new presidential poll

georg jetson · Aug 25, 2011

eye95 said:
To point out the folly (and petulance) of the insistence by some that they will continue to vote for him, even after he loses in the primaries, which (despite any protestations to the contrary) would have all the effect of gambling up the ballot and stuffing it in the trash can instead of the ballot box--as would staying home, as some say they will.

The true folly(insanity) is doing what Republicans have been doing for many years. Finding an "electable" candidate that can win and then watch as that candidate erodes away our liberties... albeit, slower than the democrat candidate would have...

In other words, doing the same thing over and over and then expecting a different result.

georg jetson · Aug 25, 2011

eye95 said:
I have two goals: (1) To point out that Paul is not the second coming--that, while Paul is excellent on following the Constitution into severely limited government, his foreign policy is unrealistic and dangerous.

In order to discuss Dr. Paul's foreign policy, one must be willing to read just what that policy entails. Until you do, you argue against a straw man and you make no point.

eye95 · Aug 25, 2011

georg jetson said:
The true folly(insanity) is doing what Republicans have been doing for many years. Finding an "electable" candidate that can win and then watch as that candidate erodes away our liberties... albeit, slower than the democrat candidate would have...

In other words, doing the same thing over and over and then expecting a different result.

The irony is that when the Republicans choose "electable" candidates, meaning those who run to the center (Dole and McCain come to mind), they come somewhat close, but fail. When they choose and run as hard-core conservatives (Reagan, Gingrich, Bush the Younger, and the Tea Party come to mind), they win. It is a candidate in this model whom they need to select. Not a centrist and not a fringe candidate, but a solid conservative.

eye95 · Aug 25, 2011

georg jetson said:
In order to discuss Dr. Paul's foreign policy, one must be willing to read just what that policy entails. Until you do, you argue against a straw man and you make no point.

No. One only need listen to him when he tries to explain it under questioning. One should avoid the carefully crafted and propagandized version that is not subject to scrutiny.

I hope my opinions are judged by what I write in a back-and-forth, not by anything I may have written in an unchallenged treatise.

This is only rational.

okboomer · Aug 25, 2011

eye95 said:
No. One only need listen to him when he tries to explain it under questioning. One should avoid the carefully crafted and propagandized version that is not subject to scrutiny.

I hope my opinions are judged by what I write in a back-and-forth, not by anything I may have written in an unchallenged treatise.

This is only rational.

Yes, and they show that you do not do your due diligence in researching the issues. In other words, it is impossible to have an honest debate with you and you regularly mis-quote and rephrase others, while decrying that the same happens to you, which, IMHO is incorrect and unfounded at best.

Moving on.

Brass Magnet · Aug 25, 2011

eye95 said:
No. One only need listen to him when he tries to explain it under questioning. One should avoid the carefully crafted and propagandized version that is not subject to scrutiny.

I hope my opinions are judged by what I write in a back-and-forth, not by anything I may have written in an unchallenged treatise.

This is only rational.

True positions and solutions to the issues do not lend themselves well to sound bites. You can't explain how to fix our economic problems in 30 seconds of debate time. You can't explain non-interventionist foreign policy in 30 seconds. No, the carfully crafted and propagandized dialouge is that of the "polished" candidates that speak with bumper sticker "wisdom" or avoid questions entirely.

Not bothering to educate oneself on the positions of the various candidates with something more substantial than listening to sound bites and then trying to discredit that candidate with self-induced ignorance to the position is laughable and disingenuous. Disingenuous because I believe you do know the real positions and are just trying to smear Dr. Paul.

eye95 · Aug 25, 2011

okboomer said:
Yes, and they show that you do not do your due diligence in researching the issues. In other words, it is impossible to have an honest debate with you and you regularly mis-quote and rephrase others, while decrying that the same happens to you, which, IMHO is incorrect and unfounded at best.

Moving on.

And choosing to not read Paul's website is not not doing due diligence. I have listened to his debate performances and some interviews. It is reasonable NOT to judge the man by his carefully crafted and unchallenged spin on his website.

If you think I have ever misquoted or rephrased you, feel free to call me on a specific instance. Making a general accusation is merely a cheap shot, amounting to nothing more than a personal attack, demonstrating an inability to argue on merits.

Since you have descended to this level, perhaps your moving on is best. However, I recommend moving on before you make unsupported personal charges.

Not moving on as I expect you haven't really and will reply directly to this post.

eye95 · Aug 25, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
True positions and solutions to the issues do not lend themselves well to sound bites...

No, but truths (not included in carefully crafted and unvetted treatises on one's controlled website) are often revealed. This happens to all candidates. Most of the time, it means nothing. In Paul's case, it reveals a willingness to ignore international events to our detriment and possible demise.

Oh, and what I have listened to amounts to more than "sound bites." I was going to comment on how much more mature your response was than the one that immediately preceded it until I read that last bit. Still, you are remaining mostly rational in the face of rhetorical dispute. Kudos for that.

Brass Magnet · Aug 25, 2011

eye95 said:
No, but truths (not included in carefully crafted and unvetted treatises on one's controlled website) are often revealed. This happens to all candidates. Most of the time, it means nothing. In Paul's case, it reveals a willingness to ignore international events to our detriment and possible demise.

Oh really? Then what about actual positions taken for over 30 years. I posted those in the other thread: http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/8677-ron-paul-as-an-anti-communist-cold-warrior

Do actual postions matter less than a sound bite? Does a record matter not?

Without DYODD your positions will be ignorant at best; but as I stated in my previous post, I suspect they are disingenuous instead.

georg jetson · Aug 25, 2011

eye95 said:
No. One only need listen to him when he tries to explain it under questioning. One should avoid the carefully crafted and propagandized version that is not subject to scrutiny.

I hope my opinions are judged by what I write in a back-and-forth, not by anything I may have written in an unchallenged treatise.

This is only rational.

I can see some rationale in your thinking if you're concerned that the candidate should be viewed suspiciously as a flip-flop, say what it takes to get elected, kinda person. However, as I've pointed out, Ron Paul is the only opportunity the GOP has for getting a candidate that does what they say(write).

In fact, because of smooth politicians like Mitt Romney and such, just the opposite is true when it comes to listening to the spoken word... it is the written plan that CAN be scrutinized to any useful degree. In this case, it is worthwhile to scrutinize his plan as written because of all of the candidates, he by far is the most likely to hold true to his word based on his record.

Remain aware that you will not agree with everything any one candidate about all of the issues. Indeed, further is the dilemma of whether or not to believe the candidates when they appear to agree with you.

eye95 · Aug 26, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
Oh really? Then what about actual positions taken for over 30 years. I posted those in the other thread: http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/8677-ron-paul-as-an-anti-communist-cold-warrior

Do actual postions matter less than a sound bite? Does a record matter not?

Without DYODD your positions will be ignorant at best; but as I stated in my previous post, I suspect they are disingenuous instead.

Paul has done nothing. He has cast votes. As president, he will indeed do things. Under questioning, he has indicated an extreme isolationist POV, leading me to believe that he will do dangerous things. You don't think what he will do is dangerous. I get that. I disagree, but I get that. However, I won't call your belief "ignorant." I leave that to those who have run out of civil rhetoric.

eye95 · Aug 26, 2011

georg jetson said:
...Remain aware that you will not agree with everything any one candidate about all of the issues. Indeed, further is the dilemma of whether or not to believe the candidates when they appear to agree with you.

This is precisely the problem I have with paulbots (not all Paul supporters). They cannot abide any other candidate, because they see Paul as perfect and all others as falling short of the glory of Paul.

We all need to recognize that no candidate will be perfect (not even Paul [gasp]), but we have to select one or more whose positions are close enough to our principles to support and who can garner enough support to be nominated and elected. Paulbots don't get this.

Paul fails to get my support on two counts: His isolationism is too extreme for me. I think he is dangerously isolationist. So do many Americans. That accounts for the second reason, he can't win the nomination.

Cain is also a long-shot, but his views are nearly identical to mine (not perfectly, but I don't expect perfection from my candidates), so I will support him in the vain hope that more Republicans will come around. However, the Republican field is full of electable candidates whose positions are quite conservative. I can easily get behind Gingrich, Palin, Bachman, or Perry, to name a few. Getting rid of the income tax is pretty important to me, so I support Cain the most.

PrayingForWar · Aug 26, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
And completely asinine POV's aren't expoused by supporters of any other candidates? You can't name at least 4 on this very forum?

The biggest problem is that too many people are programmed to think "A" is good and "B" is bad in so far as they will never even discuss or debate "B", much less aquiesse in any way. Going back to the foreign policy we talked about there was at least a discussion and debate over it. In the end, the debate was deep enough for an understanding to be made that it's possible that either view was correct even though either of us stuck with our views for good or moral reasons. When people flat out say that someone is a "Wack a doodle" and don't offer up ANY intelligent debate on the subject and instead just try to discredit others they rightfully lose respect in that arena.

Also, let us not forget, that there is a whole forum out there filled with thousands of interesting posts to reply to, and one is in no way forced to keep making posts in the two or three Ron Paul thread that are currently active while accusing OTHERS of spamming the board when it's clear their accuser is the guilty one.

Ahhh... Touche...

I have said that most of RP's supporters are rational people who believe in most of the same things I do. Just like anything else though, the extremists (and idiots) tend to stand out. In Texas we had a candidte for govenor I supported. Debra Medina was just the sort of libertarian I could get behind. Then she did an interview with Captain Bull$#!t of the Tin Foil Hat Brigade (AKA Alex Jones) and the truthtards glommed onto her. She made the mistake of not ridiculing the truther issue on Glen Beck and she sunk. Ron Paul would do a lot better IMO if the average mainsteam voter didn't see foaming at the mouth lunatics with rainbow colored hair and metal in their face demanding 9/11 be reinvestigated holding up RP "re-love-ution" signs. Perception is reality. I have my suspicions this crowd is actually led by people who's funding comes from hard left sources in order to marginalize libertarians.

Since I can back most of RP's ideas, and once supported him myself I know most of his supporters are people who have legitamite concerns for the return to constitutional principles. It is why I have such contempt for truthtards and people who walk around insisting our country is the cause of all the worlds problems.

Brass Magnet · Aug 26, 2011

eye95 said:
Paul has done nothing. He has cast votes. As president, he will indeed do things. Under questioning, he has indicated an extreme isolationist POV, leading me to believe that he will do dangerous things. You don't think what he will do is dangerous. I get that. I disagree, but I get that. However, I won't call your belief "ignorant." I leave that to those who have run out of civil rhetoric.

Yes, he is the only one that I agree will indeed do the things he's talked about if he has his way. As far as ignorance goes, I think it was pretty clear that I suspect you of being disingenuous instead. Since you've willfully decided not to do the research and just listened to a couple of interviews, your viewpoint really couldn't be based on accidental ignorance.

If we applied your same logic to Obama would you believe, from the interviews you watched, that there would be glitter and unicorns for all? Hope and Change? NO, record is important. Obama's record as a senator gave us all a very well educated guess of how he'd be as president.

As much as you call some "paulbots" you sir, are a "anti-paulite". Whatever you can do to discredit him; you will do, and it shows. Why don't you slip the "isolationist" lie into a few more posts?

If you start calling yourself an isolationist also, then I'll start agreeing with your definition of isolationism.

Brass Magnet · Aug 26, 2011

PrayingForWar said:
Ahhh... Touche...

I have said that most of RP's supporters are rational people who believe in most of the same things I do. Just like anything else though, the extremists (and idiots) tend to stand out. In Texas we had a candidte for govenor I supported. Debra Medina was just the sort of libertarian I could get behind. Then she did an interview with Captain Bull$#!t of the Tin Foil Hat Brigade (AKA Alex Jones) and the truthtards glommed onto her. She made the mistake of not ridiculing the truther issue on Glen Beck and she sunk. Ron Paul would do a lot better IMO if the average mainsteam voter didn't see foaming at the mouth lunatics with rainbow colored hair and metal in their face demanding 9/11 be reinvestigated holding up RP "re-love-ution" signs. Perception is reality. I have my suspicions this crowd is actually led by people who's funding comes from hard left sources in order to marginalize libertarians.

Unfortunately for many candidates; you can't pick your followers.

PrayingForWar said:
Since I can back most of RP's ideas, and once supported him myself I know most of his supporters are people who have legitamite concerns for the return to constitutional principles. It is why I have such contempt for truthtards and people who walk around insisting our country is the cause of all the worlds problems.

I think our country is the leading cause of our problems; much less so the rest of the worlds problems.

eye95 · Aug 26, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
Yes, he is the only one that I agree will indeed do the things he's talked about if he has his way. As far as ignorance goes, I think it was pretty clear that I suspect you of being disingenuous instead. Since you've willfully decided not to do the research and just listened to a couple of interviews, your viewpoint really couldn't be based on accidental ignorance...

That's as far a I read, since it is you who are being disingenuous. I have seen MANY debates and interviews over the years, many years, that Paul has been running for president. The ONE thing I simply won't do is read Paul's carefully crafted, unable to be questioned in a way that will be answered, propaganda from his personal website. I am, quite reasonably, not the least bit interested in such a one-way monologue. I instead prefer to gain a fuller understanding of Paul's isolationist position from dozens of question--and-answer sessions that include dozens of interviews and several debates.

To imply that my refusal to read one...single...solitary source (that I believe to be propagandized) means that I am either ignorant or disingenuous is, in itself, disingenuous to the max.

If you think that I am wrong on Paul's isolationism, make the case. Show me where I am wrong. Detail what you believe his position to be, somehow reconciling it with what he has said while vulnerable to questioning. Don't arrogantly give me homework assignments. I am an independent adult. I have done quite a bit of "homework." I have arrived at a rational conclusion. Show respect by addressing that conclusion rationally, not with personal invective.

Moving on until you choose to do so. (That does not mean that I will not further discuss Paul's unacceptability. It merely means that even if you take further personal swipes at me, I won't bother to respond to them. There are other avenues to deal with such.)

georg jetson · Aug 26, 2011

eye95 said:
This is precisely the problem I have with paulbots (not all Paul supporters). They cannot abide any other candidate, because they see Paul as perfect and all others as falling short of the glory of Paul.

We all need to recognize that no candidate will be perfect (not even Paul [gasp]), but we have to select one or more whose positions are close enough to our principles to support and who can garner enough support to be nominated and elected. Paulbots don't get this.

Paul fails to get my support on two counts: His isolationism is too extreme for me. I think he is dangerously isolationist. So do many Americans. That accounts for the second reason, he can't win the nomination.

Cain is also a long-shot, but his views are nearly identical to mine (not perfectly, but I don't expect perfection from my candidates), so I will support him in the vain hope that more Republicans will come around. However, the Republican field is full of electable candidates whose positions are quite conservative. I can easily get behind Gingrich, Palin, Bachman, or Perry, to name a few. Getting rid of the income tax is pretty important to me, so I support Cain the most.

Explain to me, considering Dr. Paul's significant lead in the polls compared to Mr. Cain, how you could consider Cain MORE electable than Paul? I think you can attribute your second reason for not supporting Paul to Cain as well. Cancelling out the second reason entirely, there simply remains the issue of Paul's foreign policy. How does Paul's foreign policy compare with Mr. Cain's?

My issue with Mr. Cain is that he appears to be wishy-washy on the 2A.

eye95 · Aug 26, 2011

georg jetson said:
Explain to me, considering Dr. Paul's significant lead in the polls compared to Mr. Cain, how you could consider Cain MORE electable than Paul?...

Considering that I did not say that he was "more electable," responding to your question is impossible. However, I will try to be more clear as to the electability of each.

I do not take issue with your supporting Paul in the primary process. I won't support him. I take issue with Paul as a candidate and with those who petulantly want him or no one.

I have also said that he won't win the nomination, and I sincerely believe that he can come nowhere close. Cain also is extremely unlikely to garner the nomination. I have acknowledged precisely that. Since his views are closest to mine, I will support him until he bows out or is mathematically eliminated. Here is how I differ from the paulbots: I will support the eventual Republican nominee, even though none of them, not even Cain, are perfect in my eyes, because all the the current candidates are miles better than the alternative, Obama.

Despite any polling, I actually think that Cain's snowball in Hell has a better chance of not melting than Paul's because Cain is not perceived as an extremist (as Paul is) and because his low polling is due mainly to lack of name recognition, whereas Paul's not-as-low polling is mainly due to his supporters' abilities to appear, through engineered noisiness, to be larger in number than they actually are.

Brass Magnet · Aug 26, 2011

eye95 said:
That's as far a I read, since it is you who are being disingenuous. I have seen MANY debates and interviews over the years, many years, that Paul has been running for president. The ONE thing I simply won't do is read Paul's carefully crafted, unable to be questioned in a way that will be answered, propaganda from his personal website. I am, quite reasonably, not the least bit interested in such a one-way monologue. I instead prefer to gain a fuller understanding of Paul's isolationist position from dozens of question--and-answer sessions that include dozens of interviews and several debates.

To imply that my refusal to read one...single...solitary source (that I believe to be propagandized) means that I am either ignorant or disingenuous is, in itself, disingenuous to the max.

If you think that I am wrong on Paul's isolationism, make the case. Show me where I am wrong. Detail what you believe his position to be, somehow reconciling it with what he has said while vulnerable to questioning. Don't arrogantly give me homework assignments. I am an independent adult. I have done quite a bit of "homework." I have arrived at a rational conclusion. Show respect by addressing that conclusion rationally, not with personal invective.

Moving on until you choose to do so. (That does not mean that I will not further discuss Paul's unacceptability. It merely means that even if you take further personal swipes at me, I won't bother to respond to them. There are other avenues to deal with such.)

Many others and I have repeatedly argued points; which you ignore, on the differences between isolationism and non-interventionism IN MULTIPLE THREADS. You don't care and only repeat that your definition of isolationism is somehow the correct one even though actual dictionaries and encyclopedias say otherwise. Right, you "graciously" say that you will debate it but the truth has proven otherwise. Anyone that has been following these threads knows where you stand. Many have tried to address your conclusions rationally but have been met all the way by your baseless allegations. At what point can it not turn into highly critical language when one feels the other fails to even consider an idea?

Oh, and FYI, the link I posted isn't a "single solitary source", it's made up of multiple sources that are cited which you'd know if you'd bother to even skim it.

But hey; I'll play along.....Cite an interview that you've read or heard where you believe Paul has exposed himself as a "dangerous isolationist".

PrayingForWar · Aug 26, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
[/COLOR]Unfortunately for many candidates; you can't pick your followers.

I think our country is the leading cause of our problems; much less so the rest of the worlds problems.

I think leftists are the cause of all the worlds problems, and asparagus.

new presidential poll

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member