As a Paul Supporter

The path we're on is not right, not sustainable and yet you advocate for it, while praising Ron Paul out of the other side of your mouth.

Low value post is low value.

 

I am completely opposed to an ever increasing national debt, infringements upon civil liberties and freedoms, and favor a reversal of unconstitutional policies for limited government. I understand that the means in which Ron Paul has tried to forward his philosophy have not worked. Consequently, I conclude that Paul is a politician with a pure heart and a commitment to liberty and freedom. He is not a skilled policy-maker that can broker legislation to put his revolution in action. If he was, he would have convinced the two major political parties that libertarianism is in the best interests of the masses and the power elite.

To truly put a Ron Paul revolution into legislative action, one must be able to innovate policy. Using archaic approaches to new predicaments does not work. One must be able to provide maximized benefits to people like you and me, as well as the power elite. This means both political parties must benefit as well. If these three elements are complemented with a pure heart and a commitment to liberty and freedom, you can create an unprecedented political movement not seen since the Enlightenment.

 

No you're completely naive because Paul has mouthed his message for 36 years and done absolutely nothing about making ANY part of the message a reality.

The naive youth vote is split about 60% for obama and 40% for Paul. So the "naive vote" is for he who gives a good speech and does nothing but look good and he who gives a good speech and does nothing but looks old.

Individual LIVES, businesses, and governments grow and thrive on the results of people of ACTION. Not on empty talkers that do nothing but insure their own continued positions.
Paul and obama are identical in lack of action. Both sprout a story, each a different story, but just a story, no results.

Everybody is angry with Congress. Paul had 12 terms to stop Congress from being so bad or to actually improve it. He accomplished neither. I find NO evidence that he tried very hard to get any of his important issues passed or to stop horrible issues of others.
If I was running for the House, I would KNOW before being sworn in that I was but 1 of 435 Representatives. Meaning I would KNOW that to ACCOMPLISH anything I would have to be part of various coalitions. Paul had to know that and yet was always the loner. That is simply being FOOLISH, and his record of NOT having passed even 1 important issue into law proves that all Paul did was go from being a foolish man to being a foolish old man.

 

It has already been discussed what Ron Paul (or any President for that matter) could accomplish with or without Congressional backing and it's quite a lot. Perhaps you missed that. I have every confidence that, with his independent actions, the country would see positive results and he would then have a popular mandate to push his agenda forward.

The last thing we need is more of the same and that's just what you're advocating. As I said earlier...paradigm paralysis.

 

So you advocate Constitutional Government with Ron Paul as the Imperial, Dictatorial President. How's the Imperial, Dictatorial President we have now working out?

 

Ron Paul could only make progress through actions beyond what are granted to the President in the Constitution.

 

Paul has some good ideas, unfortunately, he has to many bad ones for me to ever vote for him.

 

What do you mean he's done absolutely nothing? He's not a dictator, you know. He can only submit legislation and spread his message, and he's been doing that as long as he's been in government. Your position doesn't even make any sense.

 

Paul, bills sponsored, OVER 700. Paul, bills that became law, 0 How much "something" is that? What is 700 X 0 = y, as in WHY?

 

Paul, bills sponsored, OVER 700. Paul, bills that became law, 0 How much "something" is that? What is 700 X 0 = y, as in WHY?

 

This doesn't mean he's done absolutely nothing. It means the Congress is not interested in his agenda.

 

So I see neither one of you really understands what a President can do. As has been discussed before, a President can end an undeclared war and bring our troops home without Congressional approval. A President can abolish Cabinet level agencies without Congressional approval. A President can close foreign military bases without Congressional approval. A President may also rescind any EOs. These are all things Ron Paul has said he would do and yes, he can get it done.

Taking the above mentioned items, the savings get us close to the $1 Trillion that he has said he would cut from the budget.These are REAL cuts, not the Paul Ryan cuts that start years down the road. These cuts don't jeopardize Social Security and they go a long way toward a balanced budget.

These initial successes would give him the political capital to further his agenda. This is how politics works. Unlike Obama, who wasted a year on health care and added trillions to our debt or Romney, who would be handing out favors to his banker buddies while threatening China and Iran and running up the debt, a President Paul would accomplish things that people actually want to see done.

NOTE: On closing foreign bases, Dr. Paul has not said he would close all of them. But, with over 900 bases on a planet with less than 200 countries, he could make substantial cuts without compromising our security.

 

Neither is the American public. He can't even get 10% of the Republican only VOTE. Do you have any idea what that means? Hint. It means that he has no chance to be president and has never had any chance to be president.

I've never looked into how he kept getting elected to Congress from his district. I suspect NO COMPETITION, but I have not researched that and don't care to.

His first try at Congress 1971, he lost in the primaries. He also tried to become a Senator, lost in the REPUBLICAN primaries to a DEMOCRAT. His first try for president he flip-flopped, QUIT the Republican Party and ran as the Libertarian Party candidate. 00.047% of the vote.
Then he flip-flopped-flipped and screwed the Libertarian Party and QUIT and rejoined the Republican Party. [STOP me if any of this is NOT FACT] Lost again in the primaries. And now he's again losing EVERY primary. Luckily he HAS already announced he is retiring from Congress.
Besides losing every election except the House vote from his home district, he has NEVER convinced enough fellow Representatives to get even ONE of Paul's 'big issues' passed into law. NOT ONE in 36 years. WHAT in your judgement, does one have to NOT DO in order to be called a failure. 12 terms in Congress that were totally and completely INEFFECTIVE. And idiot Paulobots blame the other 434 members.

I SUPPORT many of Paul's issues, but I cannot support dismal failure. IF Paul had accomplished ANYTHING, I could ignore his silly stands and support his serious issues. But I've been a businessman and entrepreneur all my life. I learned long before Paul ever ran for the first time in 71 that 'trying' means nothing. Try, and Try, and try again, sounds good, but you can only do that while your money lasts or you go OOB. Businesses, countries, individuals, succeed on RESULTS, not failed efforts.
Way back in high school I had the great fortune to play on undefeated championship teams in 2 different sports. Some of the players I played against in hi school, were on the same team in college. But I knew before college that all those teams we beat, TRIED, as hard as they could. One guy was my roommate on road games, we talked about playing against each other in hi school and how tough it was on him to lose. But I knew that DURING the game. Until the end of the last play he was giving 200%. He gained more yards, tough yards against us than any other back ever did, and I tackled him more than any other back, and felt everyone of them. But his team lost.

I have kept employees on the job that I could see were trying as hard as they could and achieving minimal results, but ACHIEVING those results. And respecting that amount of effort and combining it with good training produced spectacular results. And I've replaced employees that were getting a little done but not trying at all.

I don't see where Paul has tried very hard and there are no results to weigh in his favor. Some good ideas, absolutely nothing else.

I WISH he had been very successful. But that has NOT been the case.

 

1. None of this changes the fact that Ron Paul has done what he could to further his agenda. You've made it seem like he's done nothing but sit on his ass for forty years. That is just not true.

2. Ron Paul has come a LONG way since he first became a member of Congress and to deny that is just ridiculous. For instance, he and his supporters started the tea party movement that has made the debt, taxes, and size of government central issues in the upcoming election.

3. Paul has remained competitive against Obama in national polls, even beating the President in a few of them. That's the exact opposite of unelectable.

4. This is the most important point. Paul has lit a fire under the ass of the youth in this country and we will NOT be receding into the background. Mark my words, we will make ourselves heard in the years to come. Count on it old timer!

 

When the net EFFECT is exactly the same as if he did sit on his ass for forty years, what's the difference if he had or had busted his ass all those years. Failed is failed. Try hard or don't try at all, failed is failed. Paul ACCOMPLISHED zilch.

And there IS no Paul fire under the youth of the USA. The youth are 60/40 for obama, NOT Paul. And the youths DON"T get out and vote. Why is b.o. campaigning like a madman on college campuses? He knows he has the youth vote, but he's got to get them TO VOTE. Paul also has a share of the youth vote. His BEST results in the primaries have come from the youth vote,,,,,,,,,,,,HOWEVER,,,,,,,,,While Paul did get more of the youth vote than any other Republican candidate., Paul BEST youth vote was 40% of the youth vote, and that youth vote was only 9% of the actual voters. OR 3.6% of the total vote.
3.6% of the REPUBLICAN voters equals another failure and retirement.

I don't believe Paul is a bad or stupid or insincere person, but I recognize reality when it falls on my head. You Paulobots need to deal with reality. Perhaps if you did deal with reality and WORK to change things for the better instead of trying to make a hero out of a tired old failed man, you'd ACCOMPLISH something.

Singing the praises of someone that cannot get 4% of HIS party's vote is just wasting time and energy. That is the reality.

 

He's been fighting against the Republican status quo that has been in place for the past few decades... Of course he won't get the majority of the Republican vote. His mission is to change the status quo. He personally may not have accomplished much in his career as a politician in terms of physical, direct rewards. But the indirect rewards are his greatest accomplishments. The ideas in his philosophy that he has inspired the youth of the Republican party with will not fade away. He's inspired more youth than any other Republican candidate in DECADES. He's shown that not all politicians are dishonest sellouts (the exact opposite of Mitt Romney who flip flops like its his job) and prior to his campaigning a lot of youth thought differently.

So I do think you're right about him not having much to show in terms of physical rewards. But I also think that isn't the only way to indicate his success as a politician.

But you're dead wrong when you say "the NET effect is exactly the same as if he did sit on his ass for forty years" because he has inspired more youth than any politician for quite some time.

Sometimes a person has to fail so that they can set the stage for future success.
Do you agree with this statement?

 

You're not making any sense old man. Just because I disagree with you about Paul's impact on the country does not mean I'm ignoring reality or trying to make him into a hero. He's definitely had a significant impact on the political dialog in this country, you cannot deny that, it's an obvious fact. What's more, he has a lot of support of among young people and veterans and they'll be the ones shaping the FUTURE. Really, I don't even know what point you're tring to make.

 

I'm a veteran, a combat veteran, with 2 volunteer tours in Vietnam. I don't support Paul even tho I like SOME of what he says. For the masses, he destroys much of what he says by also saying silly assed things too. But I don't expect to be in complete agreement with anyone on everything. The main 2 reasons I cannot support Paul is 1, because he is all talk and no action. And 2. because he is not and never has been a factor. This is NOT a game where you root for the home team even tho they have no chance to win. This is reality and Paul has no chance to win so he should get out of the way. He a distraction and a waste of time, not a candidate.

And less than half of less than 10% of Republican voters IS NOT "a lot of support." Paul's "movement," Paul's "support," Paul's "accomplishments," and Paul's "candidacy," are ALL figments of naive minds. obama HAS the support of the majority of the young, not Paul. [I'd MUCH prefer that Paul DID have the support of the majority of the youth vote]

And the entire issue is moot. Paul is a has been that never was and will fade from the news in a year. Unless he flip-flopped-flipped-flops again and decides to run for Congress after announcing his retirement.