Why Ron Paul could not become president.

get a grip on reality

i started voting over thirty years ago

 

So it would bother you if your guy would had gotten the RP treatment.

 

like i said, i don't have a guy

and ron paul got the treatment he deserved

his supporters' bad behavior turned many people off, too

[video=youtube;p5rJI5e0jBU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5rJI5e0jBU[/video]

 

If you were a voter you had a guy. Now answer my question.

Yeah, tjhat's one instance towards a guy who deserved it by the way. there are plenty of examples of shamefull behavior during a campaing for all sides.

 

i want the press to report what they find, like they did with ron paul

you realize the video is about the bad behavior of paultards, right?

 

Yeah,.

You are not high profile enough. But since you voted you probably would be displeased if you candidate was excluded from the press reports despite having a high enough profile.

 

if a candidate can't generate enough interest to attract the press, he won't win

 

The electorate.

By whose standards? Certainly not by the average voter. Frankly, Ron Paul was so radical and so obsessed with returning this country to late 18th Century standards that he never had a chance.

 

You mean suck to certain interests then get press.

They are certainly less interested in partisanship, which is a sign of inteligence.

Did they publish an universally accepted manifesto.

 

is that supposed to make sense?

 

I have a simpler explanation. He's a self-evident crackpot just like 90% of the candidates the conservatives have trotted out since the introduction of Sarah Palin.

 

I understood it; but then, I also know how to use several thesauri and dictionaries.

 

He's not even a true libertarian. All he does is bash the federal government, while completely overlooking it wihen states overstep THEIR authority.

 

Yes. That the findings of Robert Pape in the book, "Dying to Win," should be used as a guide to our foreign policy.

That was wrong.

 

But you are okay with his isolationist foreign policy ideas, eh?

Remember this. Paul got the idea of America stepping aside and allowing the azzoles of the world to do as they please from America's predominant Pre-WWII isolationist sentiment.

Hitler gained power and waged war. Tojo gained power and waged war. Then finally we had to stop Germany and Japan with a huge war effort of our own.

WWII cost trillions of dollars and close to 50 million lives.

Then realize that WWII didn't HAVE to happen if somebody had just stepped in and halted German and Japanese aggression before things got out of hand.

That was America's policy when Ron Paul was a boy. Now, the old man thinks that is today's answer too.

Great.

Just imagine what Kim Jong Un and Bashar al Assad and Castro's regime and Putin and the global Jihadists would do if we took Ron Paul's advice and sat back with no one else to prevent their mischief.

Is there ANY doubt that things would once again spin out of control just like in WWII and force a world wide Armageddon like they did in the 1930's and 40's forcing us to wage global war once again to make the world safe once again for democracy?

Why do you think the resident Muslim supporters here at PF support Ron Paul?

Ahmadinejad would get a tingle up his leg if America became isolationist.

 

there words are common and simple, the sentence structure is odd

 

Commerce, well regulated among several States of any Union is not, isolationist. My understanding of that position is that nobody elected us shire reeve of the world.

 

Well, your position is puzzling to me.

Why?

Because our acting as the unelected sheriff of the world is the same ideology, but on an international playing field, as Obama's domestic policy here at home.

He does what he does to America for the same reason America does what it does abroad.

It is to our advantage.

Obama wasn't elected to do what he's been doing but he does it because it serves his purposes.

America does what is in our best interest and more often than not it also benefits those in other lands as well.

No election needed.

 

I don't view any (competitive) advantage in wasting resources on the general warfare and common offense without wartime Tax rates being imposed on the wealthiest.

 

The point is that we might have what you consider to be the most enlightened tax policy imaginable but what comfort will that bring you after seeing half the world go up in the flames of war? What sense of satisfaction will you derive from knowing that we will have to intervene at the cost of trillions of dollars and millions of lives when we COULD have gotten involved sooner and prevented a global conflagration altogether?

Taxes???

Oh brother!

 

I think you are being overly dramatic. besides, why should practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy expect any better, even in modern times?

 

Ron Paul confronted the neo-conservative establishment openly and there was no way he could win the GOP nomination but he continue to run in the presidential race to spread his Libertarian message and change the GOP's foreign policy agenda. Paul was getting a lot of attention in the media throughout his presidential campaign, which was what was really important for him, and winning the presidency was secondary.

 

Yeah. Your post suggests to me you are the type of poster who would allow the rest of the American people to suffer the results of Ron Paul's faulty foreign policy folly simply because you'd casually disregard the lessons of history.

Our schools don't just fail the students by not teaching them well, they fail all of America by allowing half wits to rise to positions of responsibility without having the prerequisites to do the job adequately.

 

The man believes the best way to deal with terrorism is to withdraw all our installations and personnel around the world and return everything and everybody to the U.S.A.

That is the same stance the U.S. had during the 1930's.

And that allowed the bad guys of that era, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini to essentially do as they pleased until we were forced to oppose them after they'd gotten a head start on their own war efforts.

Do you think our current day enemies would like us to just stop confronting them and engaging them militarily all over the world?

You bet your arse they would.

 

You are mixing state and non-state actors. Also the draconian repayments imposed on Germany after WW1 had a lot to do with Hitler geting elected.

- - - Updated - - -

You are mixing state and non-state actors. Also the draconian repayments imposed on Germany after WW1 had a lot to do with Hitler geting elected.