The Ron Paul scam and his fake Presidential Run:

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

Discuss the topic, NOT each other.

Further T&C Violations may result in a loss of posting privileges.

Thank You.

~Tenth
ATS Moderator



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I just had a selfish thought. Why not kill two birds with one stone? (For PETA fans, I meant to say hit two targets with one projectile.)

It looks like it's going to be a while before we get a serious Ron Paul discussion going so while we wait, maybe you can help me.

It's not fair that jjf3rd77 gets grilled on his preferences and I don't so I'll give you my thinking so far. What I'm hoping for is that someone will slap me upside the head and get me starightened out before I go to my primary. Fair enough?

ROMNEY: If the world was going along more or less smoothly, and the world was only in a bit of trouble, he do fine at keeping things running with maybe a little improvement. But the world's not that way, and we need more than a good manager.

GINGRICH: Have to like his fire and passion. We need a serious high colonic as a nation and he'd be willing to give it. My problem is twofold. Is his goal to serve the country or get credit for strange and wonderful ideas? Further, he seems to have "ideas" as his first love. I think he will embrace a daring new idea even if it contradicts some of his old ones. I don't see a unifying principle to his thoughts. We need something clearly expressed and firmly held.

SANTORUM: He's a good person, his heart is right. I can see a second career as a minister or scout leader. very trustworthy. He has more sense for people than Romney and has more of a unifying vision than Gingrich. He just doesn't seem to have Gingrich's fire and the drive needed to clean the US stables.

PAUL: Like Gingrich with fire and passion. That's a big plus for me. Better than Gingrich in that he has clear principles that guide him. Worse than Gingrich in that he seems to put a lot of words and efforts into a very small range of topics, not obsessions, but he talks about what he wants to talk about. Would he govern the same way? I hope not. He has to be able to talk about lightbulbs, and school lunches and fuel efficiency standards, and space exploration. Also I have trouble with his military positions.

PERRY: A question mark in my mind. I guess I'd give him a B across the board. Just struck me as a good second choice. Nothing really wrong, nothing really special.

OTHERS I liked Cain and Pawlenty. Cain might have been my first choice. Surround him with a decent staff and we would have been in great shape. Pawlenty makes me think of Santorum. Similar hearts. Pawlenty was a little less evangelical and a little bit better at running a government than Santorum. He had a Democrat legislature and got them to vote for a budget cut. That would be helpful in DC. And while he was working on it, Pawlenty never picked up any flair or fire.

OBAMA I've rewritten this four times now. I don't want to cause any unnecessary offense or insult the President. But in November, I will look at the ballot and consider which of the non-Obama candidates has the best chance of winning. I will then vote for that person. There is a time for third party and protest votes, but this isn't it. I'm not sure we can recover our freedoms, economy, or military strength if Obama gets re-elected. That I know.

With respect to you all and thanks in advance for your suggestions.
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I think I must be onto something because only the truth will get RP supporters this mad at me. The more hate and attacks this thread generates the more I know I am right.

RP supporters"How dare you think of this of our man." I bet all of you know this conspiracy is right on the money!!! Just you wait when he drops out in March.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

OTHERS I liked Cain and Pawlenty. Cain might have been my first choice. Surround him with a decent staff and we would have been in great shape.


With respect to you all and thanks in advance for your suggestions.
Charles1952


Charles I agreed with you on many parts. I would have voted for Cain, Huntsman and now Newt! But I may not get to vote as I belong to the NJ primary. They will already have a nominee by June. If you look at the polls you see that Cain was the only one that actually was beating even Romney for a couple of weeks. If those women didn't ruin his chance he would have won the nominee by a long shot!!! And no. I will not shoot you down for your beliefs like the RP supporters do



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
So according to just about every poll and media outlet in the world the race has gotten down to Newt Gingrich VS Mitt Romney. Now, please for a moment set aside the fact that Mitt and Newt are corrupt as hell. We all know there records. But do you really know Ron Paul's?
Yes i do now Ron Paul's record, i have studied it for 6 yrs, he does what he says he will do. He has never flip flopped, and lobbyist even say they never even approach him because he will not change his vote for money, he will only vote for what is constitutional.

Is your "pal" Ron Paul a serious contender? Is he really looking out for you? Being a politician you know he's got to be somewhat corrupt, especially since he has been inside Washington for 30+ years. There's no telling what that will do to a person.

Please look at my comment above this one. He is known as Dr.No because he can't be bought out by special interest.

The race is wide open: NO it's not. It's Newt VS Mitt. One of these men will win the nomination and the other will try very hard to win. Ron Paul has even said, he isn't very concerned about winning and doesn't see himself in the White House. It's the largest scam in the book. As he stated, he is selling his message and Ron Paul fans are eating it up!!!!! Nothing wrong with it, I just don't believe it. Just like I don't believe in Santorum's message, or Obama's.

Hold on their Sean Hannity, we have only had 3 out of 50 states so far, and Mitt and Newt sway in the polls, but Ron Paul continues to climb albeit slower than most, it is still a steady rise. He has said that he doesn't daydream about being in the White House like the other candidates, but that he does believe he has the same chance of winning as the other 3.


[/quote



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
If you feel that way then don't vote for him.
However, I would love to know who you support and why.


Typical ron paul supporter response. Let's just say the person I supported dropped out already and I was very disappointed.


I was serious



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 



Is he really looking out for you? Being a politician you know he's got to be somewhat corrupt, especially since he has been inside Washington for 30+ years.

All politicians are corrupt therefore Ron Paul must be corrupt? This logic is based off of a false pretense, so the entire argument is false. Not all politicians are corrupt and judging by Ron Paul's record it is clear that he is not corrupt.


The race is wide open: NO it's not. It's Newt VS Mitt. One of these men will win the nomination and the other will try very hard to win. Ron Paul has even said, he isn't very concerned about winning and doesn't see himself in the White House.

Just because you say something is true, does not make it true. The race is still wide open. Mitt has carried a steady lead, but newt only recently jumped up to a #2 spot. Mitt is steadily losing supporters and many political analysts are saying that newt has reached his peak. Mitt Source
Newt source



His message is clear: If you listen closely to Ron Paul's speeches you will begin to see that he reiterates his same talking points time and time again especially when the question has nothing to do with the answer. "What's your stance on abortion?" Ron Paul, "We shouldn't worry about that until we get the economy going again. I want to cut $1 Trillion from the budget" in weird Ron Paul voice. He is clearly an idealist selling his ideas which cannot possibly be implemented in real life. This alone makes me not want to vote for him. But consider more questionable things about Ron Paul.

I don't know if you noticed this, but all politicians tie all topics back to talking points. Its called campaigning. Ron Paul most of the time will give his view before tyng it back to the economy. He does this because most issues are moot when compared to the financial state of the country. Correcting the economy will correct many of the secondary issues. It is pointless to treat a symptom, while ignoring the disease.
On the subject you decided to use as an example Ron Paul is very clear on his stance on this topic. He is personally against abortion, but does not think the federal government should be involved in it. Youtube Source

On the topic of the blackout, it is clear that Ron Paul has been purposefully ignored by the MSM. It has been documented in multiple threads here on ATS, addressed by multiple people in the media, and it has been so obvious that even John Steward on the Daily Show has brought it up a couple times.



Ok first off, he is corrupt as all hell and runs to the bank every time you people send him money! He robs young people of their money which they really shouldn't be sending to politicians anyway (but that's just my personal belief).

Since when does voluntarily donating money to someone who you agree with equate to theft (robbing)?!? By that same logic you could say Obama, Newt, and Mitt are bank robbers because they have donations from Goldman Sacs.



Ron Paul, Doctor, Soldier: Ron Paul was drafted into the army and I think this is why he is so much against it. He saw the horrors of war and remained scarred for life. He probably didn't want to go and this was the first time government corruption actually impacted his own life. His faith blinds his views on abortion and scientific facts such as evolution. I don't think it's that hard to deliver babies.


So you are claiming that being against starting defensive, wars is caused by post traumatic stress? It would do you well to actually study some of the polices you are trying to flame here. Ron Paul is not, and never has been against all war. He has stated many many times that if there is a need for a war then he would go to congress, declare the war, go it fight it, win it, and come home. That is how war is supposed to be fought. What Ron Paul is against are illegal foreign occupancy that do more harm than good, to the countries we invade, and to our homeland via the economy and blowback.
As i showed earlier in this post, Ron Paul's views on abortion are very clear, but it is also very clear that despite his personal views, he does not want the federal government involved. Is that what you call blind faith?
"I don't think it's that hard to deliver babies." ... i cant even comment on that statement.

I don't care who you vote for, that is your choice. All i ask is that you do a little research before you try to slam any of the candidates.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


People are attacking you because everything you have bought up you have bought up in previous threads and you were shown you were wrong and where to find that.

So let's start here they all pay tax and RP actually puts back extra what he puts back into treasury.paul.house.gov...:congressman-paul-returns-unused-portion-of-office-budget-to-us-treasu ry&catid=63:2011-press-releases


Second thing covered by this video


Third thing he has never done anything, think about this he has tried pushing his ideas through but the corrupt don't want his ideas. The two biggest being recently are auditing the fed and how much mispending did they find and the second is trying to repeal the NDAA bill and the TSA.

Now with you choice was it Cain with his 9-9-9-9 idea?

Or was it Perry who couldn't remember what he wanted to cut and started using RP's ideas?

Surely it wasn't Hunstman who used an attack which basically every point was true


I'm not sure what you are trying to do here but if you go through the debates from the first to now and you will see the other candidates are starting to use RP's ideas due to them seeing they get the right amount of following.

I also don't know what you want in a candidate who says the same thing for 30 years or someone who will tell you what you want to hear?

Let's also not forget Newt is going to fail after his last debate night was a huge fizzle and everytime Romney keeps dodging the question he will push his support away because people don't want a dodger.

Then there is Santorum when people finally realise that he is scared of finding a Muslim under his bed and is just purely fear mongering his support will die and when Newt drops out RP will be given more airtime and force Santorum to leave due to showing the public that he is a fear monger politcian.

The last paragraph is an opinion like your whole start of this thread because you have shown no facts to support any of it. Are you just here to find info on him the slackers way?
edit on 28-1-2012 by vkturbo because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-1-2012 by vkturbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Overall boring OP, rehashed thread. We know the typical reasons people will not vote for Paul.

1. Some vehemently disagree with him on a few issues; primarily misconceptions regarding his entitlements stance. He doesn't plan to just terminate any of these programs; he wants to cut the militarism & put some of that spending where it can help people domestically. Phasing out of the welfare state is one of his hopes for the future; but if you really think he's going to sit down his first term & just do away with SS/medicare, without consent from Washington or the people, you're simply misinformed.

2. Some find relatively petty issues such as his bad management of the newsletters to be disqualifying. When you put it into perspective, our appalling foreign policy is a top priority; and if you think this disqualifies him, then why not Obama for attending a racist church for 20 years? We care about the real issues that's why.

3. More cautious/skeptical people believe Paul is part of the establishment --- some sort of sleeper cell or expert infiltrator; willing to wait 30 years just to get into office & bend to the elites' will. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there's certainly a much lower chance than any of the others. Take your chances, & heed them.

4. Don't vote because it doesn't matter. The globalist will never let somebody like him get into office, period. They pick and choose the presidents. Also possible, but a defeatist attitude isn't doing anything to help the movement.

There are more reasons, but these are some of the biggest ones.

edit on 28-1-2012 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I support most of what Ron Paul says and the way he says it. That having been said, I believe he is a politician. I have never once been impressed by a politician keeping his or her campaign promises once elected. There is always a good reason for it I'm sure, but that is politics and RP is a politician.
As for the Presidency, my viewpoint sides with a previous poster concerning 'peek oil' and the idea that once the candidate is elected and sworn into office, they are privy to information previously unknown or factored in their statements of "what they would do"! Once they are debriefed and see the big picture, I am sure their attitude and opinions change. Same as us 'armchair quarterbacks' do.
There was a thread I had read some time ago about all the past presidents with the exception of one or two, were geneologically related to the british royalty. So if that were true, I have my doubts, one could simply do a geneology on the candidates, see which one was related to royalty and then accurately predict the outcome of the election!!
In any case, the public doesn't elect the President anyway. That is just the popular vote. The electoral college elects the President and their vote overrides the popular vote. So, regardless how good RP does in the polls or the popular vote, I don't believe TPTB have ANY inclination to allowing him to upset the apple cart. He probably knows this too.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 




Listen bud, if your argument had factual information, and brought up REAL questions about Paul, well you might be taken seriously by some of us around here.

But when you come out with this bias gibberish you aren't going to do anything but upset people.

If you were really trying to convince us about this i would try a different tactic, something other than trolling.

And if there IS a politician out there that is the model for consistency and a consistent record, it is clearly Paul. He has a clear message, and has voted that way since day one. I do not think he's been deceiving himself and everyone else for 60+ years.

in all kindness.
edit on 29-1-2012 by dannotz because: add
edit on 29-1-2012 by dannotz because: spelling



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Were not brainwashed idiots, we are people who are fed up with the same ole bull# that never changes due to the fact people like you don't ever vote for change! Also, if the person you wanted in has already dropped out then that tells me alot about your character because absolutely none of the drop outs would have made a good POTUS! Have fun making up fictional facts and trying to sell them to the ATS community. Remember people, DENY IGNORANCE!



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


If everyone who said "I like Ron Paul but he can't win" voted for him...

HE WOULD WIN



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


So what you're saying is that people should be content with voting for the better bad? I don't buy it, man. It's not that people are babies, they just would rather not vote for someone whom they can't imagine voting for. I wouldn't vote for Romney or Obama. I simply can't fathom why anybody would want these guys in office, so I will not vote. I am not "party loyal" and partisanship bugs me. It's not a smart way to think. Let people vote for who they want and let the chips fall how they will.

I understand the need for a party system, or the perceived need for it, but that doesn't mean I have to be a part of it.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
The problem with all your "facts" is that you are going by what he is saying on the campaign trail. And how he voted before. That matters little when you are actually sitting behind the most powerful desk in the world!!!! It clearly changes a person. I mean just compare 2008 Obama to 2012 Obama! I don't think RP will even be able to handle all of the information being President comes with. You know all of the Top-Secret Stuff. RP will be silenced just like the lot of em.

And now, RP's true colors are finally starting to show. politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
And now, RP's true colors are finally starting to show. politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...


How does that begin to show Paul's true colors?

Folks, this is a joke.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by satron
 



RP supporters are always going around saying how he is for the people and never "folds" or "turns" to the 1% well with LL Bean and I'm sure I can dig up others endorsing him, it proves my point even more that RP is just like the rest of them. A different politician in a different hard to unwrap wrapper.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Mate you kep going like this you are just going to be looked as being a huge joke nothing you show is factual and what was your last link trying to prove? It showed nothing and if it was to try and show he was bought it still didn't show that either. Instead of coming on here and ranting like a 16 year old why not try showing why you say things and then some actual facts to back it up because whenever you get told you are wrong you don't reply and still keep asking the same questions and it is bloody stupid. So why don't you relax and come back with a well balanced arguement rather than these 16 year old type rants.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Mate you kep going like this you are just going to be looked as being a huge joke nothing you show is factual and what was your last link trying to prove? It showed nothing and if it was to try and show he was bought it still didn't show that either. Instead of coming on here and ranting like a 16 year old why not try showing why you say things and then some actual facts to back it up because whenever you get told you are wrong you don't reply and still keep asking the same questions and it is bloody stupid. So why don't you relax and come back with a well balanced arguement rather than these 16 year old type rants.



So what? Did you not like my theory??I guess not, that's all you had to say.

I bet if it was any of the other candidates you would actually consider reading it and maybe agreeing with some of it. But no it's attacking RP! Its sacrilegious!!!!! How dare I question RP.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join