• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why no body talks about Ron Paul?

^---- This. This here. This here part of why "no body talks about Ron Paul". Because of supporters like this. This is a microcosim of Ron Paul's issue...Paul can't succi
I' m sure there is an interesting debate in there some where.. but it got lost or cut off.
Say Again, over.
 
I' m sure there is an interesting debate in there some where.. but it got lost or cut off.
Say Again, over.

Its kind of piggy backing on my comments here:

Wow...20 seconds in and I realize this guy is a douche.

No, "Extreme" doesn't mean he disagree's with Mitt Romney and Hillary. "Extreme" means his view is easily outside of what 75% if not closer to 90% of the country think. "Extreme" is something radically and significantly different than what is normally occurring. And again, the "Extreme" is based on the perception based on his immediate comments rather than expecting the average voter to take hours ****ing researching him. You can call them sheeple, idiots, naive, ignorant, stupid, whatever you want...I'd call you ****ing naive and unrealistic to do so. Paul fans can't bitch and moan that he's not getting attention, and then piss and moan because his refusal to actual address the reality of the voting population keeps people from embracing him.

The smug arrogant smirk and that jackass comment is far and away the best 20 second encapsulation of the typical Ron Paul supporter that does as much harm to Paul's camp due to their smug superiority complex as they help it by their enthusiastic support.

and ones I've made previously on the board. Ron Paul supporters are simultaneously one of his biggest assets and one of his biggest liability. Their excitement and fervor for him help raise money and get his name out there. On the flip side, their tendancy to be incredibly smug, condenscending, and oblivious to the reality of politics simply play into the first impression many already get of Paul and drives many people away from having any desire to research the man further.
 
Yes the Constitution is a very odd idea. Who would believe such absurdities?
The only thing wacked out here is how many people think Liberty is an odd idea.
Any serious look into history shows that Ron Paul is not the crazy one here. I would love to blaim politicians like Bush, Obama, Santorum, or Newt. But the truth is that the world is supply and demand. Morons demand the absurd, those polititians supplied it.
I don't claim to know exactly how this country became so screwed up. But I do know that absurdities are propogaded every day.
"Those that believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities" - Voltaire
"Brother you better get down on your knees and pay... One thousand fools are being born... every single day" - Dr. Graffin

Yes, to those that say Ron Paul is insane, well sanity always sounds insane to insane people.
 
All I'm gonna say is that to me: the bullcrap of the last 60 to 150 years from both Democrats and Republicans is what I find extreme. People can say the Constitutuion is extreme. Sure, it was 220 years ago and sadly it still is. But that does not make it or it's diehard supporters "crazy".
 
people of integrity focus on what they believe in, not what will garner them support.

It is not a lack of integrity to talk about what people are interested in, nor is it a lack of integrity to present your message in a way that is liable to work.
 
All I'm gonna say is that to me: the bullcrap of the last 60 to 150 years from both Democrats and Republicans is what I find extreme. People can say the Constitutuion is extreme. Sure, it was 220 years ago and sadly it still is. But that does not make it or it's diehard supporters "crazy".

People who hear voices in their head think that eveyrone is wrong and they're the only ones that are sane as well.

Also, thanks for highlighting what I mean in other threads when I say baseless emotional appeals regarding the constitution.

Extreme means being of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average. Its nice that you think what the vast majority of people in the country feel is "extreme", but their stance is the "ordinary" or "average" stance of this country. There's a general variation between them, and Ron Paul's views often fall outside even that relatively wide variation of what's "ordinary". If you want to take "Extreme" to mean "Bad" that's your perogative, but it simply means its far out of line with what the general average stance is. Many of Paul's view fit that bill.
 
If you want the Federal Reserve to keep printing money, allowing runaway inflation; thus controlling the ebb and flow of our economy, then vote for an "ordinary" candidate.
If you want to have our soldiers keep coming home in body bags, while policing the world, then voter for an "ordinary" candidate.
If you want to continue being groped at airports, and incrementally losing all of your freedoms, then vote for an "ordinary" candidate.
If you want to isolate all ethnicities, and make the Republican party the party of the past, then go ahead and vote for an "ordinary" candidate.
If you just want to put a band-aid on the illegal immigration problem, while ignoring fixing the incentives that entice them here, then go ahead, vote for an "ordinary" candidate.
 
My issues with Ron Paul, as Red was alluding to is that he is running a poor campaign. This won't prevent me from voting for him since he is the most accurate representation of me. But he is addressing issues that need to be addressed rather than what people want to hear. For example: He's talking about auditing and eventually eliminating the Fed. He's not explaining how this helps the problem(s), which it does. But the populous isn't going to make that connection. Their eyes glaze over when he tries. He needs to start at the bottom. He needs to tell them the results first. "I will create jobs for you." Then let them ask 'how?'. He's currently attacking the roots, which is the most logical way to solve the problem, but not the most logical way to win an election. That's where we, his supporters, need to step in and explain. It's great that his biggest short-coming isn't one of principal, but one of politics. He's a great person. He'd do a lot of good for this country. He's not the best politician.

Some fun facts about Ron Paul:

He's received more campaign contributions than ALL of the other candidates (including Obama) COMBINED from members of our military (who are the ones among us with first-hand knowledge of our foreign affairs; yet people still attack his foreign policy. Who is being ignorant here? If you want to support our military, nothing should speak louder than where THEIR dollars are going.)

He has repeatedly turned down the handsome Congressional Pension that they receive after 5 years of service calling it "immoral and hypocritical".

He is willing to admit what needs to be done about Social Security. He's going to phase it out. He's not going to make the elderly suffer. Everyone else is afraid to tell the middle-aged folk that they are not going to collect. Ron Paul is a realist and honest about it. Either phase it out or go bankrupt.

He is going to put medicare in the hands of the states. Where the people of the states will have more say over regulations in their lives.

I've read the 6 pages of this 'debate' and still have not heard specific argument against Ron Paul (other than his campaign faults). What about his principals? Please don't be vague. What specifically is preventing you from voting for Ron Paul. I'm not hard-headed; I will happily change my vote if someone else better represents me or I see a major flaw in a candidate. Sometimes I think I must be missing something and so I try to look up 'dirt' on RP to no avail. Please enlighten me.
 
...What specifically is preventing you from voting for Ron Paul....

he hangs out with Alex Jones and other insane conspiracy theorists.

he talks about the "North American Union" and other insanity.

sorry, but folks like this don't belong running the most powerful country on Earth, with 3,000 nuclear weapons.
 
He's not the best politician.

I agree. At times, he rambles on and on on a subject. 30 or 60 seconds isn't enough time to formulate a coherent answer; he needs to stick to clear, concise answers that the average couch potato can agree with. I'm certain that almost everyone is a Ron Paul supporter, they just don't realize it yet. I think the more air time he gets, the more voters he will attract. I also think the heavy hitters of the GOP are just waiting around, biding their time, to see if Dr. Paul can pull this off. When he wins the GOP nomination, I think he will get an overflow of support, endorsements, and so much cash that his campiagn will not know what to do with. Axelrod and Obama will not know what hit them!
 
I agree. At times, he rambles on and on on a subject. 30 or 60 seconds isn't enough time to formulate a coherent answer; he needs to stick to clear, concise answers that the average couch potato can agree with. I'm certain that almost everyone is a Ron Paul supporter, they just don't realize it yet. I think the more air time he gets, the more voters he will attract. I also think the heavy hitters of the GOP are just waiting around, biding their time, to see if Dr. Paul can pull this off. When he wins the GOP nomination, I think he will get an overflow of support, endorsements, and so much cash that his campiagn will not know what to do with. Axelrod and Obama will not know what hit them!

with all due respect, you're dreaming.
 
The reality is that Ron Paul is a nut (actually he's much worse) and can not win. Pointing out the reality about him isn't unfair. It's simply the truth.
 
I agree. At times, he rambles on and on on a subject. 30 or 60 seconds isn't enough time to formulate a coherent answer; he needs to stick to clear, concise answers that the average couch potato can agree with. I'm certain that almost everyone is a Ron Paul supporter, they just don't realize it yet. I think the more air time he gets, the more voters he will attract. I also think the heavy hitters of the GOP are just waiting around, biding their time, to see if Dr. Paul can pull this off. When he wins the GOP nomination, I think he will get an overflow of support, endorsements, and so much cash that his campiagn will not know what to do with. Axelrod and Obama will not know what hit them!

Since the most popular president in USA history by every poll year after year is Abraham Lincoln and given that Ron Paul describes Abraham Lincoln as the worst president accusing him of being a warmongering mass-murderer ego-maniac, it seems clear enough that most Americans do not agree with Ron Paul.
 
he hangs out with Alex Jones and other insane conspiracy theorists.

he talks about the "North American Union" and other insanity.

sorry, but folks like this don't belong running the most powerful country on Earth, with 3,000 nuclear weapons.

He talks about the north American union? Talking about it doesn't make him a nut. Here's a link: North American Union Question For Ron Paul - YouTube check it out - he says specifically that he's not supporting the conspiracy. From what I understand, he's saying that though their may not be a spoken NAU in progress, there is, undeniably, issues of such a union if it were to exist and so any attempts to move in that direction, even if those words aren't spoken, needs to be stopped. Do you disagree with that? He's not fighting the NAU because, like you alluded, it doesn't exist. But he is fighting the same issues that he would be fighting if they called it the NAU. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

And I won't refuse my support for Ron Paul because someone I may not like does support him. That seems a little radical.

So I thank you for pointing out the NAU. I had forgotten about that. But he doesn't seem to be pushing any points against this 'conspiracy' and if you can find evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. But beyond false allegations, I still see nothing wrong with Ron Paul's principals. Anything else? If not, I believe it's time you give RP an honest look.
 
I believe it's time you give RP an honest look.

The voters have done so. The polling numbers and consistency with the past Presidential campaign experience both provide an unmistakable message that voters are not willing to "buy" the product (policies) Ron Paul is offering.
 
The reality is that Ron Paul is a nut (actually he's much worse) and can not win. Pointing out the reality about him isn't unfair. It's simply the truth.

You sound like everyone else with your vague accusations. What, specifically, don't you like about him.

and Ron Paul's points against Abe Lincoln (which are obviously irrelevant to all issues today) was this: Every other western civilization abolished slavery without a civil war. Abe Lincoln is cited MANY times supporting slavery. The reason he signed the emancipation proclamation was two parts: 1 part economic and 1 part to increase the powers of the national government, allowing it to go to war with any states that secede from the union. He, as in just one man, wanted to change the foundations of our republic using war. And in case you would like to quote RP further, I'll provide the direct link so that in the future, you may be more accurate: Ron Paul Speaks Out About Lincoln And The War For Southern Independence - YouTube
 
The voters have done so. The polling numbers and consistency with the past Presidential campaign experience both provide an unmistakable message that voters are not willing to "buy" the product (policies) Ron Paul is offering.

Obvious statement is obvious. The polls indicate the percent of Americans supporting candidates. RP has low poll numbers. ergo...

I'm asking why. What's wrong with him? If you have nothing more than vague statements or misquotations, then you're being dishonest with yourself.
 
if you think its even slightly real, then he is a nut. a paranoid nut, unworthy to be POTUS.

Denying the truths that conspiracy theorists go off on would make me just as much of a nut. Just as baseless in reality.
 
I'm asking why. What's wrong with him? If you have nothing more than vague statements or misquotations, then you're being dishonest with yourself.

Your issue is that you're assuming that the non-in depth issue based factors soehow don't play into "What's wrong with him".
 
You sound like everyone else with your vague accusations. What, specifically, don't you like about him.

and Ron Paul's points against Abe Lincoln (which are obviously irrelevant to all issues today) was this: Every other western civilization abolished slavery without a civil war. Abe Lincoln is cited MANY times supporting slavery. The reason he signed the emancipation proclamation was two parts: 1 part economic and 1 part to increase the powers of the national government, allowing it to go to war with any states that secede from the union. He, as in just one man, wanted to change the foundations of our republic using war. And in case you would like to quote RP further, I'll provide the direct link so that in the future, you may be more accurate: Ron Paul Speaks Out About Lincoln And The War For Southern Independence - YouTube

Holy ****ing revisionist history.
 
Anyone that believes conspiracies are not real is the true nut job. True, not all conspiracies theories are fact. Unidentifed Flying Objects are most certainly real. Extraterrestrials are however debatable.
Ron Paul is the most honest politician I can name, and he is very good at talking about the unpleasant topics which plague us. I disagree with any claim that Ron Paul has run a horrible campaign. He and Newt are about the only two who's numbers are growing rather than declining. You don't get 70% of the military support by being crazy or incoherent. Ron Paul has been saying the exact same thing for 30 years. He has wriiten very good books and has stated his case loud and clear. If it is too much info to wrap your head around, that sounds like a personal problem... not his.
Some people are very good at looking at topics through very narrow shutters. As they say "Ignorance is bliss!"
I agree that any claims that Ron Paul is crazy are greatly overexagered. It's an act of the despirate. It's like saying "Obama is gonna take our guns away".
Making broad generalized statements are what turn political debates into complete and utter crap.
Why don't we have a topic for each major issue? See how our thoughts line up with the individual canidate and go from there.
More polls. More substance. Less name calling.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom