Let's face it. He really wasn't electable.

[Philhelm]

Which is why Ron Paul should have been the GOP candidate. Oh, how it felt to throw the unelectable mantra back in their faces.

[supermario21]

I've come to learn electable is a code-word for moderate. It's a meaningless term floated out there by the establishment designed to scare the masses.

[RickyJ]

Even with all his flip-flops he would have won if he just never said those comments about the 47%. That pissed too many people off for them to even give him a chance after that. I have heard that there were quite a few people that planned on voting for Romney until they heard him say that. Romney by not being careful in what he said made himself unelectable. Any republican even half way decent would have won in a landslide.

[Marenco]

If Ron Paul would've gotten the nomination, it could've been a different outcome, but in throwing in Romney the GOP basically assured an Obama victory.

[TheTexan]

Sad thing is, most of the Republican party would probably prefer Obama over Dr. Paul.

[Tod]

I've come to learn electable is a code-word for moderate. It's a meaningless term floated out there by the establishment designed to scare the masses.

I would say that it is a euphemism for "don't vote for this guy because we don't want him to be elected".

[heavenlyboy34]

Even with all his flip-flops he would have won if he just never said those comments about the 47%. That pissed too many people off for them to even give him a chance after that. I have heard that there were quite a few people that planned on voting for Romney until they heard him say that. Romney by not being careful in what he said made himself unelectable. Any republican even half way decent would have won in a landslide.
I call BS. The thing was rigged, as usual.

[paulbot24]

Sad thing is, most of the Republican party would probably prefer Obama over Dr. Paul.

I believe this 100%. Ron was rocking the entire boat and they were terrified. It reminds me of people that complain about how they really don't do anything at work and how boring it is. Then they brag about their salaries and they say, "Can you believe that? How dumb are they? They pay me that much to do basically nothing!" Then they bitch about how boring it is and how unfulfilling it is. They talk about their need for therapy because their "lack of purpose" and it's stifling their creativity. Then a new company President comes onboard and there are rumors and all of sudden they are terrified and angry. "They can't fire me! They can't make us do anything! Do they know how long I've been here?" Now all of sudden they love the way everything is, the way it always was, and they will destroy anybody who tries to change anything.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, they really handed it to us now. The next time they try to talk about electability all we have to say is "Oh, electable like McCain and Romney, both of whom lost to the worst President in American history? Yeah, that's exactly the kind of electability we need... :rolleyes: "

[thoughtomator]

"Electable" is code for "satisfying to the left-wing, corporate-controlled media", usually in the sense that he'll lose to their favored Democrat.

[Andyc3020]

Many people (independents?) need someone they can get excited about. Obama was that guy in 2008 and Romney wasn't in 2012. We all know the media is the main reason Ron never got momentum. It seems to me that many independents don't pay as much attention to policies and philosophy as they do to the excitement around a candidate. Romney was just too plain and not enough different. I have already heard from a few different msm outlets the GOP needs to be more libertarian. Obviously we libertarian folks have known this for a while now, but I don't care if they think it is their idea. I really think the Republicans will begin to come over to our side, but maybe I'm dreaming. People like Rand Paul and Justin Amash will be able to get the independents excited about "new" ideas.

[sailingaway]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgsg7a-Ok8Q

[juleswin]

I call BS. The thing was rigged, as usual.

I am starting to believe this more and more after every election. Why the hell are they calling elections with only 1% counted. I don't care how solid your polling is but you just cannot call any election with exit polls alone. If Rand would run in 2016, he better raise a big stink about this process.

[Shredmonster]

All the people on here saying Paul would win - I don't think so. He did not have the MONEY nor the GROUND ORGANIZATION of Obama.

AND THE ESTABLISHMENT is against him because you are right - they are threatened.

But I don't think Paul would have won either because I don't think he had the humungous ground organization to get out the vote that the DEMS have had in place for years.

Maybe Rand in 2016 ?

[AuH20]

Ron Paul was too old to have won. Voters place a price on superficiality unfortunately.

[jmdrake]

Which is why Ron Paul should have been the GOP candidate. Oh, how it felt to throw the unelectable mantra back in their faces.

+rep. MCain became unelectable when he suspended his campaign to have a "joint statement" about the economy with Bush and Obama and when he endorsed TARP. Romney became unelectable when he created Romneycare and sealed the deal when he said he'd keep parts of Obamacare.

[GunnyFreedom]

All the people on here saying Paul would win - I don't think so. He did not have the MONEY nor the GROUND ORGANIZATION of Obama.

AND THE ESTABLISHMENT is against him because you are right - they are threatened.

But I don't think Paul would have won either because I don't think he had the humungous ground organization to get out the vote that the DEMS have had in place for years.

Maybe Rand in 2016 ?

Well, if it depends on ground organization then our platform will almost never win, because while we certainly have the manpower, far too many of our philosophy absolutely refuse to be organized. "You can't tell me what to do!! I do what I want!!! Fuk you!!"

Believe me I know. :(

[AuH20]

Well, if it depends on ground organization then our platform will almost never win, because while we certainly have the manpower, far too many of our philosophy absolutely refuse to be organized. "You can't tell me what to do!! I do what I want!!! Fuk you!!"

Believe me I know. :(

That is true. Maybe we should start using reverse psychology and tell them what NOT to do. LOL

[acptulsa]

Sad thing is, most of the Republican party would probably prefer Obama over Dr. Paul.


Ron Paul was too old to have won. Voters place a price on superficiality unfortunately.

I don't believe it. I feel sure he'd have not only won (given an honest vote count), but handily. The socons would have preferred him over the Mormon by a wide margin. They'd have been energized. Many would have listened to Paul much more carefully if he had gotten that major party blessing. The networks would have pursued the human interest angle, and that would have led to shots of the 'old man' up on his bicycle. Besides, the whole nation is one big aging demographic. Ron Paul is vital, and that would have been enough.

Besides, Ron Paul would have spent a lot less time chewing on his own feet. And when he did say something controversial, we'd have mobilized, explained it, spun it, and we'd have done it well as usual.

He'd have crushed Obama. And most rank and file Republicans would have been very happy to see him do it.

[McChronagle]

Im not totally sure who you're referring to when you say "he wasnt electable." Id agree if youre referring to romney but not paul. I think he wouldve been electable but I dont necessarily think the people are ready for what he really stands for. There is no way to save us from our current predicament without any pain and i am afraid too many people would attribute that pain to doing the right things instead of the long history of doing the wrong things. The only way the people will learn is if they live through the total consequences of the actions they have brought upon themselves. Only then will they be ready to learn from their mistakes and admit that gov has failed us on all levels.

[supermario21]

Sad thing is, most of the Republican party would probably prefer Obama over Dr. Paul.

You have a point. Look at Florida, 50-49 Obama up over Romney. Yet the Ron Paul endorsed civil libertarian Connie Mack goes down by 13 points to Bill Nelson..what happened there?

[jbauer]

The USA isn't ready for Ron Paul politics. They like be lied to. We'll have to go through some real significant pain before the idea of individual liberty, economic sanity and a constrained foreign policy resonate with the masses. We're just a little to early to the party because we see whats going on all around us.

Some day they'll be ready. Re-electing Obama proves to me that the vast majority of people still want their hand held by their government. Most the Rmoney vote wasn't for Rmoney it was anti-obama for several reasons.

[jbauer]

You have a point. Look at Florida, 50-49 Obama up over Romney. Yet the Ron Paul endorsed civil libertarian Connie Mack goes down by 13 points to Bill Nelson..what happened there?

Most people don't know what a libertarian is. They see L and think liberal. They think drug smoking hippy occupying wallstreet type.

[Shredmonster]

The Republican establishment is taking us in the same direction as the DEMS just at a slower pace and people are not voting for them anymore because of it. I am sure most know this here. Heard any calls on the radio lately ? THIS IS WHAT THE CALLERS ARE SAYING.

So thinking logically here the voters are not showing up for a moderate. The election was not lost on minorities or single women because their numbers are too small.

They lost because the BASE did not come out. 3 million or more of them stayed home.

When a true conservative runs they win. The base would have probably shown up. This is what the numbers are pointing to not just my opinion.

If the election results are not interpreted correctly the Republicans might as well close up shop. They think they lost because of women and hispanics right now.

The republicans need a true conservative not a moderate. And time is getting short as those getting hand outs are outnumbering us.

It may already be too late.

Ron Paul could have gotten the youth vote. Would that have been enough ? I don't personally think so. The defense industry is booming in this country. Too much money against Ron just from them. However I fully agree a true conservative could have won. Someone who did not flip his position during their career.

Ron was the only guy in the field. It is not that the rest are bad men or even flip floppers. They have had to appease those with money to fund their campaigns and probably say things they don't like to say to appeal to certain voters. They compromise too much.

But I do think there is a blue print for winning iif you interpret this election correctly and get the right candidate.
If you are conservative and can get your message out 3 million more people will vote for you. Reagan and others did it.

Since the Republicans are now moderate they have let the whole electorate shift and change to entitlement values because they have sold out in order to get their elections funded and to stay in power. People know this.

The fight has to be to change the Republican party and get a true conservative in there - (which I don't think they want or will let happen but who knows) - or become compromised as a party. Ineffectual. Ineffective. Losers.

It may be too late to turn things around. It may be we need a collapse, much much pain, marshall law and finally a collapse of government and a break up of the country like the USSR.

Even then the old KGB came back and is running Russia. There may be no answer I don't know at this point. Nobody seems to know. You have seen the cycles of Democracy I am sure. Starting in bondage and ending up in bondage. Guys like Churchill pointing out that the trouble with democracy is stupid voters and greedy voters.

I think there is still time maybe to run a true conservative. Doubt it will happen though.

I often wonder - I don't think humans are capable of self government that is fair and equitable for all. Always the psychopaths that want control to circle the wagons and keep away any competition for that control and power and money.

Perhaps the libertarians and the conservatives can somehow get along and work together because the other side is truly evil and needs to be defeated. And millions of ignorant people need to be educated on our history and what has made America great.

Welfare and Immigration Change in 1965 - the roosters are coming home people.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Which is why Ron Paul should have been the GOP candidate. Oh, how it felt to throw the unelectable mantra back in their faces.

ZING!

This is your second tricky title thread, I like it!

Rep.

[Shredmonster]

Which is why Ron Paul should have been the GOP candidate. Oh, how it felt to throw the unelectable mantra back in their faces.

Ron Paul would not have won based on his policies on defense. I agree with him. However they threatened the whole establishment. The USA is seen as the police dog and the worlds military. The USA is an empire and therefore wants to control and grow control and dominance.

Plus politicians and I think the people are concerned about the Russians, the Chinese and nuclear proliferation be it that they are right or wrong.

Defense has to be cut slowly and perhaps somewhat under the radar a bit so it does not cause major political upheaval.

Big money in defense would not be able to be overcome by Ron. You think the media had a hey day on Romney ? And his defense policies scared the hell out of a lot of people and were and are seen as radical.

You have to be practical. Too many forces and too much money against truth and freedom and liberty now. It is all about control and dominance now - not freedom or equality or any other magnanamous bullshit.

For the sake of argument lets say Ron would not have won. In fact we don't need sake of argument as he could not make it to the nominee position. I get it your pissed. So am I. But we have to deal with what is and with reality.

I think somehow you have to get a true conservative to be the nominee of the Republican party. We agree on this I think. Yet we may be past the tipping point by the next election as the takers outnumber us.

Libertarians and conservatives need to find some way to work together or they will be out numbered by the bad forces in the world.
Those forces are winning in dividing people into groups - are you going to take the bait and let their strategy of division work cause your mad ?

Or should we grow a pair and figure out how we can beat these assholes ?

[acptulsa]

I think somehow you have to get a true conservative to be the nominee of the Republican party. We agree on this I think. Yet we may be past the tipping point by the next election as the takers outnumber us.

Libertarians and conservatives need to find some way to work together or they will be out numbered by the bad forces in the world.
Those forces are winning in dividing people into groups - are you going to take the bait and let their strategy of division work cause your mad ?

Or should we grow a pair and figure out how we can beat these assholes ?

'The takers of the world.' Well, people do like to survive. And the economy is in the toilet. Coolidge presided over the Roaring Twenties. We could really do with another Roaring Twenties.

I think what it comes down to is this: Are 'the takers of the world' bound and determined to take? Or would they just as soon have a job that pays a living wage? Of course, there are some of both. But I think the latter group is bigger than many a kneejerk 'conservative' is prepared to admit. So, we had better put our eggs in the other basket.

Yes, yes. I know. Romney promised to do just that, and it didn't win him the election. But there's a difference. I don't think that promise was credible, coming from a corporate raider. I don't think anyone believed him. When Ron Paul promised the same, however, I do think people believed him. Pity the GOP primary voters didn't believe that would win the general election...

[Shredmonster]

Well taking this out farther - more takers than producers means more misery for everybody. It also means the rich don't make as much money as production and consumption go down.
If you recall Romney tried to tell people - remember the 47% comment that got distorted from what point he was trying to make ? The media crucified him so why do you think they don't like to talk about this ?

Romney was also not a corporate raider. What he was - was a turn around specialist. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. To say he was a raider is to say the media shaped your perception. Have you ever researched it specifically on your own ?

And I don't think Ron would have won the general election - already mentioned the reasons.

[Philhelm]

All the people on here saying Paul would win - I don't think so. He did not have the MONEY nor the GROUND ORGANIZATION of Obama.

AND THE ESTABLISHMENT is against him because you are right - they are threatened.

But I don't think Paul would have won either because I don't think he had the humungous ground organization to get out the vote that the DEMS have had in place for years.

Maybe Rand in 2016 ?

I think the idea was that the GOP lifers would still vote for Ron Paul in the general election, since Obama is a Kenyan, Anti-Christ, Muslim. Also, Paul could have harnessed the general anger, and would have made Obama look like a hypocrite during the debates. It wouldn't be in the bag, but it wouldn't be impossible. It's just that the GOP primary was the biggest hurdle.

[Philhelm]

Im not totally sure who you're referring to when you say "he wasnt electable." Id agree if youre referring to romney but not paul. I think he wouldve been electable but I dont necessarily think the people are ready for what he really stands for. There is no way to save us from our current predicament without any pain and i am afraid too many people would attribute that pain to doing the right things instead of the long history of doing the wrong things. The only way the people will learn is if they live through the total consequences of the actions they have brought upon themselves. Only then will they be ready to learn from their mistakes and admit that gov has failed us on all levels.

I meant Romney, of course.

[Philhelm]

ZING!

This is your second tricky title thread, I like it!

Rep.

I'm a troll, trolling on behalf of the forces of righteousness.

[Philhelm]

For the sake of argument lets say Ron would not have won. In fact we don't need sake of argument as he could not make it to the nominee position. I get it your pissed. So am I. But we have to deal with what is and with reality.

The GOP primary has a completely different dynamic from the general election. If Ron Paul could have won the primary, he would have had a fighting chance, especially with the anti-Obama sentiment in the GOP, not to mention that he could attract the independents and others that may have been turned off by Romney.

[sailingaway]

The GOP primary has a completely different dynamic from the general election. If Ron Paul could have won the primary, he would have had a fighting chance, especially with the anti-Obama sentiment in the GOP, not to mention that he could attract the independents and others that may have been turned off by Romney.

I agree with that. While we can't guarantee it since it didn't happen, I really think it is more likely than not it would have fallen that way