Poll: Ron Paul in third with 14% nationally

Because they are informed politically. Paul has a minuscule chance of winning the Republican nomination, and absolutely NO chance of winning the presidency. That is just the way it is. That may be distasteful to you, and you may believe him to be the very best candidate in the country, but that doesn't effect the fact that he is unelectable. Why can't libertarians accept this fact? I accept that the candidates I like cannot be elected, why can't you?

He can't be elected, for a myriad of reasons. First of all, he has radical positions that are highly unpopular with the average American(again that doesn't mean wrong, so please don't respond by blathering on about how right he is about everything). His unpopular positions will be taken up by the corporate media(which actually objectively exists, unlike the left wing media), and used to destroy him. Every marginally unpopular thing he says will become a soundbite that gets replayed on a loop for a news cycle, until he says the next unpopular, which will get the same treatment.

People win the presidency with charisma and political discipline. The ability to stay on message is incredibly important, because every misstep becomes the lead story for every media organization. It may be your opinion that Paul has the best ideas, but that is not what wins presidential elections in our country these days. Ron Paul has about as much chance of winning the presidency as I do(and I am 26, and therefore ineligible).

 

Savings is fantastic for "the economy." First, "the economy" is not a monolithic object. It is simply rhetoric for the countless transactions that occur between individuals. So to say that savings is bad for the economy is to say that some people saving is bad for others who want them to spend it on their goods and services. To say that it's good for individuals but bad for the nation is ridiculous. The nation isn't greater than the sum of its parts.

Suggesting that there is "too much savings" is suggesting that there is too much wealth. What you really advocate for is that people be forced to spread their wealth (whether that be by direct plunder by taxation or the hidden plunder by inflation) that they have produced because you believe in misbegotten economic theories about consumption.

 

This is just another example of someone not properly understanding economics. In economics a healthy economy involves spreading the wealth. There is no way around that. You want wealth going from poor to rich and then back down again. You don't want money sitting anywhere very long. Savings included. You don't grow much if everyone is saving. Even if it's a good idea to have a savings account if you are an individual.

No one is forcing people to spend. Just encouraging it. As they should be. We want people buying stuff. Sure it might hurt a few individuals. But that's no one's fault but their own. They should have managed their finances better. In the mean time we all capitalize off their spending.

 

You mean marketing an image and sticking with lies and saying as little as possible while talking the most. Presidential elections are won by corporations and financiers.. its why elections have become a multibillion dollar industry.

If Ron Paul is unelectable in a field of incompetents and liars... simply because he speaks the truth and isnt as photogenic as the imposters.. then this country is done as a free nation and exists in name only.

Welcome the Plutocracy of America... if you have the money

 

He could not win the general election. Even if he somehow won the primaries, he would lose the general. He's just too easy to target, and he would be completely incapable of giving a sound political response.

 

The response doesn't need to be political, just correct. In the arena of being correct, he has Obama beat by a lot.

 

Are you sure about that?

How many credit cards do you have?

 

Wow. You are everything that is wrong with the USA.

 

Yes, that is basically exactly what I mean unfortunately!!

 

Does a best buy financing card count? I avoid credit cards. If I can't pay for it with cash then it better be something I absolutely cannot go on without. Like a laptop or a car or gas or food. I don't put anything on a card unless it's an emergency.

 

Nonsense. No sitting President has EVER won with an approval rating below 50% and unemployment over 8%. Obama has both. Whoever the Republicans nominate will easily defeat the moronic fool Obama in 2012.

 

His responses and stances are much more sound and logical than any of his opponents. While I dont agree with everything R.P says.. his positions are more grounded in reality and fact than ANY of his opponents.

The biggest reason he is such an easy target for the media is simply because they want him to fail. Its not because he doesnt present sound arguements or solutions.

Bachmann is presented as a frontrunner even though she is basically just an extremeist social-tyrant posing as a social/fiscal conservative.. all talkng points and theater.. Same goes for Sarah Palin.. but they are lauded by the media as real contenders. The candidates backed by multinational corporations and Banking Cartels ( Perry , Obama,) are the ones with the most coverage.

The status quo will do everthing in thier power to make sure it is either Perry or Obama in the oval office. If that fails plan b is to make for (*)(*)(*)(*) sure Ron Paul doesnt get in .. at any cost.

Ron Pauls positions arent what makes him unelectable... its an ignorant electorate that can be programmed to vote against its own interests that makes him unelectable.

 

Ok. How old are you? If saving money is bad, does that mean that you have no savings and nothing put away for retirement or in case of an emergency?

You expect people to just continue to spend money when their is such uncertainty in this country?

Sounds reckless to me.

And what do you suggest people spend money on?

 

I said savings was good for individuals. Save as much as you can. I'm just a student living paycheck to pay check. So I don't have much saved. But I do attempt to save 50% of my paycheck. Sometimes that proves difficult though.

 

Why waste my time asserting nonsense? No sitting president has won with an approval rating below 50%? Well first of all the sample size is very small, considering polling is still a very new phenomenon. For example what was Adam's approval rating going into the election of 1800 or the other Adams approval rating going into the election of 1828? Not only that, but no candidate as far outside the mainstream has ever been the candidate for the opposition party, so to compare Paul to them is moronic.


I will bet you all the money I have that Ron Paul will not be our president in February of 2013. You up for it? If he is so electable, and his ideas are so fantastic, he should win easily. The bet is a sure thing for you.


PS. If you want to have an honest debate, respond to my argument next time, instead of my conclusion. Otherwise it leads to boring and stupid interactions like the one you just started!!

 

It really depends on if Obama gets the blame for the recession or not. So far he has not.

 

Not really. If the economy has not recovered at least to an extent by 2012, regardless of who is to blame(or if blame can actually be reasonably assigned at all), Obama will take the fall. That is irrelevant to Ron Paul though. He is the only candidate the Republicans can put forward that Obama would beat, even if we still had 9% unemployment.

 

He's definitely not the only one. None of them do well against Obama in the polls. Except maybe Romney. But I have doubts he'll win.

 

You are one sick puppy. Move to china. We won't miss you.

As for Ron Paul, here is another excellent video that people who love liberty and freedom will appreciate.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqVQ5oUkU6w&sns=em"]The Ron Paul Tipping Point - YouTube[/ame]

 

Obama is partially to blame for the recession for bowing to the bankers and globalists/illuminati. So is George bush jr and sr. So is Clinton. Many many people have helped to further the nwo agenda, and anyone who questions it is shut down. The recession we are currently in was planned.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g&sns=em"]George Bush New World Order - YouTube[/ame]

A sick man indeed. "Peacekeeping role"? Okaaay.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzUkhKaNylM&sns=em"]Bill Clinton agrees with Bush about the New World Order - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTOCRa9lTZc&sns=em"]Gary Hart exposes the NEW WORLD ORDER plan of Sr. & W. Bush - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxPYa5mVlYU&sns=em"]Those Who Doubt the NWO Conspiracy...Listen Closely - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNB0-rgZJpo&sns=em"]NWO - FEMA Plans for Concentration camps back in the 1980's - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8DpKKSmaa8&sns=em"]Ron Paul: First Bush Was Working Towards New World Order - YouTube[/ame]

 

Strawman. I said the *plunder* of those who work hard.

 

Funny. I think the same about you.

How about you first stop telling me what I want. If it's not a good idea for the savings rate to be high, but it is a good idea for individuals to save, can you objectively inform us as to roughly how many individuals should save and how many shouldn't? After all, you have much more economic knowledge in this matter and I lack understanding. So educate me. A nation or society does not exist without individuals, so it can't be good for each individual to save.

You are completely contradicting yourself as well as moralizing. Either it's good to save, or it isn't. Savings provides capital and is absorbed in producers of final consumer goods and capital goods. It is not just putting aside money but owning assets that generate further wealth. The creation of capital goods in turn leads to the creation of more and higher quality goods. Consumption cannot create production, one must produce first in order to consume. Also, money is not wealth. If it were, we could print a limitless supply for economic growth.

You are essentially arguing that the depletion of wealth by non-productive spending magically leads to a creation of wealth. Is that your contention?

 

Then give it to the lower tax brackets that still do pay taxes.
The fact is that if there's a labor market then people will get jobs, lower taxes means people can spend more, so cut taxes, it will just shift demand, even if some is saved this isn't the end of the world, the economy will adjust, we'll be fine, the entire reason the market works is because of the fact that it's adaptive and can work to satisfy what people want. Cut welfare and cut taxes and people will find jobs.

 

Ron Paul could be in FIRST Place with a Jet more luxury than
Air Force One { equipped with Hot & Cold running Blondes }
and it still wunt't mean squat.
The guy ain't got the chops to be President.He sounds like a confused
Professor testing out his many theories half the time.
I think Ron Paul is Likeable and honest and very above board,all the
reasons he won't win any Primary.Ya gotta be a little cutthroathy.
McCain thought himself such the tough Naval Academy guy.Tough
POW at the Hanoi Hilton.Up against Obama he was a Puddy Kat.
Scared to even use Obama's Middle name.A complete powder puff in
the campaign.

 

You don't seem to get it. We're talking below the poverty line here. That's the best place to inject the money. They are more likely to buy fast and buy locally.