Ron Paul Wins The ATS Straw Poll!

reply to post by TinfoilTP


www.youtube.com...

It's encouraging that this all you have, it will be debunked to death before the elections heat up. It will be a non-factor. Clever avatar by the way, very creative.

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican

 

No, whichever Establishment crony the Republicans put out there will work with Obama (AKA Bush Dark), to split the vote from Ron Paul.

Obama supporters wont vote for Ron Paul! Get a clue!

There's not ONE Republican candidate out there that could take the Independent, or Libertarian votes, besides Dr. Paul. Bush is too fresh in everybody's mind, and anybody with a brain sees BOTH Establishment parties are doing the same thing, screwing us all. Ron Paul doesn't give a toss about splitting votes between two great evils. He's not out to protect the Establishment, he's not hiding that.

Right, that's why he keeps running to split the vote, ensuring the enemies of freedom get the elected?

Originally posted by CaDreamer
i got 1000 Ron Paul 2012 bumper stickers and randomly walked all over town and put them on random bumpers!!!

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

That's called property destruction. Ron Paul is about supporting the rights to private property, you anarchist scum!

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
Obama supporters wont vote for Ron Paul! Get a clue!

I used to be an Obama supporter, and I am gonna vote for Ron Paul. So, you're wrong.

I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds.

If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Perhaps the most revealing spread of polling numbers comes from the latest Rasmussen poll on Tuesday showing that among voters that do not identify themselves as Republican or Democrat, Ron Paul is now in a 10-point lead over Obama (43% to 33%). This means that Paul is picking up a significant portion of the all important Independent, Decline-to-state and 3rd party vote. These 3 categories represent the fastest growing segments of registered voters today. This trend is largely being fueled by rapidly increasing voter' discontent of traditional, establishment candidates.
www.examiner.com...

Right, that's why he keeps running to split the vote, ensuring the enemies of freedom get the elected?

Unless Ron Paul is elected, the enemies of freedom will be elected, REGARDLESS of whether it's Obama, or whatever candidate the establishment Republicans nominate. There's no difference...



(image from a FB post on Ron Paul 2012 page)

ok so i saw this post (with an expanation point, no less) and thought it meant something. but since ATS is not a republican delegate (but they could be i'm not sure), i think it means NOTHING.

just sayin...

I am not reading this entire thread, so forgive me. Just throwing in my two cents that maybe I'm a terrible person, but I would rather leave the country than have a president voted in who does not believe in evolution. I know, I know. I'm just a biologist. Whatever.

But seriously... I couldn't vote when Bush was elected. That was not my fault. I don't want any religious crazies in 2012.

As many of you know, as soon as my reproductive rights are put at risk, I am taking my ovaries and booking it to Australia.

Not that I think Ron Paul would do that. Just saying. I'm not happy with any of the Republican candidates. Australia.

Kangaroos.

Hop, hop.

It does not matter if you vote democrat or republican because in the end you always get anglo-american corporate imperialism mixed with a dash of lucifierian masonry. To be frank it matters even less who wins the republican primaries.

Ron Paul seems to ask the right questions and likes small government(whatever that is) but fails to come up with the right solutions time and time again. When asked what to do with the Federal Reserve he said create competing PRIVATE currencies, so instead of having a rothschild monopoly on the supply he prefers many lesser rothschilds.

Great news indeed. Sorry for sarcasm. Can't help myself some-times.

There are so many issues that could be discussed and yes I agree we need a much smaller government so that it is easier to balance the budget and tax payers don't get raped everywhere they turn, BUT please leave the SS trust ponzi scheme alone for now since people have put money in it and deserve the money they have coming to them. The government had absolutely no business touching that money by putting it into a general account!

Lets talk about (1)declassfying the cia budget, (2)stopping wars of aggression with little or no provaction on behalf of make-believe muslim terrorists living in caves, (3)lets talk about the pentagon black budget; where it goes and how much, (3)raising minimum wages to par with 21st production instead of the 1950s(that means at least doubling it, (4)stop illegal immigration so that american drop-outs can have a job rather than the mexicans hoarding them, (5)putting tariffs on foregin merchandise to stop jobs going overseas, (6)stop institutional investors from digitally manipulating wall street, (7)end the FED and dump the gains to the treasury (8)ufo and alien disclosure (9)limits on campaign contributions and lobbying

THERE YOU GO! THESE are the REAL ISSUES everyone wants to hear. We(at least I) am getting tired of hearing/reading the same ole ----birth control, religion, gay rights, who is cheating on who, who is ugly and pretty, etc.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Ron Paul never said he doesn't believe in evolution, he said it was a theory and that neither side has absolute proof. You're buying the lies, and it's sad. Here's what he REALLY said....

Censoring Ron Paul on Evolution

Writes Joe Schembrie: "Here is the unedited Youtube of Ron Paul's remarks on evolution.

"Here is the highly-edited version that is referenced by Andrew Sullivan's blog.

"Here is a transcript, with the deleted words bracketed:

"'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.']

"As you can see, half of RP's words were censored. His real message was, 'We're fighting for freedom and can't afford to be split over a debate about fossils.'"
www.lewrockwell.com...

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
As many of you know, as soon as my reproductive rights are put at risk, I am taking my ovaries and booking it to Australia.

Your reproductive rights are not at risk. You're sadly misinformed about Ron Paul. In his own words...

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
www.lewrockwell.com...

So, while the majority in some states may or may not vote to ban it, a woman could cross state lines if she chose to undergo the procedure. As with all social issues, he believes the federal government has no place in them. Same with separation of church and state. He does NOT believe the federal government has the right to force religion or prayer on anybody, NOR does it have the right to ban religion or prayer.

I'm an agnostic who believes in evolution, and a woman's right to elective abortions (except late term). I don't like organized religion, personally. But I would never want to force my beliefs on anybody. It really burns my @ss to see such hypocrisy coming from people who say they won't let "religious nuts" force their beliefs on them, but want to turn around and force theirs on religious people. Another quote from the above article...

Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

How that doesn't make perfect sense to everybody, is beyond me.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by Enlightenme1111

We care about REAL issues and REAL problems. I couldn't retard myself to select electability as an important issue, I'm sorry.

If you care about REAL stuff then you won't care about this non-real poll as it pertains to the REAL world.
It is a very telling poll for ATS about ATS membership though, I say good job on that.

Electabillity = confidence level
Zero electabillity = Zero confidence level

Elections are won on swing voters and fence sitters, rabid fans can be counted before the voting, and not all of them ever show up as counted on.

Confidence brings out the vote, a proverbial truth of election day.

^On paper

Elections are won by :

Sponsors
lobyist
Friends in high places
The ones that own/control the media
Money
Having great hair and teeth

and last but not least

lying


Now you know why ATS'ers did not thick that box on R.paul.

I'm kinda surprised Gary Johnson didn't do better. He's essentially Ron Paul without all the Jesus. But then the media's been burying him as deep as they buried Ron Paul before they realized they had to acknowledge him.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
Obama supporters wont vote for Ron Paul! Get a clue!

I used to be an Obama supporter, and I am gonna vote for Ron Paul. So, you're wrong.

Well, then aren't you admitting to not really having a political understanding grounded any anything? Obama and Ron Paul are basically on the opposite side of the spectrum, so it would appear to me that your politics aren't very consistent.

Right, sure, you 'changed your mind'; except that at this rate, next year you will support Putin, after that, the Dalai Lama.

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


Ron Paul and Obama don't share much in common that is true, but neither do Ron Paul and McCain, circa 2008.

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


No, I voted for Obama because he promised to end the wars, and that's an important issue in my opinion. Other than that there wasn't much daylight between him and McCain. I didn't know much about Ron Paul, but now that I've actually read his plans and am able to differentiate between his personal beliefs and his actual policies, I can understand them and it all makes sense to me. I support him MUCH more than I supported Obama. I'm going to do all I can to help get him elected, volunteering and donating. I did nothing of the sort for Obama.

I would like to see more straw polls

Yes lets do a new one, Obama VS Romney VS Paul

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Yes lets do a new one, Obama VS Romney VS Paul

What about Gingrich? He has as much of a chance as Paul does. Which is NONE.