It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Something I do not get about some Ron Paul supporters.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Ron Paul may very well be the most qualified presidential candidate ever. The people that back him may very well be the most rational, intelligent, and freedom loving people in America. That being said, there are many Ron Paul supporters who feel that Ron Paul has a real chance at winning the election. They somehow feel that McCain, Romney, Clinton, Obama, et. al. are doomed to lose to Paul, and if anybody other than Ron Paul wins, there must have been some irregularity or fraud in the vote tally.

If you believe Ron Paul is the best candidate, by all means you should vote for him regardless of what the polls say. At the same time, Ron Paul supporters must face facts. Their candidate does not have the same big money behind him as the other major candidates, nor does he have the support of influential groups like labor unions, relgious organizations, and the like.

Ron Paul supporters need to have a realistic expectation of what their candidate can accomplish. Ron Paul is not going to win the presidency, nor will he likely be invited to the cabinet of whomever is going to run for president. Ron Paul's campaign can signal to the political establishment that there are large numbers of dissatisfied voters who have grievances with the system. These voters can be won over by the first candidate or political party to get their act together and address the voters' grievances.

By voting for Ron Paul, you are not catapulting somebody into the white house. You are not wasting your vote, either. You are sending a message that there are millions of dissatisfied people out there who want change, and that it behooves somebody to address the concerns of those millions of voters.




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Voting for someone that can't win, ensures that someone you'd really not want to see elected, wins. When people voted for Ross Perot instead of Bush Sr., we ended up with Clinton.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


1. Many Ron Paul supporters do not like any of the Republican front runners and may feel they are "all the same." So voting for Ron Paul is not going to allow a less desirable candidate to win.

2. In a few weeks, before the primaries are over, there will be an inevitable winner of the Republican nomination. Some of the major candidates (maybe even Ron Paul) will drop out and one candidate will pull away from the pack. A Ron Paul supporter can still vote for Paul, thus registering his dissatisfaction, without affecting the outcome of the race.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
You're assuming that the Democratic candidates would be acceptable too though. If the Ron Paul supporter is even slightly conservative, they'd probably not want the policies that the Dems would bring. If the Ron Paul supporter is liberal, they sure wouldn't want what the Republicans offer. In any event, they'd be throwing their vote away.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Media non-hype. He is being shut down at every turn, lest his message be heard and raise a stink.
Voting is a solemn undertaking, expressing your wishes for who you think will be the best leader, NOT who you are told raises the most money, who makes the biggest headlines, who is ahead in the manipulated polls.

I am voting for whom I wish to be president, not who I am told has the best chance of winning. This is the American way, and thus will my concience be clear.

BTW, I am voting for Ron Paul, even if I have to write his name in.
Though some of his ideas are radical and some fairly harsh, he has kept them intact, no matter what group he happens to be in front of. ( Unlike some who even change their accent to appease) We need a strong leader who will stand his ground on everything he believes in the best interest of THE PEOPLE, not big oil, big pharma, big war, big north american union, that the others are beholden to.

The government needs painful change, and the others just want status quo, or slow change that will take decades. Paul is willing to do what IMHO, needs to be done quickly. Rip the insidious fingers of big government, big banking, and big corporations out of our lives and return the duties of our government to what they are supposed to be.
Protector and servant of all the sovreign citizens of these united states, as set down in our shredded constitution.

Just a guess, but I would bet that after the primaries, he will go 3rd party, and maybe have a democrat of like mind as running mate. (or join as running mate to said democrat).



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



In the case of the Republican leaning Ron Paul supporter, he is not going to vote in the Democratic primary. Whether or not one Democratic candidate is less acceptable than the other is of no consequence, as the voter was not going to cast his vote for the more desirable Democratic candidate anyway.

In the case of the Democratic leaning candidate who jumps sides to vote in the Republican election, he too would not be throwing away his vote. If all the Democrats are supposedly unacceptable, he is not throwing away his vote by not choosing one unacceptable Democrat over the other.

Another thing to consider in the Democratic primary is that all the major candidates more or less have the same ideologies. They all claim they want to end the Iraqi war, institute some sort of universal health care, eliminate tax cuts for the wealthy, and further socially liberal policies. So it is not as if one will be voting for a completely different set of policies by chosing one Democrat over another. The Republicans on the other hand, seem to be a more diverse group in this election. You have social liberals like Guiliani and social conservatives like Huckabee. McCain and Guiliani are more pro-war than the other candidates.

The only time a vote can be wasted is if Ron Paul decides to run as an independent candidate in the general election. In this situation, you could have a possible repeat of 2000 where many Ralph Nader supporters (especially those in Florida) regretted voting for Nader because Nader took away votes from Gore.

A vote for Ron Paul in the general election situation is not a total waste. If Paul threatens to take votes from the Republicans or Democrats, the major parties will have to shape up their act to prevent a Nader-type situation. In this scenario, the Paul supporters will become a crucial swing vote that the parties will have to fight over, giving the Paul supporters more sway.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I agree 100%. I am still voting for RP, just to say I did 50 years from now when we are all waiting in line for seconds of soylent green.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


I believe that the same can be said for any vote cast in a primary for any candidate who does not end up receiving the nomination. I find your post to be nothing more than a smear against Paul supporters and a hasty generalization to boot.


What you are failing to address/understand etc... is that the media is deciding this race right in front of our eyes. Certain candidates are receiving THOUSANDS of hours of free air time (Equating to campaign time) through the MSM while others are literally being swept under the rug.


Instead of being an apologist for the machine, you should reach out and work to correct the inadequacies, inequalities and outright malfeasance of the entire process.

To claim that Ron Paul does not have money behind him simply demonstrates that you know and understand even less about what is going on than you are alluding to. Dr. Paul has set the single day fundraising record! Dr. Paul has as much money, or more, from 4th quarter fundraising as nearly all of the "Frontrunners" and what makes this most remarkable is that they came from INDIVIDUAL VOTERS - not corporations, or lobbyists, or union groups - NONE of which actually cast a single vote (but they sure as hell buy influence now don't they
)

That, my dear friend, is why there is so much speculation about vote-rigging and election fraud. The actual results don't match up with any other poll taken. The results don't match up with individual campaign contributions. Couple that with the constant campaigning going on for the selected media darlings and you have the makings of a coup - a takeover of our election process by the corporate controlled media. If you can't see that then I fear that all of this is lost on you - and for that I am truly sorry.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I've been a supporter of Ron Paul for a while now but never once did I really expect him to win the presidency and personally, I don't think he really expects to win either.

I think that as long as he can get out there in the spotlight and get a few of the cattle to listen to what he has to say about the constitution, civil liberties, and freedom in general then he's helped to do good in the country.

The vast majority of this country have no idea whats going on and only believe what they are told by the mass media. If it takes millions of dollars and an entire campaign to inform even a few people of their rights and freedoms then he's won in my book.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Just my 2 centavos, no vote is ever thrown away, unless it is a vote for the lesser of two evils, or just to keep some other from winning.
We are (I assume) to vote for what in our hearts and minds, will be the best, according to our personal ideals. The falsehood of the "two party" system (never a part of our laws or desires) keeps those of the "uninformed electorate" bound to believe there can be only 2 to choose from. The lesser of two evils, as it were. The media and the dems and repubs keep this false idea alive so they only have to cut the pie into 2 pieces. Notice how no "other" candidate ever is considered by media to be anything but a "spoiler, taking votes away from (insert candidate here)".

This was never an intention of our founding fathers. An informed electorate would be in the best interest of all, and I do my small part in the hopes that some day, everyone will know the truth, vote their concience, and return our nation to the values and beliefs about freedoms and democracy that is was intended to be.
A representitive republic with democratically elected leaders.

BTW, thanx for the applause.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
As Ron supporter, I don't think he has much of a chance of beating John. How ever I support John more so than Ron, even if I feel a Ron & John team in the House would benefit the Country best. So with my absentee balot I voted McCain, and am not ashamed to admit so, just praying he don't drop out last minute like he did before, thus giving my vote to a lesser liked candidate.

It is often difficult being a contributing member of the RNC, but with out McCain I would not be, so I owe him that much.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Voting for someone that can't win, ensures that someone you'd really not want to see elected, wins. When people voted for Ross Perot instead of Bush Sr., we ended up with Clinton.


That to me does not mean the those who voted for Ross Perot wasted there votes, It shows that the 2 parties at that time had nothing those voters were looking for. It's not wasted, Just descent from status quo.

saw this video on Youtube thought i would add it to this thread it shows some Internet polls and support Ron Paul has earned.




sorry if this has already been posted.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by nixaxe]

[edit on 12-1-2008 by nixaxe]

[edit on 12-1-2008 by nixaxe]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


I find your post to be nothing more than a smear against Paul supporters and a hasty generalization to boot.


What you are failing to address/understand etc... is that the media is deciding this race right in front of our eyes. Instead of being an apologist for the machine, you should reach out and work to correct the inadequacies, inequalities and outright malfeasance of the entire process.

To claim that Ron Paul does not have money behind him simply demonstrates that you know and understand even less about what is going on than you are alluding to. Dr. Paul has set the single day fundraising record!


1. To respond to your point, I am admittedldy making a generalization. I know Ron Paul has millions of supporters, many of whom have different ideas. I was just commenting on a vocal segment of his support base. I could not tell you how large this segment is or whether it represents the majority of Paul supporters, but nevertheless this segment is out there and making noise.

2. Everybody should concede that the media plays a huge role in determining the outcome of the primaries, and that this is not necessarily a good thing. For better or for worse, Paul's candidacy is doomed because he does not have mass media support. I applaud Paul supporters for trying to rally around somebody who is fighting the machine, but at the same time I cannot believe they are going to be successful in winning.

3. Paul may have had some fund raising success, but he will not have access to the big money. Candidates like Clinton, McCain, Guiliani, et. al. have friends in very high places Paul does not have. I cannot see Fortune 500 companies, PAC's, and other big players throwing their financial support behind behind Paul the same way they would support Clinton. For better or for worse, running for President requires a lot of money. The only way Paul or any candidate can win is by tapping the "big money" but Paul does not have access to the "big money."



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
this is all assuming that voting even matters.

"if voting could change anything
it would be illegal"
---american folksaying

if the primaries are already in this bad of shape, with this much fraud, in addition to the california issue, and the FEC temporarily done away with, one must seriously consider the ramifications of perpetuating an already flawed system, being used in an overtly deceptive and fraudulent manner, rather than simply working to get away from a nation that is slowly but surely pulling off the greatest propagandized "free" government the world has ever seen, while at the same time destroying each of the freedoms it is allegedly determined to enforce, with whatever means necessary, all over the world.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
You do realize that throughout the history of elections, the frontrunners have always gotten more coverage than the underdogs. This is nothing new. Ron Paul has gotten more coverage as of late due to the grass roots support, and fundraising efforts. He still has of yet to get any major endorsements though, which would add to his credibility in a general election.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


Are you serious? What are you on? The biggest war supporter teamed-up with the biggest war opponent? How exactly would that 1) ever happen and 2) make even a modicum of sense???

People have got to actually listen to what Dr. Paul says for just a couple minutes and try to get it into their heads that the economy and the wars are inextricably linked. Forget the morality issues or the who won/who lost sophomoric concerns and focus, just for once, on the hard, cold reality: the country is going bankrupt we cannot afford to prosecute these wars OR our foreign adventures any longer. Period. End of story. If we do, and God forbid if that idiot in DC decides he needs to bend over for Israel and mix it up with Iran the economy in this country will collapse. No recession (we already have that), it will collapse.

The situation we are in (economically speaking) is entirely unsustainable and has been for some time. We bankrupted the former Soviet Union using this tactic and we're falling victim to the very same thing. Stop and think. How can anything get better unless we immediately stop bleeding at the rate of $3+trillion a year? This massive foreign borrowing that GWB et al have been using to finance his kegger has spread into the private sector. It has to stop. Wake up people. There's an elephant in the living room and someone has got to point it out.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
[2. Everybody should concede that the media plays a huge role in determining the outcome of the primaries, and that this is not necessarily a good thing. For better or for worse, Paul's candidacy is doomed because he does not have mass media support. I applaud Paul supporters for trying to rally around somebody who is fighting the machine, but at the same time I cannot believe they are going to be successful in winning.

3. Paul may have had some fund raising success, but he will not have access to the big money. Candidates like Clinton, McCain, Guiliani, et. al. have friends in very high places Paul does not have. I cannot see Fortune 500 companies, PAC's, and other big players throwing their financial support behind behind Paul the same way they would support Clinton. For better or for worse, running for President requires a lot of money. The only way Paul or any candidate can win is by tapping the "big money" but Paul does not have access to the "big money."


Thank you Hotpink... your response demonstrates EXACTLY what is wrong with the process and the vast majority of American's tacit approval and acceptance of a farce! Please allow me to repond to both of your very valid points quoted above...

2.) NOBODY should concede that the media has a major role in determing who wins! In fact, EVERBODY should shun the media's complicity in voiding their votes. The Fairness Doctrine should be reintroduced and enforced with vigor. Media darlings and their selected candidates should receive THE SAME amount of air time as EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE -PERIOD! This free air time amounts to a campaign contribuition and should be recorded as such. Instead they are presented as "interviews" when in reality they are nothing more than campaign platforms given to chosen candidates FREE OF CHARGE!

Instead I propose a fair system whereby EVERY candidate is ensured a platform to communicate their message to the public - fiarly and equitably. Since every station is subject to FCC licensing, the FEC (Federal Election Commission) and the FCC should enact laws that mandate that an equal amount of airtime be offered to EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE - EQUALLY!

3.) Fund raising is simply another extension of the vote-rigging taking place in society. Only private INDIVIDUALS should be permitted to donate to a campaign and those donations should be capped and disclosed to the public. Instead, we have a system where corporations, organizations and PACs "Bundle" obscenely large contributions and hide the true donors. In exchange for these obscenely large donations, these organizations are ensured that they have "Purchased" favor with that candidate should it win. As a result, Corporate interests trump the interest of VOTING CITIZENS. Do you not see a problem with that?

This Republic was founded as a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE. I do not see any mention of corporate interests anywhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Sadly, existing laws ensure that these interests trump the citizens at every turn. What's worse is that these politicians benefit from the existing system and ONLY THEY have the ability to change it. Many neoconservative posit that Campaign Finance Reform is a violation of Free Speech and have called it "The Encumbent Protection Act." These are outright lies designed to cloud the issue. Free Speech is right granted to CITIZENS - not corporations and the existing system of politicians being bought and paid for by corporations is the very act that protects encumbents who will curry favor with the corporations.

These laws MUST be changed if there is ever to be a truly fair election representative of the PEOPLE's interests and will.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I agree with your points on campaign finance reform, and utilizing the fairness doctrine. I'd also like to see term limits, so candidates spend more time worrying about legislation rather than reelection. I disagree that it's a conspiracy against Ron Paul specifically, though.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Not a conspiracy against Ron Paul, per se, but a conspiracy against the public. Ron Paul is hardly the only candidate suffering from this preferential behavior being exhibited by the media. Further, this has been evident in prior elections with other candidates.

I don't think that this is "Against" Ron Paul but rather "For" those candidates likely to further the CFR, AIPAC, Bilderberg, Corporatocratic agenda.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I still think it is encumbent upon the public to find out as much as possible about the respective candidates(i.e. voting history if coming from Congress, performance as Governors if that's their background, etc...)
I'm always suspicious if a candidates views have changed significantly right before an election. Their past performance/recent performance should be an indicator that's helpful in seeing their vision and leadership style. You can't trust the media to tell you who to vote for. Personally, I like Duncan Hunter, but he has less chance than Ron Paul does.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join