Ron Paul Has A Legit Shot.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
well of course it does, The People decide the free market not some bureaucrat

The gulf coast oil spills took blame away from the oil companies because they said government checked off on it. So when government cannot enforce regulations the answer is more regulations. Guess who writes those regulations? The companies those regulations, oversee. Yea that's fair.
Go have your eyes looked at and notice the doctor is "certified by a board". Most don't know what that means. Some get grand fathered in and don't have to be up to date on the latest technology. I can tell you that for a fact.

Because you don't understand the free market. You want to manage things for others and not let the individual decide and therefore grow. When government gets involved quality goes down and prices go up. We've seen it time and time again. You will think $2 is a good price on a good or service but that doesn't mean it is for me.
Price and quality. Take one away, the consumer suffers.
I think I do understand it, what it's purpose is at least in a way you have lost sight of. The market is just a tool to exchange labor/services so people can get the things they need to lead better lives. That is it's purpose, to make people's lives better. The market is not a divine creature that we all owe allegiance to. It exists for our benefit. That benefit is not measured by the dow industrial average. It's measured by the quality of life of the people who participate in that market.

However now it seems people have started to treat the market as more than that. You seem to believe the goal of the market is to allow people to acquire as much wealth as possible. That is not it's purpose. When the market works like that, the people suffer at the greed of the ultra wealthy. That's why we regulate markets. That's why every market in the history of the world has been a regulated one. Free markets do not exist. They never have existed and they never should exist in the future.

The idea of free markets may sound good on paper, but why should the people of a country suffer just so a handful of people can elevate themselves into an ultrawealthy ruling class?
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
Generally that wouldn't be true, but in your case I think that is the prudent thing. Yes.
That's the problem with control freaks. I never asked or wanted someone like you to give me your permission since I dont need it or want it. I dont need you running my life for me.
If I request information or ask your opinion that can be helpful but never think you can use force against me to make me do something and expect me to sit by and allow it. You have to always fight for freedom because there is always someone who wants to steal it from you.
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
Yeah that's right. I don't agree with Ron Paul because I hate freedom and liberty. That's exactly what I was saying.
You hate if for others when it suits you. THAT speaks volumes. You want to pick and choose when to apply it. You cannot do that. It applies all the time, equally, for everyone. You think you know how to run their lives better and want to use force and coercion to accomplish what you want. Freedom is not a part time thing.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Ok Parker. You've made your point. I'm no longer welcome on this forum. I apologize for the unreasonable request of not having every single thread spammed with Ron Paul "informational campaign videos".

I'm glad you guys are so open minded. My intention of starting this thread was actually to encourage you guys, but as usually you took that as an opportunity to shit all over anyone who has a dissenting opinion ever.

I now see it's impossible to reason with people like you and that this is now just an extension of Ron Paul's website.

Maybe I'll be back one day when you guys get over this. I hope eventually you realize how poorly you guys are behaving here.

Good bye everyone
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
That isn't true. In reality, there is no one size fits all solution. No one sided argument results in open mindedness or intelligence. The only thing that you, or Ron Paul, can do is to make the case for your stance as best you can and hope that others will take your side on the matter.
There is no need for anyone to "take sides" necessarily. There is a need for people to respect the rights of others.
Some people want to get together and form a school, more power to them. Don't demand that I pay into it and don't use force to get what you want. Society does not grow using force and coercion.
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
Because free trade is responsible for much of our job loss/outsourcing problems,
You have no proof of this. High taxes and excess regulations chase many businesses away. That's what they tell us, but you know better right?

it lowers US worker wages, and increased economic inequality globally. The people who really benefit from free trade are the top 0.05%. The wealthy elites.
You have no proof of this. Through managed trade prices are higher to the consumer. Free trade brings the artificially set wages in line and gets rid of the artificial barriers of managed trade.

Economic regulations on the financial services industry are necessary to prevent Wall St from ass raping us.
Regulations bypassed the free market and we ended up with the anti free market housing boom and bust. You don't know what free market is.

So I like to keep my money and I don't want to get ass raped. Good reason right?
Educate yourself on what the free market is instead of being jealous of people who work to manipulate the managed trade policies we currently have in place.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
dan is right. the ron paul shit is spam-like and drives many members away from these boards.

i will be merging them all some day, just not while i'm on vacation.
 

budlover13

King Tut
I'd like to ask a favor please. Can we keep this thread to discussing polling/chances to win/etc and not just spam it with Ron Paul ads please?

You guys have posted litterally hundreds of Ron Paul ads on this forum. It's already driven many posters off this forum. If you guys just want to have a circle jerk praising Ron Paul, why not go to a Ron Paul forum?

We all understand you guys like Ron Paul. That's fine. If you want to discuss Ron Paul, that's ok too. But do we really need every thread on this forum spammed with Ron Paul videos and ads? It makes the whole forum annoying to read. If people want to see more Ron Paul videos they can google them. Do you really need to spam them everywhere?

Those videos aren't convincing people to vote for Ron Paul here. They are just annoying people. Please stop.
Kinda like turtle fucking to some people i guess.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Ron Paul does have a chance in 2012... and that's a beautiful thing.
false, he does not have a chance.

it may appear that he has a chance...in a 7 person field where getting 25% of desperate voters puts you on top.

but one on one, he can not garner the 45-50% of the vote needed to best his rival. too many polling indicators spell this out all too clearly.

but hey, it will be fun telling you "i told you so" after this all pans out. crass, but fun.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I'd like to ask a favor please. Can we keep this thread to discussing polling/chances to win/etc and not just spam it with Ron Paul ads please?

You guys have posted litterally hundreds of Ron Paul ads on this forum. It's already driven many posters off this forum. If you guys just want to have a circle jerk praising Ron Paul, why not go to a Ron Paul forum?

We all understand you guys like Ron Paul. That's fine. If you want to discuss Ron Paul, that's ok too. But do we really need every thread on this forum spammed with Ron Paul videos and ads? It makes the whole forum annoying to read. If people want to see more Ron Paul videos they can google them. Do you really need to spam them everywhere?

Those videos aren't convincing people to vote for Ron Paul here. They are just annoying people. Please stop.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that people have left this forum specifically because of Ron Paul posts and links? Any at all? The only people i ever see complain are the typical 2 or 3 folks that complain with most any RP post and are only trying to express that dissatisfaction and are just butt sore their last candidate decided to royally screw them and their progeny in the ass in exchange for a measly $1-2k a year.
 

SocataSmoker

Well-Known Member
false, he does not have a chance.

it may appear that he has a chance...in a 7 person field where getting 25% of desperate voters puts you on top.

but one on one, he can not garner the 45-50% of the vote needed to best his rival. too many polling indicators spell this out all too clearly.

but hey, it will be fun telling you "i told you so" after this all pans out. crass, but fun.

What is this, kindergarten? I told you so? :lol:


It will not be on my shoulders should the majority of American's fail to vote us out of peril, that will be squarely on you and anyone else who either voted for damnation, or who didn't vote at all.


I am voting for Ron Paul because of my beliefs and my wants for this country... and to say he has zero chance is not only a logical fallacy, it's idiocy... squarely speaking he does have a chance, and that is a beautiful thing.
 

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
What is this, kindergarten? I told you so? :lol:


It will not be on my shoulders should the majority of American's fail to vote us out of peril, that will be squarely on you and anyone else who either voted for damnation, or who didn't vote at all.


I am voting for Ron Paul because of my beliefs and my wants for this country... and to say he has zero chance is not only a logical fallacy, it's idiocy... squarely speaking he does have a chance, and that is a beautiful thing.

what now politic mod woohhhh

not to mention the helpless GOP and there commitment to the gop nomonie is about 35% of the votes so bu ya
 

Brick Top

New Member
I am voting for Ron Paul because of my beliefs and my wants for this country...
If Ron Paul does not become the Republican presidential candidate, if you want to do what's best for this country, if Ron Paul runs as an Independent, vote for the Republican candidate even if you see them as being only marginally better than Obama and not anywhere near as good as Ron Paul. If not you will help to assure that Obama has four more years to complete the total destruction of the U.S.

In a three-way presidential race Ron Paul will draw far more votes from any Republican candidate than he would from Obama. That means the get Obama the Hell out of the White House vote will be split between the Republican candidate and Ron Paul and Obama, like Clinton did both times he ran, will win a three-way election with a plurality of the vote.

Wanting what's best for the nation and having strong feelings and convictions about doing all you can to see it happen is noble, but that is as far as it goes in a scenario like I described. Sticking to your guns, being true to yourself in the name of the nation, would be the very worst thing you could ever do if it turns out to be a three-way race.

Do we all want the very best person in the field of candidates to replace Obama? HELL YES! But, if that candidate is not the Republican candidate then you have to go with the next best option since ousting Obama is the highest priority, it is job one, it is the most important thing that could be done.

There are times in life when you want something but it is an impossibility. So at times like that a little bit is better than nothing, accept a small step forward rather than help to assure that no forward progress is made.

If Ron Paul turns out to be the Republican candidate, just like you, I will be voting for him. If he fails to win the Republican nomination and runs as an Independent, Then I will be voting for the Republican candidate because too me, the most important thing of all is stopping the insanity, meaning replacing Obama. It might only result in a baby step forward being taken. But that would still be infinitely better than allowing Obama to remain in the White House for another four years. But he will remain in the White House for four more years if Ron Paul ends up running as an Independent and people like you say, he's the best candidate so he's getting my vote.

There will not be enough people who feel and believe the same way as you do, so, in that scenario, Ron Paul would stand zero chance of winning, and anyone who votes for him, in that scenario, might just as well vote for Obama because every Ron Paul vote would get Obama a little bit closer to what would be an inevitable win.
 

budlover13

King Tut
If Ron Paul does not become the Republican presidential candidate, if you want to do what's best for this country, if Ron Paul runs as an Independent, vote for the Republican candidate even if you see them as being only marginally better than Obama and not anywhere near as good as Ron Paul. If not you will help to assure that Obama has four more years to complete the total destruction of the U.S.

In a three-way presidential race Ron Paul will draw far more votes from any Republican candidate than he would from Obama. That means the get Obama the Hell out of the White House vote will be split between the Republican candidate and Ron Paul and Obama, like Clinton did both times he ran, will win a three-way election with a plurality of the vote.

Wanting what's best for the nation and having strong feelings and convictions about doing all you can to see it happen is noble, but that is as far as it goes in a scenario like I described. Sticking to your guns, being true to yourself in the name of the nation, would be the very worst thing you could ever do if it turns out to be a three-way race.

Do we all want the very best person in the field of candidates to replace Obama? HELL YES! But, if that candidate is not the Republican candidate then you have to go with the next best option since ousting Obama is the highest priority, it is job one, it is the most important thing that could be done.

There are times in life when you want something but it is an impossibility. So at times like that a little bit is better than nothing, accept a small step forward rather than help to assure that no forward progress is made.

If Ron Paul turns out to be the Republican candidate, just like you, I will be voting for him. If he fails to win the Republican nomination and runs as an Independent, Then I will be voting for the Republican candidate because too me, the most important thing of all is stopping the insanity, meaning replacing Obama. It might only result in a baby step forward being taken. But that would still be infinitely better than allowing Obama to remain in the White House for another four years. But he will remain in the White House for four more years if Ron Paul ends up running as an Independent and people like you say, he's the best candidate so he's getting my vote.

There will not be enough people who feel and believe the same way as you do, so, in that scenario, Ron Paul would stand zero chance of winning, and anyone who votes for him, in that scenario, might just as well vote for Obama because every Ron Paul vote would get Obama a little bit closer to what would be an inevitable win.
Ron Paul gets my vote. Period.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
If not you will help to assure that Obama has four more years to complete the total destruction of the U.S.
all these tax breaks are devastating me. and this access to health care is ruinous.

we're much better off making sure that the state has more control over my wife's body than my wife does. vote GOP 2012!
 

Brick Top

New Member
Ron Paul gets my vote. Period.
If Ron Paul runs as an Independent and you vote for him, right after the election you might as well just put a bumper sticker on your car that says I Helped Get Obama Reelected, because that is all that you will have accomplished with your vote.

Idealism, when it comes to voting in a scenario like I mentioned, is irrational and illogical. You very badly want a president replaced, but then you do the very thing that would assure that he remains the president, all because of idealism, of being such a great and proud American that you would rather vote for whoever you believe is the best candidate out of the three choices, even though that means you will go down with the ship, along with the rest of us, because you helped assure that Obama was given four more years.

Thank rationally about Ron Paul for a moment. He says a fair number of very good things. Some of them appeal very much to people like ourselves. But stop and think about what the actual odds are that he would be able to accomplish many, if any, of them, especially if an absolute miracle would occur and he would run as an Independent and be elected.

The things that are most appealing about what changes Ron Paul says he will make are not ones he can do through presidential decree. They would take acts of congress. Even if he won being the Republican candidate he would not have strong support among his own party in congress. To many are to entrenched in old school politics and cronyism. In many cases they do not want what he wants. Democrats absolutely do not want what he wants. So even as a Republican president it would be extremely difficult for him to accomplish anything he wants to do, at least to anywhere near the degree he wants to do it.

Regardless of what legislation he might ask for, there is no assuring that any member of congress would write it. If someone did they might do so only to appear to not be standing in the way of President Paul, but they might write it in a way that would assure it never even made it out of committee for a floor vote, let alone being passed by both the House and the Senate so President Paul could then sign it into law.

If he were to win as an Independent he would have even less support in congress than if he won as a Republican. Neither major party in congress would be his party. Some, maybe most, Republicans could hold a grudge that he knocked off their guy, or gal, and not work with him any better than Democrats would just to make sure he was seen as an ineffectual failure and end up a one term president that no one would ever vote for again.

A president just does not posses the powers and authority to make most of the changes that Ron Paul preaches, especially the one we here would hold so near and dear, legalizing marijuana.

With so much that would need to be done just to keep the nation working on the same pitiful level as now he could only afford to expend so much time on the sweeping changes he promises but would be doomed to failure by congress. So, after making an attempt and failing he would be forced to scrap much of what he promises and what makes you say; "Ron Paul gets my vote. Period."

The only way that Ron Paul could stand any chance of doing what he is campaigning on is if most of the seat in the Senate that are up for reelection were won by Ron Paul friendly Republicans or Tea Party candidates AND since every seat in the House is up for reelection Ron Paul friendly Republicans or Tea Party members would have to win a large majority of the House. He would need to have a super majority in congress made up mostly of Ron Paul friendly Senators and House members. If not, he could end up less effective than Obama because he would constantly be fighting with and trying to convince not only one political party in congress, but instead both political parties in congress to give him what he asks for.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, that is the reality of what he would be facing. So if you have some youthful pie in the sky rose colored glasses beliefs that if Ron Paul wins, however it would happen, that you will see much, let alone most or all of what he's campaigning on, you need to wake up and smell the Mango Haze because it just will not happen. He would be elected president, not king, and he would not be able to rule by decree and facing an uncooperative congress, he would be nearly powerless do to much of what sounds so good to so many of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top