Author Topic: Ron Paul remember remember the 5th of Novemeber (Read 553 times)

wrag · « **on:** November 05, 2007, 08:13:31 AM »

interesting approach?

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/04/ron-paul-report-who-supports-him-and-why-is-november-5th-important/

wonder if it will work?

lazs2 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 05, 2007, 08:26:52 AM »

I think of ross perot.

everyone said that he attracted both republicans and democrats but... that was not true.. the democrats who pretended to support him never did..

How could they? he wanted to cut funding to the government.. in the end.. republicans voted for him in just enough numbers to let a scum bag democrat get in.

This is even worse. There is no way that any democrat would support him once they really looked at him... once the lefty media showed all the starving and sick kids he was gonna ignore and all the programs he was gonna cut.

lazs

AKIron · « **Reply #2 on:** November 05, 2007, 08:51:17 AM »

If reality were somehow suspended and Ron Paul took either the Republican or the Democrat nomination I'd vote for him. Anything else is a vote for more socialism.

I meant rather to say the obvious, that to vote for Ron Paul if he is not one of the two major party candidates is to vote for Hillary.

bsdaddict · « **Reply #3 on:** November 05, 2007, 09:08:33 AM »

lol, took me too long to type my post... hope it doesn't get deleted...

wrag · « **Reply #4 on:** November 05, 2007, 10:25:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I think of ross perot.

everyone said that he attracted both republicans and democrats but... that was not true.. the democrats who pretended to support him never did..

How could they? he wanted to cut funding to the government.. in the end.. republicans voted for him in just enough numbers to let a scum bag democrat get in.

This is even worse. There is no way that any democrat would support him once they really looked at him... once the lefty media showed all the starving and sick kids he was gonna ignore and all the programs he was gonna cut.

lazs

I see where that could be the case, however, Ron Paul is running as a Republican????

Wondering if enough people pushed for it would the Reps allow him to run as such?

bsdaddict · « **Reply #5 on:** November 05, 2007, 10:48:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I think of ross perot.

everyone said that he attracted both republicans and democrats but... that was not true.. the democrats who pretended to support him never did..

How could they? he wanted to cut funding to the government.. in the end.. republicans voted for him in just enough numbers to let a scum bag democrat get in.

This is even worse. There is no way that any democrat would support him once they really looked at him... once the lefty media showed all the starving and sick kids he was gonna ignore and all the programs he was gonna cut.

lazs

surprise, surprise, more FUD from Lazs. for an "individualist" you sure have that herd mentality down pat...

lazs2 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 05, 2007, 02:58:25 PM »

LOL... I am a pragmatic individualist that wants to keep as much socialism out of my life as possible... that does not include letting hillary get in if I can help it.

I have said over and over that if ron paul got the nomination I would vote for him... I will vote for him if I get a chance.

I will not vote for him as an independent tho or write him in.

much as I would rather have him in than any of the others.. the truth is that if he were a front runner and in the race... he would be outed as a nutjob by the media in a month. It would be the joke of all presedential races.

libertarian ideals are not very well understood.. which... is a good thing for people who are scared of freedom.. which... happens to be about most of the people in the world. Once people understand that he wants them to take care of themselves.. well.. the honeymoon with libertarianism is over for 9 out of ten folks who profess to like the idea but have no idea how that particular sausage is made.

lazs

bsdaddict · « **Reply #7 on:** November 05, 2007, 04:28:44 PM »

you make some good points, Lazs, especially regarding how the media would treat Dr. Paul if he did become the front runner. People ARE scared by freedom, or so it would seem. I've said from the day Paul announced his candidacy that the biggest hurdle will be reaching the dumb masses who care more about Brittney's custody battles than they do about the state of the nation. That's a BIG hurdle to jump, and it might just end up being insurmountable. However, that doesn't mean I stop rooting for freedom and doing what little I can to spread the word.

Saying you'll vote for Paul IF he gets the nomination isn't really saying much. In that case it's Paul or Hillary, OF COURSE you'll vote for not-Hillary. There's time for pragmatism AFTER the primaries, IMHO now is the time for some old-fashioned idealism.

Stang · « **Reply #8 on:** November 05, 2007, 04:37:00 PM »

Lazs hit the nail on the head. Pretty much how I feel about Paul and his chances, if he actually had one.

moot · « **Reply #9 on:** November 05, 2007, 04:45:05 PM »

Pretty ironic when Paul's perspectives and solutions to current problems are most likely the simplest, most transparent and natural ones...

I'd rather attempt a swim to shore than sit still in the water "knowing" sharks are on me.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #10 on:** November 05, 2007, 04:59:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I think of ross perot.

everyone said that he attracted both republicans and democrats but... that was not true.. the democrats who pretended to support him never did..

lazs

Actually the studies proved this statement wrong.
I already posted it in another thread

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #11 on:** November 05, 2007, 05:03:58 PM »

""A detailed analysis of the voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning over $50,000 annually). Politics: Who Cares by Peirce Lewis, Casey McCracken, and Roger Hunt (American Demographics, October 1994, vol. 16, no. 10) p. 23."

Shuckins · « **Reply #12 on:** November 05, 2007, 05:22:06 PM »

Ron Paul may be a man who stands by his principles, but in the world of politics, how a candidate is perceived by the voting public is everything.

He's going to have to make a better showing in front of the media public than he did in the last televised Republican presidential debate. Admittedly, one showing, by itself, doesn't mean that much. However, being a dark horse candidate, he can't afford to give vent to statements that appear to be disjointed or ****less.

Of all the candidates in that debate, he came across, at least in my opinion, as the least likely to be able to form a strong coalition of voters which can give him victory. Paul would seem to be the type of candidate who appeals mainly to fringe groups.

Again, perception is everything. He's going to have to do better in the future.

AWMac · « **Reply #13 on:** November 05, 2007, 06:06:32 PM »

Kinda reminds me of an old guy in a nursing home with a wedgie...

Well the voice fits anyways.

Mac

nirvana · « **Reply #14 on:** November 05, 2007, 06:53:51 PM »

Not all liberals are democrats and not all conservatives are republicans, if that is what you were trying to get at Dred.

Leaving now....