• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why did no one back Ron Paul?

GobBluth

Senior member
Sep 18, 2012
703
45
91
If elections were won by campaigns and debates this man would have won in a landslide. His campaigns were pure gold. His agenda was to keep the government out of individual lives, end affirmative action (thank god), and voted against the Patriot act! Just to name a few.

Now, yes he wanted to cut departments like Education, Social Security, the CIA, etc. But when you read deeper. He doesn't want to eliminate those services, but the cabinets and departments that govern them because they are out of control.

Just looking for everyone's 2 cents. Please don't flame me, I'm merely trying to educate myself on why America wouldn't side with this guy.

Why no love for Paul?
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
Don't get me wrong, having a different perspective was a good thing, bu his domestic and foreign policy were pure lunacy and simply wouldn't work in the modern world.

But then again when your competition is Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry it is easy to appear like a genius.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
everyone backed Ron Paul.

unfortunately, voter graud infiltrated every single state and poll.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Comedy gold, you mean, right?

If you could understand what you wrote in your second paragraph, you'd understand why, he's considered a joke.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
Because people like to talk about individual liberty and keeping govt out of their homes. Then want to be babysat by the govt and for it to spy\oppress their neighbors.

When the only true small govt guy is considered crazy in the supposed small govt party. We have veered well beyond where we started.
 
Last edited:

Ventanni

Golden Member
Jul 25, 2011
1,420
127
106
I love Ron Paul, but unfortunately [mostly] honest politicians don't get elected.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
The older Klanner crowd isn't as popular nowadays. Ron Paul crowd should stick to his buddy David Duke. Hes younger, same difference.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I find it amusing that libertarians think that the correctness of their dogmatic ideology should be self-evident to everyone else and they simply cannot accept the fact that their views are a fringe minority even here in the US, while practically non-existent anywhere else.
 
Last edited:

GobBluth

Senior member
Sep 18, 2012
703
45
91
Well, it is unfortunate that big business now run the government. Elections are bought and paid for now.

I was on board with him on 90% of his policy, which is more than I can say for the incumbent especially. Reagan lauded him back in the 80s, which someone would have head it.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
25,734
1,236
126
The corporations own the more mainline republicans and democrats. They back whomever they think will give them most return on their dollar.

The Politicans who raise the most money get the most press/coverage, and unless they are so awful that their PR person can't find a way to make them look human, then, usually the one with the biggest war chest wins.

In this case, the corporatations didn't like Ron's positions as it would result in uncertainty for them. They generally prefer to back puppets, over free thinkers.)
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
He pissed off the right and left, therefore not many left to support him.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
The older Klanner crowd isn't as popular nowadays. Ron Paul crowd should stick to his buddy David Duke. Hes younger, same difference.
Should I link to the racist picture yet again? Love dumb asses who keep pushing that bullshit.

And OP this forum is hugely anti Paul because all of them toe the line for their parties. There are very few critical thinkers here. Jesus could run as a Republican or vice versa and they would vote Obama/Lol Romney.

He was certainly crippled because of the huge media blackout. When they did cover him it was to bring up the only thing they had on him which were the newsletters or the even more laughable earmark arguments.

Who knows if he would have won or not.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,262
3,796
126
I find it amusing that libertarians think that the correctness of their dogmatic ideology should be self-evident to everyone else and they simply cannot except the fact that their views are a fringe minority even here in the US, while practically non-existent anywhere else.
That about sums up freedom and liberty.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Basically, the only "right" size of government is taxation appropriate to pay for the services people want to get together and buy by means of government. No government is too big or too small if that's what the populace wants. There was a time when Americans were fine with very decentralized, smaller government, but we're just not anymore, and that's only for the better or worse depending on how you a priori define those measurements. We used to spend nothing on Social Security, but were also fine with the large majority of old people dying in poverty and misery; less regulation for industry, but also horrendous food safety and tons of fraud in pharmaceuticals and environmental calamity; small military spending, but also no particular world influence or force projections around the globe; etc., etc. As a community, our priorities have shifted. There's nothing fundamentally right or wrong about any particular point on the spectrum, and it's really silly and unrealistic to think that you know the self-evident Truth that everyone else should obviously agree with.

Even sillier to blame that lack of agreement on conspiracy theories.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Ron paul had the largest crowds Mitt wouldn't even show his . Or I should say the MSN refused to show the lack of support . You want to find out truth look into the RNC cheated on vote counts but were still getting murdered on delegets . The RNC than changed the rules after paul won 8 actually more RNC changed the number of states needed to be nominated from 5 states to eight and striped away Paul legall delegets. You think you are voting , But thats not the case 2011 has proven this to be a FACt . You vote but if you vote for what the party wants you get vote counted if you go against what MSN and party wants your vote is trashed and not counted .
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Ron paul had the largest crowds Mitt wouldn't even show his . Or I should say the MSN refused to show the lack of support . You want to find out truth look into the RNC cheated on vote counts but were still getting murdered on delegets . The RNC than changed the rules after paul won 8 actually more RNC changed the number of states needed to be nominated from 5 states to eight and striped away Paul legall delegets. You think you are voting , But thats not the case 2011 has proven this to be a FACt . You vote but if you vote for what the party wants you get vote counted if you go against what MSN and party wants your vote is trashed and not counted .
Well said, the amount of corruption is amazing
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
If elections were won by campaigns and debates this man would have won in a landslide. His campaigns were pure gold. His agenda was to keep the government out of individual lives, end affirmative action (thank god), and voted against the Patriot act! Just to name a few.

Now, yes he wanted to cut departments like Education, Social Security, the CIA, etc. But when you read deeper. He doesn't want to eliminate those services, but the cabinets and departments that govern them because they are out of control.

Just looking for everyone's 2 cents. Please don't flame me, I'm merely trying to educate myself on why America wouldn't side with this guy.

Why no love for Paul?
SS you best go look at what he said . He wasn't going to cut it , He wanted younger people the chance to op out.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Don't get me wrong, having a different perspective was a good thing, bu his domestic and foreign policy were pure lunacy and simply wouldn't work in the modern world.

But then again when your competition is Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry it is easy to appear like a genius.
No they weren't, they were the only ones that made sense
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,937
1,270
126
I love how the Paulbots always blame a main street media blackout conspiracy for the reason Ron Paul did so poorly. He drew huge crowds in his public appearances and appeared in every episode of the reality show that was the GOP debates. I'm sure he has high name recognition with the general public. The fact is that some of his ideas are appealing in a superficial manner but anyone with a lick of common sense knows his ideas are either unworkable or would result in total disaster. And that doesn't even touch on the not-small portion of the electorate that view his efforts to move power from the feds to states as non-libertarian at its root, and an apparent cover to reinstitute jim corw laws and the like.

Not a surprise to me that Ron Paul is roundly ignored by the general public. He's the crazy uncle of politicians.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
The older Klanner crowd isn't as popular nowadays. Ron Paul crowd should stick to his buddy David Duke. Hes younger, same difference.
you mean this old klanner?



there is no proof Ron Paul had ever been part of the klan and just because he is OK with their existence does not mean he backs their causes. Ron Paul isn't my pick because he spent to much time playing the game of the party system.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY