Wait...I thought Paul was unelectable? New polling shows otherwise [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Wait...I thought Paul was unelectable? New polling shows otherwise


Pages : [1] 2 3

G19G20
01-16-2012, 17:46
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/cnn-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-paul-in-november-showdowns/


Washington (CNN) – Mitt Romney is all tied up with President Barack Obama in a likely general election matchup, with the president showing signs of weakness on the economy and Romney seen as out of touch with ordinary Americans, according to a new national survey.

And a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday also indicates that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is also even with Obama in another possible showdown this November. The survey also suggests the Republican advantage on voter enthusiasm is eroding, which could be crucial in a close contest.

More at link

My commentary:
Romney holds a slight edge against Obama but Paul is within the margin of error. The "unelectable" media campaign against Paul is falling apart with every new poll released. Also, the erosion of GOP enthusiasm tells me that the Romney "inevitability" campaign is also hurting the GOP's chances since no one actually likes Romney and therefore is not excited to vote for him. You can witness plenty of that sentiment on this very forum. Paul, on the other hand, brings cross-over voters to his side that Romney can't and this is proven more with each new poll too.

JBnTX
01-16-2012, 18:10
There's just not enough Ron Paul supporters to make a difference.
They could all fart in the same room and no one would even notice.

Ron Paul lacks not only enough supporters and money, but he also lacks the
backing of the "leaders" of the republican party. They won't allow the election
of a man who'll destroy everything they've spent the last 30 years building.

He is un-electable!

G19G20
01-16-2012, 18:57
There's just not enough Ron Paul supporters to make a difference.
They could all fart in the same room and no one would even notice.

Ron Paul lacks not only enough supporters and money, but he also lacks the
backing of the "leaders" of the republican party. They won't allow the election
of a man who'll destroy everything they've spent the last 30 years building.

He is un-electable!

Have you been paying any attention to the contests so far and the polling data? He's done better at the polls than the "electable" candidates and gets more money than they do too. You're making stuff up dude.

Now if you're suggesting that the only basis of the unelectable mantra is simply because the GOP elite don't want him then that's a different issue entirely and isn't based on electability but rather acceptability to the elite. The polling data suggests that the People think he is electable.

barbedwiresmile
01-16-2012, 19:08
Those who don't want Paul elected: employees of IRS, ATF, EPA, DEA, NEA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DofE, DofA, DofE,,, list goes on. I wonder why?

Ruble Noon
01-16-2012, 20:26
Those who don't want Paul elected: employees of IRS, ATF, EPA, DEA, NEA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DofE, DofA, DofE,,, list goes on. I wonder why?

You know, this might be a good reason to back Perry. The way he keeps mixing up the agencies he wants to eliminate he might keep the teat suckers off guard long enough for him to get elected then they could post the agencies on the wall and have him throw darts to determine which ones get cut.

geo57
01-16-2012, 21:59
Have you been paying any attention to the contests so far and the polling data? He's done better at the polls than the "electable" candidates and gets more money than they do too. You're making stuff up dude.

Now if you're suggesting that the only basis of the unelectable mantra is simply because the GOP elite don't want him then that's a different issue entirely and isn't based on electability but rather acceptability to the elite. The polling data suggests that the People think he is electable.

RealClear still had Paul @ 13% nationally on Monday. Are they making that up too ?

geo57
01-16-2012, 22:01
Those who don't want Paul elected: employees of IRS, ATF, EPA, DEA, NEA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DofE, DofA, DofE,,, list goes on. I wonder why?


... and according to RealClear 87% of all GOP voters as of Monday.

Feanor
01-16-2012, 22:13
... and according to RealClear 87% of all GOP voters as of Monday.

Paul is not a republican, anymore than is Romney, and the republican base knows it.

frank4570
01-16-2012, 22:29
Paul is not a republican, anymore than is Romney, and the republican base knows it.

But is there anybody who is as republican as you? You seem to be kind of like the jesus of republicans.

Stubudd
01-16-2012, 22:29
... and according to RealClear 87% of all GOP voters as of Monday.

You're talking about a different poll. Yours is GOP voters' preference among the nominees. The OP is a national 1 on 1 poll, assuming romney or paul got the nomination. The OP's poll is saying Paul does almost as well as Romney in a hypothetical 1 on 1 vs Obama, nationally- among all voters.

And it doesn't mean 87% don't want Paul elected, it means 87% have another choice they'd rather have as the nominee right now. Paul is the first choice of 13% of GoP voters nationally, according to your poll.

beforeobamabans
01-17-2012, 04:45
Paul is not a republican

You know, you are proving that true...

RP wants dramatically smaller government; Republicans want big government.
RP wants constitutional governance; Republicans want crony capitalism.
RP wants defense to mean just that; Republicans want expansionist, imperialistic militarism with unlimited funding.

Goaltender66
01-17-2012, 06:48
Interviews with 1,021 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC International on January 11-12, 2012. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. The sample also includes 928
interviews among registered voters (plus or minus 3 percentage points).

BASED ON 1,021 ALL AMERICANS -- (SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 3% PTS.); 928 REGISTERED VOTERS -- (SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 3% PTS.); 433 REGISTERED DEMOCRATS -- (SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5% PTS.); 421 REGISTERED REPUBLICANS -- (SAMPLING ERROR: +/-5% PTS.)

Those are your two major problems with the poll. They didn't poll likely voters. The sample is 91% registered voters and 9% who are not even registered. If you aren't sampling likely voters you will be skewing a poll that is supposed to forecast an election result.

Plus the CNN poll is oversampling Democrats, unless the outfit would like to explain how in 2012 with Obama's job approval ratings, and especially in the wake of the 2010 midterms, they believe that Democrat voters will still outnumber an energized Republican base? Their own poll shows a 5 point enthusiasm gap in Extremely or Very, for crying out loud.

Oh, but those unregistereds will register just to vote for Ron Paul? Well....

Next thing...question 22/23, among Registereds Ron Paul is 46% to Obama's 48%. 4% wouldn't vote for either of them. Look at the trends, especially under the "neither" and "other" options. Now look at "all respondents." If you're counting on unregistereds to register just to vote Paul then you'll be disappointed. Obama wins that matchup 50% to 45% (in other words, Paul loses a full point when all adults are counted).

Romney is marginally better in this poll, with a 1 point advantage over Obama (48 - 47) and is 2 points away from Obama with all respondents (47 - 49), which tells me Romney's base is probably more stable than Paul's, even with this shoddy sample.

Takeaway...this poll doesn't make a persuasive case about Paul's "electability."

barbedwiresmile
01-17-2012, 07:10
Goalie - holy cow. Where've you been?

geo57
01-17-2012, 07:14
You're talking about a different poll. Yours is GOP voters' preference among the nominees. The OP is a national 1 on 1 poll, assuming romney or paul got the nomination. The OP's poll is saying Paul does almost as well as Romney in a hypothetical 1 on 1 vs Obama, nationally- among all voters.

And it doesn't mean 87% don't want Paul elected, it means 87% have another choice they'd rather have as the nominee right now. Paul is the first choice of 13% of GoP voters nationally, according to your poll.

That post in which you quote me was in response to barbedwiresmile's post that suggested those fed depts. listed were the only people that don't want Paul. I was not responding to the OP there.

As far as the 87 % who do not want him / not right now you are splitting hairs. From what candidate do you honestly see him taking votes away from ? And the poll , RealClear , is not mine.

fgutie35
01-17-2012, 07:28
You know, when President Obama was shoving the stimulus package down our throats, all the conservatives were b**ching and whining. Now that the GOP is shoving Rommey down our throat, I don't see an uproar. Why? and why is the Tea Party so silence right now? WAKE UP PEOPLE! Now, I'm not a Paul supporter, but I just did not like the way the media (FOX) set him up to look bad in a deliverate way, and also tried to warn the other candidates from the begining not to touch their "golden boy" Rommney on the Bain issue. I felt sick to my stomach to realize that NO media is looking up for US anymore. Not even O'Reilly. The media is suppose to be the "Fourth" Branch of power that should keep the other "Three" in-check, making sure they are doing their job. Now all that is gone, and we are left without a voice. without true journalism, this country is up for grabs for the highest bitter.:steamed:

frank4570
01-17-2012, 07:41
My memory isn't real good on this. But I read a while back about a program that was started in the 70s by either the FBI or the CIA or both. They started looking for newspaper reporters and editors who could be put on the payroll, just in case. And bear in mind that those people who were corrupted back then have been climbing the ranks since then.
And I am positive the program has been expanded. And I'm sure corporations with REAL money have come to understand the value of being able to shape the news as well. Often corporations work closely with govt and military, with employees moving back and forth from one job to the next higher job.
Just like when Obama assigned to the FDA a former Monsanto lobbyist. That person can now use the .gov to help benefit Monsanto, including the media assets. With money from both sides. For the greater good of course.:upeyes:


You know, when President Obama was shoving the stimulus package down our throats, all the conservatives were b**ching and whining. Now that the GOP is shoving Rommey down our throat, I don't see an uproar. Why? and why is the Tea Party so silence right now? WAKE UP PEOPLE! Now, I'm not a Paul supporter, but I just did not like the way the media (FOX) set him up to look bad in a deliverate way, and also tried to warn the other candidates from the begining not to touch their "golden boy" Rommney on the Bain issue. I felt sick to my stomach to realize that NO media is looking up for US anymore. Not even O'Reilly. The media is suppose to be the "Fourth" Branch of power that should keep the other "Three" in-check, making sure they are doing their job. Now all that is gone, and we are left without a voice. without true journalism, this country is up for grabs for the highest bitter.:steamed:

JBnTX
01-17-2012, 07:45
Ron Paul destroyed any advances he's made in the polls with his moronic responses in the South Carolina debate.

He sounded like a cranky old kook with an axe to grind against Washington DC.

Goaltender66
01-17-2012, 08:00
Goalie - holy cow. Where've you been?

I'm on a sabbatical from my sabbatical. How've you been?

cowboy1964
01-17-2012, 11:26
Ron Paul equated Bin Laden with a theoretical Chinese dissident. That's not only stupid, it's offensive.

22rtf2
01-17-2012, 11:39
Those who don't want Paul elected: employees of IRS, ATF, EPA, DEA, NEA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DofE, DofA, DofE,,, list goes on. I wonder why?

You forgot the 100 pound overweight guys with "Official Terrorist Hunting Permit" sticker on their car. Or more likely crappy pickup truck.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

aspartz
01-17-2012, 11:40
Ron Paul lacks not only enough supporters and money, but he also lacks the
backing of the "leaders" of the republican party. They won't allow the election
of a man who'll fix everything they've spent the last 30 years destroying.

He is un-electable!

I fixed it for you.

ARS

barbedwiresmile
01-17-2012, 11:43
I'm on a sabbatical from my sabbatical. How've you been?

It's been entertaining around here.

barbedwiresmile
01-17-2012, 11:45
He sounded like a cranky old kook with an axe to grind against Washington DC.

Whyever would one have an axe to grind against Washington D.C.?

G29Reload
01-17-2012, 12:03
I have tried my damnedest to like this guy and every time I think I'm on the cusp of some epiphany about him,he goes and says something untenable and stupid regarding foreign policy.

The "we deserved 9/11" is straight out of bin Laden's playbook.

The "stop bombing other countries and they'll leave us alone" crap is beyond naive.

The boos in the audience in SC last night were telling. The right thing to do with our enemies is KILL THEM. Enough with apologizing to filthy, degenerate foreigners. Stop your terrorism, searching for nukes to expand your dogmatic hegemony and extermination of anything not radical mooseslime and we'll stop killing you and not before.

If we would stop trying to fight wars in stupid, politically correct ways they wouldnt take nearly as long, and they'd be a lot more effective. After WWII, we had put the fear of God in people into all but a few of our enemies. We need to get back to that.

22rtf2
01-17-2012, 13:13
I have tried my damnedest to like this guy and every time I think I'm on the cusp of some epiphany about him,he goes and says something untenable and stupid regarding foreign policy.

The "we deserved 9/11" is straight out of bin Laden's playbook.

The "stop bombing other countries and they'll leave us alone" crap is beyond naive.

The boos in the audience in SC last night were telling. The right thing to do with our enemies is KILL THEM. Enough with apologizing to filthy, degenerate foreigners. Stop your terrorism, searching for nukes to expand your dogmatic hegemony and extermination of anything not radical mooseslime and we'll stop killing you and not before.

If we would stop trying to fight wars in stupid, politically correct ways they wouldnt take nearly as long, and they'd be a lot more effective. After WWII, we had put the fear of God in people into all but a few of our enemies. We need to get back to that.

So the government comes up with mandated health care and thats overstepping?

Taxes are too high? That's the government.

Draconian gun laws? Yep, government.

Sticking their nose in other country's business half way around the world? The Uss New Jersey bombing residential housing in Beirut?

NO, IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT PEOPLE HATE US AND TO SAY SO IS TO BE PUT IN THE SAME CAMP AS BIN LADEN. WE CAN KILL WHOEVER THE **** WE WANT AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU'RE ON THE SIDE OF THE TERRORISTS!!

And if they hate us it's because they are on a crusade, or they hate our freedoms.

A little bit of info: you kill my family and they won't be able to identify your body. Well maybe by the knuckle dragging marks.

I blame the public schools.

DOC44
01-17-2012, 13:24
If.... and I said IF Paul dropped out, who would his supporters vote for in the primary.... Yeah, I know he is not going to BUT IF HE DID?

Doc44

barbedwiresmile
01-17-2012, 13:36
If.... and I said IF Paul dropped out, who would his supporters vote for in the primary.... Yeah, I know he is not going to BUT IF HE DID?

Doc44

My sense of it is that very few will vote for the GOP nominee. One subset will likely not vote, another will likely vote for the Libertarian candidate, and another will likely write-in RP.

G29Reload
01-17-2012, 13:45
So the government comes up with mandated health care and thats overstepping?

Yes, that's overstepping.


Taxes are too high? That's the government.

Correct.


Draconian gun laws? Yep, government.

Yes.


Sticking their nose in other country's business half way around the world? The Uss New Jersey bombing residential housing in Beirut?

The USS NJ was not destroying residential housing. It was retaliating against the thugs that murdered almost 300 US Marines who were there on a peacekeeping mission. This "blame the victim" mentality of you Bots is beyond the pale, and frankly cowardly and unamerican.




NO, IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT PEOPLE HATE US AND TO SAY SO IS TO BE PUT IN THE SAME CAMP AS BIN LADEN. WE CAN KILL WHOEVER THE **** WE WANT AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU'RE ON THE SIDE OF THE TERRORISTS!!

Just distort things to support your story, as usual.

We don't kill "whoever we want" we kill scumbags that try to kill us. The usual intellectual dishonesty, cart before the horse.

DOC44
01-17-2012, 13:50
My sense of it is that very few will vote for the GOP nominee. One subset will likely not vote, another will likely vote for the Libertarian candidate, and another will likely write-in RP.

So if Paul's supporters probably will not support any other GOP candidate why is he allowed to run in the GOP primary and be a distracting Uncle Fred that you keep in the basement when company comes over. If he is a Libertarian then he should run as a Libertarian or not at all. I am starting to think that his most avid supporter are rebellous yoots just using him as a shoe horn to get into the public eye and ear.

Doc44

22rtf2
01-17-2012, 13:51
The USS NJ was not destroying residential housing. It was retaliating against the thugs that murdered almost 300 US Marines who were there on a peacekeeping mission. This "blame the victim" mentality of you Bots is beyond the pale, and frankly cowardly and unamerican.




Just distort things to support your story, as usual.

We don't kill "whoever we want" we kill scumbags that try to kill us. The usual intellectual dishonesty, cart before the horse.

Bot? Who am I a bot for? I'm not voting for any of these pathetic wastes of life. I do fine on my own, I don't need a king to rule over me.

And why were those Marines in Beirut in the first place? You don't send killing machines on a peace keeping mission. You get involved in somebody elses Civil War and you tend to take casualties. And those Marines suffered for something that you seem to support.

I believe Reagan called that the biggest mistake of his presidency. Why? He didn't understand "Blowback". Did you miss that last part?

Goaltender66
01-17-2012, 13:59
So if Paul's supporters probably will not support any other GOP candidate why is he allowed to run in the GOP primary and be a distracting Uncle Fred that you keep in the basement when company comes over. If he is a Libertarian then he should run as a Libertarian or not at all. I am starting to think that his most avid supporter are rebellous yoots just using him as a shoe horn to get into the public eye and ear.

Doc44

He already quit the GOP once. No one noticed.

I'm all in favor of closed non-caucus primaries just to put an end to shenanigans.

barbedwiresmile
01-17-2012, 14:02
So if Paul's supporters probably will not support any other GOP candidate why is he allowed to run in the GOP primary and be a distracting Uncle Fred that you keep in the basement when company comes over. If he is a Libertarian then he should run as a Libertarian or not at all. I am starting to think that his most avid supporter are rebellous yoots just using him as a shoe horn to get into the public eye and ear.

Doc44

Easy, Doc. I was simply answering your previous questions. I imagine the reason he is "allowed" to run as a GOP candidate is that he is a sitting GOP Congressman. I remind you, however, that I have never pretended RP was anything but a libertarian and bears nothing in common with today's GOP. :cheers:

Glock30Eric
01-17-2012, 14:19
If.... and I said IF Paul dropped out, who would his supporters vote for in the primary.... Yeah, I know he is not going to BUT IF HE DID?

Doc44

If and if.... Mitt, Newt, Perry, Rick have dropped out. Ron Paul is the only candidate for the Republican party and who will you vote for?

DOC44
01-17-2012, 14:26
If and if.... Mitt, Newt, Perry, Rick have dropped out. Ron Paul is the only candidate for the Republican party and who will you vote for?

Which is more dangerous for the US; four years of lame duck obama or four years of Paul. Would probably go with Paul because of supreme court appointments and commie czars.

Doc44

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2012, 15:25
Which is more dangerous for the US; four years of lame duck obama or four years of Paul. Would probably go with Paul because of supreme court appointments and commie czars.

Doc44

I'd go for Paul over Barry without reservation. All of the Republican candidates are miles better than Barry, if you actually think about it.

Goaltender66
01-17-2012, 15:53
I'd go for Paul over Barry without reservation. All of the Republican candidates are miles better than Barry, if you actually think about it.

You're more generous than I, Doc. I'd vote for the guy who was OK with sending the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden in the head.

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2012, 16:20
You're more generous than I, Doc. I'd vote for the guy who was OK with sending the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden in the head.

Barry was a peacenik too, before he got THE BRIEF.

When you find out what is really going on, you're kind of stuck at that point. It is a constitutional responsibility.

Ron comes in third to last in the pack for me.

DOC44
01-17-2012, 19:43
obama had no idea what was going on unitl the safety said, "click".

Doc44

Feanor
01-17-2012, 22:19
But is there anybody who is as republican as you? You seem to be kind of like the jesus of republicans.

:rollingeyes:

RyanBDawg
01-17-2012, 22:21
Have you been paying any attention to the contests so far and the polling data? He's done better at the polls than the "electable" candidates and gets more money than they do too. You're making stuff up dude.

Now if you're suggesting that the only basis of the unelectable mantra is simply because the GOP elite don't want him then that's a different issue entirely and isn't based on electability but rather acceptability to the elite. The polling data suggests that the People think he is electable.

JB never listens to anything. He lives in his own reality as evidenced by every single on of his posts..

Gundude
01-18-2012, 01:49
The "we deserved 9/11" is straight out of bin Laden's playbook.In the playbook, is that before or after the play where we invade a country where bin Laden isn't, invade another country where he never was, give billions of dollars to the country where he is, and then publicly state that we really don't care where he is anymore, while continuing to kill civilians in those other countries and apologizing for killing civilians in those countries at the same time?

The only politician who seems to have done something not out of bin Laden's playbook is Obama.

Cavalry Doc
01-18-2012, 05:44
But is there anybody who is as republican as you? You seem to be kind of like the jesus of republicans.

But he's right and Ron Paul has said so. The last time he went with his heart and became a libertarian, caused him to have a long break in federal paychecks.

He's a republican because that is the only chance he has of being elected to anything.

G19G20
01-20-2012, 14:32
So if Paul's supporters probably will not support any other GOP candidate why is he allowed to run in the GOP primary and be a distracting Uncle Fred that you keep in the basement when company comes over.

Because we only want conservatives in the WH, not proven crooks and flip flopping RINOs. Rah-rah go team! Sorry that doesn't work for most of Paul's core supporters.


If he is a Libertarian then he should run as a Libertarian or not at all.

You should ask Ronald Reagan.
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." - Reagan Reason Magazine 1975'

Reagan had it right. The bastardized "conservatism" that you espouse is actually mostly liberal policies wrapped up in the flag, carrying a cross.


I am starting to think that his most avid supporter are rebellous yoots just using him as a shoe horn to get into the public eye and ear.

Doc44

Sure there's some of that but it's because the media sure isn't helping nor playing fair when it comes to candidates and their coverage. What's funny though is when I read thoughts of people like you that call yourself conservative but then your thoughts ooze collectivism and groupthink, the hallmarks of liberal thinking. See my comment about liberal policies above. Yep, there is a very rebellious streak in the core supporter group. Would the Founders have a problem with that?

Cavalry Doc
01-20-2012, 14:57
Some facts.


THE FACTS

Paul has little room to criticize politicians for changing their party affiliations. He campaigned for president as a Libertarian in 1988, after running for office seven times as a Republican and serving as a GOP member of the U.S. House for more than six years at that point.

So why didn’t he vie for the Republican nomination? Because he’d renounced the party — along with Reagan’s presidential policies — a few years earlier, resigning from the GOP and forgoing a bid for reelection to Congress.

Paul supported Reagan once in 1976, when the former California governor ran against Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination. But he appears to have fallen out of love with the party’s hero during year one of his administration.



Reagan may have liked Paul, but Paul did not like Reagan.

Paul continued disparaging Reagan throughout the 1988 nominating process, telling the L.A. Times at one point that he wanted to “totally disassociate” himself with the two-term president.


So, if you really liked Reagan, maybe you should pass on Paul.

Libertarianism is about 1/3 liberal, and 2/3 conservative, but it is not conservative.

aspartz
01-20-2012, 15:38
. If he is a Libertarian then he should run as a Libertarian or not at all. I am starting to think that his most avid supporter are rebellous yoots just using him as a shoe horn to get into the public eye and ear.

Doc44
The Perry, Bachmann and Santorum should be running under the Constitution party banner. That is the REAL party of God.

ARS

Javelin
01-20-2012, 15:52
The Republican party has become infested with progressives and moderates. They left the conservatives that made the party so it is not anyone's fault but these 'posers' that are trying to be elected under the Republican stamp. I would not consider it amazing that many of us are not wanting to follow along blindly just because they put an elephant logo behind their name. And for good reason - we have been betrayed too many times by too many of these 'poser Republicans'.

Sorry to high-jack this thread but it's true. The current Republican candidates are garbage and Ron Paul is the only one up there with any conservative values - which is so unfortunate I am not sure how to put it into words.

G19G20
01-20-2012, 18:57
Assuming it's obvious to all that the quoted post is irrevelent to the content I posted about Reagan's quote about libertarianism, Ill respond.

Some facts.

Do you have some problem with posting links to your sources? I see you quote a lot of things without pointing out where it comes from.

Paul campaigned for Reagan and was one of only 4 Congressman to endorse Reagan.


Reagan may have liked Paul, but Paul did not like Reagan.

He did not like Reagan's policies when Reagan proceeded to jack up the debt, involve the country in foreign affairs of other nations, and other policies that Reagan campaigned against.


So, if you really liked Reagan, maybe you should pass on Paul.

Or maybe you can recognize that Reagan wasn't as good as a president as the history books like to paint him. Reagan abandoned conservative principles many times during his terms and if there's one thing we know about Paul it's that he sticks to his principles no matter what.

Besides, you don't usually get invited to fly on Marine One with the President when you're not very friendly with him.
Ron Paul Talks About His Friendship with President Ronald Reagan... - YouTube



Libertarianism is about 1/3 liberal, and 2/3 conservative, but it is not conservative.

So you call Reagan a liar and that's supposed to be your argument? Today's conservatism is 95% liberal and 5% conservative. Big government? Check. Big spending? Check. Big interventionist foreign policy? Check. Welfare state? Check. The only thing the right can lay claim to is religion (aka social issues) and that's why the party is shrinking. But heck, even those principles go out the window as long as the nominee might beat that evil Democrat, who happens to have most of the same policies as the guy you're cheering for. (see Gingrich, Newt poll numbers in SC for examples of abandoning even the social issues)

G29Reload
01-20-2012, 19:30
You're more generous than I, Doc. I'd vote for the guy who was OK with sending the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden in the head.


Yeah, that was a real hard call. :upeyes:

Who WOULDN'T have done that?

Not saying much.

G29Reload
01-20-2012, 19:32
The only politician who seems to have done something not out of bin Laden's playbook is Obama.

And GWB, who's gitmo policies gave BHO the info to make the SEAL operation possible. And without which it wouldnt have happened.

TrybalRage
01-20-2012, 20:42
You're more generous than I, Doc. I'd vote for the guy who was OK with sending the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden in the head.

From the get-go Paul advocated a small tactical group taking Bin Laden out... kind of like the one that got him.

:whistling:

Goaltender66
01-20-2012, 21:15
From the get-go Paul advocated a small tactical group taking Bin Laden out... kind of like the one that got him.

:whistling:
Hardly. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/why-ron-paul-would-not-have-ordered-osama-bin-laden-killing/)

Rep. Ron Paul took an interesting position for a likely presidential candidate Tuesday – he explained to a Iowa radio station why he would not have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.
The answer seemed to catch Iowa radio host Simon Conway off guard; he asked Paul to repeat it.

Paul was unequivocal: “No, not the way it took place,” Paul said of the killing of bin Laden.

Why?

“It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law, international law – what if he’d been in a hotel in London?" Paul asked. "We wanted to keep it secret. Would we have sent the helicopters into London? Because they were afraid the information would get out. No you don’t want to do that.”

And since G29Reload asks who wouldn't have made the call, well, Ron Paul wouldn't.

Atlas
01-21-2012, 00:04
.....

G19G20
01-21-2012, 03:14
Hardly. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/why-ron-paul-would-not-have-ordered-osama-bin-laden-killing/)



And since G29Reload asks who wouldn't have made the call, well, Ron Paul wouldn't.

Context friend, context. Paul submitted a bill issuing Marque and Reprisal against OBL and Al Qaeda responsible for 9/11. What he didn't authorize was 10 years of country after country being invaded to find OBL and he end up not in any of the countries we lost thousands of troops and trillions of dollars in. The quote above is true but taken in context of the rest of the story it makes perfect sense.

We had other AQ terrorists turned over to us by working with the Pakistani government. The same gov't we give billions of dollars a year to. This raid was off the Pakistani's radar and ended up with the injuries to Seals, the loss of a stealth helicopter (now in China's hands...great) and the death of OBL so no intelligence could be obtained. Approaching Pakistan would have been within international law and maintained Pakistan's sovereignty, while saving our helicopter and possibly getting intel from OBL himself.

Which plan sounds better to you? If just the death of OBL and all other consequences be damned is your position then you should think bigger. Ron Paul would have made a different call and that call would have saved us embarrassment, time, money and property. And we still would have had OBL.

1200feather
01-21-2012, 05:07
I think it's obvious that in some respects Paul is the only true conservative running, but I don't think he is going to do very well in SC.

Goaltender66
01-21-2012, 06:19
Context friend, context. Paul submitted a bill issuing Marque and Reprisal against OBL and Al Qaeda responsible for 9/11. What he didn't authorize was 10 years of country after country being invaded to find OBL and he end up not in any of the countries we lost thousands of troops and trillions of dollars in. The quote above is true but taken in context of the rest of the story it makes perfect sense.

We had other AQ terrorists turned over to us by working with the Pakistani government. The same gov't we give billions of dollars a year to. This raid was off the Pakistani's radar and ended up with the injuries to Seals, the loss of a stealth helicopter (now in China's hands...great) and the death of OBL so no intelligence could be obtained. Approaching Pakistan would have been within international law and maintained Pakistan's sovereignty, while saving our helicopter and possibly getting intel from OBL himself.

Which plan sounds better to you? If just the death of OBL and all other consequences be damned is your position then you should think bigger. Ron Paul would have made a different call and that call would have saved us embarrassment, time, money and property. And we still would have had OBL.
All a very long winded way of admitting that I was correct and Paul wouldn't have sent the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden. Moreover, Paul's reasoning is faulty, especially as expressed in his interview and his SC debate statements on the subject. He's incoherent at best and criminally negligent at worst.

There is no context that can reverse the very plain meaning of his statements on the subject.

barbedwiresmile
01-21-2012, 07:03
I think it's obvious that in some respects Paul is the only true conservative running, but I don't think he is going to do very well in SC.

Or in GTPI, for that matter. And for the same unfortunate reasons.

RC-RAMIE
01-21-2012, 08:23
All a very long winded way of admitting that I was correct and Paul wouldn't have sent the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden. Moreover, Paul's reasoning is faulty, especially as expressed in his interview and his SC debate statements on the subject. He's incoherent at best and criminally negligent at worst.

There is no context that can reverse the very plain meaning of his statements on the subject.

Ron Paul wouldn't have violated Pakistan's sovereignty just as he would expect other nations not to violate ours.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2012, 09:00
Assuming it's obvious to all that the quoted post is irrevelent to the content I posted about Reagan's quote about libertarianism, Ill respond.



Do you have some problem with posting links to your sources? I see you quote a lot of things without pointing out where it comes from.

Paul campaigned for Reagan and was one of only 4 Congressman to endorse Reagan.



He did not like Reagan's policies when Reagan proceeded to jack up the debt, involve the country in foreign affairs of other nations, and other policies that Reagan campaigned against.



Or maybe you can recognize that Reagan wasn't as good as a president as the history books like to paint him. Reagan abandoned conservative principles many times during his terms and if there's one thing we know about Paul it's that he sticks to his principles no matter what.

Besides, you don't usually get invited to fly on Marine One with the President when you're not very friendly with him.
Ron Paul Talks About His Friendship with President Ronald Reagan... - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZRLCn50TFE)




So you call Reagan a liar and that's supposed to be your argument? Today's conservatism is 95% liberal and 5% conservative. Big government? Check. Big spending? Check. Big interventionist foreign policy? Check. Welfare state? Check. The only thing the right can lay claim to is religion (aka social issues) and that's why the party is shrinking. But heck, even those principles go out the window as long as the nominee might beat that evil Democrat, who happens to have most of the same policies as the guy you're cheering for. (see Gingrich, Newt poll numbers in SC for examples of abandoning even the social issues)

Is your google broken? I can help you with your google-Fu

LINK (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Fact+check+Ron+Paul+stood+with+Reagan.)

There ya go grasshopper.

If you liked Reagan in office, Ron Paul is probably not your guy. Even though he tried to take a ride on his coat tails. Ron paul left the party, made a third party bid for president, and came back when it was convenient to do so, so he could get some more government paychecks, and do some favors for his political supporters. Yes, even Reagan made some mistakes, Ron paul was one of them.

Did Reagan endorse Ron Paul for president when he ran? Nope. That should tell you something.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2012, 09:06
From the get-go Paul advocated a small tactical group taking Bin Laden out... kind of like the one that got him.

:whistling:

Paul has heavily criticized that operation. It's not his style at all.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-denies-saying-that-he-would-not-have-ordered-bin-ladens-killing/

Hard to give the guy credit for something he quite clearly stated he would not do, huh?

Goaltender66
01-21-2012, 18:18
Ron Paul wouldn't have violated Pakistan's sovereignty just as he would expect other nations not to violate ours.

So again, another confirmation that Ron Paul would not have agreed to go after Bin Laden. That decision has all kinds of ramifications, well beyond tha naive golden rule garbage he's trying to sell.

How is your statement at all a rebuttal of what I said? It isn't. Therefore, if it comes down to Paul v. Obama I'm voting for the guy who didn't get the vapors when presented with a chance to put a bullet in Bin Laden's head.

G29Reload
01-21-2012, 18:22
Latest poll confirms R Paul unelectable.

4th place in SC. Really an exercise at this point. all downhill from here for him.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2012, 18:24
Latest poll confirms R Paul unelectable.

4th place in SC. Really an exercise at this point. all downhill from here for him.

Did you notice that he did worse in the counties that had large military communities than he did state wide? Odd? :rofl:

Goaltender66
01-21-2012, 18:30
Latest poll confirms R Paul unelectable.

4th place in SC. Really an exercise at this point. all downhill from here for him.

Hey, he's beating Perry and Huntsman!!!!111!!! /ronulan


Yeah, fourth place in a four man field in an open primary.

RyanBDawg
01-21-2012, 19:25
Hey, he's beating Perry and Huntsman!!!!111!!! /ronulan


Yeah, fourth place in a four man field in an open primary.

Pretty good for someone who never really had any plans to contest South Carolina on a scale such as Newt or Romney..


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

geo57
01-21-2012, 20:47
Pretty good for someone who never really had any plans to contest South Carolina on a scale such as Newt or Romney..


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine



How much worse can a person do than finish in last place ?

RyanBDawg
01-21-2012, 20:50
How much worse can a person do than finish in last place ?

Finish behind someone who has dropped out of the race. Happened in 04 and 08.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

geo57
01-21-2012, 21:06
Finish behind someone who has dropped out of the race. Happened in 04 and 08.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Wouldn't that be just like the owner of a racehorse taking pride in finishing dead last by 20 lengths by justifying his pride that his horse beat the 3 horses that were scratched in the paddock ?

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2012, 21:56
Pretty good for someone who never really had any plans to contest South Carolina on a scale such as Newt or Romney..


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

How did he do with his biggest push, in a state with his best forum, the caucus?

http://republicanredefined.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Iowa-Caucus-Results2-500x327.jpg


Third place, without any delegates won either. At least he won some counties there.


Lets see how he does in Florida, where a lot of people are closer to him in age.

G19G20
01-31-2012, 09:42
More recent USA Today polling confirming the previous polling. Newt and Rick lose badly to Obama. Paul and Romney both poll even (within margin of error) with Obama.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/290311/20120131/ron-paul-2012-romney-beat-obama-polls.htm


Latest poll confirms R Paul unelectable.

4th place in SC. Really an exercise at this point. all downhill from here for him.

All downhill for the GOP you mean.

Just because many Republicans continue to vote for candidates that will LOSE to Obama doesn't mean Paul isn't electable. It means there's a lot of GOP voters that don't pay attention to what matters, like how the rest of the country feels about the candidates. Everyone cries about how beating Obama is all that matters, then those same people go vote for Newt who polls horribly against Obama and would get slaughtered on election day. Go figure. Wake up folks. It's time to pick Romney or Paul and send Newt and Rick packing. Voting for either of those guys in the primaries and caucuses is a wasted vote.

Eurodriver
01-31-2012, 09:45
Its kind of funny seeing the Texans support someone who is nothing like what Texas is all about.

I think these same Texans would absolutely hate Sam Houston and Stephen Austin.

Goaltender66
01-31-2012, 09:47
More recent USA Today polling confirming the previous polling. Newt and Rick lose badly to Obama. Paul and Romney both poll even (within margin of error) with Obama.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/290311/20120131/ron-paul-2012-romney-beat-obama-polls.htm

Just because many Republicans continue to vote for candidates that will LOSE to Obama doesn't mean Paul isn't electable. It means there's a lot of GOP voters that don't pay attention to what matters, like how the rest of the country feels about the candidates. Everyone cries about how beating Obama is all that matters, then those same people go vote for a guy like Newt that polls horribly against Obama and would get slaughtered on election day. Go figure. Wake up folks. It's time to pick Romney or Paul and send Newt and Rick packing.

Again, it's polling registereds, not likelies, and doesn't provide a party breakdown (for all you know they are oversampling Dems).

http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/152345/Swing_State_Pt1_120130.pdf

Details matter.

geo57
01-31-2012, 10:41
Its kind of funny seeing the Texans support someone who is nothing like what Texas is all about.

I think these same Texans would absolutely hate Sam Houston and Stephen Austin.

I guess you'll have to laugh all you want to. IIRC, 92 % of GOP voters did not favor Paul in the 08 Texas primary.

Fred Hansen
02-01-2012, 01:58
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.ch/thumb/e/e4/Paulblimp.jpg/180px-Paulblimp.jpg

Cavalry Doc
02-01-2012, 04:42
Its kind of funny seeing the Texans support someone who is nothing like what Texas is all about.

I think these same Texans would absolutely hate Sam Houston and Stephen Austin.

Actually, in some areas, liberals fit right in. In Austin, you'll see entire herds of free range hemp rope sandal wearing' hippies.

I don't live near any cities. Most people around where I live aren't real happy about the group this year. But just about everyone is sure Barry should find another job.

Nice troll attempt though. I'd give it a three. The" if you don't love Ron Paul you hate Sam Houston " was a bit too obvious. Ron may live near Houston, but he's no Sam Houston.

rgregoryb
02-01-2012, 07:07
at least he's consistent , last in Fl

sbhaven
02-01-2012, 07:56
Paul's plan is to try and collect delegates in the smaller states that award them based on a proportional system rather than a winner take all states like Florida. Maine will be his next challenge. Time will tell if this plan is successful or if he'll end up like he did in 2008.

G19G20
02-07-2012, 15:25
More interesting polling data here. Ron Paul is now polling second in the GOP according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSTRE81514720120207


Romney was backed by 29 percent of Republican voters in the telephone poll conducted February 2-6, down from 30 percent in a survey in early January.

The former Massachusetts governor's three rivals in the race to oppose Democratic President Barack Obama in November were in a virtual tie for second, the poll showed. The gaps between the three were within the poll's margin of error.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul's support grew by 5 percentage points to 21 percent, moving him into second place and ahead of former House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich, whose support slipped to 19 percent from 20 percent.

Odd how Paul's actual primary and caucus results always fall well short of the numbers he polls, while Romney and others outperform. Well actually it's not odd. There's been serious vote fraud against Paul starting with Iowa and still ongoing.

Goaltender66
02-07-2012, 15:41
Odd how Paul's actual primary and caucus results always fall well short of the numbers he polls, while Romney and others outperform. Well actually it's not odd. There's been serious vote fraud against Paul starting with Iowa and still ongoing.
Oh, brother. Only in Ronulan land would someone look at a poll of 405 registereds identifying as Republican (theoretically...part of the sample isn't even registered...) with a 4.9 MoE and use it as a springboard to allege voter fraud.

At this point you're going out of your way to ignore the obvious point...shoddy samples make for shoddy polls. It couldn't be the fact that registereds don't vote the same as likelies do. No, that's too simple. It must be a far-reaching conspiracy engulfing the apparatuses of multiple state election boards.

But hey, keep plucking that chicken, eh?

G19G20
02-07-2012, 18:38
Oh, brother. Only in Ronulan land would someone look at a poll of 405 registereds identifying as Republican (theoretically...part of the sample isn't even registered...) with a 4.9 MoE and use it as a springboard to allege voter fraud.

At this point you're going out of your way to ignore the obvious point...shoddy samples make for shoddy polls. It couldn't be the fact that registereds don't vote the same as likelies do. No, that's too simple. It must be a far-reaching conspiracy engulfing the apparatuses of multiple state election boards.

But hey, keep plucking that chicken, eh?

Yeah yeah we get it. You cry about "sample" regardless of who does the polling or what the sample actually is, as long as the poll shows Paul finishing above the other candidates. I'll keep posting them so you can keep crying about the "sample" over and over, deal?

As for the technical details of the poll, Paul's 2nd place finish is based solely on identified Republican voters, not the Dems and Independents also included in the total polling sample. The Dems and Indys are included to cover Obama's approval ratings and other parts of the overall poll contents.

Paul's plan is to try and collect delegates in the smaller states that award them based on a proportional system rather than a winner take all states like Florida. Maine will be his next challenge. Time will tell if this plan is successful or if he'll end up like he did in 2008.

Oops I missed this post before. This is a big part of the gameplan, yes. Winning delegates is what actually matters, not most of these beauty contests and I can tell you for a fact that if the GOP thinks it's hard keeping Paul's polling down, they're going to have a hell of a time running in circles trying to weed out the hordes of Paulites taking delegate spots! Ill be working to represent NC as a Paul supporting delegate myself as are sooo many other supporters. The conventions will be when the fun begins.

Javelin
02-07-2012, 18:45
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/421661_249447135133248_116969781714318_522978_556954548_n.jpg

Cavalry Doc
02-08-2012, 04:44
Yeah yeah we get it. You cry about "sample" regardless of who does the polling or what the sample actually is, as long as the poll shows Paul finishing above the other candidates. I'll keep posting them so you can keep crying about the "sample" over and over, deal?

As for the technical details of the poll, Paul's 2nd place finish is based solely on identified Republican voters, not the Dems and Independents also included in the total polling sample. The Dems and Indys are included to cover Obama's approval ratings and other parts of the overall poll contents.



Oops I missed this post before. This is a big part of the gameplan, yes. Winning delegates is what actually matters, not most of these beauty contests and I can tell you for a fact that if the GOP thinks it's hard keeping Paul's polling down, they're going to have a hell of a time running in circles trying to weed out the hordes of Paulites taking delegate spots! Ill be working to represent NC as a Paul supporting delegate myself as are sooo many other supporters. The conventions will be when the fun begins.


Small polls don't always mirror the actual election. Sampling errors happen. Pointing out an actual weakness in a poll is not "crying". Calling it that is a childish thing to do. I see a lot of Paul supporters playing that particular card. Most have admitted to being in their early to mid 20's. How old are you again?

Picking up some delegates in the caucus states (a forum Paul does better in) will likely earn him at least a speach at the convention this time.

Fed Five Oh
02-08-2012, 05:40
How the 3 primaries held yesterday turn out for Ron Paul?

How many does he have in the Win column now?

Goaltender66
02-08-2012, 06:08
Yeah yeah we get it. You cry about "sample" regardless of who does the polling or what the sample actually is, as long as the poll shows Paul finishing above the other candidates. I'll keep posting them so you can keep crying about the "sample" over and over, deal?

As for the technical details of the poll, Paul's 2nd place finish is based solely on identified Republican voters, not the Dems and Independents also included in the total polling sample. The Dems and Indys are included to cover Obama's approval ratings and other parts of the overall poll contents.

I'm simply amused that, when faced with actual election results vs. extrapolated poll results, without a trace of irony you proceed to the conclusion that something must be wrong with the election.

Nope, couldn't be that you're reading too much into a poll (as I've pointed out many times before...). Nope, couldn't be the poll itself is shoddy. Nope, couldn't be any one of a bunch of factors involved. It just has to be the Big Bad Conspiracy, right?

Incidentally, with a MoE of 4.9, finishes of 21, 20, and 18 are all statistically second place. Trying to say Paul has a 2nd place finish in this poll is a pretty shaky claim in and of itself.

So you made the claim of voter fraud. Going to back that up or was that more bloviating?

evlbruce
02-08-2012, 06:36
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/421661_249447135133248_116969781714318_522978_556954548_n.jpg

One of the plethora of reasons I don't like Ike.

Gary W Trott
02-08-2012, 07:25
One of the plethora of reasons I don't like Ike.
Don't be so hard on him as he was after all basically a career bureaucrat and as such he learned early on, like most bureaucrats, to not make waves if he wanted to get ahead. He did an excellent job of holding the allies together during WWII and was overall a very successful president who, once he was leaving office, warned us about the growing power over our government that we held by the military industrial complex.

G19G20
02-08-2012, 08:46
I'm simply amused that, when faced with actual election results vs. extrapolated poll results, without a trace of irony you proceed to the conclusion that something must be wrong with the election.

Second in Minnesota fits pretty well with the poll narrative.


Nope, couldn't be that you're reading too much into a poll (as I've pointed out many times before...). Nope, couldn't be the poll itself is shoddy. Nope, couldn't be any one of a bunch of factors involved. It just has to be the Big Bad Conspiracy, right?

You don't pay much attention to things do ya? The media ignores Paul and it's OBVIOUS that there's a conspiracy to marginalize his campaign. I will keep posting the poll results showing Paul is electable even with the media and the GOP elite working against him.


Incidentally, with a MoE of 4.9, finishes of 21, 20, and 18 are all statistically second place. Trying to say Paul has a 2nd place finish in this poll is a pretty shaky claim in and of itself.

Read the thread title and OP again so you can try to stay on topic. Calling it a 3-way tie for 2nd doesn't negate the notion behind the thread. Im simply showing that the unelectable mantra paraded out constantly about Paul is WRONG and polling proves it over and over.


So you made the claim of voter fraud. Going to back that up or was that more bloviating?

Seriously? Does the IOWA result not prove the fraud going on? How about the dead people voting in SC? Nevada didnt provide results for 2 days, after counting and recounting in secret, and the only publicly counted precinct in NV was a HUGE Ron Paul victory (Adelson's Special Jew Caucus). Paul was predicted by many to win Nevada outright. It's pretty hard to prove something done in secret but there's obviously shenanigans going on and well, we know who the party establishment and the media works against.

G19G20
02-08-2012, 08:50
Small polls don't always mirror the actual election. Sampling errors happen. Pointing out an actual weakness in a poll is not "crying". Calling it that is a childish thing to do. I see a lot of Paul supporters playing that particular card. Most have admitted to being in their early to mid 20's. How old are you again?

Picking up some delegates in the caucus states (a forum Paul does better in) will likely earn him at least a speach at the convention this time.

Goaltender66 knows what Im talking about. In this thread and the other thread I posted about Newt and Rick being wasted votes, Goaltender constantly cries about the "sample" being faulty when the poll results don't say what Goaltender thinks they should say. It doesn't matter what the poll outfit is, what the sample is or what the actual results are. As long as it shows Paul in good shape and Newt and Rick as wasted votes (losing to Obama) then it's a faulty "sample". Nevermind that Paul polls better against Obama in practically EVERY POLL TAKEN on the subject. Santorum and Newt are certain losses to Obama and Paul is electable. That's the bottom line.

Im 36.

Cavalry Doc
02-08-2012, 09:07
Goaltender66 knows what Im talking about. In this thread and the other thread I posted about Newt and Rick being wasted votes, Goaltender constantly cries about the "sample" being faulty when the poll results don't say what Goaltender thinks they should say. It doesn't matter what the poll outfit is, what the sample is or what the actual results are. As long as it shows Paul in good shape and Newt and Rick as wasted votes (losing to Obama) then it's a faulty "sample". Nevermind that Paul polls better against Obama in practically EVERY POLL TAKEN on the subject. Santorum and Newt are certain losses to Obama and Paul is electable. That's the bottom line.

Im 36.


Are tears actually running down his face, or is it a disagreement?

You'll have to take up those other polls with him, but this poll doesn't look like something I'd bet my life on. Everyone should vote the way they want. Period. The only ones I criticize are the ones that state that they will vote with the intent of making things worse, or so they can fantasize about future schadenfreude. If you have good intentions, do whatever you think is right with your vote.

Goaltender66
02-08-2012, 09:40
Second in Minnesota fits pretty well with the poll narrative.
But according to your logic, because Santorum won Minnesota (and Colorado, and Missouri) the election must have been rigged. After all, he very much outperformed the poll results that you posted less than 24 hours ago!



You don't pay much attention to things do ya? The media ignores Paul and it's OBVIOUS that there's a conspiracy to marginalize his campaign. I will keep posting the poll results showing Paul is electable even with the media and the GOP elite working against him.
Obvious to conspiracy-theorizing moonbats, but that's about it. Paul is marginalized because he's marginalizing himself, not because there's some grand conspiracy to keep him down.

And if your definition of "obvious" is a shaky poll of Registereds then I think the term has been dumbed down to be devoid of any meaning.

Read the thread title and OP again so you can try to stay on topic. Calling it a 3-way tie for 2nd doesn't negate the notion behind the thread. Im simply showing that the unelectable mantra paraded out constantly about Paul is WRONG and polling proves it over and over.
So wait...he's so electable that he keeps losing elections which proves that he's electable.

I am very much on topic. You are relying on polls to draw your conclusions, and I'm pointing out your reliance is very much misplaced. More likely is that you want to believe something and you're falling prey to confirmation bias. It's not an uncommon problem (Hell, Chris Matthews made a career out of it...) but don't get all snittish when someone points it out.

The "polling" isn't proving anything other than how polls can be misread by dupes.



Seriously? Does the IOWA result not prove the fraud going on? How about the dead people voting in SC? Nevada didnt provide results for 2 days, after counting and recounting in secret, and the only publicly counted precinct in NV was a HUGE Ron Paul victory (Adelson's Special Jew Caucus). Paul was predicted by many to win Nevada outright. It's pretty hard to prove something done in secret but there's obviously shenanigans going on and well, we know who the party establishment and the media works against.
You want blame for Nevada, you can blame the Ronulans who turned the caucus into a circus by telling people they could participate on a particular day for any reason when in fact the day was set aside for people who couldn't participate in the first round due to religious commitments on that day. People had to sign a declaration saying as much, which led to lots of confusion and resentment.

And as for "secret" counts, again that's thanks to the Ronulan tendency to pollute and destroy every system they come into contact with so they can game it to Herr Doktor's advantage. How else to explain the frankly cynical push to get Ronulans assigned as delegates so they can disenfranchise primary voters in an assumed second round at the convention? That more neatly fits the term "fraud" than anything you've posted yet.

Your evidence for shenanigans is based on shoddy poll interpretation, not some far flung conspiracy involving thousands of people.

And you wonder why Ronulans don't get media attention. Maybe it's because with "analysis" like yours, it's hard to take any of you seriously.

Goaltender66 knows what Im talking about. In this thread and the other thread I posted about Newt and Rick being wasted votes, Goaltender constantly cries about the "sample" being faulty when the poll results don't say what Goaltender thinks they should say. It doesn't matter what the poll outfit is, what the sample is or what the actual results are. As long as it shows Paul in good shape and Newt and Rick as wasted votes (losing to Obama) then it's a faulty "sample". Nevermind that Paul polls better against Obama in practically EVERY POLL TAKEN on the subject. Santorum and Newt are certain losses to Obama and Paul is electable. That's the bottom line.

Im 36.
But here you are complaining about election results when they don't say what you think they "should" say based on scattershot polling of registereds. And again, I have to marvel at the spectacle of a guy complaining about actual election results, terming them "fraud" because his flawed interpretation of a flawed poll didn't translate into reality.

You really don't know what kind of fire you're playing with here, do you? I've often said here that if people think US elections are crazy now, wait until voters are convinced their votes are being junked with. When you start tossing around vague and capricious accusations along with others of your ilk, it creates chaos and strife. Now I used to think Ronulans were sincere but overenthusiastic (kind of like puppy dogs), but given this cycle and some of the things I've read from you, I've changed my mind...I think a part of you actually wants the cities to burn.

You know, it is possible, nay probable, that people can disagree with Ron Paul without being part of some grand conspiracy or vote-theft scheme.

G19G20
02-08-2012, 22:29
But according to your logic, because Santorum won Minnesota (and Colorado, and Missouri) the election must have been rigged. After all, he very much outperformed the poll results that you posted less than 24 hours ago!



Obvious to conspiracy-theorizing moonbats, but that's about it. Paul is marginalized because he's marginalizing himself, not because there's some grand conspiracy to keep him down.

And if your definition of "obvious" is a shaky poll of Registereds then I think the term has been dumbed down to be devoid of any meaning.


So wait...he's so electable that he keeps losing elections which proves that he's electable.

I am very much on topic. You are relying on polls to draw your conclusions, and I'm pointing out your reliance is very much misplaced. More likely is that you want to believe something and you're falling prey to confirmation bias. It's not an uncommon problem (Hell, Chris Matthews made a career out of it...) but don't get all snittish when someone points it out.

The "polling" isn't proving anything other than how polls can be misread by dupes.



You want blame for Nevada, you can blame the Ronulans who turned the caucus into a circus by telling people they could participate on a particular day for any reason when in fact the day was set aside for people who couldn't participate in the first round due to religious commitments on that day. People had to sign a declaration saying as much, which led to lots of confusion and resentment.

And as for "secret" counts, again that's thanks to the Ronulan tendency to pollute and destroy every system they come into contact with so they can game it to Herr Doktor's advantage. How else to explain the frankly cynical push to get Ronulans assigned as delegates so they can disenfranchise primary voters in an assumed second round at the convention? That more neatly fits the term "fraud" than anything you've posted yet.

Your evidence for shenanigans is based on shoddy poll interpretation, not some far flung conspiracy involving thousands of people.

And you wonder why Ronulans don't get media attention. Maybe it's because with "analysis" like yours, it's hard to take any of you seriously.


But here you are complaining about election results when they don't say what you think they "should" say based on scattershot polling of registereds. And again, I have to marvel at the spectacle of a guy complaining about actual election results, terming them "fraud" because his flawed interpretation of a flawed poll didn't translate into reality.

You really don't know what kind of fire you're playing with here, do you? I've often said here that if people think US elections are crazy now, wait until voters are convinced their votes are being junked with. When you start tossing around vague and capricious accusations along with others of your ilk, it creates chaos and strife. Now I used to think Ronulans were sincere but overenthusiastic (kind of like puppy dogs), but given this cycle and some of the things I've read from you, I've changed my mind...I think a part of you actually wants the cities to burn.

You know, it is possible, nay probable, that people can disagree with Ron Paul without being part of some grand conspiracy or vote-theft scheme.

Goddamit I just wasted a half hour typing up a reply to this post and got friggin timed out off the site and lost everything. Im not retyping it so all Ill say is that it's now obvious that you simply hate Paul supporters and no matter what evidence is put in front of you about Paul's electability, you'll dismiss it because you hate us. No other reason. The personal attacks are the sign of a failed argument. Oh well. The only people more rabid than Paul supporters are those that hate Paul supporters. We actually care enough to get involved and change the party from the inside. Get used to it. We're not going anywhere. See my sig.

Btw, I will respond to one part directly. Paul represents a huge threat to the moneyed elite that make trillions ripping this country off. Banks, military complex and the war machine, international corporations, etc. A little vote fraud is very worth it to those groups. Considering you live in DC (where I am originally from), I can pretty much assume that you're on the teet of one of these sorts of companies yourself. Im betting you work for a defense contractor?

RyanBDawg
02-08-2012, 22:30
Goddamit I just wasted a half hour typing up a reply to this post and got friggin timed out off the site and lost everything. Im not retyping it so all Ill say is that it's now obvious that you simply hate Paul supporters and no matter what evidence is put in front of you about Paul's electability, you'll dismiss it because you hate us. No other reason. Oh well. The only people more rabid than Paul supporters are those that hate Paul supporters. We actually care enough to get involved and change the party from the inside. Get used to it. We're not going anywhere.

That's the worst thing ever, I rage so hard when that crap happens.

Yea and many Ron Paul supporters are under the age of 35...

We can wait as long as it takes, we understand his message and it isn't going anywhere.

I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cavalry Doc
02-09-2012, 04:41
That's the worst thing ever, I rage so hard when that crap happens.

Yea and many Ron Paul supporters are under the age of 35...

We can wait as long as it takes, we understand his message and it isn't going anywhere.

I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


No one lives forever. But it's entirely possible that a better performing candidate will come along that you can support.

Paul is electable. He meets all the criteria to be prez. Anything can happen in this election, there are plenty of surprises left.

Goaltender66
02-09-2012, 05:59
Goddamit I just wasted a half hour typing up a reply to this post and got friggin timed out off the site and lost everything. Im not retyping it so all Ill say is that it's now obvious that you simply hate Paul supporters and no matter what evidence is put in front of you about Paul's electability, you'll dismiss it because you hate us. No other reason. The personal attacks are the sign of a failed argument. Oh well. The only people more rabid than Paul supporters are those that hate Paul supporters. We actually care enough to get involved and change the party from the inside. Get used to it. We're not going anywhere. See my sig.

Btw, I will respond to one part directly. Paul represents a huge threat to the moneyed elite that make trillions ripping this country off. Banks, military complex and the war machine, international corporations, etc. A little vote fraud is very worth it to those groups. Considering you live in DC (where I am originally from), I can pretty much assume that you're on the teet of one of these sorts of companies yourself. Im betting you work for a defense contractor?

"Hate" is a pretty strong word. What I "hate" is the propensity of Ronulans to follow their predictable playbook whenever the subject comes up (I have CavDoc to thank for showing me *that* tidbit...). What I "hate" is that there must now an axiom that whenever some process or system can be gamed, Ronulans swarm like mosquitos to game it for their guy. Message boards, online/TV polls, and even things like FEC reports.

Then when the predictable happens and your guy loses primary after primary you're left screaming "vote fraud." Helpful hint: "Ron Paul Loses" is not a synonym with "Vote Fraud." If you're going to allege it, you need to have actual proof instead of polls with shoddy samples and unsupportable turnout models. My suggestion to you is to take a couple of statistics and business classes where you actually have to, you know, create a poll and administer it. Then you understand exactly how important the internals are to a poll and how they can be shaped to create a narrative.

I mean, for crying out loud...here the Ronulans are screaming about how all those moneyed interests are against them, how the media doesn't give their guy attention...and yet somehow the "truth" they cannot suppress is a Reuters poll? Really?! There's all this conspiracy against Ron Paul and yet they are forced to report a poll that shows the guy in a statistical three way tie for second place? If they are so conspiracy minded then a simple poll THAT REUTERS ITSELF COMMISSIONED would be easy to game, no? Simple things like this are what make it impossible to take you seriously.

And you still just don't get it, do you? People can be against Ron Paul on the merits. It's a hard truth for you to understand, being that you're apparently from the Pauline Kael school of political analysis, but there it is. And incidentally...I don't live in DC. :upeyes:

So go along with your martyr complex if it gives you comfort, but realize that what you are posting does not support your wishcasting. It's been clear since day one of this thread and I've been pointing it out since. I tried the clear and sober route with you and you blithely ignored it in favor of your preferred narrative. So before you start complaining about personal attacks, I think you may want to attend to that beam in your own eye.

G19G20
02-15-2012, 14:12
Some more new polling, this time from CNN. Paul has the highest favorability ratings in a sample of voters of all affiliations and second highest among Republicans. If we can just break this "unelectable" nonsense then primary/caucus success will follow. But considering the fraud and games we saw in Maine last weekend it appears that the GOP will not allow Paul to win a state. Regardless, the positive polling keeps coming.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/14/cnnorc-poll-february-10-13-favorable-ratings-gop-candidates-and-issues/


Candidate Favorable/Unfavorable
Paul 42/36
Romney 34/54
Santorum 32/38
Gingrich 25/63

One thing is clear. Newt is a certain loss for the GOP.

Cavalry Doc
02-15-2012, 14:44
Some more new polling, this time from CNN. Paul has the highest favorability ratings in a sample of voters of all affiliations and second highest among Republicans. If we can just break this "unelectable" nonsense then primary/caucus success will follow. But considering the fraud and games we saw in Maine last weekend it appears that the GOP will not allow Paul to win a state. Regardless, the positive polling keeps coming.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/14/cnnorc-poll-february-10-13-favorable-ratings-gop-candidates-and-issues/



One thing is clear. Newt is a certain loss for the GOP.


It's all about as perfectly clear as mud.

I'd heard there were games, but hadn't heard of any fraud. What happened?

RC-RAMIE
02-15-2012, 15:02
It's all about as perfectly clear as mud.

I'd heard there were games, but hadn't heard of any fraud. What happened?

http://youtu.be/pqsyzTrWS0g

geo57
02-15-2012, 15:49
I'm not saying fraud happened nor am I saying it didn't happen. Ben Swann is a huge Paul supporter based on other reports that come up when the two are Googled together. I'd keep an open mind on this until we hear more unbiased facts about it. Sunday morning there were screams here about the Maine results being released a day early ( on Friday ). When I asked in another thread why no one here or any outlet mentioned it before Saturday evening if that was the case, I heard nothing back. Do people really think that it's some conspiracy and a secret of that magnitude could be kept quiet across every news outlet across America in this day & age ? If someone's choice doesn't win anymore it's become pretty fashionable to holler " Fix " . It gets to be comical.

G19G20
02-15-2012, 16:02
The stuff about Google releasing results "early" was indeed nonsense. Every contest so far Google has tested its vote result web app the day before with random numbers like that. Unfortunately many didn't know this. The thing is, Paul supporters are now so used to the media bias, fraud allegations, and purposeful marginalization by the GOP that Paul supporters see practically everything as potential shenanigans. We're hypersensitive at this point.

The Maine fraud and irregularities accusations are true though. Who announces an official winner with only 84% of the vote even taken, especially when less than 200 votes separates first and second?

geo57
02-15-2012, 16:12
The stuff about Google releasing results "early" was indeed nonsense. Every contest so far Google has tested its vote result web app the day before with random numbers like that. Unfortunately many didn't know this. The thing is, Paul supporters are now so used to the media bias, fraud allegations, and purposeful marginalization by the GOP that Paul supporters see practically everything as potential shenanigans. We're hypersensitive at this point.

The Maine fraud and irregularities accusations are true though. Who announces an official winner with only 84% of the vote even taken?


G19G20, I just never got a reply on whether it was or wasn't BS. If you claim it was BS I have no reason to doubt you and would tend to think it was as well. While you and I are on opposite sides of the Paul campaign, I do appreciate your honesty on this and commend you on your integrity for what you said about the matter.
As far as the 16 % that wasn't taken, that I agree doesn't sound right. It may or may not have changed the top two's position.

RC-RAMIE
02-15-2012, 17:01
I'm not saying fraud happened nor am I saying it didn't happen. Ben Swann is a huge Paul supporter based on other reports that come up when the two are Googled together. I'd keep an open mind on this until we hear more unbiased facts about it. Sunday morning there were screams here about the Maine results being released a day early ( on Friday ). When I asked in another thread why no one here or any outlet mentioned it before Saturday evening if that was the case, I heard nothing back. Do people really think that it's some conspiracy and a secret of that magnitude could be kept quiet across every news outlet across America in this day & age ? If someone's choice doesn't win anymore it's become pretty fashionable to holler " Fix " . It gets to be comical.

If you google them together I guess you would get some reports about RP if you google him by himself you get this link

http://www.fox19.com/category/208878/reality-check-with-ben-swann

A lot of Reality check videos, most that have nothing to do with RP.

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

G19G20
02-15-2012, 17:15
Here's a good roundup of the Maine stuff. Even the local GOP orgs are up in arms over this. No matter who you support, you should at least support fair and open elections. Paul very well may have won Maine.

http://www.wabi.tv/news/27694/waldo-county-gop-votes-for-censure-of-state-chairman

Great write up here too about Maine irregularities, including allegations that Romney's team was directly involved in the fraud.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-maine-caucuses-gop-takeover-2012-2

sbhaven
02-15-2012, 17:49
Do people really think that it's some conspiracy and a secret of that magnitude could be kept quiet across every news outlet across America in this day & age ? If someone's choice doesn't win anymore it's become pretty fashionable to holler " Fix " . It gets to be comical.
Unfortunately that's the world we live in. When one's candidate doesn't win, the die hard supporters will say the vote was rigged. When one cannot accept the outcome they tend to find, and cling to, anything to justify their belief that they are right and the outcome (and those who support the outcome) must be wrong.

Take a walk over to DU, there are still people over there who, to this day, still say that Bush stole the election from Gore, then Kerry, going on almost 12 years ago.

On the non political side you have the Truther's who say that Bush and others were involved with 9/11. Of course this comes on the heels of a good number of people saying Bush was a bumbling idiot, completely incompetent, who couldn't find his way out of a paper bag, before 9/11.
:dunno:

G19G20
02-19-2012, 14:09
More good polling for Ron Paul. H2H against Obama, Paul wins Iowa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-would-best-obama-in-iowa-general-election-matchup/2012/02/18/gIQABoeUMR_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics

Stubudd
02-19-2012, 14:38
You really don't know what kind of fire you're playing with here, do you? I've often said here that if people think US elections are crazy now, wait until voters are convinced their votes are being junked with. When you start tossing around vague and capricious accusations along with others of your ilk, it creates chaos and strife. Now I used to think Ronulans were sincere but overenthusiastic (kind of like puppy dogs), but given this cycle and some of the things I've read from you, I've changed my mind...I think a part of you actually wants the cities to burn.



Wait, what? Accusations of fraud create chaos and strife? How about fraudulent elections create chaos and strife? Are you saying that you don't know about the fraud that takes place in US elections? In that case i have news for you. Or are you saying you know about it, but as long as it's carried out in a orderly fashion and everybody stays in line, it's ok with you?

Peoples' votes are already being junked with- how much evidence do you need? I don't understand your thinking at all. Everybody keep quiet and accept all decrees, because pointing it out might create a ruckus? You're more concerned with potential strife over fraud than over fraud itself? What kind of american are you anyway? I think it's you that's playing with fire, if you're willing to accept whatever they set out for you. You'll get what you deserve, in that case. You already are getting it. Mitt Romney.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-maine-caucuses-recount-20120216,0,7129764.story

Feanor
02-19-2012, 15:17
You really don't know what kind of fire you're playing with here, do you? I've often said here that if people think US elections are crazy now, wait until voters are convinced their votes are being junked with. When you start tossing around vague and capricious accusations along with others of your ilk, it creates chaos and strife. Now I used to think Ronulans were sincere but overenthusiastic (kind of like puppy dogs), but given this cycle and some of the things I've read from you, I've changed my mind...I think a part of you actually wants the cities to burn.


I've never felt that the "Ronulans" were sincere in anything other than their overt self-centeredness. The appeal of Paul to these teen to twenty-somethings, is a deepseeded desire to self-indulge.

You are likely correct in assuming they would set it to burn!

Feanor
02-19-2012, 15:21
Wait, what? Accusations of fraud create chaos and strife? How about fraudulent elections create chaos and strife? Are you saying that you don't know about the fraud that takes place in US elections? In that case i have news for you. Or are you saying you know about it, but as long as it's carried out in a orderly fashion and everybody stays in line, it's ok with you?

Peoples' votes are already being junked with- how much evidence do you need? I don't understand your thinking at all. Everybody keep quiet and accept all decrees, because pointing it out might create a ruckus? You're more concerned with potential strife over fraud than over fraud itself? What kind of american are you anyway? I think it's you that's playing with fire, if you're willing to accept whatever they set out for you. You'll get what you deserve, in that case. You already are getting it. Mitt Romney.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-maine-caucuses-recount-20120216,0,7129764.story


This from a guy who has never failed to savage what he terms derisively, "birthers!" :upeyes:

MartinRiggs1987
02-19-2012, 15:23
Have you been paying any attention to the contests so far and the polling data? He's done better at the polls than the "electable" candidates and gets more money than they do too. You're making stuff up dude.

Now if you're suggesting that the only basis of the unelectable mantra is simply because the GOP elite don't want him then that's a different issue entirely and isn't based on electability but rather acceptability to the elite. The polling data suggests that the People think he is electable.First off. What specific polling data are you referring to. Second, polling is very subjective and impacted by many many factors. You have the polls saying presently the President's positive numbers are going up. In this climate, do you truly buy that. And what demographic made up that polling sample? The way a poll is made and used to impact folks, remains food for thought.

G19G20
02-19-2012, 15:24
I've never felt that the "Ronulans" were sincere in anything other than their overt self-centeredness. The appeal of Paul to these teen to twenty-somethings, is a deepseeded desire to self-indulge.

You are likely correct in assuming they would set it to burn!

What exactly is wrong with indulging oneself? Do you have a problem with self-indulgence? Is there something wrong with me living my life how I see fit?

I know it makes for great meme material for those suffering from PDS, but now that Paul is winning 20% of votes in most states you can't keep saying Paul supporters are all "teen to twenty-somethings" because it's just flat untrue.

First off. What specific polling data are you referring to. Second, polling is very subjective and impacted by many many factors. You have the polls saying presently the President's positive numbers are going up. In this climate, do you truly buy that. And what demographic made up that polling sample? The way a poll is made and used to impact folks, remains food for thought.

Grrrrreat....another vague "sample" attacker. How about you tell me what's wrong with the samples in these polls. Sure, I buy that Obama's polling is going up. I don't believe the BASIS for it (media pumping fake gov't BLS economy data) but I do believe that Obama's polling is going up.

MartinRiggs1987
02-19-2012, 15:27
Here's a good roundup of the Maine stuff. Even the local GOP orgs are up in arms over this. No matter who you support, you should at least support fair and open elections. Paul very well may have won Maine.However, if Romney "very well may have won," something. Would we hear from you, about it?

MartinRiggs1987
02-19-2012, 15:29
More good polling for Ron Paul. H2H against Obama, Paul wins Iowa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-would-best-obama-in-iowa-general-election-matchup/2012/02/18/gIQABoeUMR_blog.html?wprss=rss_politicsAnd does that effect states like Maine and Minnesota? That in the general the President will win regardless of primary contests?

G19G20
02-19-2012, 15:35
However, if Romney "very well may have won," something. Would we hear from you, about it?

Tough to understand your posts with the strange grammar and punctuation but I think what you're asking is whether I would have a problem with Romney's votes getting fooled with, in favor of a Paul win? Of course I would since it would be more proof of corruption and vote fraud and at that point the entire system has to be questioned.

MartinRiggs1987
02-19-2012, 15:59
Tough to understand your posts with the strange grammar and punctuationFocus on the steak and not the peas. Like many liberals I know, you like to digress away from the question.
but I think what you're asking is whether I would have a problem with Romney's votes getting fooled with, in favor of a Paul win? Of course I would since it would be more proof of corruption and vote fraud and at that point the entire system has to be questioned.Glad to hear it. It just seems. You only comment on what is advantageous to a Paul candidacy rather than something more.

G19G20
02-21-2012, 17:31
More good polling for Paul! He ties Obama H2H in Virginia and DOMINATES Obama with Independent voters. Who wins elections for candidates? Independents!

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120221007166/en/Paul-Tied-Obama-Key-Swing-State-Virginia

Wise up and nominate Paul. He's the only one that can beat Obama.

G29Reload
02-21-2012, 17:37
More good polling for Ron Paul. H2H against Obama, Paul wins Iowa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-would-best-obama-in-iowa-general-election-matchup/2012/02/18/gIQABoeUMR_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics


Santorum won it handily in the primary.

RP couldn't get elected dogcatcher. He's lost every primary, will not win any upcoming and has assumed his rightful 4th place (last) finish in the MI next week. The whole candidacy was an exercise in protest. Anyone that believes otherwise is delusional.

syntaxerrorsix
02-21-2012, 17:44
I'll look back on this thread as evidence that America got exactly what it deserved. Again.

Cavalry Doc
02-22-2012, 04:36
Don't take it personally. Paul just isn't doing well. Not all of his ideas are fantastic, he is old, and he hasn't been very good at selling his message to the American people. If Paul was an awesome candidate in every way, then the fault would lie with his campaign.

Glock30Eric
02-22-2012, 05:20
Don't take it personally. Paul just isn't doing well. Not all of his ideas are fantastic, he is old, and he hasn't been very good at selling his message to the American people. If Paul was an awesome candidate in every way, then the fault would lie with his campaign.

You are right.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

G19G20
02-22-2012, 05:51
Santorum won it handily in the primary.

RP couldn't get elected dogcatcher. He's lost every primary, will not win any upcoming and has assumed his rightful 4th place (last) finish in the MI next week. The whole candidacy was an exercise in protest. Anyone that believes otherwise is delusional.

Yall still don't get it do ya? Where Paul's polling dominates is with the electorate that actually controls the election of the President on Nov 6. The Fox News mesmorized crowd doesn't support him as much as some other candidates (Paul is still doing well, media smears and vote fraud included). So what? He's not running to be President of the Republican Party. He's running to be President of the United States and he polls consistently well against Obama and this poll I just posted in particular shows why. Paul wins the Independent vote handily over Obama. No other GOP candidate comes close.

So I ask you and CavDoc and the others, do you want to nominate a President of the Republican Party and lose to Obama or nominate a President of the United States that can beat Obama?

Goaltender66
02-22-2012, 06:12
Yall still don't get it do ya? Where Paul's polling dominates is with the electorate that actually controls the election of the President on Nov 6. The Fox News mesmorized crowd doesn't support him as much as some other candidates (Paul is still doing well, media smears and vote fraud included). So what? He's not running to be President of the Republican Party. He's running to be President of the United States and he polls consistently well against Obama and this poll I just posted in particular shows why. Paul wins the Independent vote handily over Obama. No other GOP candidate comes close.

So I ask you and CavDoc and the others, do you want to nominate a President of the Republican Party and lose to Obama or nominate a President of the United States that can beat Obama?

No, you don't get it. I originally thought it was because you're fundamentally uninformed, but now I also think it's because you're deliberately misleading. Take this post for example:

More good polling for Paul! He ties Obama H2H in Virginia and DOMINATES Obama with Independent voters. Who wins elections for candidates? Independents!

http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...State-Virginia

Wise up and nominate Paul. He's the only one that can beat Obama.

Clicking through you first find this very interesting disclosure:

Authorized and paid for by Ron Paul 2012 PCC Inc.

So you're linking to a press release from the Paul campaign offering its spin.

Next, looking at the actual poll we get this:
http://www.cnu.edu/cpp/pdf/Survey_Report_Feb_20_2012.pdf

The poll's first bullet item is:

Nearly six in ten Republicans and Independents are not satisfied with the choices of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul on the Republican primary ballot and would like to see other candidates on the ballot.

Yep, 60% of Virginia Republicans and Independents in the poll results are saying "Romney" or "Paul" because they *have* to, not because they *want* to. That's some pretty key context you're leaving out.

And then there are the actual poll results. Sure, in VA Paul "ties" Obama, but what you do NOT mention is that Santorum and Romney *beat* Obama:

Obama 43%
Romney 46%

Obama 42%
Santorum 46%

Obama 43%
Paul 43%

As for "dominating" with independents, lets look at the breakdown (and remember this is a poll YOU CITED):

Among Independents:

Obama 35%
Romney 48%

Obama 31%
Santorum 54%

Obama 35%
Paul 47%

Again, among Independents Paul finishes behind Romney and Santorum.

Looking at the entire poll results, against Obama Paul finishes third (behind Santorum and Romney respectively) among all respondents and independents. To suggest Paul is "dominating" anything in this poll is inane. In fact, you are outright lying when you say in this poll:

and he polls consistently well against Obama and this poll I just posted in particular shows why. Paul wins the Independent vote handily over Obama. No other GOP candidate comes close

Umm...both Romney and Santorum beat Paul among independents in the poll you just posted.

I'll also have to mention again that this poll isn't even looking at likelies.

So to summarize: you posted to a press release from the campaign whose candidate you're trying to push, uncritically regurgitating that campaign's spin on a poll, which is revealed to be the opposite of what the poll is actually showing. It's clear at this point that you're interested in trying to create a narrative which is independent of facts and logic.

G19G20
02-22-2012, 11:18
The link was obviously to a press release by the campaign, touting the poll results. I figured that much was obvious.

I remind you again what this thread is about. Reread the thread title please since you seem to forget it in your efforts to defend the other candidates. This is about Ron Paul's electability and the polling that backs up his electability. The "unelectable" meme continues to be destroyed by poll after poll with who matters. Paul ROUTINELY polls well against Obama and has polled well since the start of this race, no matter when, where, or with who the poll is conducted. You can NOT say the same about Santorum or Gingrich or even Romney for that matter. Each of those candidates has had their media-led "surge" and then mostly fallen off the radar, with the exception of Romney. At the risk of turning this into a petty political debate Ill say now that Santorum's numbers will not stay where they are as he starts to get vetted and is the focus of tonite's debate and attack ads from his opponents. Only Paul routinely polls competitively with Obama regardless of where the poll is conducted and the polls posted in this thread prove it. He is electable. Whether Santorum polls well *today* doesn't matter to me and it's not the argument I'm making. Paul polls well ALL THE TIME against Obama and is electable. I really wish you'd stay on the thread topic.

Goaltender66
02-22-2012, 11:39
The link was obviously to a press release by the campaign, touting the poll results. I figured that much was obvious.
Since you didn't mention it and since you regurgitated a spinny press release, no it wasn't that "obvious" at all. You tried to advance a narrative in a misleading way and got caught. Again.

I remind you again what this thread is about. Reread the thread title please since you seem to forget it in your efforts to defend the other candidates.
I'm not "defending" the other candidates. I'm pointing out that you are either misreading polls or outright lying about them. That is not defending Romney or Santorum or Gingrich. If that's the way you have to rationalize shortcomings in your preferred narrative, well, little wonder you have a persecution complex.

This is about Ron Paul's electability and the polling that backs up his electability. The "unelectable" meme continues to be destroyed by poll after poll with who matters. Paul ROUTINELY polls well against Obama and has polled well since the start of this race, no matter when, where, or with who the poll is conducted. You can NOT say the same about Santorum or Gingrich or even Romney for that matter. Each of those candidates has had their media-led "surge" and then mostly fallen off the radar, with the exception of Romney. At the risk of turning this into a petty political debate Ill say now that Santorum's numbers will not stay where they are as he starts to get vetted and is the focus of tonite's debate and attack ads from his opponents. Only Paul routinely polls competitively with Obama regardless of where the poll is conducted and the polls posted in this thread prove it. He is electable. Whether Santorum polls well *today* doesn't matter to me and it's not the argument I'm making. Paul polls well ALL THE TIME against Obama and is electable. I really wish you'd stay on the thread topic.

Oh, I am on the topic. You're trying to post "evidence" and I'm pointing out the "evidence" isn't at all what you're trying to say it is. I can't help but notice in all of that, you can't even bring yourself to address the very basic fact that you presented poll findings very much out of material context. It shows Paul "dominating" among Independents? OK, but it shows Romney and Santorum "dominating" even more. It shows Paul tied with Obama? OK, but it shows Romney and Santorum actually beating the guy, and not by small margins either. Odd that you can't bring yourself to admit even that much.

If you want to rebut the electability meme, you're going to need more valid polls than what you've tried to post here. Your "poll after poll after poll" is statistical garbage for the reasons I and others have posted here and elsewhere.

So again, it used to be that you were fundamentally misinformed about the nature of the polls you're posting. Now it's turned to outright deception on your part.

G19G20
02-22-2012, 12:11
Since you didn't mention it and since you regurgitated a spinny press release, no it wasn't that "obvious" at all. You tried to advance a narrative in a misleading way and got caught. Again.

What difference does it make? The poll results are accurate, as is the press release. You found the actual poll data so what are you even talking about? Unless you're suggesting other viewers of this website are complete morons, they too can figure out that it's a press release and find the poll data too.


I'm not "defending" the other candidates. I'm pointing out that you are either misreading polls or outright lying about them. That is not defending Romney or Santorum or Gingrich.

Sure it is. This thread is about Paul's electability as per polling. What does Santorum or Noot or Willard have to do with Paul's electability? They are his opponents but have little to no effect on Paul's electability.


If that's the way you have to rationalize shortcomings in your preferred narrative, well, little wonder you have a persecution complex.

Isn't all politics just bringing people over to your way of thinking? Since the media has worked so hard to install the notion that Paul isn't electable, I'm working to prove that wrong with poll after poll showing Paul as electable.


Oh, I am on the topic. You're trying to post "evidence" and I'm pointing out the "evidence" isn't at all what you're trying to say it is. I can't help but notice in all of that, you can't even bring yourself to address the very basic fact that you presented poll findings very much out of material context. It shows Paul "dominating" among Independents? OK, but it shows Romney and Santorum "dominating" even more. It shows Paul tied with Obama? OK, but it shows Romney and Santorum actually beating the guy, and not by small margins either.

AGAIN, THE THREAD ISN'T ABOUT ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. Paul does dominate with Independents. So what if Romney and Santorum do too? The thread isn't about them.


Odd that you can't bring yourself to admit even that much.

Because that isn't who the thread is about.


If you want to rebut the electability meme, you're going to need more valid polls than what you've tried to post here. Your "poll after poll after poll" is statistical garbage for the reasons I and others have posted here and elsewhere.

Yeah yeah "sample" again. Do you call Santorum and Romney's results in this same poll "statistical garbage" too?


So again, it used to be that you were fundamentally misinformed about the nature of the polls you're posting. Now it's turned to outright deception on your part.

The polls say what they say. Paul's actual VOTING results also back them up since he wins (or at the very least is very competitive) the Independent and cross-over Democrat vote, which is what wins elections. I know you've made it your personal crusade to obfuscate this thread as much as possible and I'm fine with that. The thread is about Ron Paul and his polling numbers dispelling the unelectable myth. Clearly you can't accept it for what it is and must run in after every post to complain about samples and bring up other candidate's results for some reason.

G29Reload
02-22-2012, 12:41
So what? He's not running to be President of the Republican Party. He's running to be President of the United States

Ron Paul is NEVER going to be President of the United States. Ever. The "win by losing everything" strategy is a failure. Not.Gonna.Happen.

There is no strategy, anywhere, by whatever poll, that Paul could win a national contest and accrue enough votes to become President of the United States.

G19G20
02-22-2012, 12:43
Here's some new poll results from Arizona, showing Paul beating Obama 43-41.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120222006488/en/Ron-Paul-Leading-Obama-Poll-Arizona-Voters


(disclaimer for Goaltender66: this is a link to a press release by the Paul campaign and contains a link to the exact poll data)

Ron Paul is NEVER going to be President of the United States. Ever.

Then the party may as well just pack it up and call it a day because neither will the other candidates.

syntaxerrorsix
02-22-2012, 12:44
No one wants a conservative with such a consistent voting track record in charge.

Cavalry Doc
02-22-2012, 12:53
No one wants a conservative with such a consistent voting track record in charge.

Well, he's more libertarian than conservative. He's much better than Barry. You get him the nomination, and I'll vote for him in the general election. Fair enough?

Goaltender66
02-22-2012, 13:07
What difference does it make? The poll results are accurate, as is the press release. You found the actual poll data so what are you even talking about? Unless you're suggesting other viewers of this website are complete morons, they too can figure out that it's a press release and find the poll data too.
Since you apparently can't see what difference it makes, then I guess characterizing you as a charlatan is accurate.

And golly, since you're saying the actual poll data was SO OBVIOUS then you've just admitted that you were lying about the poll data. After all, you looked at it before you regurgitated the press release...right? You saw that, contrary to your statement that no other GOP candidate comes as close as Paul does with independents in that poll, in fact he trails behind two other GOP candidates.

Criminy, it's like when Paul comes in second in the VA primary you'll be crowing about how he got more votes in VA than Santorum, conveniently neglecting to mention that Santorum isn't on the ballot. There's truth, and then there's lying by omission. You're guilty of the latter.

Sure it is. This thread is about Paul's electability as per polling. What does Santorum or Noot or Willard have to do with Paul's electability? They are his opponents but have little to no effect on Paul's electability.
So if I say the sun is out I'm "defending" the daylight? That makes no sense at all. Just because your own cited polls don't say what you are trying to sell them as saying doesn't mean pointing it out ipso facto attacks Paul or defends another candidate. I'm attacking your flawed interpretation of garbage polls, and it's really not that fine of a line between the two.

Isn't all politics just bringing people over to your way of thinking? Since the media has worked so hard to install the notion that Paul isn't electable, I'm working to prove that wrong with poll after poll showing Paul as electable.
Only problem is your polls aren't "proving" anything because they are junk and/or they are saying exactly the opposite of what you're portraying them as. If Paul "dominates" independents in your poll, well, Santorum and Romney "dominate" even more and, by your own logic, should be supported over Paul.

The media hasn't instilled the notion that Paul is unelectable...he did it to himself.

AGAIN, THE THREAD ISN'T ABOUT ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. Paul does dominate with Independents. So what if Romney and Santorum do too? The thread isn't about them.
The cognitive dissonance in your statement is staggering. Paul isn't running in a vacuum (sad for you, I know, but there it is). You're trying to ignore/downplay contextual data to create a narrative out of whole cloth. Thing is, thinking people (you know, the kind who actually read crosstabs and know a think or two about statistics) can see right through it. For your logic to work, it has to apply globally, and sorry to say but there *are* other candidates in the race. You don't get to ignore them because they're are doing better than your guy.

Besides, you're really flailing when you try to say the thread is only about Paul and polling. You brought up Romney in your very first post, and you went on a riff about Paul's political positions early in the thread. Plus, your very signature line is telling me that Paul is not only electable, but the only electable candidate and the other guys will fail. Thing is, the polling data you are linking to doesn't make that case at all. So please stop trying to say this thread is only about Paul's polling in a vacuum. It's apparently only about Paul exclusively when the data shows the other guys doing better than he does in the same poll.



Because that isn't who the thread is about.
No, it's about Paul's "electability" and your utter inability to prove the point.

Yeah yeah "sample" again. Do you call Santorum and Romney's results in this same poll "statistical garbage" too?
It's a poll of Registereds. I don't place much stock in the numbers for anyone, especially since the pollster isn't disclosing the turnout model. I certainly wouldn't say Santorum is a lock to win Virginia in the General based on this poll. For example, how much is NoVA weighted? You don't know, do you? Neither do I, and for that reason I don't place much stock in this poll for any candidate.

See, it's possible to be evenhanded. You should try it sometime. Your credibility would be strengthened.


The polls say what they say. Paul's actual VOTING results also back them up since he wins (or at the very least is very competitive) the Independent and cross-over Democrat vote, which is what wins elections. I know you've made it your personal crusade to obfuscate this thread as much as possible and I'm fine with that. The thread is about Ron Paul and his polling numbers dispelling the unelectable myth. Clearly you can't accept it for what it is and must run in after every post to complain about samples and bring up other candidate's results for some reason.

Funny, given that I posted exact quotes from the poll YOU CITED showing how the spin machine is strong with you, Grasshopper, and yet you accuse me of not being able to accept something. And earlier in the thread, you're the guy who couldn't comprehend that a shaky poll of unregistereds/registereds couldn't trump actual election results.

There's a lot of obfuscation in this thread, but it's coming from your corner. Your post of a Paul press release spinning a poll 180 degrees is proof enough of that. And your defensiveness tells me that, in your heart of hearts, you realize that you're really stretching it.

syntaxerrorsix
02-22-2012, 13:13
Well, he's more libertarian than conservative. He's much better than Barry. You get him the nomination, and I'll vote for him in the general election. Fair enough?

Fair enough.

Goaltender66
02-22-2012, 13:15
Here's some new poll results from Arizona, showing Paul beating Obama 43-41.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120222006488/en/Ron-Paul-Leading-Obama-Poll-Arizona-Voters


(disclaimer for Goaltender66: this is a link to a press release by the Paul campaign and contains a link to the exact poll data)

You're cute when you act all passive-aggressive.

A better poll, though it also shows Romney and Santorum beating Obama, and by wider margins. I'll give you this though...at least you posted something that has likelies and not registereds. Interesting that Romney and Santorum both get absolute majorities among likelies in Arizona (51% and 52% respectively), whereas Paul can only manage 46%. Seems that by your logic, once again, we should go with the guy who gets the most potential votes, not the third place guy.

RC-RAMIE
02-22-2012, 13:33
Well, he's more libertarian than conservative. He's much better than Barry. You get him the nomination, and I'll vote for him in the general election. Fair enough?

Want to go into more detail about how Libertarian is not conservative?

Cavalry Doc
02-22-2012, 13:56
Want to go into more detail about how Libertarian is not conservative?

Libertarians are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.
Conservatives are for smaller government, libertarians are for an even smaller government.

It also seems that libertarians are for a week noninterventionist defense policy, and conservatives are for a more interventionist strong defense. Many libertarians also seem to be for open borders and there are other differences.


Not surprising that since most libertarians cannot tell the difference between Santorum, Gingrich, Romney and Obama, that telling the difference between conservatism and libertarianism would also be difficult.

They are similar, just not the same, at least in my own personal opinion. Other opinions may vary.

RC-RAMIE
02-22-2012, 14:11
Libertarians are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.
Conservatives are for smaller government, libertarians are for an even smaller government.

It also seems that libertarians are for a week noninterventionist defense policy, and conservatives are for a more interventionist strong defense. Many libertarians also seem to be for open borders and there are other differences.


Not surprising that since most libertarians cannot tell the difference between Santorum, Gingrich, Romney and Obama, that telling the difference between conservatism and libertarianism would also be difficult.

They are similar, just not the same, at least in my own personal opinion. Other opinions may vary.

Well we disagree a little I think conservatives are small government and COTUS. On that I think Libertarians are conservatives, I don't think socially conservatives have a special right to the conservative name.

Cavalry Doc
02-22-2012, 14:39
Well we disagree a little I think conservatives are small government and COTUS. On that I think Libertarians are conservatives, I don't think socially conservatives have a special right to the conservative name.

There is a difference between liberalism, libertarianism, and conservatism. There are also a lot of similarities.

Just to me, Paul fits into the libertarian group. It's not a bad thing.

dieknow
02-22-2012, 15:32
#1: Do not believe everything you read or hear. ESPECIALLY ANY POLL!

HarleyGuy
02-22-2012, 15:50
I must admit that the Ron Paul supporters are the most dedicated and optimistic in the GOP Primary.

However, there comes a time when you have to face reality.

I will continue to support Newt until the nomination and then I will support the nominee.
As the comedian Gallagher once said "where are we going to find a crook good enough to run our country"?

I was listening to a local radio show today and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI (former Presidentail candidate) was being interviewed about the possibility of a "brokered convention".
As always he was pretty (I think) forthcoming in describing the chaos (and rejection) that would occur if the Republican Party decided to insert any individual who has not been involved in the primary race.
The names being discussed were Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin and Mitch Daniels.

Hopefully, one of the four that are in the race now will capture the necessary number of delegates and we can move on.

THe final debate tonight on CNN at 8:00 PM.

Ruble Noon
02-22-2012, 16:10
Libertarians are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.
Conservatives are for smaller government, libertarians are for an even smaller government.

It also seems that libertarians are for a week noninterventionist defense policy, and conservatives are for a more interventionist strong defense. Many libertarians also seem to be for open borders and there are other differences.


Not surprising that since most libertarians cannot tell the difference between Santorum, Gingrich, Romney and Obama, that telling the difference between conservatism and libertarianism would also be difficult.

They are similar, just not the same, at least in my own personal opinion. Other opinions may vary.

Have you seen Romney's new tax plan? Looks like it came straight from Barry.

Cavalry Doc
02-22-2012, 16:38
Have you seen Romney's new tax plan? Looks like it came straight from Barry.

Check the sig line. I'm not a fan of Romney's.

The only benefit that I see in having Romney in the White House, is possibly a repeat of the Harriet Miers fiasco.

Anybody but Romney in the Primary. Paul gets my vote, and I'm not a fan of his either, if it's just him and Romney.

PawDog
02-22-2012, 17:10
There is a difference between liberalism, libertarianism, and conservatism. There are also a lot of similarities.

Just to me, Paul fits into the libertarian group. It's not a bad thing.

Paul is a fiscal conservative, but his policies are Neo-Liberal, as is the Libertarian ideology. Most Paul supporters refuse to admit this, but it's why anti-American and hate America groups like Occupy Wall Street and Code Pink have expressed support for Paul.

Some attempt to ignore and gloss over the facts as most facts don't actually support their agenda.

But then, at least most aren't moving to Thailand and leaving their spouses.......:whistling:

RC-RAMIE
02-22-2012, 17:37
There is a difference between liberalism, libertarianism, and conservatism. There are also a lot of similarities.

Just to me, Paul fits into the libertarian group. It's not a bad thing.

I agree with that and I list libertarian and the socially conservative, I can't think of a better description for them, as conservative fiscally I just don't think the government on a federal level has the power to legislate social issues. I also don't think the Republican party is a strictly social conservative party and the libertarian leaning wing of the Republican party has just as much right and claim to the republican party as the more social conservatives do. The fighting between the social and the libertarian type of conservatives does nothing but weaken the R and helps the D.



There is a difference I just read your first posts as saying libertarian were not conservatives just want to make sure I was clear on your post that's all.



"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

G19G20
02-23-2012, 01:40
You're cute when you act all passive-aggressive.

I'm not into men, sorry.


Seems that by your logic, once again, we should go with the guy who gets the most potential votes, not the third place guy.

That's your choice but for the last time, this thread isn't about the other candidates. This thread is about Paul and whether he is electable. He obviously is and the polls continue to show it. So I'm pretty tired of these circular arguments with you so I'll continue posting the polls and you can feel free to keep posting whatever you like. I hope you enjoy talking to yourself though.

Paul is a fiscal conservative, but his policies are Neo-Liberal, as is the Libertarian ideology.

That's so dripping with irony since the interventionist foreign policy you presumably support is an invention of the left. Obama following this same foreign policy should have been a clue but I guess not.

Cavalry Doc
02-23-2012, 04:46
I agree with that and I list libertarian and the socially conservative, I can't think of a better description for them, as conservative fiscally I just don't think the government on a federal level has the power to legislate social issues. I also don't think the Republican party is a strictly social conservative party and the libertarian leaning wing of the Republican party has just as much right and claim to the republican party as the more social conservatives do. The fighting between the social and the libertarian type of conservatives does nothing but weaken the R and helps the D.



There is a difference I just read your first posts as saying libertarian were not conservatives just want to make sure I was clear on your post that's all.



There are differences. There are similarities. But there is a reason different words exist. They are different philosophies.

Goaltender66
02-23-2012, 06:23
I'm not into men, sorry.

Oh, come on...if Rand Paul brought you flowers you'd be 2/3 to "yes." :tongueout:


That's your choice but for the last time, this thread isn't about the other candidates. This thread is about Paul and whether he is electable. He obviously is and the polls continue to show it. So I'm pretty tired of these circular arguments with you so I'll continue posting the polls and you can feel free to keep posting whatever you like. I hope you enjoy talking to yourself though.

For the 'last' time? It hasn't been exclusively about Ron Paul since the beginning of the thread. You know, we can flip back a few pages and see where you go off on tangents...in your own thread. And yes, in your very first post you're also bringing up Romney.

It's very clear that the thread is about how Paul wins where other candidates lose. You said it just yesterday when you were trying to claim that the VA poll showed Paul winning among independents and other candidates "didn't even come close." If you're posting polls that supposedly prove Paul's "electability" then you're also posting polls that show how Romney and Santorum are even more "electable" even under the same flawed poll methodology. That point alone is enough to torpedo your entire argument. Take your VA poll for example...a tie among Registereds in February for a November election with an unknown turnout model doesn't mean he's electable at all. The *best* you can say is the gross trend shows, all else equal, that Paul and Obama may be a toss up, but even at that, in close races the undecideds break for the incumbent. And of course, all else is *not* equal because Paul hasn't drawn opposition fire from the Ds.

So no, there's no circularity here. You are simply posting things that are not supporting the narrative you're trying to create. I tried to be nice in reading the Arizona poll but, honestly...your point ends up being that a Republican is going to win Arizona. What a NEWS FLASH!!! :rofl: Arizona has been R since 1952 with one brief hiccup in 1996.

And your response, instead of trying to solidify your argument, is to put your fingers in your ears. Like I said, in your heart of hearts I think you know you're stretching and your response is to go off in a huff.



That's so dripping with irony since the interventionist foreign policy you presumably support is an invention of the left. Obama following this same foreign policy should have been a clue but I guess not.

Hey, get back on topic. This thread is about RON PAUL and his "electability," dontcha know.....? :upeyes:

Stubudd
02-23-2012, 07:38
Well, he's more libertarian than conservative. He's much better than Barry. You get him the nomination, and I'll vote for him in the general election. Fair enough?

:rofl:

Ohhhhh, he's "more libertarian than conservative"... Ok, can you please point me towards the more conservative candidates? thanks

the more conservative ones, that's who you'd prefer right? I'm gonna tag along with you, tell me who you've got in mind- the guys that are more conservative than this libertarian guy, thanks

Stubudd
02-23-2012, 07:45
Libertarians are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.
Conservatives are for smaller government, libertarians are for an even smaller government.



Oh, ok they're for smaller government, libertarians are for even smaller than that. So who are these guys that are for smaller but not smallest? Maybe that's who we should be voting for. thanks

Stubudd
02-23-2012, 07:53
There are differences. There are similarities. But there is a reason different words exist. They are different philosophies.

I dig you. I just want to know who the real conservatives are so i can make an educated choice here. I need to know who is for smaller government, which of these guys really has tried to cut down the size of the stuff up there. Maybe not as far as out as a libertarian might, just, you know, cut it down to size a little. Which guy is that?

Ok, i'll settle for the guy that hasn't voted for enormous increases in the size of government before. I need somebody who is for smaller government, a real conservative, even if they haven't actually tried to make a smaller. Which one of these guys has proven he won't vote for huge programs in health care or huge bailouts or anything else- that's the guy i need. The real conservative. I bet that's who you're behind since you're a conservative, so help a brother out. Pass on the knowledge.

Anybody can answer this for me, just let me know who these people are. I'm looking for a conservative. thanks

Cavalry Doc
02-23-2012, 08:12
:rofl:

Ohhhhh, he's "more libertarian than conservative"... Ok, can you please point me towards the more conservative candidates? thanks

the more conservative ones, that's who you'd prefer right? I'm gonna tag along with you, tell me who you've got in mind- the guys that are more conservative than this libertarian guy, thanks

All of them are more conservative than Barry. RP is more libertarian than the rest of them too.

Cavalry Doc
02-23-2012, 08:18
I dig you. I just want to know who the real conservatives are so i can make an educated choice here. I need to know who is for smaller government, which of these guys really has tried to cut down the size of the stuff up there. Maybe not as far as out as a libertarian might, just, you know, cut it down to size a little. Which guy is that?

Ok, i'll settle for the guy that hasn't voted for enormous increases in the size of government before. I need somebody who is for smaller government, a real conservative, even if they haven't actually tried to make a smaller. Which one of these guys has proven he won't vote for huge programs in health care or huge bailouts or anything else- that's the guy i need. The real conservative. I bet that's who you're behind since you're a conservative, so help a brother out. Pass on the knowledge.

Anybody can answer this for me, just let me know who these people are. I'm looking for a conservative. thanks


You're not likely to find a very good conservative in November, but there will be a very good liberal that you could vote against.

Your choice. Do what you think is right, and the rest if us will do the same. What will be, will be.

Stubudd
02-23-2012, 08:34
All of them are more conservative than Barry. RP is more libertarian than the rest of them too.

Oh ok, gotcha. These two parties are working really well for us, they've really got us headed in a positive direction, they're doing a bangup job up there in washington, so RP's being a little different is a big drawback. Why not stick with what works right?

Stubudd
02-23-2012, 08:39
You're not likely to find a very good conservative in November, but there will be a very good liberal that you could vote against.

Your choice. Do what you think is right, and the rest if us will do the same. What will be, will be.


Ok thanks. So you're saying there aren't any very good conservatives, dang it that's too bad. What's up with the "conservative" party then? How are they still talking people into voting for them? Aren't you sick of it? Why won't they find somebody conservative? Why would you keep supporting them if they aren't conservative?

:rofl:

"Oh well the other guy is worse i guess i'll vote for this guy even though he votes for everything i say i'm against and even things he says he's against, after all it's safer this way because at least i fit in with all these other suckers voting for more of the same liars."

Yea, no. Sorry but I won't be rolling over to get walked on with you.

Cavalry Doc
02-23-2012, 08:40
Oh ok, gotcha. These two parties are working really well for us, they've really got us headed in a positive direction, they're doing a bangup job up there in washington, so RP's being a little different is a big drawback. Why not stick with what works right?

Vote however you want to vote. No big.

The rest of us will do the same. None of the candidates appeal to everyone. That's just the way it is. Personally, I'm planning on doing as well as possible regardless of the outcome.

Just checking, but which possible candidate do you agree with the least. It's Barry for me.

Stubudd
02-23-2012, 08:47
Vote however you want to vote. No big.

The rest of us will do the same. None of the candidates appeal to everyone. That's just the way it is. Personally, I'm planning on doing as well as possible regardless of the outcome.

Just checking, but which possible candidate do you agree with the least. It's Barry for me.

I disagree with all of them. They all vote for more government. I don't care what they say in their speeches or the debates or whatever. They all have approved huge increases in the size of government. That's all i need to know about them. When the federal gov't is already ten million times bigger than it should be and they're still voting for more, i don't need to determine degrees of disagreement with each candidate. They're so fundamentally wrong that it doesn't matter. I only have one option now- the guy who is not fundamentally wrong in his philosophy. The only conservative out there. Talk yourself around it however you want.

Cavalry Doc
02-23-2012, 10:12
I disagree with all of them. They all vote for more government. I don't care what they say in their speeches or the debates or whatever. They all have approved huge increases in the size of government. That's all i need to know about them. When the federal gov't is already ten million times bigger than it should be and they're still voting for more, i don't need to determine degrees of disagreement with each candidate. They're so fundamentally wrong that it doesn't matter. I only have one option now- the guy who is not fundamentally wrong in his philosophy. The only conservative out there. Talk yourself around it however you want.

There is nothing to talk around. I disagree with Paul's foreign policy position and his statements on the effectiveness of submarines. I disagree with Santorum on his dislike of gays, Romney in his gun control and Romneycare, Ginhrich in global warming and his lack of ability to keep a promise.

I do discern differences and gradients. I disagree with Barry the most. I believe everyone will do what they want to do with their vote. Why not? It's their right. We will all have a very small effect on the eventual outcome. It will be interesting to watch.

G19G20
02-27-2012, 08:11
Latest Rasmussen polling of Republican candidates against Obama shows only Romney and Paul beating Obama. Santorum (his favorability numbers are falling like a rock, as I predicted) loses and Gingrich loses badly.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


For the first time since late December 2011, Mitt Romney leads the president in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Romney earns 45% of the vote, while the president attracts support from 43%. Romney holds a nine-point advantage among unaffiliated voters.

For the first time ever [in their daily tracking poll], Texas Congressman Ron Paul also leads the president. In that matchup, 43% prefer Paul and 41% Obama. Ten percent (10%) would vote for some other option, a figure that includes 17% of Republicans.

Electable. This poll result is particularly interesting because Rasmussen routinely has Paul polling -lower- than other pollsters like PPP and Ipsos.

Goaltender66
02-27-2012, 08:36
Congratulations, you're actually posting something with a defensible turnout model! That is why it has Paul polling lower than the other pollsters you mention...Scott Rasmussen uses likelies, not registereds.

It's a poll that can help you be optimistic, but there are caveats:

1) The matchups are directly related to the President's approval ratings in the same poll. The ratings have been trending downward, but:
It remains to be seen, of course, if this is merely statistical noise or a lasting change signaling that the president’s recent bounce in the polls has come to an end.

2) While grounds for optimism, there's still quite a bit of the cross-tabs that scream "outlier." As said in the comments:
Paul now joins Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Santorum and Gingrich as front-runners who have led the president in a single Rasmussen Reports poll. However, it remains to be seen whether Paul can do what those others have not accomplished and lead the president more than once. So far, the only GOP candidate to do that is Romney.

3) As long as we're talking about cross-tabs (with my emphasis):
Paul has the biggest gender gap of any GOP hopeful. The libertarian congressman leads by 13 among men and trails by eight among women. Paul also picks up 15% of the vote from self-identified liberals.

That suggests that Paul's rise is even more dependent on Presidential Approval ratings than the other guys.

As I said, this is grounds for optimism for you, but mind the internals. :)

G19G20
02-27-2012, 08:55
Thanks. This poll is on the front page of Drudge currently too.

These polls Ive been posting all still show the same basic result though, Paul is electable, can beat Obama, and is slowly becoming even MORE electable the longer this campaign season goes on. The nuanced differences (likelies vs registered, eg) from poll to poll don't matter much when the big picture regarding Paul's electability is becoming clear.

Goaltender66
02-27-2012, 09:08
The nuanced differences (likelies vs registered, eg) from poll to poll don't matter much when the big picture regarding Paul's electability is becoming clear.
Except it does matter and it's a lot more than "nuance." A non-likely voter doesn't decide elections...the likelies do. If a person doesn't vote then it doesn't matter how strongly he is for a candidate, since that support doesn't translate to the vote.

Plus, there's the slight problem of using a February poll to predict a November outcome. Paul hasn't received any fire from Obama yet.

Gary W Trott
02-28-2012, 04:58
Paul is a fiscal conservative, but his policies are Neo-Liberal, as is the Libertarian ideology. Most Paul supporters refuse to admit this, but it's why anti-American and hate America groups like Occupy Wall Street and Code Pink have expressed support for Paul.
Can you provide us with some information to support your idea that Occupy Wall Street as a group supports Ron Paul.

A lot of Ron Paul supporters attended some of their gatherings in order to spread the message about limited government and the threats to our freedom. Hopefully resulting in a lot of the young people who were attracted to the occupy movement because they know that there is something wrong with the way things are going, will learn that big government is a major player in creating all the problems.

Code Pink is an anti-war group so it would come as no surprise for them to support the one candidate in the race on both sides who is against a militarily aggressive interventionist foreign policy. Who would you expect them to support?

G19G20
03-05-2012, 15:38
Latest Rasmussen polling of Republican candidates against Obama shows only Romney and Paul beating Obama. Santorum (his favorability numbers are falling like a rock, as I predicted) loses and Gingrich loses badly.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll



Rasmussen's latest poll, available at the link above again now has Paul polling the best against Obama. Obama's numbers have risen since the last poll but Paul now polls the best when you consider that Obama loses support against Paul.

Obama 43 - Paul 41
Obama 45 - Romney 43
Obama 46 - Santorum 42
Obama 48 - Gingrich 40

Can we please stick a fork in Newt now?

syntaxerrorsix
03-05-2012, 15:42
Can we please stick a fork in Newt now?

He's counting on winning GA.

Not that I think that matters.

His ego won't allow him to bail.

Kingarthurhk
03-05-2012, 16:22
Those who don't want Paul elected: employees of IRS, ATF, EPA, DEA, NEA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DofE, DofA, DofE,,, list goes on. I wonder why?

You forgot to add the military (they would be reduced to nothing), and anything immigration related. After all, true Libertarians do not believe in a standing military or borders.

G-19
03-05-2012, 16:24
A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama. Paul is so far out there he stands no chance.

Restless28
03-05-2012, 16:31
You forgot to add the military (they would be reduced to nothing), and anything immigration related. After all, true Libertarians do not believe in a standing military or borders.

Fail. LIE.

Restless28
03-05-2012, 16:32
A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama. Paul is so far out there he stands no chance.

Fail. Myth.

geo57
03-05-2012, 16:35
Rasmussen's latest poll, available at the link above again now has Paul polling the best against Obama. Obama's numbers have risen since the last poll but Paul now polls the best when you consider that Obama loses support against Paul.

Obama 43 - Paul 41
Obama 45 - Romney 43
Obama 46 - Santorum 42
Obama 48 - Gingrich 40

Can we please stick a fork in Newt now?



While I see your point it's my opinion that to be eligible to get to step B one has to first conquer step A or it's sort of moot.

How is Paul polling in Super Tuesday states ? What do the poll numbers say as far as who GOP voters want as their nominee ?

G-19
03-05-2012, 16:39
Fail. Myth.

The myth is, Paul can win.

Kingarthurhk
03-05-2012, 16:41
Fail. LIE.

Trying to avoid the whole classic, "Rubber vs. Glue" debate, please expouse to us the tennets of the Libertarian movement in all it's Stosselesque Penn and Teller glory.

Restless28
03-05-2012, 16:44
Trying to avoid the whole classic, "Rubber vs. Glue" debate, please expouse to us the tennets of the Libertarian movement in all it's Stosselesque Penn and Teller glory.

I consider myself a Libertarian, and I support the military. I know how you roll. I'll not be suckered into a waste of bandwidth bantering back and forth with you.:wavey:

Kingarthurhk
03-05-2012, 16:51
I consider myself a Libertarian, and I support the military. I know how you roll. I'll not be suckered into a waste of bandwidth bantering back and forth with you.:wavey:

Well, I appreciate the fact you have no argument, and are willing to admit it.

Glock30Eric
03-05-2012, 16:57
The myth is, Paul can win.

But all other republican candidates other than Ron Paul is a vote for Obama. No hard feelings. :)

I know RP has a slim chance to win 2012. In fact it is more likely Obama will win regardless what GOP comes up with a name. Sad; it is because we forgot what a privilege to vote is all about. Get ready for that day.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

G19G20
03-05-2012, 19:29
I consider myself a Libertarian, and I support the military. I know how you roll. I'll not be suckered into a waste of bandwidth bantering back and forth with you.:wavey:

Yeah good call, don't bother. That poster just makes up stuff on the fly to support failed arguments then stops replying when called out for the falsehoods, only to reappear on another thread. Rinse and repeat.

While I see your point it's my opinion that to be eligible to get to step B one has to first conquer step A or it's sort of moot.

How is Paul polling in Super Tuesday states ? What do the poll numbers say as far as who GOP voters want as their nominee ?

Anybody but Obama right? That's what I keep hearing. So wake up and smell the coffee. I expect Paul will finish in various positions in the straw polls (some high, some low) but capture many of the delegate spots. It's really quite a shame when one hears the constant ABO mantra then watches as the actual poll data regarding who does best against Obama is either ignored or unaware by most Republicans. Want to beat Obama? Stop voting to nominate candidates that can't beat him! Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

Fed Five Oh
03-05-2012, 19:50
Want to beat Obama? Stop voting to nominate candidates that can't beat him! Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.Yet you have convinced yourself that Ron Paul can beat Obama when he hasn't even won a single primary. Too funny. Very Ronulan, but still funny.

G19G20
03-05-2012, 19:53
Yet you have convinced yourself that Ron Paul can beat Obama when he hasn't even won a single primary. Too funny. Very Ronulan, but still funny.

Don't you just hate when that damn "big picture" keeps getting in the way of genuine small-minded, short-term thinking? Fortunately, winning President of the Republican Party really makes a huge difference after the election. Just ask McCain.

Fed Five Oh
03-05-2012, 20:19
Don't you just hate when that damn "big picture" keeps getting in the way of genuine small-minded, short-term thinking? Fortunately, winning President of the Republican Party really makes a huge difference after the election. Just ask McCain.Speaking of 2008, how many primaries did Ron Paul win in 2008?

Seems ronulans don't get the big picture.

Snowman92D
03-05-2012, 20:38
The myth is, Paul can win.

I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul.

Mostly because no one knows a whole lot about him, except for what you actually hear him say at the various debates and public speeches. That's not enough, and what I hear him say, for the most part, makes me think he's a loon.

You can't rely on anything written about him on his website, or anywhere else. He disavows any connection with and responsibility for his written campaign material when it suites him, so that taints all of it, in my book.

G19G20
03-05-2012, 20:38
Speaking of 2008, how many primaries did Ron Paul win in 2008?

Seems ronulans don't get the big picture.

Actually, Ronulans get the big picture very well. That's why the RNC will be crawling with us. :tongueout:

ChuteTheMall
03-05-2012, 21:17
How is Paul polling in Super Tuesday states ?


I predict he will win a solid second place in Virginia tomorrow, and try to spin it as a major victory.

:tinfoil:






Of course, I also predict he will come in a distant dead last in that field of only two. :rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
03-06-2012, 03:50
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul.

Mostly because no one knows a whole lot about him, except for what you actually hear him say at the various debates and public speeches. That's not enough, and what I hear him say, for the most part, makes me think he's a loon.

You can't rely on anything written about him on his website, or anywhere else. He disavows any connection with and responsibility for his written campaign material when it suites him, so that taints all of it, in my book.

His voting record speaks pretty clearly.

syntaxerrorsix
03-06-2012, 03:54
I'm still amazed that so many self professed conservatives would consider voting for anyone but Paul based on his voting record when compared to the other candidates.

Seems they will readily accept progressive and clearly liberal agendas just so they can call supporters of the USC Paulbots and Ronulans. Very cute but not very principled.

Cavalry Doc
03-06-2012, 05:44
His voting record speaks pretty clearly.


Yes it does. Voting against spending that he personally put in a bill for special interests in his own district, knowing full well it would pass anyway says something. There's also that authorization for the use of force he voted for, and then complained about undeclared wars.

It says he's not any better than the other career politicians. Not any worse either. Just about the same on the integrity scale.

certifiedfunds
03-06-2012, 06:44
Yes it does. Voting against spending that he personally put in a bill for special interests in his own district, knowing full well it would pass anyway says something.

Now Doc, lets be accurate. He doesn't "put spending in". The spending is already there. He just directs a portion of it.

Then votes against it.

Think of it this way. "I'm against spending this money but if the Congress and President are determined, I want to make sure that the taxpayers in my district get some of it returned to them."

Cavalry Doc
03-06-2012, 09:06
Now Doc, lets be accurate. He doesn't "put spending in". The spending is already there. He just directs a portion of it.

Then votes against it.

Think of it this way. "I'm against spending this money but if the Congress and President are determined, I want to make sure that the taxpayers in my district get some of it returned to them."

What happens is a special interest requests him to put the earmark in, he obliges, then votes against it, knowing its going to pass.

It's just a wink and a knod that gives him cover for his actions. No better or worse than any of the other career politicians.

Chad Rogers
03-06-2012, 09:20
For me, the Ron Paul issue is this simple. I, a lifelong conservative/GOP voter, would never vote for Ron Paul.

certifiedfunds
03-06-2012, 09:21
What happens is a special interest requests him to put the earmark in, he obliges, then votes against it, knowing its going to pass.

It's just a wink and a knod that gives him cover for his actions. No better or worse than any of the other career politicians.

Again, the earmark is not new spending. The spending is already there...perhaps in the budget of a fed agency like Army COE (IIRC, a lot of his earmarks were indeed COE). He simply directs the money to be spent in a certain manner.

Would you prefer he vote FOR the spending bill?

Should his constituents not have their Congressman pushing the COE to do the projects the local government wants prioritized, with their tax money?

I don't like it but its the way the system works now. His constituents deserve representation.

You guys are damning him if he does and damning him if he doesn't. What should he tell them, "No. I realize 20%+ of the money down here is being sucked up to DC and I realize the COE or Interior has a budget of $XXXXX but you guys cannot ask me to direct them to spend it how you see fit." ?????

certifiedfunds
03-06-2012, 09:22
For me, the Ron Paul issue is this simple. I, a lifelong conservative/GOP voter, would never vote for Ron Paul.

I would offer that you don't know the meaning of "conservative". He's the only conservative in the race.

Glock30Eric
03-06-2012, 09:52
I would offer that you don't know the meaning of "conservative". He's the only conservative in the race.

Cert, he is one of those in your icon with the GOP; yes it is truly sad.

Cavalry Doc
03-06-2012, 10:45
Again, the earmark is not new spending. The spending is already there...perhaps in the budget of a fed agency like Army COE (IIRC, a lot of his earmarks were indeed COE). He simply directs the money to be spent in a certain manner.

Would you prefer he vote FOR the spending bill?

Should his constituents not have their Congressman pushing the COE to do the projects the local government wants prioritized, with their tax money?

I don't like it but its the way the system works now. His constituents deserve representation.

You guys are damning him if he does and damning him if he doesn't. What should he tell them, "No. I realize 20%+ of the money down here is being sucked up to DC and I realize the COE or Interior has a budget of $XXXXX but you guys cannot ask me to direct them to spend it how you see fit." ?????

It's feeding at the same trough. It's also not contitutionally mandated spending, and it goes to special interests. It's no worse than what the others do.

syntaxerrorsix
03-06-2012, 12:22
What happens is a special interest requests him to put the earmark in, he obliges, then votes against it, knowing its going to pass.

It's just a wink and a knod that gives him cover for his actions. No better or worse than any of the other career politicians.

You mean he's doing what his constituents want in a manner that coincide with the USC?

Is that the worst offense you can accuse him of? What about the other candidates? I know if I were all about tearing down the other candidates I could have a field day. I don't so I won't .

G-19
03-06-2012, 14:26
There is no way Paul will be elected to the office of President. If he was, by some miracle, to win the GOP nomination Obama is a guaranteed four more.

I have voted Republican in every election I have voted in since I was eighteen. However, if this fool is the nominee, I will have to vote for Obama. His anti-military rhetoric, his isolationist views are enough for me to turn sides.

To be honest, reading the views of his supports in regards to Social Security and the economy their is no way I could support him. In fact, I am so upset about how they feel it is ok to abandon the senior citizens of this country all so they can keep a buck, I now hope Obama does win and I hope he taxes them as much as possible. Anyone who thinks it is ok to let old people die deserves to lose everything they have. IMHO.

Good thing it is only the top 10 to 1% that feel this way. It means that at least 90% of this country won't give up their morals for greed.

Like I said on another thread. If I have to pay taxes for the care of the elderly in this country I will do it with a smile on my face. Then again, I realize money does not mean happiness, and will never replace morals.

syntaxerrorsix
03-06-2012, 14:38
There is no way Paul will be elected to the office of President. If he was, by some miracle, to win the GOP nomination Obama is a guaranteed four more.

I have voted Republican in every election I have voted in since I was eighteen. However, if this fool is the nominee, I will have to vote for Obama. His anti-military rhetoric, his isolationist views are enough for me to turn sides.

To be honest, reading the views of his supports in regards to Social Security and the economy their is no way I could support him. In fact, I am so upset about how they feel it is ok to abandon the senior citizens of this country all so they can keep a buck, I now hope Obama does win and I hope he taxes them as much as possible. Anyone who thinks it is ok to let old people die deserves to lose everything they have. IMHO.

Good thing it is only the top 10 to 1% that feel this way. It means that at least 90% of this country won't give up their morals for greed.

Like I said on another thread. If I have to pay taxes for the care of the elderly in this country I will do it with a smile on my face. Then again, I realize money does not mean happiness, and will never replace morals.

Research the term "isolationist" then research the term "nonintervention"

It will likely keep you from looking so silly while you spout off.

Feel free to keep your Social Security and pretend it's solvent.

The rest of us will continue to work with the USC as opposed to against it.

RC-RAMIE
03-06-2012, 15:43
There is no way Paul will be elected to the office of President. If he was, by some miracle, to win the GOP nomination Obama is a guaranteed four more.

I have voted Republican in every election I have voted in since I was eighteen. However, if this fool is the nominee, I will have to vote for Obama. His anti-military rhetoric, his isolationist views are enough for me to turn sides.

To be honest, reading the views of his supports in regards to Social Security and the economy their is no way I could support him. In fact, I am so upset about how they feel it is ok to abandon the senior citizens of this country all so they can keep a buck, I now hope Obama does win and I hope he taxes them as much as possible. Anyone who thinks it is ok to let old people die deserves to lose everything they have. IMHO.

Good thing it is only the top 10 to 1% that feel this way. It means that at least 90% of this country won't give up their morals for greed.

Like I said on another thread. If I have to pay taxes for the care of the elderly in this country I will do it with a smile on my face. Then again, I realize money does not mean happiness, and will never replace morals.

Not anti- miltary, Not isolationist, does not want to abandon SS for the old people. Only one with a plan I seen that guarantees current SS recipients and start a plan on phasing out SS for young workers.

You really don't know much about him.

Fed Five Oh
03-06-2012, 18:47
You really don't know much about him.

Well, he does know Ron Paul will not be elected President of the U.S.A.

RC-RAMIE
03-06-2012, 18:59
Well, he does know Ron Paul will not be elected President of the U.S.A.

I think that is true for all of them right now.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

hamster
03-06-2012, 19:21
There is no way Paul will be elected to the office of President. If he was, by some miracle, to win the GOP nomination Obama is a guaranteed four more.

I have voted Republican in every election I have voted in since I was eighteen. However, if this fool is the nominee, I will have to vote for Obama. His anti-military rhetoric, his isolationist views are enough for me to turn sides.

To be honest, reading the views of his supports in regards to Social Security and the economy their is no way I could support him. In fact, I am so upset about how they feel it is ok to abandon the senior citizens of this country all so they can keep a buck, I now hope Obama does win and I hope he taxes them as much as possible. Anyone who thinks it is ok to let old people die deserves to lose everything they have. IMHO.

Good thing it is only the top 10 to 1% that feel this way. It means that at least 90% of this country won't give up their morals for greed.

Like I said on another thread. If I have to pay taxes for the care of the elderly in this country I will do it with a smile on my face. Then again, I realize money does not mean happiness, and will never replace morals.

You may want to re-read what was actually said. Nobody wants to eliminate Social security and leave people hanging. The concept is to allow young people to opt out of the system and keep a portion of their money, while still supporting those who have already paid in AKA the elderly.

Furthermore Ron Paul had never EVER said anything anti-military. He has spoken out about sending troops overseas to die on every whim of the president without so much as a declaration of war from the congress. IMO we owe the troops at least that bit of respect before putting their lives on the line.

If spending on undeclared wars and a broken social security system are off-limits in your world... where pray tell would you start cutting government spending? Or would you simply keep spending and spending without making any cuts? Sounds like you really would fit right in as an Obama voter.

syntaxerrorsix
03-07-2012, 03:55
Well, he does know Ron Paul will not be elected President of the U.S.A.

As long as there are less conservative alternatives you are probably right. Too many folks are afraid of the long tough road back towards liberty. It might mean they won't have it as good as they do now without putting forth some effort.

Glock30Eric
03-07-2012, 05:08
As long as there are less conservative alternatives you are probably right. Too many folks are afraid of the long tough road back towards liberty. It might mean they won't have it as good as they do now without putting forth some effort.

Yeah. Romney is going to be the GOP and this will be a repeat of McCain in 2004. I'll bet Obama win 2nd term. We have deserved that; yes very sad.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cavalry Doc
03-07-2012, 06:25
You mean he's doing what his constituents want in a manner that coincide with the USC?

Is that the worst offense you can accuse him of? What about the other candidates? I know if I were all about tearing down the other candidates I could have a field day. I don't so I won't .


Well, that's one way to spin it. It's just another example of him doing things he is opposed too.

My biggest problem with him is his lack of understanding about what the defensive capabilities of submarines are, and that he really believes that if you leave all the other countries alone, that they will return the favor. He's not a bad guy, and he's still better than Mitt or Barry, but that's a pretty low hurdle. I really don't like any of them a lot. Among the bunch, Barry is still the worst of 'em, all things considered.

certifiedfunds
03-07-2012, 06:39
There is no way Paul will be elected to the office of President. If he was, by some miracle, to win the GOP nomination Obama is a guaranteed four more.

I have voted Republican in every election I have voted in since I was eighteen. However, if this fool is the nominee, I will have to vote for Obama. His anti-military rhetoric, his isolationist views are enough for me to turn sides.

To be honest, reading the views of his supports in regards to Social Security and the economy their is no way I could support him. In fact, I am so upset about how they feel it is ok to abandon the senior citizens of this country all so they can keep a buck, I now hope Obama does win and I hope he taxes them as much as possible. Anyone who thinks it is ok to let old people die deserves to lose everything they have. IMHO.

Good thing it is only the top 10 to 1% that feel this way. It means that at least 90% of this country won't give up their morals for greed.

Like I said on another thread. If I have to pay taxes for the care of the elderly in this country I will do it with a smile on my face. Then again, I realize money does not mean happiness, and will never replace morals.

What is more disturbing is your desire to allow parasitic old people to feed off of the young.

Perhaps if the old folks need organ transplants you would support forcing the young folks to give up theirs.

You havent "voted republican". You're a flaming socialist. That's obvious now.

Cavalry Doc
03-07-2012, 08:02
Yeah. Romney is going to be the GOP and this will be a repeat of McCain in 2004. I'll bet Obama win 2nd term. We have deserved that; yes very sad.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I'm not sure if we deserve a second round of "hope & change", but we should probably try to prepare for it. I'd give Barry a 50% chance of winning another term. There are plenty of surprises yet to come.

Glock30Eric
03-07-2012, 08:38
I'm not sure if we deserve a second round of "hope & change", but we should probably try to prepare for it. I'd give Barry a 50% chance of winning another term. There are plenty of surprises yet to come.

If Romney wins the GOP: Obama will win with 80% to 90% chance.

If Ron Paul wins the GOP: Obama will win 70% chance. I love Ron Paul but it apparently we aren't ready for a big change. That's sad.

syntaxerrorsix
03-07-2012, 09:02
Well, that's one way to spin it. It's just another example of him doing things he is opposed too.

My biggest problem with him is his lack of understanding about what the defensive capabilities of submarines are, and that he really believes that if you leave all the other countries alone, that they will return the favor. He's not a bad guy, and he's still better than Mitt or Barry, but that's a pretty low hurdle. I really don't like any of them a lot. Among the bunch, Barry is still the worst of 'em, all things considered.

I have no problem with this statement.

I don't profess to agree with everything he believes either but the fact of the matter is, low hurdle or not he's probably the best candidate for the health of our country. Like him or not.

G-19
03-07-2012, 13:33
What is more disturbing is your desire to allow parasitic old people to feed off of the young.

Perhaps if the old folks need organ transplants you would support forcing the young folks to give up theirs.

You havent "voted republican". You're a flaming socialist. That's obvious now.

You say I haven't voted republican. How would you know? I promise you may claim is real. I just have had some change of heart regarding the republican party as of late. I do not support extremists from either side, and that is what we have now. There is no more middle of the road politicians out there right now. It's all play by my rules, or I ain't playing. When all you have is extremists, all the way to the left or the right, it's us in the middle that get screwed. No one party has all the answers, there needs to be a meeting in the middle that accomplishes the most for the majority of Americans, not just a select few.

If you have not noticed, this is a thread about Ron Paul, so yes my comments were directed toward that end, and my feelings about him.

Now, if it was about Obama you would love my comments about him. Since I consider him the worst thing to happen to this country. Obama care is a very bad law, that will end up hurting all Americans. I am sick of his worldwide apology tour. I hated how he hampered our troops and put them in danger with his ridiculous rules of engagement. I had hoped he would get rid of the patriot act, but instead expanded them.

So you see, I vote my conscience not by party lines. My main reason for voting Repub. is on issues such as abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc. However, they have gone so far to the right on the economy issue it may just override the others this time. I can not vote for people who's idea of fixing the economy will only help the rich and hurt the middle class.

The republicans are hell bent on destroying unions it seems, which will all but guarantee that the middle class workers will have no chance of a fair wage. I agree there are issues with unions, like protecting worthless workers, and should be fixed. I also feel the main reason the Repubs want to do away with them is because lobbyists are paying them to, so it will put more cash in the investors pockets. You know the ones who don't actually do the work, they just want to profit off the labor of others. I know they need to make a profit or they won't invest, but don't the ones doing the work to make them their profit deserve to make a decent living also?

And, before you ask yes I am in a union. I have been a state correction officer for 23 years. Ohio's Governor recently tried to pass a anti union bill here in Ohio. It was beaten by a large margin. It's funny the lies he told about state workers. He said we make to much money, he did not mention that at that time we had not had any raises in 6 years, he did not mention that in our last contract we agreed to take a two week furlough each year for two years. He failed to broadcast the raise he and all the other politicians gave themselves, or the raises he gave all the Agency heads and other administrators. He failed to mention the elaborate alarm system the state had to install in his personal home(that he gets to keep), just because he did not want to live in the Governors mansion. I could go on and on, but it boils down to the fact that he was intent on attacking the workers of this state.

I would love to see how he, or some of you, would react if you had to deal with the stuff we have to deal with on a daily basis. That brings up something else, he don't talk about the time and energy that some of us give freely to ensure the safety of our fellow staff. I, myself, serve as a unarmed self defense instructor, firearms and PR-24 instructor as well as a CPR/First aid instructor. I spend hours practicing/training/studying for these activities. I also maintain our weapons and armory. However, there is no compensation for this, and I am not they only one there are hundreds just like me. He did not mention all the inmate programs we run so they don't have to pay some out side group to run. So yes, the Repubs have turned their backs on me, so I will return the favor.

G-19
03-07-2012, 14:42
Oh, forgot to add. After we beat the bill, when we went to negotiate our last contract, we agreed to another 3 years with no raise, that means 9 years with no raise, but like I said all the big wigs got theirs.

Ruble Noon
03-07-2012, 14:50
There is no way Paul will be elected to the office of President. If he was, by some miracle, to win the GOP nomination Obama is a guaranteed four more.

I have voted Republican in every election I have voted in since I was eighteen. However, if this fool is the nominee, I will have to vote for Obama. His anti-military rhetoric, his isolationist views are enough for me to turn sides.

To be honest, reading the views of his supports in regards to Social Security and the economy their is no way I could support him. In fact, I am so upset about how they feel it is ok to abandon the senior citizens of this country all so they can keep a buck, I now hope Obama does win and I hope he taxes them as much as possible. Anyone who thinks it is ok to let old people die deserves to lose everything they have. IMHO.

Good thing it is only the top 10 to 1% that feel this way. It means that at least 90% of this country won't give up their morals for greed.

Like I said on another thread. If I have to pay taxes for the care of the elderly in this country I will do it with a smile on my face. Then again, I realize money does not mean happiness, and will never replace morals.

Your brain has been turned into mush by the media crap that has been injected into it.

G-19
03-07-2012, 15:05
That's the best you can do? Perfect example of why the republicans are turning into one big joke. It's not the media, it's a fact of real life. Try living in the real world, you might wake up also.

You evidently don't believe anything the media says, but it is really evident you believe every word uttered by Rush and Hannity.

What great sources a drug addict and a has been politician turned entertainer.

Ruble Noon
03-07-2012, 15:14
That's the best you can do? Perfect example of why the republicans are turning into one big joke. It's not the media, it's a fact of real life. Try living in the real world, you might wake up also.

You evidently don't believe anything the media says, but it is really evident you believe every word uttered by Rush and Hannity.

What great sources a drug addict and a has been politician turned entertainer.

The fact is that you are spouting media talking points and untruths.

G-19
03-07-2012, 15:24
Fact: Bush Sr. originated NAFTA. Clinton signed it but it was a republican initiative.

RESULT: Thousands (possibly more) of jobs sent over seas. Putting Americans out of work all so investors could see more profit. Then when they brought the products back into America people could not buy as much as when they had jobs. Profits go down, stocks go down, market almost crashes, WallStreet asks for bailouts paid for by taxes. WallStreet uses money to hand out bonuses.

Bush Jr. Spends trillions in a war we should not have started. All the while befriending the country that was harboring Bin Laden.

Great job, republicans.

Ruble Noon
03-07-2012, 15:26
Fact: Bush Sr. originated NAFTA. Clinton signed it but it was a republican initiative.

RESULT: Thousands (possibly more) of jobs sent over seas. Putting Americans out of work all so investors could see more profit. Then when they brought the products back into America people could not buy as much as when they had jobs. Profits go down, stocks go down, market almost crashes, WallStreet asks for bailouts paid for by taxes.

Bush Jr. Spends trillions in a war we should not have started. All the while befriending the country that was harboring Bin Laden.

Great job, republicans.

And WTF does that have to do with Ron Paul? Except for the fact that he was against all that. :dunno:

G-19
03-07-2012, 15:28
He is a republican, good enough for me. They can't be trusted.

syntaxerrorsix
03-07-2012, 15:32
Amazing.

Ruble Noon
03-07-2012, 15:33
I have voted Republican in every election I have voted in since I was eighteen.


He is a republican, good enough for me. They can't be trusted.

:rofl:

So you vote for people that can't be trusted? I guess you are a sure vote for obama then?

G-19
03-07-2012, 15:37
Well, as I see it they all suck. To bad there is no real good choice to vote for. Both sides are driven by agendas not what is good for everyone.

Dems: support welfare

Repubs: support richcare.

G-19
03-07-2012, 15:39
:rofl:

So you vote for people that can't be trusted? I guess you are a sure vote for obama then?

Where did I in that statement say I will vote for Obama. I said I don't trust Paul, or republicans. Guess what? I don't trust Democrats either.

So in the end I will vote for the one I feel who most supports my interest.

Ruble Noon
03-07-2012, 15:50
Where did I in that statement say I will vote for Obama. I said I don't trust Paul, or republicans. Guess what? I don't trust Democrats either.

So in the end I will vote for the one I feel who most supports my interest.

You didn't have to say it as it is blatantly obvious.

sbhaven
03-07-2012, 16:17
Where did I in that statement say I will vote for Obama. I said I don't trust Paul, or republicans. Guess what? I don't trust Democrats either.

So in the end I will vote for the one I feel who most supports my interest.
It won't matter how you justify your vote. According to a few of the Ron Paul supporters on this site, if your not voting Ron Paul your voting Obama.

G-19
03-07-2012, 16:31
It won't matter how you justify your vote. According to a few of the Ron Paul supporters on this site, if your not voting Ron Paul your voting Obama.

That really seems like the case. If you don't believe the way they do you are wrong. I guess its a good thing Paul is white or they would call me a racist. Just like the Dems do those that don't support Obama. They are just the opposite side of the same coin.

A fanatic no matter which side they are on is still a fanatic.

QNman
03-07-2012, 17:34
Fact: Bush Sr. originated NAFTA. Clinton signed it but it was a republican initiative.

RESULT: Thousands (possibly more) of jobs sent over seas. Putting Americans out of work all so investors could see more profit. Then when they brought the products back into America people could not buy as much as when they had jobs. Profits go down, stocks go down, market almost crashes, WallStreet asks for bailouts paid for by taxes. WallStreet uses money to hand out bonuses.

Bush Jr. Spends trillions in a war we should not have started. All the while befriending the country that was harboring Bin Laden.

Great job, republicans.

Still standing by that "I have voted for Republicans since Lincoln" meme? :whistling:

Funny... You don't SOUND like a Republican.... In fact, you SOUND like a flaming card-carrying-union-member liberal to me...

G-19
03-07-2012, 18:03
I can't wait to see what all these I won't vote for anybody but Paul folks do when Romney gets the nomination and their hero starts shilling for him. What will you say then? Imagine your hero supporting Romney, and he will just like Hillary did for Obama. Oh the horror, you will have to disagree with him or be a hypocrite. What a conundrum. :)

G-19
03-07-2012, 18:08
Still standing by that "I have voted for Republicans since Lincoln" meme? :whistling:

Funny... You don't SOUND like a Republican.... In fact, you SOUND like a flaming card-carrying-union-member liberal to me...



I guess if using my own mind makes me a liberal in your eyes, I will just have to find a way to live with that.

Oh, wait I really don't care what you think. You will be just like all those Ross Perot supports, broken hearted.

Unless he pulls a Perot and runs third party. That will work out great for Obama.

QNman
03-07-2012, 21:06
I guess if using my own mind makes me a liberal in your eyes, I will just have to find a way to live with that.

Oh, wait I really don't care what you think. You will be just like all those Ross Perot supports, broken hearted.

Unless he pulls a Perot and runs third party. That will work out great for Obama.

No... Using your mind for nothing other than thinly veiled make-believe on a gun forum makes you a liberal.

I'm not just like a Ross Perot supporter... I was one. Twice.

Clearly you are rooting for Obama. Instead of pretending and proclaiming you're really a conservative republican at heart, why not just explain what Obama has done in the last three and a half years that make you such a fan? Just click off the top three for us...

certifiedfunds
03-07-2012, 23:01
I guess if using my own mind makes me a liberal in your eyes, I will just have to find a way to live with that.

Oh, wait I really don't care what you think. You will be just like all those Ross Perot supports, broken hearted.

Unless he pulls a Perot and runs third party. That will work out great for Obama.

Ted Bundy, using his own mind, made him a serial killer.

:dunno:

G-19
03-08-2012, 02:47
You Paul fans are a funny breed. Just because someone don't believe in your guy it don't make him an Obama fan.

I can't wait to see your reactions, when Romney or Santorum gets the nomination and old Paulie boy makes his anouncement that he is supporting this one or that one. Are you going to get behind whoever he supports, or are you going to stay home and pout?

G-19
03-08-2012, 02:50
Ted Bundy, using his own mind, made him a serial killer.

:dunno:

So, you are saying using your own mind is a bad thing? Puts one up there with being a serial killer. Do you think I should blindly follow some crazy little old man, like you. Maybe I should be put in jail for going against your wishes? Sounds kind of like Russia.

Cavalry Doc
03-08-2012, 05:18
I have no problem with this statement.

I don't profess to agree with everything he believes either but the fact of the matter is, low hurdle or not he's probably the best candidate for the health of our country. Like him or not.

There is a difference between being the one you like the most, and "best candidate". Even given that among the available candidates you may agree with his positions more than any other, there are factors that probably make him less than an obvious choice for "best candidate". Due to a number of factors, fair or not, he is not likely to be the republican nominee, VP, or promised a prominent roll in the government by the eventual nominee. A third party run, barring a large series of surprises, would also probably be unsuccessful for him. Now none of that us guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination. But for the sake of argument, if it does pan out that way, and you honestly think Barry is the worst possible outcome, then Ron might not be the Best candidate. If you're intent is to send a message to someone, or you just have to have one of those "don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" bumper stickers, then he
Might actually be the best candidate.

Point is, it depends on what you want in the end. If he's not in a position to win it, saving the country, honoring the constitution, protecting liberty and a lot of the other platitudes often used around here aren't factors.

It's a simple case of idealism vs. pragmatism.

You have every right to cast your vote how you want, for your own reasons. I support that right regardless of whether I would vote the same way or not. That's the way the system works.

syntaxerrorsix
03-08-2012, 05:36
There is a difference between being the one you like the most, and "best candidate". Even given that among the available candidates you may agree with his positions more than any other, there are factors that probably make him less than an obvious choice for "best candidate". Due to a number of factors, fair or not, he is not likely to be the republican nominee, VP, or promised a prominent roll in the government by the eventual nominee. A third party run, barring a large series of surprises, would also probably be unsuccessful for him. Now none of that us guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination. But for the sake of argument, if it does pan out that way, and you honestly think Barry is the worst possible outcome, then Ron might not be the Best candidate. If you're intent is to send a message to someone, or you just have to have one of those "don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" bumper stickers, then he
Might actually be the best candidate.

Point is, it depends on what you want in the end. If he's not in a position to win it, saving the country, honoring the constitution, protecting liberty and a lot of the other platitudes often used around here aren't factors.

It's a simple case of idealism vs. pragmatism.

You have every right to cast your vote how you want, for your own reasons. I support that right regardless of whether I would vote the same way or not. That's the way the system works.

My vote will be cast based on principle according to who I believe will best serve our country.

I will not vote against another candidate nor will I settle for the lesser of two evils.

For me it's a simple case of making the best choice despite what some may claim as the popular stance.

People can say I threw away my vote, voted for Obama, what have you. I'll know I voted for the person that has the best chance to turn this nation back towards liberty and away from tyranny.

I won't need a bumper sticker to remember that.

Restless28
03-08-2012, 06:11
Ron Paul cannot win the nomination. There will be no brokered convention, and if there were, he still would not win. Romney is the nominee. Math doesn't lie. He has the numbers.

Cavalry Doc
03-08-2012, 06:13
My vote will be cast based on principle according to who I believe will best serve our country.

I will not vote against another candidate nor will I settle for the lesser of two evils.

For me it's a simple case of making the best choice despite what some may claim as the popular stance.

People can say I threw away my vote, voted for Obama, what have you. I'll know I voted for the person that has the best chance to turn this nation back towards liberty and away from tyranny.

I won't need a bumper sticker to remember that.

Having the best chance to turn back towards liberty would have to include the reality of whether that person could win or not, at least for a pragmatist. Otherwise, it is a gesture. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. It's not thrown away, but there either will or won't be expected effects for that action. It's still YOUR choice. No problem there. Pretending that others are choosing the lesser if two evils when none are actually evil, is an exercise in hyperbole though.

Pretending that yours is the only correct choice is an exercise in arrogance. We should all be respectful of the choices of others.

People will vote the way they want, and there will be consequences. Prepare for those.

:wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
03-08-2012, 06:55
Having the best chance to turn back towards liberty would have to include the reality of whether that person could win or not, at least for a pragmatist. Otherwise, it is a gesture. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. It's not thrown away, but there either will or won't be expected effects for that action. It's still YOUR choice. No problem there. Pretending that others are choosing the lesser if two evils when none are actually evil, is an exercise in hyperbole though.

Pretending that yours is the only correct choice is an exercise in arrogance. We should all be respectful of the choices of others.

People will vote the way they want, and there will be consequences. Prepare for those.

:wavey:


I'm not pretending anything. I've made an educated choice and I'm not the one on this forum beating anyone else up over there choice. If I'm to be accused of anything it will be pointing out the hypocrisy of others. There appears to be quite a few folks that believe they are conservative despite glaring dissimilarities.

I'm with you, everyone is free to make there choices even if they don't fully understand why they are making them.

As to the lesser of two evils? We will just have to disagree. Many independent votes will certainly be swayed by such a choice.

Cavalry Doc
03-08-2012, 08:12
I'm not pretending anything. I've made an educated choice and I'm not the one on this forum beating anyone else up over there choice. If I'm to be accused of anything it will be pointing out the hypocrisy of others. There appears to be quite a few folks that believe they are conservative despite glaring dissimilarities.

I'm with you, everyone is free to make there choices even if they don't fully understand why they are making them.

As to the lesser of two evils? We will just have to disagree. Many independent votes will certainly be swayed by such a choice.

I've met evil people, none of these guys qualify in my book. I guess it's a matter of experience. Some conservatives just realize what is and isn't achievable. That's all. I wish there was a guy or gal running that met my criteria of a good candidate, one that would actually turn things around, but no one fits the bill for me. So, I'll make my own educated and calculated decision on who would be best to vite for, based on the reality of the situation. Any person I vote for will require me to vote for someone I don't entirely agree with. Reality bites, but I'll still participate.

RC-RAMIE
03-08-2012, 08:19
Pretending that others are choosing the lesser if two evils when none are actually evil, is an exercise in hyperbole though.

:wavey:


Its not hyperbole its a common used figure of speech.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lesser+of+two+evils

http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary/g/FigureSpeech.htm

Cavalry Doc
03-09-2012, 04:09
Its not hyperbole its a common used figure of speech.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lesser+of+two+evils

http://fictionwriting.about.com/od/glossary/g/FigureSpeech.htm

Well, it's both a figure of speech, and hyperbole.

There are no good candidates running. None are identical. So, some are better, some are worse, none are great.

Restless28
03-09-2012, 05:41
Ron Paul is unelectable. End of thread.

syntaxerrorsix
03-09-2012, 05:58
Ron Paul is unelectable. End of thread.


The phrase in of itself is contrary. He is very much electable, there just appears to be more people who would prefer to maintain the current trend of big government, war and social spending than those that don't.

Now you can end the thread.

Cavalry Doc
03-10-2012, 07:11
The phrase in of itself is contrary. He is very much electable, there just appears to be more people who would prefer to maintain the current trend of big government, war and social spending than those that don't.

Now you can end the thread.

It does appear that he is not getting enough votes to win. It's still not impossible though.

Why people choose not to vote for him is a little more complex than you propose.

syntaxerrorsix
03-10-2012, 07:45
It does appear that he is not getting enough votes to win. It's still not impossible though.

Why people choose not to vote for him is a little more complex than you propose.

It may be more complex but that won't change the fact that we are simply changing seats at the same table.

Cavalry Doc
03-10-2012, 07:52
It may be more complex but that won't change the fact that we are simply changing seats at the same table.

Well, if you squint and unfocus your eyes, and look at it from a very limited perspective, maybe...

No two humans are exactly alike. Not even from a libertarian watching liberals and socialists take turns being in control. It's not an ideal situation, but it is what it is.

syntaxerrorsix
03-10-2012, 08:01
Well, if you squint and unfocus your eyes, and look at it from a very limited perspective, maybe...

No two humans are exactly alike. Not even from a libertarian watching liberals and socialists take turns being in control. It's not an ideal situation, but it is what it is.


We'll see soon enough I suppose.

G19G20
03-22-2012, 20:33
New PPP polling -still- has Ron Paul polling the best against Obama.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/obama-leads-gop-field-by-small-margins.html

Romney is actually not the most electable Republican candidate on this poll. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum both do a point better than him, trailing by 3 points at 46-43 and 48-45 respectively. As we often find to be the case Paul is the strongest candidate with independents, tying Obama with them while the rest of the GOP field trails by 6-15 points.

Independents win elections.

4TS&W
03-22-2012, 20:36
A vote for anybody but Rmney is a vote to move Romney to the right.

He's talking the talk, I just wonder if he'll walk the walk.

I wish Paul would be unleashed on the Fed. That would be fully awesome!

Sam Spade
03-22-2012, 20:44
Independents win elections.

Yeah, like President Paul in his first term. And Anderson. Perot; he won big.


Oh, I get it---you meant that independents win elections for the Democrat. Gotchya.

Woofie
03-22-2012, 21:00
Yeah, like President Paul in his first term. And Anderson. Perot; he won big.


Oh, I get it---you meant that independents win elections for the Democrat. Gotchya.

Independent and moderate voters decide the outcome of elections.

Sam Spade
03-22-2012, 21:13
Independent and moderate voters decide the outcome of elections.

Ah. If that's what he meant, then :embarassed:

Goaltender66
03-23-2012, 06:55
Democrat ........................................................ 41%
Republican...................................................... 37%
Independent/Other.......................................... 22%


Really? PPP? In which they oversampled Democrats and used registereds?

You'd have a slightly better poll if you stood on a stool in the middle of Chicago and said "hey, any of youse guys voting for Obama?"

Woofie
03-23-2012, 10:25
Ah. If that's what he meant, then :embarassed:

I hope his knowledge of history isn't that bad.

G19G20
03-23-2012, 16:17
Democrat ........................................................ 41%
Republican...................................................... 37%
Independent/Other.......................................... 22%


Really? PPP? In which they oversampled Democrats and used registereds?

You'd have a slightly better poll if you stood on a stool in the middle of Chicago and said "hey, any of youse guys voting for Obama?"

Can you share your source of figures are that make such a breakdown of voters by affiliation allegedly so inaccurate? Those numbers fit pretty well with the entire nation's registration figures except there's a higher percentage of unaffiliated/independent/others, iirc.

Yeah, like President Paul in his first term. And Anderson. Perot; he won big.

Oh, I get it---you meant that independents win elections for the Democrat. Gotchya.

Surely you're not that dense. Republican nor Democrat votes decide election outcomes. Who the Independents come out to vote for is who wins general elections. Proven fact. The rank and file of each party dutifully votes for whoever they are told by the party to vote for. It's the I's that swing elections one way or the other. Though you should always remember that some voting blocks do indeed not swallow their appointed candidates and can kill a party's chances as easily as they can win for the a party.

G-19
03-23-2012, 17:39
G19G20,

You are wasting your time. They refuse to believe that Independents decide elections. They only see two parties, the RPers and the communists.

To bad they can not see that their views and beliefs are the reason they are looked at just as bad as the far left nuts. They have made themselves irrelevant.

G19G20
03-23-2012, 17:51
"Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

Ruble Noon
03-23-2012, 18:19
G19G20,

They have made themselves irrelevant.

Really? Where are you going to get your money without us?

G-19
03-23-2012, 18:26
Really? Where are you going to get your money without us?

Your not going anywhere. Even as bad as you say it is, America is the only place for you. So just face it you will be paying taxes.

syntaxerrorsix
03-23-2012, 18:33
Your not going anywhere. Even as bad as you say it is, America is the only place for you. So just face it you will be paying taxes.

The sad part is you are fine with that. Blind leading blind.

syntaxerrorsix
03-23-2012, 18:34
Going Galt isn't a cliche. It's happening.