Ron Paul 4th place for Republican Nomination - Page 2

geowme · 12-16-2007, 03:25 AM

Most people still don't know who Ron Paul is, but he's gaining ground every day as they do. Yesterday I was walking through an airport and saw Ron Paul 2008 stickers on a pilots flight bags. It felt pretty damn good especially since I haven't seen stickers for any other politician. December 16th is a big day, check Ron Pauls website and watch for yourself the revolution unfold before your eyes.

imported_Blob · 12-19-2007, 10:33 PM

I think the "troll" comment stems from the fact that every time Ron Paul is mentioned on these boards, Viper comes in with the comment "Ron Paul has no chance," and every other variant of the phrase. He sounds just like every mainstream news outlet. Ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecy? Its that kind of thinking that WON'T give Ron Paul a chance. John Q. Public is relentlessly battered by the TV saying Ron Paul has no chance. You say you like they guy? Try injecting a little positivity where ever you can, then. Many people come onto the internet to find out more about Ron Paul because the mainstream news isn't giving him much coverage, so let those people come onto the internet and see only positive vibes.

I'm not calling you a troll or anything, but I'm definitely tired of the negativity you bring to every Ron Paul discussion.

Viper420 · 12-20-2007, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imported_Blob

I think the "troll" comment stems from the fact that every time Ron Paul is mentioned on these boards, Viper comes in with the comment "Ron Paul has no chance," and every other variant of the phrase. He sounds just like every mainstream news outlet. Ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecy? Its that kind of thinking that WON'T give Ron Paul a chance. John Q. Public is relentlessly battered by the TV saying Ron Paul has no chance. You say you like they guy? Try injecting a little positivity where ever you can, then. Many people come onto the internet to find out more about Ron Paul because the mainstream news isn't giving him much coverage, so let those people come onto the internet and see only positive vibes.

I'm not calling you a troll or anything, but I'm definitely tired of the negativity you bring to every Ron Paul discussion.

I'm not saying anything that the mainstream media isn't saying. For that matter, the mainstream media is saying very little about Ron Paul. Why is that? It's because he has been he has been labeled, by the media, as unelectable as President. He raises 6 million bucks (breaking a record) and it gets next to no airtime. None of the top 4 guys even take any time to mention Ron Paul. Why is that? Because they hear the same things I'm telling you. Now I can blow smoke up your butt and say "Oh Paul is knocking them dead in Iowa, isn't he?" or " I think Ron is going to take NH by 5 points, beating out Romney." But do you really want to hear that or would you rather be told the truth?
PS... I like Ron Paul but I can see the writing on the wall.

imported_Blob · 12-20-2007, 12:51 PM

You missed my point entirely, my man. Ron Paul supporters know that its an uphill battle. Anyone who knows anythings about the mainstream media knows that they are biased and intentionally manipulate the flow of information to get the masses to believe in certain things, one of those things being that Ron Paul has no chance. Quit doing their evil deeds for them. Quit HURTING a man you supposedly like. Perhaps someone who was on the fence came onto this board and saw your posts all over the place and then thought, "Even these guys think he has no chance," and votes for some bought-and-paid-for candidate like Guiliani.

Ron Paul needs SUPPORT to win, and for someone who claims to like him, you sure do an awful lot to undermine that support.

ADIDAS · 12-20-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imported_Blob

You missed my point entirely, my man. Ron Paul supporters know that its an uphill battle. Anyone who knows anythings about the mainstream media knows that they are biased and intentionally manipulate the flow of information to get the masses to believe in certain things, one of those things being that Ron Paul has no chance. Quit doing their evil deeds for them. Quit HURTING a man you supposedly like. Perhaps someone who was on the fence came onto this board and saw your posts all over the place and then thought, "Even these guys think he has no chance," and votes for some bought-and-paid-for candidate like Guiliani.

Ron Paul needs SUPPORT to win, and for someone who claims to like him, you sure do an awful lot to undermine that support.

Word, he's getting my vote, not because I think he's got a great chance to win, but because I believe in what he is fighting for. Dont let the media speak for you Viper.

On a side note, are you a Dodge Viper fan or a snake fan haha? Viper's are sweeeeet, the car that is.

**Lit_Match** · 12-20-2007, 01:59 PM

Ron Paul has my vote regardless whether or not he get the nomination. I register independent for the sole reason that I can vote for who I believe has this country's best interests in heart, doesn't matter to me what political party that belong to.

If he doesn't get the nomination I'll be writing him in, so will the majority of Ron Paul supporters. I won't help make this country worse than it is by voting for the lesser of two evils.

Viper420 · 12-21-2007, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lit_Match

Ron Paul has my vote regardless whether or not he get the nomination. I register independent for the sole reason that I can vote for who I believe has this country's best interests in heart, doesn't matter to me what political party that belong to.

If he doesn't get the nomination I'll be writing him in, so will the majority of Ron Paul supporters. I won't help make this country worse than it is by voting for the lesser of two evils.

Would the country have been better off with Al Gore instead of GW? Those people who voted for Ralph Nader thought like you when they voted for the Green Party candidate in Florida in 2000. Did they get a president that cared about Green Party issues?

Plainsman1963 · 12-21-2007, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper420

Would the country have been better off with Al Gore instead of GW? Those people who voted for Ralph Nader thought like you when they voted for the Green Party candidate in Florida in 2000. Did they get a president that cared about Green Party issues?

Are you trotting out that same old tired chestnut of "Nader cost Gore the election"?

Quote:

A STUDY by the Progressive Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent.

The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa.

In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points.

In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger. For example, in nine successive surveys in which Nader pulled only 2 or 3 points, Gore's total varied by 7 points. As late as two weeks before the election, Gore was ahead by as much as 7-10 points.

Nationally, the Review's five poll moving average showed Gore steadily hacking away at Bush's 15 point lead until he was ahead by as much six points in September. But this lead rapidly disappeared until Bush was back in a narrow lead by early October. While Gore eventually won the popular vote, the election was so close that most polls projections were still within the standard margin of error.

During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major acception of a month-long period following the Democratic convention. During this high point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the polls. While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a running average of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose ground even as Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite the help of defectors from Nader, Gore did worse.

Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self- identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush.

(Interestingly, the same critics who blame Nader for Gore's loss fail to give him credit for narrow Democratic victories in the Senate, such as the one in Washington state.)

Since the mythology of the 2000 election shows no signs of fading, a few other points are worth noting:

- According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were disproportionately under 30, independent, first time voters, formerly Perot voters, and of no organized religion. In other words, many of his voters did not naturally belong to the Democratic party. In fact, half as many Republicans as Democrats voted for Nader. Six percent of independents and 7% of Perot voters supported Nader while only 2% of Democrats did.

- The public had a cynical view of both major candidates with 41% believing that both would say anything to win votes. Barely half considered either major candidate honest and trustworthy. And an astounding 51% had reservations about their own vote.

- Gore even lost his home state of Tennessee. This is like flunking a political breathalizer test.

- Perhaps the most important, but seldom mentioned, factor in the outcome was the impact of the Clinton scandals. 68% of voters thought Clinton would go down in history more for his scandals than for his leadership. 44% said that the scandals were somewhat to very important and 57% thought the country to be on the wrong moral track.

- In short, the individual who did the most harm to Gore (aside from himself) was Bill Clinton. If Gore had distanced himself from the Clinton moral miasma he would probably be president today.

- Clinton hurt in other ways, most notably in the damage his administration did to other Democratic officeholders, again something Democrats don't want to face. During the Clinton administration, Democrats lost over 1,200 state legislative seats. Further, the Democrats lost control of 9 legislatures and for the first time since 1954 the GOP controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats. In addition, the GOP won almost more than 40 seats in the House, 8 in the Senate, 11 governorships and 439 Democratic officeholders switched to the Democratic Party. Only three Republicans went the other way. In short, the Clinton administration was a disaster for the Democrats.

But even if Nader only took one percentage point away from Gore - the most that can possibly be claimed - some will say that the Greens should have known better than to take that risk. In a way, it comes down to a debate between Democratic situationists - I am what the polls tell me I ought to be - and Green existentialists - I am what I am regardless of the polls. The danger with the Green existentialist approach is that you may end up with a Bush (or a Clinton, for that matter) in the White House. The danger with the Democratic situationist approach is that you definitely will. In one case, you give up on democracy in favor of a 800-pound-gorillacracy; in the other case you still retain some hope that things can get better.

Ironically, if Nader had done much better - say 10 or 15 points - we would all be in better shape since politics tends to follow third party uprisings when they are powerful enough. In the most recent case, for example, both the GOP and Democratic parties still remain in the shadow of the Perot paradigm. But because Nader didn't do all that well, the Democrats can muddle along pretending that it wasn't their fault after all but some guy they wouldn't even let into the debate.

Democrats tend to think of Greens as wayward members of their party, which is why they try to browbeat them rather than convincing them. In fact, the Greens have less and less in common with the Democratic Party - especially since the latter refuses to stand up against the Bush war, greedy globalization, and the disintegration of constitutional government.

There are fortunately exceptions - Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Lee, and Chellie Pingree (who is running for the Senate in Maine) among them. If Paul Wellstone, for example, had followed the sensible model of these women he'd be more comfortable today.

But too many Democrats presume they can either ignore the Greens or hector them back into their pointless, spiritless, and morally dead confines. It won't work for the simple reason that, unlike the Democratic Party, Greens actually believe in something. And when you believe in something, you are willing to take a few risks along the way. - SAM SMITH

WHY NADER WASN'T TO BLAME IN 2000

KEVIN ZEESE, LETTER TO WASH POST - George Will repeats the liberal myth that Ralph Nader -- rather than George W. Bush -- cost Al Gore the 2000 election. The facts show otherwise:

o Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters.

o Had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN's exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.

o Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Arkansas and traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these, Gore would have won.

o Nine million Democrats voted for Bush, and less than half of the 3 million Nader voters were Democrats.

o Ninety thousand African Americans were illegally and intentionally stricken from the voter rolls in Florida under the guise of felon disenfranchisement.

o The 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision stopped the vote counting that favored a Gore victory.

The Democrats lost the 2002 congressional elections, the California and New York governorships, and many state legislatures throughout the country. Surely Nader is not to blame for those defeats.

POLL ANALYSIS: NADER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR GORE'S LOSS by Sam Smith

**Lit_Match** · 12-21-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper420

Would the country have been better off with Al Gore instead of GW? Those people who voted for Ralph Nader thought like you when they voted for the Green Party candidate in Florida in 2000. Did they get a president that cared about Green Party issues?

I'm not exactly sure how they "thought like me", the only reason I believe Ron Paul will get the job done is based on his voting history. He's proven himself imo, that's why he's earned my vote.

SpiralArchitect · 12-20-2007, 10:06 PM

Ron Paul made it onto MSN's 11 most influential people of the year. Looks like heads are really starting to turn.

Ron Paul on MSN's 11 most influential people of 2007

I feel like a dolt, the other day there was a Ron Paul meeting downtown but for some reason I totally spaced it until it was like an hour too late, luckily there will be another one in town in a few weeks, a campaigning officer will be in town and I'm hoping to get a few interested friends to come along.

12-20-2007, 01:59 PM	#6
Lit_Match Subscriber Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,622 Grams: 30,755.78 Thanks: 156 Thanked 932 Times in 489 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Ron Paul has my vote regardless whether or not he get the nomination. I register independent for the sole reason that I can vote for who I believe has this country's best interests in heart, doesn't matter to me what political party that belong to. If he doesn't get the nomination I'll be writing him in, so will the majority of Ron Paul supporters. I won't help make this country worse than it is by voting for the lesser of two evils. __________________ Donation links to NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) \| MPP (Marijuana Policy Project) Real Americans working to win our country back The National Security Archive Posting Guidelines

12-20-2007, 10:06 PM	#10
SpiralArchitect The Cosmic Chronic Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,861 Grams: 53,853.27 Thanks: 5,020 Thanked 3,991 Times in 2,033 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: -1.000%	Ron Paul made it onto MSN's 11 most influential people of the year. Looks like heads are really starting to turn. Ron Paul on MSN's 11 most influential people of 2007 I feel like a dolt, the other day there was a Ron Paul meeting downtown but for some reason I totally spaced it until it was like an hour too late, luckily there will be another one in town in a few weeks, a campaigning officer will be in town and I'm hoping to get a few interested friends to come along. __________________ . . Posting Guidelines ~ The Art of Searching ~ Drug Testing ~ Drug War Headlines ~ Fuck Combustion ~ The Garden's Cure ~ Marijuana Chat~ ShowMeTheFacts Last edited by SpiralArchitect : 12-20-2007 at 10:15 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Advertising Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Hot Products:

Orange Krush - Legal Bud

Black Magic Solid Smokes

Vapir One Vaporizer