Thread: I want it all.

Wait, you want proof he is unelectable or are you saying he is unelectable and this is proof?

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Why Ron Paul is such an Unelectable candidate.
I would like Proof.

My guess is that you'll get your proof in early November.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Makes Sense, how can you call this Bat shit crazy?

Personally, his Austrian School views are bat shit crazy. For example, I think that commodity-based currencies are a really (really) bad idea. I don't know if he was lead to the font of Von Mises or if he stumbled across it on his own. Either way, it's a show-stopper for me.

Other than that, I find a lot to like in Ron Paul. Most of what he said in that video is very agreeable to me.

I also think that even if he was elected, he'd have no chance at all to implement most of the economic policy he talks about. He simply wouldn't have the power. That's another reason to think he isn't electable. He's an outsider. A president who was broadly popular with the electorate but politically weak would be - at best - a mixed blessing for the Republican party. It's interesting rhetoric to talk about "the special interests", but you have to put the euphemisms aside when you think about it: they are The Powers That Be, and they play big-boy football. If you're going to take them on, you better have your own power. I don't know if he has any truly powerful friends/supporters.

Cheers,


AetheLove

All I can do is laugh at his claim that the breakup of the USSR somehow vindicated capitalism and destroyed socialism. That's just silly. But I actually generally agree when he is talking about our unilateral intrusions into other countries causes terrorism and all that stuff. I disagree with his extreme anti-interventionism, however. I will support multilateral, UN-sanctioned interventions into places that ASK for our assistance, e.g. Libya.

Reasons why Ron Paul is unelectable:

1) He can't win the Republican primary. Simple as that. The Republican base is full of chickenhawks who support American superiority and wars. He says the opposite. The base has a hard-on for Israel. He wants to cut their funding. That means he'd have to go the third party route. No chance there.

2) He really doesn't have a "base." Libertarians aren't that big of a group in the US, and not all back him. While some Democrats and those on the left will agree with some of his stances on foreign policy and social issues, we'll recoil at his stances on economic issues. Vice versa for Republicans and others on the right. Where is he going to draw support from? I can't see him draining any from Obama.

3) He said he wouldn't have ordered the Osama raid because we should have "worked with Pakistan." Ouch.

4) He looks old and fragile. And yes, as much as we'd like to pretend it doesn't have an effect, it has a big one. Especially if he were standing next to Obama. It's simple to prove it, too. FDR never let anyone know he had polio or see him in his wheelchair in public. During the first JFK and Nixon debate, those who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won and those who watched it on TV thought JFK won. Looks matter.