patrick.net

HousingWatcher says

they have a heart attack and think that any defense cuts at all will lead to Word War III.

The far right's only objective is to run the country into the ground. They've almost succeeded, if they get to power they'll probably finish the job.

HousingWatcher says

Nobody on the left is going to vote for someone who wants to eliminate the social safety net and regulations.

I don't think Ron Paul gets the sensible ideas on the left. This is probably because he's too dogmatic. Jon Stewart's interview with him indicated as much.

But here's one thing for people looking out for social safety: you are going to get paid in devalued dollars. In fact, people on fixed income should vote for Ron Paul because he is an inflation hawk.

Regulations is one thing where Dr. Paul is quite dogmatic. In a irredeemable currency regime that we are in, regulations are the only thing that protects common citizens. Deregulation is one of the prime culprits that got the country into too much debt/deficit spending.

austrian_man says

Deregulation is one of the prime culprits that got the country into too much debt/deficit spending.

And Ron Paul wants more de-regulation.

A lot of us see through the left/right BS aimed at dividing the non-thinkers and keeping things BAU... that's why Paul is finishing near the top in almost every poll and debate... he has no chance because the game is rigged.

HousingWatcher says

And Ron Paul wants more de-regulation.

This is a problem if you look at his ideas stand-alone. He wants a sound monetary system, he wants to audit the Fed, he wants to remove all special benefits to banksters. All the correct things to do, and you are nit-picking on him.

Your original point is valid, but Ron Paul asks for misplaced/useless regulations to be removed. The useful regulations should be restored.

NuttBoxer says

that's why Paul is finishing near the top in almost every poll and debate... he has no chance because the game is rigged.

+1. Very true.

Zero chance? Really?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HECoRx8qTrA?rel=0

Anonymousone says

Zero chance? Really?

Yes, really. Stalin had a quote about it not mattering how many votes you get, but who was counting the votes. The Republican machine counts the votes as he's running as a Republican. If he ran as an Independent he might do better, but I doubt either party's machine would allow a win.

PS. I am not a Ron Paul supporter. While I support his currency ideas, much of his platform is crazy and would, if implimented, cause real harm to the US.

futuresmc says

PS. I am not a Ron Paul supporter. While I support his currency ideas, much of his platform is crazy and would, if implimented, cause real harm to the US.

Wow! Who's causing harm to the US? The status quo or Ron Paul? You can say whatever you like but the good doctor's popularity is spreading.

And if Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, why do you think the media is already rigging the election this early? The other day it was CNBC. Before that it was O'Reilly who disqualified Ron Paul for having too many votes. Let the media continue doing this. The more they do it, the more people will wake up.

Now why are they so afraid of Ron Paul if he cannot win?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/DeWowc3HTtQ?rel=0

Ron Paul's fundamental flaw is that his ideas only work in a world where you can achieve 100% of your goals.

If you eliminate the social safety nets and dramatically cut taxes, but do not manage to get the free trade and fed policies, you will have a retiree revolt.

If you do the opposite, you drive us further into a debt black hole.

Our government is not a dictatorship. No president, no matter how popular, has ever been able to achieve 100% of their policy objectives.

You have to present a plan for the future that still works even if parts of it fail.

Kevin says

Ron Paul's fundamental flaw is that his ideas only work in a world where you can achieve 100% of your goals.

Not true. I think if his plans are implemented partially also, it will still do good for the country. The point to ask is whether the country is ready for short-to-medium term pain to ensure long term fiscal sustainability.

Problem is the country is not ready for any sort of pain.

Kevin says

You have to present a plan for the future that still works even if parts of it fail.

You have to admit that among all Rep. candidates, his is the most attractive. Yet bulk of the conservatives are just namesake conservatives. They don't buy it, which means Dr. Paul is stuck.

Let's not forget that in 2008, Ron Paul did not win a single state in the Republican primaries. None. Not even his home state of Texas. Ron Paul can win all the polls he wants. And I assume he will win more of them. But he is not going to win an actual primary.

And as we all know, candidates who do well in polls often go on to do well in the actual elections. Just ask President Rudy Giuliani or President Fred Thompson.

Neither Giuliani (too NY and socially liberal for social conservatives) nor Thompson (perceived as a DC insider) ever were major contenders, except for their few minutes of fame when they began their campaigns. I don't believe that either ever won a poll, not just professional polls but even straw polls. Paul consistently ranks as a major contender in just about every poll ever made of republican candidates.

But he is not going to win an actual primary.

No non-establishment candidate has won a primary that I can recall.

Leaked email reveals CBS debates deliberately gave less time to Paul, Bachman. He got 89 seconds in a 90 minute debate, despite being among the top Republican contenders in poll after poll.

http://exeter.patch.com/articles/ron-paul-silenced-by-cbs

Paul is stuck at 10-15% because the Media ignores him. If he got half the airtime a Perry or Romney got, he'd probably get double that.

The media also doesn't like three way races. Two sides are easier to report on.

Disagree with Paul on many, many things but he's the best candidate out there, IMHO. He answers questions directly, doesn't need to speak off a card (Perry), and has an easy command of the issues.

Here's the U/Minnesota study on speaking time for the candidates:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/10/equal_time_romney_records_one.php

The extent of the former Massachusetts governor's face time on Tuesday relative to the other candidates on the stage can also be viewed as follows. Romney recorded:

· 194 percent more camera time than Rick Santorum
· 190 percent more than Jon Huntsman
· 171 percent more than Ron Paul
· 157 percent more than Newt Gingrich
· 103 percent more than Michele Bachmann
· 100 percent more than Herman Cain
· 77 percent more than Rick Perry

How much time the Media spends covering the candidates, creates a perception of which one is electable and which is not:

Overall, across the last three debates, Romney has tallied 41 minutes and 9 seconds of speaking time, which is nearly seven minutes more than the next closest candidate, Rick Perry (at 34 minutes, 12 seconds).

Michele Bachmann comes in a distant third with 23 minutes and 59 seconds, followed by Huntsman (21 minutes, 47 seconds), Cain (21 minutes, 6 seconds), Gingrich (20 minutes, 41 seconds), Santorum (20 minutes, 38 seconds), and Paul (18 minutes, 47 seconds).

The fact that Congressman Paul has received less than half the amount of speaking time as Romney (and less than any other candidate) is curious considering the libertarian firebrand has run third or fourth in most polls throughout the last several months.

Interesting, because Huntsman nor Santorum hardly even register in polls.

Kevin,

Precisely right no president gets everything passed by a long shot. Particularly since even Republicans disagree with Paul he would have a hard time getting everything he wants passed.

I like the idea of Ron Paul precisely because the media ignores him. This makes me think that he is the only candidate that is completely independent of corporate/media control. Ok not the only one as former Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer is also independent. So independent that he is not taking over $100 from anyone. That is why the media has ignored him. His campaign is centered around getting the money out of politics. They are ignoring him too. But Ron Paul seems independent enough of corporate control and that is the only reason I like him. There is no way we are going to get change in this country by voting for the same old folks with the same old ideas. I abhor many of his ideas but in a lot of ways he is the only sane person on the podium. He is the only one willing to say that executing an American citizen is wrong and unconstitutional.

We have strayed a long way from our roots and now both parties have blood on their hands. We are not going to get our rights back by cowtowing to the same type of mindset.

Once upon a time it was illegal to wiretap citizens without a warrant, it was illegal to hoover up all internet traffic in the USA without warrants, it was illegal for the government to execute a citizen without due process, it was illegal to torture people, it was illegal to hold people in indefinite detention without charges or due process...I could go on and on. What have we let oursleves become?

Government needs the consent of the governerned I did not consent to the above illegal activities by our government and I don't intend to continue to vote for people who shred the constitution. There are choices out there for President that are independent: Ron Paul and Buddy Roemer are two.

MsAnnaNOLA says

I like the idea of Ron Paul precisely because the media ignores him. This makes me think that he is the only candidate that is completely independent of corporate/media control. Ok not the only one as former Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer is also independent. So independent that he is not taking over $100 from anyone. That is why the media has ignored him. His campaign is centered around getting the money out of politics. They are ignoring him too. But Ron Paul seems independent enough of corporate control and that is the only reason I like him. There is no way we are going to get change in this country by voting for the same old folks with the same old ideas.

Fanned.

HousingWatcher says

The first: His foreign policy views alienate the right wing.
The second: His domestic policy views alienate the left wing.

So at the end of the day, Ron Paul attracts no more than 10-15% of the population, nowhere near enough to win.

There are much more than 15% independants nowadays.
Both left and right wings are completely bankrupt. There is no reason for any sane one to vote for either of them. On top of this, the right has no single electable candidate.

So, there are the following questions here:

1. Will the main stream be able to force on us another puppet Republican candidate? As it is now Ron Paul actually has a good chance to win against this.

2. Is Obama more electable than Ron Paul? That depends on what will be presented as main questions during the election. I think Obama won't be able to eliminate from the discurse his role in the failure of the health care reform. Neither his foreign policy, which is the same one as it was under Bush. Neither his complete incompetence with the economy. I expect both sane conservatives and sane liberals as well as all independents will prefer Ron Paul in such elections. Only fanatics and racists will vote against him.

3. The final question is: will the financial mafia have guts to simply assassinate
Ron Paul in case they see him electable? I'd say more like 50/50 chances of this.

The truth is: Ron Paul has to position himself as electable. His top priority right now is to tell us what he will do as a President in real world. He needs to explain how he plans to deal with the hostile Congress. He needs to clarify the processes of implementation of his plans, not just the goals. As we know, such processes are more important than the goals.