2012 Election | Ron Paul | Texas

BigGayDeal.com

Ron Paul Supporters Backing Gay Candidate In Texas

RonPaulVanNow that they have washed the glitter out of their eyes and accepted that Ron Paul will not be the Republican presidential nominee, the libertarian hero's supporters are now turning their attention to smaller, state-based races.

And one man, John Ramsey, seems to be leading the pack: the 21-year old used a family inheritance to start his own super PAC, Liberty for All, and is currently funding races all over the country, including one in Texas, where the candidate is not necessarily what you would expect.

From the New York Times:

With their favorite having lost the nomination for president, Mr. Paul’s dedicated band of youthful supporters is looking down-ballot and swarming lightly guarded Republican redoubts like state party conventions in an attempt to infiltrate the top echelons of the party.

Liberty for All appears to have a taste for the obscure. Its next candidate is Michael D. Cargill, a gay, black gun store owner running for constable in Travis County, Tex.

But the political action committee will have money to spend. Mr. Ramsey said that between his wallet and a fund-raising push, the PAC expected to have $10 million this summer.

Ramsey told the paper that he will spend as much money as it takes "to get this country moving in a freer direction."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. THE TRUTH, peace, relax, you don't do us any good by losing your cool. Correct people in a rational and well explained manner, not by typing profanities in all caps. Also please become a precinct chair if the deadline hasn't passed for your county. If it has passed, call to see if there is a vacancy and if so apply late. This is almost as important as getting delegates.

    Posted by: Ryan P | May 24, 2012 3:54:31 PM


  2. Quoting Anonymous: "The purpose is to remove such issues from the scope of federal consideration so that, you know, we're not talking about things like contraception for months during a Presidential election year while far more important issues are glossed over."

    Well, that's an issue with Congress and the President, not the courts. Why should the protection of rights guaranteed by the federal constitution not be in the scope of the federal courts?

    "Regarding marriage, Paul believes government at all levels should stay out of the marriage business and only get involved as it would with regards to any other contract between individuals."

    Why does he support DOMA, then?

    Posted by: aj | May 24, 2012 5:17:32 PM


  3. And why has Ron Paul supported having the government in his own marriage for over half a century? And in the marriages of all his straight family members? The Paulbots never have an answer for that one, though their ALL CAPS PASSION and non-stop propaganda on behalf of their guru of "liberty" is admirable. Hate to break it to you, guys, but Ron Paul had his moment, may get another little one at the right-wing convention, but otherwise it's a wrap for his presidential aspirations.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 24, 2012 5:51:36 PM


  4. Ron Paul can still win this. Delegates are unbound, meaning that they technically can vote for whomever they feel they want to. Even the GOP lawyer stated this in the last election.

    Posted by: ian | May 24, 2012 7:10:53 PM


  5. AJ: Response 1 - The President nominates/appoints federal judges and Supreme Court justices. This is where the nexus comes in. The issue cuts both ways. By saying you want the federal government to have the power to decide the matter to your satisfaction, you're also saying they should have the power to decide in your disfavor or to change their minds at some point down the road. Response 2 - From what I understand, Paul supported DOMA because it prevents states from being forced to accept the changes of other states, while not going so far as to disallow states from choosing to do so. He continues to want the government at all level to exit the marriage business.

    ERNIE: Because it's a nonsensical question?

    Posted by: Anonymous | May 24, 2012 8:48:33 PM


  6. Why is it nonsensical to ask why Ron Paul chooses to be in a government marriage if he doesn't believe the government should be involved in marriage? Merely pointing out his hypocrisy.

    DOMA also prevents married gay couples in my state from receiving the federal benefits straight couples like Ron Paul and his wife take for granted. Libertarians who truly want the government out of marriage need to get it out of their own marriages first. Meanwhile, gay couples will continue to demand full federal marriage equality and the end of unconstitutional laws that Paul supports and President Obama opposes,, like DOMA.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 24, 2012 9:24:30 PM


  7. If you are a Ron Paul supporter but a registered Democrat in Nevada and want to help make a difference here on the Dem side to end the same old same old, check out www.fryefornevada.com for Congress in CD3. He is pro-Equality and wants to get rid of our calamitous war on drugs.

    Btw, our Nevadan Paul supporters should be proud of how they just came right in and banged the GOP right up against a wall and took over! Good for you!I am a Dem but have been pissed with your treatment by the GOP establishment for years. Bravo!

    Posted by: Derek Washington | May 24, 2012 10:27:35 PM


  8. ERNIE: It's nonsensical because if you get married you're required to enter into a relationship with the state. Many libertarians don't like that right off the bat. I'm one of them, and I don't think I'll ever get married for that reason alone if nothing else. "Benefits" of doing so be damned.

    You have to look at it in terms of overall policy, rather than taking a single facet and running with it. Paul encourages the gradual process of focusing the federal government back onto narrower goals, shifting whatever is feasible back to the states or to the people where it belongs (the latter being the lost part of the Tenth Amendment that everyone tends to forget about when reducing it to "State's Rights" which it's not) lower or even eliminate income taxes (there goes many of those "benefits" of marriage), revitalize the economy by restoring investor/global/consumer confidence in our nation, promote sound money, promote capital repatriation back to our shores, wind down wars and close as many bases as possible in order to bring our troops home, cut offensive spending and focus on defense, end the police state, pardon nonviolent "criminals" and end the federal enforcement of drug laws, balance the budget, take Congress to task and force them to make the tough decisions about spending before we go over the cliff and the tough decisions are made for us, etc. etc. etc. and this is all a far cry better than the alternatives.

    For what it's worth, though, I support equality. I just don't support one-size-fits-all centralized government. As mentioned above, the Tenth Amendment states that many things should be left to the states or to the people. I firmly believe there are many subjects that are currently within the legislative realm that shouldn't be. There doesn't need to be a law for every little thing simply because there isn't one yet. I have much faith in the ability of the vast majority of people to make their own choices about how to handle their personal affairs and don't feel it's anyone's business to intrude. Since government is a collective construct of the people, it doesn't have the right to intrude in people's private lives either.

    Posted by: Anonymous | May 25, 2012 5:06:01 AM


  9. @Anonymous: No one forced Ron Paul to get married and therefore tie his marriage to the government for 50+ years. He chose to take advantage of that. (He could have raised a family without marriage; gay people do that all the time, because they have no other choice.) Ron Paul and other faux-libertarians may say they want government out of marriage, but until they take themselves away from the government teat their argument is a non-starter for many of us, even if it isn't for you. So save the "nonsensical" accusation.

    The best pathway to marriage equality, in my opinion, is via the Courts and the dismantling of DOMA. (Another judge ruled it unconstitutional yesterday; Paul continues to support this unconstitutional law.) The state-by-state approach will reach a dead end. And taking the government out of marriage is not going to happen, nor should it as far as I'm concerned. We can agree to disagree, but repeating the Paul talking points isn't going to change the minds of those who simply don't support his ideas. The glitter in the eyes of Paul supporters is they believe people just don't get it, when in fact we get it and disagree.

    I'm glad Paul brought some libertarian ideas into the right-wing Republican party, I just happen not to share most of them since I'm a Democrat who sees government differently than the Republicans, certainly, but also the Libertarians. Now, if my Senator, Bernie Sanders, were running for President, I'd be voting Independent, but he's wise enough to stay in VT.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 25, 2012 11:12:54 AM


  10. ERNIE: Paul is a religious man, even though he's not fanatical about it and doesn't go around flaunting it to curry favor like, say, a Santorum. If you don't understand why he was forced to get married in order to raise his family, and believe he did so just to "take advantage" of anything, then we can't have a rational conversation because you're not thinking rationally.

    Paul isn't the type to take advantage, anyway. He's a principled man. He's never accepted Medicare or Medicaid in his medical practice, opting instead to offer free or reduced care to his patients or to even barter in exchange for care. He refuses to accept the lavish congressional pension plan, returns a portion of his congressional office budget to the Treasury every year as opposed to finding ways to spend down the funds like most or all other members of congress, and has chosen to hire private security during his presidential campaign rather than accepting Secret Service protection. That doesn't sound like an advantage-taker to me.

    You missed the point. I wasn't simply repeating "Paul talking points" I was trying to illustrate how many things would change for the better and some of those changes would eliminate some of the benefits of marriage. It's also important to note that, beyond DADT, the current President has taken very little action in support of LGBT issues and is likely only stepping into the fray now to further the polarization process in preparation for November.

    I full understand that some people are aware of Paul's positions and simply disagree, but that doesn't necessarily mean they've gotten it. Many disagree based upon the opinions of those they trust and not upon their own conclusions. Some disagree for the wrong reasons or based upon a variety of inaccurate or inapplicable assumptions. Since the policies Paul advocates represent a paradigm shift on many levels full understanding tends to require a capacity for thinking outside the box. Many lack such a capacity.

    Posted by: Anonymous | May 25, 2012 5:36:08 PM


  11. @Anonymous: You misunderstand (again) my broader point about Paul's decision to marry, but that's ok. No need to keep beating that horse. I know his views, and I think he would make a disastrous president. I'd be happy to say, prove me wrong, but Paul isn't going to president, so there will not be an opportunity to evaluate his efficacy in office.

    And I disagree with your assessment of Obama's success on LGBT issues. I think he's been quite effective, and in his 2nd term, I think he will take the opportunity to include LGBT civil rights progress in his legacy. I realize ending DOMA is not a priority for you, but it is for me--it's a big priority--and given the behind the scenes work Obama's DOJ is doing, his ability to appoint SC justices, and other momentum on the issue, there is an excellent chance DOMA will end before Obama leaves office. He'll win my state by a landslide so it doesn't truly matter who I vote for, but I will be supporting him on principle.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 26, 2012 5:07:33 PM


  12. ERNIE: I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is supposed to lie. If he believes a higher being will punish him for entering into a relationship and raising a family without marrying, then the decision was made for him.

    Honestly DOMA should not be a priority for anyone. The nation is on the verge of collapse. Should that occur, who's married to who will be rather moot. It's like tuning the car stereo as you're driving toward the cliff, with or without the stereo distracting you from knowing that the cliff is ahead of you.

    Posted by: Anonymous | May 26, 2012 5:36:57 PM


  13. ITS LIKE THIS PEOPLE: HERE IN AMERICA WE HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

    GAY OR NOT.
    LIKE IT OR NOT –YOU- NEED TO RESPECT THAT PERSON’S CHOICE IN THIS COUNTRY.

    MARRIAGES ARE SADLY NO LONGER A RELIGIOUS THING. ON THE DAY THE GOV GOT INVOLVED IN MARRIAGES IT TURNED INTO NOTHING MORE THEN A FINANCIAL CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE IN LOVE. BECAUSE WE DO HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND MARRIAGE HAS BECOME A CONTRACT. IT HAS ALL THE PROTECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS. “ALL PERSONS” REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE THAT WISH TO MARRY ARE PROTECTED.
    ~
    BRANCH TO BIRTH CONTROL PILL ISSUES: OBANA’S HEALTH CARE PLAN SHOULD NOT EXIST AT ALL BUT BECAUSE IT DOES I CAN SAY THIS.

    THERE IS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THIS COUNTRY.

    IF ALL BUSINESSES ARE REQUIRED TO COVER A CERTAIN DRUG OR PROCEDURE. THAT MEANS ALL BUSINESSES. PERIOD.

    WE FREED AMERICANS WILL NOT TOLERATE ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION INFLUENCING A BUSINESS POLICY. I AM CHRISTIAN AND I AM SICK AND TIRED OF CATHOLICS TRYING TO MAKE LAWS OF THEIR OWN IN MY COUNTRY. IF MY BUSINESS PAYS SO DO CATHOLICS!!

    Posted by: LiveAndLocalRadioNJ | May 29, 2012 6:48:22 AM


  14. ALL CAPS PASSION
    @Ernie SOME PEOPLE HAVE VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS AND NEED TO WRITE IN ALL CAPS.

    @Ernie disastrous president ???
    WHAT YOU ARE NOT SEEING IS
    ~ THIS IS A BATTLE FOR FREEDOM VRS COMMUNISM ~

    OBAMA’S FATHER IS A CITIZEN OF AFRICA, A COMMUNIST NATION.
    BEYOND DOUBT, OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!

    ROMNEY’S FATHER IS A CITIZEN OF MEXICO, A COMMUNIST NATION.
    BEYOND DOUBT, ROMNEY IS A COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!

    RON PAUL’S FATHER IS A CITIZEN OF AMERICA.
    OBVIOUSLY, BOTH ARE NOT COMMUNISTS.

    COMMUNISTS ARE VIOLENT CONTROL FREAKS!
    THAT WANT TO HAVE THEIR HANDS IN EVERYTHING AND WILL TAKE WHAT IS YOURS BY FORCE. INCLUDING, YOUR LIFE.

    THIS GAY MARRIAGE THING IS A SMOKE SCREEN THE COMMUNIST PARTY US UTILIZING TO COVER UP REAL ISSUES LIKE;

    1. ON 03-16-12 OBAMA ISSUES AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WILL ALLOW THE MILITARY TO SEIZE/CONFISCATE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, ALL OF ITS ASSETS, MINERALS, WATER FOOD, CITIZENS AND FORCE CITIZENS 18-35 TO WORK IN MILITARY WORK CAMPS FOR RATION CARDS DURING A TIME OF PEACE. WHICH IS TODAY.

    2. ON 12-31-11 OBAMA SINGED A NEW CLAUSE INTO THE NDAA. WHICH, GIVES OUR NOW COMMUNIST-MILITARY PERMISSION TO IMPRISON AND MURDER CITIZENS WITHOUT A REASON, WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND WITHOUT A TRIAL.

    3. CISPA Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
    FASCIST TAKE OVER OF THE INTERNET~!~! COMPLETE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET. OUR NOW COMMUNIST MILITARY MAY SEIZE EVEN YOUR PERSONAL AND PRIVATE E-MAILS WITHOUT A REASON, WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT. CISPA REWARDS LARGE COOPERATIONS FOR ACTING LIKE ARMY SPIES. CISPA IS DEADLY!


    ==========================
    ROMNEY ALSO SUPPORTS ALL THREE OF THOSE FASCISTS COMMUNIST LAWS!=
    ==========================


    PUTTING THE PUZZLE TOGETHER SO YOU CAN SEE THE REAL DANGER OF OBAMA AND ROMNEY. [Clinton, McCain are communists also]
    ==
    SEIZE THE COUNTRY IN A TIME OF PIECE + IMPRISON OR MURDER THOSE THAT OBJECT + NO ONE GETS A TRIAL = DISASTER!!!
    ==

    ?CAN YOU SEE THE REAL TRUTH YET MY NEIGHBOR?

    PLEASE, COME OUT OF DENIAL AND REALIZE OUR FREEDOM IS AT RISK.

    RON PAUL IS HUMAN AND IMPERFECT LIKE YOU AND I ARE BUT ONE THING THAT RESONATES LOUDLY. RON PAUL AND I ARE 'NOT' COMMUNISTS.

    IF YOU WANT TOO CONTINUE TO FORCE
    YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEVES DOWN EVERYONE’S THROTES
    ~YOU~ ARE A COMMUNIST

    MEANWHILE…..
    THOSE OF US THAT ARE REAL AMERICANS WILL CONTINUE TO PURSUE
    REINSTATEMENT OF BOTH OUR BILL OF RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTION!
    IF YOU WON’T HELP US GET OUR BILL OF RIGHTS BACK BY ELECTING RON PAUL. TRY TO STOP SABOTAGING THE REST OF US BY SPREADING YOUR COMMUNIST VIEWS FURTHER.

    BETTER YET…
    PLEASE REALIZE WHAT COMMUNISM IS.
    PLEASE REALIZE WHAT FREEDOM IS.
    PLEASE REEVALUATE YOUR CHOICE AND PICK LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS BY CONSIDERING RON PAUL.

    TO SET THE RECORDS STRAIGHT.
    RON PAUL’S CHOICE OF VICE PRESIDENT IS:
    ==== JUDGE ANTHONY NAPOLITANO ====
    IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHO NAPOLITANO IS YOUTUBE AND GO LEARN ABOUT THIS OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT THAT IS HERE TO GIVE US BACK OUR BILL OF RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTION.


    IN CLOSING:
    OBAMA’S COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION IS PAYING ROMNEY’S COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION
    TO TAKE [by force of wealth & character assassination.]
    THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION
    AWAY FROM THE ONLY REAL AMERICAN RUNNING>> RON PAUL

    OBAMA CANNOT BEAT RON PAUL.

    OBAMA WILL BEAT ROMNEY.


    ==THAT’S REALITY!!! PLEASE COME OUT OF DENIAL!!!==

    [I bookmarked this chat so we can talk more. PEACE}

    Posted by: LiveAndLocalRadioNJ | May 29, 2012 7:53:14 AM


  15. To anyone reading this, not just the Ron Paul supporters but hopefully especially you, become a precinct chair and help shape your party's policies.

    Posted by: RP | May 29, 2012 11:05:44 PM


  16. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Right-Wingers Take On Target For Gay Pride Support« «