Ron Paul wins another straw poll

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57274.html

It strikes me as odd that he supposedly has so much support, but when actual votes are counted his results are so insignificant that it seems like the rumors his supporters stack these events are true. I actually like having him in the race though. He'll hopefully be able to advance some libertarian issues and call out the RINOs on their liberalism. It's really too bad he's so marginalized by the 9/11 lunatics.

He has rabid, not voluminous, support.

He will fade into the background soon enough. He is marginal and should be marginalized.

I will continue to vote for him.

That is all.

I'll vote for him.

Communist, socialists, Marxists, statist, fascist, authoritarian liberty stompers, white supremacists, Black supremacistst, militant militia, police state apologists, those in favor of all the alphabet soup government agencies, those who want to take my money or tell me what to do with my body while totally ignoring our natural rights, etc. All support the regular two yahoos they give us as a choice. So are folks who vote for them in favor and should be judged by the other groups that vote for them?

I think I'd rather be associated with a group that doesn't trust the government than those who feel government is the answer. And I am not a conspiracy theorist at all.

What I find interesting is that the conservative media seems to go out of it's way to keep him out of their polls. He will do well in one poll then outlets like the WSJ will release a poll and he doesn't even show in it.

I from time to time listen to Hannity on the way to work. It really bothered me when he would be talking about possible candidates he would always leave Paul out. One caller asked him about it and he replied he was a Reagan Conservative and didn't agree with all of Paul's Libertarian Conservative views so he didn't include or support him. At least he was honest about it.

Years ago there was a man named Dick Luger who ran to be the candidate every cycle. If you asked him a specific question on policy he gave you a specific answer. Many politicians in his party didn't seem to like that since it took away their "wiggle room", so year after year he failed to get the nomination. Ron Paul is learning what this feels like.


On a side note. I also find it interesting all the GOP pols who have tried to co-opt the Tea Party. I mean, look at the Tea Party Express and Freedom Works. Both these "Tea Party" organizations are run by Dick Armey. He was the House Majority Leader for the Republican Party, for pity sake. Now like a smart pol, he read the tea leaves(excuse the pun) right and has tried to re-brand himself as for small government. Why didn't he try to reduce the size of government when he was in it and had the power to push such an agenda? I hope all the people who say they are tired of the same old song and dance from both parties are not fooled by any of this, but in all honesty I doubt it.

sudden valley gunner said:

I'll vote for him.

Communist, socialists, Marxists, statist, fascist, authoritarian liberty stompers, white supremacists, Black supremacistst, militant militia, police state apologists, those in favor of all the alphabet soup government agencies, those who want to take my money or tell me what to do with my body while totally ignoring our natural rights, etc. All support the regular two yahoos they give us as a choice. So are folks who vote for them in favor and should be judged by the other groups that vote for them?

I think I'd rather be associated with a group that doesn't trust the government than those who feel government is the answer. And I am not a conspiracy theorist at all.

Click to expand...

If you're implying that a person is either a Ron Paul supporter or a "Communist, socialists, Marxists, statist, fascist, authoritarian liberty stomper" I think you're being disingenuous. In fact it seems to me what turns off most conservatives to his politics is his isolationist stance on foreign policy. I'm sure the republican establishment just loves his adversarial position on the fed bank too.

If I could be convinced by someone I knew to be well educated on economics that the best way to ensure free market stability was to dump fractional reserve banking and be the only country on earth that goes back to gold, I'd support RP that much more. If I had a crystal ball and could see no repercussions from our withdrawing all military forces and influence from the world, I'd be an ardent RP supporter.

I don't need a crystal ball to know that our withdrawal from the world would allow every "Communist, socialist, Marxist, statist, fascist, authoritarian liberty stomper, whabbist, despot and their agents" to run wild in the world destabilizing the world's markets, governments and constantly attempt to penetrate our border defenses. Our defense spending would probably have to increase since we'd have to have snipers, gun towers, gunships and constant air patrols over every inch of border.

Other than those 2 issues I have no problem with his policies. A libertarian can have constitutional values AND believe in a strong national defense which includes military infrastructure around the world, with a banking/monetary system that allows the free market to function. Like I've said many times, I don't pretend to have an understanding of every intricacy and nuance of the monetary system like so many who bloviate to anyone who will listen. It does not make sense to me at all, to readopt a system the rest of the world left behind. There obviously was a problem with it, or else no one would have switched.

VW_Factor said:

I will continue to vote for him.

That is all.

Click to expand...

this, I feel better knowing i voted for a candidate that will make the necessary changes and not fall into the sorry excuse that third party candidates cant win.

Oh, and how did Paul do in the poll of viewers after the debate, after folks were asked to select a candidate who had just been asked to speak on several different subjects, not of his choosing?

Anyone? Bueller?

sudden valley gunner said:

SNIP those who want to take my money or tell me what to do with my body while totally ignoring our natural rights, etc.

Click to expand...

It is as though supporters of the main parties fail to connect the dots.

For example, some support the Republicans and a strong military. In order to have a strong military, you have to spend, spend, spend. And, to do that, you have to borrow, borrow, borrow, driving the national debt up, up, up. At least that's the way its been played, whether its true or not.

Both major parties are in it for themselves. Just two wings of the Government Party. They promise this, they promise that. But in the end, spending goes up, the debt goes up, we get more laws and regulations, and liberty contracts.

Wasn't it Patrick Henry who remarked that some men promise to govern fairly, govern wisely. But they intend to govern.

PrayingForWar said:

.......If I could be convinced by someone I knew to be well educated on economics that the best way to ensure free market stability was to dump fractional reserve banking.......

.......a banking/monetary system that allows the free market to function. Like I've said many times, I don't pretend to have an understanding of every intricacy and nuance of the monetary system like so many who bloviate to anyone who will listen. It does not make sense to me at all, to readopt a system the rest of the world left behind. There obviously was a problem with it, or else no one would have switched.

Click to expand...

You cannot have a free market without a free currency. It just can not be done. If you can explain how to have a Free Market without a free currency I would love to hear it.

It would be like saying your free to own, buy, sell, trade, any firearm you wish as long as it was made by Springfield and approved by the Federal Government, and that Springfield and the Federal Government arbitrarily decided how many firearms to allow into the system at any given time. That does not sound like freedom to me.

I admit that this isn't the best example but think for a moment how firearm prices would be effected/manipulated if the Government (or some private entity authorized by government) was able to control how many Firearms entered the system. Remember these approved Firearms are the only ones allowed on the market and you can be jailed or fined for using a different Firearm. The effect the Federal Reserve has on our economy is similar.

Just because "the rest of the world" leaves something behind or starts something does not mean that it is a good thing. Much of the world is disregarding the natural right to be armed, much of the rest of the world is decreasing individual liberty, much of the rest of the world has higher and higher taxes.

Your right that there was "a problem" with our monetary system sans a Fiat Currency. The problem was that those who hate freedom and liberty and crave control found that it was not easy enough to manipulate the economy so they wanted to find a system that allowed them to control the economy easier.

PrayingForWar said:

If you're implying that a person is either a Ron Paul supporter or a "Communist, socialists, Marxists, statist, fascist, authoritarian liberty stomper" I think you're being disingenuous. In fact it seems to me what turns off most conservatives to his politics is his isolationist stance on foreign policy. I'm sure the republican establishment just loves his adversarial position on the fed bank too.

]

Click to expand...

Only if you are implying every Ron Paul supporter is a conspiracy moonbat. I know your are bright enough to see what I was doing in that statement. You were trying to demonize Ron Paul because of a few fanatical followers, I was simply pointing out if I was to do the same with the guys you support, they would fair a lot worse.

Citizen said:

It is as though supporters of the main parties fail to connect the dots.

For example, some support the Republicans and a strong military. In order to have a strong military, you have to spend, spend, spend. And, to do that, you have to borrow, borrow, borrow, driving the national debt up, up, up. At least that's the way its been played, whether its true or not.

Both major parties are in it for themselves. Just two wings of the Government Party. They promise this, they promise that. But in the end, spending goes up, the debt goes up, we get more laws and regulations, and liberty contracts.

Wasn't it Patrick Henry who remarked that some men promise to govern fairly, govern wisely. But they intend to govern.

Click to expand...

Good quote, I must ad that to my file of quotes.

Citizen said:

.........Wasn't it Patrick Henry who remarked that some men promise to govern fairly, govern wisely. But they intend to govern.

Click to expand...

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
~Daniel Webster

Gonna root for the hometown team. He is my rep afterall.
Yes, blame me for him even being a voice that is heard, but I have to admit, thinks are nice down in south east Texas.

eye95 said:

Oh, and how did Paul do in the poll of viewers after the debate, after folks were asked to select a candidate who had just been asked to speak on several different subjects, not of his choosing?

Anyone? Bueller?

Click to expand...

Not sure what poll(s) you are referring to. How about a link?

I am asking, not telling. I need provide no link to any particular poll. Look the polls up. Or don't. I don't really care, cuz I know that folks with open and rational minds will, and they will be able to draw appropriate conclusions.

Moving on.

eye95 said:

I am asking, not telling. I need provide no link to any particular poll. Look the polls up. Or don't. I don't really care, cuz I know that folks with open and rational minds will, and they will be able to draw appropriate conclusions.

Click to expand...

Your original post on the subject suggested that you saw poll results that showed Mr. Paul in a more negative light:

eye95 said:

Oh, and how did Paul do in the poll of viewers after the debate, after folks were asked to select a candidate who had just been asked to speak on several different subjects, not of his choosing?

Click to expand...

Emphasis mine, intended to point out that you were referring to a singular poll. You then go on to describe the poll with some specificity. One can only read your post and take from it that you saw this poll.

I step back in just long enough to quote my post, including the line left out when it was quoted (with no indication at all that the post had been altered).

eye95 said:

I am asking, not telling. I need provide no link to any particular poll. Look the polls up. Or don't. I don't really care, cuz I know that folks with open and rational minds will, and they will be able to draw appropriate conclusions.

Moving on.

Click to expand...

PrayingForWar said:

I don't need a crystal ball to know that our withdrawal from the world would allow every "Communist, socialist, Marxist, statist, fascist, authoritarian liberty stomper, whabbist, despot and their agents" to run wild in the world destabilizing the world's markets, governments and constantly attempt to penetrate our border defenses. Our defense spending would probably have to increase since we'd have to have snipers, gun towers, gunships and constant air patrols over every inch of border.

Click to expand...

If by "withdrawal from the world" you mean just bringing our troops home, but continuing to fund, train, and supply all those little "insurgent groups" by shipping them pallets of cash, planeloads of arms, and dozens of "advisors", as we have been doing for the last 100+ years, you are probably correct. All hell probably WOULD break loose.

But if you mean actually withdrawing ALL our presence--not shipping them arms, cash and advisors, and not using private contractors to help them ship their drugs throughout the world, then perhaps it would actually make a difference.

Without covert support of these near-stone-age cultures, and the intentional programs of regional destabilization that have been the modus operandi of the Western "Intelligence" community since the Cold War, most of them would just fade back into sociopolitical obscurity, and the worst things to happen would be small, fractional, tribal skirmishes, just like most of the world was before we stuck our noses into their business a the beginning of the 20th century.

Intentional regional destabilization as a foreign policy has caused more problems in the last 60 years than it ever solved, and is perhaps an even more egregious violation of international law and human rights than 18th and 19th Century Colonialism ever was...

I have voted for him, I will vote for him again. I have been elected as a delegate to teh WA Republican convention for him....BTW: He won out in my part of WA, almost won in Spokane, did win a couple places in ID and MT.

The problem is there is a lot of free publicity for others, that is basically "don't support Ron, he can't win. We need someone that can win".

No-one oposes him on his principles, only that "he can't win". I do have to admit, he would be the nanny state control freeks worst nightmare.

Not true. I oppose him on principle and principle alone. So do many Americans. It is because of his principles, most very good, some unacceptably (IMO) wacko, that he is unelectable.

Most of us can support a candidate who has little or no chance in the primaries. (I supported Huckabee in the primaries last time. This time, I am tending toward Cain, but am caught among the large number of really good choices) Common sense dictates that we eventually support acceptably imperfect electable candidates once the field narrows. (I voted for Palin...er...McCain in the general.)

If enough folks don't do this, we get Obama.