• 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 Ron Paul

donsutherland1 said:
But far from the rate of growth he would need to be a serious contender for the nomination.
Click to expand...

false. He went from 5% to 10% in the past two elections, showing his rate of growth to be fine. His problem is his age, not his rate of growth.

Fortunately, this movement isn't about a single person anyway, only the thread question is.
 
ARealConservative said:
false. He went from 5% to 10% in the past two elections, showing his rate of growth to be fine. His problem is his age, not his rate of growth.

Fortunately, this movement isn't about a single person anyway, only the thread question is.
Click to expand...

Come up with any other Libertarian who has better poll numbers, regardless of their age.

Let us know when you've proven the "movement " is successful.
 
well like him or not at least he sticks to his positions and dosen't pander to the base and flip flop to get votes like the rest of them do.
 
Cephus said:
It doesn't matter what party he runs under, he still doesn't get many votes. His platform, like it or not, just doesn't appeal to many voters. Yes, he's a loon too, but mostly, the majority of Americans don't like what comes out of his mouth.
Click to expand...
so tell me the candidate who is running who isn't a loon!!!
 
ARealConservative said:
you keep telling yourself that.

The reality is his influence has grown and continues to grow.
Click to expand...

He keeps telling himself factual truth and you'll respond with a Strawman?

That'd make for a rather boring conversation.

Where did Don say anything about his influence and whether or not it grows? He didn't.

he stated that Paul does not recieve the number of votes sufficient to seriously contend for the Presidential Nomination...at this point, he doesn't.

Now, PERHAPS if he could mimic the growth he made this year to challenge in 4 years he may have a shot. However, his age is a compounding negative factor for him and one that would have him at 81 in 4 years.
 
Zyphlin said:
He keeps telling himself factual truth and you'll respond with a Strawman?

That'd make for a rather boring conversation.

Where did Don say anything about his influence and whether or not it grows? He didn't.

he stated that Paul does not recieve the number of votes sufficient to seriously contend for the Presidential Nomination...at this point, he doesn't.

Now, PERHAPS if he could mimic the growth he made this year to challenge in 4 years he may have a shot. However, his age is a compounding negative factor for him and one that would have him at 81 in 4 years.
Click to expand...

claiming he didn't seriously contend is an opinion, not a fact. but thanks for chiming in.
 
ARealConservative said:
in a general election, he would get close to 50% of the voting public. In the republican primary, he was getting about 10% averaging all the elections.
Click to expand...

In the general election, you think he would get close to 50% of the voting public. There's a lot of questions regarding the legitimacy of such a view.

only idiots are laughing, but that is what they do when they don't understand things.
Click to expand...

Paul's not a laughing stock. However, those thinking he had anything more than a very outside shot of gaining the Presidency likely are the ones that are equally needing to have such an accusation as you threw out levied against them.
 
ARealConservative said:
claiming he didn't seriously contend is an opinion, not a fact. but thanks for chiming in.
Click to expand...

Not particularly. Paul has never had enough votes to garner the necessary delegates needed to challenge for the nomination. In 08 and in 12 now there's was little evidence relatively early in both races that Ron Paul would realistically have the necessary delegates to even make it a question of who may be the nominee by the time of the convention.

Though someone who has thrown out their overblown opinions as if they're fact throughout this thread such as yourself taking issue with that statement is the height of hilarity. I notice you also happily ignored the pathetic strawman you attempted to throw out to Don as well regarding his "influence growing".
 
ARealConservative said:
false. He went from 5% to 10% in the past two elections, showing his rate of growth to be fine. His problem is his age, not his rate of growth.
Click to expand...

Due to his age, the rate of growth is problematic for him. Best case scenario the rate of growth continues to double and he may have a serious shot....when he's 85 years old. Good, but not best case scenario, he increases it by 5% each time which means he has a serious shot at the ripe age of 93.

This of course also functions off the assumption that Ron Paul's rate of grwoth from 08 to 12 will continue at a similar if not better level in another 4 years which is...well...just that, an assumption. You've got a one time sample size and trying to make a leaping conclussion from it. It ignores outside factors that could play into Paul's popularity increase such as the notion that this election cycle has been far more fiscally focused then militarily like '08. There's nothing really saying with certainty that Ron Paul's popularity will increase in a similar way in 4 years, it's just guess work at this point.

Fortunately, this movement isn't about a single person anyway, only the thread question is.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, Don wasn't talking about a movement but the individual that's the topic of the thread in quesiton. Keep beating up that strawman.
 
Zyphlin said:
Not particularly. Paul has never had enough votes to garner the necessary delegates needed to challenge for the nomination. In 08 and in 12 now there's was little evidence relatively early in both races that Ron Paul would realistically have the necessary delegates to even make it a question of who may be the nominee by the time of the convention.
Click to expand...

you just moved the goal post. don claimed he didn't have enough votes to contend, which based on every definition i can find is false

contend - definition of contend by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

the pathetic strawman you attempted to throw out to Don as well regarding his "influence growing".
Click to expand...

the pathetic straw man was his. this is a thread about why Ron Paul, not about the electability of Ron Paul, and his direct reply to me had zero to do with the context of my discussion with someone else.
 
Its Ron Paul's positions on drugs and prostituttion and so forth that sink his boat. Its just plain as day.

If Mitt Romney is smart, he will announce that he is appointing Ron Paul to be either Chairman of the Fed, or Secretary of the Treasury. Monetary & Fiscal Policy are Ron Paul's strong suits, so put him where he can be of use and get his supporters on board.

Thats my two cents
 
ARealConservative said:
you just moved the goal post. don claimed he didn't have enough votes to contend, which based on every definition i can find is false
Click to expand...

My apologies then if you are going for strict wording and not context.

Yes. Ron Paul gets enough votes to contend for Presidential Nomination. He's was right there with Thaddeus McCotter and John Huntsman "contending".

Then again, Don stated "seriously contend" not just "contend" and as such the context of his statement seem to be suggesting contending in a fashion that the individual has a likelihood of winning. Thus the whole "serious" nature of it.
 
proud2Bcatholic said:
Its Ron Paul's positions on drugs and prostituttion and so forth that sink his boat. Its just plain as day.

If Mitt Romney is smart, he will announce that he is appointing Ron Paul to be either Chairman of the Fed, or Secretary of the Treasury. Monetary & Fiscal Policy are Ron Paul's strong suits, so put him where he can be of use and get his supporters on board.

Thats my two cents
Click to expand...

his foreign policy is his main problem in a republican primary. In a general election, his opposition would largely be based on domestic spending/constitutional issues.
 
Zyphlin said:
My apologies then if you are going for strict wording and not context.

Yes. Ron Paul gets enough votes to contend for Presidential Nomination. He's was right there with Thaddeus McCotter and John Huntsman "contending".

Then again, Don stated "seriously contend" not just "contend" and as such the context of his statement seem to be suggesting contending in a fashion that the individual has a likelihood of winning. Thus the whole "serious" nature of it.
Click to expand...

in 2012 he seriously contended. In 2008, he basically ran a media campaign.
 
proud2Bcatholic said:
Its Ron Paul's positions on drugs and prostituttion and so forth that sink his boat. Its just plain as day.

If Mitt Romney is smart, he will announce that he is appointing Ron Paul to be either Chairman of the Fed, or Secretary of the Treasury. Monetary & Fiscal Policy are Ron Paul's strong suits, so put him where he can be of use and get his supporters on board.

Thats my two cents
Click to expand...
ARealConservative said:
his foreign policy is his main problem in a republican primary............
Click to expand...

Yes, his foreign policy too.

ARealConservative said:
..........In a general election, his opposition would largely be based on domestic spending/constitutional issues.
Click to expand...

Well, at the risk of sounding rude, Ron Paul sounds like a crazy old man with a high voice when he gets worked up. In a debate with Obama, Obama would look like the cool and calm one. I know thats not fair, but in the television age, its the sad truth.
 
proud2Bcatholic said:
Its Ron Paul's positions on drugs and prostituttion and so forth that sink his boat. Its just plain as day.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you're "plain as day" should be translated to "plain to my extremely biased world view". Those are major issues for you and as such for you that makes Ron Paul unpalatable. And there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure there's other heavily religious right voters that think that way too. However I do'nt think in any way you can say that it's THE issue that sank his boat.

There are others who actually find his small government view on Drugs and Prosistutiton attactive and help lead them to vote for him.

There are also many others who don't really give a **** two ways in terms of his stance on those things.

My own opinion of what hurts Paul? He has enough views that are on the farther end of the various politcial ideologies that the majority of American's will have some view that they don't just disagree with him on but disagree strongly on. I think there's a reason why you have the two political parties we have and have had for such a length of time...because those grouping of view points are the two largest groups of semi-like minded voters in the country. The somewhat more libertarian mindset that Paul holds is smaller than the mindset of the typical right winger and typical left winger, and while it can attract people from both those groups it also has a tendancy to have views that are completely unpalatable to those groups which is part of why the libertarian party has been an abject failure in terms of any serious national electoral movement.

It would be interesting to see him running for the Presidency as the Republican nomination, if for no other reason to see how many Republicans would go out and hold their nose and vote for him. Strangely, due to the strong dislike for Obama, I think this year would've been his best bet...if he could've won...to get enough turnout and support from Republicans that just wanted to dump Obama so badly that they'd actually turn out despite Paul. But based on the Primary performances there's a possability that the base would be amazingly unenergized in general for a Paul presidential run and while those that vote would likely hold their nose, I think there'd be a good shot at having record low turnout of the Republican base which could potentially be devestating. Still, as much of a fantasy as it is, I still think it'd be amazingly interesting from a political science angle to see Ron Paul as the Republican Nominee to just watch how the voters reacted.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
in 2012 he seriously contended. In 2008, he basically ran a media campaign.
Click to expand...

Here I'll at least break even with you in that I can see 2012 being a matter of opinion. Personally I think he was contending enough to be taken seriously, but was not a serious contender (if that makes sense). IE...he had to be talked about, included, reported on, and his words and views were going to have an impact on the direction of the campaign even though he was not getting the votes needed to get the kind of delegate count needed to have any semblence of even a CHANCE that he was going to take the nomination within the first few months of hte primaries. I actually view him similar to Gingrich in that regard for this election. I think the only other "serious" contender (I hate that I even have to type that word out with his name) would be Santorum. But with Paul being at least relevant through the portions of the primary that he was, I can at least see a reasonable argument of him "seriously contending" in 2012 depending on ones personal opinion of what that threshold is.

I'd be hard pressed to accept any kind of definition though that would suggest in 08 he would fit that bill.
 
Zyphlin said:
Here I'll at least break even with you in that I can see 2012 being a matter of opinion. Personally I think he was contending enough to be taken seriously, but was not a serious contender (if that makes sense). IE...he had to be talked about, included, reported on, and his words and views were going to have an impact on the direction of the campaign even though he was not getting the votes needed to get the kind of delegate count needed to have any semblence of even a CHANCE that he was going to take the nomination within the first few months of hte primaries. I actually view him similar to Gingrich in that regard for this election. I think the only other "serious" contender (I hate that I even have to type that word out with his name) would be Santorum. But with Paul being at least relevant through the portions of the primary that he was, I can at least see a reasonable argument of him "seriously contending" in 2012 depending on ones personal opinion of what that threshold is.

I'd be hard pressed to accept any kind of definition though that would suggest in 08 he would fit that bill.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get bogged down by an electability discussion. I know that is the straw man tangent Don tried to turn this into, but I have no interest. I know why don said what he said, and I think less of him for doing so.

Ron Paul runs education campaigns. so in that token, he is never a real competitor because he isn't playing the game politicians have to play to win elections. his son is doing that instead.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm sorry, but you're "plain as day" should be translated to "plain to my extremely biased world view". Those are major issues for you and as such for you that makes Ron Paul unpalatable.............
Click to expand...

Most Americans are not in favor of legalizing hard drugs or prostitution.

So, my "world view" is that of normal Americans.

I have no idea what yours is.

And you can stuff that "extremely biased" crap where the sun don't shine
 
Last edited:
proud2Bcatholic said:
Most Americans are not in favor of legalizing hard drugs or prostitution.

So, my "world view" is that of normal Americans.

I have no idea what yours is.

And you can stuff that "extremely biased" crap where the sun don't shine
Click to expand...

This isn't even an issue when dealing with Ron Paul and a position in the federal government.

as a legislature, how often has Paul put forth legislation on this subject? Off the top of my head, I can think of zero times.
 
ARealConservative said:
This isn't even an issue when dealing with Ron Paul and a position in the federal government.

as a legislature, how often has Paul put forth legislation on this subject? Off the top of my head, I can think of zero times.
Click to expand...

I understand his reasoning is totally based on the Constiitution. I get it. And since the Constitution does not regulate this stuff he says its up to the states. I get that too.

I am just saying that it comes off as amoral and unethical, and thats why people don't like it. He should express his personal position against these things more to soften how it sounds
 
Last edited:
Wake me up when he even competes for a nomination.
 
Aberration said:
Wake me up when he even competes for a nomination.
Click to expand...

you missed it. He has competed three times and won once - and this is at the presidential level. On other levels, he has won the nomination numerous times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom