I heard this morning that Sam Brownback (who?? ) is throwing in the towel...whos next? Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich maybe? (who?? ) As soon as I find it in print (and not just on the news) I will post a link.
Hopefully the next out will be Giuliani. Maybe he will wake up in the wee hours of the morning and realize what has become of him...I can hope
Yeah, Giuliani is only one of the leading Republicans. He's definitly going to drop out. Ron Paul is too delusional to know when to quit. Which is ironic, because he seems to know when to make the US quit being involved in the world around it.
Too delusional? Why would he quit when he's pulling in money like the top tier guys? Gemini needs to post his graph into here, Guiliani and Thompson are the only two people with more cash on hand than Paul.
He also appears to know when it's time to quit going against the constitution. To bad others didn't love this land for what it was founded on
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008 He's number 5 in cash raised. The top two have 63 and 47 million. Ron Paul only has 8 million. What part of the current government is going against the constitution? The IRS is not unconstitutional. The DHS is not unconstitutional. The dept of ed is not unconstitutional. Where does the constitution say you can't have military installments in foreign countries? I seem to recall that the constitution was in effect when we were taking over foreign lands and turning them into states. Is it suddenly not constitutional to take over foreign land and claim it for the US? Is there something in the constitution that says Hawaii and Alaska are the only two exceptions for claiming as states, land that does not touch the continental states? Does the constitution say we cannot expand our borders into Canada or Mexico? He's not reverting the government back to the constitution. He's simply reverting the government back to before they implemented a lot of the current government entities. Huge difference. It's very easy to claim that Ron Paul is going to make the government follow the constitution, it's quite another to show that it isn't already. You really should try actually reading the constitution sometime. Ron Pauls goal is simply to shrink the government and isolate us from the rest of the world hoping that no one will try to take over the government he has crippled. He's trying to get support for that goal by claiming that the parts he's cutting out are unconstitutional. I'd vote for Hillary before I voted for Ron Paul.
Patriot act for starters He also puts his policies by the constitution above all else, unlike others..
You keep saying "Patriot Act" but you have yet to demonstrate that it is unconstitutional as it is currently being enforced. It's easy to make claims but you have yet to back them up.
I have in the past laid them out plenty Others here have as well, not to mention many provisions have already been ruled unconstitutional. Forget all that though, lets go to the point that Paul refused to vote for it as he was not given time to read it. He didn't vote for it as 'gasp' it could be unconstitutional, others had no problem voting for something they did not read, go figure. 'Currently being enforced' also is a bit different than what is included and not currently being used, what could be used. The usage of something at this instance does not equate it to being constitutional or not now does it?
Good news! Brownback had about the same national support as ron paul did. Hopefully paul will be out next. Or does this finally move paul from a third tier candidate to a second tier by default? Heh!
Giuliani needs to go. He cannot win. Ron Paul is the only republican who can beat Hilary. Of course, since you guys really want her to win, I'm sure the Mitt and Rudy show will go on for some time.
I disagree with this opinion. Guiliani "gets it" when it comes to national security. ron paul doesn't have a clue. His policy is isolationism, blaming America first and curling up into a ball. There are some who want America attacked again and don't want us to protect our country. These types of "feelings" may stem from poor childhood experiences. Real Americans are not going to vote in a candidate like this though. I don't know anyone that wants Hillary to win, personally. I do believe though, that Hillary would take national security more seriously than ron paul would. Until paul came on the scene, I never would have thought someone could be less concerned with national security than liberals. Brownback had about the same national support as paul did, though. Bottom of the tier.
That you guys appear to favor Hillary over Ron Paul belies the last 30 years of republican posturing.
Your reading comprehension is weak. He is #3 in cash on hand, as I said originally. You can verify that with the same link I just gave you. Raising money doesn't matter if the money you spend doesn't accomplish much. Romney has spent millions more than most candidates, yet he polls with the likes of Thompson and McCain. P.S. Look how much Ron has accomplished by spending less than $3M
Or, it's indicative of how bad ron paul is, when it comes to protecting America. Not to mention is issues with blacks and Jews. paul is not a republican. he is a libertarian who ran in the republican party so that he would have a chance of being elected in Texas. In other words, he tricked people by running in a party that his views are not best represented by. This is also indicative by those who support him today. Having a huge base of "troofers" and "conspiracy nuts" (though not exclusive), I believe we can all agree that these "types" of people are not historically "republicans." I'm thrilled that you are going to be a republican though, Briant! Even if it's under false pretenses. Real Republicans are optimistic. We don't tear our country down day in and day out with ceaseless attacks. This may require some altering on your part. Remember Reagan? Welcome to the party
What are you talking about? My main gripe with Hillary is her socialized health care. I'd rather the government do something about private companies extorting people. But if I had to chose between someone who wants to destroy the country (Ron Paul for those who still haven't figured it out yet) and someone who just wants to possibly burn some money, I'd rather vote for the person who just wants to burn some money. We can undo socialized health care if it doesn't work out. We would have to get permission from the Mexican or Saudi Arabian government if we wanted to undo what Ron Paul has in store for us. No, you're fudging the numbers to make Ron Paul appear better than he is. I wasn't seeking to verify your claim. Cash on hand is meaningless. It just means he's not spending the money that people are donating. The number that matters it the amount of donations. If you lump in democrats he's way down on the list.
Some have a funny way of seeing things. Destroying a country by bringing it back to the basics of what it was founded on. To me that's saving the country, not allowing it to slip further away from it's roots..
Paul is in for the long haul. He's got a lot going on behind the scenes. Involved militarily and aggressively. You could argue that the people who don't want to return to the Constitution and Rule of Law that Ron Paul advocates might be saying that they feel that the Constitution is destructive.