If people really wanted change, why didn't we elect Ron Paul?

I just can't understand what makes Obama so special? Is this country that superficial? Did people not listen to anything Ron Paul had to say? Or do people still believe that Republicans/Democrats are seperate entities. That is my point, some people looked at what team Ron Paul was on and based a decision on that alone. If Barack was really about change then wouldnt he address some of our biggest problems as Mr Paul did? I did not hear one thing from Obama regarding the Federal Reserve or some of the "real" issues that need addressing. I just can't believe it, still.

I was following the polls, I forget which channel, they showed the voting percentages for each candidate, the first update regarding the polls I had seen on this election had 3 candidates shown , Ron Paul, Obama and McCaine with pole percentage results for each one. This was on the screen for about 2 seconds literally and then back on the screen, minus Ron Paul... It was the Fox News Debate all over again (the one where Ron Paul was edited out). I believe if Ron Paul didnt have everyone against him including the media he would of had a better chance. It would have helped if he would have been bi-racial or even black. Then maybe people would have listened. I dont know, just venting a bit. Apologies.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by robotically]

[edit on 16-12-2008 by robotically]

reply to post by robotically


He is too radical for most of America. I loved Ron Paul up until the subject of Abortion came up, where I completely disagree.

Additionally, the US government would never let someone so independent be elected. He would be assassinated by the CIA/FBI; institutions of the government in which he intended to completely shut down.

The problem is a president isn't elected by popular vote. The electoral college actually decides who is president. At lest this is how I understand the system.

Moderator SemperFortis would be a good source to contact on this for clarity. He seems to delight in discussing political topics and issues. I recall an incident where he pursued a one sided conversation on politics for at least 30 minutes in a modcast.

reply to post by Yoda411


I agree with everything you said. People are saying that Obama is the new JFK... What??!! He is already messed up in corruption. JFK wanted to shut down the CIA which GWB SR was the head of. That was one of the reasons he was assassinated. But I don't hear anything even close to as radical as that from Obama. From Ron Paul yeah.

Even if he was elected, he would still be outnumbered. 535 to 1. If Congress didn't listen to him in Congress, what makes you think they would listen to him now? In addition, I think a lot of people talked up Ron Paul but was behind Obama all the way. He means good but is largely ignored by the MSM when he is running and by ordinary people who are party dedicated.

People didn't just want change... They bought into the hype of the Barack Obama (bam-a-lam) campaign. It was a battlecry... A t-shirt and hat for sale in a store...

Not only that: but ADVISOR is correct... it's not by OUR vote... It's be the popular vote... Ron Paul (not to knock him) will never be the popular vote...

Because RP was change. None of these people really wanted anything to change.

It never ceases to amaze me when all the people crying for "change" just jump onto the status quo bandwagon. I dont get it. Why spend the effort lying to oneself? Boggles the mind.

reply to post by jam321


I guess your right, I just wanted some real change. I guess he could have dabbled in just a bit of corrupt activities, then everyone wouldnt view him as such a threat.

reply to post by robotically


The modern American loves big government. The only change they would really love is world government I guess. At least the Obama fan I know blabbed about how great one world government would be. Since Ron Paul likes small government, he was unpopular with liars who pretend to like freedom but they really don't at all.

Unfortunately if you like a small nonintrusive government that makes you a radical extremist. Even Kucinich doesn't want government to be that much smaller.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by truthquest]

If he was allowed to campaign without interference, he very well may have had a good chance.

Regarding Congressional opposition from both sides, who cares? With the Executive powers that have been expanded under the current administration,he could do what is right without Congressional approval just as the bush regime has so many times.

The difference would be he would be saving lives and building a strong infrastructure rather than invading other nations.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve, fiat currency and the debt afforded them through interest, (or debt slave labor guarantees), the same for the IRS, would only strengthen our nation by keeping more dollars in the local, and State economies while spiraling debt would and could be turned around so that the Federal Gov't would eventually have surplus funds in the Treasury.

Scaling down government and detention expenditures by decompartmentalising fed. govt. departments, and decriminalising drugs and freeing imprisoned felons for non-violent crimes (that have not infringed on others rights), as well as condemning the greedy and immoral practices of the FDA, Big-Pharma, Big-Agri and Big-oil, with real consequences for conspirators engaging in white collar theft so that these book-cooking money laundering, asset and wealth robbers and thieves will be made example of rather than reward the corruption with multi-million and up contracts, promotions, appointments to government departments, court judgicial seats, and other good ol' boy criminal acts.

I would hope that common man logic would prevail over matters that win time and again by bribery and lobbyist compensational voting for campaign contributions and the mountain of loopholes, exemptions and the horde of devices hidden here and there amoungst unread pages of slight-of-hand legislation.

As well as a Military that would eventually offer real incentives for enlisting, including a decent wage, training, college, and a real health and retirement plan worthy of the debt we owe those who sacrifice everything to protect us and other changes that will end price gouging, manipulation of law, land, mineral-oil-natural resource development and contamination crimes, and the multitude of other issues, conveyance, animal, fresh and salt water habitats, ranching, farming, free energy....
...

I guess the list goes on and on and on.....

Wow.....I must be dreaming....

The American dream....or

The FEMA nightmare...



As for abortion issues, yes he would rather States govern the issue independent of the Federal branch. I feel that is appropriate.

He would also try and eliminate welfare, health services and other Federal Government funded programs and earmarks that once were seriously contemplated in depth but now is freely tossed into the wind as has most of the wealth of America, with but a few elite aristocrates down wind to reap the majority of wealth at the expense of our Mothers, Fathers, siblings futures, living conditions, retirement nest eggs, and broken promises that are nothing but prganized crimes more heinous than most other crimes that are defined by law.

The beauty in these changes would be the eventual increase in job markets and national wealth, not to mention honesty and integrity that seems non-existant in todays crazy deceptive psychopath-friendly business practices.

A far better scenario than total financial, industrial and infrastructureal collapse, which will, as we are now witnessing, create unemployment, residential and commercial property defaults of biblical proportions, and total economic failure due to debt/consumption economics rather than industrial/production economics.

Deregulation would work in a Paul administration because with transparency laws and a logical "no handouts" policy, if a business failed, survival of the fittest, baby.

As for megopolisation of banking, insurance and communications and utility providers, as well as some tech., others, this I would hope would afford some Federal oversight that would strictly enforce non-preditory policies that would protect investors and consumers and enforce harsh consequences monitarily and in sentencing those who continue to spite America.

I would conclude by stating that Mylasia, Philipines, and other nations with very low crime rates would be a great example of how administering severe punishments for crimes against fellow Citizens and humanity could be virtually eliminated should a deterrent such as loss of appendage, limb, freedom for committing crimes effecting other individuals and their property would prove effective.
The risk vs. the sentence would be enough for most. The rest would get it when their friends are re-introduced to society lacking fingers, a hand, an eye, as examples.

Disinformation and favoritism for Agri-ranch and pharma would be free of weeds in no time with these types of sentences as well.

As in the Movie "Tombstone" When Wyatt (played by Kirt Russell), after losing a brother and another is maimed, comes back as a marshall and takes out anyone whereing the gang color....
Should an assassination be attempted or accomplished,
that an investgation take place, some interviews, interrogatories and affidavits be administered at Abu Ghraib, and anyone known to be involved or acquainted or associated with those involved be hunted down no matter status, and dispatched swiftly with prejudice. That includes hunting them in any spot on the globe. That may deter most, and depending, could result in a declaration of war, should another Nations leader(s) be involved and hunted down, but, that would be one of the few legitimate reasons to declare or retaliate against a declaration of war that ever was fought. It would eliminate those seeking control from behind the scenes.

Is this too aggressive? If so, in what ways and in comparison to?

most people haven't got a clue who he is or that he was a candidate

you see...the MSM focused their spotlights on 3 candidates

Hilary, McCain and Obama

Yes in the begining they included a few others like Juliani (what a joke)

They wanted to show that of all candidates, these 3 where the choices you had
In the end the agendas are all the same, the shadow runs the puppets



[edit on 16-12-2008 by warrenb]

reply to post by robotically


The topic has been done to death the Search Function is your friend .


Change has to be measured decision making for the better . It is fool hardy to vote for change just change sake is fool hardy at best . Voters who make an informed choice on who to vote for rather then vote along party lines likely decided that Paul major policy planks were unwise . Besides even if he was elected he would be a lame duck president . Also he would lose many of his supporters because the anti establishment crowd would perceive him as being a part of the establishment .

Another factor is that Paul and Libertarians are welded to a electoral system that prevents them from gaining representation that reflects the level of public support. Besides Congress not the executive is the place where fringe/third party candidates would have the most impact .

I understand what you are saying, it just seems to me that Obama didnt really have a history for the public to base any decisions on, so that just makes me think he was elected on a shallow mentality. Or, he is the perfect man for the job whether we "the people" like it or not. Something just occurred to me, could it be that people were smart enough to select a candidate whom hasn't had the time to get caught up in all the corruption of politics? I am still undecided. However this whole "pay to play" crap is not sitting well with me. Just because it involves you know who, how could it not.

I do, really want to believe. So much that its making me possibly over analyze things.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Because RP was change. None of these people really wanted anything to change.

It never ceases to amaze me when all the people crying for "change" just jump onto the status quo bandwagon. I dont get it. Why spend the effort lying to oneself? Boggles the mind.

What is clear is that people could not stomach any more right wing fun in the sun.
This was and anti right wing election, unfortunate for folks with right leaning ideology.

Hey but BUSH got some good things done.

HALIBURTON - ENRON - BLACKWATER - CITIGROUP - OPEC ... All have had record breaking fun.

The folks that make your guns and rounds are sitting pretty up top.

In reality RP is about as viable as RN. You all might as well have written in Kermit
the Frog in both cases...

I wrote Ron Paul in for president.

I was later dismayed when I found out that it didn't even count! Write-ins don't count in most states unless the candidate has registered as a write-in candidate! And furthermore some states have outlawed right-in candidates!

So much for democracy.

That pisses me off quite frankly.

Because as good as Rep. Paul's ideas about foreign policy, civil liberties, drug policy, etc. might be, Libertarian economics are just as much utopian science fiction as Communism is.

Dismantling the welfare state, EPA, labor laws, etc., would leave this country looking like something out of Charles Dickens. Not coincidentally, Dickens was writing during the last period lasseize-faire economics (or something relatively close) were practiced.

I like and respect Dr. Paul myself, he's a good man, but as a former Libertarian, I have little doubt that adopting Libertarian economic policies would be a huge disaster for pretty much everyone except the super-rich.

You sound intelligent enough to look beyond the stereotype, maybe there was a bit more you wanted to add? Besides the cookie cutter side, maybe a more personal level.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by robotically]

Stereotype?

I am not sure what you mean.

Rep. Paul is a very decent guy, a genuine public servant, and clearly has the courage of his convictions.

I like watching him make people squirm when he asks the tough questions on the House floor

I have nothing negative to say about the man at all.

Even if by some remote chance Ron Paul were elected president, he would be rendered impotent by the Congress. Ideas like abolishing the Federal Reserve are too radical for a system with so many entrenched politicians.