The reason Ron Paul wont get elected

the government is of the corporations and by the corporations,you would know that if you did your homework.plus if you love paul like you claim,how can you possibly say he should not get in office in the next election when he is our only hope for the future of the country.not ready for him? please,stop right there.americans everywhere are part of the ron paul revolution.

 

I agree that the government is manipulated A LOT by corporations, but I disagree that it is run by corporations and I don't see any real evidence that it is.
The reason why Ron Paul should not get elected is simple, I want Ron Paul in office because I think that he'll do a lot of positive stuff, but in the short run this positive stuff will have very bad consequences, like if you take a long time heroine junky off of heroine, he's gonna be ****ed up but in the long run he'll live a much healthier life. The problem is that voters don't see the world from the perspective of the loving family that gives the heroine junky tough love and get's him off the stuff, they see it from the point of view of the heroine junky, they feel all of the pain and don't see the reward, so things get worse in the short run and he hates and fights against the people who were trying to help him the most.
In politics this would translate into people then hating everything that Ron Paul stands for and turning in the exact opposite direction, so this is why I don't want Paul to win, because I believe that it would do more harm than good for his own message. It would destroy and hope of liberty in the long run that we have.

 

The president is not king. Even if he did run on opening the borders (which he's not) and removing the minimum wage (which would be irrelevant since states have their own), do you imagine he can just wave his hand and it would be done? Those are congressional actions.

It's called checks and balances, and it is an effective mechanism.

 

I had an instant reply ready, but decided to let it sit for a bit. Good thing, too. Are you saying that Ron Paul may be more effective as a voice for liberty rather than the President that makes it happen? If so, you could be right.

 

Yes I agree with that, but it's not because his policies are wrong or anything it's because people will react badly to it and then they'll hate his message.
Anyway, Ron Paul is definitely a great voice for liberty, if you've seen any of the videos of the crowd's reaction to what he said at the republican debates then it shows how great he is at communicating, and his book was the first book I ever looked at by a politician that made me say "hey this is some good stuff it not only sounds good but it makes sense and it doesn't rely on politicians being smart" instead of either "What the heck is this??" or "Nice words you got there! You're really good at stitching those together and making nice sentences come out!"

 

But it proves he's a nut.

 

What proves he's a nut?? Clarify your pronoun, please.

 

Which book? He's written quite a few.

 

The fact that he wants to get rid of the minimum wage while simultaneously opening the border to just anyone who wants to be here proves he's a nut and we don't want a nut as president whether or not he can make it happened or not. Any moron, who read the thread would've known that is what I meant without me having to explicitly state it since it was the topic of our conversation in the first (*)(*)(*)(*) place.

 

Awareness of fraud is still important to ring in the ears of the masses 911.
The Rage of the masses is important 911

If enough of the masses get fed up, they will start just saying no to compliance. We out number them greatly and they rely on us to bring them their bread.

 

Revolution: A Manifesto. Loved it, I also think that Liberty Defined looks good but I haven't picked it up yet.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/



Even though I don't agree with him on this point he does want much more strict border controls. Anyway, he's not a nut, he's the most consistent and best candidate for president there's been in decades.

 

If you're not going to read my post, please don't post a reply to it.

 

I'm reading the Liberty book now, and bought End the Fed. This Liberty book is something you'll NEVER see an establishment politician do - write a book laying out his stands on 50 of the most controversial political subjects today. It's just too risky for them.

 

Ron Paul does not offer free crap and painless solutions that promise to preserve our standard of living without sacrifice. Those are the only things the majority of people want. They still believe the tooth fairy can deliver them.

 

True, Paul's got balls to be sure.
How's the book?

 

It's nice to read stuff I agree with, though it has made me reassess my stance on the death penalty.

 

He said during the first debate he wanted open borders. He wants anyone who wants to work in America to feel free to come to America to work. And he wants to get rid of the minimum wage. That way businesses can legally pay workers substandard wages for their work and Americans will have to compete for wages that won't pay the rent.

 

You asked a question why do I think Ron Paul is a nut. I replied to that question. How is it I did not read your post?
It was a direct reply to what you said

Just because he can't wave his hands and open the borders and get rid of the minimum wage doesn't change the fact that it is what he wants. And the fact that he wants it proves he's a nut. And the fact that he's a nut is a reason to not nominate him.

(*)(*)(*)(*) dude you have to be led by the nose to water don't you. Some people are capable of stringing things together all by themselves.

 

Paul's got great stuff, he really is amazingly insightful and doesn't just spit of nice sounding crap we learned in highschool like the other politicians. Have you ever read anything by Rothbard?

Citation please

 

Paul said he wanted to open the borders to everyone who wanted to work here during the first debate. I heard it with my own ears from his own mouth. I can't find a link to a transcript or anything from that debate. If you watched it you would know.

in his own book he says he wants open borders, after getting rid of "all" entitlements.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...l-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul

and this is what I mean by when I say open borders.

quoted from his own book.

So maybe our real disagreement is the definition of "open borders."

Let me rephrase my previous quote.
Ron Paul is a nut because he wants to open the borders to anyone who wants to work here while simultaneously getting rid of the minimum wage.

 

Video of all of Ron Paul's answers at New Hampshire debate....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-NM8owJj70"]ALL Of Ron Paul's New Hampshire Debate Answers - YouTube[/ame]



Immigration is mentioned at about the 10 minute mark. No mention of minimum wage at all.

 

Never heard of him. He's in Wiki though.

 

Well I watched Woogs' video of the debate and he didn't say that he wanted open borders, he said he wanted to defend them more than we are now. Indeed he's said many times that he doesn't want open borders.

 

Really good stuff, he helped to influence Ron Paul. I really liked his "For a New Liberty"

 

......WORD......

Ron Paul aint selling (*)(*)(*)(*) idiots are buying.... unfortunantly idiots are what makes up the market place in america