Home› A Moving Train

Ron Paul unelectable?

butterjambutterjam Posts: 215
edited September 2011 in A Moving Train
http://www.kcautv.com/story/15255706/ro ... straw-poll

He has the most energetic campaign and most loyal followers. Every time there is a discussion about him, it always reverts to something "crazy" he says or how people can't agree with everything he believes. Is there really a candidate that you can completely agree with?

I think last night his anti-war message resonated well. Rick Santorum re-affirmed that he is a war monger. Pawlenty will say anything, Bachman is nuts, Newt/Perry are the typical GOP candidates, Romney is Bush 2.0, they all suck.

I imagine that most liberals would choose Ron Paul over any of those candidates. Plus, Fox News hates him. Wonder why they buried this?

http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11

I would much rather have another 4 years of Obama than any of the other GOP candidate. But, I will vote for neither because they represent the status quo of the past century.

I know its a far stretch, but a Paul/Nader ticket would be my perfect ticket. I think between them, they could get a health care plan that doesn't line the pockets of insurance companies.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • arthurdentarthurdent Posts: 969
    311jj wrote:
    He has the most energetic campaign and most loyal followers.

    I think that is RP's biggest problem right there. His base supporters are often rabid and incoherent. The ones I've spoken to seem to have no idea what the impact of Paul's policies would actually be.

    He reminds me of the band Tool. Maybe some good ideas/songs, but the fan base just ruins the experience.
    Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
    Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
  • butterjambutterjam Posts: 215
    arthurdent wrote:
    311jj wrote:
    He has the most energetic campaign and most loyal followers.

    I think that is RP's biggest problem right there. His base supporters are often rabid and incoherent. The ones I've spoken to seem to have no idea what the impact of Paul's policies would actually be.

    He reminds me of the band Tool. Maybe some good ideas/songs, but the fan base just ruins the experience.

    What are the policies that you agree/disagree with?
  • ComeToTXComeToTX Austin Posts: 7,876
    the scariest thing about him for me is his kid!
    This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    People get scared of him because he talks about the Fed all the time. They immediately think someone is crazy when they talk about the negatives associated with the Fed.... but, that's because they, themselves, don't understand the Fed.

    I'd bet 99% of those criticizing Ron Paul would fail a moderately easy multiple choice exam on Monetary Policy.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,157
    He is the best candidate I saw in the debate last night. And the only one who was clearly speaking from his heart and not rehearsed notes.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • maj4emaj4e Posts: 605
    Ron Paul seems to be an internet sensation. Everyone on forums etc loves him. But he is too polarizing to be elected. I think it would be a Jimmy Carter, last 2 years of Bill Clinton etc. Where Congress would simply ignore him and he would just sit there as President. Personally I think he's crazy and wouldn't vote for him but that's just my own opinion.
  • PontikasPontikas Posts: 210
    Ron Paul is my favourite politician ever.
    http://youtu.be/cwPgXkNOun4
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    unless a mojority group of like minded people got elected in the congress along with ron paul taking the white house, ron paul would accomplish absolutely nothing. he would be hamstrung by congress, just as obama has been since day one...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,545
    I've been reading the postings on here regarding Ron Paul and such and have tried to read up on him and his policies. I was surprised at his answers to a couple of questions when he was interviewed on NPR. Namely his response to the question about how soon he would get the troops out of Afghanistan. His response, "as soon as the ships can get there." I was very disappointed as he chose to resort to sound bite politics instead of giving a thoughtful, intelligent response. Never mind that Afghanistan is a landlocked country. Particularly given the opportunity to appeal to a more liberal audience. He did it again when he was asked what he would do to shrink government. His reply, "eliminate the Commerce Department. Don't need it." Again, no intelligent articulation of how he would go about downsizing the government. Just shut down a department with no thought to what happens, how those functions are carried out and the consequesences of them no longer existing, never mind the 1,000s of newly unemployed. He had a chance to bring me over to his side and he greatly disappointed me with typical sound bites that sound good on the stump but require actual thinking and plans to implement.

    We all know what the problems are. The devil is in the details.

    He's lost my vote and he's unelectable. The Ralph Nader of the republican party (and I mean no disrespect by saying that).

    Peace.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    311jj wrote:
    http://www.kcautv.com/story/15255706/ron-paul-wins-online-straw-poll

    He has the most energetic campaign and most loyal followers. Every time there is a discussion about him, it always reverts to something "crazy" he says or how people can't agree with everything he believes. Is there really a candidate that you can completely agree with?

    I think last night his anti-war message resonated well. Rick Santorum re-affirmed that he is a war monger. Pawlenty will say anything, Bachman is nuts, Newt/Perry are the typical GOP candidates, Romney is Bush 2.0, they all suck.

    I imagine that most liberals would choose Ron Paul over any of those candidates. Plus, Fox News hates him. Wonder why they buried this?

    http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11

    I would much rather have another 4 years of Obama than any of the other GOP candidate. But, I will vote for neither because they represent the status quo of the past century.

    I know its a far stretch, but a Paul/Nader ticket would be my perfect ticket. I think between them, they could get a health care plan that doesn't line the pockets of insurance companies.

    loved that map. I wish it was that simple.
    He has by FAR the best foreign policy stance out of all the candidates Obama included. I don't doubt for a second his conviction to accomplish everything he sets out to in regards to foreign policy. Where he starts to bog down the most is when he discusses the economy and the fed. Instead of being a good GOP politician who talks about religion, abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem cells. He is more concerned with economic problems. He doesn't dumb it down. Republicans at large don't want to deal with the problems with actual solutions like the war on drugs, and most people have no interest in trying to understand why a change in course might be the best thing for the long term. So they call him crazy and try to minimize him. People are entitled to support any candidate they want, they can even call their opponents crazy, but no one should be surprised when things never change.
    Ultimately I think it comes down to this...Ron Paul's ideas are not unelectable...it appears that the GOP and the Dems have made it so Ron Paul is unelectable.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    unless a mojority group of like minded people got elected in the congress along with ron paul taking the white house, ron paul would accomplish absolutely nothing. he would be hamstrung by congress, just as obama has been since day one...
    He could change foreign policy with regards to the military. Lots of things can be done simply through executive orders.
    Gridlock is better than the government doing something for the sake of it. Veto baby. Veto it all. If they override him that is their problem. Also, he could end the god damn wars, this silly offensive war on terror, get the fed and the banks to start being transparent....there is a lot he could do as president. Legislation isn't the only way to make a difference. You may disagree with some stances, but wouldn't you want to see the leaders of both "parties" being dragged out into the main steam media and taken to task? I would love it and I firmly believe he would do it.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • PontikasPontikas Posts: 210
    I agree that because he doesn't dumb down his message, people don't understand him.
    http://youtu.be/cwPgXkNOun4
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    ron paul would be shot before he ever became president ... and i say that because he would pretty much have to upset the order of power in washington now from the coporations and lobbyists to him ... and that's just not going to happen ...

    but like i keep asking everyone in the RP threads ... how is RP going to avoid the same pitfalls obama has had?

    i'm not interested in arguing what he says he's gonna do ... because we all know actually doing it is gonna be nearly impossible ...
  • UpSideDownUpSideDown Posts: 1,966
    No clue how he can avoid the same pitfalls, but he already has my vote above anybody else (and I'm typically a liberal)
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,195
    inlet13 wrote:
    People get scared of him because he talks about the Fed all the time. They immediately think someone is crazy when they talk about the negatives associated with the Fed.... but, that's because they, themselves, don't understand the Fed.

    I'd bet 99% of those criticizing Ron Paul would fail a moderately easy multiple choice exam on Monetary Policy.

    I disagree that people get scared of him because of his talk about the Fed. It's because his policies exist in a theoretical fantasy land, and when you start to picture those policies in reality, it starts to look iffy at best.
  • CROJAM95CROJAM95 Posts: 9,981
    Loved him in Bruno!!!

    That clip should win the hearts and minds of conservative America.

    He's not for Gays settling and such

    I actually like the man, he takes a stand. It's funny how that's labeled crazy. Both parties voters claim they want real change in Washington, yet are scared off by a Ron Paul?? We need a pretty large overhaul, not this
  • slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    Dude, he thinks heroin should be legalized. He actually said this out loud. Rather he's right or wrong, that makes him far outside the mainstream of American politics and therefore unelectable.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • CROJAM95CROJAM95 Posts: 9,981
    slightofjeff wrote:
    Dude, he thinks heroin should be legalized. He actually said this out loud. Rather he's right or wrong, that makes him far outside the mainstream of American politics and therefore unelectable.

    I agree with him(never done heroin)

    It's not the heroin being legal part to focus on, it's the fact he understands the "war on drugs" is a farce
  • slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    CROJAM95 wrote:
    slightofjeff wrote:
    Dude, he thinks heroin should be legalized. He actually said this out loud. Rather he's right or wrong, that makes him far outside the mainstream of American politics and therefore unelectable.

    I agree with him(never done heroin)

    It's not the heroin being legal part to focus on, it's the fact he understands the "war on drugs" is a farce

    All of that is well and good. Still, the second you say, "I think heroin should be legal," 95 percent of the voting public takes you for a crackpot. Hence, unelectable.

    You can be right and still be unelectable.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • ParachuteParachute Posts: 409
    unelectable.

    Now his son on the other hand...... electable.

    But Perry will be the President in 2012, and Moochelle will have to go back to hating her country.
  • butterjambutterjam Posts: 215
    Halifax2TheMax wrote:
    I've been reading the postings on here regarding Ron Paul and such and have tried to read up on him and his policies. I was surprised at his answers to a couple of questions when he was interviewed on NPR. Namely his response to the question about how soon he would get the troops out of Afghanistan. His response, "as soon as the ships can get there." I was very disappointed as he chose to resort to sound bite politics instead of giving a thoughtful, intelligent response. Never mind that Afghanistan is a landlocked country. Particularly given the opportunity to appeal to a more liberal audience. He did it again when he was asked what he would do to shrink government. His reply, "eliminate the Commerce Department. Don't need it." Again, no intelligent articulation of how he would go about downsizing the government. Just shut down a department with no thought to what happens, how those functions are carried out and the consequesences of them no longer existing, never mind the 1,000s of newly unemployed. He had a chance to bring me over to his side and he greatly disappointed me with typical sound bites that sound good on the stump but require actual thinking and plans to implement.

    We all know what the problems are. The devil is in the details.

    He's lost my vote and he's unelectable. The Ralph Nader of the republican party (and I mean no disrespect by saying that).

    Peace.


    I agree that he needs to articulate more in how he plans to bring home the military and cut wasteful gov't. But its his ideas and message of liberty that I get behind. It is a fairly consistent message. I don't see anyone else coming close to those ideals on the right. If he doesn't get the GOP nomination, Obama will win. Which is better than 4 more years of Bush 2.0, mostly because I believe that if Romney, Bachman, Perry would be president, we will be at war with Iran. Plus, after Obama's next term, which I think will be another failure, at the very least we could get some different options on the left, like a Kucinich/Nader type person.

    I actually do agree that Paul is the Nader of the Republican party. They are really quite similar in their distaste for corporatism/militarism. They have different ideas on health care, but I think either one(single payer vs. free market) is way better than our current system.
  • butterjambutterjam Posts: 215
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    unless a mojority group of like minded people got elected in the congress along with ron paul taking the white house, ron paul would accomplish absolutely nothing. he would be hamstrung by congress, just as obama has been since day one...

    I disagree. Obama hasn't got anything done because he tries to compromise too much and is basically a pansy. Ron Paul could gather plenty of people on both sides to come together on certain issues, such as ending the wars. Even some republicans are wanting to end these wars. I'm curious as to where all the "bring the troops home" democrats went after they took congress in 2006? Why are they still over there involved in 3 wars?
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Unelectable? It doesn't matter that he's been re-elected what nine or ten times? The last election he got 80%.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    The system will never allow Ron Paul to be elected. I wish people would see how everything is controlled, and we truly don't don't decide who wins here, nor who the final candidates are...
  • EnkiduEnkidu So Cal Posts: 2,996
    I like Ron Paul. He seems like he's not afraid to say exactly what he thinks. My big problem with him is the anti-abortion thing. Which seems weird because he's so much about less government intrusion. I know he's Christian and I understand people not believing in abortion for religious reasons (I'm not trying to hijack this thread, btw), but it feels like he's contradicting himself - get the government out of our lives. Okay. So then the gov't should stay out of the abortion debate. Right?
  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    The War on Drugs is a farce. Throw all that money into treatment and you have a safer and healthier society.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Enkidu wrote:
    I like Ron Paul. He seems like he's not afraid to say exactly what he thinks. My big problem with him is the anti-abortion thing. Which seems weird because he's so much about less government intrusion. I know he's Christian and I understand people not believing in abortion for religious reasons (I'm not trying to hijack this thread, btw), but it feels like he's contradicting himself - get the government out of our lives. Okay. So then the gov't should stay out of the abortion debate. Right?



    Wrong. He's actually more consistent on the issue than the opposition. He believes that every human life deserves rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Killing any human that is alive obliterates those rights.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,195
    inlet13 wrote:
    Enkidu wrote:
    I like Ron Paul. He seems like he's not afraid to say exactly what he thinks. My big problem with him is the anti-abortion thing. Which seems weird because he's so much about less government intrusion. I know he's Christian and I understand people not believing in abortion for religious reasons (I'm not trying to hijack this thread, btw), but it feels like he's contradicting himself - get the government out of our lives. Okay. So then the gov't should stay out of the abortion debate. Right?



    Wrong. He's actually more consistent on the issue than the opposition. He believes that every human life deserves rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Killing any human that is alive obliterates those rights.

    I haven't read what he said on abortion. Does he say it should be illegal, or does he just defer to the states?
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Enkidu wrote:
    I like Ron Paul. He seems like he's not afraid to say exactly what he thinks. My big problem with him is the anti-abortion thing. Which seems weird because he's so much about less government intrusion. I know he's Christian and I understand people not believing in abortion for religious reasons (I'm not trying to hijack this thread, btw), but it feels like he's contradicting himself - get the government out of our lives. Okay. So then the gov't should stay out of the abortion debate. Right?

    It all depends on where life actually begins, because the primary focus of government is to protect life. He believes the fetus to be a human life. The state itself does not have a consistent view on whether a fetus is a life or not. As an OB-GYN Doctor, he is responsible for the lives of both the woman and the fetus when treating a patient, injuring only the fetus would cost him his license / a lawsuit / etc, but performing an abortion the same fetus would not. If a pregnant woman were to get into a car accident and die, the charge would likely be double vehicular manslaughter, even if the woman was on her way to the clinic. Under the argument that the child is 100% part of the woman's body, the same child should then be legally allowed to be aborted hours before its birth. Most people realize how insane of a concept that is and would completely support legislation banning such a practice, but following that same logic, partial birth abortions should be as permissible as use of the morning after pill. Most doctors would never even consider peforming such a procedure whether it was legal or not. I learned from the thread about Dr. Tiller on this board that he was only a handful of people in this country willing to do this if it was necessary. So in many ways, the law does recognize a fetus as a life, and in others it doesn't. What you won't see him advocate is a federal abortion police / agency to deal with abortion to make it illegal, he feels it should be left up to the states to decide how to deal with it. In all likelihood, there probably wouldn't be too much discussion on this issue with him as president. I do not think he would make it a top priority, as he realizes it's a very divisive issue, and that the best way to avoid abortions is for people to simply not want to have them, or not feel the need to have them. The best way to make that happen is to promote a society that will do its best to take care of itself and each other. His beliefs are that a free society would yield the best results in that area.

    If you like Ron Paul, but don't like his stance on abortion, check out Gary Johnson. They stand identical on most issues except for that one.
  • EnkiduEnkidu So Cal Posts: 2,996
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    Enkidu wrote:
    I like Ron Paul. He seems like he's not afraid to say exactly what he thinks. My big problem with him is the anti-abortion thing. Which seems weird because he's so much about less government intrusion. I know he's Christian and I understand people not believing in abortion for religious reasons (I'm not trying to hijack this thread, btw), but it feels like he's contradicting himself - get the government out of our lives. Okay. So then the gov't should stay out of the abortion debate. Right?

    It all depends on where life actually begins, because the primary focus of government is to protect life. He believes the fetus to be a human life. The state itself does not have a consistent view on whether a fetus is a life or not. As an OB-GYN Doctor, he is responsible for the lives of both the woman and the fetus when treating a patient, injuring only the fetus would cost him his license / a lawsuit / etc, but performing an abortion the same fetus would not. If a pregnant woman were to get into a car accident and die, the charge would likely be double vehicular manslaughter, even if the woman was on her way to the clinic. Under the argument that the child is 100% part of the woman's body, the same child should then be legally allowed to be aborted hours before its birth. Most people realize how insane of a concept that is and would completely support legislation banning such a practice, but following that same logic, partial birth abortions should be as permissible as use of the morning after pill. Most doctors would never even consider peforming such a procedure whether it was legal or not. I learned from the thread about Dr. Tiller on this board that he was only a handful of people in this country willing to do this if it was necessary. So in many ways, the law does recognize a fetus as a life, and in others it doesn't. What you won't see him advocate is a federal abortion police / agency to deal with abortion to make it illegal, he feels it should be left up to the states to decide how to deal with it. In all likelihood, there probably wouldn't be too much discussion on this issue with him as president. I do not think he would make it a top priority, as he realizes it's a very divisive issue, and that the best way to avoid abortions is for people to simply not want to have them, or not feel the need to have them. The best way to make that happen is to promote a society that will do its best to take care of itself and each other. His beliefs are that a free society would yield the best results in that area.

    If you like Ron Paul, but don't like his stance on abortion, check out Gary Johnson. They stand identical on most issues except for that one.

    Thanks, I will check out Gary Johnson. And I thought I read somewhere that Ron Paul said he would fight to get rid of Roe V. Wade.

    I still admire him though, like I said, I think he's honest. Which most of these knuckleheads (both Dems. and Repubs. are not).
Sign In or Register to comment.