Difference Between Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul - Page 2 - Political Forum

W.E.B. Du Bois · #11 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timesobserver

However, why aren't the majority of Americans backing him? I thought there would be so much support because of his record and what he stands for.

You thought wrong. Paul's record is why people are not backing him. His comments about how the US is to blame for 9/11 and his general appearance as a rambling idiot dissuades people from supporting him.

Troianii · #12 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timesobserver

I just wrote about how many in the Democratic Party want Hillary Clinton to step out of the race, because she's dividing the party, among other things. Yet, she is nearly neck-in-neck with her foe Barack Obama and I don't think she should step down just yet.

This is far different then Ron Paul, who hasn't come in a close second place. I've written that he should step down because he doesn't have the huge donations or support like the three major candidates.

What do you guys think, should Hillary step down and why?

And more importantly, what do you think the reasons are that Ron Paul isn't beating John McCain or at least close enough to tap him on the shoulder? And no wild, conspiracy theories.

I had a lot of Ron Paul supporters a few weeks back who wanted my head on a silver plate because I wrote the Texas congressman should step out of the race because he wasn't doing that well, among other things.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of the things that Ron Paul is saying, but he just doesn't have that backing like McCain has, which has pushed the Arizona senator within fingertip reach of his party's nomination.

Ron Paul is telling it like it is and with so much talk about civil liberties allegedly being taken away and raising taxes and out-of-control spending, you would think more people would be behind him enough that he would have won a good number of states. So why aren't the majority of Americans backing the Texas doctor?

Hillary Clinton is neck-n'-neck with Obama. I've heard so many talking heads say that the Superdelegates can't go against the will of the people and select Hillary over Obama (we're talking about a 0-2% difference here), but they shhh down and don't mention that, will of the people, they should run together. If Obama doesn't select her, is he going against the will of the people?

Ron Paul - he actually has won second place. Since he's the only one (other than McCain) still campaigning, he has won more second place finishes (he actually won second place in one or two of the early races). He's worth mentioning because he was a fringe candidate in this race, but many Republicans wouldn't vote for him because he didn't have a chance - he's now shown that he DOES have a chance, and so if he's in the primary again he'll have a strong following. Further, it's worth noting that he's the strongest candidate amongst young people (at least on the conservative side). If that continues to be the trend, then we can expect his current followers to support him next time he's up, and that he'll have more youngin's to follow him.

NoMoreRepsDems · #13 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timesobserver

NoMoreRepsDems, that is a very keen observation on your part about Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton.

However, why aren't the majority of Americans backing him? I thought there would be so much support because of his record and what he stands for.

For the life of me I can't understand why more people haven't Paul (or Nader)?
I guess:
1) People are generally dumb
2) If the Boob tube doesn’t tell them to think that way they won't
3) They are SOOOOOO entrenched in being a DEM and Hating the REPS or
a REP hating the DEMS, that the can't step back and realize the both
parties are just as bad and destructive, just in different ways.
4) Maybe the are masochists and love to suffer ?

I just don't know..........

Shiva_TD · #14 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

You thought wrong. Paul's record is why people are not backing him. His comments about how the US is to blame for 9/11 and his general appearance as a rambling idiot dissuades people from supporting him.

Ron Paul has never stated that the US was to blame for 9/11. What Rep. Paul has said is that the attacks of 9/11 were predicated upon the US economic, political, and military interventionism in the Middle East. This position has been supported by the US intelligence services in the National Intelligence Estimates and even Osama bin Ladin has stated these were the reason's for the attacks of 9/11.

There is little doubt that without US interventionism in the Middle East that 9/11 wouldn't have happened nor would there be a terrorist threat against America today.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #15 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Ron Paul has never stated that the US was to blame for 9/11. What Rep. Paul has said is that the attacks of 9/11 were predicated upon the US economic, political, and military interventionism in the Middle East. This position has been supported by the US intelligence services in the National Intelligence Estimates and even Osama bin Ladin has stated these were the reason's for the attacks of 9/11.

There is little doubt that without US interventionism in the Middle East that 9/11 wouldn't have happened nor would there be a terrorist threat against America today.

You can believe what you will. Your comments are false. As I've mentioned before, due to your saying that the US is terrorist, I will not discuss politics with you either. Your views do not deserve recognition.

Troianii · #16 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Ron Paul has never stated that the US was to blame for 9/11. What Rep. Paul has said is that the attacks of 9/11 were predicated upon the US economic, political, and military interventionism in the Middle East. This position has been supported by the US intelligence services in the National Intelligence Estimates and even Osama bin Ladin has stated these were the reason's for the attacks of 9/11.

There is little doubt that without US interventionism in the Middle East that 9/11 wouldn't have happened nor would there be a terrorist threat against America today.

Ron Paul is right that the terrorists attacked us because of our actions, but you have to see the point of the other side. Is the U.S. to blame for 9/11? It's as much to blame for 9/11 as the Jews are for the Holocaust. After all, Hitler claimed to execute his "Crusade" against the Jews because of things they (supposedly) did.

Timesobserver · #17 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 08:15 AM

Guys, I hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul has blamed the terrorists for the attacks on 9/11. Yes, he did mention about U.S. policy, but he has blamed al-Qaeda.

However, if U.S. policy did cause bin Laden and others to take 10 years in the planning of 9/11, then the vast majority of the blame should be placed on them. Civilized people or groups who have a problem with a policy debate about it or take it up with the U.N.

They don't kill themselves and innocent people by flying planes into buildings.

NoMoreRepsDems · #18 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

You can believe what you will. Your comments are false. As I've mentioned before, due to your saying that the US is terrorist, I will not discuss politics with you either. Your views do not deserve recognition.

You're way off on this!
For you to be so biased that you will not consider that the US politicians (that
make international policy) can not do any wrong is really foolish.
I bet you have no idea what committees (and who's on those commitiees) make
the policies that affect oil producing countries etc...

Just as a baseline for rational thought, You have to realize Bush and Cheney
type of politicians are in charge of making policies that affects the middle
East. Now don't you think that there is a lot of room for foreign people to be
screwed over and get pissed off ? i.e. Are you happy how US politicians have
made policies that determined how they spent your Tax dollar in the 4,8,12,16
20yrs?

Ron Paul is being honest about the matter, and I bet he has a little more
political insight about what really is happening. And there's a BIG difference
between saying "The Terrorist are right" and saying "America is being too
intrusive in the Middle East". It seem you're implying that Paul said "America is
the terrorist", but Paul is saying that US involvement in the Middle East has
made us violent enemies who attacked us.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #19 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreRepsDems

You're way off on this!
For you to be so biased that you will not consider that the US politicians (that
make international policy) can not do any wrong is really foolish.
I bet you have no idea what committees (and who's on those commitiees) make
the policies that affect oil producing countries etc...

If you wish, you may say that my comments biased, but calling me biased is a personal insult and against forum rules. You are warned.

What is really foolish and treasonous is your blaming 9/11 on the United States. I don't understand why people who believe this, choose to stay in this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreRepsDems

Just as a baseline for rational thought, You have to realize Bush and Cheney
type of politicians are in charge of making policies that affects the middle
East. Now don't you think that there is a lot of room for foreign people to be
screwed over and get pissed off ? i.e. Are you happy how US politicians have
made policies that determined how they spent your Tax dollar in the 4,8,12,16
20yrs?

There's no rational thought in what you say, merely betrayal. The best solution for treason is emigration. No need to hang around the evil ole' USA. I'll be damned if I listen to the ramblings made by a bunch of traitors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreRepsDems

Ron Paul is being honest about the matter, and I bet he has a little more
political insight about what really is happening. And there's a BIG difference
between saying "The Terrorist are right" and saying "America is being too
intrusive in the Middle East". It seem you're implying that Paul said "America is
the terrorist", but Paul is saying that US involvement in the Middle East has
made us violent enemies who attacked us.

I think that the Canadians would be more receptive to Paulist treason than Americans.

WEB

W.E.B. Du Bois · #20 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 03:30 PM

Comments regarding Shiva_TD's banning moved to banned posters thread: Posts of banned users