Thread: GOP Electability

Originally Posted by timj219

I have never met a doctor who does much "running a business". Without exception the first thing every single one I have met does is hire a practice manager to do that. Even if that were not the case, running a doctors office is no greater challenge than managing a senatorial staff. So no, being a doctor does not give him any meaningful executive experience compared to other presidential candidates.

Once again, it's just an opinion, I have mine you have yours. I'm not sure how much experience he has being an executive in his own doctor's office, and neither do you. But since he has been practicing medice for so long (since the 1960's), it's very well possible that it was more like a small business operation back in the day than it is in today's world. Everything was much more personal and I'm sure the atmosphere was different then. But anyway, I my intention in stating what I did was not to start a 3-page argument on whether or not he has executive experience running a doctor's office, it was simply an opinion that he does have at least some executive experience. Plus, the way I see it, if Paul sticks to the Constitution, Article 2 really doesn't really give the President that much to do. In modern times, the President has to be everywhere doing everything, largely because the Federal government and the executive branch have too many powers to begin with, most of them unconstitutional. If you get back to the enumerated powers of the executive, the President would be busy, but not like he is today. I for one want the President doing LESS. Deference to the legislature is the way it was intended to work. I prefer a stateman and someone who understands the Constitution over a business person with no understanding of the Constitution who simply wants political power.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

I prefer a stateman and someone who understands the Constitution over a business person with no understanding of the Constitution who simply wants political power.

I believe you are getting carried away again. By definition anyone who aspires to national elective office "wants political power." You do yourself and your advocacy of paul no favors by creating an idealized unrealistic picture of the man. He's a unique candidate. But he has weaknesses and in the end he is, after all, a politician.

Originally Posted by timj219

I believe you are getting carried away again. By definition anyone who aspires to national elective office "wants political power." You do yourself and your advocacy of paul no favors by creating an idealized unrealistic picture of the man. He's a unique candidate. But he has weaknesses and in the end he is, after all, a politician.

Nothing personal, but do you just like to argue? Man you can pick a post apart! I'm not getting carried away at all. This guy has stood alone for 3 decades in the Congress while even his own party has marginalized and attacked him:

Cookies disabled? | Concord Monitor

I don't know for sure whether or not he seeks power, because I'm not him nor can I channel his thoughts, but based on his history and his quiet/humble demeanor, I think you can at least tell the man seems like he has a different reason for seeking the presidency. He has even said himself that he is reluctantly running for President (once again, take it for what you will I don't know the objective truth of his statement - because I can't) and that he wants to become President to do LESS. I believe him based on his record in Congress. At any time he could have swayed from his principles, but he hasn't. I don't think my vision of him is unrealistic. You look at his record and what he has said, I believe he is a humble, reluctant candidate. Maybe, I'm wrong, but who the hell knows until the man is actually President? No one. So all I have is what the man says and his record. And his record speaks for itself. As for what he would do as President, here is what he said in his own words:

My Plan for a Freedom President by Ron Paul

You combine this with the man at least telling the truth and standing on principle despite the opposition to him, and I trust this man more than I trust any other politician, that's for damn sure. Guy's been absolutely consistent for 30 years, has predicted two recessions years before they happened, he has the balls to call out Reagan's big gov't spending and debts in the Reagan Library of all places, with Nancy Reagan in the audience, has the balls to tell the truth (backed up by the CIA) on 9/11 to a hostile audience, and does not flip flop or backpedal. You can call that painting an unrealistic picture if you want, but when compared to flip floppin' Romney, Mr. "I believe which ever way the political winds blow" Perry and all the others, Paul is the last statesman we have left. If he proves me wrong if/when he becomes President and if he turns out like the rest of them, I will come on here and humbly admit you were right, hell I'll even start a damn thread on here just to say you were right. I promise. It's funny because every one always says "why can't politicians just stand on principle, stop lying, stop flip flopping", "all politicians just take money from corporations and special interests", "why don't congressmen give back part of their money since we have to pay so much", etc. etc. Well here you have a guy who stands on principle, says the same thing for 30 years, regardless of what anyone thinks, TAKES NO MONEY FROM CORPORATIONS OR SPECIAL INTERESTS, ONLY SMALL DONATIONS FROM GRASSROOTS SUPPORTERS, and gives back a portion of his salary every year to the CBO to help pay the national debt AND isn't on the Congressional pension system because he believes it is immoral, and yet this isn't good enough to at least warrant a different view of him? Do I have unrealistic expectations for the future? Sure, perhaps I do. But I do not have unrealistic expectations of who Paul is or what he will do because his record proves it, unlike everyone else in the race.

Prediction of Housing bubble collapse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHNp1...eature=related

Looks like this has become a Ron Paul discussion. I noticed that an ad for "Ron Paul's Constitution Day" is up on USPO. Would any of you like to comment about his views of the Constitution? I started a thread today where this would be on-topic -

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/huma...ution-day.html

even hutsman would be an improvement over obama.
karl marx would be an improvement.

Anyone who is actually eligible to be president would be better than Obama.

There are actually reasons why there is a requirement that the POTUS needs to be a natural born citizen of the USA.

Stupid people can't understand that.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

By the way, if anyone is intellectually honest enough to check this video just released by the Paul campaign concerning his foreign policy stance, then I recommend anyone not understanding or agreeing with his stance to at least watch it and consider what he is saying. Thanks.

Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect - YouTube

It seems that it's this kind of talk from Paul that scares the bejeesus out of the military-industrial complex including most congressional incumbents, who are supported by defense contractors, and Associated Press reporters who rely on inside info from the Pentagon and State Dept for many of their hot, and imho often-fabricated or at least biased, stories.

Originally Posted by Tom Palven

It seems that it's this kind of talk from Paul that scares the bejeesus out of the military-industrial complex including most congressional incumbents, who are supported by defense contractors, and Associated Press reporters who rely on inside info from the Pentagon and State Dept for many of their hot, and imho often-fabricated or at least biased, stories.

Exactly and that is why the establishment is fighting him so damn hard. And that is specifically why Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex; it runs the country right along with the Federal Reserve. That's why our presidents get picked for us every election cycle by the media and the corporate interests (and remember as a conservative, I have no problems with corporations and businesses - in a free market anyway, in this controlled economy we have, these big businesses are destroying our country right along with big labor).