Fox news nationwide poll shows ron paul has huge lead in popularity

[JWBooth]

Or --- all those Ron Paul detractors can just..

...eat shit and die.

Fuck 'em, they're perfectly happy with the status quo.

 

[eflatminor]

Because the endless chirping of his supporters is tiresom. Every election we hear it. Its like a teenager on drugs, it makes no sense

All I'm asking for is a reason why you disagree with his positions. Tell us exactly WHY it "makes no sense". It's obvious you can attack the man and his supporters but can you explain why you disagree with his policies?

Been there, done that in multiple other threads. Thanks for being respectful in your request though.

Im out, peace

I respect that. I've not been here all that long so I've missed many previously explored topics. Anyway, from your posts I have seen, I suspect we agree on much more than we might disagree on. Until next time...

 

[Sactowndog]

I see a lot of negative comments about Paul - references questioning the sanity of his supporters, being on drugs, delusional, etc, but no criticism of his policies. That all seems rather childish to me. What is it exactly that you naysayers don't like about the man's plan and policies?

Granted, he doesn't have presidential hair but let's see if we can get to the meat of the issues.

He is out of touch with the reality of todays global issues. Hiding within our borders is not a solution.

Maybe but at least he is honest. You are not likely to get to a balanced budget with no revenue increases without significantly cutting defense and that means dramatically reducing our foreign exposure.

Of all of them Ron Paul is the only one who is at least puts forward rationally consistent policies. That is more than can be said for the rest of them.

 

[eflatminor]

Ron Paul was very pleased by the results. Here he is from his bedroom getting the news.

Ad hominem attacks are easy. Debating the merits of policy, that's difficult. You can do better.

Ron Paul has no merits. Any credit he gets on economic issues goes out the window with his nutty foreign policy ideas. That and the fact that he attracts outright loons as his supporters pretty well damns him to marginal status. Thus easily joke-worthy.

And here I thought we were friends! I assure you I am not a "loon". I am a successful businessman with advanced degrees in finance and economics. I was an executive for nearly 20 years at a Fortune 100, working overseas and in major US markets. I am now a successful entrepreneur, not the smartest guy in the world or the richest but I am in that top 1% of earners that pays for all this government.

In any case, I do not consider a foreign policy that shuns military interventionism in favor of free trade to be "nutty". I'm honest asking you here...why do you?

 

[Modbert]

...eat shit and die.

Fuck 'em, they're perfectly happy with the status quo.

That's certainly one way to get people to support Ron Paul! Insult their intelligence!

 

[The Rabbi]

Ad hominem attacks are easy. Debating the merits of policy, that's difficult. You can do better.

Ron Paul has no merits. Any credit he gets on economic issues goes out the window with his nutty foreign policy ideas. That and the fact that he attracts outright loons as his supporters pretty well damns him to marginal status. Thus easily joke-worthy.

And here I thought we were friends! I assure you I am not a "loon". I am a successful businessman with advanced degrees in finance and economics. I was an executive for nearly 20 years at a Fortune 100, working overseas and in major US markets. I am now a successful entrepreneur, not the smartest guy in the world or the richest but I am in that top 1% of earners that pays for all this government.

In any case, I do not consider a foreign policy that shuns military interventionism in favor of free trade to be "nutty". I'm honest asking you here...why do you?

Ron Paul is an isolationist. I dont care that his supporters bleat about "non-interventionism". It is a distinction without a difference. The United States is not a two bit republic on the ass-end side of the world, as we were in 1798. We are the sole super power in the world. That means in part we have interests all over the world, of one kind or another. Withdrawing from those responsibilities is simply irresponsible. Ron Paul would not have gone to war against Hitler. He would not have gone to war against Islamic extremism. His statements about the GWOT are very disturbing, echoing the loony left that we had it coming to us, or somesuch.

 

[Toro]

Currently, in the last seven polls, Ron Paul's share of the vote in the Republican nomination is 9%.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

 

[Toro]

Or maybe the Paul supporters just tend to flood these online polls to make thier man look better.

Ron Paul has to be the only candidate with a 60 point spread between what he gets in online polls, and what he gets in actual statistically sound polls.

How so?

Ron Paul's support is deep but narrow. There is a very high level of intensity amongst Paul supporters, so they are more likely to vote in an online poll. However, he has limited appeal amongst the general population.

It was the same the last election.

 

[JWBooth]

...eat shit and die.

Fuck 'em, they're perfectly happy with the status quo.

That's certainly one way to get people to support Ron Paul! Insult their intelligence!

Meh, sheep never know the difference.

 

[eflatminor]

Ron Paul has no merits. Any credit he gets on economic issues goes out the window with his nutty foreign policy ideas. That and the fact that he attracts outright loons as his supporters pretty well damns him to marginal status. Thus easily joke-worthy.

And here I thought we were friends! I assure you I am not a "loon". I am a successful businessman with advanced degrees in finance and economics. I was an executive for nearly 20 years at a Fortune 100, working overseas and in major US markets. I am now a successful entrepreneur, not the smartest guy in the world or the richest but I am in that top 1% of earners that pays for all this government.

In any case, I do not consider a foreign policy that shuns military interventionism in favor of free trade to be "nutty". I'm honest asking you here...why do you?

Ron Paul is an isolationist. I dont care that his supporters bleat about "non-interventionism". It is a distinction without a difference. The United States is not a two bit republic on the ass-end side of the world, as we were in 1798. We are the sole super power in the world. That means in part we have interests all over the world, of one kind or another. Withdrawing from those responsibilities is simply irresponsible. Ron Paul would not have gone to war against Hitler. He would not have gone to war against Islamic extremism. His statements about the GWOT are very disturbing, echoing the loony left that we had it coming to us, or somesuch.

We certainly do have interests everywhere. Where I disagree with your assessment is in what constitutes irresponsibility. We are not talking about a wholesale withdraw overnight.

Take South Korea for example. They are among the wealthiest, most prosperous nations in Asia. Surely if we gave them a reasonable timeline, they could provide for their own security. The same holds true for scores of nations around the world where we provide security. We can have allies and even treaties of mutual response in case of conflict but do we really need troops in 150 countries? I think we can responsibly reduce that number over time.

Regarding past wars, our point is that many conflicts could have been avoided in the first place had we shunned so many foreign entanglements. For instance, if American had not intervened in WWI, I strongly believe there never would have been a WWII. Had we not had troops stationed near Mecca, it is doubtful 9/11 would have taken place. History should teach us - the interventionist approach was tried by the British empire and it failed, like so many superpowers before them.

At the end of the day, our goal is not to avoid our responsibility with other nations but to enhance our relationship with other countries through trade. Our omnipresent military makes that extremely difficult while cost US taxpayer dearly. I think we can do better.

Lastly, non of this means we shouldn't have the biggest, baddest, most well equipped military the world has ever known!

 

[Paulie]

Keep wasting your time showing up in the threads about him to add your 2 negative cents about a guy who has no chance, while you wait for the other 100 fucking candidates to change their positions to what you want to hear

As if you dont do the same dam thing about those who oppose him. stfu

To my knowledge, you'll find no posts from me in threads about other candidates. Being as how Paul is the only candidate I like in the GOP field, those are the threads I post in.

I have things to add to the threads, all you do is show up and remind us over and over that you don't like him. For what reason, I don't know.

 

[Paulie]

Because the endless chirping of his supporters is tiresom. Every election we hear it. Its like a teenager on drugs, it makes no sense

Yeah tell me about it. The endless chirping of his opponents is more fucking tiresome than you know. We laugh at the time you waste that you spend downing him on internet forums while there's a bunch of other candidates for you to give your undivided attention to.

Tiresome enough to lead you to your tear filled pillow every time he loses?

Not at all. I understand the odds he's up against. His presidential run in 2008 woke a lot of people up and got them active. When the rest of the republican party was settling for Bush, we were out there waking people up about the debt, the spending, taxes, sound monetary policy, etc.

You should be THANKING the movement for getting people to get off their fat asses and get politically active for a conservative cause.

The tea party today advocates for everything the Ron Paul movement spent 2 years getting kickstarted.

 

[Modbert]

To my knowledge, you'll find no posts from me in threads about other candidates. Being as how Paul is the only candidate I like in the GOP field, those are the threads I post in.

I have things to add to the threads, all you do is show up and remind us over and over that you don't like him. For what reason, I don't know.

You don't like Johnson?

 

[The Rabbi]

And here I thought we were friends! I assure you I am not a "loon". I am a successful businessman with advanced degrees in finance and economics. I was an executive for nearly 20 years at a Fortune 100, working overseas and in major US markets. I am now a successful entrepreneur, not the smartest guy in the world or the richest but I am in that top 1% of earners that pays for all this government.

In any case, I do not consider a foreign policy that shuns military interventionism in favor of free trade to be "nutty". I'm honest asking you here...why do you?

Ron Paul is an isolationist. I dont care that his supporters bleat about "non-interventionism". It is a distinction without a difference. The United States is not a two bit republic on the ass-end side of the world, as we were in 1798. We are the sole super power in the world. That means in part we have interests all over the world, of one kind or another. Withdrawing from those responsibilities is simply irresponsible. Ron Paul would not have gone to war against Hitler. He would not have gone to war against Islamic extremism. His statements about the GWOT are very disturbing, echoing the loony left that we had it coming to us, or somesuch.

We certainly do have interests everywhere. Where I disagree with your assessment is in what constitutes irresponsibility. We are not talking about a wholesale withdraw overnight.

Take South Korea for example. They are among the wealthiest, most prosperous nations in Asia. Surely if we gave them a reasonable timeline, they could provide for their own security. The same holds true for scores of nations around the world where we provide security. We can have allies and even treaties of mutual response in case of conflict but do we really need troops in 150 countries? I think we can responsibly reduce that number over time.

Regarding past wars, our point is that many conflicts could have been avoided in the first place had we shunned so many foreign entanglements. For instance, if American had not intervened in WWI, I strongly believe there never would have been a WWII. Had we not had troops stationed near Mecca, it is doubtful 9/11 would have taken place. History should teach us - the interventionist approach was tried by the British empire and it failed, like so many superpowers before them.

At the end of the day, our goal is not to avoid our responsibility with other nations but to enhance our relationship with other countries through trade. Our omnipresent military makes that extremely difficult while cost US taxpayer dearly. I think we can do better.

Lastly, non of this means we shouldn't have the biggest, baddest, most well equipped military the world has ever known!

Do you honestly think 9/11 would not have happened if the US had done anything differently? That's a blame the victim mentality, which is what makes Paul such a nutjob.
It makes him about like this asshole.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I agree, Ron Paul has no chance of winning so therefore we should all get behind the George Bush Clone Rick Perry.

Your blind hatred of Bush brought us Obama.
Now your blind hatred of Obama will bring us Bush again in Perry.

Stop watching the news and just support the best candidate. That would be Ron Paul.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree, Ron Paul has no chance of winning so therefore we should all get behind the George Bush Clone Rick Perry.

Your blind hatred of Bush brought us Obama.
Now your blind hatred of Obama will bring us Bush again in Perry.

Stop watching the news and just support the best candidate. That would be Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is not the best candidate. He is hardly a candidate at all.

 

[Liberty]

there really is no reason to not like ron paul if you support the concept of liberty. not surprised. the liberty loving folk far outweigh the extreme socialist left. Also, Rabbi, rick perry is a sell out..i dont trust anyone that does that bildeberg bullshit.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Yeah, Iran is just a bastion o' civility......They should have a nuclear weapon......Really, they should!

Ron Paul just proved he's a friggin' whackjob to the core.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, do we get to see one of those really, really, really, reaaaaaalllllllyyyy cool blimps this year?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Notice how you never see Ron Paul and My Favorite Martian in the same place, at the same time?