Ron Paul Wins The ATS Straw Poll!

reply to post by TupacShakur


Don't worry, the "Mainstream Media" isn't as mainstream as it used to be. Heck a LOT of people don't even watch much T.V. any more..

Praise God for the Internet!

You will all have to go door to door for the guy, to get him elected though, still, and give whatever you can afford to blunt the campagne against him (and get to smoke a blunt after he wins the Whitehouse).

There's a LOT of anti-Obama sentiment out there, and a Quiet Revolution fomenting...

Anything's possible this time around.

I'm voting for him.

Maybe I'll have to write him in. Maybe I wont. Ill still vote for him.

Originally posted by litterbaux
I'm voting for him.

Maybe I'll have to write him in. Maybe I wont. Ill still vote for him.

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

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

I didn't say this to get stars but, I should get about 14,000 stars for this.

Second line, haha!

reply to post by TupacShakur


You ripped my post apart and commented on each point that you did that to....but....you left out the portion that ties it all together. The 4 million dollars he raised. Convenient yet transparent.
When he raised that 4 million, his supporters were and still are pumped up about it and pointing to it, which makes it suspect why you left it out in your chop shop attempt to rebutt my points.

You see, the 4 million is 3 1/2 times less than Romney and probably 30 times less than Obama's war chest. Yes it is third best but third best is not even close to second best in this case. The MSM looks at this and does not see a contender, possibly a spoiler down the road to make a story out of, but not a shot to win it.

He is lucky the MSM didn't paint him as the sure fire shoe in winner before the Iowa strawpoll with Romney not there, lol, because that is what should have happened according to the moneys raised so far. The MSM accurately covered the winning underdog Bachman according to the money map. They took it easy on Ron Paul by not painting him as a big loser. You guys should be happy.

I think one thing is telling about the Ron Paul poll. Many people like him for his stance on foreign policy and not so much on social policy and spending. I tend to agree. I cannot support cutting off our own that are struggling while waging wars across the globe. Thus, we must have an end to wars first and take care of our own, before even thinking about at home spending. I am glad to see many fellow ATS members appear to be in agreement.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Don't worry, the "Mainstream Media" isn't as mainstream as it used to be. Heck a LOT of people don't even watch much T.V. any more..

Praise God for the Internet!

You will all have to go door to door for the guy, to get him elected though, still, and give whatever you can afford to blunt the campagne against him (and get to smoke a blunt after he wins the Whitehouse).

There's a LOT of anti-Obama sentiment out there, and a Quiet Revolution fomenting...

Anything's possible this time around.

I agree.

This is not 2008 where the USA was still Numero Uno and life was great. People were asleep then. No one had heard of fractional reserve banking and what's more they did not care. (I was trying to educate back then)

Today is an entirely different ball game. My food store clerk was explaining Fractional reserve banking to a number of customers. All the Clientele at the feed store were discussing Q1 and Q2, the Federal Reserve and Fiat currency.

A tooth paste smile and flashy media presentation with no real depth may have won last time but people feel they got STUNG! The confidence in the US government right now is so far down you have to look up to see the sewer.

People are going to be a lot more careful with their votes this time and the independents and the tea party (Which is NOT the republican party) are a real wild card.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

I think one thing is telling about the Ron Paul poll. Many people like him for his stance on foreign policy and not so much on social policy and spending. I tend to agree. I cannot support cutting off our own that are struggling while waging wars across the globe....

Check out what PAUL actually says. He has no intention of cutting SS. He wants to fix it and gradually phase it into personal type funds like IRAs where it can not be raided by sticky fingered politicians.

Originally posted by links234

Ron Paul Wins The ATS Straw Poll!

Please tell me I'm not the only one that's not suprised at this result.

I didn't partake because I'm not a republican, I didn't want to choose the lesser of 12 evils.

PS: I really like these polls the site has been using lately.

I don't understand this partizan attitude surley the job of POTUS should go to the best man for the country. Its like saying you would vote for the devil because he's in the right party.

Don't you realise that the both sides are just as bad as one another. I think Ron Paul has only stayed republican so he can get a platform.

Until the majority of Americans drop an attitude like yours then any president that is elected will be bad for the country.

One thing that people seem to forget is the President is NOT a king with absolute power.

So what can the President do???
1. Clean up the corrupt bureaucracy.
2. Cut out the wasteful spending in the bureaucracy.
3. Veto idiotic bills
4. Control American Troops in foreign lands.
5. Set the "Tone" of the Administration.
6. He appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet.
7. He also appoints the heads of more than 50 independent federal commissions, such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as federal judges, ambassadors, and other federal offices.
8. He conducts negotiations with other nations,
9. He sign treaties (must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate)
10. He initiates the budget.


Given the actual powers of the president, Paul's stance on bring the troops home and reining in spending and cleaning up the corruption dovetail quite nicely with what needs to be done.

His stance on "Social Issues" are not much of a factor because no one including Paul is going to pull the rug out from under Americans.

Also his point of view is that he wants to turn the problems back over to the local government where they can be handled better and cheaper.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
You see, the 4 million is 3 1/2 times less than Romney and probably 30 times less than Obama's war chest. Yes it is third best but third best is not even close to second best in this case. The MSM looks at this and does not see a contender, possibly a spoiler down the road to make a story out of, but not a shot to win it.

I see you keep coming up with these numbers and I can't help but shake my head in confusion. What 4 million are you talking about? The 4.2 million he made in a single day? ...and if so what are you comparing that to? ...against the amount that Romney and Obama raised in a single day (before primaries)?

So please clarify this... Are you claiming that Romney raised 14 million in a single day and that Obama raised 120 million in a single day? Don't think so.

If your going to compare numbers at least compare them in the same context.

As far as I know, to this day, Ron Paul holds the second largest single day (pre-primaries) fundraising campaign in US political history (largest at the time), second only to Hillary Clinton who raised 6.2 million. And Ron Paul's 'money bomb' was organized purely by the grassroots movement!

Just thought I'd set things straight.

And for the record, if Paul did get the same sort of media attention as the other "top tier" candidates, and as a result would naturally grow into a legitimate (top polling) "top tier" candidate, and then as a result would naturally, and easily get into the primaries... you can bet your ass he'd be raking in a lot more fundraising dollars than Mr. Obama's war chest could handle.

Problem is the media (and whoever control the media) decide who the "top tier" candidates are by the amount of coverage they give them, and as a result, they poll higher. It's not the other way around unfortunately, it should be, but it's not. Each candidate should be given equal coverage from an unbiased point of view. Get those stupid political pundits away from the camera and just report the facts, let the people decide.

If only it worked that way, the US would be a true democracy.

I didn't read every post, but...

Roughly 13,000 of the roughly 18,000 votes were cast by non-members??

Hmmm...

"Electability" is the most idiotic term going around lately. How brain dead do you have to be to vote for someone because they are "electable"? Anyone can be elected, technically, so what it really boils down to.. is.. I am voting for this person because I think they are popular enough to win. Again, that most idiotic reason to vote for anybody. It just goes to show how utterly dependent citizens of the US to the media conglomerate for making their decisions for them.

Sarah Palin IS many more times electable than Ron Paul, just wait and see......

Just goes to show how many people buy into the MSM's angle of any one individual.

And yet these same easily led people fail to notice that the media itself has demonstrated a continued ignorance for Ron Paul and that, among other factors is the reason why Ron Paul never gets far.

"There is no such thing as bad publicity" however, Ron Paul hardly get's any, it's like he doesn't exist for the most part.

I am not saying that Sarah Palin will be president in 2012, but I know she will beat Ron Paul in popularity by a long shot.

Perhaps an age filter would also be useful in these polls, to see how many of the voters are not eligable to vote for real.


Regards, Skellon.

Originally posted by mishigas
I didn't read every post, but...

Roughly 13,000 of the roughly 18,000 votes were cast by non-members??

Hmmm...

I was just about to post the same thing. The MSM always claim that these polls are swarmed by an internet legion of directed anonymous Paulites, so I'd be very interested in seeing if there's a difference between member-votes and non-member votes.

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?

reply to post by Symer

I was just about to post the same thing. The MSM always claim that these polls are swarmed by an internet legion of directed anonymous Paulites, so I'd be very interested in seeing if there's a difference between member-votes and non-member votes.

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?

It certainly brings up some very interesting questions. And the answers, I'm afraid, will be rejected by many and welcomed by few.

I am not a republican, but I am voting Ron Paul.

I have one question: How many political relevant parties do you have in the USA?

Are there just Republicans, Democrats and the Tea Party?

The Dynamic duo..

..Yin and Yang..

...answer to the problems of the US and the world..is...is..

President Ron Paul and Vice President Sarah Palin.

Paul n Palin.

Go on..you know you want to.

Cosmic...

Originally posted by Karmon
I have one question: How many political relevant parties do you have in the USA?

Are there just Republicans, Democrats and the Tea Party?

Nope. Just the Republicans and Democrats. This is why you'll never see a free election. I love seeing certain nations oversees with 12 or 13 viable parties. I'd be content if we could just have five.

Democrats and Pubs, thats it. The tea party is a sham. However, thats not to say the tea peeps cant smarten up and start to make sense, cause they are not far off base.