Why Ron Paul Won't Win

[FaiL.?]

WE WILL CUT ONE BILLION DOLLARS FROM THE BUDGET


WE WILL THEN BUILD A GIGANTIC BORDER-SPANNING WALL


I AM A GENIUS

[THEWULFMAN]

@ Fasty

I'm all for Ron Paul, but I think you're pushing it by a LOT if you think he can do all that. The president isn't the overlord of the USA, he still has to work with a divided house and senate. Also, every candidate will say they will bring the troops home, then they get in office and find out it's not as easy as just "bringing them home." You can't just become president and do everything you want. That's the beauty/problem with our system. No one man or group has control, for better or worse. On one hand they can't just up and decide to do really stupid/evil things(easily anyway), but on the other hand they can never do anything at all. So it's a win/lose system.

Let me make it clear, I'm Ron Paul for president, but don't blow your hopes up way out of proportion.

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

Do you really "vote" for the candidate that you chose?..or are you voting for the candidate they chose for you? Really, think about that.

Of course the elections are being rigged. But why do you think the media is so scared of Paul? If he wins by a landslide they can't stop him, and he can win by a landslide if his message gets through to the people. Take the time to look him up.

The elections are being rigged? Uh, how about you take your lame conspiracies outside of my thread. Okay? Okay.

[ӺȁȿŧƔ]

@ Fasty

I'm all for Ron Paul, but I think you're pushing it by a LOT if you think he can do all that. The president isn't the overlord of the USA, he still has to work with a divided house and senate. Also, every candidate will say they will bring the troops home, then they get in office and find out it's not as easy as just "bringing them home." You can't just become president and do everything you want. That's the beauty/problem with our system. No one man or group has control, for better or worse. On one hand they can't just up and decide to do really stupid/evil things(easily anyway), but on the other hand they can never do anything at all. So it's a win/lose system.

Let me make it clear, I'm Ron Paul for president, but don't blow your hopes up way out of proportion.

Of course he won't bring them all home over night. Starting with the most important first, they will slowly be brought home. This is not an empty promise like Obama gave. And yes he can do ALL of those things. Before 1900 the government didn't tell us what to do. Why can't it go back that way? The president has full control over the government agencies, and that's how it should be. The federal Reserve ALMOST has more power than the president and that's f#cked up.

Do you really "vote" for the candidate that you chose?..or are you voting for the candidate they chose for you? Really, think about that.

Of course the elections are being rigged. But why do you think the media is so scared of Paul? If he wins by a landslide they can't stop him, and he can win by a landslide if his message gets through to the people. Take the time to look him up.

The elections are being rigged? Uh, how about you take your lame conspiracies outside of my thread. Okay? Okay.

Santorum went from 5% popularity to 23% in 4 days in Iowa. You don't think that's just a little suspicions that ALL of the independent voters just rallied behind that random guy? Of course, that didn't matter anyway because the delegates have not been handed out yet and Ron is likely to win a lot of them.

[THEWULFMAN]

Of course he won't bring them all home over night. Starting with the most important first, they will slowly be brought home. This is not an empty promise like Obama gave.

The problem is not the ability to bring them home, the problem is the consequences of pulling everyone out. In Afghanistan, it is a NATO effort. If we pull our troops out, we piss off the rest of NATO. You can't just "bring them home" once you've gone there. That's not how it works. No one understands this until they get into office. If you don't want your troops somewhere, don't send them at all. Once you're there, you can't just pack up your bags and leave.

How can you say it's not an empty promise anyway? Do you know the man personally, met him years ago, have a personal trust built with him? No. Of course not. You have pretty much the same any politician can offer. Their word. Please keep in mind, Ron Paul is my first and only choice for president. I just know he's a politician at the end of the day.

I kinda envy you somewhat, you still trust politicians (or at least this one). I don't. I'd vote for Ron Paul because he's the least likely to make things worse in my opinion. I still give enough of my trust to Ron, which is more than any other candidate could say.

Why can't it go back that way?

Because it's easier to change for the worse than it is for the better. People, specifically politicians, like doing the easy thing. This country has gotten soft in the past 50 years.

The federal Reserve ALMOST has more power than the president and that's f#cked up.

I also agree the Federal Reserve has too much power, just so you know.

[Darth Crater]

Five governments departments would be shut down (Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development).

"I will remove tens of thousands of jobs while shutting down some of the most important sectors of our government." Even if he actually *can* do that, I doubt anyone is in favor of it. I'd like to see some cuts, but not that sweeping and not in sectors that important.

All our troops over seas would come back. Most of our 500 foreign bases would be closed. We would get out of the middle east completely.

So we cut down on our ability to project military force, and completely abandon our allies in the Middle East?

1 trillion dollars would be cut out of our budget to start paying off the 16 trillion dollar debt we have accumulated.

The ones in charge of the budget are Congress. the president has input, but not enough input to cut 20% of expenditures (especially not when that has a side effect of pretty much destroying the government's ability to actually govern).

We would eventually readopt the gold standard and our money would start to actually be worth something again.

We don't need the gold standard; nobody uses the gold standard anymore because it's an outdated method of currency. We're perfectly capable of agreeing that our money has value without tying it to a physical object.

States will be able to decide for themselves if they want to legalize drugs without the government telling us what to do. Government will no longer be able to make small laws. We will be able to ride our cars with no seat belts and talk on the phone while driving. We will be able to buy raw milk from local farmers instead of only having big corporations sell us milk. Hospitals will have to start to competing with each other.

We will be able to increase traffic deaths several hundred percent? Hospitals will start cutting corners in order to compete? Sign me up! [/sarcasm] I'm confused here - if he's giving more control to the states, how are the seatbelt/cellphone laws (which are passed by individual states) going to go away and why would anyone want them to? What's stopping you buying milk from local farmers now, aside from the fact that it probably isn't pasteurized?

In other words we will be free without the government telling us what to do. The debt will start being paid off and we will see the price of living go way down.

Even if he somehow does all of these things, you're not going to be "free of the government". As for the debt, why does paying it off correlate to a lower cost of living?

[ӺȁȿŧƔ]

How can you say it's not an empty promise anyway? Do you know the man personally, met him years ago, have a personal trust built with him? No. Of course not. You have pretty much the same any politician can offer. Their word. Please keep in mind, Ron Paul is my first and only choice for president. I just know he's a politician at the end of the day.

What I mean is it will not be another one of these cases.

Unlike the other candidates Paul has a motive behind his candidacy. He is not in it for the power, he wants the president to have less power actually. That is why he says his campaign is more of a movement than anything. His popularity has more than quadrupled since the 2008 elections and it is because people are starting to wake up and realize the wars are hurting our country almost as much as the countries we occupy.

Urg Crater I've concluded that you're some sort of conservative after I read your post. I will try to explain this the best I can.

Five governments departments would be shut down (Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development).

"I will remove tens of thousands of jobs while shutting down some of the most important sectors of our government." Even if he actually *can* do that, I doubt anyone is in favor of it. I'd like to see some cuts, but not that sweeping and not in sectors that important.
If you look up what those agencies do you will find out they are actually useless wastes of money. Education especially is unimportant with more than 800 billion dollars of debt from college students.

All our troops over seas would come back. Most of our 500 foreign bases would be closed. We would get out of the middle east completely.

So we cut down on our ability to project military force, and completely abandon our allies in the Middle East?
>Allies
I've said this on these forums before and I noticed many disagreed with me. We are not allies with anyone in the middle east. They want us out of their countries very badly.

The other thing is this:
How would bringing our troops home cut down our military force? We would be safer with our military actually here on our soil rather than spread out across the world. It's not Americas job to be everywhere! We are in Japan and Korea and dozens of countries for no reason. You have to use the golden rule for a minute here. What would we want if other countries were occupying US? We would want them out of here.

1 trillion dollars would be cut out of our budget to start paying off the 16 trillion dollar debt we have accumulated.

The ones in charge of the budget are Congress. the president has input, but not enough input to cut 20% of expenditures (especially not when that has a side effect of pretty much destroying the government's ability to actually govern).
How is big government better? People seem to think we need a huge government to run this country. As I said, all of those things I mentioned CAN be done by the president. They are words out of his mouth, and if he could not do them he would not have said them.

We would eventually readopt the gold standard and our money would start to actually be worth something again.

We don't need the gold standard; nobody uses the gold standard anymore because it's an outdated method of currency. We're perfectly capable of agreeing that our money has value without tying it to a physical object.
I'll admit, I haven't done much research on this subject. Gold is valuable. Paper money is useless paper at the rate we are going with the money system it will take a wheel barrel of cash to buy a loaf of bread these days. Have you ever traveled to a foreign country and noticed it takes 1000 or so of whatever currency to buy things? That is where America is headed. A lot of countries have tried printing more money to cover deficits. It does not work. We need a system of actual value.

States will be able to decide for themselves if they want to legalize drugs without the government telling us what to do. Government will no longer be able to make small laws. We will be able to ride our cars with no seat belts and talk on the phone while driving. We will be able to buy raw milk from local farmers instead of only having big corporations sell us milk. Hospitals will have to start to competing with each other.

We will be able to increase traffic deaths several hundred percent? Hospitals will start cutting corners in order to compete? Sign me up! [/sarcasm] I'm confused here - if he's giving more control to the states, how are the seatbelt/cellphone laws (which are passed by individual states) going to go away and why would anyone want them to? What's stopping you buying milk from local farmers now, aside from the fact that it probably isn't pasteurized?
It all boils down to this: If we stop a law it doesn't mean we endorse it. We tell people they SHOULD wear a seat belt but we do not enforce it. If you think one day we announce we are legalizing heroine then EVERYONE will start using heroine? Absolutely not. The milk thing is happening in a town near mine actually. The police have stopped the sale of milk in order to help big companies. They say it is a health risk but even if it is (its not), they should not have the power to stop us. America is supposed to be a free country.

In other words we will be free without the government telling us what to do. The debt will start being paid off and we will see the price of living go way down.

Even if he somehow does all of these things, you're not going to be "free of the government". As for the debt, why does paying it off correlate to a lower cost of living? We would be as free as we are supposed to be and as free as the founding fathers meant for this country to be. There is a TV show, I forget what its called but it shows how inflation affects the markets. You would be surprised how much everything has risen in price. Our money is getting more and more worthless since more and more is being printed off. It's all about rarity. If we have a lot of money then it will be worth less. Less money will mean it is worth more. That is why it would be good to bring the gold standard back. Because gold is rare while paper money, we have way too much of.

[Darth Crater]

Yes, I'm a conservative (in some ers, anyway). Doesn't that make me part of Ron Paul's "target audience"? He's not doing a very good job at marketing himself to me, so far.

We are not allies with anyone in the middle east. They want us out of their countries very badly.

Israel.

How would bringing our troops home cut down our military force?

Distance. A big part of our strength is the fact that we can project force from many different points, instead of having to work solely from our home soil. If nothing else, it cuts down reaction time from days to hours.

As for why our military is all over the place, including areas such as Japan and South Korea: it's because we have treaties and agreements with those governments. In other words, they're allowing us to be there. We haven't asked anyone to bring their troops to the US, so they haven't.

I'll admit, I haven't done much research on this subject. Gold is valuable. Paper money is useless paper at the rate we are going with the money system it will take a wheel barrel of cash to buy a loaf of bread these days. Have you ever traveled to a foreign country and noticed it takes 1000 or so of whatever currency to buy things? That is where America is headed. A lot of countries have tried printing more money to cover deficits. It does not work. We need a system of actual value.

Yes, in some countries their currency involves larger numbers. They also earn more, numerically speaking. That's useless as a measure of comparison. Yes, if we print enough money that it's more efficient to use it for firewood (Weimar Republic-style) then we'll have some problems. That's why the government isn't going to do that. As for gold, it's pretty much just another form of fiat currency - everyone agreed that gold had some inherent value. A sudden influx of American gold crippled the Spanish economy in exactly the way you're suggesting in the 16th-17th centuries. The concept of money needing to be backed by some physical object is as outdated as mercantilism; it has value under the current system without that.

They are words out of his mouth, and if he could not do them he would not have said them.

... because obviously he has no reason to lie, exaggerate, or make false claims in order to bring in supporters. And he knows who will be in Congress when he gets elected, and what they'll allow him to get away with.

We tell people they SHOULD wear a seat belt but we do not enforce it.

The seat belt laws aren't a big issue for adults, but it's likely to harm the children of parents who don't follow it. Cellphone usage clearly endangers other drivers. In the latter case, at least (I'm not sure about seat belts) the laws are passed by the individual states, so Ron Paul can do exactly zero unless he overrides them at a federal level (something you claim he's against).

The laws about milk are in place to stop people from buying potentially infected milk and getting killed. In any case, I got as far into that video as "raw milk doesn't have lactose intolerance" before I gave up. Those people clearly aren't competent enough to make their own decisions.

Less money will mean it is worth more.

So, you're decreasing the numerical cost of living, without decreasing the actual cost of living?

[ӺȁȿŧƔ]

Yes, I'm a conservative (in some ers, anyway). Doesn't that make me part of Ron Paul's "target audience"? He's not doing a very good job at marketing himself to me, so far.
Well all Americans are part of his target audience since this affects everyone. Believe it or not there are things he says I somewhat disagree with. I plan on asking him some questions when he comes to Oregon in a few months. As for conservatives, they are usually impossible to argue with. They want to save too much that we simply cannot pay for. People seem to forget we are in a recession.

We are not allies with anyone in the middle east. They want us out of their countries very badly.

Israel.
They want us out. Both their government, and their people. And the American people. 67% of Americans think we need to come home from and to stop these endless undeclared wars. Why do you think the Ron Paul campaign has received more donations from the military than all other candidates combined? We are making more enemies than friends there.

How would bringing our troops home cut down our military force?

Distance. A big part of our strength is the fact that we can project force from many different points, instead of having to work solely from our home soil. If nothing else, it cuts down reaction time from days to hours. [/color]

As for why our military is all over the place, including areas such as Japan and South Korea: it's because we have treaties and agreements with those governments. In other words, they're allowing us to be there. We haven't asked anyone to bring their troops to the US, so they haven't.

We would have a stronger defense. Maybe a weaker offense but still. Give me one good reason to be in Kuwait.
I personally just want to see more of this:

Wouldn't that be good for moral at least?

I'll admit, I haven't done much research on this subject. Gold is valuable. Paper money is useless paper at the rate we are going with the money system it will take a wheel barrel of cash to buy a loaf of bread these days. Have you ever traveled to a foreign country and noticed it takes 1000 or so of whatever currency to buy things? That is where America is headed. A lot of countries have tried printing more money to cover deficits. It does not work. We need a system of actual value.

Yes, in some countries their currency involves larger numbers. They also earn more, numerically speaking. That's useless as a measure of comparison. Yes, if we print enough money that it's more efficient to use it for firewood (Weimar Republic-style) then we'll have some problems. That's why the government isn't going to do that. As for gold, it's pretty much just another form of fiat currency - everyone agreed that gold had some inherent value. A sudden influx of American gold crippled the Spanish economy in exactly the way you're suggesting in the 16th-17th centuries. The concept of money needing to be backed by some physical object is as outdated as mercantilism; it has value under the current system without that.

You don't think the government is going to do that? It already is. Don't you understand what the federal reserve is? A private bank that has full control over the populations wealth. They own every single thing in this country. Your house, your car, you pay your bills to them, your education, they own you. We are all owned by the federal reserve. If we do not put an end to them they will end us. We will come home from the foreign countries one way or another. I hope to dear god it is not because our country has gone broke. Look up Ben Bernake. He is in this for his own good. He is having a party at the tax payers expense and guess what, we are not invited.

Soon the American dollar will have all its trust lost in it. The euro will become more valuable than the dollar. At that moment America will no longer be the land of the great.

They are words out of his mouth, and if he could not do them he would not have said them.

... because obviously he has no reason to lie, exaggerate, or make false claims in order to bring in supporters. And he knows who will be in Congress when he gets elected, and what they'll allow him to get away with.
I do not believe this man has made a lie in his life. Look at Obama for a minute. All he said in 2008 was "CHANGE" and he promised to bring troops home because that was what the people wanted. He never even proposed any changes at all. He never mentioned the deficits. The deficits aren't going to go away just by us not talking about them. You know that right? Ron Paul has shown he has extreme knowledge. At 76 years old you would expect him to be a little wise. He remembers the wars. He was drafted and served a few years. Newt Gingrich was drafted as well. Did he serve? No. Ron has character and integrity. He has been married to his wife for over 50 years. Seriously though, stop listening to me and go look him up on YouTube.

We tell people they SHOULD wear a seat belt but we do not enforce it.

The seat belt laws aren't a big issue for adults, but it's likely to harm the children of parents who don't follow it. Cellphone usage clearly endangers other drivers. In the latter case, at least (I'm not sure about seat belts) the laws are passed by the individual states, so Ron Paul can do exactly zero unless he overrides them at a federal level (something you claim he's against).

The laws about milk are in place to stop people from buying potentially infected milk and getting killed. In any case, I got as far into that video as "raw milk doesn't have lactose intolerance" before I gave up. Those people clearly aren't competent enough to make their own decisions.

It's not that it endangers people. Its the fact that no where in the constitution does it say that the government needs to make small pathetic laws to help people stay alive. We should have choices. I don't know about you, maybe you like being told what you can and can't do. I hate it.

Less money will mean it is worth more.

So, you're decreasing the numerical cost of living, without decreasing the actual cost of living?
I don't really understand what you mean here. Ill give you an example of the cost of living going down. You go to the store and prices are lower. Why? Because whoever made that thing could make it cheaper. They probably made it on American soil because manufacturers would start building on America once the markets are reassured. Have you ever wondered why over 75% of everything is made in China? Because it costs too much to manufacture goods here.

[ӺȁȿŧƔ]

Yes, I'm a conservative (in some ers, anyway). Doesn't that make me part of Ron Paul's "target audience"? He's not doing a very good job at marketing himself to me, so far.
Well all Americans are part of his target audience since this affects everyone. Believe it or not there are things he says I somewhat disagree with. I plan on asking him some questions when he comes to Oregon in a few months. As for conservatives, they are usually impossible to argue with. They want to save too much that we simply cannot pay for. People seem to forget we are in a recession.

We are not allies with anyone in the middle east. They want us out of their countries very badly.

Israel.
They want us out. Both their government, and their people. And the American people. 67% of Americans think we need to come home from and to stop these endless undeclared wars. Why do you think the Ron Paul campaign has received more donations from the military than all other candidates combined? We are making more enemies than friends there.

How would bringing our troops home cut down our military force?

Distance. A big part of our strength is the fact that we can project force from many different points, instead of having to work solely from our home soil. If nothing else, it cuts down reaction time from days to hours.

As for why our military is all over the place, including areas such as Japan and South Korea: it's because we have treaties and agreements with those governments. In other words, they're allowing us to be there. We haven't asked anyone to bring their troops to the US, so they haven't.

We would have a stronger defense. Maybe a weaker offense but still. Give me one good reason to be in Kuwait.
I personally just want to see more of this:

Wouldn't that be good for moral at least?

I'll admit, I haven't done much research on this subject. Gold is valuable. Paper money is useless paper at the rate we are going with the money system it will take a wheel barrel of cash to buy a loaf of bread these days. Have you ever traveled to a foreign country and noticed it takes 1000 or so of whatever currency to buy things? That is where America is headed. A lot of countries have tried printing more money to cover deficits. It does not work. We need a system of actual value.

Yes, in some countries their currency involves larger numbers. They also earn more, numerically speaking. That's useless as a measure of comparison. Yes, if we print enough money that it's more efficient to use it for firewood (Weimar Republic-style) then we'll have some problems. That's why the government isn't going to do that. As for gold, it's pretty much just another form of fiat currency - everyone agreed that gold had some inherent value. A sudden influx of American gold crippled the Spanish economy in exactly the way you're suggesting in the 16th-17th centuries. The concept of money needing to be backed by some physical object is as outdated as mercantilism; it has value under the current system without that.

You don't think the government is going to do that? It already is. Don't you understand what the federal reserve is? A private bank that has full control over the populations wealth. They own every single thing in this country. Your house, your car, you pay your bills to them, your education, they own you. We are all owned by the federal reserve. If we do not put an end to them they will end us. We will come home from the foreign countries one way or another. I hope to dear god it is not because our country has gone broke. Look up Ben Bernake. He is in this for his own good. He is having a party at the tax payers expense and guess what, we are not invited.

Soon the American dollar will have all its trust lost in it. The euro will become more valuable than the dollar. At that moment America will no longer be the land of the great.

They are words out of his mouth, and if he could not do them he would not have said them.

... because obviously he has no reason to lie, exaggerate, or make false claims in order to bring in supporters. And he knows who will be in Congress when he gets elected, and what they'll allow him to get away with.
I do not believe this man has made a lie in his life. Look at Obama for a minute. All he said in 2008 was "CHANGE" and he promised to bring troops home because that was what the people wanted. He never even proposed any changes at all. He never mentioned the deficits. The deficits aren't going to go away just by us not talking about them. You know that right? Ron Paul has shown he has extreme knowledge. At 76 years old you would expect him to be a little wise. He remembers the wars. He was drafted and served a few years. Newt Gingrich was drafted as well. Did he serve? No. Ron has character and integrity. He has been married to his wife for over 50 years. Seriously though, stop listening to me and go look him up on YouTube.

We tell people they SHOULD wear a seat belt but we do not enforce it.

The seat belt laws aren't a big issue for adults, but it's likely to harm the children of parents who don't follow it. Cellphone usage clearly endangers other drivers. In the latter case, at least (I'm not sure about seat belts) the laws are passed by the individual states, so Ron Paul can do exactly zero unless he overrides them at a federal level (something you claim he's against).

The laws about milk are in place to stop people from buying potentially infected milk and getting killed. In any case, I got as far into that video as "raw milk doesn't have lactose intolerance" before I gave up. Those people clearly aren't competent enough to make their own decisions.

It's not that it endangers people. Its the fact that no where in the constitution does it say that the government needs to make small pathetic laws to help people stay alive. We should have choices. I don't know about you, maybe you like being told what you can and can't do. I hate it.

Less money will mean it is worth more.

So, you're decreasing the numerical cost of living, without decreasing the actual cost of living?
I don't really understand what you mean here. Ill give you an example of the cost of living going down. You go to the store and prices are lower. Why? Because whoever made that thing could make it cheaper. They probably made it on American soil because manufacturers would start building on America once the markets are reassured. Have you ever wondered why over 75% of everything is made in China? Because it costs too much to manufacture goods here.