This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul Can Win
This piece was written by Robin Koerner and originally appeared on HuffPo. Robin also writes for the Daily Capitalist and it was published there as well.
It's hard to tell if the idea that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012 is more ignorant, in its complete lack of historical sophistication, or more arrogant, in its claim to certainty amid all the complexity of 300 million lives and the myriad issues that affect them.
Sometimes, perhaps once in a few generations, a nation can undergo what a mathematician or physicist would call a "phase change." The classic example of such a thing is a pile of sand. Every grain you add makes the pile slightly steeper and slightly higher without moving any of the other grains inside the pile, until eventually one grain is added that causes an avalanche of sand down the sides of the pile, moving thousand of grains and changing the shape of the pile.
Such behavior can be exhibited by all complex systems, and a nation -- it should be obvious -- is much more complex than a pile of sand.
The important point for those who would presume to make such grand predictions as "Dr. Paul cannot win" is that no examination of the pile of sand before the point of avalanche would tell you that, or when, the avalanche will eventually happen.
But happen it does; indeed, happen it must.
And there are numerous examples of abrupt and dramatic phase change in the politics of great nations.
The U.K., the country of my birth, provides a compelling and closely relevant example. As every schoolboy knows, Churchill led Britain to victory in the Second World War. Indeed, he did as much as any man on Earth ever has to save civilization as we know it.
Three months after the entire nation poured into the streets to cheer this great leader (the man a few years ago voted by Britons the greatest Briton of all time), Churchill went to the country in a general election to retain his position as prime minister. There was simply no way he could lose. The best slogan the Labour party, his opposition, could come up with was, "Cheer Churchill. Vote Labour."
And amazingly, that is exactly what the nation did. Churchill was defeated. No one anywhere -- including the people of Britain who voted in the election -- had even thought about the possibility. No newspaper had considered it. After all, the election was a foregone conclusion in Churchill's favor. And yet an unseen, perhaps unconscious, will of the people caused a cultural and political phase-change in the British nation that they neither knew they wanted nor knew they had the power to cause.
Many historians now say that the unseen sentiment that produced this result that shocked not just the British but the whole world was the idea that all the blood and treasure lost to maintain the freedom of the British empire and the Western world demanded something more than continuation of the old political settlement. After a huge crisis, the people wanted a whole new system. In 1945, the Labour Party, with its vision of state-delivered cradle-to-grave security of health and basic material well-being (welfare state), in some way met that national desire for a grand political change.
Following what was in fact a landslide victory for the Labour party, the character of the nation changed massively, and more change rapidly followed in the British identity, as an empire was lost and the mantle of the world's greatest power was handed to the U.S.A.
Those who have noted that one of Ron Paul's greatest qualities is his humility might also be interested to know that Churchill had put down Clement Attlee, who defeated him, with the words, "A modest little man, with much to be modest about."
Perhaps a more fanciful comparison, but nonetheless indicative: no one in China was predicting that the Long March of Mao, which began in defeat and despair, would end in Beijing with victory and the proclamation of a whole new nation under a whole new political system.
And which newspapers were pondering the possibility of the First World War just a month before it happened?
We cannot see past a phase change. I don't know if the U.S.A. will have undergone one at the time of the 2012 election, but the necessary conditions for one are all in place, as far as I can tell.
One has to reach back a good way in American history for a time of such rapidly rising sentiment that not only are our leaders unable even to think of real solutions to the problems of greatest concern (rather than just making expedient changes at the margin), but also that the prevailing political and economic system is structurally incapable of delivering any long-term solutions in its current form.
The sheer range and interconnectedness of the problems that the nation faces are such that any permanent solution to any one of them will require profound systemic change that will necessarily upset many economic, political and cultural equilibria. And that is nothing more than a definition of a national phase change.
The average American may not know what is to be done, but she can sense when the system has exhausted all its possibilities. At that point, not only does the phase change become reasonable; it becomes desirable -- even if what lies on the other side cannot be known.
As anyone can find out just by talking to a broad cross-section of Ron Paul's supporters, his base is not uniform in its agreement on the standard issues of typical American party-political conflict. In fact, Paul supporters vary significantly even in their views of what in the old left-right paradigm were the "wedge-issues." Rather, they are united around concepts that could almost be called meta-political: whether left and right really exist, and, if they do, whether they are really opposed; whether centralized government should even be the main vehicle for political change, etc.; and whether there are some principles that should be held sacrosanct for long-term benefit, even when they will hurt in the short-run.
For those with eyes to see, such realignments and re-prioritization may even be glimpses of America after its next phase change.
If Ron Paul has committed support from 10 percent of the adult population, and most of that 10 percent support him precisely because they believe he represents a whole new political system, an entirely new political settlement, then we may be close to critical mass -- just a few grains of sand short of the avalanche.
Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate) has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as "irrelevant" is invariably indicative that the neglected data are hugely important. If information doesn't really matter, why go to all the effort of ignoring it?
Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.
First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.
To believe that Ron Paul's victory is a long shot in spite of all standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out all norms with which we follow our nation's politics -- and that is a huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find them.
If it is true that the studied neglect of data to hold tight to a paradigm is the best evidence that the paradigm is about to collapse, then the massive and highly subjective neglect of all things Paulian is specific evidence that the country is moving in Paul's direction.
Of course, none of this means that Paul will definitely win. But it does mean that a bet against him by a politician is foolhardy and by a journalist is dishonest.
It is worth returning to Churchill's career for an even more delicious example: just days before he became the great wartime leader, his career had been written off as that of a kook, and he was being discussed as someone who had extreme ideas and whose thinking did not reflect the mood of the nation. The House of Commons was abuzz with his decline and imminent fall.
And then, rather suddenly, something he had been saying for many years -- that there was something rotten in the state of Germany -- became so obvious that it could no longer be avoided. Once the nation saw that he had been right all along, he became the leader of the free world in very short order. His career changed. Britain changed. The world changed. No one had seen that coming, either. In fact, everyone thought they knew what was coming: the kook was about to disappear into political backwaters, if not the political wilderness.
Do I even need to draw the parallel?
If Paul wins, it won't be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business -- a new political and economic paradigm -- and then he'll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he'll be the only shot.
»
- Econophile's blog
- 13920 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I believe it is, (excuse the cliche' please) the perfect storm of the worst of Human Nature, given time to fester, first and foremost Self-Absorbed minds gravitating to places where genuine leadership is required, and for a good long while, used to be.
Humans have proven their skills at f'ing up Humanity, and lo and behold -- we are no different.
Maybe the NFL "patdowns" will trigger some kind of twitch in the normally numb American.
But then again, maybe the patdowns will have to go to NASCAR as well.
The author is optimistic, but having been thru the Republican caucus process for
Dr. Paul prior to the 2008 election. I'm not.
Maybe when the 60 year old "security" guard at the local high school gets to feel up your 15 year old daughter every morning when she shows up for school?
It might help if his actual national poll votes weren't blatantly discounted by the MSM-backed pollsters, save for the perfunctory 5%. He has a passionate, loyal following to be sure, but a growing string of 1st (mostly), 2nd and 3rd straw poll finishes, and he has only 5% nationally?
Are you fukking kidding me??
13% according to gallup... but I think he probably has more like 20% in actuality.
www.ronpaul2012.com
I just made a $100 donation. Please do the same.
Spread the word!
Someone said that Ron Paul is not photogenic. I take issue with that. I think, compared to the greasy, phoney, game show host appearance of Romney and Perry - Paul comes across as dignified, presidential and folksy. He's 76 but dapper and fit and I see nothing that detracts from the camera at all, with RP. He's real. Sure, he trips over his words at times but Obama has proven that a great orator does not a great president make.
And then there is my hope and my fear.
My hope is that RP will, during the presidential debates, say that one thing, one true thing, that ignites something in the sleeping masses and makes them perk up and go "what? What did he just say? That makes sense. Hey, HE makes sense!" Thereby, bringing to blossom the great awakening of the sheep so that they will see through the smoke and mirrors and reject the candidates who are so obviously puppets for their corporate masters and the elite.
And my fear is that time is not on RP's side. He is 76. That is a hard fact. It seems apparent that the office of President tends to age the incumbent prematurely - Obama has gathered a lot of gray hairs since he took office as did his predecessors - RP is starting out over a full six years older than Reagan was when he was elected. No, make that seven since the election is a year away. With an agenda like his, and the uphill battle it will entail if he suceeds in taking office, it might prove to be too much even for a physician who has taken great care of his health. A one term presidency would not be nearly enough time to turn this ship around and get it headed towards calmer waters.
But in the end, Ron Paul winning would signal a great positive shift in the electorate and could be the spark that enlightens the masses and scuttles the plans for the NWO long enough to avoid the future that we all fear.
Disobey.
Ron Paul challenged the rest of the candidates to a 100 mile bike ride across Texas. In August. In 100 degree heat. The man is in better shape than I am, at twice my age.
There are a half dozen young people that would make great VPs- The Judge, Karen Kwiatowski, even his son- and could be counted on to continue his policies even if he became infirm, or died. Once he won, though, the tide would turn so swiftly that his VP would be virtually guaranteed to win after he retired.
The reason the office ages others so greatly is that power corrupts the soul- I suspect that it would energize Paul even more, giving him a platform to spread his ideas of peace and liberty across the world, even as he returned this country to freedom.
Don't count him out due to age!
I have to respond to this not because I dislike Ron Paul, but rather, it is simply false. A friend of mine worked the debate out in California a week or so ago. He was within feet of Paul and told me the guy was shaky and frail. This is a person who likes Paul and rarely cares about politics.
Okay let's not go nuts...I'd love the 100mile idea but he said 20mi.
Or we can just all go full bore Chuck Norris with Ron Paul:
Ron Paul challenged all the Republican presidential candidates to a triathalon to Mars and won!
Ron Paul can melt Republican minds with truth alone!
Ron Paul delivered all of the other candidates and slapped their mothers!
When Republican are asked questions about policy and being presidential the first thing in their head is "WWRD - What Would Ron Do?"
Written on the back of the U.S. Consitution is "Please Listen to Ron Paul."
No Republican candidate has coins with their image on it except for Ron Paul. *this one is true I think
The reason the office ages others so greatly is that power corrupts the soul- I suspect that it would energize Paul even more, giving him a platform to spread his ideas of peace and liberty across the world, even as he returned this country to freedom.
I like that sentiment. He does have an air of greatness about him. If anyone could do it - it is that man.
Disobey.
To econophile.
Just a fabulous essay, but the guy has no prayer. Churchill was a kook, i know something of him, and he was astonishingly 70 when the stars aligned for him, , and a total serial failure, utterly lacking in judgement, ....including being a drunken fool, .... and killed 1200 people on the Lusitania, as surely as he had shot them in the trenches of France in WW1. .
Churchill had figured out Hitler because he had a mirror in his bathroom, he manifestly knew his man.But he could yap pretty good in the House.
RON PAUL IS TOO OLD , irrespective of his ideas, he is virtually monosyllabic, why does nobody acknowledge the blatantly obvious the guy creaks, HE IS TOO OLD, and lacks any offsetting charisma, nobody is going to elect a president who dies before his inauguration, America already did it once, the man is unelectable.
Ron Paul also has strong opinions about entitlements and wants to see them disappear. He won't receive a vote for anyone dependant on entitlments, which just happens to be largest voter block. While RP might excel in staw polls, and with the tea party, he will not be considered by the majority of americans who:
1. Want thier entitlements
2. Want the Miltary industrial complex to continue to dominate the US economy (perhaps not the majority, but a large number of americans)
3. Want Politcians to lie to them and tell them that everything is going to be alright. (The majority of americans perfer to bury their heads in the sand)
Consider that Bachmann also won a straw poll and has been very popular with christian voters. She is also unelectable.
Nothing is going to get fixed as long as America remains the United States. America will only get better after the union is broken up and real change can happen. Considering the state of the US, is a breakup is probably only a couple of more terms away. By 2016, the federal debt will be over 20 Trillion, and problems in Europe with the EU will largely be resolved by a break up. China's growth economy will probably pop and Japan will probably declare bankruptcy or shortly after.
When a country gets as screwed up as the US, very rarely does a turnaround happen. in 9 out of 10 times, the gov't collapses and is replaced or breaks up. Most large nations break up after a economic collapse (Soviet Union, England, Turkish Empire, Germany, Holy Roman Empire, Rome, etc). The US won't be any different.
Consider that just to balance the budget, the federal gov't need to cut over 1 Trillion per year. That would result in a massive depression causing federal revenues to plunge and lead to the US to default since the loss of revenue would be devistation.
If you really want to change, re-elect o'bama and replace congressional republicans with democrats so they can tax the hell out of americans bringing about a quick end to the federal gov't. Another words, give the federal gov't enough rope to hang themselves.
Please don't try to confuse/equate Ron Paul w/ Bachmann.
Ron Paul is opposed to foreign entanglements.
Bachmann wants more war /is a sell-out to the usurpers.
You get the red-arrow-of-disinformation for that maneauver.
You Misunderstood and completely missed the point.
The point was the RP only has a small number of supports. Those supports rally behind him and will carry him at this early stage. Once you include the majority, its negligent. RP simply does appeal to the Majority of Americans, or even enough to win a presidental election.
Consider the presidents Americans elected during the past 40 years. None ran on gov't debt as there primary issue. All focused on giving Americans something: Lower taxes, bigger entitlements, War on communism, War on Drugs, War on Poverty. All of them expanded the size of the federal gov't. All those that ran on smaller gov't, less is more, lost the election.
RP will not be the chosen Republican Candidate.
Fine. Whatever.
Ron Paul is on record as opposed to foreign entanglements, ie. wars.
Bachman is entangled in foreign entanglements.
Just lay off the bogus conflating of the two.
I never compared them on their agendas. You're a nut.
Its not that Ron Paul can't win, it's more like, they will not let him win. "they" = the same powers that put all the "high office candidates" In Office. Consider researching www.blackboxvoting.org and realize how much your vote doesn't count when "they" want their candidate. These are the times of the Crimes of the Millenium.
Robin Koerner, the author of this article is the one who inspired the Blue Republican movement. Democrats & Independents registering Republican....just for a year for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul was snubbed by the California GOP, and not invited to it's straw poll in L.A. on 9/17/11. He showed up anyhow, and won it by a landslide 44.9%! MSM largely ignored it, or downplayed it, when this is actually what occurred: http://youtu.be/vcUdA-mtBA4
He's who the People want.
Ah, no...Paul's win has been all over the MSM. Heard about it on CNN radio earlier today, and Roger Hedgecock - pro-Perry - is devoting a segment of his radio show to it as I'm typing this. As far as Robin K. goes, she's a sly one. All that drivel about Churchill, world's first and worst neo-con: the 20th century's bloodiest warmonger, imperialist, and genocide artist....everything he touched - Europe, the Brit Empire - turned to blood and ashes. But the Zionists love him....because the "holocaust' he and Adolf Hitler instigated put Israel on the map. And of course Robin and the HuffPo aparatchiks want Paul nominated.....they think Zero can defeat him easily. Maybe, maybe not. One thing she's right about: this nation is entering a transformative period. 1860------->2012.
Of course he can win. If the only people to vote are the college kids he busses in for the straw polls.
And the boomers/seniors that are realizing that without his financial guidance their SS and Medicaire/caid are toast.
A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Extreme times call for extreme measures!
Is Ron Paul an anarchist? No government rather than limited government?
His own words indicate that he might very well be an anarchist. Since he would not interfer, if Prez, in the coercion of citizens by any State in the Union (a point he made in a debate about mandatory health care payments) he could would have to support any county within a State from countradicting or ignoring any State edicts....and so on and so on.
So saying, he would not prevent any State from leaving the Union, any city from leaving a State, any neighborhood from living a city...and so on and so on and so on.
Anarchy.
Of course he's an anarchist. Libertarians IGNORE the history of their philosophy and it's roots. Guess what? ANARCHISM. Ever notice that anarchists and libertarians actually have a lot in common? Because one is just the bastard step child of the other. Fuck people, try reading sometime. I know this will be junked, but do yourself a courtesy and just do some research into this.
BTW this does not detract from my support for Ron Paul, in fact I have always thought we need a good anarchist as president. (Read some Emma Goldman and you will certainly see the common ancestry.)
I suggest you read "In Defense of Anarchy"
While I'm no Anarchist, don't underestimate the power of having just enough government to ensure, preserve and protect rights and freedoms.
Some people, like you, seem to misunderstand the value of extremely limited government. The Hanseatic League was remarkably successful and had very limited government. Its main goal was enforcing trade agreements, contracts and prosecuting criminals was left to the regions. Staying in the league was voluntary - but cities stayed because it made sense.
It was only external territorial forces which eventually undermined the strength of the structure and caused it to dissolve.
Anarchy can work, as long as it's defined properly. The Hansa was remarkably well designed and is frequently overlooked today.
Ron Paul is no anarchist in the sense you conceive. Only lunatics are. And only lunatics who are unable to grasp the power of his message would suggest he is an anarchist in the manner you describe. You need to get a clue. Or two.
So Civil War, in your opinion, is the preferable course of action to a peaceful secession?
So you wouln'd go after criminals for fear of resistance? Anarchy is each individual making up his own laws. You have to assume conflict and without an objective system of government, who decides? You'd have 'social life' reduced to who has the biggest personal army.
At no time has Ron Paul espoused the abandonment of laws. Nor has he at anytime espoused abandonment of the constitution. He knows that a civilized country needs order. And it has ALWAYS BEEN HIS VIEW - that the "RULE OF LAW" be upheld in every case. One problem the US has right now is THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW! Banksters have been exempted from felonious behaviour simply because of how much money they have or who they blow in the government. Ron Paul knows there are laws and there will always be laws in the US. He simply wants the government to enforce the friggin' laws that are already there. He is not an anarchist. He is a constitutionalist. There is the 10th amendment, afterall. And while this amendment has been superseded by the 14th and 17th amendments in case law - it is still on the books. It still exists. The concept that Paul embraces is this... "keep the tyranny closer to you." Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely - it's human nature. By keeping the tyranny closer to you, you have a better chance of successfully fighting it. Look at the US today and then see the rules of tyranny here. Libertarians don't want to abandon the rule of law. They want to rely on it so they can choose to live the American Dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The rule of law equally applied gives every citizen the chance to be made whole from whoever may damage their life or property. The rule of law applies to everyone. Not just selective people. A rule of law that is applied unequally is the mark of tyranny - not democracy. Ron Paul wants to reintroduce an equally applied rule of law to every US Citizen. So that might mean, Banksters... watchout.
10th Amendment Resolutions
In 2009-2010 thirty eight states have introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment; Nine states have passed the resolutions. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution.[6]
"Anarchy is each individual making up his own laws"
Your lack of understanding of anarchy exposes your intellectual shallowness. Anarchy is NOTHING of the sort- "The Law" exists, we as humans merely discover it. As it is said, "You cannot break the law, only break yourself against the law" whereas the "positivist" view of the law is why you and your socialist ilk have failed, and destroyed the world.
Learn some history and legal philosophy before spouting off on issues you know nothing about.
And, yes, decentralization, down to the community level (no state) would lead to greater peace and freedom worldwide. You don't like the laws of a community, stay out. Bad laws would lead to local change, unlike the monolithic US where even horrible laws (prohibition, counterfeiting, war) can't be changed because of the powers of the elites- who make money from enforcing those bad and evil laws.
I rest my case.
The case that you're a blithering idiot? Yes, you should rest.
As most lunatics do, you take the suggestion to the extreme as a means of 'proving' a non-existent and ludicrous point.
I'm usually above attacking individuals, but I'm in a pissed off mood today because I'm tired of reading crap like this. The last time I heard RP speak, I am fairly certain he had harsh words for criminal behavior. Particularly the kind of criminal behavior now taking place in the White House and at the Fed.
Bernanke = John Law.
Obama = any host of megalomaniacs who managed to win an election somewhere then couldn't figure out what to do once they won.
Then where in hell would Paul draw the line??? And on what principle? If he allows of States coercing individuals (initiating force) then how can he logically object to other kinds of coercion? His election would set the stage for the next lunatic president to assume power...and lunatics have won elections.
We need consistency in a condidate and if that pisses you off so be it.
Um, English please. Not blithering rage directed toward nothing in particular. It's useful to be not only clear and logical, but have a point, and clearly you have neither.
Where would Paul draw the line? On what? You say "If he allows of States coercing individuals"....I'll assume you mean "if he allows states to coerce individuals" (I may be wrong, but it's as close as I can get to proper grammar), then you're a moron. Why? Because, please tell me Mr. "we need consistency in governing", what exactly allows governments to rule?
Coercion.
What? You missed that when you were in school? Sorry. I'll repeat it. Coercion.
If I don't like the law, let's say the law in this particular case being smoking marijuana, then how does the government get me to obey the law?
Coercion. If I break it, they imprison me. I am coerced, by the force the government is allowed to apply, and thereby forced to conform to the law.
So, given your logic (or obvious lack thereof), how do all presidents object to other kinds of coercion?
See, nitwit? You think you're so smart and you've got not one ounce of clue. And yes, I know lunatics have won elections. Because people like you help them win.
No, under anarchy there are plenty of rules, and consequences for breaking those rules, but they are implemented by individuals and real communities (as in, people actually know each other), not by unaccountable governments.
And if everyone has roughly equal personal armies, then minor conflicts cannot escalate into Armageddon.
Good for a laugh first thing in the morning here in Australia. Interesting how cult-like Ron Paul followers are.
You're Australian? Well I guess we won't be worrying about your vote. I'd take a shot at your PM but I don't know who it is. I don't know the names of any of them. G'day, mate.
Meet me here and bring $:
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=669534
Ron Paul has a good chance of winning if he is the GOP candidate. If he isn't it's still possible but much less likely. Don't forget that Clinton came just a few percentage points away from losing against 3rd party candidate Ross Perot who had at least as zany a public perception, played the drums in his own pep-rally band and drooped out of the race for a while in the summer.
Personally I think the system is beyond rescue without some sort of systemic collapse first and the sooner that collapse happens the better. Obama is just the man to make sooner a reality. So, Obama in 2012.
If the polls and tabulating machines are not rigged, Ron Paul could win
Ron Paul will never be president. I seriously doubt he actually wants the job, but I'm sure he likes being at the center of his own cult of mindless rubes. Ron Paul is a racist who has a small man's fear of brown-skinned people. Read his writings, it's all out there in the open.
I've never met an Australian who wasn't a stand-up guy. I guess there's a first time for everything.
Oh gheesh, that old and lame argument again. Everyone knows that Dr. Paul didn't write those words that appeared in the News Letter w/ his name on it 20 years ago. Everyone also knows that that staffer was fired when Dr. Paul became aware of it. The good Doctor was very much absentee when it came to that News Letter because he was very busy doing other things. I doubt anyone would hold Steve Forbes responsible for every word written in his magazine. Specially since Steve employs even liberal writers. Yet, Dr. Paul apologised and took "Moral Responsibility" for the News Letter.. A VERY stand up move. Personally, I don't have a hard time with the words that "Young Black Teens can be incredibly fleet footed"...They can be. Take a look at who the running backs and receivers in the NFL are. Or the sprinters on the US Olympic team. Much ado about nothing. You'll have to do better than that. Besides, the racist card is so over used it has lost all meaning. If all you have is the "race card" you got nothing!
R word = FAIL
Doesn't work anymore - go back in your hole.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, I have donated to his campaign and even convinced people to register Republican to vote for him in the election. Having said that he won't be president.
1. We must remember to many Americans benefit from the massive warfare/welfare state, they will not vote for him.
2. Blues will vote blues, and reds will get turned off by the peace talk. Like it or not the reds love war and death and keeping it over there. Also Dr. Paul is not a moralizer so large segments of the red party will be aliened.
3. Rigged voting. As old as voting itself, does anyone really think vote rigging in this age of computers would not play a factor?
4. Entrenched power. The establishment will move heaven and earth to stop Ron Paul. Even if his support were strong enough to overcome the vote rigging I would expect his life to turn into a scene from the Bourne Identity as Dr. Paul must fight off team after team of hired jackals. I love the man, but we live in a world where good men are murdered and scum continue to live and do their work.
Now having said all that everyone should get behind him and support him as much as they can. But we need to be realistic and understand the world we live in. Best thing to do is get the message out there so at least people might have an inkling about how they are being pillaged and controlled.
At this stage, it is really not important if Ron Paul wins and indeed he probably will not.
For now, it is important, however, that he becomes a force to be reckonned with from here and into the future. It is imporant that he creates and validates the clear opposition so that others like him coalesce around him and form a viable alternative that both parties will have to deal with at all levels from small local elections on up.
Don't get me wrong I like the man, but RP seems utterly clueless the most dangerous threat to global stability extant; Radical Islam. He just doesn't understand that when Ahmadinejad or his ilk say they want see you and your children destroyed, it is not just rhetorical hyperbole. They mean it, and there is no negotiating with that. At some point we would all pay dearly for that kind of naivete.
I probably could not vote for the man because this one reason. It's a shame because he is so good on everything else. RP needs to be the Treasury Secretary or the USAG so he could focus on what he is really good at.