"You said pundits and politicians have been telling us who is the most electable. Yes, they have done this by showing polls against Obama. You later went on to mention that Paul is doing well against Obama, thus giving some validity to said pundits and politicians"
The polls I referenced are NOT usually mentioned on live televised broadcasts but are IGNORED. In head to head polls since May of last year Ron Paul is either at the top or a very close second to Romney against Obama. I give no credibility to ANY of the mainstream media outlets or their pundits. All they have done since the beginning of this campaign is distort, ignore and misrepresent information relative to Ron Paul and the more they do it the stronger my resolve is to vote for NO ONE BUT PAUL
"Also, you cannot claim it is a FACT that he is the most electable. You gave examples of a type of voter that you cannot even put a number to and also ignored the ones that are completely against his policies"
I was quoting a poll just three months ago on Drudge. I wrote down the Independents and non whites only. We can easily find those who voted for Obama because of his anti war position but do we really need to? doesn't everyone KNOW that it was the independents and anti war sentiment that got Obama elected?
Independents Non Whites
Paul 48% 25%
Bachmann 38% 18%
Gingrich 41% 15%
Romney 46% 20%
Santorum 35% 17%
Yes I do claim it to be a FACT that Ron Paul is THE most electable against Obama again for good reason. If you doubt what I say that it was mainly the anti war vote and the Independents that got Obama elected then PLEASE set me straight with some FACTS.
" It is hard to claim that as a fact and then discount actual polls (In which he has never been the most electable, although he has been consistent)"
Ron Paul moves into second nationally (let's see if this is mentioned on Fox)http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSTRE81514720120207
"I do not think the anti-war vote will outweigh the lack of voter turnout in the case that he is gets the nomination. Many conservatives see him in the same light as Obama (Which is ridiculous I know, but this is the case) and would not vote for either."
Are you saying that conservatives won't vote for Ron Paul if he''s on the ticket against Obama? I would like to see your numbers on that while you're criticising my numbers. I will say this about those who won't come out and vote for the GOP nominee if it isn't
Ron Paul. We already have websites set up for that purpose. Go to No One But Paul.com. We have T-shirts, mugs, bumper stickers and money bombs. We have thousands of pledges to support No One But Paul. Make sure to watch the video while you're there.
I know a lot of people who wouldn't vote if it wasn't for Ron Paul. I have friends who have changed their voter registration to Republican just so they can vote for Ron Paul who voted for Obama in the last election. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. But if you think any other GOP nominee can win against Obama without us Ron Paul supporters, my guess is that you'll find out in November that you were horribly mistaken.
"Your second paragraph is why I earlier mentioned him not being able to get much done. He just simply would not have support. These corrupt people that you have mentioned in congress undoubtably against what Paul is for. If the people really rallied behind Paul, they could put some pressure on but then we would be looking at huge conflicts that could lead to government shutdowns. Paul is not big on executive orders and he will not override the house and the senate, even if they are completely in the wrong and bullheaded"
It would do us all good if they got less and less done. The more they do the more they screw things up, and more it costs us and the more freedom we lose. If he did nothing else but repealed the unconstitutional executive orders it would be enough for me. Ron Paul stands on principle. He always has. Whatever he says he would do, he WILL do. Whatever he says he won't do he WILL NOT do. We have 30 years of that man standing on principle and not wavering so on that, so he's by far the most trust worthy of ANY.
"Also, I could not disagree anymore with your last sentence about who Christians should vote for."
Then I couldn't disagree with you more! If you believe in bible prophesy then you should KNOW that it's not our Lord's plan to allow this fallen world system to coalesce into a one world government. That is Satan's plan and when it does the antichrist will administer his global cashless financial system that is being engineered right now by international bankers including our Federal Reserve and will FORCE every man woman and child to receive the mark of the beast. Since Jeus told us it will happen in the context of our modern reality we know that, it will come about through the United Nations. Ron Paul has authored bills to get us out of the UN. He has authored bills to audit the Fed and Repeal the Fed. The other candidates actually have no problem with going to war to enfoce UN resolutions like we did in Iraq under Bush ignoring our Constitution and the founding fathers who gave that authority only to Congress. Not the UN. Not NATO. Not the president.
Since Christians should follow the Christian Just War Principles based in scripture which allows killing in only four instances
1) capital punishment
2) by accident
3) self defense
4) defense of your family
And that Christians should also follow the rule of law Article I section 8 clause 11 of our Constitution REQUIRES that Congress and ONLY Congress has the authority to send us into a war and ONLY by declaring war which also follow the Christian Just War Principles it is only Ron Paul who speaks of and adheres to both the Constitution AND the Christian Just War Principles.
Since it was God Who gave us freedom of choice and never put that choice into the hands of government on things like what we say, think, what to eat, drink or smoke or who to give charity to and the Constitution NEVER gives that authority to the government it is ONLY Ron Paul who repsects both the bible and the Constitution on those things. So yes, I totally disagree with you. Ron Paul seems to be the best possible choice for Christians.
His Sanctity of Life Bill would also end abortion on demand with a simple majority vote. All the others will never get it ended by their stupid method of waiting to get enough SC justices nominated and then waiting for another case to come up to overturn Roe V Wade.
"His foreign policy (Which I could debate with you on for hours) is not the approach we need right now. He is extremely ignorant when it comes to the statements, beliefs, and mindset of millions and millions and Muslims that surround Israel. He is a very smart man but he is grossly uneducated and ignorant in this regard. He approaches even extreme Muslims like they operate in a very similar fashion to the rest of the world. He cannot even begin to see that their religion is first a form of Government and secondly a personal belief system. It would behoove him to learn the beliefs of these people is what dictates their actions towards other people and nations, as is undoubtabley the case."
Really? Why don't you start by debating Michael Scheuer who created and ran the bin Laden unit in Afghanistan for 12 years? Who was mentioned in the 911 Commission Report at least a dozen times. Who gave the Clinton administration 5 oppportunities to kill bin Laden and 2 opportunities to capture him?
He along with most of the other intelligence officers who have been assigned to counter-terrorism efforts along with the VAST majority of our active servicemen support Ron Paul by a HUGE majority over ALL his competitors COMBINED. So you not only disagree with me, you disagree with the intelligence community and the active military personnel who by a HUGE majority support Ron Paul over Obama and ALL the other GOP hopefuls COMBNED http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-12-30/iowas-choice-dr-paul-or-u-s-bankruptcy-more-wars-and-many-more-dead-soldiers-and-marines/
"I love MANY of his ideas. In fact, I am in favor of the vast majority of them. I also think his foreign policy has a time and place but just not at this very moment. Embracing Paul would essentially require me to turn my back on Israel which is something as a Christian, that I could NEVER do. Even without the religous implications it is ridiculous to even consider policies that could lead to us losing our most important ally."
Supporting Ron Paul hasn't caused me to renounce my support for Israel and I too am a Christian. In fact, Ron Paul would be THE best friend Israel ever had from this country.
Since the days of Jimmy Carter we have been subsidizing Israel to the tune of $3.5 Billion per year. We have been subsidizing Israel's enemies who on three seperate occassions surrounded them and attacked them to the tune of $7.5 Billion per year. In 2002 our subsidies built a school for Palestinians which they named after a suicide bomber.
Ron Paul wants to end ALL foreign aid to ALL countries and if we did, Israel would right off the top be much better off.
Back when Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear facility Ron Paul was one of two or three who went against the vast majority of Congress in condemning Israel.
Our subsidies to Israel also leads to the notion that we have some authority to inform them on how they deal with their neighbors. Recently our government issued a stern warning to Israel not to initiate attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. What? Ron Paul was outraged as ANY Christian should be. They should have all the authority they want as a sovereign nation to defend their people.
But it goes further.
During the Oslo Accords the negotiations came to an impasse. Yasser Arafat was demanding that Israel release 1,000 prisoners ALL who had Israeli blood on their hands. Clinton put pressure on Barrak and Israel capitulated and released those prisoners.
ALL of them went on to murder more innocent Israeli's in the infantada. Among them was Mohammod Atta one of the hijackers who flew a plane into the World Trade center on 911.
Still want to meddle in the affairs of other countries?
But even without this progressive Woodrow Wilson style of foreign policy that causes us to meddle in the affairs of other countries, as Christians we should KNOW that to apply to anything or anyone the attributes of God is blasphemy. To say or even suggest that Israel would be destroyed without the United States is not only against everything that our bible says, it's blasphemy.
NOWHERE in our bible does it say that once Israel comes back into their own country will they EVER AGAIN be destroyed. To ignore the Christian Just War Principles in some errant notion that we're Israel's protector while committing blasphmey is something we will have to answer to God for some day. Friend. We have been lied to about the USA's relationship with Israel. The bible is very clear. Good and ONLY God is the protector of Israel. To say otherwise is blasphemy.