Ron Paul Cant Win

it is more than one country attacking another.....an attack like that would cause other Latin American countries to jump in on either side..had Venezuela invaded Panama and Colombia would have responded against him and his croonies...his croonies are obligated to jump in and help him...the Central American countries with the exception of Nicaragua would have lined up against Chavez and then Mexico would jump in and you would have an entire Latin American war on your hands right in your back yard..and refugees from all of those countries in the US. You do realize that Chavez has a military agreement with South American countries in his ALBA agreements right?

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??

Here is a CLUE

Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.

With regards to Chavez and all that nonsense, if your going to come in with off the wall bat-shit theory's then provide a link for where your getting your facts.

I live in Honduras that is where I get my facts. You think that his ALBA agreements are off the wall theories? Where in the hell have you been? This is why fools should not get involved in politics....especially when they are clueless as to why we do not want to pull out our bases from everywhere.

but since you continue to have your head in the sand....

Chavez wants military alliance against US - Geopolitical Monitor

US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Hugo Chavez suggests invading Honduras after coup

perhaps you are the only person who did not know about the unrest that happened on June 29, 2009 and that is why you are unqualified to determine what is needed and Ron Paul is even more disqualified than you are.

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??

Here is a CLUE

Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.

ANSWER THE FUCKIN QUESTION
 
erywhere on this board I see people parroting the pundits and the fox news propagandists. Constant meaningless words like 'Ron Paul cant win' and 'unelectable' and 'nutjob'.

I don't see the same thing as you. Dr. Paul absolutely has more "boots on the ground" than any other candidate, heck even all of them combined. Granted other faux news candidates have clearly commissioned sock puppets to "spread the word of war", they hardly can compete with the liberty/humanity tsunami that will be the primary & caucuses of 2012.

Don't worry so much about the message boards dude, it has become extremely easy to spot the war-mongers sockpuppets since '08. Just show up on primary day.
:cool:
 
Last edited:
erywhere on this board I see people parroting the pundits and the fox news propagandists. Constant meaningless words like 'Ron Paul cant win' and 'unelectable' and 'nutjob'.

I don't see the same thing as you. Dr. Paul absolutely has more "boots on the ground" than any other candidate, heck even all of them combined. Granted other faux news candidates have clearly commissioned sock puppets to "spread the word of war", they hardly can compete with the liberty/humanity tsunami that will be the primary & caucuses of 2012.

Don't worry so much about the message boards dude, it has become extremely easy to spot the war-mongers sockpuppets since '08. Just show up on primary day.
:cool:
It's been laid out very clearly why Ron Paul cannot win, will not win, and should NEVER win.

And, i'm still waiting for even one of you Paulette's to show where FOX news has EVER called Paul a nutjob.

I have, many times, because he's a loon......I've never heard FOX call him a nutjob. Although they could, and should, because he is, PERIOD!

Yeah, show up on Primary day......As a matter of fact, waste more money donating to his loser campaign, 'cause the dude is fleecing you Paulette pot heads, big time.....Gee, maybe he'll break out that corny blimp again.:woohoo::dance:
 
Last edited:
Everywhere on this board I see people parroting the pundits and the fox news propagandists. Constant meaningless words like 'Ron Paul cant win' and 'unelectable' and 'nutjob'.

Not one time on this board have I seen anyone say why he cant win, why he is unelectable, or why he is a nutjob.

So I created this thread for the same reason I created 'official rick perry jobs plan', cause I think its all hype created by big business and parroted by weak minded fools.


SO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

]

I've started threads specifying why I rspect RP supporters and how much I like his honesty - so this isn't coming from an "RP Hater" as many of his fans label anyone not agreeing with them.
To paraphrase a nobel prize winner "A Democracy will never tolerate an honest politician."
He's completely unelectable.
1. First you lose the gays, lesbians and everyone who supports them. Well okay, not a huge percentage.
2. Minorities? You lose ALL of them. It doesn't matter whether Paul is right or wrong, the soundbites will go like this: (images of blacks / latinos being hanged, whipped, oppressed whatever) "Ron Paul. It's his mission to END your civil rights!"
3. Women? Next soundbite "Ron Paul wants you back in the kitchen because he hates women! He even said if he had it his way, you would lose equal pay and promotions and bring back the glass ceilings!"
4. Military? Do I even need to describe what the soundbites would be like?
5. Democrats & Most Independents and ALL Liberals.
It doesn't matter if he's right on these issues. We all know 90% of American voters have a 30 second attention span.
So as long as he doesn't need gays, lesbians, Blacks, Latinos, Women, Military & their supporters, Dems, Independents, Moderates and Liberals... he fine. Which means he's screwed.
He can't win.

But I respect those who vote for him anyway. It takes a lot to send a message to Washington.
 
Everywhere on this board I see people parroting the pundits and the fox news propagandists. Constant meaningless words like 'Ron Paul cant win' and 'unelectable' and 'nutjob'.

Not one time on this board have I seen anyone say why he cant win, why he is unelectable, or why he is a nutjob.

So I created this thread for the same reason I created 'official rick perry jobs plan', cause I think its all hype created by big business and parroted by weak minded fools.


SO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

]

I've started threads specifying why I rspect RP supporters and how much I like his honesty - so this isn't coming from an "RP Hater" as many of his fans label anyone not agreeing with them.
To paraphrase a nobel prize winner "A Democracy will never tolerate an honest politician."
He's completely unelectable.
1. First you lose the gays, lesbians and everyone who supports them. Well okay, not a huge percentage.
2. Minorities? You lose ALL of them. It doesn't matter whether Paul is right or wrong, the soundbites will go like this: (images of blacks / latinos being hanged, whipped, oppressed whatever) "Ron Paul. It's his mission to END your civil rights!"
3. Women? Next soundbite "Ron Paul wants you back in the kitchen because he hates women! He even said if he had it his way, you would lose equal pay and promotions and bring back the glass ceilings!"
4. Military? Do I even need to describe what the soundbites would be like?
5. Democrats & Most Independents and ALL Liberals.
It doesn't matter if he's right on these issues. We all know 90% of American voters have a 30 second attention span.
So as long as he doesn't need gays, lesbians, Blacks, Latinos, Women, Military & their supporters, Dems, Independents, Moderates and Liberals... he fine. Which means he's screwed.
He can't win.

But I respect those who vote for him anyway. It takes a lot to send a message to Washington.

1. Why would gays NOT support Ron Paul? Paul is a social LIBERAL. Liberty for everyone, that's what being a libertarian MEANS.
2. Why would minorities NOT support Ron Paul? Paul is a social LIBERAL. Liberty for everyone, that's what being a libertarian MEANS.
3. Why would women NOT support Ron Paul? Paul is a social LIBERAL. Liberty for everyone, that's what being a libertarian MEANS.
4. The military supports Ron Paul more than any other candidate:
Ron Paul raises most campaign cash from military workers
5. I'll give you that one. Those who hate liberty will obviously hate ron paul.
 
[

So, by your logic if we have a white extremist here in America targeting China.


Leaving aside the rest of the irrational nonsense in your post, why do you specify race here?

I am not specifying race. How is it irrational? If we are targeting terrorists in the middle east in other countries, why can't other countries with a fear of terrorism target them here?
 
Ron Paul is unelectable because he is a flaming whackjob.

Why ?

The two major reasons that spring to mind are:

(1) Ron Paul's "gold standard fantasy" is bizarre because one has to be a retarded nincompoop not to realize that there isn't enough gold to back up the gold standard.

(2) Ron Paul's Foreign Policy of unrealistic isolationism reduces itself to an appeasement of any inimical interests to America from foreign countries. Mitt Romney's ( and probably all the other viable Republican nominees) declared policy of preventing anyone attacking Israel, our only true ally in the Mid East, by basically stating: "You mess with Israel, you mess with the USA" is exactly opposite that of the political idiot Ron Paul's whose policy results in throwing Israel under the bus.

In short, Ron Paul's isolationism would invite more unrest in the world than less.
 
Ron Paul is unelectable because he is a flaming whackjob.

Why ?

The two major reasons that spring to mind are:

(1) Ron Paul's "gold standard fantasy" is bizarre because one has to be a retarded nincompoop not to realize that there isn't enough gold to back up the gold standard.

(2) Ron Paul's Foreign Policy of unrealistic isolationism reduces itself to an appeasement of any inimical interests to America from foreign countries. Mitt Romney's ( and probably all the other viable Republican nominees) declared policy of preventing anyone attacking Israel, our only true ally in the Mid East, by basically stating: "You mess with Israel, you mess with the USA" is exactly opposite that of the political idiot Ron Paul's whose policy results in throwing Israel under the bus.

In short, Ron Paul's isolationism would invite more unrest in the world than less.

1. That's the point. It reduces inflation.
2. Where has Ron Paul ever said he supports isolationism? Just because he is against one extreme does not mean you can automatically conclude he is for the other.
 
Ron Paul is unelectable because he is a flaming whackjob.

Why ?

The two major reasons that spring to mind are:

(1) Ron Paul's "gold standard fantasy" is bizarre because one has to be a retarded nincompoop not to realize that there isn't enough gold to back up the gold standard.

link


Ron Paul's Foreign Policy of unrealistic isolationism reduces itself to an appeasement of any inimical interests to America from foreign countries. Mitt Romney's ( and probably all the other viable Republican nominees) declared policy of preventing anyone attacking Israel, our only true ally in the Mid East, by basically stating: "You mess with Israel, you mess with the USA" is exactly opposite that of the political idiot Ron Paul's whose policy results in throwing Israel under the bus.

In short, Ron Paul's isolationism would invite more unrest in the world than less.

in short Ron Paul can not be elected because you are a Zionist...I see
 
Last edited:
Everywhere on this board I see people parroting the pundits and the fox news propagandists. Constant meaningless words like 'Ron Paul cant win' and 'unelectable' and 'nutjob'.

Not one time on this board have I seen anyone say why he cant win, why he is unelectable, or why he is a nutjob.

So I created this thread for the same reason I created 'official rick perry jobs plan', cause I think its all hype created by big business and parroted by weak minded fools.


SO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

]

I've started threads specifying why I rspect RP supporters and how much I like his honesty - so this isn't coming from an "RP Hater" as many of his fans label anyone not agreeing with them.
To paraphrase a nobel prize winner "A Democracy will never tolerate an honest politician."
He's completely unelectable.
1. First you lose the gays, lesbians and everyone who supports them. Well okay, not a huge percentage.
2. Minorities? You lose ALL of them. It doesn't matter whether Paul is right or wrong, the soundbites will go like this: (images of blacks / latinos being hanged, whipped, oppressed whatever) "Ron Paul. It's his mission to END your civil rights!"
3. Women? Next soundbite "Ron Paul wants you back in the kitchen because he hates women! He even said if he had it his way, you would lose equal pay and promotions and bring back the glass ceilings!"
4. Military? Do I even need to describe what the soundbites would be like?
5. Democrats & Most Independents and ALL Liberals.
It doesn't matter if he's right on these issues. We all know 90% of American voters have a 30 second attention span.
So as long as he doesn't need gays, lesbians, Blacks, Latinos, Women, Military & their supporters, Dems, Independents, Moderates and Liberals... he fine. Which means he's screwed.
He can't win.

But I respect those who vote for him anyway. It takes a lot to send a message to Washington.

1. Why would gays NOT support Ron Paul? Paul is a social LIBERAL. Liberty for everyone, that's what being a libertarian MEANS.
2. Why would minorities NOT support Ron Paul? Paul is a social LIBERAL. Liberty for everyone, that's what being a libertarian MEANS.
3. Why would women NOT support Ron Paul? Paul is a social LIBERAL. Liberty for everyone, that's what being a libertarian MEANS.
4. The military supports Ron Paul more than any other candidate:
Ron Paul raises most campaign cash from military workers
5. I'll give you that one. Those who hate liberty will obviously hate ron paul.

Ah. Thought there might be some Ron Paul fans who could have an intelligent conversation about this. But okay. A kool-aid drinker and whackjob. Got it. Okay you just keep holding your breath, waiting for him to get the nomination. :eusa_whistle:
 
Yeah, alright. Well if you can't cite Paul or his platform to back you up, then why even bother?

Also, keep invoking hyperbole and images of hanging and whipping without any context or obvious point, and come back and talk about having an intelligent conversation.

assclown.
 
Last edited:
Not one time on this board have I seen anyone say why he cant win, why he is unelectable, or why he is a nutjob.

He can’t win because the republican establishment won’t allow it. He’s unelectable because third party candidate can’t win, per the two party system – should Paul decide to go that route.

I wouldn’t call him a ‘nutjob’ but he does exhibit comprehensive ignorance of Constitutional case law and his reactionaryism with regard to the Federal government is unrealistic and naïve.

He also fails to take into consideration abusive practices by state governments and local jurisdictions with regard to the libertarian position on 14th Amendment incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
 
Yeah, alright. Well if you can't cite Paul or his platform to back you up, then why even bother?

Also, keep invoking hyperbole and images of hanging and whipping without any context or obvious point, and come back and talk about having an intelligent conversation.

assclown.

Yes of course. Look, I didn't say that those were Paul's stances on the issues, nor did I say his stances are right or wrong. Some people would have caught that. You either didn't or just ignored it. That's you.

So you don't realize that American politics is all about hyperbole and images? Okay. Cling to that hope. Context? You really don't know that your own candidate has publicly declared he would revoke the CRA of '64? And I don't give a sh1t if he's right about that. You're so busy whiing about how right he is (at least in your opinion), that you miss the obvious. There are people who disagree with you and others who will be easily manipulated. They're called minorities. Rather large voting block.
So no, I didn't include context. I assumed you were familiar with your candidate.

You may now continue ranting about how minorities SHOULD believe and how they SHOULD agree with him and how the reality that they won't, can somehow be overcome...

Oh, and I guess I was wrong about the military. I'm wrong about lots of stuff, lots of times.
 
Ron Paul loses sane Republican voters when he rants on about making drugs legal, pulling back the military to inside our borders and hints at 9-11 is our fault.

He is a nutjob outside his anti-Federalist and economic views. He is pretty much a liberal outside his small govt views.

I laughed my ass off when he said troops spending money here instead of overseas would help our economy, as if the troops overseas didn't help our economy by protecting free trade, etc.
 

Forum List

Back
Top