Why can't Ron Paul get elected President?

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

MookiesLaw wrote:

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.

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.

peacefrompaul

unsung wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

He's a Libertarian, he's extreme, an isolationist, he barely gets to speak at the debates.

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.

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.

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.

peacefrompaul

MookiesLaw wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

...and he is a pro lifer.

That's one of the few problems I have with him, personally.

If your main issue is against Pro Life then i can understand your reluctance to support Paul.

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.

I understand where you are coming from. It's something I think about anyway.

mikepegg44

A platform of limited federal government and sound money policy just doesn't seem to be what the people want...whats going to be horrible, after ignoring him yet again and our dollar becomes worthless, funding for EVERY PROGRAM goes away.

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

Sludge Factory

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

as i and most people who consider themselves to the left, or the good side, of the center will tell you every single time we are asked.... we agree with his foreign policy and his drug policy, and that is it.

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.

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.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

as i and most people who consider themselves to the left, or the good side, of the center will tell you every single time we are asked.... we agree with his foreign policy and his drug policy, and that is it.

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.

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

Nevermind90

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFczAKYH ... e=youtu.be

thats why.

MayDay Malone

LImited gov't platform is appealing to conservatives.

Legalized drugs is appealing to degenerates.

Iran having the bomb is appealing to democrats.

Seem like he ought to win by a landslide...

mikepegg44

MayDay Malone wrote:

LImited gov't platform is appealing to conservatives.

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

MayDay Malone

mikepegg44 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

LImited gov't platform is appealing to conservatives.

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

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....

mikepegg44

MayDay Malone wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

LImited gov't platform is appealing to conservatives.

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

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....

First off, I thought you were responding to me specifically, sorry if you weren't. Didn't mean to jump on you.

Cry about the "golden-rule" all you want to, but I don't know what that has to do with reality.

I was referring to the religious conservatives booing the golden rule at the last debate. Either you are religious or you aren't...either you vote based on christian principles or you don't...it is to bad that the MIC has been able to make non-interventionism seem naive and dangerous...it isn't either

what I am saying is that the republican party isn't about small government anymore. That is why Paul cannot get elected President...because the republican party is full of people who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Rockin'PJGirl

Ron Paul is our only hope

Go Beavers

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

Ron Paul is our only hope

Please. People have been predicting the demise of the U.S. for over 200 years. Why is Ron more credible than any that have come before him. Be careful about those trying to get votes by preaching fear.

MayDay Malone

mikepegg- my quote capabilities have failed me.

I hear what you're saying, and agree with you that the Repub party is currently run by those you described.

Being a religious conservative doesn't mean you can't defend yourself as a nation. It doesn't mean you have to be pacifist.

And how do you know that it was religious consevatives that were booing Ron? Just because they are South Carolinians?

I hope not... Otherwise everyone in New York is a god-less gay liberal.

mikepegg44

MayDay Malone wrote:

mikepegg- my quote capabilities have failed me.

I hear what you're saying, and agree with you that the Repub party is currently run by those you described.

Being a religious conservative doesn't mean you can't defend yourself as a nation. It doesn't mean you have to be pacifist.

And how do you know that it was religious consevatives that were booing Ron? Just because they are South Carolinians?

I hope not... Otherwise everyone in New York is a god-less gay liberal.

I understand it doesn't equal pacifism, but certainly do unto others as they do unto you is much more a christian principle than hit them in the mouth first, wouldn't you say? You can certainly defend yourself, but attacking a country based on what you think might happen in the future is not defending yourself...but I digress
I didn't assume they were christian because they were South Carolinians but because they are Americans...of which I think around 80% consider themselves christian(I believe it is higher for republicans). so I felt it was safe to assume those same Christians who for some reason applauded Newt's indignation over the question about his wife were the ones booing...I would be startled if the vast majority of the people booing did not consider themselves christian.
But that is the damage the Neo-cons are doing...they have perverted what it means to spend money on the military and how to best honor veterans...and unfortunately there are a lot of lives...a lot of young lives that have been negatively affected...

but who knows...maybe they are right, maybe Iran will strike New York City with a nuclear weapon inside of one year of Ron Paul being president and israel will no longer exist.

Rockin'PJGirl

Go Beavers wrote:

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

Ron Paul is our only hope

Please. People have been predicting the demise of the U.S. for over 200 years. Why is Ron more credible than any that have come before him. Be careful about those trying to get votes by preaching fear.

Ron Paul is the only one not preaching fear.

MayDay Malone

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

Ron Paul is our only hope

Please. People have been predicting the demise of the U.S. for over 200 years. Why is Ron more credible than any that have come before him. Be careful about those trying to get votes by preaching fear.

Ron Paul is the only one not preaching fear.

Because he wants you to believe that if we practice the golden rule, nobody will hate/hurt/attack/kill us.

Just love, man. Love is all you need.

To propel Paul's ideas, the other candidates are being made to look like murder-hungry warhawks.

Same game, different strategy. Its all BS.

Jeanwah

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Rockin'PJGirl wrote:

Ron Paul is our only hope

Please. People have been predicting the demise of the U.S. for over 200 years. Why is Ron more credible than any that have come before him. Be careful about those trying to get votes by preaching fear.

Ron Paul is the only one not preaching fear.

Which is why he'll never get elected. This country runs on fear.

Commy

i hope ron paul never gets elected. he's talking about ending social security and welfare and giving corporations free reign. more corporate power, less social programs=disaster.

MayDay Malone

.