It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I'm a witness to democrats planning to (unintentionally) sabotage Ron Paul

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Yes, I should explain my reason for posting, because the words "sabotage Ron Paul" in the title of the thread aren't clear enough.

What's your reason for posting? What's anyone's reason for posting? Grow up and stop trying to be the thought police.




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


Did you read your own headline? Am I the only one who read the headline?

This has nothing to do with Obama. Every party pulls this every election cycle. Want to end it? Abolish free elections.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 

I agree about Huntsman...time will tell on that one...but as of right now that's my opinion.

Fair enough, David. And I'd first off like to thank you for your opinions. We don't always see eye-to-eye, but you're always reasonable and respectful. Much obliged.


What would you consider of Ron Pauls views that my be extreme by the general populace?

Do you mean Huntsman? Otherwise...a fair point, as far as Paul goes. Having looked into these things as much as I have for so long now, it all seems like simple common sense, but to someone just reviewing these things in passing from the viewpoint "nothing in my life has really all changed that much, so I can't imagine it ever will" and the like, they probably do seem extreme.


Time will tell. Ron paul hasn't lead national polls either, and all of his views will come full focus....and IMO that will be the end of his Presidential hopes.

Again...just my opinion. We'll see what happens. Still a long way to go...

Agreed on the last bit. As far as the polling goes, granted - he's never been the republican's top dog (should that relieve me as much as it does, however sad it makes me aside?), but he's also consistently tended to poll better than most of their other candidates, barring Romney and the random flavors of the month. He can't realistically be compared bottom-tier in this group despite what the Redstaters like to argue (as Paul continues to surpass their current picks after they swell and fade).

Will definitely be interesting to see how many rehashes we have to play through as his views draw the eye, admittedly. He'll have to keep his professor's hat on and the supporters will have to be well informed.

**combining your responses here**


Again, I understand his explanation.....do you think the vast majority of voters are willing to accept it? Because should he truly take a lead in national polls, it's all going to come out...and he will absolutely be on the defensive...on this one...and far more many things.

hah...fair enough again. Then again, with the fact that all TEA Party members, birthers, and anyone who doesn't like Obama is apparently racist...kidding, but those arguments always killed me. I can really only leave it at what you said before and agree that we'll see what happens. It might be misplaced, but I'll continue to be optimistic that my fellow citizens may actually engage their deeper thought processes in such cases and not just listen to the assorted talking heads.

Take care, and thanks again.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jtap66
 

Yes, I should explain my reason for posting, because the words "sabotage Ron Paul" in the title of the thread aren't clear enough.


OK, I'll bite. Read the OP again. The people the OP is referring to ARE indirectly trying to sabotage Ron Paul and pick a loser by voting for other republican candidates that are "police state supporting fool"s who people will be disinclined to support over Obama - which includes every republican candidate who is not Ron Paul (or Gary Johnson, but he's effectively not on anyone's radar at this point, sadly).

Secondly, as far as conspiracy goes - I'll agree less paranoia WOULD be helpful - but it also cannot be denied that the some of the various & main media outlets have openly *and* indirectly admitted to actively shaping the race, kicking out candidates, and intentionally disregarding Ron Paul (and given the various amounts of coverage, allotments of debate time, exclusions, and the rest as compared to poll numbers, fundraising, and other indications of actual support, Ron Paul is the obvious target here as he is by all other indications one of the consistent republican frontrunners in this race). The Pew Research study some months back vindicated this as have various other reviews over the years including Jerry Day's analysis, and Jon Stewart and others in the media have called out the same thing. So yes, Virginia, there is a conspiracy to bury Ron Paul in the public eye.


What's your reason for posting? What's anyone's reason for posting? Grow up and stop trying to be the thought police.

To clarify the definition of conspiracy for some who apparently didn't understand it, and try to keep the thread on track, apparently. And as far as being the thought police goes, isn't that precisely what you were trying to do with your original post?

Take care.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


It has nothing to do with a "police state". It has to do with making sure the Republican that's nominated doesn't have the appeal to the middle to beat Obama.

Believe me, any Democrat would happily take Paul as the Republican candidate over Romney.

Paul has almost no chance in a general election.

I'm not condeming the man personally. I'm just being honest and realistic.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by Praetorius
 
It has nothing to do with a "police state". It has to do with making sure the Republican that's nominated doesn't have the appeal to the middle to beat Obama.

Believe me, any Democrat would happily take Paul as the Republican candidate over Romney.

Paul has almost no chance in a general election.

I'm not condeming the man personally. I'm just being honest and realistic.

Thanks for your response. As far the the police state reference, that was wording from the OP, I'd assume drawn from the supposed meetings he's referencing.

As far as democrats wanting Paul over Romney, I'd have to agree given the nature of the 'blue republican' movement, although I disagree about the general election results with Paul's draw with independents and democrats themselves - granted, the polling numbers are as twitchy as always, but once Paul has more main street name recognition with fair knowledge of his views, I'd expect those sands to shift more consistently in his favor.

The reasoned response is greatly appreciated. We don't all have to agree, but as long as we can all stay on topic and be friendly about it, that's OK. Take care and have a great night.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Any thinking person could easily see what you were getting at. It's so predictable.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join