Ron Paul unelectable?

butterjam

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.

butterjam

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?

unsung

Unelectable? It doesn't matter that he's been re-elected what nine or ten times? The last election he got 80%.

Jeanwah

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...

Enkidu

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?

keeponrockin

The War on Drugs is a farce. Throw all that money into treatment and you have a safer and healthier society.

inlet13

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.

Go Beavers

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 GOOMBA

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.

Enkidu

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).

puremagic

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.

maj4e

unsung wrote:

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.

Jason P

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.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

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!"....

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

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.

markin ball

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

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?

markin ball

Jason P wrote:

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.

puremagic

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.

mikepegg44

puremagic wrote:

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.

unsung

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".