For Ron Paul Voters: Have You Ever Analyzed Paul's Policies with a Magnifying Glass?

I've asked before, LIST all the ways Paul has changed anything. Not talked about it. Actually MADE a change. There is nothing. A long, long career of zero.

If Paul were the Republican candidate, the other side would savage him so bad that there wouldn't be enough left to stain a sidewalk. And you Paulists go batdung over the truthful things I say and I am very much FOR much of what Paul says. Imagine your hysteria when the Democrats have both truth and their ever present lies to slash into Paul's non existent record.

What Paul SAYS is too important to be in the hands of a loser that has never accomplished any of the very important things he TALKS about.

He is simply a career politician that has blinded you with words. ACTION is what is needed, not empty words by a career politician.

 

I think most Paul supporters simply want somebody somehwere to be the un-Mitt AND the un-Barack, and he's as close as it gets. They don't want the real-Paul.

 

There is no right candidate. No candidate that will make left or right dreams come true. Don't know if there ever will be. Right now the best thing available is to get b.o. out of office. Paul is NO answer to anything. As president, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman [ Not in any order] would all ACCOMPLISH more than Paul would.

 

How about you let Paul supporters speak for themselves.

 

Because I like putting words into peoples' mouths as much as the next guy. And because you boys need somebody to speak for you.

 

So you like trolling.

I am quite capable of thinking and speaking for myself. Now run along and troll another thread. Perhaps you might actually contribute to a debate.

And to the OP. Does any person who votes for a candidate know that candidates thoughts and wishes on every topic no matter how minor?

I dont agree on Paul on everything nor do i have to. I do agree with him on most matters and most importantly i trust him when he says something. Its what he actually thinks not what is PC and going to get the most votes.

 

Allowing gold and silver as competing tender would not destroy the earth. I never stated that. You know that I share the sentiments to end the Federal Reserve, I just refuse to endorse Paul's exact approach because I find that it could cause more harm than good.

In terms of abortion and life, I feel that the ability to legislate or rule on matters of life and abortion should be respectively granted to the states. Therefore, to prevent the Federal Court System in favor of one view but not the other still maintains some unconstitutional infringment upon the reserved power.

 

Glass Steagall was gutted in the Reagan admin and ended in Clinton's. Greenspan and Sommers thought it was a good idea to "modernize" the economy. Too big to fail is when investment banks have securities trading companies and the actual "banking" customer becomes a debit machine instead of a client, when insurance companies and banks pay off rating companies (Moody's, Stan. and Poor) and trade unsecured securities and all the time members of Congress mindlessly mouthing the mantra "free trade" while cutting regulation and underfunding the SEC. Yes, Obama hired these guys back, why? Because they know where the bodies are buried. After this is over I would be fine putting all of them in weighted bags and dumping the off over the Marianas Trench.

 

He is for balancing the budget...FAST, bringing all the troops home and closing all the foreign bases, ending military support for all other countries, lowering taxes, helping free enterprise, increasing American's freedoms, reducing the power of the federal government....

...on those alone I think he is BY FAR the best candidate.

I would still be for him if he believed in Martians and practiced safe sex with a table lamp every night.

To expect anyone to know (or care) about EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE POSITION a politician has on EVERY SINGLE THING/IDEA is - no offense - silly (imo).

I want a good politician...not a god.

Just get the basics right...and (for me) Ron Paul does that better then anyone running for POTUS.

 

For the average to above average voter, this is what everyone wants. If you are someone like myself who intends to enter politics/public service, the minute details are important. The ability to address any issue in an intelligent, pragmatic, comprehensive, and realistic manner is key. Therefore, I don't just look at politicians' ideas, but write my own.

 

The problem - as I see it - with politics is that people want the perfect person as their candidate...something the media jumps all over and enhances.

All that has done has excluded almost every dynamic person from politics and replaced them with squeeky-clean ones who have no spine, no guts and just say whatever their handlers tell them to say to get votes.

BY FAR the best way to learn in life (imo) is through mistakes. And today's politics does not allow you to make those...or virtually any.

Running a country is about running a country...not your views on dogs, french fries and the weather.

The basics is ALL that should matter.

Imo, anyone that cares more about the details then the basics in their politicians is a useless voter.

That is why a guy like Romney is probably going to win the nomination...he stands for almost nothing, flip flops whenever it suits him and his skin is made of teflon.

He is a boring, spineless and USELESS politician (unlike Obama who is relatively interesting, spineless and USELESS)...and he will probably be the next POTUS (assuming Obama/Fed do not spend enough taxpayer money to buy the next election)...because that is what the ignorant masses want today.

And that...more then any single other reason (imo)...why America is falling apart.

If you want to just win an election...then brush up on your squeeky clean answers and throw your honor in the garbage.

But if you want to truly help a constituency and not just kick the can down the road...then fine tune your primary goals, take chances and prepare for making mistakes which you should learn from, enhance your common sense and grow a thick skin.

 

So what you are saying is that Ron Paul is not responsible for the mess that we are in and that despite trying with over six hundred bills introduced by him, he could not stop the powers that corrupt. Well, you are right, I suppose. I trust that he tells me the truth, what a new concept that is. I hope with a pulpit like the presidency that he can get some of his ideas implemented. Maybe it will not be too late. Either way, I will not vote for anyone that would be a better used car salesman than president. That is how I feel about all of the rest of them. Now, you vote however you see fit and I will do the same. Good luck if your man wins. Soon you will need a wheelbarrow to buy a loaf of bread.

 

Exactly.

The reason none of his Bills got passed is because they (and he) were unpopular.

Well, if he were elected Prez - that problem would be over and his bills would get passed simply because the voters would want his ideas whereas for years they did not.

I do not understand why reporters ask him how he will get bills passed if he were POTUS when the answer is ridiculously obvious...

...Because he was elected as POTUS and the voters want those bills passed (which is why they elected him as POTUS)...DUH....

 

You know, we live in a day in age where there is no politician for the people unfortunately. I am a RP supporter but the fact of the matter is that all of his policies are NOT great. I guess when we pull the lever or stamp our ballot we just need to weigh the pros and cons and when one who believes in this country being proud and self sufficient and not a welfare state Ron Paul will be your choice.

 

Am I responsible for the mess?

Are you responsible for the mess?

Are politicians responsible for the mess?

Paul is a politician. Anyone that says he is FOR term limits and spends 35 years in Congress, IS a politician.

So are you and I responsible, or are the politicians, including Paul, more responsible.

Or is everyone everywhere forgiven?

The old saying is, "If you're not part of the solution, You ARE part of the problem." I haven't been in Congress, you haven't been in Congress. Paul has. And he has not fixed, ANY, part of the problem. He may have tried as hard as a man can try. That don't fix the wagon.

Are the other Republican candidates better choices to FIX anything? I don't know. But I'm convinced they are much more ELECTABLE. And that is step one to fix the problem. DEFEAT obama. They WILL NOT be worse than b.o

 

Ok i have seen you post many many times that he has served 35 years in congress. Where did you get that idea/number from?

 

Ron Paul has been unable to accomplish much due to the overwhelming momentum behind mainstream media dictating what is or is not conventional political thinking. Leading to the great majority of our public servants standing only for what is popular and telling people what they want to hear.

Furthermore, voting in an election is not like putting a bet on a horse. So when you choose one of the other GOP candidates based on how electable they are, rather than based on whether or not they stand for what you believe in, you are relinquishing your right to look at the facts and make up your own mind.

 

First elected to the House of Representatives in 1976. 2011-1976=35. Left the House to run for the Senate. Got his ass beat by a Democrat that just turned Republican in the primaries. Started a failed business and then got back in the House. He has been in politics 35 years. If he had been in politics for 25 years or 28 years or 30 years and accomplished nothing, would that make a difference?
25 X 0 = 0, same as 35 X 0 = 0.

 

'He has served in Congress three different periods: first from 1976 to 1977, after he won a special election, then from 1979 to 1985 and finally since 1997.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Elections


35 years?

WRONG!

He served 21-22 years in Congress.

You either wildly exaggerated or just had no clue when you said 35 years - which one?

 

The facts ARE, obama must be defeated. An unelectable old man is not the way to accomplish that.

Your FACTS are just opinions, not facts, same as mine. But Paul's record of accomplishing NOTHING is a fact. A fact that allows the other side to make a mockery of him if he were an actual contender. He's not.

 

1976-1977=2 years Time begins the first week of Jan and ends the end of Dec the following year, thus 1976 to 1977 is 2 years not 1. I wonder what else you have no idea about?
1979-1985=8 years
1977-2012=17 years
27 years in the House
1 year, unsuccessfully, running for the Senate.
3 years running RP&A and publishing a POLITICAL NEWSPAPER.
1 YEAR RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT the first time of 3.

So OK, I WAS WRONG, only 27 years in the House accomplishing nothing.

You may lock yourself in the bathroom and enjoy your "victory."

You accomplished something. Paul has not.

 

Well, you admitted it....many would not.


So how was Paul supposed to get his Bills passed when few agreed with his policies and he was VERY unpopular?

 

He wasnt in congress from 76-2011. Failed? He was a practicing doctor!

You cant escape this one. You have been posting a lie for months. Ron Paul has NOT been in Congress for 35 years. Now why would anyone listen to you if you cant get a basic fact right?

 

1976-1977=2 years Time begins the first week of Jan and ends the end of Dec the following year, thus 1976 to 1977 is 2 years not 1. I wonder what else you have no idea about?
1979-1985=8 years
1977-2012=17 years
27 years in the House
1 year, unsuccessfully, running for the Senate.
3 years running RP&A and publishing a POLITICAL NEWSPAPER.
1 YEAR RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT the first time of 3.

So OK, I WAS WRONG, only 27 years in the House accomplishing nothing.

The failed business was an investment advice business. Don't you know anything about your "hero?"

 

Honestly, if he won the nomination, I'd vote for him just for the novelty of it. At this point, we could put a large rock in the white house and it would have about as much impact as a living president. We're (*)(*)(*)(*)ed no matter who we vote for at this point, we might as well let the crazy old man be an obstructionist with a bully pulpit for a year or two until the country collapses.