Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

He's Not Electable...

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by the owlbear
 




Paul may be elected, but nothing will change.


He could do a lot of things without congressional approval. As Commander and Chief he can bring the troops home from around the world and save half a trillion a year and that money could be sued to shore up the people on SSI and Medicare while we transition out of it so they don't get put out on the street, in fact he has a plan for this. He can end the drug war. he could protect the borders. he could order the alphabets and the military to stop enforcing the patriot act. He could rescind a host of executive orders that are unconstitutional etc. There are many things he can do under the executive that does not need congressional approval that would be major steps in a return to freedom.

Statements like yours and your whole post just illustrate how well the media programs us.




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
It is not a matter of electability, it is a matter of raising awareness, asking questions and educating the otherwise dense public intelligence. I didn't care for politics until I heard about Ron Paul in 2007, says a lot to me.

In 2007 he didn't run to win, he ran to spread the message of liberty and he did that WELL, hell the Tea Party and liberty grassroots movements was created from it. This time around he is running to win, will he win? Who really knows but what I know is that by 2012 the number of liberty lovers will multiply.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Most voters are stupid, they don't realise that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+...n = x million. No such thing as a wasted vote. If you think someone should win, vote for it and convince others to.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by the owlbear
 




Paul may be elected, but nothing will change.


He could do a lot of things without congressional approval. As Commander and Chief he can bring the troops home from around the world and save half a trillion a year and that money could be sued to shore up the people on SSI and Medicare while we transition out of it so they don't get put out on the street, in fact he has a plan for this. He can end the drug war. he could protect the borders. he could order the alphabets and the military to stop enforcing the patriot act. He could rescind a host of executive orders that are unconstitutional etc. There are many things he can do under the executive that does not need congressional approval that would be major steps in a return to freedom.

Statements like yours and your whole post just illustrate how well the media programs us.


The media didn't get to me...common sense did.
If Paul uses executive orders to bring troops home, how is that any worse than using an executive order to send them there? Neither of which are approved by the oh so holy granted powers of the constitution (at least, you Paulites) keep bitching about when it comes to abuse of power.
It's kinda funny to hear you complain about Obama doing thing singlehandedly, but its okay when Paul does it. He's not going to abuse his power or anything...
edit on 16-6-2011 by the owlbear because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Ron Paul, in a one on one Debate with a another Presidential candidate, would verbally destroy the other said candidate. It would be a sight to see. Sadly, I don't think we will get to see that.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by the owlbear

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by the owlbear
 




Paul may be elected, but nothing will change.


He could do a lot of things without congressional approval. As Commander and Chief he can bring the troops home from around the world and save half a trillion a year and that money could be sued to shore up the people on SSI and Medicare while we transition out of it so they don't get put out on the street, in fact he has a plan for this. He can end the drug war. he could protect the borders. he could order the alphabets and the military to stop enforcing the patriot act. He could rescind a host of executive orders that are unconstitutional etc. There are many things he can do under the executive that does not need congressional approval that would be major steps in a return to freedom.

Statements like yours and your whole post just illustrate how well the media programs us.


The media didn't get to me...common sense did.
If Paul uses executive orders to bring troops home, how is that any worse than using an executive order to send them there? Neither of which are approved by the oh so holy granted powers of the constitution (at least, you Paulites) keep bitching about when it comes to abuse of power.
It's kinda funny to hear you complain about Obama doing thing singlehandedly, but its okay when Paul does it. He's not going to abuse his power or anything...
edit on 16-6-2011 by the owlbear because: (no reason given)


The difference would be if he was open about his presidential orders, Presidents are not obligated to be open about anything but based on Ron Paul's political consistency, he is the most reliable person to be President as his presidency would hold the lowest chance of pulling a 180 on us like other presidents voted on empty promises with no political consistency to back it up.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by the owlbear

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by the owlbear
 




Paul may be elected, but nothing will change.


He could do a lot of things without congressional approval. As Commander and Chief he can bring the troops home from around the world and save half a trillion a year and that money could be sued to shore up the people on SSI and Medicare while we transition out of it so they don't get put out on the street, in fact he has a plan for this. He can end the drug war. he could protect the borders. he could order the alphabets and the military to stop enforcing the patriot act. He could rescind a host of executive orders that are unconstitutional etc. There are many things he can do under the executive that does not need congressional approval that would be major steps in a return to freedom.

Statements like yours and your whole post just illustrate how well the media programs us.


The media didn't get to me...common sense did.
If Paul uses executive orders to bring troops home, how is that any worse than using an executive order to send them there? Neither of which are approved by the oh so holy granted powers of the constitution (at least, you Paulites) keep bitching about when it comes to abuse of power.
It's kinda funny to hear you complain about Obama doing thing singlehandedly, but its okay when Paul does it. He's not going to abuse his power or anything...
edit on 16-6-2011 by the owlbear because: (no reason given)


Common sense huh? Well it might do you well to study up on the office the presidency and its powers. He doesn't need an executive order he is the commander and chief of the military he can order them home since there is no declaration of war. The president can order troops without asking anyone if he feels that it is an emergency for the protection of the nation. In this case it was not and they should be brought home if congress does not declare war which they haven't, all these action on the middle east are illegal and the troops should be ordered home.

Also executive orders are not illegal as long as they are within the sphere or scope of the executive office. And congress can act to repeal them if they are not. if the President issues an EO and congress does not act within a certain time the EO stands. The problem is many presidents have issued EO's outside thier scope and congress has not acted on repealing them. So for a president to start rescinding them is not illegal either.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I will tell you why he is unelectable and exactly how the Democrats will proceed if he get's the nomination. They will start a massive campaign focusing on his statements that he would not have voted for civil rights as well as the racist remarks that were issued in his newsletters.

They will go out of their way to label him the next David Duke and many of you will explain away these things and you may be correct however enough of America will believe it to prevent him from even coming close to winning with Obama.

They will frame it as the racist vs. the black president and turn it into a race issue.
edit on 17-6-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by hawkiye
 


The powers that be will never allow Ron Paul in office!! He preaches ethics and standards, something NO president is allowed to have!!

FYI Ron Paul has my vote, wasted or not.....


All politicians preach ethics and standards.

Whether they follow them is another matter.

Tell me. Does Ron Paul - already an independently wealthy man - forgo his salary, pensions, and health care options as a member of Congress? No, no he doesn't.

Tell me, since Ron Paul seems to disagree with the Republican party on pretty much all their platforms, has he yet divorced the party to either start his own or run for his district as an independent? No, no he has not.

Tell me, since Ron Paul advocates freedom at all levels, has he ever once addressed the fact that poverty severely inhibits freedom? No, no he has not.

Tell me, since Ron Paul is an ethical, freedom-minded medical doctor (granted, an ophthalmologist, but whatever), does he support a woman's right to self-determination with regards to her sexual and medical life? No, no he does not.

Tell me, since Ron Paul has such high ethics, does he ever once suggest ethical behavior such as caring for one's neighbor in need, or forgiving the debts of those who truly cannot pay? No, no he does not.

Ron Paul is all sermon, no fish. Your messiah is more of a messy "eh."



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Also do not forget that he is a strict constitutionalist and believes that if it is not in the Constitution it is not law. He also would favor giving states so much power back that your going to have laws in one state contradicting laws in another and create just a crazy mess.

Somebody posted earlier that if a state wanted to enact Jim Crowe laws again would Ron Paul then step in and stop them and the consensus was that no he would not as that is a State issue.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
He's not electable... because he is NOT charismatic enough to pull off the truth. You may have the greatest of ethical and moral standards but people believe a beautiful face regardless of talent and knowledge. By and large, most do NOT have "common sense" to hear his message. Most just go on living as if the last day...



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



Tell me. Does Ron Paul - already an independently wealthy man - forgo his salary, pensions, and health care options as a member of Congress? No, no he doesn't.


LOL!
Right out of the gate in your ignorance you stepped in a big fat cow pie. NO HE DOES NOT PARTICIPATE in the congressional pension or health care plan and he returns the unused portion of his congressional budget every year.


Tell me, since Ron Paul seems to disagree with the Republican party on pretty much all their platforms, has he yet divorced the party to either start his own or run for his district as an independent? No, no he has not.


Ron Paul is the only one who agrees with and actually upholds the platform. The rest talk but do not act. He is what the republican are supposed to be. Why should he leave when the party has went astray not him, he is trying to get the party back to what its supposed to be and has been somewhat successful on the local level and eventually that will translate to the national level.


Tell me, since Ron Paul advocates freedom at all levels, has he ever once addressed the fact that poverty severely inhibits freedom? No, no he has not.


Wow you just step in on cow pie after another. have you ever done a lick of research on Ron Paul or do you just repeat leftist talking points? Yes he does and freedom is what facilitates prosperity. However I know the marxists socialist think helping the poor means stealing from others first.


Tell me, since Ron Paul is an ethical, freedom-minded medical doctor (granted, an ophthalmologist, but whatever), does he support a woman's right to self-determination with regards to her sexual and medical life? No, no he does not.


First he is on OBGYN and has delivered over 4000 babies not an ophthalmologist that is his son Rand. Credibility is waning when you can't even distinguish the father from the son. Second he says the feds should stay out of peoples sexual lives period.


Tell me, since Ron Paul has such high ethics, does he ever once suggest ethical behavior such as caring for one's neighbor in need, or forgiving the debts of those who truly cannot pay? No, no he does not.


He is a Christian so he certainly does since that is a tenant of his faith. You have no credibility here you post no evidence and every assertion of yours is 100% wrong, ignorant, and uninformed. You really should do some research before repeating none sense leftist talking points. Now go wash the cow s*** off your boots pants and shirt tails cause you really stepped in it this time



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Also do not forget that he is a strict constitutionalist and believes that if it is not in the Constitution it is not law. He also would favor giving states so much power back that your going to have laws in one state contradicting laws in another and create just a crazy mess.


Really what mess would it create? States already have contradictory laws. One must just be aware if they are crossing state lines. In my home state i can open carry a gun anywhere i want. But several states would arrest me if I did that.


Somebody posted earlier that if a state wanted to enact Jim Crowe laws again would Ron Paul then step in and stop them and the consensus was that no he would not as that is a State issue.


That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Ron Paul has been a tireless advocate for freedom, liberty, and equal rights. He is a great admirer of MLK and would never advocate discrimination under color of law.. The constitution says the states must guarantee a republican form of government, allowing Jim Crow laws would be unconstitutional and is not in the purvey of states rights which is why they were abolished.

I wish people would do their own research and quit repeating non sense about Ron Paul they heard from someone or somewhere else without verifying it first. I won't hold my breath though...

edit on 17-6-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
If they do not give me HIM or a candidate with much the same mindset, I will write him IN.
And Mickey Mouse will get my vote for other offices with no one running against any incumbent I don't like AGAIN.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 



Since I doubt the Republican party will endorse Paul, but we can still get him elected putting him down in the write in candidate box.

Wouldn't that piss off TPTB!


Let's say the voter turnout in 2012 were just 'average'. About 125,000,000 voters.

For Ron Paul to have a chance, he'd have to grab about 42,000,000 votes. That's 42 million.

In the 2 states where he was on the ballot in 2008, Louisiana and Montana, he got less than 20,000 votes total. Twenty thousand. I don't know how many write in votes he got in the other 57 states (Obama's count)


I don't think he can make up the slack.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Julie Washington
 



Since I doubt the Republican party will endorse Paul, but we can still get him elected putting him down in the write in candidate box.

Wouldn't that piss off TPTB!


Let's say the voter turnout in 2012 were just 'average'. About 125,000,000 voters.

For Ron Paul to have a chance, he'd have to grab about 42,000,000 votes. That's 42 million.

In the 2 states where he was on the ballot in 2008, Louisiana and Montana, he got less than 20,000 votes total. Twenty thousand. I don't know how many write in votes he got in the other 57 states (Obama's count)


I don't think he can make up the slack.


In 2008 no one knew who he was. He built a following of about 2 million. Since he did not get the nomination and he was relatively unknown it is not surprising he got so few votes in those states as they knew there was no chance since he was not even on the ballot in the rest of the states. If he got the repub nomination he could easily make up that slack as he is a celebrity now days as most people have heard of him and know who he is.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 




In 2008 no one knew who he was. He built a following of about 2 million. Since he did not get the nomination and he was relatively unknown it is not surprising he got so few votes in those states as they knew there was no chance since he was not even on the ballot in the rest of the states. If he got the repub nomination he could easily make up that slack as he is a celebrity now days as most people have heard of him and know who he is.


Nobody knew who Sarah Palin was in 2008, either, yet since then she has built 100X the support than Paul has. And that despite disgusting attacks from both majors PLUS the MSM.

And Sarah is unelectable. Ron Paul has no chance, I'm tellin' ya. There's a reason why so few people endorse him. He is considered fringe. He is too fringe on too many issues: illegal immigration, foreign policy, and drugs, to name a few.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


He is unelectable. He is because the principals and ideals that he has are far too sophisticated for the average person to grasp and far to easy to manipulate by those people, both "mainstream" politicians and the media who have a massive vested interest in the status quo.

Folks who are on sites like this are intellectually curious for the most part and can have reasonable debate and understand many of the vaguries and nuance of political philosophies and can understand the ramifications of a libertarian view. The average dolt who unfortunately is voting each year does not.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 




He is unelectable. He is because the principals and ideals that he has are far too sophisticated for the average person to grasp and far to easy to manipulate by those people, both "mainstream" politicians and the media who have a massive vested interest in the status quo. and far to easy to manipulate by those people, both "mainstream" politicians and the media who have a massive vested interest in the status quo.


Well, communication skills are an important skill that a POTUS should possess. So if he is " far too sophisticated for the average person to grasp" then maybe he needs to work on that. I never believed that "too smart to understand" stuff anyway. Sounds too much like "too big to fail".



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
It does not matter if he is electable or not. He is running as a Republican and will not survive the primaries, so members of the general public will once again never get the chance to cast their vote for him. Sadly he won't, but he should run as an independent. If ever he ran as an independent, he might actually stand a chance of winning. You'd have a massive core of motivated supporters against only tepid support for the eventual Republican candidate and for Obama. Even if he lost, he could have spoiler influence, muck up the carefully planned systems a bit.






top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join