Why Ron Paul can NOT win

[sgeppy118]

I will start my message off by saying that I love Dr. Paul's candor, and on many topics I enjoy his ideas. So please don't bother FLAMING, this is my opinion not a fact.

Ron Paul has many revolutionary ideas, but under closer inspection the 'Ron Paul' ideology is just too ideal to buy. And when it comes to compromising his ideals, he can't do it (all or nothing attitude). The world that he paints WOULD be the ideal case, but it is simply not possible. To understand my point I would like to direct anyone interested to check out his interview with Jon Stewart. No one has yet exposed the "pipe dream" reality of Dr. Paul's ideology. And you can bet that if it comes to a general election, that Obama will take full advantage of that fact. Things were not better for workers in early age America, they were worse. Regulation arose as a way to improve the quality of life for people, not make it worse.

I understand his logic, in a perfect libertarian society the free market would regulate big corporations. The simple fact is that one has NEVER existed and will never. Corporate greed will manifest itself and there is ample proof of that. I am not saying that the current regulation has been an effective way of oversight, but to say that eliminating all regulations will make companies put the people before profit is just silly in my opinion. I think Dr. Paul would be a much stronger candidate if he didn't have the ALL or NOTHING mentality. And I think there is some definite flaws in the idea that America was 'so great before and so terrible now'. The reality is that less than 100 years ago companies had kids working in coal mines, not my idea of greatness. Again, just my opinion and I wanted to start a discussion not a flaming board. What are your thoughts?

Part 2
Exclusive - Ron Paul Extended Interview Pt. 2 - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/26/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Part 3
Exclusive - Ron Paul Extended Interview Pt. 3 - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/26/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[VaYank5150]

Simple. Because he's Ron Paul...

 

[Warrior102]

I will start my message off by saying that I love Dr. Paul's candor, and on many topics I enjoy his ideas. So please don't bother FLAMING, this is my opinion not a fact.

Ron Paul has many revolutionary ideas, but under closer inspection the 'Ron Paul' ideology is just too ideal to buy. And when it comes to compromising his ideals, he can't do it (all or nothing attitude). The world that he paints WOULD be the ideal case, but it is simply not possible. To understand my point I would like to direct anyone interested to check out his interview with Jon Stewart. No one has yet exposed the "pipe dream" reality of Dr. Paul's ideology. And you can bet that if it comes to a general election, that Obama will take full advantage of that fact. Things were not better for workers in early age America, they were worse. Regulation arose as a way to improve the quality of life for people, not make it worse.

I understand his logic, in a perfect libertarian society the free market would regulate big corporations. The simple fact is that one has NEVER existed and will never. Corporate greed will manifest itself and there is ample proof of that. I am not saying that the current regulation has been an effective way of oversight, but to say that eliminating all regulations will make companies put the people before profit is just silly in my opinion. I think Dr. Paul would be a much stronger candidate if he didn't have the ALL or NOTHING mentality. And I think there is some definite flaws in the idea that America was 'so great before and so terrible now'. The reality is that less than 100 years ago companies had kids working in coal mines, not my idea of greatness. Again, just my opinion and I wanted to start a discussion not a flaming board. What are your thoughts?

Part 2
Exclusive - Ron Paul Extended Interview Pt. 2 - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/26/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Part 3
Exclusive - Ron Paul Extended Interview Pt. 3 - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/26/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

The Ron Paul campaign pays you a nickle a post, right?

 

[rightwinger]

Paul has some very insightful positions

Then he let's his Libertarian side start talking and he seems like a lunatic

 

[sgeppy118]

The Ron Paul campaign pays you a nickle a post, right?

Yes, I am employed by the Ron Paul campaign. Please take your vast knowledge and keen foresight elsewhere.

 

[Paulie]

Oh a brand new member coming on to let us all know that he "REALLY REALLY LIKES Paul" but "he can't win".

Yeah that doesn't raise any red flags at all

 

[dblack]

Paul has some very insightful positions

Then he let's his Libertarian side start talking and he seems like a lunatic

The Libertarian side is where that insight comes from. Most of his positions that independent minded liberals actually like (his stand against empire building and corporate-government collusion, his opposition to the drug war, his fiscal conservatism, opposition to the police state, etc, etc ...) are based on ideals of individual liberty. He 'seems like a lunatic' to some, because we've come to accept a lot of irrational, and frankly corrupt, government as the status quo.

 

[sgeppy118]

Oh a brand new member coming on to let us all know that he "REALLY REALLY LIKES Paul" but "he can't win".

Yeah that doesn't raise any red flags at all

My membership longevity directly relates to my ability to form an opinion?

Please address your issues with the opinion if you have them, I am not concerned with my platinum membership status. I simply would like to discuss what I think is a major concern for one of the more serious GOP candidates.

 

[sgeppy118]

Paul has some very insightful positions

Then he let's his Libertarian side start talking and he seems like a lunatic

The Libertarian side is where that insight comes from. Most of his positions that independent minded liberals actually like (his stand against empire building and corporate-government collusion, his opposition to the drug war, his fiscal conservatism, opposition to the police state, etc, etc ...) are based on ideals of individual liberty. He 'seems like a lunatic' to some, because we've come to accept a lot of irrational, and frankly corrupt, government as the status quo.

But is accepting the gov't as it is, really that irrational? I'm talking long term obviously. Definitely the effectiveness of policy over the last decade has been questionable. When in history have we or any other nation had a gov't like Dr. Paul portrays? To me, I think the "Big BAD Gov't" concept that is going on is getting muddled with ineffective policy. Yes spending can be cut, and the gov't could tighten its belt. But overall, I think most gov't regulation has been put in place to protect people. And I can't think that removing those regulations would somehow lead to better conditions for people.

 

[Paulie]

Paul has some very insightful positions

Then he let's his Libertarian side start talking and he seems like a lunatic

The Libertarian side is where that insight comes from. Most of his positions that independent minded liberals actually like (his stand against empire building and corporate-government collusion, his opposition to the drug war, his fiscal conservatism, opposition to the police state, etc, etc ...) are based on ideals of individual liberty. He 'seems like a lunatic' to some, because we've come to accept a lot of irrational, and frankly corrupt, government as the status quo.

But is accepting the gov't as it is, really that irrational? I'm talking long term obviously. Definitely the effectiveness of policy over the last decade has been questionable. When in history have we or any other nation had a gov't like Dr. Paul portrays? To me, I think the "Big BAD Gov't" concept that is going on is getting muddled with ineffective policy. Yes spending can be cut, and the gov't could tighten its belt. But overall, I think most gov't regulation has been put in place to protect people. And I can't think that removing those regulations would somehow lead to better conditions for people.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to show me where Paul has ever advocated removing all regulations.

 

[Warrior102]

Paul has some very insightful positions

Then he let's his Libertarian side start talking and he seems like a lunatic

The Libertarian side is where that insight comes from. Most of his positions that independent minded liberals actually like (his stand against empire building and corporate-government collusion, his opposition to the drug war, his fiscal conservatism, opposition to the police state, etc, etc ...) are based on ideals of individual liberty. He 'seems like a lunatic' to some, because we've come to accept a lot of irrational, and frankly corrupt, government as the status quo.

But is accepting the gov't as it is, really that irrational? I'm talking long term obviously. Definitely the effectiveness of policy over the last decade has been questionable. When in history have we or any other nation had a gov't like Dr. Paul portrays? To me, I think the "Big BAD Gov't" concept that is going on is getting muddled with ineffective policy. Yes spending can be cut, and the gov't could tighten its belt. But overall, I think most gov't regulation has been put in place to protect people. And I can't think that removing those regulations would somehow lead to better conditions for people.

Hey asswipe- Ron Paul IS NOT going to get the nomination - so fucking get over it. Channel your energy towards President Elect Gingrich.

 

[Crackerjack]

The Libertarian side is where that insight comes from. Most of his positions that independent minded liberals actually like (his stand against empire building and corporate-government collusion, his opposition to the drug war, his fiscal conservatism, opposition to the police state, etc, etc ...) are based on ideals of individual liberty. He 'seems like a lunatic' to some, because we've come to accept a lot of irrational, and frankly corrupt, government as the status quo.

But is accepting the gov't as it is, really that irrational? I'm talking long term obviously. Definitely the effectiveness of policy over the last decade has been questionable. When in history have we or any other nation had a gov't like Dr. Paul portrays? To me, I think the "Big BAD Gov't" concept that is going on is getting muddled with ineffective policy. Yes spending can be cut, and the gov't could tighten its belt. But overall, I think most gov't regulation has been put in place to protect people. And I can't think that removing those regulations would somehow lead to better conditions for people.

Hey asswipe- Ron Paul IS NOT going to get the nomination - so fucking get over it. Channel your energy towards President Elect Gingrich.

Just out of idle curiosity, what if he were to get the nomination? Would you support him?

 

[dblack]

But is accepting the gov't as it is, really that irrational? I'm talking long term obviously. Definitely the effectiveness of policy over the last decade has been questionable. When in history have we or any other nation had a gov't like Dr. Paul portrays? To me, I think the "Big BAD Gov't" concept that is going on is getting muddled with ineffective policy. Yes spending can be cut, and the gov't could tighten its belt. But overall, I think most gov't regulation has been put in place to protect people. And I can't think that removing those regulations would somehow lead to better conditions for people.

I think with many of them, it would. And those are what Ron Paul is targeting. Surely you'll recognize that, however well-intended, regulations often end up protecting the vested interests in a given industry, rather than the general welfare of the people.

But I tend to agree with you, that the extreme 'small government' line is misguided. The size of government isn't really the issue. We have problems where government is doing things it shouldn't, but we also face situations where government is failing to do what it should. Libertarians like Dr. Paul can sound pretty one-sided, but I think it comes from a political career of battling an establishment that seeks more and more government power at every turn.

 

[Warrior102]

But is accepting the gov't as it is, really that irrational? I'm talking long term obviously. Definitely the effectiveness of policy over the last decade has been questionable. When in history have we or any other nation had a gov't like Dr. Paul portrays? To me, I think the "Big BAD Gov't" concept that is going on is getting muddled with ineffective policy. Yes spending can be cut, and the gov't could tighten its belt. But overall, I think most gov't regulation has been put in place to protect people. And I can't think that removing those regulations would somehow lead to better conditions for people.

Hey asswipe- Ron Paul IS NOT going to get the nomination - so fucking get over it. Channel your energy towards President Elect Gingrich.

Just out of idle curiosity, what if he were to get the nomination? Would you support him?

I probably would.
But he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[Paulie]

Hey asswipe- Ron Paul IS NOT going to get the nomination - so fucking get over it. Channel your energy towards President Elect Gingrich.

Just out of idle curiosity, what if he were to get the nomination? Would you support him?

I probably would.
But he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

Well it's a real shame you feel that way, because he's the only other candidate besides Romney who's got any shot at getting the independent vote necessary to beat Obama.

 

[sgeppy118]

How can you possibly think that the Republican nomination has been locked. Cain was leading not long ago if that is any indicator of how accurate the polls are. Newt is definitely one of the more legit candidates due only to his experience, but as mentioned already he has no shot at appealing to moderate Americans. Romney definitely had a decent shot before he started his transformation in order to 'fit the profile'. That leaves Paul and Huntsman in my book as the rest of the candidates are there for the dramatization of the process. In any case, locked? Really?

 

[Contumacious]

Why Ron Paul can NOT win

Dr Paul:

You will be free to pursue happiness , enjoy your life and acquire property

Obama and the welfare state purveyors

The taxpayers owe you a living. We will steal, plunder and loot in order to feed and clothe you. There are more parasites than producers.

Reason Dr. Ron Paul can NOT win.


.