Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
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.
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.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.
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 by BmanMcfly; 02-15-11 at 12:32 AM.
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.
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.
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.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.
I agree on this point strongly. Still, I think the message alone has considerable strengths compared to the message given by the "mainstream"candidates.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.
Personally, I think he could use some pointers from his son.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.
"For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
- Khalil Gibran
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.
~Following My Own Flow~
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.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.
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 on this point strongly. Still, I think the message alone has considerable strengths compared to the message given by the "mainstream"candidates.
Can agree with you here too.Personally, I think he could use some pointers from his son.
LOL... ya, he's only bankrupt what 5 companies?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.
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.
Peeps wanna hate on Trump but he was never "really" bankrupt and is always on Top.
~Following My Own Flow~