Ron Paul? why is he the only one that wants to restore the constitution and peoples rights but he gets the least votes?
He is the only one I've heard say anything about the constitution and people having the right to do what they want and he gets the least votes, Why? Every other canidate only talks about things that you know once they get in office is going right out the window.
11 Answers to "Ron Paul? why is he the only one that wants to restore the constitution and peoples rights but he gets the least votes?"
-
Because the political hacks who control the Democrat and Republican parties have brainwashed people into thinking government is the answer to all of their problems, rather than the cause of many of those problems. Government is like fire; properly controlled, it is very useful, but it must be controlled else it can devour everything you have.
Like (3)
-
The guy has a bad problem with a lot of newsletters under his name with a lot of racist stuff in them. He claims someone else wrote them - and i can take that at face value - but unfortunately I know the media wouldn't. Should he get the nomination, he would be destroyed. Everyone in the GOP party establishment and most voters interested in winning in November know this.
Add in what has been called the "Paul is God" element - that group of advocates so enthusiastic for Paul that they remind one of wild eyed cultists - and you'll see another reason why many republicans are turned off. As one man put it while comparing the Paul cultists to the Obama cultists from the other side "I already have a savior...I don't need another." Some of those people at the Washington caucus were downright scary and more than one person voiced the opinion they must have been sent by democrats to disrupt the proceedings.
Personally, I like Paul. At 77 I think he's perhaps too old for President. I'd like for him to get a spot in the new administration.Like (3)
-
I think it's because it doesn't matter, really, the difference between democrat or republican-- they both only want a two party system and people like Ron Paul upset their apple cart. It's no longer about what the people want with those two parties-- now it's every man for himself on the backs of the American people; that's the only thing dems and republicans in office agree on. So, they, and the media, because they're all in bed together, ignore any third party candidate.
I want real change; I want a third party. I think Ron Paul symbolizes change better than the last presidential hopeful talking about change. Funny, though, how change involves actually adhering to our Constitution...Like (3)
-
I don't believe that he is the only one that wants to cleave to the constitution. I do think that if he is the candidate for either the republicans or on a third party ticket it would assure an 0bama win, and if past performance is an indicator, of all the candidates 0bama is the least likely to support the constitution.
Like (2)
-
because voters in these primaries are idiots.
Like (2)
-
Ron Paul doesn't cater to certain groups. He is who he is. His ideas would cut so much crap from both parties interests that the idea of him winning upsets a lot of folks.
He doesn't put his religious beliefs up as a reason why anyone should vote for him. That cuts him off from most evangelical voters. What he wants to do sounds radical, even crazy, to most citizens who are used to the post Great Depression/ WWII America.
What happened when America was formed was radical and people either forget that or don't care. I applaud him for keeping his path and not bowing to anyone.Like (2)
-
As a Ron Paul supporter myself, I feel the same way.
Studying this situation carefully, I suspect it's because restoring the original Constitution would mean removing government welfare programs ...angering the poor people. It would mean I would actually have to wrestle with my public free-market value in order to make a living (with NO government help) ....which would anger the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd. And it would take politicians out of the business of buying votes ....which wouldn't leave your joe-politician too happy.
Bottom line, we as a people are just too dependent on Government. Too much of the "unconstitutional" parts of government we've come to accept "as normal".
Like (2)
-
People on welfare, corrupt as the system is, and wrong as you might feel them to be, are not what has destroyed the Constitution. We need to repeal the Patriot Act(s) among other things.Like (1)
-
I'm sorry, that is not what I meant. People on welfare have not "destroyed the Constitution". The Constitution was destroyed back in the early 1900's, when it was replaced by the Cestui' Que Trust (The original Constitution is just a piece of museum paper today). I'm saying that under the Original Constitution, public welfare programs would not exist AT ALL ...it is the Cestui' Que Trust in control that makes it possible. And that a move BACK to "the Original Constitution" would mean removing the Cestui' Que Trust ...which would mean ALL public welfare programs would naturally be removed with it. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.
Like (1)
-
Because libertarianism is a nice theory, but stupid in practice.
`1. Protection and regulation is nice. Paul favours deregulation policies which would leave people at the mercy of the corporations. The invisible hand is damn lazy when it comes to protecting consumers.
2. Investment is good for the economy. the strict budget Paul wants would leave things like infrastructure and R&D on the wayside. If you let things like that slip, you usually end up paying dearly for it in the future. (Things like electricity and water triple in price as they try to keep up with the population demands after years of neglected infrastructure investment).
3. The lack of compassion. I want there to be safety nets for the homeless and sick. I don't want to see people die because they can't afford their doctors bills or a roof over their heads.Like (1)
-
I agree with you that these are the drawbacks of Ron Paul's ideas. But Paul is the only guy who seems to really care about restoring the Constitution and what it stands for. He seems to be the only one with any ideas about bringing back more personal freedom.
Like (1)
-
-
Notice they leave him out of the news too?
Like (1)
-
Because it only benefits the average people, the ones who want and need it. There's nothing in it for the Rich, Famous, and Politicians.
Like (1)
-
So, Isn't there way more average people than there are rich, famous and politicians? Are you saying the top richest % controls the vote of the rest?
Like (1)
-
Yes, but unfortunately that's the way it is. Do you really think our votes count? It's decided by the electoral college, and their agendas supported by the rich.
Like (1)
Best Answer (Chosen By Asker):
Posted by Brainyblonde Mar 8th, 2012 at 10:57AM
It's because he DOES support restoring the Constitution that he gets fewer votes. The big money interests that support the other candidates do not want Americans to have any rights anymore.
[ Reply ] | Like (3)