Does Ron Paul have a real chance to win?

[starbuck2907]

Originally Posted by theicebox

Hey Starbuck, before you come on here assume your assumptions, why dont you go back and look at some posts that cited experts on your opinions.

(etc, etc, edited for brevity.)

So starbucks, please think for yourself.
Dont believe everything you read, do some research first. And see if you can put the pieces together. If im wrong, im wrong, but ive been wrong before and I will deal with that. But there is just too much information out there for me to agree with your "two Cents"

No Pun Intended.

I'm aware of how Iran is organized, and I'm aware of reasons that people say that the U.S. brings troubles on itself. I don't believe Iran's leadership is interested in peace. The U.S. has made mistakes, but I do not believe Ron Paul's policies are the answer. From reading your post, I feel that you are a die-hard Paul supporter, and if so, then great, but I just don't buy into all his ideas.

The title of the thread is "Does Ron Paul have a real chance to win?" and I simply explained why he does not stand a chance of being elected. I feel like Paul is so "far out" in his extremist views that he is unelectable. His libertarianism ideas are very appealing, but he is too extreme for the mainstream.

[theicebox]

I apologize if I misread you. Tends to happen in these tense political debates.
I am a die hard paul.
After watching bush operate for 8 years It made me real upset seeing how 1 person in charge can bring pain to millions.
I see what you are saying. I didnt read it that way.
And everyone I talk to keeps saying that he is un-electable.
It makes me upset when I hear this.
We will find out what happens in Iowa in the next 24 hrs.

[starbuck2907]

Originally Posted by theicebox

I apologize if I misread you. Tends to happen in these tense political debates.
I am a die hard paul.
After watching bush operate for 8 years It made me real upset seeing how 1 person in charge can bring pain to millions.
I see what you are saying. I didnt read it that way.
And everyone I talk to keeps saying that he is un-electable.
It makes me upset when I hear this.
We will find out what happens in Iowa in the next 24 hrs.

It's all good man. No harm, no foul.

Ironically, I think Paul may do well in Iowa, but the RNC will never give him the nomination now matter how well he does.

But, while I do think Paul will never win, I will admit that it is not outside the realm of possibility. People are becoming more and more fed up with the status quo, and even as a Republican, Paul definitely represents something other than business as usual. I think that a lot of his appeal to many people is that despite being a Republican, he really represents a lot of pent up frustration and anger with the current system. It's like he's really a 3rd party candidate in Republican clothing.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by theicebox

Great post, I was not aware. But this makes paul that much better on my list.

If that video makes you feel better about Paul then I can't imagine what sort of world you want to live in. It makes me realize that he is a complete kook. He's a believer in fairy tales and magic beans.

Kill the Transportation = no 9/11 because the market might have provided better doors and let us carry guns on planes. Horsepoopey

End the EPA so we can sue corporations like Monsanto and others who've polluted the environment.... Ha. And tort reforms too.... So, you put little old me up against a billion dollar corp and their unlimited "free speech" and unlimited legal departments and have me sue them because they put something in the water that gave me cancer. Great. After I'm dead and my family in debt millions over 20 years of court, they'll bankrupt and nobody will be held accountable because it's a corporation. Asinine.

Statistics show DC is the worst in education because it's the poorest. The cost is insane because of property costs and maintenance and Paul acts as if it's because of the Dept of Education. NOTICE: All public education costs more than private because you have to deal with the public rather than pre-selected upper middle class white folks from solid homes. His solution - let the market provide education...... Sure. He defines freedom as private property control without interference and wants to end the IRS and taxation. Well, then how do we fund the education of our inner city poor for whom no market will step in and teach? Stealing wealth through taxes and then giving vouchers so uneducated, poor parents can choose which school their kids go to based on advertising or other local corruption? Wonderful.

Why is it so hard to see that he's a kook? Are all you young guys who support him so badly off and been so mistreated that I simply don't get the need? Now, I freely admit being drawn to libertarian policies in my early 20s and that the first couple economics classes led me to believe in the fairy tale of the perfect free market, but wow. I grew up.

[theicebox]

I guess I`ll start looking forward to the war with Iran then.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by theicebox

I guess I`ll start looking forward to the war with Iran then.

Earlier in this thread or elsewhere very recently you stated that you would now not vote for Obama.

Do you really think Obama is going to take us to war in Iran or do you think he's going to lose leading to one of the kooks who beat Paul being able to steer us headlong for the end-times?

Clarification, please?

[theicebox]

I dont know anymore.
But I have my doubts.

[IntenseSaint]

War with Iran may be more likely than people think.

Iran threatens U.S. Navy as sanctions hit economy - Yahoo! News

[theicebox]

Iraqi civilian deaths climb in 2011: study | Reuters

That took the number of civilian deaths recorded since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam and unleashed a sectarian conflict to more than 114,000.

The war on terror.
Should be the war of terror.

This is how I feel Iran will be all over again.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by theicebox

Iraqi civilian deaths climb in 2011: study | Reuters



The war on terror.
Should be the war of terror.

This is how I feel Iran will be all over again.

You've got to be kidding me. You honestly think Obama is going to invade Iran and occupy it and then try to rebuild it as a western style democracy?

I've got news for you. Nobody in Iran ever tried to kill Obama's daddy.

And, for what it's worth, There's no chance he'd even consider it. Now, we might destroy their entire navy as part of a little firing practice, but I'd even doubt that unless they start shooting at us and no matter what Paul says the US cannot simply back out of the world stage and leave the Straits of Hormuz captive to a nut. That said, keeping it passable does not require 120k men on the ground for 10 years. It requires about 50 missiles we already own.

[simeon58]

Originally Posted by theicebox

Great post, I was not aware. But this makes paul that much better on my list.

Thanks. It's a complicated issue, but he has the correct position, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by dtradin

You've got to be kidding me. You honestly think Obama is going to invade Iran and occupy it and then try to rebuild it as a western style democracy?

I've got news for you. Nobody in Iran ever tried to kill Obama's daddy.

And, for what it's worth, There's no chance he'd even consider it. Now, we might destroy their entire navy as part of a little firing practice, but I'd even doubt that unless they start shooting at us and no matter what Paul says the US cannot simply back out of the world stage and leave the Straits of Hormuz captive to a nut. That said, keeping it passable does not require 120k men on the ground for 10 years. It requires about 50 missiles we already own.

I don't think we'd go in and attempt to change their government, but then again, I didn't think that would happen in Afghanistan. You really think he wouldn't go after Iran? His decision making thus far says otherwise. He's pretty aggressive. Not saying that it's a bad or good thing.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by simeon58

Thanks. It's a complicated issue, but he has the correct position, in my opinion.



I don't think we'd go in and attempt to change their government, but then again, I didn't think that would happen in Afghanistan. You really think he wouldn't go after Iran? His decision making thus far says otherwise. He's pretty aggressive. Not saying that it's a bad or good thing.

Based on your post, I'd bet you and I would assume Obama would do the same thing. I, personally, think he would send in a fighter strike force and some guided missile frigates and destroy their standing navy just like he's deployed drones in the fight against AQ.

I think that's a sensible thing to do and a worthy response just like I thought it adequate and appropriate against AQ and the continuing threats in Afg and Iraq. But, I don't for a second think he'd go into Iran with boots and tanks like Bush and the warmongers did in Iraq.

[wnelson]

i think world war 3 is going to be started in the desert.

jesus

[theicebox]

..

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by dtradin

You've got to be kidding me. You honestly think Obama is going to invade Iran and occupy it and then try to rebuild it as a western style democracy?

I've got news for you. Nobody in Iran ever tried to kill Obama's daddy.

And, for what it's worth, There's no chance he'd even consider it. Now, we might destroy their entire navy as part of a little firing practice, but I'd even doubt that unless they start shooting at us and no matter what Paul says the US cannot simply back out of the world stage and leave the Straits of Hormuz captive to a nut. That said, keeping it passable does not require 120k men on the ground for 10 years. It requires about 50 missiles we already own.

This. This and the fact that the energy industry wants the straits open, and the vote of Exxon/Mobile counts much more than that of the 99%.

I read a joke on twitter today, only it was more sad than funny. You can tell monopoly is an old game, because it has a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.