Who in their right mind would vote for him?
-
wpseraph — 18 years ago(November 10, 2007 02:00 PM)
Who in their right mind would vote for Ron Paul?
Apparently not 99 to 97 percent of the population!
http://www.PaulRon2008.com/
Our only hope for a terrible President. -
wpseraph — 18 years ago(November 11, 2007 11:20 AM)
1 to 3% is a consistent number from polls conducted from Polling companies, Mainstream media AND universities, ALL independent of each other.
http://www.PaulRon2008.com/
Our only hope for a terrible President. -
ajgentile — 18 years ago(November 13, 2007 01:00 PM)
He's the GOP front runner, honestly, because he's the only one who has a chance to beat Clinton.
Giuliani is far from a conservative. In fact, Rudy was elected in New York under the Liberal party (as well as the Republican party).
Huckabee would be the most "traditional" candidate, but probably wouldn't get big-city support because of the urban hatred of religion. -
ajgentile — 18 years ago(November 13, 2007 05:01 PM)
Oh geez. STRAW POLLS? The straw polls, with their minuscule sample, are hardly a snapshot of public opinion. Ron Paul doesn't even APPEAR in national polls. Rudy runs about 49% to Clintons 43% (+/- 6%, Rasmussen, today).
Judging by your screen name, I don't expect you to agree. Here's what's what:
The further to the right you go, the more Ron Paul is disliked.
Most Americans are against the ongoing war in Iraq. But most Americans understand that Ron Paul's isolationist if-we-leave-them-alone-they-will-leave-us-alone foreign policy ideas are non-realistic. Ron Paul's policy is dangerous to America, her citizens and her interests abroad. The Republican base doesn't like the way Bush prosecuted the Iraq War. But the base agrees that we are waging a war on terror and that war must be seen through to victory.
The Republicans don't have a clear candidate to unite the party and speak to the base. Rudy is not it. Romney: maybe. Thompson: maybe. At least Rudy is electable. Ron Paul: not even close. -
wpseraph — 18 years ago(November 13, 2007 06:14 PM)
Ron Paul appears in the national pollsbut it is consistently a ONE to THREE percent, usually closer to ONE. The highest I saw was a FIVE. Hardly enough to merit even a mention in the republican nomination. NoI think he won't go anywhere anytime soon. If anything, he'll go independent and mess up the voting process, like Nader did with GWB's elections making GWB win.
Straw polls aren't a good way to know public opinion.
http://www.PaulRon2008.com/
Our only hope for a terrible President. -
explainmyself — 18 years ago(November 14, 2007 07:09 AM)
But the base agrees that we are waging a war on terror and that war must be seen through to victory.
Terror will always exist. No two ways around that. Somehow idiots have been brainwashed to think that only the Republican party has the foolproof answer to terror, when the fact of the matter is that this administration has worsened the situation in a lot of respects, and the current republican prospects don't seem much more adept at understanding that and steering clear of the missteps of GWB. Our occupation in Iraq has actually increased the presence of Al-Qaeda and overall anti-American sentiment there (and elsewhere in the region), so go figure. The sad thing is that so many people still don't realize that there was no link between Saddam and 9/11. So much ignorance afoot. -
ajgentile — 18 years ago(November 14, 2007 08:01 AM)
Terror will always exist. Has always existed. That's true. But there have been no attacks on Americans since 9/11/2001. This is probably not an accident. Terror attacks on Americans was reduced greatly since General Pershing's actions in Southeast Asia. Also not an accident. Terrorists understand strength and force. Not cowardice.
To say that GWB has worsened the situation is erroneous without any facts. I will ignore.
The link between Hussein and Al-Quaeda is that Iraq and the surrounded nations provided a safe haven for Muslim extremists. The purpose of the war was to stabilize the region and prevent a dictator from becoming a danger. Granted, the war did not go as planned. But no one can argue that the world is not a better place for the war. No more Iraqi rape-rooms. No more Iraqi mass graves. No more abuse by Hussein, his sons and his henchmen. Fact is: the war in Iraq would have gone swimmingly if (1) The Rules of Engagement allowed for more aggressive prosecution as per WWII (2) The media was paired back to allow for said prosecution as per WWII (3) The indigenous people would stand up for themselves as per WWII.
One thing this administration failed to understand is that the people of the Middle East don't understand democracy and aren't ready for it. They need to be abused by evil dictators in order to justify their existence.
When they wake up, we'll all be better for it.
Class dismissed.2000 -
explainmyself — 18 years ago(November 23, 2007 01:57 AM)
Terror will always exist. Has always existed. That's true. But there have been no attacks on Americans since 9/11/2001. This is probably not an accident. Terror attacks on Americans was reduced greatly since General Pershing's actions in Southeast Asia. Also not an accident. Terrorists understand strength and force. Not cowardice.
I know this is a conservative mantra as of late, and it is true for the most part in terms of large scale attacks (if we don't count the anthrax stuff in late 2001, which was definitely an act of terrorism, but we have no conclusive answer to exactly who was responsible), but here's the thing: We strengthened our security in airports and other US-soil based security risks exponentially following 9/11. I would say that had a lot more to do with reducing and preventing possible attacks than our Iraq occupation. Also, another fact to consider when reciting this mantra: looking at past patterns, large scale attacks on US soil tend to be spaced apart by years at a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_and_acts_of_terror ism_against_Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United _States
So when you say "Terror attacks on Americans was reduced greatly" what numbers are you comparing it to? And what severity of attacks are you using in this ostentatiously broad statement?
To say that GWB has worsened the situation is erroneous without any facts. I will ignore.
Sure, ignore how I followed up that sentence by saying that Al-Qaeda presence and anti-American sentiment in Iraq have increased since the beginning of this war as a factual example of how GWB has aggravated the situation with his so very dubious "War on Terror."
The link between Hussein and Al-Quaeda is that Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq under Saddam's regime was minimal due to ideological conflict. When Saddam was taken out of the equation, Al Qaeda had a chance to increase in number in Iraq.
I honestly have to question anyone's intelligence who continues to support this war in Iraq and/or anyone who believes that the republican party is the
only
party that is able to prevent and mitigate terrorism at home and abroad. But it seems fear mongering works really well on the feeble minded
4000+ US soldiers have died. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died.
You should know, getting news Hannity style or in any of the duplicitous varieties in that vein is not ideal. Our motives for this war are extremely questionable at best, but even if you had a bright, "We're there to spread democracy!" type outlook in the beginning, even Helen Keller can tell we've gone and dug ourselves into a complete disaster. Spinning that fact with fabrication and delusion is not the way to go. I don't understand how any of the "pro-continuation of this war" candidates expect to win. The majority of the American public disagrees with it now and rightfully so.
If and/or when you respond, please provide sources.