[quote]UtahLama wrote:
This is it in a nutshell.
I like the old bastard, but as ZEB said he would make a much better Secretary of the Treasury than a Presidential Candidate, harvesting votes from conservative candidates.
Also, please Jeebus…no Romney.[/quote]
I can’t imagine Paul in any office in any administration. He’s completely unequipped to handle the real world events that would overtake his utopian mindset and insistence on illusions-as-reality.
Ron Paul may not have a chance to even get the rep nomination but he will get much more attention this time around and he will fare better in the primaries than he did last election. People actually know who he is now – and not just the yungins on ze interwebz.
It will be funny to watch Romney spend 100s of millions of dollars and still not get elected.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
This is it in a nutshell.
I like the old bastard, but as ZEB said he would make a much better Secretary of the Treasury than a Presidential Candidate, harvesting votes from conservative candidates.
Also, please Jeebus…no Romney.[/quote]
I can’t imagine Paul in any office in any administration. He’s completely unequipped to handle the real world events that would overtake his utopian mindset and insistence on illusions-as-reality.
[/quote]
Well that’s just like your uhhh opinion, man.
What utopian mindset are falsely accusing him of?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Zeb - I’ve seen how adamant you are about this so I want to ask you a question. How can the GOP get back to its roots if we keep voting for the best candidate available? The more we vote for some typical big government GOP douchebag, the longer the GOP thinks it’s doing the things it takes to keep our vote. OR we can waste our vote on a 3rd party, let the democrats win for an election and hope the signal is strong enough to let the GOP know it has some shaping up to do.
[/quote]
The scenario that you suggest may never happen if we allow Obama another term. He pushed through health care even though about 70% of the people did not want it. What will the country look like by 2016 if we don’t get behind the best GOP candidate? Do you honestly think that we can easily reverse all the damage that will be done? Think again.[/quote]
Obama will not have a Democrat controlled house and senate again. I don’t think it’s possible for him to push through any more radical nonsense.
Really? The republicans have not had someone do that since Reagan. Bush 1 and 2 both grew the government and spent too much money. What makes you think the next GOP blowhard won’t do the same when it is politically convenient to do so? (btw, I’m not a complete Bush hater like most, but he did expand the government and spend too much money)
I’m not claiming Obama is better than Romney, I’m claiming another GOP douchebags won’t do this country much good, either. And furthermore, the whole lot of GOP douchebags will NEVER change if we keep voting for them.
This insinuates I do not have a vested interest in the way this country is run. I don’t want Obama for another term any more than you do, but with a republican house and/or senate his hands are tied up more than they were before 2010 elections. I will vote for whomever I believe should be the next president, I’m not “falling in line” with party if the party chooses someone that I don’t like. Personally, I think the whole “falling in line” mentality is part of the reason we’re in the mess we’re in.
Also, I’ve agreed with you on several occasions regarding RP being unelectable.
[/quote]
Okay, I know where you’re coming from - Just a couple of points
The GOP has already changed. Take a look at the candidates who are in contention for the nomination. They are mostly conservative.
We have no guarantee that the house and senate will not be democrat. Counting on them being republican is foolhardy.
One more point, if we keep anyone named “Bush” out of the oval office we have a better opportunity for conservatism to actually work.
I think some of you might be selling the american public short. The disconnect between official data and economic reality is becoming ever more apparent and it’s kind of hard to ignore not being able to afford food and gas and just continue to trudge along with the same old same old mindset. A position like “end the IRS” is sure to garner a lot of attention.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well that’s just like your uhhh opinion, man.[/quote]
Thanks.
Give it a rest, asked and answered. The first international financial crisis that occurred on Paul’s watch as Secretary of the Treasury would find Mr. Paul in a closet sucking his thumb in the fetal position.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ron Paul may not have a chance to even get the rep nomination but he will get much more attention this time around and he will fare better in the primaries than he did last election.[/quote]
He’ll get no more votes than he got last time. With few exceptions he was either last or near dead last in every primary. That WILL happen again.
That actually hurts him. They see him and they turn away in horror. AHHHHH why is this old guy running for President? Ha ha, no seriously, no one really wants Paul but the Paulies. And you’ll find that out AGAIN. Why is it that you have to learn the same lesson over and over again/
And yes I will remind you of this post. I normally don’t do such things but you Paulies have earned it.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I think some of you might be selling the american public short. The disconnect between official data and economic reality is becoming ever more apparent and it’s kind of hard to ignore not being able to afford food and gas and just continue to trudge along with the same old same old mindset. A position like “end the IRS” is sure to garner a lot of attention.[/quote]
What’s wrong with you? How does any of that equate to Ron paul being elected President or even getting the nomination? Your drawing illogical conclusions from insufficient data.
Okay you’re 20 and a Paulie…I get it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Give it a rest, asked and answered. The first international financial crisis that occurred on Paul’s watch as Secretary of the Treasury would find Mr. Paul in a closet sucking his thumb in the fetal position.[/quote]
Oh please. Whether or not Paul is the best for the job is not up for debate. The only issue here is electability .
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Oh please. Whether or not Paul is the best for the job is not up for debate. The only issue here is electability .[/quote]
Well, in one sense, you are absolutely correct - there is no debate that Paul as to whether or not Paul is the best for the job of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces - no rational person thinks he would be up for that job.
Electability is a moot issue as a result - why try and elect someone who would be a horrible executive and president?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Give it a rest, asked and answered. The first international financial crisis that occurred on Paul’s watch as Secretary of the Treasury would find Mr. Paul in a closet sucking his thumb in the fetal position.[/quote]
You have no argument.
You take the weakling’s way out by avoiding the question, making ad hominem attacks, and propping up strawmen.
You are a loser. A losing loser. Wimp.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well that’s just like your uhhh opinion, man.[/quote]
Thanks.
Give it a rest, asked and answered. The first international financial crisis that occurred on Paul’s watch as Secretary of the Treasury would find Mr. Paul in a closet sucking his thumb in the fetal position.[/quote]
As opposed to the tremendous leadership of Paulson, Levey and Geithner?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Zeb - I’ve seen how adamant you are about this so I want to ask you a question. How can the GOP get back to its roots if we keep voting for the best candidate available? The more we vote for some typical big government GOP douchebag, the longer the GOP thinks it’s doing the things it takes to keep our vote. OR we can waste our vote on a 3rd party, let the democrats win for an election and hope the signal is strong enough to let the GOP know it has some shaping up to do.
[/quote]
The scenario that you suggest may never happen if we allow Obama another term. He pushed through health care even though about 70% of the people did not want it. What will the country look like by 2016 if we don’t get behind the best GOP candidate? Do you honestly think that we can easily reverse all the damage that will be done? Think again.[/quote]
Obama will not have a Democrat controlled house and senate again. I don’t think it’s possible for him to push through any more radical nonsense.
Really? The republicans have not had someone do that since Reagan. Bush 1 and 2 both grew the government and spent too much money. What makes you think the next GOP blowhard won’t do the same when it is politically convenient to do so? (btw, I’m not a complete Bush hater like most, but he did expand the government and spend too much money)
I’m not claiming Obama is better than Romney, I’m claiming another GOP douchebags won’t do this country much good, either. And furthermore, the whole lot of GOP douchebags will NEVER change if we keep voting for them.
This insinuates I do not have a vested interest in the way this country is run. I don’t want Obama for another term any more than you do, but with a republican house and/or senate his hands are tied up more than they were before 2010 elections. I will vote for whomever I believe should be the next president, I’m not “falling in line” with party if the party chooses someone that I don’t like. Personally, I think the whole “falling in line” mentality is part of the reason we’re in the mess we’re in.
Also, I’ve agreed with you on several occasions regarding RP being unelectable.
[/quote]
Okay, I know where you’re coming from - Just a couple of points
The GOP has already changed. Take a look at the candidates who are in contention for the nomination. They are mostly conservative.
We have no guarantee that the house and senate will not be democrat. Counting on them being republican is foolhardy.
One more point, if we keep anyone named “Bush” out of the oval office we have a better opportunity for conservatism to actually work.[/quote]
I guess we’ll have to wait and see who the actual GOP candidate is (btw, I’d like Romney a lot more if he admitted Romneycare was a huge mistake, although I can see politically why he doesn’t). Claiming change before the primary seems about as foolhardy as counting on either a republican house or senate while Obama is in office. 
My vote, and many others’ like me, will go to whomever we believe will make the best president regardless of party lines. That could spell disaster for the GOP depending on who wins the primary.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I think some of you might be selling the american public short. The disconnect between official data and economic reality is becoming ever more apparent and it’s kind of hard to ignore not being able to afford food and gas and just continue to trudge along with the same old same old mindset. A position like “end the IRS” is sure to garner a lot of attention.[/quote]
What’s wrong with you? How does any of that equate to Ron paul being elected President or even getting the nomination? Your drawing illogical conclusions from insufficient data.
Okay you’re 20 and a Paulie…I get it. [/quote]
Ooooh you are stupid and have to be spoon fed, I get it(See? I can be condescending too without making a point). Let’s just go through this step by step.
Fact 1: The standard of living is dropping precipitously and the average American is fully aware of this.
Fact 2: The official data is that the recession is over and that prosperity is returning.
Fact 3: There hasn’t been a real, radical nominee for a long time. There have been candidates for the nomination yes, but no actual nominees.
Based on these grounds we can infer that, cliche as it sounds, voters are predisposed to voting for radical views. This happened in Germany in 1930 and in Italy around the same time. The Great Depression resulted in the NSDP going from 4.6% to being the second largest party in the Reichsstag for example. Ron is the only radical candidate being discussed so far. This leads me to believe that his chances now are much better than in 2008 when the recession hadn’t really kicked in. He is also much better known this time around and if he manages to secure the republican nomination(which I find unlikely, but possible) his hardline anti war stance and socially liberal views will mean that a considerable portion of the swingvote will fall his way, deserting Obama.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, in one sense, you are absolutely correct - there is no debate that Paul as to whether or not Paul is the best for the job of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces - no rational person thinks he would be up for that job.
Electability is a moot issue as a result - why try and elect someone who would be a horrible executive and president?[/quote]
Orly?
All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
Looksee, I am a rational person as just demonstrated by my use of logic. I believe that he is the best man for the job. You are therefore demonstrably wrong
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You have no argument.
You take the weakling’s way out by avoiding the question, making ad hominem attacks, and propping up strawmen.
You are a loser. A losing loser. Wimp.[/quote]
I’ve hung your hide on my wall more times than I can count. There’s no sport in it anymore. It’s a waste of time.
The same arguments that made Paul a loser in 2008 are the same arguments that will make Paul a loser in 2012 (and would have made him a loser in any year he ran). He isn’t a conservative - he is a revisionist reactionary who has exactly zero experience (or inclination of natural ability) to serve as the head of the United States government.
He’s been a marginal Congressman for decades. He hasn’t served as a governor. He hasn’t spearheaded meaningful policy. And he hasn’t run anything substantial in the private sector.
He’d get nothing done as president, because he wouldn’t have a hard-edged libertarian Congress to pass his hard-edged libertarian political agenda. In foreign policy, he’d be dared just like Obama has been dared, and no sane person can imagine Ron Paul as commander in a war. Unsavory nations would have a field day causing international havoc because of Paul’s bozo version of isolationism, and he’d be paralyzed with indecision, because he serves an ideology, rather than the other way around.
Much of what a president does is reactive, not just proactive push for policy. Paul is a small man who would shrink smaller when pressed to react to events that don’t fit neatly into his pre-conceived ideology. He’d have Washington turn over in his grave. He just ain’t got the gravitas for the job, no matter how many basement-dwellers throw their allowance into his campaign coffers.
See - same stuff as in 2008, only Paul is four years older than when he was “tool old” in 2008.
Feel better?
i agree, I think people would be surprised how many of the so called left would vote for him
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
I think some of you might be selling the american public short. The disconnect between official data and economic reality is becoming ever more apparent and it’s kind of hard to ignore not being able to afford food and gas and just continue to trudge along with the same old same old mindset. A position like “end the IRS” is sure to garner a lot of attention.[/quote]
What’s wrong with you? How does any of that equate to Ron paul being elected President or even getting the nomination? Your drawing illogical conclusions from insufficient data.
Okay you’re 20 and a Paulie…I get it. [/quote]
Ooooh you are stupid and have to be spoon fed, I get it(See? I can be condescending too without making a point). Let’s just go through this step by step.
Fact 1: The standard of living is dropping precipitously and the average American is fully aware of this.
Fact 2: The official data is that the recession is over and that prosperity is returning.
Fact 3: There hasn’t been a real, radical nominee for a long time. There have been candidates for the nomination yes, but no actual nominees.
Based on these grounds we can infer that, cliche as it sounds, voters are predisposed to voting for radical views. This happened in Germany in 1930 and in Italy around the same time. The Great Depression resulted in the NSDP going from 4.6% to being the second largest party in the Reichsstag for example. Ron is the only radical candidate being discussed so far. This leads me to believe that his chances now are much better than in 2008 when the recession hadn’t really kicked in. He is also much better known this time around and if he manages to secure the republican nomination(which I find unlikely, but possible) his hardline anti war stance and socially liberal views will mean that a considerable portion of the swingvote will fall his way, deserting Obama.
[/quote]
Done?
All of what you said could be applied to someone who was electable. But, Paul is unelectable, therefore your massive stream of quasi political reasoning does not apply.
If you want to know why he is unelectable please scroll back to near the top of the thread and read a couple of posts of mine from another thread which have been reposted (or not).
I really could have used your keen analytical mind in some of the campaigns I’ve been involved in. All kidding aside you posted some really good stuff it just doesn’t apply to Paul. Now run along and read my prior posts as I am not repeating them…for you.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
i agree, I think people would be surprised how many of the so called left would vote for him[/quote]
This right here is why he is a real contender. he is one of the few candidates in our country’s history that will bring people together.
To quote my friend who is a private contractor in Afghanistan. “Obama says he wants to get us out of the wars but he lies, Ron Paul would actually do it”. He is against Ron Paul by the way.
"1-Too old and tends to sound like he’s whining.
2-He is the anti-charisma candidate. People with zero charisma look at him and say “At least I have more charisma than Ron Paul.”
3-Too radical (to pull the middle)
4-Congressmen don’t get elected President(maybe it happened once 100 years ago).
5-The MSL media would beat him up so bad in comparison it would look like they were just playing around with Sarah Palin. "
You mean these points?
I would tend to agree that those are the biggest hurdles he’d have to overcome, barring point 3 which I think works with him given the current political climate. I’m not saying he’ll win. I highly doubt that he will. All I’m saying is that his chances are much better now than in '08 and that him running is very good news. If nothing else at least it will educate more people on sound economics and the importance of liberty.
But of course, I am young, a little naive, and idealistic so I am not willing to give up hope just yet