Ron Paul Wins The ATS Straw Poll!

I am a Democrat, but a Ron Paul supporter.

epic video

reply to post by 27jd

"If those states enact laws mandating prayer in schools, that would be against the Constitution"
sorry,, but that,,, would mandate that the ,,,FED STAY OUT OF IT.
That is the Constitution.
That is why Segregation in the South was so hard too defeat.
the "FEDERAL Goverment , from Washington,,was interfering with,, the Constitution,,, STAY OUT OF IT,
said the South,, no said Lincoln.
They did not yet understand,,,concept of "All men are Created Equal",, should have applied too both Federal and Individual States,,
And that under God meant the same as it always has.

Under,,,God,,,not Man,, not beside ,,not over, not with,,,but under God.
And did not God accomplish his plan?

Barrack Obamma,,?
That is the fruit of the Constitution,, the purpose of American Destiny,,??

Barrack Obama.?


"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."

Originally posted by TinFoilTP
Ron Paul was labeled a 9/11 truther yet he did nothing to tell them idiots in his campaign to back off or go on a national platform disassociating himself from them completely.

Originally posted by 27jd

Why should he? It's not his job, nor his place to tell other people what to believe personally. They associated themselves with him. Instead of spending his time disassociating himself from people he never associated himself with in the first place,

edit on 17-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)

Well if he cannot learn from his past mistakes this is FAIL from the getgo.
If his supporters cannot learn from their past mistakes they are doomed to repeat them.

Get ready to be painted into the far corners of fringe society, where violent protests, illegal hactivism, and shadowy agents lurk wearing Guy Fawkes masks because Ron Paul's "Base" has no problem with them, just like they had no problem with intermingling with "truthers" last time around.

A candidate should listen to his Base but as leader should steer his Base where his best chance of success is. Ron Paul has so far failed to do that when examining the historical record. The BBC was far more accurate than your revisionist historical account of the last election was. All you did was make excuses for him on his failings.

Important Criteria used by the Sheeple left out....

"Are you hot or not"

I wish I was kidding....

Sad as it is, for example, I don't see a fattie candidate ever getting elected.
There's really an argument to be made that some female candidates may be voted for, just based on looks.

In this election by media age, it's a factor that can't be completely ignored.

I have no illusion that my candidate will actually win...but then again, I'm more about voting for who I feel would actually represent my interests and beliefs best.

All this talk about "electability" simply doesn't matter to me. If we all voted for what we really wanted vs. who the media says can win...WE could decide what electability really is.

How will bringing back "the troups" flood the job market?

Originally posted by Sphota
What I'm getting at: Isn't it strange that even within this microcosm of America on ATS, we can see this person to be the fore-runner, but yet still find him unelectable. It's ironic - or maybe counter intuitive, . . .

Is Pavlovian the word you're looking for?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Ok you have this poll at ATS and then this Topix poll
Topix Poll
Ron Paul owns the Internet, but sadly he doesn't own the American baby boomers votes, he is also marginalized by media no matter how well he does. So much so that comedy is being made of it now.

Baby boomers use the internet. It is our parents who don't.

Also the "Tea Party" who started out as Ron Paul's 2008 campaign ARE baby boomers according to the Blair-Rockefeller poll/

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
The BBC was far more accurate than your revisionist historical account of the last election was. All you did was make excuses for him on his failings.

Find me the quote from Ron Paul saying he wanted to "legalize heroin? (yeah, I used a Z, cuz this is America )

Find me where Ron Paul said he believed the government was behind 9/11?

Again I point out, he was the one who wanted to go kill Bin Laden the way he was killed in the end, WITHOUT a full scale invasion.

I don't care about certain segments of his support, if they break the law and deprive others of their personal freedoms in any way, then they are criminals and need to be punished like any others.

I'll be waiting for those quotes from Dr. Paul, because those are the assertions the BBC made in that assinine article. I'm not interested in what some of his supporters do to show their enthusiasm, as long as it's not hurting others.

Let's discuss Dr. Paul, and his positions, not a small segment of his supporters.

ETA: Why did you cut my quote like that? The thought continued...do you work for the BBC? That may explain it.

Good job everyone im very proud of all who voted. That proves to me at least most of you arent Donkeys I dont think i can say jack A#@ on here anyways good job.

Nobody wins.. I can see you all complaining 6 months after elections. History will tell you that.

Whoever is elected will have to bow down to their masters just like all of us.

Politics suck it's just our way of telling them we need to be herded like sheep.

Abolish government don't get excited about it!

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

I'm voting for anyone who has a strong record against illegal immigration. That's my "hot button issue". My wife (British) just got her U.S. citizenship, and we've done everything LEGALLY.

I like everything Ron Paul talks about, but he's been given an "F" by NumbersUSA and that's enough for me to NOT vote for him. Of the candidates left, Bachmann has the best grade. Since Pawlenty dropped out, that leaves Herman Cain as the next in line. I'll be voting for Herman Cain.

NumbersUSA 2012 Presidential Hopefuls' Immigration Score Card

Make sure you check Ron Paul's actual words on the issue.

I found out the hard way that many many "Independent" groups are actually funded by TPTB.

They run along happily, convincing you that they are the "Real DeaL" until crux time and then make a U-Turn. Since their followers "KNOW" they have never "lied" before the Sheeple fall for it every time. Even the rank and file members and employees do not know the real truth and are left bewildered by the conflict.

It is probably THE best sneaky tactic TPTB has up their sleeve.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Symer

Also, the member/non-member ratio isn't always reported in other polls so I can't really tell if this -heavily toward non-member leaning- ratio is out of the ordinary. Is it?

Incorrect.

Those numbers are always given, and non-members, so far, have always outweighed members by a hefty margin. It only shows that there are a lot of lurkers reading, learning, and keeping mum. The only thing is that the results are never broken down along those lines item by item, probably for brevity's sake. If you start reporting there, where do the endless breakdowns and permutations stop?

Not to belabor the point, but a quick search for "ATS poll results" will display 5 other polls on the first results-page and the member/non-member ratio is given in none of those.

I, for one, love doing endless breakdowns. I'm sure there are loads of stat-freaks like me on here who'd be thrilled to see the raw data posted so we can squeeze every last bit of info out of the votes.

reply to post by 27jd

Again, you're misunderstanding it. He doesn't believe in federal government getting involved in the arguments about banning prayer in schools, etc. As with most things, he will leave that to the states. If those states enact laws mandating prayer in schools, that may be against the Constitution and the federal government could maybe step in to stop it.

But when asked, Ron Paul, despite whether supporting civil liberty doesn't agree in the separation of Church and State as the founding fathers did.

The nation is already mostly divided into regions with different cultures, so more 'liberal' states would have more liberal laws, than say more 'conservative' states. As long as the states don't do anything constitutional, which steps on the rights of others, the federal government would stay out it.

Again, the constitutional insists that church and state be separate, which Ron Paul has disagreed with when asked, and possibly because of his own religious bias.

Don't you get the concept of civil liberty? That includes the rights of people with religious views, regardless how silly we feel it is.

Again, that is what the separation of church and state stands for. As Jefferson insisted; "a wall of separation" between church and state. And, of course, that entitles people to religious freedom, and freedom from religion.

I'm agnostic, and personally detest organized religion. But, I don't ever seek to try and push my views on others.

Agnosticism isn't a view, it isn't even a belief, you've got nothing to "push". Agnosticism means (without knowledge) - I'm agnostic too, and therefore atheistic towards man made religions, because they "don't know" either, thus I don't believe their claims.

Doesn't bother me if they pray, as long as they don't try to force me to. If we're gonna get along as a society, we need to either kill everybody who doesn't agree with us, or respect each other, and our personal freedoms.

Of course. And Ron Paul disagrees with the notion that Separation of Church from State; a clause that allows for religious freedom, stops theocracies (like Iran), prevents the state from favouring a religion, but most importantly allows for freedom FROM religion.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

Really Ron Paul? Really? Just how well do you know the constitution and the founding fathers?

Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies

Thomas Jefferson

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

Thomas Paine

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.

Benjamin Franklin

reply to post by neo96

It's one thing to be on web sites like ATS and PP preaching to the choir.
If you are a Ron Paul supporter then you need to be hitting sites like Politico, The Huffington Post and the other MSM sites. That where the real battle for this will be.
No BS. no fluff. Just the truth.
Hammer it long. Hammer it hard.
Hammer!
Hammer!
Hammer!

I like Ron Paul, his opinions and positions are much closer to mine then any other candidate, but I also understand that he has a very small chance of being elected, that will not stop me from voting for him in the primaries, and if need be putting his name down as a write in, in the general election. I am sick and tired of holding my nose and voting for the less stinky pile of poo.

reply to post by otie1

Are we alloud to switch parties? I was independant, but I really like this ron paul guy. Hes got somthing that none of the othwrs have....

OF COURSE!

I am an independent but I registered as a Democrat when Bush was running second term and registered Republican when Clinton was running Second Term.

That way I get to vote in the primaries for EVERY election. Then I switch to independent before the actual election... THEY HATE ME

reply to post by links234


I feel the same way and I think I know where those 12,000 non members came from but that's neither here nor there. However, I am not going to discourage Ron Paul supporters from openly advocating for him because it does serve a greater purpose.

I personally love Ron Paul, and would vote for him any day. But I feel that like JFK, he will be assassin quickly.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
The BBC was far more accurate than your revisionist historical account of the last election was. All you did was make excuses for him on his failings.

Find me the quote from Ron Paul saying he wanted to "legalize heroin? (yeah, I used a Z, cuz this is America

)

Find me where Ron Paul said he believed the government was behind 9/11?

Again I point out, he was the one who wanted to go kill Bin Laden the way he was killed in the end, WITHOUT a full scale invasion.

I don't care about certain segments of his support, if they break the law and deprive others of their personal freedoms in any way, then they are criminals and need to be punished like any others.

I'll be waiting for those quotes from Dr. Paul, because those are the assertions the BBC made in that assinine article. I'm not interested in what some of his supporters do to show their enthusiasm, as long as it's not hurting others.

Let's discuss Dr. Paul, and his positions, not a small segment of his supporters.

ETA: Why did you cut my quote like that? The thought continued...do you work for the BBC? That may explain it.

edit on 17-8-2011 by 27jd because: (no reason given)

He let that small segment get out of hand and paint loser all over HIS canvas.
Some leader.
Where are his televised podium speaches where he takes command of his own campaign and tosses them fringers who were destroying his chances on the curb where they belonged?
I'll be waiting.