This year may be different
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ron Pauls Secret Weapon
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
This year may be different
Actually, its not just democrats, but independents as well. And it is NOT mostly "fair weather" friends, who just want to get Ron Paul nominated so Obama can be president. There is a HUGE push for Ron Paul, from anti-war democrats who actually want him as president, cause they know he will shut down the war machine.
The fact is, most of those (democrats and independents) voting in these primaries are people who like and want Dr. Paul as president. And I LIKE the concept of open primaries. As long as the insiders have a strangle lock on the process via a two party system, we SHOULD have open primaries.
As far as the rest; it is crazy, to me, that people on here, and people in the press talk about how the republicans will "not accept" Paul as their candidate, yet every single republican I have talked to (in person), with the exception of one person, have openly endorsed Ron Paul. Most of them agree with his policy, and even the ones that are currently supporting other candidates say, "I chose candidate X, cause Paul can never win the nomination..."
The fact is, most of those (democrats and independents) voting in these primaries are people who like and want Dr. Paul as president. And I LIKE the concept of open primaries. As long as the insiders have a strangle lock on the process via a two party system, we SHOULD have open primaries.
As far as the rest; it is crazy, to me, that people on here, and people in the press talk about how the republicans will "not accept" Paul as their candidate, yet every single republican I have talked to (in person), with the exception of one person, have openly endorsed Ron Paul. Most of them agree with his policy, and even the ones that are currently supporting other candidates say, "I chose candidate X, cause Paul can never win the nomination..."
Would you say these Republicans are more conservative, liberal or libertarian?
Hardcore conservative. Tea Party types (actually, several of them ARE tea party folks..). Extremely pro-life, small government people. Bunch are also ex military.
freeatlast
New Member
Not to contradict you as I have not polled anyone, but I do find it a little strange that " hardcore conservatives" as you put it support Ron Paul and him wanting to do away with federal drug laws, do away with federal death penalty, have no federal abortion laws, no marriage amendment, and weaken our military. What are you calling “hardcore conservatives”?
Seems to me that you don't know the difference between conservatives and neocons.
Uh, how are you defining "conservative"? Because the "Conservative" position has always supported a strong defense (the idea that he wants to weaken the military is laughable...what weakens the military is being involved in never-ending undeclared wars), while opposing overseas militarism (Paul's position). Has ALWAYS emphasized a small federal government, while supporting states rights. You do know that conservatives have always been big supporters of the 10th amendment, which is why up until 11 years ago, the Republican platform included getting rid of the Department of Education, right?
Supporting nation drug laws, and other national criminal laws outside of the constitution, is NOT the conservative position. This "new" conservatism, which just wants a different kind of big government than the progressives, is really just liberalism in disguise.
"....Ron Paul explained that he understands the motive for the law and that people are simply frustrated with the Federal government’s lack of enforcement of existing immigration laws......"
I think Paul believes if the Feds were to do their job there would be no need for the state law.
freeatlast
New Member
The term was "hardcore conservatives" This is why I never make claims to titles as there is no set standard today for anything. I have never met hardcore conservative who would support any person who wants to do away with federal drug laws, or that does not want a federal marriage act, or does not want to deport illegals and secure our border with the military. I suppose you could call someone who supports Paul a hardcore conservative if you put in front of it a "political" hardcore conservative or just call them libertarians. However to call them "hardcore conservatives on a Christian discussion board sends an incorrect picture.
I think he has some great ideas, but he also has some very bad ideas. I have no question at all that he will NEVER be president because of the bad ideas and that will be because of hardcore religious conservatives who will not vote for him. If we think the current mess in Washington is gridlock what Paul would bring to Washington would be total shut down as the congress would not follow his leading. Paul could do one thing an one thing only and that would be to bring the military home. After that he would have no power to institute any of his policies as the congress would not follow. Not the republicans or the democrats.
In the coming weeks we are going to see his support go away, not increase. He will not only not never be president he will never be the republican nominee.
Last edited by a moderator:
But then he also opposes the federal E-Verify program intended to prevent employers hiring illegals. Apparently he likes the idea of enforcement only in the theoretical sense.
Personally, I think 4 years of gridlock would do more good than harm. IMO, it would be RP's style to take full advantage of the bully pulpit to put the pressure on Congress to return to the Constitution. You may be surprised at what he could do as president:
My Plan for a Freedom President
How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office
by Ron Paul
Excerpt:
“No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.”
Last edited by a moderator:
freeatlast
New Member
I don't disagree with your assessment at least not totally. My point is that even though certain people are called hardcore conservative the truth be known they do not want the constitution as given by the founding fathers. They want to pick and choose just like is being done today with the only difference they want to pick and choose their way, not the way of the constitution. The problem for many is not that the constitution is being violated by our leaders, but that it is not being violated in a manner that benefits them and their views. Just look at how many support, on this BB, the unconstitutional TSA and at the same time claim to be supporters of the constitution, and that is just one example of multitudes.
Socialism has crept into the mainstream population and it is rampant in the government and even in the military who claim to protect the constitution, but in fact are destroying it. Most people today who claim to be supporters of the constitution are actually socialists and do not even know it. Some are just further down the road with it then others. In years past (just 50) they would be outcasts from society, but today they are seen as true American flag honoring patriots when they are not. The truth is that there is very few people who want to return to what this nation was founded on and even fewer who understand what that is.
The reason for this is because of a breakdown of truth in their Christian practices. No longer does the bible mean what it says to most as each one has their own doctrine. If the church followed the bible as it is given instead of claiming it is cultural or it means other then what it says the people would rebel. Actually they already have rebelled against God by creating their own doctrines and practices. Most churches, and I do mean MOST, are in rebellion against God and that rebellion has carried over against the constitution.
What we are seeing in the nation is nothing but the results of the rebellion of the church against her God. The claimed church of today for the most part does not want the God of the bible ruling over them, but rather a god they have made in their image who they can obey at their convenience or if at all. Just look at how many do not want the moral laws of God to be part of their judicial laws. And because of this the people of this nation do not want the government (constitution) over them for as the church goes so goes the nation (salt and light). We are quick on grace and lacking in responsibility and obedience. I agree that Ron Paul has it right as far as what is needed to returning to the constitution, but the constitution no longer has any great validity to the people any more then the bible does to the church so most people will not stand for it as most are not interested in the bible or the constitution as it was given.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gingrich and Perry also oppose it:
http://2012election.procon.org/view.answers.election.php?questionID=1725
I thought this was interesting, excerpts:
"Paul has a simple, straightforward plan for securing U.S. borders: Bring all the nation’s military troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and then station as many as needed along the U.S.-Mexico border.
“A nation without borders is no nation at all,” he says. “It doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.” "
"Paul opposes the federal E-Verify system that forces employers to check the immigration status of their workers through a national database. He believes businesses should not be involved in preventing illegal workers from getting jobs. That is a federal responsibility, he says.
“I don’t like putting the burden on our business people to be policemen,” Paul said during a debate in Iowa in August 2011. “If an illegal comes into our country and a church helps them and feeds them, we don’t blame the church.” Paul voted against the DREAM Act when it came up in the U.S. House in December 2010. He opposes the idea of the government giving educational benefits to the children of illegal immigrants."
Well, you have just met one. The idea that the secular God-hating government should not be in charge of marriage, is in my opinion, the only consistent position of a "hardcore conservative." Marriage is the venue of the church. As a conservative, I do not want marriage regulated by people in New York, anymore than I want baptism regulated by them. This is the problem that people do not understand; when you give the government power that they do not already have (there is no power to define, control, or bless marriage in the constitution), then sooner or later that power gets flipped on its head. This is a sinful wicked world.
Same thing with drugs. Once you establish the precedent that the Federal government gets to mandate drug laws on the states (which again, it has no constitutional authority to do so), you then, the next generation, have to deal with the consequences when the federal government, now full of potheads from California and New York, FORCE legal drugs on the states (along with a federal drug tax, of course...).
Sorry if I lack confidence in Harvard trained yo-yos to enforce Godly laws on the rest of us. Each state should govern itself, outside the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
EEEK! You know what this whole thing is? A way to get conservatives to buy into a program that they have ALWAYS opposed...a Federal I.D. program!
You are wasting your breath (ok, fingers) with all this. These people don't understand the concept of a limited federal government. The say they do, but the second their little issue (marriage, drugs, etc) is on the plate they want federal regulations.
See, this is the sort of wacky stuff that turns me away from Paul. He says we've got to reduce the size of federal governement, we've got to give more power back to the states, people need to be more responsible for their actions, more self-reliant.
But apparently businesses should not be compelled to check on the citizenry status of prospective employees. There needs to be a federal government agency set up to perform this task.
It is prudent for businesses to check on the background of prospects, education record, criminal record, check their references, previous employment record, yet if the federal government provides a database whereby an employer could swiftly carry out the task of verifying citizenship, it's an imposition on them!
freeatlast
New Member
I agree with what you are saying, as far as what constitutes standing for the constitution, and while I also stand for the prinicples of the constitution and the nation returning to it as it was intended, but I disagree this will ever happen in this country. We are too far gone and we are that way because of what has happened to the church in this country. We are now a socialist nation growing in that bent to even greater depths of socialism and that has happened because the church.
You sure are a defeatist. Sorry, but I believe in a Sovereign God. We should do what is RIGHT, and leave the results to Him.