The Problem with Ron Paul in Regards to the Election

Ok , before we get started, I know that there are some avid supporters here and let me just say that I genuinely like the guy and I seriously hope that I get the opportunity to vote for him without having to write him in.

That said, the problem with Ron Paul that I am going to discuss here is strictly from a presentation point of view in relation to the masses identifying with him and not with his policies etc.

The question that has often been thrown about is, “Can Ron Paul Win against Pres. Obama”? Supporters will argue that he should. He has to, to turn this country around. He WILL , if America knows what’s good for her!
But as those of us in the truth movement are aware, that the masses more often than not do not know what’s good for them and are easily swayed by charisma and slick talk. It’s politics.

That being said, I watched Sunday’s debate, and though I was interested in Paul’s answers that were spot on. More often than not he sounded like a recording of a 3 year law student text book.

Now, I know popularity contests are asinine and beneath us. We are beyond that, right?

But is Paul really in this thing to win it? If so, I would hope he would understand that due to the broken education system , and human’s own insecurities ( ironically there are a lot of default republicans because these are people who feel as though they have been “marginalized” within “their” own country and this is the party to “take America back) American’s are intimidated by the Constitution that they never properly learned in school.

Not that Paul should Dumb his approach down or omit any material reference. But he should at least explain the article or law and how it relates when he references it,

Paul:
“I’m cutting a trillion dollars by attacking overseas spending and going back to ‘06 budget”
(- Well what was the 06 budget exactly? Could he have refreshed our memory a bit?)

or maybe cut back on some of the historical figures that some may have to grab the history books to relate to?

Paul:
That’s how the Soviets came down. We –

On American people getting sick of Washington , Paul says:
still running a foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, trying to make the world safe for democracy. And, look, we have elections overseas and we don’t even accept the elections.

(he could'nt of thought of any other ways to embody America's frustration with divisive Washington Politics than to reference W. Wilson??? - whom I love an actually have a sweatshirt of but..hey I'm just saying)

He reminds me of that professor you hear about where a friend gets into a car accident on their way to mid terms who will not budge on allowing them to retake it because the "date was set" - not very much compassion in the old boy it seems.

Though this would be of little significance since he has been running his same campaign for years now; I would encourage his people to allow him to understand that his language and dropping 100 year old historical references into his answers might just turn off the poor people in the mobile homes and projects he’s trying to help.

Or even the people who slept through history class.

If he becomes president, maybe he'll reeducate us with things that most people have forgotten.

I'm one of those 'avid' Ron Paul supporters and I think your criticism is constructive and valid.

He does need to be more detailed in the "hows" and "whys" when he gives an explanation.

And he does have the ability to, I've read his books and watched and heard many lectures and speeches by him, maybe into the hundreds altogether.

But it is FACT that Ron Paul is not being given equal time to the media's chosen candidates of the moment. "We" have seen countless data that the media is in fact biased against him and cutting him short, ignoring him, or minimizing his exposure.

Otherwise if he were able to sit down and have a calm debate he would trounce anyone else. The guy is a walking encyclopedia on economics and foreign policy and American history.

He's just not 'flashy'. He IS more like a Professor. And while people like me appreciate it, you are correct that much of our culture does not. I think it's something for his campaign to think about in the overall scheme of this campaign.

You have a point.

reply to post by femalepharoe


You are right of course. The only people that Vote Ron Paul are the ones that bother to fact check, do their own research and verify things. People that actually bother abit. That is why Ron Paul supporters are usually wiser/more intelligent then the other rabble. And i agree that it is a problem there are lots of stupid/lazy people in the U.S.

But i don´t think Ron should have to compromise to get the stupid on his camp with some lies and propaganda that the other candidates use. Lets just hope Truth and intelligence prevails, otherwise the doom they get is well deserved.

reply to post by femalepharoe


I am poor, lived in a mobile home until recently and am an historian for thirty-five years now. First of all remember the man is under time constraint on the debates. There is no time to re-educate America on the debate, but is that need to be re-educated not further proof that the bureaucracies that are supposed to be educating our youth but have been failing badly since they began should be abolished?

As a history buff I can quote Emmy Bonhoeffer, who was quoting her husband; "A dictatorship is like a snake. If you grab it by the tail it will just bite you. You must strike at the head."

If we follow the money, as all investigators should by now, we find that most, or at least much of our problems lead back to the Federal Reserve Bank. The head is higher up still, but we must limit ourselves to our country - we don't need to have our POTUS wasting his time chasing around after the Rothschilds when we need the help back here. Now, Woodrow Wilson was the guy who was duped into supporting the new Central Bank in exchange for support in his election. If he didn't know what he did when he was doing it he certainly knew what he had done by the time he left office as his famous quote indicates;

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. - Woodrow Wilson

www.tentmaker.org...

Then he also said this;

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States —in the fields of commerce and manufacturing—are afraid of somebody. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” - Woodrow Wilson

So a reference to Wilson was also spot on IMHO.

As for re-educating the public I have heard Ron, on other venues talk about Austrian economics and the Mises Institute, which I have been following for quite a while now.

mises.org...

As for Ron not looking as slick as all the rest, I think that helps him, he sure doesn't sound like all the rest. I believe Tony and Terry TrailerPark will be able to recognize that he is one of us better than most. The folks in my old neighborhood sure did like him, although I helped that along quite a bit. Ron is just not gonna BS everyone while he points out the BS of others. Makes sense to me.

From what I've heard of Ron Paul, he seems more detailed in his analysis of the problems your country faces, as well as the sollutions to those problems, than any of the other candidates.

Romney and Santorum talks in abstracts, and with a language that is very vague, such as "We need to make this country more economically robust", "We need to strengthen our economy" or "I've got a good and positive vision for this country". Yeah, that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't really mean anything. And that's a nice way of practicing rhetorics, because people listening to those sentences will interpret them according to their own values and beliefs. As I see it, it's much harder to delve into the core of the topics and point out what needs to be done, and Ron Paul scores much higher on his ability to do this than anyone else in the debates.

I'm not saying Ron Paul has the best sollutions, and I wouldn't know as I'm not an american, but I think he's a far better speaker.

Ron Paul? Oh, that guy who only passed one bill.


Yah, not voting for him.

reply to post by femalepharoe


not good at links, if you google "UNH RP meeting undecided voters cspan", you will see that he is on message when given a chance to speak to the voters.

Ron Paul talks but never tells you how he will pull any of it off. He never manged to get much of anything done while in congress and does not mention that he has no idea how he would get anything done as President. The guy has some good ideas and some bad ideas but, in the end if you can not get any of it done then it does not matter. Being President does not give one the ability to just snap ones fingures and change things. Not only do you have to work through congress and the courts but, you have to look at a much bigger picture.

Thanks for the insights, and some of you have touched on exactly the problem I believe; is Ron Paul willing to fight for this election?

Or is he just going to fall back on the idealisim that the Constitution will get us through this and all he has to do is qoute it to get his point across?

Ron Paul supporters have fought tooth and nail to educate the populace on his stances. We are past the point of whining and complaining that he does not get enough "air time" to detail his agenda.

We know it. He knows it.
And due to the dust storm that has cast the media's deceptive practices into light - America knows it.

And America wants to know what he has to say.

So I would suggest that he start making lemonade out of lemons and , instead of sending people hastily to google to understand "what was that article of the constitution he just so casually dropped in the conversation" was, he allows people to marvel at his knowledge and wonder what an America would be like under his rule.

Ron Paul needs to do better if he is seriously in this thing, and not a straw man. He needs to stop running the same campaign that he keeps running and has ran for what...over a decade???

He owes it to his supporters, and if he is a true champion of liberty he owes it to America.

We don't have time to keep twiddling our thumbs wondering if he is going to have enough air time to detail article XYZ of the constitution and earmarks on bills secretly passed through Congress.

There will be plenty of time for that later.

As the legendary De La Soul stated , "Stakes is High".

Oh wow CNN just called Ron Paul an "insurgent" candidate, lol.

You should hear this crap, it's unbelievable.

What a joke.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by femalepharoe

 

I am poor, lived in a mobile home until recently and am an historian for thirty-five years now. First of all remember the man is under time constraint on the debates. There is no time to re-educate America on the debate, but is that need to be re-educated not further proof that the bureaucracies that are supposed to be educating our youth but have been failing badly since they began should be abolished?

As a history buff I can quote Emmy Bonhoeffer, who was quoting her husband; "A dictatorship is like a snake. If you grab it by the tail it will just bite you. You must strike at the head."

If we follow the money, as all investigators should by now, we find that most, or at least much of our problems lead back to the Federal Reserve Bank. The head is higher up still, but we must limit ourselves to our country - we don't need to have our POTUS wasting his time chasing around after the Rothschilds when we need the help back here. Now, Woodrow Wilson was the guy who was duped into supporting the new Central Bank in exchange for support in his election. If he didn't know what he did when he was doing it he certainly knew what he had done by the time he left office as his famous quote indicates;

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. - Woodrow Wilson

www.tentmaker.org...

Then he also said this;

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States —in the fields of commerce and manufacturing—are afraid of somebody. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” - Woodrow Wilson

So a reference to Wilson was also spot on IMHO.

As for re-educating the public I have heard Ron, on other venues talk about Austrian economics and the Mises Institute, which I have been following for quite a while now.

mises.org...

As for Ron not looking as slick as all the rest, I think that helps him, he sure doesn't sound like all the rest. I believe Tony and Terry TrailerPark will be able to recognize that he is one of us better than most. The folks in my old neighborhood sure did like him, although I helped that along quite a bit. Ron is just not gonna BS everyone while he points out the BS of others. Makes sense to me.

I completely understand WHY he referenced Wilson but in the context of a debate that he KNOWS he's under the stop watch his time would have been better suited elsewhere.

I appreciate your insight.

Originally posted by femalepharoe

The question that has often been thrown about is, “Can Ron Paul Win against Pres. Obama”? Supporters will argue that he should. He has to, to turn this country around. He WILL , if America knows what’s good for her!
But as those of us in the truth movement are aware, that the masses more often than not do not know what’s good for them and are easily swayed by charisma and slick talk. It’s politics.

This attitude has me worried. How many dictators have said the same thing? Even if the masses might not know what is good for them, this is still a democracy. What if there was a coup and Ron Paul was put in place as President, would you still support him, since it would mean he would be in control?

Paul is doing something right, he is being listened to from across the aisle. Huge numbers of Democratic voters are lining up fully behind Paul. Those same voters will vote against Romney or Santorum if Paul is not nominated.

Paul doesn't need to sound like "GW" in order to get votes.

reply to post by NeoVain

That is why Ron Paul supporters are usually wiser/more intelligent then the other rabble.

Don't let Outkast see that or he will call you arrogant, he has already said to me on another thread.. We must educate ourselves and not rely on the MSM any longer. We should look up to RP because he is an educated man that has been through a lot in his lifetime, and should deserve the proper respect from other people. After all he is a scholar...