Ron Paul Will Win The Republican Nomination & The Presidency

Open and closed primaries are a main factor

If people are not registered to vote in a particular
party, they have no chance at even helping RON PAUL
Get the nomination..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wolf Blitzer is on now on CNN, and he's gonna have Ron Paul on. Looks like they're getting the message, this should be interesting....

reply to post by drfeelme


That's easy man...all you gotta do is change your party affiliation before the primaries in closed states (not all are closed to independents), you can change online, then change back after the primaries...we can ALL vote in the primaries

I have nothing against Ron Paul, and I find many of his opinions well received. However, the one problem with Ron Paul is he lacks the balls to truly be an effective leader.

Sadly, politics has become this elite wolf pack, where the man in power has to be ready to fight and kill any adversary at a moments notice.

With that being said, I just hate to think what would happen if WWIII broke out while we had a Ron Paul type of president. He would be in full control of the military, and he truly does not strike me as being a brilliant military strategist.

If the president had less control over the military, I would vote for Paul in a heartbeat. He just makes me too nervous when it comes to being decisive over crucial war decisions.

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by drfeelme

 

That's easy man...all you gotta do is change your party affiliation before the primaries in closed states (not all are closed to independents), you can change online, then change back after the primaries...we can ALL vote in the primaries

And that is exactly what all of the Obama voters are doing also. They want to see the racist newletters vs their black man, easy win for Obama.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Yes he may be a level headed guy about 90 percent of the time ("atta boy") but it's that 10% ("uh oh") that discredits everything else he has already said.

Ok, so he raised the decibel level a bit in that video, but that voice of his is still too passive and mousy, that is the hidden element that is ruining it for him.
It just doesn't resonate and not very threatening, that's why I made the push over comment.

Have you ever known a woman that always prefers the bad boy?
Maybe it's their motherly instinct kicking in wanting to nurture and rehabilitate that bad boy image, but they never pick the level headed, nice guys because they don't need any help.

Same thing with Paul.
He comes across as a super nice guy and subcounsciously, that doesn't register with people quite well.
The only other person that has a mousier voice than Ron Paul is Harry Reid.

People saying RP can't win seriously need to turn off Fox and CNN and think for a moment. They say Ron Paul is not electable but say that Sarah Palin IS.

Everytime someone says Ron Paul can't win; ask them why because they never have an answer because the MSM doesn't provide them one.

Maybe it's just an excuse for them to be lazy POS's and not get out and vote.

reply to post by ModernAcademia



Good luck getting a 3rd party candidate in office. The closest that's anyone ever come was Ross Perot.

reply to post by WhiteDevil013

If the president had less control over the military, I would vote for Paul in a heartbeat. He just makes me too nervous when it comes to being decisive over crucial war decisions.

It is generals who fight wars not Presidents and Paul is smart enough to take advice from experts. Something I am not sure can be said of others.


If you are worried about WWIII I strongly suggest you read Days of Infamy It might change your mind about Ron Paul.


Consider this. WAR is very very expensive. THE only real reason for fighting a war is to take resources (land & minerals) from someone else. The value of that land must be more than the cost of the war. Politicians will give you lots of pretty words to hide that fact but theft of resources is ALWAYS the reason.

Originally wars were small and contained because people would not put up with the cost unless they could see a real benefit. (loot & Land)

However things changed when BANKERS entered the picture. With Fractional Reserve Banking, the bankers could loan leaders freshly printed bank script and the people would end up paying for the war through WAGE Devaluation and PRICE Inflation. It was a huge hidden tax people were unaware they were paying.

We are STILL paying for WWI and WWII and the Vietnam war through inflation. Notice how The First World War did not start until 1914 AFTER the US Central Bank was in place.....

In a nutshell the ONLY winners in the war games are the bankers who loan the fiat money and the Corporations who build the war machines. Everyone else is losers.

That is why all the foreigners would LOVE to see Ron Paul as President. THEY want to kill the banker vampires TOO!

Ron Paul Punk Anthem!

Originally posted by whathasitcome2
Ron Paul is not presidential material. The US seems to be headed for Soviet era style breakup. No need for an 80+ year old congressman who can only say I told you so. But thanks anyway.

Ron Paul is 75. Lie much?

You are familiar with soviet-style government, are ya??

Ron Paul needs to win

It may take something out of nowhere such as a complete collapse of other candidates but he needs to win.

If he doesn't win nothing will change. I guarantee nothing will change

Anybody catch the Wolf Blitzer interview? It went very well, IMO. He stayed on point, and didn't go off onto any tangents. He was level headed and concise. Looks like he's been getting some coaching.

reply to post by Alxandro

Yes he may be a level headed guy about 90 percent of the time ("atta boy") but it's that 10% ("uh oh") that discredits everything else he has already said.

Ok, so he raised the decibel level a bit in that video, but that voice of his is still too passive and mousy, that is the hidden element that is ruining it for him.
It just doesn't resonate and not very threatening, that's why I made the push over comment.

Have you ever known a woman that always prefers the bad boy?
Maybe it's their motherly instinct kicking in wanting to nurture and rehabilitate that bad boy image, but they never pick the level headed, nice guys because they don't need any help.

Same thing with Paul.
He comes across as a super nice guy and subcounsciously, that doesn't register with people quite well.
The only other person that has a mousier voice than Ron Paul is Harry Reid.

I'm sorry but if people are basing their presidential candidate choice on the tone of their voice, they're idiots.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Alxandro

 

Yes he may be a level headed guy about 90 percent of the time ("atta boy") but it's that 10% ("uh oh") that discredits everything else he has already said.

Ok, so he raised the decibel level a bit in that video, but that voice of his is still too passive and mousy, that is the hidden element that is ruining it for him.
It just doesn't resonate and not very threatening, that's why I made the push over comment.

Have you ever known a woman that always prefers the bad boy?
Maybe it's their motherly instinct kicking in wanting to nurture and rehabilitate that bad boy image, but they never pick the level headed, nice guys because they don't need any help.

Same thing with Paul.
He comes across as a super nice guy and subcounsciously, that doesn't register with people quite well.
The only other person that has a mousier voice than Ron Paul is Harry Reid.

I'm sorry but if people are basing their presidential candidate choice on the tone of their voice, they're idiots.

exactly. idiots for picking STYLE over SUBSTANCE.

Thats been part of the problem since forever.


RON PAUL HAS SUBSTANCE. All the others are nothing but image whores who cater to banks and special interests. How is that for being tough on your positions? They are weak.

Originally posted by TupacShakur

I'm sorry but if people are basing their presidential candidate choice on the tone of their voice, they're idiots.

That's my point exactly.

Blame it on society because it's no longer about qualifications anymore, hasn't been for some time.
Rather it's all about the image, and Ron Paul's image is that of a sweet old man that wouldn't hurt a fly and people don't want that in a President.
As I've stated before, it's the subconscious factor that's at play here, big time.
The sooner you realize that, the less painful it will be.

Yes,the OP is right,I have found myself thinking negative thoughts about RP only because he is so out side the norm for a politician these days.You liston to the other GOP runners and they all sound like clones,they say the same things every political person has said before no matter what party.

Paul has something for all party's,especially with bringing the troops home and closeing base's around the world,so YA he can win,he will win and if he doesen't then people are not hearing him or they don't want there country back,this guy speaks from the heart,not a tellaprompter or some speach someone else wrote for him and he is passionate about what he says.

I see RP as a last hope for a politician that is not put before us as citizians of this country and told "here you go fools,this is your choice,vote if you really think it makes a difference".

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I'm sorry but if people are basing their presidential candidate choice on the tone of their voice, they're idiots.

If people think Ron Paul's racist newsletters have been explained away, they are idiots
.
Obama's people cry racism in their sleep, this is not going away if Ron Paul ever faces him. Which means Ron Paul has the same chance as hell freezing over to beat Obama.

Who was cheerleading Obama last time around? Could it have been CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Chicago Times, LA Times, New York Times etc. Yeah Obama's people will have free reign to shout racism as usual but this time it will be justifiable with proof.

Ron Paul has zero chance and even he must know this.

There is a conspiracy here, and you guys are on the wrong end of it. The halfwitted enablers, hahaha. In other similar circumstances, where people follow along to enable a hopeless cause in a devoted way, the term sheeple usually applies. I will refrain from using it though out of respect for the historical nature of politics where followers are needed, devotion is often a necessity and hopeless causes always end tragically in defeat.

Originally posted by Misure
reply to post by Modern Academia

 

My cousin up in Montpelier, VT has told me that there is a very strong base of ‘Yankee Republican’ and anti-war activist support for Ron Paul throughout New England. He is a Democrat, voted for Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch, but said that since no important Democrats have anything to worry about in the primaries and that Obama has angered a lot of the anti-authoritarian Democrats who make-up New England that he, like many others, will be registering Republican to vote for Ron Paul.

.

if his message gets out, especially about the wars, i believe he has a good shot at winning Massachusetts.

independents can vote in either primaries, and there is nothing to vote on in the democratic primary.

in this state, independents are highly unpredictable, and make up 70% of voters.

they sent Scott Brown (R) to the senate, and at 65% voted to decriminalize Marijuana.

and we have an early primary.

i wish him the best.

reply to post by TinfoilTP

If people think Ron Paul's racist newsletters have been explained away, they are idiots
.
Obama's people cry racism in their sleep, this is not going away if Ron Paul ever faces him. Which means Ron Paul has the same chance as hell freezing over to beat Obama.

Who was cheerleading Obama last time around? Could it have been CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Chicago Times, LA Times, New York Times etc. Yeah Obama's people will have free reign to shout racism as usual but this time it will be justifiable with proof.

Ron Paul has zero chance and even he must know this.

There is a conspiracy here, and you guys are on the wrong end of it. The halfwitted enablers, hahaha. In other similar circumstances, where people follow along to enable a hopeless cause in a devoted way, the term sheeple usually applies. I will refrain from using it though out of respect for the historical nature of politics where followers are needed, devotion is often a necessity and hopeless causes always end tragically in defeat.

Dude you are such an obvious troll. You're not even subtle any more, I think you've made it apparent to every person that's read your posts in the past couple days.

I vote that we ignore the troll, all those in favor say aye?