Ron Paul Wins DC Poll With Landslide And Give AWESOME Speech!

reply to post by Southern Guardian



Some RP supporters make it a big deal some don't, I definitely think winning the polls and straw polls are good because without the support and local organization, how do you expect RP to even stand a chance against the media blacking him out? Then when RP loses the polls that some of you deem as unimportant, Ron Paul haters will be out and about saying RP has no chance, RP supporters are losers just like how RP is a loser, the whole movement is for losers, yada yada.

I mean seriously, what is so bad about people waking up to liberty? learning that our constitution is being trampled over? wanting to end global policing of the war? RP is doing that and is bringing these hot topics into common republican conversations and debates. What is so wrong with that?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


no hypocrisy here man i waited til obama was elected to point out the errors of his ways

have to admit its on hell of a target rich environment

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Of course Romney is mainstream, he changes his positions to be mainstream, why do so many people feel it is okay to put their principles aside because America will vote for the mainstream candidate anyways?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Dagar
As an outsider looking in... When you compare what Ron Paul has to say to Mitt Romney's latest speech...

www.independent.co.uk...

I just cannot begin to comprehend how any American in their right mind would vote for Romney, and not vote for Ron Paul

Ronmey is more moderate than Paul is, he has a chance of gaining votes beyond that of the GOP constituency, he was governor of a blue state prior as well. In the elections against Obama, Romney will have a good chance of gaining massachusetts, possibly new hampshire, and may very well get Obama running to hold onto as many independents possible. He appears to be the only mainstream plausable candidate, and many people are beginning to recognize this. I don't like Romney, and many Paulers insist that Romneys views are incompatable to the true tea party and conservative values, but I'm sorry, tea party and libertarian values will do little to gain the vote beyond the political rightwing. So long as Paul sticks to the fringe right, he will not get far in the elections.

Did you actually read in that article what your more 'moderate' Romney wants to do if he's elected President?

From the article at The Independant...

Standing beneath a giant banner proclaiming "Believe in America", the former Massachusetts governor announced an eight-point action plan in his first 100 days in office. It includes a review of the current schedule for withdrawal from Afghanistan, steps to beef up the navy, and the restoration of cuts on missile defence, as well as a more vigorous campaign against cyber-espionage, and the permanent deployment of carrier groups off Iran. He pledged unwavering support for Israel, and vowed to maintain the so-called "special relationship" with Britain.

Above all, however, Mr Romney took direct aim at Barack Obama.

"God did not create this country to be a nation of followers," he said, reiterating Republican criticism that the Democratic incumbent had failed to stand up adequately for US interests. "I will never, ever, apologise for America," he said to loud applause.

The US had a "unique destiny", and was not meant to be "one of several equally balanced global powers". The country must lead the world – "or someone else will. The 21st century should be an American century, in which America has the strongest economy and the strongest military".

After the last 10 years, The Patriot Act, Wars on several fronts, thousands of US servicemen dead, 14 trillion dollars in debt, your manufacturing base destroyed, your constitution defecated on, widescale homelessness and unemployment, infrastructure crumbling.... I could go on, but you get the idea.... Who in their right mind would vote Romney (or anyone else with similar plans) in?

It just defies belief

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Some RP supporters make it a big deal some don't, I definitely think winning the polls and straw polls are good because without the support and local organization, how do you expect RP to even stand a chance against the media blacking him out?

The media will report what is more popular and preferable to the audience elpresidente. Ron Paul is not that popular among the population of voters, despite the insistence on this forum that he is this national figure. I've already spoken to my republican friends, family members, they know who he is, they just don't find him as appealing as Perry or Cain, and they'd rather vote for Romney instead as they feel he has more of a chance. Ron Paul is seen as a fringe candidate and he has carried this stigma since his 88' run. I will admit that at times, the media does tend to block him out (there was a politico article I saw that purposefully failed to mention his name when he won the Iowa straw poll) but alot of it is just his popularity. He gets the attention from the media that his popularity allows him to, and he is not all that significant compared to Perry, Cain and Romney, that's just what I'm seeing at the moment.

Ron Paul haters will be out and about saying RP has no chance, RP supporters are losers just like how RP is a loser, the whole movement is for losers, yada yada.

I don't think you're a loser elpresidente, I'm sorry I made you feel that way. I do feel that this hype about Ron Paul on this forum goes too far at times. We've had these exact same discussions and predictions of his popularity 4 years ago, and look how far he got? I don't like Ron Paul, I don't like his policies, I don't want him to win, but that being said, my issue with him and supporters are not merely his policies, it's this insistance that he deserves this special treatment becaus he somehow stands apart from other candidates. Why should he be treated any differently? Why should the media give him more attention if he doesn't get that far even with GOP voters when it comes to elections? Why should private media companies do what Paulers want the to do?

I mean seriously, what is so bad about people waking up to liberty?

Liberty can be such an open word on this forum. Ron Paul believes ultimately in states rights, not necessarily individual rights. He wants states to assume the role of most matters and the federal government ony be around for defensive and minor administrative matters. He doesn't care about big or oversized state governments, so long as it's a state government. He wants States to dictate social issues, he wants states to dictate regulations, the only individual right that Ron Paul is looking to protect are gun rights. Right, I have my state government telling me I have to have this baby and carry out pregnancy as a woman because "they know what's best me me and my body", but hey, atleast they can't take my guns.

You and me see liberty differently, that's for sure.

reply to post by Dagar


Romney plays to the fringe right agenda, I don't deny this. He needs to play to the fringe right if he intends to gain any sort of chance in winning the primaries. That being said, he is more moderate compared to other GOPers interms of his actual policies over the years, and he has a good standing in parts of the North East. Romney is a radical in my eyes, believe you me, but he is moderate within the GOP, and the only one with a real chance at this point to gain some critical dark blue states.

reply to post by neo96


You only joined in 2010 Neo

Besides, go back to the threads about Obama before he got elected. There's plenty of em on this forums archive. You'll see where I'm coming from.

If Paulers intend to dish out the criticism and hate, they gotta be prepared to take it as well. Election time is coming, big boy league.

reply to post by Southern Guardian



Which candidate or party will ever align with your 'individual' rights? you make it seem like Ron Paul is the only candidate against individual rights when you've never even heard him say individuals don't deserve any rights.

The media blackout on RP has been blatantly obvious, you seem like you do your hw, go do it on this topic instead of automatically dismissing it and tossing it out like the trash. Cain got a huge surge in the media from his FL straw poll win and is now up in many national polls and is now taking the easy peasy establishment votes away from Perry. Going by your 'popularity' logic, Ron Paul won the most straw polls, he should get the most media attention and now be at the top of the polls.

You don't like like RP, you don't like his policies, you shouldn't care then, even wasting the time to write these long posts.

Don't get all bent out of shape on abortion, its ok that the federal law mandates legal abortion and favors your views but NOT ok when somebody wants to return the power to decide back to the states per the constitution. Yea, I'd be happy to if things I liked went my way and not others. This is why we have sovereign states that are supposed to decide so everybody can be happy.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

This, coming from you? And you see absolutely no hypocrisy when we apply this to Obama with many members on here? Remember, the hate for Obama occured well before he was even elected.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Talk about apples and oranges

Obama ran on Yes we Can, Hope & Change
He never defined yes we can what, hop for what or change what
He ran on gimmicks with no substance

Ron Paul on the other hand never evades a debate and you probably know his stance on any topic you can think of

But it's the same thing?????????

Ya nice try LOL

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Which candidate or party will ever align with your 'individual' rights? you make it seem like Ron Paul is the only candidate against individual rights

Again, Ron Paul is not really so focused on improving individual rights, despite his claims. He's interested in giving the states more rights. Ron Paul and his supporters equate states rights with individual rights even though they are not at all mutually exclusive.

The media blackout on RP has been blatantly obvious, you seem like you do your hw, go do it on this topic

There's no media blackout on Ron Paul. Ron Paul's popularity is reflected in the media. As I say, I've seen instances where Ron Paul's name was purposefully kept out, but his support and popularity in my opinion is very closely aligned to the level of attention he receives in the media. Once he proves that he can win a significant amount of the states in the GOP primaries, the media will pay attention, likewise. It's not easy to deny which person is gaining the most votes.

Cain got a huge surge in the media from his FL straw poll win and is now up in many national polls and is now taking the easy peasy establishment votes away from Perry. Going by your 'popularity' logic, Ron Paul won the most straw polls, he should get the most media attention and now be at the top of the polls.

Cain is new to the game. Yes he is an established corporate soul, he's really no secret to the media (he was a vocal tea partier prior), but he is new to the game. He is a tea partier, he has not held a political position in DC, and he is african american, which, whether you like or not, does a play a part in his popularity and fascination with the media, as was Obama. He won't get far in the elections though, he probably won't win the primaries, and pritty soon folks will forget about him. He's just this last months hype, just as Bachmann was before, just as Perry after.

You don't like like RP, you don't like his policies, you shouldn't care then,

I shouldn't care then? If this man intends to run for the presidency with his views and policies, ya damn straight it's my business. I'm pritty sure that Obama running for president was every tea partier and libertarians business and why not? Ultimately whom ever gains the presidency will have somewhat of a chance to implement many of their policies. Ron Paul will have his opportunity, and I think his policies will just drag this nation back toward the social issues of the 60's, which he and Paulers want anyway. It's my business already, I don't need the federal or state governments dictating what the hell I can do with my property, with my social life, with my love life, with my body. Ron Paul wants the state governments to get that opportunity, and I'm sorry, I'm just not going to accept that.

Don't get all bent out of shape on abortion, its ok that the federal law mandates legal abortion

Hold on there cowboy, where did the federal government mandate folks to get abortions? If you're pro-life and if you find yourself in a pregnancy or with a loved one who is pregnant, you and choose whichever path you want. If you or a loved has been assualted, you can choose the path of abortion or not. It's your personal, it's yours to make, and you can stay the hell out of the decisions of others as well. This matter is also not the business with the state governments. As far as I can see it, the minute they try to get involved over somebody else's body, they are stepping the line of privacy and individual liberty in this country, regardless of your rational.

As for the federal government on this issue, they rightfully restored this matter back to the individual, they restored self responsibility of individuals over this issue, before state governments got involved in the 1820's. Government should have stayed out of this issue in the first place.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

This, coming from you? And you see absolutely no hypocrisy when we apply this to Obama with many members on here? Remember, the hate for Obama occured well before he was even elected.

Talk about apples and oranges

Clearly you don't understand something so simple.

Hatred to Obama, ok
Hatred to Ron Paul, unfair and not ok.

= hypocrisy.

Right, you've made up your mind.

Obama ran on Yes we Can, Hope & Change
He never defined yes we can what, hop for what or change what
He ran on gimmicks with no substance

Who? Barack Obama? Wasn't he suppose to withdraw all troops from Iraq by August 2011? I've noticed his broken promises, I've noticed his faliure on many things, I don't think he deserves a second term (neither do any of the other republican candidates), so, by all means, bring on the issues about him. Where shall we start?

Patriot act?
Marijuana?
His healthcare bill?

Please, if you think you're going to "get me" by criticizing Obama on many of his actions in the whitehouse, you are wasting your time. I'm already well aware and have stated my issues with him already.

Ron Paul on the other hand never evades a debate

I guess that's perception at the end of the day. To me, Ron Paul says alot of things to sound as far apart from the other candidates as possible, but his views are beyond reality. It's very easy for him to talk up his policies and views when he's not being challanged to walk the talk.

www.chron.com...

I hope some of that stimulus money went to NASA as per Ron Paul's request. Hold on, what's wrong with the freemarket Ron? All that bad stimulus..... but I guess we can cut corners around the freemarket right? Paulers are the ones that are going to draw the line as to what's socialist and what's not, huh?

yep.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You know I'm only going to address this with you, because it's obviously the most important thing you keep trying to jam down everyone's throat:

There's no media blackout on Ron Paul.

Oh please really, just give me a break. You keep ranting and raving about 08' and how useless straw polls were back then as well, yet you seem to completely forget what the MSM did back then too.

Gee, let's wonder why for a moment why the media isn't giving Ron Paul attention, and don't tell me it's because straw polls are useless. WHO did they give attention to in 08' Southern Guardian? NOT Ron Paul and that was BEFORE the primaries, when he was kicking arse and taking names in the straw polls. Don't blatantly lie just because you don't like Ron Paul. Who did they give attention to when Bachmann won Iowa by a small margin?? NOT Paul. In fact Bachmann and PERRY got more attention. In fact, even Rick Santorum got more attention in that one than Paul did!

Who got major media buzz in the Florida straw polls if they are so meaningless?? Oh let me think, CAIN. Guess who gets attention in New Hampshire straw poll? Romney AND Cain. No, Southern Guardian, the MSM does not ignore Ron Paul because of what any "scientific" poll says, because if that were the case they wouldn't give much attention to Cain or any other candidate below "top tier" as they put it.

Stop lying and candy coating. If the media was fair, they would report it FAIR, and if you are so intelligent, you should have been able to see it years ago. You hate Ron Paul? Don't like that others are tired of your lying just because you hate a candidate? GET OVER IT.

ETA: Oh, and I like how you completely ignore the fact that Ron Paul ran as an independent in 08', not in the GOP. Paul got shafted in the independent party (MSM spin much, anyone??), and this is why he is now running in the GOP, because the independent party has always been shafted by "the establishment". It's common knowledge by now.

So what if its "just a straw poll"? For a lot of people, myself included, Paul is their guy, and there is nothing wrong with rooting for your guy. Its like a pre-season football game, the only ones dwelling on the fact that its a pre-season game and doesn't mean anything are the people rooting for the losing team. The people rooting for the winning team are still going to high-five, belly bump, and cheer like crazy.

I love RP and taking away the value of the win does nothing to lessen my support. A win is a win no matter how "minor" it is.

Here's to Ron Paul 2012! CHEERS

DC

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Hmmmm...it looks like they forget to remove Ron & Cain, it's standard practice because everyone knows the results are skewed.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Great speech!

Simple, knowledgeable, and also very idealistic.

Notice how much responsibility he places on us.

That is going to be the hardest pill to swallow - to take back that responsibility and stop relying on a huge "system" to make things go right.

Can we live up to that ideal? I guess we should at least try.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


First off, I didn't even see RP's name in your article.

Paul has never been shy to talk about earmarking. The money was going to be spent anyway, instead of leaving the funds unallocated, he could direct where the money was spent.

You seem to be somewhat of an unbiased poster but what you just did right now, you know you could've dug a little deeper to find the real truth but you took whatever ammo the net would give you and used it anyways.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Oh goodness another strawpoll.... what? Last time it was Mr Herman Cain, before it was Mrs Bachmann, how long are we going to go on like this? Straw polls are not the best things to celebrate over.

True Dat. If you like the dude and want him to be President, then just vote for him when the time comes. And pray you don't get jipped...

reply to post by eLPresidente

You seem to be somewhat of an unbiased poster

Check the history of this one. You'd be wrong about the "unbiased" part. This is an extreme left wing liberal who has been trying to discredit Ron Paul or anything else that comes from the "right" resembling common sense from the beginning. They may not want Obama in office anymore, but he/she isn't someone who would listen to a libertarian, any more than they would listen to George Bush. He/She apparently is so politically biased, that it wouldn't matter what anyone says, just stay on the far left now matter what and remain biased and ignorant!

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

First off, I didn't even see RP's name in your article.

Seriously, because Ron Paul's name wasn't specifically mentioned, you complain? Took me 2 minutes to find that out:

Representative Ron Paul (TX-14) - Representative Ron Paul showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]

www.texaskaos.com...

Heres there actual letter online:
olson.house.gov...,22,34&itemid=192

Current co-signers include: Sens. Cornyn and Hutchison, and (26) Reps. Barton, Brady, Burgess, Carter, Conaway, Culberson, Edwards, Gohmert, Gonzalez, Granger, Al Green, Gene Green, Hall, Hinojosa, Jackson Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Sam Johnson, Marchant, McCaul, Nuegebauer, Olson, Paul, Poe, Sessions, Smith, Thornberry.

Paul has never been shy to talk about earmarking. The money was going to be spent anyway,

This isn't merely earmarking. Ron Paul voted twice against the stimulus and called it wasteful, insisted that we leave the states to this and what do you know? He signed it to keep the NASA jobs in Texas, and worst of all, he takes credit. While I don't disagree with the need to use the stimulus to protect jobs, he's a hypocrite for accepting it while criticizng and calling everybody who supported it as part of the problem. Obviously you don't see any hypocrisy, you just don't want to.

By the way, why is NASA a federal government programme? No seriously, where in the constitution does it mention a space programme as a duty under the federal government?? This is exactly the mentality Paulers use over policies and laws they don't agree with. Believe you me I support NASA, but by the logic of Paulers, the federal government should have nothing to do with them as it is not stated in the constitution. We should leave it to the free market, right? So what's wrong? Shall we just draw the lines of the free market where it becomes politically convenient? Right.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Yes, let me just take an excerp of the letter here:

Allocating an additional $3 billion in unspent stimulus funds would not only ensure America’s global role in the aerospace industry and human space flight, but it would also help retain thousands of existing jobs within the aerospace industry, a key goal of the stimulus spending.

olson.house.gov...,22,34&itemid=192

Ron Pau's protecting jobs huh? Why not leave it to the free market? Why did he have to sign for this? Has not confidence in private innovation? hmmm.