Why can't Ron Paul get elected President?

musicismylife78 · January 2012

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.

peacefrompaul · January 2012

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.

MookiesLaw · January 2012

Because as much as certain people say they want change, want to end the wars, are against the current Foreign Policy decisions, hate the Patriot Act (just to name a few) etc they are full of shit. They prefer to stick with the Status Quo.

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.

musicismylife78 · January 2012

MookiesLaw wrote:

Because as much as certain people say they want change, want to end the wars, are against the current Foreign Policy decisions, hate the Patriot Act (just to name a few) etc they are full of shit. They prefer to stick with the Status Quo.

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.

MookiesLaw · January 2012

:thumbup:

Nicely said.

brianlux · January 2012

Paul is running as a Republican but pretty much everybody knows he's more of a Libertarian or an Independent. Historically, institutions are very slow to change and American is highly ingrained in its two party system. But eventually institutions do change so who knows- perhaps Paul, seen as a Libertarian/Independent, will break new ground. I'm not totally sold on Ron Paul but I certainly wouldn't find him getting elected all that unsettling. But Gingrich, Romney, Santorum... no thanks. At least Perry, Cain, Palin and Bachmann are out of it.

AzWicker · January 2012

Because he is like the weird uncle that knows a lot about everything but you don't want in charge of the family business because he could make a trillion or go bankrupt and the odds are 50-50 either way.

musicismylife78 · January 2012

AzWicker wrote:

Because he is like the weird uncle that knows a lot about everything but you don't want in charge of the family business because he could make a trillion or go bankrupt and the odds are 50-50 either way.

and this distinguishes him from every other president in american history in what way?

gimmesometruth27 · January 2012

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.

Prince Of Dorkness · January 2012

musicismylife78 wrote:

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,

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.

Jeanwah · January 2012

I always refer to an article that's really worth reading that describes the likes of Kucinich and Paul compared to the "machine", known as the system. The system and its media are the machine (or status quo), and then you have the folks who like to rattle the chains of the machine. That's why they are so unelectable, because the system refuses to let anyone in that challenges it. Obama used change as his agenda, but he certainly was too middle ground to ever really be a true threat. He always maintained that mainstream middle ground and followed status quo.

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

peacefrompaul · January 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

...and he is a pro lifer.

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

arthurdent · January 2012

Ron Paul reminds me of the band Tool. Not bad, but their hardcore fans are indefensible.

unsung · January 2012

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.

unsung · January 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

he supports the paul ryan budget

Wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 47775.html

Wilds · January 2012

It can be summed up easily.

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.

jethrojam420 · January 2012

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

he supports the paul ryan budget

Wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 47775.html

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....

inlet13 · January 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

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,

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.

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.

MookiesLaw · January 2012

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.

Prince Of Dorkness · January 2012

inlet13 wrote:

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.

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.

unsung · January 2012

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.

Why can't Ron Paul get elected President?

Comments

Categories