Young voters will put Ron Paul in the White House

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 

I don't believe Iowa has the demographics that you will find in the bigger states. Iowa is more rural, older and whiter.
Paul needs the young and nonwhite vote, and I think he has it.




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jibajaba
 

62 isn't old in Iowa!

If you are old, so am I. I have been a Ron Paul fan for about as long as you have. I always liked that liberty thing.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 





They can more easily see thru the B.S. and the propaganda.


You really believe that?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Screwed
 

Very well said, and I agree.
These young voters generally don't watch ABCCNNNBCCBSFOX, they get their news from the internet. And yes, youtube videos. In other words, Ron Paul territory.



And we can trust the internet?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 

Can I trust you?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


I think this is entirely plausible as the young voters certainly made a big impact during the Obama elections....I personnally do not see much Ron Paul support via bumpter stickers etc..in my neck of the woods..



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


We're not going to get anything close to a cross section of national demographics until South Carolina and Florida so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

From what I've read, the number of young people registering is down compared to '08.

Off topic somewhat: if Paul wants to deflect charges of him being "dangerous" on foreign policy he needs to cut out the "gee willikers, I don't know what those darn kids sent out on my tweety account" business. It makes him look feebler than Ronald Reagan.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 



Off topic somewhat: if Paul wants to deflect charges of him being "dangerous" on foreign policy he needs to cut out the "gee willikers, I don't know what those darn kids sent out on my tweety account" business. It makes him look feebler than Ronald Reagan.

I agree. I think he should just say that he has addressed that, and would be glad to discuss relevant issues.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Screwed
 





They can more easily see thru the B.S. and the propaganda.


You really believe that?


Yes I really believe that.
Seems obvoius that I really beleive that since, well......I posted it.
I am not in the habit of posting the opposite of what I believe
So, that seems like a rather silly question.

I have to warn you, I am good at spotting and avoiding trolls.
I do not and WILL NOT get into a debate with someone who has a closed mind.
If you DO NOT see what the rest of us are seeing then you then must answer this question.

Do you want to see it?

If your answer is yes then tell me how I can help.
If your answer in no then........goodbye.
I will not explain myself of my beleifs or my position to someone with a closed mind.
edit on 5-1-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Setting yourselves up for another huge disapointment.
All this says is the typical young inexperienced view of the world, the "we know better than them old people" argument that raged since man first peaked out of his cave.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 

Yeah, I see it as being pretty black and white myself.
With Paul you have a choice. Without him, you have nothing but a further escalation of the war on everything.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


So, if RP does get elected, will you support him as your president?
or will you hope he fails in order to support your already firmly held beleifs that he can not change America?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I'm 20 and when Obama was put into office I was 17. If I was able to I would have undoubtedly voted for Obama. I did engage in volunteering services just to be doing something to contribute. Then I learned about the Nwo right before his win. I was so mad at myself. Then I learned of ron Paul, well I actually heard of ron Paul during the 2008 campaign but I ignored him because he was a republican.

Now I know of ron Paul, and I will vote for him. But if it doesn't work out, then it is clear that it isn't the president that can change things and it is up to the people to change the system by necessary means.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 

For only being twenty years old, those are some very wise words.
Ron Paul, if elected, will need our continuous support. He will have a hostile group (Congress) to contend with. We need a lot of turnover in Congress as well.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
All this says is the typical young inexperienced view of the world, the "we know better than them old people" argument that raged since man first peaked out of his cave.


And many of those young people make contributions that change the world.

I'm of the generation that totally screwed things up (AND the generation that was SO against Vietnam) so, while I'm an old hippie, many my age are the greedy and corrupt politicians in DC. So I don't think we can generalize so easily. After all, it's the older generation that brought us to this point.

The future belongs to the younger generation. Since we screwed it up SO bad, the least we can do is have them choose the leaders that will impact their lives and their futures... That's kind of how I see it, anyway.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
What is also interesting is that it is the richer people who vote for Romney and Santorum, and the poorer who vote for Paul.

You can see this clearly in the breakdown of the campaign contributions too.

One of the problems with our society - "its working for me, so screw everyone else, I don't want change".



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKTruth
What is also interesting is that it is the richer people who vote for Romney and Santorum, and the poorer who vote for Paul.


What's your basis for that claim?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 



What's your basis for that claim?

In the link I provided in the OP, the poll breaks it down.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by UKTruth
What is also interesting is that it is the richer people who vote for Romney and Santorum, and the poorer who vote for Paul.


What's your basis for that claim?



As mentioned the breakdown can be seen in the link in the OP.

Also, the official sources of campaign contributions show that Romney has a vast number of contributions at the maximum $2500, whereas Ron Paul has significantly more smaller contributions.

The richer people are voting and supporting their fifedom.

I think the Ron Paul campaign needs to work on the richer demographic and make it clear to them they too would have more disposable income under his policies. Sometimes you have to bring it down to basics for the greedy people.

edit on 5/1/2012 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/1/2012 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The situation is dire going forward. The next Republican president, who ever it is, will likely diminish further America's influence, and standing at home and abroad. Obama, the so called democrat, has proven himself to be a sell out to the rich, and the military establishment. All the hope that was there, vanished very quickly, soon after he got elected. Obama's, yes we can, and change, slogans have proven to be just that empty slogans. I'm saddened Obama has proven once again politics is a dirty word.

As for Ron Paul, can he put an end to the mess, we're in economically and militarily? Lets see. Well i like Paul because he seems to stick to what he beliefs in, and some of his policies not all, do make sense obviously like ending the wars that are ongoing. Paul is a Republican, and Republicans often propose wacky ideas to how things should be run. Paul, also beliefs everyone should look after themselves no matter your circumstances. Fine a few hundreds years ago that might have been possible Mr Paul. I might have been able to plant crops and live off the land, but today no finances, one is going to have hard time living at all in this society! Paul wants to end Welfare and end Medicare, this hurts the weakness people of our society who'd mostly be just down on their luck. I could never vote for a man who has desires to hurt the most vulnerable.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join