Poll: Ron Paul in third with 14% nationally

Fine, then he can remain forever out of the loop. Personally, I'd rather have him doing something in the new administration than nothing.

Since when does Ron Paul trust the CIA?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dECSYm5bSM"]Ron Paul "WE NEED TO TAKE OUT THE CIA" - YouTube[/ame]

Anyway, the CIA cannot say with any degree of certitude that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons.

How do you know they wouldn't use it against us, or use it to increase their leverage over us? Can you predict the future? Why do you assume that Iran's regime thinks like you do?

The Iranian regime are a bunch of psychotic despots. They cannot be reasoned with.

You're assuming that they think like you do, but you are not a religious extremist psycho despot.

Where does it say the national poll is of Republicans? I couldn't find the link. The other one is just in Iowa.

I've been through enough Ron Paul Presidential campaigns to know he won't get nominated by the GOP. They just won't do it.

 

It would be a miracle of Ron Paul got the nomination, but if he did, he would probably win.

 

Eternal optimism, thy name is Joe!



Americans are not that far yet. His position on drug prohibition would be enough to do him in. A few well-phrased lines from Obama about meth-heads destroying the children would be enough to seal his fate in the first debate. At a glance, Americans see Ron Paul as refreshing, but when push comes to shove, they will reject his ideology because Americans are simply too in love with the status quo to elect him.

I'm a cynic. What can I say.

 

Because Paul is anti war and many republicans are pro war, pro big government, pro big corporation, pro federal reserve.

Paul knows who he appeals to and who he doesn't. His challenge is making the establishment accept the fact that the party is over and that it's time to uproot the banking cartels grasp on Americas throat.

Paul could win, my fear if he does is that he may end up like JFK. Assassinated because he refuses to go along with the establishment, aka banker rules and expanding their empire through war.

 

I hope Americans haven't yet become quite so shallow as to vote against a candidate based on this, especially when people are living so much longer these days.

And, of course, he's in better health than many half his age, gets a lot of exercise, and both his parents lived past ninety.

 

I am a Democratic Socialist, but I would love to see Paul get the GOP nod, it would be a real slap in the face to the establishment.

 

They'd never nominate him to anyone. Not in a million years.

Nope, and they're not trustworthy. But they'd be more likely to skew reality by exaggerated the threat of regimes like Iran, not diminishing it. And I know of no credible organization that refutes them.

How do you know Canada won't develop a nuke and use it against us? Nothing's certain. You can only weigh probabilities and make the most sensible choice, and the most sensible choice is free trade and diplomacy.

This is the assumption war hawks always make when they want to go to war: that they're blindly psychotic and therefore you don't have to analyze likely motives and incentives. I have seen to evidence to assume that the mullahs, despotic though they are, are unlike other despots in desiring to maintain their pelf and power.

I can't find the exact breakdown either. It's a USA Today/Gallup poll reported here. But I don't find it likely they'd poll Democrats about a Republican primary; they usually restrict these polls to likely voters. I guess I could be wrong but I wouldn't bet on it.

The Rasmussen one was of likely caucus participants, and it's pretty important to the election. Ron Paul also came in first place (27%) under certain caucus participants.

One is enough? He's doing better than almost all the other candidates.

 

That's why he needs to quickly choose a running mate with views identical to his--or even more radical. That will be his insurance policy.

 

I love Ron Paul for this:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society.

He doesn't sound like a Zionist marionette, unlike others, especially Bush J.

 

It sounds like he thinks it's OK to hire blacks last, and fire them first, as well as refusing to hire women as anything but teachers (preferably elementary), nurses (never doctors), or secretaries (remember that term?)

That's how it was before the civil rights act was passed.

 

It actually sounds like Government has no business telling people what agreements they can or can't make willingly in the market. If I hire you and you do a bad job, I should be able to fire you, regardless of what color you are. In today's society, racist companies would be boycotted, so the free market would regulate itself and help those businesses fail. It's simply not the Governments job.

Do you want to live in a Nanny State?

 

Is that what you would like -- the man who created the blueprint for ObamaCare, supported TARP and $400 million dollars in business taxes in Massachusetts or the man who supported Lance Armstrong's 3 billion dollar Texas taxpayer funded medical research center, secured a 300 million dollar business handout slush fund for him and just the two leaders of the legislature to dole out to whomever he felt like being friendly to, supported a new business tax, set up toll road tax collection booths all over Texas highways, and signed an executive order forcing young Texas schoolgirls to get the HPV vaccine even if it was against their will -- even if it was against their parents' will?

What if the US tries to stop them with force and violence but fails?

 

It's great to see Paul getting so much media attention and spread a real message of liberty.

True that, even if you don't agree with someone's views it's nice to see someone new get in and shake things up as well as to spread new ideas.

 

Then they definitely won't nominate him to be President.

You cannot refute something that impossible to substantiate. There is no way to prove or demonstrate that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons.

Based upon the available evidence, the probability that Iran will pass nuclear weapons technology onto a terror proxy is inordinately higher than the probability that Canada will do the same. The mere threat of passing on that technology to terrorist proxies is strategic leverage.

I would agree if the Iranian regime was amenable to free trade and diplomacy.

A despot is psychotic by their very nature. These men are Islamist despots who actively fund terror proxies that kill and maim western forces all over the world. They advocate for the annihilation of Israel and the world Jewry. They routinely murder their own citizens and impose draconian laws on personal freedoms.

That said, I have no desire to engage Iran in open warfare. Any measures we take in regards to their nuclear program should be surgical and temporary in nature. Hopefully, the Israelis will take care of it before we do.

He didn't even attempt to run as a Republican in the eighties. I wonder why?

 

What?

Implement a series of contingency plans, I suppose. Do you want specific plans?

 

That was all the free market... had nothing to do with Jim Crow laws... right?

Moreover, if I put a big sign in front of my business that says "no negroes," everyone who enters my business will not be labeled a racist pig and my reputation wouldn't run me out of business in a very short period of time?

 

Romney and Perry

Won't it (*)(*)(*)(*) them off if we used force and violence to try to stop them? Won't it increase the chances of them nuking us? Not that there's any evidence that Iran is even trying to obtain a nuclear weapon...

If we got off their backs, we wouldn't have anything to worry about.

 

They're not MY ideal candidates, but they're much better than Obama.

Romney is the standard center-right moderate, and Perry is a center-right conservative, if that makes sense. Both are much better options than the progressive ideologue occupying the White House.

Sure it'll make them mad, but they'd only be marginally angrier than they were before we attacked.

They're already killing our troops. I'd say they're plenty mad.

Not necessarily. If what everyone says is true, that Iran thinks rationally, thinks about their long-term existence, then they would probably be less likely to nuke us after we attacked them.

There is circumstantial evidence which supports such a contention.

If we get off their backs? Is that a euphemism for "withdraw our forces from the ME"?

 

I'm talking about a President Romney, not the Republican voters.

You can't prove a teapot isn't orbiting around Mars.

It's not high enough to justify war.

The best way to reduce their need for strategic leverage is a non-interventionist foreign policy.

That doesn't mean they're suicidal.

So you eliminate the total war option. Okay. As I outlined previously that leaves two options: diplomacy OR acts of militarism that don't actually topple the regime. The latter option would only entrench the regime, exacerbate the hostility, and increase the chance that they would seek a nuclear bomb. So you're left with the former option: the non-interventionist option.

What difference does it make? Right now, he's one of the frontrunners in the GOP primary.

 

of course not. They will nominate another useless Bush/Clinton/Obama clone.

 

They have to maintain the crappy status quo, right?

 

Ron Paul has a very real chance of winning and that scares everyone in the establishment. He has won the CPAC straw poll 2 years in a row. He consistently wins debates and the online polling shows this though there is a real effort to show otherwise by the media. Fox's online poll shows he won the Iowa debate and CNN showed he won the New Hampshire debate (though it was reported otherwise).

So what's up with the 'official' polls? They show him well back in the pack. It's a conscious effort to marginalize Ron Paul. This should tell everyone something. The media knows full well that most sheeple will vote for the pre-perceived winner and Romney is the media's pick for the GOP.

I don't agree with EVERYTHING Ron Paul says, but I know that a President Paul will be tempered by Congress to some degree. No one has a mandate to be a dictator, as Obama thought when he was first elected. Ron Paul will turn this mess around...we need Ron Paul and not some empty suit in the White House.

Here's a video from you tube that shows Anderson Cooper exposing his own colleagues reporting fraudulent numbers in the polling following the New Hampshire debate. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmqU_tpAjBM"]Poll Gate: Anderson Cooper Defends Ron Paul and Exposes CNN Fraud ... on CNN - YouTube[/ame]

Ron Paul attracts voters from across the spectrum because he is perceived to be, above all...honest. The ones against him are the Corporatists and the Liberal teat-suckers...in other words, all those that have been draining us dry for years.

 

Paul represents a threat to the Establishment, and for that reason, he will be vilified by the MSM and Establishment Republicans - who are of course extensions of that very Establishment.

It's not that complicated... talk about exposing the Fed for the criminals they are; talk about restoring the Constitution, reining in the FedGov, defunding all the unConstitutional tri-lettered bureauacracies, etc... you're not going to be invited to the prom.

Mitt Romney is not a "moderate-right" candidate, he is an Establishment approved Insider; who if elected would be charged with the task of giving the appearance of change, but in fact, maintain course while normalizing the "gains" made under Obama.

Perry will be the same thing.

These people don't care about America, they don't care about other people... they are front men for the criminal elite, i.e. the Establishment, that sit above our government.

It is utterly amazing that people can't see the con.

Then again, "we're all Keynesians", right???

 

Great analysis.
I go even further and say that, if people would really hold the Constitution in as high regard as they proclaim, instead of giving lip service, no other but Paul will do.

 

I hate the lesser of the two evils game. The reason why we have this arbitrary two party system which are really just the same pro-government party is because everyone thinks within the realm of voting for the lesser of the two evils. I, for one, will not be participating in supporting the lesser of two evils strategy (I'll vote Libertarian if they pick a good candidate... if not, I'll write in Ron Paul )

We attacked them first... and if we pulled back our troops now and left them alone, why would they target us?

Where is it?

Yeah.