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

the american sheople have been brainwashed and conditioned that we elect these people and put them in office.many sheople posters here just dont get it that our votes dont matter.

that the establishment selects whoever they want to be their new puppet to do their bidding and they get elected.

as was the case with Bushwacker,they were pleased with the atrocities Obummer committed aginst the american people so they made sure he got reelected.

thats why they sabotoged ron pauls campaine and change the rules at the RNC convention to make sure Romney their other establishment boy,got the republican nomination and rigged the ohio vote for him to be the nominee.as long as him or Obama was president they did not care.

there was never a shread of doubt for me that Obama would get relected because of above reasons.Its the same story and script over and over again.wake the hell up already and deal with it,you do not put these people in office.the Globalists do.


someone like ron paul or gary johnson will never have a prayer of being president because they believe in the constituion and serving the people instead of wall street and the zionists jews.wake up already!!!!!!!!!

 

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

Actually, he's a libertarian radical that doesn't conform to Republican or Democrat ideals and the America people, not the 'elite', did not want him.

 

Bit more complicated than that. The American democratic system forces parties toward the center, where the majority of the votes are. If you should stray from the center, you lose votes, and elections.

It's simply not possible to be anything other than an establishment hack and get elected, regardless of what the people think. They can shift where the center is, but not by much.

 

Please educate me , wasn't Bush radical right? isn't tea party a group of radicals ?
You would say that the legislation of the last 15 years is towards conserving things or changing everything?

Note: i am not well versed into American matters and those are genuine questions, i am not trying to be a smartbutt .

 

Seemingly everyone is against Bush, but he wasn't actually that much different than Clinton, his father, or Reagan. The differences are minor, while the similarities are significant.

As with Reagan's, Bush's tax cuts were illusions. Taxation is irrelevant because spending must be accounted for eventually. All the tax cuts do is push the tax collection back to subsequent generations so long as spending continues, and it most certainly did.


On the civil liberties front, pretty much any President you've had in the past 40 years would have had the same reaction. Politicians use policies to get elected, they aren't elected to enact policies. At the time he had 90%+ approval and near unlimited power. No man can resist such a temptation.


Make a careful examination of Bush's policies and Obama's. Ignore what they say, focus on what they do. They only differ on the small stuff. Heck, Obama increased military spending for a while there, now he's reduced it trivially.

The trend has been, as always, toward the preservation of power. The Republicans don't want to keep things as they were following the revolution; if they did they'd advocate the repeal of the income tax amendment, remove legislation of immigration, move back to a system where the states actually had power and weren't just puppets for the Federal government, etc. Instead they want modest 5% reductions in some taxes, to create a police state around immigration, and to crush any resistance to their agenda at the state level (although they're happy to use states rights as a bargaining chip when the Democrats are in power).


Your founders made a grave mistake by establishing a system of government designed around the separation of powers and the limiting of executive authority - they forgot that the state inevitably ignores these restrictions, given time, and that a system of higher law is only enforced so long as the government feels it should be. They had such a golden opportunity that we'll never see again to finally do away with state coercion, but over time their United States have become far more abhorrent than the Britain they were fighting against.

 

Yep. Men of integrity who will stand up to these criminals, such as JFK and Paul Wellstone, end up in an early grave.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking for the American people now? I for one would much rather have Johnson or Paul in office than any of the ego-maniacal, two-faced criminals who find their way into the White House through the two parties time and again.

 

What is so radical about being on the side of liberty? If you watched the sham of a convention, it is clear the elites did not want Ron Paul. Why should one conform to any party? I would rather someone stand for liberty than conform to a party, especially a party supporting bloated government.

 

It's interesting, because most Americans would prefer someone other that the establishment Republican and Democratic candidates, but the electoral process effectively predetermines who will be the front runners.

Imagine if Gary Johnson was the Libertarian candidate, and Romney the Libertarian Party's. Overnight Johnson would go from 1% of the vote to a majority/not far off it. Why? Because elections determine votes, votes don't decide elections.

People are too susceptible to strategic voting. Most people have a sub-20% approval rating of Congress, yet incumbents have a 90% reelection rate. The entire state apparatus is at fault. It can't be fixed with electoral reform as the progressives desire - if you make elections publicly financed then corporations and wealthy individuals will just run "independent" ads. Are you going to take away their freedom of speech?

The electoral process is like the death penalty. In any situation where it works it violates the rights of citizens, but to have it protect these rights it's horribly impractical and not representative of the public, nor liberty.

 

The American people didn't want Ron Paul. He won a straw poll in ohio because bus-loads of his supporters (fans) were shipped in to vote. That sham could only be kept up for so long and Paul lost pretty much everything after that.

I agree that the Republican delegates, representing the American voters, didn't want Ron Paul. He's too radical with his conspiracies extremist talk about imaginary threats to liberty.

Rand Paul is even more of a conspiracy theorist and he also supports extremism.

 

Ron Paul did not get elected because he couldn't muster enough popular support for his positions.

Deal with it.

 

And yet, Democrats and the electorate voted twice for a nihilistic extremist who is fond of "redistribution" and pledged to "fundamentally transform the United States of America".

The truth is, "progressives" (socialists) have pushed the Democratic party further towards the socialist fringe since the 1960s. In response, the Republican party is beginning to experience a similar push from TEA Partiers, Libertarians and other conservatives. The political and ideological polarization one constantly hears about in this country is a reflection of the parties' moves away from, not towards, the center.

 

this coming from someone whos sig says-DEMAND NEW WORLD ORDER,GOVERNMENTS KEEP US SAFE.

you just advertised it right there your boss is getting worried the truth is getting out with this thread.nice job.

 

yeah thats why the RNC sabatoged his campaine at the RNC convention changing the rules at the last second which sabotoged his campaine.yep no conspiracy by the government to keep him out of the white house there. YOU need to deal with THAT.


you government apologists ignore that FACT everytime and wont read it so i dont know why I even bother posting it since it goes ignored EVERY SINGLE TIME.

 

Paul had already lost the Republican primary by the time the RNC took place. You need to deal with that and the fact that Paul couldn't rally enough support behind himself and his positions to win the primaries.

Hilarious - when confronted with the inconvenient fact that Paul couldn't generate sufficient support for himself and his positions amongst the electorate you bleat "government apologists". Not only is that completely illogical, it's totally pathetic.

The only person indulging in apologetics around here is yourself, Troofer. Ron Paul and his followers are solely responsible for their inability to convince voters of the merits of his personal leadership and their Libertarian values and policy positions. Instead of lamely blaming everyone but the parties responsible for their own failures and shortcomings, do something about it, like do a better job of explaining and selling your ideas to the public and producing better candidates. Whining and displacing never got anyone anywhere.

 

Wrong. Paul did not get elected because he was not even selected by the GOP as their nominee. Pauls ideas, some of which are good did appeal to some Repubs, Indces and Dems but some of his other ideas such as the gold standard and his ideas on the use of the military and isolationism turned off most voters. Most voters did not really know much about him and considered him as more of a funny old man but not Presidential material. I like the man as a person but as an Inde I simply could not vote for someone that I felt would do more harm than good and that is if he could even get anything done. He was not supported by the majority of Republicans and he would have not gotten much help from the Dems so he would have been a lameduck President from day 1. I would also remind you that in the decades Paul was in Washington he no accomplishments of any note. Nope the People did not buy into Pauls ideas and after trying to get the nomination on numerous occasions he finally got the message, we hope.

 

The government needs more funding.

 

[video=youtube;f2O248VaDpA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2O248VaDpA[/video]

 

I know the purpose of this thread is just more self convincing, but I thought I'd pop in to tell you that the premise is bollocks.

Ron Paul was not held back by the establishment or by elite shadowy figures. He was held back because he's a fringe candidate. It's not the media that makes him a fringe candidate, or those elite shadowy figures, it's his positions on things. He's a radical. You can argue whether or not his stance on things is right or wrong, but that doesn't actually matter, because right or wrong, his positions put him on the outskirts of moderate, which many Americans are, even most Republicans.

So I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Ron Paul was going to lose either way. Since you're prone to conspiracy theories, I'm sure that makes accepting this fact hard if not impossible, but luckily, truth is not defined by one's ability to accept it.

 

That includes RP. 'He' (team and financers) tried to cause a revolution, had the opportunity to speak via the media and the symbolism used shows you he's (his son too) clearly yet another speaker/servant for the elite (all media and all politicians are one and the same, the propaganda war against the people's minds, and all the changes increased over the past decade after 9/11 is huge. Tyranny, never done so big (needed to get control over a big country) , biggest media system ever, biggest political system (three main parties) and maximum number of organziations (and the financial/capitalistic system is huge too, thats the motor behind all these systems, because who has the most capital has the most control over branches and persons working in these branches, so lots if power)

You have to look at German politics 1930s and look what voting did (why did the German people kept voting on and on and couldn't see a revolution was taking place? Even Hitler's screaming voice didn't wake them up, the psychological warfare and propaganda worked) In this time thats backed that by trying to cause a revolt or revolution in the masses by years of fear mongering and a maximum amount of changes and problems that cause many people to resist and fight politically. That people are revolutionized is a big problem (lots can't see they are, they even can't see that while holding revolutionary signs and protest. Whats wrong with them? Nothing, they believe what they do is the right thing, but it isn't, they can't see they are revolutionized, means they are resisting/fighting while before 9/11 they didn't (because 9/11 caused a shock through the masses, weeks of images of terror has cause the psychological change in the minds of billions world wide (danger means that a person's defence is increasing, and politics clearly have used that, because everywere in the world parties gained in strenght, getting higher numbers of votes on singles parties, what happened in Norway is the most clear example, not long after Breivik's attacks there were elections and one party gained a amount of votes never seen before in Norway's political history), because all this is occuring in this post 9/11 era)

 

Please share an example of what you mean.

 

Here are several:

 

Nah, I didn't mean the old man, I get him, I meant Rand.

 

Good to see you are not living in denial on this Right wing and can understand this.I spelled it out dummies style for them but I know from experience,people on the NET are too ignorant to admit when they have been proven wrong since they can hide behind the computer.they know in the REAL world,they would be laughed out of a debating hall if they ignored this fact lile they do.

I spelled it out to them dummies style in the opening post that we dont elect our leaders,that they are selected for us but they ignored it since they are afraid of the truth.

The did not care if Obama got relected or Romney was the new president because they are both CFR members here to serve wall street and the establishment and neither believe in the constitution which is why they made sure Romney got the republican nomination when he stole the Ohio primarys from Paul.thats all been documented.to deny otherwise is being a troll.

The establishemnt did not care if Obama goe reelected or if Romney became the new POTUS since again they are CFR members,a group that considers all of us enimies since are not rich and powerful like they are.

They did the same thing with Ross Perot in 92.The establishment made sure he did not get elected either.They did not care if Bush sr got reelected or if it was Clinton because AGAIN,they like obama and Romney,are CFR members.You cant become POTUS if you are not a member of the council on foreign relations. the ones that dont thank me for this post and come on and post ignoring these facts changing the subject to try and save face are living in denial.

 

speaking of Rand,I dont want to see him ever become POTUS.He sold out his father saying he would endorce Romney.something paul like the true patriot he is,refused to do and stuck to his guns are.

Rand is a sellout to the american people just like Obama and Romney.I love the fools who come on here and said they wanted Romney to win the election and said Obamacare sucks showing their ignorance that Romney was one of the first people to sign obamacare.