Ron Paul could have won this election.....

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Jebus213 (8893 posts) -
if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.
#2 Posted by danjammer69 (4122 posts) -
[QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.

You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.
#3 Posted by Jebus213 (8893 posts) -
[QUOTE="danjammer69"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.

You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

Lies.
#4 Posted by XaosII (16610 posts) -

Ron Paul is too radical for the American public to win even if he were the Republican nominee.

#5 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3953 posts) -

No, he wants to gut the military to near uselessness. Most conservatives support the military.

#6 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

Ron Paul is too radical for the American public to win even if he were the Republican nominee.

XaosII

#7 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.danjammer69
You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

I don't know about that man

he receivedheck of alot of money in the primaries.

#8 Posted by whipassmt (14035 posts) -

I don't think he could win. I would've voted for him over Obutthead, but Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and Johnson, and at one point I was hoping it wouldn't be Romney, though I started to like him better as time passed).

#9 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3953 posts) -

[QUOTE="danjammer69"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.sexyweapons

You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

I don't know about that man

he receivedheck of alot of money in the primaries.

People would have inevitably dropped him once they found about him opposing that cancer medication....

#10 Posted by Jebus213 (8893 posts) -
Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and Johnsonwhipassmt
*looks at sig* Yeah no wonder.
#11 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42978 posts) -
No chance. He's no moderate.
#12 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="danjammer69"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.

You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

Ron Paul broke fund-raising records fairly frequently in his 2008 and 2012 runs.
#13 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
No chance. He's no moderate.Stevo_the_gamer
According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.
#14 Posted by XaosII (16610 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]No chance. He's no moderate.Laihendi
According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.

I dont think anyone cares anachronistic definitions of moderate and extremist. Ron Paul is not a moderate.

#15 Posted by whipassmt (14035 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and JohnsonJebus213
*looks at sig* Yeah no wonder.

Even though my sig doesn't really have anything to do with Romney, Hunstman, Johnson and Ron Paul.

#16 Posted by themajormayor (25853 posts) -
Close thread
#17 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]No chance. He's no moderate.Laihendi
According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.

Oh really?
#18 Posted by Aljosa23 (25129 posts) -

I don't think a racist bigot like Paul could have won anything.

#19 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]No chance. He's no moderate.nocoolnamejim
According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.

Oh really?

Good thing we can rely on you to produce a TOTALLY none biased source Jim!

#20 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

I don't think a racist bigot like Paul could have won anything.

Aljosa23

Romney got pretty close.

#21 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.sexyweapons

Oh really?

Good thing we can rely on you to produce a TOTALLY none biased source Jim!

It's Ron Paul speaking in his own words on camera. What, exactly, is your objection to the source? That I let Ron Paul speak for himself?
#22 Posted by Aljosa23 (25129 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I don't think a racist bigot like Paul could have won anything.

sexyweapons

Romney got pretty close.

I don't know if I'd call Mitt Romney a racist. To my knowledge he didn't write and publish a bunch of newsletters like RP.

#23 Posted by Jebus213 (8893 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and Johnsonwhipassmt

*looks at sig* Yeah no wonder.

Even though my sig doesn't really have anything to do with Romney, Hunstman, Johnson and Ron Paul.

It does, but I'm not going share.
#24 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I doubt he would have had the ideological platform to get the Evangelical vote.
#25 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I don't think a racist bigot like Paul could have won anything.

Aljosa23

Romney got pretty close.

To my knowledge he didn't write and publish a bunch of newsletters like RP.

:lol:

#26 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]Ron Paul is one of the guys I least wanted to win the nomination (down there with Huntsman and Johnsonwhipassmt

*looks at sig* Yeah no wonder.

Even though my sig doesn't really have anything to do with Romney, Hunstman, Johnson and Ron Paul.

Yes it does.

#27 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
sexyweapons: Sorry! I misunderstood your previous post.
#28 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42978 posts) -

To my knowledge he didn't write and publish a bunch of newsletters like RP.

Aljosa23

facepalm.gif

#29 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Oh really?nocoolnamejim

Good thing we can rely on you to produce a TOTALLY none biased source Jim!

It's Ron Paul speaking in his own words on camera. What, exactly, is your objection to the source? That I let Ron Paul speak for himself?

Your video cannot be taken seriously at all. It has plenty of clips of him saying what he thinks is unconstitutional, but then it cuts him off before he gets around to explaining why he thinks those things are unconstitutional. If you consider that video to be a legitimate criticism of his interpretation of the constitution, then I don't even know what to say.
#30 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

Good thing we can rely on you to produce a TOTALLY none biased source Jim!

Laihendi
It's Ron Paul speaking in his own words on camera. What, exactly, is your objection to the source? That I let Ron Paul speak for himself?

Your video cannot be taken seriously at all. It has plenty of clips of him saying what he thinks is unconstitutional, but then it cuts him off before he gets around to explaining why he thinks those things are unconstitutional. If you consider that video to be a legitimate criticism of his interpretation of the constitution, then I don't even know what to say.

The fact he finds all those things unconstitutional at all is evidence that he's an extremist. Pretty much everything he finds unconstitutional is utterly uncontroversial. Ron Paulists may not like it, but the views in that video REGARDLESS OF EXPLANATION make him an extremist by modern day political standards. Things like Social Security and Medicare and the Income Tax and paper money...they're not going anywhere. They've been in place for decades or, in some cases, for centuries.
#31 Posted by hoola (6422 posts) -

[QUOTE="danjammer69"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.Jebus213
You are nuts man. Elections cost money. Especially election wins. Ron Paul could never had raised the amount of money that Romney or Obama did.

Lies.

Its true. The bankers and ultra large corporations hate him because he doesn't put up with their crap. Obama and Romney on the other hand are loved by the lobbyists and banks because they will give free goodies to them. He would never raise as much money as them.

#32 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] It's Ron Paul speaking in his own words on camera. What, exactly, is your objection to the source? That I let Ron Paul speak for himself?

Your video cannot be taken seriously at all. It has plenty of clips of him saying what he thinks is unconstitutional, but then it cuts him off before he gets around to explaining why he thinks those things are unconstitutional. If you consider that video to be a legitimate criticism of his interpretation of the constitution, then I don't even know what to say.

The fact he finds all those things unconstitutional at all is evidence that he's an extremist. Pretty much everything he finds unconstitutional is utterly uncontroversial. Ron Paulists may not like it, but the views in that video REGARDLESS OF EXPLANATION make him an extremist by modern day political standards. Things like Social Security and Medicare and the Income Tax and paper money...they're not going anywhere. They've been in place for decades or, in some cases, for centuries.

You linked that video in response to me saying that Ron Paul was a moderate according to the standards set by the constitution. I'm not talking about the standards set by the mainstream media, socialist populist politicians, or the masses. It's a lot harder to use the constitution to criticize Ron Paul than it is to use it to criticize someone like Obama.
#33 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Your video cannot be taken seriously at all. It has plenty of clips of him saying what he thinks is unconstitutional, but then it cuts him off before he gets around to explaining why he thinks those things are unconstitutional. If you consider that video to be a legitimate criticism of his interpretation of the constitution, then I don't even know what to say.

The fact he finds all those things unconstitutional at all is evidence that he's an extremist. Pretty much everything he finds unconstitutional is utterly uncontroversial. Ron Paulists may not like it, but the views in that video REGARDLESS OF EXPLANATION make him an extremist by modern day political standards. Things like Social Security and Medicare and the Income Tax and paper money...they're not going anywhere. They've been in place for decades or, in some cases, for centuries.

You linked that video in response to me saying that Ron Paul was a moderate according to the standards set by the constitution. I'm not talking about the standards set by the mainstream media, socialist populist politicians, or the masses. It's a lot harder to use the constitution to criticize Ron Paul than it is to use it to criticize someone like Obama.

Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional.
#34 Posted by XaosII (16610 posts) -

Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional. nocoolnamejim

Isn't it obvious? The government isnt given the authority by the Constitution to do those things. There isn't anywhere in the Constituion that says the federal government should mandate standard for education or anyting else of the 15 thing he's mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, i think it would crazy remove most of the things he's listed... But he isn't wrong.

#35 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional. XaosII

Isn't it obvious? The government isnt given the authority by the Constitution to do those things. There isn't anywhere in the Constituion that says the federal government should mandate standard for education or anyting else of the 15 thing he's mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, i think it would crazy remove most of the things he's listed... But he isn't wrong.

Two schools of thought with regards to the Constitution. One school says that the Federal government can't do anything it isn't explicitly allowed to do in the Constitution. The other school says it can do anything that isn't explicitly forbidden from doing. I'd argue the latter view is the one that allows a government to function and adapt over long periods of time.
#36 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] The fact he finds all those things unconstitutional at all is evidence that he's an extremist. Pretty much everything he finds unconstitutional is utterly uncontroversial. Ron Paulists may not like it, but the views in that video REGARDLESS OF EXPLANATION make him an extremist by modern day political standards. Things like Social Security and Medicare and the Income Tax and paper money...they're not going anywhere. They've been in place for decades or, in some cases, for centuries.

You linked that video in response to me saying that Ron Paul was a moderate according to the standards set by the constitution. I'm not talking about the standards set by the mainstream media, socialist populist politicians, or the masses. It's a lot harder to use the constitution to criticize Ron Paul than it is to use it to criticize someone like Obama.

Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional.

:lol: Considering you're the one making an issue out of those things and making the claim that what he's saying is wrong, I'll leave the burden of proof on you.
#37 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151458 posts) -

Ron Paul is too radical for the American public to win even if he were the Republican nominee.

XaosII
If by radical you mean borderline crazy.....
#38 Posted by JoGoSo (455 posts) -

I'm sure the hookers & drugs planks would rally the base like never before.

#39 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] You linked that video in response to me saying that Ron Paul was a moderate according to the standards set by the constitution. I'm not talking about the standards set by the mainstream media, socialist populist politicians, or the masses. It's a lot harder to use the constitution to criticize Ron Paul than it is to use it to criticize someone like Obama.

Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional.

:lol: Considering you're the one making an issue out of those things and making the claim that what he's saying is wrong, I'll leave the burden of proof on you.

Actually, no. You started this by claiming that Obama/Romney are extremists and Paul is a moderate. I posted a video showing him wanting pretty much every facet of modern day government eliminated because they are unconstitutional. These are positions well outside the mainstream. You then objected because the video didn't allow Ron Paul to explain WHY he thought all those things are unconstitutional. I'm giving you, a Paul supporter, a chance to fill in the blanks. It's not my fault that that when challenged you can't back up your talk. And TC: I'm well aware that you posted this thread just to rile up the Paulbots. I shall have my vengeance. In this life or the next.
#40 Posted by whipassmt (14035 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter. There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does). Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional. nocoolnamejim

Isn't it obvious? The government isnt given the authority by the Constitution to do those things. There isn't anywhere in the Constituion that says the federal government should mandate standard for education or anyting else of the 15 thing he's mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, i think it would crazy remove most of the things he's listed... But he isn't wrong.

Two schools of thought with regards to the Constitution. One school says that the Federal government can't do anything it isn't explicitly allowed to do in the Constitution. The other school says it can do anything that isn't explicitly forbidden from doing. I'd argue the latter view is the one that allows a government to function and adapt over long periods of time.

I would actually say that both schools are wrong. I think the government has powers that aren't explicitly delineated but it doesn't have the power to do anything that is not specifically forbideen either.

#41 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
SCOTUS has ruled on basically all of those things he listed and found them Constitutional.
#42 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

Okay then. You're a Ron Paul supporter.

There are 15 things Ron Paul mentions as being unconstitutional in that video. You complain that the video doesn't have his explanations for WHY they are unconstitutional (though in the cases of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it does).

Explain why those 15 things are unconstitutional. nocoolnamejim


:lol: Considering you're the one making an issue out of those things and making the claim that what he's saying is wrong, I'll leave the burden of proof on you.

Actually, no. You started this by claiming that Obama/Romney are extremists and Paul is a moderate. I posted a video showing him wanting pretty much every facet of modern day government eliminated because they are unconstitutional. These are positions well outside the mainstream.

You then objected because the video didn't allow Ron Paul to explain WHY he thought all those things are unconstitutional.

I'm giving you, a Paul supporter, a chance to fill in the blanks. It's not my fault that that when challenged you can't back up your talk.

And TC: I'm well aware that you posted this thread just to rile up the Paulbots. I shall have my vengeance. In this life or the next.


Considering how out of context and brief those video clips are, it's difficult to tell what he's even saying. For example, at one point he says "It's clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders", and then a little sign appears stating that Ron Paul thinks executive orders are unconstitutional, even though it appears he was talking about specific executive orders rather than executive orders in general. We can't tell for sure though, since that entire clip lasts about 3 seconds.

Concerning paper money: Article 1, section 10No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Though the allegation against Ron Paul is still misleading, because he has no problem with using paper as long as they're backed up by gold/silver.

If you find something that's more than a collection of 3-5 second video clips that are devoid of any context (so basically if you find something that has any meaning) then maybe it will be possible to form a response to it.

#43 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
'no state'
#44 Posted by whipassmt (14035 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]
:lol: Considering you're the one making an issue out of those things and making the claim that what he's saying is wrong, I'll leave the burden of proof on you.Laihendi

Actually, no. You started this by claiming that Obama/Romney are extremists and Paul is a moderate. I posted a video showing him wanting pretty much every facet of modern day government eliminated because they are unconstitutional. These are positions well outside the mainstream.

You then objected because the video didn't allow Ron Paul to explain WHY he thought all those things are unconstitutional.

I'm giving you, a Paul supporter, a chance to fill in the blanks. It's not my fault that that when challenged you can't back up your talk.

And TC: I'm well aware that you posted this thread just to rile up the Paulbots. I shall have my vengeance. In this life or the next.


Considering how out of context and brief those video clips are, it's difficult to tell what he's even saying. For example, at one point he says "It's clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders", and then a little sign appears stating that Ron Paul thinks executive orders are unconstitutional, even though it appears he was talking about specific executive orders rather than executive orders in general. We can't tell for sure though, since that entire clip lasts about 3 seconds.

Concerning paper money: Article 1, section 10No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Though the allegation against Ron Paul is still misleading, because he has no problem with using paper as long as they're backed up by gold/silver.

If you find something that's more than a collection of 3-5 second video clips that are devoid of any context (so basically if you find something that has any meaning) then maybe it will be possible to form a response to it.

They should get rid of the "grant any Title of Nobility", I don't see why states shouldn't be able to do so, I mean they should make me "Supreme and Highest Count, Duke of the State and Earl of America".

#45 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]
:lol: Considering you're the one making an issue out of those things and making the claim that what he's saying is wrong, I'll leave the burden of proof on you.Laihendi

Actually, no. You started this by claiming that Obama/Romney are extremists and Paul is a moderate. I posted a video showing him wanting pretty much every facet of modern day government eliminated because they are unconstitutional. These are positions well outside the mainstream.

You then objected because the video didn't allow Ron Paul to explain WHY he thought all those things are unconstitutional.

I'm giving you, a Paul supporter, a chance to fill in the blanks. It's not my fault that that when challenged you can't back up your talk.

And TC: I'm well aware that you posted this thread just to rile up the Paulbots. I shall have my vengeance. In this life or the next.


Considering how out of context and brief those video clips are, it's difficult to tell what he's even saying. For example, at one point he says "It's clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders", and then a little sign appears stating that Ron Paul thinks executive orders are unconstitutional, even though it appears he was talking about specific executive orders rather than executive orders in general. We can't tell for sure though, since that entire clip lasts about 3 seconds.

Concerning paper money: Article 1, section 10No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Though the allegation against Ron Paul is still misleading, because he has no problem with using paper as long as they're backed up by gold/silver.

If you find something that's more than a collection of 3-5 second video clips that are devoid of any context (so basically if you find something that has any meaning) then maybe it will be possible to form a response to it.

I'm sorry that I quoted Ron Paul in his own words claiming virtually everything that modern society is based on is unconstitutional. That was really unfair of me. :lol: It's not up to me to explain why Ron Paul finds all those things unconstitutional and is calling for the abolition of pretty much every government department that exists. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Why are you asking me to tell YOU why he finds these things unconstitutional and wants them eliminated? Shouldn't you be more familiar with his positions than I am? Though, I acknowledge the point about paper money. He does advocate a return to the gold standard, which is also a lunatic position...but you're right that overall Paul has no problem with paper money in and of itself. But here's the thing: As Abbeten mentioned, the Supreme Court (which, contrary to Ron Paul supporters' belief is the ultimate authority over issues of constitutionality, not Ron Paul) has ruled on pretty much everything on that list. Which means that Ron Paul is really nothing more than a demented old nutcase who does happen to have a few good ideas here and there.
#46 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -
No......
#47 Posted by Nonstop-Madness (9484 posts) -
No, he ******* couldn't have. Getting rid of things like minimum wage, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, EPA etc. etc. etc. is going to piss off a ton of people even Republicans.
#48 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

'no state'Abbeten
Yes, and right now all 50 states are breaking that rule.

#49 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]'no state'Laihendi

Yes, and right now all 50 states are breaking that rule.

No they aren't. The federal government is the entity that authorizes fiat money to be used as legal tender, not the states.
#50 Posted by DaBrainz (7673 posts) -
He would have no chance of winning. I would of voted for him though.