Ron Paul destroys the post-debate polls with 48%...runnerup at only 18%

[Zagg]

Gotta love Ron Paul's supporters. They loyally flood any on line poll with Paul votes. Unfortunately, when it comes to actual voting, his supporters pull single digits

Absolutely.

 

[rightwinger]

He is unelectable.

Like MOST of the republican field

Yes because voting for 9.1% unemployment and trillions of dollars wasted is a much better idea.

As is voting to return to 1920s America

 

[Liberty]

He is unelectable.

Like MOST of the republican field

Yes because voting for 9.1% unemployment and trillions of dollars wasted is a much better idea.

As is voting to return to 1920s America

remind us of how bad the country was doing in the 1920s again economically please?

 

[Avatar4321]

and avatar, they only gave paul 3 questions and each of which was designed to make him look bad...with that said he did fine in defending himself. you cant really ask for more at this point.

So how can you honestly claim someone who only had 3 questions and had poor answers on those 3 questions won the debate? You are going to honestly tell me that 48% of people said that someone who, according to you, never was given an honest chance in the debate won said debate?

He came off as a rambling fool. I know he is a smart man. But thats not how he came off in the debate. Let's face it the man isn't going to be known for his speaking ability.

 

[Avatar4321]

He is unelectable.

Like MOST of the republican field

Yes because voting for 9.1% unemployment and trillions of dollars wasted is a much better idea.

As is voting to return to 1920s America

Small government, 2% unemployment, lower taxes, lower spending.

I fail to see the bad part to returning to the 1920s.

 

[Avatar4321]

He is unelectable.

Like MOST of the republican field

Yes because voting for 9.1% unemployment and trillions of dollars wasted is a much better idea.

You honestly think she is going to take an honest look at Obama? Like Obama, she thinks it's someone elses fault.

 

[eflatminor]

Dr Paul's got my vote in the primary. If he does not win the nomination, there wasn't a person on that stage last night that I would vote for over President Obama in a heartbeat.

Most importantly, we must put more limited government/fiscally sane persons in the Congress. They have the purse strings and there's no way a Republican President is going to veto bills from his own party, bills that must set us on a path balance the budget, decrease debt, lessen regulations, lower taxes, and maybe even restore a modicum of liberty. We'll see.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Really? Can we move on to real topics and real contenders. Ron Paul is nearly ready for a straight jacket not the oval office.

 

[Zagg]

He is unelectable.

Like MOST of the republican field

Yes because voting for 9.1% unemployment and trillions of dollars wasted is a much better idea.

As is voting to return to 1920s America

Or is it 1880s?

 

[Zagg]

Yes because voting for 9.1% unemployment and trillions of dollars wasted is a much better idea.

As is voting to return to 1920s America

Small government, 2% unemployment, lower taxes, lower spending.

I fail to see the bad part to returning to the 1920s.

Prohibition. Talk about the government on people's backs.

 

[dblack]

Really? Can we move on to real topics and real contenders. Ron Paul is nearly ready for a straight jacket not the oval office.

Sounds about right. The more we move toward authoritarian control, the more those of us opposed to it will be regarded as 'lunatics'.

 

[dblack]

Most importantly, we must put more limited government/fiscally sane persons in the Congress. They have the purse strings and there's no way a Republican President is going to veto bills from his own party, bills that must set us on a path balance the budget, decrease debt, lessen regulations, lower taxes, and maybe even restore a modicum of liberty. We'll see.

Right. This is my best-hope for this election cycle: Ron Paul breaks from the Republicans and either runs as a Libertarian proper, or forges some new independent party - maybe even something that would appeal to disaffected progressives as well. He'd lose the general election, to be sure, but my hope would be that he drags a significant number of Tea Party and independent candidates with him, leaving behind a real force for reform in the wake.

Still fairly unlikely, but possible.

 

[eflatminor]

As is voting to return to 1920s America

Small government, 2% unemployment, lower taxes, lower spending.

I fail to see the bad part to returning to the 1920s.

Prohibition. Talk about the government on people's backs.

Prohibition was a Progressive law. Didn't work out so well...of course none do. Dr Paul is the LAST guy to support Progressive laws.

 

[Avorysuds]

The republicans dont like ron paul.

They wont give him the nomination.

They perfer a tea party guy like Perry.

Perry cant win a general election without a WHOLE LOT of cheating.

I dont think they can cheat that much and not get caught

Ron Paul is the "father of the Tea Party" you dumb ass.

Perry is going to eat shit in the polls after his first debate.

And to the OP Ron Paul did very badly in this debate and on top of that he had no time to talk anyways as MSNBC only focused on Mitt and Perry because they are incompetent when it comes to how to run a debate.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ron Paul has some ideas I like. I just can't get past the part that bothers me. The thing called insanity

 

[Avorysuds]

Ron Paul has some ideas I like. I just can't get past the part that bothers me. The thing called insanity

Yes I know, you're a Progressive liberal. You believe in never ending wars that we can't afford and social spending that we can't afford you just want to pick the spending you agree with rather than the constitution.

I love how you are never able to give reasons why "Ron Paul is crazy."

 

[Avatar4321]

As is voting to return to 1920s America

Small government, 2% unemployment, lower taxes, lower spending.

I fail to see the bad part to returning to the 1920s.

Prohibition. Talk about the government on people's backs.

The people approved a constitutional amendment to ban Alcohol. Yes, it's big government, but it's constitutional and its what enough people did at the time.

Doesn't change the fact that the economics of the 1920s were much better. Nor that people were much freer than today.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes because voting for 9.1% unemployment and trillions of dollars wasted is a much better idea.

As is voting to return to 1920s America

remind us of how bad the country was doing in the 1920s again economically please?

Average life expectancy 55, high illiteracy rate, high infant mortality, no labor laws, segregation, no environmental laws.........on the verge of the largest depression in history

That is why we need Ron Paul

 

[Liberty]

As is voting to return to 1920s America

remind us of how bad the country was doing in the 1920s again economically please?

Average life expectancy 55, high illiteracy rate, high infant mortality, no labor laws, segregation, no environmental laws.........on the verge of the largest depression in history

That is why we need Ron Paul

i said economically, not socially...learn English you incompetent moron.

 

[Avatar4321]

remind us of how bad the country was doing in the 1920s again economically please?

Average life expectancy 55, high illiteracy rate, high infant mortality, no labor laws, segregation, no environmental laws.........on the verge of the largest depression in history

That is why we need Ron Paul

i said economically, not socially...learn English you incompetent moron.

But then he cant spin it the way he wants.