Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 82

Thread: Is Ron Paul electable?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,842

    Is Ron Paul electable?

    What Would Really Happen If Ron Paul Were To Be Elected President? by Bill Sardi

    I just finished reading through the rather glowing expectations of what we could see if Ron Paul was to become president laid out in the link above.

    I'm a supporter of Ron Paul but even as such I can't imagine him being electable. I think he is correct in his thinking but I think he is also way ahead of his time. I don't think that the average liberally minded American is going to jump on board with his ideas of wiping out the department of education and the more conservatively minded American won't be too keen on him withdrawing out troops from around the world and weakening our support of Israel.

    Is he unelectable and should therefore not be given the nod to be the Republican candidate? Or is he exactly the type of person that could rally the American people once his message takes center stage?
    Hail to the ones who came before us

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by AMD4EVER View Post
    What Would Really Happen If Ron Paul Were To Be Elected President? by Bill Sardi

    I just finished reading through the rather glowing expectations of what we could see if Ron Paul was to become president laid out in the link above.

    I'm a supporter of Ron Paul but even as such I can't imagine him being electable. I think he is correct in his thinking but I think he is also way ahead of his time. I don't think that the average liberally minded American is going to jump on board with his ideas of wiping out the department of education and the more conservatively minded American won't be too keen on him withdrawing out troops from around the world and weakening our support of Israel.

    Is he unelectable and should therefore not be given the nod to be the Republican candidate? Or is he exactly the type of person that could rally the American people once his message takes center stage?
    You ever know someone who has a lot of serious problems? What happens when you tell them all their problems at once. They get defensive and argue back and don't want to change and frankly don't want to hear it. Change and uncertainly is not something people generally like despite people saying they would like change. This is mostly because people want everyone else to change...just not themselves.

    Paul is the kind of guy that tells you all your problems at once. He is absolutely right but no one wants to hear it. Why? Every generation alive right now has grown up with the understanding that the federal government is there is solve everyone's problems. No one can imagine student aid not being done by the federal government or medicine and retirement not being paid for by the federal government. It's all they know. Now everyone realizes the problems Paul states are fairly accurate but it's the solution they don't want to hear. People would much rather (a)Find a way to keep up the farce (b)Find a way to keep what they have without the negative consequences (c)Have everyone else change but not them.

    You can see (a) in our solution to the housing crisis, health care problems, and debt problems. Patch up the problem and hope you die out before it fails. You can see (b) in people talking about solutions to things like the debt crisis. We want to balance the budget but cut nothing and raise no more revenue. This option is always the most illogical. You can see (c) when talking about tax increases. "Increase on the rich but not me." "Make the bottom 47% actually pay income tax."

    Ron Paul gives real solutions to real problems. It's a tough pill to shallow and I admit I fought it for awhile until I realized he was absolutely right. Time to man up and deal with the consequences of our past actions. Paul is the ONLY guy who is prepared to do this. So long as you understand it's a long term solution that will be painful at first than you're good to go.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    It's a tough pill to shallow and I admit I fought it for awhile until I realized he was absolutely right. Time to man up and deal with the consequences of our past actions. Paul is the ONLY guy who is prepared to do this. So long as you understand it's a long term solution that will be painful at first than you're good to go.
    Given how long it took you to come to grips with what you now see as correct do you think Ron Paul would be able to gather enough support to win the presidency if he were to win the Republican primary?
    Hail to the ones who came before us

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Paul won't win the Nomination, he's not electable. I disagree with Steeeeve that All of what Paul says is right. He gets ignored by the Media for a reason. He gets ignored by most voters for the same reason. His Radical idea of going back to the original interpretation of the Constitution is not a solution . He also has a bad habit of interpreting the constitution in his own way , and is a hypocrite on top of that. Not that it matters who the GOP picks this time around, I will put money on it that Ron Paul if he does run will run as an Independent and help Obama win his second term.
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by AMD4EVER View Post
    Given how long it took you to come to grips with what you now see as correct do you think Ron Paul would be able to gather enough support to win the presidency if he were to win the Republican primary?
    Sadly no. Too many people can't shallow that pill.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    His Radical idea of going back to the original interpretation of the Constitution is not a solution.
    I like how you think our founding ideas are "radical". I suppose they were at the time but they worked and were revolutionary. You may think Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and the others were "radicals" but I feel they were right about government.

    He also has a bad habit of interpreting the constitution in his own way , and is a hypocrite on top of that.
    Umm, no. You've been proven wrong on this numerous times.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I like how you think our founding ideas are "radical". I suppose they were at the time but they worked and were revolutionary. You may think Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and the others were "radicals" but I feel they were right about government.
    I would hope you would realize the Founding Fathers never intended for the Constitution to stay exactly as it was written. They did have a vision that was great for their time but this country has grown into more than they could have ever envisioned and Ron Paul would destroy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Umm, no. You've been proven wrong on this numerous times.
    Actually you never proved anyone wrong. Ron Paul may have you fooled but I see through him like glass. He claims to be for Constitution first yet he would be the first out of the gate to ban abortions, ban gay marriage, you know.. those pesky little things he feels our founding Fathers forgot to address...

    Not to mention the guy is a few cans short of a six pack.
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    I would hope you would realize the Founding Fathers never intended for the Constitution to stay exactly as it was written. They did have a vision that was great for their time but this country has grown into more than they could have ever envisioned and Ron Paul would destroy it.
    I'm not saying that you're wrong on this but can you provide an example?

    My problem with the way things get done in Washington now as it pertains to the Constitution isn't that it doesn't mirror how the founders set things up but rather that they make laws that are unconstitutional or on their face appear to be. Let's take printing paper money as an example. If you read the Constitution it appears to layout instructions to only use gold and silver as currency. Some people say that this part of the Constitution doesn't say that printing paper money is prohibited and then others fire back that the Constitution doesn't need to say this because it is a document stating only what the government is allowed to do. OK, OK, I get it. We have a paper currency and we are not going back to gold and silver. But why not make this right by the Constitution. Get an amendment in place and make it official.

    It's late at night and I can't think of any other laws off the top of my head but I know there are others out there that get thrown around. And I know the headache it would be to get even one thing changed in the Constitution so it is understandable that politicians don't want to have to do it. Still, that is their job. The Constitution is all that they should be concerned with. If they are not following it then they need to get it amended. If they don't want the job then surely we can find someone who will do the job right. Ron Paul for one
    Hail to the ones who came before us

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    I would hope you would realize the Founding Fathers never intended for the Constitution to stay exactly as it was written.
    Clearly not, thus Article V. Ron Paul isn't arguing we repeal it. The argument is that we actually follow what is actually says.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by AMD4EVER View Post
    I'm not saying that you're wrong on this but can you provide an example?

    My problem with the way things get done in Washington now as it pertains to the Constitution isn't that it doesn't mirror how the founders set things up but rather that they make laws that are unconstitutional or on their face appear to be. Let's take printing paper money as an example. If you read the Constitution it appears to layout instructions to only use gold and silver as currency. Some people say that this part of the Constitution doesn't say that printing paper money is prohibited and then others fire back that the Constitution doesn't need to say this because it is a document stating only what the government is allowed to do. OK, OK, I get it. We have a paper currency and we are not going back to gold and silver. But why not make this right by the Constitution. Get an amendment in place and make it official.
    That's just my point about Ron Paul. He takes a Literal Interpretation of the Constitution and uses it form his Idea of what this Country should be. He completely ignores parts of History and changes that our Government has made over the years to fit his radical views... And he's a Hypocrite while doing so.

    Such as for instance Abortions. The Supreme Court has ruled on Abortion and said that per the Constitution women have the right to choose. Ron Paul is against Abortion, which is his personal choice, but he is against it enough that he introduced a Bill in Congress that would remove the Supreme courts right to adjudicate on first amendment issues. He wants to strip the Federal Courts of their power in order to wipe out Laws so the Government will be able to Ban Abortions.

    In other words Ron Paul is a Libertarian as long as it fits his own personal view, but he's not truly willing to allow everyone to live under their own rules. He says he wants to get the Government out of peoples lives, but that only pertains to those who hold similar views as himself. If you are A Gay person seeking to get married, Sorry, no Liberty for you. A woman seeking an Abortion.. Ooops, sorry, The Ron Paul Administration has spoken, you can't have it. Not to mention the fact that he wants to eliminate every program that he personally feels is unconstitutional...

    And all the while he's down there in Texas begging for over 400,000 dollars in ear marks to rebuild a local theater.. or help some shrimp business who is behind on their bills...

    Ron Paul is no different than any other politician,, I see through his BS, the Media sees through his BS, and thankfully the Majority of American sees through his BS....

    But I say to anyone who wants to support the guy, go for it.. A vote for Ron Paul is a Vote for Obama... that's why I hope Paul runs as a independent... At least he would be good for something...
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    Such as for instance Abortions. The Supreme Court has ruled on Abortion and said that per the Constitution women have the right to choose. Ron Paul is against Abortion, which is his personal choice, but he is against it enough that he introduced a Bill in Congress that would remove the Supreme courts right to adjudicate on first amendment issues. He wants to strip the Federal Courts of their power in order to wipe out Laws so the Government will be able to Ban Abortions.
    Of course this is not being a hypocrite. Ron Paul says, correctly,that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision. Congress can easily fix that mistake which Ron Paul was trying to do.

    And all the while he's down there in Texas begging for over 400,000 dollars in ear marks to rebuild a local theater.. or help some shrimp business who is behind on their bills...
    Actually voting against these...
    Ron Paul is no different than any other politician,, I see through his BS,
    No, you're just a bigot.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Of course this is not being a hypocrite. Ron Paul says, correctly,that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision. Congress can easily fix that mistake which Ron Paul was trying to do.
    Last I checked Ron Paul was a Doctor, Not a Constitutional Lawyer.. He is welcome to his OPINION.. but that's all it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Actually voting against these...
    Yep.. typical Politician, More worried about getting re-elected than actually doing the job he was sent there for. He knew that voting no would serve two purposes... 1: it would allow him to keep his record of voting no intact so he could tell more lies about how he doesn't believe in earmarks, thus getting him re-elected...
    2: he also knew that the spend happy Congress would pass whatever was put forth so he could have his cake and eat it too...

    He hasn't fooled All of us... but apparently he has you....

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    No, you're just a bigot.
    yeah, yeah.,.. you keep saying it... still doesn't amount to much though...
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    Last I checked Ron Paul was a Doctor, Not a Constitutional Lawyer.. He is welcome to his OPINION.. but that's all it is.
    Actually, he is a congressman. So his opinion can translate into a law. He is following the law.

    Yep.. typical Politician, More worried about getting re-elected than actually doing the job he was sent there for. He knew that voting no would serve two purposes... 1: it would allow him to keep his record of voting no intact so he could tell more lies about how he doesn't believe in earmarks, thus getting him re-elected...
    2: he also knew that the spend happy Congress would pass whatever was put forth so he could have his cake and eat it too...
    This is the only logical way to do this. You don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Actually, he is a congressman. So his opinion can translate into a law. He is following the law.
    His opinion can translate into law if he has enough support from the other 430 some odd Congressional members and the 100 Senate Members. Currently Ron Paul is the only nutt out there crying that the Supreme Court got it wrong... so it's just his opinion until it actually translates into Law. The Supreme Court is not always correct, but stripping away powers to adjudicate the Constitution I don't believe is what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    This is the only logical way to do this. You don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
    well IMO this is a major character flaw, especially for a Congressman who goes around the country campaigning on the fact that he votes no on Earmarks. He's not being honest with the people who are voting for him. He's using the system rather than standing on his principles. If he gets on the stump and tells me as a voter that he stands against earmarks I fully expect him to stand against earmarks, not go behind the curtain and use some underhanded shady political ploy to snatch a few bucks for his district.

    No matter how you try to slice it He's no better than any other Politician... If he truly believed in " personal Responsibility " he would find other ways to pay for his frivolous spending or just come out and be honest about it. But nope.. he's just as worried about getting re-elected as all the others and apparently will lie, cheat, and steal to do it.
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    The Supreme Court is not always correct, but stripping away powers to adjudicate the Constitution I don't believe is what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
    It's exactly what they envisioned with the the Exceptions clause. And if the clause itself wasn't enough the Federalist papers spell it out for you.

    well IMO this is a major character flaw, especially for a Congressman who goes around the country campaigning on the fact that he votes no on Earmarks. He's not being honest with the people who are voting for him. He's using the system rather than standing on his principles. If he gets on the stump and tells me as a voter that he stands against earmarks I fully expect him to stand against earmarks, not go behind the curtain and use some underhanded shady political ploy to snatch a few bucks for his district.
    Why would he be a stupid congressmen? If I held a gun to you and said "give me $100...but you have a choice between me using it for personal gain or me giving to a charity of your choice" than what would you do? The taking and using of the $100 is not optional but the choice of spending is. Just because you are against being robbed doesn't mean you shouldn't also make a decision on its use. Paul's district IS paying no matter what...Paul can go against the taking and spending of the money but still have the choice to have some of the money to his district without being inconsistent.

    It's the only rational option.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •