Ron Paul Wins The ATS Straw Poll!

reply to post by BobAthome


Uh oh, Gary Busey's loose, and got ahold of somebody's laptop.

I kid, but what did that all mean?

Of course RON PAUL!!1!!1!!!eleventy-eleven!! carried the poll overwhelmingly.

Everyone knows his supporters swarm online and straw polls like locusts. Regular elections, not so much.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Those were some pretty spot on observations by the BBC that should give you an incite into what the Media sees instead of operating with your blinders on and dismissing it offhand.

No, they were extremely spot off.

ETA: I didn't dismiss it offhand, I explained very clearly why it was sensationalist LIES.

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.

Why should he? It's not his job, nor his place to tell other people what to believe personally. That's not the federal government's job. They associated themselves with him. Instead of spending his time disassociating himself from people he never associated himself with in the first place, he needs to discuss the real issues at hand. He's been DEAD ON about what was gonna happen to our financial system, for years. He was right, and that's the truth. It's time to stop worrying about what everybody else does with their personal time, and get this country back on track FOR ALL OF US.

When these same rabid anarchists show up at his current rallies and disrupt others with their hacker Anonymous posters and masks, what is he going to do then?

"Rabid anarchists", supporting a legitimate candidate for the President of the GOVERNMENT that they don't believe should exist?

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

Doesn't match your opinion so it's wrong?

Meh. What is going to be so funny is that if Ron Paul gets into office, he's going to find it every hard indeed to get anything done with a congress that is owned by majority of 2 parties that will strive to shun anything the opposing party comes up with, even if it makes logical sense to implement. The President doesnt pay the bills, Congress pays the bills and that was clearly proven this summer when the U.S. almost defaulted.

What you fools fail to realize is one man canot do it all on his own, not unless he siezes absolute power and then my friends, you have an entirely different can of worms. What you have on your hands then is a dictatorship, and point to me where at in history has that ever been a boon for a nation?

reply to post by something wicked


Not sure what you're trying to say. Could you be a little more specific? Or perhaps you'd like to debate the sensationalism in the BBC article? I'm not arguing it because it goes against my opinion, I'm arguing it because it's not true.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Ron Paul wins ATS straw poll?

In other news, Justin Beiber elected best musician of century by ifinglovejustinbeiber.com

The number of people who support these guys on the basis of their economic "posiitons" (really, guys? "nothing, ever!" is not a position!) frightens me.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You're right, there are checks and balances. And that should make him even more appealing to those of you who think his ideas are too radical. At least we will have one branch in the federal government that actually cares about the people, and the constitution, over elitist bribes using money to take away OUR voices when it comes to government policies. He will have certain executive powers, and powers as commander and chief, as far as bringing the troops home, etc. If just some of his policies are implemented, it will be a big step forward for this country, and more and more people will see the way things SHOULD be in this country. They will vote members of congress in accordingly.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


When did he say "nothing, ever"?

reply to post by 27jd


You poor thing. You don't know? Here's the republican economic plan, supported by all candidates in the field;

1) cut everything. Any sort of program anywhere. Butcher it like grandma hacking at a thanksgiving turkey.
2) kill whatever's left by starvation; no taxes, anywhere, ever (remember, he did say this in Iowa. Well, raised his hand when asked.)
3) finish up by massive deregulation to allow "business" free reign to rule.
4) MAGICAL MARKET FAIRIES!!!!
5) Somehow America turns out looking like a Norman Rockwell painting.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Wow. That is pretty crazy. Somehow I missed him laying out that plan though. This is the one I thought he was proposing...

Ron Paul, a 10-term Republican Congressman from Texas's 14th District, is currently the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology. He has been named "Taxpayers' Best Friend" for 10 consecutive years by the National Taxpayers' Union. Ron Paul is also the author of several books on monetary policy and economics.

The Four-Point Plan

1. Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.

2. Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.

3. Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness at the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.

4. Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.
www.dailypaul.com...

Originally posted by boncho
The people that voted for Sarah Palin should be banned from the forum life.

That highlights the cause of all our countries problems today. Our politicians have us so divided the whole country is at each others throats acting like children, calling each other names and hating anyone who does not exactly agree with us. Truly sad.

On Topic -

I'm neutral on Paul because he still polls in single digits in national support and I'm a realist. At the same time I'm heartened to see somebody other than Obama igniting passion in people.

I'm off to seriously research Paul's voting record and see how much Pork he is responsible for if any. I've never done that. I want to see if this is knee jerk or deserved support. He has struck me as a single issue candidate who is running on the mantra "audit the Fed". We all want that, but is he Presidential material?

I wrote him off over the Racist Newsletters he signed and distributed. I've always believed he lied about not knowing what was in them and was hiding his true nature. To be fair I need to look at that again also.

I still want to see a Poll of all US Member's to find out which ideology people subscribe to and what Party affiliations they have if any? Absent that this Poll really does not say anything beyond the fact Paul supporters are very active.

Another interesting Poll would be how many on the Left would like to see somebody run against Obama in the Primaries. I saw a Poll yesterday that had it at 39% now and rising.

reply to post by Blaine91555


That's very refreshing man, somebody actually researching for themselves. I've never really gotten involved in politics other than a few internet spats in the past several years. I used to be like some of these that felt if I didn't vote for an Establishment candidate that my vote would be wasted, but I also was fooled into thinking there was a difference between the two. I voted for Obama last election, because I aligned with his social policies and wanted to see the troops brought home. He campaigned as the anti-war candidate, and look how that went...still got the two, and now a third. We're also broke, in your research, you'll find Paul had been calling this the whole time.

Well what a herp de derp surprise.

He claims he supports the constitution but still doens't believe in separation of Church and state, can't wait for the poostorm to brew when Christian preachers start, and Muslim or Jewish clerics don't like it.

People - the simple fact is that unless Washington mainstream changes we will not survive economically. The deficits will contunue to grow until the dollar collapses. It is as simple as that. Ron has been preaching this for YEARS.

All of the candidates running are Keynesian followers. Keynesian economics doesn't work and is what got us into trouble.ONLY Ron Paul is a follower of Hayak (the Austrian School). This is the only economic theory that is sustainable. This is not a beauty contest. Paul wouldn't win one of those (nor would I). This is a matter of our country's future.

Ron Paul is the only choice. This time around it literally is "Ron Paul or bust".

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


sorry i didn't see the email in time ti get here to vote,but you can add my vote to ron paul's tally.

reply to post by 27jd


I started out as a Democrat and was an anti Vietnam War activist in College. Then later in life after maturing and starting a business I started leaning towards the Right. Reagan had a lot to do with that because he was nearly identical to JFK another real leader.

Now I won't have anything to do with either Party as I see it as a ruse to keep us divided to control us.

I've learned it has nothing to do with what they say, it is what they do that matters. Had people looked at Obama's record and his personal associations honestly, he would have never won. But then we had no good choice the last election.

Paul is difficult for me to categorize without taking a look at how he votes and does he do things like bring home the Pork to buy votes, or does he stand on his principals. I'm betting most who support him don't really know.

This election will be very hard for me and I'm not beyond writing in a name not even on the ballot rather than throwing a dart at the dart board and seeing where it will land.

People have we all forgot, the Feds, were sending money out to foreign companies, who has to pay for this the tax payer!!

would a foreign country bail out the USA?, would their tax payers allow this?

Originally posted by NeverForget
He claims he supports the constitution but still doens't believe in separation of Church and state, can't wait for the poostorm to brew when Christian preachers start, and Muslim or Jewish clerics don't like it.

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

ETA: I think the seperation of church and state is to prevent the government from making laws that based off religion. Mandating, or banning prayer seems to be a violation of personal liberty. So his position makes sense. He doesn't want to end it, just not evoke it in arguments about banning prayer in schools.

The suspense is killing me. I can't wait for the Republican National Convention. Are the Republicans on the verge, having tried everything else, of picking an honest constitutionalist as their candidate, despite the fact that 83% of the "issues oriented" are in favor of him?

Will there be a last minute scramble to find an unpopular, uneducated, malleable lunkhead whose hands can be lashed to the wheel of government and pointed at the ditch? Is there any way that defeat can be snatched from the jaws of victory for the nation? Have people spoken to Poppy Bush about this poll? Maybe he can put his foot on the neck of the gasping GOP and stave off resuscitation in time to go ass over teakettle.

I know I'm only in the vast majority and that don't count for nuthin' in today's America, but Go Ron Paul in 2012! I wanna be a Republican again. I'm sick of being a twisted malcontent. I wanna feel clean.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I'm not a Republican, but I took the straw poll anyway since I didn't see that as a requirement to do so. Of any Republican who I would vote for, Ron Paul would be the only one on that list. He's the only one who makes sense and doesn't seem like a kowtowing spotlight grabber. I like him when it comes to foreign policy and social issues, despite my grievances with him on some aspects of national policy, such as education. Nevertheless, I still see him as a far cry better than anything else on the Republican side.

And while it's appetizing to have someone running for president who is realistic and moralistic when it comes to the wars, I know I would have major issues with his privatization bent. Then again, I thought Obama sounded good and he's still a privatizer all the way, so what are you going to do? I'd rather know someone at face value than be manipulated by false promises.

But that's neither here nor there. The point I really want to make is that - considering someone like me took the poll, and considering the diverse make-up of this site - it is interesting that Ron Paul scored so highly, but so low when it came to electability. On the contrary, the rest of the mouth-breathers on that list all scored low in preference, but many scored rather high in electability.

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, but yet it seems to be the mainstream reality implied by the media and recently echoed by Jon Stewart.