It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can we get real about Ron Paul?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:52 PM
HE IS NOT GOING TO WIN!! There! I said it. As much attention as he gets in some internet corners, he dont have the mass appeal to win the nomination. Its something about him that dont let many many people get to him.

Look when the presidential nomination debates started I told myself im going to listen to this guy just to see whats all the fuzz about, I listen and is just not there for me to vote for him, he is too radical, say stuff that while it sounds good to the ear are almost impossible to make them happen and to make it worst he doesnt outline how hes going to do it.

All I see is a smart politician that knows that there is a particular sector of the voting population tired of the same old politicians and hes seizing the opportunity by bringing this message: "look at me im different", different in what?

I dont see the difference between Hillary saying that shes bringing nationwide medical healthcare, Huckabee saying hes going to enforce the borders and Ron Paul saying hes going to pull troops out of Iraq ASAP, they are all talking to a sector of the voting population.

Lets get real, Ron Paul is a politician, one which I can not identified myself with as many americans can not either, he is way behind in the polls despite a good fundraising base and the Iowa and NH primaries are almost here.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by Bunch

All his positions are logical and don’t need so much explaining. You need more details when your writing a program that dictates people’s money, Ron Paul wants you to handle your own green. That doesn’t mean he wont tell you what you want to know when asked.

His views are basic but so different from the mainstream that they are hard to follow if you don‘t already understand them, that means he may not be sure what you don‘t understand. You can’t blame him if he’s never been asked about and had time to explain what you want to know. If your having trouble finding references regarding certain policies, maybe I can help.

Most Americans can’t identify themselves with a politician because they think right into the hands of the other politicians your describing. They latch onto certain issues, Ron Paul is right on all of them, rather than extreme on some of them. The extremist mentality finds Ron Paul hard to follow. Lets get real, what is Ron Paul wrong about?

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by captainplanet

Taxes: Ron Paul says he wants lower taxes to everyone,regular folk and companies, that to me is a irresponsible statement and one that is intended to misguided, specially in our current economical situation, if you havent notice GW already lower taxes with no result in the economy, companies still pack and left, wages are stagnant and peopleare not spending. The AMT has been repeal with no way knowing how we going to come up with that money (unless you counting with China), so to make a statement that we going to keep lowering taxes with no showing how we going to make up to it is irresponsible to me ans borderline phony.

Education: Hes plan is radical, the goverment SHOULD BE involved in the education of its citizens, at the local, state and federal level, there should be uniformity on what is taught at our schools at least when it comes to a basic curriculum, I understand that our Education system need a revamp but I dont see hes way being the best. And to make it worst he embrazes himself under the Constitution as saying that whoever dont follow him is wrong, same way GW uses patriotism.

Healthcare: Again hes too radical he present the current situation as like the Government is the only responsible for the mess that we have and come with ideas that basically comes down to no government involved at all in the health care issue, giving tax deductions and forth. Thats misleading because we all know what happens when we let only one side of the issue make the rules. Lets just let the doctors and insurance companies decide by themselves how much we going to pay for healthcare. To let them decide how much we going to pay is iresponsible, sounds good to the ear but in reality is that at the end we (the people) are going to be ransack by doctors and insurance companies and then the goverment is going to have to intervene which is going to lead us to where we at right now. Healtcare needs fixing, but not hes way.

On other things I kind of agree with him, the same way I agree with other candidates too, my problem with Ron Paul and I guess with many other american voters is that he tries to simplify everything as good or bad when the reality is in the middle, hes trying to fix a country with simplistic ideas that at the end IMO would do more harm or create more mess than we now have.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by Bunch

Taxes: GW lowered taxes and that is not enough in our current system. All he did was save rich people money. The middle-class is burdened with debt due to our current economic policies and can't afford to spend on much else but what they need. Here's what he says the first thing to do about fixing our economic system is:

For starters, the Federal Reserve should:
Begin publishing the M3 statistics again. Let us see the numbers that most accurately reveal how much new money the Fed is pumping into the world economy.

Tell us exactly what the President's Working Group on Financial Markets does and why.

Explain how interest rates are set. Conservatives profess to support free markets, without wage and price controls. Yet the most important price of all, the price of money as determined by interest rates, is set arbitrarily in secret by the Fed rather than by markets! Why is this policy written in stone? Why is there no congressional input at least?

Change legal tender laws to allow constitutional legal tender (commodity money) to compete domestically with the dollar.

How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years? Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers?

We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.


That article doesn't talk much about taxes, but much of his solution revolves around people having money to spend, not devaluing it and leaving the system to unmonitored bankers. Eliminating certain government funding allows you to lower taxes, without adding debt.

Education: He wants the federal government out of education, he says in the beginning of this video about his stance on education that "Local government is constitutional to be involved." It's not very deep, but his point, as it usually is, is about free competition, because it improves everything.

Google Video Link

Healthcare: Mandating a tax on people who don’t want government healthcare is not the answer either. It discourages the quality assurance that comes with a free market. In a free market, good doctors are successful because their patients want to come back, not because they meet government requirements in performance.

I don’t think he simplifies things as ‘good or bad’ as much as he believes he is right. I don’t mind that when someone is right. He isn’t saying, ‘this is how my government would spend for you‘, he is saying, ‘you should be able to spend for yourself in a free and fair competitive market.’ He asks more questions than he provides solutions, but that is the first step in really creating awareness, getting to the bottom of something, and fixing it.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by captainplanet

I see you are a pretty reasonable Paul supporter, and tend to take on questions of your candidate honestly and without the "pounce" mentality that is prevalent with alot of his supporters.

While I am still undecided, I would ask you:

If Rep. Ron Paul is elected, what is the plan to implement his campaign promises?

He does present many ideas that many people would like to see happen but I have a hard time coming to grasp with HOW he can accomplish his goals.

If you can explain in a way which actually seems feasible, I might be persuaded.

How is he going to get Congress to implement his changes?

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by JacKatMtn

I think the short answer would be bi-partisanship, you probably want something deeper though.

I think if his ideas were looked at more closely and wholly by critics, he would change a lot of minds. That’s why his supporters have a defensive mentality, because their candidate is often written off as a loon but he has a lot of good ideas. Most people find it difficult to write his ideas off when they actually realize what he is talking about. If he were president his ideas would be harder to brush under the rug.

It’s hard to get things done in Washington, but if he could get the people to understand his philosophy on government then it should be easier. I think he would have a better chance then most at achieving bi-partisanship because he has hard to refute logic, not politically biased agendas.

He never makes biased decisions, they are always in the interest of personal liberties and a competitive market. It requires a re-education to people who don’t understand the value of personal responsibility when they can just use a credit card, but it’s working so far, despite media ridicule. All his proposals would likely be very constitutional and hard to refute. It might take some political battling, but good logic usually prevails.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:54 PM
reply to post by captainplanet

So to be honest, if he were elected, it would take a second term, provided he is able to get re-elected to start the change.

The focus needs to be on changing Congress, that is where real change can occur.

Term limits, the President has a term limit, WHY? because Congress wanted it.

Are there term limits on Congress? NO, WHY? because Congress doesn't want it.

Who has the REAL power in our government?

I think that Senators should be limited to 2 terms = 12 years

Representatives limited to 4 terms = 8 years

That seems fair to me, I don't want to see a Senator Byrd, Kennedy, Thurmond live their complete adult life running the government.

Who is Ron Paul bringing to the table to help get his revolution started, I don't think that he can do it all alone.

I have serious doubt that should he be elected, that the citizens will be happy with four years of trying to get his policies implemented.

How does he plan to change the face of Congress so this change can occur.

I know that it is a tough question, I don't have the answer, but if we really want the type of changes that Ron presents, there are 100 Senators and over 500 Representatives whose positions need to be considered if we ever hope to have these changes approved by Congress.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by captainplanet

Thanks for your response!

I share the same concern as JacKatMtn, you see, I like some of Ron Paul ideas, but some of them just sound fiscally impossible, he wants to cut taxes here and there and whos going to pick up the tab?

I mean im all for lower taxes, but their is a responsible way of going about it and a wrong way too. Thats my main.

On other things like foreign policy I dont see him like a guy that want to build many bridges, he wants to quit international organizations, trade agreements, all that could send our economy to the sink if is not done responsibly. It all sounds good but the reality is that to "take our country back" we still going to need partners internationally.

I dont know, Im all for the guy that wants to work for the people, and still today I havent seeing Ron Paul like a viable option to accomplish that. Anyways im going to keep listening.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by JacKatMtn

The positions of congressmen are supposed to reflect the people, so if there was a more unified voice among the people it would have the same effect, at least on any member of congress concerned about their political future. You may have to wait for new congress members, but couldn't the same could be said about any republican in a mostly democrat congress? I think Ron Paul at least has the best chance of bridging the gap and not needing to elect a ‘friendly’ congress because he is not as politically biased as other politicians. I’d rather see a battle for liberty in the government then political bartering, whether the impact would be immediate change or not, it would be a move toward better politics.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:26 PM
reply to post by Bunch

There are a lot of concerns about where to get money when you cut taxes. But taxes force people to pay for things whether they use/agree with them or not. I was thinking about it earlier today and I think private charities or community organizations could be just as, if not more effective then government for providing a lot of things. Let people lobby and raise money for the projects in their communities and the exact things they want done will get done for as much money as they are willing to put out. Instead of companies that lobby the most in government getting big contracts, the ones who do the best job for the most reasonable price will. I’m not a studied economist so I don’t know all about it, but I think I heard Ron Paul suggest charities as an alternative before. I think community organizations could work if people had all the money they put into taxes available to put into their personal interests. He mainly talks about the federal income tax and the IRS, I’m not sure that he’s totally against any state taxes.

I think his foreign policy is pretty solid. He’s against regulating business through trade agreements, not trade with foreign nations. He’s also against military alliances, but if congress wanted to go to war, he wouldn’t tell them no.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by captainplanet

Thanks again for your input, I am trying to be a sponge and absorb all the angles going into this election year. It isn't so bad discussing the issues and positions of the candidates, especially when you leave out the attacks, bias, and spin which you see constantly on the TV.

You have given me something I can think about.

While all elections are important, this is the most important one that has happened since I became of voting age.

I am trying my best to live up to the honor of having the right to vote.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:20 AM
Whether he wins or not, the fact is that Paul has drawn important attention to many essential issues and ideas that we seem to have let fall by the wayside. He has some good ideas, but I don't think he is the proper messenger.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by JacKatMtn

Honestly, what you are saying can be applied to all politicians. They are all real good at telling you what they are going to do, but none of them are very good at conveying how they are going to do it.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

That is true but what Paul is campaigning on goes against the current federal mentality, if he gets elected, there will be intense pressure on him to produce (voters), and intense pressure to make sure he fails (Congress).

I don't know yet, i am still taking everything in and trying to decide what to do.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:34 AM
Well, while I like Paul, quite honestly, I don't see him getting the nomination... The mainstream media pays little attention to him, and when it does, it's in a mocking fashion. Of course, 9/10ths of the American population get their "knowledge" from the brain-rot box (television), so, what they see and hear on it is what they believe.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:49 PM
Bunch You seem to misunderstand how American politics works. At this point Ron Paul has enough money to BUY delegates. He will win the republican nomination. One more thing he is popular. Every person I have turned onto him in idol conversation has liked what he stands for. He is the peoples Choice.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:35 AM
reply to post by titorite

Wow. So now the main instrument of the nomination process is bribery? Is that what Dr. Paul stands for?

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by titorite

As much money as Ron Paul has gathered, it doesnt come close to what the other top candidates have. Thats another thing that shows me that Ron Paul doesnt have a mass appeal, he has the money to show himself, why he hasnt move dramatically in the polls?

I can tell you another guy that last time around had a lot of appeal in internet corners and got completely stump when the voting started....remember Howard Dean? And in Dean case he was leading everypoll until he lost in hes mojo with the "Scream Speech" and there was no money that could save his campaign, so no I dont think money would be a factor.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by Bunch

That is actually untrue. Ron Paul has more cash on hand than any other republican candidate right now.

Huckabee, who is the front runner in the Iowa polls, has only raised a mere 5 million to Paul's 19 million this quarter.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by JacKatMtn

There is a movement in the grassroots to get more constitution minded people in congress. We already have one running in North Carolina on Paul's platform.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in