My thoughts on Ron Paul

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mephistopheles, Aug 21, 2011.

  1. mephistopheles

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,324
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hell
    I can pretty much sum it up with this, and this.

    I have seen a lot of examples of Ron Paul pretty much being left out of the media, and it really seems like they are trying to avoid him and trying to keep people from hearing what he's saying or trying to discredit him.

    It it because dems don't like him and repubs think he doesn't fit in?
     
  2. D_Hairy Truman

    D_Hairy Truman New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    it's because ron paul is trying to get the country to get back to principles this country was founded on. people do not like the truth and i guess ron paul is not entertaining enough.
     
  3. mephistopheles

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,324
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hell
    That can't be, I find a lot of what he says interesting and he has an awesome sense of humor.
     
  4. D_Percy_Prettywillie

    D_Percy_Prettywillie Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    3
    He does have a pretty good sense of humor. No, democrats are generally not in favor of self declared conservative republicans... that's just something I've picked up on over the years. So there's that. In terms of Republicans? I think the problem they have with him is that he means what he says but does so in a way that doesn't mollify or coddle their religious base and is thus not likely to be a serious contender in a National election (no matter how much steam he has out of the 100% superficial Straw Poll.)

    Dismantling the Federal government isn't going to be a popular position amongst any large group ofpoliticians seeking federal office. So it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the right wing broadcasts (Fox News) aren't embracing him nor should be any surprise that the left leaning broadcasts (apparently everything else) aren't embracing him either.

    It's sort of a lose/lose for this guy.



    JSZ
     
  5. dazedandconfused

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    JSZ, they just did a phone poll in Texas among Republicans and he won, 5% ahead of Perry.

    I think he is third right not behind "people are not very excited" Romney and Perry. And of someone ever dives into the "Why is he not very popular in his own state?" question, things could get interesting.

    Like I said, he is getting a nice base of support and it seems if more dems than normal say they are switching parties. Plus, young people are very excited about Paul. Now, Dems switching and young people coming out for the primary is not uncommon, but if it does, things could get interesting.

    Of young voters in NH, Paul won with 45% of all votes cast at a straw poll.
     
  6. Drifterwood

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,724
    Likes Received:
    386
    Location:
    Fingringhoe (GB)
    I presume you mean the bleary eyed romantic version, not the one that includes slavery and exploitation.
     
  7. D_Percy_Prettywillie

    D_Percy_Prettywillie Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    3
    We'll talk in 14 months I'm sure. This "support" is half a click wide and a micrometer deep. Phone polls and focus groups are just like the Straw Poll at this point, or the fact that people were actually getting excited for a Donald Trump bid a few months ago- great morale boosters for those in support of whomever it is, but as likely an indicator of reality as astrological interpretation.

    At best, in the end, he'll pull a Ralph Nader. His best possible outcome is becoming the 12th person in American history to get more than 5% of the popular vote from the stance of a third party candidate.



    JSZ
     
  8. dazedandconfused

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    In the west wing when Matt Santos is running for President and he is continually down about nine points, Josh keeps saying "Well, we are within the margin of error of being tied." To which Lou replies "It is not a polling error if they consistently show us down by nine."

    If one or two polls show Paul gaining ground while two other polls said differently, I could buy into it is just a small base of very vocal individuals. But poll after poll show Paul gaining ground and I have not seen even one poll out of Texas with Perry leading Paul. Plus, I believe the "Paul is getting ignored" and "is Paul being ignored?" stories bring more publicity to him then if the media was largely just showing him for interviews, etc...

    Again, you may be right, I may be right. But there are a lot of factors that this time may be different. In 2008, Obama ran on change, never defined it, and won. Paul is advocating change, and is defining it. This to me seems like the election where more single issues (like abortion) that is the sole reason someone votes for a campaign. But the economy as a whole has never been the biggest issue to everyone quite as much as it is, and Paul is the only one who is proposing a solution.
     
  9. dazedandconfused

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
  10. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
  11. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Ron Paul another Texas nutbag nothing less nothing more.
     
  12. D_Percy_Prettywillie

    D_Percy_Prettywillie Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    3
    Again, this far away from the election, polling data is superfluous at best. If we were nearing the actual election and he were gaining ground I might take notice of it. But as it stands, considering he's run and failed twice, that he's beating Rick Perry in Texas-based polls doesn't mean all that much to me.

    To win, he'd need two extremely unlikely things to happen; he'd need to be embraced by the right (who, as has been pointed out) ignore and marginalize him whenever the chance is available and he'd have to convince basically every undecided in the country along with a chunk of the traditionally democratic vote. Democrats aren't in favor of burning down the government to pre Civil War era standards. Maybe a handful of DINO's out there are but seriously- when was the last time a noteworthy Democrat campaigned on or had appeal thanks to their call for smaller government?

    The post directly above this one strikes me as a generalization. If you look into some of the things Ron Paul says, they're reasonable and most people would agree with them (who is still in favor of this ridiculous war on drugs?) Were it not for past failed attempts and fog of nuttiness about him (deserved or not) he wouldn't be such an unreasonable candidate.

    If by chance he did get the nomination from the Republicans, my first question to Ron Paul would be how? He wants to do all of these things like pull out of Iraq and make the Federal Reserve more transparent (really to the point you can see through it as it won't exist in its current incarnation) but how does a President go about accomplishing things like that? Executive orders only go so far and in the event of a Ron Paul win, a gridlocked Congress would almost certainly be inevitable (just imagine the Republicans splitting up and being against each other while at the same time being against anything democratic. I really... I really just hate what's become of Congress.)



    JSZ
     
  13. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Despite its extremely vocal adherents, Libertarianism is the red-headed stepchild of American politics. The Republican establishment is absolutely not Libertarian in any meaningful way, because ultimately Libertarianism is a type of Utopianism, and genuinely conservative people shun any form of Utopia as wild-eyed and nutty.

    Progressives, though more likely to believe that public policy can effect lives for the better and are more apt to believe in Utopian schemes, recoil from the distaste Libertarians have for government in general. So even though the two political orientations tend to agree on social issues, they disagree on almost everything else.

    Because of this, Libertarians tend to be marginalized. Though they quake in fear of the Teabaggers, the Republican establishment has no such qualms about quashing any overt enthusiasm for Ron Paul; they've been doing so for years.
     
  14. cruztbone

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Capitola CA USA
    Ron paul has character, the right idea about Iraq and Afghanistan, and favors allowing gays the right to be full citizens. good for him. he is NOT qualified to be president, however. HIs views on abortion, medicare, obamacare and social security are wacko. it should also be noted that he and Obama have a cordial relationship.He is the only GOP candidate who will say what he really believes and doesnt seem to care if he upsets people who may be his natural supporters. good for America.
     
  15. D_Hairy Truman

    D_Hairy Truman New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    please define the bleary eyed romantic version
     
  16. D_Hairy Truman

    D_Hairy Truman New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    from your article and hopefully when i quote it here (per LPSG RULES?) it is being cited:

    A 2010 blog post expands on the idea. Massive inflation, he wrote, "guts the savings and earnings of the people, who have very limited options for protecting themselves against these ravages. One option is to convert their fiat currency into something out of reach of central banks and government spending, such as gold or silver."

    But if he's wrong, bullion prices likely will pull back as the born-again gold bugs rush to take profits. Gold-mining shares would pull back even more if history is any guide, taking a lot of the glitter of Ron Paul's gains.

    i do have an interest in managing my retirement portfolio and how "money" works because one day i will not be able to work. yes if you call for rain everyday one day it will rain. there are cycles due to outside or inside influences of the financial markets. one day gold may not be as "hot" as it is now, but due to the monetary policy and what the federal reserve is doing with the U.S. dollar (devaluing it) i would like to protect what assets i have earned through working instead of it just vanishing. i am not an advocate of Ron Paul or a part of the Tea Party, but i am tired of wasteful government spending on wars such as when the president says over in Libya in a public address that U.S. help was based on protecting human rights. no it wasn't. it was helping Spain and France protect their source for oil. and i do not like the fact that we pay the Federal Reserve to print our money and then we pay it back with interest. the bankers (banking system) are the ones who really control governments and i'm just tired of being a pawn. sorry for the tirade, it's my day off and i just woke up.
     
  17. B_crackoff

    B_crackoff New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    0
    I remember reading up a lot on Ron Paul in 2008 - they didn't give him much airtime then!

    He was right then, & he's right now. Any candidate that proposes leaving the Fed in private hands is just a shill for the banksters - nothing will change. He's been right about everything.

    I think that he is a decent human being, who has never seeked to profit from either his office or convictions.

    Doesn't he always turn down index linked pay rises because inflation is a product of the PRIVATE & UNACCOUNTABLE fiat currency of dollars!

    People forget that even if you don't agree with his traditionalist ideas in certain respects - it doesn't mean that all of Congress will suddenly perform a volte face on all current arrangements. It wouldn't happen.

    My only caveat is - there aren't enough altruistic conservatives like him. If you read how he treated his patients - it's classic humanitarian benevolent conservatism. He's a guy who genuinely cares about people, & more importantly is the only politician willing to free people of the yoke of an ultimately disastrous system of currency.

    He is the only candidate that [publicly] understands the monetary system.

    He won't get elected because people are too greedy - & that is not a charge that can be levelled at Ron Paul. He also doesn't have a chance because Wall St hates him, & will always back candidates who will preserve their hegemony over the masses - & they have far more resources & media whores to back their causes over a guy who simply just tells the truth where it matters currently - which is the economy.
     
    #17 B_crackoff, Aug 23, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2011
  18. dazedandconfused

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    There are many things on here and I will address some:

    Unelectable? In most years, I would say yes. However, there is a big BUT this year. There are numerous polls showing Paul gaining ground. He is probably at the worst a solid third in third at this point, behind Romney (which no one is overly excited about) and Perry (where I have yet to see a poll out of Texas that has Perry ahead of Paul). Among young republicans in new hampshire, Paul almost won a MAJORITY (not plurality, majority) of votes among all republican presidential candidates. The utilization of non-traditional media is amazing my Ron Paul and his money bombs are very successful. If one or two polls showed Paul trending, might not mean much. But when he wins or is virtually tied in all straw polls, is doing well in poll after poll, might not mean a lot early but do indicate where the winds are a-blowin.

    I do not remember a year in recent memory where the vast majority of people say the economy is their biggest concern. Whatever you feel about Ron Paul, he is the only one with a plan and does not just spew talking points when answered a question. And his pull the troops out immediately (which he can do the second he would take office because these are not declared wars) resonates with a lot of people.

    And also, all serious candidates can have their record attacked, except Ron Paul. You simply cannot attack him. He does what he says and says what he does. Again, whether or not you agree with Paul, he easily has the most enthusiastic supporters.

    As for his positions: abortion, medicare or SS is not going to change any time soon. And we need to change something before we are forced to cut benefits.

    And speaking of abortion, his personal view is abortion is bad. However, his POSITION is to keep it legal. He said that he viewed a baby being born and left to die in the corner of a room, and that moved him. He also brought up some interesting points. Why is it ok to abort a fetus the day before it was born but if you killed the baby after it was born, that is murder. If we have no problem as a society with abortion, why should a person who kills a pregnant mother in an auto accident get a sentence for not only for the death of the mother, but the unborn child?

    On a personal note about abortion, a lot of pro-choice people are also anti-death penalty. How can it be ok to get rid of an innocent child but it is not ok to kill a humas being who committed a horrible atrocity?

    For the record, I am pro-life but do not believe it is the governments place to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion unless the heart is beating. We consider death to be the heart stop beating, why is the heart beating not the definition of life?
     
  19. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,866
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    Because we have to make a clear division between what is legal and what is not legal. Nothing to do with what is moral or immoral, or just. This is not the right thread to discuss abortion, but it is immoral and unjust to force a mother to pay for an accident during a sex romp by being compelled to spend the rest of her life looking after a child. The whole concept of the sanctity of human life is overplayed by humans in general, espacially considering how they disregard it when it suits them. In answer to you point about this guy, not knowing anything about american politicians, I would say anyone who opposes abortion but concedes that others have the right to do so if they believe it necessary has a good position. Whether he believes this, I couldnt say.

    In principle an innocent child deserves as much concern as a murderer. However, an inncocent child (but really you mean an unborn child) would need a monumental and impossible amount of medical intervention to keep it alive. I dont accept that a parent is obliged to have children. I dont accept the moral distinction you make between children who have been conceived and those who have not been conceived yet. Does an unfertilised egg not have an equal right to be fertilised and raised as does an egg fertilised 6 hours ago? Does any other egg in the mothers body have an equal right to be fertilised and raised? The answer is, of course not. But I do not see the moral distinction between obliging a mother to bring to term and raise every one of her lifetime supply of eggs and obliging her to raise one which happens to have had the luck to develop for a few months. The tue answer is to leave it to the parents to decide what is best for them to do in their circumstances.

    and how often has a policy to do this turned completely around when faced with a room full of angry generals after becoming president?
     
  20. B_crackoff

    B_crackoff New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm pretty sure that this issue won't sway many votes at all. Having a moral position is fine, but there are no contenders who would really change the law - certainly not RP.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted