Has Ron Paul reached you yet?

Has Ron Paul reached you yet?

  • Total voters
    105
Pardalis said:


even funnier:

Click to expand...

If Ron Paul is taking even money bets on his election, I REALLY, REALLY want him to reach me. Seriously, if anyone knows Ron Paul and can put me directly in touch with him and his bank account, I want a big chunk of that action.

I do not like George Stephanapolis and I do not want him getting rich on this by himself.
 
davefoc said:
4. Mostly the anti-Paul derision is just done to annoy ronpaulisright and doesn't actually reflect the views of the deriders.
Click to expand...
That is correct. Ron Paul's goals are things that pretty much anyone would agree to. The problem is that he hasn't demonstrated any workable plan for acheiving those goals. He'd have a lot more credibility with me though if he'd come out and tell his CT followers that he is not a CT believer. If he is afraid to offend his loon constituency, then I have a hard time supporting him.
 
Ron Paul was a nut job whose supporters provided us with some amusement, for awhile. At this point, he's been forgotten by everyone, except for some of his more devout followers like RPiR, who still rally for him on the Internet.

I don't dislike Ron because of his supporters, or the idea that "he can't win".
I dislike him based on his policies, outlined so well in this series of articles:

The Ron Paul Experience

I urge RPiR to read the whole thing, or at least skim it.
In short, Ron Paul is anti-choice, racist, anti-immigration, opposes gay rights, against church-state separation, etc. etc. Also, his ideas about the Gold Standard and eliminating the IRS are ludicrous.
That's why he hasn't "reached me", and likely never will.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
I don't dislike Ron because of ... the idea that "he can't win".
Click to expand...
Just to clarify. I'm not arguing that the fact he can't win should have anything to do with our liking or disliking of Paul. I just don't get all of these threads and discussions of Paul when in reality the guy just doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. There is no plausible scenario for a Ron Paul win. It just isn't there.
 
applecorped said:
I thought Ru Paul was a drag queen.
Click to expand...

Remember that time Ron Paul and Milton Berle were giving some award at a show once, and they started fighting, and Ron Paul mocked Milton Berle for wearing diapers, and Milton Berle took out his teeth and bit Ron Paul in the nuts with them? That was awesome. I think if Ron Paul was to do that to Milton Berle, live on television, I'd vote for him.
 
RandFan said:
Just to clarify. I'm not arguing that the fact he can't win should have anything to do with our liking or disliking of Paul. I just don't get all of these threads and discussions of Paul when in reality the guy just doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. There is no plausible scenario for a Ron Paul win. It just isn't there.
Click to expand...

Sorry, RandFan. The politicians I vote for are usually third party or independent, so I have to hear the "he can't win" argument all the time.

The majority of the discussions I've heard about Paul, both on the Internet and off, have been about his viability as a candidate, not his odious ideology. He should be attacked based on his views, not on whether or not he can win.

The question voters should ask of any candidate is not "Can they win?", but "Should they win?" I think in Paul's case the answer is a resounding NO.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Sorry, RandFan. The politicians I vote for are usually third party or independent, so I have to hear the "he can't win" argument all the time.

The majority of the discussions I've heard about Paul, both on the Internet and off, have been about his viability as a candidate, not his odious ideology. He should be attacked based on his views, not on whether or not he can win.

The question voters should ask of any candidate is not "Can they win?", but "Should they win?" I think in Paul's case the answer is a resounding NO.
Click to expand...

I agree with your premise. I disagree with your conclusion, yet that is why we all get to vote. :)


I would venture the guess that 80% of the voters vote for someone that they think can win regardless of their political views.

It is the NY Yankees syndrome. Gotta' root for the presumed winner. It certainly is a sad state.
 
About all RP could accomplish would be dilute the vote for the Republican candidate, the way Nader screws over the Dems.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I agree with your premise. I disagree with your conclusion, yet that is why we all get to vote. :)


I would venture the guess that 80% of the voters vote for someone that they think can win regardless of their political views.

It is the NY Yankees syndrome. Gotta' root for the presumed winner. It certainly is a sad state.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of on the fence about the whole thing.
On the one hand, I think We Are Change and 9/11 TM are "false activism" and a total waste of time. On the other hand, if the 911 deniers and other conspiracy theorists start supporting candidates, they're likely to pick one as crazy as they are. So, while I think that everyone should support candidates that reflect their ideas, the 911 deniers are going to support somebody that's dangerous to the US.

Perhaps there's some young person who was apathetic about voting, but got caught up in the 9-11 TM. From there, they got into the Ron Paul campaign. Maybe, in a few years, that person's obsession with concrete cores and invisible planes begins to wane, and he or she goes from the Paul campaign to registering as a Libertarian.

This (not unlikely) chain of events shows how even the 9-11 TM can indirectly have a positive effect on someone's civic life. (Provided, of course, the conspiratorial mode of thinking is only a phase.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom