Why has Ron Paul failed?

spank_inferno

Where I a Republican I sure would.

For the simple reason he seems the closest to what being a Republican is.

Shakeyspears

The media has completely and wrongly ignored him. It's completely inexplicable.

FreudianSlippers

Shakeyspears wrote: »

The media has completely and wrongly ignored him. It's completely inexplicable.

Oh, no it's completely explicable - the Republican MSM wants people to believe in "tea party ideals" but not actual libertarian ideals. So long as libertarianism is kept "fringe" and "crazy" then it won't catch on in both Republican and Democratic camps.

It's very much a case of the MSM not wanting these people to practise what they preach and Dr Paul certainly does practise what he preaches.

Silvio.Dante

Thankfully not even a majority of Republicans care for RP's inhumane economic policies. long may it last...

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Thankfully not even a majority of Republicans care for RP's inhumane economic policies. long may it last...

Yes, thankfully they are all saints who want to bomb half the middle east. Unlike that vermin Ron Paul who would like for the killing to end.

Overheal

http://consumerist.com/2012/01/should-wedding-based-businesses-be-allowed-to-refuse-service-to-same-sex-couples.html

NH begins debating whether businesses have the right to refuse marriage service to same sex couples. Aaaaaaand... GO.

Jonny7

Suryavarman wrote: »

Bush I publicly talked about a New World Order, it's not an entirely ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Bush was referring to a new "order" to the world, such as a new dynamic, e.g. after WW2, after the Cold War - a new balance of power.

Not to be confused with the conspiracy theory version of "NWO" which is different - theory of a totalitarian one world government run by elites.

cristoir

I have a few questions for Paul supporters:

If Obama with his large congressional majority's couldn't pass most of his agenda then how the hell with Paul?

I mean I can't think of anyone on the hill who share his views. How will he implement his agenda?

Should be elected it is my belief congress will override his veto and govern without him.

matthew8

cristoir wrote: »

I have a few questions for Paul supporters:

If Obama with his large congressional majority's couldn't pass most of his agenda then how the hell with Paul?

I mean I can't think of anyone on the hill who share his views. How will he implement his agenda?

Should be elected it is my belief congress will override his veto and govern without him.

Ron Paul is willing to play hardball. Obama isn't.

southsiderosie

matthew8 wrote: »

Ron Paul is willing to play hardball. Obama isn't.

I would agree that Obama has not been willing to play hardball with the House, but it's not clear to me that a) Paul would be willing to, and, more importantly, b) that it would have any effect on the Congress. Paul is not influential within the party (in terms of fundraising, kingmaking, driving policy,etc), and does not hold any important leadership positions in the house. What kind of political capital would he be able to spend in order to get things done in the Congress - especially if Democrats still have a majority in the Senate?

Bozacke

southsiderosie wrote: »

I would agree that Obama has not been willing to play hardball with the House

On the contrary, he has caved into them on so many issues, it's only now he's starting to grow a bit of a backbone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Bozacke wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How is that 'on the contrary' to what I said?

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh, I don't disagree with you. But matthew8 made the point that somehow Paul would have better luck with/management skills of the Congress, and I disagree. Actually I'd go so far to say that Paul in many ways would be worse off than Obama because he would be far less willing to play the pork barrel game.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, Gary Johnson was an obstructionist governor in New Mexico, and it didn't do that state too much harm. I can't say that I always agreed with him politically, but I give him credit for being an equal opportunity obstructionist. I kind of wish he had made a more serious, strategic run for the presidency.

Suryavarman

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well, Gary Johnson was an obstructionist governor in New Mexico, and it didn't do that state too much harm. I can't say that I always agreed with him politically, but I give him credit for being an equal opportunity obstructionist. I kind of wish he had made a more serious, strategic run for the presidency.

He is still running for the presidency, albeit with the LP instead of the GOP.

There wasn't really much wrong with his strategy, he needed to participate in debates to get his name out there but he was constantly given the short end of the stick there.

He also had the disadvantage of running to win the libertarian vote that Ron Paul had already had shored up.

matthew8

Yes, Gary Johnson showed how you can run things your way with the senate and house opposing you. Veto everything until they make something to your satisfaction. This mightn't happen on every issue, but they have to pass a budget and will be forced to cave.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

Yes, Gary Johnson showed how you can run things your way with the senate and house opposing you. Veto everything until they make something to your satisfaction. This mightn't happen on every issue, but they have to pass a budget and will be forced to cave.

Doesn't sound very democratic ignoring the voice and votes of the house and senate. Not even sure if what you describe would be possible. Obama struggles to get anything passed and he's a huge compromiser.

diamondsny

Ron Paul is not a presidential candidate, period. Regardless of his personal politics.

20Cent

Ron Paul managed to fluff the racist newsletter story but is this the final nail in the coffin?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm

Members of the nationalist American Third Position Party (A3P), whose website was defaced by Anonymous, organised Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's meetings and campaigns, according emails hacked by the collective.
Chairman of the British National Party (BNP) Nick Griffin also took part in meetings with Paul and other representatives of A3P.
"According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors," read a statement from Anonymous.
It also claims that Paul received financial support from other white power groups, such as the online hate forum Stormfront, founded by Don Black, a white supremacist. There is even a photograph of Paul with Black, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and a current member of the American Nazi Party. Paul allegedly refused to return donations from Black and Stormfront. Black told The New York Times that Paul's newsletter had inspired him to become a supporter.


Read more: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm#ixzz1lKYkayzd

The guy in the middle is Don Black (ironic name) ex KKK grand wizard and current member of American Neo Nazi party.

20Cent

Fruityloop wrote: »

Turns out decrimialising drugs is the right thing to do judging by Portugal!!!

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.

Too many ppl jailed for taking drugs...


Taken from a website...

The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Although Paul was not around to weigh in on the landmark legislation at the time, he had the chance to cast a symbolic vote against it in 2004, when the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Paul was the only member who voted "no."



Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.



"The real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system, the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against the minorities," he said. "They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers. They get the death penalty out of proportion with their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there's a draft or no draft, they suffer much out of proposition. So those are the kind of discrimination that have to be dealt with, but you don't ever want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems."


Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights. He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States “would be better off” without government intruding on and policing personal lives. When Chris Matthews pressed the issue, asking if it should be legal for shop owners to not allow blacks, Paul responded, “That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with.”



AS for disaster relief your talking about FEMA..

RP on Fema

"FEMA has been around since 1978, it has one of the worst reputations for a bureaucracy ever," Paul said. "It's a system of bureaucratic central economic planning, which is a policy that is deeply flawed."

According to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina:[28]

• "The Secretary Department of Homeland Security should have designated the Principal Federal Official on Saturday, two days prior to landfall, from the roster of PFOs who had successfully completed the required training, unlike then FEMA Director Michael Brown. Considerable confusion was caused by the Secretary’s PFO decisions."
• "DHS and FEMA lacked adequate trained and experienced staff for the Katrina response."
• "The readiness of FEMA’s national emergency response teams was inadequate and reduced the effectiveness of the federal response."
• "Long-standing weaknesses and the magnitude of the disaster overwhelmed FEMA’s ability to provide emergency shelter and temporary housing."
• "FEMA logistics and contracting systems did not support a targeted, massive, and sustained provision of commodities."
• "Before Katrina, FEMA suffered from a lack of sufficiently trained procurement professionals."

Other failings were also noted. The Committee devoted an entire section of the report to listing the actions of FEMA.[29] Their conclusion was:
"For years emergency management professionals have been warning that FEMA’s preparedness has eroded. Many believe this erosion is a result of the separation of the preparedness function from FEMA, the drain of long-term professional staff along with their institutional knowledge and expertise, and the inadequate readiness of FEMA’s national emergency response teams. The combination of these staffing, training, and organizational structures made FEMA’s inadequate performance in the face of a disaster the size of Katrina all but inevitable."[2

All very interesting I'm sure but the questions was "Anyone any stats on the popularity of Ron Pauls other policies

Such as revoking the Civil Rights Act.
Legalising hard drugs and prostitution?
Leaving major disaster relief to the state instead of sending federal help."

The arguments for these are one thing but are they electable policies?

ed2hands

If i may, could i please quote Ron Paul supporter Paul Craig Roberts. It's a long one, but worth a read:

If Ron Paul’s libertarian handlers and support base could escape their ideology, Ron Paul could be much better positioned to win the Republican nomination.
Here are some suggestions.

Ron Paul should be making the point that Social Security and Medicare are threatened by multi-trillion dollar wars that are funded by debt, by bailouts of a deregulated banking system, and by money creation to keep the banks afloat. Libertarians support deregulation, but their position has always been that deregulated industries must not be bailed out with public subsidies, much less subsidies that are so extensive that they threaten government solvency and the value of the currency.

Instead of hitting hard on the serious threat to Social Security and Medicare posed by Obama and Republican candidates for the nomination, all of whom serve Wall Street, the military/security complex, and the Israel Lobby, Ron Paul has been positioned both by his supporters and his opponents as the danger to Social Security and Medicare. This is an amazing strategic mistake by the Ron Paul campaign.

The mistake is somewhat understandable. Ron Paul’s supporters are mainly among the young. The importance to them of Social Security and Medicare will not register for many years, but for the vast majority of the population Social Security and Medicare are essential for survival. A candidate who is positioned as the destroyer of what scant economic protection the American elderly have is not positioned to win an election for president.
Many libertarians regard Social Security and Medicare as welfare handouts and as Ponzi schemes, when in fact these programs are a form of private property. People pay for these programs all their working lives, just as they pay premiums for private medical policies and make their deposits into private pension plans. Libertarians are great defenders of private property, so why don’t they defend the elderly’s private property rights in Social Security and Medicare benefits? Social Security and Medicare are contracts that government made with citizens. These contracts are as valid and enforceable as any other contracts. If Social Security and Medicare are in dire trouble, why is the government wasting trillions of dollars in behalf of private armaments industries, a neocon ideology, and Israel’s territorial ambitions? Why isn’t this question the most important issue in the campaign?

Instead, in a decade that has seen two massive stock market crashes and an amazing amount of financial fraud, libertarians prattle on about privatizing Social Security and about how much larger the retirement pensions would be. They speak about delaying the Social Security retirement age to 70 without any thought to what a person does who is retired by his employer at 65. People who suggest making Social Security and Medicare off limits until people reach 70 need to have a look at the cost of private medical plans for older people. A group plan with Blue Cross Blue Shield Florida for a 64-year old woman has a $18,000 premium, large deductibles per medical issue, and a 20% co-pay. Even a person with private insurance faces potentially ruinous health care expenses.
Libertarians will not wait to think before they inform me that private savings are funded but Social Security and Medicare are not. They are incorrect on both accounts.

Social Security and Medicare are funded with a payroll tax. It is true that the government has stolen the funds, spent them, and left non-marketable IOU’s in their place. But in our deregulated casino financial system with street registration of “securities,” the same thing happens to private holdings. Where is the money that individuals had in MF Global? What happened to people’s savings invested with Madoff? What happened to Enron’s investors? Can AIG make good on its promises to pay the benefits that people have purchased? Can banks whose balance sheets are loaded with subprime derivatives make good on their depositors’ accounts? US government debt is a component of many private pension plans. How secure are the values of Treasury bonds?

The notion that free unregulated markets are totally trustworthy is the enormous mistake that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made, for which American and European peoples continue to pay. Libertarians endorse this fantastic mistake to the hilt.

This is not meant to be an attack on libertarians. Rather, it is an explanation of some of their mistakes. There is much to admire about libertarians. They believe in civil liberty, that is, in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They understand that government cannot substitute for the market. I know a lot about libertarians. I was associated with them for years, serving for several years as Distinguished Scholar at the Cato Institute until I was run off for independent thinking.
Libertarians are sectarian, and their tolerance does not extend beyond their ideology.

The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector. They will abuse their power regardless of where they perch. That is why government needs to be tied down by the Constitution and the private sector by regulation. Yes, regulation can go too far. Certainly, deregulation has gone too far.

The ongoing financial crisis from deregulation and ongoing jobs crisis from offshoring constitute empirical evidence that the belief is false that an unfettered private sector is the source of all good.
Some readers misunderstood the point of my previous column, “America’s Last Chance.” I am endorsing the U.S. Constitution and making the point that Ron Paul is the only candidate for president in either party who is committed to resurrecting the Constitution. Without the Constitution we cease to be American citizens and become subjects of a tyrannical police state. My complaint is that the only candidate who could bring back the Constitution cannot be elected because of the inflexibility and sectarianism of his base. Possibly there are more worthy third party candidates, but they have no prospect of visibility. Ron Paul is visible, and the opportunity is going to waste.

Civil Liberty, essentially the accountability of government to law that serves to protect the innocent, is the historic achievement of the English over many centuries from its beginnings with the foundation for common law established by Alfred the Great in the 9th century through Magna Carta in the 13th century to the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century. If this human achievement is lost, it is unlikely to be resurrected. If the Constitution that Bush and Obama have murdered stays in its grave one more presidential term, no one will be able to re-establish the Constitution’s authority.

And please, no prattle from libertarians about “natural rights.” The only rights we have
are rights achieved by centuries of human struggle that we have the wits and strength to retain.

FreudianSlippers

20Cent wrote: »

All very interesting I'm sure but the questions was "Anyone any stats on the popularity of Ron Pauls other policies

Such as revoking the Civil Rights Act.
Legalising hard drugs and prostitution?
Leaving major disaster relief to the state instead of sending federal help."

The arguments for these are one thing but are they electable policies?

When put simply as you have there, no. But were the issues put forward more clearly I think that there would be large support for revoking the Civil Rights Act and abolishing FEMA and/or the TSA.

Once just needs to have an understanding of the structure of the USA (which I find many posters on here do not. But then again, many Americans probably don't either). The issues such as protection of civil rights and disaster relief are most certainly state issues rather than federal issues (the latter undoubtedly is).

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

All very interesting I'm sure but the questions was "Anyone any stats on the popularity of Ron Pauls other policies

Such as revoking the Civil Rights Act.
Legalising hard drugs and prostitution?
Leaving major disaster relief to the state instead of sending federal help."

The arguments for these are one thing but are they electable policies?

He has no policy to revoke the civil rights act and would leave prostitution and hard drugs to the states. I think the other one would do pretty well, considering every town has some organisation that deals with major disasters, and that the federal government was useless during and after Katrina.

As for the person who noted he should change his tone to do better and posted an article, that would defeat the purpose of what he's trying to do. He knows he won't be president, he just want to change the republican party. He gets little traction for his foreign policy views but his federal reserve views are catching on and that seems to be his favourite policy.

flyswatter

I admire his anti-war foreign policy stance, his domestic policy could have bad consequences for the average working American so I can see why he won't be nominated.

ciara84

20Cent wrote: »

Doesn't sound very democratic ignoring the voice and votes of the house and senate. Not even sure if what you describe would be possible. Obama struggles to get anything passed and he's a huge compromiser.

Contrary to popular belief America is a republic, not a democracy. They are two VERY different things. If the congress (house + senate) want to pass something they can by-pass the presidential veto with a super-majority. Most state legislatures can do this too, if New Mexico wanted it really badly, they could by-pass Gary's vetoes with a super-majority. They're called checks and balances. Obama passed some of the worst laws in the American history in his first two years, people caught on, revolted and made sure to get in some hard core conservative people into senate and house, and now we have a catch 22. These super-right wingers aren't willing to compromise on anything and the general public is getting frustrated, they werent able to do what they were sent in to do I.E. Repeal obama care, deficit reduction and other tea-party things, so they're letting Obama win this election pretty much un-contested, he'll win by a landslide. He is running against a Mormon, which is pretty much a guranteed free ride back into the White House, unless Romney picks an ultra conservative VP like Ron/Rand Paul etc, which probably wont happen. I'm hoping Ron Paul will grow some cojones and start a sh*t storm by telling everyone if they dont nominate him, he'll run 3rd party, this way, there is ZERO chance Romney will win, not there there is a chance of him winning anyway. People don't forget that he is a Mormon, and those Lefty super-pacs will remind everyone of this repeatedly come october/november.

BOHtox

He has won 2 states so far and has reportedly 150 delegates so far. Ultimately, is that a failure? Considering his two previous runs this has to be looked upon as a reasonable success, especially when there's still around 20 more states to hold/finish their primaries/caucuses.

InTheTrees

ciara84 wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief America is a republic, not a democracy. They are two VERY different things.

I hear the fox news crowd using this one frequently. I've no idea why.

I understand that the "electoral college" is the reason you cant call the USA a democracy. But they always emphasize that because its a republic that somehow explains why it isnt democratic??

So perhaps you could explain to us why a "republic" isnt a "democracy", I'm sure people in the Republic of Ireland would be fascinated to hear.

FreudianSlippers

InTheTrees wrote: »

I hear the fox news crowd using this one frequently. I've no idea why.

I understand that the "electoral college" is the reason you cant call the USA a democracy. But they always emphasize that because its a republic that somehow explains why it isnt democratic??

So perhaps you could explain to us why a "republic" isnt a "democracy", I'm sure people in the Republic of Ireland would be fascinated to hear.

It's total spin really. The US is a federalist nation, bound by the rules of democracy; sure, they're a constitutional republic - but that really only means that they adhere to the separation of powers granted by their own constitution. The 'spin' aspect arises where each state is the democratic entity directly electing their representatives who, in turn, deal with the federal issues. At the end of the day, in a constitutional republic, all of the representatives are still bound by the constitution and are entrusted to implement laws in line with the constitution.

So, technically the USA is not a democratic nation but rather a federalist nation; but the states so composing the federation are democratic... slightly a moot point; usually used when they wish to spin something to do with the 10th Amendment.

Pedant

20Cent wrote: »

Ron Paul managed to fluff the racist newsletter story but is this the final nail in the coffin?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm

Members of the nationalist American Third Position Party (A3P), whose website was defaced by Anonymous, organised Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's meetings and campaigns, according emails hacked by the collective.
Chairman of the British National Party (BNP) Nick Griffin also took part in meetings with Paul and other representatives of A3P.
"According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors," read a statement from Anonymous.
It also claims that Paul received financial support from other white power groups, such as the online hate forum Stormfront, founded by Don Black, a white supremacist. There is even a photograph of Paul with Black, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and a current member of the American Nazi Party. Paul allegedly refused to return donations from Black and Stormfront. Black told The New York Times that Paul's newsletter had inspired him to become a supporter.


Read more: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm#ixzz1lKYkayzd

The guy in the middle is Don Black (ironic name) ex KKK grand wizard and current member of American Neo Nazi party.

You don't even know the circumstances in which that photograph was taken. The photograph doesn't say anything.

snow scorpion

InTheTrees wrote: »

I understand that the "electoral college" is the reason you cant call the USA a democracy. But they always emphasize that because its a republic that somehow explains why it isnt democratic??

So perhaps you could explain to us why a "republic" isnt a "democracy", I'm sure people in the Republic of Ireland would be fascinated to hear.

The electoral college has nothing to do with it. You have a republic when the people send representatives to government to look out for their interests so the voters can go on with their every day lives.

A democracy is majority rule - nothing more, nothing less. You simply cannot have a democracy of 300 million people; it would cause instant chaos. Think about it for a moment: In America approximately 8000 pieces of legislation are introduced each year. If America was democracy you would have 300 million people going to the polls to vote on an average of 20 pieces of legislation each day of the entire year. Then look what you have: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! (Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters!)

The most accurate description of America is it's a federal republic.

Bonus info: the point of the electoral college is to prevent too much power from accumulating in one place. America's founding fathers were obsessed with the idea of making sure the new country didn't end up with a tyrannical government like King George III imposed on them. So they dreamed up the idea of an electoral college: scatter the power everywhere so that nobody has a lot of power and everybody has a little power. That way, the big, powerful and/or rich states can't impose their will on the rest of the country; every state has some influence over who the next president will be.

Mark200

snow scorpion wrote: »

InTheTrees wrote: »

I understand that the "electoral college" is the reason you cant call the USA a democracy. But they always emphasize that because its a republic that somehow explains why it isnt democratic??

So perhaps you could explain to us why a "republic" isnt a "democracy", I'm sure people in the Republic of Ireland would be fascinated to hear.

The electoral college has nothing to do with it. You have a republic when the people send representatives to government to look out for their interests so the voters can go on with their every day lives.

A democracy is majority rule - nothing more, nothing less. You simply cannot have a democracy of 300 million people; it would cause instant chaos. Think about it for a moment: In America approximately 8000 pieces of legislation are introduced each year. If America was democracy you would have 300 million people going to the polls to vote on an average of 20 pieces of legislation each day of the entire year. Then look what you have: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! (Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters!)

The most accurate description of America is it's a federal republic.

Bonus info: the point of the electoral college is to prevent too much power from accumulating in one place. America's founding fathers were obsessed with the idea of making sure the new country didn't end up with a tyrannical government like King George III imposed on them. So they dreamed up the idea of an electoral college: scatter the power everywhere so that nobody has a lot of power and everybody has a little power. That way, the big, powerful and/or rich states can't impose their will on the rest of the country; every state has some influence over who the next president will be.

Representative democracy is, as the same suggests, a type of democracy. You, along with Fox and the occasional Conservative, are confusing the general description of 'democracy' with the pure form of direct democracy where the people vote for everything.

'Republic' just kinda means that its not a monarchy,and just because its a republic does not mean it can't be a democracy. They're not mutually exclusive. And to be honest I feel kind of embarrassed for the people who make the mistake in thinking they are mutually exclusive.

Andrew Flexing

If Paul was "in bed with the corporations" like Flip-flop Ronmey is he would have more media coverage. He debates better than any other the others and actually knows about economics unlike Mitt "people are corporations" Romney.

Pity, I think Paul is a best Republican nominee. Romney is a horrible candidate and just comes across like a puppet for the rich.

I hope Paul runs as independant candidate in the election. If I was Yank he'd have my vote over Obama and horrible Romney.

Overheal

Thats the thing. Long before these candidates are up for election its up to influential people in business politics and media to put them up for it. Without that support and indeed with their opposition, you get nowhere.

matthew8

Andrew Flexing wrote: »

If Paul was "in bed with the corporations" like Flip-flop Ronmey is he would have more media coverage. He debates better than any other the others and actually knows about economics unlike Mitt "people are corporations" Romney.

Pity, I think Paul is a best Republican nominee. Romney is a horrible candidate and just comes across like a puppet for the rich.

I hope Paul runs as independant candidate in the election. If I was Yank he'd have my vote over Obama and horrible Romney.

The deadline has pretty much passed to run third party.

Matt Holck

Can anyone provide a quick list of the states where Paul has won the most delegate? Please put a star next to the states where the delegates are supposed to vote for Romney, yet we know they are unbound (like Massachusetts)?

So far the list I can think of is:

MA*
ME
IA
NV
CO

I heard we won the majority of all that have been decided in AZ but there are more to be decided.

If you want to provide numbers, that's great, but not required.

http://www.dailypaul.com/233403/quick-list-of-states-won

BOHtox

Here is a list of bound delegates who will definitely vote for the candidate.
http://www.thereal2012delegatecount.com/

Paul has won 5 states accumulating 137 confirmed delegates.
Romney has won 10 states accumulating 351 delegates.

Gingrich has 24.
Santorum has 143.

They don't guess who delegates will vote for, they just used bound delegates who are confirmed supporters of the candidate.

Arkansas, Kentucky and Texas primaries all take place this month.
I'm surprised Paul won't be campaigning in his home state of Texas

RichieC

InTheTrees wrote: »

I hear the fox news crowd using this one frequently. I've no idea why.

I understand that the "electoral college" is the reason you cant call the USA a democracy. But they always emphasize that because its a republic that somehow explains why it isnt democratic??

So perhaps you could explain to us why a "republic" isnt a "democracy", I'm sure people in the Republic of Ireland would be fascinated to hear.

You don't vote directly for a candidate, you vote for the electoral college votes of each state, based on the 2 senators and the varying number of state representatives. it's winner take all so even if the vote is 50.01% to obama in say California, the entire allocation goes to them. There's two states that dont have winner takes all.. NH and er... can't remember.

They have to call themselves the best democracy in the world loudly because it's nonsense. just like they refer to themselves as the best country in the world. say lies enough they become the truth.

Suryavarman

RichieC wrote: »

You don't vote directly for a candidate, you vote for the electoral college votes of each state, based on the 2 senators and the varying number of state representatives. it's winner take all so even if the vote is 50.01% to obama in say California, the entire allocation goes to them. There's two states that dont have winner takes all.. NH and er... can't remember.

They have to call themselves the best democracy in the world loudly because it's nonsense. just like they refer to themselves as the best country in the world. say lies enough they become the truth.

Nebraska I think. IIRC candidates get a vote for each congressional district they win and then the biggest vote-getter in the state gets 2 votes. Obama managed to win one of the congressional districts the last time despite losing the whole state by a large margin.

While we're on the subject of the electoral college, I heard somewhere before that electoral votes don't even need to be allocated through a popular vote. It could be entirely possible that a state could allocate the votes based on the votes of the state legislature. Does anyone more knowledgeable on the matter know if that is correct?

Eggy Baby!

So is it impossible for Paul to become US president? imo he was the best candidate.

RichieC

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

So is it impossible for Paul to become US president? imo he was the best candidate.

He'd be assassinated if he became president, so he's better off. You don't say no to the real power in America. Obama, I'm dam sure went for president with the best intentions, look at his grey hair now. I bet he can hardly look himself in the mirror any more for the shame he feels having sold out.

Andrew Flexing

RichieC wrote: »

I bet he (Obama) can hardly look himself in the mirror any more for the shame he feels having sold out.

What has he sold out on?

Eggy Baby!

To big business? To interventionism? To Israel? To lobbying groups? To right-wingers? To hawks? To all six?

Matt Holck

no one is talking about changing US foreign policy on the news

Andrew Flexing

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

To big business? To interventionism? To Israel? To lobbying groups? To right-wingers? To hawks? To all six?

Would you have examples of each?

20Cent

So Ron Paul is out and also admitted he takes Social Security.
Rand is endorsing Romney.
Is this the end of the Ron Paul "revolution"?


Ron Paul, Social Security opponent, acknowledges he receives benefits
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-social-security-opponent-acknowledges-he-receives-benefits-20120620,0,4149995.story

Blowfish

20Cent wrote: »

So Ron Paul is out and also admitted he takes Social Security.
Rand is endorsing Romney.
Is this the end of the Ron Paul "revolution"?


Ron Paul, Social Security opponent, acknowledges he receives benefits
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-social-security-opponent-acknowledges-he-receives-benefits-20120620,0,4149995.story

Given that he pays in far more than he receives, why the hell wouldn't he take it?

InTheTrees

20Cent wrote: »

Is this the end of the Ron Paul "revolution"?

Well he's still a voice in US politics but this was the last presidential run.

20Cent

Blowfish wrote: »

Given that he pays in far more than he receives, why the hell wouldn't he take it?

Because he claims its unconstitutional, walk the talk etc

Blowfish

20Cent wrote: »

Because he claims its unconstitutional, walk the talk etc

No he doesn't, he believes forced payment is unconstitutional and that payment should be voluntary. Given that he has paid in (and still is), there really isn't an issue with him getting some of it back out.