Is Ron Paul electable?

There are two Republican candidates left in the GOP nominee race and the delegate count seems to be shifting in Ron Paul’s favor. Mitt Romney has been declared the front-runner by the mainstream media, but are you really getting the whole story? The Texas Congressman has taken the majority of delegates in Nevada and Maine, but many still claim Paul is unelectable. Shelly Roche, a political analyst, joins us to talk more about Paul’s victories.

Like us and/or follow us:

http://twitter.com/RT_America
http://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica

Original Youtube video here.

About The Author
-

36
Leave a Reply

avatar
36 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
bunkerman909FactsAreOffensivegregory747Michel THUNDERsfiorare Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
sfiorare
Guest

you realize ron paul says he doesn't accept the theory of evolution, right?

sfiorare
Guest

it's the truth

sfiorare
Guest

certainly i can

in 1996 ron paul defended the content of his newsletters

then in 2007 ron paul started saying he didn't write anything in the newsletters or even read them

he's a liar

sfiorare
Guest

ron paul most certainly wrote articles in his own newsletters

i received his newsletters for years

sfiorare
Guest

here's something from ron paul's newsletter that he wrote:

"In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday."

bunkerman909
Guest

hugely impactfull..
impactfull .

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

And now you are being dishonest.

I think you would have a great deal of difficulty showing that Ron Paul is more dishonest than any other politician, and certainly showing that his dishonesty is anywhere NEAR that of most prominent politicians who are consistent only in their inconsistency.

Romney is a really great example of that.

sfiorare
Guest

so your argument is that ron paul is not as dishonest as romney?

what a joke, ron paul won't ever be president

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

You imply RP is being racist here – that is dishonest.

The US is close to being a permanent facist police state, and it engages in permanent war causing massive civilian loss of life to drive corporate profit. It has a hugely negative impact in many ways for everyone worldwide.

Americans may still have a few more chances to take back their liberty. RP is (perhaps) one of those.

That is my argument.

sfiorare
Guest

i think ron paul is a racist and he couldn't even manage a lousy newsletter

he has no business in the white house

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

They are all racist, and RP certainly isn't the worst.

Frankly, I think having Elmo in the white house would have a largely better outcome for Americans than any other candidate. Would certain be a better outcome for all non-Americans.

Question: How long is it before political dissidents are picked up off a US sidewalk and permanently disappeared?

Plenty of people have documented the US descent into fascism – it has closely mirrored many other countries.

Just how far away is that?

sfiorare
Guest

never

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

Really?

Indefinite detention and legal assassination of citizens outside any judicial process – purely on the decision of the executive – is as OBVIOUS as it gets.

There are no other reasons for something like this to exist other than to target political dissidents. It has absolutely no place in a free society, and it is now US law.

Wake up.

COINTELPRO is peanuts next to this.

All you need now is the right dictator.

Everything is in place.

sfiorare
Guest

oh please, your nut case bullshit doesn't float

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

You are naive and misinformed, or using propoganda again…

A small group of journalists & activists sued US officials to address indefinite detention – signed into law on December 31.

Judge Forrest agreed it would allow them to suppress political dissent, stating the need to "understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention." This is the first judge to stand up. We'll see what happens.

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

Secondly, an America has already been targeted and assassinated all before the provision for assassination under NDAA was even signed into law. This a matter of fact.

sfiorare
Guest

al-awlaki was a senior talent recruiter and motivator involved with planning operations for al qaeda

i'm glad they neutralized him

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

Straight out of Wikipedia. Oh, you missed this part: "According to U.S. government officials…".

Given your governments breathtaking capacity for distorting truth (lying) its amazing to me that you are comfortable with this.

One example being classification of all people of working age that are killed in drone attacks as insurgents to minimise civilian death statistics. Its just lying. The incredible thing is that the vast majority of Americans are incapable of seeing through it.

sfiorare
Guest

despite your bullshit

when terrorists conspire to attack this country, they risk death in doing so

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

If there is proof that shows he was going to or was involved in attacking the country, or that his 16 yr old son (killed days following) was, why is putting that in front of a judge to get a decision a bad idea? What overhead is that exactly?

He was certainly a thorn in their side having seen a number of his videos – but if he was involved in something why not follow a judicial process.

There really is only ONE reason.

Bah, who cares about the rights of US citizens anyway.

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

@sfiorare

tinyurl com/bvkh9mw

sfiorare
Guest

it was put in front of judges, they found him guilty

sfiorare
Guest

you don't know what you're talking about

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

You see, the thing is sfiorare, after a while your approach wears thin.

The evidence has been presented to you quite clearly, originating from very credible sources not just people here making comments.

Therefore there are three conclusions:
1. You refuse to take the blinkers off because you are scared of what you may find
2. You are fully aware and are here for 'other purposes'
3. You are trolling

It is clear you fall into 2 or 3.

Knock yourself out, but don't expect anyone to listen.

sfiorare
Guest

here's the bottom line

ron paul is losing, he won't ever be president

but, he will probably keep clipping you paultards for every penny he can

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

Here's the bottom line – IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It really comes to something when a Briton has to explain the value of liberty to an American.

What _matters_ is that people wake up to their shocking & persistent loss of civil liberties & the horrendous suffering that the US imposes with its foreign policy positions. Waking up they are – many due to Ron Paul.

People are becoming resistant to people like you trying to restrict the terms of debate and prevent rational lines of enquiry.

sfiorare
Guest

the lunatic fringe paultards are what doesn't matter

and i haven't lost any civil liberties over the last 50 years, i'm more free than ever

you realize ron paul is opposed to the civil rights act of 1964, right?

ron paul isn't what he pretends to be

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

Last 10 yrs = large -ve change.

Not the 1st time I've given you examples.
Not the 1st time I've given this example.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have amnesia.

Section 1021 of NDAA.

Look it up – provide substance in a response rather than insult.

If you have the capacity to do so.

Civil rights act – fully aware.

Also aware of his argument why.

Don't agree with it, but fully consistent with a conservative libertarian position.

FactsAreOffensive
Guest

Indefinite detention without trial without due process means government can declare someone a terrorist who is not. It’s too easy to make mistakes or abuse power.

Lakhdar Boumediene, who worked for Red Crescent, was held as a terrorist in Guantanamo for 7.5 years.

He was tortured but refused to admit terrorism. His case went to the Supreme Court who required the government to present evidence that led it to believe that Boumediene was a terrorist.

They didn’t present any.

sfiorare
Guest

your examples are hogwash

you don't know what you're talking about

gregory747
Guest

Shelly Roche, touched on something that I believe the public is largely unaware, is media blackout. The news media, news papers, and internet are driving this election. And Ron Paul is not in the media's best interest, and they black him out. What is going on here is candidate steering.

sfiorare
Guest

you're projecting your own situation

Michel THUNDER
Guest

Ron Paul is the only honest Republican candidate in the presidential race ! the others are "neo-conservatives" or fake Republicans working in the interest of the Zionist banksters of the FED & AIPAC also (for sure: not in the interest U.S. citizens !) just like G.W.Bush in IRAQ!

sfiorare
Guest

what a joke

i told you ron paul would lose

ron paul is just a dishonest scumbag

Gerardo Yaeger
Guest

… i guess we wont restore america anymore 🙁

iluminatiytu
Guest

No, he is too controversial. I like a lot of his ideas. We do not need to be the new Roman Empire and I agree.