Need some help explaining why RP didnt vote on the NDAA [mod he voted no 1c missed 1 vote]

[shrugged0106]

A shit storm has begun on this, starting to hear about it from liberal friends who are very disappointed (and this may have lost them when they were on the cusp, damnit)

Why didnt he vote on it, a resounding NO!

Please give me a valid reason, or I'll lose this debate.:mad:

[matt0611]

Because it gives the federal government the authority hold US citizens indefinitely without trial?

In reality they can never have this authority because its clearly unconstitutional, but the bill states the government has this power.

[trey4sports]

hmm... im not sure why either. I just assumed he did. Might have been out campaigning.

[bluesc]

He probably wasn't in DC. He is running for President. He voted NAY on it back in May, though.

[trey4sports]

Because it gives the federal government to hold US citizens indefinitely without trial?

hes asking why he didnt vote no. He didnt vote on it at all according to op

[matt0611]

hes asking why he didnt vote no. He didnt vote on it at all according to op

Oh, I misunderstood his post, well I"m sure he's against it, he might have have not been able to attend, I'm not sure.

[wgadget]

Neither he nor Bachmann voted on it.

I'm presuming something to do with being on the campaign trail?

I WOULD like to hear his views on it, although I'd be surprised if he was FOR it.

[bluesc]

I WOULD like to hear his views on it, although I'd be surprised if he was FOR it.

Of course he is against it. He has come out strongly against it.

[Johncjackson]

Neither he nor Bachmann voted on it.

I'm presuming something to do with being on the campaign trail?

I WOULD like to hear his views on it, although I'd be surprised if he was FOR it.

He's been pretty outspoken against it, hasn't he?

[bluesc]

He's been pretty outspoken against it, hasn't he?

Yes.

[klamath]

In 2008 RP sacraficed his campaign to go vote, this year it is far more important to campaign than vote on an issue that wouldn't have changed even if he did vote. Your liberal friends are just looking for an excuse to NOT vote for RP. Ask them how many senate votes Obama missed while he was campaigning thought he did manage to go back and vote for TARP?

[MikeStanart]

I'm assuming he had inside information indicating that it would pass unanimously. If he knew it would be a close vote, he'd be there.

[bluesc]

I seriously can't believe there is any confusion over this. Of course he opposes it. I'm sure he would give his life to prevent it being passed if he could.

He was campaigning. He was not present to vote. Even if he did vote no, WHICH HE DID EARLIER THIS YEAR, it wouldn't have prevented it passing.

[vechorik]

A shit storm has begun on this, starting to hear about it from liberal friends who are very disappointed (and this may have lost them when they were on the cusp, damnit)

Why didnt he vote on it, a resounding NO!

Please give me a valid reason, or I'll lose this debate.:mad:

Ron Paul Furious About Indefinite Detention Act (NDAA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQCi3tqxPPw

You can point out that the antiPatriot act (which all presidential candidates, EXCEPT Ron Paul endorse) was the first step toward the "indefinite detention" bill.

[newbitech]

simple answer is, he wasn't there. You'd have to ask RP if you want to know his reason, otherwise, it's speculation.

If the question is what are RP's views, well this is a liberty killing bill. It should be obvious what his vote would have been.

If someone was giving me grief over him not being there, I'd just remind them that Dr. Paul is known for his strict adherence to the Constitution in his voting record, and he is taking that record on the Campaign Trail to the white house.

There really isn't much more to say, and I wouldn't substantiate any concerns over this by arguing about it.

I'd be like fine, you win. Ron Paul doesn't care about the Constitution. All tongue in cheek like.

[jbuttell]

of course he's against it. Seriously someone is concerned that Ron would support it??! If thats a concern of theirs, it doesn't seem like they know anything about him, at all. There's no reason to help explain it if they can get turned off by that. This isn't an issue that Ron is sitting on the fence - he objects to ANY legislation like this. Bachman on the other hand...

[sailingaway]

He did vote on it. He wasn't there once when it was going to be overwhelming, but he voted 'a resounding 'no' ' before that.

[wgadget]

I think there is a recent article on the Huffington Post about how Ron is the only candidate (on both sides) against NDAA.

Liberals should approve of it. I don't have time to look for it now, though...Gotta get back to work.

[shrugged0106]

I have zero doubt about his stance on it (and I suspect everyone knows too), It's just made it a bit more challenging to debate these guys now. I was hoping he had released a statement as to why he skipped the second vote is all.

[rawful]

Say he didn't vote because he's trying to become President so that he can actually VETO bills like these, unlike Obama.

[bluesc]

I have zero doubt about his stance on it (and I suspect everyone knows too), It's just made it a bit more challenging to debate these guys now. I was hoping he had released a statement as to why he skipped the second vote is all.

They are searching for reasons not to vote for him.

He can do more from the office of the president than the seat of a congressman. If he isn't president, more of these bills will continue to be passed. He and his campaign staff decided what was more important (and I agree with their decision).

[acptulsa]

They are searching for reasons not to vote for him.

This. He was one vote against many. Their darling Obama could veto it and force an override, but he's not what he says he is. Ron Paul is, but has better things to do right now than register a useless protest vote--like replace Obama so he can do some of the real good Obama promised to do but doesn't do.

And you can tell them I said so.

[hazek]

Also you can mention his son railed and voted against it in the senate which should also count for something. Maybe even more.

[AlexAmore]

I'll reiterate what an above poster said because it's so true with liberals I talk with. They want to find one tiny little thing that's wrong with him and then over-blow it to gigantic proportions. Since they can't find anything substantial and they don't want to bring up the economy because they don't know much about it and know I'll decimate them, they bring up petty things. My liberal aunt has been railing on him for years because he fumbles his words.

[shrugged0106]

good stuff guys, I'll use it! Thank you

[acptulsa]

I'll reiterate what an above poster said because it's so true with liberals I talk with. They want to find one tiny little thing that's wrong with him and then over-blow it to gigantic proportions. Since they can't find anything substantial and they don't want to bring up the economy because they don't know much about it and know I'll decimate them, they bring up petty things. My liberal aunt has been railing on him for years because he fumbles his words.

'Cause we all know sticking with Obama is so much better. After all, he lies his ass of with such an impeccably erudite fluency.

[John F Kennedy III]

Just link the May vote.