Posts Tagged ‘Paul’

The Ramifications of a Filibuster

Wednesday, March 27th, 2013

Wow, is all I have to say.  Paul’s Filibuster has been an amazing piece of politics.  Now there are two questions that we should ask ourselves and that we should be asking our government officials.  The first being, does the US government have the right to attack non-combatant on US soil with unmanned drones?  The Attorney General has already states this, no.  Clear, concise, and to the point.  Now a better question to ask would be this, “why did Paul have to filibuster to get a straight answer?”  I think this filibuster says something about the nature of government, with all its want for transparency, there is none.  Hopefully this filibuster will be a public display of stupidity and things will change.  One  can only hope.

Ron Paul doesn’t Get His Delegates

Sunday, July 15th, 2012

Ron Paul
, that other candidate that people kept forgetting about was still in the race for president, until yesterday.  Paul, who had been taking advantage of the delegate system of picking a candidate has officially been pushed out of the race.  Paul had been using states that use caucus systems for picking candidates for president, because in most cases there isn’t the “winner take all” system that primary elections have.  For Paul to officially be on the ballot and have the right to speak at the convention he would have needed a plurality of delegates in at least 5 states, he was only able to obtain 4.  My question is this, is Paul not even being taken as a serious candidate by most a showing that one must have big money to run for president.  I wonder about that.  Paul has some great ideas that should be listened to, but because he doesn’t have big money backing him up, most will never hear him, or they will all believe he is some sort of “crack pot.”  I wonder where this “liberating” force of the internet is, and when will it “liberate” us from corporate government sponsorship?

Don’t forget about Ron Paul…

Thursday, May 17th, 2012

I went on the Yahoo Political page today, and as we all know this page has a highlighted view of the candidates and there are still three candidates lit up, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  Ron Paul knows he’s not going to get the votes necessary to win the primary, unless he convinces people to change their votes, and I really don’t see him as a viable Vice Presidential candidate.  While I am reading around the net that Ron Paul did end campaigning this week, but still wants to collect candidates to change the primary voting system.  I wonder if that was his point?  Sometimes I wonder how serious Paul’s campaign was and if he was really looking to win or if he was just looking for a door into the system.

Is Paul in it for the Long Haul?

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012
Ron Paul Visiblast

Ron Paul Visiblast (Photo credit: Jayel Aheram)

Now I have had this discussion, or fact similes of this discussion with a few people in my social circle.  This discussion of corse comes from people who doubt Ron Paul‘s electability, but do you believe that Ron Paul is in this race to win, or is he in this race to make a statement about the state of political affairs in the United States.  Now Ron Paul is an older gentleman who has a very brash way of speaking and of acting.  He has ideas that are against the main stream of both the Republican and Democratic parties.  He doesn’t compute as a candidate for either party, and I think that is his point at times.  That he isn’t as much of a politician as others, that he sticks to his guns and believes what he believes in.  And at times he has been proven right.  Now Paul isn’t a media darling, because he isn’t paying to be one.  The party still doesn’t see him as electable, so they aren’t throwing their money behind him.  Haven’t you noticed whoever is the “front-runner” will receive a whole bunch of extra TV time.  Political TV shows still have advertisers and things of those nature.  Paul’s base is not going to be following election coverage on Fox News, so why would he be advertising there?

I believe this debate seems reasonable to people because Paul doesn’t seem to be an electable candidate.  He doesn’t fit the mold of candidates that we are used to.  Paul isn’t telling us that he is going to give us X,Y,and Z and that everything will be better.  On the contrary he wants to take away things, take away government programs to give us more liberty.  So do I think Paul is in it to win it, yes I do.

Rand Paul Detained by TSA

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012
Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY).

Image via Wikipedia

Rand Paul, the younger and more articulate son of Republican nominee Ron Paul was detained today by TSA agents in the Nashville Airport.  Rand Paul believes that a glitch caused the alarm to go off, and when he asked if he could go through the monitor again he was denied, and refused the full body pat down.  Now Paul has different rights that other Americans don’t have.  Rand Paul, as a Congressman could have evoked his constitutional right to speedy travel to the capital to quote the Constitution “The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same….” according to Article I, Section 6.  Paul didn’t evoke this right, but he raised a question, that I think needs to be raised, why, ten years after the September 11th attacks are we still doing the same checks, the same random screenings, why don’t we have frequent travel programs, or other identifying programs that allow our identity to be known.  Why are three-year olds being subjected to pat downs and diapers being checked.  Why don’t we have frequent flyer programs.  Some things don’t make sense to me.


Does Ron Paul REALLY Have a Shot at the Nomination…

Sunday, December 18th, 2011
Ron Paul taking questions in Manchester, NH

Image via Wikipedia

This is a question that is on many a political commentator’s mind.  Ron Paul the Pro- Life Libertarian in Republican clothing seems to have a huge following and this is surprising many Republicans, considering how much the media is pushing Gingrich now.  Could he do it?  Could he actually take the nomination?  Well the political commentator says, he has a decent shot.  We all know, painfully, that during a normal election cycle that whoever has the biggest bank account or whoever has supporters with the biggest bank accounts will take the nomination.  Frankly this seems to be an unusual election.  As Time says the person of the year is “the Protester” and these people have been making their mark all over the world, but what does this mean for the US election.  People aren’t happy with “Government As Usual” and they aren’t happy with how the politicians are treating things.  The truth is that Obama has done a lot of good for the American people, but most of them don’t see it on the street, and their friend just got laid off.  People feel that governments, not just in America, have gotten to big and too powerful and the people want to take the government back.  This is what Ron Paul offers, a person who wants less government intrusion into a person’s life, a smaller government and a tax code that seems to make a lot of sense.  Could this be a case of idealism, of corse.  Could this work, not when laws are created by CONGRESS and not the president.  Could Paul get the nomination, that remains to be seen.  Let’s look at the top three contenders, in my POV, Romney, Gingrich, and Paul.  Romney is slick and has a lot of cash, could give Obama a run for his money in a general election, will never win the nomination because the south will never vote for him.  Gingrich has become the new political darling, and would be fun to see debating Obama, but this would become a question of ethic, and flip flopping, and marital scandals, I REALLY HOPE this paring doesn’t happen, if it does OBAMA WILL CRUSH HIM plain and simple because Gingrich will not win the undecideds and the Libertarians.  Ron Paul has the issue that the Republican party doesn’t take him seriously, he doesn’t get the commercial and face time that other candidates do.  His winning the nomination is a big question, but I think that Paul has the best chance at defeating Obama, because he can grab the disheartened voters better than Romney or Gingrich.  But as the original question stands, can Paul win the nomination…. it’s possible.


Primaries and Caucuses, What are the differences?

Friday, November 11th, 2011

Originally posted on November 11, 2011 and updated on June 28, 2014

I am from Illinois, and because of this fact I know a lot about Primary elections, because that is all I have ever known.  Another friend/blogger who is working on the Ron Paul campaign reminded me that there is more than one way to become the candidate on the Presidential ticket. BTW just to give his blog a shout out cause I like to support my friends .

Anyhow back to my original, if you remember what is was, point.  What is the difference between a primary election and a primary caucus and how does this affect the voter?  In a primary election registered voters get to vote for the person they want to see as their presidential nominee, sort of.  In reality you are voting for a group of delegates to vote for your person of choice at the national convention, if your state has pledged delegates.  If your state has unpledged delegates in the end they could vote for whoever they want.  Now there are open and closed primary elections.  Open primary elections mean that anyone can vote, doesn’t have to be a registered member of any party, for whoever they want.  In a closed primary only the people register for a specific political party can vote for a particular group of candidates.  Most states have a date one must register for a party before the election, or change your party affiliation before the elections.


Grey states have closed primary or caucus

Green States have open primary or caucus

Blue States have semi-open primary or caucus (independents can vote in the GOP primary)

Now Caucus states are different.  In short a caucus is when, in each country of the state a group of people go to a specific place to choose their candidate.  The supporters for each candidate group themselves together and the undecideds group together in another area.  The people from the other groups then make speeches to get the undecideds to come over to their group.  Kind of reminds me of a popularity contest in high school.  The GOP runs their causes in a winner-take-all sort of fashion, so the winner of the county caucus goes to the state Caucasus then from there the delegates from the state caucus go on to the national convention to choose their candidate.

If this all still doesn’t make since check out CGP Grey’s video about this topic

I hope this clears up the difference between a caucus and a primary.  Check your state’s voting website for specific questions about your state.

Your Republican Presidential Candidate… Ron Paul

Saturday, October 15th, 2011

Ron Paul isn’t your average Republican candidate.  Ron Paul was a Doctor for many years before becoming involved in politics.  He is considered by some to be the grandfather of the Tea Party.  Ron Paul on most accounts is one of the few, or maybe the only, Congressperson who sticks to their principals and never waivers.  He may become more or less popular but his ideas are his and those don’t change due to the times or popular opinion.  I do admire him for that.  Ron Paul has served in the House of Representatives from 1976-77, 1979-85, and from 1997 to the present and has announced that he will not seek another term in the House to concentrate on his presidential campaign.  This is the third presidential campaign for Paul.  Paul ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian, 2008 as a Republican and is currently running as a Republican.

Ron Paul is very straightforward on the issues.  Paul is a strict constructionist.  That term is generally used when talking about judges but with Paul it’s appropriate.  He believes in following the Constitution to the letter and doesn’t vote for a bill that goes against the constitution.  What exactly does that mean?  There are two “camps” in politics and in political circles, those who see the constitution as a “living document” and those who are “strict constructionist.”  Those who see the constitution as a “living document” believe that the interpretation of the constitution should change over time, because of the changes in the times, morals and technology.  Paul believes in a very limited federal government, especially because the 10th amendment of the Constitution gives any power not in the constitution to the states, and that is where Paul believes they belong.  Paul would overturn Roe v Wade and do everything in his power to prevent abortion from ever being a federal issue and to leave that issue to the states.  Paul would get rid of the Federal Reserve System as it stands today, an organization with very little oversight that controls so much of our lives.  Paul is pro second amendment and his voting record proves this.  The one thing that separates Paul from the pack is that he wants to pull back from the UN, he believes that the United States needs to stop policing the world and that we should only fight when our nation’s security is at risk.  His entire voting record is online and he is ever open with his positions and doesn’t use a lot of rhetoric.  Ron Paul is really for returning America to a more traditional interpretation to the constitution and in turn to a much smaller government.  He runs a very intelligent campaign and I hope that he is able to get through because his ideas are good for the country.

Image via Wikipedia