The Glade 4.0

Maybe, maybe not. However, his point evidently is that electing Ron Paul A) wouldn't result in what Rynar claims, and B) would result in the Democrats having a chokehold on the Federal government for a long time. Simply claiming "none of the other candidates are any better!" doesn't address this; evidently he does think they are better, since he singled out Ron Paul for this criticism.

Simply relying on the Glade affinity for Ron Paul of late and the Glade conventional wisdom that everyone else sucks isn't likely to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with the general sentiment.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hey DE, I have a novel idea.

Why don't you let him speak for himself...

I suspect he would give enough vetos that the Republicans in Congress would be forced to vote against him in order to get anything passed. If the Gov't shuts down, who will be castrated in the media? The GOP. Will he compromise enough to get things done? I doubt it. Standing on principle is a fine thing as an individual, but when it comes to leading people with as diverse viewpoints as America has, compromise is required and I don't think Ron Paul has any such ability. He'll be castigated as a sellout by the Right if he does, and savaged by the Left if he does not. The Republicans will carry the stigma for a generation, without even regarding whether foreign events screw him over.

Scenario: Ron Paul cuts back on foreign involvement, cuts the military, terrorists set off a nuke in NYC. What does Ron Paul do?

How is he wrong? Ron Paul hasn't been elected so you can hardly demonstrate that he's wrong empirically. If it's just because Ron Paul's agenda matches up to the ideology or conventional wisdom you find attractive and that just can't possibly be wrong, then I'm sure you'll enjoy discussing religious topics with Beryllin.

You asked an incredibly loaded question, where you're just assuming the results you want will occur. I don't see much point in discussing this, since I suspect that any questioning of that assumption is simply verboten, but I will point out this:

There is no way, even if Ron Paul gets everything he wants, it's going to result in 4 years of peace and prosperity. It's not all going to magically change the day he gets elected. His political opposition will not magically vanish; debate will not simply be dispensed with.

If he's lucky, and gets everything passed in a jiffy, 2 years to pass all his legislation and another 2 years for it all to get actually implemented and benefits starting to appear. So, at most, a few months of the beginnings of peace and prosperity assuming A) he gets basically everything he wants and B) they actually work as planned.

That means Paul will have to run for re-election based on 4 years of getting this stuff implemented, while being blamed for Obama's legacy during that time because most of the press and people tend to blame/give credit to the incumbent for the effects of the previous administration.

So, it's entirely possible, if everything works out in his favor, that he'd lose the re-election, and his Democratic successor would get credit for everything he did assuming it was left in place and it all worked out the way Paul intended in the first place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hey, I have an idea..

Why don't you let me respond to what I want to respond to? I'm well aware of the Ron Paul bandwagon here and I have no intention of letting the guy get dogpiled by all the cool kids.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

zomg! Iran is gunna nuke us u guyz!!!1!1!oneone

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

zomg! Terrorists are gunna fly planes into the twin towers!!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!oneone

I hear if you just make fun of threats enough, they go away on their own!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Do you have the skill to expound, and actually form an argument, or are you simply content to make cute remarks? I'm perfectly content with either, but I thought I'd make you aware of the option which offers the bonus of having intellectual integrity.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

You seem to be blatantly ignoring that he's making that as a response to Coro doing exactly the same thing. Did you miss that, or is it only ok to not form an argument and make cute remarks when it's someone you agree with?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

A snide remark is called for here, but I'll simply ask you to scroll a little higher in the thread, read my post, then you can apologize.

I heard if you repeat a lie often enough fools then believe it.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Hear it was an inside job.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Just as an aside, I find it humorous that in the post that Corolinth poked fun at, I said "terrorists" and he switched to "Iran". Whether Iran is gunna nuke us, u guyz, I don't know. But terrorists are likely to if they get their hands on a nuke and figure out how to get it here to detonate.

Actually, given the pressure on the current Republican party to do many of the things Paul advocates, he would amass a huge amount of political capital in the first few months of his Presidency, and would then move on to his pet issues to spend it. Taking advantage of a voice in the Senate, and a presence in the house he would quickly put an end to the federal reserve system, and would then bring home the troops over-seas using Democratic votes as necessary, after achieving most of his policy goals.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Campaign promises that dwarf the lies Obama told while he was running will result in another do-nothing President while the country continues to circle the bowl.

_________________

You guys have to consider that, if Ron Paul becomes President, it will be because the majority (or close to it) of American citizens supported him. I think that sends a pretty strong message to Congress that they need to play ball. If they don't, I have a feeling the people would come down on the side of the President and Congress would be royally **** in the next election. In general people support the President a lot more than they do Congress.

Furthermore, there are a lot of positive things Ron Paul can accomplish unilaterally as President without any intervention from Congress (bringing home troops, closing Guantanamo, etc.). Also, I have a feeling that if Ron Paul wins the nomination, in order to get elected he's going to have to promise the people some restraint on his part. I can guarantee you that Obama and the Democrats main campaign position will be that if Ron Paul gets elected, all his radical changes are going to **** things up.

A few points- we have short attention spans in general. So relying on memory and outrage to "vote the bums out" isn't reliable. Also while opinion of Congress as a whole stinks, individual Congresscritter approval by the people they Rep is usually high. I think that's reflected by the sports team mentality found in politics.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Paul would shake up the status quo more than the average voter wants it shook.

People, in general, want to be comfortable so they resist large changes ... they want small incremental changes, then they want to sit back for a bit and experience the change to see if they're more or less comfortable with it.

It's my opinion that the current administration and it's promise of change hasn't produced any significant improvement in the comfort level, and economic events being what they are creates a discomfort that people will either attribute to the administration or blame them for not alleviating.

Paul wants many things to be different than they are now. For those completely dissatisfied with the existing social and political structures, he offers an attractive alternative to the status quo, but I think the greatest majority will consider the previous presidential election result to have failed to provide the comfort they desire and will then elect the most bland conservative running for the office.

"Are you better off now than you were in 2009" will be the Republican message, and that's going to draw people into voting for their candidate.

I'll caveat my opinion by pointing out that I was totally wrong about the election results in 2009. Still, when you touch something hot you draw back, you don't push farther into the unknown.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The American People don't want what Ron Paul is selling. They don't. If he somehow were to get elected, he would get very unpopular very quickly. I don't think the GOP would take a long term hit, but I think he'd be very ineffective. He'd get some stuff done, and that might be enough for me, but he'd be a one term pres for sure.

Speak for yourself...

I'm part of the American people and I want Ron Paul including nearly all of his proposed changes.

Obviously some people are going to agree with Ron Paul. However, that doesn't mean that there's any broad consensus amongst the American People as a whole that they want what he's proposing, and that's what Arathain's talking about.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, I was speaking for the American People.

If you honestly think that a majority of Americans agree with his policies then I think you're not paying attention.

There's the liberals, what, 30%? They'll hate him.
There's conservatives, what, 30%? Let's assume they all love him.
Then there's the 40% in the middle. Left leaning Republicans, right leaning democrats, and folks in between.

Gold standard? Isolationism? Privatizing security at airports? Abolishing Energy, Education, Commerce, HUD, Interior? These are not things the average voter will support. Hell, I think they'll laugh at him for trying to reduce his salary to 40k. These are not middle of the road policies. They may or may not be good policies, but the AP don't want them. Hell, I think a majority of Americans right now support increasing taxes on the rich.

So yeah, the American People don't want it.

It's unfortunate that the majority isn't interested in the only candidate likely to shake some **** up. All this talk about change, hope, fixing the system, getting rid of corruption... None of them really want it if they aren't willing to vote for the unpopular guy.