Is Ron Paul Electable?

Let's convince everyone that Ron Paul is unelectable so that we will vote for someone who will take the rest of our money and freedoms.
 
Wow... C'mon. Focus on the IMPORTANT issues. Are you serious? AMNESTY? Give me a fvcking break!

Hey, here's an important issue. How about the fact that we are headed towards a global fascist dictatorship where even more freedoms are stripped away, the dollar becomes obsolete and we have an Amero currency, more wars, and a motherfvckin police state!!
.

So the government using the growing number of illegals and their anchor babies to force a north american union on us is not important to you?

How is the growing number of illegals a way to force the NAU? The very fact of illegals crossing the border is not equivalent to actually writing meaningful legislation in the White House that will be enacted and actually eliminate the political boundaries. Their crossing of the border does nothing except enrage people who oppose illegal immigration and push strongly for STRONGER border security.

If anything, the very fact that illegals are crossing is actually BAD for the cause of the NAU because it brings MORE opposition to the idea of open borders! You think illegal immigrants make people actually want to just open up the borders entirely for an NAU? No.


.
 
Last edited:
No, Ron Paul is NOT electable.........This isn't 1776, and his 1776 view of foreign policy is abjectly insane in this day and age.......His inability to see that, only proves he's a damn lunatic.

Baseless claim with no evidence. You can keep claiming that over and over like a mantra, but you must actually provide evidence and logical argumentation to support your claim!

I'll be waiting for you argument demonstrating HOW AND WHY his foreign policy is "abjectly insane" and unsuitable for the current times.

And, an overwhelming number of his supporters in no way helps his cause. They've been invading this board lately, and the majority of them are troofers, birfers, deafers, and holocaust deniers.....

I'm not a truther, a birther, a deather, nor a holocaust denier.

In fact, why would ANY of those people support Ron Paul? Ron Paul stated he disagrees with the conclusions of the 911 truth movement, he does not doubt or place any significance on Obama's birth certificate, he doesn't deny Bin Ladens death, and he doesn't deny the holocaust.

You have got to be frickin kidding me! Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent Ron Paul supporters? Everything you just claimed is blatantly and utterly FALSE!

He attracts the fringe of society,

Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Sean Hannity, and John Stossel have all expressed support of Ron Paul. You claim these guys are on the fringe of society? Wrong.

in part due to his own lunacy........He also attracts the loons who dress in ARMY BDU's, run around the forest playing GI Joe, and are STILL waiting for the Y2K assault by government forces to happen.

False.


.
 
Ron Paul's too honest a politician to win more than his House seat. He can't pander because he actually believes what he says and says what he believes. This makes him virtually unelectable for president - besides, president's gotta be a good liar nowadays (ie, Bush II, Clinton, Reagan), can't do too well if he ain't a good liar (ie, Carter, Bush I).

Anyway, I disagree with his position of eliminating the Fed (though I admit either way I'm a big fan of ol' man), but just to add a slight correction to the original post: the second paragraph confuses TARP with the stimulus, which were 2 very different things. TARP was the tax-payer-footed bank bailout with no strings attached orchestrated by... banks themselves. The stimulus was a different beast altogether.
 
Last edited:
The 2008 economic ‘meltdown’ was basically a shake-down of our elected government.
....By another outta-control TEXAN!!!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2iHksmF7m4]YouTube - ‪American Casino: Greenspan's "flaw in the model"‬‏[/ame]​
 
Ron Paul's too honest a politician to win more than his House seat. He can't pander because he actually believes what he says and says what he believes.
We're more in-need o'......


Yeah, Ron Paul has only been in politics for a mere 40 years and has voted consistently and effectively voted against every unconstitutional bill. That sounds like competency to me. Btw, Presidents are decision makers. Everyone knows how to make decisions. I don't think competency is an issue.


.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul's too honest a politician to win more than his House seat. He can't pander because he actually believes what he says and says what he believes. This makes him virtually unelectable for president - besides, president's gotta be a good liar nowadays (ie, Bush II, Clinton, Reagan), can't do too well if he ain't a good liar (ie, Carter, Bush I).

Anyway, I disagree with his position of eliminating the Fed (though I admit either way I'm a big fan of ol' man), but just to add a slight correction to the original post: the second paragraph confuses TARP with the stimulus, which were 2 very different things. TARP was the tax-payer-footed bank bailout with no strings attached orchestrated by... banks themselves. The stimulus was a different beast altogether.

Why would you disagree with eliminating the Fed?

The Federal Reserve was imposed on us by private bankers for the sole purpose of sucking money out of our economy.
 
Why would you disagree with eliminating the Fed?

The Federal Reserve was imposed on us by private bankers for the sole purpose of sucking money out of our economy.

Weeell, not exactly. I mean, it's not like I want to defend the Fed's stupid mistakes or the fact that in practice it has been hijacked by the interests it's meant to regulate, but nevertheless, when it comes down to it, the Fed is just a central bank.

The Fed was instituted because, if you look at American economic history, the country was averaging huge recessions and banking panics basically every few years before 1913. There were no less than 12 of them in the roughly ~75 years between the end of the Second Bank and the birth of the Fed, with major depressions (yes, with a D) basically every twenty years (1837, 1857, 1870, 1893, 1907), a situation virtually like today's but worse and every decade or two. A central bank injects a degree of stability to the system when operated properly (ie, tightening during good times, easing during bad times, actually regulating the banks, and looking out for 'systemic risk'), and that shows through the fact that during the century after the creation there were only 2 major banking panics (1929 and 2007) and mostly milder and shorter recessions in between.

The situation we're in now is more because the Fed has not been doing what it is supposed to be doing, and that's because it's leadership is totally incompetent or simply doesn't care and would rather join the banking party than do anything about it. Instead of tightening during good times, it kept the credit punch-bowl well stocked for years, it stopped enforcing most regulations on capital requirements, etc, and could not see the 'systemic risk' of a gigantic 8-trillion dollar real estate bubble. And well, there are many reasons for that which should definitely be dealt with (one massive aspect is the fact that banks put their alumni in positions of power and then demand unlimited bailouts with absolutely no restrictions - they should have been nationalized and all these people should've been fired), but I disagree that it needs the throwing out of baby and bath water. Virtually every country in the world has a Central Bank, anyway.

But whatever, who knows, maybe things WOULD be better without a Fed. It is a possibility, considering that nobody really knows anything about the economy (least of all myself). I happen to disagree, but it could work, so I can disagree with Ron Paul on this and most economic issues but still like him and know that whatever his position is it's not because it's popular with his political base or an empty power ploy. This is different than if he supported torture, government spying and perpetual war - I could not agree with a candidate that puts forward those positions even if I agree 100% on all his economic positions. This is because I understand full well that most of this economic stuff is debateable - I may be a "far-left" economically but I know that there's definite ups and downs to each approach. But with shit like torture, state surveillance, protection of rights, and war there are no ups and downs, I find them indefensible and non-debatable - and so does Paul.
 
Let's convince everyone that Ron Paul is unelectable so that we will vote for someone who will take the rest of our money and freedoms.

Do you need to be Convinced that Water is Wet?...

If RuPaul got the GOP Nomination he would be lucky to pull 40% to Barry's 60%...

Lucky.

As for a Third Option?... Not a Chance in... Ever.

Not unless the other (2) Candidates Died the day before Election Day... :thup:

:)

peace...
 
No, Ron Paul is NOT electable.........This isn't 1776, and his 1776 view of foreign policy is abjectly insane in this day and age.......His inability to see that, only proves he's a damn lunatic.

Baseless claim with no evidence. You can keep claiming that over and over like a mantra, but you must actually provide evidence and logical argumentation to support your claim!

I'll be waiting for you argument demonstrating HOW AND WHY his foreign policy is "abjectly insane" and unsuitable for the current times.

And, an overwhelming number of his supporters in no way helps his cause. They've been invading this board lately, and the majority of them are troofers, birfers, deafers, and holocaust deniers.....

I'm not a truther, a birther, a deather, nor a holocaust denier.

In fact, why would ANY of those people support Ron Paul? Ron Paul stated he disagrees with the conclusions of the 911 truth movement, he does not doubt or place any significance on Obama's birth certificate, he doesn't deny Bin Ladens death, and he doesn't deny the holocaust.

You have got to be frickin kidding me! Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent Ron Paul supporters? Everything you just claimed is blatantly and utterly FALSE!

He attracts the fringe of society,

Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Sean Hannity, and John Stossel have all expressed support of Ron Paul. You claim these guys are on the fringe of society? Wrong.

in part due to his own lunacy........He also attracts the loons who dress in ARMY BDU's, run around the forest playing GI Joe, and are STILL waiting for the Y2K assault by government forces to happen.

False.


.
Yes, you are a deafer loon:
www.usmessageboard.com/politics/168468-ron-paul-vs-herman-cain-an-analysis-7.html#post3676140

You're dismissed right there......Like I said, he attracts the fringers. Hence, he attracts YOU.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul Can Win in 2012

by Walter Block

If Ron Paul can somehow win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party, he will have an excellent chance of beating Barack Obama in November 2012. He will of course face great obstacles in the Republican primaries, but, if he can overcome them, it ought to be downhill after that.


.
 
Ron Paul is the only candidate that is actively pursuing auditing and reforming the private Federal Reserve Bank. This is, hands down, the single most important issue facing America, with implications pertaining to the military, government spending, civil rights. It is because the Federal Reserve has such influence over so much of the country – if ever there should be regulation it should be in the case of the Fed, which has zero substantive public oversight. Alan Greenspan admitted himself that the Federal Reserve is an independent organization responsible to no other government agency, including the presidency, that can overrule actions its’ actions:

YouTube - ‪Allen Greenspan when asked about the relationship of The Federal Reserve and the President‬‏

The 2008 economic ‘meltdown’ was basically a shake-down of our elected government. Senators and Congressman from across the country have come forward and stated that they were told that if they didn’t pass and sign into law the officially unnamed stimulus bill that the economy would crash and martial law would most likely go into effect. An incestuous group of current Goldman Sacs and former Goldman Sacs members working for the Treasury Dept and the SEC along with the Obama administration were convincing America that the sky was literally falling, and we must act. It made the fear-mongering lead up to the Iraqi War look tame:

YouTube - ‪Obama Crisis!!!‬‏

But I am convinced that Ron Paul divides the Republican base too much to ever win the Republican candidacy. Plus if he was ever elected I believe he would be assassinated shortly before auditing the Fed. He also isn’t a great speaker, he comes off as high pitched and at times poorly spoken. I fear he may be unelectable and the only other candidate that has addressed monetary reform is Herman Cain, and he isn’t serious about returning to the gold standard – hell, the man served as chair to the Kansas Federal Reserve Board.

Electable? Ah, no

The guy's got some good stuff - but nope. He won't be occupying the Oval Office.
 
I recently purchased President Forever and was playing my first game last night. I replayed the 2008 Republican primaries with every available candidate, so all the actual candidates plus Newt Gingrich, George Allen, Fred Thompson and maybe one or two others I'm not thinking of. (Jim Gilmore?) The nomination came down to just before the convention with roughly a 40/30/30 split of delegates. George Allen had the most delegates, riding largely on the Deep South and some of the Rocky Mountain/Plains states, but the fewest votes. Rudy Giuliani, picked up the most popular votes, was a hundred or so electoral votes behind, on the strength of a few big-state wins (New York, Ohio, California). The surprising candidate who won the most states was Ron Friggin' Paul, much to my surprise. In the end, Giuliani dropped out a week before the convention, swinging the balance in several key states to Allen and robbing Paul of the nomination.

I was stunned by the broad appeal of Paul through so much of the country based based on his issues. Among other states, Paul won Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Oregon in addition to another fifteen or so scattered across the map. Almost felt badly for him that he didn't win the nomination since he'll never get that close "again" in real life. LOL

The e-voters in the game must have found his speaking voice as irritating as I do.

I didn't stay up past my bedtime to play the general election, but Allen's opponent was Hillary (who's primary competition in the primary had been Mark Warner.)

All in all, a neat little game and well worth the modest price.
 

Forum List

Back
Top