The Effectiveness of Ron Paul...

This article made me think about the critics of Ron Paul who say he hasn't accomplished anything in his political career:

http://therepublicanmother.blogspot.com/2011/12/newt-tried-to-install-internal.html

In his career, Ron Paul has been re-elected 12 times to Congress, despite voting alone on many issues; He Voted NO on the PATRIOT Act, Voted Against Wars, the Debt Ceiling, Taxes...

He proposed unpopular, but correct, legislation; such as Hemp Legalization Bills.

He has pushed his message, and now, after 30 years, the Federal Reserve is a mainstream issue (and many, once unaware of the institution, now support a full audit, and a smaller percentage, an abolishment).

After 30 years, and now on his 3rd run as President, he has been able to become a fixture in the debate for 2 cycles.

He has challenged the two[one]-party system by being an "Anti-War" Republican challenging a "Pro-War" Democrat (and "Pro-War" GOP contenders).

He has helped make questioning the Drug War a legit political stance in the mainstream.

In 2008 the question was, "Who is Ron Paul?"

In 2012 the question is, "Can Ron Paul Win?"

Counter-establishment candidates have always had an uphill battle (with constant landslides coming at them).

Ron Paul has also inspired and help facilitate the training of a new generation of political activist. He has united a nation of libertarian-leaning activist into an organized network.

Whether or not he wins the Presidency, Ron Paul has been Effective in the political process. Whether it is in 2013 or 2020, Ron Paul's work will lead to reform.

Whether it is at the Federal, State or Local level, the "r3VOLution" will take power.

Those who say Ron Paul has been ineffective politically, I ask, what did you accomplish in the last 30 years? What is par for course?

Are you judging his "effectiveness" against establishment-politicians with millions of dollars of corporate backing and media access? Are they really effective if their accomplished were subsidized by those already in power?

Was Ron Paul really ineffective if you look at what most people who sit around complaining accomplished? (Spoiler: It was nothing).

 

Check back after, "the "r3VOLution" will take power." I'll answer then. For now Paul is an ineffective has been that never was.

But if one has a vivid imagination, smokes plenty of that weed Paul wants legal, and does everything possible every waking moment to evade and avoid reality, then Paul might look,,,,,,,,,,"Oh Wow!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Who? Got anything to eat?

 

Republicans hate him, Democrats hate him.

That tells u he is the right man, wont play ball with the lobbyist.


Up and Up Ron!

 

LAS VEGAS — Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul have seized control of the Clark County Republican Party's ruling body.

Paul backers won election to 14 of the county GOP's 21 executive board positions, or two-thirds of the body, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported (http://bit.ly/xUND47). The county around Las Vegas is the state's most populous.

 

Did you ever think we'd have someone participating in the GOP Debates that is calling for the legalization of cannabis? It is encouraging.

Do you not agree with Paul that marijuana legalization should be a state issue?

I very much agree with him, and have actually been working on legalizing marijuana since I was 19 (2000); I actually wrote and submitted legislation for public measure in Sonoma County to decriminalize possession and cultivation of small amounts of marijuana for personal use when I was 19. It has always seemed like a waste of resources, and a burden to law enforcement.

I was just talking to someone at a protest against a ban on distributing food to the homeless in Philadelphia about how the relationship between "the People" and law enforcement will be much better if we got rid of drug prohibition.

I think it is a burden to law enforcement which should be focusing 100% of their resources and attention on murder, rape and theft.

Almost half our prison population is there on drug related crimes (violent and non), and corporations make money on it (private prisons make more money for the more prisoners they have).

I am pleased that most people are coming around to this; we now have, for the first time, a majority (50% +) of Americans that believe marijuana should be legal. Ron Paul being able to get the amount of votes he does get on the platform, in a Republican Primary, is a very good sign indeed!

Another example of how effective Ron Paul is...

 

While behind closed doors probably more than 60% of America agrees with legalization, admitting it out loud will not happen. Everyone whines about taxes and our budget, the revenue from this product would put a serious dent in our economic woes, but "popular"...? Only between friends. Remember, we are taught to distrust people...divide and conquer.

 

Means absolutely nothing at all. Everyone knows that Paul supporters fully believe that stuffing ballot boxes and overloading polls on a teeny tiny basis is "acceptable behavior."

The FACT remains, Paul's 2012 candidacy is a joke just as his 1988 and 2008 aborts were.

Nevada delegate count
Romney-14
Gingrich-6
Paul-5
Santorum-3

Nevada popular vote
Romney-16,486
Gingrich-6956
Paul-6175
Santorum-3277

Paulobots give themselves a headache trying to think up imaginary and outrageous scenarios where Paul could win.,,,,,, REALITY, he can't!

We have in place a REAL scenario that will determine the nominee. It is called the Primary Voting. And Paul is a distant 4th in a 4 man race. If one drops out, Paul will be a FURTHER distant 3rd in a 3 man race.

That's reality, not wacky imagination.

 

I think Virginia gave us a better idea of where Paul would be if Santorum and Gingrich dropped out; 40+%.

Paul is getting very strong seconds in many states even with all 4 candidates in.

The only "real" scenario for getting the nomination is getting 1,144 delegates to vote for the candidate at the convention.

Lincoln was able to come from behind at the convention: http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/nomination.htm

 

Paul's "strong" seconds.

NH Paul 41,000 votes behind Romney who got less than 100,000 votes. NOT strong.

Minn 8,706 votes behind Santorum who got 21,988. Strong? Hardly.

Maine, Paul a strong second.

Washington Paul 6,517 votes behind Romney. 500 votes above Santorum. You'd call that "strong," I would not.

VA 50,668 behind Romney. weak second, also LAST.

ND 1,324 behind Santorum, that's 40% of the votes that he and Santorum got. Far less than 40% of the total votes.

Vermont, Paul second, again you'd call it "strong," I would not since the outcome was never close.

That is 7 seconds out of 26 states ONE strong second in a miniscule vote. You'd claim 3 strong seconds.

He has also finished LAST in 12 of 26 states.

In the popular vote Paul is 1,156,286 votes BEHIND Gingrich, and Gingrich is 3rd and much is being said about Gingrich "SHOULD" drop out.

Paul being the nominee, brokering the convention, or ever being president is pure unadulterated fantasy.

 

Then why are you commenting?

And this post was about the accomplishments Ron Paul has made outside of the result of the Primary.

 

You're the one that posted the fantasy about Paul's strong seconds. Now Paulists do not allow free posting? Only liberals are better at stealing threads than Paulists.
You make a post that, in my opinion, is ludicrous and I comment on it. Is there some Paulist rule against that?

And the accomplishments of Paul inside or outside of the primaries, or inside or outside of Congress. Eliminate the imaginary and wishful thinking by Paulists and there are no accomplishments. Unless you consider sponsoring over 700 failed bills an accomplishment. And getting his ass waxed in delegate count and in popular voting, is that an accomplishment too?

I'd be overjoyed if Paul became president. But he can't and won't.

 

Bulls**t. If that were true, you wouldn't go out of your way to disparage both him and his supporters. You'd want him to get as far as he possibly could. Who are you voting for?

 

Shows how little you know about me. I WOULD be overjoyed if Paul became president. BECAUSE that would mean obama was sent home. Paul is a tired old man that wouldn't accomplish much as president just as he didn't accomplish anything in Congress. But he would do SOME good I'm sure and he certainly would do a great deal less HARM than obama. I'm not interested in any cult of personality and that is all Paulists are. Whoever the Republican Nominee IS, I will be voting for him. More voting AGAINST obama than voting FOR any particular person.
The nation is much more important than any individual candidate. ALL of the Republican candidates would be a VAST improvement over obama.

And I don't disparage Paul, I ACCURATELY point out his lack of meaningful accomplishment in 12 terms in Congress and his laughable results as a presidential candidate all 3 times.
I don't say he or his ideas are crazy.
I don't claim he's a bad man.
I DO say he is not electable, because that is a factual statement, he is not electable. The primaries have already proved that. [for the 3rd time]

If you can't handle the truth, you got nothing.

 

Who are you voting for in the primary and why is he a better man than Ron Paul?

 

Are you planning on voting for him in the Primary?

 

If they were bills that needed to be submitted, then yes.

Do you think we'd be better if we hadn't had Ron Paul in Congress to sponsor all those bills?

Isn't it better to have loved and lost, then to have never loved at all?

 

What a joke u posters are, posting stuff only nutjobs would post

U people hate Ron but will rater vote for the other 3 clowns??!? if anything u are no better them the people u guys call ''paulist'', paulbots'' and all sorts of dumb crap....spewing ur hipocrisy like u guys know it all..

U tell me, whos better Mitt?!? Newt??!? Santorum??!..none of these 3 ''candidates'' are electable but u people like them and vote for them...pathetic..

Tell me geniuses, who should the americans support??

 

Nice to actually get laid once in a while too.

The total is over 700 but its really the same bills sponsored over and over in all 12 terms.

And we know what is defined by doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results.......................

 

Mitt and Newt have both accomplished much more in government than Paul has.
I'd vote for either of them over Paul without hesitation. They HAVE results, Paul has talk, nothing else.
Can't say Santorum has, but when it comes to elections on any level, Do not bet against the young photogenic guy over the wrinkled old man. Looks should not count, but they do.

We shouldn't have to pick between 4 weak candidates and an even weaker incumbent, but we do.

The election isn't about what you wannabe, or what should be. It is about what IS.

Americans will probably and should support Romney. Although I like Gingrich more. Or Gingrich. Santorum as 3rd pick, but close to a tie with Paul, but Santorum wins on looks and youth. Last, obie.

And Americans is always spelled with a capital A. NEVER a lower case a.

 

So if you wanted an issue taken care of, say, the War on Drugs. Destroys lives, props up gangs and drug cartels, leads to a lot of innocent people being killed, and you got into Congress, proposed a bill to end it, and no one voted on it, would you give up? Go home, guess that'll never work. Or do you submit it again, and again, and again...

If slavery still existed wouldn't you want to know who would vote against it's repeal every session? Even if the repeal didn't pass? Wouldn't you perhaps think, if you can't get Congress to act, that maybe you should try to take a more powerful position? Like that of President? And when you didn't succeed the first time, wouldn't you think, "Hey, this whole ending slavery thing is pretty important, maybe I should give a couple more tries."

Thankfully abolitionists kept trying, thankfully Lincoln kept running, and thankfully he didn't take not being first in a Primary as defeat.

Well, now we don't have slavery.

Now we have run away debt, corporatism, endless wars, the destruction of civil liberties, and prohibition. If we don't succeed this year, I think I'm going to keep trying...

 

What you do is garner SUPPORT before wasting your own and everyone else's time over and over.

How do you garner support, you got to give a little to get a little. You may hate that as much as you hate the reality that Paul has no chance. But that is the reality of Congress, give and take. And that is the way is is designed to be. To imagine 435 diverse individuals agreeing in some Utopian fantasy is ridiculous.. 435 have to fight for support and form coalitions for their pet projects and philosophies, and ideas,. Then it has to go to the Senate where 100 diverse individuals will wheel and deal and make changes. Then the House and Senate have to wheel and deal on the changes.

Its designed that way for good reasons. But even designed to make it HARD to pass any law, it can still go all to crap as we have seen in the last few years. Paul was simply ineffective, that's all there is to that. Doesn't make him bad, just ineffective.


I know both effective and ineffective. After a long career being very effective, accomplishing exactly what I wanted to do. It took give and take as well. After years of effectiveness, a heart attack. After recovery I no longer possessed the internal drive and power to overcome any obstacle and realized I was ineffective. So, retired.
I'm not a bad person because I'm no longer effective, neither is Paul. But I'm not presidential either, neither is Paul.
I'm retired, Paul should be.

 

I kind of agree with you. Paul really isn't presidential material and he is a little old to be president. He also wasn't "effective" in congress. However, I am supporting him because of his message. The more attention he gets, the more people get the message. There are younger, more able people out there with similar ideals... they just need to get some support behind them. I am optimistic about 2016 because I think Rand Paul has a serious shot of winning the nomination if he chooses to run. He is more liked by the Republicans, but he also holds some libertarian ideals. Paul will retire when someone can take his spot in the spotlight as a defender of liberty.

 

Ron Paul has already retired from the House. He announced in July that he would NOT seek reelection.

And he is not, "a little old" to be president. He is already older than the oldest President ever REELECTED, Reagan. Reagan was the oldest President ever elected at 69. No one in the history of the nation has been elected for the first time in their 70's [That's why I'm not running]
Also no one has ever been elected president after losing two or more campaigns. The public seems to think, 2 strikes, you're out!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

Reagan won on his third try. He ran in 68:

"Shortly after the beginning of his term, Reagan tested the presidential waters in 1968 as part of a "Stop Nixon" movement, hoping to cut into Nixon's Southern support and be a compromise candidate if neither Nixon nor second-place Nelson Rockefeller received enough delegates to win on the first ballot at the Republican convention."

Then in 76, and finally got the Nomination in 1980.

Paul is pretty healthy for his age, he even challenged the other candidates to a bike ride in Texas heat, which he does regularly. Right now, I think we need someone in there with some perspective.

 

I'll be happy when Nov is past and the retired Paul can ride his bike in the Texas heat for days and hours without end. And I can stop reading Paulobot nonsense.