Does anyone seriously think Ron Paul has a chance of winning the election?

Question

So far, the only major havens of support I've seen for Ron Paul is his cult following on Yahoo! Answers. I had to actually make a homework assignment out of finding anything relating to times when people in the real world actually noticed him - like at the republican debates where he pretty much blamed the US for 9/11. Nice going, champ.

He sounds like a classic libertarian who is running under the Republican ticket because he thinks he might actually have a chance of winning by masquerading under their name. Personally, I agree with some of his points, but I plan on voting against him during the primaries. Not because I think he'd make a bad President, but to kick all of his loony goof-ball supporters in the nuts. I'd probably back him if his supporters were normal people and not fanatic sheep.

I'm not even going to bother addressing the irony of being accused of being "brain washed" by a Ron Paul supporter.

Answer 1

Are you married? I am, but I have a really pretty sister! :)

Seriously Nice Question and Poke at the patronizing paul supporters.

Your proud neoconservative here!

P.S. This is what I think of Mitt - He is a major Flip Flopper and wants us to think he is the clone of Ronald Reagan.

Rudy is too liberal as well! I really despise him for his role in the Line item veto action.

These two need to take Ron Paul and all three take a hike off of the Republican platform.

Then we can get down to picking our candidate!

Thanks for asking!

Answer 2

EDIT: Hey Mrs. I Know Everything (AMNESTY SUCKS), you obviously haven't done THAT much research on Dr. Paul. If you read his book or any of the bills that he has written, they both go into a ton of detail about everything he wants to do and why. He is VERY knowledgeable on the subject of monetary policy, and I suggest you look more into the Federal Reserve if you think it's such a great thing. Also, if he isn't a top tier candidate, then why was he selected to attend the GOP dinner for the top tier candidates? I find it ironic that Huckabee is polling as low as Paul (whose name by the way isn't included on most of the online official polls) and gets much more attention. Maybe you should accept the fact that Ron Paul is purposely ignored by the media. Why? Maybe because they know some people will like him if they know more about him... And Paul's more concerned about winning an election than the honor of America??? You are so far off on that statement... Have you been overdosing on Rush Limbaugh lately?

FYI - I haven't even decided who I'm voting for in the primaries, but at least I will thoroughly research ALL the candidates before I will ever start with the name calling (which by the way is lame). Maybe you should do the same!

I think he has a chance if the election process is fair... But we all know the answer to that. He has a very strong grassroots following, and I can assure you that they will all be voting for him at the primaries. I see Ron Paul supporters everywhere... Signs, people in T-shirts, bumper stickers... It's actually quite impressive. He definitely has some different ideas, but it's not like he can just start closing all these programs without the approval of Congress.

I have noticed in the debates that the commentators ask him questions to make him look like a nutcase, and then the media will blow it out of proportion (such as your example with Ron Paul saying the US was responsible for 9/11). Ron Paul said that our foreign policy was provoking terrorist attacks, and I agree with him. Fox News immediately turned that into Ron Paul saying 9/11 was an inside job, which Ron Paul NEVER said.

I'm very politically active, and I haven't quite decided who I am voting for yet. However, I get very irritated when people call Ron Paul and his supporters a cult. Ron Paul is a VERY intelligent man, and he speaks a lot of truth (more than most other politicans).

Answer 3

Yes, he has a chance. His ideas are very novel in their basic simplicity that we, as a country, don't have to be so wrapped up in the rest of the world. We've strayed so far from our Constitution that multiple generations do not know how our government could, and should, run under the basic principles of the Constitution - this is why so many of Ron Paul's detractors have to resort to calling him and his supporters names such as loon, kook, nut-job, etc. As his fund-raising increases, so does his ability to build national name recognition. The question is will he have enough time to build this name recognition across enough of the country to have good showings in Iowa and New Hampshire and win Super Tuesday, February 5th. To get the nomination, these things have to happen.

Amnesty - I resent being called "fanatic sheep" as much as you resent being called "mindless sheep" so why don't you back off the name-calling yourself. And to my knowledge, no votes have been cast yet and history has shown that polls are not reliable to the point that you're claiming them to be.

Answer 4

God you are brain washed by the media, he never once blamed the US for 9/11. He said our policy in the middle east has contributed toward the hate.

When he was asked on the news one night, " why do you believe that the US is somewhat responsible fir 911" He said " its not really a belief but more or an evaluation of the facts and in the 9/11 commission reports and our CIA reports both note that our foreign policy has caused blow back. It all started with our CIA overthrowing Mocedec and empowering the shah"


IT IS NOT SOMETHING RON PAUL IS MAKING UP HE IS QUOTING THE REPORTS THAT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT HAS PUBLISHED, READ THE REPORTS FOR YOURSELF AND COME TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSION

Answer 5

With a consistent 1 to 2% of the vote, heavens no! I doubt that he will even get one delegate at the convention. He will not win even one state.

I agree that his supporters are fanatic sheep. They make OUTRAGEOUS claims like he is our "only hope to beat Hillary."

I think I finally understand how they keep claiming that Paul is a top tier candidate, even though he's actually at the bottom. One person indicated that he's top tier in contributions. They seem to forget, or just don't understand, that candidates with a higher percentage of VOTES puts you in a top tier category and make the media want to discuss you. Since he doesn't fit into this category, the media rightfully ignores him.

I will get lots of thumbs down for this but, I'm still right!

EDIT: Hey, "fathead" (nice name), I resent being called a mindless sheep! I have done my research on Mr. Ron Paul. I KNOW he is wrong for this country and will never vote for a person that is more concerned about winning election than the honor of America. He is dangerous since he wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve, IRS, FBI & CIA - with no plan on how to replace their duties.

Answer 6

Ron Paul is one of the leading candidates of the Republicans but Hillary Clinton has the edge with the support of the Democrats favored to take over the White House in 2008.

Answer 7

I think you should look outside of Y/A for support of this candidate...This site does have alot of goof balls who enjoy being jack****...but there are some good opinions here as well.
to make a choice about a candidate just based on Y/A...is kina silly...dont you think?

Answer 8

Republican's base wants nothing to do with Ron Paul. This guy wants to get rid of the Dept of Education and other quack ideas like that. He has no chance to be president. Then only thing that separates him from the pack is that he is against the war. Takes more than that to be president but he wont even be the Republican candidate as a result of that stance. Republican base wants to hear that the decision of Iraq was bad but that it can get better. To know that all the dead soldiers died for nothing is a blow so none of them want to hear the truth that the Iraq War was a crock of lies and that it only stands for making money and nothing to do with helping others or democracy or any other propaganda lines.

Ron Paul is a good guy though but Democrats and Repubilcans alike wouldnt vote for him for a plethora of reasons

Answer 9

This is funny! Go to Google search and type in "How many wars has France won"? Ron Paul's chance at becoming the next President are about the same or lower then France ever winning a war!

Answer 10

I'm not sure if he does or not, he has gained in the polls despite No Amnesty's claims (stop posting false information, you clearly haven't done any research) but he is still very much of a long shot, regardless I will still vote for him.

To your next point, do you know the state of the country? Don't just vote or not, just because your upset with his supporters... If you don't vote for who you think is the right candidate, then you will have to suffer with the consequences later... when we get stuck with another bad president yet again

And finally.. when did he blame Americans for 9/11? He suggested we should reevaluate our foreign policy.. Our government's actions have unintended consequences called blow-back, which the CIA HAS CONFIRMED.. In no way did he suggest that the citizens of the United States have anything to do with it, we are not the government, we don't make the policies they do... either get your hearing checked or stop latching onto absurd misconceptions...

And btw, have you read the 9/11 commission report

From the 9/11 Commission Report (As written on) proving Rudy Giuliani and blowback deniers wrong http://ronpaul.typepad.com/my_weblog/200...

•pg. 57- The Persian Gulf War, seen by many as perhaps the most effective military victory in American history, had unintended consequences that American policymakers could never have predicted. When Saddam invaded Iraq, the US gathered a coalition, based out of Saudi Arabia, to liberate Kuwait. At this time, Bin Ladin "proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait." The Saudis said no and jumped in bed with the Americans. After further protests, Bin Ladin was booted from his homeland and went into exile. This cemented Bin Ladin's hatred of both the Saudi monarchy and the US, as they were now in partnership desecrating the holy lands.
•pg. 59- Bin Laden's first fatwa against the US (1992) was first and foremost a protest against American occupation of Muslim holy lands, specifically Saudi Arabia. It was not a call to kill Americans because they were rich and free, it was a call to expel American troops from Arab lands.
•pg. 48- Bin Ladin's 1996 fatwa against the United States was not a blanket condemnation of America and a call to arms to destroy the American nation. The fatwa declared the limited aim of driving US soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. The American presence in Saudi Arabia, a byproduct of America's promise to protect the Saudis from Saddam during the Persian Gulf War and beyond, infuriated Muslim fundamentalist because in their eyes, infidels were occupying the holy land. Bin Ladin also spent significant energy condemning the Saudi government for allowing this occupation.
•pg. 49- In discussing the grievances aired by Bin Ladin against the United States, the 9/11 Commission Report specifically calls out "the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War". Listen again to Guiliani's rebuke of Ron Paul over the idea of our involvement in Iraq playing in part of motivating al-Qaeda to attack America. If this is the most absurd explanation Guiliani has heard regarding the motives behind the planners and implementers of the 9/11 attacks, then I wonder (with dread) what he has been listening to.
•pg. 49- also lists American support of Israel as a major grievance of Bin Ladin.
•pg. 51- al-Qaeda's ultimate ambition is not specifically the destruction of the US- it's the establishment of the Caliphate to unify all Muslims. To Muslim fundamentalists, America's extensive involvement in the internal affairs of sovereign Muslim nations (the Shah, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, etc) props us secular governments and delays the future ascendancy of the Caliphate. Attacking America is not an end in itself, just a means (one of many) to another end. If they hated countries just for their freedoms, you would expect enormous terrorist attacks in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, and dozens of other countries. You don't, there's a reason.
•pg. 147- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and the Bojinka Plot, attended college in the United States and lived here for several years. Obviously, someone who lived here and then later orchestrated a murderous assault on our country hated us because of the freedoms, pleasures, and raunchy behavior we enjoy? No, it was because he hated our strongly favorable foreign policy preference for Israel.
•pg. 362- The Report reiterates that Muslim fundamentalist's hatred for America stems from "grievances stressed by Bin Laden and widely felt throughout the Muslim world." These grievances are absolutely political- US military presence in Arab lands, favoritism towards Israel, and policies perceived as anti-Muslim. The 9/11 Commission Report does not list our freedoms or wealth as a contributing motive for terrorist attacks against our nation.