Reply With Quote
Not a chance in ..
Not a chance in ..
He is VERY popular here in Ga, so he might have a good showing in southern states on Super Tuesday....
But I agree with PI7, not a realistic chance.
his economic policies are way above average IMO. It's the rest of him that makes him unelectable.
I am noticing a trend with Paul....its amazing I know, but try and hold on to your sanity...
He does well in all things "internet", whether it be a poll or fundraiser, he dominates on the WWW.
Its the whole "real world success" thing that seems to elude the campaign.
I think that is where the term "Paulbot" comes from. Much like a malware bot, the Paul supporter combs the internet looking for references to Paul.
^ good point.
No it's that he's being stifled in the real world by the powers that be who don't want him to become popular.
^better point
"powers that be" = "the 90-95% of the population that are neither hardcore libertarians nor the fringe weirdos that Paul also seems to attract."
no, "powers that be" = .00001% of the US population
just like Snakes on a Plane.
you are just fooled by the media, like 90-95% that have their head up their ass and blinders on.
Jesus Christ could be on the ballot but would be polling low and get no air time if he didn't back the war or back big government, the media would say he is a fringe candidate and doesn't stand a chance, so won't even mention his name unless he gets blamed for any racist comment in the bible, even though he didn't write it. Don't even mention the part of the bible that advocates slavery and beating your slaves.
He's like Chris Benoit...
On the internet Chris Benoit was the greatest thing to ever hit Pro Wrestling...
Off the internet...the Rock and Hulk Hogan still ruled.
Paul's popularity on the internet is probably closer to his true overall popularity than Benoit's was...due to the the internet getting more and more popular and influential...
But I'm still going to say that Paul remains an internet darling with little or no chance of getting the nomination.
For me the main kicker is his stance on Iraq...which is irresponsible IMO.
Other than that I don't have many questions about his character or ethics...seems to be a decent guy, although I'll still say that being a decent guy doesn't equate to being a great Presidential candidate.
Ron will never have enough momentum.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS:
http://www.freeatlast2008.com/
Paul will never be accepted by the Repug/corp establishment (just like Edwards), and he's too radical and just too weird for moderate voters. He's gotta be radical and weird for his activists, but that precludes him from the moderates.
Last edited by boutons_; 01-18-2008 at 09:02 AM.
What?
Explain please.
Can you tell me a single radical idea he has?
I'll bet it's not so radical if you take a moment to understand it!
He's not accepted because he is not part of the elite class... He has real cons utional values.
Abolish IRS, for starters.
Overturning the entire, hyper-complex tax code, 1000s of pages, with its 1000s special/vested interests and loopholes and the entire accountancy/tax prep/tax lawyer industries, is ing radical, so radical it's weird to even consider it as feasible.
Here's what happens to conservative radicals IN PRACTICE:
"They have forgotten that Reagan -- facing spiraling deficits, sinking poll ratings and a hostile Congress -- reluctantly signed legislation raising payroll, income and gasoline taxes, some of them among the largest in our history. He promised to limit government and eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy. Instead, when faced with congressional and popular opposition, he relented and even grew government by adding a secretary of veteran affairs to the Cabinet."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...of_reagan.html
How is simplifying something radical?
I am a staunch supporter of "The Fair Tax." It eliminates taxes as we know them, and makes them all a consumption based tax. Basis necessities need not be taxed.
Buy food, toilet paper, etc. no tax. Hence, it should be about 22% cheaper.
Buy TV's DVD players, cars, etc. you get taxed. Taxes are paid on items not necessary for basic living. Taxes are relatively equal. Taxes are fair this way between income classes and class envy would be reduced. Exports don't get taxed, imports get taxed, helping to balance the trade deficit.
This is not a radical idea. No other country has such a complicated tax structure as ours. Other first world nations use a consumption style tax.
Why won't it change? Politicians will never take those chains and collars off the tax payers necks. We are their property. To eliminate their power to control us trough taxes would reduce their power so dramatically.
What's radical about reducing the governments power.
You want radical... I have a few radical ideas. Ron Paul cannot compete with me!
To bad the article only cherrypicks their highlights.
I forget how much the SS/Medicare went up by, but at the time it was the right thing to do. I would advocate increasing it more, because it is a tax that everyone pays, rather than you libs trying to just soak the rich.
Gasoline taxes are not 18.4 cents per gallon federal. It's not a percentage tax, so from time to time needed to be increased to keep road projects running as inflation increases. President Reagan inherited terrible inflation, therefore the increases on the gas tax were historic.
I wish he did eliminate the Department of Education. It's not his choice alone. Congress must play a part too.
The biggest things I agree with to criticize him about are his granting amnesty to illegal workers, and his poor choice for the Supreme Court. However, maybe they were the best he could get past the democrat controlled senate?
'Congress must play a part too."
... is why an extreme radical like RP won't get elected. The establishment won't permit it, even if he had enough $$$ and talent to run a national campaign.
you are not intelligent enough to see that john edwards is no ron paul.
paul is unique in that he is uncompromising in saying what he actually believes (MSM pundits call this "not trying to actually win.") edwards is calculated and hides his true beliefs to play the electability game (this is most clearly illustrated with his 'stance' on gay marriage: 'i am personally opposed to s getting married, but my wife disagrees,' an obvious political calculation designed to placate the southern dummy vote while letting the hipsters in San Francisco know what he really thinks. i would charge that edwards believes in marriage rights for gays, but lacks the backbone to stand up for them)
aside from edwards being an economic dunce and, as a classic Onion headline put it, "Promising to end all bad things by 2009," the two are very different in other substantive ways.
neither will win their parties nomination, unfortunately, but one will still be a respectable and uncompromised figure moving forward (when a person compromes principal in the name of utilitarian good and fails on both accounts, as edwards has, its pretty shameful)
Last edited by pussyface; 01-18-2008 at 02:41 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
