Ron Paul's chances becoming president.

[377OHMS]

Quote from tomdavis:

And that's really the bottom line -- he's not electable. The probablity of Ron Paul becoming President of the US is exactly zero.

This.

 

[Artful D0dger]

Quote from pspr:

not electable.

Well, it certainly appears that they have a heavily vested interest in getting us all to believe this, for whatever reason.

 

[Lornz]

Who cares about electibility? Aren't one suppose to vote for what one believes in, regardless of the chance of that candidate winning?
If not, how will progress be made?

Ron Paul is the only consistent politician I have come across, unless you call constantly lying and shifting opinions being consistent.

I don't agree with him on everything, though.

<object width="960" height="750"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xIraCchPDhk?fs=1&amp;hl=nb_NO&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xIraCchPDhk?fs=1&amp;hl=nb_NO&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="350" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[Landis82]

Quote from Martinghoul:

While the gold standard has its advantages, it also has flaws. Most importantly, it has one very painful problem, which, unfortunately, makes it all but useless in the modern world. The problem is that it's only viable if you and your main trading partners all abide by it at the same time. Obviously, that's impossible to enforce, which means that a rival (e.g. China, India) might be able to exploit the arrangement opportunistically to obtain a massive competitive advantage. Worse yet, they could completely cripple your domestic economy at will with a reasonably modest effort.

Thank You.
And this puts the nail in the coffin during any Presidential debate with Ron Paul.
Thanks for playin' Ron!

 

[tomdavis]

You make a valid point, but that wasn't the original question. The question was regarding "Ron Paul's chances of becoming President."

His chances are zero.

Quote from lornz:

Who cares about electibility? Aren't one suppose to vote for what one believes in, regardless of the chance of that candidate winning?
If not, how will progress be made?

Ron Paul is the only consistent politician I have come across, unless you call constantly lying and shifting opinions being consistent.

I don't agree with him on everything, though.

<object width="960" height="750"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xIraCchPDhk?fs=1&amp;hl=nb_NO&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xIraCchPDhk?fs=1&amp;hl=nb_NO&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="350" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[Wallet]

Quote from Lucrum:

OK, but my question was why? If you cannot or will not answer maybe someone else will.

While the gold standard sounds appealing, it would be impossible to implement without totally scrapping the existing fiat system, you can't merge or change back this late into the game. You have basically a worthless piece of paper, the gold reserves, if i'm not mistaken are now held by the fed as collateral.

Paul although radical in his views, is far better than the D.C. consensus b.s. that keeps being re-spun. Our country is on the brink of collapse, if something substantial is not done quickly, it may already be too late.

If only part of his agenda could be implemented during his term in office it would be a start. He should campaign on a specific platform outlining his plan to pull the U.S. back....concrete steps in debt repayment, deep spending cuts, taxes needed, that may be seen as a 8-12 year plan, but I think the vast majority would like to see someone speak in plain terms about what will be required.... it won't be pretty.

1st cut would be pay and benefits in congress.