It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Ron Paul; the only Republican that can defeat Barrack Obama

page: 1
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
The title of this thread says it all. Ron Paul is the ONLY republican candidate that even has a snowballs chance of defeating Barrack Obama in the general election. This, obviously, is my opinion but I will put some links at the end of this post that support what I am saying that will qualify that opinion.

The other candidates, it is very clear have very little appeal among other sectors of the population. There is not a democrat alive that would vote for Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. Their appeal among independents is very small. These candidates simply have nothing to say that appeals to people outside of their limited base of support.

Ron Paul on the other hand does garner support from democrats and independents. Though many would not support his entire platform he has large support among those who have become disillusioned by Barrack Obama and his campaign promises that never came to fruition. I personally know many people who were on the Obama bandwagon in 08' that have completely changed their minds and have stated they will either vote for Ron Paul or if he doesn't win the nomination they will vote for Barrack Obama again because to them he is the lesser of two evils.

The narrative of the 2012 republican nominee process has been "defeat Obama". The main objective of all republicans I talk to in my personal life and many I have spoken to and heard speak online or in the news simply have one objective and that is "Anyone but Obama" or "Lets be sure Obama is a one term president".

So it seems very silly to me that they would decide to rally around candidates that have such a small chance at completing that objective. They ridicule and disrespect the one person that would actually challenge Obama in a general election.

It seems to me as if they would actually rather have Obama in office over Ron Paul?!?

The average republican that doesn't support Ron Paul will say something along the lines of "Well, I really like a lot of what he has to say but I just can't agree with his dangerous foreign policy". While I don't agree that his foreign policy is "dangerous" it is clear that his foreign policy is the main reason he has support among those who would not consider themselves republicans.

So instead of voting for somebody that can challenge Obama on his rhetoric and for his supporters, they instead give their support to someone whose foreign policy matches more closely with Obama yet can't challenge him on his rhetoric or for his supporters. That to me seems like a sure fire way to make sure that Obama wins a second term in office.

It would seem that the primary and caucus voters so far, despite their rhetoric, are more concerned, and think it more important to continue the foreign policy of Bush and Obama than the many issues that are effecting this country that they would agree with Ron Paul on.

It would also seem as though they would be unhappy with an Obama re-election, though in one respect they would be happy if only because he will continue the "war on terror" and expand the warfare around the world.

I have been a registered Republican for 13 years (my entire adult life). While I don't always agree with the Republican party as a whole, they at the very least pay lip service to things I truly believe in such as a small, limited federal government, adherence to the constitution and a true unregulated free market.

I try to distance myself from the "Religious Right" as I have found they tend to believe in big government as well, though in different ways and wish for constitutional protections for themselves but not specific others. I have seen them use the power of government in an attempt to legislate their religious beliefs. I feel in many ways, the religious right has taken over the party and in the process the true republican message has been diluted and less important.

To me, even if I didn't agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy, it would be more important to me that the majority of my "republican" ideals were being represented and that the person running against Obama was the candidate that had the best chance of winning supporters from the other side of the fence to ensure the greatest chance of a victory.

Make no mistake, it is going to be extremely difficult to stop Obama from serving a second term. Despite his low approval ratings, there are just to many people that will view Santorum, Romney or Gingrich as the greater of two evils and will do everything they can to make sure any of those three does not become president.

That is simply not the case with Ron Paul. So why do republicans ignore the facts? Why do they support people that they know do not have appeal beyond their main base of support? Why do they seem so keen on losing an election when they express and acknowledge so much is at stake?

Supporting Links:
Six Reasons Ron Paul Has Appeal Beyond the GOP
swampland.time.com...

Former Obama Supporter for Ron Paul - Appeal to Dems and Independents
www.youtube.com...

Ron Paul Can Beat Obama: CNN Poll
www.ibtimes.com...

Democrats for Ron Paul
www.democratsforronpaul.com...

In case you missed it Ron Paul leads rivals with independent voters vs Obama
www.ronpaul2012.com...

Rasmussen Poll Showing Obama and Ron Paul Neck and Neck
thehill.com...

What are your thoughts?


edit on 21-2-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Guys... I love the hopeful thinking and happy thoughts. I'm still hanging in there for Paul myself....but how does he have a real chance of beating Obama let alone standing as the ONLY ONE?

Perhaps in a world of people like us...at least in terms of having a fair grasp of the issues and people..that might be true..

However, we're a nation of over 300 million and of those who actually show up to vote, I'd guess at LEAST 50% are bubble headed Homer Simpson's who either decided before Iowa even happened...or will decide as they go out the door on election day.

The problem?? Obama pisses off 50% of the nation or more. Any generic republic will piss of the OTHER 50% of the nation or more. Due to the relentless slamming and the way Paul has been presented in views and approach...He's managed to piss off the Liberal half ANY a measurable % within the conservatives TOO. Err......

Maybe if the actual candidate is run flat after the convention but well BEFORE the election, Paul could play Jack in The Box and re-appear? I don't know...but far too many conservatives I know have written him off as a kook due largely to media and his own rather......challenged...communication skills sometimes.

edit on 21-2-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   


What are your thoughts?


Of course you ask that, but you know that most on this site will agree. And would you care about my opinion even though I completely disagree?

Well, here it goes. I completely disagree with you and not only think Paul would be a horrible president, but he also never had a chance to begin with.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Can you imagine a television debate between ron paul and obama? That would be historic, of course it will never happen. Obama showing up to debate ron paul live on tv would be like obama showing up to his court hearing in Georgia.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
LOL.

Ron Paul can't even beat Gingrich or Santorum; what chance would he stand against Obama ?

Paul is just a niche candidate, who appeals to the lunatic fringe. This is why he's barely getting 10% of the vote in his party's primaries.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





but how does he have a real chance of beating Obama let alone standing as the ONLY ONE?


Did you read my entire post or did you just read the headline and respond? I feel like I answered that question pretty well already in my OP which is why I question if you read the post you are responding to.

I am not saying he has the best chance of becoming the republican nominee, simply that if he was to become the nominee that he has a better chance of beating Obama than the other three republican candidates. I then included links that would seem to support the claim I made that Ron Paul has a better chance in a general election than the other three candidates.

I actually feel like anyone beating Obama is a long shot, just that Ron Paul has the better chance of the 4 republicans still in the race.


edit on 21-2-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I have come to the decision that I will write in Ron Paul before I push the button for Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum. Even if that means handing Obama a 2nd term. Maybe someone else will enter the race, but I'm not voting for one of those wannabe conservatives the Republican party is trying to push out.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
LOL.

Ron Paul can't even beat Gingrich or Santorum; what chance would he stand against Obama ?

Paul is just a niche candidate, who appeals to the lunatic fringe. This is why he's barely getting 10% of the vote in his party's primaries.


First off he gets more than 10% of the vote.

Secondly he has the largest veteran support of any candidate including obama.

Third he is beating gingrich and santorum and the only close competition is romney who has a slim chance of winning over more democrats compared to ron paul.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Obama vs Ron Paul on HBO. I'd pay the low price of $29.99 to see that.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


You are talking about republican votes, I am talking about a general election. Your response holds no regard to the topic of a general election in which all republicans will be voting for the republican candidate.

I stated in my OP that his support is larger among people than political parties. So I have to ask, whats your point?


edit on 21-2-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


Whilst I don't doubt Mr Paul's scruples I honestly don't think he has a chance of becoming a Presidential Candidate. Here's why:

1. In England his name is never mentioned. I would never have even heard of him were it not for you guys here on ATS. I believe from observation that outside the U.S there is a media kind of ban on him. We have heard of other heavyweight contenders here in the race, but not Mr Paul.

2. You know the pattern; 2 terms each (unless there is a really big mess up during "term time"). You're luck, here the pattern is three times that we have to put up with the same "Mr. Hat"

3. You know from history that guys like Mr Paul if they ever get power will be assassinated if they follow through any kind of truely democratic policy. Abraham Lincoln and JFK, etc, give us a clear message that such men will not be tolerated as President of the U.S if they pose any threat to the International Cartel that is the real government of your country and mine).

Sorry to be such a realist, but you know I am right.

(Willing to wage you that Mr Obama wins!!!)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I agree with the OP, not because I am supporting Ron Paul (I'm not) but because, seriously, Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich are simply laughable. I mean, I read news stories about these guys and I laugh out loud. Ron Paul is considered "crazy" by the media, which is a main reason he won't win. If the media (and the GOP) got behind Paul, he is the only one with a chance. Does that make sense? Ron Paul probably won't win because few have confidence that he's not insane, but the thing is that, if they had confidence in him, he wouldn't be portrayed as insane, and he'd have a good chance. Whereas the current candidates, as much as the GOP tries to say they are "normal", are quite obviously airheads who have no shot.

As it is, maybe if he toughs it out the rest will get weeded out. But likely, the GOP will go for Romney in the end, choosing the least likely candidate to cause a big stir in the general election and essentially ruining Romney's career because he won't win and he knows it. It's dumb on their part but you are totally right: they would prefer Obama to Paul because Obama doesn't have the guts to go for what he wants, but Paul does. Paul would go for civil rights and pulling out of wars with other countries; Obama pays lip service to those ideals but doesn't really do them. Paul is more socialist and radical to the GOP than Obama is (no matter how much they would say otherwise); so yeah, their rhetoric of "Anyone but Obama" should really be saying "Anyone who agrees with us"



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
If Ron Paul wasn't 76 years old, and didn't have a failed foreign policy, he might have a chance.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar



What are your thoughts?


Of course you ask that, but you know that most on this site will agree. And would you care about my opinion even though I completely disagree?

Well, here it goes. I completely disagree with you and not only think Paul would be a horrible president, but he also never had a chance to begin with.


Wow, you give me very little credit... Yep, I do care, that is why I asked.

So why do you disagree with me. what did I say that isn't true? Why do you think he would be a horrible president? Why do you think he never had a chance to begin with?

Seriously, I am interested, that is why I made this post and then asked for the thoughts of others. My OP gave my opinion and then I gave links to news that supports and qualifies that opinion. Can you do the same?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
This is the worst group of Republicans I have ever seen run. You have the established politician, the business tycoon and the zealot, and Paul can't even beat these guys, but you think he can beat Obama?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 





Whilst I don't doubt Mr Paul's scruples I honestly don't think he has a chance of becoming a Presidential Candidate.


Yes, I agree, he has very little chance of becoming the republican candidate. This thread is about his chances in the general election if he was to become the candidate. Quite a different matter.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


He can't defeat those guys in a race inside his own party. Ron Pauls appeal is greater among those that are outside of his political party.

And I am not saying that he has a good chance of defeating Obama, or that I think he can defeat Obama, only that he has a better chance than the other 3 in a general election.

Has anyone actually read past the headline to what I actually wrote in my OP?
edit on 21-2-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



but how does he have a real chance of beating Obama let alone standing as the ONLY ONE?


Did you read my entire post or did you just read the headline and respond? I feel like I answered that question pretty well already in my OP which is why I question if you read the post you are responding to.



Actually, I did read over your post. Your headline is still about 1 step this side of impossible to get beyond when that sets the tone and outline for everything that follows.



I am not saying he has the best chance of becoming the republican nominee, simply that if he was to become the nominee that he has a better chance of beating Obama than the other three republican candidates.



Ron Paul; the only Republican that can defeat Barrack Obama,


You're not? Hmm.. Okay.


I actually feel like anyone beating Obama is a long shot, just that Ron Paul has the better chance of the 4 republicans still in the race.


The first part of that is what we do tend to agree on. Obama is fighting dirtier and with a streak of pure ruthlessness I've never seen, even among politicians, and that is a staggering thing to watch unfold.

Ron Paul is the Gentleman from the countryside with a plain spoken approach and a good hard dose of common sense. He doesn't have it in him to fight and win in this kind of gutter fight....and he wouldn't be the man I respect IF he did.

In this nation and during this period? He probably never had much chance. I'll STILL vote for him IF he has a line to vote on in Nov. though. Hope against hope..... Tilting at Windmills... Thats me! (I'm just trying to be honest with myself that it is for my personal sense of well being..not that he'll win.
)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Revolution9
 





Whilst I don't doubt Mr Paul's scruples I honestly don't think he has a chance of becoming a Presidential Candidate.


Yes, I agree, he has very little chance of becoming the republican candidate. This thread is about his chances in the general election if he was to become the candidate. Quite a different matter.


Yes, I know that. I am however just trying to give you a view point from over the pond and telling you why Mr Paul does not stand a chance. I wish he did. He is the best of them all as far as I can gather from his ways and words. A Good Man? No chance with those sharks!!!



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


I know, I know. I am just talking about a hypothetical situation in which Ron Paul got the nomination. His chance of getting that nomination are pretty much irrelevant in that discussion.

I agree with you completely and appreciate your contribution to the post, I just wanted to explain that it wasn't really what I was talking about.




top topics



 
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join