Why isn't Ron Paul doing well?

[SleepWalkerX]

Because people are still hung on the idea that more government can solve our problems.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: FoBoT
many of his ideas are not realistic

As opposed to what? You think we can afford another "100 years in Iraq?" Or "health care for all?" We can't afford the promises we made before Bush even entered office, much less what he's piled on top. And the health care that Obama and HRC are promising? LOL, where is that money gonna come from?

Have you actually watched any of the debates for the Democrats? Obama has explained several times how he plans to finance his policies.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: FoBoT
many of his ideas are not realistic

As opposed to what? You think we can afford another "100 years in Iraq?" Or "health care for all?" We can't afford the promises we made before Bush even entered office, much less what he's piled on top. And the health care that Obama and HRC are promising? LOL, where is that money gonna come from?

Have you actually watched any of the debates for the Democrats? Obama has explained several times how he plans to finance his policies.

I know that Obama is against a mandated health care policy, but does that mean that only people who opt in to the service will be taxed? If so, I'm ok with that. Otherwise, he's taking my money for crap I don't need. I haven't been able to find more details about his plan for some reason.

 

[scootermaster]

Here's what I don't get...:

The whole idea that Ron Paul won't/didn't vote for anything that's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Or something of that nature.

Um, whaaaaaa??

Like, I get the whole patriotic notion that our "founding fathers" were, you know, like, wicked smart and whatnot, and that in "this day and age, when things are going to hell in a handbasket", it clearly makes more sense to rely on the wisdom of people that have been dead for 200 years, but...um....

WHAT?!?

Anyone care to explain the logic in that one?

Edit:One more interesting Paul note...the level of indignation by his supporters is, like, off the charts. What's up with that? I don't remember seeing that from, say, Ross Perot, or Jessie Jackson or Pat Buchannon or Nader or any other fringe candidate. Maybe it's because I wasn't paying attention -- hence, fringe -- or maybe it's because they didn't have the presence on the Internet (some fractional percentage of Americans give a shit about Ron Paul, but that percentage has a VERY FUCKING LOUD VOICE ON THE INTERNET), but I can't remember another candidate who's supporters thought everything was such a huge effin' conspiracy.

I posted another thread -- which I believe was locked, great job mods -- asking a very interesting question: What is it about Ron Paul and the Internet? If you were an alien, and you landed here, and got online, you'd think Ron Paul was emperor and galactic overlord. You'd figure he had, like, 95% support or something. Then, if you left the house, you'd realize no one knows/cares who he is [and before you even say, yes, I'm SURE it's all just a HUGE LEFT WING CONSPIRACY TO KEEP THE GOSPEL OF PAUL SECRET]. But really, don't you think that's a weird dichotomy? I can't remember seeing before.

So the question is: Is this a new phenomena, or has it existed forever, and it just so happens that his niche is the Internet, and that's where I happen to be?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: scootermaster
Here's what I don't get...:

The whole idea that Ron Paul won't/didn't vote for anything that's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Or something of that nature.

Um, whaaaaaa??

Like, I get the whole patriotic notion that our "founding fathers" were, you know, like, wicked smart and whatnot, and that in "this day and age, when things are going to hell in a handbasket", it clearly makes more sense to rely on the wisdom of people that have been dead for 200 years, but...um....

WHAT?!?

Anyone care to explain the logic in that one?

If you look at many of the problems that we face today, they can be tracked down to a lack of respect for the Constitution and the ideals on which our government was founded. From the war on drugs and our foreign policies, to even health care.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Because 96% of the voting population are stupid and don't understand the issues and know more about American Idol contestants than they do the Presidential candidates.

/thread

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: I don't know. All I know about Paul is that the people who oppose him are nuts. They have nothing but the most imbecilic remarks to make about him and never make any intelligent points.

All they can tell you is that he's a nut as they drool away.

Followed by:

Because him and his followers are a bunch of nutcases.

the more a person looks at him, the more he see how extreme his views are

He's too extreme and risky.

so they buy into some of his more rediculous ideas. His problem is that he has a few common sense ideas that get lost in the sea of stupid ones. IMO...

His fiscal policy is, to 95% of the population and economists, too far out there. This is a MAJOR sticking point for lots of people.

The reason he's not doing very well is because most of his ideas are as crazy as he is!

I think people just don't picture the small high pitched whining guy as a president.

Sorry, but RPs ideas are too extreme and many skip over the real problem on their way to becoming extreme. He overshoots on every idea he has.
------------------------------------

What is truly amazing is that the people who collect here on Anandtech are supposed to be some of our better educated demographic. If smart people can post as moronically as this collection, we don't stand much of a chance.

Ron Paul is crazy. Ron Paul is extreme. Any you guys can think an inch deep. Pathetic!

Stop posting and stop having opinions, you morons, or fucking say something that has some meaning.

I don't like Ron Paul. I'm going to eat some worms ......................and vomit on you.

I really don't appreciate that. If you read my post, I never said Ron Paul was crazy. What did was assert a fact - his monetary policy is too radical for most people and economists. Sorry, but that's a fact and it is a huge reason why he isn't polling in the 13 - 15% range.

Don't lump me in with the blind RP haters, I don't like his ideas because I think they are too short-sighted and would ultimately hurt our country. I think I have well-founded reasons for this opinion and, outside of occasionally getting fed up with some of the more fanatical RP supporters, I've tried to engage in a discussion which, usually, isn't productive at all.

Please settle for the fact that you were the least offensive of those I quoted. Thinking his ideas are too shortsighted means nothing other than it's your opinion. Why (giving reasons you think so) they are shortsighted might make a case. I tired once, it didn't work, and now I just bloviate isn't an excuse for anything. Maybe your arguments also were worthless, but so far, I don't see any. I don't mind if you don't appreciate what I said if it sharpens your wits a bit.

 

[scootermaster]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: scootermaster
Here's what I don't get...:

The whole idea that Ron Paul won't/didn't vote for anything that's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Or something of that nature.

Um, whaaaaaa??

Like, I get the whole patriotic notion that our "founding fathers" were, you know, like, wicked smart and whatnot, and that in "this day and age, when things are going to hell in a handbasket", it clearly makes more sense to rely on the wisdom of people that have been dead for 200 years, but...um....

WHAT?!?

Anyone care to explain the logic in that one?

If you look at many of the problems that we face today, they can be tracked down to a lack of respect for the Constitution and the ideals on which our government was founded. From the war on drugs and our foreign policies, to even health care.

Ahhhhh. Right.

This is why Ron Paul is completely irrelevant.

Okay, that was total flamebait. I'm going to digress for a second: You know what just tickles me pink? Watching Paulbot get pissed. Because you know what pisses them off? Not telling them that Ron Paul is wrong because any moron can see that. But telling them that Ron Paul is IRRELEVANT. Because, in the scheme of things, he is. But it's AMAZING what Paulbots will do to deny that fact. Um, like, oh, say....this thread, for example?

Back to the lecture at hand...that sort of thing is not only completely nonsensical, it's dangerous. I mean, I'm not even going to bother mentioning the second amendment, and the bastardization that's become (which is so much a fact as evolution, but yet there are still these ignorant yay-hoos who argue about it...much like people argue about creationism, but whatever), but the idea that our founding fathers had the foggiest clue of what we're up against now is just ridiculous.

The idea to govern by 200 year old standards is just a cop out. It's lazy politics. I'm not saying anything in the constitution is wrong simply because its old, but I'm saying that just obeying it blindly, without any thought about what the world is like now is cheap, and ultimately, a horrible idea for this country. (Cue NRA).

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Please settle for the fact that you were the least offensive of those I quoted. Thinking his ideas are too shortsighted means nothing other than it's your opinion. Why (giving reasons you think so) they are shortsighted might make a case. I tired once, it didn't work, and now I just bloviate isn't an excuse for anything. Maybe your arguments also were worthless, but so far, I don't see any. I don't mind if you don't appreciate what I said if it sharpens your wits a bit.

Fair enough. I don't think this is the appropriate thread to get into another discussion of Ron Paul's policies. I'm just of the opinion that Ron Paul's platform, his statements, and the actions of some of his followers has really hurt his electibility.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: I don't know. All I know about Paul is that the people who oppose him are nuts. They have nothing but the most imbecilic remarks to make about him and never make any intelligent points.

All they can tell you is that he's a nut as they drool away.

Followed by:

Because him and his followers are a bunch of nutcases.

the more a person looks at him, the more he see how extreme his views are

He's too extreme and risky.

so they buy into some of his more rediculous ideas. His problem is that he has a few common sense ideas that get lost in the sea of stupid ones. IMO...

His fiscal policy is, to 95% of the population and economists, too far out there. This is a MAJOR sticking point for lots of people.

The reason he's not doing very well is because most of his ideas are as crazy as he is!

I think people just don't picture the small high pitched whining guy as a president.

Sorry, but RPs ideas are too extreme and many skip over the real problem on their way to becoming extreme. He overshoots on every idea he has.
------------------------------------

What is truly amazing is that the people who collect here on Anandtech are supposed to be some of our better educated demographic. If smart people can post as moronically as this collection, we don't stand much of a chance.

Ron Paul is crazy. Ron Paul is extreme. Any you guys can think an inch deep. Pathetic!

Stop posting and stop having opinions, you morons, or fucking say something that has some meaning.

I don't like Ron Paul. I'm going to eat some worms ......................and vomit on you.

I really don't appreciate that. If you read my post, I never said Ron Paul was crazy. What did was assert a fact - his monetary policy is too radical for most people and economists. Sorry, but that's a fact and it is a huge reason why he isn't polling in the 13 - 15% range.

Don't lump me in with the blind RP haters, I don't like his ideas because I think they are too short-sighted and would ultimately hurt our country. I think I have well-founded reasons for this opinion and, outside of occasionally getting fed up with some of the more fanatical RP supporters, I've tried to engage in a discussion which, usually, isn't productive at all.

Please settle for the fact that you were the least offensive of those I quoted. Thinking his ideas are too shortsighted means nothing other than it's your opinion. Why (giving reasons you think so) they are shortsighted might make a case. I tired once, it didn't work, and now I just bloviate isn't an excuse for anything. Maybe your arguments also were worthless, but so far, I don't see any. I don't mind if you don't appreciate what I said if it sharpens your wits a bit.

....or, maybe some of us have already spelled out exactly why we think he and his ideas are crazy in one of the other 99,999 RP threads posted before this one; and we just don't feel like rehashing it anymore -- so we resort to short statements that get right to the heart of the matter...ie. "The man, and most of his ideas, are fvcking loony-tunes!"

Your own thoughts and posts are not as "deep" as you think they are Moonie.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: scootermaster

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: scootermaster
Here's what I don't get...:

The whole idea that Ron Paul won't/didn't vote for anything that's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Or something of that nature.

Um, whaaaaaa??

Like, I get the whole patriotic notion that our "founding fathers" were, you know, like, wicked smart and whatnot, and that in "this day and age, when things are going to hell in a handbasket", it clearly makes more sense to rely on the wisdom of people that have been dead for 200 years, but...um....

WHAT?!?

Anyone care to explain the logic in that one?

If you look at many of the problems that we face today, they can be tracked down to a lack of respect for the Constitution and the ideals on which our government was founded. From the war on drugs and our foreign policies, to even health care.

Ahhhhh. Right.

This is why Ron Paul is completely irrelevant.

Okay, that was total flamebait. I'm going to digress for a second: You know what just tickles me pink? Watching Paulbot get pissed. Because you know what pisses them off? Not telling them that Ron Paul is wrong because any moron can see that. But telling them that Ron Paul is IRRELEVANT. Because, in the scheme of things, he is. But it's AMAZING what Paulbots will do to deny that fact. Um, like, oh, say....this thread, for example?

Back to the lecture at hand...that sort of thing is not only completely nonsensical, it's dangerous. I mean, I'm not even going to bother mentioning the second amendment, and the bastardization that's become (which is so much a fact as evolution, but yet there are still these ignorant yay-hoos who argue about it...much like people argue about creationism, but whatever), but the idea that our founding fathers had the foggiest clue of what we're up against now is just ridiculous.

The idea to govern by 200 year old standards is just a cop out. It's lazy politics. I'm not saying anything in the constitution is wrong simply because its old, but I'm saying that just obeying it blindly, without any thought about what the world is like now is cheap, and ultimately, a horrible idea for this country. (Cue NRA).

Which part of bamacre's post led you to believe that his adherence to constitutional principles is blind?

There's nothing lazy about fighting the increasing government encroachment on liberty. Lazy is what you are, thinking that just because the majority wants to shred constitutional protection that it's somehow OK. You're intellectually lazy, simply giving in to mob mentality.

And the fact that you think the issues we face now are different than what was faced 200 years ago is ignorant. Please, for my amusement, name one issue that is brand new that the founding fathers could not have foreseen and thus requires the abandonment of their archaic views.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Because 96% of the voting population realize he's a nut.

With the biggest trends Americans follow I'm happy to be a minority in this country swimming in pork eating morons.

 

[Pabster]

These Paulbot threads are getting old.

Paul is history. Move on.

 

[scootermaster]

Originally posted by: Pabster
These Paulbot threads are getting old.

Paul is history. Move on.

Since everything he does is directly related to the constitution, you're right.

Paul IS history!

He belongs in a museum.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: scootermaster
He belongs in a museum.

Yeah, he sure does. :roll:

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Because he appeals to the young people, for all the wrong reasons, who have not yet gotten their feet wet in the real world.

This sums up one of my 20 year old nieces perfectly. Last Christmas we saw them and somehow she started talking passionately about politics.Before she said who she was supporting it was obvious to me it was Paul. She then started spouting off how her and her husband were going to be rich within 5 years in the real estate market. They had been attending seminars and were convinced they could do it with no money down and on very poor credit.

Oh the hilarity in these two posts.

Perhaps we should raise the voting age to "whenever your feet are wet" and require a submittal of your life experiences in esay format before you are allowed in the booth.

Now, before you call me a RP Bot, I am firmly against him due to his notions on economics.

I just found both of your posts rather absurd, considering that we have always railed on the 18-25 demo for not showing up at the polls.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Because 96% of the voting population realize he's a nut.

the truff

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: scootermaster

Originally posted by: Pabster
These Paulbot threads are getting old.

Paul is history. Move on.

Since everything he does is directly related to the constitution, you're right.

Paul IS history!

He belongs in a museum.

It would be ironic if it were a government subsidized museum like the Smithsonian.

 

[Dufusyte]

I'm impressed to see that 1 in 20 people realize Paul is right.

The other 95% will realize only when the collapse is complete. Then they will clamor for a change in monetary policy, and a reduction in funding the empire abroad.

This wind-down is part of every empire that has come and gone. Some can see it coming, some have to wait for it to hit them on the head.

The British Empire, the Soviet Empire, etc. Everyone who has run the world, or a large part of it, has found it costly to do so, and eventually goes bankrupt and needs to fold their empire. Paul just wants to fold it in the smoothest possible way by getting a head start before we are forced to do so. The empire is also unconstitutional, so that is a good reason to de-fund it as well.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Duddy
I don't get how Ron Paul can seem soo incredibly popular on the web and in the military, but somehow only has 16 delegates right now.

I really don't understand, is his campaign manager a marketing genius? Could he replace Steve Jobs?

Why doesn't his massive internet support translate into votes? It doesn't make any sense at all.

McCain is hated soo much on the web, and everyone I talk to hates his guts, how the f*** is he winning by such a large margin?!

Re: The delegate count.

Unlike the Dems, who award the delegate (mostly) in proportion to votes received, the Repubs jhave a lot of "winner take all" primary contests.

Check out Romneys vote compared to McCain, then have a look at their delegate count.

Romney had a lot of votes, but not many delegates due to the "winner take all" primaries.

Re: Ron Paul's vote count.

He's pretty new to the national political scene, it takes time to build name recognition. As a Congressman, he was likley only well known in his TX district, not even the whole TX state like Senators are.

I also think he has too many issues he's pushing all at once. I think he should have had a more modest platform, choosing about 3 big issues to push. E.g., border control, deficit spending/taxes and Iraq. But then he piles on all kinda other stuff like the Fed thingy. Jeebus, the average voter's head will assplode trying to get grip on the whole RP package.

Debates are NOT his strong point. He comes across much better in a sit-down with an interviewer for 30 minutes or an hour. This combined with a lack of name recognition really put him behind the ball in this race. HRC started out way ahead because of her name recognition, and Huckabee came on quickly because of his debate performance.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: I don't know. All I know about Paul is that the people who oppose him are nuts. They have nothing but the most imbecilic remarks to make about him and never make any intelligent points.

All they can tell you is that he's a nut as they drool away.

Followed by:

Because him and his followers are a bunch of nutcases.

the more a person looks at him, the more he see how extreme his views are

He's too extreme and risky.

so they buy into some of his more rediculous ideas. His problem is that he has a few common sense ideas that get lost in the sea of stupid ones. IMO...

His fiscal policy is, to 95% of the population and economists, too far out there. This is a MAJOR sticking point for lots of people.

The reason he's not doing very well is because most of his ideas are as crazy as he is!

I think people just don't picture the small high pitched whining guy as a president.

Sorry, but RPs ideas are too extreme and many skip over the real problem on their way to becoming extreme. He overshoots on every idea he has.
------------------------------------

What is truly amazing is that the people who collect here on Anandtech are supposed to be some of our better educated demographic. If smart people can post as moronically as this collection, we don't stand much of a chance.

Ron Paul is crazy. Ron Paul is extreme. Any you guys can think an inch deep. Pathetic!

Stop posting and stop having opinions, you morons, or fucking say something that has some meaning.

I don't like Ron Paul. I'm going to eat some worms ......................and vomit on you.

I really don't appreciate that. If you read my post, I never said Ron Paul was crazy. What did was assert a fact - his monetary policy is too radical for most people and economists. Sorry, but that's a fact and it is a huge reason why he isn't polling in the 13 - 15% range.

Don't lump me in with the blind RP haters, I don't like his ideas because I think they are too short-sighted and would ultimately hurt our country. I think I have well-founded reasons for this opinion and, outside of occasionally getting fed up with some of the more fanatical RP supporters, I've tried to engage in a discussion which, usually, isn't productive at all.

Please settle for the fact that you were the least offensive of those I quoted. Thinking his ideas are too shortsighted means nothing other than it's your opinion. Why (giving reasons you think so) they are shortsighted might make a case. I tired once, it didn't work, and now I just bloviate isn't an excuse for anything. Maybe your arguments also were worthless, but so far, I don't see any. I don't mind if you don't appreciate what I said if it sharpens your wits a bit.

....or, maybe some of us have already spelled out exactly why we think he and his ideas are crazy in one of the other 99,999 RP threads posted before this one; and we just don't feel like rehashing it anymore -- so we resort to short statements that get right to the heart of the matter...ie. "The man, and most of his ideas, are fvcking loony-tunes!"

Your own thoughts and posts are not as "deep" as you think they are Moonie.

Oh man, here we go again. I don't remember any threads where it was established my posts are not as deep as I think they are. You're doubtless as blind about me as you are about Ron Paul. Have you a link?

 

[bamacre]

Nice, Moonbeam.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Duddy
I don't get how Ron Paul can seem soo incredibly popular on the web and in the military, but somehow only has 16 delegates right now.

I really don't understand, is his campaign manager a marketing genius? Could he replace Steve Jobs?

Why doesn't his massive internet support translate into votes? It doesn't make any sense at all.

McCain is hated soo much on the web, and everyone I talk to hates his guts, how the f*** is he winning by such a large margin?!

Re: The delegate count.

Unlike the Dems, who award the delegate (mostly) in proportion to votes received, the Repubs jhave a lot of "winner take all" primary contests.

Check out Romneys vote compared to McCain, then have a look at their delegate count.

Romney had a lot of votes, but not many delegates due to the "winner take all" primaries.

Re: Ron Paul's vote count.

He's pretty new to the national political scene, it takes time to build name recognition. As a Congressman, he was likley only well known in his TX district, not even the whole TX state like Senators are.

I also think he has too many issues he's pushing all at once. I think he should have had a more modest platform, choosing about 3 big issues to push. E.g., border control, deficit spending/taxes and Iraq. But then he piles on all kinda other stuff like the Fed thingy. Jeebus, the average voter's head will assplode trying to get grip on the whole RP package.

Debates are NOT his strong point. He comes across much better in a sit-down with an interviewer for 30 minutes or an hour. This combined with a lack of name recognition really put him behind the ball in this race. HRC started out way ahead because of her name recognition, and Huckabee came on quickly because of his debate performance.

Fern

That's a nice well reasoned post there, Fern, but I don't think it explains the fervent nut case reaction from so many. He would just be an unknown who doesn't attract much attention but I see him being demonize. I have to conclude that PR is some kind of threat to a lot of people's interests, financial or emotional or ideological, etc. The vehemence of the reaction tells me he's some kind of danger.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
I'm impressed to see that 1 in 20 people realize Paul is right.

The other 95% will realize only when the collapse is complete. Then they will clamor for a change in monetary policy, and a reduction in funding the empire abroad.

This wind-down is part of every empire that has come and gone. Some can see it coming, some have to wait for it to hit them on the head.

The British Empire, the Soviet Empire, etc. Everyone who has run the world, or a large part of it, has found it costly to do so, and eventually goes bankrupt and needs to fold their empire. Paul just wants to fold it in the smoothest possible way by getting a head start before we are forced to do so. The empire is also unconstitutional, so that is a good reason to de-fund it as well.

Ya know, maybe it's you? I happen to have a degrees in the matter at hand and wall street work experience and I've been debunking the gold standard / monetary policy B.S. from day one (along with Legend Killer, again someone with post graduate education in topic and work experience from a competing ibank).

Don't you find amazing that you argue educated people with youtube videos and copy and paste 'fact sheets' ? Use the Occham's razor...

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
I'm impressed to see that 1 in 20 people realize Paul is right.

The other 95% will realize only when the collapse is complete. Then they will clamor for a change in monetary policy, and a reduction in funding the empire abroad.

This wind-down is part of every empire that has come and gone. Some can see it coming, some have to wait for it to hit them on the head.

The British Empire, the Soviet Empire, etc. Everyone who has run the world, or a large part of it, has found it costly to do so, and eventually goes bankrupt and needs to fold their empire. Paul just wants to fold it in the smoothest possible way by getting a head start before we are forced to do so. The empire is also unconstitutional, so that is a good reason to de-fund it as well.

:thumbsup: