Does Ron Paul have a real chance to win?

[feoinfunroe]

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

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.

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

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

I'm not understanding how these two statements are not contradictory.

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by IntenseSaint

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.

You realize congress has the final authority over all base closures right?


And frankly, hedging your bets that the crazy guy can't get all the crazy things he wants passed except for the ones you happen to agree with is not a reassuring prospect for me. Maybe, instead of voting for a guy who's 70% crazy, try finding a candidate (Gary Johnson) that shares many of the same saner views of Ron Paul, but doesn't come with a baggage car full of crazy.

[IntenseSaint]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

You realize congress has the final authority over all base closures right?


And frankly, hedging your bets that the crazy guy can't get all the crazy things he wants passed except for the ones you happen to agree with is not a reassuring prospect for me. Maybe, instead of voting for a guy who's 70% crazy, try finding a candidate (Gary Johnson) that shares many of the same saner views of Ron Paul, but doesn't come with a baggage car full of crazy.

I would rather have a guy who isn't bought and paid for by Wall Street...

[GameBreaker]

Originally Posted by feoinfunroe

I'm not understanding how these two statements are not contradictory.

Because hispanics have equal rights protected under the constitution just like you and I.

A woman's/couple's rights vs. an unborn fetus rights is not distinguished under the constitution and should be given to the people in their respective states to decide.

What's so hard to understand about that?

[GameBreaker]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

You realize congress has the final authority over all base closures right?


And frankly, hedging your bets that the crazy guy can't get all the crazy things he wants passed except for the ones you happen to agree with is not a reassuring prospect for me. Maybe, instead of voting for a guy who's 70% crazy, try finding a candidate (Gary Johnson) that shares many of the same saner views of Ron Paul, but doesn't come with a baggage car full of crazy.

Crazy is a subjective term. On which issues do you think he's crazy?

Oh and respond to my post above that in which I replied to your previous post, if you can. Thanks.

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

Crazy is a subjective term. On which issues do you think he's crazy?

Oh and respond to my post above that in which I replied to your previous post, if you can. Thanks.

I literally posted two of his more crazy beliefs like 6 posts higher in a response to you. Most of which boils down to him wanting to remove any federal oversight over which laws the States wish to enact, even if said laws violate the constitution.

I also think that removing federal oversight on how much a state could pollute and destroy the environment is a mistake (disbanding the EPA), removing any way for the federal government to mandate minimal standards of education (disbanding the Department of Education), and getting rid of Social security, medicare, and medicaid because they are worse then slavery (his words).

I know some of you get excited at the thoughts of states going their own way in regards to making laws on the overall rights of American citizens, but I don't.

Frankly Gamebreaker, I'm done with this thread. You have no idea what Ron Paul stands for. You can't be bothered reading the thread to find the stated beliefs me and others have already said about Ron Paul. Instead you just rehash talking points. You are the typical uninformed Ron Paul fanboy that as been running rampant on this forum and all over the internet. You ignore the obvious problems Ron Paul has and focus on the small percentage of things we've already stated we agree with, but doesn't balance out the rest.

[GameBreaker]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

I literally posted two of his more crazy beliefs like 6 posts higher in a response to you. Most of which boils down to him wanting to remove any federal oversight over which laws the States wish to enact, even if said laws violate the constitution.

Huh? When and where does he say this. Ron Paul is known for being a constitutionalist.

I also think that removing federal oversight on how much a state could pollute and destroy the environment is a mistake (disbanding the EPA),

You continue to seperate the government and the people. That's why it is your job as a citizen to vote for environmental regulations for your state. If the people in YOUR state fail to do so, you will live in a dump until you can come together and take action. The power is in our hands. You simply want to not think about this stuff and just want the feds to pass laws at will that in affect don't amount to much. Here's a secret for you, they aren't doing a good job of this now.

removing any way for the federal government to mandate minimal standards of education (disbanding the Department of Education), and getting rid of Social security, medicare, and medicaid because they are worse then slavery (his words).

Once again you are seperating the government from the people. It is your job to vote for education standards in YOUR state. Also, Ron Paul has been saying for years how the federal government is robbing from the Social Security Fund.

I know some of you get excited at the thoughts of states going their own way in regards to making laws on the overall rights of American citizens, but I don't.

The constitution is still there to protect all American Citizens, but things that have more direct affect on you as a citizen of a particular state will have more direct involvement from its people, it's your decision to be involved in the issues at the state level.

Frankly Gamebreaker, I'm done with this thread. You have no idea what Ron Paul stands for. You can't be bothered reading the thread to find the stated beliefs me and others have already said about Ron Paul. Instead you just rehash talking points. You are the typical uninformed Ron Paul fanboy that as been running rampant on this forum and all over the internet. You ignore the obvious problems Ron Paul has and focus on the small percentage of things we've already stated we agree with, but doesn't balance out the rest.

I only rehash to try and make you think about it because I don't feel like you have a grasp on any of RP's stances on any of the issues.

I know Ron Paul's views, I researched them for several months after he caught my interest before I ever decided I would vote for him. I know his stances on the issues and you may know some of his stances but you don't know the reasonings are ideas behind them (for some reason you think he wants to ignore/destroy the constitution) and therefore are misinformed. Frankly Cosmic, the fact that you think he wants to ignore the constitution automatically paints you as misinformed and you should probably abondon your argument until you get your facts straight.

[dtc]

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.

Mississippi just tried to pass a law saying sperm and eggs are people. Texas is in the process of teaching Jesus rides on friendly dinosaurs. Moreover, 30 years in politics with nothing to show except the largest benefactor of pork in the nation is hardly an accomplishment and I've long been familiar with the goldbug, Paul.

Oh, and one more thing, fighting against the Civil Rights laws or the social safety net are not the roots we need to fertilize.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

Because hispanics have equal rights protected under the constitution just like you and I.

A woman's/couple's rights vs. an unborn fetus rights is not distinguished under the constitution and should be given to the people in their respective states to decide.

What's so hard to understand about that?

How anyone could be so dense as to not realize that the US Constitution defines and protects our rights as citizens and that removing that oversight and placing the ability of such with the states is, in and of itself, Un-Constitutional.

Paul is a states rights advocate. There's nothing wrong with it except that he picks and chooses his issues to suit his conservative religious beliefs on things like marriage and abortion.

[GameBreaker]

Originally Posted by dtradin

How anyone could be so dense as to not realize that the US Constitution defines and protects our rights as citizens and that removing that oversight and placing the ability of such with the states is, in and of itself, Un-Constitutional.

Now who's not reading the thread. Who said anything about removing the constitution? Not me or Ron Paul. Point to anything where I said removing the oversight of the constitution. I think you have trouble compartmentalizing the issues and instead have them all in a big gumbo pot and then blindly dip in pulling out a concoction that is completely fabricated from confusion.

Paul is a states rights advocate. There's nothing wrong with it except that he picks and chooses his issues to suit his conservative religious beliefs on things like marriage and abortion.

Please share what you "think" are his stances on these two issues.

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

Huh? When and where does he say this. Ron Paul is known for being a constitutionalist.


You continue to seperate the government and the people. That's why it is your job as a citizen to vote for environmental regulations for your state. If the people in YOUR state fail to do so, you will live in a dump until you can come together and take action. The power is in our hands. You simply want to not think about this stuff and just want the feds to pass laws at will that in affect don't amount to much. Here's a secret for you, they aren't doing a good job of this now.

Once again you are seperating the government from the people. It is your job to vote for education standards in YOUR state. Also, Ron Paul has been saying for years how the federal government is robbing from the Social Security Fund.


The constitution is still there to protect all American Citizens, but things that have more direct affect on you as a citizen of a particular state will have more direct involvement from its people, it's your decision to be involved in the issues at the state level.


I only rehash to try and make you think about it because I don't feel like you have a grasp on any of RP's stances on any of the issues.

I know Ron Paul's views, I researched them for several months after he caught my interest before I ever decided I would vote for him. I know his stances on the issues and you may know some of his stances but you don't know the reasonings are ideas behind them (for some reason you think he wants to ignore/destroy the constitution) and therefore are misinformed. Frankly Cosmic, the fact that you think he wants to ignore the constitution automatically paints you as misinformed and you should probably abondon your argument until you get your facts straight.

No, frankly, you don't.

You've listened to his words and fallen in love with him. You argue away his delusional ramblings and ignore anything that doesn't coincide with the picture of what you think he stands for.

Fact.

He tried to pass a bill that would prevent the federal government from limited or preventing state laws that are against the constitution. This is a fact and not open to debate. Try to pretty it up just like you try to pretty up his racist newsletters, but the facts are still facts. You can ignore it and tell yourself that the man loves the constitution, but the fact is, he's in love with what HE thinks the constitution is.


Like I said, I'm done. Go ahead and have your love affair. It doesn't matter, Ron Paul will never become president of this country because it takes more than ignorant people like you who can not be bothered to look up actual facts about a candidate, but only get seduced by the pretty speeches. You can blame it on whatever you feel like. I'm sure it really is the media out to get him.


I wish 2012 would come, so Ron Paul will once again squeak by with a few percentages of the vote and all of these Ron Paul fans can go back to their little corners of the internet to proclaim that the next election would be his year.

[GameBreaker]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

No, frankly, you don't.

You've listened to his words and fallen in love with him. You argue away his delusional ramblings and ignore anything that doesn't coincide with the picture of what you think he stands for.

Fact.

He tried to pass a bill that would prevent the federal government from limited or preventing state laws that are against the constitution. This is a fact and not open to debate. Try to pretty it up just like you try to pretty up his racist newsletters, but the facts are still facts. You can ignore it and tell yourself that the man loves the constitution, but the fact is, he's in love with what HE thinks the constitution is.


Like I said, I'm done. Go ahead and have your love affair. It doesn't matter, Ron Paul will never become president of this country because it takes more than ignorant people like you who can not be bothered to look up actual facts about a candidate, but only get seduced by the pretty speeches. You can blame it on whatever you feel like. I'm sure it really is the media out to get him.


I wish 2012 would come, so Ron Paul will once again squeak by with a few percentages of the vote and all of these Ron Paul fans can go back to their little corners of the internet to proclaim that the next election would be his year.

Couple of points about your "internet-mad" rant then I'm retiring from trying to debate issues with you.

1. You have not stated, linked or debated any facts.

2. From this rant you clearly don't want to debate the issues but stubbornly say the same lame things repeatedly.

3. You've clearly taken the argument to a personal/emotional level and refuse to focus on the issues.

4. You've now made it clear that you hate Ron Paul and his supporters and debating the issues don't matter.

[theicebox]

Hey cosmic2012 before you come on here and call us ignorant for wanting to end the wars, push for alternative medicine and decriminalize all drugs.

Why dont you answer my question
Does Ron Paul have a real chance to win?

I have been waiting for an answer.

and to the others for when I originally said Paul draws democrats and independants, and you said I was crazy.
Ron Paul

The fact that roughly half of Paul’s primary supporters are Democrats or independents is probably an asset in selling his general election viability, which his fellow Republicans have frequently called into question.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by GameBreaker

Now who's not reading the thread. Who said anything about removing the constitution? Not me or Ron Paul. Point to anything where I said removing the oversight of the constitution. I think you have trouble compartmentalizing the issues and instead have them all in a big gumbo pot and then blindly dip in pulling out a concoction that is completely fabricated from confusion.



Please share what you "think" are his stances on these two issues.

Says the guy asking random questions and supporting an old nutty gold bug...

[DavidM]

Originally Posted by theicebox

and to the others for when I originally said Paul draws democrats and independants, and you said I was crazy.
Ron Paul

It isn't surprising that among Republican candidates, Paul's coalition would be demographically more diverse. Is anybody suggesting otherwise?

But it overlooks the more important issue for the Paul campaign, can he attract enough Republican support to win the nomination, to put whatever non-Republican support he has into play in a general election?

Right now, his prospects don't look encouraging within his own party.

Check out Real Clear Politics aggregate polling data, particularly the graph:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Paul's composite on November 3, 2010 was 7.7% and was 8.0% on December 1, 2011. He's had a bump to over 12% in the past month but that has come on the heels of major collapses by Perry and Cain, and a more recent downward move for Gingrich. That has to be somewhat troubling for the Paul campaign that as other candidates rise and fall, his support isn't moving significantly.

What is Paul's path to the Republican nomination? How does he move Republican support to his side in a way that he hasn't been able to so far? A coalition that's almost half non-Republicans isn't likely going to be something that enamors him to the GOP base, anyway, as it can portray him as a GOP-outsider. Must be out-of-touch with their ideals if he's attractive to them liberal hippies, ya know?

Siphoning some support from Democrats and Independents isn't meaningful if he can't persuade Republicans to support him. That's his real challenge right now.