"Ron Paul can't get elected, Sorry"

[Guest lostpass]

Thanks sigmtnman. Excellent description of the libertarian position on initiation of force.

Yep for instance Obama was the ultimate blank slate for projections. On the other hand, risking invocation of Godwin's Law, Hitler managed to be elected by being plain spoken of his positions. But given enough weasel statements, after the fact, after a politician does something truly obnoxious, critics can chide, "Well, he said what he was gonna do before he was elected." Obama said "positive things" about gay marriage but also mouthed the "between a man and a worman" line, depending on venue. So he had all bases covered. If he had worked to ban gay rights after election, you could dredge up campaign statements where he said he was gonna do it. Or if he legalized gay marriage by executive decree after election, you could dredge up campaign statements where he said he was gonna do it.

Your examples with Kucinich vs Paul are somewhat "false choices" however, because Paul and Kucinich seem to have similar attitudes about gay marriage. It would only be a distinction of gov force because Kucinich may be more in favor of using force of gov to actively enforce gay marriage. OTOH Kucinich doesn't appear to be much of an advocate for wielding strong gov force so it may be a minimal difference between the two.

Similarly, Paul and Kucinich both advocate "audit the fed" idea and I'm "just guessing" the Kucinich would not necessarily be against a gold standard idea in the proper context. Libertarians and classical liberals are close to the same thing.

You are right Lester. My examples were flawed. And true enough the classical liberal is closer to the classical libertarian than not.

That said, I still think that the reason folks on the extreme side of the argument is because it is more difficult to project fantasies upon them. I think we'd all agree that a candidate who defines him or herself is a better candidate that doesn't. The problem is that the more you pin yourself down, the more you tell the people what you really believe, the more reasons you give them not to vote for you.

I agree with you way too often lester. Which is fine in real life but from now on we are blood enemies on the internet. Just kidding, how did you get so smart?

[sigmtnman]

Gingrich also wants the fed audited and he has a better chance getting elected than RPaul.

Just saying.

Gingrich is crooked like the rest. Not to mention he is on his third marriage.

All appearances show he helped Scrushy rob Medicare using the HealthSouth ponzi company. Gingrich supported a 9 trillion dollar expansion of medicare in 2005. Paying for Medicare: An Economic Look at the Program's Unfunded Liabilities

Gingrich also supported the Bush/Paulson TARP used to cover bad bets by the elite. Gingrich Switches Bailout Stance - ABC News

[kieefer]

What's the name of this thread again? Oh yea, Paul can't get elected.

Gringrich has a better chance of getting elected than Ron, at least his foreign policy is based in reality.

Gingrich is crooked like the rest. Not to mention he is on his third marriage.

All appearances show he helped Scrushy rob Medicare using the HealthSouth ponzi company. Gingrich supported a 9 trillion dollar expansion of medicare in 2005. Paying for Medicare: An Economic Look at the Program's Unfunded Liabilities

Gingrich also supported the Bush/Paulson TARP used to cover bad bets by the elite. Gingrich Switches Bailout Stance - ABC News

[sigmtnman]

What's the name of this thread again? Oh yea, Paul can't get elected.

Gringrich has a better chance of getting elected than Ron, at least his foreign policy is based in reality.

The media and a thread saying Paul can't get elected, does not make it so. I don't give two squirts who the CORPORATE OWNED media says has the best "chance" of getting elected. They don't want Paul elected cause he will take their entitlements away. Those 6 media companies I pointed out have board members that sit on the all of the largest corps in the world. Go ahead and keep supporting the candidates "approved" by those Board of Directors.

Paul's foreign policy is the same one our founding father's had and fits in with property rights. It probably doesn't work if your livelyhood depends on suckling from the federal teat.

Edited September 12, 2011 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

The main stream media:

source: http://www.theyrule.net/

[kieefer]

Forget about the media, who in the legislative branch of government feels the same a RonPaul?

Does he or will he have the support to implement his ideas?

I'd like to see names if you got'em. I would also like to see some of his bills that he presented and got passed a link would be good.

It's going to take the local government to revamp the federal government and it won't start with this old man and his hardcore followers.

But, if it's between him and BHO, he's got my vote.

[sigmtnman]

Forget about the media, who in the legislative branch of government feels the same a RonPaul?

Does he or will he have the support to implement his ideas?

I'd like to see names if you got'em. I would also like to see some of his bills that he presented and got passed a link would be good.

It's going to take the local government to revamp the federal government and it won't start with this old man and his hardcore followers.

But, if it's between him and BHO, he's got my vote.

You can't forget the media, since that is the filter by which everyone views the world. You gots to realize that idiot box is not doing you any favors when it gives you orchestrated "debates" and shills screaming crap while being paid by the multi-national corps that are sucking our coffers dry.

Why would I want the current bunch of crooks to endorse him? He has a "hard core" group of supporters because he says what he does and does what he says.

[Oh Shoot]

Will Paul actually be on the slate in the primaries of all states? Is that already determined, however it's done? Unless he drops out?

He wasn't on the TN primary slate in '08, cause he dropped out I guess?

- OS

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

[/img]

[E4 No More]

[/img]

I am sooo glad that I didn't have a mouthfull of coffee when I saw this!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Will Paul actually be on the slate in the primaries of all states? Is that already determined, however it's done? Unless he drops out?

He wasn't on the TN primary slate in '08, cause he dropped out I guess?

- OS

Hi OS

My memory ain't good, but are you sure he wasn't on the TN primary ballot? I thought I remembered voting Paul in the primary and libertarian in the final election, but could be wrong. Maybe it was write in, but don't recall doing a write-in. Wonder if some areas had him on the ballot and some not in TN?

Whether he was on the ballot or write-in only, this old NYTimes link shows Paul getting 6 percent in the 2008 TN primary. Also shows Huckabee winning TN. Didn't recall that either. I basically didn't like anybody but Paul in either D or R primaries in 2008, so must not have been paying enough attention to the trivia.

Primary and Caucus Results - Election Guide 2008 - Percent of Vote - The New York Times

[kieefer]

I just happened to tune into 1470AM, a black host for apparently a liberal radio talk show. They were talking about the debate and what Paul said.

The question to Paul in the debate was what would he recommend if a healthy 30yr old didn't have health insurance but was diagnosed with a fatal disease.

Paul's ideal plan is that local churches/charities/family would take care of this individual rather than government/tax payers supporting/caring this young man.

Well, the talk show host and the guests calling in were saying Paul and the Republican party would let him die, saying the Tea Party wanted to let this man die.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chris-matthews-falsely-accuses-ron-paul-of-saying-he‘d-’let-someone-die’-during-gop-debate/

As M. Savage has said, liberalism is a mental disorder.

Besides this comment taken out of context and his belief that WE were the cause of 9/11 (which btw he got Boo's from the Tea Party crowd over his response) is yet another reason why he won't get elected.

Edited September 15, 2011 by kieefer
added link

[sigmtnman]

I just happened to tune into 1470AM, a black host for apparently a liberal radio talk show. They were talking about the debate and what Paul said.

The question to Paul in the debate was what would he recommend if a healthy 30yr old didn't have health insurance but was diagnosed with a fatal disease.

Paul's ideal plan is that local churches/charities/family would take care of this individual rather than government/tax payers supporting/caring this young man.

Well, the talk show host and the guests calling in were saying Paul and the Republican party would let him die, saying the Tea Party wanted to let this man die.

As M. Savage has said, liberalism is a mental disorder.

Besides this comment taken out of context and his belief that WE were the cause of 9/11 (which btw he got Boo's from the Tea Party crowd over his response) is yet another reason why he won't get elected.

Based on the arguments you continue to use, it sounds like you base all of your opinions on other folks opinions. Why do you care what other people think? Are we as a society so insecure about making decisions on our own, that we would rather deligate that to talk show hosts and how many boos the crowd gives someone?

It sounds more like a way to pick a dances with stars winner or something. Research the man's policies and how he has voted for the last 30 years. You will be hard pressed to convert a Paul supporter, because he is the only one who tell's the Emperor he wears no clothes.

Edited September 13, 2011 by sigmtnman

[kieefer]

Instead of critizing me why not back up your man? Did I say something that Paul didn't say?

I've read enough about him, I've seen all the debates, past and present, I don't think he can say anything to change my opinion. If I'm wrong and it comes down to Paul or BHO, Paul will get my vote, but it ain't going to happen. Sorry you can't accept that.

I'm just pointing out why he can't get elected.

You think he can, I don't, as do several others here.

Based on the arguments, you continue to use, it sounds like you base all of your opinions on other folks opinions. Why do you care what other people think? Are we as a society so insecure about making decisions on our own, that we would rather deligate that to talk show hosts and how many boos the crowd gives someone?

It sounds more like a way to pick a dances with stars winner or something. Research the man's policies and how he has voted for the last 30 years.

[Guest nicemac]

I would vote for him if it was between him and BHO. That will not happen–he will never get the Republican nomination because he will not say the things Americans want to hear. Americans say they want fiscal responsibility, but they really want handouts. At minimum, they want pork for their state/ district, etc… Paul won't give it to them. That alone makes him unelectable.

If it is a three-way vote, he will steal away votes from the Republican candidate just like Perot did in 1992 (I voted for Perot that year) and that got Slick Willy elected. In a three-way race, I would not vote for Paul, knowing it will guarantee the re-election of BHO.

[sigmtnman]

Instead of critizing me why not back up your man? Did I say something that Paul didn't say?

I've read enough about him, I've seen all the debates, past and present, I don't think he can say anything to change my opinion. If I'm wrong and it comes down to Paul or BHO, Paul will get my vote, but it ain't going to happen. Sorry you can't accept that.

I'm just pointing out why he can't get elected.

You think he can, I don't, as do several others here.

Where do you talk about your thoughts on his policies? Perhaps, I have missed it.

[kieefer]

I would vote for him if it was between him and BHO. That will not happen–he will never get the Republican nomination because he will not say the things Americans want to hear. Americans say they want fiscal responsibility, but they really want handouts. At minimum, they want pork for their state/ district, etc… Paul won't give it to them. That alone makes him unelectable.

If it is a three-way vote, he will steal away votes from the Republican candidate just like Perot did in 1992 (I voted for Perot that year) and that got Slick Willy elected. In a three-way race, I would not vote for Paul, knowing it will guarantee the re-election of BHO.

That there is the truth sigman like it or not.

Maybe Paul can switch over to the Democratic side? That may be the best option for all of us?

[G27]

I'm just pointing out why he can't get elected.

It's true, he can't.

You know why?

It's the sound-bite mentality most people have wrt politics nowadays.

Ron Paul isn't perfect by any means, but for the most part, he's right - even about 9/11. No, I'm not saying we're 'at fault', but the point is if we hadn't spent the previous century (+/-) screwing around with people's lives in the Middle East / Asia, we'd have a LOT less issues with al quada, et al. It seems that any time anyone says anything that in any way admits that the US's policies are anything but lily-white pure and good, they're called names. There's no intellectual discussion regarding the statements, it's a black and white world...

RP isn't blaming the US for 9/11 - the terrorists are solely to blame for such a despicable act - but he is pointing out that our often dastardly foreign policies have created a lot of ill will around the world and have drawn the ire of some truly horrible folks.

But of course all people hear is 'we're at fault for 9/11' and write him off, while the other dorks up there continue to repeat the idiotic mantra of 'they hate us for our freedom'. Neo-conservatism sucks.

[sigmtnman]

The trend I see...

Folks vote based on who they think will get elected, not who they think would be the best choice for them. Don't hear too many people say they would not vote for him based on policy but instead, they just claim that he can't be elected so they are not voting for him.

The exception would be those folks who think the USA should be the world's police at the expense of our tax payers.

[sigmtnman]

That there is the truth sigman like it or not.

Maybe Paul can switch over to the Democratic side? That may be the best option for all of us?

Do you really want to have a discussion? It seems like you don't since you only refer to other folks opinions.

What is your personal bent against Dr. Paul?

[kieefer]

Do you really want to have a discussion? It seems like you don't since you only refer to other folks opinions.

What is your personal bent against Dr. Paul?

Sorry, great minds think alike.

Re-read posts 107 and 114.....educate me.

No wait, nevermind. The point of the thread has been made. Good luck.

[sigmtnman]

Sorry, great minds think alike.

Re-read posts 107 and 114.....educate me.

No wait, nevermind. The point of the thread has been made. Good luck.

Great minds think alike and lazy minds rely on others.

In post #107, you want to know who supports him. That is not a discussion about policy, but a meta discussion about third parties opinions. Post #114 is a meta discussion as well. It appears as though your entire picture of Dr. Paul is based on what the media has fed you.

Surely you have some genuine thoughts on policy?

[Smith]

Great minds think alike and lazy minds rely on others.

In post #107, you want to know who supports him. That is not a discussion about policy, but a meta discussion about third parties opinions. Post #114 is a meta discussion as well. It appears as though your entire picture of Dr. Paul is based on what the media has fed you.

Surely you have some genuine thoughts on policy?

Thread title was why he could not get elected. That has been discussed. You want to keep coming back to the same media complex conspiricy theory and that anyone who cites anything to the contrary is not intellectually honest as well as being unprincipled.

Makes me think you are the one blinded by your "messiah" and not seeing the big picture. No president will fix all the problems. It will have to start on the local level and then trickle down to the Washington. No president can be all things to all people. At some point it is a compramise. You just have to decide which areas are the most important given the present circumstances.

Anyone who has ever been in a relationships understands this.

[sigmtnman]

Thread title was why he could not get elected. That has been discussed. You want to keep coming back to the same media complex conspiricy theory and that anyone who cites anything to the contrary is not intellectually honest as well as being unprincipled.

Makes me think you are the one blinded by your "messiah" and not seeing the big picture. No president will fix all the problems. It will have to start on the local level and then trickle down to the Washington. No president can be all things to all people. At some point it is a compramise. You just have to decide which areas are the most important given the present circumstances.

Anyone who has ever been in a relationships understands this.

You are correct, no president will fix the problem alone and Ron Paul is absolutely not the messiah. He is the only honest Republican running though.

There is no hidden "conspiracy" in the media. Big media is controlled by an incestuous board of director representing the largest corporations in the world. Those corporations do not want to lose government funding, so they would never allow anyone who is for a smaller government to get honest/equal time. The message you receive is through their filter. It is, what it is.

BTW, been married for 15 years, so I understand compromise. It's ok when it is for the good and just reasons, but compromise for the sake of compromise is evil and wrong.

Edited September 13, 2011 by sigmtnman

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Though low probability, Paul might win the primary with massive D crossover voters. Unless O gets a primary challenge soon, D voters don't have to bother with voting in a D primary.

Three "crossover vote" opposition strategies (suitable for R's or D's, but D's used in this example)--

1. Vote for the R who is most similar to a D, to "limit the damage" (from their perspective) if Obama loses.

2. Vote for the R who looks least likely to win the general election.

3. Vote for the #2 R contender in attempt to even the odds and almost deadlock the R convention and final selection. In hopes of engendering bitterness and lack of enthusiasm among R supporters of the #2 contender in the general election.

I have in the past done "crossover voting" on both the D and R side using such rationales, though it was personal reasoning rather than an organized thing. When the "more favored" opposite candidate had a lock or if the opposite party had no clearly superior choice (they all sucked, or they were all basically OK).

Limbaugh's "operation chaos" voting Hillary in 2008 was a combination of strategies #1 and #3.

Some say that McCain won the 2008 primary because of D crossover voters following strategy #1.

If lots of D's follow strategy #1 this time around then they will most likely vote Romney. Huntsman is too far down for them to waste a vote on Huntsman.

However if enough D's follow strategy #2, and they decide that Ron Paul would be the easiest to beat in the general election, then Paul may get a surprisingly high primary vote.

The downside to strategy #2, for either party playing the game, is that if the "worst possible opposing candidate" actually wins the general election, then it is a "complete disaster" for that party.

If we by some strange happening get a general election of Obama vs Paul, it would either be a landslide for Obama the likes of Goldwater or McGovern, or alternately Paul would do "surprisingly well" in the election. Paul's positions closely match D positions in many areas and he might get more D voters in a general election than anyone would suspect.

Actually the doomed campaigns of Goldwater and McGovern-- Neither were "centrist" enough to be elected in their times. Many people consider Goldwater and McGovern polar extreme opposites. Maybe they were at the times of their elections, but later on Goldwater and McGovern had close agreement on many issues. Goldwater was a proto-libertarian before the term had its modern meaning, and McGovern was a classical liberal before "liberal" gained its modern meaning. Goldwater wasn't real big on "moral majority" issues though the press painted him a hard-tail reactionary, and McGovern did an awful lot of flag-waving patriotism campaigning to have been painted such an anti-american commie. Both had honorable records serving in WWII. Ron Paul speaks on some stuff that Goldwater was concerned with, and also some stuff that McGovern was concerned with. Maybe that dooms him for being too "extreme". Dunno.