Friends, please explain to me why it is so often said that

[Tempest]

I like Ron Paul alot. I think his biggest problem with electability is that he scares people who have grown overly dependant on a government that provides them with a false sense of security. He loses much of the audience when he begins talking about economic theory...sound money, the role of the federal reserve, the business cycle etc etc. By his own admission he knows that he needs to be able to articulate his message better. The fact that he hasn't adapted his style and presentation makes me wonder sometimes whether or not he really wants the office...or if his goal is to garner enough support to be able to have some influence on whoever does.

He is certainly smart enough to know the difference between a being messenger and professorial and being a chief executive...if he could tighten up his presentation, make more of an attempt to come across as an executive rather than the nutty professor, I think he'd be tough to beat. But, I fear that's not who he is..otherwise he would have made those adjustments quite some time ago.

The republicans could very well hand this election to Obama. In my opinion they have put the 2nd maybe even the 3rd string in the game..here, while the rising stars of the party are sitting on the bench. Mitch Daniel, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Chris Christi...are all sitting this one out? With four years to come up with a candidate to run against Obama, they have managed to screw the pooch IMO.

Santorum is too radical when it comes to social policy to be electable in this country and too trigger happy for me. Though, I have been impressed with how he articulates his positions.

Gingrich is Gingrich. Who the heck knows who Romney really is? Anyone? I've listened to all the debates and have never heard him say much more than " I know how the economy and business work"

I think ( I could very well be wrong) the majority of people in the country are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, yet we seem unable to field candidates who will stake out that position.

When Abortion, Marriage...etc get tossed into the mix..it seems to bog everything down in controlling people's behaviour. Does anyone really think this country is going back to using coat hangers in the closet? Is defining the definition of Marriage the central issue on the average citizens mind, or is it just a another tool to divide the country...

This is a mess.. We send these folks to Washington to get a job done, and they can't get out of their own way. We should send them all fiddles....

With that, I need to go check on the boat..

[knothead]

I came across this letter from an Israeli that I thought was worth sharing.

Ron Paul and the Israel question | Washington Times Communities

Jo Bailey Collapse

From
Israel: Vote Ron Paul and Let My People Go!


by
Rafi Farber


Lately
I’ve been having trouble sleeping. I sit here in my living room in
Karnei Shomron, Israel, on the 8th night of Chanukah, wondering what
other miracles lay in store on January 3rd and in the months ahead.
The name Ron Paul is constantly at my fingertips. I’ve typed it in
so many times the past month it’s insane. I’m experiencing an
excitement I’ve rarely ever felt, and I don’t even live in
America anymore. During the last Republican debate I woke myself up
at 3am Israel time to watch an 8pm EST live stream on YouTube, with
no fatigue whatsoever. I’m on overdrive, and I can’t calm myself.


I’ve
only recently figured out what this excitement actually is.


I
first got interested in the whole freedom movement when I heard that
Ron Paul wanted to end all foreign aid, including to my country,
Israel. This seemed like a spectacular idea to me. I hate the idea of
taking American tax payer money I don’t need. The only reason we
take it, by the way, is not because we need it. It’s that we don’t
want to feel alone, and Jews always feel a deep existential isolation
and loneliness. “As I see them from the mountain tops, gaze on them
from the heights, this is a people that dwells alone, not counted
among the Nations,” says Balaam of the People of Israel in Numbers
23:9. We still feel that loneliness. So we take the money. It’s
shameful, it’s theft, it’s destructive, it’s morally wrong, and
it makes people hate us for tying them into a conflict they have no
business trying to solve. I wanted it to end and didn’t trust any
Israeli leader to give it up on his own, so I looked up more about
Ron Paul.


What
I found was fascinating. On the forums, I learned of people who, back
in ’08, literally gave their lives short of death to this man. Some
poured money into his campaign they could not afford to give, and
some even lost their marriages because of their single-minded insane
dedication. This shocked me. I couldn’t yet understand it, but
after a few days of listening to him, it began to click.


What
is it about Ron Paul that inspires such extremes? Such maddening
support on the one hand, and such fear and loathing on the other? I
can give the answer in one word: Soul.


The
essential soul of a human being is by definition free. The idea that
men are free as determined by God is a concept that is foreign to
most men. This is because most men want to control others, to take
away their freedom. This is usually referred to as the drive for
power. The drive for power is antithetical to freedom because power
means the ability to control others. There is only one legitimate
thing that power can and should be used for, whether it be military,
legislative, or executive power. That is, to legalize freedom.


Ron
Paul doesn’t want to be President to “give” me freedom. He
doesn’t own my freedom and he didn’t give it to me. The only
reason Ron Paul wants to be President is to stop punishing people for
using their freedom that is rightfully theirs. He wants no power.
This is clear to anyone who listens to him speak.


There
are two kinds of human beings. Those who want power, and those who
want freedom. You can tell which one’s which very easily. Those who
want freedom are straight-edged. They are consistent, principled, and
you can feel their human soul when they speak to you. There’s a
continuum out there of human souls somewhere in spiritual cyberspace,
and when you come into contact with one of these souls, you know
immediately, because souls are by definition free. You sense
sincerity, realness, consistency, a free human being. If you’re a
man who seeks freedom and you come into contact with a real human
soul, you become instantly addicted and you swallow up anything you
can get your hands on. You want to unite immediately, no matter what
you disagree on. There are people in the freedom movement that don’t
exactly like Israel, especially me being a “settler” and I don’t
care. If they want freedom, I sense it and my human drive for
individualism suddenly turns into an intense desire to unite into a
collective – but a collective of free individuals. It’s a
beautiful dialectic, and it doesn’t matter what we agree or
disagree on, as long as we agree on freedom.


You
get hooked on Ron Paul and you desperately seek more and more, any
video you can find from the past, any speeches you missed, anything
he said that you haven’t heard yet, even though you’ve heard it a
thousand times already in different words. You can’t help yourself.
The voracious hunger to be able to use your God-given freedom takes
you over entirely. It’s like you suddenly realize you’re human
and the Divine Image with which God created you comes alive and
catches fire.


But
something else happens to you. Once you get hooked on Ron Paul, you
can no longer bear to listen to a man who wants power, and you become
instantly disgusted when they start saying words. Before, they were
just boring. Now they’re revolting. Listening to Romney or Gingrich
or Bush or Obama makes you sick and you don’t know how Ron Paul
gets through those debates without getting nauseous. You see a
political veneer in these politicians that’s so transparent it’s
like a ghost flapping its ethereal tongue at you. You can’t bear
it.


What’s
so maddening about hearing Romney or Gingrich talk is that there’s
someone standing there saying things, but there’s no soul in it.
These are not free men. These are power men. Not that Romney or
Gingrich don’t have souls. They do. They are men just like you and
I. But they have practically forfeited their souls to try and attain
power, to control others with spin and talking points and
contradictory statements like “I want to cut the budget and expand
the military!” and they’ll say it with a polished tone and a
straight face, just like a soulless recording. Their humanity is so
buried under the mountain of lies they have told themselves, that
neither they themselves nor you can even sense their souls in the
human continuum. The scene of a human body speaking but no soul
communicating can drive a free man mad.


The
reason that Ron Paul never goes down in the polls is that he’s not
“convincing” people in the everyday sense that he’s right on
whatever issue. He’s activating human souls, lighting spiritual
fires one by one speaking about freedom. Once a soul gets activated,
and the man realizes that he IS free no matter what people do to him
or tell him, there is no turning back. The other candidates are
trying to turn heads with snappy one-liners that sound cool. Slaves
follow these one-liners like mobs, and follow each other from
candidate to candidate. Slowly but surely, Ron Paul activates a few
of the individual souls in the mob as they bob from snappy comeback
to snappy comeback and he goes up in the polls.


Yet,
we cannot expect every man woman and child to understand or get
excited about the message of liberty. In fact, most just can’t
handle it. Being truly free is as terrifying as it is electrifying.
The Bible tells us this very clearly in the story of the Exodus from
Egypt. When Moses finally accepts the role of deliverer from God, he
was assigned to say the following to my great-grandparents the
Israelites:


“Therefore
say to the Israelites: I am God. I will free you from the labors of
the Egyptians and deliver you from their bondage. I will redeem you
with an outstretched arm and with amazing signs. And I will take you
to be My people and I will be your God, and you will know that I am
the Lord who freed you from the labors of the Egyptians.” (Ex.
6:6-7)


And
what was my grandparents’ response?


“And
Moses told this to the people, but they didn’t listen due to lack
of spirit and cruel bondage.” (6:9)


Not
everyone can handle the message of freedom. It’s too frightening
for some people, and some are just too enslaved. Those are the people
that despise Ron Paul, the same types who rebelled against Moses in
the desert and attempted to go back to Egypt. Freedom is too much for
them and they can’t handle the Divine gift. They want and need
someone to control them. Their souls have been too battered by
slavery, taxation, and wars.


But
nonetheless, God forced my stiff-necked great grandparents to leave
Egypt, and as a result I’m here today, preaching freedom once
again, fighting not only for America’s freedom, but for my own from
America’s influence in my own region.


Vote
Ron Paul and let my people go once again! Stop meddling here and stop
trying to buy influence by giving me money. Stop trying to be the all
powerful Peace Maker and let us work out the problems here on our
own! If we think Iran is a threat, we can handle it and we’ll take
the consequences. It’s not America’s problem and you can’t
afford another war.


Now
I understand why people will give everything to this man. Whenever
he’s asked the question, “Would you legalize heroin?” Ron Paul
answers, “I want to legalize freedom!” Little do these people
understand that freedom is a thousand times more addictive than
heroin.


American
Jews! Wake up! Set your brothers in Israel free! We were the first
nation ever to be set free by God, and we brought the concept of
liberty to the world when we left Egypt over 3000 years ago. It’s
about time we set the example we were chosen to set.


December
31, 2011

[knothead]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

You do realize knotty that Paul can't accomplish anything without a Congress that will go along with him. And that there's only one place where that kind of Congress can come from.

I just don't see that as being a good enough reason not to support him. If he does get elected, don't you think that would send a pretty strong message to congress? Don't you think that maybe his supporters, who are a pretty active and vocal bunch would apply pressure to their representatives? I do. Besides, he has a lot of respect from both sides of the aisle.
But regardless, I believe that he would be just as effective as any of the alternatives.
If Obama wins and the republicans keep the congress you have gridlock. If one of the other republicans win and don't win the senate, you have gridlock.
Nothing changes.

Btw, where is the one place that kind of congress can come from?

[BentSailor]

For what it's worth, I think the only way to send a message to a democratic representative is through the votes supporting them. So long as they keep getting elected, any other message gets filtered through the fact their job is secure.

Electing Ron Paul for President doesn't make their job any less secure. Hell, it gives them a guaranteed lame-duck president on which to blame a few years of doing their job badly.

[knothead]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

For what it's worth, I think the only way to send a message to a democratic representative is through the votes supporting them. So long as they keep getting elected, any other message gets filtered through the fact their job is secure.

Electing Ron Paul for President doesn't make their job any less secure. Hell, it gives them a guaranteed lame-duck president on which to blame a few years of doing their job badly.

I don't see it that way at all.
I believe that Ron Paul is the kind of man that can inspire people. As evidenced by his popularity. If he were to get elected, it would indicate a big shift in the public's opinions and attitudes. And I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the public opinion isn't changing around here lately.
Politicians, especially the lifers in congress would be just as happy to go with the flow if it meant they could get reelected. How many of them are know to be principled men? (besides Ron Paul)

Lets assume that you're right though. No one will work with him. What could he do?
Here are a few things he could do;
He is in favor of legalizing drugs. Right? So no one goes along with him. What's to prevent him from pardoning every person who's in jail on marijuana related crimes. Then he could promise that he will continue to do so until he gets a little cooperation. He could do that.

He could refuse to send troops overseas without the consent of congress.
He could veto the heck out of stuff that came across his desk.

But perhaps most importantly, he would have the opportunity and the position for at least four years to tell the American people the truth for a change.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by knothead

I don't see it that way at all.

We're aware of that, knotty, but that doesn't mean you're right

I believe that Ron Paul is the kind of man that can inspire people. As evidenced by his popularity. If he were to get elected, it would indicate a big shift in the public's opinions and attitudes. And I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the public opinion isn't changing around here lately.

I don't debate that Ron Paul inspires people, nor do I debate that public opinion is changing. That doesn't mean that Ron Paul is inspiring enough people to change Congress or that public opinion changing is all lining up behind the man.

A common problem I see of all people that start cheer-leading a political candidate and/or party is assuming that voter opposition to the competition means support for them. Whilst alot of right-wingers are not happy with Romney (still the odds on favourite to win nomination), that doesn't mean they are happy with all of Ron Paul's policies.

In case you've missed it (honestly, not being snarky here), most new support for Ron Paul expressed here and elsewhere from those likely to vote against Obama is along the lines of "I like his monetary policies but not his foreign ones". And enough people realise (&/or are being informed by supporters of other Republican candidates) that the policies they don't like he can implement regardless of Congressional support and the ones they do require a sea-change in the candidates elected to Congress - something that alot of people are jaded with since the failure of the Tea Party candidate primary push last time (Tea Party got in, nothing much changed).

Politicians, especially the lifers in congress would be just as happy to go with the flow if it meant they could get reelected. How many of them are know to be principled men? (besides Ron Paul)

I'd say there are a few more principled souls than just Ron Paul. You might not agree with their principles, but not all politicians are an ethics free zone (just most of them)

However, the question you must ask yourself is not whether the politician lacks principles, but whether he believes it is best for himself or his principles to stand against Ron Paul. I'd wager that the politicians willing to sacrifice principles to stay in power (Democrat and Republican) are also those that will dance to the tune of those paying money into their coffers. Those donations aren't coming from people wanting less power in Congress

Lets assume that you're right though. No one will work with him. What could he do?
Here are a few things he could do;
He is in favor of legalizing drugs. Right? So no one goes along with him. What's to prevent him from pardoning every person who's in jail on marijuana related crimes. Then he could promise that he will continue to do so until he gets a little cooperation. He could do that.

Sure he could. He could also choose to dress in pink spandex as well. The likelihood of either is, I posit, equally remote. You think the heat on Clinton was hot? Wait until both sides of Congress want to toss out the sitting President! Drug laws are not something that lefto, commie hippies brought in and kept on the books. It's pretty much supported across the board with hippies and libertarians being the (proportionally small) exceptions. He is not going to get the public on side with that act.

He could refuse to send troops overseas without the consent of congress.

Exactly the kind of thing that most the right-wingers otherwise agreeing with him would be turned off supporting the man for.

He could veto the heck out of stuff that came across his desk.

Sure could, forever cementing his position as worst President in the history of the USA. People want things to change, but the President deciding to take his ball and go home isn't how they expect it done (you maybe, but I'm talking about the wider electorate). Recall how they discuss Obama's role in healthcare and the debt legislation - how he wouldn't personally come down and negotiate with the Republicans on the matter. Now imagine how it will play when Paul doesn't negotiate with either the Republicans or the Democrats.

The executive branch is expected to use it's veto judiciously, not as blunt instrument. Ron Paul is meant to be a Constitutional purist, so even he will see the issue with the executive branch effectively shutting down the legislative branch of government.

But perhaps most importantly, he would have the opportunity and the position for at least four years to tell the American people the truth for a change.

He's got the opportunity to do it now and has for quite some time. If people aren't listening to him yet - they aren't going to listen to the guy vetoing legislation and deliberately setting himself against the rule of law & order by pardoning everyone that breaks the laws he takes issue with.

[knothead]

Ron Paul demands repeal of NDAA in post-primary speech — RT

".........Frontrunners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich used their own appearances on Tuesday night to tackle the Obama administration for a dwindling jobs market. Romney, who came in first in votes in Florida, attacked Obama over his lack of initiative in changing and making policy, insisting “now it's time to get out of the way." Former House Speaker Gingrich was a bit more volatile with lobbing his critiques, warning that “If Barack Obama gets re-elected, it will be a disaster for the United States of America.” Rick Santorum, who placed third behind Gingrich in Florida, offered opinions not as much about the Obama administration but against the former speaker himself, saying that Gingrich’s past has become an issue that will cost him the nomination.

But while each insisting that they were the clear competition for President Obama, Congressman Ron Paul spoke on Tuesday by addressing that he was the only clear competition to a clueless establishment. Speaking from Nevada, Congressman Ron Paul acknowledged problems from within the White House, but warned that the issues were much different than what Romney and Gingrich had in mind. “There's a mess up in Washington. They've created a mess. They've given us a lousy foreign policy, they've given us a lousy budget and they've given us a lousy recession,” said Paul.

The answer to America’s problems, economic and otherwise, are in the Constitution, says Paul.

“Don't you think it's about time we had a new monetary policy?” the congressman asked to a room of applause. “And would we have to invent something new? All we would have to do is read the Constitution. They tell us exactly what we're supposed to have!” he added.

“And what about a foreign policy? We need a foreign policy, but do we have to invent it? No, all we have to do is read the Constitution."

"We need a strong national defense, we don't need to be the policeman of the world, and very simply we should reject and not get engaged in any more wars that aren't declared properly and supported by the people!” said Paul.

While Romney and Gingrich offered their own take on solving America’s economic problem, Paul once again separated himself from the establishment by saying that more and more of America’s issues could be addressed by just ending its ongoing wars.“I'd like to see the troops spending their money here at home and not going over there,” said the congressman.........."

[knothead]

Dr. Paul's speech in Vancouver

[knothead]

New Report on GOP Primary Contenders Says Only Ron Paul Would Reduce the Federal Debt - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Over the course of this year’s primary, all of the GOP candidates have paid lip service to the idea of tackling the debt. But according to a new report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, only one candidate’s overall combination of tax reforms and spending cuts would actually reduce the total federal debt over the next decade. That candidate is Ron Paul.

Overall, it’s simple enough. Everyone likes tax cuts, but big tax cuts paired with far smaller spending cuts aren’t likely to reduce the federal debt. Spend more than you take in during any given year (as we currently are, to the tune of a trillion bucks or so), and you have a deficit. Those deficits pile up over the years, and give us the federal debt. This shouldn’t be too hard to grasp, but only Ron Paul seems to have figured it out.

The knock on the candidate comparison is that Ron Paul’s plans aren’t realistic. But letting the debt continue on its current unsustainable trajectory—or rise by trillions, as Santorum and Newt likely would—isn’t realistic either. At a minimum, Paul’s plans show the kind of policy changes that will be necessary in order to both cut taxes and take a big chunk out of the federal debt.

There are two major takeaways here: First, while candidates understandably like to talk about tax cuts, when it comes to the federal debt, it’s the spending cuts that matter. Second, the remaining trio of conventional GOP presidential wannabes—Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich—aren’t serious about cutting spending, or about truly improving the nation's long-term fiscal path. They’re invested in the rhetoric of debt reduction, but not the policies that would make it happen.

[PBzeer]

knotty - It's not that Paul doesn't have some good, even great ideas (and some not so great, like anyone else). It's that without a Congress that will go along with him, there's not much he can do. So I hope you're supporting like-minded folks across the ballot.

I'd just as soon see the "establishment GOP" merge with the Dems, and let the Tea Party be the "second" party, since the only difference between the establishment and the Dems, is how fast they get there.