Amazing how easy it is for people to recognise this today. But at the time of his election, anyone would think he was some sort of Messiah. I remember laughing at the time and telling a typical obama-ite that he was nothing but the new snake oil salesman. re: Paul. The point is, like Obama and Bush, that these are US politicians. And the US election is like a long painful drawn-out Hollywood type production. And stupidly, there are people here in Oz that watch it enthusiasticly like a poor quality soapy. In the REAL world, as I previously said, Paul hasn't a hope in hell of winning whether one likes him or not. And sadder yet for "foreigners" (read "non-Americans") to hang on every word or action concerning Paul. As sad as the foreign Obamamaites doing the same previously with Obama, all looking for some messiah who will change the world for the better....................... pitiful and disgustingly pathetic.
I believe with no vote fraud he can win, however seeing as how there already has been in Iowa I'm not confident. As president he couldn't repeal unconstitutional laws, however he could veto new ones. The most important thing about is run is how quick the message of liberty is spreading because of him. Once that fire is lit it can't be unlit.
I too was hoping Obama won last time for two reasons. Firstly and most importantly, I think voters in any democratic nation have a responsibility to punish epic failure and Bush was that in spades. To re-elect a Republican would have been to condone 8 years of idiocy. Secondly, I was looking at Mcain and his age and thinking that if he died I would have to listen to Palin every 5 seconds and would have to blow my brains out. Luke you don't give this Paul movement enough credit. The majority of Republicans don't want Romney. So the 60+% of Republicans that are left are splitting thier vote between the other three. Gingerich and Santorum aren't even on enough ballots to beat Romney, Paul is. When the other two realise that they can't beat Romney they will drop out making this a two horse race. Then where does the other 60+% of votes go to? That is the question. Ron Paul not ruling out a third party run could be a game changer in the GOP race. With so many delegates unbinding at this stage if the race at the convention is close, they may chose Ron Paul and give him the nomination for fear of having Romney and therefore the GOP sunk with a third party contest. If he gets the nomination of the GOP, it will be a very close run race. There are reports of many Democrats that are so unhappy with Obama that they would vote for Ron Paul if given the choice, against the other GOP candidates they stick with Obama. Head to head polls against Obama have Paul within the margin of error for a tie at this stage. Your words about not having a hope are reminiscent of what they were saying about Obama last time at this stage.. You are right though, a whole lot more needs to change for a Ron Paul presidency to change what he wants. It would start very slow and only gain momentum over the first term if congress started to get changed by the voters as well.
His "messages" of liberty have been proposed in each of his former runs. Its only because he's running as a Republican rather than an Independant that he can get some air time courtecy of the republican debates and runoffs. There is nothing dramaticly new about Paul from his previous runs at the top office. His "message of liberty" has merely found its way to some Australian ears this time via the media circus. That fire is more like a match struck. It can be unlit as fast as it is pissed on.
Sorry L80 but in terms of the US system, I don't see much difference between republicans or Democrats. Two different shades of black. Certainly not a black and white spectrum with Dems on one end and Republicans on the other. The two party system in the US serves to block out any "new" direction third party. What idiocy changed with the election of a Democrat (ie Obama)???!!! If anything, Obama has accelerated the imperialistic foreign interventions of the USA. McCain, Palin, Santa Clause. It honestly wouldn't matter who the front man was. Look at Raegan (a movie star). Does one really think that the significant developments of the world during the Raegan term were in any way his credit? He was merely the frontman. LOL Nope. Got to disagree with you there. I'd beat you to it !!!! LOL Oh, don't get me wrong. Everything Paul says resonates very strongly with me. But I'm also a realist so with that in mind, a radical (good radical in my eyes) like Paul will not be able to get into power and if he did, and if he was in anyway successful in beginning to make changes, then he'd be dead in a heart beat.
Look totally agree with you on Obama. Everyone knows that they are the same. I thought at least Obamas foreign policy would be a little better, but I was wrong again. Still, if you get a double epic fail from a party, unless that party produces some sort of game changing messiah then you have to throw them out, and keep throwing them out until you get one that works. In that two party system the only way a voter gets to send a message is keep rotating the crooks until you get a good one. That's why I think Ron Paul is different. He's not the same. sure he has an uphill battle because he simply isn't a front man, but if he wins that battle, that's the hardest part done.
And in the mean time, how much damage around the world (and how many innocent people die as "collatoral damage") while the votors play games rotating the crooks HOPING that they will get a "good" one? Has there ever been a "good" one? Good by who's measure? I think its an ugly game that only benefits a select few. The rest of us have the wool perpetually pulled over our eyes with "hopes" of a messiah like politician in the future. What an Oxymoron though. Politician and Messiah. Then again, ask Tony Blair (...yes UK politician) and he will likely very quickly tell you that he is both a good politician (perhaps the worlds "greatest") and a messiah. But thats in Tony Blairs mind.
Agree but what other option is there other than forced revolution or getting behind a political one like Paul?
Some people don't seem to get that it's in their best interests for politicians to act the way they do. Their motivation is to get as much for themselves as they can. What motivation really do they have to help the electorate at large? No matter what good they might do someone is going to attack them for it? You can't successfully redistribute wealth and make the majority happy. The idea is patently ridiculous and mathematically impossible. From their perspective they are acting perfectly rationally. Someone like Ron Paul comes along and says no you need to behave in irrational behaviour, from their standpoint. You need to give up all this privilege and stop lying and give all the money back. Why would that ever get a good reception from TPTB? I don't know exactly what the answer is, but I know politics is a mug's game. And so does Ron Paul if you ask me. He is there to educate. He doesn't expect to, nor will he, get the US presidency. And if he did by some chance, he would end up a lame duck anyway. It would just result in stasis and the general direction of things would continue.
Ultimately, it's to do with the economy. Most people weren't interested in how the country was run during the good times. Things went downhill and some people started to ask questions. But there's still a huge amount that feed on the system and even more that expect to and a large contingent who still believe the propaganda. The only way meaningful change will be achieved is for the system to collapse. It might be possible for them to jiggle things around a bit and achieve enough economic prosperity that most people will stop caring. There's a lot of new tech in the pipeline which could conceivably cause another era of relative prosperity like the computer/internet revolution did. In fact, I would say that is what the elites of America are hanging on for.
Sorry America This looks like the only option, even if you want Ron Paul do do his best to save the situation. Even if the rest of us would much prefer him to have a chance. The people who make ballot machines are as keen for Paul to win as they were for Bush to lose.
True so the political one is the only option in the short term. Problem is, its an AMERICAN political solution so AMERICANS and not AUSTRALIANS need to be supporting this bloke.
Not sure this is the case... "Embarrassed Diebold officials apologized after one of their electronic voting machines prematurely revealed the winner of our upcoming sham election." [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojmOESqVeak[/youtube]
Yes they do but being America they have so much influence over the whole world, so Aussies need to follow this too. As PM investors, the Americans voting in Ron Paul is 1000 time more influential than anything Bernanke does.
RP gave a great speech today in Nevada. Just saw it. Some of the highlights (paraphrased): "Less government, more personal liberty". "We should not be the world's policemen". Crowd started chanting "Ban the Fed" at one point. Great stuff! I've noticed he gets very little air time on Fox which is no surprise i guess. Having casually followed these GOP primaries, and having listened to the candidates speak, i cannot understand how RP is not in front by a country mile. Are most Americans that dumb or is it purely the fault of the MSM?
Saw a bit of the drum this afternoon talking about the US elections, and they didn't mention Ron Paul once. They even asked this so called expert (I can't remember who it is but he often floats about) if he thought there was a chance of anyone running as an independent which could disrupt proceedings. He flat out said no - what about Ron Paul?? he is every chance of running 3rd party. I also find it hard to accept when people label newt gingrich as a tea party member. he is not worthy...
The two choices are not mutually exclusive. The vast majority of the American population is asleep - easily swayed by the MSM's Jedi Mind tricks. A big reason that Ron Paul does so well with younger aged people, IMO, is because they use the internet more for their news and communication.
