RON PAUL CANT WIN HES UNELECTABLE HE CANT WIN HE WILL NEVER WIN BECAUSE HE CANT WIN BECAUSE PEOPLE WONT VOTE FOR HIM BECAUSE HE CANT WIN.

OH WAIT, HE'S IN 2ND PLACE?

Well now your whole argument seems a bit circular.


It seems like he can win, he is electable and he can win because people will vote for him because he can win.

It's scary to see how much money and effort is being put into supressing Paul because he threatens to undermine the rich corporate interests. Talk about representing the 99% vs the 1%.

Anyone who joined Occupy Wall Street that doesn't support Ron Paul is either a fraud that is being paid by the Democrat party or just isn't capable of reason.

11/16/2011 10:34:24 AM

Ron Paul/Gary Johnson is the golden ticket.

11/16/2011 11:33:56 AM

^ this..

Quote :

"Some of us take in new information and actually change our worldview to accommodate it, not just entrench ourselves in rationalizations."

What is wrong with entrenching in rationalizations? Are you suggesting that making rational decisions is wrong? Please elaborate.

11/16/2011 12:01:48 PM

Lmao Ron Paul is in "second place" insofar as he's part of a 4 way tie for it because ANYONE BUT ROMNEY

He wont win because mainstream Republicans will not vote for him. His foreign policy is more liberal-sounding than the Democrats' to them. How hard is this to understand? They wont enlighten, they wont come around, they are a bunch of cavemen would rather stay home than vote for someone who acknowledges 9/11 was blowback.

Quote :

"Anyone who joined Occupy Wall Street that doesn't support Ron Paul is either a fraud that is being paid by the Democrat party or just isn't capable of reason."

Or a non-caveman who actually thinks women and minorities deserve human rights regardless of the state they live in; or who don't think unrestrained, unregulated, untaxed Capitalism will make our lives anything other than more Hellish.

Quote :

"Paul....threatens to undermine the rich corporate interests"

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2011 12:46:12 PM

Quote :

"What is wrong with entrenching in rationalizations? Are you suggesting that making rational decisions is wrong? Please elaborate."

You know what I mean by rationalization, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28making_excuses%29 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesizing

There's a difference between being rational and doubling down with whatever flimsy excuse for logic you can come up with so you don't have to reevaluate your conclusions.

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2011 12:47:16 PM

Ron Paul on Face the Nation in 5 minutes

statistically tied for 1st place in Iowa caucus

11/20/2011 10:27:26 AM

^^ Gotcha. I thought I may have misinterpreted your statement.

11/22/2011 12:46:32 AM

Drudge Front Page:



We may have reached a tipping point. Ron Paul is a top candidate, he is being taken seriously, and he has a lot of support. He will bring in additional support from people that previously viewed him as entirely unelectable.

11/22/2011 11:36:28 PM

Who will you have to blame when that doesn't happen?

11/23/2011 9:49:59 AM

I have a positive view of Congressman Paul, for the greater popularity that he's brought to broader libertarianism.

...but capital-Ls aren't grounded in reality anywhere else; it shouldn't be a surprise when the same applies to their assessment of Paul's chances of becoming President.

11/23/2011 10:08:19 AM

The GOP candidate roulette is running out of surges. Paul, Santorum, and Huntsman are the only ones left who haven't yet gotten a Not-Romney-of-the-Week.

Huntsman's mostly reasonable and intelligent, so if anyone is NEVER going to get a surge, it's him.

Santorum needs something unique or novel about him to talk about.

Paul might get a bump but being realistic about foreign policy in a GOP candidate field is the worst thing to be realistic about, no matter how radically you are on economic issues.



Bottom line I think is it's a toss up, I'd be equally surprised if any of the remaining 3 got a surge. It just might come down to Newt and Romney.

Quote :

"We may have reached a tipping point. Ron Paul is a top candidate, he is being taken seriously, and he has a lot of support."

I think you have to be realistic and honest with yourself and understand that Paul has had a dedicated constituency holding up his poll numbers this entire time. He's gotten a bump recently but, if you subtract that devoted constituency, it's not significant. There's been a very large Not-Romney contingency moving rapidly from candidate to candidate over the past few months, and Paul's bump-minus-his-base doesn't indicate that contingency is moving to him just yet.

Even if they do, I think even you with all your Paul optimism understands that he'll shed a few percent points every time he correctly points out that 9/11 was a clear result of our past foreign policy. He could devour a baby on-stage and get more support from the GOP base than making those kinds of statements garnish.

Also, lol, that drudge headline links to Christian Science Monitor.

[Edited on November 23, 2011 at 10:40 AM. Reason : .]

11/23/2011 10:33:51 AM

Quote :

"Who will you have to blame when that doesn't happen?"

I would only blame myself for not doing enough.

Quote :

"...but capital-Ls aren't grounded in reality anywhere else; it shouldn't be a surprise when the same applies to their assessment of Paul's chances of becoming President."

Do you deny that the Paul campaign has recently experienced a groundswell of support and legitimacy by the mainstream media?

When you look around and see conservatives, independents, and liberals coming out to support Ron Paul, and when you see that active duty military men and women support Ron Paul more than all of the other GOP candidates combined, doesn't that signal to you that there may actually be a serious shift going on? We're almost a full year out from the election, still.

Quote :

"I think you have to be realistic and honest with yourself and understand that Paul has had a dedicated constituency holding up his poll numbers this entire time. He's gotten a bump recently but, if you subtract that devoted constituency, it's not significant. There's been a very large Not-Romney contingency moving rapidly from candidate to candidate over the past few months, and Paul's bump-minus-his-base doesn't indicate that contingency is moving to him just yet."

Why would you subtract the devoted constituency? That's in Paul's favor. Once someone decides to support Ron Paul, they're highly unlikely to switch back to any of the other candidates. It's a stark contrast between Paul and the rest of the field. The polling bumps the other guys experience are essentially a reflection of media coverage. When Ron Paul gets supporters, it's typically because they've come to realize that he's the only one not lying through his teeth.

11/23/2011 12:31:14 PM

Quote :

"Why would you subtract the devoted constituency? That's in Paul's favor. "

Because we're trying to identify where the Not-Romney surge moves. Those would be the people who went from Bachmann, to Perry, to Cain, to Newt. The people who have been with Paul from the start, by definition, are not part of that surge movement that's being pinned down here.

You can see the surge movements a bitin the graphs here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/the-gingrich-surge-has-come/

There's a better graph somewhere that basically reduces all of those to single lines, then plots them over each other, but I can't find it right now...edit: found it



gingrich: green
paul: orange
romney: purple
bachmann: black
cain: red
huntsman: pink
perry: blue
santorum: brown (lol)

Quote :

"Once someone decides to support Ron Paul, they're highly unlikely to switch back to any of the other candidates. "

There's actually ways to verify this assertion:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-ron-paul/ron-paul-polls/

Hypothesis disproven. Paul's already had small surges in the past, then they taper off. His overall average direction has been slowly, slowly upward, but he's also had support fall-offs as well.

Quote :

"It's a stark contrast between Paul and the rest of the field. The polling bumps the other guys experience are essentially a reflection of media coverage. "

Media reflects polls, polls reflect people, people reflect media. It's a feedback system, not as simple as the conspiratorial-mainstream-media narrative the right loves. All these media empires are, at the end of the day, Capitalist. They amplify whatever people are interested in already, otherwise people wouldn't tune in and they wouldn't make profit.

The fact is that there is a large group of Republicans who don't want Romney to win, and they will jump on almost any bandwagon that might be headed there, with no candidate loyalty whatsoever. The media isn't creating this phenomenon, it's a very predictable process of rallying around flavors of the month, hoping one sticks.

Quote :

"When Ron Paul gets supporters, it's typically because they've come to realize that he's the only one not lying through his teeth."

You are just 100% projecting here, dude. Every single person thinks this when they come to support a candidate, every single person thinks this about their pet candidate.

It's this kind of head-in-the-clouds self-deception that holds Paulites back. You guys need to get serious about being objective in this campaign instead of constantly self-cheerleading. I wouldn't vote for Paul, but he's a pretty decent worst-case-scenario for the general election should he win the primary.


[Edited on November 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

11/23/2011 12:54:30 PM

Would you vote for Obama?

11/23/2011 12:57:51 PM

My customers that come in say, "I love Ron Paul but he'll never win"

I've been like "Uh no, he's definitely going to win in the election"


I was for Obama in 2012, until #OWS started, then something (the banking industry) overpowered Obama and we don't hear much about him in the media and foreign policy is headed in the opposite direction that Obama initially ran, which tells me he's not in charge anymore.

11/23/2011 12:58:45 PM

Over Paul? Absolutely. Obama sucks balls but I'm not ready to start marching to Feudalism just yet.

11/23/2011 1:00:36 PM

That's just Str8Foolish. If you're not for Ron Paul, you're not for America.

11/23/2011 1:02:00 PM

Substantive endorsement right there

11/23/2011 1:02:56 PM

Doesn't have to be. The answer is self evident.

11/23/2011 1:05:46 PM

You're just a hypocrite, then. You would rather keep the American war machine marching along, crushing any brown people that get in the way, than challenge the status quo in any meaningful way. You want to throw cancer patients in jail for using medical marijuana to get through chemo. You want to pay record bonuses to Goldman Sachs CEOs.

There's simply nothing more to discuss if you would vote for Obama over Paul. You support the warmongering corporatist...and why? Because Ron Paul would return us to "feudalism". That's just hyperbole, and yes, I recognize the irony.

11/23/2011 1:09:27 PM

St8foolish seems to like living in North America without the Bill of Rights.

St8foolish seems to like living in North America with a $14 trillion deficit.

St8foolish seems to like continuing a 40 years failed war on drugs in North America that costs billions a year and has absolutely no success.

St8foolish seems to like living in North America where we fail at foreign policy over and over making the same mistakes.

St8foolish seems to like living in North America where commercialism is shoved down his throat.

St8foolish seems to like living in North America with Government controlled censored media.

[Edited on November 23, 2011 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

11/23/2011 1:15:16 PM

I like living in an America where the President doesn't have dictatorial control over all those things...

11/23/2011 2:03:27 PM

Quote :

"You're just a hypocrite, then. You would rather keep the American war machine marching along, crushing any brown people that get in the way, than challenge the status quo in any meaningful way. You want to throw cancer patients in jail for using medical marijuana to get through chemo. You want to pay record bonuses to Goldman Sachs CEOs."

I don't like any of those things, but the only one Paul would be able to change unilaterally might be the jailing of the cancer patients. Even then, he can only affect the DOJ's level of enforcement, he can't unilaterally change the laws. And, honestly, manipulating the DOJ to disregard the rule of law decided by Congress seems like a subversion of checks and balances.

Almost of those things would likely change with filibuster-proof Democratic supermajorities in both houses.

Here, I'm gonna go ahead and make a silly promise: If, leading up to election day, it looks as though Dems are about to filibuster-proof both houses, I'll vote for Paul. I'd be pretty interested in seeing a Paul presidency with a solidly Democratic congress.

11/23/2011 2:07:52 PM

Hey man,

I don't even know why you even type. In your point of view, Everything's going to be okay regardless of who's elected. Oh the president can't do this, and the president can't do that. It's futile."

Just log off the internet and smile like the enzyte guy

11/23/2011 2:43:32 PM

foreign policy is probably what he'd be able to have the biggest effect on immediately...which, consequently is one of the things I hate most about the current state of politics.

he needs to havge a sustained media blitz outlining everyone's standing regarding donations from military personnel and at least cite that when definding his policy against the hawks

[Edited on November 23, 2011 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

11/23/2011 2:44:47 PM

Ron paul facebook "likes" are upto 601,427.



Let's monitor its change over time, shall we?

11/28/2011 1:56:03 AM

Here are the "top tier" candidates

Newt Gingrich - 190,607
Herman Cain - 398,006
Michele Bachmann - 272,536
Rick Perry -171,611

11/28/2011 1:58:57 AM

They're staging a facebook bomb on December 12t for ron paul.

They need 25,000 people. I'm number 1225


https://www.facebook.com/events/203786723029474/

11/28/2011 2:22:10 AM

damn forgot about Mitt Romney - 1,197,147

11/28/2011 2:39:48 AM

Quote :

"Media reflects polls, polls reflect people, people reflect media. It's a feedback system, not as simple as the conspiratorial-mainstream-media narrative the right loves. All these media empires are, at the end of the day, Capitalist. They amplify whatever people are interested in already, otherwise people wouldn't tune in and they wouldn't make profit. "

They also amplify which candidates would better serve their profit margins, outside of viewership. There's a correlation between which candidates have media coverage, and which candidates whose campaign funds contain a higher proportion of corporate contributions.

11/28/2011 12:26:47 PM

Ron Paul speaking out against the international currency movement again. Look, I don't know how to explain this any clearer people. The rich have been trying to dump the dollar for an international currency SDR for quite awhile and they are getting awfully close to implementing it now that they've overthrown the governments in Europe and replaced their political leaders with unelected bankers. If they succeed we are all fucking screwed, seriously.

There is nothing wrong with protecting the dollar like Paul is clamoring that we do. We can let it go to shit and starve if you want, but what's wrong with considering the alternative instead which is to save it and be benefactors of all the great things that come with being an international reserve currency? What's so wrong with having a middle class instead of only the elite rich and the poor like so many other nations?

Quote :

" on Paul lays it out: "We know what to do - we did it once after the Civil War period, we went from a paper standard back to the gold standard, and the event wasn't that dramatic. But today the big problem is that both the conservatives and liberals have an big apetite for big government for different reasons, therefore they need the Fed to tie them over and monetize the debt. So if you don't get rid of that appetite it's going to be more difficult, but the transition isn't that difficult. You have to get your house in order; you have to balance the budget, you have to not run up debt, and you have to promise not to print any more money... I would like to have a transition period and just legalize gold money, gold and silver as legal tender, and work our way back... We want to legalize the use of gold and silver as the constitution dictates, rather than punishing the people who try to do that... I am quite convinced that the system we have will not be maintained - that's what these last 4 years was all about, and that's what the turmoil in Europe is all about. The question is are they going to move toward a constitutional form of money. or are we going to go another step further into international money - instead of having an international gold standard based on the market, are we going to go toward a UN, IMF standard where they are going to control with the use of force another fiat standard. I consider that a very, very dangerous move.""

11/29/2011 6:43:40 AM

A critical part of what he's saying there is that we simply legalize the use of gold and silver as currency. He's not saying we'd have to mandate it or make it illegal to use anything else as a unit of exchange. Just don't throw people in jail for using hard currency.

11/29/2011 10:13:42 AM

Quote :

"I don't even know why you even type. In your point of view, Everything's going to be okay regardless of who's elected. Oh the president can't do this, and the president can't do that. It's futile.""

Actually, in my view, everything is going to be shit regardless of who's elected, and unless congress sees serious shifts the best a President will be able to do is veto stuff.

You Ron Paul bots make Obama fanatics in 2008 look relatively stoic and grounded.

11/29/2011 12:43:55 PM

Quote :

"A critical part of what he's saying there is that we simply legalize the use of gold and silver as currency. He's not saying we'd have to mandate it or make it illegal to use anything else as a unit of exchange. Just don't throw people in jail for using hard currency."

You already can, destroyer. You can go out, convert your currency into gold (buying) then when you want to use that gold to buy things you can convert it back to currency (selling). The fact that it's important to you that you actually be able to mint your own coins and exchange them with retailers like this is the fucking 1600's just goes to show what an out of touch loony you are with completely misplaced priorities.

Trading is entirely legal. You can take some gold and trade it for a TV or whatever the fuck else you want, provided the other person actually wants your gold and wants to go through the trouble of finding its value in dollars, then confirming the purity of the gold. There's a whole host of reasons people prefer to work in dollars, but believe me nobody is stopping you from going out and trading for items with gold except the willingness of other people to trade with you.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2011 12:46:37 PM

^ That's not really true. You'd pay an absolute shitload in fees if you tried to convert every paycheck to gold and then had to sell the gold everytime you wanted to purchase an item.

The dollar is losing its status as a valid unit of exchange. If you can't see that then I suggest you learn about it.

We had 25% unemployment in the Great Dperession. We're approaching 23% now. What would it take for AMericans to wake up? 30%? 40%? Don't worry, it's probably coming.

When the banks begin to fail again and the dollar loses its value we will have staggering unemployment.

11/29/2011 1:38:08 PM

Quote :

"You already can, destroyer. You can go out, convert your currency into gold (buying) then when you want to use that gold to buy things you can convert it back to currency (selling). The fact that it's important to you that you actually be able to mint your own coins and exchange them with retailers like this is the fucking 1600's just goes to show what an out of touch loony you are with completely misplaced priorities."

No, I can't. I'd be losing a ton of money to convert it back and forth like that.

I don't want to mint my own coins. I want someone else to do that. I want to be able to buy the things I want to buy with the money I want to use. I want other people to be able to make that same decision. I don't want to have to place the future of my savings and wages in the hands of the government, which has, time and time again, proved that it will piss away our futures when it's politically convenient to do so.

Quote :

"Trading is entirely legal. You can take some gold and trade it for a TV or whatever the fuck else you want, provided the other person actually wants your gold and wants to go through the trouble of finding its value in dollars, then confirming the purity of the gold. There's a whole host of reasons people prefer to work in dollars, but believe me nobody is stopping you from going out and trading for items with gold except the willingness of other people to trade with you."

It's illegal to open a store and accept payment using gold or silver tender.

Also, I don't know if you've been on Craigslist recently, but people do actually occasionally say they're willing to trade for precious metals. Of course, those are probably lunatics like me.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 1:53 PM. Reason : ]

11/29/2011 1:43:42 PM

Ron Paul won't win because:

1. He's not good looking
2. He's not charming
3. He's not very religious
4. Not profitable for big business
5. Doesn't talk about the few libertariany issues that could sway lefties
6. Isn't a guy Americans want to have a beer with

11/29/2011 2:16:11 PM

Quote :

"Doesn't talk about the few libertariany issues that could sway lefties"

He doesn't talk about the wars? He doesn't talk about the war on drugs? He doesn't talk about civil liberties?

Ron Paul is the only guy that could show up to a Tea Party event or an OWS event and get thunderous applause.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 2:24 PM. Reason : ]

11/29/2011 2:24:14 PM

I don't hear him talk much about those things, except in regards to the federal budget.

But anyways - those other things I said.

11/29/2011 2:49:42 PM

Quote :

"3. He's not very religious"

he is. he's just not a huge dick about it.

Quote :

"5. Doesn't talk about the few libertariany issues that could sway lefties"

he totally does. i think he spends more time avoiding his stances that would bother lefties. "good luck poor and sick people."

Quote :

"6. Isn't a guy Americans want to have a beer with"

i'd love to have a beer with him. or actually, to smoke a joint with him would be preferred. a smoke circle with him and Kucinich would be kick ass.

11/29/2011 2:58:23 PM

The guy is a freaking rock star. Millions of people wait in line to buy his books and take pictures with him yet no one would want to have a beer with him?

He's the only person running for president I'd want to have a beer with because he's the only one who wouldn't blow smoke up my ass the whole time.

11/29/2011 3:10:57 PM

Quote :

"I don't hear him talk much about those things, except in regards to the federal budget."

In the GOP debates, Paul has taken a pretty hard line on the wars, the drug wars, and civil liberties. Yes, as an economic matter, these policies aren't sustainable. However, they're also immoral, and he's quite clear on that.

11/29/2011 4:03:57 PM

I'm not saying he's not great. I'm saying most Americans are not good candidate pickers.

11/30/2011 12:16:50 PM

Quote :

"Also, I don't know if you've been on Craigslist recently, but people do actually occasionally say they're willing to trade for precious metals. Of course, those are probably lunatics like me."

One of my old pot dealers once offered to buy my car with gold.

11/30/2011 1:14:43 PM

Quote :

"In the GOP debates, Paul has taken a pretty hard line on the wars, the drug wars, and civil liberties. "

Hence why he wont win the GOP primary. I mean seriously, you're basically holding out hope that in a matter of weeks the GOP base will suddenly stop being primarily composed of theocratic authoritarian warmongering cavemen.

[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2011 1:16:39 PM

^ that have extra marital affairs with men and children.

11/30/2011 1:24:39 PM

12/5/2011 1:08:05 PM

^ its like No Fear teeshirts said. Second place is the first loser. Might as well headline who came in third, right?

12/6/2011 10:28:17 PM

I don't know that Ron Paul would have a serious chance at winning even without media meddling, but I'd like to see a whole bunch of pictures like that compiled once this is all over.

^^^ haha

and in airport bathrooms, like good 'ol "Wide Stance" Craig

12/6/2011 10:41:39 PM

Quote :

"Hence why he wont win the GOP primary. I mean seriously, you're basically holding out hope that in a matter of weeks the GOP base will suddenly stop being primarily composed of theocratic authoritarian warmongering cavemen."

Basically what I've been saying. He can't win the republican primary because he isn't a republican. If he does, great, I'd rather have him debate Obama and actually force Obama to the left on certain issues, but that won't happen. Strategically, for him, he should run as an independent, take his ardent supporters with him, and try to grab some more moderates and disenfranchised democrats. He still won't win, but he'll alter the political discourse for the future, which is really the best he can hope for.

How old is the dude, anyway? At this point, he should consider being a political martyr and taking one for the country by running as a independent rather than trying to reform the most stubborn political establishment that's ever existed.

He's trying to win over a demographic that is held hostage by Donald Trump/Sarah Palin supporters. That can't happen, and he'd be better of branching off and taking a sizable chunk of the GOP with him.

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 10:48:47 PM