Ron Paul can NEVER be President

Now I want to vote for him because he seems like an underdog and Americans love underdogs... Look at Raiders fans...

Uhmm.. i'd love to see the proof of that.

you make some good points. in particular the part about congress not working with him. congress is such a shithole i dont think they will work with anybody until 1 party has 2/3 of the senate & the house. Obama had the perfect congress until this year & the dems utterly failed him.

i wouldnt count him out yet. the public is mad again, this is the 3rd election cycle (06, 08, 10) that the public will be going in mad about the direction of america. Everyone says the voting public is stupid but i disagree. most dumb people dont vote at all. a handful vote for who they are told to vote for. But by & large the public that makes the effort to vote, also makes the effort to make the best decision they can. Thats why there are so many independents. because they are not fooled by the shenangans of politicians & pundits.

there are so many hats in the republican ring now, the candidate who is really energizing his/her voters has a great shot. dont need 50% + to win an 8 way race. Just needs his people to show. Its clear ron paul has an energized base. At some point, this has to result in a primary victory. If he can steal the win from the establishment, he can give obama a really hard time. thats is, assuming the davos/illuminati/mossad dont assasinate him first.

Obama was poised to do whatever he wanted and he could have done some good things for the country, but he got sidetracked and then the democrats lost their spine and would not stand up to the republicans. I'm not saying what he could have done would have been good, but he missed a golden opportunity for his party to set the table for long term dominance.

As much as people say they want change they really don't. They look around at their life and they take inventory. If they have a good job, a decent house and a good outlook on the future they tend to choose the candidate who is least likely to fuck that up for them. however, when things aren't going good they vote for the person who promises the best change so long as it ins't too radical. If you say to the voters:"I'll help you get a job and get your life on track." they will listen and vote for you. If you say: "I'll make some tough decisions that are going to hurt us all in the short term, but make us stronger in the longer term and those who are willing to work hard will thrive." you are likely not going to get votes. Paul is using that second message. He wants to make some drastic changes that would be catastrophic right out the gate. Hopefully we would then rebuild from those ashes and be stronger for it, but the idea of it scares the hell out of a lot of people.

His major issue will be how much money he can raise. Right out the gate the primaries start in bible belt. I think it is something like 8 of the first 20 states to vote (going up through Super Tuesday) are bible belt states. He likely will not win those states because they will be controlled by Perry or Bachmann who the evangelicals favor. That leaves him about 11-12 states left that he could have a shot at. If he wants to make some noise he would likely have to pick 1 or 2 of these states (like bigger states with more delegates) and focus his efforts there. If he could win one or both of those he could make some noise. It would cause others to drop out and put him in a position to raise money and force the media to consider him a legit challenger. The question is will he have the money and resources to do this? And if he does will he choose to do something like that? In the last election he had $20 million on hand. The race was down to just him, McCain and Huckabee and Huckabee was on the ropes. He could have picked a state that he had the most support in, dumped a bunch of that money into it and made some noise. If he would have won that state he could have changed the course of the election. He chose not to do that. Instead he sat on most of the money and used it for other PAC stuff after the election.

Here's the thing. It's all true, yes. US society has degraded to the point where legitimate candidates who actually care about improving the country and the lives of its citizens have no chance. But why keep bringing this up? People continually saying that is partially why nothing ever changes - because the sea of positivity about a candidate like him then gets diluted by "oh he'll never win", and the sea of negativity about a Michelle Bachmann gets diluted by "people vote for fucking idiots like that, she'll probably win" or just simply going overboard with talking about her at all so that she's all anyone ever hears about. It's a travesty that she's a viable candidate and he's somehow not, but it's a collective effort by more than just the people that like her and/or dislike him that causes it to happen.

It's just like anything unfortunately - most things of merit in pretty much every aspect of politics, business, innovation and other news rarely ever get known because OMG JUSTIN BIEBER, OMG SARAH PALIN SAID SOMETHING STUPID, OMG CHARLIE SHEEN IS SUCH A COKE HEAD. The more attention, positive or negative, we give to this shit, the worse it gets, and the more dismissive statements we give to the legit people and news, however true in nature the statement might be, the more we hurt that sort of thing.

The funny thing is it's not just better for society as a whole if people started to shift their attention towards the legit things that really matter, but it's better for each person doing it.

How many of you said John McCain was too old and Palin would inherit the office?

Paul is even older.

If candidates who really want to affect change are serious they should take a page out of the tea party book. I'm not a Tea Party fan. I think it was an interesting idea at first, but it got corrupted by the republican party. However, they did it as it needs to be done. You can't make wholesale change as one person who suddenly appears on the radar and makes claims. What you need to do is build a grass roots organization and start locally. Big change scares people. However, if you can get local and state officials elected using your platform then you can slowly build up the familiarity with your policies and ideas and you can even be working to put them into action. You then move up and get congressmen and senators elected and eventually you have enough power that you can put a presidential candidate out there and they would have a legit chance of winning.

damn it, i cant stop staring at your sig. what did you say?

His cardio and health is better than anyone else running for president. He is a republican, the ones that have hijacked the party are neo-cons.

He has the best plan to bring the left and right together.... THE CONSTITUTION

He just raised 1.6 mil


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-in-a-day.html


When it comes to donations, Texas Rep. Ron Paul believes small is beautiful.

In a 24-hour fundraising push over the weekend, GOP presidential candidate Paul scooped up more than $1.6 million in small donations. It was Paul's 76th birthday and his loyal band of dedicated campaigners came through again for the inconoclastic Texas libertarian.

This happened despite a cyber-attack on the campaign Website, announced on Paul's Facebook page, that shut it down for a few hours.

LOL the sig is a little hypnotic. I need to figure out how to put some kind of subliminal message in it.