• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul: 'I Don't Fully Endorse' Mitt Romney

Hatuey said:
We. Don't. Live. In. A. Vacuum.
Click to expand...

Correct, we dont live in a vacuum, however we dont need to be in other nations business. They live the way they live, its none of our concern. Our primary foreign relations tool should be our people conducting commece with everyone. Our salesmen and women and our buyers should be the faces of America. The only influence we should have via our government is that they trade in an equitable manner with us. If they see our soldiers it should be the last thing they see. We shouldnt use our soldiers unless we intend to wipe the floor ruthlessly. Our military shouldnt be respected it should absolutely feared, and with good reason. Our policy should be, we dont it use but for two reasons a.) to defend ourselves b.) to make an example out of some country that screws with us.(this being done only occasionally and with very little warning, mainly as a live fire excercise for our troops to keep them sharp and as a reminder to the rest of the world of why they should fear our military prowess.)

A minimalist approach to statecraft should be our policy, we dont get involved unless we are DIRECTLY affected. If our people are killed or taken hostage then our responce should be swift, sudden, vicously violent, and without warning. And with maximum collateral damage. It should be known that hospitals, schools, religous places of worship will be targeted first and for maximum effect.

It should be known to all we play fair and are MOSTLY harmless. It should be also be noted screwing with us will get the perpetrators dead quick and in a hurry with absolutely no consideration for anybody between us and them.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Correct, we dont live in a vacuum, however we dont need to be in other nations business. They live the way they live, its none of our concern. Our primary foreign relations tool should be our people conducting commece with everyone. Our salesmen and women and our buyers should be the faces of America. The only influence we should have via our government is that they trade in an equitable manner with us. If they see our soldiers it should be the last thing they see. We shouldnt use our soldiers unless we intend to wipe the floor ruthlessly. Our military shouldnt be respected it should absolutely feared, and with good reason. Our policy should be, we dont it use but for two reasons a.) to defend ourselves b.) to make an example out of some country that screws with us.(this being done only occasionally and with very little warning, mainly as a live fire excercise for our troops to keep them sharp and as a reminder to the rest of the world of why they should fear our military prowess.)

A minimalist approach to statecraft should be our policy, we dont get involved unless we are DIRECTLY affected. If our people are killed or taken hostage then our responce should be swift, sudden, vicously violent, and without warning. And with maximum collateral damage. It should be known that hospitals, schools, religous places of worship will be targeted first and for maximum effect.

It should be known to all we play fair and are MOSTLY harmless. It should be also be noted screwing with us will get the perpetrators dead quick and in a hurry with absolutely no consideration for anybody between us and them.
Click to expand...

Spare me. Ron Paul's foreign policy idea is suicide in the 21st century.
 
The more things change, the more things stay the same. People is people no matter what century they in.
 
Another Lurker said:
I do not like it that Ron Paul made these remarks.

Whether he likes it or not ... Romney WILL be nominated. I see this as very childish ... and very much akin to Uncle Joe's appearance at the convention.

Looks like Paul is trying to get another "15 minutes". They gave him a speaking spot but he had to 'rain (is that the word I really want to use?) on the parade'.

If this isn't a prime example of "sour grapes" ... then nothing is.

Everyone knows Paul's politics. This idiotic display makes me very happy that he is yet another 'also ran wannabe loser'.

A L
Click to expand...

He stands for what he believes in - even in the face of getting everything else he wants. That is not childish. That is called integrity.
Paul doesn't need 15 minutes because he has had 30 years. The RC would have told him what to say and who he had to endorse. They wanted to vet his speech. Screw freedom of speech - right?
That is the only thing "childish" going on here. The political parties are very diverse and we need to embrace that diversity or the Republican party will split. Mark my words, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060840377 said:
I'm not sure why Paul was offered a chance to speak either. He certainly isn't a conservative or a Republican. Unless they thought he would get on board to disparage Obama.

I guess Paul is still living in his own reality. One that will certainly not further his political career.
Click to expand...

Paul was conservative and Republican before many of us were born. The Party left us, not the other way around.
BTW, he has a plurality of 5 states and guaranteed a speaking spot per the rules. Paul campaign could have sued him were he not offered a speaking spot.
 
vauge said:
He stands for what he believes in - even in the face of getting everything else he wants. That is not childish. That is called integrity.
Paul doesn't need 15 minutes because he has had 30 years. The RC would have told him what to say and who he had to endorse. They wanted to vet his speech. Screw freedom of speech - right?
That is the only thing "childish" going on here. The political parties are very diverse and we need to embrace that diversity or the Republican party will split. Mark my words, you ain't seen nothing yet.



Paul was conservative and Republican before many of us were born. The Party left us, not the other way around.
BTW, he has a plurality of 5 states and guaranteed a speaking spot per the rules. Paul campaign could have sued him were he not offered a speaking spot.
Click to expand...

To be fair to the Republican Party: Paul is a member of that party by choice. No one forced him to become a member. He gets real, tangible benefits from that membership. It is not unreasonable to expect things in return for those benefits. One of those things they can expect is that if they give him a platform, they want his support for their candidate.

Also note: the RNC is, like this board, privately owned and ran. We have, as you know, certain limits on free speech here. The Republican party is well within their rights to control the content of what is said at their event. It is not a freedom of speech issue, which Paul still has, but that the Republican Party is not going to give him a platform if he is not going to say what they want. If I hold a political rally to express support for SSM, I am not giving FRC an invite, nor am I likely to give some one who has said potentially damaging things on the topic a free platform to speak without knowing what they will say, because they would be saying it on my dime. That is capitalism, something libertarians and republicans are supposedly all for.
 
lpast said:
Mitt just cant seem to find unconditional love from anywhere.


In an interview with the New York Times, Ron Paul detailed his conversations with Republican National Convention organizers, who he says offered him a speaking slot under conditions he couldn't meet.


According to Paul, convention planners offered the Texas congressman the chance to speak under two conditions: that he gave a speech pre-approved by Romney's campaign, and that he give a "full-fledged" endorsement of Mitt Romney.
“It wouldn’t be my speech," Paul said. "That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president."


Ron Paul: 'I Don't Fully Endorse' Mitt Romney
Click to expand...

GOOD. Ron is a little nutty, if he fully endorsed Mitt I would be concerned.
 
Does any liberal here 'unconditionally support' Barrack Obama?
 
Redress said:
To be fair to the Republican Party: Paul is a member of that party by choice. No one forced him to become a member. He gets real, tangible benefits from that membership. It is not unreasonable to expect things in return for those benefits. One of those things they can expect is that if they give him a platform, they want his support for their candidate.

Also note: the RNC is, like this board, privately owned and ran. We have, as you know, certain limits on free speech here. The Republican party is well within their rights to control the content of what is said at their event. It is not a freedom of speech issue, which Paul still has, but that the Republican Party is not going to give him a platform if he is not going to say what they want. If I hold a political rally to express support for SSM, I am not giving FRC an invite, nor am I likely to give some one who has said potentially damaging things on the topic a free platform to speak without knowing what they will say, because they would be saying it on my dime. That is capitalism, something libertarians and republicans are supposedly all for.
Click to expand...
Interesting, were are your arguments directed? I said that they had to offer him a spot per the rules - that's it. They are very much allowed to control what is said - you are right.
However, as far as the Repub, Paul could actually be defined as Mr Republican Jr (behind Taft).

The party public definition left him, and you are right - he can leave at any time. But why? He is much more in line with the states' Republican parties than any other presidential candidate in recent history. In short: he is pure Republican.
 
vauge said:
However, as far as the Repub, Paul could actually be defined as Mr Republican Jr (behind Taft).
Click to expand...

Taft? That was a long ... long time ago. This is the 21st century and because of the Kenyan, things are quite a bit different now.

vauge said:
He is much more in line with the states' Republican parties than any other presidential candidate in recent history.
Click to expand...

Possibly. However, I remind you that this the Republican NATIONAL convention ... not a State convention.

vauge said:
In short: he is pure Republican.
Click to expand...

An opinion which is apparently not shared by the RNC ... and I might add that after the nomination, Romney is the head of the party. Paul can either get into or stay out of the congo line.

A L
 
vauge said:
Interesting, were are your arguments directed? I said that they had to offer him a spot per the rules - that's it. They are very much allowed to control what is said - you are right.
However, as far as the Repub, Paul could actually be defined as Mr Republican Jr (behind Taft).

The party public definition left him, and you are right - he can leave at any time. But why? He is much more in line with the states' Republican parties than any other presidential candidate in recent history. In short: he is pure Republican.
Click to expand...

The public party is what defines the party. Nothing is static, everything changes. What the republican party is is determined by those in the republican party. A republican platform will be voted on and approved at the convention this week. Among major planks of that platform will be a call to amend the constitution to outlaw abortion, increase defense spending, significant military presence overseas and aid to foreign countries, and so on. How well does Ron Paul line up with those and other planks of that platform?
 
vauge said:
Interesting, were are your arguments directed? I said that they had to offer him a spot per the rules - that's it. They are very much allowed to control what is said - you are right.
However, as far as the Repub, Paul could actually be defined as Mr Republican Jr (behind Taft).

The party public definition left him, and you are right - he can leave at any time. But why? He is much more in line with the states' Republican parties than any other presidential candidate in recent history. In short: he is pure Republican.
Click to expand...

Even at the time for a libertarian identification, men with his views were merely one contingent of many in the Republican Party. That would be like me saying FDR was pure Democrat or Lincoln was pure Republican.
 
Last edited:
Another Lurker said:
I do not like it that Ron Paul made these remarks.

Whether he likes it or not ... Romney WILL be nominated. I see this as very childish ... and very much akin to Uncle Joe's appearance at the convention.

Looks like Paul is trying to get another "15 minutes". They gave him a speaking spot but he had to 'rain (is that the word I really want to use?) on the parade'.

If this isn't a prime example of "sour grapes" ... then nothing is.

Everyone knows Paul's politics. This idiotic display makes me very happy that he is yet another 'also ran wannabe loser'.

A L
Click to expand...

They did not give him a speaking slot.

What they did do is send in a bunch of lawyers and take away his delegates, so to make sure he did not get a speaking slot.
 
Redress said:
How well does Ron Paul line up with those and other planks of that platform?
Click to expand...
Pretty well actually, except those who are warmongers. Wait - that is both sides!

There many within the party that are anti-war and they are considered Republican. The difference is that Paul is a threat for actual change to what has been written and signed on paper for many many years. And no one likes change.
 
Fiddytree said:
Even at the time for a libertarian identification, men with his views were merely one contingent of many in the Republican Party. That would be like me saying FDR was pure Democrat or Lincoln was pure Republican.
Click to expand...
Just wondering, have you read the *current* party platform?
 
vauge said:
Pretty well actually, except those who are warmongers. Wait - that is both sides!

There many within the party that are anti-war and they are considered Republican. The difference is that Paul is a threat for actual change to what has been written and signed on paper for many many years. And no one likes change.
Click to expand...

So Paul no longer maintains that abortion is a state issue? No longer against most aid to foreign countries?
 
ARealConservative said:
They did not give him a speaking slot.

What they did do is send in a bunch of lawyers and take away his delegates, so to make sure he did not get a speaking slot.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the 'heads up'. I knew it was offered but I guess I didn't understand the part about it being taken away ... although in retrospect it makes sense.

As far as his delegates ... I have no opinion. After the Dims had their hullabaloo over the Kenyan and Billary, I lost interest.

But for the record ... Romney was not on the top of my list for the Republican nod. However, standing by Ross Perot, like I did, meant that I had a defacto vote for Bubba. Said to myself right then ... won't happen again.

A L
 
Redress said:
So Paul no longer maintains that abortion is a state issue? No longer against most aid to foreign countries?
Click to expand...
Paul is against murder. He believes that Abortion is murder. Murders are a state jurisdiction. It is a state issue.

Paul has sponsored "Human life" amendments several times.

How is that different than the platform?
 
vauge said:
Paul is against murder. He believes that Abortion is murder. Murders are a state jurisdiction. It is a state issue.

Paul has sponsored "Human life" amendments several times.

How is that different than the platform?
Click to expand...

Ron Paul on the Issues

Abortion laws should be a state-level choice. (Apr 2011)
Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Click to expand...

Ron Paul said:
It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.
The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.
Click to expand...

Based on those, I would think he would oppose a federal amendment to the constitution outlawing abortion.
 
Another Lurker said:
Thank you for the 'heads up'. I knew it was offered but I guess I didn't understand the part about it being taken away ... although in retrospect it makes sense.
Click to expand...

They offered Paul a chance to give a speech that they essentially get to write themselves. sure, it makes sense to present a deceitful image about unity, but because it is deceitful, I don't respect them for doing it.


As far as his delegates ... I have no opinion. After the Dims had their hullabaloo over the Kenyan and Billary, I lost interest.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that rules should be followed, and integrity in the process should be adhered to. The Romney team of lawyers made a mockery of the rule of law and I dont think Romney has the level of integrity I am looking for
 
Redress said:
Based on those, I would think he would oppose a federal amendment to the constitution outlawing abortion.
Click to expand...
You do not understand. If 'human life' was defined and amended to the constitution, it would make abortion legality irrelevant.
The states would deal with Abortion just like every other life issue - in their own way. Some states allow euthanasia for instance.

I'm guessing you missed the Republican debates?

You are right, he would oppose a specific law on 'abortion' at the federal level.
 
ARealConservative said:
They offered Paul a chance to give a speech that they essentially get to write themselves. sure, it makes sense to present a deceitful image about unity, but because it is deceitful, I don't respect them for doing it.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with you. However, watching how lock-stepped the Dims have become/are, maybe this is necessary to keep the playing field level. Example ... one of our Senators (Koons) is as Harry said, "one of my boys". Harry has his lackey and this lackey has never failed to give Harry his vote ... whether it benefits his constituency or not.

As far as 'deceitful' ... you have a point, however, we are dealing with a bunch of "Honest Abe" politico's.

ARealConservative said:
My opinion is that rules should be followed, and integrity in the process should be adhered to. The Romney team of lawyers made a mockery of the rule of law and I dont think Romney has the level of integrity I am looking for
Click to expand...

Maybe not. However, does Paul's claim to be a Republican meet the same standard of integrity which you demand of Romney? It certainly doesn't in my book.

A L
 
Another Lurker said:
does Paul's claim to be a Republican meet the same standard of integrity which you demand of Romney? It certainly doesn't in my book.
Click to expand...

I will never understand this position.

We live in a two party system. the system is designed in a way that in order to push ideological ideas further, you do so from within one of two parties.

political parties don't have integrity, people do.
 
vauge said:
You do not understand. If 'human life' was defined and amended to the constitution, it would make abortion legality irrelevant.
The states would deal with Abortion just like every other life issue - in their own way. Some states allow euthanasia for instance.

I'm guessing you missed the Republican debates?

You are right, he would oppose a specific law on 'abortion' at the federal level.
Click to expand...

I do not have specific wording, but: At odds with Romney, GOP platform draft keeps proposal to end abortion without exceptions - The Washington Post

The platform panel of the Republican National Committee voted to propose a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion without specific exceptions for rape or incest, a position at odds with presumptive nominee Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom