Is Paul viable?

[tombogan03884]

If Ron Paul were a viable candidate he would have got the nomination in on of the last 6 Presidential elections he ran in .
After 22 years of failure he is simply a distracting joke, like Pat Paulson.

[Timothy]

If Ron Paul were a viable candidate he would have got the nomination in on of the last 6 Presidential elections he ran in .
After 22 years of failure he is simply a distracting joke, like Pat Paulson.

But, Pat may have fared better than Ron Paul!

Paulsen's name appeared on the ballot in New Hampshire for the Democratic Primary several times. In 1996, he received 921 votes (1%) to finish second to President Bill Clinton (76,754 votes); this was actually ahead of real politicians such as Buffalo mayor James D. Griffin.

 

[Pathfinder]

If Ron Paul were a viable candidate he would have got the nomination in on of the last 6 Presidential elections he ran in .
After 22 years of failure he is simply a distracting joke, like Pat Paulson.

My points are:

1. Times have changed
2. In general, leaving out the loonier non-foreign involvement stuff, Paul is a staunch Constitutionalist
3. Most of the other "viable" (R) candidates are pure RINOs and will simply keep us moving down the slippery slopes of .gov control, reduced freedoms and liberties, ruling by dictate, bad economy, et al.
4. This country is well and truly effed by bho and his predecessors and desperately needs cleaning out, much like horse stables
5. What do we have to lose, given #3?

[fullautovalmet76]

My points are:

1. Times have changed
2. In general, leaving out the loonier non-foreign involvement stuff, Paul is a staunch Constitutionalist
3. Most of the other "viable" (R) candidates are pure RINOs and will simply keep us moving down the slippery slopes of .gov control, reduced freedoms and liberties, ruling by dictate, bad economy, et al.
4. This country is well and truly effed by bho and his predecessors and desperately needs cleaning out, much like horse stables
5. What do we have to lose, given #3?

Path,
I agree that going with Paul we really can't do worse than what we have now. As far as his points of views on monetary policy and foreign policy, I think even he knows that he will not get rid of the Federal Reserve, implement a complete transformation back to a gold standard, and pull all troops from overseas.

The hardest of all, the Fed, has to be changed by congress; and there is very little support for that. As for the gold standard, he knows there is not enough gold to cover all the money in circulation. He knows he would have to devalue the dollar so much that it would cause hyperinflation or he would have destroy so much of it that it would create a depression. The solution is a gradual, incremental, destruction of the currency in circulation - this will take years to do.

And as far as pulling troops overseas, I think he realizes that he can't take them out everywhere. I heard him concede that point in a radio interview where he mentioned maintaining a presence in the middle east with carrier battle groups. I think this makes sense until we can get our energy independence established - again this will take years to implement.

Tom is wrong. The joke is not about Ron Paul but is about the conservative base being consistently fooled into voting for candidates who do not really support conservative, constitutional values. If Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney are elected, then this country will deserve what it voted for.

If by some chance Ron Paul was elected, I think he would not survive long. I think he would be assassinated within 2 years. He is that dangerous to the establishment.

[tombogan03884]

My points are:

1. Times have changed
2. In general, leaving out the loonier non-foreign involvement stuff, Paul is a staunch Constitutionalist
3. Most of the other "viable" (R) candidates are pure RINOs and will simply keep us moving down the slippery slopes of .gov control, reduced freedoms and liberties, ruling by dictate, bad economy, et al.
4. This country is well and truly effed by bho and his predecessors and desperately needs cleaning out, much like horse stables
5. What do we have to lose, given #3?

The election.    

Any one who supports Ron Paul is a fool. Even if he got elected he would not accomplish anything against the institutionalized machine. The others may not be the best but at least they are electable.
Stupid people want it all now, while ignoring the success the communists dems have had with taking a bite here and a nibble there over the last 100 years.
If you, your parents, and the so called "greatest generation " had been watching more than the boob tube we would not be in the position we are now.
But most are to lazy and complacent to do more than crack a beer a click the remote.

[Sponsor]

[tt11758]

Everytime I start to think that Ron Paul might be the answer he comes off with something just bat-shit crazy.  And bat-shit crazy ain't electable.

[fightingquaker13]

Everytime I start to think that Ron Paul might be the answer he comes off with something just bat-shit crazy.  And bat-shit crazy ain't electable.

Of course bat-shit crazy will never be an issue with the Tom and TT ticket.
FQ13

[fullautovalmet76]

Of course bat-shit crazy will never be an issue with the Tom and TT ticket.
FQ13

+10