If Ron Paul isn't Electable, Just Who the Hell is?

[Joepublic2]

I would vote for Paul over these other dirtbags that are running (democrat and republican) because even though I don't agree with a lot of his ideas (it would be a uniquely interesting disaster shifting the US back to the gold standard and libertarianism is a crock of shit) but at least he seems to honestly believe the things he says and I think he's in far fewer special interest's pockets than any other presidential candidate. With any luck he'll get elected and deadlock the government for 8 years with his veto power.

 

[Jaskalas]

At this point the rest of the field are such scum that Ron Paul, though not Presidential (his son is), is the last man standing. It's hard to imagine him not having my support in this primary.

 

[bfdd]

He's just as un-electable as everyone else. It's a stupid shit that means "he's not the status quo and i'm to much of a bitch to have any real change in my life that makes me have to really think or put in any sort of effort so i'll ignore them and keep up with my same routine." i had no plans of voting for Paul this go around, but it really is pathetic how he is treated.

 

[RabidMongoose]

At this point the rest of the field are such scum that Ron Paul, though not Presidential (his son is), is the last man standing. It's hard to imagine him not having my support in this primary.

Ron Paul is probably more of a scum bag than any of the other candidates. Maybe Santorum is as much of a scum bag as Paul, but overall Ron Paul is one of the biggest scum bags running for political office in quite some time.

 

[AreaCode707]

At this point the rest of the field are such scum that Ron Paul, though not Presidential (his son is), is the last man standing. It's hard to imagine him not having my support in this primary.

Though I wouldn't have put it that way, I think this is a pretty accurate summary.

I'm so sick of the party politics that I'm pretty much willing to give my vote to any honest person who has mostly (but not necessarily entirely) reasonable views and stands on their own two feet without being beholden to special interests.

Show me another candidate besides Paul who matches that and I'll consider changing my vote.

I know he has no shot in hell, but I'm voting for the downfall of two-party politics in the long term, not the president for the next four years.

 

[randomrogue]

Every one of the GOP candidates are completely unelectable against Obama. I never thought Obama could win a second term but now I think it's almost guaranteed. Ron Paul stands out among the GOP crowd as the best contender by a mile though.

I'd be interested to hear what a hundred year old thinks of the change in politics during their lifetime. To me it's gotten to the point of complete absurdity.

 

[AreaCode707]

I'd be interested to hear what a hundred year old thinks of the change in politics during their lifetime.

What a fascinating question. I'm having dinner with a couple in their mid to late 80s tomorrow, extremely savvy folk at that. I'm going to ask them.

I agree with you that Obama is most likely going to win the next election. I think the PC desire to prove we are no longer racist will continue to garner him just enough votes to push him over the top. Lots of people will vote for him for other, more legit reason, but I think there are a number of folks that still want to see our first black president make it through two terms.

 

[Ausm]

Obama.

:thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

This dude's obsessed. The racist parts of the newsletters went out without Paul's knowledge and he took responsibility for them when they were unearthed, but Obama went into his church knowing FULL WELL the kinds of things that were being said but continued to attend Wright's church anyway, and credit Wright with the the title of his book, but didn't cut ties until after Wright was exposed. But still, I don't consider Obama a racist.

So this rabidly obsessed guy posting here either needs to move on and talk about something more constructive or just STFU.

lol. The willful denial is strong here.

If by 'took responsibility for' you mean 'repeatedly defended', then sure he took responsibility for the racist shit in his newsletter. The real icing on the cake here is how you go after Obama for sitting in a church where some guy said some racist statements, and you give Ron Paul a pass for EXPLICITLY DEFENDING HORRIBLY RACIST STATEMENTS.

Repeat: RON PAUL EXPLICITLY DEFENDED INSANELY RACIST SHIT IN HIS NEWSLETTERS.

For a real understanding of just how bad this denial is, imagine what would have happened if it turned out that Obama had been publishing a newsletter as vile as Ron Paul's for years, then when asked about it in the media defended those ideas. Tell me he wouldn't have been run out of town.

Jesus christ people he's a presidential candidate, not your boyfriend.

 

[airdata]

The whole unelectable thing is probably the most effective charactor assassination campaign ever executed. Get enough people in the media to say it and before you know it, you have millions of people saying it too without reason. And look how strong the Ron Paul campaign is despite that. Without idiots in the media influencing negative opinions of Paul, he'd be a clear #1 well above the others.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV4yLwG6cgg&feature=player_embedded

If Ron Paul is crazy, what is Santorum? Who takes a dead baby home to play with their siblings?

Repeat: RON PAUL EXPLICITLY DEFENDED INSANELY RACIST SHIT IN HIS NEWSLETTERS.

Of the very few excerpts even released to back up these racist claims, none was "insanely racist". He's also shown that he's clearly not a racist through his actions and actual speeches.

With the newsletters you only have the argument that his name is on them and he made money from them being sold supposedly. You can't even show for sure if he wrote it. Just like the tweet from @ronpaul this past week talking shit to one of the other candidates... his name is on it.. but I'm 99% sure he didn't go on twitter and post the message.

 

[PokerGuy]

You paul-bots are funny

Like it or not, he's unelectable. You can argue all day long about why he should or should not be, but the fact is that he's not going to be elected president. Ever. Get over it.

 

[xj0hnx]

This dude's obsessed. The racist parts of the newsletters went out without Paul's knowledge and he took responsibility for them when they were unearthed, but Obama went into his church knowing FULL WELL the kinds of things that were being said but continued to attend Wright's church anyway, and credit Wright with the the title of his book, but didn't cut ties until after Wright was exposed. But still, I don't consider Obama a racist.

So this rabidly obsessed guy posting here either needs to move on and talk about something more constructive or just STFU.

Rabidfailgoose gets the same feeling in his pants when he sees a thread about Ron Paul that he can spread his lies in, that normal men do when a hot girl walks in the room.

 

[xj0hnx]

You paul-bots are funny

Like it or not, he's unelectable. You can argue all day long about why he should or should not be, but the fact is that he's not going to be elected president. Ever. Get over it.

"Unelectable" doesn't mean anything. No one was saying "McCain is unelectable" yet, there was no way on god's green Earth that he was going to be elected. It's just a phrase people use when they can't explain their false notions without subverting the truth.

 

[airdata]

You paul-bots are funny

Like it or not, he's unelectable. You can argue all day long about why he should or should not be, but the fact is that he's not going to be elected president. Ever. Get over it.

Repeating "paulbot" makes you sound stupid. Ron Paul attracts free thinkers... not people who like to parrot the words of other people.

And sure.. he's unelectable because everybody has the burnt in idea that he's unelectable. That apparently overrides logic in the brains of idiots. If you weren't so busy repeating idea that Ron Paul is unelectable you'd see just how enelectable these other idiots are. ( who are all going to lose to obama anyhow )


Take all bias out of the equasion and you've got guys who are basically sponsored by the biggest failure corporations in our country to be president. Obama is getting donations from the same people donating to Romney.

We need a president for the people... not another corporate whore who's doing what Goldman Sachs wants them to do. Hell.. I'm surprised Romney is even still in the race. Rick Perry made him look like an idiot many debates ago.

 

[momeNt]

He isn't electable simply because he won't have a Goldman Sachs alum in his cabinet or staff. It's the only actual measure of electability in our kleptocracy of a government and banking system.

 

[dank69]

Repeating "paulbot" makes you sound stupid. Ron Paul attracts free thinkers... not people who like to parrot the words of other people.

And sure.. he's unelectable because everybody has the burnt in idea that he's unelectable. That apparently overrides logic in the brains of idiots. If you weren't so busy repeating idea that Ron Paul is unelectable you'd see just how enelectable these other idiots are. ( who are all going to lose to obama anyhow )


Take all bias out of the equasion and you've got guys who are basically sponsored by the biggest failure corporations in our country to be president. Obama is getting donations from the same people donating to Romney.

We need a president for the people... not another corporate whore who's doing what Goldman Sachs wants them to do. Hell.. I'm surprised Romney is even still in the race. Rick Perry made him look like an idiot many debates ago.

Slow thinkers, not free thinkers.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Obama.

And this is why our country is doomed. If Barry O is the best we've got, it's game over.

 

[airdata]

Slow thinkers, not free thinkers.

Says the idiot who quote posts 14 lines of text to insert an inane comment with nothing to back it up. Run along... I think there might be a book burning for you to attend.

And this is why our country is doomed. If Barry O is the best we've got, it's game over.

What we're being shown now is that it's not about being the best. It's about making idiots argue with eachother about which idiot is less of an idiot while they rob you blind and do things like fluoridate your water and replace healthy food with untested genetically modified food.

Sorry.. I was channeling alex jones for a second there.

 

[dank69]

Says the idiot who quote posts 14 lines of text to insert an inane comment with nothing to back it up. Run along... I think there might be a book burning for you to attend.

All your retardation has been refuted countless times in this forum. If you still don't understand it after all that, nothing will change your mind.

 

[airdata]

All your retardation has been refuted countless times in this forum. If you still don't understand it after all that, nothing will change your mind.

Yet another inane comment with nothing backing it up. Make reference to something that can't be proven, pretend you're right... that's not the correct way to make a forum post sir.

 

[dank69]

Yet another inane comment with nothing backing it up. Make reference to something that can't be proven, pretend you're right... that's not the correct way to make a forum post sir.

Fine, trollbag, you want to get into this again? Here you go:

keep telling yourself that if it helps you support a racist..


In a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul was asked about his newsletters. In that interview he defended them. You can read a copy of the interview here.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the ineficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report
​

From this interview we gather Ron Paul knew about the content, defended the content and wrote the content.

If he didn't write the comment... why would he defend them??

Wouldn't it be easier to say "these aren't my figures... stevie from research found them and wrote them down for me"

Taken directly from one of the many other threads in this very forum you seem to be unaware of.

This is just one single statement of many regarding one single issue, racism, of which there are many others that make him unelectable. But even if it were only this one single statement and there were no other issues, it would still render him unelectable to anyone with any capacity for reason.

Please, go ahead and explain to all of us why this one interview does not make him unelectable.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Gary Johnson!

By time all of this is through, all the main candidates are going to look like tools, and Johnson will start picking up steam. There's literally no evidence of him ever doing anything corrupt, and his record, in terms of performance, is pretty crazy good.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Ron Paul is about as Rascist as Romney is conservative.

 

[airdata]

Hope it didn't take you too long to find that post that I haven't seen before, that absolutely does nothing for the topic at hand. And most importantly... you simply don't know what racism is. Making light of the fact that young black kids who are prone to crime are fast is hardly racist. Nor would it be racist to jokingly say " good luck catching them if they steal your purse!"

That's not racist. Nor is it racist to speak about the overwhelming statistics of blacks in prison and to DEFEND THEM and suggest that the system is broken in that it targets blacks unjustly.

If he's racist like you claim, I don't see why he would be defending black people.


I also wouldn't quote post guyver. From my interactions with him yesterday he has few morals and endorses things like cheating and police brutality.

I also wouldn't trust anybody with a 69 in their name. Not unless I was 15 again.

 

[airdata]

rac·ism   [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.