Ron Paul the only one that can beat Hillary

[RP08]

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

[Herb Schaffler]

A very good article. Ron Paul would get lots of votes because of his honesty and sincerity, a refreshing change from recent candidates. Lots of anti-war Democrats would leave Hillary to vote for Ron, but would lots of pro-war Republicans vote for Hillary? The public needs to be informed on how our meddling foreign policy is endangering us by stirring up more terrorism against us. We need to return to the noninterventionist principles of our founding fathers and stop trying to be the policeman of the world and draining our national treasure and creating enemies for us all over the war. We need to focus only on the defense of America and let other nations form alliances to protect themselves from bullies in their neighborhoods. Some people think Iran would be a danger to us or Israel if they got nukes. Why would Iran attack Israel or us when they know we could attack them back in kind, but only moreso? Why would Iran spend billions of dollars on developing nukes only to give them away to terrorists and have it traced back to them and be retaliated against in kind? We definitely need to rethink our foreign policy. We need to send special forces tactical units into Pakistan or wherever al Quaeda members or bin Laden are hiding out and kill or apprehend them. We don't need to bomb and send in whole military divisions into countries to overthrow regimes and end of killing tens of thousands of innocent civilions, thus stirring up more hatred for us.

Some say we have turned the corner in Iraq, but have we? People talk about how one area has been made safer, but they ignore how the violence has spread to other areas. It's like putting your finger in mercury. You may replace the mercury at one point, but it spreads to other parts. Some military experts say to really gain control of Iraq, it would require a vast army of half a million and would take several years. I don't think the majority of the public would go for that because of the vast expense involved and it would probably require a draft which the public certainly wouldn't support. If this war is still a mess in 2008, the public will be ready to elect Hillary, even though she is not much different from the mainstream Republicans on foreign policy.

[Corvair]

From the editorial:

If any of the supposed "front runner" Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson) wins the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton is essentially a lock. Not only will she win over a sizable portion of the independent vote with her (perceived) status as "the anti-war candidate," but - simply put - the GOP will not turn out its base in sufficient numbers to win.

That's absurd. The base will most likely turn out in record numbers.

Sometimes it's as if these editorial writers pretend to have an infallible formula. They plug their "numbers" into the formula, and voila, they have a result. They pretend to know exactly what's going to happen six months or one year from now. The fact is we don't know what's going to happen.

I don't agree with much of anything this guy has to say, especially lines like this:

When you look at it objectively, there isn't a single one of the "Big Four" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head.

Well, why not? He doesn't even address the fact that 50% of likely voters now say under no circumstances will they vote for Clinton (maybe that poll wasn't out when he wrote this). Her negatives are higher than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, yet he insists Ron Paul, of all people, is the only one who can beat her. He says fiscal and social conservatives won't turn out to vote for Rudy. I will. He doesn't think conservatives in the South and West will turn out to vote if Mitt is the nominee. I certainly will.

I consider myself to be pretty average, and I'm sure there are millions of people like me who will scramble to the polls to vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it is. Any one of them will be a better choice than that sociopathic witch.

I may wind up eating 500 pounds of crow come springtime, but I still can't believe our country is doomed to nominate this fraud.

Hillary Clinton? HILLARY CLINTON???????? Come on!! Wake UP!!!!!!!!!!

[Herb Schaffler]

I'm supporting Ron Paul, but I don't agree with the article. I agree with you, Corvair, that the Republican base will turn out enmasse if the cackling witch is the nominee. The Democrats are going with her because she's hard hitting against the Republicans, moreso than Obama. It may be a very big mistake on their part in a year when the Democrats are expected to win. The Democrats may go down to defeat for the third time in a row. Right now, I think it is a 99% chance that Hillary will win the nomination, but a 50 / 50 chance she will win the election. I think Obama still has a slight chance to win the nomination if he carries Iowa because it will show Democrats that Hillary isn't necessarily the sure nominee.

[PeroW-Cheney]

How does the author of this article figure that Hillary wins the independent voters? B U L L S H I T !

If an independent voter didn't vote for Bill, then what is it about Hillary that would attract independent voters? Also, if I remember correctly we were at war in Iraq in 1992 just like we are today. This anti-war default of independent voters to Clinton a pure fiction. What if Iraq is stable in a year? What if we get Bin Laden in a year? I think this assumption that Hillary gets Perot and Nader's voters is laughable.

Independent voters are not Clinton voters. Democrats are Clinton voters. We didn't vote for Perot twice because we wanted her to win the White House!

Also, from what I've seen so far, Ron Paul has the closest thing to a grass roots uprising like United We Stand America. My instinct says he'll attract voters away from 3rd parties to the ultimate Republican candidate. If Ron Paul drops out, it may be too late for a 3rd party candidate to get off the ground. Independents may follow Paul's endorsement in this case, just like Perot voters followed Ross's endorsement for Bush. (Just watch out for Ron Paul to run as an independent in 2012.)

It will become clear that Hillary will not win after she gets the nomination and Democrats will not bother to show up to the polls because they will know in advance that this election is going to be an overwhelming slaughter. Hillary will be lucky to get 35% of the vote in Ohio. Bill only got 40.4% in Ohio in 1996 and I doubt Hillary can do better than her husband did. She can only do worse.

[Herb Schaffler]

"If Ron Paul drops out, it may be too late for a 3rd party candidate to get off the ground. Independents may follow Paul's endorsement in this case"

I doubt that Ron Paul would endorse any of the Republican candidates because of their interventionist viewpoints. He won't endorse any Democrat candidate because of their statist viewpoints. As far as 3rd parties, there's already the Libertarian Party that is up and running. I suspect that lots of Ron Paul supporters will switch over to it in the general election. I plan to unless the race is close in Texas.

[Sleepytime]

I'm not talking about those born with a mental handy cap I am talking about the voters who would vote only because they say it would be wonderful to have a woman or a person of color in the White House. Voting for someone only because they sit when they pee (the jury is still out on that one for Hellary) or because they have a darker pigmentation in their skin is just as smart as voting for someone because you like their sence of fashion (Queer-eye for the pres-guy...). The scary thing is people, women and (so-called) men all over the nation are going to be voting for that reason. They disregard the issues. Scary... very scary. Hellarys slogan should be, 'If you sit when you pee, vote for me.'

What I find sketchy about Osama Obama (Thanks Ted K., you really make Massachusetts shine) is that you hear very little about his up bringing. Do a little research and you will find that his real father AND his step father were both Muslim radicalists and that is the way he was raised. He is a muslim himself, but does not fess up to it. Here is something that was sent to me about him:

Who is Barack Obama? Something that should be considered when you make your choice.

If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...it is very scary to think of what could lie ahead for us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it. We checked this out on "[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. ". It is factual. Check for yourself.


Who is Barack Obama? Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white Athiest from Wichita, Kansas.


Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a
Catholic school. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical. Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL ISLAMIC teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.



Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience norwill he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their handsover their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.





Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!
Can we wake these people up in time to stop Hellary and Obama? The media isn't going to help...