Ron Paul Would Beat Obama: Why Romney Must Be Replaced If the GOP Hopes to Win in 2012 , page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 34 times

Topic started on 10-8-2012 @ 02:17 PM by freakjive

I, as well as many other ATS members have been saying this during this entire election cycle. Romney is not the candidate to beat Obama. Ron Paul is the only viable candidate to take the independents away from the Obama campaign and here's why...

Ron Paul has already won six states, and potentially more. This means he will be on the ballot at the Republican Convention later this month. If the GOP can be convinced to nominate Paul, he could go on to combine the full support of the GOP with those disallusioned Obama supporters and Independents, who are tired of the wars and the failing economy, and become the 45th president of the United States.

Think about it. Does Mitt Romney have a base? And if he does, isn't it mostly those "anyone but Obama" voters? Without the support of the Paul faithful, the already-weak Romney faces a difficult challenge against the campaigner-in-chief Barack Obama, who will have plenty of ammunition to use against Romney in the debates. With so little difference between Romney and Obama, its hard to imagine Romney being able to gain the upper hand against the incumbent. The GOP needs to make a decision fast: continue with a struggling Romney, or choose an idealogically consistent champion of liberty to defeat Obama.

YouTube Link

Dr. Paul would have an incredible advantage over President Obama in a debate. Obama's continuation of the same failed Keynesian policies that more often than not benefit campaign contributors hasn't revived the American economy. The wasteful spending overseas and the outright ignorance of the coming fiscal cliff, not to mention an impending dollar crisis, have put our country on a course to financial ruin. Doom and gloom, yes. But economic law cannot be repealed by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's magical printing press. Obama would be forced to defend his assault on civil liberties, his unconstitutional war on Libya, his defense of the banking establishment, his attacks on medicinal marijuana users and his overall involvement in the same type of crony capitalism that has resulted in a massive transfer of wealth to the politically connected.

Article Source

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 02:22 PM by DamTyD

reply to post by freakjive

The GOPs current agenda would be better severed with Obama in office than with Paul. That's my opinion at least.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 02:27 PM by Praetorius

Originally posted by DamTyD
reply to post by freakjive

The GOPs current agenda would be better severed with Obama in office than with Paul. That's my opinion at least.

Sadly, I think you just hit the nail on the head. As long as it's not Paul, I don't think most republican leadership itself really cares if Romney or Obama wins, since there's so much they actually see eye-to-eye on (regardless of how either side likes to market themselves).

I myself have not yet been able to identify even three significant and fundamental differences between the policies of the two candidates, and despite multiple requests for help with this, no one else has provided them to me either. This says to me that despite wanting to claim themselves conservative and Obama a liberal, all too many republicans are anything but. Conservatism in the majority is effectively dead, and the republican party has assumed the big-government, big-spending, and militaristic role of the legacy democratic party.

edit on 8/10/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 02:27 PM by zatara

reply to post by freakjive

Why threads like this...?

If Obama is not retiring from the elections he is going to win. Why..?

Because he is part of a group who decides who will be the next POTUS. If 'they' want obama to be president nobody else will take it away from him. Btw..is florida' governeur still a Bush?

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 02:39 PM by F4guy

Originally posted by zatara
reply to post by freakjive

Why threads like this...?

If Obama is not retiring from the elections he is going to win. Why..?

Because he is part of a group who decides who will be the next POTUS. If 'they' want obama to be president nobody else will take it away from him. Btw..is florida' governeur still a Bush?

No, unfortunately the Florida Governor is now a Scott, a/k/a Skeletor.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 03:06 PM by Carseller4

Ron Paul barely mustered 11% of the vote in Texas during the Primary.

Ron Paul is still not ready for prime time.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 03:08 PM by captaintyinknots

First of all, I dont believe the GOP wants to win. If they did, they would have run Jeb Bush.

Second, I have yet to see anything that convinces me RP would win. Not saying he wouldnt have a chance, but nothing Ive seen shows me he has enough real support to win.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 03:09 PM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by freakjive

I seriously doubt that Ron Paul has the support to win against Obama. Many people don't even know who he is. He has an outspoken and loyal following, but he does not have the numbers to beat Obama. Not even close.

Romney's only hope is that conservatives hold their nose (and cross their fingers) and vote for the guy with the R behind his name. That and the voter suppression laws that the GOP is enacting all over the country. Those two together make it possible that Romney will win, but if Paul was in that position, I think Republicans simply wouldn't vote.

It will be an interesting season!

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 03:38 PM by interupt42

The problem is that the GOP and the DNC work together to ensure the RIGHT candidates are selected and they could care less about having power in congress or POTUS.

Gov't hierarchical representation:

...Few investors/bankers <-- In charge
............... /..\
............../.....\
...Lobbyist/special interest <-- second in charge
............/.........\
........../.............\
..........GOP DNC <--- There job is to ensure the correct pool of candidates
..........|.............. | are selected for the masses to pick from and create distractions.
---congress/presidents

Ron Paul talks about the problem , solutions and is for shrinking gov't . Being that the real problem is Monetary influence$ in DC.The lobbyist control our gov't and the Few investors/bankers that control the lobbyist don't want smaller gov't .Hence, the few investors/bankers in charge don't want Ron Paul elected. Therefore, the GOP and the DNC made sure that he was not in the pool of candidates for the sheeples to pick from.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 03:43 PM by OLD HIPPY DUDE

Any positive response will fall on deaf ears.
The simple facts are easier to avoid, like America is broke, the Fed is a joke and only digging us deeper into a money pit, that America can not police the world when our whole infastructure is broken and worn out.
People don't want to accept Paul because then they would have to accept how bad things really are.
Voting for Mittens or Obama will only prolong the slow bleeding and ultamite death of America.
Paul is the only one who would apply a tourniquet and stop the bleeding.
There is no difference form G.W. , Obama or Mittens in policy, Patriot act, forclosures, bankruptcys, lost jobs, bailouts for the rich and tax breaks for the rich.
Republicans never wanted to win this election and it never really mattered.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 03:45 PM by MrSpad

So your idea is to take a weak Republican candidate and replace him with another candidate who came not only could not beat him but, came in about 4th. I am sure the Dems would love to help out with that.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 03:47 PM by Bodhi7

I don't understand the point of even having these discussions any longer. Ron Paul will NEVER be president, it's time for a lot of people to come to terms with that.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 03:54 PM by interupt42

reply to post by MrSpad

Do you think that his own party ( GOP) purposely telling people that he is a joke and unelectable even though he has been a public servant since 1976 had anything todo with it?

Do you think the lack of coverage on him or marketing that the other Candidates had including the ones that didn't even run Palin,Trump,etc had anything todo with it.

Gee I wonder why he didn't do better in the polls or why when he did perform well it still wasn't reported?

edit on 10-8-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 03:58 PM by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Any positive response will fall on deaf ears.
The simple facts are easier to avoid, like America is broke, the Fed is a joke and only digging us deeper into a money pit, that America can not police the world when our whole infastructure is broken and worn out.
People don't want to accept Paul because then they would have to accept how bad things really are.
Voting for Mittens or Obama will only prolong the slow bleeding and ultamite death of America.
Paul is the only one who would apply a tourniquet and stop the bleeding.
There is no difference form G.W. , Obama or Mittens in policy, Patriot act, forclosures, bankruptcys, lost jobs, bailouts for the rich and tax breaks for the rich.
Republicans never wanted to win this election and it never really mattered.

A lot of well informed people dont want paul becuase his views are utopian, and many of his fiscal policies would destroy this country.

Just sayin

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 04:00 PM by gmacev

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by freakjive

I seriously doubt that Ron Paul has the support to win against Obama. Many people don't even know who he is. He has an outspoken and loyal following, but he does not have the numbers to beat Obama. Not even close.

IMO, if Ron Paul got the nomination, he would get much more valuable TV time. He would destroy Obama in debates. Ron Paul and his ideas would go viral even more and people would start waking up. That's how he would get the numbers to atleast give a good fight against Obama.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 04:00 PM by interupt42

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Care to elaborate on those fiscal policies?

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 04:01 PM by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by captaintyinknots

Care to elaborate on those fiscal policies?

No need. Theyll never be enacted.

The quick overview:
Defaulting on debt, cutting funding to public schools, cutting foreign aid....and many, many more.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 04:03 PM by Southern Guardian

reply to post by freakjive

There's very little to convince me that Paul would have a better chance running against Obama than Romney would.

1. Paul ran in three presidential elections, yet he hasn't ever been able to win a single state by popular vote.
Romney ran in two presidential elections (primaries), he's won a total of 55 states between them by popular vote.

2. Paul has just over 2 million votes from these 2012 Republican primaries.
Romney has over 9.6 million votes in these primaries alone.

3. Paul has never been able to win his own districts in Texas during all his 3 presidential runs.
Romney on the other hand, has. Romney even won Pauls very own district this year in the Texas primaries, despite the fact that Texas was Paul's own home state, despite the fact that Paul was the only other choice to Romney, despite the fact that Paul has represented his district for over 10 years.

Ron Paul doesn't deserve the GOP nomination anymore than than Gingrich or Santorum.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 04:35 PM by bjax9er

what if romney chose ron paul as veep?

it's possible.

the veep candidate gets a speaking spot at the convention. right?
ron paul has not received a spot.

however rand paul has.
rand paul has also endorsed romney.

would that ticket bring another 5%-10% of the vote?
and quite a few delegates?

i'am not a huge fan of paul, but if i were romney, ron paul would be my choice.
it would "almost" guarantee a victory.

reply posted on 10-8-2012 @ 04:36 PM by interupt42

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by interupt42
reply to post by captaintyinknots

Care to elaborate on those fiscal policies?

No need. Theyll never be enacted.

The quick overview:
Defaulting on debt, cutting funding to public schools, cutting foreign aid....and many, many more.

Defaulting on debt -- Not sure what you are referring to?

cutting funding to public schools -- If you have debt and your programs cost more than what is being taken in then what do you do? Especially , if the programs are not working very well despite the money given them already?

cutting foreign aid -- If you can't afford to pay for yourself should you be borrowing to pay for others?

....and many, many more

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^