Ron Paul’s not unelectable, he’s just not GOP President material. I like that fact that Ron Paul is in the race because he makes you shake your head at the other current GOP contenders. Yet, Ron Paul is the GOP version of Ralph Nader, he does not and will not have the GOP support to get him on the ticket, but he’s a good diversion.
Rick Perry’s run should be interesting to watch because there are two major camps at work here that do not like each. The Bush machine that did not want him to run, and the Perry machine who believes God told him to run equals TX size bad blood. The major problem with Perry is that he operates on that -do you know who I am- short fuzz.
Watch out for Virginia Gov. Bob McDonald to be on the 2012 ticket unless he totally screws up his political future like Eric Cantor. He’ll need to keep his AG duck taped for awhile. A McDonald ticket will not include a woman – the GOP is heading back to its roots - the gentlemen’s club for 2012.
So fill in the blank ______________/McDonald ticket.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Unelectable? It doesn't matter that he's been re-elected what nine or ten times? The last election he got 80%.
that's to the house. unelectable in this case means the Presidency.
Besides the re-election rate in Congress is over 90% they have a built in advantage over the competition.
To everyone that's concerned with changing the current state of politics, and then flat-out states that Ron Paul is un-electable (with a that''s that attitude), why even complain about politics anymore?
We all claim we want change and hope, but when someone offers a version that doesn't meet the existing (and failing) Democrat or GOP blueprint, they are labeled a nut or fringe-outsider not worth listening to.
To everyone that's concerned with changing the current state of politics, and then flat-out states that Ron Paul is un-electable (with a that''s that attitude), why even complain about politics anymore?
as evidenced by mr obama, one president can not change anything with a hostile legislative branch. period. paul could possibly win, but then the question becomes will he be effective? and i think with the current climate in DC the answer is a loud and resounding "NO!"....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
To everyone that's concerned with changing the current state of politics, and then flat-out states that Ron Paul is un-electable (with a that''s that attitude), why even complain about politics anymore?
as evidenced by mr obama, one president can not change anything with a hostile legislative branch. period. paul could possibly win, but then the question becomes will he be effective? and i think with the current climate in DC the answer is a loud and resounding "NO!"....
I think it would be easier for a person who wants smaller government to be effective in a hostile climate. Couldn't he audit the fed through executive order? Not sure the extent to which those can be used, but it certainly seems possible to me.
Think about all those no votes on bills written by his own party, patriot act comes to mind...instead of one out of 435 votes, he could simply use the veto powers. That is a powerful tool. I think you would be surprised how many legislators would love to do the things Paul says on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately as proven by many comments on this board, those views appear to be unelectable. So if a legislator is afraid of re-election, they won't ever do anything but toe the party line. That is unless it is politically advantageous to not do so.
So people can point to invisible forces that won't let him do it, or realize that he stands a better chance of doing what he says than any other candidate. Personally I made change a few years ago to vote for the candidate that tells the truth, regardless of how I feel about his policies. I would much rather have someone in office i disagree with philosophically actually fighting to do what he said, than I would have someone who supposedly agrees with my philosophy and not doing anything to further it in actual policy. Tell me the truth and I will vote for you, even if that means I disagree with what you say... If you want nationalized healthcare, great, go get it and don't compromise just to do something....don't give me forced national health insurance...those two things are VASTLY different. Hopefully that end rant makes some sense.
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
To everyone that's concerned with changing the current state of politics, and then flat-out states that Ron Paul is un-electable (with a that''s that attitude), why even complain about politics anymore?
as evidenced by mr obama, one president can not change anything with a hostile legislative branch. period. paul could possibly win, but then the question becomes will he be effective? and i think with the current climate in DC the answer is a loud and resounding "NO!"....
I think it would be easier for a person who wants smaller government to be effective in a hostile climate. Couldn't he audit the fed through executive order? Not sure the extent to which those can be used, but it certainly seems possible to me.
Think about all those no votes on bills written by his own party, patriot act comes to mind...instead of one out of 435 votes, he could simply use the veto powers. That is a powerful tool. I think you would be surprised how many legislators would love to do the things Paul says on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately as proven by many comments on this board, those views appear to be unelectable. So if a legislator is afraid of re-election, they won't ever do anything but toe the party line. That is unless it is politically advantageous to not do so.
So people can point to invisible forces that won't let him do it, or realize that he stands a better chance of doing what he says than any other candidate. Personally I made change a few years ago to vote for the candidate that tells the truth, regardless of how I feel about his policies. I would much rather have someone in office i disagree with philosophically actually fighting to do what he said, than I would have someone who supposedly agrees with my philosophy and not doing anything to further it in actual policy. Tell me the truth and I will vote for you, even if that means I disagree with what you say... If you want nationalized healthcare, great, go get it and don't compromise just to do something....don't give me forced national health insurance...those two things are VASTLY different. Hopefully that end rant makes some sense.
Rock on, Mike. Truth before bullshit. Seems like a pretty simple choice. I feel the same way and would like to add I also am not voting for politicians that put party before country. Who's with us?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
To everyone that's concerned with changing the current state of politics, and then flat-out states that Ron Paul is un-electable (with a that''s that attitude), why even complain about politics anymore?
We all claim we want change and hope, but when someone offers a version that doesn't meet the existing (and failing) Democrat or GOP blueprint, they are labeled a nut or fringe-outsider not worth listening to.
Exactly.
If your tired of the typical politicians, stop voting for them.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
It’s not an attitude problem; we all know how the political system works. Ron Paul’s running as a GOP candidate, if he doesn’t make the ticket, do you really think people are going to take the time to do a write-in, NO!
People do listen to Ron Paul, however, the fact is, he does not have the support from the Party on which he is running. If he was to switch and run as an Independent or any other Party, he would lose the one thing that keeps him relevant – creditability – thus, ending up like Nader & Specter.
Like I said before, Ron Paul is a good diversion and many in the GOP would now like to see him make a quick exit because they do see him doing more harm in the long run if he continues to gain attention. How do you make Ron Paul and his message irrelevant, easy, in comparison to Bachman and Perry, Ron Paul comes across as teetering on the liberal side, so you label him a liberal wannabe. So as things move forward you’ll see more GOP talking points attacking and identify Ron Paul’s positions as liberal.
That’s how it’s done in politics when you’re not the chosen one.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
It’s not an attitude problem; we all know how the political system works. Ron Paul’s running as a GOP candidate, if he doesn’t make the ticket, do you really think people are going to take the time to do a write-in, NO!
That’s how it’s done in politics when you’re not the chosen one.
this speaks to what we are talking about though. It is an attitude problem. Right now it is the GOP that will probably put out the same type of candidate they always do...and then in a few years the GOP faithful will complain about how it was politics as usual around washington DC.
Next it will be the democrats doing the same thing...complaining about the system and all of this non-sense and then supporting a candidate who is part of the problem because they have a chance to win.
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
0
unsung
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
In the latest Gallop poll the unelectable Ron Paul is statistically tied in an election against Barack Obama.
Four years ago Ron Paul was at the bottom, today he is "top-tier".
To everyone that's concerned with changing the current state of politics, and then flat-out states that Ron Paul is un-electable (with a that''s that attitude), why even complain about politics anymore?
We all claim we want change and hope, but when someone offers a version that doesn't meet the existing (and failing) Democrat or GOP blueprint, they are labeled a nut or fringe-outsider not worth listening to.
Stating a fact like "Ron Paul will never be elected president of the United States" doesn't mean you have to like it. It's just a fact.
I don't think we're saying Ron Paul sucks. Just that nobody will vote for him.
I'm not saying that's good or that's bad. It just is.
Post edited by slightofjeff on
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
the last sentence is the exact reason why the GOP establishment does not want him elected.
"...I would be a good whistleblower...right now whistleblowing is considered treason...I think we need more whistleblowers."
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
0
unsung
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
He's now up to 3rd behind Perry (Bush 3rd term) and Romney (Bush 4th term). I have full confidence that they split the neocon vote and Ron Paul will stand out.
He's now up to 3rd behind Perry (Bush 3rd term) and Romney (Bush 4th term). I have full confidence that they split the neocon vote and Ron Paul will stand out.
In the latest Rasmussen Poll against Obama: Paul 38%, Obama 39%. I think he is gaining some serious traction.
So when he shows bad numbers, he's unelectable. When he poll's well, the election is too far away for the numbers to matter.
The fact of the matter is that what Dr. Paul has been saying for a long time, bring home troops, audit fed/monetary policy, etc., is starting to resonate with a lot of people.
Is a consistent policy of liberty and freedom that hard to argue with?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
It's ok to get excited but remember the election is November NEXT year. So it's too early to say anything about anyone.
We all--- posters, media, bloggers-- got off to a ridiculously early start on discussing the election of 2012. Maybe we should start discussing 2020 and be ahead of the game.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"I'm fascinated with your word 'unconventional,'" he told "Fox News Sunday. "Isn't it strange that we can apply that word to freedom and liberty and the Constitution and limited government and a balanced budget?'
it is interesting that the one person in the race with a track record of consistent action in accordance with his views is considered unconventional.
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
Discussing an election 2 years away is ok. Even 4 years but to put any effort or stock in a poll of where someone may or may not be is an exercise in futility.
Here's a great article talking about fairly recent elections.
It’s not an attitude problem; we all know how the political system works. Ron Paul’s running as a GOP candidate, if he doesn’t make the ticket, do you really think people are going to take the time to do a write-in, NO!
People do listen to Ron Paul, however, the fact is, he does not have the support from the Party on which he is running. If he was to switch and run as an Independent or any other Party, he would lose the one thing that keeps him relevant – creditability – thus, ending up like Nader & Specter.
Like I said before, Ron Paul is a good diversion and many in the GOP would now like to see him make a quick exit because they do see him doing more harm in the long run if he continues to gain attention. How do you make Ron Paul and his message irrelevant, easy, in comparison to Bachman and Perry, Ron Paul comes across as teetering on the liberal side, so you label him a liberal wannabe. So as things move forward you’ll see more GOP talking points attacking and identify Ron Paul’s positions as liberal.
That’s how it’s done in politics when you’re not the chosen one.
Here's your chance to ride that wave. If you like this guy and you think he’s electable you have to do two things,
1) You can’t let him become known as the 2nd Ralph Nader, you need to stop the comparison now, or he’ll lose his identity in the media.
2) TX is big, and the ballots are secret, but the money is not; it won’t be TX supporting him.
3) Perry plays for keeps when it is something HE WANTS or something that challenges HIS EGO and he is still the Governor of TX.
... During a commercial break in the debate candidate Rick Perry, the GOP front runner and Texas governor, continued a spirited exchange on stage. Suddenly, Perry grabbed Ron Paul's forearm, aggressively pointing, according to one report, his index finger towards the Congressman's face.
As a result on Thursday, the Internet has been blazing with Ron Paul's passionate supporters accusing Perry of assaulting their candidate while defending Paul as winning the debate. Some public polls after the debate even yielded the same result, with 70 percent or more suggesting that yes, Paul did win the debate.
It's the same type of passionate movement that Nader developed over the years, peaking in about 2000. But Paul, who comes from the right while Nader typically is viewed as coming from the left, has arguably more assets in his political war chest than Nader. After all, Paul is currently serving in the U.S. House, and he's from Texas, a great big state that wields considerably political influence.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
But Perry will be the President in 2012,
and Moochelle will have to go back to hating her country.
I know for a fact that Perry will not be president in 2012. Fact.
I was at a Ron Paul meetup for the debate, and only 1 of the 30-40 there would vote for Perry if he got the nomination. The rest of us will look elsewhere. Perry is a joke.
He's been around a long time, been admired and he inspires trust. A free spirit.
My extended family have been supporters since the 80's ...
a man we always hoped would have an opportunity to make a difference as President.
I told my boy last night this really scares me though,
he seems to be the last of a more honest generation, a dying breed.
I'm afraid the job might just do that to him ... kill him.
With that or the fact he can not overcome, fulfill promises out of a President's control,
this will kill a lot of hearts, a lot of faith and a lot of hope
at a time when these are already challenged and clearly needed.
At a time when we need these for moral.
I fear the... "if he can't do it no one can" ... will fail
and the "maybe no one can" settles in.
It could unmask a terrible truth if Ron Paul can not make a difference.
Giving up is not what we want to do but how many will fight for a country,
how many even know how, how many even care?
Comments
Rick Perry’s run should be interesting to watch because there are two major camps at work here that do not like each. The Bush machine that did not want him to run, and the Perry machine who believes God told him to run equals TX size bad blood. The major problem with Perry is that he operates on that -do you know who I am- short fuzz.
Watch out for Virginia Gov. Bob McDonald to be on the 2012 ticket unless he totally screws up his political future like Eric Cantor. He’ll need to keep his AG duck taped for awhile. A McDonald ticket will not include a woman – the GOP is heading back to its roots - the gentlemen’s club for 2012.
So fill in the blank ______________/McDonald ticket.
that's to the house. unelectable in this case means the Presidency.
Besides the re-election rate in Congress is over 90% they have a built in advantage over the competition.
We all claim we want change and hope, but when someone offers a version that doesn't meet the existing (and failing) Democrat or GOP blueprint, they are labeled a nut or fringe-outsider not worth listening to.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I think it would be easier for a person who wants smaller government to be effective in a hostile climate. Couldn't he audit the fed through executive order? Not sure the extent to which those can be used, but it certainly seems possible to me.
Think about all those no votes on bills written by his own party, patriot act comes to mind...instead of one out of 435 votes, he could simply use the veto powers. That is a powerful tool. I think you would be surprised how many legislators would love to do the things Paul says on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately as proven by many comments on this board, those views appear to be unelectable. So if a legislator is afraid of re-election, they won't ever do anything but toe the party line. That is unless it is politically advantageous to not do so.
So people can point to invisible forces that won't let him do it, or realize that he stands a better chance of doing what he says than any other candidate. Personally I made change a few years ago to vote for the candidate that tells the truth, regardless of how I feel about his policies. I would much rather have someone in office i disagree with philosophically actually fighting to do what he said, than I would have someone who supposedly agrees with my philosophy and not doing anything to further it in actual policy. Tell me the truth and I will vote for you, even if that means I disagree with what you say... If you want nationalized healthcare, great, go get it and don't compromise just to do something....don't give me forced national health insurance...those two things are VASTLY different. Hopefully that end rant makes some sense.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Rock on, Mike. Truth before bullshit. Seems like a pretty simple choice. I feel the same way and would like to add I also am not voting for politicians that put party before country. Who's with us?
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Exactly.
If your tired of the typical politicians, stop voting for them.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
People do listen to Ron Paul, however, the fact is, he does not have the support from the Party on which he is running. If he was to switch and run as an Independent or any other Party, he would lose the one thing that keeps him relevant – creditability – thus, ending up like Nader & Specter.
Like I said before, Ron Paul is a good diversion and many in the GOP would now like to see him make a quick exit because they do see him doing more harm in the long run if he continues to gain attention. How do you make Ron Paul and his message irrelevant, easy, in comparison to Bachman and Perry, Ron Paul comes across as teetering on the liberal side, so you label him a liberal wannabe. So as things move forward you’ll see more GOP talking points attacking and identify Ron Paul’s positions as liberal.
That’s how it’s done in politics when you’re not the chosen one.
this speaks to what we are talking about though. It is an attitude problem. Right now it is the GOP that will probably put out the same type of candidate they always do...and then in a few years the GOP faithful will complain about how it was politics as usual around washington DC.
Next it will be the democrats doing the same thing...complaining about the system and all of this non-sense and then supporting a candidate who is part of the problem because they have a chance to win.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Four years ago Ron Paul was at the bottom, today he is "top-tier".
Stating a fact like "Ron Paul will never be elected president of the United States" doesn't mean you have to like it. It's just a fact.
I don't think we're saying Ron Paul sucks. Just that nobody will vote for him.
I'm not saying that's good or that's bad. It just is.
for the least they could possibly do
So is my neighbor's cat. Have you checked the economy lately?
for the least they could possibly do
the last sentence is the exact reason why the GOP establishment does not want him elected.
"...I would be a good whistleblower...right now whistleblowing is considered treason...I think we need more whistleblowers."
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
In the latest Rasmussen Poll against Obama: Paul 38%, Obama 39%. I think he is gaining some serious traction.
The fact of the matter is that what Dr. Paul has been saying for a long time, bring home troops, audit fed/monetary policy, etc., is starting to resonate with a lot of people.
Is a consistent policy of liberty and freedom that hard to argue with?
We all--- posters, media, bloggers-- got off to a ridiculously early start on discussing the election of 2012. Maybe we should start discussing 2020 and be ahead of the game.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"The one telltale sign of the support I'm getting is because of my foreign policy. I get more donations from active military duty people than all the other candidates put together, which tells me a lot and tells the American people a lot," Paul said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/28/paul-bernanke-is-out-options-to-save-economy/#ixzz1WReYt8Iu
it is interesting that the one person in the race with a track record of consistent action in accordance with his views is considered unconventional.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Here's a great article talking about fairly recent elections.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... =allsearch
Here's your chance to ride that wave. If you like this guy and you think he’s electable you have to do two things,
1) You can’t let him become known as the 2nd Ralph Nader, you need to stop the comparison now, or he’ll lose his identity in the media.
2) TX is big, and the ballots are secret, but the money is not; it won’t be TX supporting him.
3) Perry plays for keeps when it is something HE WANTS or something that challenges HIS EGO and he is still the Governor of TX.
Ron Paul Has Become the Right's Ralph Nader
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/210717/ ... blican.htm
... During a commercial break in the debate candidate Rick Perry, the GOP front runner and Texas governor, continued a spirited exchange on stage. Suddenly, Perry grabbed Ron Paul's forearm, aggressively pointing, according to one report, his index finger towards the Congressman's face.
As a result on Thursday, the Internet has been blazing with Ron Paul's passionate supporters accusing Perry of assaulting their candidate while defending Paul as winning the debate. Some public polls after the debate even yielded the same result, with 70 percent or more suggesting that yes, Paul did win the debate.
It's the same type of passionate movement that Nader developed over the years, peaking in about 2000. But Paul, who comes from the right while Nader typically is viewed as coming from the left, has arguably more assets in his political war chest than Nader. After all, Paul is currently serving in the U.S. House, and he's from Texas, a great big state that wields considerably political influence.
I know for a fact that Perry will not be president in 2012. Fact.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I was at a Ron Paul meetup for the debate, and only 1 of the 30-40 there would vote for Perry if he got the nomination. The rest of us will look elsewhere. Perry is a joke.
My extended family have been supporters since the 80's ...
a man we always hoped would have an opportunity to make a difference as President.
I told my boy last night this really scares me though,
he seems to be the last of a more honest generation, a dying breed.
I'm afraid the job might just do that to him ... kill him.
With that or the fact he can not overcome, fulfill promises out of a President's control,
this will kill a lot of hearts, a lot of faith and a lot of hope
at a time when these are already challenged and clearly needed.
At a time when we need these for moral.
I fear the... "if he can't do it no one can" ... will fail
and the "maybe no one can" settles in.
It could unmask a terrible truth if Ron Paul can not make a difference.
Giving up is not what we want to do but how many will fight for a country,
how many even know how, how many even care?
and where to start?