Ronny boy

steve_inhiding

Hello everyone!

As an outisder (a kiwi liberal), I see Ron Paul as the perfect candidate for the US presidency. Financially conservative in the traditional sense and libitarian socially. This fits with my understanding of the american ideal of government, constitutionally anyway. Yet he has such a low level of following. Why is this?

Perhaps I am biased because I'm viewing the candidate from a non-US perpective. But to me it seems that there is no rival to Mr RP. Please discuss this with an international perspective because I think I'm reasonably educated re the candidates yet I can't work out their respective popularities. (ps. feel free to flame me if I've made any idiotic errors)

Cheers
Steve

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Because maybe 100 out of a million people in the west really know anything outside what the mainstream media wants them to know.

Things like economics turn people off....bah numbers! Foreign policy mentality is starting to make some waves amongst the masses though.

The only thing most people understand is not having money in their pocket. When that happens they start to think about a lot of things because it threatens their survival. Forced learning.

This is what's now taking place, a hard lesson in economics. Sad to say the corporate elites have sucked it up so hard they've sold out the mother ship.

MakingWaves

Roland is correct.

Big companies haven't gotten behind RP because they don't see how they could make millions with him in charge. He just might think for himself instead of being told what to think. Without the financial backing of large companies he has no chance because most people don't think for themself they just eat up what is fed to them by large media.

steve_inhiding

My dad always told me (with a begrudged respect, bless him) that my idealist ways were admirable, yet hopeless. I know what he means, but hate to succumb to him. It is impossible for me to understand the political environment in the US as you do. Thus it is equally impossible for me to understand the censorship you have as it doesn't apply to me in the same way. It is difficult for me to work out whether this is due to the fact that the domestic issues in the upcoming election are highly irrelevant to me or whether it is because the media in the US is bias (as I gather it is, rightly or wrongly) I hope you understand my point of view.

Cheers,
Steve

steve_inhiding

MakingWaves wrote:

Roland is correct.

Big companies haven't gotten behind RP because they don't see how they could make millions with him in charge. He just might think for himself instead of being told what to think. Without the financial backing of large companies he has no chance because most people don't think for themself they just eat up what is fed to them by large media.

Is this the general concensus of people on the board?

Is the political process really this dire in the US?

please discuss as I know that the american public aren't as stupid as the major american networks would have us (the international audience) think.

cheers,
Steve

floyd1975

steve_inhiding wrote:

Hello everyone!

As an outisder (a kiwi liberal), I see Ron Paul as the perfect candidate for the US presidency. Financially conservative in the traditional sense and libitarian socially. This fits with my understanding of the american ideal of government, constitutionally anyway. Yet he has such a low level of following. Why is this?

Perhaps I am biased because I'm viewing the candidate from a non-US perpective. But to me it seems that there is no rival to Mr RP. Please discuss this with an international perspective because I think I'm reasonably educated re the candidates yet I can't work out their respective popularities. (ps. feel free to flame me if I've made any idiotic errors)

Cheers
Steve

You are, for the most part, correct. The problem with Ron Paul is that he is a Congressman who has not shined many public lights on himself before this election. He is one of 435 Members and, because of that, has a hard time garnering much media attention due to his lack of a leadership post.

Also, his most vocal supporters come off as arrogant and condescending at best and mentally unstable at worst. This image has, unfortunately, been given to the Congressman as well.

steve_inhiding

floyd1975 wrote:

Also, his most vocal supporters come off as arrogant and condescending at best and mentally unstable at worst. This image has, unfortunately, been given to the Congressman as well.

I've certainly seen this.

I also understand what you're saying about the 1 in 435 congressmen. I suppose the rest of the world see him as 1 in 20 (20 or so presidential candidates) rather than the 435 you're talking about.

I love seeing things from both an American point of view (here and on various web sites) and internationally. If only I could vote ....

Cosmo

steve_inhiding wrote:

Is this the general concensus of people on the board?

Is the political process really this dire in the US?

please discuss as I know that the american public aren't as stupid as the major american networks would have us (the international audience) think.

cheers,
Steve

...
The American Political system is pretty much a joke. It is run by the rich, for the rich.
...
And the American people share part in the blame. We are the one who constantly give our legislators low marks (22% approval ratings)... yet, WE are the ones who consistantly vote in the SAME people, term after term.
Another thing... our voter turn-out is pathetic. We're luck if 25% of people of voting age get off their sorry asses to vote. If you don't vote, don't complain that the wrong guy is in office.

macgyver06

you ron paul guys dont think something is fishy with this guy..

i like his voting record and if i just read that iw ould vote for the guy..he is consistent and smart and obviously is interested in the people and not himself.. (when viewing his voting record)


but he is running as a republican and he isnt republican
the start of this thread even mentions what he has said over and over again...that republicans have to get back to their traditional ways... so he is saying his views are republicans traditional views... BUT HE ISNT REPUBLICAN...

this is why i question this guy...

and the fact he lies when he says he will pull all troops out of iraq... thats ridiculous statement when its clear he is pro oil and thinks oil is the staple of this economy (IT ISNT)


i really think everyone should be more careful.. there are candidates who have done things for this country already and have done charities..and started and maintained there own charity programs their entire lives... people who have been governors have been in D.C. a long time and understand how the system works..


and youve got all these senators blaming the bush administration. the people understand bush is a horrible president, but he was voted in 2 times.. and the candidates are now coming out of the water to tell you how things are fucked up and how things are bad and need change... where were these people 2 years ago....4 years ago...

are you all under the impression that the house and senate collectively dont have more power than the president... these people are just as responsible for the events today.. 1 senator could have stopped this war...1 senator could end this war now...

AND THEY ARENT..

and everyone seems to either be ok with this or doesnt understand how the government works


this isnt about me guys.. im not trying to claim to be smart or right...but this is on the present... we are still at war people

DriftingByTheStorm

i love how you say "BUT HE ISN'T REPUBLICAN" when he has been a REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN for well over a decade. WELL over decade!

WTF?

So,
he seems plenty "republican" to me.
It's just "True Republican Ideals" are out the window with the GOP these days. That may make "his party out of step with him", but America is "out of step with the constitution", so the man is really in the right, his party in the wrong, and his country lost in the woods.