The beginning of the video – posted in February – explains how it could happen. Now here is some more recent news. Ron Paul Could Still Win Enough Delegates To Deny Mitt Romney The Republican Nomination.
Despite what you may have heard from the mainstream media, Mitt Romney does not have the Republican nomination locked up. In fact, he is rapidly losing delegates that almost everyone assumed that he already had in the bag. To understand why this is happening, you have to understand the delegate selection process.
I’m not going to go into any more detail. Have a look around the ‘net and come to your own conclusion.
I will say this: if Ron gets the nomination he will get my full support despite his nutty ideas on foreign policy. Why? Because without a thriving domestic economy there will be no foreign policy. Besides. I’d like to see an immediate end to Drug Prohibition. By executive order even.
H/T the commenters at Wagist for the videos.
Here are some other videos suggested by the folks at Wagist.
Comments
15 responses to “Could Ron Paul Win The Republican Nomination?”
I would break out of my 20-year refusal to vote for asininity were Paul to be the nominee, simply because he makes sense on every front, including his nutty (your word) ideas on foreign policy.
His prescription for righting the financial ship is spot-on. No one wished to debate him on that issue, least of all the presumptive nominee, Romney.
Paul’s foreign policy is a refutation of our complete failure since Korea and the dawn of Vietnam, the players in which Eisenhower warned us in no uncertain terms. We ignored his wisdom, and have been paying the negative dividend in the blood of our own children and the increasing loss of respect world-wide.
Add to that – Paul’s foreign policy position is precisely that of our Founding Fathers, something which is conveniently forgotten when flags are waved and “God Bless America” is sung at every professional game in the land.
I would hope common sense would drive you to vote for Paul and, even, to campaign for the sanity he brings to the table, as opposed to the continuance of insanity brought by the usual cast of characters in both parties.
He is not “nutty” – we are, and it drives us nutty that he has the temerity to point out that fact to us.
jb,
I don’t worry about him on foreign policy. Events have a way of forcing that issue.
As to ‘Nam. We could have saved that country from the horrors of hard communism had the Democrats not left them in the lurch. A policy I favored at the time. Sadly. A 1/4 of a million drowned at sea changed my mind.
Years later I found that Thailand was thankful for “Nam because it stopped the advance of communism to their country.
And how about Pol Pot?
BTW Ron’s idea of American foeign policy was tried in the 20s and 30s (it was very popular) we got the 40s to pay for our mistake. Very expensive.
You never know if you are doing too little until it costs too much. I don’t believe Ron gets that risk.
Uh. In case you hadn’t noticed I AM campaigning for Paul.
A little too subtle for your tastes?
What did Iraq cost us? About 10,000 dead and under 2% of GDP for 10 years. Cheap to put the fear of God in other enemies.
After 911 we NEEDED a punitive expedition. Had I been younger I would have served. Gladly.
And what do you think of the politics of the Barbary Wars? Iraq was done under the same kind of authorization. An AUMF.
Jefferson (the patron saint of libertarian foreign policy) was President.
As I said – Paul is ignorant of history AND foreign policy. Like Jefferson circumstances will overtake him.
“What did Iraq cost us? About 10,000 dead and under 2% of GDP for 10 years. Cheap to put the fear of God in other enemies. ”
And what did the war on drugs cost us? .1% of 10 years GDP? Cheap to put the fear of God into other enemies, right?
But the WODs finances criminals and terrorists. It isn’t putting the fear of God into anyone. It is financing our enemies.
Here is a discussion of Ron Paul/Libertarian foreign policy.
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/02/foreign-policy-and-military-matters-the-libertarian-view/
Go down in the comments for my counter view.
Short version – we haven’t had another world war since 1945 based on how America has conducted its foreign/military policy. Do we want to chance radically changing that policy?
And for the historically challenged – America followed the Libertarian prescription from 1920 to 1940. You can read the results in the history from 1940 to 1945.
Yeah. Pax Americana is expensive. So are world wars.
BTW I still support Paul despite my differences with him. Domestically he is pretty close to 100% for me. And our major problems are domestic.
His prescription “if we leave them alone they will leave us alone” is excellent when dealing with civilized people.
It is stupid when dealing with outlaws.
Paul should have spent a few years in a biker gang to figure out how the world really works. I have come back to tell the tale. You can call me Ishmael.
Simon,
Many would argue that the War On Iraq is emboldening and financing our enemies and terrorists.
“Short version – we haven’t had another world war since 1945 based on how America has conducted its foreign/military policy. Do we want to chance radically changing that policy?
And for the historically challenged – America followed the Libertarian prescription from 1920 to 1940. You can read the results in the history from 1940 to 1945. ”
Some would argue that strengthening the war on drugs has resulted in a dramatic decline in crime since the peak in 1990. Do we really want to chance radically changing this policy?
“Yeah. Pax Americana is expensive. So are world wars.”
National Healthcare is expensive. So are high infant mortality rates and low life expectancies.
Social Security is expensive. So is high old-age poverty.
Education is expensive. So is illiteracy.
I can understand if this is one of those issues where you are not a libertarian, or something like that, but on principle, its not different from an argument others have made about other objectives . . except they are called Stalinists and Commies.
“His prescription “if we leave them alone they will leave us alone” is excellent when dealing with civilized people.
It is stupid when dealing with outlaws.”
Yeah? You think that the people in a country under occupation, preceded by a torrent of missile strikes, preceded by years of hostage under one-party dictatorship, are outlaws? But MS-13 are not?
Well AJ,
You seem to be missing a few points in your argument.
We know what it was like when drugs were legal in America. The experiment was done from our founding until 1914. We had no drug cartels or gang violence then.
We also did the experiment of a Libertarian foreign policy from 1920 to Dec 7, 1941.
Churchill was of the opinion that if we could avoid repeating the stupidity for 50 years it would be good. It looks like the time is up. Sixty seven years later. So we are 17 years to the good.
It will be interesting. Fortunately all my male children are past draft age. You have any kids?
As I said – despite his foreign policy stupidity – I support Ron Paul. Give it up. Before I change my mind.
Note: I was Secty/Treas of my local Libertarian club. For 3 years. I left the Party over its stance on 9/11. So I know all the arguments from the inside. You are wasting your time with me. And the bloggers here (Eric and Dave and Sarah – the regular bloggers) agree with me.
Sell it over at HufPo. I think you will find a more congenial audience.
You don’t like Pax Americana. Fine. Who would you like to fill the power vacuum when we cut and run? China? Russia?
Here ya go AJ,
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/10/4481774/gay-marriage-adds-complexity-in.html
DES MOINES, Iowa — President Barack Obama’s support for gay marriage adds a new layer of complexity for voters – especially independents – in battleground states that will decide the race for the White House.
Well this is the wrong thread for this comment – I’m leaving it here any way – the correct thread is
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/05/does-obama-have-a-plan-for-victory/