• 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?

poweRob said:
His suspicions of the fed reserve are becoming well founded...

================
Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts

The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the left), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning: The Fed Audit - Newsroom: Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont

What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland.
================
Click to expand...

The $16 trillion figure is a gross distortion of what actually happened, and provides further evidence that Congress should NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES have the authority to influence Fed policy.
 
Sigh, every cycle its Ron Paul and every cycle Ron Paul never wins anything and always has the same 8% fringe supporters and the same whining he doesnt get enough attention.
 
ARealConservative said:
You are uninformed. He would introduce competition in monetary policy, not have congress dictate it. The trouble with Ron Paul is it requires critical thinking to understand his positions
Click to expand...

Paul is no dummy but he is waaaaay out of his depth when he wades into monetary policy.
 
katsung47 said:
Why no body talks about Ron Paul? All sheep under one magic wand?
Click to expand...


Well people here people talk about him but some people are nicer then others. The best thing I found here is to not push him on others. His views can be somewhat hard to grasp for some and don't understand where he is coming from. Others get bad information (MSM/Slanted media) about him that it's hard to clear up even after explaining it to them already. I pull my hair out when someone refers to him as a isolationist or he's going back to the gold standard. Some people don't like his ideology like actual capitalism and free markets.

For me, I am hesitant to make a thread about him. But for others, I would recommend when posting about him, let it be informative like a news story or youtube video. It's why I post up streams to debate threads for people to see how awesome he is compared to other candidates on stage. Maybe they say "Hey, i totally agree with him there. Let me find out more.". If they get bad information then I or someone else can correct them.

For example, someone posted today on dailypaul a cool story.

I was at a Republican congresswoman's fundraiser this week. You will not believe what happened. | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty


I live in a wealthy Florida neighborhood, homes start here at $700,000 and up and one of my neighbors invited me to a fundraising event for a congresswoman. I accepted just to get a feel for what wealthy private citizens are looking for.

As she spoke I was just listening and some of what she said was good but I could see most of it was pandering and talk about the Democrats and Obama, I would roll my eyes when she spoke about the Constitution, etc. etc. I think you all get the point.

I felt out of place because of my views and my support for Ron Paul.

Then came the open question and answer session with the congresswoman. This is where it got interesting.

The room was silent for almost 30 seconds when she asked for a question, so I popped up and said what are your plans for our economy. I got the political answer as usual and after hearing it I couldn't help myself any longer. Thinking I was either going to be laughed at or thrown out.

I said, one of the biggest threats to our country is our economy and no Republican presidential candidates are talking about cutting anything expect for congressman Ron Paul who has proposed 1 trillion in cuts his first year as president, the other candidates are talking about tinkering with the tax code, but we don't have a taxing problem in this country we have a spending problem.

These 40 or so people erupted in cheers after my comment, the congresswoman was silent as these people cheered and the look on her face was priceless.

Then the discussion about illegals came up, people were throwing out ideas and myself feeling more confident then I was originally I said, fixing the problem with illegals is easy, WE END THE ENTITLEMENTS to them and they won't have an incentive to come here, why wouldn't people flock here if we just give them, medical care, housing, food, money, schooling, etc... I said it is no wonder they want to come here.

Then the congresswoman said to me but what do we do about deporting them, we can't possibly deport all the illegals. I responded: We won't have to deport them, if we take away all the free benefits they receive they will leave on their own, again the room erupted in cheers.

After she left, we all stayed and had cocktails, my neighbor made a comment to the room, would anyone like to ask [MY NAME] some questions because he made some great points tonight. They surrounded around me and said, "How did you come to the conclusions you did tonight?" I said they aren't my ideas they are common sense brought forward by Dr. Ron Paul, these are his positions and I happen to agree with him.

BRACE YOURSELVES FOLKS. Many said yes I like that guy (Ron Paul), some even said tell me more about Ron Paul, I had the full attention of 40 or so wealthy Republicans and spoke for the rest of the night about Ron Paul and his positions, I never dreamed it would end up this way.

We are winning, but we must win in a civil and intellectual manner. I assumed these people were neocons -- I WAS WRONG, they listened and became educated.

Over all it was an incredible night for liberty and Ron Paul.

UPDATED: The moral of this story, never assume anything, if you don't try you will not succeed.

I guess that's why they say that assumptions are the mother of all F**K ups, I think they are correct.
Click to expand...


I think the best thing for people who like or follow Paul here is not to complain about media bias. We all know and have actual scientific evidence that it has happen. While discovering this truth may be so appalling that you want to share it, it best to keep it into it respective thread. http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/109102-why-media-hates-ron-paul.html

The only thing I found redress to be rarely right about was not to complain about media bias because it seems whiny. Best to inform people with articles or videos then complain about it. This discussion for example isn't swaying hearts or minds. So make a thread or post (moderately) that does.
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
Sigh, every cycle its Ron Paul and every cycle Ron Paul never wins anything and always has the same 8% fringe supporters and the same whining he doesnt get enough attention.
Click to expand...

Maybe in 2008 he had 8% support. But many, many people have woken up to the 2 party scheme. Ron Paul is only a Republican out of convenience. He doesn't get media attention, but the attention he gets on the internet far makes up for that. When he gets the nomination, the media will have no choice but to report on him, as Obama can't run against himself. I beleive that all of the talking heads are finally realizing that Dr. Paul will pull this thing off, so they are setting themselves up to say they've always supported him, on his economic ideas. They will totally ignore his foreign policy, as will Democrats, as Ron Paul is to the left of Obama on foreign policy, so that's a loss for Obama.
 
jasonxe said:
Well people here people talk about him but some people are nicer then others. The best thing I found here is to not push him on others. His views can be somewhat hard to grasp for some and don't understand where he is coming from. Others get bad information (MSM/Slanted media) about him that it's hard to clear up even after explaining it to them already. I pull my hair out when someone refers to him as a isolationist or he's going back to the gold standard. Some people don't like his ideology like actual capitalism and free markets.
Click to expand...

Yes, it helps to get an independent, i.e. non-RonPaul.com analysis of his plans for America. Like this one: Ron Paul's phony populism - Ron Paul - Salon.com
 
Older than any 1st term President ever elected, questionable amount of mainstream marketable charisma, horrible inability to function within our current soundbite world, has a habit of talking over the head of the vast majority of his audience, has a tendency to tangent from a relatively mainstream point to extreme/fringe views quickly (OMG, we're assassinating americans!), seemingly on first impression lacks any pragmatism in regards to the implementation of his views.

Paul is a guy that's almost impossible to get behind without actually doing a decent bit of independent research into him (and even that doesn't guarantee a fan) and the average voter just isn't going to do that. More time on debates isn't going to help Ron Paul, because the majority of debates he's in simply highlight his various issues.
 
Doing a decent amount of research on him reveals that the guy, who comes off as a cranky, iconoclastic truth teller, is in fact an absolutely radical extremist.

I would vote for Bachman or Santorum before I voted for Ron Paul.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Doing a decent amount of research on him reveals that the guy, who comes off as a cranky, iconoclastic truth teller, is in fact an absolutely radical extremist.

I would vote for Bachman or Santorum before I voted for Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

i think we get it ! you dont like the guy!

why dont you actually post some things he actually did or said that you dont like
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
no you missed my point.

he could of pumped sunshine up our asses like people you respect. great. idiots would like him more.
Click to expand...

MrMindSpeaker said:
his rant was about the fed and how the price of a dollar isn't **** because of them. it was about when the dime was actually made with silver in today's market that dime is now worth about the same as a gallon of gas.

i thought that was very interesting and was a good point to bring up!
Click to expand...

You guys are still missing the point, and ARC, I understood your point. The point is, that when you have a limited amount of time to make a sale, you focus on what is important to those you are selling to. For voters right now that is the economy and jobs. Focusing on the issues voters think important is not shallow or phony, it is smart. Debates are about selling yourself to voters as president. Paul has consistently failed to do that.
 
Redress said:
You guys are still missing the point, and ARC, I understood your point. The point is, that when you have a limited amount of time to make a sale, you focus on what is important to those you are selling to. For voters right now that is the economy and jobs. Focusing on the issues voters think important is not shallow or phony, it is smart. Debates are about selling yourself to voters as president. Paul has consistently failed to do that.
Click to expand...

thats a fair assumption. a lot are very interested in the things hes talking about but i can see where there are some more important topics to squeeze out there while u have the lime lite.
 
MrMindSpeaker said:
thats a fair assumption. a lot are very interested in the things hes talking about but i can see where there are some more important topics to squeeze out there while u have the lime lite.
Click to expand...

Yes, the same 10ish % that always support him. In other words, the people he does not have to convince.
 
Redress said:
Yes, the same 10ish % that always support him. In other words, the people he does not have to convince.
Click to expand...

his support was closer to 5% in the 2008 elections.
 
Redress said:
You guys are still missing the point, and ARC, I understood your point. The point is, that when you have a limited amount of time to make a sale, you focus on what is important to those you are selling to. For voters right now that is the economy and jobs. Focusing on the issues voters think important is not shallow or phony, it is smart. Debates are about selling yourself to voters as president. Paul has consistently failed to do that.
Click to expand...

people of integrity focus on what they believe in, not what will garner them support.
 
ARealConservative said:
people of integrity focus on what they believe in, not what will garner them support.
Click to expand...

Which is absolutely fine. And I commend you for being a fan of his that fully embraces the fact he either can't or refuses to play the game. However, with that said, Ron Paul fans need to understand that its his CHOICE not to play the game, his choice to ignore the reality of how politics works today, his choice to ignore the way the average voter interacts with politics, and his choice to run a campaign that provides no reason to give him more notice than he gets. He CHOOSES to run a campaign that has little to no chance of catching on because of his refusal to actually adapt to reality and adhere strictly and singularly to principles. The consequence of his action is he's viewed as a fringe candidate with little to no chance of winning because his actions cause him to be that. Its fine that he feels that way and functions in that way...I commend him for it...but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't refuse to play the game or adapt to reality and then turn around and play the victim card blaming everyone else for his poor performance or attention.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which is absolutely fine. And I commend you for being a fan of his that fully embraces the fact he either can't or refuses to play the game. However, with that said, Ron Paul fans need to understand that its his CHOICE not to play the game, his choice to ignore the reality of how politics works today, his choice to ignore the way the average voter interacts with politics, and his choice to run a campaign that provides no reason to give him more notice than he gets. He CHOOSES to run a campaign that has little to no chance of catching on because of his refusal to actually adapt to reality and adhere strictly and singularly to principles. The consequence of his action is he's viewed as a fringe candidate with little to no chance of winning because his actions cause him to be that. Its fine that he feels that way and functions in that way...I commend him for it...but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't refuse to play the game or adapt to reality and then turn around and play the victim card blaming everyone else for his poor performance or attention.
Click to expand...

He is clearly running an educational campaign, I would never argue otherwise.

Yet when his campaign sees double digit support, he deserves as much or more debate time as the guys getting 2-3% support. pointing out that he is not getting treated fairly in those cases is warranted when we can show he received less time then those types of candidates.
 
Redress said:
Because he is a weird guy with weird beliefs almost no one else holds?
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
He is clearly running an educational campaign, I would never argue otherwise.

Yet when his campaign sees double digit support, he deserves as much or more debate time as the guys getting 2-3% support. pointing out that he is not getting treated fairly in those cases is warranted when we can show he received less time then those types of candidates.
Click to expand...

There's been some debates I'd agree. Hell, it was so obviously bad one time that even Sean Hannity was raving about how unfair it was and how wrong it was to give him such little time. However, I think in a lot of the debates he's gotten comparable time as many of the other second tier candidates...and while he may be polling better than them, his political style and the relative stagnent nature of his national support to me makes it seem foolish to view him as anything other than second tier, despite the fact he's probably my #2 or 3 candidate on that stage.

Not to mention, and this is the funny part, I don't think more media coverage would help him. Quite the contrary, I think he'd be roughly the same...maybe a point or two higher due to name recognition...because most debate appearances and media appearances he makes just reenforces the initial impression he makes on people and his lack of ability/desire to educate people at a level that is in line with the audience.
 
USAMP1970 said:
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
Click to expand...


^---- 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
 
ARealConservative said:
his support was closer to 5% in the 2008 elections.
Click to expand...

that is irrelevant lol

this year its double digits according to the BIAS media polls
if you pay attention to any straw polls, well of coarse you wouldnt pay attention to those because he kills them!
 
He did well in straw polls and internet polls in 2008 as well. How'd that do him with regards to what actually is important. Even more than that...which were more accurate in 2008 (and 2004, and 2000, and 1998, and....), the straw polls or the actual scientific polls by pollsters?
 
Zyphlin said:
He did well in straw polls and internet polls in 2008 as well. How'd that do him with regards to what actually is important. Even more than that...which were more accurate in 2008 (and 2004, and 2000, and 1998, and....), the straw polls or the actual scientific polls by pollsters?
Click to expand...

and how well did the Clinton machine do with all her polls? its irrelevant really, just pointing out that the notion that he only has less then 10% of support is preposterous
 
MrMindSpeaker said:
and how well did the Clinton machine do with all her polls? its irrelevant really, just pointing out that the notion that he only has less then 10% of support is preposterous
Click to expand...

Well, since you threw it out there....

Before the Primary Season even officially started Obama was already polling higher than what Paul is polling now (he polled at just shy of 18%). He got above 25% of support in March, April, May, and July of 2007 before the Primaries really heated up. By early January he was up over 30%. By early February he was polling higher than Clinton. Source

Paul in 2008? Didn't register until October, and that was a 3%. He didn't reach above 5% until late January. His highest point was 7.4% in mid February. Source.

This year Paul started around the same point as his previous high, beginning with 7.7% in November of 2010. Since that point a year ago he's fluxurate roughly + or - 2 points, with a High of 9.8% in late September and a low of 5.4% in the early part of 2010. He's not once polled over 10% in 2008 or in 2012. Source Adding his best poll numbers from 2008 and 2012 together, Paul still has a lower percentage than what Obama began polling at during the start of the 2007 Democratic primary season.

Attempting to compare his situation to that of Obama and Clinton is a bit ridiculous and horribly off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom