Could Ron Paul have won the GOP nomination this year (2016)?

I think Ron Paul was screwed in 2012 because the "establishment" was against him. With the candidates the GOP has this year, could Ron Paul maybe have squeezed thru and won the nomination? I think Ron would have mopped the floor with them in the debates. But, I think, in the end the GOP would have been more against him than they are Donald Trump.

a reply to: Blueracer

Not if Rand couldn't. Rand is like Ron without a lot of the loony.

a reply to: Blueracer

I don't believe Rons foreign policy would play well at all after the spread of ISIS and the like. Which is ironic as the spread of ISIS and the like is attributed to our foreign intervention, and ISIS and the like is the blowback. I believe Ron used that term once or twice.

Ron got smeared just the same Trump is getting smeared. Though one is likely more deserving of the shady tactics, both parties would have brought genuine change to the system, which will never occur through means of the vote.

No, no candidate who who represents actual change will win any election.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Blueracer

Not if Rand couldn't. Rand is like Ron without a lot of the loony.

Rand was much more standard republican than Ron ever was. Ron did much better than Rand has done in elections too. Please don't just do a drive by..what do you think was "loony" about Ron?

a reply to: Blueracer

Sadly no. He was pretty bad at debating in the sense that he never dumbed it down for the common folk. These are the people who get you elected. Also he never knew how to get the point across with out going off on tangets... Ask him his plan to stabilize the economy and he will give you a soild answer but then go off talking about how austrian economics are king and then go off talking about how we create bubbles such as the housing bubble which is allowed by the federal reserve which is foriegn controlled etc... You get the point. His one on one speechs were dead on, the points he made and the evidence he used almost flawless. Unfortunately in the debates i think he tried to approach them like his speeches and it hurt him beacuse he could only squeeze in so much info in 2 minutes before you have to start throwing out info very quickly... This just leds to you sounding like your rambling to others. I do wish he was running this election, i voted for him in the past and would vote for him again. P.s. sorry for the spelling and grammar mistakes, im replying on a smart phone.

originally posted by: MadeUSA
a reply to: Blueracer

I don't believe Rons foreign policy would play well at all after the spread of ISIS and the like. Which is ironic as the spread of ISIS and the like is attributed to our foreign intervention, and ISIS and the like is the blowback. I believe Ron used that term once or twice.

Ron got smeared just the same Trump is getting smeared. Though one is likely more deserving of the shady tactics, both parties would have brought genuine change to the system, which will never occur through means of the vote.

No, no candidate who who represents actual change will win any election.

Rons' foreign policy wouldn't have played well with who? The establishment GOP? I remember hearing Rush Limbaugh talking about why Ron couldn't win and it was because of his foreign policy. But look at what's been happening with the way things have been going. That hasn't worked either. I think Ron had the right ideas. And it would have been worth a try IMO.

originally posted by: jgarc028
a reply to: Blueracer

Sadly no. He was pretty bad at debating in the sense that he never dumbed it down for the common folk. These are the people who get you elected. Also he never knew how to get the point across with out going off on tangets... Ask him his plan to stabilize the economy and he will give you a soild answer but then go off talking about how austrian economics are king and then go off talking about how we create bubbles such as the housing bubble which is allowed by the federal reserve which is foriegn controlled etc... You get the point. His one on one speechs were dead on, the points he made and the evidence he used almost flawless. Unfortunately in the debates i think he tried to approach them like his speeches and it hurt him beacuse he could only squeeze in so much info in 2 minutes before you have to start throwing out info very quickly... This just leds to you sounding like your rambling to others. I do wish he was running this election, i voted for him in the past and would vote for him again. P.s. sorry for the spelling and grammar mistakes, im replying on a smart phone.

I think Ron nailed it in the debates. Not dumbing it down is not a bad thing. I think this could have been his year. And if the GOP is threatening a brokered convention, and trying to get Mitt in, I hope Ron steps in too. The crap they are throwing at Donald would not stick with Ron. They would have to bring up the race and loony card again.

a reply to: Blueracer

I think you should re read my reply.

originally posted by: Blueracer

originally posted by: jgarc028
a reply to: Blueracer

Sadly no. He was pretty bad at debating in the sense that he never dumbed it down for the common folk. These are the people who get you elected. Also he never knew how to get the point across with out going off on tangets... Ask him his plan to stabilize the economy and he will give you a soild answer but then go off talking about how austrian economics are king and then go off talking about how we create bubbles such as the housing bubble which is allowed by the federal reserve which is foriegn controlled etc... You get the point. His one on one speechs were dead on, the points he made and the evidence he used almost flawless. Unfortunately in the debates i think he tried to approach them like his speeches and it hurt him beacuse he could only squeeze in so much info in 2 minutes before you have to start throwing out info very quickly... This just leds to you sounding like your rambling to others. I do wish he was running this election, i voted for him in the past and would vote for him again. P.s. sorry for the spelling and grammar mistakes, im replying on a smart phone.

I think Ron nailed it in the debates. Not dumbing it down is not a bad thing. I think this could have been his year. And if the GOP is threatening a brokered convention, and trying to get Mitt in, I hope Ron steps in too. The crap they are throwing at Donald would not stick with Ron. They would have to bring up the race and loony card again.

your not the average voter then, you have to cater to the mass ... Middle america... For crying out loud these people booed trump for saying the towers came down on bushs watch. The man was stating a fact and got booed

originally posted by: jgarc028

originally posted by: Blueracer

originally posted by: jgarc028
a reply to: Blueracer

Sadly no. He was pretty bad at debating in the sense that he never dumbed it down for the common folk. These are the people who get you elected. Also he never knew how to get the point across with out going off on tangets... Ask him his plan to stabilize the economy and he will give you a soild answer but then go off talking about how austrian economics are king and then go off talking about how we create bubbles such as the housing bubble which is allowed by the federal reserve which is foriegn controlled etc... You get the point. His one on one speechs were dead on, the points he made and the evidence he used almost flawless. Unfortunately in the debates i think he tried to approach them like his speeches and it hurt him beacuse he could only squeeze in so much info in 2 minutes before you have to start throwing out info very quickly... This just leds to you sounding like your rambling to others. I do wish he was running this election, i voted for him in the past and would vote for him again. P.s. sorry for the spelling and grammar mistakes, im replying on a smart phone.

I think Ron nailed it in the debates. Not dumbing it down is not a bad thing. I think this could have been his year. And if the GOP is threatening a brokered convention, and trying to get Mitt in, I hope Ron steps in too. The crap they are throwing at Donald would not stick with Ron. They would have to bring up the race and loony card again.

your not the average voter then, you have to cater to the mass ... Middle america... For crying out loud these people booed trump for saying the towers came down on bushs watch. The man was stating a fact and got booed

They booed Ron when he quoted the Golden Rule too at one of the debates. Tell hell with dumbing it down. That's what makes Ron standout. He makes sense and speaks truth. He doesn't change for the crowd he's speaking to. But I know what you mean. People vote because they think they will get free stuff. Or because we'll bomb those evil foreigners. Stuff like that. They don't tend to think for themselves.

a reply to: Blueracer

Ron's foreign policy for one. It was tailored to the days when an ocean actually was a good barrier, but if we did go true isolationist, we would be at the mercy of the rest of the world burning. Not to mention, we are not a self-sufficient nation any longer. If the rest of the world suffers dramatic upheavals, so will our markets and businesses, even if we are not involved militarily and try to ignore it.

Then there were the conspiracy theories ... Some of them I find far-fetched and so a standard American public would run the other way quickly.

Domestically, I like his libertarian angles, but I get most of that from Rand.

a reply to: Blueracer

Blunt fact: Ron Paul will be 81 years old at the time of the next inauguration. He's 12 years older than Reagan (the oldest) was at his inauguration. You're talking about one of the most stressful, emotionally demanding positions in the world. Look at how dramatically the office has aged men. Obama, at times, looks like the position has aged him by a good two decades in his 7 years in office.

Obviously age doesn't always equal reduced faculties, and I'm reminded of the Toby Keith lyrics "I ain't as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was." I think Paul would make a fantastic advisor, ambassador, or even cabinet member... but I don't think he'd fare well in an election, nor do I think he'd want to take on that level of commitment.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Blueracer

Not if Rand couldn't. Rand is like Ron without a lot of the loony.

Rand is Ron without the testicles.

considering he pulled out in january last time with virtually no support, nope.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Blueracer

Not if Rand couldn't. Rand is like Ron without a lot of the loony.

The "loony" factor is what Republicans are craving this election. Drumpf wouldn't have been popular last election for the same reason Ron Paul didn't succeed: conservatives weren't desperate enough to look beyond the status quo that Mittens provided for them.

This election is different. Conservatives are more angry and scared than they normally get and Drumpf is feeding them. Ron Paul would have had far more success this term.

I would love to see the two debate, though.

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't believe Ron was isolationist. He believed in trading with other countries. That seems to be your biggest complaint.

They would have just ignored him again. "Pretend he does not exist"

a reply to: stinkelbaum

He pulled out in January of 2012? I think you are mistaken. And he did have a good amount of support.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yes, he is up there in age but I think he'd still out do all these "youngins" that are running now.

Yes