Does Ron Paul have a real chance to win?

[GameBreaker]

Originally Posted by dtradin

there are 500 paul threads and 1000 posts by me that lay out exactly and in specifics what I like and don't about him. search is your friend. I'm not a librarian.

Don't kid yourself. I got the underpinnings of your argument by your insightful post before. You may not be a librarian but I'm no archaeologists.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by Rugger

That is not a very nice response.

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

I think your opinion of Paul revolves more around your own feelings of umbrage with some of his supporters. Also, you are generalizing an entire group based on a portion of his enthusiasts. Paul doesn't fall into the "cult of personality" term in which you have tried to paint him as using a broad stroke of the brush. You are trying to disarm him by diluting his message and alienating his supporters.

So instead of throwing out generalizations and cliche terminology why don't you lay out the issues in which you do agree with him (30%) and the issues in which you don't (70%) and your reasonings. I will admit that I didn't read the entire thread, so if you have already done so please point me to the correct post.

I don't think it was a flowery invitation to a tea party - mind the bad pun, but it wasn't meant to be an offensive remark. This board has been flooded with more Paul threads over the past 2 years than any other topic and I've participated in nearly each and every one. The main Paul proponents here know well what I like and dislike about him well enough to probably argue my side and the above quoted response casts a wide swath of "generalizations and cliche terminology" based on some pretty weak assumptions and without even reading the entire thread much less the rest of the voluminous Paul discussions here on the PDB.

I think it might be more reasonable for one to read the thread before taking this shot wrt my opinions of Paul. Even more presumptive of me would be that the person making the leap to call my opinions shallow and unfounded take the time to read the hundreds of discussions I've participated in. It's ironic, isn't it, that the post calling my diagnosis of Paul as shallow and assumptive is, in itself, a shallow and presumptive leap?

[dtc]

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

Don't kid yourself. I got the underpinnings of your argument by your insightful post before. You may not be a librarian but I'm no archaeologists.

But, you are quippy and that's good. I'm not going to re-hash an argument that's been the theme of at least 20% of the PDB over the past 4 years. All I'll tell you is that Paul is great 30-40% of the time. He's good for the conversation, but he's a terrible choice to run government. His "ideological" firmness is being confused for reason when pragmatism is more important in the making of sausage. It's also my considered opinion that he's either a charlatan selling gold/fear or delusional and it's completely nonsensical to believe that the US Constitution is better off being butchered by the states than its protections and guarantees being dealt with by the Feds.

While smaller and more efficient/less meddlesome government is an ideal to strive towards, the emasculation of it and dismantling of social programs and all regulatory agencies is like leaping out of a high-rise window because the air conditioner goes out and it's hot in your apartment.

[dapperdan]

Originally Posted by theicebox

Former opponents discuss Ron Paul

“I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently,” Dondero writes. “I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant.”

Personally, I have no reason to doubt Congressman Paul's former assistant. Mr. Paul doesn't seem like a racist to me.

However...it does appear that Congressman Paul was pandering to the worst instincts of some of his followers at the time in trying to raise money via his paid newsletters.

Should this pandering disqualify Dr. Paul? Frankly, the issue of "should" he be disqualified is much less important than "will" he be disqualified. Will Dr. Paul be de-facto disqualified for these newsletters...probably yes.

(As a side note, thank God for the internet. Can anyone honestly say that they'd be willing to pay $50 for those Special Reports issued by Dr. Paul in this day and age, when we can go to much more thorough blog sites or various databases and research topics for ourselves?)

[GameBreaker]

Originally Posted by dtradin

But, you are quippy and that's good. I'm not going to re-hash an argument that's been the theme of at least 20% of the PDB over the past 4 years. All I'll tell you is that Paul is great 30-40% of the time. He's good for the conversation, but he's a terrible choice to run government. His "ideological" firmness is being confused for reason when pragmatism is more important in the making of sausage. It's also my considered opinion that he's either a charlatan selling gold/fear or delusional and it's completely nonsensical to believe that the US Constitution is better off being butchered by the states than its protections and guarantees being dealt with by the Feds.

While smaller and more efficient/less meddlesome government is an ideal to strive towards, the emasculation of it and dismantling of social programs and all regulatory agencies is like leaping out of a high-rise window because the air conditioner goes out and it's hot in your apartment.

Which social programs and agencies are you refering?

[dtc]

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

Which social programs and agencies are you refering?

Are you channeling Brown or do you not know which Paul wants to end?

[Brown]

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

Which social programs and agencies are you refering?

Very good question...

[GameBreaker]

Originally Posted by dtradin

Are you channeling Brown or do you not know which Paul wants to end?

Well I guess you meant ALL social programs and ALL regulatory agencies. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by dtradin

His "ideological" firmness is being confused for reason when pragmatism is more important in the making of sausage. It's also my considered opinion that he's either a charlatan selling gold/fear or delusional and it's completely nonsensical to believe that the US Constitution is better off being butchered by the states than its protections and guarantees being dealt with by the Feds.

You're quick to dismiss Paul once again as a quack/fraud eventhough the guy has 30 successful years in politics and is a successful doctor. He fights for principles that are at the roots of every American, even you.

Funny that you say he's selling fear or delusions and then follow it up by stating that States will butcher the US Constitution. It seems you are inserting your own fears to add reason to your own argument in able to appeal to others.

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

Well I guess you meant ALL social programs and ALL regulatory agencies. Correct me if I'm wrong.



You're quick to dismiss Paul once again as a quack/fraud eventhough the guy has 30 successful years in politics and is a successful doctor. He fights for principles that are at the roots of every American, even you.

Funny that you say he's selling fear or delusions and then follow it up by stating that States will butcher the US Constitution. It seems you are inserting your own fears to add reason to your own argument in able to appeal to others.

Ron Paul is known for voting no. He is called Dr. No. You say he has 30 years of successful years in politics, then I'll ask you what exactly he has accomplished in that 30 years. I would wager my entire life's savings that compared to every other 10+ year politician in congress, Ron Paul has accomplished far less. Ron Paul as some great ideas. He also as some horrible ideas. However, he is too enamored with all of his ideas that he is unwilling to compromise on anything. A man so ideologically rigid does not make a good leader in this country. If he became president, we would have four years of nothing being done. You might think that's a good think, however I think it would be disastrous.

As for States butchering the Constitution, we've seen plenty of proof of that. We've seen states like Texas try to remove evolution teachings from the classroom. We've seen States all over pass defacto bans against abortion. We've seen states like Arizona trying to make it legal for police to stop and detain someone for looking Hispanic.

All of this is with Federal oversight having to reach in and slap states down when they overreach. You think States will back off if we remove that oversight?

[IntenseSaint]

I'm no real Ron Paul fan but I would vote for him over Obama. That being said, man there are some Ron Paul haters out there.

[GameBreaker]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

Ron Paul is known for voting no. He is called Dr. No. You say he has 30 years of successful years in politics, then I'll ask you what exactly he has accomplished in that 30 years.

This is why he's been so successful, IMO. He's voted No on all these legislations and have had almost none of his passed, and yet look at where we arrived.

I would wager my entire life's savings that compared to every other 10+ year politician in congress, Ron Paul has accomplished far less.

So political accomplishments are based on how many bills they've passed. Right, well no wonder our federal government has grown so much.

Ron Paul as some great ideas. He also as some horrible ideas. However, he is too enamored with all of his ideas that he is unwilling to compromise on anything.

Why compromise and go against what he believes? He has principles to stick to unlike the others.

A man so ideologically rigid does not make a good leader in this country. If he became president, we would have four years of nothing being done. You might think that's a good think, however I think it would be disastrous.

You do know that there are seperate branches of government, right? That they perform different roles? What those roles are? Once again, generalizations painted with a broad stroke. Something will get done if one of the others get elected; they'll keep the status quo and most of congress will try to pass as many bills as they can to pad their resume' so you think they are qualified to be president when the next election comes around.

As for States butchering the Constitution, we've seen plenty of proof of that.

Keep in mind sir that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to protect all citizens of the US and if a state impedes on those rights protected by the constitution the federal government still would have authority to intervene.

We've seen states like Texas try to remove evolution teachings from the classroom.

Generalizations made to paint a picture with one stroke of the brush. They considered it and what was the turnout?

We've seen States all over pass defacto bans against abortion.

This is an unborn fetus' (child's) rights vs. a woman's rights and should be left up to the people of their respective states.

We've seen states like Arizona trying to make it legal for police to stop and detain someone for looking Hispanic.

This would be an infringement on personal rights protected under the constitution and the federal judges should intervene.

All of this is with Federal oversight having to reach in and slap states down when they overreach. You think States will back off if we remove that oversight?

Remove what oversight?

[GameBreaker]

Originally Posted by IntenseSaint

I'm no real Ron Paul fan but I would vote for him over Obama. That being said, man there are some Ron Paul haters out there.

Not trying to pick on you, but what would be your reasons for voting for RP over Obama?

[Cosmic201]

Gamebreaker, if you are going to argue for Ron Paul, then take the time to find out his actual views.

No, I don't think doing nothing for 30 years is an accomplishment. I don't think getting on top of a high horse, proclaiming your way is better, and then refusing to do anything to work on making your way work is an accomplishment. Ron Paul had 30 years to bring people to his way of viewing how the government should work. He had 30 years to make friends and connections to bring about the change he wanted. Instead, like an indignant child, he stomped his feet and yelled no over and over.
Over 30 years he accomplished nothing because he felt he was morally superior to everyone else and refused to 'lower' his standards to bring about a higher goal.

Ron Paul proposed a bill called the "We the People Act." This bill, if passed, would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding whether state or local laws violate the "the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction. . .or. . .the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws."

Essentially, Paul wants to remove federal courts from the business of deciding whether state laws violate the federal constitution! He also wants to prohibit any court ruling that "otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states." This sweeping passage would virtually negate judicial enforcement of federal law -- including the Constitution.

Not to mention Ron Paul would like to repeal the Civil Rights act because he believes in unfairly prevents businesses from discriminating against people on the basis of race.

[IntenseSaint]

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

Not trying to pick on you, but what would be your reasons for voting for RP over Obama?

He will actually remove unnecessary troops from overseas, instead of shifting them around to other countries. He will stop sending all this foreign aid to countries who don't deserve it.

[IntenseSaint]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

Gamebreaker, if you are going to argue for Ron Paul, then take the time to find out his actual views.

No, I don't think doing nothing for 30 years is an accomplishment. I don't think getting on top of a high horse, proclaiming your way is better, and then refusing to do anything to work on making your way work is an accomplishment. Ron Paul had 30 years to bring people to his way of viewing how the government should work. He had 30 years to make friends and connections to bring about the change he wanted. Instead, like an indignant child, he stomped his feet and yelled no over and over.
Over 30 years he accomplished nothing because he felt he was morally superior to everyone else and refused to 'lower' his standards to bring about a higher goal.

Ron Paul proposed a bill called the "We the People Act." This bill, if passed, would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding whether state or local laws violate the "the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction. . .or. . .the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws."

Essentially, Paul wants to remove federal courts from the business of deciding whether state laws violate the federal constitution! He also wants to prohibit any court ruling that "otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states." This sweeping passage would virtually negate judicial enforcement of federal law -- including the Constitution.

Not to mention Ron Paul would like to repeal the Civil Rights act because he believes in unfairly prevents businesses from discriminating against people on the basis of race.

There is no way Ron Paul could repeal the Civil Rights act even if he wanted to. He would need the backing of many others in congress to make something like this happen. The loony things Ron Paul talks about doing could never come to fruition, BUT things like troop removal and base closures CAN.