PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Can't Ever Be President.




Patriot123
12-15-2009, 12:30 AM
I suppose what I'm about to say is going to be quite "controversial" on this forum, but... this has been on my mind for a while, so I figured I'd share it.

I've been thinking for a while, and listening to a lot of what Ron Paul has said on national healthcare. People claim Ron Paul is nutty. A cook. A weirdo. A fringe lunatic. And quite honestly? I think they're pretty justified in what they say. Although Ron Paul's ideas would make a great president, I think we all can agree that Ron Paul is really just terrible at communicating them. He seems to have a difficult time developing his arguments in a fashion that his audience can understand, and he mis-speaks an awful lot -- that, or people think he does due to his poor communication skills. He's terrible at speeches, goes off topic... I think it's Ron Paul's ideas that are great. But as for Ron Paul as president? He wouldn't be too bad. In fact, he'd make a great president. But he'd be like Coolidge or Madison -- great ideas, but a social wallflower. Now, that's not to insult Ron Paul -- that man inspired our entire movement, right? But still, my point is just that -- that he'd be a Coolidge-type president.
In addition to watching Youtube videos of Ron Paul and really critiquing him, I've also been looking at his son -- Rand Paul. I think Rand Paul, in all honesty, will and must be our choice for president. Rand is an EXCELLENT speaker, and we all know this. He could put Obama to shame in speech making, if he tried. (A little wishful thinking, yes) He's excellent at communicating his ideas, and he's excellent at debating them. He doesn't "ramble on" like Ron Paul does, and he seems a lot more strong willed, and much less of a "social wallflower." He doesn't communicate his ideas in a "fringe-manner" like Ron Paul occasionally does, and he's excellent at backing up his arguments. And plus? The media can't use the "he's too old" argument against him. If we have any chance at the presidency, Rand Paul is going to be the one we want to project. Not Ron Paul, not Murray Sabrin, not Peter Schiff, not Koskesh, not anyone other than Ron's son -- Rand Paul. Because there's no one in the liberty movement as of now who has better qualities than Rand Paul. We need someone who can move the public, and influence minds. Someone who's public speaking is on par with Obama. Rand Paul is that person.

Thoughts?

0zzy
12-15-2009, 12:35 AM
I didn't read this all, but I generally agree that Ron Paul isn't the best communicator for an audience who doesn't understand even the fundamentals and needs to be forced fed president-speak.

zach
12-15-2009, 12:44 AM
With the Fed battling for its secrecy, I'm not even sure the world will be the same when the next election year hits.

coyote_sprit
12-15-2009, 12:45 AM
Ron Paul is a wonderful cook.

Liberty Star
12-15-2009, 12:47 AM
He already is one of the most visionary leaders of America.

Being President like Clinton, Obama, Bush is only a part of leading others. In fact, it's a small part imo.

torchbearer
12-15-2009, 12:54 AM
Ron Paul is a wonderful cook.

chocolate chip cookies FTW!

Ricky201
12-15-2009, 12:57 AM
I suppose what I'm about to say is going to be quite "controversial" on this forum, but... this has been on my mind for a while, so I figured I'd share it.

I've been thinking for a while, and listening to a lot of what Ron Paul has said on national healthcare. People claim Ron Paul is nutty. A cook. A weirdo. A fringe lunatic. And quite honestly? I think they're pretty justified in what they say. Although Ron Paul's ideas would make a great president, I think we all can agree that Ron Paul is really just terrible at communicating them. He seems to have a difficult time developing his arguments in a fashion that his audience can understand, and he mis-speaks an awful lot -- that, or people think he does due to his poor communication skills. He's terrible at speeches, goes off topic... I think it's Ron Paul's ideas that are great. But as for Ron Paul as president? He wouldn't be too bad. In fact, he'd make a great president. But he'd be like Coolidge or Madison -- great ideas, but a social wallflower. Now, that's not to insult Ron Paul -- that man inspired our entire movement, right? But still, my point is just that -- that he'd be a Coolidge-type president.
In addition to watching Youtube videos of Ron Paul and really critiquing him, I've also been looking at his son -- Rand Paul. I think Rand Paul, in all honesty, will and must be our choice for president. Rand is an EXCELLENT speaker, and we all know this. He could put Obama to shame in speech making, if he tried. (A little wishful thinking, yes) He's excellent at communicating his ideas, and he's excellent at debating them. He doesn't "ramble on" like Ron Paul does, and he seems a lot more strong willed, and much less of a "social wallflower." He doesn't communicate his ideas in a "fringe-manner" like Ron Paul occasionally does, and he's excellent at backing up his arguments. And plus? The media can't use the "he's too old" argument against him. If we have any chance at the presidency, Rand Paul is going to be the one we want to project. Not Ron Paul, not Murray Sabrin, not Peter Schiff, not Koskesh, not anyone other than Ron's son -- Rand Paul. Because there's no one in the liberty movement as of now who has better qualities than Rand Paul. We need someone who can move the public, and influence minds. Someone who's public speaking is on par with Obama. Rand Paul is that person.

Thoughts?

Are you sure it's Ron that has poor communication skills, or is it just that the people are so indoctrinated and are so uneducated that they can't understand it? No offense to Rand, but Ron speaks like a scholar and intellectual. Rand speaks like a politician. Let us not forget who sparked this revolution.

Patriot123
12-15-2009, 01:14 AM
Are you sure it's Ron that has poor communication skills, or is it just that the people are so indoctrinated and are so uneducated that they can't understand it? No offense to Rand, but Ron speaks like a scholar and intellectual. Rand speaks like a politician. Let us not forget who sparked this revolution.

Do you want someone leading this movement who people are going to be able to understand? Or someone who people aren't going to understand in the slightest? Compare these two videos:
Ron Paul -- YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Michael Moore on Larry King CNN 10/29/2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hn6ad4_FzM)
Rand Paul -- YouTube - Rand Paul "I Would Argue That We Don't Have Capitalism In Health Care Now! pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5GywcfjNA)

Rand Paul is an amazing speaker. Ron Paul? Not so much. What has history taught us? The candidates who win most of the time are those who can woo the masses with great speeches and being easy to understand. If we to win, we need to get behind Rand Paul. Ron Paul, although he's a great man, simply cannot debate, and cannot communicate his ideas clearly. He just rambles on. Have you listened to his speeches? His speeches aren't even speeches -- they're rambles. I mean, I really don't mean to offend the guy. I have the utmost respect for him, but seriously? Get a grip -- if you really want to win the presidency, we need Rand Paul.

EDIT: Also, just because someone "acts like a politician" doesn't mean they're a bad candidate. People need to "act like politicians" if they expect to win anything. Why? Because the public is full of idiots who don't understand that you can't please everyone. It's not the fault of politicians that they have to be "sneaky" in their words -- it's the fault of people for being so closed minded and forcing them to do so. You can't make everyone happy. You need to fight fire with fire.

Pauls' Revere
12-15-2009, 01:25 AM
Are you sure it's Ron that has poor communication skills, or is it just that the people are so indoctrinated and are so uneducated that they can't understand it? No offense to Rand, but Ron speaks like a scholar and intellectual. Rand speaks like a politician. Let us not forget who sparked this revolution.

This...

After trodding through neighborhoods etc during 2007/2008 I quickly realized that the public in general are ignorant of issues or just don't care until a big mac cost them $12.00 and gas is $8.00 a gallon. It's that simple, until they "feel" it in thier lives it supposedly does not effect them. Ron understands economic principles which are above and beyond what most people can grasp, sad but true. Besides the presidency should not be decided upon personality we already elected a personality called Obama.

I use a quick test to figure out "if" someone can get up to speed. Ask anyone this question:

What is money?

p.s. Ron will co-host squawk box 12/15/09 on cnbc, can Obama do that?

Chase
12-15-2009, 01:36 AM
I think Ron Paul is a funny mix of a great and poor speaker. He does always strike me as very lucid; organized but very good at noticing the connections between issues and ideas that most people ignore.

When he's actually speaking, he does stumble over his words, and if you never saw him before you might just stop listening and fail to recognize the brilliance of the man. But if you actually listen to Ron Paul and make sure you aren't doing so halfway, you realize that he is VERY smart, and you can then learn a lot from him.

Ron Paul is off the cuff, from the heart... his speaking performance doesn't give people a great first impression of him, but it seems as if EVERYONE is listening a little more closely to Ron Paul now a days...

Mini-Me
12-15-2009, 01:40 AM
Right now, I think this is a bit of a moot point. Before Rand can even think about running for the Presidency, he's going to have to hold some kind of office...and that means we first need to get him elected to the Senate this upcoming year. Assuming we manage to do that, 2012 is still probably [almost certainly] too early for him to think about running for President. Even Barack Obama held his Senate seat for longer than that. When it comes to fielding Rand Paul for President, we're probably looking at the 2016 elections at the earliest, and who knows what the world's even going to look like by then?

Let's take it one step at a time. :p

mello
12-15-2009, 01:50 AM
I think Dr. Paul's responses are better/more focused when he's pissed off.

purplechoe
12-15-2009, 01:52 AM
Right now, I think this is a bit of a moot point. Before Rand can even think about running for the Presidency, he's going to have to hold some kind of office...and that means we first need to get him elected to the Senate this upcoming year. Assuming we manage to do that, 2012 is still probably [almost certainly] too early for him to think about running for President. Even Barack Obama held his Senate seat for longer than that. When it comes to fielding Rand Paul for President, we're probably looking at the 2016 elections at the earliest, and who knows what the world's even going to look like by then?

Let's take it one step at a time. :p

Here, here!!!

Right after Rand announced he was running, I saw a few videos of him out on the stomp giving speeches and I was pretty impressed and voiced my opinion that with time he could definitely be presidential material.

But the above poster is right. I don't see Rand being a viable candidate till at least 2016 unless something huge happens which will propel him to be in position to run in 2012.

0zzy
12-15-2009, 01:56 AM
I think Dr. Paul's responses are better/more focused when he's pissed off.

lawl true that. Ron Paul is the Hulk.

"You don't like me when I'm angry."


"Let me get this straight: we borrow money from China to give to a dictator in Pakistan to support a war for "democracy" in Iraq."
*applauds*

HEADSHOT!

qh4dotcom
12-15-2009, 02:01 AM
As much as I admire Dr. Paul, I have to agree that he isn't the best communicator and his public speeches could use some improvement. I can understand why when he's talking about economics sometimes folks don't understand what he's talking about. I remember when I first heard him talk in the primary debates, I didn't even know back then what he meant about a gold standard.

RM918
12-15-2009, 03:06 AM
I agree he's far from an excellent communicator, but excellent communication skill is not something I really require in a candidate. As for Ron being horrible in debates, I think that's not true in the slightest. When he's actually ALLOWED to retort to some stuff and keep an active discussion, it's absolutely golden.

Trigonx
12-15-2009, 03:14 AM
I agree he's far from an excellent communicator, but excellent communication skill is not something I really require in a candidate. As for Ron being horrible in debates, I think that's not true in the slightest. When he's actually ALLOWED to retort to some stuff and keep an active discussion, it's absolutely golden.

hell yeah, he smashed his competition during the debates when he was given the time.

dr. hfn
12-15-2009, 03:58 AM
Honestly, I think Ron is an excellent speaker and communicater. My parents think so too.

catdd
12-15-2009, 07:32 AM
It's not his fault that most of the country has never read the constitution or even had any idea of what a Federal Reserve was until recently. He speaks over people's heads on most issues and that's due to their own ignorance. It's much easier to vote for "change" or "hope" because it doesn't require using your brain.
Ron Paul has educated an entire generation of young people and has awakened millions; and if he doesn't become President, it's only because it has taken too long for the public to wake up.
It's getting to where every week now, someone has to post a thread that "Ron's Too Old" or "He's Unelectable" or Vote For Gary Johnson" or somesuch.

Elwar
12-15-2009, 07:56 AM
So begins the Ron vs Rand fighting on ronpaulforums...

:p

Icymudpuppy
12-15-2009, 08:01 AM
I have already made my opinion on this subject here.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2389683#post2389683

erowe1
12-15-2009, 08:51 AM
Although Ron Paul's ideas would make a great president, I think we all can agree that Ron Paul is really just terrible at communicating them. He seems to have a difficult time developing his arguments in a fashion that his audience can understand, and he mis-speaks an awful lot -- that, or people think he does due to his poor communication skills. He's terrible at speeches, goes off topic... I think it's Ron Paul's ideas that are great. But as for Ron Paul as president? He wouldn't be too bad. In fact, he'd make a great president. But he'd be like Coolidge or Madison -- great ideas, but a social wallflower. Now, that's not to insult Ron Paul -- that man inspired our entire movement, right? But still, my point is just that -- that he'd be a Coolidge-type president.

I hear this line about Ron Paul being a poor communicator a lot. And I don't see it. I think he's a great, articulate, clear communicator. I had never heard of him before the summer of 2007 and when I did it was watching videos of him that won me over, and not videos with fancy effects and dramatic music, just videos of him explaining his positions. Judged as a teacher, he is a better teacher than just about any politician I can think of.

And a president after the mold of Coolidge and Madison is just what we should have. We don't need (and shouldn't want) one whose face is on TV all the time. We should want to have a president who is no more widely recognized than the heads of state of Switzerland or New Zealand, or the CEO of a second-tier fortune 500 company. If people want to see motivational speeches, they can watch speeches delivered by someone who isn't the president.

BillyDkid
12-15-2009, 10:43 AM
Yeah, Ron Paul proved what a terrible communicator he is by inspiring and creating a whole movement of millions of people all over the world who have come to believe in the possibility of liberty for the first time in a hundred years.

garyallen59
12-15-2009, 10:52 AM
yeah, ron paul proved what a terrible communicator he is by inspiring and creating a whole movement of millions of people all over the world who have come to believe in the possibility of liberty for the first time in a hundred years.

+1776

JamesButabi
12-15-2009, 11:17 AM
I think this is a good topic and we really don't need to be bitter over anything here. Luckily we still have Ron in great health to continue leading this liberty movement. No one has managed to inspire and get out the liberty message like him yet. We are also lucky we have continued his campaign and have candidates like Rand, Shiff, Kokesh, Harris, etc. Rather than debate who will be our "main leader", we should embrace all of the people willing to be one and support the shit out of them. We should all look in ourselves how we can do a little more. Thats where the progress will be felt.

mczerone
12-15-2009, 12:56 PM
Communication issues are due to a few factors, but most prominent to me is that RP is speaking from a set of underlying assumptions that is vastly different than the vapid "free money" speak of other politicians.

When a mainstream politician gets a question, the first response is "we must do something, and here's what I think will work." RP must say, "we must do nothing in a public capacity, because there's always unintended consequences, because the better economic solution is to have a profit-loss feedback system that politics doesn't provide, and because the Constitution prevents the govt from doing this anyway."

In all, he has to say a bunch more so that he can't be written off as "not having solutions", and that is all the more difficult when he doesn't have offices full of lobbyists giving him spoon-fed, market-tested, feel-good, double-talk soundbites.

Bruno
12-15-2009, 01:03 PM
People in all walks of life train for their professions, even when they are the best at it, in an effort to constantly improve.

Constructive feedback and practicing proven presentation techniques can benefit even the best public speaker without distancing them from their own personality and style.

Matthew Zak
12-15-2009, 06:25 PM
I've been saying this for awhile, myself. Hey, if Ron runs, I'll support him 100%. But I have a gut feeling that no matter how much he catches on, his age, and his reputation of being a fringe candidate who rambles about shit people don't understand is going to prevent him from winning the presidency. That doesn't mean it would be a bad thing if he ran -- he'd open more minds and this revolution would become stronger -- but that's still 3 years away! We don't need to wait until 2012 to enhance this movement. In fact, if we stop thinking primarily about the presidential election of 2012, and start thinking about RIGHT NOW, we will have already won by the time 2012 rolls around. So who cares who could be or should be the president 3 years from now. Let's focus on opening minds and igniting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men right now.

Liberty4life
12-15-2009, 07:24 PM
I don't have any problem understanding Ron Paul, his sons voice sounds a lot like his,
people who say they don't understand him are either lying or uneducated, and I'm
not talking college.
Ron Paul would make a good president even if he was 90 yrs old, lots of people live
and are lively in their old age, I suspect Ron Paul would be one of those people.

Matthew Zak
12-15-2009, 07:41 PM
I don't have any problem understanding Ron Paul, his sons voice sounds a lot like his,
people who say they don't understand him are either lying or uneducated, and I'm
not talking college.
Ron Paul would make a good president even if he was 90 yrs old, lots of people live
and are lively in their old age, I suspect Ron Paul would be one of those people.

It's not about what he's capable of, it's about how he's perceived, and that's not a fight we can win! He's really old. His age is showing in his eyes, and in the way he can not pronounce words and finish sentences. We all know he's sharp as a tack on the inside, and that he would be an outstanding president even at the age of 95. But people, most people, will not look past his age, especially if they don't understand what he's saying. Would it surprise you if most people were uneducated? Even people who are educated are not educated in the things Ron Paul is educated in.

erowe1
12-16-2009, 07:32 AM
His age is showing in his eyes, and in the way he can not pronounce words and finish sentences.

Are we thinking of the same Ron Paul here? Since when can he not pronounce words (and which words) and finish sentences?

ClayTrainor
12-16-2009, 07:37 AM
I want Ron Paul to run in 2012, but i have 0 hope he can win, so age is not a factor for me. Democracy in America has already been bought and paid for, imo

It's about education for me... This is why Ron Paul needs to be in the debates.

james1906
12-16-2009, 07:52 AM
Ron Paul is a great professor, but he's a terrible kindergarten teacher.

Matthew Zak
12-16-2009, 10:22 AM
Are we thinking of the same Ron Paul here? Since when can he not pronounce words (and which words) and finish sentences?

He was a more fluent speaker when he was younger. Even 2 years ago compared to today. If you compare the way he finishes his thoughts and completes his sentences, you'll see that he's developed a slur, kind of like a drunk person has when their mind is going faster than their mouth. He gets so excited to drive a point home that he tries to finish the sentence before he even starts it, and as a result the last 3 or 4 words in said sentence get jumbled together, or he'll just bail on the rest of the sentence altogether before he starts another one. You and I, knowing what he's thinking, already know what he's trying to say, but people at home hearing him for the first time think he's old.

Flash
12-16-2009, 08:55 PM
I agree with the original post except for the Rand Paul part. He needs to be in Senate for at least 2 terms before running for President. Gary Johnson on the other hand is perfect.