Why can't Ron Paul get elected President?
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
this is always said by people, whether its nader, or kucinich or now ron paul. yes i like his ideas, they say, but he cant get elected.
how many times do you think that was said about obama in 2008? i personally thought mccain was going to win, because our country is notoriously racist.
you watch those debates and ron paul is being cheered on enthusiastically, cheered for saying things like "bring the troops home", "end the drug war", things you'd never expect a republican to say, things a democrat wouldnt say for that matter, and things you wouldnt expect people in the bible belt to respond to.
As a Nader supporter in 2004 and 2008, its surreal to me, to see, someone like paul, a republican, say these things, and come in 3rd or 4th or 2nd in some of these primaries. When was the last time a politican, any politican ran on an antiwar platform, and nearly won a caucus? Im a staunch Nader and Kucinich guy, but what did those guys poll at during the caucus's? How many votes did nader get in 2004 and 2008? I can feasibly see Ron paul getting millions of votes potentially.
yet when paul is ignored in the debate, not given a chance to speak, people boo the moderator and demand paul get his chance to speak
Why is Ron Paul considered unelectable? Out of anyone else running, obama included, Paul seems to have the most passionate, enthusiastic supporters, he seems to be attracting people to his campaign that normally wouldnt vote republican, nor be interested in typical politics as usual.
how many times do you think that was said about obama in 2008? i personally thought mccain was going to win, because our country is notoriously racist.
you watch those debates and ron paul is being cheered on enthusiastically, cheered for saying things like "bring the troops home", "end the drug war", things you'd never expect a republican to say, things a democrat wouldnt say for that matter, and things you wouldnt expect people in the bible belt to respond to.
As a Nader supporter in 2004 and 2008, its surreal to me, to see, someone like paul, a republican, say these things, and come in 3rd or 4th or 2nd in some of these primaries. When was the last time a politican, any politican ran on an antiwar platform, and nearly won a caucus? Im a staunch Nader and Kucinich guy, but what did those guys poll at during the caucus's? How many votes did nader get in 2004 and 2008? I can feasibly see Ron paul getting millions of votes potentially.
yet when paul is ignored in the debate, not given a chance to speak, people boo the moderator and demand paul get his chance to speak
Why is Ron Paul considered unelectable? Out of anyone else running, obama included, Paul seems to have the most passionate, enthusiastic supporters, he seems to be attracting people to his campaign that normally wouldnt vote republican, nor be interested in typical politics as usual.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
He doesn't have the money that the others do.
I love him and I'm a Libertarian but he won't win in my opinion.
Time will tell I guess.
The argument that voting for Ron Paul is equivalent to voting for Obama is one of the stupid and most dishonest that i have heard. Ron Paul is the only one out there honest about his political platform and philosophy and has the integrity to stand by it.
Some of Pauls ideals are dramatic and much of what would be required for Congress to pass would be a hard battle BUT he will try for it, he said he would and unlike the rest of the GOP contenders, that means he's going to do it if given the opportunity. How much will he accomplish? Not as much as he wants, there will need to be compromise. Now does it mean that it will be more of the same? No it doesn't. I think that he has the ability to directly affect a lot and he would take those steps. I don't think that with Paul, we'd see the continuation of our foreign wars. As POTUS he has the power to bring the military home and he will. Who else will? He may want to end the Fed and go the gold standard, but that won't happen. What it could do is create actual talk and debate about it and get people perhaps interested in what the Fed is doing. It could result in new regulations for the Fed and better oversight, which would be a good thing.
In the end, Paul does take an extreme stance on a lot of what he wants to do. But this is a democratic Republic, not some monarchy. So even if Paul wants to take these huge steps, he must be tempered with compromise. It won't be more of the same, but it will be a step in the right direction. A direction we haven't taken for quite some time.
i think alot of people, voted for obama, naively because they thought he was going to be radically different from bush. that he was going to end the war, that he wasnt a politican as we know them to be, that he was going to be dealing with race in his presidency in a way no other had, that he was going to look out for the little guy. The campaign slogan he ran on was Change. Change from Bush to means very specific things. No war. No torture. No illegal detentions. No support for the corporations. Caring about the environment. Obviously that didnt pan out. But as i said, the idea that Obama could be president was something i never thought i'd see, and i think most people if they were honest, would admit they felt the same way.
Ultimately, kucinich, nader and paul arent electable. as long as people refuse to vote for them. Thats always been my philosophy. I got in heated debates with people, with my own dad, for voting for Nader especially in 2004. The thinking was, Kerry isnt perfect, kerry isnt that great, but we dont want bush to win again, so dont vote nader, vote to get bush out.
Ive never understood that logic. Paul isnt electable, as long as people say he isnt. Black men arent electable, as long as people say they arent. Women arent electable, as long as people say they arent. and on and on.
Ive heard it said, we are a republican country. We will be as long as thats accepted.
Nicely said.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
PJ: 2011-09-03 2011-09-04
and this distinguishes him from every other president in american history in what way?
he supports the paul ryan budget and he wants to scale back medicare, medicaid, social security, and he is a pro lifer. on paper his libertarian domestic policies look very inviting, but if implemented, his way of viewing things would be the absolute worst thing that ever happened to this country....if we got rid or severly scaled back the federal government, some states would still be upity and complain of states rights being infringed upon and as rick perry repeatedly said of texas, potentially secede. and there would be no central power trying to prevent it, because if the federal government is scaled back there would be no authority to prevent it. and then we would be looking at a civil war again to try to keep this thing together... as much as the south hates obama's african american guts they still did not have the balls to secede because of there being a strong centralized federal government and military in place that would not allow it..... to be completely honest, i could do without any state south of the mason-dixon line, and they can leave and deal with things on their own if they want to...such as take care of their own disaster relief when a tornado or hurricane hits, take care of their own immigration problem, take care of their own drug gang problem, and anything that they complain about this government about, yet hold out their hand for federal dollars at every opportunity, but that is just my opinion...
at this point, all paul will ever be is a footnote in history who lost to an establishment candidate. just like ross perot.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You just answered your own question.
Ok...
Let's break this down. I know you guys hate it when I play the gay card but it fits here.
There is an itsy bitsy teeny weeny gay republican group called GOProud that presents itself as a gay republican group. Mostly of straight people who don't support any kind of protection for lgbt people and love Anne Coulter.
They all claim that they are the real republicans, they believe in the ideals of Lincoln. Blah blah blah.
But they're a tiny, insignificant group of people the vast majority of republicans would take a dump on and post it to YouTube. Like Ron Paul supporters. There are a number of people who call themselves republicans who support his policies. But not enough to ever make a real difference.
It's really worth the read; I read this years ago, and I still refer to it because it stuck in my head so well.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne ... ide_th.htm
The Ghosts inside the Machine by Anthony Wade
That's one of the few problems I have with him, personally.
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
You are flat out wrong about the money. The only R candidate that raised more in the 4th quarter is Romney.
People need to understand that in order to win the nomination you need to pick up delegates, the RP campaign is focused on that alone. Santorum and Gingrich are not even on enough ballots to gain enough to win, they aren't eligible for over 500! It will be a Paul vs Romney in the end as Gingrich and Santorum do not have the long term campaign structure or cash to compete.
I'm not even going to touch the isolationist comment, it shows how much you don't really "love" him.
Wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 47775.html
Goldman Sach's want either Obama or Romney. It doesn't matter which.
That type of power is what pushes the media and sadly our 1 party (2 party) system.
At the end of the day he is too far to the Right to get elected. Just as Nadar and K are too far to the Left. in order to win the majority of votes in the country you need to be as in the middle as possible. Which basically explains why flip floppers and maybes have been elected to the post for years.
I voted for Nadar in 00 and 04 and Kucinich in 08. Fully knowing that I am throwing my vote away so to speak. I just wanted to vote for the person I truly wanted elected to be president, and since MA isn't a swing state, I felt as though i could get away with this. I imagine that Paul supporters feel and/or do the same thing.
Side note, with Brown being elected as our senator :roll: I have to vote Obama this year....
If anyone didn't know, PoD is gay (sarcasm)...
Anyway, here's another thread that has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights or homosexuals in general, where it's mentioned... by PoD.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <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" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
For me it comes down to what issue is my number one concern. Foreign Policy is mine. Ron Paul stands alone when it comes to the issue of US engagement in foreign wars. If you are a progressive whose main issue is ending the imperial wars, then you now finally have a candidate you can get behind and support. Paul is the only logical choice for anti war voters.
well, except I explained the parallel.
There are a bunch of tiny factions in the republican party that have values that have nothing at all to do with the party platform. Like the "pro-life" republicans, the "pro marrige equality" republicans and even the "anti-war, anti-drug law and pro-whatever" republicans like Ron Paul. And they will never get their way because the vast majority of the party doesn't support their opinions.
They will never vote for him simply because of the R next to his name. Talk is cheap.
100% correct.
I would sooner deep fry my face.
Think what you want. I was just saying what people think of him not what I think of him. Isolationist comes up frequently.
Raising money in the fourth quarter is nothing compared to what Gingrich and Romney have amassed in their careers. I'm looking more broadly than just the fourth quarter.
I understand where you are coming from. It's something I think about anyway.
misinformation and misunderstanding are why more people in the republican party don't support Ron Paul...I can understand why Dems wouldn't want to support him...but I will never understand why someone who calls themselves conservatives won't
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Gimme, you've stated the Paul Ryan budget thing a couple times now and have now been twice corrected on it. Please stop spreading misinformation.
how does a constitutionally limited government = succession?
also, please explain the part in bold. personally, I think the worst thing that can happen to this country is the dollar collapsing. which his policies wouldn't do
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
thats why.
Legalized drugs is appealing to degenerates.
Iran having the bomb is appealing to democrats.
Seem like he ought to win by a landslide...
Limited government couldn't be appealing to neo-cons. They say it is but their actions prove otherwise. They want government spending. It increases under their watch as much as democrats. There are no small government neo-conservatives. Look at who is running and tell me which one is the small government conservative? Their idea of cuts is limiting the spending increase...
we wouldn't have to be afraid of nuclear war if we left other countries alone. Aren't you the least bit concerned that the same drum beats of weapons of mass destruction are now being leveled at Iran...With us out of the region Israel would be free to do as it pleases by the way.
what will you say when you open your wallet and a bunch of kindling falls out...if we keep on our same pace that is all our dollars will be good for...but at least we kept drugs illegal...
Support Paul or don't, but don't complain to me about government spending when a democrat or a different republican wins.
Neo-cons boo the golden rule...enough said
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't know what you are talking about when you start using terms like "neo-con'. I don't think most people on here understand the definition of that beyond something on a PJ poster with Cheney or Bush.
I guess you might be referring to Bush, McCain, Romney, Boehner-type Republicans? I would call these "establishment-Republicans". Big-spending politicians.
The GOP is fractured, and this primary is working it out. True conservatives (Tea Party) are battling it out with these establisment-R big spenders.
But what does that have to do with this thread?
You are warning me of what will come from Paul not winning.
I'm talking about the topic: Why can't he win.
And I still say, when you say crazy shit, you get crazy looks. Not votes.
The majority of Republicans recognize Paul's foreign policy as naive and dangerous, and that is why he will never win.
Cry about the "golden-rule" all you want to, but I don't know what that has to do with reality.
France tried that golden-rule thing- right before the Blitzkrieg. Good luck with that....