Ron Paul Can't Win

[milohimself]

Incumbents already enjoy the benefit of being in gerrymandered districts and having primary challengers shut out among other things. The electoral process as it exists is geared heavily towards most incumbent politicians keeping their job almost regardless of how they perform.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Mold i want? The mold as a republican has been set for many years. One man with different views is not going to sway the whole party. Especially views as off from the republican norm. He is a libertarian. Not a republican. Hence why he will not be elected as one.

The GOP went from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to Mitt Romney. He's closer to a 1964 GOP candidate than anyone else in the bunch. He hasn't changed, the party has changed. That crap about the GOP position being set for many years is completely false. Hell, even GWB ran on a campaign of not nation building just 12 years ago...

 

[myrobbins7]

Real talk from Dr. Paul.

Ron Paul: Audit the Fed, Before It's Too Late! - YouTube!

If you think about what this 2% inflation target actually is, you realize that it is an explicit policy to devalue the dollar and reduce its purchasing power. And it adds up quickly over time. Two percent annual price inflation means that prices rise 22% within a decade, and nearly 50% within two decades.

It is worse than that, however. This explicit 2% target also fails to take into account that whatever measure is used to determine price inflation, be it CPI, core CPI, PCE, etc., will always be chosen with an eye towards underreporting the true rate of inflation and price rises. Pressure will be exerted on those calculating the price indices, so as not to alarm the public when prices begin to accelerate.

Of course, government officials claim that price increases do not affect the average American because they can always substitute hamburger for steak, or have cereal instead of bacon to protect their family budget as prices rise. But the American people don’t overlook the fact that their quality of life has suffered because of the Federal Reserve and price inflation. What will they substitute when hamburger and cereal go sky high?

 

[PKT_VOL]

How would you define the Repub "mold"?

I agree with BKB; Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a Republican.

To answer your question, a Republican is suppose to be conservative both fiscally and socially. A Libertarian is suppose to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. However, these days "Republicans" are not even fiscally conservative anymore. They have turned into social conservatives and relatively indistinguishable with their sworn enemies on fiscal issues. Ron Paul is not even close to being a Republican.

Converting from a two party system to a multiple party system would do this country a world of good. Wishful thinking at this point though; hence the reason Ron Paul is running as a "Republican".

When you get five hundred some odd people in the capitol and damn near everyone of them is corrupt and/or inept, the system is definitely broken. You just said term limits are an issue, that's a systemic problem right there, and one of many I think need to be addressed.

Campaign finance reform.

I had a lengthy discussion with a British guy a couple weeks ago about the difference between the American political system and the British political system with particular respect given towards campaign finance regulation. He told me they (the politically savvy British population) were amazed that the American public would allow for the ridiculous funding system to be enacted and maintained for as long as it has. From what I understood from him, campaign funding is very strict in Britain.

And for the record, I'm not strongly opinionated when it comes to SCOTUS. You may be right. If we would just acknowledge that nullification is a legitimate check/balance on federal tyranny I wouldn't give a damn how the SCOTUS is structured. That'd be enough to keep them in line.

Very good point. I don't see it raised too often.

 

[myrobbins7]

That's nice of them huh?

Ron Paul Idaho Team Welcomes Romney Family Members as Surrogate Caucus Speakers - MarketWatch

 

[RespectTradition]

I agree with BKB; Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a Republican.

To answer your question, a Republican is suppose to be conservative both fiscally and socially. A Libertarian is suppose to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. However, these days "Republicans" are not even fiscally conservative anymore. They have turned into social conservatives and relatively indistinguishable with their sworn enemies on fiscal issues. Ron Paul is not even close to being a Republican.

Converting from a two party system to a multiple party system would do this country a world of good. Wishful thinking at this point though; hence the reason Ron Paul is running as a "Republican".

Ron Paul is a mutt. He isn't a libertarian either. He takes many positions that are contrary to the libertarian 'party line'. Issues include: abortion, gay marriage, immigration, euthanasia and more.

He is a classic Republican, of the kind that Ronald Reagan claimed to be but never was. He does not fit the mold for the current GOP.

We really don't have a two party system anymore. We basically have the Conservative wing of the Statist party and the Liberal wing of the Statist party.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Ron Paul is a mutt. He isn't a libertarian either. He takes many positions that are contrary to the libertarian 'party line'. Issues include: abortion, gay marriage, immigration, euthanasia and more.

Yes, he is not a hardcore Libertarian. But he is a Libertarian. I also think people get confused between his personal feelings upon various moral/ethical problems and his legal/constitutional view on those same problems.

Abortion: He's a hypocrite. I won't touch this one.
Gay Marriage: Against it personally, for it legally (Libertarian stance)
Immigration: Tough one. He's not an open borders guy, but then again, Libertarians are not as open borders as they use to be post 9/11
Euthanasia: Personally against it, but thinks it is a state's rights issue (Libertarian stance)

He is a classic Republican, of the kind that Ronald Reagan claimed to be but never was. He does not fit the mold for the current GOP.

IMO, he's only a "classical Republican" if you factor his personal stances into the equation. However, legally, he is not.

We really don't have a two party system anymore. We basically have the Conservative wing of the Statist party and the Liberal wing of the Statist party.

Being suave, but I would agree in principal.

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[Mr_Henley]

Caught on hot mic "The powers that be want it to be R0mney & Paul out of the picture quickly" - YouTube

Reality Check: The Real Republican Delegate Numbers - YouTube

I thought I would share this. I try not to claim "cheater!" everytime I, or someone I support loses. After the NY Times called out the voting fraud (that I believe happened)in Maine, I realize all the time and effort I put into "The Revolution" is probably for nothing.

Regardless, I wanted to share the link.

 

[MG1968]

yeah, it's all a conspiracy to keep Ron Paul from securing the nomination, it has nothing to do with him not getting votes in states that matter. Maine was a non-binding caucus and RP supporters are turning it into their own private Alamo.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Have fun in Syria and Iran...

 

[MystifyingVol]

Have fun in Syria and Iran...

I forget, how are we going to pay for this again?

 

[RespectTradition]

I forget, how are we going to pay for this again?

Through devaluation of the dollar as a result of inflation caused by deficits and borrowing.

And since inflation hurts the poorest the most, then it will mostly be borne by the poor and lower-middle class.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

When will we ever learn?

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Voted for Dr. Paul today.

 

[MystifyingVol]

This is Brent Stafford from Missouri - Updated

 

[Mr_Henley]

I love this video, especially 2:58-4:18

New Ron Paul ad-DESTROYS Obama and Romney (HD) - YouTube

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[MG1968]

wow, so RP isn't winning because Bain Capital has rigged the system in favor of Romney?

unbelievable, are RP supporters really that desperate now to make excuses for his poor showing thus far?

 

[WA_Vol]

All great empires collapse under their debt, Russia being the best recent example.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dete8i0GDHM[/youtube]

Ron Paul makes a great point there.

 

[n_huffhines]

wow, so RP isn't winning because Bain Capital has rigged the system in favor of Romney?

unbelievable, are RP supporters really that desperate now to make excuses for his poor showing thus far?

Who said anything about Ron Paul?

 

[sjt18]

wow, so RP isn't winning because Bain Capital has rigged the system in favor of Romney?

unbelievable, are RP supporters really that desperate now to make excuses for his poor showing thus far?

Ron Paul actually answers a very broad swath of the American electorate. Probably enough on domestic policy to win.

The problem is the guy is completely delusional and naive on foreign policy. I have heard him speak. He truly believes that if we leave everyone else alone that they will leave us alone. He is naive enough to believe that there are no factions who simply want to impose domination on others. He seems to not understand that there are people in the world who hate us because of our freedom and prosperity regardless of what else we do. Our existence and success threatens their control of their own peoples.

I could buy it if he wanted to back out of everyone else's business but still protect ours and that of our established allies. I would certainly support a more "black and white" approach that says our friends are our friends and our enemies are not... and it is much better to be our friend than enemy.

However I am convinced that the guy would not protect us. If we did happen to survive the early implementation of his policies either he or a successor would be faced with a large war on the scale of all others brought on by appeasement.

Foreign policy during the post-Cold War era has definitely been screwed up by every administration. That does not mean Paul's option would work simply because it is different.

 

[MystifyingVol]

Boiling his foreign policy down to the basic, he wants to force Congress to do their job and authorize war, which he would then prosecute. Also, how are we going to afford it?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqNq3U66K8Q[/youtube]

 

[PKT_VOL]

Ron Paul actually answers a very broad swath of the American electorate. Probably enough on domestic policy to win.

The problem is the guy is completely delusional and naive on foreign policy. I have heard him speak. He truly believes that if we leave everyone else alone that they will leave us alone. He is naive enough to believe that there are no factions who simply want to impose domination on others. He seems to not understand that there are people in the world who hate us because of our freedom and prosperity regardless of what else we do. Our existence and success threatens their control of their own peoples.

I could buy it if he wanted to back out of everyone else's business but still protect ours and that of our established allies. I would certainly support a more "black and white" approach that says our friends are our friends and our enemies are not... and it is much better to be our friend than enemy.

However I am convinced that the guy would not protect us. If we did happen to survive the early implementation of his policies either he or a successor would be faced with a large war on the scale of all others brought on by appeasement.

This part of your post is delusional.

Foreign policy during the post-Cold War era has definitely been screwed up by every administration. That does not mean Paul's option would work simply because it is different.

This part of your post is almost correct.