposed to U.S. intervention in Iraq. I know some who support him in spite of disagreeing on that issue.

The peaceniks or whatever you want to call them were more likely to support someone like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.

It's worth noting that Rep. Paul got 70-80 % of the vote in the last two primaries and 60% in the general election, when he had a Democratic opponent. That fraction of the Texas population was not voting for him on the war issue.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I personally don't know anyone who supported Dr. Paul specifically because he is opposed to U.S. intervention in Iraq. I know some who support him in spite of disagreeing on that issue.

The peaceniks or whatever you want to call them were more likely to support someone like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.

It's worth noting that Rep. Paul got 70-80 % of the vote in the last two primaries and 60% in the general election, when he had a Democratic opponent. That fraction of the Texas population was not voting for him on the war issue.

- Jim

Exactly, I supported Ron Paul in spite of his stance on Iraq. It actually took a lot of internal thought before I decided to throw my support his direction.

dukesean wrote:Exactly, I supported Ron Paul in spite of his stance on Iraq. It actually took a lot of internal thought before I decided to throw my support his direction.

Same here, and I know many people who were in the same camp. I first learned of Ron Paul because of his position on returning our monetary system back to a constitutional system, and destroying the federal [sic] reserve. As I read more about Ron Paul, I realized he stands for everything that I stand for (which basically comes down to the constitution). As for the Iraq war, Ron Paul educated me and changed my views on our nation's foreign policy, especially regarding the CIA interventions that began many decades ago.

When I imagined myself in the shoes of other countries and asked myself whether I would like another country intervening in our own affairs, I realized that we weren't following the golden rule as a nation.

I have met MANY people who support Ron Paul on every single one of his issues, EXCEPT for the Iraq war, and therefore wouldn't support him. I believe and hope that, outside of the war issue, his platform is agreed to by the majority of conservatives.

Love the pic, Double J. Thanks.

DoubleJ wrote:

Goodness. The Constitution sure did throw a nice couplet of unifocal PVCs before it straightlined.

Better break out the epinephrine and lidocaine.

Give it 360 joules.

CLEAR!!

Anygunanywhere