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.

 

Is Ron Paul the Gerald Ford of our Generation?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
No.

Ron Paul is the Ross Perot of this generation

Don't like that one?

Ron Paul is the Ralph Nader of this generation.


exactly right!!!

this election one side or the other will make the same claims as GHWBush did in 1992.about Ross Perot.




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


sorry that i glossed over the 80s and the 1st Iraq war.

perhaps if this thread was about the events of that 9 years, what I theorized would make more sense.

either way...if someone is sitting in the White House as President by appointment and political horsetrading...i just assumed that it was almost obvious that the political process had been subverted.

but, this is currently considered normal.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


States have rules on when an election actually takes place for primaries.. however actual primary rules belong to the political parties, which are private organizations. Not publically controlled or owned.

YOU are not electing the candidate. YOU are giving a suggestion to the state representatives of the party as to who you want to vote for. The "delegates", those that cast votes, may vote any way they want so long as the person is registered with the party.

It's not an "election" .. it's a "primary" or a "caucus" depending on your state.

Then again.. we don't "elect" a President either.. we have a national vote to send our suggestion to our state capitols. Our states all have different rules.. some states mandate the election must be followed, however most states do not.. the STATE elects the President.. if New York voted 100% Obama New York could in turn have it's electoral college voters vote otherwise. It's been a long time since a state has blatantly changed it's position from the people. But some states, smaller ones, quite often just split their vote down the middle regardless of what the voter outcome is. I recall Nebraska in 2008 did this.. McCain won the state, but Nebraska decided to give a point to Obama anyways.

In 2004 vice president candidate Edwards actually received an electoral vote from Minnesota to be both President and Vice President.


The bottom lines is this.

Political parties are independent organizations with their own rules. It's not an election.

We live in a Republic. WE don't elect the President, the STATES do. Hence...... Republic...


(For Ron Paul supporters, like myself, they should be prepared for him to follow Ralph Nader and Ross Perot.. both candidates took in millions of votes.. but every single state refused to allot even a single electoral vote for them. Ron Paul could take 20% of the vote.. and every state could still ignore him.)
edit on 5/11/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


i am just now learning about this process. usually, i don't even pay attention, but its very interesting to watch someone want to be President so bad that he has no problem at all ignoring the idea of appealing to the people whom he claims to want to serve; whether they directly choose President or not.

For reasons unrelated to the topic of this thread, I think he's subversive and up to some really underhanded and foul behavior.

my radar first went off when I saw that he was printing money with his face on it, a behavior usually reserved for Monarchs.

does Ron Paul believe that he is a Monarch?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux

I think he's subversive and up to some really underhanded and foul behavior.

my radar first went off when I saw that he was printing money with his face on it, a behavior usually reserved for Monarchs.


By "money" you are speaking of negotiable currency? If so then that would raise a few eyebrows. If not then I doubt it is anything to get your knickers in a twist over.


edit on 11-5-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 



Is Ron Paul the candidate of people actively attempting to subvert the American political process?


No. We all pretty much know Romney will get the RNC nomination.
The only questions left are whether Romney will try and get Paul as a VP candidate, and/or whether he'd accept it if it was offered.

I don't think Paul will then run as an independent, but I suspect he'll have a pretty decent (between 5 and 10%) showing in the national election as a write-in candidate.


and an additional question is...should supporters of Ron Paul's pseudo-candidacy be treated as subversive elements within the American system and possibly be treated as enemies of the state?


There's absolutely ZERO basis for such a claim...and the ONLY way your Ford analogy would work is if Paul was the VP choice, Romney got elected, and THEN was assassinated and became president.

Romney will already lose to Obama by a decent margin. Paul would lose in a landslide to Obama, and you know it.


(For Ron Paul supporters, like myself, they should be prepared for him to follow Ralph Nader and Ross Perot.. both candidates took in millions of votes.. but every single state refused to allot even a single electoral vote for them. Ron Paul could take 20% of the vote.. and every state could still ignore him.)


Yep, I'm well aware of this...though I doubt he'll get as high as 20%. My guess is between 5% and 10% as a write-in or Independent. However, this is how the electoral system works, the winner of the state gets all the state's electoral votes (traditionally, as I recall, there's nothing legally pressing them to do so).
edit on 11-5-2012 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 



many have informed the world that he is actually performing spectacularly and is in fact the front runner and may be President less than 6 months from now.




Oh come on now...the front runner???

Have you seen Ron Paul do interviews lately...he has all but given up...he is still just hoping to move his "message" forward at the convention.



Is Ron Paul the candidate of people actively attempting to subvert the American political process? and an additional question is...should supporters of Ron Paul's pseudo-candidacy be treated as subversive elements within the American system and possibly be treated as enemies of the state?


Oh, I see...that first bit was sarcasm....it's sad that I can't tell the difference because Ron Paul supporters actually believe what you stated as sarcasm in that first quote.

And yes...this is exactly what Ron Paul is trying to do. I don't think him or his supporters should be considered enemies of the state...but they should be viewed as manipulative, sneaky and dishonest...even more so since they claim they are the ones with integrity.
edit on 11-5-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


i do recall someone being arrested about Ron Paul style currency a few years back, but can't find the story.

the thing about activities such as this is that they are treated as just a joke or political partisanship at first, next thing you know...no one can buy or sell without them.

if Ron Paul isn't really doing anything, then someone is using him as cover so they can. and because he still refuses to drop out of the race and give 100% of his support to his party's candidate, he appears suspicious.

i'm just saying...he's made a quite a career and name for himself with the Republicans...its seems that since his public career is basically over and he's old maybe he can serve a purpose for someone other than himself.

but, i'm just naive to actually believe people think in this manner.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by schuyler
 


Sun Tzu said...

...its better to capture an enemy system in tact.

just because it wasn't messy or ugly, doesn't mean it wasn't overthrown.

based on what i'm seeing, America was overthrown in 1973/74.

doesn't mean Americans didn't take it back at some point subsequent...just that a coup d'etat occurred.

but, when things occur according to ususual, archaic as some have described it, rules, i wonder...is something sinister being plotted in dark corners.

because you have claimed to me that nothing at all sinister is occurring, I will go ahead and accept that.

thank you.


While you rail against paul you have just stated what the elitists have done to our democracy... they have control of Republican and democratic party systems and use it to insal their candidate.

Paul is the only honest and consistant candidate in the race. Just because the entire system is corrupt and that Congress is nothing more than a paid whore who does what they are told.....

Today, Agnew would get by on his "job selling scheme" and Nixon would be praised as a great president by the repo party faithful .... that is how corrupt and fallen our democracy is.

Bush/Chain gang Chaney should be on trial for war crimes after all it was good enough to hang some Japanese for waterboarding and it is good enough for them and Obama too if he has continued to touture people in America's name.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


wow...all that happened?

i haven't read about any of it.

oh well...that's the elite for you.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I don't think him or his supporters should be considered enemies of the state...but they should be viewed as manipulative, sneaky and dishonest...even more so since they claim they are the ones with integrity.



Manipulative and sneaky I may concede since some of the loopholes and backdoors of the Republican Party system are being used. Bear in mind the "front doors" of media exposure and inner party workings - by virtue of the Republican Party being a private enterprise that is not fully answerable to public scrutiny - have been played against Paul, so for that I believe some legal back-door tactics are justifiable.

As regards your claim of dishonesty, I respectfully disagree with that assertion. The Paul team has been very open about what they are doing and all are invited to employ the same tactics, which essentially are for the other candidates' supporters to get involved in the party workings and the election process and make their support count by taking an active part in it all. I do NOT believe this amounts to dishonesty; merely it is a matter of investing the time and effort to make their numbers count. I assume you were referring to the number of Paul delegates contrasted against the straw poll tallys. Paul supporters stick around after the show to clean up, others just don't seem to have the initiative to do what it takes, apparently.

Paul has been facing an uphill struggle all along and I would be surprised (pleasantly) if he makes it into the Oval Office. That would still require a long and difficult concerted effort but I really do not see sign of either Paul or his active supporters throwing in the towel. He is still in the race and doing better than most give him credit for. All except Paul and Romney have dropped out now, many before the first caucuses. Romney supporters are mostly stay-at-home non-involved voters. They will show up at election time when it counts the most but they don't have the enthusiasm to be active in the process at this point. There is still much to be done yet and Paul's people are committed.

Thank you for your concern. It demonstrates that some actually do see the progress being made by the Paul team in this election.


edit on 11-5-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Don't try to use logic against people who have none. Most American's believe (because they're told every day by the media and the education system) that we live in a democracy. Tell them that it's actually a Constitutional Republic, and you get a look similar to a confused puppy. Their head tilts, and an eyebrow cocks a bit. Maybe they go a bit slackjawed.... regardless, it's an uphill battle to properly educate some people.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


....wtf are you talking about? You clearly don't understand the system, and because of that you have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


I predict as a write in he'll amass around 8 million votes. He won't get any electoral votes, but he should be able to severely damage Romney.

As long as Romney loses because of Ron Paul I'm happy.. seems every 2 years we have to send a message to the Republican Party: We are tired of your Neocons and RINOS.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


i sincerely apologize for not thoroughly studying the inner workings of party politics that I am not a member of before asking questions to others concerning them.

please contain you anger.

but my question is not about the political process. it is more of an analysis of the character Ron Paul and how he is like and/or different from Gerald Ford.

my implicit assertion is that Ford's 8 month trek from House Minority Leader to President of the United States is a legendary accomplishment which could only be matched if somehow Ron Paul became President of the United States using some strange rules most don't know about...

Apparently some people that frequent this site believe this is a possibility.

I'd like to know more about this....Is Ron Paul and his supporters up to some sneaky, underhanded, backstabbing behavior that could make this a possibility?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


So Ron Paul is a Democratic plant, serving as little more than a blocker for Obama.

I suppose that makes sense as well. I toyed with this idea...that Obama's people recruited Ron Paul to troll the Republican Party process...making obnoxious comments (gynecologists make good Presidents) and proposing completely ridiculous ideas (abolish the Fed)

and we all know the effectiveness of the paid shill or troll.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


How is he a democratic plant? He has been a Republican Rep. from Texas for years. He has always spoken and voted in a consistent manner. He also ran for president in the last cycle. The difference is that now more people are willing to listen because his words have proven true.

He predicted the overreaching growth of the DHS, he predicted the housing failure, and he has made strong arguments against the Federal Reserve, and fractional reserve banking.


The Federal Reserve has caused every single boom and bust that has occurred in this country since the bank's creation in 1913. It pumps new money into the financial system to lower interest rates and spur the economy. Adding new money increases the supply of money, making the price of money over time—the interest rate—lower than the market would make it. These lower interest rates affect the allocation of resources, causing capital to be malinvested throughout the economy. So certain projects and ventures that appear profitable when funded at artificially low interest rates are not in fact the best use of those resources.

Eventually, the economic boom created by the Fed's actions is found to be unsustainable, and the bust ensues as this malinvested capital manifests itself in a surplus of capital goods, inventory overhangs, etc. Until these misdirected resources are put to a more productive use—the uses the free market actually desires—the economy stagnates. . .

The Fed fails to grasp that an interest rate is a price—the price of time—and that attempting to manipulate that price is as destructive as any other government price control. It fails to see that the price of housing was artificially inflated through the Fed's monetary pumping during the early 2000s, and that the only way to restore soundness to the housing sector is to allow prices to return to sustainable market levels. Instead, the Fed's actions have had one aim—to keep prices elevated at bubble levels—thus ensuring that bad debt remains on the books and failing firms remain in business, albatrosses around the market's neck.

The Fed's quantitative easing programs increased the national debt by trillions of dollars. The debt is now so large that if the central bank begins to move away from its zero interest-rate policy, the rise in interest rates will result in the U.S. government having to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in additional interest on the national debt each year. Thus there is significant political pressure being placed on the Fed to keep interest rates low. The Fed has painted itself so far into a corner now that even if it wanted to raise interest rates, as a practical matter it might not be able to do so. But it will do something, we know, because the pressure to "just do something" often outweighs all other considerations.


Ron Paul in The Wall Street Journal

If you study his positions, actions, and arguments you will see he isn't out there just making assinine comments to "troll" the process.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Tired of reading about Ron Paul



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


If all what you say is true, then wouldn't Ron Paul be more effective starting a talk show or something?

From what I can see, he is not a viable candidate for President.

He is old, his career specialty is partially naked women, not law enforcement, and he apparently intends to spend his time as President conducting controversial social experiments on American institutions and policies just after we've spent the last 11 years at war with an enemy that still hasn't been fully defined and exposed to the light.

what is his point exactly? the only purpose he or his supporters could possibly be serving is that of some hidden, or hiding, interest.

where is that interest...why is it still hiding and why doesn't it come out and fight in the light?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


The man is published in the Wall Street Journal. How much more "in the light" do you want? His social expirements are what many refer to as freedom.

There is no hidden agenda to end the Republic. Ron Paul has constantly fought for smaller government and a return to constitutionally based laws. He may not be a LEO, but the last I checked most of the people in congress aren't.

David Price one of the reps for NC has a degree in divinity and political science. In other words he is a preacher and a trained politician.

Chellie Pingree from Maine is a farmer and small busisnes owner.

Dale Kildee's college history is: Sacred Heart Seminary, B.A.; University of Detroit, Teacher's Certificate; University of Michigan, M.A.; graduate studies in history and political science at the University of Peshawar, Pakistan. He studied political science in Pakistan, oh no!


The list goes on and on.
edit on 11-5-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join