Let's Vote Now!!

[Logan Schuetzle]

They had a very long and almost awkward prayer at the caucus I attended here in WA.

It is sad to see people being so brainwashed by the media. Most of the Romney and Santorum supporters just repeated Fox news talking points all day. Only thing they had to say about Ron Paul was his Foreign policy is scary and dangerous. Me and the other Paul supports just shook our heads.

I also hate the "I'm just voting for Romney, cause he has the best chance." No, the media just told you he has the best chance. Stand up for what you believe in, not fox new or the RNC.

[Ryan Thames]

Amen!!!

[Ryan Thames]

The media banks on the masses giving in to the power of suggestion.

The GOP is AFRAID of Ron Paul supporters. Because they KNOW the "Romney is inevitable" is a lie!

This is truly an amazing time.

[Chris Kaufman]

Apr 17, 2012 14:07:55 GMT -5 Logan Schuetzle said:

They had a very long and almost awkward prayer at the caucus I attended here in WA.

It is sad to see people being so brainwashed by the media. Most of the Romney and Santorum supporters just repeated Fox news talking points all day. Only thing they had to say about Ron Paul was his Foreign policy is scary and dangerous. Me and the other Paul supports just shook our heads.

I also hate the "I'm just voting for Romney, cause he has the best chance." No, the media just told you he has the best chance. Stand up for what you believe in, not fox new or the RNC.

I heard the same thing. When people say that about Ron Paul's foreign policy, I ask them, "what is so scary about actually going to Congress and getting a Declaration of War before bombing the hell out of a country?"

[John Byerley]

Again, I really like Ron Paul. I have a question though ABOUT his foreign policy.

We'll take the POPULAR Iran issue.

His take on it, IN MY PARAPHRASED viewpoint, just after watching alot of speeches is basically:


"Well can you blame them for being so pissed off? Or for wanting a nuclear weapon? Why not? We have nuclear weapons? And the reason they're so pissed off at us is because we've been over there stirring the pot for 50+ years."

Ok I agree with him on all historical facts - he is one of the few that actually pays attention to history. Santorum when referencing the Iran situation only went back to the seventies, when they did their thing to US, etc. etc. Whereas Paul goes back to when our involvement with Iran started moreso in the 50s, and when we really started GETTING INVOLVED in THEIR politics and political situation.

I am one of the ones that just wishes we'd leave everyone alone, bring the boys home from these hopeless and I MEAN hopeless countries.

But I also am of the mind that whats done is done - weve meddled in other countries' business for too long, we shouldnt have done it, but we did, and now they ARE pissed, some DO hate use for it, and given the right resources, weapons, they PROBABLY would want to wipe us off the map. So here we are now.

Option A: we keep on pressuring the international community to increase sanctions - keep a watchful eye, and keep a watchful eye ourselves to make sure they don't gain nuclear power, for our sake, and for the sake of our allies

Option B: we wait for them to attack and respond

I don't see a 3rd option - but maybe someone can add one I'm missing?

I LIKE his foreign policy when it comes to these current issues, but I don't believe them to be realistic. Mr Paul has great ideals, making me wish he would have been our president 40-50 years ago to stop alot of these things from happening in the first place.

That being said - I wouldn't let that stop me from voting for him - as I like his stance on everything else moreso than the other candidates - and thats what you have advisors and intelligence for, to help you make decisions regarding foreign policy ONCE IN OFFICE.

As far as the GOP conventions - conservatives - etc.

Conservative means so many different things these days, its a term thats been gangbanged by people from all over the REPUBLICAN LIBERTARIAN and even INDEPENDENT spectrum.

Just like LIBERAL means different things to different folks, as does democrat.

I consider myself conservative because of what I BELIEVE it means - SIMPLY less government LESS infringement on individual freedoms - conservative economic and spending policies - just like you should be CONSERVATIVE WITH YOUR OWN FINANCES, as should the government be conservative with OUR money.

Conservative on social issues - the loud voice of the few should not be able to drown out and command the voice and livelihoods of the majority, and should not be able to gain leverage through lawsuits and political correctness.

I am a person of faith - and I have no problem voicing that in political circles. The founding fathers didn't either and only fools really believe the POLITICALLY CORRECT definition of church and state. They were of course not perfect men, and did not have perfect morals - but overall in the culture back then, I think people sure did try a whole more to be decent. At the same time, I personally don't think you can push your religion onto other people. Thats what the founding fathers wanted - to be able to practice your faith freely without the government getting in the way, or demanding you follow any certain religion. But all of this Crap about not being able to mention God or pray in public or pray in school because people might get offended??? FOOLS

ITS NO SECRET the decline of society over the last 50-60 years - and you can attribute that to whatever you want.

As far as the GOP conventions - I have no problem with anyone calling B.O. a socialist marxist communist liberal chicago-style political pawn, because by definition of all those things, he is trying to move the country in that direction. Most people offended by those terms being related to the president cant even tell you what they mean.

I HOPE Ron Paul can gain the traction needed to PULL A BIG ONE on the media, on the establishment, on everyone...but I don't see it happening. But even if he does, I think he still needs to shift a few of his ideals into the current state of the world. I'd like to say WE CAN START OVER AND DO THINGS RIGHT, and we can with somethings, but on other issues, we made our bed and we have to sleep in it.

ANYONE WITH A BRAIN and a CORE can listen to political analysts and decipher the BS from the TRUTH. I'm sorry I can't watch any liberally charged news outlet for any extended amount of time because TRUTH - MOST of what is being spewed is simply spinning whatever the truth really is. The heart of the liberal movement today is rooted in communism - which is fine if thats what you believe, but the US is a republic, and there are plenty other countries to go if you want to live in a Utopian communist society

Fox News people can go overboard - but you will find more opinions from both sides of the isle on that channel than anywhere else. There are liberal people that pop up on fox news all day long that i absolutely detest politically and if i knew them probably personally, and there are conservatives/republicans that annoy me to. But usually its not because i disagree with the heart of what they are saying, but because of how OVERBOARD they go with their views, which can often turn into arrogance.

I don't have the same tolerance for the left, and what lies at the heart of that agenda is moving this country in a direction that I DO NOT LIKE, and I have no room for that.

[Michael Wells]

Great question and outlook. From what I understand, (correct me if I'm wrong) if we pull out of Iran, they still would not be held without accountability. There are 1 or more worldwide organizations (maybe the U.N.) that keep an eye and routinely check that stuff. I'm sure John or someone else could spell it out much nicer than me but that's my vague understanding of the nuclear part

[John Byerley]

We are not "IN" Iran - no troops there.

The international community in general does not exactly have a great track record for keeping a WATCHFUL eye on mischievous rogue nations and their plotting. Also - Iran has a problem with US and Israel - not Norway or Australia for instance.

So it wouldn't be that smart to leave OUR safety in the hands of people - countries - who aren't the prime target of a possible attack.

[Gabe Moore]

Today's Democrat is much different than yesterday's Democrat(50's, 60's, 70's, 80's)....Not to offend any Democrat, however, generally speaking, the majority of Democrats have fallen way too liberal, ie; voting for and supporting much of the extreme liberal views that B.H. Obama believes and forces through the system.
Today's Republican has responded by falling a bit too far to the right....but not too far. I would say the Republican's have stayed fairly steady in their beliefs and views. However, our current probably nominee(Romney) is right in the middle of both parties...which is why his support from the Conservative base hasn't been too excited, but, will surely vote for him over BH Obama.
Romney can drum up support from the old school Democrats, not the extreme leftist wackos....

I can only continue to pray that we can kick Obama out of the White House this year. This country is more divided than ever...racially, and economically. I have never seen such ridiculous behavior over the Travon Martin case...and, for our President to say "if I had a son, he'd look like Travon"....wow.
Instead of publicly stating that the racial tones need to stop...

We have a true mess, from a leadership standpoint.

Romney 2013!!! (or, anyone but Obama!)

[Ryan Thames]

NOOOOO

Not Romney!!

This mentality has got to stop.

You see a fire (Obama) it needs to be put out.... You can't just grab ANYTHING to put the fire out!!

The GOP is trying to hand you a cup of Gas (Romney) while hiding the water (Ron Paul)

Romney is a different cell of the same virus.

[Gabe Moore]

I wanted Santorum or Gingrich...Ron Paul's foreign policy scares the #%*! out if me. He is an out of the box thinker, and has some very good points. Gingrich would make Obama look like a 1st grader in a debate.
Santorum was prob too conservative for the win. He shared too many if his personal views, which lost it for him.

Ron Paul has an interesting view....but he doesn't have enough support to win. I hope that Ron doesn't create a 3rd party...it'll kill our chances to boot Obama out.

[Chris Kaufman]

Apr 19, 2012 14:28:03 GMT -5 Gabe Moore said:

I wanted Santorum or Gingrich...Ron Paul's foreign policy scares the #%*! out if me. He is an out of the box thinker, and has some very good points. Gingrich would make Obama look like a 1st grader in a debate.
Santorum was prob too conservative for the win. He shared too many if his personal views, which lost it for him.

Ron Paul has an interesting view....but he doesn't have enough support to win. I hope that Ron doesn't create a 3rd party...it'll kill our chances to boot Obama out.

Back to my question. What's scary about going through Congress to get a Declaration of War?

If you don't believe he has enough supporters, check out the rallies where he packs stadiums and convention centers. The problem is all the misinformed people that listen to the media. Notice how they didn't cover the fact that he took nearly all the Delegates in CO, MN, NV, and MO.

[John Byerley]

I think cheerleading any candidate in the bunch isn't going to be very productive. Ryan do you ever wonder if maybe people like myself or Gabe made adult / big boy decisions on who we support, and got to that point using reasonable logic?

I mentioned I would support whoever the OTHER candidate is Versus Obama - and that it would probably be Romney - and I'm pretty sure thats accurate. You don't have to be brainwashed or be DRINKIN THE TEA to assume much of anything.

Chris asked:

"What's scary about going through Congress to get a Declaration of War?"

To answer that - nothing, of course? That IS the law, correct, under the constitution?

But that has little to do when it comes to "what scares people" about Ron Paul's foreign policy.

This is where cheer leading any particular candidate gets weird - I didn't OPPOSE Ron Paul with my posts - if anything I applauded the vast majority of his views, or him as a person in general - I QUESTIONED one aspect - and I can't get an answer?

To any of you HARDCORE RON PAUL SUPPORTERS!!!! So far ALOT of what I see is the same robotic automatic cheer leading that goes on in the left. When someone brings up something else, or a question, or another viewpoint. Its OH ITS THE MEDIA OH ITS A CONSPIRACY OH JUST A PART OF THE SAME VIRUS!! GO RON PAUL!

I mean its really lame?!?! =D

Wheres the individual thought. The only response I got to the question by a Ron Paul supporter was that WE SHOULD PULL OUT OF IRAN... =|

Chris, I know you spend ALOT of time researching things and looking into things for yourself - so help me with this whole delegate thing. I understand the media gives different priorities to different candidates and pretty much has screwed Ron Paul out of ANY public spotlight, but I mean the numbers are the numbers. What am I missing? You guys said he has alot more delegates than the media shows?

All counts show that Romney has 685 delegates, and Paul has 63 ( give or take a few on either of them when it comes to superdelegates )

You mentioned Colorado:

Romney 13
Paul 3

Minnesota:

Santorum 28
Paul 9

Romney not on ballot

Nevada

Romney 14
Paul 5

And Missouri - and that vote doesnt take place until the 21st?

I agree with you, the MAIN problem is uninformed people simply listen to the media - and really ignorant people only listen to who hands them a dollar bill and says VOTE FOR ME!

I like Ron Paul - I don't like Romney - but out of the two the way things are right now and the way people are? I think Romney has a better chance, GIVEN ALL FACTORS FAIR OR UNFAIR< of beating Obama.

You said RON PAUL HAS SUPPORT HE FILLS STADIUMS - you have to think of it like this. Ron Paul's message resonates MOST with young people - and his supporters are known for being HARDCORE in terms of ACTION, Campaigning on his behalf, being outspoken on his behalf, etc. If Ron Paul is in a town that has 50,000 RP supporters, and he is speaking that night, theres a good chance 50,000 people may show up.

Thats not the case with Romney - people aren't excited about him as the candidate - but they'll vote for him anyways - whether they want to personally or were subleminally TOLD to by the media - that number of people FAR outnumbers the Ron Paul faithful - the proof is in the numbers.

I can appreciate why you guys support him - but its hard for me to appreciate the SPIN you guys use when any opposition is thrown Ron Paul's direction. NOBODY gets his little feelings hurt and resorts to spin and I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I politics than the president. I mean thats the liberal way - to allow emotion to lead the way to votes, and not the facts.

I brought up what my personal fears are about Paul, and no one could answer. Like I said - MOSTLY cheer leading - very little substance. Not that Paul doesn't personally have a lot of substance, HE DOES.

But too often his supporters are just loud and obnoxious - and a little uninformed of all the facts themself, and unable to bring anyone over into the PAUL camp.

[Chris Kaufman]

Was your question regarding what the 3rd option was? If so, then it would be opening up trade with these countries that we've deemed Axis' of Evil. Look at all the countries that we've went to war with, and now trade with. There are other ways to deal with these countries IMO. Does that answer your question? I do agree that we've done TONS of damage to result in retaliation from some of these questions, but I personally believe that if we minded our own business, they would mind theirs. Just like how Bin Laden stated that the main reason he, allegedly , attacked us was because of our presence in Saudi Arabia, the "holy land".

As far as the delegate counts on most websites. They are estimating what the delegate counts are depending on where the candidate ended up in the straw polls. Besides the states where it's "all or nothing", like Florida, the delegates aren't tied to anyone. That's been Ron Paul's strategy this whole time, which is to use the delegate process to win the nomination.

I'll be honest, I'm almost positive that he won't win. Even if he was going to win, they wouldn't let him win. Too many people make too much money off of the way the State is ran. The only way I see it changing is through collapse.

[John Byerley]

Gotcha on the delegates.

See but thats where you differ from the others "I'm almost positive he won't win."

I'm in that same boat - I like him alot, I said it in the initial post I wish he'd really BUST OUT WITH A COME FROM BEHIND VICTORY - but its just not gonna happen.

As far as the 3rd option - we have trade with all these countries that don't align with our own ideals - ethics - way of life. Not only trade, but we give them foreign aid too - and usually the only end up resenting us one way or another. Trade is a good thing - but just like in collecting, if through any given trade I find out that my trade partner is a complete moron or lunatic, I'm not gonna trade with them anymore. I don't care what they have or how AWESOME the trade they offer is, not gonna do it. Not worth the grief, or unintended emotion consequences.

We have alot of trading partners that we "really" shouldn't have.

As a country - we were doin AIGHT when we made our own STUFF, and used our OWN STUFF!

Could we produce independently enough oil on our own to self sustain? We'll never know!

Look at China...a communist country with some of the lowest standards for how they treat their people - and we are in debt up to our eyeballs to them.

Venezuela - axis of evil assumption or not - Chavez is very obviously on the "bad guys" team - to put in kindly. We have no business - especially considering the tensions between our countries and for good reason - to do any trade with them.

Saudi Arabia - giving them billions a year in aid on top of buying up all that oil...a religious Autocracy - known for its mistreating of its people - its one sided rule - one of our biggest allies.

The list goes on...

We are a product of our environment - we are our friends, and the company we keep.

We messed up as a country when we started jacking around with all of these countries in the first place - whether through trade or meddling in their individual affairs.

Its going to be hard if not impossible to undue any of it over time - we're a sinking ship.

[John Byerley]

When you sacrifice morals and ethics as a country - you sacrifice what sets you apart - our government sold all of us out years ago with all the under the table corruption, here and abroad.

We're beginning to "look more like" the rest of the world. Our leaders, our politics - and with that comes the same garbage people founded this country with the intentions of getting away from.