Thread: Who supported Ron Paul and now supports Barack Obama?

I have noticed that some people who were way gung-ho Ron Paul a few months ago are now way gung-ho Barack Obama. I am trying to wrap my brain around that concept because the two candidates are in completely different parts of the spectrum. They both want the U.S. out of Iraq... eventually, but that's about it. Are there other major parallels? One former Paul supporter here recently said that Obama is going to fix the economy. How is it possible that a borderline anarchist had the great economic plan and now a borderline socialist has it? I really don't get this. Will somebody please explain it?

well, I don't think there is really anything to explain. from your previous posts you seem to think obama is a terrorist, and I think thats pretty irrational, the same 'antichrist' ideology that bible thumpers have

people who like ron paul like him because he was different from Bush. like him because he opposed Bush, and seemed like an honest guy who could fix the economy.

why aren't they voting for ron paul? well he's not running anymore. and neither is hilary who was also another favorite. why obama? because he sounds closer to ron paul than mc cain. no one really thinks the 'other' guy has a chance. so most only see two candidates. obama or mc cain. choose.

I'm anti-Hillary.

Thank god that ugly horse-faced bitch is out of and has no possibility of returning to the White House for the next four years. Palin looks okay, I guess, but Michelle is pretty hot for a first lady...

Oh, politics? Uh... Obama all the way?

So the parallel is that he is not McCain? That's it? That doesn't do much to connect strict libertarianism to socialism. If Paul's ideas are great, Obama's are terrible, and vice-versa. I see no way around that. I hope somebody can tell me more.

Originally Posted by juroara

well, I don't think there is really anything to explain. from your previous posts you seem to think obama is a terrorist, and I think thats pretty irrational, the same 'antichrist' ideology that bible thumpers have

Since you are making stuff up, I saw where you said that McCain burned witches in Salem. You just like insulting people personally in every post, don't you? Please get a life. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Since you are making stuff up, I saw where you said that McCain burned witches in Salem. You just like insulting people personally in every post, don't you? Please get a life. Thanks.

wow

its your problem, not mine

"Iraq Hussein Osama
Barracks Hussein Ubama
Biraq Hussein Osamabama
Chirac Hussein Obsama"

said universal mind

a direct quote from your words

more

"Then read again the other things I have said about him. Is your memory really that short? Obama is an anti-American buddy of a terrorist, so the silly names we are coming up with actually have metaphorical truth to them. That is part of the humor that bothers you. Translate that into character, personality, and policies."

see the thread here, this is what I was referring to
http://dreamviews.com/community/show...t=59836&page=2

I did not make anything up

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So the parallel is that he is not McCain? That's it? That doesn't do much to connect strict libertarianism to socialism. If Paul's ideas are great, Obama's are terrible, and vice-versa. I see no way around that. I hope somebody can tell me more.

Im pretty sure that there isnt a parallel. It is not that Obama's plan is close to Ron Paul's..it is just different from Bush's and people want to try something other than Bush's. But if they were smart they would know that the only candidate to choose based off of the economy is one who would get the fed closer to the government...which wont happen.

I dont support either anyways, Im writing Ron Paul over McCain's name and turning it in.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So the parallel is that he is not McCain? That's it? That doesn't do much to connect strict libertarianism to socialism. If Paul's ideas are great, Obama's are terrible, and vice-versa. I see no way around that. I hope somebody can tell me more.

I'm breaking from my 2,003 post marker to say something very important.

...

...

QFT

I'm a Ron Paul supported who can in no way endorse Obama... (Or McCain).

The parallel I draw is that, after hearing their points of view (however they may differ), I feel that they both have the same level of consideration and empathy for the average, working class American. I feel a level of sincerity and perspective from them that I do not feel with McCain. I would have picked Ron Paul, but it's more than clear that our choices are now between McCain and Obama. So, out of the two listed, the one I feel would lead with the degree of humanism that I feel America is long overdue for is Obama.

I don't know anyone who supported Ron Paul and Obama. Obama is about as liberal as it gets, and Ron Paul is as far right as you can go without being Stan Smith.

Why do you insist on calling Obama a socialist? Do you not realize that almost every major democracy in the world has socialized medicine and didn't convert to communism? FYI, he's for universal health care, not socialized, it's just a step in the right direction, not the full jump.

how bout this, although ron paul and obama have completely different views they are both highly intelligent people that want to transcend political lines and fix the probelms of this country.

Obviously ron paul supporters were looking for change and now that ron paul is out of the race they are willing to go to the democrat party and support obama.

simple as that

How is it possible that a borderline anarchist had the great economic plan and now a borderline socialist has it? I really don't get this. Will somebody please explain it?

Three reasons?

.McCain has the same economic plan as Bush, and look how well that turned out. Also, intill the crisis McCain was saying the fundamentals of are economy is strong.

.McCain picked Sarah Palin.

.Ron Paul doesn't want his supporters to support McCain.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure most Ron Paul supporters will think about the economy and not vote McCain.

I think their main similarity is that even a diehard cynic has to admit that they are both very good at sounding sincere. Both Paul and Obama seem to actually want to make a difference and help the country. McCain's personal agenda is smeared all over his campaign and he is already making decisions based purely on personal benefit rather than the good of the country.

So, their goals seem to be the same (help rather than hurt the country) even though their methodologies are opposed.

The problem with your thinking is there are two dimensions to socialism and anarchy, not one.

Ron Paul wanted to make the government smaller, but put more regulations of the Market, a few checks would have fixed the problem a long time ago. Instead, there was no accountability on wallstreet or in the government.

Barack Obama will not be making the government any smaller, unfortunately, but economic regulation is important right now, as well as new deal like impositions. McCain has done jack shit in that respect compared to Obama. McCain has only stepped in on economic regulation once in his entire career, I see him as pulling a Herbert Hoover and trying to get the Banks to start loaning people again. That won't work, it didn't work before and it won't work this time. Reaganomics doesn't work, none of the principles of the free global market work, the IMF doesn't work nor does the WTO or any free trade promoting organization. People starve and riot and die as a result. Obama is no Ron Paul, but at least it's a slight steer toward practical problem solving.

I will not vote for either. I have not the heart. I do not like McCain, but I think Obama is just plain stupid. Either way, we are screwed.

For those who do not know, Ron Paul supports Chuck Baldwin.

It's probably just that McCain would be such a horrible president, that it doesn't matter whether it was obama or a bind unicycle-riding juggler that ran against McCain. Seeing Ron Paul wasn't going to stay in the race for president, people have to pick the second best. And regardless of to what party he is tied, McCain is so far more crap than anyone else. It wouldn't make sense for rational people not to vote for Obama, since McCain is the one that will really fuck up the country, economically and in regards to freedom. If you are a libertarian or something, Obama is still best choice when compaired to McCain and Palin.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have noticed that some people who were way gung-ho Ron Paul a few months ago are now way gung-ho Barack Obama. I am trying to wrap my brain around that concept because the two candidates are in completely different parts of the spectrum. They both want the U.S. out of Iraq... eventually, but that's about it. Are there other major parallels? One former Paul supporter here recently said that Obama is going to fix the economy. How is it possible that a borderline anarchist had the great economic plan and now a borderline socialist has it? I really don't get this. Will somebody please explain it?

Simple anyone but Bush or his cronies.

They've fucked it up so bad.. anyone can do better.

Originally Posted by juroara

wow

its your problem, not mine

"Iraq Hussein Osama
Barracks Hussein Ubama
Biraq Hussein Osamabama
Chirac Hussein Obsama"

said universal mind

a direct quote from your words

more

"Then read again the other things I have said about him. Is your memory really that short? Obama is an anti-American buddy of a terrorist, so the silly names we are coming up with actually have metaphorical truth to them. That is part of the humor that bothers you. Translate that into character, personality, and policies."

see the thread here, this is what I was referring to
http://dreamviews.com/community/show...t=59836&page=2

I did not make anything up

Golly, I made fun of his name and said he has a terrorist buddy. That is the same as seriously calling him a terrorist, huh? By the way, why the Hell are we even talking about this? Talk about the topic.

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

I'm breaking from my 2,003 post marker to say something very important.

...

...

QFT

I'm a Ron Paul supported who can in no way endorse Obama... (Or McCain).

Thank you. I'm glad somebody is with me on this.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The parallel I draw is that, after hearing their points of view (however they may differ), I feel that they both have the same level of consideration and empathy for the average, working class American. I feel a level of sincerity and perspective from them that I do not feel with McCain. I would have picked Ron Paul, but it's more than clear that our choices are now between McCain and Obama. So, out of the two listed, the one I feel would lead with the degree of humanism that I feel America is long overdue for is Obama.

What are consideration and empathy worth if they result in devastating policies? Like I said, if either Obama or Paul is right, the other one is devastatingly wrong.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Simple anyone but Bush or his cronies.

They've fucked it up so bad.. anyone can do better.

Paul and Obama represent opposite ends of the spectrum. Paul wants virtually no government and no taxes, while Obama wants enormous government and taxes and major redistribution of wealth. Bush is somewhere between them, probably about the middle.

So... would you say Bush's policies are too close to being like Paul's or too close to being like Obama's? Loving Paul and Obama's policies (Iraq aside. Remember that Obama wants to invade Pakistan.) while despising Bush's policies just doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain it?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The problem with your thinking is there are two dimensions to socialism and anarchy, not one.

Ron Paul wanted to make the government smaller, but put more regulations of the Market, a few checks would have fixed the problem a long time ago. Instead, there was no accountability on wallstreet or in the government.

Barack Obama will not be making the government any smaller, unfortunately, but economic regulation is important right now, as well as new deal like impositions. McCain has done jack shit in that respect compared to Obama. McCain has only stepped in on economic regulation once in his entire career, I see him as pulling a Herbert Hoover and trying to get the Banks to start loaning people again. That won't work, it didn't work before and it won't work this time. Reaganomics doesn't work, none of the principles of the free global market work, the IMF doesn't work nor does the WTO or any free trade promoting organization. People starve and riot and die as a result. Obama is no Ron Paul, but at least it's a slight steer toward practical problem solving.

Good answer. However, I still think the two candidates are a million light years apart, even if Paul wants some regulation. Bush and McCain are between the two on practically every issue.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Remember that Obama wants to invade Pakistan.

Seriously man, switch it from Fox to CNN once in a while. He never said that. He said that he would move across Pakistani lines if there was proof that Bin Laden was there and work with the Pakistani military to hunt him down.

Not even McCain says that Obama wants to invade Pakistan.

Good answer. However, I still think the two candidates are a million light years apart, even if Paul wants some regulation. Bush and McCain are between the two on practically every issue.

Duh. Obama is a liberal, McBush is a conservative. Ron Paul is so far on the right that he's not even on the spectrum.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Seriously man, switch it from Fox to CNN once in a while. He never said that. He said that he would move across Pakistani lines if there was proof that Bin Laden was there and work with the Pakistani military to hunt him down.

Not even McCain says that Obama wants to invade Pakistan.

It is an established fact that the government of Pakistan will not let us go in and get Bin Laden. Our doing so any way would qualify as an "invasion". Get it? The fact that you throw around the term "Fox News" all the time without anything backing up the bizarre assertion shows that your brain could use a great deal of unwashing. Left wing ideology has become your religion. Wake up.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Duh. Obama is a liberal, McBush is a conservative. Ron Paul is so far on the right that he's not even on the spectrum.

Welcome to the program. I'm glad you finally get the issue. Now maybe you can effectively address the question that is the topic of this thread. Give it a shot.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

According to the gallup poll, citizens in 70 countries prefer Barack Obama as president as opposed to just a minimal few that prefer John McCain. The figures are 4 - 1 in Obama's favor. I wonder why?

Obama would make us less threatening and less enviable.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is an established fact that the government of Pakistan will not let us go in and get Bin Laden. Our doing so any way would qualify as an "invasion". Get it? The fact that you throw around the term "Fox News" all the time without anything backing up the bizarre assertion shows that your brain could use a great deal of unwashing. Left wing ideology has become your religion. Wake up.

Are you sure about that? George Bush refuses to talk to the Pakistani military leaders (not the same ones that control the government.) In order work with someone, they have to talk to them. And no "without precondition" does not mean without preparation and lower level talks first.

And about the Fox News comment. That's where you seem to be getting some of your info because no one else is saying some of the things that you claim, especially the facts. I'm not saying you should switch to MSNBC, but get your news from somewhere in the middle.

Welcome to the program. I'm glad you finally get the issue. Now maybe you can effectively address the question that is the topic of this thread. Give it a shot.

I'm confused, I've always said that Ron Paul was off the spectrum right wing.

Let me put it this way:

Me:
Purist/Communitarian Capitalist - 12
Libertarian/Authoritarian - 0
Pacifist/Militarist Score - 0

Ron Paul
Purist/Comunitarian Capitalist - 0
Libertarian/Authoritarian - 0
Pacifist/Militarist - 0

Barack Obama
Purist/Communitarian Capitalist - 8
Libertarian/Authoritarian - 4
Pacifist/Militarist - 6

George Bush
Purist/Communitarian Capitalist - 3 (in horrible, horrible ways)
Libertarian/Authoritarian - 11
Pacifist/Militarist - 12

John McCain
Purist/Capitalist - 0
Libertarian/Authoritarian - 9
Pacifist/Militarist - 12

Thank you good day.

According to the gallup poll, citizens in 70 countries prefer Barack Obama as president as opposed to just a minimal few that prefer John McCain. The figures are 4 - 1 in Obama's favor. I wonder why?

That would be true for any conservative / liberal election. The rest of the world is not a fan of conservatives, it's why across the pond americans are stereotyped as flannel shirt wearing, gun loving, inbred hillbillies.

We aren't okay! I'm wearing Ralph Lauren, I don't own a gun, and I'm seeing a girl that's not in my family.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Golly, I made fun of his name and said he has a terrorist buddy. That is the same as seriously calling him a terrorist, huh? By the way, why the Hell are we even talking about this? Talk about the topic.

"You just like insulting people personally in every post, don't you? Please get a life."

first you tell I'm making things up, then you tell me I just insult people. I did neither. and when I quote you red handed, you tell me to stay on topic so hopefully no one will notice that wasn't making things up. grow up. if you can't handle being criticized for something you said, don't say it!

how is calling someone a terrorist buddy to be taken so lightly as a joke? you sounded serious to me in that thread so I'm sorry I missed your obvious sarcasm

and it is on topic, because you have shown to have some crazy ideas about obama that simply aren't true, and you seem shocked that people would support him like they did ron paul. its very simple. the middleclass man struggling to make a living has felt ignored for eight years. both candidates seemed sympathetic to the needs of that class

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have noticed that some people who were way gung-ho Ron Paul a few months ago are now way gung-ho Barack Obama. I am trying to wrap my brain around that concept because the two candidates are in completely different parts of the spectrum. They both want the U.S. out of Iraq... eventually, but that's about it. Are there other major parallels? One former Paul supporter here recently said that Obama is going to fix the economy. How is it possible that a borderline anarchist had the great economic plan and now a borderline socialist has it? I really don't get this. Will somebody please explain it?

Quick answer to your thread, not me.

I still support Ron Paul and his ideas, he endorsed chuck baldwin..the constitutional candidate...I did not register to vote and I won't vote so it doesn't matter, this isn't a democracy.

But I would much rather not see obama or mccain win, we need someone ELSE...3rd party needs to win...they have never controlled the white house...its their turn, the dems and repubs have fucked it up for long enough, they had enough chances..