330 votes

Ron Paul on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe'

Ron Paul made an appearance on the show this morning.


As you remember,Morning Joe's Joe Scarborough voted, as well as publicly acknowledged his support for Ron Paul recently.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

it was not a sexist comment...

- if that was the reason someone felt the need to vote down my comment.

My comment was a bit tong in cheek - hope we can afford this much of a nuance. I am a sixty two years old woman of Polish extraction and I am very proud of Mika. I may add that I really like Mika Brzezinski more than Joe himself.

I will now certainly be voted down for what I say next: that I also adore her famous father Zbigniew - as a politician, statesman and a Polish man - but mostly for what he did to crash the former Soviet Union. It was worth the prize. It was not pretty to live for decades in a Soviet occupied country with an imposed Stalinism/communism, do trust me. And there were many of those countries in the Russian Empire.

He now also agrees with Ron Paul at least on the question of Afghanistan.

Ron Paul ... forever.

"Blonde Woman" is Mika Brzezinski, daughter of Zbigniew

Pres. Carter's Nat'l Security Advisor.
C'mon folks we all should know that here.

His famous, "God is on your side!" speech to the mujahideen is on youtube.

re: Mika

Franco, See comment above please. Someone in the thread had used "Blond Woman" so I picked up on it in an unserious mode, justified by all my ethnic and demographic credentials whose weight I have carried along for almost 40 years of "my life as an American".

But thank you for the Mika's defense. On one reading of my comment it would be, and still is, very useful.

Ron Paul ... forever.


sorry, missed that earlier comment KL!

Didn't he say he voted for him?

So it probably wasn't a personal insult.

Ron Paul explains over and over and over.

Simple blinded minds cannot conceive what he is all about. Until they are shackled. It riles them to believe in free thinking people. Those that have listened with ears to hear will be fine like fine gold.They will always shine.

Money talks and dogs bark

Romney Intends on Stopping Paul from being Nominated!!!

Great interview by Ron.....he is our Hero and Champion of Liberty.

All Tampa Bound Liberty Supporters need to zero on the time and place that the GOP Credentials Committee will meet to determine which slates will be seated from Nevada, Louisiana, Oklahoma and other contested States.

Ron confirmed in the interview that the Campaign does NOT HAVE THE FIVE STATES with a plurality of delegates to Nominate our Champion from the Floor of the Convention.

I can surmise that we only have three at the moment, Maine, Minnesota, and Iowa.

The Ron Paul majority delegations from Nevada, Louisiana and Oklahoma must be seated to allow the nomination. The Romney GOP establishment will do everything/anything not to seat the Ron Paul Slates.


As soon as someone here knows the time and place of that meeting in August please let us know so plans can be made to make our presence KNOWN. No more cheating or lies!!!!

I agree with this fully.

I think Louisiana is the strongest case.

  • The rump convention was a MAJORITY of state delegates, while the "official" convention was the MINORITY. Based on the current mantra of majoritarianism, their own logic legitimizes us there
  • The Pro-Santorum argument of deference to the Louisiana Primary IGNORES what in Texas (for the Democratic side) is called the "Texas Two-Step", which was the premise of LA Elections: That both the primary AND CAUCII would be reflected in delegate apportionment. It was POLICY, not accident, that there were two bites at the Cajun Apple!
  • There is video of voter intimidation / assault of the duly elected Chair. Does Romney really want to be associated with defending Shreveport Rent-a-Thug tactics as they take down grandpa volunteering his time for the party?? (I say that not mockingly - that's the image: There's this white haired, respectful guy on a weekend thrust to the ground. Mr. Corporate should know those optics don't work well for his marketing)

Nevada, with whole precincts tossed, is the 2nd best. I thought we had more - what about Alaska & Massachusetts? Did Massachusetts' voter-purge change too many delegate elections?

If you're bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot, you could still nominate someone else beyond your binding. That's not a violation of the rules (even if it sounds dubious, it's obediently dubious *wink*).

Nevada and Massachusetts...

Are not states we have plurality in because the delegates are "bound" to the first round of voting based on the results of the caucus/primaries in those states. In Nevada we failed to vote to unbind the delegates which left them to Romney for plurality purposes. We have Nevada and Massachusetts if we make it to the second round of voting (or based on the results of the lawsuit). Louisiana there were multiple slates submitted so it depends on which one get's recognized as official. I heard Maine is being contested by the Romney campaign (not sure if true) because the vote happened behind closed doors vs. the floor which the rules of the convention supposibly.

We have officially Maine, Minnesota, and Iowa.. Need 2 more (I prefer a 3rd for safety in case Maine somehow gets pulled). My understanding is Idaho actually has all their delegates tied to the results of the caucus on March 6 for the purpose of plurality (32) and Oregon has theirs tied to the results of their primary on May 15 for plurality purposes. That looks like based on that Romney has 18 and Paul 3 for the count when it comes to the plurality of those states.

Unless I am wrong (I hope).

Where else can we get 2 or 3 more after these 2?

What about South Dakota? Isn't nominating separating from voting

Not primary - the convention. Are their delegates bound for plurality purposes?

I think since nominations are separate, you can be bound to vote for Romney and yet nominate Paul. It may sound absurd, but I see no procedural reason why a state couldn't put itself forward as wishing to nominate Dr. Ron Paul, yet do its rule-bound duty to vote against its own nomination on the first ballot.

Then they can turn around and vote for Ron Paul for Veep (a taxpayer funded speaking tour - which would be the best use of U.S. tax dollars in a long time!)


This is one of many excellent interviews Ron Paul has done. I nearly never cross-talk but I think I know who the "bummed out" people are.

I agree with him on Social Security, too.

If he's paid in, just because Congress misappropriated what he paid doesn't mean he should feel guilty trying to get what was confiscated from him back, nor does it mean he should feel guilty for trying to end this legalized theft.

What they didn't mention is that he does NOT accept a federal pension for his many years in Congress.

Exactly right

Dr. Paul was right to point out the difference between taking food stamps and clawing some of the money he paid in to Social Security back. I think the entire exchange went over the heads of the hosts. They were too giddy thinking that they had finally caught Ron Paul in a contradiction.

They're like Oops-Perry!

Rick Perry tried to touch the 3rd rail of U.S. Politics (Social Security), but it was touching the 3rd rail of GOP Politics - criticizing Dr. Paul - that went nowhere. He thought he was real clever on calling Dr. Paul a hypocrite for voting for district funds in committee and then against the bill.

Makes perfect sense:
I oppose x, but if x must pass, my 2nd preference is for x to include y, so I will vote for y in committee, but vote against x. If x fails, I win, if x passes, at least I get y.

Not complicated for those of us that can memorize 5 departments!


Though I'm fully aware that this movement is much bigger than Ron Paul, and even though I know he is not perfect and may still make some mistakes, I cannot help but love this man.

wow that bums me out

that bums me out to hear that paul is on SS, i am dirt poor in a poor family and i have the ability to take medicare and other goverment aid but i always say that it shouldnt be on others burden to pay for me so i have always denied it, i could get food stamps but i dont instead i will miss meals. If i am about to die why do others need to pay for it? isnt it my fault that i am poor?

He said he pays in more than he gets...

...so how exactly is he taking from anyone? That math doesn't quite add up does it?

For example, the average life expectancy of blacks is lower than whites, yet the Democrats claimed one of George W. Bush's few good proposals - Private Social Security Accounts* - was not taking care of those in need. Well, your children can inherit private accounts. If blacks die sooner (on average), then not allowing inheritance is fleecing their children so white 90 year olds in Boca Raton can have a little more. As usual, a Democratic talking point bites the dust.

* If there must be forced savings, we should get the interest!

Member 7 weeks and you don't understand

that FICA was paid by Dr Paul his whole life and he's still paying into it.
Why should he not get his money back, it was taken by force?

forced to pay

everyone who pays taxes also have been paying ss. most people do not feel like they have a choice if they do not want their house and person being raided/attacked/confiscated at a barrel of a gun. i also don't think that you don't deserve a hand up now and then when times are rough. that is one of the main points about this. it isn't up to gov't to monitor and force us to pay for others at the barrel of a gun, it is up to each of us to be responsible for ourselves. and if there comes a time when you do not have the capacities to do that due to health or other reasons, then it is also up to our social conscience to help others in need. i would not voluntarily ever choose gov't who mismanages funds. would anyone in their right mind continue to pay for/hire a business who loses their money or mismanages their money? i would rather choose an organization who's hearts and minds are in the right place and who can make good use of what they get and/or just chip in and help on my own. it is a careful line between caregiving and caretaking. caretaking is helping others who can help themselves which becomes a codependent relationship and will not be positive in the long run. tho helping those who canNOT help themselves is careGIVING which can be positive. it up to each individual.

free markets/freedom would allow all of us to be able to give more freely of our time and resources and would also make it easier to take care of ourselves as we have more to put away for a rainy day.

Don't be too bummed out

There are plenty of options. You always have the choice of opting out of state programs and doing so won't make you a hero. It also won't sustain you to starve your kids. Sometimes we have to get creative to earn money to pay for things. There is this thing called savings and some of us lost it all, some of us got out while the getting was good etc.

There are food pantries 100% donations. Missions where if you volunteer for the homeless you can basically grocery shop in their warehouses. IF you're willing to give your time and effort, good things will come.

Pity parties don't work even though I do feel for you. BTW, if you ever worked, you also paid into all of these social programs so what is the issue here really?

I have worked i have had

I have worked i have had multiple jobs but i wont accept the governments help.

He accepts it because he has

He accepts it because he has paid into it his entire working life. Something all of us can do when we become eligible. Why would that bum you out? If the government forces it out of our pockets than why wouldn't we want it back? That's our money!

look at my puppy killing

look at my puppy killing analogy

It's a trust fund set up by

It's a trust fund set up by the government. Not killing puppies. Don't be dumb.

Same idea, doing something

Same idea, doing something that you don't want to

Oh poor you...

If you've been paying into social security, you should take it when you're eligible and quit griping. Unbelievable. What a martyr.

Ron Paul never took Medicare as a doctor and he never took food stamps. The issue was social security. There is a difference. You're missing the principle.

John F

Plus, he gave back Congressional Pension

Most people with good jobs get a corporate pension. The U.S. Congress was his employer, but he thinks legislative service should be just that: Public SERVICE. So, he returned it.

The principle is that you get

The principle is that you get paid by the government to and get paid back by the government its the exact same principle

why does he take the money,

why does he take the money, cuz texas is only full of stears and queers, he must be a queer they always take money! RON PAUL HOMO SUPPORTER!!!!

Bigotry has no place here!

Ron Paul has Christian love in his heart, not your backwoods bigotry!