3 Reasons Ron Paul will NEVER be President

I'm still a neutral observer on Ron Paul.

Having said that:

Is he for doing away with Entitlements? Yes he is.

Is he and outsider in the Republican Party? Yes he is. In fact he calls himself a Libertarian but chooses to not run as one.

Is his past, most notably the Racist Newsletter he signed and paid to distribute, controversial? Yes it is. The Letters are real and copies exist in Libraries around the country. They have been scanned and posted often in the past.

Is he telling the truth about not knowing what was in the letters he signed and paid for? I don't know? If true though, he was very foolish to do so which makes it twice as difficult to believe.

I remain neutral, but think Paul should run as a Libertarian instead of trying to do so from inside a different Party with a different platform.

What is missing here is that he cannot break the single digit barrier in real Polls of likely voters nationwide. Can he be elected? No.

Even with that being the case, I do support him running and putting his ideas out there. I see him like many other fringe Candidates over the years who run knowing they have no chance. He is doing it for exactly the reason I mention. Nothing wrong with that either. I'm for Free Speech and lots of it, while so many these days are only for Free Speech if it agrees with them. Sadly it's the Party of Obama that is most guilty of that, trying to silence speech while pretending to be for Free Speech and a Free Press.

A new phenomena now is that the Paul supporters seem to be opposed to any Free Speech that does not agree with them. The name calling and calling people wrong who are pointing out facts is proof of that.

Folks, you are either for Free Speech or against it. If for it you are OK with debate and don't resort to name calling and anger. If against it, you resort to name calling as a Straw Man to try and silence others speech.

I think one of Mr. Paul's main issues is that he is not very good at public speaking or presenting his message. That skill is critical to bringing together enough people to be electable. Look at how Obama was able to win using just his skin color and his speaking skills, even though he had no real qualifications to lead.

To quote a person I've enjoyed watching in all this - "How's that worked out for ya"

Originally posted by Cantmakedisup

Another reason he will not win is the fact that he wants to disband the Board of Education. Can you imagine what would happen if states were allowed to dictate what is taught in their public schools??? I can, and it is pretty scary. Far Right states would teach a mainly christian view point on EVERYTHING! Texas would have close to no high school graduates going to prestigious universities, and people would be FAR les educated.

Is that a joke? Texas has one of the better education systems in the nation, with one of the highest percentages of both students that graduate and students that attend high school. Not even to mention their spectacular higher education system (TCU, SMU, UT, Texas A&M, etc.)
That is not even touching on the diversity of the state. From the ranchers of North Texas to the oil businessmen of Houston, do you really believe that they would support the reverting of their public schools to 1940's level? Honestly?
Also lets not forget the nice 51 Fortune 500's headquartered there....

ANOTHER reason he will never win is his stance on abortion. If abortion were made illegal, the number of abortions would not decrease, the number of unsafe, "back-alley" abortions would increase.

Ron Paul is personally Pro-Life that is well known. But is he going to outlaw abortions? NO. He is a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist. As such he believes in the powers of the ninth and tenth ammendments. Meaning, he will repeal the federal law allowing abortion, giving the power to the states. If your state outlaws it, go to another state for the operation.

Paul is not the savior, he is a wolf in sheep's clothing for republicans, just like Obama was for democrats. He would bring this country into further despair.

Further despair? Can we really get any lower? Hell, at least he would end the wars. That alone would be more productive that Obama's entire term.

Your own link says:

Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)

NOT, outlaw abortion.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm still a neutral observer on Ron Paul.

I think one of Mr. Paul's main issues is that he is not very good at public speaking or presenting his message.

So you claim to be an observer but yet you fail to see that DR. Paul is one of the finest speakers when it comes to addressing the issues in our country. If it came down to "who speaks better" I'd choose Paul over Obama or Anyone else any day.

He has presented his message clearly and very loudly. Its just that most Americans refuse to believe it.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Battleline

 

If you spent more time reading the thread and less time attacking me for my imaginary actions and beliefs you'd prolly be a lot less stressed. I repeatedly stated I don't believe all the negative crap about Paul, though I don't agree with a lot me his policies and his ideology and worldview. But... This is not about the validity of his beliefs, it's about his electabity, based on how people will be able to represent his views, how he is bad at defending himself and staying on message and how his personality and message will not get him the nomination. And how even if he did get it magically, he'd never survive a national campaign with his views and history and personality. But it's not in any way a judgement on his integrity or his positions.

I read your OP,as far as weather you are back pedalling in the rest of the thread I don't care,I responded to your original post.
Without wasteing any more time I'll just say that you and a lot of others are going to feel very foolish when RP wins the primary and if he wins the primary he most certianly will win the election.Like I said at the very least Paul will out the true nature of election's in this country and that you have no choice,you vote for who "THEY" put up for you or don't vote at all.

This is a win,win situation for people that are looking for something positive from RP and just a waste of time for the ones who just want to state there "OPINIONS" and think just because you said it that it is true...........not to say that all you said was not true in some twisted way.

reply to post by EagleTalonZ


So you found some black people that support Ron Paul.....What does that prove? I can find a black person that supports David Duke if I want to....Oh Look....I just did!



So yeah....Why does a few black people supporting someone mean He's not Racist....Heck you can even find Black Neo-Nazi's if you look hard enough....generally they're pretty crazy...but they exist.

Finding some black guy or girl that supports someone you like doesn't magically mean he's accepted by all blacks, nor does it mean he's not a racist.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Except, you know, his past is pretty well documented and if that one speak was true, it makes absolutely no sense.

It's an early case of identity theft, if anything.

Furthermore, what does the past of a man matter if he has proven himself a different man? He certainly has, and therefore whatever he may have been, if it is not what he is today, is dead.

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


...Nor does it prove he is.

...Nor does it discount a man's history of equality.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Have we actually had nation wide polls recently for this very subject? I honestly don't know.
*cough*, excuse me.

www.gallup.com...

Yes. Cough indeed.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Why don't you voice these concerns WITH Ron Paul himself?

Volunteer for his campaign, make an arguement, and "be the change you wish to see in the world" instead of bitching about it.

What's your solution for Paul's PR strategy? You're the expert right?

If he IS vulnerable in that respect enough to cost him the election, do you really think the other candidates or Obama would be better for this country?

You say you're a liberal.

You say you like what Ron Paul says.

WHY DON'T YOU HELP HIM!!?!???

obama won by getting all the people who don't even bother to vote to vote. he did it by mobilizing them with the promise of getting inside the whitehouse.

ron paul can win by meaning what he is saying and doing what he says. its very simple and powerful.

reply to post by Gorman91


I never said I was trying to prove anything....rather I was trying to point out why parading a few black people that like him is not 'proof' of anything. Nor was I trying to discount something I know nothing of (His 'history of equality'?....not sure what you mean by that, but I'm sure you will tell me in detail)

Originally posted by isthisreallife

Is that a joke? Texas has one of the better education systems in the nation, with one of the highest percentages of both students that graduate and students that attend high school.

We're 24th. Middle of the pack:
www.statemaster.com... ucated-index

Not even to mention their spectacular higher education system (TCU, SMU, UT, Texas A&M, etc.)

The number of schools failing to meet standards for even a basic education is skyrocketing in Texas

That is not even touching on the diversity of the state. From the ranchers of North Texas to the oil businessmen of Houston, do you really believe that they would support the reverting of their public schools to 1940's level? Honestly?

I take it you haven't kept up with the fine battles over textbooks from our State Board of Education, the trouble financing anything but football, etc, etc, etc.

Also lets not forget the nice 51 Fortune 500's headquartered there....

And Texas is in the top ten for "children living below the povetry level."
www.statemaster.com...

I love my state but I don't like what has been done to its education system and to its environment.

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


You're right, but can you find anything on the President of the NAACP defending David Duke, or neo-nazis?

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
www.nolanchart.com...

This "Ron Paul is a racist" garbage should be put to bed, it's not going to help anybody's case against him.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


I'll give you one................the Banksters..........

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


He's said it himself on a few occasions. And I can't really recall at any point any real actions targeting any one group. He's always stuck by what he believes. And if he really was a racist, he would have sought to punish such communities where he can. Back in the Nixon era, so many things were done to try and make blacks cut off, extinct, or anything but equal. Even Nixon admits at one point he wanted abortion legal for the explicit purpose of culling mixed children. There's a whole lineage of thinking, and you can tell people who are of that line of thinking by their friends and bills they voted in favor for with which people.

That is, btw, another reason I don't personally trust Perry. He was just such an individual. One of those democrats who went over to the republican party. Sooo many of those people were doing all in their power to keep blacks down in the 60s and 70s.

That's why I know Ron Paul is clean. He didn't really have such associates to my knowledge. He always voted on the side of the constitution. And to be honest, I think his track record speaks for itself. So much so that even if he did have anything of those feelings against blacks, as the old saying goes "I may not agree with you, but I will defend to death your right to speak it."

This is of course open to anything you can find. What I see is an old man who's been speaking truth and now that the kids screwed everything up, he's just there, saying how he was right, and could probably do a better job.

reply to post by franspeakfree


"Those in power" are the business oligarchy, the globalists, and the bankers.

Ron Paul will be giving them everything they ever dreamed of, and it will come at the expense of YOU.

Welcome to the Austrian school of economics.

just a quick question if Ron Paul is so lacking in support and is no real canidate then why has he recieved so much cencorship in the MSM about his numbers and popularity?

reply to post by 27jd


Now that's a bit better of an endorsement to be sure. Again...I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but I was never arguing that he was, or wasn't racist....Personally I'd never vote for him for reasons besides whether or not he was a racist....all I was trying to point out, was that a few black people supporting a guy, doesn't prove anything...and it doesn't prove that he's not a racist ...it's faulty logic to imagine that simply because a person of a certain race likes a guy means that he's automatically anything. Now the Austin NAAPC president does indeed hold a slight bit more weight to it, simply because of his position....but that still doesn't prove anything other than the head of of the Austin NAAPC doesn't buy that he's a racist. The head of the Austin NAAPC isn't the head of all Black Americans anymore than Obama is the Head of all Black Americans.....That's still just one guys opinion. It might merit a bit more attention because of his position....but it's still just an opinion...I'm sure you could find many more in the Austin NAAPC that do believe that Ron Paul is a racist.

Though I wasn't planning on getting into it deeper than the original intent of my first comment, I will say that this really isn't about how popular he is with Black people...it's about whether we should be concerned that there are racist remarks coming out of official Ron Paul promotional material, and whether or not he can simply hide behind the claim that he himself didn't write it. Personally I think at the very least, that it raises serious questions about how he could allow something that is supposed to be the very mouthpiece of his views get away from him like that......it seems like quite an oversight on his part, and if he can let errors of such a serious nature happen in such a small thing, then how could he ever handle a country?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


The truth isn't hard to find. Does this sound like Ron Paul wants to get rid of Social Security? It may be his philosophy that Social Security is best handled by the free market and not controlled by the Government, but Ron Paul understands that so many people are already relying on it and have been paying into it and they are due the benefits that they deserve. I don't think Ron's message will be confusing for anyone.


From Ron Paul's Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property(2008)
Available for free here: mises.org...

Reforming Social Security
Everyone concedes that Social Security needs to be reformed or it will
soon be insolvent. However, what analysts often omit is that the so-called
“trust fund” consists of IOUs from the government. Right now when the
federal government takes in more money from Social Security withholding
than it pays out to current beneficiaries, it still spends the difference,
and “sells” a government bond into the Social Security trust fund. All
this smoke-and-mirrors doesn’t evade the fact that the government has
made trillions of dollars of promises that it can’t keep. In this section I
outline some of my proposals to restore sanity to Social Security.

(page 71)

Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work
Act of 1999
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
March 1, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to the Senior Citizens’
Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5), which repeals the Social
Security “earnings limitations.” During a time when an increasing
number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well
past retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced
workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working.
Yet the federal government does just that by deducting a portion
of seniors’ monthly Social Security check should they continue to
work and earn income above an arbitrary government-set level.

When the government takes money every month from people’s
paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees
that the money will be there for them when they retire. The government
should keep that promise and not reduce benefits simply
because a senior chooses to work.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by providing a disincentive to
remaining in the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the
American economy of the benefits of senior citizens who wish to
continue working but are discouraged from doing so by fear of losing
part of their Social Security benefits. The federal government
should not discourage any citizen from seeking or holding productive
employment.

The underlying issue of the earnings limitation goes back to the
fact that money from the trust fund is routinely spent for things
other than paying pensions to beneficiaries. This is why the first
bill I introduced in the 106th Congress was the Social Security
Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which forbids Congress from spending
Social Security funds on anything other than paying Social
Security pensions.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate my strong support
for the Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act. Repealing the
“earnings limitation” will help ensure that America’s seniors can
continue to enjoy fulfilling and productive lives in their “golden
years.” I also urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the
Social Security Trust Fund by cosponsoring the Social Security
Preservation Act (H.R. 219).

Social Security Tax Relief Act
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
September 6, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security
Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase
on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step
toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors:
the tax on Social Security benefits.

Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been
one of my goals in Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal
this tax increase in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on
this issue. I would remind my colleagues that the justification for
increasing this tax in 1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now,
President Clinton, who first proposed the tax increase, and most
members of Congress say the deficit is gone. So, by the President’s
own reasoning, there is no need to keep this tax hike in place.

Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars,
taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of “double taxation.”
Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an
accounting trick, a “shell game” which allows members of Congress
to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue
using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other
government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with
our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a
long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government
on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will
not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal
all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation
to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.

Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation
Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security
Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government
takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises
the American people that the money will be there for them when
they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free
senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social
Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). I also urge my colleagues
to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security
benefits and ensuring that monies from the Social Security trust
fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous
government programs.

Social Security Preservation Act
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
January 8, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security
trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The
Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states
that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be
spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in
interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social
Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs,
as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in
interest-bearing instruments.

The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government
will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected
for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When
the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises
the American people that the money will be there for them
when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that
promise.

The return of massive federal deficits, and the accompanying
pressure for massive new raids on the trust fund, make it more
important than ever that Congress protect the trust fund from big
spending, pork-barrel politics. I call upon all my colleagues,
regardless of which proposal for long-term Social Security reform
they support, to stand up for America’s seniors by cosponsoring
the Social Security Preservation Act.

Social Security for American Citizens Only!
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
January 30, 2003

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American
Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from
providing Social Security benefits to noncitizens. It also ends the
practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security
Administration takes into account the number of years an individual
worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in
determining that individual’s eligibility for Social Security benefits!

Hard as it may be to believe, the United States government
already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other
countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered
by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security
benefits than public school teachers or policemen!

Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile
Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. Just
before Christmas, the press reported on a pending deal between
the United States and the government of Mexico, which would
make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S.
Social Security benefits. Totalization is the centerpiece of this proposal,
so even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United
States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of
years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and
thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the
United States.

Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners
who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually
came to the United States and worked here illegally. That’s
right: The federal government may actually allow someone who
came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required
number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned
to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social
Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the
millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the
system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left
when it is their turn to retire.

The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial
reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our
own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration!
How many more would break the law to come to this
country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating
a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a
good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent
of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.

Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government
would cost top one billion dollars per year. Supporters of the
Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect
the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder
than words: According to several press reports, the State Department
and the Social Security Administration are already negotiating
to build a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected
rush of applicants for this new program!

As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be
drawing from the Social Security trust fund, it makes no sense to
expand it into a global welfare system. Social Security was
designed to provide support for retired American citizens who
worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system
for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding
it to cover foreigners who have not.

It is long past time for Congress to stand up to the internationalist
bureaucrats and start looking out for the American worker. I
therefore call upon my colleagues to stop the use of the Social Security
trust fund as yet another vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring
the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act.

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest every President reads every ad, or column being written by their campaign staff. He obviously trusted the man who wrote it, there are a few different trains of thought out there as to whether the man was out to discredit Paul intentionally, or was just an ignorant bigot. Either way, candidates spend a lot of time on the road, and doing events, interviews, etc. They don't just sit in their office and read everything that's be written on their behalf. It wouldn't be possible. They have to put some trust in their staff. Dr. Paul made it clear he didn't write those comments, and I'm sure that man is no longer part of the campaign.

ETA: I'm curious about what issues you disagree with him on (?)