This is my concern with Ron Paul :

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=CFSHGhq19CM

Im typically not a fan, but this was suggested to me, and made quite an impact.

Link ain't workin.

...Damn SOPA...just kidding. Here it is:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFSHGhq19CM

Like I said, I'm typically not a fan, be he hits on some pretty good stuff. what concerns me the most is the latter half of the video. it is all good though.

Well the first issue with that video is that it's Glenn Beck.

I agree with that. It doesnt change the info provided. I told you i dont care for him either. Those are pretty big concerns though. That makes him just as dangerous as our current.

I don't see the issue, and I can only imagine that whatever point is trying to be conveyed by Beck is largely distorted.

Why wouldn't Ron Paul run third party at this point though?

 

 

I've heard some suggest that it's because he's worried that it would cause his son to become persona non grata in the party if he runs third party and would affect his national profile down the road.

Dont see the issue? Did you watch it? Do you know who George Soros is? Do you not have a problem with Paul sying in the interview that he cant handle the pressure, that is why he is not being straight forward?

Dont see the issue? Did you watch it? Do you know who George Soros is? Do you not have a problem with Paul sying in the interview that he cant handle the pressure, that is why he is not being straight forward?

 

 

Are you kidding? I thought you were just trying to make a point out of the George Soros part. Do you really think Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther?

 

It's abundantly obvious that what Ron Paul means about that is that he doesn't want to say "it's America's fault that 9/11 happened because we angered al Qaeda and embedded the hatred in their hearts'. His whole idea on foreign policy is to stop intervening and not give them a reason to want to blow up the Twin Towers. Yeah, he can't handle that pressure. No politician can. That's career suicide if he goes out making his opinion be heard on the matter. Why on Earth would he need to preach that? He doesn't lie about it, sure. But that doesn't mean he needs to go saying something that he doesn't need to say to get elected.

 

As far as George Soros goes... oh no a liberal capitalist. With money. Who shares plenty of viewpoints that Ron Paul does. Am I worried? No. George Soros isn't going to become president. If you're worried about personnel interacting with a potential president, Ron Paul is arguably the last person you should be worried about. It's my understanding that he's the only candidate that runs a clean business. Or at least... as clean as they get.

That was way out of context on 9-11. Also, the Soros link is also dubious.

My main point was Soros.

I do know several 9/11 truthers that are "radical" Paul supporters. Similar to the ones that Beck speaks of getting death threats from. As far as him personally, i dont know what his stance on that is.

I think you are significantly downplaying and underestimating Soros. Money talks. It is for Obama, and there are way too many close encounters between Paul and this guy to be comfortable with. Paul is somebody that is supposedly against all things that he is, but in our military and defense, he wants to bring in eleven ties with him. He wants to tone back the military...fair enough, it could use it. He doesnt need to have any links to a guy that wants to destroy the country though, because that is one sure fire way to allow him to.

 

Again, im for cutting some of the defense budget. There is a ton of wasted money there. The guys he wants to be involved in it are scary as hell. Which raises the concerns about Paul. He personally hasnt done anything wrong, but it goes back to being guilty by association.

You don't know his stance? You say that as if there is some questioning in the matter. Do you know Mitt Romney's stance on 9/11 truthers? What about Newt Gingrich? Here's a hint: I can assure you they're all the same.

 

And again on Soros: George Soros is not being elected President of the United States. Money talks, but not in the way you're talking. They have a common interest at hand, and that's it.

Rand Paul pulling a publicity stunt for ol' pops by being detained by the TSA for refusing to agree to a full body pat down.

 

All press is... good press?

The Soros connection is that he is on a Congressional committee with some other Congressmen he likely does not agree with and that that committee has some advisory board people that are associated with groups that Soros backs. Dubious at best.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Santorum is now losing any vote he may have had:

 

 

http://www.addicting...from-god-video/

[There's a video in the link as well]

 

Rick Santorum is, by far, the greatest enemy to women of all the candidates in the Republican Presidential race. He has made it clear that he intends to make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, and will ban birth control and contraceptives in all forms. He’s also suggested that pre-marital sex should be illegal as well. But during an interview with Piers Morgan last Friday, Santorum showed just how insensitive he is towards women who get raped.

After Morgan asked Santorum to clarify his views about abortion, the former Senator and evangelical lackey said that women should have their rapist’s baby and make the best of it because God is giving them a gift. In other words, get over it and take what God gives you without question. Here’s his full statement.

 

 

“Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.�

 

 

What kind of a man of God can legitimize rape as a device through which God gives women a gift? It’s a disgusting thing to say. Women who are raped go through hell. And yet, Santorum wants to force women, as if they haven’t been forced to already go through enough hell, to go through nine agonizing months of pregnancy, which will be a constant reminder of the rape. On top of that, his desire to ban all forms of contraceptives will make it even more likely for rape to result in pregnancy. Forcing a woman to carry the baby of their rapist is akin to rewarding the rapist. The rapist not only gets progeny, he gets to revel in the pain and suffering he has caused that woman to go through for nine additional months. He is basically empowering rapists and saying that God sanctions rapes. It’s wrong and Santorum is a sorry excuse for a human being.

That really... doesn't make him lose votes. You've got to remember who's voting for him.

To say if a woman is raped, though, that she should HAVE to keep her child? What if it's a 12 year old girl we're talking about here? Should she have to keep it as well, since it's a "gift from God?" He wants to make abortion illegal, which, ironically, his wife had one. He wants to make people be unable to have the choice of this, but, as a friend of mine stated:

 

even when asked if it were his daughter...he didn't say "No, she would NOT be getting one" he said that he would council her with the decision. So, basically...she would have a CHOICE.

 

 

So basically, if they're related to him, yeah, it's fine, but anyone else, noooooo, it's wrong and immoral, regardless of situation.

 

He's also wanting to make birth control and condoms illegal, which would mean more of a chance of a baby being born as a result of rape. That's definitely going to lose him some votes.

He's not losing his Republican votes is my point.

 

It's fine though, because Santorum wont be winning the ticket anyways. He's easily the least practical candidate to stand up to Obama.

And any future votes, should he try again.

He's not losing his Republican votes is my point.

 

It's fine though, because Santorum wont be winning the ticket anyways. He's easily the least practical candidate to stand up to Obama.

 

There are likely many pro-life Republicans who would make exceptions for cases where rape is involved or the mother faces death if the pregnancy is carried out. Not every Republican is an extremely conservative, super religious, unwavering pro-lifer. Therefore, that view should lose him some Republican votes, not to mention moderates/independents who may have voted him.

Those moderates weren't voting for him in the first place. They were voting for Newt and Romney. Santorum hasn't changed his views. He's said that before, although perhaps less adamantly. He's not losing significant support because of that.

 

He also doesn't have some crazy support to fall back on.

I don't intend to vote for any of these people in the general election, but I have been casually following this rat race for the GOP nomination. I saw that portion of Santorum's Piers Morgan interview, and it was definitely cringeworthy to watch, especially as a woman, hearing this MAN call a pregnancy from RAPE a "gift from God." In his own words, too. He's not a threat to win the nomination, but it's still sickening that this guy could be the next president. It's sickening that any of them (not counting Paul, don't freak out RP lovers) could be president.

 

I was gauging the thoughts of a card carrying Republican friend of mine (part of the Cuban American vote), and she said she wishes Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell would run because they are, from her text message, "Two of the smartest Republicans of all time. Extremely likable and normal...but oh well."

 

Just my 2 cents and the 2 cents from my friend. Not up for a debate. But these people are so out of touch with reality it's sad.

He's not losing his Republican votes is my point.

 

It's fine though, because Santorum wont be winning the ticket anyways. He's easily the least practical candidate to stand up to Obama.

 

There are likely many pro-life Republicans who would make exceptions for cases where rape is involved or the mother faces death if the pregnancy is carried out. Not every Republican is an extremely conservative, super religious, unwavering pro-lifer. Therefore, that view should lose him some Republican votes, not to mention moderates/independents who may have voted him.

Those moderates weren't voting for him in the first place. They were voting for Newt and Romney. Santorum hasn't changed his views. He's said that before, although perhaps less adamantly. He's not losing significant support because of that.

 

He also doesn't have some crazy support to fall back on.

 

Your post pretty clearly implied that you were referring to the general election, i.e. by referring to Republican votes (all votes in the [closed] primary are Republican) and his prospects of standing up to Obama. If you didn't mean that, then the independents of course matter less.

 

But you're changing your argument to say he's not losing significant votes, especially in light of that he "doesn't have some crazy support to fall back on." He's certainly losing some votes; not every Republican agrees with what he said here, and it might change their choice. It could easily push votes to Ron Paul, for example, who is pro-life but wants the states to be able to make such decisions, I believe.

 

If you're referring to the general election, I stand by my point.

The Republican presidential candidate - who is currently third in the polls - said that women in such a position should not get an abortion but instead welcome their 'horrible gift from God'.

this blew my f***ing mind.

did he campaign manager just tell him 'f*** it, say whatever' since he's been polling poorly or what?

Your post pretty clearly implied that you were referring to the general election, i.e. by referring to Republican votes (all votes in the [closed] primary are Republican) and his prospects of standing up to Obama. If you didn't mean that, then the independents of course matter less.

 

 

bulls*** it did. Try reading it again, and please don't tell me what my clear implications were.

 

But you're changing your argument to say he's not losing significant votes, especially in light of that he "doesn't have some crazy support to fall back on." He's certainly losing some votes; not every Republican agrees with what he said here, and it might change their choice. It could easily push votes to Ron Paul, for example, who is pro-life but wants the states to be able to make such decisions, I believe.

 

 

I'm not changing any argument. Yeah, initially I had said he's not losing 'any votes' and then the second time I said 'significant amount of votes'. It's still the same argument, nothing has changed. Not losing 'any votes' is just an exaggeration. Most things any politician ever says are going to have a net result in voters. I'm sure some people are upset with that, but to think that all of the sudden a great damage was dealt to him... that's not justifiable. Those who were voting Rick Santorum are still voting Rick Santorum, just like those who were voting Ron Paul are still Ron Paul. Those two candidates aren't very flexible in losing or gaining voters, they're very extreme with a lot of their views.