Ron Paul Would Not Have WonSubmitted by OctoBox on Sun, 11/11/2012 - 23:01
#1 -- He lost (that's why he wouldn't have won)
#2 -- Most people voted Obama or Romney owing to which one they found most charming, manly, virile, articulate or attractive. There has not been a president who won the office for any other reason (then one or all of those) in a very long time (pre-Kennedy).
#3 -- Ron Paul would not have won because his talking points are way-way-way over people's heads. All living Great Grandparents learned "big gov't" economics and politics growing up (let alone their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren). There has not been a national "small gov't" president (beyond rhetoric) since Taft and Coolidge.
Reagan was a "rhetoric small-gov't" politician -- always big gov't.
#4 -- Less than 10% of the people who vote could articulate (beyond one or two talking points) "why" they'd vote RP over Obama -- Don't worry because they can't remember a lick of what Obama says beyond the 30 sec sound bites.
Just watch interviews when the "average American" talks about why they voted Obama or Romney -- "he's for hope" -- "he's for small businesses (I'm a small business owner)" -- "he helps immigrants"
The savviest of them might say "the economy is better (can't explain why)" and if they are pro-Romney might say "the economy is worse (can't articulate why beyond saying "jobless rate is up").
Voting and Lobbying (AS I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS NOW) is: An Abdication of Consumer-Sovereignty (a circumvention of consumer-rule) and An attempt at Bribing the future voting trend of said elected one.
Abdication -- Bribery
How can you get liberty from that -- You can't answer it (beyond a sound bite) whether you agree with it or not.
We live in an era that is driven by fear (fear of the unknown) and we want assurances that our progeny will carry on (right-seeking / guarantees).
Now you could have a Transition Gov't I've articulated and enumerated all the points and conventions of such a system.
But it must have two absolutes:
1) A 1,000 person voting class (a rotating class of highly qualified voters whose reputations would be tarnished if they picked the wrong team).
2) The Federal and State elected "teams" could only serve one-term and were paid solely based on innovation and savings (better services at lower costs).
Since most DPers wont agree to that type of gov't I have little hope of having anything other than what we have now going forward.
The World Gov't is pushing toward world-hegemony -- all men created equal and thus have an equal share of the pie (less the elitist rulers at the top).