The greatest night yet in the Ron Paul Revolution!

Then you can vote for the same type of crooks that are in office now. Just dont (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) when nothing changes.

 

Ron Paul is the only one running that could give Obama a run for the money. A lot of democrats would vote for him. A lot of people voted for Obama because he promised to get us out of Iran. Well he drug his feet doing it and a lot of people like Pauls position on this. I am a democrat and I like Ron Paul. He is truely for cutting the budget, minding our own business, and bringing our troops home to defend our borders. He is by far the smartest of any of the others running. One guy said he should become more mainstream. No, that would make him just like the others. We don't need that.

 

You've heard the criticisms - all you have to do is look around this forum for a sampling.

My criticism was of the rhetoric in his speech, and I've explained why it's not going to help his cause. There's no need for him to be reinforcing the claims and/or impression that he's a fringe candidate...

 

To be honest with you, I'm not pleased with any of the candidates who are running for president this year. That leaves me with the default position of voting against the Alinskyite in Chief...

 

"Barking"? All I heard was him call out a status quo that's currently supported by zero people who don't benefit from it or are in a nursing home somewhere. Oh, well. Fortunately, fewer and fewer people are phased by terms that only exist to define certain ideas out of the discourse--like "fringe," "extremist," or "kook"--anymore because they can see that the status quo is extreme and dangerous to liberty.

 

You're a Republican? I thought you were an Obama supporter

 

It comes from the expression "barking moonbat".

Evidently, you didn't hear what he said prior to that "status quo" line.

The status quo obviously does suck, but Ron Paul is still going to have to get past the labels he's been tagged with, and the best place to start would be with his own rhetoric. As he draws more attention to himself, he's going to have to realize that the people outside his circle of followers are following his words. If he wants to portray himself and his supporters as "dangerous" outsiders, he'll never get elected president.

 

Good video on it becoming a 2 man race.....Romney vs Paul.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WVeedeit6M&feature=player_embedded"]3 Takeaways from the New Hampshire Primary - YouTube[/ame]

 

Great point. The fact that Paul is the only one who would siphon off a large number of Obama's voters is what makes him the MOST electable Republican in the general election. Republicans will vote for anyone against Obama. What we need is someone that non-republicans will vote for, too. And that sure as hell ain't Romney. Romney is the stereotypical "rich-man's republican" which the average person will not support in the REAL election.

 

I think it's a more of a matter of winning the independent vote than trying to win over Obama voters. Paul's Libertarian economic philosophy is anathema to Nanny State Socialists...

 

"I find it sort of fascinating when they finally get around — and this is different people, it could be in the media, could be our opponents, or whatever — but I sort of have to chuckle when they describe you and me as being 'dangerous.' That’s one thing they are telling the truth, because we are dangerous to the status quo of this country."

*shrug*

The status quo sucks, but you shouldn't portray yourself as being outside it? Well, there's no accounting for taste. If you think he can do better, volunteer to write his speeches.

 

Well, it certainly is. But, believe it or not, many of those who voted for Obama did not neccessarily want nanny state socialism. Obama's anti-war rhetoric and vague promise of "change" (anti status-quo talk) lured in more people than a wish for more government control did. Now Ron Paul is the only one who can claim to truly support Change (as opposed to the customary Republican-Democrat tag team against the People), and unlike Obama, people know, really know, that Paul means what he says, and his campaign promises will not be forgotten after the election.

 

Portraying yourself as outside the status quo is one thing, playing along with an alleged portrayal of you and your supporters by unspecified individuals and groups as something "dangerous" is quite another. Why even go there, for crissakes?

This isn't a matter of accounting for taste, it's a matter of accounting for your words and the image you want to portray to the American people/electorate. It's a a matter of accounting for your own communications and the perceptions you create.

There's no scripting what a politician is going to say in a situation like last night, so speechwriters aren't the issue here. All I'm offering here is some advice from outside the RP echo-chamber: instead of playing to the claims and perceptions that RP and his supporters are "dangerous" outsiders, he should be trying to dispel those claims and explain how his views and policies are consistent with those of mainstream America.

If you can't show that, what makes you think you can win the presidency? Is the whole point of the Paul campaign to win the GOP nomination and then the presidency, or is the goal limited to exacting planks on the GOP party platform?

 

So basically you don't want an authentic candidate and prefer a teleprompter schilling for Goldman Sachs?
I guarantee you more Americans liked Ron Paul's aggressively language against the status quo than were "scared by it."

It's time for Americans to stop being so timid and take the fight to the establishment. In other words, grow a pair.

 

All good points and well taken. However, the voters who did not want Obama's nanny state Socialism are independents, are they not? They aren't the Leftists who constitute his political base.

Your concluding statement regarding Paul's campaign promises (policies) is arguably the best thing about his campaign. While I agree with some of his views and disagree with others, I think it is enormously beneficial to the country that the issues his campaign is raising are receiving more and more attention.

 

If that question is being directed at me, the answer is no, XxDEATHSHEADxX. I can't see how anyone can fault a candidate for being authentic, nor am I going to fault RP's followers for their principled support of Mr. Paul and his policies.

I greatly appreciate RP's stand against the status quo and the Big Government establishment, but this isn't a matter of being "scared" by Mr. Paul's words. People (ex., TEA Partiers) have been fighting the establishment's ways for some time now.

I realize I'm probably being a bit over-critical of Mr. Paul's remarks last night, but people like me are the least of your worries. I'm offering constructive criticism that might help RP and his supporters avoid and repel the criticism that you'll be facing in the weeks and months ahead. As RP gains more attention, more and more people, most notably the establishment media, are going to dissect every word Paul says, and in many cases, they will distort his words and use them against him (just as Romney's recent remarks were taken out of context and used against him).

Incidentally, I gave your thread 5 stars, XxDEATHSHEADxX. It's made for a great discussion...

 

Don't take this the wrong way or as any sign of hostility towards you but I don't think Ron Paul, Ron Paul's campaign, or Ron Paul's supporters need any advice on what to say or how to behave or with what tone of language to use.

I have been with Ron Paul for a very long time now. In that time this movement has busted through ten feet of establishment/Zionist/media/Neo-con concrete with its bare fist to get where it is today. You have no idea how far we've come and so Ron Paul will stick to doing what he's doing.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqOVuKr7EmE"]Why Is The Mainstream Media Scared Of This Man - YouTube[/ame]

Here's where we were in 2007 and what we were fighting. Smears, attacks, ridicule, etc.

We were pushed out of the debates after we failed to get enough of the % of votes, as per GOP rules, which the networks were more than happy to accommodate. Yet this time around CNN will be allowing Perry into the debates, breaking those same rules. Why? As Bill Kristol said tonight, they can't allow the race to come down to Romney and Ron Paul because Ron Paul will pull ahead.

The deck is stacked against us and it always has been and we're gaining ground non the less so we'll continue on as we have.
END THE FED!!

 

That's fine. I'm not badgering you. There are areas where I think Paul's delivery could be improved (i.e. the arm flapping and using the term "we" when referring to Washington bombing foreign civilians). I just don't think saying "our opponents say we're dangerous; they're right...dangerous to the statist quo!" would even scare Grandma. It's no big deal; I'm tired of arguing about it.

 

He is a Chameleon politician.

 

the status quo should be afraid of us, ...............wow that's pretty lunatic.

BTW which of his ideologies and policies are dangerous and why ?

 

The "tea party" now is pretty much establishment. It started with good intentions after the Ron Paul Revolution but it quickly was hijacked by the likes of Palin, Trump, Santorum, Bachmann etc etc.

 

Love or hate Paul on an internet thread. Whatever.
Here's how it's looking for him on the next stop.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html

Romney will most likely bury the field in SC, and that may be the end of it. I hope it drags on, but it doesn't look like it.
If Paul can pull himself out of fourth or fifth place there, he will trudge on for awhile. I am hoping he gets to third. It will fuel his fantasy of himself as president, and when he realizes he won't get the nomination, he will decide the time has come to go third party, crushing the dreams of republicans everywhere.

He lost by double digits in NH.

 

Wierd everything i have seen is that Newt is breathing down Romneys neck for 1st and Paul and Santorum are battling it out for 3rd. It could very well be another Iowa.

3rd in SC would be Huge for Paul.

And yes he lost by "double digits in NH" but he came in 2nd.

 

time for you to celebrate.
You'll be well on your way to more statism, loss of personal liberties and the transfer of more of your wealth to the financial elite. You'll love it, it's a way of life.

 

2 years ago if I told a Conservative that Mitt and Ron were your Best Candidates to go against Obama ... they would have laughed.

Not they are totally on board and will back either one.