Dr. Paul's Realistic Chances?

[762x54r]

Welcome to the boards.

Your question is a fair one.

I have been a RP follower (and a registered Republican) for almost two decades (and a registered Republican for longer) watching his one minute speeches on C-span as I moved from state to state.

I have never had a candidate articulate my own views on the role of the state, fiscal policy, foreign policy, civil liberties, like Dr. Paul. I will write him in come November if that is what I have to do. Until then it only matters to me that he stay in the race and continue to articulate his cogent ideas about devolving the federal government and devolving our foreign commitments/entanglements while returning us to a historically successful fiscal policy that we should have never abandoned.

So while your question may be a fair one is is ultimately irrelevant as to why I support him.

 

[gb13]

BTW, who do you think is the most conservative candidate based on this:

h ttp://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Total_Proposed_Spending_for_All_2008_Candidates

This graph is great. I think someone should make a graph to put right next to it that shows our national debt, and our projected debt in 4 years with each candidates fiscal/spending proposals applied.

 

[Crickett]

do[/I] think that ten years down the road Ron Paul Republicans might make up a sizeable contingent in the Congress and state assemblies.
More soon (I hope -- damn corporate dilligence filings).

Joe

Hi Joe, You may take your vote elsewhere if your own conscience dictates that..but I will debate the non-intervention thing all night. LOL Our Founders had seen PLENTY of what happens when other countries try to compete in a World Order. They saw Alexander The Great. They saw the Roman Empire. They saw the British Empire. Believe me, in a short 200 years, nothing has changed but technology. Oh, and one other thing. The United States of America. A country that was founded to live in PEACE. A country that was NOT supposed to have entangling alliances other than trade and friendship with ANY other country EVER. One that had a small federal government that did NOT raise high taxes and regulations (that is inevitably tied to wars, and they knew it). A country that was a shining example to the world and indeed an experiment for a country where the people ruled and prosperity and peace was a legacy for and by each of us.

Now we are being convinced that we fear other countries. Or that we NEED them. Or that they NEED us to fix them. That they might hurt us. It takes a very strong man to avoid the brainwashing. It takes a strong Statesman to not be corrupted by lobbyists (McCain not one of them) and special interest money. It takes a strong man to not be corrupted by power, and want to return it to the people. It takes a strong man to stand up to those who continually ridicule, censor and deride him, and maintain temper and wisdom.

Last night McCain said something about how much other countries needed us, because their media was manipulating them, and their rights were being taken away by governments. To me, he was talking about what is going on in this country, NOW, because I have seen it. Not many have. You are very wrong in saying that this Constitution--the document that made us different from EVERY other country, is not relevant in almost every way today as a short 200 years ago. Tyranny is ancient. The USA is still a baby, and losing its way. Now, as we sit here.

I will vote for Ron Paul--but more than that, I am committed to continue this fight to keep this country great. I will vote for any senator and representative that will uphold the constitution and bring our troops home to defend us and get our economy back on track. If RP does not win, it will not even take 4 years to change congress. I do not believe you see the entire picture yet. Good luck wherever your conscience leads you.

 

[Chabsfromcanada]

People need to stop worrying about whether or not their man "can win". The whole idea of voting is for each individual to be able to have their "say" in the form of a vote.

If you are more inclined to vote for McCain then by all means, that is your choice, and that is your voice in the process. You vote for him, and in that, you are saying "this is the man I want to lead my country, he stands for what I stand for, he represents me and what I believe."

The same can be said for Ron Paul if you were to vote for him.

The question is, which man represents you? It is a question to be taken seriously. Try to ignore what the media tells people. Research for yourself, and find the answers. At the end of your research, you pick your man. Do not worry about who can "beat" Hilary. Worry about casting a vote that will reflect exactly how you feel. The true meaning, in my opinion, of a wasted vote, is a vote that you make, that does not represent you, the individual.

 

[brandon13830]

Can Paul get the nomination? Sadly no, he can't. Before New Hampshire I thought there was a decent chance but when I saw "Libertarian" New Hampshire vote for McCain I knew that we were pretty much screwed for this election cycle.

I do think that a candidate with Paul's platform could win in the future however, which is why this movement is so important.

 

[xd9fan]

McCain splits the base....no way you can win with the base split.

 

[qh4dotcom]

Actually Ron Paul has a good chance to win if Americans care about their bank accounts. Ron Paul has the biggest tax cut. If they are stubborn about voting for another candidate the IRS will make them pay for their defiance.

 

[qh4dotcom]

I will tell you folks right off the bat that I'm a John McCain supporter. I was in 2000 and I am now. However, I'm trying fairly hard to be open-minded about Dr. Paul, given that I have fiscally conservative and socially moderate-to-liberal views (i.e., government, leave me and mine alone). So please do not respond to this post with accusations of "Troll" or insults of my preferred candidate or declarations that with my views being of such a character I'm backing the wrong man (although I am, of course, inviting these types of responses by alluding to them beforehand).

To put it as neutrally and non-judgmentally as possible: do you folks believe that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination? Do you believe that Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination? At this point in time, it appears to me as an outsider that Ron Paul's chances are the least of the four remaining candidates and that even though he's still got to have a large warchest (freedomchest?), I'm not sure that he's shown that -- whether his fault of not -- he can break through to achieve anything more than an at-most 10% showing in major primaries.

I'm just curious as to how you dispassionately view your chances in this election cycle.

As for me, I think Dr. Paul is a fundamentally honest, intelligent, and good man. Nonetheless, in this day of soundbite politics and a demagogue'd electorate, Ron Paul doesn't appear to be able to get any traction with the broaded electorate. So does he have a chance?

(Oh, and for the record, while this is my first post, I've been reading the message board for a while.)

For the McCain supporter: Please watch these videos and let me know what you think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&v3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-lYKrQPgZM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41CpnoAfbV4

 

[Peterjar]

Philosophical differnce

Dear OutsiderJoe,

Thanks for your post! We at the forum love such posts cause it gets us thinking. Ron Paul supporters are the thinking type and I surmise that you are too. That's why I believe you actually support Ron Paul, but have at some point been mislead or have misunderstood the executive branch of government.

The executive branch is not a figurehead appointment. Your belief that the president should be a good leader or an example for the nation is misplaced. The presidential branch has seven responsibilities and is co-equal to the Judicial and congressional branches. It is not the temporary appointment of a king or a personality that represents America. The next president should have an adept understanding of the Constitution so to execute his responsibilities faithfully. He should not have to be good looking, charming, brave, or know how to drive a pick-up-truck. If you are looking to appoint someone who makes you feel good then go vote in the peoples choice awards, fill out your MLB Allstar card, or something...just don't vote for John Mccain!

Besides, Ron Paul is an excellent leader. Despite being o the fringe in congress he has had a number of big successes there with legislation.

Peter

 

[Broadlighter]

Let me say then, clearly: if the Ron Paul campaign was as well managed as a campaign with enthusiastic supporters like you guys deserves, I think he would be doing much better in the polls. I still wouldn't support him -- I just don't think non-interventionism, among other things, is a policy that the Founders of the Constitution would apply to today's world (we can debate this, if you'd like, of course) -- but I can damn well agree with you that his polling numbers might be a bit better if he'd gotten an Ed Rollins or two.

I appreciate your use of the word non-interventionism and not the pejorative isolationism, which is what detractors have tried to paint Ron Paul with. The problem with the current foreign policy is that it fails to take into account that it has had a hand in the current dangerous world we live in. Do we intervene because our national security is at stake or do we pursue that end by proactively secure strategic objectives?

The world of the founders had its dangers, too. The founders wanted to approach it without intervening, yet foreign interests tried damn hard to intervene in the affairs of the U.S. If you look at Ron Paul's popularity around the world, that would suggest that non-interventionism will make more friends than enemies. As far as the rogues running around in the world out there, We have the defensive capacity to deal with them. We don't need to start aggressive wars to put these guys in their place. We do that and we motivate people to align themselves with the rogues.

The reason Ron Paul doesn't have Ed Rollins types is because he only hires people who already agree with him on his planks. You won't see guys like Rollins or David Gergen joining the Ron Paul camp. The politics of compromise isn't going to fly with Ron Paul's supporters.

 

[IcyPeaceMaker]

I do not believe a brokered convention will be necessary, as I truely believe Dr. Paul will win it outright. Here's why: Romney is $33 M in debt and his daddy has shut off his spending. Huckabee is on the ropes and will be gone after super tuesday. That leaves Paul & McCain.

McCain has scored about 30% of the votes, and true conservatives hate him. In a two man contest, McCain gets 35% tops, Paul wins in a landslide. Ron Paul has won by 70% in every election he's been in. 90% of America has never heard of him, and that means 90% of McCain supporters haven't heard of him either.

Ron Paul's message is what America has been waiting for, to release us from the bondage of the folks who own the FED and it's subsidiary the media. When others, who just like you Joe, see that his views are aligned with their own, they will turn out in record numbers for Ron Paul. Bet the farm on it.

 

[Dan Klaus]

bump for Outsider Joe - this is a good thread with some very convincing and reasoned opinions...hope you post more - and know your welcome here..

 

[Zyphlin]

I hate to tell ya buddy, but McCain isn't going to win. Noone that is for Ron Paul would be for John McCain. That means he won't have the votes to go to the Whitehouse.

It looks like we all lose

Not true, espicially as time goes on and you gain Ron Paul voters that weren't part of the initial base.

I've just recently decided to vote for Ron Paul. I STRONGELY disagree with his Iraq policy, and agree with his foreign policy in principle but not in the extreme extent he'd wish to go.

However, while the War is a huge issue for me, the amount of domestic issues I agree with Ron Paul on compared to McCain or Romney is gigantic and has outweighed my disagreements with him on the War.

In a primary, I will be voting my principles, even if I don't think he can win. I don't see anyone easily beating McCain, so a vote for Paul is as good as any other and he's the one I agree with most.

I disagree with John McCain in a large amount of ways...I disagree with Hillary on just about everything.

In a general between John McCain and Hillary, I WOULD vote for McCain.

If I honestly thought it'd be a land slide any way, I wouldn't do it...but I don't think that's the case. And voting for a write end on this one due to "principles" is akin to not speeding to hurry and try to get to a dieing realitive because my "principles" tell me not to break the law.

If Ron Paul runs 3rd party he loses any support I would ever have given him. One of the big draws for me is that he is an honest candidate, one that doesn't seem to play politics but just honestly has a message and will tell it to you without trying ot pull strings.

I've watched interview after interview where he's said its running as a Republican or nothing else. Where he's said he won't run 3rd party.

If he ends up running 3rd party, and shows that he's just like every other politician...saying what's beneficial for the time at hand and changing it on a whim...then I don't want him.

The arrogance you display is one of the things that kept me away from Ron Paul up until now. Same for the people that mischaracterize McCain as "Wanting to stay in Iraq for 100" years, when it was hyperbole for the fact he'd stay until he felt the job was complete, no matter how long it took.

Ron Paul's message is getting out, and as the field narrows, you have people that aren't joining him because they worshipping him as the political equivilent of the second coming of christ but because they agree with much, but not all, of what he says. I do hope he wins the primary...I don't see it highly likely, but there's a chance. But if it really catches on its going to take a lot of his hardcore base to understand that as your numbers grow its not going to be people that agree with EVERYTHING Ron Paul says, or people that want to be insulted for not walking in absolute lock step.

 

[InLoveWithRon]

I've just recently decided to vote for Ron Paul. I STRONGELY disagree with his Iraq policy, and agree with his foreign policy in principle

.

Okay.. I just cannot fathom how you can support the war in Iraq.. I mean, being there is hurting our national security ALOT more than helping it.. The blowback is coming my friend.. Just listen to a soldier's own experience from being there.. Look how stupid it is to be there.. We aren't liberating those people at all. We treat iraqi's like total garbage,

http://www.archive.org/details/Trucking_In_Iraq

And that doesn't even include the 121 soldiers who committed suicide last year over there. And doesnt include the over 1000 additional attempts of soldier suicide..

The fact of the matter is, we only went there for the International bankers to get their oil.. And to open their central banks in that country to control their people like the Federal reserve has controlled us since 1913.. Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded to open central banks in those countries, to control their lending rates, profit from them, and to fix price their economies.. And we also went there for oil ( Iraq directly, and for Rockefeller to build his Exxon oil pipeline through afghanistan, which the Taliban refused to build , even though the US and the taliban were in negotiations to build it since 1997).. And of course Cheney, Bush and his cronies getting rich off of the Industrial military complex..

Have you ever asked yourself why Iran, Cuba, Syria and North Korea are considered enemies of the US?? It's because those are the only 4 countries left on earth that do not have the elite's central banks instilled in those countries. Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer on the list as the central banks were opened in those countries in 2003 and 2004 respectively.

How the heck can you, or anyone for that matter, support a war which has killed thousands of americans, maimed tens of thousands more with debilitating injuries, and has psychologically damaged tens of thousands more for life ??-- and all in the name of a few elite rich men getting more rich.

How can you tell me with a straight face that we should be there after watching that video ?? I will be awaiting your reply.


By the way, thank you for your support of the good doctor.

 

[Zyphlin]

Okay.. I just cannot fathom how you can support the war in Iraq.. I mean, being there is hurting our national security ALOT more than helping it.. The blowback is coming my friend.. Just listen to a soldier's own experience from being there.. Look how stupid it is to be there.. We aren't liberating those people at all. We treat iraqi's like total garbage,

http://www.archive.org/details/Trucking_In_Iraq

I believe we will have more trouble, in the present and definitely 5-10 years down the line, by up and abandoning them where they're at right now than investing a bit more time in it with an administration willing to let the General decide what's best, step out of it completely, and just make it known to them that they want it wrapped up FAST. Let the administration focus on the pressure of the Iraqi government.

I think a strategy change is needed, but I don't agree with pulling out immedietely or in any shape or form setting a public deadline.

The blowback in regards to Iraq is going to be coming at this point either way. I don't think another year or two of us there is goign to make a gigantic difference in the amount of blowback. Nothing that's been linked to me by ron paul supporters has changed my mind on that.

And I'm sorry, the numerous soliders I personally know that have been over there and tell me a COMPLETELY different story than the handful of ones that are saying these things weigh more to me.

The fact of the matter is, we only went there for the International bankers to get their oil.. And to open their central banks in that country to control their people like the Federal reserve has controlled us since 1913.. Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded to open central banks in those countries, to control their lending rates, profit from them, and to fix price their economies.. And we also went there for oil ( Iraq directly, and for Rockefeller to build his Exxon oil pipeline through afghanistan, which the Taliban refused to build , even though the US and the taliban were in negotiations to build it since 1997).. And of course Cheney, Bush and his cronies getting rich off of the Industrial military complex..

There's no "fact" there. Nothing there was "fact". ALL of it is speculation and opinion. That's one of the things that kept me from supporting Ron Paul, people like you that state your OPINIONS as if its absolute fact and acting like anyone that doesn't believe it is an idiot. I respect your opinion, I humbly disagree, and don't see this elaborate conspiracy you see. You spouting off about some conspiracy isn't going to change my mind on it.

How the heck can you, or anyone for that matter, support a war which has killed thousands of americans, maimed tens of thousands more with debilitating injuries, and has psychologically damaged tens of thousands more for life ??-- and all in the name of a few elite rich men getting more rich.

Oh I don't know...because me, and anyone else for that matter, may not follow lock step in your personal beliefs and opinions that this is just a war "in the name of a few elite rich men getting more rich".

How can you tell me with a straight face that we should be there after watching that video ?? I will be awaiting your reply.

Because a single guy, who is an activist, accounts of it with a particular squad does not constitute that its the 100% truth of everyone...or the majority...of what's going on over there...nor do I take one activists words against the word of all the ones I personally know over there. The military is a huge thing, I do not doubt there are a number of jerks, a-holes, and bad apples in it...that does not mean that is the norm.

 

[InLoveWithRon]

There's no "fact" there. Nothing there was "fact". ALL of it is speculation and opinion. That's one of the things that kept me from supporting Ron Paul, people like you that state your OPINIONS as if its absolute fact and acting like anyone that doesn't believe it is an idiot. I respect your opinion, I humbly disagree, and don't see this elaborate conspiracy you see. You spouting off about some conspiracy isn't going to change my mind on it..

Everything I stated is fact.. I have so much concrete evidence to support it, it would make your head spin 1000 times..

It is a fact that the same people who are affiliated with the federal reserve opened central banks in Afghanistan and Iraq to control their economies.. it is a concrete fact, it cannot be denied.. it is a concrete fact that the only countries who don't employ the same central banks in the world presently are Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba.. All considered the biggest enemies of the US

I can shoot 100 links minimum, with factual evidence supporting this..

I can also supply concrete evidence that in 1997, the US (namely Exxon oil run by Rockefeller) was in negotiaitons with the taliban in 1997 (and 98) to build an oil pipeline through afghanistan to the caspian sea.. This was because Exxon found oil to the north of Afghanistan, and needed a pipeline to run through afghanistan to secure it.. These negotiations were fronted by Colin Powell..

And i can also give you unequivocable evidence that a week after the taliban rejected the pipeline deal in 1997 (because the taliban felt they were being ripped off and wanted a bigger cut), the US and Britain ran news stories (just a week after the deal fell through) claiming the taliban were terrorists all of a sudden and needed to be apprehended..

Coincidence huh ? As soon as the US doesn't get the oil pipeline deal they want, they fabricate a story around the globe that the taliban are all of a sudden a threat to the world and are a terrorist organization.. These are facts buddy.. You can claim whatever you want, but these facts cannot be denied.. Unless you are in denial of the truth.

 

[Catatonic]

I believe we will have more trouble, in the present and definitely 5-10 years down the line, by up and abandoning them where they're at right now than investing a bit more time in it with an administration willing to let the General decide what's best, step out of it completely, and just make it known to them that they want it wrapped up FAST. Let the administration focus on the pressure of the Iraqi government.

I think a strategy change is needed, but I don't agree with pulling out immedietely or in any shape or form setting a public deadline.

The blowback in regards to Iraq is going to be coming at this point either way. I don't think another year or two of us there is goign to make a gigantic difference in the amount of blowback. Nothing that's been linked to me by ron paul supporters has changed my mind on that.

And I'm sorry, the numerous soliders I personally know that have been over there and tell me a COMPLETELY different story than the handful of ones that are saying these things weigh more to me.




There's no "fact" there. Nothing there was "fact". ALL of it is speculation and opinion. That's one of the things that kept me from supporting Ron Paul, people like you that state your OPINIONS as if its absolute fact and acting like anyone that doesn't believe it is an idiot. I respect your opinion, I humbly disagree, and don't see this elaborate conspiracy you see. You spouting off about some conspiracy isn't going to change my mind on it.



Oh I don't know...because me, and anyone else for that matter, may not follow lock step in your personal beliefs and opinions that this is just a war "in the name of a few elite rich men getting more rich".



Because a single guy, who is an activist, accounts of it with a particular squad does not constitute that its the 100% truth of everyone...or the majority...of what's going on over there...nor do I take one activists words against the word of all the ones I personally know over there. The military is a huge thing, I do not doubt there are a number of jerks, a-holes, and bad apples in it...that does not mean that is the norm.

You believe we should continue to occupy a soverign nation, against their will and to their detriment, for our own good?

 

[Todd]

Where did Outsider Joe go??? After everyone was so polite and receptive to answer "debate" an honest assessment of his guy. Our debate with him was more fair than our guys gotten from the McCain establishment.

 

[mahopaul]

Well, my friend, its time for a little straight talk. If you have concerns about my conservative record, just ask my conservative friends Feingold, Kennedy, Lieberman, and Clinton. Also I've recently been endorsed by known conservatives Schwarzenegger and Giuliani.

As far as the economy, I've got Greenspan's book. He had some good ideas, but we should take them a little further. I would like to see Bernake set interest rates at zero.

And I'm not mentally unstable.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

Here's some straight talk for ya, Ron Paul's chances are slim to none. He likely won't win any states on Super Tuesday. They're talking about Maine, but I doubt it. Even if he did win Maine, big deal as McCain will probably win California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, and a host of others. Huckabee is strong in the south east, Romney in the mountain west. Ron Paul will not be the next President of the United States. It certainly looks as though McCain will be the nominee so you'll have someone to support. But I doubt he beats Obama as people are ready for a change, not another George W. Bush. If he's against Hillary, it could be interesting though. It's hard to estimate how many independents would vote McCain just because they hate Hillary. I'd say at this point, either Hillary or Obama will be the next President. McCain has the next best chance, then Romney, then Huckabee, then Ron Paul.