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.

 

Objective predictions about Ron Paul

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
In my opinion, Ron Paul represents a unique situation in the current US political forum, and perhaps more so a distinct shift in political ideology in the macroscopic view of US history. His support has grown significantly as of late across multiple facets of the political spectrum, everywhere from the grassroots trenches to state caucuses and conventions.

As we know, this movement of the Ron Paul revolution presents a serious problem for certain US political interests. I am a supporter of RP, but am taking a moment to step back and evaluate what this may mean for the future of the United States. More specifically, using knowledge of history, what are the possible scenarios that could play out?

This thread poses a question for discussion, followed by some elaboration. What do you think will happen regarding the 'problem' that Ron Paul and his growing support present to the establishment? We are talking about a potential candidate that wants to take on both the military-industrial complex and the Federal Reserve, veritably cleaning house on two of the most corrupt, nefarious, and powerful entities in the world.

The reason that I reference our knowledge of history is because 'problems' like this have occurred many times in the past in governments and regimes all over the world. It has been handled almost every conceivable way. Here are a few basic scenarios:

  1. Weather the political storm and wait for the ideology to fizzle out
  2. Assassination
  3. Use media control to lie, denigrate, and/or frame
  4. Use muscle to threaten family, forcing withdrawl
  5. - Or - the new ideology will continue to gain traction and be successful

As I think about the methods used in the past by the elite to suppress the type of change that RP represents, none of these scenarios would surprise me.

Would it shock you if RP was assassinated prior to the GOP convention? Would it shock you if the media comes up with a scandal larger than the 'racist newsletters'?

There is another thread that discusses the idea that Ron Paul's bid for the GOP nomination creates a huge problem for Romney's presidential bid, and I believe this is true. At best, Romney may be looking at a brokered convention in August. Ron Paul and his supporters have made an impact significant enough that it cannot be ignored anymore. As an independent candidate, I could easily see RP pulling 20% to 25% of the popular vote, which would destroy Romney's chances of a win.

Typically, as we look objectively at the political past of the US and the world, when there is a problem like this it gets handled by those in power one way or another. How do you think this will get 'handled', or will TPTB just let it play out to another Obama victory?

Whatever unfolds, these are interesting times indeed.

Edit: Of note, in my opinion the last influential person to position himself against and present a real threat to the corrupt banking system, the Federal Reserve, and the military-industrial complex all at once was JFK. History tells us how this can be 'handled' in the worst-case scenario.
edit on 9-5-2012 by InTheFlesh1980 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
you forgot
6- rigged elections
as a way of dealing with him


I think if anything happens to
dood before or after [if he wins]
it may be what sets it off

edit on 5/9/2012 by spoonbender because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


Your JFK comment is on the money. This is what I was thinking when I first started your thread. JFK was the only leader we've had who dared to try to change these things and you see what happened to him, and to Bobby when it was clear he was headed to the White House. If Dr. Paul starts to look like a real threat, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the same fate awaited him. But for now, I think they would probably try to smear him somehow in the media. Fortunately, he is spotless enough that it makes their job hard, but I'm sure they could invent something...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
In my opinion, Ron Paul represents a unique situation in the current US political forum, and perhaps more so a distinct shift in political ideology in the macroscopic view of US history. His support has grown significantly as of late across multiple facets of the political spectrum, everywhere from the grassroots trenches to state caucuses and conventions.


You forgot one area: Elections.

Ron Paul DOES do very well in caucuses. He has a highly energized, motivated, and well-run organization which uses shock and awe to overwhelm the caucus system and "earn" delegates any way they can. I've witnessed first hand how Paul supporters behave in caucuses, county and state conventions, where I have been a delegate myself. But when it comes to places where people can actually vote, the primaries, he's stuck at about 11%. He does a little better in some places, a little worse in others. For example, in Louisiana Paul got 6% of the popular vote in the primary, but got over 50% of the delegates in the caucus. Clearly the caucus system does not represent the will of the people.

Yesterday we had three primaries. Romney won 66 delegates. Paul won 6 delegates. In fact, people who were no longer running did better than Paul. In one race Santorum beat Paul outright; in the others the combination of Santorum and Gingrich was more than the vote for Paul--and these are candidates who have suspended their campaigns.

You claim to look at this "objectively," but you are anything but. Objectively, despite all the shenanigans planned by Paul supporters, he is not going to get the nomination, nor will he get any plank in the platform. He may get a speech at the convention out of the deal. Jesse Jackson got over 18% of the primary vote in 1984 and got a speech out of the deal. But similar to Paul, his supporters actually believed they had the momentum to win the nomination. So I see no reason why Paul won't be given an equal opportunity as Jackson was, even though he is doing more poorly.

It's almost over, folks. In just a few weeks you won't have Ron Paul to kick around any more.
edit on 5/9/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
despite all the shenanigans planned by Paul supporters


Yea... okay. You have a twisted, uninformed view of things.



Who wears a red shirt and cheats for Mitt Romney? BWAHAHAHA!



Here's the whole video, CGI right? All these people are actors and weren't really there?



Say it ain't so?
edit on 9-5-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by schuyler
despite all the shenanigans planned by Paul supporters


Yea... okay. You have a twisted, uninformed view of things.



Who wears a red shirt and cheats for Mitt Romney? BWAHAHAHA!



Here's the whole video, CGI right? All these people are actors and weren't really there?



Say it ain't so?
edit on 9-5-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


LOL. Somebody just got OWNED

+Star for you my friend.




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


booya


dont drink the MSM coolaid


ignored but a force to be reconed with,

you cant discount someone who is winning without MSM support

xploder



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Ron Paul has done zilch in twenty years in office. Nobody is afraid of him because he has never done anything. He is a tried and true politician, all talk.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
Ron Paul has done zilch in twenty years in office. Nobody is afraid of him because he has never done anything. He is a tried and true politician, all talk.


So.... = Romney/Obama because he/its a shining beacon of trustworthiness?

Not seeing the logic there.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join