It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Can we get real about Ron Paul?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by titorite

I can tell you another guy that last time around had a lot of appeal in internet corners and got completely stump when the voting started....remember Howard Dean? And in Dean case he was leading everypoll until he lost in hes mojo with the "Scream Speech" and there was no money that could save his campaign, so no I dont think money would be a factor.

Money may not be the only answer.
But your statement also reflects that poll numbers can be diametrically opposed to the final result..
Dean with high numbers going out like a whimper..(or scream)
Paul with low numbers, coming on like a stealth candidate.

Another thing to consider is a surprising grassroots effort.
I'm not talking about volunteers canvassing the neighborhoods.

I'm talking about groups purchasing their own billboards, private citizens spending 10's of thousands of dollars of their own cash, Taking out fullpage ads in USA Today, the New York times, cans of spraypaint and home made signs. No other candidate can claim that they have a campaign that runs on autopilot. People just don't feel that strongly about the other guys..

Take Huckabee this week..Did you know he had a moneybomb going on yesterday? A grassroots effort to raise one million bucks..They raised about 80 to 100 thousand.Very disappointing.

Paul's monetary support cannot be accurately calculated. It's much higher than it appears.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by spacedoubt]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:57 PM
The 'official polls' are starting to come around for Paul as well. A couple had him at 10% just a few days ago in Iowa.

Here is a piece that puts Paul at a strong 3rd in Iowa. This is what many of the grassroots are also predicting.

Third Place

Ron Paul -- Rival campaigns are beginning to nervously speculate that Paul will finish in the top three on January 3. Paul broke double digits in at least two polls for the first time this week and he seems particularly strong in areas of the state where the media has less of an impact on political deliberations -- especially in rural northwest and southern Iowa. Check out a Ron Paul supporters' websites and you'll see detailed discussions about caucus rules and strategy. The Paulites are more ready for caucus night than most observers realize

If Paul does place 3rd in Iowa and then does very well in New Hampshire(which is real possibility) he could indeed win the nomination.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Golack
reply to post by Bunch

That is actually untrue. Ron Paul has more cash on hand than any other republican candidate right now.

Huckabee, who is the front runner in the Iowa polls, has only raised a mere 5 million to Paul's 19 million this quarter.

Still my point stands, whyif this guy is raising so much money he dont move in the polls?

I was responding to the point that fundraising money has a direct correlation with likeability and winning. To say the people is not getting to see Ron Paul or listen to his message is absurd because he has the money to make himself seen or heard, add to that what Spacedoubt mention and you get even more exposure.

The point is that even with all those assets the majority of the people dont like Ron Pauls platform, which is my original point.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by Bunch]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by Bunch

He IS moving up in the polls. See my above post. If most republicans actually had a chance to hear his message they would agree with him. About 50% are still completely against the Iraq war and he is the only candidate that wants out. Most republicans want something done about illegal immigration and his plan is one of the better. Some of the top minutemen leaders in Iowa have endorsed him but you won't hear a peep about that on the MSM.

For some reason the mainstream has not been reporting on him much at all. And when they do it is to smear his image with something asinine.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by Golack]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:38 PM
reply to post by Golack

Thanks for pointing that out, I think that blaming the media for Ron Paul not advancing is a weak excuse, what happen then if he gets coverage then and people really turn off on him? Is the media going to be blame for that too? Obviously Ron Paul has many supporters, more than some other candidates so its pretty obvious that hes getting some coverage and hes message is getting heard, coverage and exposure does not exactly correlate to more votes, it can work the other way around.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:37 PM
Media has been hard to come by. Internet? not so bad.
But for people who get their info via television, and Newspapers.
It's a different story..

As I type this There is a bit of a panic because FOX NEWS appears to be excluding Him from the next candidate forum.

Why do you think they would do that?
He is polling higher than some who are included.
There is other info on Paul's main campaign site.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:34 AM
reply to post by spacedoubt

I heard about the Fox News thing. I really don't have a problem if they want to invite the top 5 candidates to a debate, I don't see how Ron Paul would not be in the top 5 in NH but if he's not, then is clear that he doesn't stand a chance and then the attention should go to those that do have a chance, so the people from that state could get a chance to analize these guys up close.

If they invite guys that are below what Ron Paul poll numbers then I do have a problem with that. It will completely take away the credibility of the debate.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 02:30 AM
Talking about credibility at a GOP debate held by FOX is really sort of... What's the word... pointless?

But to address the main point, no, he won't win. He won't even be nominated. Why is that, you may ask? Well, seems a lot of people have convoluted conspiracy theories about NWO puppet masters, Reptilian overlords, or secret "They'll think that we're thinking that they think this!" logic... But no. No, Paul won't get the nomination for the simple fact that the Republican party is suffering a nervous breakdown. In the face of reality it's listing even further rightward and theocratic, pandering entirely to that loyal 23% who believe Ronald Reagan was the second coming - literally.

Ron Paul is gimped, primarily, because of the party he affiliates himself with. Both due to the gross incompetence and spiraling death-twitches of the party, and also because of the "guilt by association" factor. Strange of him to talk about defending the constitution while running for the ticket of the party that has shown the least knowledge or concern for said document, and historically have been first in line to deride, abridge, and erase entire chunks of it for partisan goals. It's so bad that Ron Paul doesn't even seem aware that there are more amendments than the Second, and that's sad.

Now let's take the Internet Libertarian spank-fantasy and think for a moment that Paul does get the GOP nomination, or even runs as independent. What then? Well, his policies are unsound. The only defense he has for any of them is "You disagree, so you must hate the constitution" - it's a sentiment shared by most of his supporters. The fact is, his economic policies are horrendous, and in common GOP fashion, screw the poor, benefit the rich and the military, and leave the middle class to pick up the bill, both in real dollars and total effects. His "plan" for education will, by itself, drop the next generation of "middle class" into near-poverty levels.

And that is, of course, assuming that he could institute any of his, as he calls them, "ideas." For one, if president, he is not a congressman - he can't introduce legislation, his entire use in the making of law is signing or vetoing, both of which can be overridden. Unless of course he plans to continue the blatantly unconstitutional policies of Dubya and his legislative editing.

Further, there's the problem that America has already seen much of Ron Paul's policy coming from the last three decades of Republican thought - cut taxes, cut social programs, kill labor, kill regulation, increase military and disguise minority oppression as "states rights". The last thing they want is a far more magnified and focused version of these things, which is what you'd get with Ron Paul. America wants to swing the pendulum back towards the left, if only for the purpose of repairing the damage done by the right - with the help and endorsement of Ron Paul.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Bunch
Still my point stands, whyif this guy is raising so much money he dont move in the polls?

The polls are not accurate in Ron Paul's case. The reason is, only "likely Republican voters" are being polled.

That means they don't poll -

1) Disgruntled Republicans that did not vote Republican/at all in the last round of elections
2) First time voters
3) Cell phone users
4) Independents
5) Democrats
6) Libertarians
7) Constitution party members
8) Other third party candidates
9) Apathetic voters (Citizens who have not voted in a longtime or have never even voted at all)

Also another reason is that his name isn't even included in many polls.

Now let me ask you a question... If he was to win in New Hampshire, would you vote for him then? ...since it'd become more evident he has a very good chance? Because no offence, but you're coming off as someone who is more interested in whose "popular" -- rather than the important issues.

It really shouldn't matter whether or not he has a chance at winning. You vote for the one that you think is best, and that's that.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Navieko

... Because no offence, but you're coming off as someone who is more interested in whose "popular" -- rather than the important issues.

It really shouldn't matter whether or not he has a chance at winning. You vote for the one that you think is best, and that's that.

My friend you are wrong, in my second post inthis thread and address specifically why I woulnt vote for Ron Paul and I mention the issues that I believe he is way to extreme, radical, irresponsible and trying to misguided voters.

Walking Fox:

Great post, I agree totally in your view of Ron Paul.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by Bunch]

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Bunch
My friend you are wrong, in my second post inthis thread and address specifically why I woulnt vote for Ron Paul and I mention the issues that I believe he is way to extreme, radical, irresponsible and trying to misguided voters.

Fair enough, I missed that post. I guess we just have different views on exactly how urgent the situation is in America at the moment. In my opinion, it will take nothing less than extreme, radical, and perhaps even risky actions in order to fix the problems we are facing today. I don't believe he is trying to 'misguide' anyone... he's just stating the facts. It's a fact that the administration has drifted further and further away from the constitution then ever before. And it's a fact that there is an inevitable economic crisis, gaining ever closer -- if nothing is done.

In the 11 years Ron Paul has been in congress, he's been completely consistent with his stance on sticking to the contitution. You can disagree with his views on what it'll take to fix the problem... but you're sadly mistaken if you believe he's just trying to tap into a particular crowd. Anyone can just do a little reading up on his political history to see he's no flip-flopper -- and certainly not your 'everyday politician'.

[edit on 29/12/07 by Navieko]

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by Navieko

I DO understand that this country needs urgent fixing in some areas, but just because it needs urgent fixing doesn't mean that got to implode the whole system.

Don't get me wrong there is a couple of federal programs and agencies that I could certainly live without, but not the way RP wants to.

And just to clarify something before someone takes me the wrong way, to me Ron Paul seems to be a decent human being with a lot of ideas on how to fix this country, when I say misguided I don't mean he's lying, I just mean that even if he believes he could do it, doesn't mean would accomplish it once he's on office. That's my biggest turn off about him that he runs on a platform of radical ideas, if he were to have just 2 or 3 ok, but an entire platform of radical ideas is extreme.

He would not be able to fix 40+ of federal government mismanagement in 4 or even 8 years, not the way he presenting it, sorry I just don't buy it.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by Navieko

Unless it's the 16th amendment, or Article 1, Section 8, UNLESS of course the shrimp industry of his district needs some federal spending, you know, to keep his voters well-bathed in pork fat.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by Bunch

I respect your concern but I think the point is that at least he will try. No president has the absolute power to implement all their changes, but if they share your ideals, they will most likely be acting in accordance with them. People act like he wants to abolish the federal government all together. He just understands that this huge country isn’t always going to agree, and that is ok. People should be able to make more local decisions, you would hear a lot less complaining. I think he is just throwing all his ideas and opinions out there so you know what he is about and what he will be at least trying to accomplish. He sees things with a lot more reason and a lot less fear then most politicians, at least you know where he is coming from. He doesn’t have that blank authoritarian look, but he’s not a fake ‘buddy’ candidate either, he has sound policies and speaks loosely about them.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Unless it's the 16th amendment, or Article 1, Section 8, UNLESS of course the shrimp industry of his district needs some federal spending, you know, to keep his voters well-bathed in pork fat.

Ah, the old earmark issue. Been discussed and debunked many times already, and if you had any clear idea of how the system works -- you'd know it has nothing to do with Paul 'buying out' his voters. He consistently votes 'No' on earmarking. He doesn't want it in the system. But the thing is, while it IS in the system -- as the representative for his district... it's part of his job to use the money, that otherwise would be used elsewhere anyway. Until it's not part of his job description, he has the obligation to represent his district. It's what he was elected to do. That doesn't change the fact that he wants it gone and that he's been consistent about that for a long time.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:00 PM
reply to post by Navieko

So his position amounts to "I'll go on a diet when people stop making cake?" Principled and stalwart, he is.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:35 PM
reply to post by The Walking Fox

I'm not sure if it is what you implied or what I alluded in my earlier posts in the sense that he's just another ordinary politician trying to pander to an specific sector of the voting population that is sick and tired of the same.

That's not a bad strategy IMO but just not good enough of a platform to be deserving of my vote.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by The Walking Fox

Principled and stalwart he is. He sticks to his principals and does his job, even when it‘s difficult to balance the two. Simplifying an explanation you can’t refute doesn‘t make him conniving or lazy.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by captainplanet

No, but it does make him deceitful and more than a little hypocritical. He is, essentially telling others to do as he says, not as he does, by spooning for earmarks. if it were sensible earmarks, rather than mindless pork (i.e., trying to increase his district's education funding, as opposed to using federal dollars to pay the shrimp industry's advertising bills) that's be one thing... but that's not how it is at all.

I wouldn't hold this asking for earmarks against him, if he weren't running on the platform is, you know, having never asked for them, decrying their use, railing against corporate welfare, and all that other stuff. Doing what a congressman is supposed to do is perfectly fine. Being a hypocrite about it and lying to your "base" about it is another thing entirely. 'Course, this man could skewer, roast, and eat a baby on national television, and his worshippers would be convinced the baby had asked to be eaten so that its soul could join the greatness of Ron Paul, or something.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by The Walking Fox]

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:08 PM
reply to post by The Walking Fox

He put in for the things that people who pay taxes asked him to put in for and I’ve yet to see where he lied about it. Show me a list of requested more ‘sensible’ earmarks that he didn’t put in for and vote against and you might have a case.

You have a twisted view of the situation. You think because a lot of people disagree with you, they must be tricked. You’re entitled to your opinion but I suggest you form it on facts and stop spewing nonsense, it just degrades the conversation.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in