Originally posted by BigRedWell, he is. With all the shit going on, Ron Paul has a lot of work to do.
Yet the Media continues to ignore Ron Paul.It is frustrating to say the least. They still think he is a long-shot candidate.
Other candidates that don't care as much and will lie to the public are better.
Originally posted by BigRed
Yet the Media continues to ignore Ron Paul.It is frustrating to say the least. They still think he is a long-shot candidate.
Ron Paul doesn't have what it takes to be an effective leader, so he is a long-shot. Raising money doesn't translate to being a good leader, in of itself.
Originally posted by Robtard
Ron Paul doesn't have what it takes to be an effective leader, so he is a long-shot. Raising money doesn't translate to being a good leader, in of itself.
We don't want a good leader, we want anarchy!
That's what our forefathers fought for, but after a few years..
Originally posted by RobtardBeing the only one with good ideals is though, I'd rather have the most shitty leader in the world with the right ideals than another George Bush/Hitler/Satan.
Ron Paul doesn't have what it takes to be an effective leader, so he is a long-shot. Raising money doesn't translate to being a good leader, in of itself.
Of course George Bush hit the homerun with both there.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Being the only one with good ideals is though, I'd rather have the most shitty leader in the world with the right ideals than another George Bush/Hitler/Satan.Of course George Bush hit the homerun with both there.
Ron Pauls ideals aren't that "good" though, have you seen his foreign policy?. Either way, I'd rather put my efforts behind a candidate that shares ideals/I agree with 60% of the time; who can get things accomplished and is electable, than a candidate that I share ideals/I agree with 90%, but won't be able to accomplish anything and/or is unelectable.
Originally posted by RobtardYes.
Ron Pauls ideals aren't that "good" though, have you seen his foreign policy?. Either way, I'd rather put my efforts behind a candidate that shares ideals/I agree with 60% of the time; who can get things accomplished and is electable, than a candidate that I share ideals/I agree with 90%, but won't be able to accomplish anything and/or is unelectable.
And who would be the candidate that shares them 60% of the time?
Also, I don't see why you think Ron Paul would accomplish less "good" than any of the other morons you might have as next president? Maybe we should rename "President" as "Most stupid douchebag of America", second being more descriptive. I don't like Ron Paul perfectly, but he is without a doubt the most fair, honest and best candidate you have, I'd put my effort into someone that would get the US from being the laughing stock of the world, but hey, that's just me, you can elect Giuliani, at least Jon Stewart will have a blast.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes.And who would be the candidate that shares them 60% of the time?
Also, I don't see why you think Ron Paul would accomplish less "good" than any of the other morons you might have as next president? Maybe we should rename "President" as "Most stupid douchebag of America", second being more descriptive. I don't like Ron Paul perfectly, but he is without a doubt the most fair, honest and best candidate you have, I'd put my effort into someone that would get the US from being the laughing stock of the world, but hey, that's just me, you can elect Giuliani, at least Jon Stewart will have a blast.
As far as Republican candidates go, I'm not exactly certain, as I lean towards the left. Rudy isn't a completely terrible choice, simply because he is the most "liberal" of the Republican candidates, which would move him somewhat towards the center; which in my opinion, is what this country needs after 8 years of Bush dividing the country into "us vs. them.", but that's a crap-shoot.
Thompson could possibly be another decent (Rep) candidate, comparatively speaking.
I didn't say "he would accomplish less good", I said he isn't electable and if so, he isn't a leader, i.e. he wouldn't accomplish anything (or very little). He comes off as an angry, religious-loon, that's one of his problems... some of his message isn't bad/I agree with some of it too, but he isn't a leader; thats his biggest problem.
Originally posted by RobtardSuch nonsense.
As far as Republican candidates go, I'm not exactly certain, as I lean towards the left. Rudy isn't a completely terrible choice, simply because he is the most "liberal" of the Republican candidates, which would move him somewhat towards the center; which in my opinion, is what this country needs after 8 years of Bush dividing the country into "us vs. them.", but that's a crap-shoot.Thompson could possibly be another decent (Rep) candidate, comparatively speaking.
I didn't say "he would accomplish less good", I said he isn't electable and if so, he isn't a leader, i.e. he wouldn't accomplish anything (or very little). He comes off as an angry, religious-loon, that's one of his problems... some of his message isn't bad/I agree with some of it too, but he isn't a leader; thats his biggest problem.
If someone has the better ideals, and is convinced of them, what in the world could you mean with "he's not a good leader". That's the Osama Bin Laden won't fear him (oh noes)? That Americans won't follow him (they are idiots, they'd follow Ted Haggard sucking of a male hooker with coke in his ass while preaching for the sanctity of marriage)? That other world leaders won't respect him (right, hahahahaha, right)? Or that his ideals are not in the right direction (then you wouldn't agree in the first place and that's the real point then)?
This reminds me of the time article about Americans and how they vote. The way they decide who to vote for is ridiculous at best.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Such nonsense.If someone has the better ideals, and is convinced of them, what in the world could you mean with "he's not a good leader". That's the Osama Bin Laden won't fear him (oh noes)? That Americans won't follow him (they are idiots, they'd follow Ted Haggard sucking of a male hooker with coke in his ass while preaching for the sanctity of marriage)? That other world leaders won't respect him (right, hahahahaha, right)? Or that his ideals are not in the right direction (then you wouldn't agree in the first place and that's the real point then)?
This reminds me of the time article about Americans and how they vote. The way they decide who to vote for is ridiculous at best.
Which part "isn't a good leader" from a political standpoint can't your Germanic mind comprehend?
He isn't a good leader in the sense that he lacks the ability to sway people who disagree with his views i.e. he wouldn't be effective. He could have the worlds "best message"; if he can't get it across and sway people/the parties into believing it, it won't matter how "good" it is.
The rest of what you said. "Osama, Oh noes, Haggard etc", was little more than strawman-bashing; I'll ignore it, my faulty and ego-bloated, German friend
Originally posted by Robtard
Ron Paul doesn't have what it takes to be an effective leader, so he is a long-shot. Raising money doesn't translate to being a good leader, in of itself.
Originally posted by Robtard
Ron Pauls ideals aren't that "good" though, have you seen his foreign policy?. Either way, I'd rather put my efforts behind a candidate that shares ideals/I agree with 60% of the time; who can get things accomplished and is electable, than a candidate that I share ideals/I agree with 90%, but won't be able to accomplish anything and/or is unelectable.
And what is wrong with his foreign policy?
Originally posted by BigRed
Um, that doesn't make sense. He has to be a great leader or else he wouldn't have people rallying around him so much. But it isn't so much about him leading, it is about his message leading.And voting based on electability is ridiculous. You vote based on your convictions and beliefs. Not if he will win or not.
And what is wrong with his foreign policy?
Wrong, "X" amount of people rallying for you, doesn't equal an effective leader, as a default. Actually wrong (again), being a an effective leader, is all important to be a President, as the ability to effectively put across your message relies on your leadership abilities.
Really? So you'd back the guy that held 90% of your views, yet has no chance of winning, over the guy who shares 60% of your views and has a great chance of winning. Good move, you just accomplished nothing with your support.
He has isolationist views towards his foreign policy; it'd (most likely) be a disaster in the long run.
Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong, "X" amount of people rallying for you, doesn't equal an effective leader, as a default. Actually wrong (again), being a an effective leader, is all important to be a President, as the ability to effectively put across your message relies on your leadership abilities.Really? So you'd back the guy that held 90% of your views, yet has no chance of winning, over the guy who shares 60% of your views and has a great chance of winning. Good move, you just accomplished nothing with your support.
He has isolationist views towards his foreign policy; it'd (most likely) be a disaster in the long run.
Damn straight. I will vote for someone I agree with more over someone that has a better chance of winning. And why does RP not have a chance of winning?
Also, you must not know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. As it stands now, interfering has led to the U.S. being more isolated than almost ever.
Originally posted by RobtardIt's an empty phrase it has to be explained to make sense. A leader can be all sorts of things.
Which part "isn't a good leader" from a political standpoint can't your Germanic mind comprehend?He isn't a good leader in the sense that he lacks the ability to sway people who disagree with his views i.e. he wouldn't be effective. He could have the worlds "best message"; if he can't get it across and sway people/the parties into believing it, it won't matter how "good" it is.
The rest of what you said. "Osama, Oh noes, Haggard etc", was little more than strawman-bashing; I'll ignore it, my faulty and ego-bloated, German friend
See, that's one believe what makes a good leader. Of course it is an idiotic thing to suggest in a democracy as everyone in power has usually around 45% opposition, but hey, lets throw out blanket terms cause we can't explain why Ron Paul really wouldn't be a good president.
It was giving examples of what one could think makes a good leader and why those in particular are wrong, it was hardly strawman, it was my point.
[edit] By the way, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
True, I don't want to get butt****ed by two black men with aids (Romney/Giuliani/Clinton), but to choose to be butt****ed by 1 black man with Aids (Huckabee/Obama) when there is a third option of living in eternal happiness ever after with slight necessary modifications (Ron Paul)...is ridiculous.
Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong, "X" amount of people rallying for you, doesn't equal an effective leader, as a default. Actually wrong (again), being a an effective leader, is all important to be a President, as the ability to effectively put across your message relies on your leadership abilities.Really? So you'd back the guy that held 90% of your views, yet has no chance of winning, over the guy who shares 60% of your views and has a great chance of winning. Good move, you just accomplished nothing with your support.
He has isolationist views towards his foreign policy; it'd (most likely) be a disaster in the long run.
I follow your logic on this and I even agree with some of it...however, your second paragraph is very disturbing.
You are obviously far from being an uninformed voter...at the very least, no doubt...this is why it is so disturbing. As a voter...regardless of the outcome that you think will happen (due to propaganda that you should know inside and out and recognize on a whim)...you should ALWAYS vote for the person that YOU feel best represents your interests in a leader...ALWAYS without exception...this is what your right as a voter is...to do otherwise is to betray your very right to vote and it is a form of dishonesty to cast a vote for someone that you didn't want to vote for.
*gets off soap box*
Not that I am off my soap box...
I see your point on Paul's foreign policy and raise you isolationism. I believe that Ron Paul is on the right mindset with his foreign policy but I think that he leans just a tad too much towards isolationism. If I were to place his foreign policy on a scale of 1 to 10...1 being perfect isolationism 10 being a butt raping "busy body" and 5 being a perfect balance...I would put Ron Paul at a 4...
Time will tell, though, on his foreign policy as he says things that he thinks people will want to hear about that...you and I are not the only ones who noticed his foreign policy so he will do something, whether positive or negative. (Though I think you rate him as a 2 or 3..)