Ron Paul simple did not get elected because the elite did not want him .deal with it.

Care to elaborate?

 

Politicians cannot get elected without the contributions from the elite since it requires big funding in order for the politician's name to be brainwashed repeatedly into the public mind to get their votes come election day. The elite is made of CEO's of corporations, paid for lobbyist to do their bidding, and other rich people that pay to get new laws on the books or changes to existing ones by funding their chosen candidate.

Ron Paul couldn't or wouldn't bend to the conditions of funding from the elite that it takes to get elected.

 

There are two basic kinds of political contributions.
The first is ideologically based, these people give money to a candidate because they like the positions that candidate takes, this is really the only kind of money that Ron Paul received.
The second kind of contribution is an "investment", this is money donated to the candidate that the donor believes will win the election, the goal is to have some influence on the officeholder, and some increased access. This money went to Obama and to Romney, no one believed that Ron Paul was going to win.
This is a substantial amount of money, Obama's fund raising was boosted considerably by this money, which previously had benefited Republicans in the Bush campaign, this money largely avoided McCain, as he really never was much of a threat, Romney got some of this, but the election was never that much in doubt that Romney could out raise Obama for this segment of the market.

 

Make a list of candidates who stated they were anti Big Money.
Dennis Kucinich
Ron Paul
Buddy Roemer
Gary Anderson
And what you have is a list of branded "nuts".
Very little primary news or debate participation. Remember Ron Paul getting a whole three minutes in a 2 hour debate?
They are bombed with commentary and editorials and links to unsavory types who support them.

Big Money is running the show. That's how we ended up with a RepubloCratic Party with a Democratic and Republican wing. Although they sell a different bill of goods, they end up functioning the same.
Money & tax breaks for the rich. What difference would this or that ObamNey really make? Tax Breaks for Wall St. vs Bernanke Dollars for Wall St. is the same on "us". We pay for it and Wall St. gets wealthier, we get poorer. The Clinton Recovery, the Bush Presidency, The Obama Recovery have all left us poorer while the wealthy have gotten wealthier by 34% says one article I read.

Watch what happens to the anti Big Money candidates and remember, They Shot Huey Long too.
It is an old game in American politics.
Traditionally, third parties have busted up this game but, today everyone is convinced they are throwing away a vote to vote for a third party. I say that a Third Party vote is more potent because enough votes creates a wedge between the two parties when they have become too similar. Remember, the wrong RepubloCrat cannot get elected. Either one will make us pay for their friends getting wealthier. There was no wrong ObamNey. Get it?

Moi
Populist

 

Sure, a Paul Presidency would disassemble much of the US political/economic/social infrastructure that's been built since the Civil War, which is why most people - elite and non-elite - wouldn't want it. By now, most people have an interest in the continuity of the system, not only the elite.

 

Y'all should know that I never met bobov, being 3K miles away, but I did save his life in an emergency medical situation.
That we have a history is now shared, know:
The above quote is like those who have been indoctrinated by the corporations to believe the Plutocracy's message.
Tax cuts and more wealth for the "Job Creators" benefits all of us.
This disassembly would have placed programs where they belong. As Dr. Paul pointed out, no one went without, it just wasn't Federal.
This disassembly is the parroting of commentary and editorials and not from primary Ron Paul sources. True
Consider my Great State of California had a great indigent medical care system until Fed MediCaid required semi private rooms in any hospital drastically increasing the hospital costs of indigent medical care while not effecting quality.

Thank YOU friend Bobov for proving my point about media killing off any anti Big Money candidates with a "Nuts" branding and continuous misrepresentation bombing.

Moi
Populist

 

like ron paul's money bombs

 

Who is this guy Moi? Just because he saved my life and is a cherished friend, he thinks I'll be his straight man as he fobs off his theory of "it's all the same, at least until the Second Coming" on an unsuspecting populace!

Non-voters all tell themselves "Democrat? Republican? They're all the same, so why should I vote? They're all out to screw little guys like me." This is the unmotivated uninspired passivity that assures the continuation of the established order. The elites rely on it.

If Ron Paul believed that voters' choices made no difference, he wouldn't have pursued a career in politics. His son Rand has done the same. They obviously see the possibility of positive change.

Now some will say the Pauls efforts are futile, since a President Paul could not reverse over a century of accumulated government intrusion overnight. But Obama's supporters also expected him to transform the country instantly by edict. That's the very totalitarian mindset we want to erase. Only the people can transform American culture. The leaders they elect merely reflect the people's preferences. They can expedite the realization of those preferences, but freedom can not be a gift. The people must take it. The genius of the left has been to hand out ever more goodies, habituating the people to dependency. Paulists ask the people to kick their addiction cold turkey, and that's a hard sell. So it's no surprise that the electoral battle is tough and that Paulists are ridiculed.

Politics aside, there are fundamental laws of economics. Certain policies help capital form, business grow, jobs grow, and the nation prosper. These policies are no respecters of party or creed. They go as far back as Alexander Hamilton, and farther. Democrats and Republicans, no matter how their vision is distorted by political expediency and ideology, must have some intuition of economic law. Even Obama needs business like a dairy farmer needs his milk cows. So it's to be expected that Democratic and Republican economic practice will sometimes converge, though their nominal policies be opposed. My friend Moi sees a dreadful conspiracy in this. I say only that reason occasionally trumps party.

 

Any corporate supported Money Bombs where "mini", compared to those of ObamNey and friends. Si ?
I would bet a higher % of "Money Bombs" came from the pockets of the 99% then similar spending by ObamNey and friends.
With limited resources compared to the candidates of, for and by the monied, the Paul campaign referred to an extra campaign spending effort as a "money bomb". Sounds unusually honest to me. Eh?

Please elaborate on your upload if I missed the message. Which is entirely possible if not plausible.

Moi
Populist

 

of course ron paul is a miserable failure

naiveté isn't something to brag about

 

In which people VOLUNTARILY donate.

 

because ron paul panders to their fantasies

google: outreach to rednecks

 

While the other candidates did no such thing? You didn't see racist groups in support for Obama or Romney? They made a huge deal out of some petty comments made in the past that are true (Because all forms of racism that are vocal are bad even though every person can just as easily be racist in their general dealing with other people!) and they never focused on the other candidates for their comments. Though honesty doesn't run with them anyways so you probably wouldn't catch a single word leaving their mouth without an aide and/or a script telling them what to say at all times.

 

dujac........

Obama would never had gotten anywherewith the press RP was getting.

 

what a joke

so many excuses, so few votes

show me obama or romney's racist newsletters

here's ron paul's



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 inefficiencies 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.”

http://therightscoop.com/proof-that-ron-paul-wrote-his-newsletters/

 

First things first. I searched this...google: corporations are people

 

Dujac, are those the same letters people accused Ron Paul of writing, then accused Lew Rockwell of writing, then ignored the fact there were many ghost writers hired at the time and Paul and Rockwell have denounced the newsletters, yet they keep coming up as fear mongering tactics with accusations of racism along the lines of the Democrats saying if a Republican gets elected another black church will burn?

 

dujac:

He doubled the number of his voters in 4 years. Could Obama top that with a press that is hostile toward him.

 

Everyone is "racist" even though I prefer the word discriminatory considering we're all Humans. You value your culture and beliefs above certain others... you may even give someone who looks different or a particular crowd a second glance because of how they look. When you go a metal concert you should expect to see dudes with long hair and mosh pits. When it comes to talking about black men they're known to be the fastest and they're biologically superior to that of other humans when it comes to speed. So how is it "racist" to point out something factual?

Also to clarify upon Romney... He had plenty of Anti-Black supporters voting for him and outside of polls so a Black President would never come to pass. For Obama he had similar groups that have been known to be "racist" outside of polls and voting for him based upon his skin color. You can have them vote for you, make incendiary remarks and sit out in front of polling stations to intimidate... just don't let the newsletters of other authors be submitted in your paper because of kneejerk reactions from language control freaks.

 

I'm a Libertarian and I really liked what Ron Paul stood for. He was a far better choice than Obama, and I didn't care for Romney a whole lot. I usually vote Republican, because I will never vote for a liberal. Clinton was the last Democrat I voted for.

 

dujac
Did you ever listen or read any primary Paul?
I do not mean stuff written by alleged supporters.
I do not mean editorials or commentary from the Big Money serving media that brands all anti Big Money candidates, "Nuts".
I find nothing in your discussion about Ron Paul, M.D. that indicates you have at least educated yourself from a primary source before criticizing.

I listened to Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Romney, Perry, etc. and not one had the same message as Dr. Paul as much as their messages overlapped.
Although I liked what I heard from Obama in '08, he lied to me and I will not trust his words, only his deeds which are dismal.

Specifically, please, - what policy of Ron Paul, M.D. do you disagree?
Discussing something with someone who has an opposing opinion is fun,
if they are not applying trite, hackneyed or untrue arguments in broad statements.

Best Wishes. Looking forward to a thoughtful upload from you in reply. Or not.

Moi
Populist

 

It largely does not matter.

Ron Paul is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian. He left the Republican party earlier for this reason, their philosophies are in many ways opposite of each other. He rejoined the Republicans because he thought that would be the best way to become President, since no minor party candidate has been elected President in over 150 years.

He never had a chance, no more then Ralph Nader, Jessie Jackson, George Wallace, Joe Cox, Jack Fellure, or any of the other fringe candidates that tried to run in a Democrat or Republican primary.

The biggest problem with the Paulites is that they tend to fail to recognize that they are fringies themselves, supporting a fringe candidate. For some reason they try to think of themselves as "mainstream", and they are not.

 

He had several goals while he ran for President... One was to win the Presidency and the second being to change/open the minds of the people. It was laughably noticeable when the media demonized him at every possible moment because of the ideas he was presenting to the world. Calling him "fringe" is by far a compliment considering mainstream of today are politicians such as McCain, Obama, Bush and various other scumbags. I'd rather be considered fringe when the mainstream thought of today of sacrificing/murdering people for economic benefit is considered a good thing.

 

I was not talking about him as much as his supporters. They all try to portray themselves as "mainstream", but most are on the far fringe, others are kooks and loonies. And there is no denying that when you are on the outside looking in.

 

ron paul lost every state primary election

obama won

i first saw ron paul speak in dallas nearly 40 years ago, signed up for his newsletters and have followed his miserable career ever since

nothing there