Guy who was master of Texan deficit wants to be prez.

Post Reply New Topic

The primaries have not yet been held, so this nutcase is no threat.

Don't be so sure. His competition is Bachmann and Romney.

I said sane. And no, Ron Paul does not have any chance.

or so goes the media meme

he polls just as well as Bachmann if not better and people talk about her constantly.

or so goes the media meme

he polls just as well as Bachmann if not better and people talk about her constantly.

Are you talking about national polls or the horrendously unrepresentative Iowa Republican Straw Poll? And, if any candidate actually considered him a threat, they could easily eviscorate him with the public on the basis of his fringe views on government's scope (as well as the hypocrisy of "taking a stand against bloated budget bills" while showering them with ear-marks for his district's pet projects).

Are you talking about national polls or the horrendously unrepresentative Iowa Republican Straw Poll? And, if any candidate actually considered him a threat, they could easily eviscorate him with the public on the basis of his fringe views on government's scope (as well as the hypocrisy of "taking a stand against bloated budget bills" while showering them with ear-marks for his district's pet projects).

Yes, national polls. Look them up if you want.

If Bachmann is a frontrunner, then you can't say Ron Paul isn't. They sure as heck can't be bringing up turds like Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, or Herman Cain before him either.

If you watched the last debate, you would of saw that he was attacked a bunch for his "fringe" views on Iran. The problem for his opponents is that Americans tend to agree more with Ron Paul's point of view on things than whatever the corporate owned media says is the "mainstream". Most Americans are deluded enough by the media that they think Obama is some sort of anti-war social liberal who is crusading against corporate America.

And please, I've already debunked the whole earmarks bologna.

You may as well of brought up the newsletter stuff they've been trying to smear him with for the last 15+ years.

So for months, the Paultards have been telling us that Ron Paul's results among republicans didn't matter, because he would steal so many votes from the democrats and the republicans. In Michigan, they got to put that idea to the test, since Michigan didn't have any delegates for the democrats, Obama and Edwards didn't participate, and people were allowed to cross party lines. How did Ron Paul fare? Not so well. Stick a fork in him, Jim.

On a different note, here's a question I've been having for a while: A lot of Paultards will defend Ron Paul's opposition to the Rosa Parks medal, because it's unconstitutional. But what, specifically make a congressional medal constitutional? I mean, would military medals be unconstitutional as well? After looking into the matter, it turns out that the first congressional medal was awarded in 1776 to George Washington, and they've been given out ever since. But for some reason, Ron Paul is apparently the first man in American history to find this unconstitutional. Thank you, Ron Paul, for displaying that your strict adherence to the constitution is more rigid than the founding fathers themselves.

It's also weird, when you consider that just last month, Ron Paul was on TV saying that the civil war was unnecessary, and that Lincoln should have compensated slave owners in exchange for freeing the slaves. Where in the constitution does it allow for that? Where in America has there been a precedent for that? So rewarding slave owners with hard cash because they enslaved people is okay, but rewarding Rosa Park with a gold medal for her role in the civil rights movement is not? WTF? I guess that in Ron Paul's world, Rosa Parks deserves to be treated worse than a slave owner. Great. And people wonder why Ron Paul is called a racist.

Don't be so sure. His competition is Bachmann and Romney.

A recent Gallup poll did hypothetical match-ups of Bachmann, Perry, Romney, and Paul against Obama. Each match-up was within the margin of error.

Anyways, stating that he has no chance is more or less a matter of fact. You can blame that fact on unfavorable or limited media coverage compared to other candidates, but it doesn't change the fact that Paul's not going to win. If he did somehow win the GOP nomination, he would be way too easy to smear. There's the racist newsletter he used to run (yes, he claims that he wasn't actually involved in its day-to-day workings at the time, but that doesn't mean it can't be a good scandal), and there's his stance on Social Security. 80%-90% of the American electorate will refuse to support Paul's stance on Social Security, and it's damn hard to win elections when you can turn 90% of the country against you with only one issue.