Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

  • 10-01-2011 11:40pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 575 ✭✭✭


    I think the world is worried and define him as the only one on Earth that can change things. If he wins, Earth, as we know it, will change forever with his libertarianism.

    Thoughts?


«13456716

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    No.

    The zeitgeist which surrounded Paul in 2007/2008 has morphed and has been changed. The Tea Party have taken center stage, and have bastardised Paul's original message. It is a sad fact that the likes of Sarah Palin, and Crhistine O Donnell are spoken of in the same breath as Paul.

    First, Paul remains persona non grata in many ranks of the Republican Party. He does carry a group of Republicans, but not nearly enough to sustain a significant push for the white house.

    Second, the likes of Arubio, Huntsman, Christie, Jindal, Barbour, and Romney are in more prominant positions then Paul, and enjoy greater exposure.

    Finally, the social conservativism which Paul espouses turns off the floating voter.

    In short, Paul will never see the Oval Office.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Het-Field wrote: »
    No.

    The zeitgeist which surrounded Paul in 2007/2008 has morphed and has been changed. The Tea Party have taken center stage, and have bastardised Paul's original message. It is a sad fact that the likes of Sarah Palin, and Crhistine O Donnell are spoken of in the same breath as Paul.

    First, Paul remains persona non grata in many ranks of the Republican Party. He does carry a group of Republicans, but not nearly enough to sustain a significant push for the white house.

    Second, the likes of Arubio, Huntsman, Christie, Jindal, Barbour, and Romney are in more prominant positions then Paul, and enjoy greater exposure.

    Finally, the social conservativism which Paul espouses turns off the floating voter.

    In short, Paul will never see the Oval Office.
    IMO even his son Rand has bastardised the message.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Not a chance. He's far too principled to tailor his message to a wider electorate, and engage in the type of compromise that wins elections. Good thing too. I admire him for his convictions, but I don't necessarily agree with many of them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,117 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    He's also very eccentric for many Americans. An oddball character, if you will, in his personality. A bit strange.
    People think of Ron Paul as a social conservative because he opposes abortion. However, he also voted against the federal marriage amendment, which would have amended the constitution to limit marriage to a union of one man and one woman and effectively made gay marriage unconstitutional.
    Thats being a Libertarian. He might personally dislike Abortion and Gay Marriage and Pot Smoking but its the freedom of the individuals to make these choices. In the case of Abortion, it can of course still be argued theres a choice of the child to be involved.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    Ron Paul is, and will always be, about substance over style.

    Given how the American media and many braindead American voters don't value these things, then he will never get elected as President.


  • Registered Users Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Mjollnir


    He might win a door prize, but that's about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    I think the world is worried and define him as the only one on Earth that can change things. If he wins, Earth, as we know it, will change forever with his libertarianism.

    Thoughts?

    Libertarianism is about as practical in our everyday life as scientology. Hubbard and Rand were sub-par scifi writers and appeal to the easily confused.

    Your grandiose language reflects this fantasy.

    (Hopefully you're just being sarcastic right?)


    :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    I think the world is worried and define him as the only one on Earth that can change things. If he wins, Earth, as we know it, will change forever with his libertarianism.

    Thoughts?

    Even if he won not sure how much he could do, could not see many of his bill get thought congress and almost every lobby group would be out get him.

    He would need a lot more that being President to change things.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    He needs the nomination first, that isn't going to happen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Het-Field wrote: »
    The Tea Party have taken center stage, and have bastardised Paul's original message.

    I dont spare a lot of thought for ron paul but I hadnt thought of that.

    He had the whole libertarian schtick going long before palin and the T's showed up. And now they've taken it and are trampling into the dirt.

    Its really testament to the intellectual capacity of the right wing. Its very like the new t-party label they're using on themselves "constitutionalists".


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,117 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    GuanYin wrote: »
    He needs the nomination first, that isn't going to happen.
    He could always run Independent?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Overheal wrote: »
    He could always run Independent?

    Oh yeah, sorry, my bad, I thought we were talking about if he wanted to be president.
    Kang wrote:
    Go ahead, throw your vote away


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,117 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    GuanYin wrote: »
    Oh yeah, sorry, my bad, I thought we were talking about if he wanted to be president.
    :(

    Why do you have to stamp on my hopes and dreams that we can free ourselves from this asinine 2-party system.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    Libertarianism is about as practical in our everyday life as scientology. Hubbard and Rand were sub-par scifi writers and appeal to the easily confused.
    Could you explain how Rand only appeals to the easily confused? Is it because they eschew the mixed-economy dogma her opponents so often profess? Have you read any of Rand's novels? Unfortunately most people are so opposed to their inchoate ideas of Rand prior to actually reading anything by her that when they do, it is with the express intent of being able to cast it off as vacuously as "sub-par sci-fi" afterwards.

    As pointed out above, Rand is, in a very definite sense, not a libertarian, not even remotely. I can point you to some interviews with Rand where she criticises the libertarian movement quite strongly if you would like to see them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Overheal wrote: »
    :(

    Why do you have to stamp on my hopes and dreams that we can free ourselves from this asinine 2-party system.

    this is what I was looking for :)
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/giddygirlie/2987270819/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 115 ✭✭autonomy


    Kennedy got elected, he wanted to bring troops home from vietnam, weaken the federal reserve, very similar to Ron Paul! If American voters woke up, there is every chance he will get elected!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    There isn't a chance he get's the republican party nomination. He just isn't insane enough or corrupt enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    He doesn't seem to mind letting states tell people what to do though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    I never bought into the whole conservative/libertarian philosophy of 'not telling people what to do,' most of the time it just masks 'telling people to do what we want them to instead of what them liberals want.'

    From the point of view of an individual I don't see how being limited in their freedoms by the state is any better or more desirable than being limited in their freedoms by the nation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Ron or Rand have zero chance of even being nominated. Ron seems to actually believe what he says so I respect him for that. Rand is a shill for sale.

    The nomination debates would be entertaining though.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Memnoch wrote: »
    I never bought into the whole conservative/libertarian philosophy of 'not telling people what to do,' most of the time it just masks 'telling people to do what we want them to instead of what them liberals want.'

    From the point of view of an individual I don't see how being limited in their freedoms by the state is any better or more desirable than being limited in their freedoms by the nation.

    Conservatism and Libertarianism are not equatable. You can have personally conservative views but believe it is inappropriate to impose those views on others (Making you a political libertarian) or you can have conservative views and believe it is appropriate to impose those views on others (Making you a conservative)

    I don't get your second paragraph at all, it doesn't make much sense. Are you talking about state freedoms and federal restrictions? The second paragraph isn't logical at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Denerick wrote: »
    Conservatism and Libertarianism are not equatable. You can have personally conservative views but believe it is inappropriate to impose those views on others (Making you a political libertarian) or you can have conservative views and believe it is appropriate to impose those views on others (Making you a conservative)

    I understand the theory of what the difference is, but thanks for explaining it anyway. What I'm trying to say is that in practice, libertarianism in American politics seems to be primarily used by people to push conservative ideology, but it racism (we should be free to not allow blacks into our restaurants/shops) or abortion/gay rights etc.
    I don't get your second paragraph at all, it doesn't make much sense. Are you talking about state freedoms and federal restrictions? The second paragraph isn't logical at all.

    As above. If a STATE decides it's okay to discriminate against black people, but Federal law says it cannot do so, by saying that states should be free to do whatever they want and make their own laws, your still not really mandating for individual freedom. The state is still imposing its values on the individuals in that state, but this is somehow more acceptable than such decisions being taken collectively by the nation. Even though the state is just action like a mini-nation in that instance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    Memnoch wrote: »
    I understand the theory of what the difference is, but thanks for explaining it anyway. What I'm trying to say is that in practice, libertarianism in American politics seems to be primarily used by people to push conservative ideology, but it racism (we should be free to not allow blacks into our restaurants/shops) or abortion/gay rights etc.

    I wouldn't agree that Libertarianism is used to puch racist views but I do believe that Libertarians are often more concerned with low taxes and the free market, than with being socially liberal, this being displayed by the greater links between Libertarians and Republicans than with Democrats.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    Memnoch wrote: »
    There isn't a chance he get's the republican party nomination. He just isn't insane enough or corrupt enough.

    the main reason he wont get the nomination is that hes far too isolationist , republicans subscribe to the notion that american intervention overseas is both good for america and the world , paul doesnt believe its good for either


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    irishh_bob wrote: »
    the main reason he wont get the nomination is that hes far too isolationist , republicans subscribe to the notion that american intervention overseas is both good for america and the world , paul doesnt believe its good for either
    Which is totally ironic because conservatives are the first ones to say "what would our founding fathers do?" when it suits them :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    I wouldn't agree that Libertarianism is used to puch racist views but I do believe that Libertarians are often more concerned with low taxes and the free market, than with being socially liberal, this being displayed by the greater links between Libertarians and Republicans than with Democrats.

    Democrats tend to be free-speech hating "liberals" (That word has been bastardized so much it means the opposite of what it meant 100 years ago) rather than truly about personal freedom.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 81,117 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Democrats tend to be free-speech hating "liberals" (That word has been bastardized so much it means the opposite of what it meant 100 years ago) rather than truly about personal freedom.
    You realize that Free Speech and Personal Freedom aren't mutually inclusive right? You realize free speech can come into conflict with the Personal Freedom of others?


Advertisement