• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

Kali

Stigmatized! End R Word!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
13,333
Reaction score
1,835
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Did you see his interview on Piers Morgan??? I was lukewarm about the Donald before it... he came out of the interview smelling like a rose...

Even though I cannot stand Piers Morgan in Larry's place? I did watch and must say that if the Donald does decide to run? I would consider voting for him.
 

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And Dr. Paul acknowledged his responsibility for what was in the newsletter while, at the same time, condemning in the strongest terms what had been printed. Anything else is just slander from the Daily KoS.

hardly

it takes a special kind of mind even to think, let alone say, things like---i miss the closet, there was no aids epidemic before they came out, gays lives are centered on sex with no reason to live past 50, they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick, you know how fleet footed black teens are, welfaria, zooville, rapetown, hate whitey day, the animals are coming, 5% of blacks hold sensible views, carjacking is the hip hop thing to do...

very few of us (forums members), for example, i believe, are even conceivably capable of going there

whoever is responsible for the years of hate appearing for years in the RON PAUL newsletter is one sick dude

it all comes down to people, who they are

and their values

stay up
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Even though I cannot stand Piers Morgan in Larry's place? I did watch and must say that if the Donald does decide to run? I would consider voting for him.

I understand he has already thrown his hair in the ring!
 
Last edited:

Kali

Stigmatized! End R Word!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
13,333
Reaction score
1,835
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trump is a big mouth moron. He couldn't win his way out of a paper bag.

I think you underestimate The Donald. He is a very powerful man that has the funds needed & backing to run a successful campaign and seems to have a strong grasp on political issues. I have been pretty impressed in interviews with him in reguards to politics. Also keep in mind folks that have no care at all about politics would vote for him and even though he is not a liberal? Hollywood may back the man too.
 

Kali

Stigmatized! End R Word!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
13,333
Reaction score
1,835
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I couldn't agree more... He is just loud and arrogant, and his biggest flaw is that he can't relate to the majority of Americans.

A lot of folks thought Obama could not relate to the majority of Americans and you see where he is sitting:)
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A lot of folks thought Obama could not relate to the majority of Americans and you see where he is sitting:)

Trump's got hair you can believe in!
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is no conspiracy in the U.S. to deny Ron Paul the opportunity to win the Presidency.

Ok, do you remember his campaign back in 2008?? I remember the debates, it was RIDICULOUS.
Everyone gets these general feel good questions, where they can spew their pre-determined answers that are like the back of some self-help book where it promises to turn you into super-champ by reading a book... but you gotta BUY the book before you find out how good it is.

Anyway, then they turn to Dr Paul, and ask a question like "are you electable?" Might as well ask "what are you doing here??"... NOT because he's not holding himself to republican values, but because he would interfere with those "in name only"s agenda. Or he answered a question about pulling out troops and what's his name steps up and is like 'oh but 9-11... 9-11 and 9-11, you should apologize'.

He was called crazy, a kook, they called him unpatriotic, racist, everything... yet, when he continuously won in the polls, the news anchors would claim that 'it must have been his one fan clicking the button over and over'... then he was no longer included...

If it is not a 'conspiracy', then it's because they all independently decided to attack Ron Paul simply because he actually has a track record that shows that he WILL vote for what he believes in. That type of integrity, yes... I understand that makes him over-qualified for president, but to say that he 'CANNOT' win... no, the closer he might get to winning the stronger the attacks will become.

WHY would people be interested in stopping Ron Paul???

Well, he believes in the constitution... so :
- No more torture
- No more wars over-seas unless someone takes it to us first
- No more income tax
- No more federal reserve
- No more mercenary contracts
- Less room for corruption.

Ya... I can see why he's really unpopular.

He will very likely fail, because his political positions have insufficient appeal. One needs broad-based appeal to win one's Party nomination and then the general election. An energized but narrow base is not enough.

Actually, even though the tea parties have to a great extent been compromised by the 'neocons', you'll find that this broad base, ALSO includes a significant 'silent support' that has remained in tact.

The fact that his warnings have all had merit, and he's managed to cause a situation where the patriot act failed to get super-majority... consider it's original vote of 98-1-1 abstention.

I think if he builds on his support base, which has NOTHING but grown.. and I mean exponential growth curve, and if people can go without being distracted by the other candidate pushed out as some sort of saint promising everything under the sun, then he could potentially pull out a big surprise, don't forget, Dr Paul has appeal within democratic ranks as well.

That said, he will not win... the day after he's out of the race he'll be treated properly for his expertise and asked to speak... whatever, until then.

There's also one final factor, while I know on this site, the MSM is still treated as gospel of accuracy (aside from political bias), but in the real world, on street level, people understand to a much greater extent the true motivations behind what makes it into the news.

Oh, and btw, to those pushing that Ron Paul is racist... go for it... whether he is or not, is actually somewhat irrelevant because he's got a level of integrity that absolutely shames anyone else on that field.
 
Last edited:

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,655
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A lot of folks thought Obama could not relate to the majority of Americans and you see where he is sitting:)

You have confused the ability to lie your ass off with relating to the people.

What Obama did was to say what ever he had to in order to get people to fall for his BS, hell some people still think the idiot is brilliant.

I contend that he's a dumb-ass and his record of failed policies, plans, and schemes are the proof.

He got where he is by lying and once caught in a lie he either changes the goal, or creates a new lie to cover the first one.

Obama puts ideology ahead of the good of the Nation and I believe he is not interested in the Nation doing better because it would slow down his plans to rely on Black Liberation Theology AKA Marxism/Socialism.

As I said we need a True Statesman and I would explain to those with mental acuity problems but they will learn better if they do the work, and look it up for yourself.

We have had very few in the last 60 years Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK was on his way to making the list, and the last was Ronald Reagan. But that is my list I'm sure everyone has their own ideas.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
32,303
Reaction score
36,346
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama puts ideology ahead of the good of the Nation and I believe he is not interested in the Nation doing better because it would slow down his plans to rely on Black Liberation Theology AKA Marxism/Socialism.

I would support Ron Paul over Obama.

But could you please answer me a couple of questions.

#1: How in gods name is the underlined Remotely Compatable.

#2: Putting marxism/socialism in that way is redundant since those two aren't even compatable... care to comment on that?

Care Bear Philosophy AKA Nazism/Environmentalism...

Makes about the same amount of sense I'm afraid.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Let me preface this by stating I voted for the guy in the primaries in 2008. Now lets look at some reality.

1. Ron Paul is OLD. He's going to be 77 come 2012. Look at the past 30 or 40 years, and you'll notice something. We haven't had a President elected over 70 EVER and haven't had one elected over 65 years of age since James Buchanan in 1971. His age is a strong factor against him.

His age is something to consider, but he is plenty healthy and we've had presidents with polio who were capable of running the country. Do you know all the health problems J.F.K. had? I do not think his age will be as much of an issue.

2. Outside of his supporters, which frankly the primaries last time should show its reasonable to suggest that said grouping is small relatively speaking, he's generaly regarded as somewhat of a "weird" guy without a lot of Charisma. Pundits and casual observes generally don't rate his presence or his speaking ability exceptionally high. While some of his more fervent supporters may state "that's not important" or "They just don't get his charisma!" ultimately...yes, it is. Charisma plays a huge part in elections and ignoring that is ignoring reality.

He does not have much charisma, true, but I think most of the people being talked about 2012 can only be said to look good rather than charismatic. However, his support was built up in a very hostile atmosphere and started from less than 1% to put him in a position where he had a very good chance of winning third in Iowa. He is starting out from a much stronger position and can thus be better poised in those first crucial states.

3. He is an outsider. Not just a Washington outsider but a political establishment outsider. The news agencies generally aren't fond of him, news papers generally aren't glowingly writing about him, pundits aren't lauding him with praise. His supporters may say that doesn't matter, I'd say they're fools willingly lying to themselves to believe that. You could say it SHOULDN'T matter, but the fact is the majority of voters in this country are not the massively politically informed who spend hours on end researching nuanced political opinions but rather get most of their facts from various news sources. Which isn't going to help Paul.

I agree on this point strongly. Still, I think the message alone has considerable strengths compared to the message given by the "mainstream"candidates.

4. He's got a huge problem with explaining nuance. Or put a different way, he can't make the complicated simple. Ron Paul is incredibly intelligent politically. I am sure if you sit down with him for 30 minutes he could give you so many facts, figures, and reasons why the Department of Education should be shut down completely that it'd make your head spin and you'd probably come around. The problem is, we don't live in a world where its realistic to suggest that you're going to have 30 uninterrupted minutes to make your point on things. We live in a sound bite society and no matter how many legitimate reasons he may have, sounds bites of "We need to go to a gold standard instead of paper money" or "We need to disassemble the Department of Education" give the impression of someone who is a crazed extermist. Paul has seemingly little to know grasp on how to state his complicated points in a more easy to digest sort of way. Its that very nature that got him in trouble last election season with his 9/11 comments.

I like Paul, but Reagan's zombified corpse has a better chance of winning the Presidency before Paul does. What's Paul's legacy has the potential for is something more Goldwater than Reagan, where his ideas and views touch a more charismatic, better communicating politiican who has a bit of pragmatism in him and can properly articulate that message to the public.

Personally, I think he could use some pointers from his son.

Even though I cannot stand Piers Morgan in Larry's place? I did watch and must say that if the Donald does decide to run? I would consider voting for him.

Donald Trump would be the worst possible candidate I can think of at this point in history. That is, unless you want the United States to default.
 

Illumination

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
104
Reaction score
55
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
30% of anything is still a failing result. Last time around McCain placed 5th and won the nomination. The conservatives simply use this as an indicator of which way the nation is leaning.....and with McCain it proved to be the perfect reverse barometer. The Conservatives would have been far better off leaving McCain at the bottom of the totem pole. The nation ended up with two progressives running with both picked by the media instead of being properly vetted by THE PEOPLE, both candidates were purchased under the authorization of a false bill of ladening....as both parties were carrying a load of Manure instead of the advertised and intellectually honest statesmen they were presented as being. One was actually a progressive appeasement artist, the other Marxist, who attempted to do as promised, fundamentally change the United States of America by pushing one unconstitutional program upon THE PEOPLE after another, from the Stimulus Bill and Government take over off private Banks and Corporations to the Unconstitutional Health Care Legislation.

Yep all that rubbish we put up with that you outline is why I no longer give my votes away to what many on both sides call "the lesser of two evils". I'm willing to lose elections, protest, contact my representatives, and whatever else is needed. I only wish more people would wake up and do the same.
 

Kali

Stigmatized! End R Word!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
13,333
Reaction score
1,835
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You have confused the ability to lie your ass off with relating to the people.

What Obama did was to say what ever he had to in order to get people to fall for his BS, hell some people still think the idiot is brilliant.

I contend that he's a dumb-ass and his record of failed policies, plans, and schemes are the proof.

He got where he is by lying and once caught in a lie he either changes the goal, or creates a new lie to cover the first one.

Obama puts ideology ahead of the good of the Nation and I believe he is not interested in the Nation doing better because it would slow down his plans to rely on Black Liberation Theology AKA Marxism/Socialism.

As I said we need a True Statesman and I would explain to those with mental acuity problems but they will learn better if they do the work, and look it up for yourself.

We have had very few in the last 60 years Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK was on his way to making the list, and the last was Ronald Reagan. But that is my list I'm sure everyone has their own ideas.

I consider Obama a man of his word and keep in mind what he was walking into. A big fat mess so folks that expected him to change the world and walk on water are upset but they should never have expected all that he did promise. This goes for ANY elected officials. I mean what person expect them to deliver 100% of what they say?

Obama is still brilliant and you cannot take away his shine-no matter how hard you try. I admit he done some stuff I am not happy with but I was not expecting perfection. This is where voters go wrong: they vote for folks and expect em to do everything they say they will do when they need to understand that is NEVER going to happen. Expect to be let down if you vote for someone thinking they gonna do all this and that. It will NOT/NEVER happen. The sooner voters understand it? Better off they will be.

In reguards to your pop shot at my mental state? I suggest you go screw yourself.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
His age is something to consider, but he is plenty healthy and we've had presidents with polio who were capable of running the country. Do you know all the health problems J.F.K. had? I do not think his age will be as much of an issue.

He might be older, but he's definitely still all there... so, yes, it's an issue, but not quite a deal breaker.

He does not have much charisma, true, but I think most of the people being talked about 2012 can only be said to look good rather than charismatic. However, his support was built up in a very hostile atmosphere and started from less than 1% to put him in a position where he had a very good chance of winning third in Iowa. He is starting out from a much stronger position and can thus be better poised in those first crucial states.

True, he's not a charismatic leader, he is however, a principled character with verifiable integrity.... it all depends on how well he has built up his message in that time. He's nothing of a 'write-off' candidate as people try to make him out to be... if he was given an honest chance against the rest (without things like the media smear campaign, etc), then he'd win hands down every time... Instead attempted creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I agree on this point strongly. Still, I think the message alone has considerable strengths compared to the message given by the "mainstream"candidates.

That's why in the 'longer term', EVEN IF Dr Paul were to lose the election it would STILL be a win for his message, he can inject more pertinent issues into the debates, and he's already had a large impact on america as it is with his minimal 'results'.

Personally, I think he could use some pointers from his son.

Can agree with you here too.

Donald Trump would be the worst possible candidate I can think of at this point in history. That is, unless you want the United States to default.

LOL... ya, he's only bankrupt what 5 companies?

Hopefully a new and better candidate steps up to the plate, someone that actually tries to honestly explain common sense solutions to various problems that they are going to enforce if elected... and who you could be confident that they would actually hold true to their word. I know, it's alot to ask of a politician, but still.
 

Kali

Stigmatized! End R Word!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
13,333
Reaction score
1,835
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Peeps wanna hate on Trump but he was never "really" bankrupt and is always on Top.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Peeps wanna hate on Trump but he was never "really" bankrupt and is always on Top.

No... bankrupting a company is very different from a person bankrupting... closing down shop can represent a huge sum of liquid funds even though the company was failure.

I'm sure trumps a decent guy, and he is successful in his own right... but he is a public figure and ripe for attacks...

That said, he's far more of a political newcomer the Paul is, and well... Dr Paul has won a series of positions in elections throughout his career, in other words, Trump is the new guy in town, at least as far as 'electability' is concerned.
 

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
i wonder what would be the national reaction be if a person like, say, sarah palin or glenn beck ever said "the animals are coming" or "gays aren't concerned with living past 50, they like the attention they get from having aids"

values
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
56,816
Reaction score
23,970
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
i wonder what would be the national reaction be if a person like, say, sarah palin or glenn beck ever said "the animals are coming" or "gays aren't concerned with living past 50, they like the attention they get from having aids"

values

Ron Paul said that? I just thought he was crazy.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Anyway, then they turn to Dr Paul, and ask a question like "are you electable?" Might as well ask "what are you doing here??"... NOT because he's not holding himself to republican values, but because he would interfere with those "in name only"s agenda. Or he answered a question about pulling out troops and what's his name steps up and is like 'oh but 9-11... 9-11 and 9-11, you should apologize'.

As there had been low expectations concerning Congressman Paul's debate performance, that question afforded him a breakthrough opportunity. At the time of the debate, the nation was embroiled in a financial crisis, there were major challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. Congressman Paul could have rebutted the question by stating that although his positions appear to be outside the "mainstream" (the reason the question was asked in the first place), they are, in his view, what is needed given the nation's time of crisis. The common thread that draws the nation's foreign and domestic policy challenges together is the issue of sustainability. He could have pointed out the financial crisis's roots in overleverage/excessive debt and then highlighted the nation's worsening medium- and long-term fiscal outlook. He could have argued that at a time of looming fiscal resource challenges, the nation needed a smarter, more effective, and less costly foreign policy. He could have argued that overreach would both compromise the nation's foreign policy interests and help exhaust its finances.

He could also have rebutted Mayor Giuliani's references about 9/11 by invoking President Roosevelt's quote about having nothing to fear but fear itself. He could have asserted that fear-driven decision making is especially dangerous, as it sacrifices objectivity and reason that are crucial to sound decision making. He could affirmed that he favored a focused and firm counterterrorism response, but only opposed fear-driven responses that were increasingly removed from the nation's founding principles, not well-targeted against the terrorists responsible for 9/11, and consuming enormous fiscal resources at a time of economic crisis.

The question was a huge opening and he blew it. Instead, he offered a weak and superficial response about blowback. Although blowback (or in more generic terms feedback) is a real factor tied to any decision making/policy making, it is not the major, much less leading reason the nation faces substantial foreign policy/national security challenges. It is one contributor that amplifies those challenges. Ideology, clashing interests, the shfiting balance of power, etc., are all major drivers of the foreign policy environment. He could even have juxtaposed the fear-driven financial panic that was underway during the debate and likened some of the nation's policy responses to 9/11 as representing a policy panic of sorts.

None of those arguments required him to sacrifice his core principles. They would have allowed him to strike an approach that seemed balanced and reasonable in tackling the nation's great challenges. However, he did not take that course. Instead, he largely circumvented the question, repeating longstanding thoughts, and came across as overly simplistic, uncertain, and worse. That's not the media's fault.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,511
Reaction score
52,720
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
56,816
Reaction score
23,970
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Maybe he said that. Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays - CNN

Short version: a Ron Paul newsletter contained some racist comments, Paul claims he did not write them and did not know they where in the newsletter. Paul admitted responsibility but denied being a racist.

Not sure on the gay comment, I can find no reference to it.

This is the best part of that part:

Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea.

Lol... forget whether or not he's racist. He's bat **** insane.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,511
Reaction score
52,720
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This is the best part of that part:



Lol... forget whether or not he's racist. He's bat **** insane.

My theory: we don't need to go after him for being racist. He may be, but the fact he is bat**** insane is enough and more than enough to be against him.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ok, do you remember his campaign back in 2008??

As a Ron Paul voter, yes. And I don't think it was a "Conspiracy".

Anyway, then they turn to Dr Paul, and ask a question like "are you electable?" Might as well ask "what are you doing here??"... NOT because he's not holding himself to republican values, but because he would interfere with those "in name only"s agenda. Or he answered a question about pulling out troops and what's his name steps up and is like 'oh but 9-11... 9-11 and 9-11, you should apologize'.

I don't remember everyone just getting cookie cutter questions, and I don't think the question was uncalled for with Ron Paul. Already at that time he would've been one of the oldest people running on a major party ticket for their first term, which would be a strike against him. On the larger political scale he was a relative unknown. Senators tend to have a hard time being elected President, congressmen have never had it happen. Its a legitimate question to ask him.

His problem with his statement on the troops was his OWN doing, and is a symptom of Ron Paul being unable to function in the current political climate on the national stage. His answers, his views, are nuanced things that take significant time to explain in detail to individuals who are not relatively well versed in politics. This simply is not condusive to how national politics are covered in this country, and that's been that way for far longer than simply 2008. Someone being unable to adapt their style to the arena they're entering is their own fault, not some conspiracy against them.

He was called crazy, a kook, they called him unpatriotic, racist, everything... yet, when he continuously won in the polls, the news anchors would claim that 'it must have been his one fan clicking the button over and over'... then he was no longer included...

Are you suggesting others in the primary weren't attacked? You had McCain being called out of touch, liberal, a rhino, etc as well. The News Anchors were using LOGIC with regards to the polls....notice that despite Ron Paul winning tons of ONLINE polls he routinely and continually came in towards the middle to end of the voting in each state. Obviously that must've been a giant conspiracy to keep the droves of poll voters away....or perhaps he had a more animated internet base with more computer savy on manipulating online polls. Its not a conspiracy, its common sense.

If it is not a 'conspiracy', then it's because they all independently decided to attack Ron Paul simply because he actually has a track record that shows that he WILL vote for what he believes in.

Or they all decided to point out the negatives of a guy who routinely wasn't getting significant votes to warrant a ton of air time yet had a dedicated minority following that would refuse to let him not be mentioned. Yes, I'm sure the big scary evil media met in their stone cutters back room to all decide to be mean to little old Ron Paul specifically becasue he votes for what he believes in.

I'm sure the tooth fairy exists too.

That type of integrity, yes... I understand that makes him over-qualified for president, but to say that he 'CANNOT' win... no, the closer he might get to winning the stronger the attacks will become.

Ron Paul never got close enough to sniff the tail end of a person who had little chance to win. He never got "Closer" to winning, unless you mean he got "closer" to winning like forming a puddle in the mud is "closer" to becoming an ocean.

The Zombified Corpse of Ronald Reagan has about as much chance at winning the Presidency as Ron Paul has, regardless as to whether or not the Media reports negatively on him.

Actually, even though the tea parties have to a great extent been compromised by the 'neocons', you'll find that this broad base, ALSO includes a significant 'silent support' that has remained in tact.

Oh please...I'm excited for this one...explain exactly how the "tea party" as a movement has been "to a great extent" compromised by 'Neocons'. Please explain specific policy views pushed by the Tea Party as a movement that are unquestionably "neoconservative".

The fact that his warnings have all had merit, and he's managed to cause a situation where the patriot act failed to get super-majority... consider it's original vote of 98-1-1 abstention.

ROLF

Yes, of course...the Patriot Act being stripped away bit by bit over the past decade is DEFINITELY all attributed to Ron Paul and isn't simply something following the historical path of most other forms of heavily authoratarian legislation or edicts that was put into place during War Time and slowly removed.

:roll:

You want to know what hurt Ron Paul....other than his low name recognition to the main stream, his age, his lack of traditional charisma, his inability to explain the complex simply, his nasally voice, or his seeming rejection of pragmatism....the more ridiculous acting segment of his fans that range from 9/11 kooks to cult-like worshippers who think they're better than everyone and that everyone must be ****ing retarded to not view their god, "DR. PAUL!!!!", exactly as they do. Those who go on and on how its all just one giant horrible conspiracy against him because its not physically possible for someone to honestly think he's not a good candidate or has some problems or isn't the only bestest greatest most logical choice that's obvious to everyone whose not sheeple.

Ron Paul's numerous faults regarding a national election were the largest thing to blame for his loss, and for the media's method of covering him, not some evil ridiculous conspiracy by the parties and the media to black ball him.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He might be older, but he's definitely still all there... so, yes, it's an issue, but not quite a deal breaker.

May not be a deal breaker, but its a legitimate question and suggestion that it'd be a negative. He'd literally be "historic" if he was elected. I don't think its unreasonable that suggesting something that has NEVER happened before because of in part a negative view towards age on the part of the public is a negative for him. He'd be the oldest 1st term President by almost a decade in the history of our country.

True, he's not a charismatic leader, he is however, a principled character with verifiable integrity.... it all depends on how well he has built up his message in that time. He's nothing of a 'write-off' candidate as people try to make him out to be... if he was given an honest chance against the rest (without things like the media smear campaign, etc), then he'd win hands down every time... Instead attempted creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And if lollipops ****ted rainbows the world would be a wonderful place.

Sadly, we live in reality. In reality, all factors of an individual play into how they're covered as do factors of business. A person whose election would mean bucking two extremely long running trends (no one over 70 elected, no congressman ever elected), who has moderate at best national exposure, who is generally not an exciting in the traditional political definition speaker, who is not good at playing the soundbite game, and who is prone to state things that without significant and time intensive further explanation sound crazy all are factors that he has to deal with. Just like every other candidate does.

There is not a single candidate whose coverage is not dictated by the various other circumstances surrounding them, both positive or negative. You can wish that the impossible will happen all you want, but its no more logical or realistic than wishing for rainbow ****ting lollipops.

That's why in the 'longer term', EVEN IF Dr Paul were to lose the election it would STILL be a win for his message, he can inject more pertinent issues into the debates, and he's already had a large impact on america as it is with his minimal 'results'.

I agree it'd be a win for his message if he won the nomination; but then again simply being talked about on a national level will be win for his message.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As a Ron Paul voter, yes. And I don't think it was a "Conspiracy".

No, to call it 'conspiracy' would be over-simplification... let's call it an overall consensus that the 'constitution' works contrary to their desires of power.

I don't remember everyone just getting cookie cutter questions, and I don't think the question was uncalled for with Ron Paul. Already at that time he would've been one of the oldest people running on a major party ticket for their first term, which would be a strike against him. On the larger political scale he was a relative unknown. Senators tend to have a hard time being elected President, congressmen have never had it happen. Its a legitimate question to ask him.

I disagree... it was an antagonistic question, and I exaggerated slightly at the split between both lines of questioning, but the others were all asked 'safe' questions where they all offered very similar answers but with different twists... but still, there was clear antagonistic pressure against Ron Paul far more then what the other candidates received. ALSO, when you consider the main campaign contributions to each of those in the primaries (Hint : The degree to which those banks that were later to receive 'bailouts' spent on a candidate reflected in how many votes they wound up with overall...

But I don't view it as 'conspiracy' as much as I would consider it a 'common agenda'

His problem with his statement on the troops was his OWN doing, and is a symptom of Ron Paul being unable to function in the current political climate on the national stage. His answers, his views, are nuanced things that take significant time to explain in detail to individuals who are not relatively well versed in politics. This simply is not condusive to how national politics are covered in this country, and that's been that way for far longer than simply 2008. Someone being unable to adapt their style to the arena they're entering is their own fault, not some conspiracy against them.

Ya... he is over-qualified...

Are you suggesting others in the primary weren't attacked? You had McCain being called out of touch, liberal, a rhino, etc as well. The News Anchors were using LOGIC with regards to the polls....notice that despite Ron Paul winning tons of ONLINE polls he routinely and continually came in towards the middle to end of the voting in each state. Obviously that must've been a giant conspiracy to keep the droves of poll voters away....or perhaps he had a more animated internet base with more computer savy on manipulating online polls. Its not a conspiracy, its common sense.

No, I agree that even given a fair shot last time he lacked the core support in that sense. He did have a very vocal minority though... so, I don't think his support base should be under-estimated after continuing to build as he has in that time... and then his son getting into the political arena, who's very similar and still more charismatic...

Or they all decided to point out the negatives of a guy who routinely wasn't getting significant votes to warrant a ton of air time yet had a dedicated minority following that would refuse to let him not be mentioned. Yes, I'm sure the big scary evil media met in their stone cutters back room to all decide to be mean to little old Ron Paul specifically becasue he votes for what he believes in.

I'm sure the tooth fairy exists too.

No, that wasn't the point... I don't think that he was allowed to truly convey his message at that point.

Ron Paul never got close enough to sniff the tail end of a person who had little chance to win. He never got "Closer" to winning, unless you mean he got "closer" to winning like forming a puddle in the mud is "closer" to becoming an ocean.

The Zombified Corpse of Ronald Reagan has about as much chance at winning the Presidency as Ron Paul has, regardless as to whether or not the Media reports negatively on him.

It's a loop... he gets promotion of being 'unelectable', and so people buy into that and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh please...I'm excited for this one...explain exactly how the "tea party" as a movement has been "to a great extent" compromised by 'Neocons'. Please explain specific policy views pushed by the Tea Party as a movement that are unquestionably "neoconservative".

No, not in the policy views.. but these 'neocons' have wrapped themselves in tea party coloration to use that movement to get them back into power, at which point they will flip flop around...

ROLF

Yes, of course...the Patriot Act being stripped away bit by bit over the past decade is DEFINITELY all attributed to Ron Paul and isn't simply something following the historical path of most other forms of heavily authoratarian legislation or edicts that was put into place during War Time and slowly removed.

:roll:

No, not solely to ron paul, but because of the message he puts out there...

You want to know what hurt Ron Paul....other than his low name recognition to the main stream, his age, his lack of traditional charisma, his inability to explain the complex simply, his nasally voice, or his seeming rejection of pragmatism....the more ridiculous acting segment of his fans that range from 9/11 kooks to cult-like worshippers who think they're better than everyone and that everyone must be ****ing retarded to not view their god, "DR. PAUL!!!!", exactly as they do. Those who go on and on how its all just one giant horrible conspiracy against him because its not physically possible for someone to honestly think he's not a good candidate or has some problems or isn't the only bestest greatest most logical choice that's obvious to everyone whose not sheeple.

Ron Paul's numerous faults regarding a national election were the largest thing to blame for his loss, and for the media's method of covering him, not some evil ridiculous conspiracy by the parties and the media to black ball him.

No... not a 'conspiracy'... think of it like this :
There's a mafia card game going on, every so often they might stab each other in the back, occasionally they might shoot each other... but if someone comes to interfere with the game they'll all flip the table and start shooting to protect the game.

Dr Paul represents a threat to the neocon / neolib agenda of greater corporate and governmental power... and so, without needing to 'conspire' they all individually recognize the threat that this soft spoken, nasally, small-statured man represents.

They don't need a 'conspiracy' to be individually corrupt and to recognize a threat to their continued corruption.

I agree it'd be a win for his message if he won the nomination; but then again simply being talked about on a national level will be win for his message.

So, you're arguing that he should become a senator instead? Because, it'd be all but a sure thing if he went as a senator.
 
Top Bottom