The Effectiveness of Ron Paul...

This says it all: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2107952_2107959_2107960,00.html

 

it says ron paul supporters are obsessive, online zealots

too bad for you all that doesn't translate into votes in the primaries

 

An open poll where Paulobots are free to stuff the 'ballot box' as much as they can maintain concentration and Paul gets 36% of the votes Erik Martin got?

INDEED that says it all. Paul got nuttin.

 

Wow! 5,200 people show up for Ron Paul rally in WI.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqAJEAjYa4&list=UU-aXO4WUovuHg9QvJYIwvMQ&index=1&feature=plpp_video"]Ron Paul Rally in Wisconsin Draws 5,200! Media Blacks It Out - YouTube[/ame]

Before they get a chance to respond, let me predict how the trolls will handle this one.

First, they'll fail to acknowledge that this is something rather remarkable and shows how effective Ron Paul has been in inspiring people.

Instead, they'll bring up something else, or, say how this doesn't do something else, thus it is not worth any credit.

Something like; "this doesn't help him win the Presidency, which he never will."

First of all, that has nothing to do with the fact that he drew 5,200 people to here him speak. In fact, if it is fact that Ron Paul is "done" then isn't this even more remarkable? 5,200 people come to see a candidate that doesn't have a chance speak? Wow!

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...sin_republican_presidential_primary-1601.html

WI polls average.

R- 40%
S- 32.5%
P- 09.3%
G- 6%

That says it ALL!

 

for the outcome we'll have wait to see what the wisconsin primary election results are on april 3?

in the mean time, this is what the rcp poll says

Romney 37

Santorum 32

Paul 8

Gingrich 4

let's see how accurate this poll is as compared to what you think the vote result will be, based on a rally

 

The WI election results, or polls about them, have nothing to do with the fact that over 5,000 people came to hear Ron Paul speak about "libertarian" politics. And that the media is failing to cover the fact that Ron Paul is speaking to thousands regularly, despite his "standings" in the polls and elections (and mainstream estimates of delegate counts).

 

it won't last or be significant

 

First of all the media is covering Paul's speaking engagements. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and a number of other Wisconsin papers ran articles about his speech at UW-Madison.

Secondly, so what if 5000 people come to one of his speeches? What has that gotten him? Not one win and only 50 delegates.

My advice to Ron Paul is, since he hasn't a chance in hell of winning the nomination, shut down his campaign and go on the public speaking circuit.

 

its sad that Ron paul is a head of his time, the gop is in its death throws, and can not recover until the baby boomers and older go way of the dodo bird. When that happens, and it will, Ron paul politics will be the normal again. Enoy the next 10-15 years of democrat control republicans, you earned it, thats for sure.

 

Do Paulobots have some make believe gene spliced into their brains replacing the reality gene? Because not a one of you makes a bit of sense. Paul himself makes a little bit of sense, but wastes it with a dufus stand or inaction. Paulobots make no sense at all.

Paul will become the nominee!!!! NO way possible, he is already eliminated in reality. 26 delegates, an unfunny joke. 2012 is Strike Three, you're out, Go Home to retirement.

 

Ron Paul's politics have never been the norm. That's why he never succeeded in Congress and his presidential bids were complete failures. After the convention he's effectively finished in politics. He can peddle his books and go on the public speaking circuit to make a few bucks. This country needs a leader and Paul has no leadership qualities.

 

You can label me anything you like, until last election cycle i was a card carrying and voting republican. As I got older and started my own business i realized that large government will never work, and nor will the endless wars the current Republican party supports.

While Ron may be my favorite in this race, i do acknowledge he will not be president, I never had any reason to believe he would be, as I said until the baby boomers finally die off, no one but a big government, pro war, pandering to the worst in america candidate will be the nominee.

Thankfully, time is on my side, not the old guards. When the republican party lose's in nov, maybe then the old, and the in-bred fundys will see the error in their way. One party supports the rich, the other supports the poor, and the poor out number the rich, its a numbers game, and you are on the bad end.

One day maybe, after the boomers are gone, we can get a republican who cares about the middle class, and the working poor, you know... the majority of this country and we can start to turn this country around, until then, enjoy your democrat over lords, you put them in power.

Hang on to your ass, its going to be a bumpy ride with Obama in power for 4 more years, but you deserve every moment of it.

 

Yes. Because he is a radical. I don't always agree with Ron Paul but he has come up with some radical proposals that make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, Congress is dominated by people who care more for their interests than for the general public. Change is almost always feared by the majority which is a major reason why he is not accepted so easily. You can see that the people who support him are mostly young and educated while his most severe opponents are the old fuddy duddies who will continue to repeat past mistakes and fear any new idea no matter how logical it is.

Look at this series of predictions he made in 2002. Even then, people told him he was off his rocker. Tosay, many of them have come true yet people continue to mock him because they that when it comes to logic, they will be soundly defeated. Ron Paul opponents claim that he is an insignificant figure yet go out of their way to ridicule him.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/From-the-Wires/2012/0119/The-prophecies-of-Ron-Paul

 

Bottom line for me is that he has never explained how he would efficiently and effectively implement any of his ideas, especially his foreign policy ideas.

 

Has Romney explained his foreign policy other than that I will attack Iran and flip flopping on whether the troops should have been withdrawn earlier to obama decided to withdraw the troops too early.

 

I'm not interested in Romney's foreign policy. I am interested in how Ron Paul plans on efficiently and effectively implementing his foreign policy ideas.

Care to answer?

 

Well you support him as a candidate. You should be able to explain his foreign policy ideas. the fact is at this stage of the campaign, no candidate is going to go into so much detail as to how each and every of their ideas are going to be implemented. They only lay out what their foreign policy ideas are. The general public neither really cares about not understands the implementation process. Please enlighten me if any of the other candidates have and stop judging Ron Paul by a different yardstick than you use for the other candidates.

By the way, your avatar only serves to prove how immature Ron Paul opponents are.

 

Why can't Ron Paul explain how he would efficiently and effectively implement his foreign policy ideas? Because he himself doesn't know. Big talk, no detail.

 

As I said, none of the other candidates have either. So I could say the same about them.

The fact is, what Ron Paul proposes changes the status quo on so many ways that him being the nominee was a slim chance at best. What has happened is that his ideas have generated a lot of interest and there are a lot more people who agree with his views than did only 6 months ago. Change is a gradual process and does not come overnight. He has planted the seeds of change in the minds of a lot of people though and it will force people to consider a lot of their long standing beliefs. Whether the change does happen or not, much of what he proposes is correct and a direction which the country should take.

 

Say what you want about the other candidates. My point is that Ron Paul hasn't explained how he plans to implement his ideas efficiently and effectively. He hasn't the support of Congress. He hasn't any leadership qualities.

 

doesn't matter. Paul was never in it to win the Presidency. His whole point was popularizing his message which he has done and garnered significant support for it also.

 

that's why the little statists among us can't stand him.

 

yes we know, you want a whore to lead the whores while they continue their whoring.

 

The voting so far proves that Paul has garnered insignificant support among the young and naive. That's it. Paul's message is the same now as it has been for 3 decades. It garnered insignificant support in 1988, and 2008 and again in 2012. He is 4th in a 4 man race and has not won a state, and has only 26 firm delegates at the HALFWAY point.

Paul and his "support" are both insignificant. Paul's "strength" is in the 18-29 voter. They amount to about 10% of total voters and Paul has beat other candidates in that category. BUT HE HAS NOT GARNERED 50% OF THAT GROUP IN ANY STATE. He can't get a majority of his prime support group.

Maturity will eventually tell you that listening to a man that was unable in 3 decades to pass even ONE important issue out of over 700 sponsored by him, is foolish. No matter how great the issues, the man is a waste of time.