Thread: Ronpaul! fans, answer up!!!1

Originally Posted by michaelr

A basic change in monetary policy, a basic change in the size of government, a change in foreign policy, the dismantling of the US Dept. of Education, IRS, old cold war bases, troops out of countries world wide, a return to constitutional values, a transparent government, less dependency on the government, bringing the country back together, a stronger dollar, more oil dependency from the middle east, you know stuff like that.

The above may be what Ron Paul wants to happen, but how would he make it happen? He hasn't been able to work with fellow representatives in twenty years to pass any of the significant government limiting legislation that he wants passed, as President how would he then manage to work with both the House and the Senate to make this happen?

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

I agree he has the enthusiasm, and I do get fired up listening to him. But I also have to be realistic and temper that with supporting someone who has the ability to affect those kind of changes. So in the immortal words of Tick, what's a brother to do?

Well Ronin, you should have stuck by your convictions, after all they belong to you. Your voting for the lesser of two evils, the problem is, as Paul pointed out, there is no change, there is no lesser of the two evils. The only thing that separates the two top dogs is age, and you better get that straight. This country has been running on the wrong path for a fucking long time, now we are at the bottom, and it is not a good place to be. Eight more years of this path will break this country and I am afraid that like Humpty, it will never nor ever will be rebuilt. It's your vote and your conscience, I hope you can live with it, I will probably be forced to.

Originally Posted by michaelr

Well Ronin, you should have stuck by your convictions, after all they belong to you. Your voting for the lesser of two evils, the problem is, as Paul pointed out, there is no change, there is no lesser of the two evils. The only thing that separates the two top dogs is age, and you better get that straight. This country has been running on the wrong path for a fucking long time, now we are at the bottom, and it is not a good place to be. Eight more years of this path will break this country and I am afraid that like Humpty, it will never nor ever will be rebuilt. It's your vote and your conscience, I hope you can live with it, I will probably be forced to.

Yes, but you haven't explained to me what is different about Paul that he would be able to divert us from this path, even in spite of his record clearly showing he is unable to garner the kind of support needed to pass the sweeping legislation needed to adhere to his campaign promises of a better tomorrow through smaller government.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

Yes, but you haven't explained to me what is different about Paul that he would be able to divert us from this path, even in spite of his record clearly showing he is unable to garner the kind of support needed to pass the sweeping legislation needed to adhere to his campaign promises of a better tomorrow through smaller government.

As president he would set an agenda that will be followed by his cabinet. Once the country sees that real change can be had and the country along with you future is better for it, they will demand more. It is a simple thing, just look what Bush did with bullying the congress, Obama will be more like Bush and Clinton and that is not good. We need independent thinkers, people with big plans and goals that are not only doable, but necessary.

Originally Posted by michaelr

As president he would set an agenda that will be followed by his cabinet. Once the country sees that real change can be had and the country along with you future is better for it, they will demand more. It is a simple thing, just look what Bush did with bullying the congress, Obama will be more like Bush and Clinton and that is not good. We need independent thinkers, people with big plans and goals that are not only doable, but necessary.

This is the biggest problem I have with Ron Paul though, if he really believed in what he says and really wanted to change government, he wouldn't bother with likely-to-fail power grabs at the Presidency to feed his ego. He would start from the ground up and use his abilities as a good fund raiser to get other like-minded politicians elected at the state level, as Governors, in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate until there was a good sized voting bloc that could not be ignored. Then if someone from that group ran for President they would not only stand a better chance of winning, they would stand a better chance of accomplishing something once they got into office. Ron Paul isn't interested in accomplishing anything though, he wants to deliver a speech then throw up his hands in disgust and say "well, I tried".

This would take a lot longer and isn't what Ron Paul wants. He wants to be the man. He wants to be the leader of the movement. He wants to be President more than he wants to accomplish what he says he believes in.

Originally Posted by boontito

This is the biggest problem I have with Ron Paul though, if he really believed in what he says and really wanted to change government, he wouldn't bother with likely-to-fail power grabs at the Presidency to feed his ego. He would start from the ground up and use his abilities as a good fund raiser to get other like-minded politicians elected at the state level, as Governors, in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate until there was a good sized voting bloc that could not be ignored. Then if someone from that group ran for President they would not only stand a better chance of winning, they would stand a better chance of accomplishing something once they got into office. Ron Paul isn't interested in accomplishing anything though, he wants to deliver a speech then throw up his hands in disgust and say "well, I tried".

This would take a lot longer and isn't what Ron Paul wants. He wants to be the man. He wants to be the leader of the movement. He wants to be President more than he wants to accomplish what he says he believes in.

He has already done all that and then some...Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty | The Revolution Continues

Originally Posted by michaelr

He has already done all that and then some...Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty | The Revolution Continues

No he has not "already done all that". Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty was started in 2008 following 20+ years of legislative failure and two never-had-a-chance presidential campaigns.

Originally Posted by boontito

No he has not "already done all that". Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty was started in 2008 following 20+ years of legislative failure and two never-had-a-chance presidential campaigns.

Nobody listened until now.

Originally Posted by GraspingForPeace

Nobody listened until now.

That is because things are getting desperate, people know what a fiat currency is, they know about the roll on the Central banks and what is the cause of inflation, they are catching on to fractional lending and see how over leveraged our banks are. They should have listened earlier.


@ Boontito, he did what you asked and you still are angered, of course he had no chance, he is not a puppet for a corrupt system, your man is.

Originally Posted by michaelr

As president he would set an agenda that will be followed by his cabinet. Once the country sees that real change can be had and the country along with you future is better for it, they will demand more. It is a simple thing, just look what Bush did with bullying the congress, Obama will be more like Bush and Clinton and that is not good. We need independent thinkers, people with big plans and goals that are not only doable, but necessary.

But based on Paul's history of not being able to generate bipartisan support for his policies to get them passed, wouldn't he also, as President, have to bully the congress to get his initiatives passed through?

You still haven't explained how he's different from mainstream choices. Even in your most recent post, you jump from setting an agenda for his cabinet to the country demanding more real change in the mold of Paul's actions.

How is setting agendas for the Cabinet instituting real change? Don't you agree that there are maybe some fundamental steps that you missed outlining between agenda setting and public revolution? Isn't it entirely possible that Paul is guilty of the exact same logical leapfroging in his idealism?