papajohn56

Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41% - Rasmussen Reports

The *only* GOP candidate polled to even get close. This isn't a straw poll or easily manipulated internet poll either.

__________________

Benji49

Ron Paul is the Ross Perot of the 21st century. He's going to siphon off just enough right-wing support so that Obama sneaks in for a second term.

Is he going to win? No. I don't care how many of you Ayn Rand loving-libertarians shout me down, no way this guy is going to survive the anal media fisking that all serious presidentila candidates need to go through before capturing the White House.

papajohn56

If he takes the GOP nod, I think they would reluctantly support him. What are their options?

__________________

blueRAP

2012 Poll - Barack Obama: 42%, Ron Paul: 41%

Not that this isn't news worth repeating though.

LotsOfZeros

Like they all did to Obama? Yeah, they really threw him some curves didn't they?

You're right though. The mainstream media has far too much invested in BO to turn back now. They have proven how viciously they are willing to smear anyone on the right to obtain their objective (some reports currently have them trying to infiltrate tax day tea party rallies).

edit: hxxp://www.nowhampshire.com/2010/04/14/source-state-dems-scrambling-to-deploy-tea-party-'crashers'/

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

kingfish

Sweet!

__________________

Human

I love how almost every political event ever gets more than one thread on here. And they're typically the longest.

Might as well start calling this forum LiberalFire. It's .com is open.

PS: Ron Paul 2012!

__________________
"It takes courage to grow up and turn out to be who you really are.” –E.E. Cummings

Back after a year long hiatus.

BeerNuts

Wow some good out of the tea party, they are pushing more for paul.

__________________

LotsOfZeros

politifire.com

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

papajohn56

think I'll buy this

__________________

consigliere

RON PAUL 2012!

__________________

banana ads
blog
twitter
upto20.com - hire people to do marketing stuff for cheap

hellblazer

The Paulnuts are so cute when they dare to dream.

papajohn56

The only people holding him back are fundamentalists who think Huckabee or Romney are "good" candidates. The numbers show now, Paul is the best choice to beat Obama in 2012. The only GOP candidate to get within the margin of error.

__________________

hellblazer

Dude, it's one poll. And the Paulnuts historically rig his polls. It's not just 'fundamentalists' who oppose him; it's also people who disagree with his foreign policy positions. If he were to oppose overseas operations on purely financial reasons, he'd probably have a good shot. But he has to bring in the whole "blame America", "it's our fault for everything" rhetoric and that's where his numbers begin to fall off a cliff.

papajohn56

It's a valid rasmussen poll that was conducted by phone, it wasn't an internet poll that can be manipulated. It's hard to get this through enough, but he isn't saying "blame America". He is saying "When you piss people off, you should expect them to lash back at you"

__________________

BeerHat

I want to see how many Obama supporters on here will actually support Paul if he gets the nomination.

Lots of people last time here were talking about an Obama-Paul ticket as a dream ticket. Clearly they had no freaking clue as to what either of these two stand for.

Come one, who with any intellectual honesty can support Ron Paul and Obama at the same time?

The one thing they had agreed on was the war, and even that Obama has reneged on and has further expanded.

__________________

medicalhumor

who exactly do you like? You seem to hate pretty much everyone.

__________________
pro-life
adj. Valuing human life until birth.

hellblazer

Exactly, he's saying America 'pissed people off' and attacks like 9/11 were them 'lashing back'. In other words, America caused events like 9/11. It's not rocket science, everyone knows and understands what he's saying. But this is what I'm talking about - his supporters have to perform these mental gyrations in order to make his positions appear more palatable.

unrealalex

How is "america pissed people off and people fought back" the same thing as "america caused 9/11"? The reason Ron Paul supporters need to "perform mental gyrations" is because some people are too thick skulled to understand something without twisting it with their own prejudice and arrogance.
That said some of Ron Paul's ideas are too far out there for the American public to get behind, and the string pullers to get behind.

hellblazer

Hello, motherfucker, cause and effect? I'll slow it down a lot this time for you:

Ron Paul Worldview On Terrorism

Cause: America Invading Arab Nations And Other Assorted Douchebaggery
Effect: Terrorism

Capiche?

dennyray

rp2012

papajohn56

And why is that wrong? If you invade them, why is it beyond expectation for them to be mad and want to bomb us?

__________________

guerilla

That's not just Paul's view, that is also the CIA's view. The CIA accepts the premise of Paul's position (blowback) as a foreign policy consequence.

I am pretty sure that is the Pentagon's view as well. Look up Dr. Robert Pape and his Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism which I believe is partially funded by the Pentagon.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

unrealalex

Theres no need to be an ass. Ever taken a law class and learned the difference between proximate and actual cause? Yes America had a foreign policy that pissed people off and they retaliated, but that doesn't mean America is to blame for 9/11. Is japan to blame for being nuked?

hellblazer

Ok, so you finally admit that's his position. And like I've been saying, it turns many Americans off. Personally, it strikes me as an oversimplification of a more complex problem, but to many people, it's going to strike them as unpatriotic. And it's a real shame that a man like Ron Paul, who has good economic views, would have to be tarred with the brush of unpatriotism. If he was smart, he'd oppose overseas wars on purely budgetary reasons and have a much better shot.

unrealalex

So being American means equating arrogance = patriotism according to you hellblazer. How is admitting that America messed with other people's business and got messed up for it unpatriotic? we continue to do the same thing today and then wonder why people hate us everywhere. This thread reminds me why I stay out of political debates. Im done lol.

guerilla

Sadly, many people cannot distinguish between proximate and actual cause.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

papajohn56

No, because you actually stated it differently in that post. Blowback is not the same as "It's all America's fault!" It'd be smarter for him to oppose it on that just for campaign purposes yes.

__________________

high risk

and that's about the only valid position, it seems

__________________

Dispel

Hellblazer wins this thread. Lol Paul will get murdered on foreign policy. The Conservative hawks will have him hung by the balls for treason.

It'll go a little like this:
Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud

A few won't be too keen on his "I don't really believe in evolution" shit either.

and shit like this will be blown out of all proportion:
Orcinus
(American Thinker: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

I think its hilarious that Stormfront's website says "Ron Paul for President" and David Duke refers to him as "our king" while at the same time various Muslim groups call voting for him "in the best interest for the entire Ummah". Someone is a little confused.

__________________
___The MicroAffiliate___

conv3rsion

wait, ron paul doesn't believe in evolution? that seems crazy to me

conv3rsion

holy shit, that just blew my mind, for someone as rational and logical as him to actually say "its just a theory" ....

For those of you who don't know, theory in science means "explanation for" not "My god Watson, I've got a theory!". Everything in science is a theory and subject to being amendable at anytime new evidence rebukes it.

Berto

This Ron Paul poll is definitely getting press. Here's one stating that Libertarianism is "going mainstream":

Hating the government finally goes mainstream | Washington Examiner

Not quite yet, but interesting. We weren't reading this shit 4 years ago.

SkyFire

Ron Pauls view on this was exactly why I supported him, and then Obama when Paul (predictably) failed to secure nomination.

SkyFire

Just an FYI, "My God, Watson, I've got a theory!" was wrong less often than actual science. Not that I disagree with evolution, just pointing it out.

conv3rsion

lol fair enough

guerilla

Paul doesn't run to win. It's funny how this basic fact is inconceivable to some folks. He has no desire to be President. He doesn't even like being a Congressman. He runs to promote ideas about freedom.

I'm pretty sure Donald Trump could come within 1 percentage point of Obama in a poll today. The point of the poll is to illustrate how conservatives (with your preferred foreign policy) have even less appeal than one of the most polarizing Presidents in the history of the United States.

No, they both get it. If you understand the motivations of both groups, Paul represents both constituencies. He represents every interest group, not just the ones who bribe him, or who have the most political power.

Freedom is appealing to everyone. That includes people who want to live an Islamic lifestyle, and people who want to live in white only communities. It's appealing to buddhists, christians, and atheists. It is appealing to straights, gays and trannies. Everyone wants to be free.

The exception is that tiny minority of idiots who truly believe that war and welfare are necessary for greatness. But again, most people are not fucking retards like that. Most people do not have a personal interest in empire or mass movements. The people attracted to those things are sociopaths or people with very low self-esteem.

When people attack Paul over his supporters and not his ideas, they lose. Fox and the GOP tried that during the last election and it blew up in their faces (see the poll!!). Paul is now bigger than Fox and the GOP.

This poll just reinforces that the days of the Neocon worldview as a relevant political ideology are at an end. People will take the Marxist [sic] over anyone on the right but perhaps Ron Paul.

And that shift in populist thinking should worry the warfare/welfare collectivists more than a 75 year old grandfather with ideas about peace and sound money.

It sorta exposes how pathetic his detractors are when all they can do is draw out the same old slanders against his supporters, and overreact to his popularity, when it is their lack of ideas and principles which allows for his ascendancy in the first place.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

hellblazer

Inconceivable to the Paulnuts apparently, since at least two Ron Paul supporters posted this poll and they were jizzing all over it. If he doesn't actually want to be President, maybe somebody should clue his followers in, because it sounds like they're not on the same page.

By that same standard, Ron Paul has less appeal as well. Nobody's beaten Obama in a projected 2012 run, according to the much-vaunted polls. But in order for anyone to believe that, they'd have to take the polls as gospel, which I don't. I think they're invariably tilted to the left, and Obama's in way worse trouble than is portrayed. And he knows it.

Not sure who you're referring to, as most conservatives I know don't care about empire or shedding blood simply for "greatness". Care to clarify? Or were you just hoping that Godzilla-sized strawman would slip past?

I'll assume you're talking about realistic conservatives who understand we have enemies when referring to 'neocons' and simply say that if you truly believe that balderdash, you must be completely wasted. Like I said, the Paulnuts are orgasming over this poll. And again, not like it truly excites me or anything, but GOP contenders drew decent numbers when paired up against him for 2012. I don't know where you're getting this "huge disparity" narrative from. The people simply hate Obama.

It's hardly "slander" to realize the cold, harsh political realities facing RP if he ran. Like it or not, his statements on foreign policy can be manipulated to be perceived in a certain light. I'm not sure why this is "slander" - it's obvious to anyone who hasn't invested their heart and soul into the man and can look objectively at his chances. He's good on economic policy, overly simplistic on foreign policy. And it would probably be better for his supporters to realize his "detractors" are approaching their opposition to him based on obvious and reasoned decisions rather than these enormous strawmen arguments currently being erected.

conv3rsion

Like guerilla said, this poll shows how well Ron Paul's message is resonating with the masses and likewise how poorly that of most other conservatives is.

guerilla

Please re-read my post. I said a very small number were interested in these things, and that most people are not.

No, I mean neocons. Like Krauthammer in your sig. Straussians/Trotskyites/Radical Leftists who appeal to the ancient greek philosophers like Plato, ironically your other sig quote.

When I say socialist, or marxist, or neocon, I mean something very specific that is very well understood in an academic or intellectual sense. I do not just toss these labels around as epithets as you are sometimes wont to do. I use them to describe carefully what it is exactly I am talking about.

You're missing the point in the poll, you're missing the point of my post.

You hate Obama. The Tea Party people/independents hate big government.

Those are not the same things.

It was cheap slander to conflate his support with white supremacy or Islamism.

It's all one policy. Your foreign policy positions are inconsistent with your economic positions. A warfare/security state is not any more compatible with small constitutional government than a welfare state.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

turbolapp

So basically, what your saying is the traditional republican party is too stupid to rationally work out his message of non-intervention and how perpetuating this idea will actually protect america in the future? I really think you should give your party more credit.

hellblazer

Settle down, big boy. Obama's a Marxist, not because of what he's done(although that's partially it), but because of who he is and what he wants to do. The Democratic Party is socialist, not entirely because of what they've done(although that is a HUGE part), but because of who controls them, what they want to do, and their general philosophies. Just because you don't believe in the concept of stealth leftists doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Tea Party people, like me, hate Obama because he is big government. It's precisely the same thing.

If RP made his quasi-isolationist argument from a financial standpoint, he would be in great shape, like I keep saying. But libertarians of his and your ilk seem to think the type of freedom we enjoy comes with no responsibilities whatsoever. How about those living under tyranny, being tortured or killed while we enjoy our capitalist paradise, living our whole lives in freedom? Have we no obligation to work within our entire means to ensure they receive the freedoms we so liberally enjoy? Does "freedom" suddenly change definitions once one steps outside of our borders?

This is the problem with Ron Paul - he never acknowledges the moral element of the argument that pro-Iraq War or pro-interventionists make. In his eyes, it's a pure profit motive, spurred on by greedy oil companies or defense contractors or some other such boogeyman.

Personally, I don't know how it doesn't bother people that Chinese Falun Gong practitioners are being literally murdered every day because of their beliefs. And who knows, maybe it does bother some here. But does that mean at the end of the day we just throw up our hands and say, "Well, yeah I feel bad, but there's nothing we can do..."? That's not good enough for me. I literally believe in the "First they came for the..." maxim - if the brutal ruling elite view their own people in that way, what's to stop them from viewing neighboring nations that way too? Does anyone actually think some of these dictatorships are content with simply coexisting, satisfied with their power and not interested in expansion? If domestic rule of law means so little, why would international rule of law mean anything more?

Maybe that does conflict with the view that government should be small, limited, and tight in its spending. But there's all types of avenues and leverage one can apply. Embargos, exclusion from international organizations, etc.. But the American leadership seems weak and fickle, so if at the end of the day they clumsily try to help another people through raw, brute military force, I'll uneasily support it. But remember that unlike a welfare state which carries on into perpetuity, the goal of global liberation is achievable and one that eventually ends. It's kind of like when we went to the moon - sure, it cost a lot, but it was an ambitious goal and America will forever live in history for accomplishing it.

And btw, settle down with the indirect insults, they're getting pretty tedious.

johu

Here's the thing - The poll pit Paul against Obama, but this is not a proper poll, since before running against Obama, he would have to first run in primaries against other Republicans. I can't seem to find any polls pitting Paul against Romney, Huckabee, or Palin, widely used in polls to go head to head with Obama in 2012. Theoretically the same results would happen if someone beat Paul in the poll (which I guarantee will happen), but it's not quite a scientific method. GOP 12: Obama, 2012 prospects tied up shows basically all candidates (Paul not included) within 4%, so my guess is that everything is still within the margin of error.

guerilla

Without a doubt. Paul would never be nominated by the Republican base.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

papajohn56

__________________

amanda11

Ron Paul won't win because the International Banker said so.

I put my money 3:1 that Ron Paul won't win.

Dispel

Hmm, how do I respond to such Comedy Fucking Gold? Oh, I know. By laughing.

__________________
___The MicroAffiliate___

guerilla

@HB, I'll PM you.

Weak game.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est