Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

Memnoch

He doesn't have a hope of being the republican nominee.

FreudianSlippers

He is really blowing up right now. There are many states that couldn't stomach some other the other more mainstream candidates.

He won't win the republican nomination, but he'll do better than you might think. Then probably run as an independent.

Memnoch

It doesn't matter how well he does if he doesn't get the nomination, which he will not, mainly because of his foreign policy views and because he isn't enamoured with the establishment. (The immigration issue was enough to sink Perry).

I don't think he'll run as an independent either. That would ensure Obama's re-election and the GOP wouldn't be too happy about that.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Heisenberg. wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm a Paul supporter and I will be voting for him in the Republican primary (I'm dual citizen; born in Ireland and lived in the states for 10 years and back here again now for a good 8 years.)

I just don't think he has enough widespread support to win the entire nomination - I'd love to be proven wrong!
We'd have to see a pretty serious meltdown from the top-tier candidates to get Paul up that high.

Overheal

He has a radio ad right now that is even making me wonder about my stance on Life/Choice. gosh.

Why aren't we talking about Romney and Perry nearly punching eachother in the face during the CNN debate btw?

matthew8

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm a Paul supporter and I will be voting for him in the Republican primary (I'm dual citizen; born in Ireland and lived in the states for 10 years and back here again now for a good 8 years.)

I just don't think he has enough widespread support to win the entire nomination - I'd love to be proven wrong!
We'd have to see a pretty serious meltdown from the top-tier candidates to get Paul up that high.

Paul's chances are minimal unless something crazy happens, ie a financial collapse or if ows gets anywhere.

jackiebaron

RockinRolla wrote: »

I think the world is worried and define him as the only one on Earth that can change things. If he wins, Earth, as we know it, will change forever with his libertarianism.

Thoughts?

Ron Paul is a useful idiot, a lunatic.

He will cry foul on things like foreign wars and corruption but would step over a dying man who couldn't reach for help.

The only reason Ron Paul hasn't been stitched up in some corruption scandal or had a honey-trap set for him is that he's a distraction, and a good one at that.

He's as useless as tits on a fish.

matthew8

jackiebaron wrote: »

Ron Paul is a useful idiot, a lunatic.

He will cry foul on things like foreign wars and corruption but would step over a dying man who couldn't reach for help.

The only reason Ron Paul hasn't been stitched up in some corruption scandal or had a honey-trap set for him is that he's a distraction, and a good one at that.

He's as useless as tits on a fish.

Do you have ANYTHING to suggest that he is corrupt or that he, a doctor, would just let someone die? Or are you just touting nonsense? Slanderous

SupaNova

jackiebaron wrote: »

Ron Paul is a useful idiot, a lunatic.

Can we hear your reasons for this belief?

He will cry foul on things like foreign wars and corruption but would step over a dying man who couldn't reach for help.

Reasons for believing this?

The only reason Ron Paul hasn't been stitched up in some corruption scandal or had a honey-trap set for him is that he's a distraction, and a good one at that.

Ron Paul's focus on foreign, monetary and fiscal policy are a good distraction how exactly?

He's as useless as tits on a fish

You will have to tell us why or how if you want your comments to be any more useful than tits on a fish.

Athlone_Bhoy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

He is really blowing up right now. There are many states that couldn't stomach some other the other more mainstream candidates.

He won't win the republican nomination, but he'll do better than you might think. Then probably run as an independent.

He won't run as a independent unfortunately.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

When you say liberal in a US context, what I'd usually associate with the the Democratic/Liberal type which advocate large scale intervention in the economic sphere/social sphere. As for conservatives, as one, guilty on the "traditional family values" part, but classic conservatives would share with libertarians the emphasis on a light laissez-faire economic freedom, hoping that traditional values creates a community which temper market forces by imposing a sense of moral obligation to others.

ciarriaithuaidh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Couldn't agree more. He spoke more sense in that brief clip heisenberg posted than all the other candidates combined (Romney excluded) will muster in their entire campaigns. Of course he gets booed at nomination debates when he utters such words.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

ciarriaithuaidh

Heisenberg. wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

:rolleyes: Big Bad Bill eh? What a spoofer. The Fox News club really despise Paul don't they?

Tiocfaidh Armani

Heisenberg. wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I lean to the left but I do empathise with Ron Paul, he's a decent guy who holds very brave opinions on foreign policy and isn't afraid to air them, which no doubt loses him support. But his supporters do seem slightly cult-like and do tend to flood these sort of polls that aren't scientific.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Heisenberg. wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know what you’re saying but they have a massive online presence, more so than any other candidate and they do flood these polls, which kinda takes away from the reality of who is going to win. That said, he’s been a general front-runner but you wouldn’t know it because he’s been ignored, even by Fox News because they don’t subscribe to his foreign policy ideas. It’s pretty shameful.

The Mad Hatter

In fairness, Bill O'Reilly sees Bill O'Reilly's opinions as sacrosanct truth. If anything disagrees with him - polls, scientific studies, better informed people in their field - he'll find a way to dismiss or disqualify them.

Tiocfaidh Armani

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

In fairness, Bill O'Reilly sees Bill O'Reilly's opinions as sacrosanct truth. If anything disagrees with him - polls, scientific studies, better informed people in their field - he'll find a way to dismiss or disqualify them.

For some reason I sometimes watch him and he never lets people talk. It's all about him, but I suppose people who have his view like him and only wanna hear it. He can be reasonable on his day but largely it's all about him.

steelcityblues

Anyone who still believes the establishment don't fear him, should take note that CBS only allocated him 90 secs to speak in a 1 hour debate.

What is worse, is that the others got plenty of time to put over there waterboarding fetish. It is up to ordinary GOP members to see through these fakes. Now or never.

Tiocfaidh Armani

steelcityblues wrote: »

Anyone who still believes the establishment don't fear him, should take note that CBS only allocated him 90 secs to speak in a 1 hour debate.

What is worse, is that the others got plenty of time to put over there waterboarding fetish. It is up to ordinary GOP members to see through these fakes. Now or never.

I was reading an article in an Irish paper recently that said all the candidates supported military action against Iran. Now something tells me Ron Paul doesn’t and they probably never asked him. I never seen the debate, can anyone shed any light on that?

InTheTrees

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

In fairness, Bill O'Reilly sees Bill O'Reilly's opinions as sacrosanct truth. If anything disagrees with him - polls, scientific studies, better informed people in their field - he'll find a way to dismiss or disqualify them.

Scary.

He has a book out about Lincoln that is so riddled with inaccuracies that the Lincoln museum has banned it from their gift shop.

But its on the new york times best seller list...

:mad:

steelcityblues

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I was reading an article in an Irish paper recently that said all the candidates supported military action against Iran. Now something tells me Ron Paul doesn’t and they probably never aske
d him. I never seen the debate, can anyone shed any light on that?

He has stated before that he believes the threat form Iran is grossly exaggerated. If there was an attack, it is up to Israel to fight back, without US interference. After all, he is a foreign policy isolationist.

Tiocfaidh Armani

steelcityblues wrote: »

He has stated before that he believes the threat form Iran is grossly exaggerated. If there was an attack, it is up to Israel to fight back, without US interference. After all, he is a foreign policy isolationist.

I knew he would have said something like that. Sure North Korea have admitted developing them and already threatened a pre-emptive attack on the US and nothing do there? No threat of war etc but then they have no oil.

While I'm not conservative I do admire Mr. Paul's stance. It's a brave one that loses him so much support but he stands by it. Israel is a military superpower almost, they can more than defend themselves and he's spot on, again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

I knew he would have said something like that. Sure North Korea have admitted developing them and already threatened a pre-emptive attack on the US and nothing do there? No threat of war etc but then they have no oil.

Its not just oil, a possible reason nobody stirs things with N. Korea is because they might actually have nuclear weapons. Ron Paul often brings up the fact Russia had nuclear weapons, and their was no need or call for a pre-emptive attack there. It makes a lot of sense not to attack a country with nuclear capability. And for a country like Iran it sure as hell makes sense to try and gain nuclear capability, as it would serve as a deterrent to nations considering such pre-emptive action.

eire4

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

In fairness, Bill O'Reilly sees Bill O'Reilly's opinions as sacrosanct truth. If anything disagrees with him - polls, scientific studies, better informed people in their field - he'll find a way to dismiss or disqualify them.

That is a pretty accurate reading of O'Reilly. On the rare shows when a guest actually challenges him he can turn into a bit of a blustering bully with the guest too.

phatrat1982

I am not so convinced Paul can't win the white house anymore. A lot of people are starting to listen to his message and even though I disagree with him on several issues I would prefer Ron Paul over Obama any day. The truth is Paul has a better shot at Vice President than President which would be his foot in the door for president so what he should do is stick to the message but team up with a front runner early on and find supporters to back him as a running mate to the front runner if he can't pull ahead.


I live in Nebraska this election cycle and I have spoken personally with a lot of Ron Paul supporters and since this is as anti Democrat a state as they come you can bet that if he can get his message to resonate here it will resonate with other Republicans and conservatives too.

I personally am rooting for Gingrich myself but I could throw my support to Paul if it looked like he had a chance.

matthew8

Ron Paul now second in Iowa on 19%, great stuff.

phatrat1982

I saw that isn't it the first time he broke ten %?

UsernameInUse

phatrat1982 wrote: »

I am not so convinced Paul can't win the white house anymore.

I personally am rooting for Gingrich myself but I could throw my support to Paul if it looked like he had a chance.

That's funny because Ron Paul is climbing in the polls and is second in Iowa and NH. Secondly, Newt Gingrich? Really? The career politician, the crony capitalist, the man that left his wife for his mistress? the man that pocketed 2m dollars personally from Fannie Mae taxpayers purse?
Gingrich is as corrupt as the day is long. He is a war-monger and supports torture. I think you should step back and realise that there is only one man onthat stage. The rest of them are despicable human beings.

matthew8 wrote: »

Ron Paul now second in Iowa on 19%, great stuff.

We are indeed winning this. We can do it.

phatrat1982

Well I am a Republican and I do support a lot of his policies. I also was in support of the War and I still maintain that. I also voted for Bush both times and would again so if that says anything.

Tiocfaidh Armani

phatrat1982 wrote: »

Well I am a Republican and I do support a lot of his policies. I also was in support of the War and I still maintain that. I also voted for Bush both times and would again so if that says anything.

You're not very bright then, are you?

The Black Oil

He's always had a vote ceiling, I don't see how 2012 will be any different.

phatrat1982

I wouldn't say that I would just say that I had different priorities then than I do now.


Ok to be honest I did not follow politics until recently so I only voted according to what others around me were doing so yeah. But I did prefer Bush's policies over Obamas so in hind sight yeah I would have voted for him a third term if he were eligible.


And as for Newt, yeah I was not following the news much lately I had no idea what all he was involved in I was basing my judgment on past experiences alone and when he was Speaker of the House he was pretty popular.


But I don't think you have a right to say I am not smart because I voted for Bush I could say the same thing about anyone who voted for Obama but I don't I leave it at differences in priorities and respect the other side even if I disagree with them.


I am not conservative I am Republican in the traditional sense as in I support the Republican policies and ideology but I do not always support conservative issues.


I am not anti Ron Paul I just never felt he had a real chance and I would prefer to back someone with a chance at winning over wasting time and money and energy backing a lost cause. Again things are changing now turning around and in light of recent news I would consider switching my support from Gingrich to Paul I am still undecided though I know who I won't vote for that decision is easier to make than deciding on whose left.


I would prefer a candidate that is not so far to either side right or left but someone who can think for themselves, that is rare and even Bush let his true colors known more often than he should have.


I did and do support the war and if you don't fine but I have my reasons for why I support it. Mainly if there is going to be a war against terrorists I would prefer it in a distant far a way land and keep it as far from here as possible. I did not support the Iraq invasion I was against that from the start but I support our troops and as long as they are fighting I prefer to give them the tools they need to actually succeed I hate sending people to war unprepared and letting them all die for nothing when they could have better weapons and live longer lives.


I do NOT support how our Veterans are treated upon return and I do not support welfare in any form unregulated and unchecked because although we grew up on welfare it was not like we had a choice we only applied when things were desperate and we worked hard to get out from under it I do not support the Occupy movement who are all just looking for hand outs and unregulated welfare to me that is wrong.


I look at it this way if you don't want the CEO of Apple to be rich don't buy Ipads and iPhones protest by BOYCOTTING his crap don't buy his product and cry like a baby he is rich and your not and life is unfair. Get a job, spend your money wisely invest in areas you can afford and get rich on your own the proper American way without demanding someone else take care of you.


I hate all internet pirates who cry Hollywood makes enough money it is ok to steal from them when they forget that there are working class people making those pictures and if you have beef with the executives in charge I don't know buy some stock and attend share holder meetings or write letters protesting the handling of the company don't whine and bitch that James Cameron is a billionaire because everyone likes his movie but then say theaters over charge so it's your right to watch any movie you want, it is not movies are a PRODUCT that cost money to make and if you can not afford to attend the theater suck it up, wait for the network tv broadcast or for Redbox to offer it for a buck or do without.


People are so stupid how they want everything given to them everything free nobody wants to work. They say the wealth is in the hands of the few, yeah the few who invested their money their time and their efforts to make a product everyone wanted and bought and now that they are on top everyone hates them. I promise you if half of the occupy nuts did in fact do something smart to get rich and climb the ladder they'd change their minds about their whole spread the wealth around attitude.


Yeah life is unfair but get over it babies die suddenly with no cause, natural disasters happen and people die or lose their homes and they don't cry oh no my poor ipod they suck it up they move on and they bounce back but these people they just want to protest and some of them, even you see in the news alot of them have no idea what they are protesting they just are.


That should pretty much say where I stand if you disagree fine but I am not uninformed and I am not stupid I am a college educated individual and I am on my way to earning my second degree.

matthew8

New poll in Iowa, Paul second to Cain, Paul 20%, Cain 25%.

phatrat1982

Well I talked to my brother in law and he is fully supporting Ron Paul all the way as is his brother and wife too. I talked to my dad he is still not sure he likes Gingrich and there is no swaying him on that he says he was too good for us in the 90's he isnt concerned with scandals cuz he says all politicians are involved in some scandal or another.

I still haven't decided yet I need more info but I am starting to lean towards Ron Paul now that he actually looks like he has a chance.

FreudianSlippers

phatrat1982 wrote: »

But I did prefer Bush's policies over Obamas so in hind sight yeah I would have voted for him a third term if he were eligible.

Realistically, if you actually look back, Bush had very little policy and drifted on a very vulnerable time in the US; post 9/11.
Other than "preventing terrorism" and related issues arising out of 9/11 can you actually conjure up a good policy of the Bush administration?

I'm not being smart; I'm actually trying to think of one myself and falling very short.

But I don't think you have a right to say I am not smart because I voted for Bush

I agree.

I could say the same thing about anyone who voted for Obama but I don't I leave it at differences in priorities and respect the other side even if I disagree with them.

I just don't understand this irrational hatred of Obama. What exactly has he done that has angered the right-wing so much in the states?
I mean, other than the fact that he's a terrorist Kenyan Muslim of course. :pac:

I am not conservative I am Republican in the traditional sense as in I support the Republican policies and ideology but I do not always support conservative issues.

It's slightly hard to believe that with a quite pro-Bush mantra. G.W. Bush was a conservative's republican; not a republican's republican (if that makes sense).

I am not anti Ron Paul I just never felt he had a real chance and I would prefer to back someone with a chance at winning over wasting time and money and energy backing a lost cause. Again things are changing now turning around and in light of recent news I would consider switching my support from Gingrich to Paul I am still undecided though I know who I won't vote for that decision is easier to make than deciding on whose left.

I don't agree with this type of democracy where you vote for who will or may win rather than who you want... it's the reason there has never been real change in the US or Ireland or, in fact, any western country in the last 50 years really.

I would prefer a candidate that is not so far to either side right or left but someone who can think for themselves, that is rare and even Bush let his true colors known more often than he should have.

I think that's the fascination with Dr. Paul. Clearly he's far right economically; but it's his social neutrality that I find refreshing. So, he's not a fan of abortion because of his religious morals; that doesn't mean that he should dictate or force that choice on others. Personally, I find that really welcome in politics. I never understood why the religious right give a shít if other people are going to "burn in hell".

I did and do support the war and if you don't fine but I have my reasons for why I support it. Mainly if there is going to be a war against terrorists I would prefer it in a distant far a way land and keep it as far from here as possible.

I'm definitely going to need an explanation for this one. How does two unrelated wars in the middle east stop domestic terrorism exactly?
One does realise, I hope, that the useless spending in Iraq and Afghanistan only breeds more terrorists and drains money that could be better used to prevent further attacks in the US.

It's another reason I don't think the Tea bag Party-ers have actually read a US history book (or else they're the ultimate hypocrites). The USA is founded on a policy of isolationism and thrived from it. It's no weak correlation to see that when that policy ended, the US weakened dramatically.

I did not support the Iraq invasion I was against that from the start

But you just said you support the wars?

but I support our troops and as long as they are fighting I prefer to give them the tools they need to actually succeed I hate sending people to war unprepared and letting them all die for nothing when they could have better weapons and live longer lives.

This blows my mind. Wouldn't they be safer if, I dunno... they weren't at war? Mindless support of "troops" is clear propaganda and brainwashing to get you to support the war itself. It goes so far as many troops not supporting the war - one could easily say that a troop not supporting the war is not supporting troops.

Soldiers at war will die. No amount of tools will stop that.

I do NOT support how our Veterans are treated upon return and I do not support welfare in any form unregulated and unchecked because although we grew up on welfare it was not like we had a choice we only applied when things were desperate and we worked hard to get out from under it I do not support the Occupy movement who are all just looking for hand outs and unregulated welfare to me that is wrong.

I'd tend to agree with you here. Welfare is something that has different meanings here and in the US though IMO; although it tends to have the same outcome. There is a growing welfare class in both of our countries and the UK and it will not stop - sure, who on Earth would work if you could be perfectly happy living off of free money. If I'm perfectly honest, if I could live the life I live now living off of money from the state I collect weekly; I wouldn't work another day!

I look at it this way if you don't want the CEO of Apple to be rich don't buy Ipads and iPhones protest by BOYCOTTING his crap don't buy his product and cry like a baby he is rich and your not and life is unfair. Get a job, spend your money wisely invest in areas you can afford and get rich on your own the proper American way without demanding someone else take care of you.

Well, the OWS movement are ultimate hypocrites bitching about rich people whilst tweeting on their ipads.

I hate all internet pirates who cry Hollywood makes enough money it is ok to steal from them when they forget that there are working class people making those pictures and if you have beef with the executives in charge I don't know buy some stock and attend share holder meetings or write letters protesting the handling of the company don't whine and bitch that James Cameron is a billionaire because everyone likes his movie but then say theaters over charge so it's your right to watch any movie you want, it is not movies are a PRODUCT that cost money to make and if you can not afford to attend the theater suck it up, wait for the network tv broadcast or for Redbox to offer it for a buck or do without.

I think you're looking at the rationale for piracy in the wrong way to be fair.
I don't think it's necessarily related to this thread so I'll only made a small comment; that is, Cameron is not a billionaire, in fact he's a relatively low millionaire.

The problem is not that these people are making money, it's that they're not paying their fair share of tax. That does not mean that they should be paying more than their fair share; only that they should be paying what they are obliged to pay under the current tax codes and not hiding money or applying loopholes to pay less tax than a lower middle class individual.

People are so stupid how they want everything given to them everything free nobody wants to work. They say the wealth is in the hands of the few, yeah the few who invested their money their time and their efforts to make a product everyone wanted and bought and now that they are on top everyone hates them. I promise you if half of the occupy nuts did in fact do something smart to get rich and climb the ladder they'd change their minds about their whole spread the wealth around attitude.

Wouldn't you? Honestly... wouldn't you take it if it was on offer? I know people always say no! Hard graft, satisfaction, etc... but it's hard to justify working hard and paying tax when the burden is on you.

The lowest earners pay little to no tax and the highest earners pay little to no tax. That leaves the middle to fund everything. It's more than a bit unfair.

PS: Don't even get me started on the idiocy of the lower middle. "Millionaires should pay more tax" and then tax those making over $120,000 p.a.
Since when is $120,000 a millionaire? sigh.

Yeah life is unfair but get over it babies die suddenly with no cause, natural disasters happen and people die or lose their homes and they don't cry oh no my poor ipod they suck it up they move on and they bounce back but these people they just want to protest and some of them, even you see in the news alot of them have no idea what they are protesting they just are.

Go back to your point about being anti-welfare. What happens to these people? Are they just told "shucks! suck it up and move on... bounce back!" or are they somehow supported and given the opportunity to move on and bounce back.

I'm one of the sites hated libertarians (;)) and even I have a level of support for some forms of social welfare. I think it's impossible (at least in Ireland) to not have some - as an aside I think it would be unconstitutional but that's for another day.
It's very difficult for me to say simply that the markets will totally help everyone. Some people in some circumstances need to be helped by their government.

That should pretty much say where I stand if you disagree fine but I am not uninformed and I am not stupid I am a college educated individual and I am on my way to earning my second degree.

I would hope that you wouldn't let obnoxious jabs by individuals put you off engaging in, hopefully, cordial and intellectual debate with the many (right and left, right and wrong) good posters on this site.

Tiocfaidh Armani

It's another reason I don't think the Tea bag Party-ers have actually read a US history book (or else they're the ultimate hypocrites). The USA is founded on a policy of isolationism and thrived from it. It's no weak correlation to see that when that policy ended, the US weakened dramatically.

An excellent point. They feel they have to be involved in matters that actually cost them. It's this arrogance that they have to be the front-runner in world affairs rather than getting on with improving their lot for their own people.

karma_

Owning an iPad makes you rich?

In fairness, I agree with some of what you said in that post, but that is ridiculous.

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Owning an iPad makes you rich?

Owning a luxury item means you are not impoverished.

Even by the US standards of what are luxuries and what are necessities, tablets are very much luxury items. Cheap laptop or a phone I wouldn't fault anybody on, but an iPad is a bit more than a necessity.

FreudianSlippers

Overheal wrote: »

Owning a luxury item means you are not impoverished.

Even by the US standards of what are luxuries and what are necessities, tablets are very much luxury items. Cheap laptop or a phone I wouldn't fault anybody on, but an iPad is a bit more than a necessity.

I don't even have an iPad... and I'm RICH!

lol

AhSureTisGrand

Owning an iPad makes you either rich or stupid

Sticky_Fingers

phatrat1982 wrote: »

I still haven't decided yet I need more info but I am starting to lean towards Ron Paul now that he actually looks like he has a chance.

In fairness this is the worst reason for voting for anyone. Either you support the candidate or you don't, it's not a competition where your guy has to win no matter what.

As far as I see it you have three choices, supporting some Neo Con, support President Obama or support Ron Paul. If I were an American and had a vote I'd know who I would want as the next President no matter what the opinion polls or vox pops say.

Personally I'd go with Paul, I don't agree with everything he says but he's honest, stubborn and seems pretty much uncorruptible

SupaNova

Apart from Newt Gingrich catching him a little off guard, i thought he came through this debate very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBf4nrxsmnA

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Heisenberg. wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I watch a lot of Fox News, unsure why, but anyway even they ignore him.:eek:

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.