Why is he not President?

[buster2209]

Can someone tell me why Ron Paul isn't President?

WHY???

EDIT: I guess I didn't convey that the question I asked was rhetorical, however, reading some of the replies, I'm glad I didn't!

[CapnOfMyFate]

Can someone tell me why Ron Paul isn't President?

Because him and others like him will always be trivialized and dismissed as "fringe lunatics" by the two-party-only American political system. Those who advocate actually solving problems threaten the long-standing monopoly of force perpetuated by the Democrats and Republicans.

[buster2209]

Because him and others like him will always be trivialized and dismissed as "fringe lunatics" by the two-party-only American political system. Those who advocate actually solving problems threaten the long-standing monopoly of force perpetuated by the Democrats and Republicans.

I was kinda being sarcastic..... good answer anyways though!

And I prefer the term Republicrats!

[CapnOfMyFate]

I was kinda being sarcastic.....

I figured as much, but you did ask a question and I answered it to the best of my ability.

I do wonder when RP will throw off the "Republican" facade and go Libertarian, but I also realize he stands a better chance of fixing things from "within" under the "GOP" affiliation.

[FNG19]

Because him and others like him will always be trivialized and dismissed as "fringe lunatics" by the two-party-only American political system.

When you say things like this-----------v // this is the result----^

Those who advocate actually solving problems threaten the long-standing monopoly of force perpetuated by the Democrats and Republicans.

... that's why Ron Paul isn't president. It's not because the message is bad, it's because the message is delivered in such a radical, in-your-face manner that it turns people off. Like it or not, the ideas the Libertarian party stands are, as a package, pretty far outside the mainstream. Bemoan it all you want, but you have to acknowledge the truth of that statement. You can talk about how your ideas are superior, how you represent what the real America is supposed to be like, about "long-standing monopoly of force", etc, but doing that makes you sound like a fringe group full of lunatics. If the Libertarian party is to ever have a hope and a prayer of getting any traction, it's going to have to stop trying to force the country to adopt to its message, and start finding a way to adopt its message to the country.

Again, the ideas aren't necessarily bad, but the way they're delivered is atrocious. Consider how the gun movement has slowly won people over except for people like the Brady Bunch, and the methods it has traditionally used. There's some real lessons about both what works and what doesn't. Screaming about constitutional rights, sovereign/natural rights to self-defense, etc, are equal parts true and irrelevant, because most people don't think in those terms. We had to learn how to deliver our message in a way that people could understand, and we slowly won people over. The tide is turning our way, but it took, what, 20-30 years of concerted effort?

Or, of course, you could continue to talk about long-standing monopolies of force. There's always another election, right?

[buster2209]

I figured as much, but you did ask a question and I answered it to the best of my ability.

Guilty as charged!!

I do wonder when RP will throw off the "Republican" facade and go Libertarian, but I also realize he stands a better chance of fixing things from "within" under the "GOP" affiliation.

Yup, and considering the GOP is essential leaderless, it's an excellent opportunity for him to fill that vacuum.

In the interview I posted, he particularly just makes so much sense, but I do know why he isn't president; too many people like there cushy 'paper shuffling' government jobs or welfare check. It's so sad......

[buster2209]

... that's why Ron Paul isn't president. It's not because the message is bad, it's because the message is delivered in such a radical, in-your-face manner that it turns people off. Like it or not, the ideas the Libertarian party stands are, as a package, pretty far outside the mainstream. Bemoan it all you want, but you have to acknowledge the truth of that statement. You can talk about how your ideas are superior, how you represent what the real America is supposed to be like, about "long-standing monopoly of force", etc, but doing that makes you sound like a fringe group full of lunatics. If the Libertarian party is to ever have a hope and a prayer of getting any traction, it's going to have to stop trying to force the country to adopt to its message, and start finding a way to adopt its message to the country.

Again, the ideas aren't necessarily bad, but the way they're delivered is atrocious. Consider how the gun movement has slowly won people over except for people like the Brady Bunch, and the methods it has traditionally used. There's some real lessons about both what works and what doesn't. Screaming about constitutional rights, sovereign/natural rights to self-defense, etc, are equal parts true and irrelevant, because most people don't think in those terms. We had to learn how to deliver our message in a way that people could understand, and we slowly won people over. The tide is turning our way, but it took, what, 20-30 years of concerted effort?

Or, of course, you could continue to talk about long-standing monopolies of force. There's always another election, right?

Joseph Goebbels said it best;

"Propaganda is not meant to fool the intelligencia, it is merely meant to provide them an excuse to avoid seeing ugly realities, they'd sooner not believe”

THAT'S why Ron Paul isn't President and the Libertarian party struggles to gain traction.

[AxiTech]

When you say things like this-----------v // this is the result----^




... that's why Ron Paul isn't president. It's not because the message is bad, it's because the message is delivered in such a radical, in-your-face manner that it turns people off.

Nailed it! If you look at the flip side of that question : Why is Obozo president? Well, that is because he DID NOT get in people's faces aboput how far left he was going to go. No, he came off as a leftie who would be willing to lead from the middle, or SLIGHTLY left of there. If Obozo had told the truth about what he was going to do, well, he damn sure would not have gotten us to the point we're at now!

[FNG19]

Joseph Goebbels said it best;

Great quote. I hadn't heard it before, but it works nicely. Thank you!

[FNG19]

Why is Obozo president?

For a few reasons:

1) John McCain was the John Kerry of 2008. He was a candidate who was probably going to lose, but was effective in entrenching the opposition to a President that would likely enjoy significant support, even if some of it was begrudging. In short, he was a spoiler.

2) Obama wasn't George Bush. The Democrats succeeded in winning against a man who wasn't even running. It took 8 years, but they finally beat George Bush. Congratulations!

3) People heard what wanted to hear, and saw what they wanted to see. Anais Nin said it best: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."

4) Obama promised everything he knew people wanted to hear, with enough generality that, no matter how it turned out, it was going to be "according to plan". He told the truth, but he sold it with such flourish and lack of specificity that it sounded to each person like the very thing they'd been wanting. He ran an extremely successful propaganda campaign, and I truly believe that it redefined political communication in the US. I applaud him for that -- I truly do. He was able to do what no candidate of either party had been able to do since Reagan: He got people to embrace him and his ideology completely. Obama succeeded in Selling The Platform.

That's why Obama's in office.