Bill Kristol Wants Ron Paul​ Out Of The GOP

[mandym]

He did, the Patriot Act and the acts against American Citizens were both unconstitutional and wrong. His ignoring our Constitution and trying to bypass it by detaining people indefinitely without any charges is a violation of our Civil Liberties and illegal. I would have voted to impeach Bush based upon those issues. We fought a Revolution because of these issues, and we have several Presidents who ignore these principles in the United States Constitution. If we are not a country of laws, we become a lawless people.

This is not high crimes and misdemeanors. When we disagree with laws we need to be careful not to attribute The wrong kind of remedies.
Impeachment would be wrong even if Bush was wrong about this issue. Even if he is wrong it odes not reach the standard for impeachment. The push for impeachment seems to be more of a revenge tactic that a need for justice. The Patriot act as been to the courts numerous times.

 

[Ruiz]

This is not high crimes and misdemeanors. When we disagree with laws we need to be careful not to attribute The wrong kind of remedies.
Impeachment would be wrong even if Bush was wrong about this issue. Even if he is wrong it odes not reach the standard for impeachment. The push for impeachment seems to be more of a revenge tactic that a need for justice. The Patriot act as been to the courts numerous times.

Do you think Clinton's lying under oath "High Crimes and Misdemeanor's?" I do believe a violation of our Constitution is a higher crime than lying about Monica Lewinsky.

BTW, I think Woodrow Wilson should have been impeached but the courts supported him (as did Andrew Jackson). Because some believe they were right at the time does not make them right.

 

[mandym]

Do you think Clinton's lying under oath "High Crimes and Misdemeanor's?" I do believe a violation of our Constitution is a higher crime than lying about Monica Lewinsky.

BTW, I think Woodrow Wilson should have been impeached but the courts supported him (as did Andrew Jackson). Because some believe they were right at the time does not make them right.

There is no equivalent to Clinton here. what he did he did knowing he was wrong. Anyone can be be wrong about constitutional matters. that does not mean there was intentional wrong or reach impeachment levels.

 

[Ruiz]

There is no equivalent to Clinton here. what he did he did knowing he was wrong. Anyone can be be wrong about constitutional matters. that does not mean there was intentional wrong or reach impeachment levels.

So, ignorance is a good excuse? Woodrow Wilson, then, did not commit high crimes and misdemeanors? Jackson, because of his ignorance, was justified too?

Ignorance is a very shaky position. Yet, from your answer you believe Clinton was wrong. Thus lying about an affair under oath is worse than trying to subvert the Constitution of the United States and find ways to violate it without being allowed to be held accountable? BTW, Bush did know it was a violation of the Constitution, that is why he tried to do things outside of the Constitutional jurisdiction.

Thus, your argument is interesting, but I believe Bush knew it was wrong and tried to get around the law.

 

[InTheLight]

You wouldn't even get 20% of the vote. Ron Paul is getting these totals.
So tell me, if he can get all this support inside the Republican Party, why are you discounting him as a Republican?

Ron Paul is not getting 20% of support within the Republican Party. In Iowa he got 14% of Republican voters.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa/exit-polls

In New Hampshire he got 15% of Republican voters.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/new-hampshire/exit-polls

In South Carolina Paul is getting about 15%-16% of the total vote.

The fact is that he's doesn't have 20% of the Republican votes. You should quit stating that he's "got all this support inside the Republican Party", because he doesn't.

 

[Ruiz]

Ron Paul is not getting 20% of support within the Republican Party. In Iowa he got 14% of Republican voters.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa/exit-polls

In New Hampshire he got 15% of Republican voters.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/new-hampshire/exit-polls

In South Carolina Paul is getting about 15%-16% of the total vote.

The fact is that he's doesn't have 20% of the Republican votes. You should quit stating that he's "got all this support inside the Republican Party", because he doesn't.

Most of the people who voted for him were leaning Republican voters. You can argue over a few percentage points one way or the other, but these are the type of people who voted for Reagan, as the Republican Party establishment didn't like Reagan. The Reagan Democrats, democrats who leaned towards the Republican party, compelled him to the Presidency. The Republican establishment went for Bush in 1980. In Republican Primaries, Ron Paul has more support than most of the other candidates. He is a legitimate Republican Candidate who broadens their base (like Reagan), not shrink it like all the other candidates.

 

[InTheLight]

In Republican Primaries, Ron Paul has more support than most of the other candidates.

Is that why he keeps finishing third in these contests? Really, you can keep saying this as long as you want and it won't magically become true, ever.

 

[mandym]

So, ignorance is a good excuse? Woodrow Wilson, then, did not commit high crimes and misdemeanors? Jackson, because of his ignorance, was justified too?

Ignorance is a very shaky position. Yet, from your answer you believe Clinton was wrong. Thus lying about an affair under oath is worse than trying to subvert the Constitution of the United States and find ways to violate it without being allowed to be held accountable? BTW, Bush did know it was a violation of the Constitution, that is why he tried to do things outside of the Constitutional jurisdiction.

Thus, your argument is interesting, but I believe Bush knew it was wrong and tried to get around the law.

Your view of Bush is silly and he did not try to subvert the constitution. This is the mentality that places Paul and many of his supporters on the fringe of life. Over reaction to just about everything.

 

[Ruiz]

Is that why he keeps finishing third in these contests? Really, you can keep saying this as long as you want and it won't magically become true, ever.

He finished 3rd in Iowa, 2nd in New Hampshire and is the only Candidate besides Romney on every ballot. In other words, besides Romney he is the only truly viable candidate. In my state, there are only two on the ballot, Paul and Romney. The person who won Iowa is running in last place in SC. He and Romney were the only consistent candidates to finish in the top 3 in the first two states. He seems to be running 3rd in SC. Not bad considering Newt still believes he is in the race.

So, who do you think is doing better besides Romney?

 

[mandym]

In other words, besides Romney he is the only truly viable candidate. In my state, there are only two on the ballot, Paul and Romney.

In other words? So let me get this straight. All of your words preceding that leads you to this? What?

 

[Ruiz]

Your view of Bush is silly and he did not try to subvert the constitution. This is the mentality that places Paul and many of his supporters on the fringe of life. Over reaction to just about everything. No self control. Very infowars like.

Yes he did. The reason they used Gitmo is because they could do things in Gitmo that would be illegal in the United States. This is not conjecture, this is fact.

You may justify his rationale, but you cannot deny that what he did would be considered illegal in the United States. I believe that subverting our legal system by a President who said he would support and defend our Constitution is an impeachable offense.

 

[Ruiz]

In other words? So let me get this straight. All of your words preceding that leads you to this? What?

The only people consistently polling in the top 3 of every state are Romney and Paul. So far, the only two to make it in the top three in both elections are Romney in Paul. The counter argument was implying Paul was not a legitimate Republican Candidate. I contend that Newt and Santorum are both not able to get on every ballot and only one of the two were able to finish in the top three so far. Newt may or may not win SC, but he does not have the structure to go through Super Tuesday. Only two Candidates have such a structure.

Are you saying Newt or Santorum have the network to win in every state? Are you saying they are in the best shape among all the Candidates? I doubt that, for only Romney and Paul have demonstrated they can run a national campaign so far.

 

[InTheLight]

So, who do you think is doing better besides Romney?

As of yesterday Gingrich is leading in SC in the polls. So, Gingrich is my answer.

Paul is muddling around with 15-16%. It doesn't seem to matter where he goes or how good his campaign organization is, he finishes at 22-23% or lower. Everytime.

Bachmann has dropped out, Huntsman has dropped out, Perry has dropped out. If Paul is so strong within the Republican party why isn't he picking up some of these ex-candidate's supporters?

 

[mandym]

Yes he did. The reason they used Gitmo is because they could do things in Gitmo that would be illegal in the United States. This is not conjecture, this is fact.

You may justify his rationale, but you cannot deny that what he did would be considered illegal in the United States. I believe that subverting our legal system by a President who said he would support and defend our Constitution is an impeachable offense.

You do understand the no one wants the terrorists within the borders of the US Right? Terrorists do not need to be tried in American courts. They need to be tried in Military Tribunals. Here are some facts. The terrorists were caught in action on the battle field working to kill our troops. That is all the fact we need. If you want to sympathize with terrorists that's fine but doing that does not make Bush guilty of anything. Of course by your logic Obama should be impeached right now. More fringe ideology that has nothing to do with the constitution.

 

[InTheLight]

In my state, there are only two on the ballot, Paul and Romney.

In other words? So let me get this straight. All of your words preceding that leads you to this? What?

Can't wait for the Virginia primary. It's winner take all and since only Romney and Paul are on the ballot we will really be able to see the depth of Romney's support vs. Paul's support. I'd say if Paul does not 30-35% level when he's up against only one other opponent, he ought to quit the race. But no, like 2008 he'll probably stay in it well past the mathematical point where someone else has the needed number of delegates wrapped up to win the nomination.

 

[InTheLight]

Newt may or may not win SC, but he does not have the structure to go through Super Tuesday. Only two Candidates have such a structure.

Are you saying Newt or Santorum have the network to win in every state? Are you saying they are in the best shape among all the Candidates? I doubt that, for only Romney and Paul have demonstrated they can run a national campaign so far.

Yes, let's see the money pour in after Newt wins or almost wins in SC. Should be interesting.

 

[Ruiz]

As of yesterday Gingrich is leading in SC in the polls. So, Gingrich is my answer.

Paul is muddling around with 15-16%. It doesn't seem to matter where he goes or how good his campaign organization is, he finishes at 22-23% or lower. Everytime.

Bachmann has dropped out, Huntsman has dropped out, Perry has dropped out. If Paul is so strong within the Republican party why isn't he picking up some of these ex-candidate's supporters?

I would be more worried if he picked up their support. I didn't choose any of them for a reason. I didn't endorse any of these candidates for some clear reasons and eliminated Newt first for him being a complete scoundrel. If he is elected, I will not vote for a Republican this year. He is the only person I can say that about, but I have been saying it for almost a year now.

Yet, notice that the guy who could not place in the top 3 in the previous elections is now considered a viable candidate. This says more about the Republican field than about Ron Paul. His supporters are much more consistent.

 

[InTheLight]

This says more about the Republican field than about Ron Paul. His supporters are much more consistent.

It says to me that he has the same supporters and doesn't make any gains, doesn't win over any new hearts and minds. He's stuck at 22%.

 

[Ruiz]

Yes, let's see the money pour in after Newt wins or almost wins in SC. Should be interesting.

You support the scoundrel, Newt? If Newt wins, I will not vote for him no matter what. He undercut the conservatives for years and he is one of the most immoral politicians in the Republican side. I always believe in voting the the better among two evils, but in his case he is evil; worse than McCain and Dole.

I will vote for Romney or Santorum or Paul, but would never vote for Newt.

 

[Ruiz]

It says to me that he has the same supporters and doesn't make any gains, doesn't win over any new hearts and minds. He's stuck at 22%.

Actually, if you take the last election and this one, you will find he has gained quite a bit of supporters, without flip-flopping like Newt or Romney. As well, no one doubts that he has changed the debate on monetary policy and the Federal Reserve. After 8 years of Bush, for once people are talking about sound fiscal policies, though no one had put forth a sound fiscal proposal. Oh, he has changed hearts and minds, afterall, when you have predicted the collapse of our economy like he did (and the only politician to do so), then you do change a lot of minds and hearts.