Why can't Ron Paul get elected President?

MookiesLaw

War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

Ron Paul gets it.

Prince Of Dorkness

Go Beavers wrote:

Be careful about those trying to get votes by preaching fear.

Sadly, fear is a great motivator.

Trying to drum up fear has been a GREAT vote-getter.

Jeanwah

Commy wrote:

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.

I didn't know he supported this, but at the same time I just assumed that most politicians support the idea of getting rid of social security and medicaid (they're all scum).

There's no surer way of imploding this country than taking away social services. Talk about the end of this country as we know it...

mikepegg44

Commy wrote:

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.

you really have no understanding of his platform if this is what you get out of it


he is talking about phasing out social security for people under the age of 25...actually allowing them to opt out of it and to control their own future. the program itself will never be fully removed.

he has already said that even though he doesn't support the idea behind the programs he realizes that they are necessary because so many have grown dependent on them. But he also realizes they need to be paid for...and he has said on numerous occasions he would help fund for those programs by stopping the overseas spending.

MayDay Malone

Enjoyed Ron Paul in the debate last night. He was pretty good.

I couldn't believe the part where Brian Williams asked Paul if he could endorse Newt, should he win...
Mitt shit his pants.

Wilds

mikepegg44 wrote:

Commy wrote:

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.

you really have no understanding of his platform if this is what you get out of it


he is talking about phasing out social security for people under the age of 25...actually allowing them to opt out of it and to control their own future. the program itself will never be fully removed.

he has already said that even though he doesn't support the idea behind the programs he realizes that they are necessary because so many have grown dependent on them. But he also realizes they need to be paid for...and he has said on numerous occasions he would help fund for those programs by stopping the overseas spending.

Yup, and he is not for Corporations running amok.

He believes the free market system along with the court system will balance the system out. Now because of regulation, Corporations have a ton of control, through manipulating the system controlled by big government.

If you get government out of the way then lobbyists and big money can't influence policy.

Now is it completely anarchy from the old system on day 1 of Paul's Presidency?

No he would phase some things out gradually, mostly by opting out. And with a fully bought and paid for Congress they would fight on every thing he tried to do.

My feeling is there would be a very healthy balance of the two systems, but overall the American people would come out ahead, because Government at the Federal level would become smaller. Less American's would be sent overseas to die for wars that Congress did not declare.

And perhaps we would move closer to a sound money financial system, not a system of bubbles and busts that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. And is slowly eroding the middle class.

I voted Clinton, and Gore, and Kerry, and Obama. I've always preferred 'Socially' bought and paid for candidates, over "military, wall street" bought and paid for candidates. Those are your two choices every election.

Both Parties bought and paid for to keep the status quo.

Paul is the first viable candidate that would challenge the system and in my opinion make America better.

I mention my previous penchant for voting Democrat only because I'm not against social programs. I just don't think they should be run at the Federal level. Let states manage them.

Wilds

And if all those good reasons don't convince you that Ron Paul is the right man for the job. There is this:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/ron-paul-stars-astros-rainbow-uniform-76-congressional-135224691.html

MayDay Malone

Wilds wrote:

And if all those good reasons don't convince you that Ron Paul is the right man for the job. There is this:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/ron-paul-stars-astros-rainbow-uniform-76-congressional-135224691.html

I have to admit-- that dude is a pimp!

inlet13

He's gaining celebrities now too; not that that matters in the grand scheme, but figured I'd share:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/206057-oliver-stone-would-vote-for-ron-paul-over-president-obama?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed

peacefrompaul

MayDay Malone wrote:

Enjoyed Ron Paul in the debate last night. He was pretty good.

I couldn't believe the part where Brian Williams asked Paul if he could endorse Newt, should he win...
Mitt shit his pants.

I missed the first hour.

Did he get to talk more? Didn't seem like it in the second half.

peacefrompaul

Wilds wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Commy wrote:

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.

you really have no understanding of his platform if this is what you get out of it


he is talking about phasing out social security for people under the age of 25...actually allowing them to opt out of it and to control their own future. the program itself will never be fully removed.

he has already said that even though he doesn't support the idea behind the programs he realizes that they are necessary because so many have grown dependent on them. But he also realizes they need to be paid for...and he has said on numerous occasions he would help fund for those programs by stopping the overseas spending.

Yup, and he is not for Corporations running amok.

He believes the free market system along with the court system will balance the system out. Now because of regulation, Corporations have a ton of control, through manipulating the system controlled by big government.

If you get government out of the way then lobbyists and big money can't influence policy.

Now is it completely anarchy from the old system on day 1 of Paul's Presidency?

No he would phase some things out gradually, mostly by opting out. And with a fully bought and paid for Congress they would fight on every thing he tried to do.

My feeling is there would be a very healthy balance of the two systems, but overall the American people would come out ahead, because Government at the Federal level would become smaller. Less American's would be sent overseas to die for wars that Congress did not declare.

And perhaps we would move closer to a sound money financial system, not a system of bubbles and busts that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. And is slowly eroding the middle class.

I voted Clinton, and Gore, and Kerry, and Obama. I've always preferred 'Socially' bought and paid for candidates, over "military, wall street" bought and paid for candidates. Those are your two choices every election.

Both Parties bought and paid for to keep the status quo.

Paul is the first viable candidate that would challenge the system and in my opinion make America better.

I mention my previous penchant for voting Democrat only because I'm not against social programs. I just don't think they should be run at the Federal level. Let states manage them.

Well laid out. Nicely done.

Jeanwah

Wilds wrote:

Paul is the first viable candidate that would challenge the system and in my opinion make America better.

There is no way the system is going to allow a candidate who would blatantly challenge the system anywhere near the position of being elected. This is been mentioned!

Wilds

Jeanwah wrote:

Wilds wrote:

Paul is the first viable candidate that would challenge the system and in my opinion make America better.

There is no way the system is going to allow a candidate who would blatantly challenge the system anywhere near the position of being elected. This is been mentioned!

It is easy to agree with you on this thought. And I think history will bear this out in this election cycle.

But if the American people continue to wake up to his message, as they are in droves, then perhaps there is a slight glimmer that he could be the POTUS.

But regardless of if he wins, he is already winning. He is winning by getting his message out there.

You know who favors gay marriage. Young people. Gay marriage will happen, and soon.
You know who favors Ron Paul. Young people. His message is hitting home with the future of this country.

Every day he remains on the campaign trail is another day letting the American people know that there is an alternative to the Republicrat candidates.

Every day he remains he reminds everyone that the USA was founded on small government principles, and the current system is not the way it needs to be.

And in a more concrete way, if Ron Paul can ride into the convention with 1/4, 1/3, of the votes, then he will have a voice in the policy of the Republican party.

He will have power. The power to have his ideas incorporated into the narrative, or perhaps even into the promises of the party to the American people who support many of Ron Paul's ideas.

He might not be up against Obama in November, or perhaps he will be
He might not beat Obama in November, or maybe he will?

But either way he (and his ideas) are winning in 2012.