Ron Paul calls Bradley Manning a hero and a true patriot

Motherman and Bobsama, we should start by agreeing on one thing at least, Ron Paul is bat shit crazy and by far the most dangerous candidate running for president (Obama isn't running according to the White House...). I'm not really a social conservative, but Gingrich has done very little legislating from the pulpit. Just because he isn't ashamed of being religious (I'm an atheist just like Renno personally) doesn't mean he's going to force his religion down people's throats. The truth is that in our lifetime he is the ONLY speaker of the house to balance the budget and he did it with a democrat in office for four consecutive years. He is also the only speaker of the house to push through welfare reform, with a democrat in the white house. He also led the republicans to take over the house in the mid 90's for the first time taking power from the democrats in 30 years. Look, he's not perfect for sure, but he gets shit done and he gets shit done that we really need done. The democrats always brag about how Clinton gave Bush a budget surplus, the truth is he had NO CHOICE because Gingrich dragged him kicking and screaming to that point, NOT because Bubba wanted to change his policies. Paul has accomplished less as a congressman than virtually any other congressman in history. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I personally think that the less congress does the better. That being said he has been utterly ineffective at preventing new legislation. His son Rand is the future, he has all his father's great libertarian ideals without all the naive foreign policy baggage. If his son was running I would be voting for him hands down.
 
I disagree with Paul being Batshit Crazy. I think he takes his ideology a few steps further than your average candidate. I don't think he's the most dangerous candidate either--I think that position belongs to Santorum. I'm most afraid of our growing debt burden and the possible erosion of civil liberties here at home. Among the GOP candidates (including Perry & Huntsman), only Paul publicly stands against NDAA 2012 & SOPA. He's also the only one who has voted against PATRIOT & the Iraq Resolution. And further, he's the only one who's presenting a real cutback on spending. I realize many of the guys here are military or veterans, but I really don't think we need to spend anywhere near as much as we do on military or wars. Paul accomplished less but he stood to his principles--one of the major reasons I support Paul is because he can veto new legislation and force veto overrides--which means we need true bipartisan cooperation between both houses to override it. And further, he'll have the bully pulpit to point out the problems of the legislation--and potentially rally the country's voters against bad legislation. Even his budget proposals, I am very confident that he will not agree to massive deficit spending.

That said, I would vote for Rand Paul over Ron Paul, but I want to see Rand get at least a few more years in government to prove that he's really as consistent as his father. The problem, for me, is that I am definitely a Libertarian. The main issue separating the Libertarian-Right with the -Left is abortion and, honestly, it's not an issue I can identify with. On nearly every other issue, I agree with the Left's ultimate destination but with the Right's methods to get there. That said, I support various other officials who have been elected with Paul's backing and those that are now candidates for office. Among those, my favorite is Justin Amash.
 
Damnit I wrote out a nice big response and my machine crashed. Basically, I would tell you that providing for the common defense is the governments number one obligation to the people bar none. Whether or not you support the wars is a totally different topic but the military should be funded above all else in war and in peace. Currently it's fourth on the list of federal government expenditures, and the three things above it are not even in the constitution. Paul is dangerous because he doesn't believe it is our concern if Iran gets a nuke, and he apparently holds in a high regard a traitor who has done more damage to this country than any other in the past several decades. Not sure what exactly makes Santorum dangerous, and I will tell you that all of these candidates have deficit reduction and federal spending reductions near the top of their critical issues list. Gingrich, unlike any other candidate running has actually balanced the budget and he did it four times dragging a democratic president kicking and screaming the whole way, he also reformed welfare. Gingrich gets shit done, shit that right now we really need done. Sure he's got some flaws, but he knows how to accomplish things and he's not a tax and spend liberal. None of these candidates are running on social issues even in the red meat primary because those issues are so far from important in today's clear and present economic danger. We are taking the Senate and holding the house so I don't think the president will matter too much, but still it would make a difference. Paul shouldn't win, can't win and won't win. Whoever does win should make him the Secretary of the Treasury, now that would be some fun to watch shit.
 
I can agree that some of Paul's ideas are a bit out there. my feeling is if elected (big if) that he would have to settle for less than what he is calling for. look at Obama he had a democratic congress for two years and look how much "change" he did.

As for Gingrich ramming his religious beliefs he has called for a federal ban on abortion, planned parrenthood, and stem cell research. He even signed the Personhood pledge saying if elected he would even make abortion illegal in cases of incest and rape
 
cplmac said:
Damnit I wrote out a nice big response and my machine crashed. Basically, I would tell you that providing for the common defense is the governments number one obligation to the people bar none. Whether or not you support the wars is a totally different topic but the military should be funded above all else in war and in peace. Currently it's fourth on the list of federal government expenditures, and the three things above it are not even in the constitution. Paul is dangerous because he doesn't believe it is our concern if Iran gets a nuke, and he apparently holds in a high regard a traitor who has done more damage to this country than any other in the past several decades. Not sure what exactly makes Santorum dangerous, and I will tell you that all of these candidates have deficit reduction and federal spending reductions near the top of their critical issues list. Gingrich, unlike any other candidate running has actually balanced the budget and he did it four times dragging a democratic president kicking and screaming the whole way, he also reformed welfare. Gingrich gets shit done, shit that right now we really need done. Sure he's got some flaws, but he knows how to accomplish things and he's not a tax and spend liberal. None of these candidates are running on social issues even in the red meat primary because those issues are so far from important in today's clear and present economic danger. We are taking the Senate and holding the house so I don't think the president will matter too much, but still it would make a difference. Paul shouldn't win, can't win and won't win. Whoever does win should make him the Secretary of the Treasury, now that would be some fun to watch shit.
Click to expand...

Are we thinking of the same Newt Gingrich? The one who favored the individual healthcare mandate, the one who promoted cap-and-trade, the one opposed to right-to-work, the one who loved The New Deal, the one who has been paid by Fannie & Freddy Mac, the one who blasted Paul Ryan's budget proposal, the one who favors military tribunals for suspected terrorists, the one who can't decide on his position on Libya, the one who was reprimanded as Speaker, the one who carried on dozens of affairs while trying to roast Clinton, the one whose not-for-profits buys his companies merchandise at full price.... ??? Follow the money--the last one is a rather bad charge. His NFP was to promote his ideologies and purchased copies of his past speeches and books at full retail price. He paid himself out of his NFP's purse. He's charismatic--I'll give him that--but he's slimy as hell.

The government's first and foremost duty is to protect its citizens natural rights. The government's second duty is, in times of war, to provide a strong national defense. Authorizations of force are not meant to replace long-term wars--but have been used for Afghanistan & Iraq. I agree with Dr. Paul--we should formally declare war, fight it, win it, and declare it over when the initial objectives have been met. Instead, we took out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and have been propping up unpopular regimes and fighting guerrillas fighters. The only thing linking 9/11 & Afghanistan was that we thought Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan. A couple months later, he fled over the border into Pakistan and has probably been there since. Nothing linked 9/11 & Iraq--we were told lies about Iraqi WMD's.

I think I see where Paul was going when he praised Bradley Manning--he leaked information and made the government more transparent. I don't agree with the fear-mongering or "for your own good" thoughts. At least with Paul, executive authority will be used as a check against legislative power.

Gingrich has said and done a lot of wacky shit. Here's my order of preferences:

1. Rand Paul
2. Ron Paul
3. Gary Johnson
4. Mittens
5. Obama
6. Vermin Supreme (write-in ballot)
7. Newt
8. Santorum
 
People that are cheering for Ron Paul is like cheering for the Detroit Lions. You know they not going win.
 
ErikStenger said:
People that are cheering for Ron Paul is like cheering for the Detroit Lions. You know they not going win.
Click to expand...

I doubt he's going to win it all, but he's guarantied entry to the post-season. Running again and garnering support means Rand has a better shot in 2016 or 2020. There's already some talk that Romney will have to choose one of the Pauls as his running mate--and I think I'd vote for that ticket. But the contest surely isn't over--Santorum won Iowa, Romney won New Hampshire, and Gingrich won South Carolina. We still have Florida and then Nevada--and then the other 45 states. What's interesting is that Gingrich and Santorum have limited ballot access--Romney & Paul will be the only ones competing for 561 delegates (of 2286 total--24.5%). If you write Paul off, those delegates will go to Romney by default and means that he only has to win 1/3 of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. But if Paul can make a strong showing in those states--possibly winning a few of them--Romney's lead will be significantly cut down.
 
Wow, I literally don't even know where to start Bob. How any so called libertarian can have Obama in their top 5 is simply mind boggling. The government's primary duty of providing for the common defense is not a "war time" obligation, it is an all the time obligation. Coming from a strictly anti-war perspective, I don't really think the Republican field is gonna be for you, generally speaking we tend to have a somewhat broader definition of national interests and a much broader definition of justifiable. I really think your political leanings are much more inline with the ACLU and Amnesty International then they are with the American Republican party. As far as Gingrich's indiscretions, some of what you listed is inaccurate (his dozens of affairs was actually with one woman who married and is still married to) and most are very old. You're never going to find a candidate that is issue for issue exactly the same as you are. Cap and trade was one of Obama's big issues and Gingrich was 10+ years removed from congress when it passed a nearly party line vote (only 8 republicans voted for it). Also, the only thing linking 9/11 with Afghanistan was Bin Laden and the Taliban insisting on protecting him and offering him sanctuary. Suggesting that Afghanistan ws not justified does put your opinion in perspective. Anyhow, this thread is getting off topic, it's about Ron Paul's support for a traitor.

Also, Ron Paul is hurting Rand Paul's chances down the road, not helping. That's a big part of why Rand will not support some of his father's positions.

Lastly, Gingrich can secure the nomination if Santorum does the right thing and backs out of the race. I would be excited for a Romney/Gingrich Gingrich/Romney ticket, Paul will at best be a cabinet secretary and I doubt he would even accept that offer if made. Paul is not electable in a general election.
 
Many would do so for polarizing effect--4 more years of Obama would be hell but I'd at least hope for a few more true fiscal conservatives in both House & Senate. I don't care about party label so much as I care about their positions on domestic spending & foreign policy. Besides, the list was half for humor--I'd vote for Gary Johnson or write in either Dr. Paul (Rand is also a doctor) long before I'd vote for Obama. Really on that list is Justin Amash, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Barr, and a host of other candidates whose economic positions are at least more sensible. Vermin Supreme is the New Hampshire guy who wears a boot on his head, promises ponies for everyone, and gave a speech filled with dental puns.

Providing for the common defense is an all-the-time obligation, but I don't believe that our foreign interventions or foreign aid are providing for a common defense--rather they're used as excuses to spend in lieu of an actual defense. Brief shooting wars are one thing, but the neoconservative movement places a special emphasis on policing the world and intervening in the Middle East. For Afghanistan, I think the appropriate thing to do would be to invade in an attempt to trap & arrest Bin Laden. By putting so many boots on the ground, we made known our presence and our movements and severely limited out ability to actually approach him. I think our Afghanistan foray could have taken a couple of weeks if we decided against toppling the Taliban.

As for Gingrich, he was cheating on his first wife, Jackie, with Marianne. He then cheated on Marianne with Callista. If memory serves, interviews with his past ex-wives and former office staff had them revealing that Marianne & Callista were not his only indiscretions. If he would have done it once and stopped, I might be able to forgive but it's happened on official record at least twice. Further, he campaigned on wholly hypocritical statements. He's a keen politician and very charismatic to boot. I cannot reconcile his past statements about personally moral politicians with a wholesale lack of fidelity. He had no fidelity to his marriage oaths--so I doubt he'd take his other oaths or statements very seriously.

He's not remained out of D.C. or away from cameras in the decade since he resigned the Speakership & his seat. He supported it Cap & Trade before his resignation and had supported the individual mandate (the keystone to both Romney's and Obama's healthcare plans), either wholly ignorant of or wholly uncaring about the legal & economic ramifications. At least when it was done in Taxachusetts, the precedent only holds within the state. That's also my biggest qualm with Romney--he doesn't have a very conservative fiscal record and has many changes of opinion--just in time for presidential primaries.

I still think Bardley Manning should be Court Martialed for treason and the other charges--regardless of the overall right versus wrong, he broke military code and is subject to military law. But I also still think that Paul's point in praising him is Manning's part in Wikileaks--which has forced past government actions (right & wrong) into the light.

Gingrich would need to win most contests between Florida & Super Tuesday to have enough momentum to get the nomination. Even so, Romney's or Paul's 561 delegates will have a major impact as no other candidates can compete for them. If Romney wins most of those 561, he'll have at least as much momentum. I think it very likely that there will be a brokered convention in September. But I don't think Ron Paul is hurting Rand's future chances--both of them are far more fiscally conservative and anti-authoritarian than most of the GOP's current leaders. What Paul is doing is creating a voting bloc in later states and forcing a conversation about libertarians in the GOP & national election. If he runs 3rd Party, I think Rand would be harmed--but if the GOP seriously alienates his voters, that's 5-10% of Republicans and (according to Iowa & New Hampshire) many more Independents that are potentially lost in the general election. If neither Paul appears anywhere on the final ticket, I will register myself to the Libertarian Party.
 
Gingrich wasn't being hypocritical going after Bubba for Lewinsky while he was having an affair. Clinton was being prosecuted for perjury, not for diddling a fat twat in the oval office. Can you say "It depends on what your definition of "is" is". Cap and trade came 10+ years after Gingrich left congress, there is no way that can be laid at his feet, or Obamacare for that matter for the same reason. If Santorum backs out Gingrich will win most contests between Florida and Super Tuesday. Florida really isn't that important this year though, they were stripped of half their delegates for moving their primary date forward against party wishes. Again we are getting off topic. No presidential candidate who is seeking to be the nations leader should in any way imply that a traitor is a hero or a patriot. That is so far from appropriate that it calls into question not only his beliefs but his mental capacity. I'm all for his fiscal conservatism, impossibly silly zero tax rate aside. I don't care for the fed, and we need to spend less and shrink the federal government, but somebody who thinks Manning is a hero or a true patriot in any way is simply not a good enough human being to be president.
 
I'm taking his past statements since his retirement in support of what I think are bad policies. Clinton wasn't the only one being attacked--he was a serial mudslinger before his tenure as Minority Whip. I do not think Paul should have praised Manning, but I am not going to disqualify him from consideration for taking a stand on the side of government transparency. This isn't his only odd comment--he's made many but they're pretty much all ideologically consistent and none pandering.
 
Right now no candidate has more than 23 delegates, it takes more than 1100 to secure the nomination at the convention. Gingrich has the biggest win by far and has gathered the most total votes, but it is VERY early. The national trend is closing the gap between Romney and Gingrich, Gallup has Romney at 30% and Gingrich at 25% which is a 1% drop for Romney and a 2% bump for Gringrich, Rasmussen has Romney at 30% and Gingrich at 27%. Most polls are similar to this and all are showing this trend. Super Tuesday is going to be the make or break for anyone left in the field. Paul hasn't really cleared the 15% hurdle in the national polls yet and is unlikely to do so. The more he talks the more people abandon him.

Last Updated: Jan. 22

23
Newt
Gingrich

19
Mitt
Romney

13
Rick
Santorum

3
Ron
Paul

2
Jon
Huntsman

1144 delegates needed to win nomination
2226
Delegates
remaining
State-by-State Totals
 
RuPaul+for+President.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top