Who Else Is Voting For Ron Paul?

[DRE]

When all else fails and you can't argue against Ron Paul's foreign policy or economic policy, call him a racist.

I wasn't calling him anything. I saw it on a Black website and posted here.

 

[Brent W]

Between the mid 50s and the late 70s, the entree world was a geopolitical dance between the US and the USSR. Its hard to understand if you didn't live through the Cold War, but both sides did a lot of morally questionable 9at best) actions on the world stage to thwart the other.

I shudder to consider what the world would be like today without the steadfastness of Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John-Paul II on our side and Gorbachev as a reformer on the other.

Disrupting Soviet-Iranian relations wasn't about oil. It was about denying the Soviets access to a warm water port for the ICBM submarine fleet.

Whether it began solely about oil or not, it is about oil now and the US played a role in putting Iran where it is today, as I stated, in the 1950's. This was my point, so spare me your belittling comments. It was not all the British, as you claimed.

Furthermore, preventing the USSR from using that warm water port did nothing to stop the USSR from putting ICBMs on our borders. Now we have to deal with the consequences of that, today.

 

[Brent W]

I wasn't calling him anything. I saw it on a Black website and posted here.

People claim he is a racist because he doesn't want the Federal Government dictating morality. Because, you know, when the Federal Government has to do that, it means you have larger issues. Much in the same way you don't spread democracy at the end of a gun barrel.

 

[Rho Delta]

I will probably vote for him in the primary, but expect Newt or Romney to take the nomination.

 

[ArnyVee]

I'm not affiliated with any particular party, but I like a lot of what Ron Paul says.

I've been watching the Republican Debates (click here) and they've been heating up lately with them being down to the final four. Romney hasn't done anything to lose the lead, but he's definitely playing it safe. Santorum and Paul are interesting candidates, but the safe bet will be Romney. He has a shot to defeat Obama.

 

[Brent W]

I'm not affiliated with any particular party, but I like a lot of what Ron Paul says.

I've been watching the Republican Debates (click here) and they've been heating up lately with them being down to the final four. Romney hasn't done anything to lose the lead, but he's definitely playing it safe. Santorum and Paul are interesting candidates, but the safe bet will be Romney. He has a shot to defeat Obama.

Ron Paul has the best chance to beat Obama, because he pulls more independents and Democrats than Romney can dream of.

 

[Fred Sherman]

I've been watching the Republican Debates (click here) and they've been heating up lately with them being down to the final four. Romney hasn't done anything to lose the lead, but he's definitely playing it safe. Santorum and Paul are interesting candidates, but the safe bet will be Romney. He has a shot to defeat Obama.

Any one of them will beat Obama. None of them are ideal candidates. Romney is a squishy conservative like George H. W. Bush. Gingrich is brilliant, but also a bit of a nut. plus there is a certain node-holding factor voting for someone to occupy the White House whom you would not want to have in your own home. Paul is a loon, but even if he damages US foreign policy, he wouldn't reek the constitution damage Obama has done. Santorum is the only level headed conservative of the bunch. He's the best candidate and the least likely to win the nomination.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Ron Paul has the best chance to beat Obama, because he pulls more independents and Democrats than Romney can dream of.

And loses more conservative than the numbers he gains from those groups. He would all but guarantee a third party candidate and an Obama reelection.

 

[Brent W]

Yea, John McCain was the best person to beat Obama in 2008, we were told. Thanks for shutting down on the foreign policy debate and resulting to calling people "loons" that believe that.

To $2,000,000,000,000 military budget, we go! Funny you speak of destroying the constitution and then harp on Ron Paul as a loon for trying to defend it in the face of our policy of starting wars whenever we feel like it.

 

[Brent W]

And loses more conservative than the numbers he gains from those groups. He would all but guarantee a third party candidate and an Obama reelection.

That is the "conservatives" fault. There is nothing conservative about Romney or Newt. The only "conservative" one is Paul.

Romney or Newt may all but guarantee a third party candidate as well. I sure hope so.

 

[Adam Howard]

This really is a Ron Paul vs Obama election

Why?

Alone, neither Mitt Romney, nor even Newt Gingrich, has the election votes to take on Obama. And every Ron Paul supporter that I have talked to in person or the hundreds online, have all agreed that they'll do one of the following, no matter what....

Vote for Ron Paul as a 3rd party
Write in Ron Paul's name
Vote for Obama

Simply put, we hate everything about Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. They represent everything we don't want in a President.

So look at it this way, Ron Paul voters are either future Ron Paul voters or future Obama voters.

This really is a Ron Paul vs Obama race for The White House

 

[craigiri]

Any one of them will beat Obama.

That's funny.
Most of my friends who were confident and gave me 3 to 1 odds a couple years ago are now taking slightly differently.

You must remember, Fred, that although we each build our own worlds inside our mind, these do not always translate to the real world. As the odds stand right now - and you can check all the odds markers for this - Obama has the edge against anyone else.

Of course, Romney and Obama are pretty much Obama I and Obama II anyway.
From a betting site:

2012 Presidential Election​

- ​

Top Candidates Favored To Be Next U.S. President​

(Available - updated 1/20/2012)​

Barack Obama: -150 -Odds On Favorite​

Mitt Romney: +150 ​

Newt Gingrich: +1000​

Ron Paul: +3500​

​

Yeah, I know. It doesn't jive with all the inside info you have! In that case, you can make a fortune placing some very large bets and hedges.

 

[craigiri]

This really is a Ron Paul vs Obama race for The White House

Are you a betting man?

Want some action?

 

[Brent W]

Are you a betting man?

Want some action?

He wasn't saying that Ron Paul would win the nomination, but that Ron Paul will control whether a Republican beats Obama or not. The GOP continues to ignore and cast Ron Paul and its voters to the side. These voters will not forget this when it comes time to support whatever candidate the GOP deems more status quo.

 

[Brent W]

That's funny.
Most of my friends who were confident and gave me 3 to 1 odds a couple years ago are now taking slightly differently.

You must remember, Fred, that although we each build our own worlds inside our mind, these do not always translate to the real world. As the odds stand right now - and you can check all the odds markers for this - Obama has the edge against anyone else.

Of course, Romney and Obama are pretty much Obama I and Obama II anyway.
From a betting site:

2012 Presidential Election​

- ​

Top Candidates Favored To Be Next U.S. President​

(Available - updated 1/20/2012)​

Barack Obama: -150 -Odds On Favorite​

Mitt Romney: +150 ​

Newt Gingrich: +1000​

Ron Paul: +3500​

​

Yeah, I know. It doesn't jive with all the inside info you have! In that case, you can make a fortune placing some very large bets and hedges.

Fred knows all when it comes to politics on this forum. The SOPA debates have shown that!

Obama will win another 4 years if Newt or Romney get the nomination. I am willing to put money on that. Nanci Pelosi is itching to release all those ethic violation documents out to the media and this evangelical Christian Republican majority is not going to be excited about a Mormon President, anymore than a black one they claim is a Muslim that doesn't have a birth certificate.

 

[craigiri]

Paul will move very few votes in the general.....as I see it.
Ralph Nader, who is actually a sane person with vast accomplishments For The People, was predicted to move a lot of the vote. At times he was polling over 5% in the general. When people went to the polls, he got something like 1%.
Chances are most folks will forget about R. Paul by the time the general rolls around.
This is anecdotal and not aimed at our crazy uncle himself, but I have had unfortunately run-ins with folks who were organizers for him (I don't know if official or unofficial) and they were some of the more racist and unpleasant folks I've dealt with in a long time. They give him a bad name! Again, I don't know where they get their attitude from...I think he brings a strange collection of folks together (present company excluded, of course).
His sons campaign manager posted pictures of lynchings on facebook and laughed about that...etc.
He got fired, of course, after it was public.
These things don't all happen in a vacuum. I like Dr. Paul, but I think some of the universe around him proves the ineffectiveness of his outlook---- that is, "people will just do the right thing if you let them be free". Not true in my experience.

 

[Digital Doctor]

Election Reform is probably more important than who gets elected.
American Elections are a national embarrassment.
The obvious corruption in American Politics starts with the Election Process.

• 18 months of primaries and election run up ? Shocking. Canadian election = 1 month.
• The large large sums of money needed to even run ? = Corrupt.
• The electoral college ? Must have been invented with Conestoga Wagons were popular.
• Hanging chads in Florida. Priceless, I'll never forget that gem.

The Democrats, while in control of the House and the Senate, should have rammed through Election Reform. Instead Obama took 1 year to fix Healthcare and essentially failed.

I think it really is weird how low a profile Obama keeps. I guess he'd show his face more if something got done that he could be proud of. Let's just say his appearances have been shockingly rare.

 

[Brent W]

They won't forget about him when it rolls around because he will be polling high enough to be included in the debates, if he goes the Libertarian route.

He has the money to make it happen, something Nader did not.

 

[jadmperry]

I think it really is weird how low a profile Obama keeps. I guess he'd show his face more if something got done that he could be proud of. Let's just say his appearances have been shockingly rare.

Not saying you (or anyone) has to like or support Obama as President. But, I do not get this comment.

ObamaCare is still law and has time yet to be fully implemented. So, I don't see how that counts as a fail. Under Obama, we withdrew from Iraq, killed Osama Bin Laden, killed Khadafi, have taken out numerous other terrorists. We are making progress in drawing down in Afghanistan. The economy, while certainly not good, is in better shape than when he got into office.

Not everyone will agree that he has done a great job. But, I don't think its accurate to say he has done "nothing" either. Another point, I have heard several times, most recently from the RNC chairman, that he is doing too many appearances and he is the "Campaigner-in-chief." This seems to be the exact opposite criticism of the one you seem to level. Though, if you mean he should more to publicize his victories, I agree. The Democrat party has an awful habit of not marketing the good things they do.

Either way, I don't think the Republican nominee (whoever that may be) has a chance. It may not be a blowout, but there are many potential chinks in the armor (Mitt- taxes, history at Bain Capital, some people's discomfort with Mormon religion, alienation of Latino voters. Newt- style issues, like huge line of credit at Tiffany's, weird doings with some of his non-profits, infidelity issues which will turn off some voters, lack of discipline within campaign, and a penchant for going off the rails). I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[Brent W]

Not saying you (or anyone) has to like or support Obama as President. But, I do not get this comment.

ObamaCare is still law and has time yet to be fully implemented. So, I don't see how that counts as a fail. Under Obama, we withdrew from Iraq, killed Osama Bin Laden, killed Khadafi, have taken out numerous other terrorists. We are making progress in drawing down in Afghanistan. The economy, while certainly not good, is in better shape than when he got into office.

Not everyone will agree that he has done a great job. But, I don't think its accurate to say he has done "nothing" either. Another point, I have heard several times, most recently from the RNC chairman, that he is doing too many appearances and he is the "Campaigner-in-chief." This seems to be the exact opposite criticism of the one you seem to level. Though, if you mean he should more to publicize his victories, I agree. The Democrat party has an awful habit of not marketing the good things they do.

Either way, I don't think the Republican nominee (whoever that may be) has a chance. It may not be a blowout, but there are many potential chinks in the armor (Mitt- taxes, history at Bain Capital, some people's discomfort with Mormon religion, alienation of Latino voters. Newt- style issues, like huge line of credit at Tiffany's, weird doings with some of his non-profits, infidelity issues which will turn off some voters, lack of discipline within campaign, and a penchant for going off the rails). I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

This is true and I'm not saying Obama is the anti-Christ, like many on the right do. For all of those though, he did sign NDAA, he has added over 3 trillion dollars of new debt to this country, the healthcare bill he did pass was half assed and part of the new debt. It was not paid for with reduced spending anywhere.

Now you can argue that this is because Republicans fought him and you would be right. This is why this country is so screwed up though. The two party system results in nothing but hate. I will not be voting for Obama, Newt or Romney because I refuse to support this two party system that keeps dividing this country and ripping it apart.

Plus, I vote in Alabama, so its not like I could actually change anything anyways with the electoral system existing. Alabama has gone Republican since before I was born and that won't change under the current system.