RON PAUL - Why is he being ignored?

I personally like a lot of what He has to say ... but believe not many people will ever take someone of his age seriously. Please remember how much fuss was made over Ronald Reagans age once he was in office , And he was almost 7 years younger than RP at the time he took office. Out of everyone out there (including the current president) - I do think RP "tries" to tell the truth the most. That being said ... No politicians should EVER be trusted !

Mark said:

I personally like a lot of what He has to say ... but believe not many people will ever take someone of his age seriously. Please remember how much fuss was made over Ronald Reagans age once he was in office , And he was almost 7 years younger than RP at the time he took office. Out of everyone out there (including the current president) - I do think RP "tries" to tell the truth the most. That being said ... No politicians should EVER be trusted !

Click to expand...

His age is obviously a sticky point in many people's mind. Looking at him in the debates, which last longer than 90 minutes, he appears in good shape and doesn't look tired towards the end. He looks like the kind of person who will live well into his 90's.

Now if he is such an old, senile fart as so many here claim he is, why is he so popular amongst the young crowd? Most revolutions start because of young people (the latest one being the Arab Spring), and who knows if Occupy Wall Street isn't the next big one?

Reagan contributed to one of the most stunning changes in history as communism collapsed along with the Berlin Wall, which helped end the Cold War. Not bad for an old man.

Politicians are definitely the most untrustworthy people on earth. :td:

...

Maybe he is not young but I don't find any better canditate at this time.

Please watch Ron Paul's predictions he announced in 2002:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifJG_oFFDK0"]Ron Paul's 2002 Predictions All Come True - Incredible Video! - YouTube[/ame]
Almost all came true.

Sadly, he has not much chance with MSM tending to ignore him, and I agree with Gilsan, nothing is accidental here.

I caught a few seconds of one debate where they were talking about (of all things) space exploration. Newt said something totally out of touch with reality, Mitt gave a measured, fairly sane answer, didn't hear what Santorum said, Ron made a joke about sending "a few politicians" to the moon. I'll give him credit for the best answer on that one.

Age is irrellevant to me. Actually, using someone's age as a reason to assume they're less competent is ridiculous and pisses me off.

That said, anyone who I think is likely to try to legislate their religious beliefs onto the rest of the country will never get my vote. That eliminates most of the Republican candidates, including Paul. Oh, and I also wouldn't vote for anyone stupid enough to tie a terrified dog to the top of their car for a road trip - that eliminates another.

How does the rest of the world view his hands-off foreign policy positions? Especially ones to which he would cut off foreign aid? And what effect would removal of a US presence in some countries have upon the rest of the region? I don't think he would strengthen the US' standing in the rest of the world. Like it or not, we all share the same planet, need to deal with other countries and get along with them. Or at least, try not to make more countries DISLIKE us.

enlytend said:

Age is irrelevant to me. Actually, using someone's age as a reason to assume they're less competent is ridiculous and pisses me off.

Click to expand...

Agree. Paul is about the same age as three or four current Supreme Court Justices. Their terms usually never ...

Anyway, it's all one giant clusterfu_k imo

defaultuser said:

Fiscal conservative who more than tripled the national debt.

Foreign Policy that included dealing arms with Iran and funding the Nicaraguan contras.

Ensured that the phrase "tinkle down theory" would be immortalized.

Not bad for an old man.

Click to expand...

Yes, its true Reagan tripled the national debt. The 2 Bushes and Obama have also helped it go up to unbelievably high numbers, after the good job that Clinton did by bringing it down.

As for Foreign arms deals, Iran and funding the Nicaraguan contras, the US has always been the biggest arms exporter in the world and they have sold arms to practically every country in the world (if not all) and all US Presidents have maintained this policy.

Yes Reagan was a cowboy shooting his six gun in all directions but so were so many other Presidents. Carter not so much.

Let me remind you that the US has even armed people like Bin Laden, Ghadafi, Saddam Hussein or countries like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, just to name a few, that absolutely hate Americans.

Look at the massive quantity of sophisticated arms the US is selling to the Saudis in recent years. Do you think this is a good idea?
23 Saudis thought it was, in 9/11.

The US has been interfering in Central and South America for a very long time (not just Reagan) If you have the time to read the below link you will probably be astonished at the amount of interventions the US has made south of the border.
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

For all these reasons, Ron Paul has by far the most sensible Foreign Policy of all politicians. If only the MSM would not regard him as the Invisible Man.

enlytend said:

I caught a few seconds of one debate where they were talking about (of all things) space exploration. Newt said something totally out of touch with reality, Mitt gave a measured, fairly sane answer, didn't hear what Santorum said, Ron made a joke about sending "a few politicians" to the moon. I'll give him credit for the best answer on that one.

Age is irrellevant to me. Actually, using someone's age as a reason to assume they're less competent is ridiculous and pisses me off.

That said, anyone who I think is likely to try to legislate their religious beliefs onto the rest of the country will never get my vote. That eliminates most of the Republican candidates, including Paul. Oh, and I also wouldn't vote for anyone stupid enough to tie a terrified dog to the top of their car for a road trip - that eliminates another.

How does the rest of the world view his hands-off foreign policy positions? Especially ones to which he would cut off foreign aid? And what effect would removal of a US presence in some countries have upon the rest of the region? I don't think he would strengthen the US' standing in the rest of the world. Like it or not, we all share the same planet, need to deal with other countries and get along with them. Or at least, try not to make more countries DISLIKE us.

Click to expand...

Who was the candidate that did that?
Hope it wasn't Ozzie - The Amazing Acrobatic Dog !
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WktvXwliP3g"]Amazing Acrobatic Dog ! - YouTube[/ame]

The US Military has 1000 Bases and/or Military Installations in 63 countries. In all there are over 250,000 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. Does the the US really need all those bases?. As an example in my country the US has 2 bases, one in mainland Portugal and the other in the Portuguese Azores Islands (mid Atlantic). Portugal gets very little benefit from them even though we are a staunch ally of the US.

Why maintain so many troops and bases in Germany and Japan, when WW2 has ended 63 years ago? These are just 2 examples but there are so many more. Ron Paul has said that he will still maintain many bases and close down others. He makes absolute sense, but the Big corporations like GE (that owns NBC) don't want this, so they force the media to make a blackout of RP.

I think Americans should be pissed off by Big Corporations like GE that don't pay corporate taxes in the US and then send their jobs to China as they did a few months ago when they transferred their Xray unit to China.

But because Big Corporations have bought the souls of US Politicians (Democrats and Republicans) nothing will change unless someone like Ron Paul (apparently he hasn't sold his soul to them)is given a fair chance to express his ideas without a total blackout.

What will happen if by chance (and its a fairly good chance) that Santorum and Gingrich drop out. Are the MSM only going to talk about Romney or will they grudgingly be forced to say a few words about the Old Guy?

Are people aware that Gingrich and Santorum are not registered in several states for a total of well over 500 delegates? Why isn't the MSM talking about this? They want to continue feeding the people BS to make them believe that Romney or Gingrich are the best candidates to beat Obama, when in fact that is not true. Obama will whip both their asses easily. The only guy who has a chance to beat Obama is Ron Paul, but since he is the Invisible Man and an "Inconvenience" to the MSM and a danger to the FED, its going to be very hard for RP to win.

GILSAN said:

Portugal gets very little benefit from them even though we are a staunch ally of the US.

So, there are no jobs created by the bases you think?

Why maintain so many troops and bases in Germany

2 brigades are about to be shut down in germany, thousands of jobs are lost, just food for thoughts....

Click to expand...

cheers

liquid

...

"Actually, using someone's age as a reason to assume they're less competent is ridiculous and pisses me off."

It's a real reality when you start to get up in that age, stuff like alzheamier's, dementia come into play, Reagan had some of that in the end, Cain is showing some signs. Also, if you're that age and running and didn't win in the past, that should be some sort of clue it's not going to happen.

"Most revolutions start because of young people (the latest one being the Arab Spring), and who knows if Occupy Wall Street isn't the next big one?"

We're not going to have any revolution, those protests were lightweight compared to ones we've had in our past. There were no clear leaders, no clear message and I think most that showed up were just there to hang out or be a part of something, kind of like a flash mob. And when police came in and moved them out, most left without any problems. No real conviction. Plus, this was all started by a bunch of Canadians that should be minding their own business, maybe they should be tackling some of the problems in their own country. These are the same people that were against things like shopping on Black Friday, as if saving money is bad or sales stimulating our economy are bad.

Our economy is not the best right now, I had no unrealistic expectations that things were going turn around quickly, after getting handed the worst economy since the Great Depression, wars and other problems. Just people in a bad mood, wanting to be mad at somebody, while this is still the best country were you can do something. I've always felt, your life is what you make it, regardless of who's in the White House. If those protesters have issues, go take more classes, get another job, start your own business and become CEO and give all your money away. Do something constructive.

liquidcherry said:

So, there are no jobs created by the bases you think?

Click to expand...

In Portugal's case the only jobs created are a few Janitorial and Laundry jobs.
The US bases bring all their food, bottled water and booze from the US. The only thing they buy locally is fresh produce like vegetables and fruit. Oh I almost forgot they also buy the services of local hookers. That's it! Half a dozen jobs created for the local economy.

The Azores Air Base I can see is strategically important to the US, but the other one I don't see the benefit it has for the US as they have several in neighboring Spain.

2 brigades are about to be shut down in germany, thousands of jobs are lost, just food for thoughts....

Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how many military bases the US has in Germany? 227. Thats right... 227 bases. If the bases in Germany function like the ones in Portugal then it won't be thousands of jobs lost for sure if they remove only 2 brigades. Besides, Germany's economy is strong and should be able to easily absorb these people.

Many of these bases are isolated from local communities, at times creating resentment by the locals because of environmental damage, prostitution, some petty theft and other issues.

What I'm saying is that it would be beneficial to the US and the places where these bases are located to reduce the amount of bases. The US would still remain a powerful country and spend a lot less just like Ron Paul says.

It's a real reality when you start to get up in that age, stuff like alzheamier's, dementia come into play, Reagan had some of that in the end, Cain is showing some signs.

Click to expand...

Reagan was, as I recall, reported to have been having alarming episodes while still in office and not long afterwards was diagnosed as having the DISEASE of Alzheimers. It's a disease, not a natural part of aging, although age is considered a risk factor.

Not all senior citizens will develop Alzheimers or any other form of dementia (2nd most common form is from vascular damage - like from a stroke or head trauma.) And 4-5% of all alzheimers patients develop the disease younger, in their 40's or 50's. Certain genes are linked to a higher risk of developing it.

I would not vote for RP, but he appears to have his wits about him. As much as any of this sorry bunch of candidates ...

Also, if you're that age and running and didn't win in the past, that should be some sort of clue it's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, it does kind of lower the odds that you can try again in 4/8/12 years ...

...

I'm a Paul supporter.. seem to me he is exactly what America needs.

Unfortunately, the media decides who gets the coverage but Paul should at least garner enough delegates to stir things up at the Convention.

I'm not even sure the plan is to get Paul nominated.. lately it looks like they'd like to barter to get his son, Rand, the VP slot. Gingrich seems to be hoping (Ron) Paul will eventually throw in with him.

Either way, any Paul on the ticket might be the only way the GOP will beat Obama, especially if he gets Hillary to run as VP.

...

Depending how Paul does in gaining influence or delegates, they may not have a choice..

I don't think Paul will get the nomination but he or his son might get VP or a cabinet position as a consolation prize.

defaultuser said:

Dreamland :lol:

No way the RNC would allow that to happen.

Click to expand...

defaultuser said:

Dreamland :lol:

No way the RNC would allow that to happen.

Click to expand...

You forgot mention the pathetic MSM, who continue to refuse to recognize that Ron Paul exists.The Media has more power than congress, yet they answer to no one.

In the last debate Blitzer asked the candidates "why their wives would be excellent first ladies". What a stupid question to ask. So many important issues to debate and he asks this dumb question.

The MSM which includes T.V. and Radio networks,newspapers and magazines are ALL owned by the Big International Bankers! These same bankers are the ones that own the Federal Reserve. They are trying as hard as possible to keep Ron Paul from getting elected, because they know he will expose them and all their dirty tricks and how they actually control the US and other Governments.

In this video below, Dana Bash, the CNN reporter says she "worried about Ron Paul" because his popularity is increasing. BTW Dana is married to John King, the other biased CNN reporter who tried to ignore RP in one of the debates in S. Carolina.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZtcft5C5IU&feature=related"]Dana Bash on Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]

dgridley said:

Either way, any Paul on the ticket might be the only way the GOP will beat Obama, especially if he gets Hillary to run as VP.

Click to expand...

Obama won't get Hillary to run as VP, and if he keeps Biden, I think Obama will lose against ANY Republican. So, he is going to have to shake things up by picking up a VP running mate that will bring him one of the larger states in play. I can see the GOP ads running now, showing Biden speaking at the Indiana green company they gave $100 million to last year that just folded, in addition to the $500 mil for Solyndra.... if he doesn't find some way to shake up the talking points, this election will be brutal for democrats.

Evan Bayh has been kind of quiet lately, and he would bring a lot of Indiana votes with him. Maybe someone from Ohio or Pennsylvania.

As for Ron Paul, if he was forty years younger, he might have had a chance, but I just don't see him doing anything except, perhaps, allowing a weaker candidate to get nominated by taking votes away from the front runner.

When was the last time a president dump his vice president for the 2nd term election?

The first lady question may not seem like an important issue but in todays world the press is looked as not doing their job properly if they totally ignore the wives.

"Obama won't get Hillary to run as VP, and if he keeps Biden, I think Obama will lose against ANY Republican."

He already won with Biden, pretty handily. And how can you lose what you don't have, it's not like Republicans are voting for Obama, whoever his VP is. The Republicans will lose because awhile back, the party handed it's soul over to the extreme right and they keep pandering to them. The right, needs to find somebody young and bold, willing to buck the trend and take the party, at least socially more to the middle. It's time that party evolved, I know they hate that word, but it's true. And last election, somebody brought this up, the Republican Convention was 93% white, when white will be a minority is few decades. America is not now 93% white. What's the party going to do about that? The party is getting old. Myself, I'm more fiscally moderate or even a step to the right but socially I'm more liberal because I believe in freedom. And the country is slowing moving that way as well. So there are some big problems, they haven't been addressed yet. One of them is never putting up any contenders, as I said earlier. It's going to be Romney, that's clear, a candidate his own party isn't excited about but has the best chance because they consider him more of a moderate.

I have no faith in the republican top dogs.
They selected Romney back in 2008.
And he is just as much a liberal as Obama.

If Romney is their choice, regardless of the party members, then Obama has won.

Now notice, how much Romney is using hate ads against Newt Gingrich.
Do you really think he will do the same against Obama?

Bottom line is Obama wins if Romney is his opponent.
Obama has a good chance of losing if Gingrich is his opponent.

Just saying....

Obama will win period!

JB Lions said:

"Obama won't get Hillary to run as VP, and if he keeps Biden, I think Obama will lose against ANY Republican."

He already won with Biden, pretty handily. And how can you lose what you don't have, it's not like Republicans are voting for Obama, whoever his VP is. The Republicans will lose because awhile back, the party handed it's soul over to the extreme right and they keep pandering to them. The right, needs to find somebody young and bold, willing to buck the trend and take the party, at least socially more to the middle. It's time that party evolved, I know they hate that word, but it's true. And last election, somebody brought this up, the Republican Convention was 93% white, when white will be a minority is few decades. America is not now 93% white. What's the party going to do about that? The party is getting old. Myself, I'm more fiscally moderate or even a step to the right but socially I'm more liberal because I believe in freedom. And the country is slowing moving that way as well. So there are some big problems, they haven't been addressed yet. One of them is never putting up any contenders, as I said earlier. It's going to be Romney, that's clear, a candidate his own party isn't excited about but has the best chance because they consider him more of a moderate.

Click to expand...

In my humble opinion the US is in dire need of a strong 3rd party. Been needing one for a very long time. But I understand that it's very difficult to form a 3rd party there.

...