[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.[/quote]
I do not think many realize there are just about as many libertarians on the left as the right, I would most likely vote for him
[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.[/quote]
He brings together a very tight knit group of males in their early 20’s. And…that’s about it.
Now onto some sport.
The following is how Paul did in the delegate count near the end of the 2008 primaries.
John McCain 1,575
Mike Huckabee 278
Mitt Romney 271 Ron Paul 35
Now I am going to go way out on a limb and not only state that he won’t be elected President, or get the nomination. I am willing to bet you John that Paul will not beat the insignificant 35 delegates that he earned in 08’.
He is a non-issue with anyone who actually understands the political process better than say a 22 year old.
Would you like to bet or is it just the hollow drum you want to beat?
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
"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 :)[/quote]
In a strange way I admire your idealism. Thanks for taking the time to read my prior post. One final thing, the closer you get to understanding how people vote the more scared you’ll become. They are not at all like you. You do care and you are interested and informed. The average voter does not even pay much attention until after labor day. And even then they look at a candidate and react in an emotional way. When they see Paul they don’t see what you see. They see a tired old man who sounds cranky and just a bit nutty. I am not making these claims, I am claiming that the average voter makes these claims. And that’s why he did so poorly in 08’ and will do no better in 12’.
But don’t lose hope, someday there will be someone who will excite the electorate and who has some of the very same qualities you like in Paul.
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]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
In a strange way I admire your idealism. Thanks for taking the time to read my prior post. One final thing, the closer you get to understanding how people vote the more scared you’ll become. They are not at all like you. You do care and you are interested and informed. The average voter does not even pay much attention until after labor day. And even then they look at a candidate and react in an emotional way. When they see Paul they don’t see what you see. They see a tired old man who sounds cranky and just a bit nutty. I am not making these claims, I am claiming that the average voter makes these claims. And that’s why he did so poorly in 08’ and will do no better in 12’.
But don’t lose hope, someday there will be someone who will excite the electorate and who has some of the very same qualities you like in Paul.[/quote]
Maybe I’m just spoiled by the apparent success of the democratic process here in Iceland in our past two elections. We actually had a campaign that focused on the facts and issues at hand that resulted in a result that the “establishment” strongly opposed.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Maybe he should run on the libertarian ticket, I think he would get a lot more votes from the left[/quote]
If he doesn’t get the nomination I hope he does run 3rd party.[/quote]
And sour grapes will get us where?[/quote]
not sour grapes just going to vote with who holds my idea’s. If the GOP doesn’t have that candidate then no reason to vote for them is there? I mean it’s not like they are going to nominate Mr. Veto if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Maybe he should run on the libertarian ticket, I think he would get a lot more votes from the left[/quote]
If he doesn’t get the nomination I hope he does run 3rd party.[/quote]
And sour grapes will get us where?[/quote]
not sour grapes just going to vote with who holds my idea’s. If the GOP doesn’t have that candidate then no reason to vote for them is there? I mean it’s not like they are going to nominate Mr. Veto if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination.[/quote]
When you say you hope he runs on a third party ticket you are in essence stating that you want him to take votes from the republican candidate (mostly). As you know that a third party candidate will not win.
So, maybe it’s time to grow up huh? No one gets everything that they want in life, in or out of politics. If we can elect a conservative, or even someone who is willing to act like a conservative what’s wrong with that?
Why are you doin this to yourself again John? Elmer Fudd will be elected president before Ron Paul. It makes no difference how good or bad he is on issues and ideas. He is BORING AND OLD. In other words a walking campaign catastrophe who would hand the whitehouse to Obama whether he gets the GOP nomination or runs as a libertarian. You will no doubt respond by saying “yeah well it’s a cryin shame that people are so caught up in image”. Fine, but they are. You are not a moron. You have to be able to see this.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Maybe he should run on the libertarian ticket, I think he would get a lot more votes from the left[/quote]
If he doesn’t get the nomination I hope he does run 3rd party.[/quote]
And sour grapes will get us where?[/quote]
not sour grapes just going to vote with who holds my idea’s. If the GOP doesn’t have that candidate then no reason to vote for them is there? I mean it’s not like they are going to nominate Mr. Veto if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination.[/quote]
When you say you hope he runs on a third party ticket you are in essence stating that you want him to take votes from the republican candidate (mostly). As you know that a third party candidate will not win.
So, maybe it’s time to grow up huh? No one gets everything that they want in life, in or out of politics. If we can elect a conservative, or even someone who is willing to act like a conservative what’s wrong with that?[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Why are you doin this to yourself again John? Elmer Fudd will be elected president before Ron Paul. It makes no difference how good or bad he is on issues and ideas. He is BORING AND OLD. In other words a walking campaign catastrophe who would hand the whitehouse to Obama whether he gets the GOP nomination or runs as a libertarian. You will no doubt respond by saying “yeah well it’s a cryin shame that people are so caught up in image”. Fine, but they are. You are not a moron. You have to be able to see this.[/quote]
Perhaps in the Republican bubble, but independents and liberals also like Ron Paul. With your logic of he can never win then I guess Goldwater should have never ran either. Or Reagan his first time.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Maybe he should run on the libertarian ticket, I think he would get a lot more votes from the left[/quote]
If he doesn’t get the nomination I hope he does run 3rd party.[/quote]
And sour grapes will get us where?[/quote]
not sour grapes just going to vote with who holds my idea’s. If the GOP doesn’t have that candidate then no reason to vote for them is there? I mean it’s not like they are going to nominate Mr. Veto if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination.[/quote]
When you say you hope he runs on a third party ticket you are in essence stating that you want him to take votes from the republican candidate (mostly). As you know that a third party candidate will not win.
So, maybe it’s time to grow up huh? No one gets everything that they want in life, in or out of politics. If we can elect a conservative, or even someone who is willing to act like a conservative what’s wrong with that?[/quote]
Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. are your answers.[/quote]
No, they’re not THE answer but think back. Would you rather have had Dukakis, Gore and Kerry? While I am no fan of the Bushes, I far prefer them to those other three characters. Just one example, do you think that Gore would have cut taxes 5% (like Bush did) for every tax payer in the country?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Why are you doin this to yourself again John? Elmer Fudd will be elected president before Ron Paul. It makes no difference how good or bad he is on issues and ideas. He is BORING AND OLD. In other words a walking campaign catastrophe who would hand the whitehouse to Obama whether he gets the GOP nomination or runs as a libertarian. You will no doubt respond by saying “yeah well it’s a cryin shame that people are so caught up in image”. Fine, but they are. You are not a moron. You have to be able to see this.[/quote]
Perhaps in the Republican bubble, but independents and liberals also like Ron Paul. With your logic of he can never win then I guess Goldwater should have never ran either. Or Reagan his first time.[/quote]
Goldwater was indeed a sacrificial lamb. Everyone was aware that LBJ was going to be reelected and the GOP had no one to stop him. In fact, Nixon and others didn’t even try for the nomination because of LBJ’s strength.
Ronald Reagan attempted to unseat Gerald Ford in 1976 and was about as successful as Ted Kennedy was in trying to unseat Jimmy Carter in 1980. So, Reagan naturally tried again in 1980 and won the nomination and the Presidency. By the way they were wondering then if at the age of 68 he was too old to be President. Reagan was also the Governor of the largest state in the US. Shall we now discuss Ron Paul’s age and his political background?
Give it up John you only look more foolish with every post.
