Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what are you not seeing here? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, you just pointed out what I was saying, it has to do with who is attending these meetings, not an overall poll that means anything. Are you aware of a few other of these meetings 3 or 4 months ago? It it like your favorite cruise line or hotel chain asking you to vote for them in a poll on the net or whereever. They mean less than nothing. The next gathering, maybe in IL or wherever, will show a different candidate in front.
I wouldn't completely discount those polls. Those polls show the popularity of conservative candidates by conservative voters. At least that is their base. The best thing about polls like these is no single person can manipulate the numbers.
A pollster can. Candidate A is strong with younger voters. A new poll showing candidate A is down 3 points. After some digging you find out the last poll had 58% of the voters aged 45+ and the new poll shows that percentage to be 78%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
I realize how strongly some are supporting Paul, but many are doing it with their eyes completely closed: 1-those who do support him think he is God; someone was elected 3 years ago because too many thought he had no faults: look what we got. Paul has some good ideas, he has some that are not good, but those who support him only see the good. I have yet to see the few, on here, who are supporters say any idea he has is questionable or bad.
Ron Paul has PROVEN polices and his word is how he votes. Obama cannot say that.
You cannot attack the policies of Ron Paul so you attack his supporters with made up garbage. I have yet to see a candidate who had some supporters that did not agreed with almost everything that candidate said.
Of all the candidates Ron Paul SHOULD have the most supporters who agree with almost every policy he puts out. There is a very simple explanation for that. His policies are consistent and he follows the Constitution. What other candidate can you say that about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
2-most will not even accept the chances of his winning the nomination is about 50 to 1 at best. That being said: I am happy for those of you are excited about the results and if it comes down to voting for him or Obama I would probably support him. In fact I know I would.
Why should people believe this 50 to 1 thing? You just made some things up in a previous statement, lol.
So I guess the best thing is to NOT vote on principles, the thing to do is sell out and vote for who you THINK will win. What would Winston Churchill say?
I wouldn't completely discount those polls. Those polls show the popularity of conservative candidates by conservative voters. At least that is their base. The best thing about polls like these is no single person can manipulate the numbers.
A pollster can. Candidate A is strong with younger voters. A new poll showing candidate A is down 3 points. After some digging you find out the last poll had 58% of the voters aged 45+ and the new poll shows that percentage to be 78%.
Ron Paul has PROVEN polices and his word is how he votes. Obama cannot say that.
You cannot attack the policies of Ron Paul so you attack his supporters with made up garbage. I have yet to see a candidate who had some supporters that did not agreed with almost everything that candidate said.
Of all the candidates Ron Paul SHOULD have the most supporters who agree with almost every policy he puts out. There is a very simple explanation for that. His policies are consistent and he follows the Constitution. What other candidate can you say that about?
Why should people believe this 50 to 1 thing? You just made some things up in a previous statement, lol.
So I guess the best thing is to NOT vote on principles, the thing to do is sell out and vote for who you THINK will win. What would Winston Churchill say?
OFGS, the 50 to 1 was simply off the top of my head, of course no one knows the actually chances or him getting the nomination. I did read in our local paper it was about 3 to 5%, I think that was from a column written by Dr. Krauthammer, but I am not sure. Even that wasn't meant to be taken literally. If you take these statements totally to heart, either you are very niave or need to lighten up; maybe both.
As for supporting a candidate because you believe in him/her, I do agree and I have never once mentioned anyone should not be supporting him, if you really do think his views are right. I do believe we need to do what we can to get Obama un-seated, that means I will vote for the candidate I think can do that. Yes, as I have said, if Paul gets the nod, I will support him, but whether you can understand this or not, everyone does not agree with you, he is the best choice nor does everyone like or think his ideas are right and/or workable.
May I also ask you to give me some examples where I have attacked his supporters? I am floored you would make such a comment. I have just referred to you as niave, only because you are taking statements too literally, but I have never attacked his supporters. I have given my opinion over and over, but happen to agree with many of his supporters on a lot of issues and have built a email friendship with some.
OFGS, the 50 to 1 was simply off the top of my head, of course no one knows the actually chances or him getting the nomination. I did read in our local paper it was about 3 to 5%, I think that was from a column written by Dr. Krauthammer, but I am not sure. Even that wasn't meant to be taken literally. If you take these statements totally to heart, either you are very niave or need to lighten up; maybe both.
As for supporting a candidate because you believe in him/her, I do agree and I have never once mentioned anyone should not be supporting him, if you really do think his views are right. I do believe we need to do what we can to get Obama un-seated, that means I will vote for the candidate I think can do that. Yes, as I have said, if Paul gets the nod, I will support him, but whether you can understand this or not, everyone does not agree with you, he is the best choice nor does everyone like or think his ideas are right and/or workable.
May I also ask you to give me some examples where I have attacked his supporters? I am floored you would make such a comment. I have just referred to you as niave, only because you are taking statements too literally, but I have never attacked his supporters. I have given my opinion over and over, but happen to agree with many of his supporters on a lot of issues and have built a email friendship with some.
Nita
Why don't you explain to us exactly what stances or issues you do NOT agree with Ron Paul on? Besides the fact that he's 75 years old, doesn't have media support, and lacks charisma....what exactly is it about Ron Paul that you disagree with?
Ron Paul is picking up the youth vote from Obama. They see Paul is for letting them have the freedom to be who they wish, when they wish and how they wish.
His stance on drugs, is about freedom and personal individual choice.
His stance on foreign policy is we should not be the world's police force.
His stance on our monetary system is there must be something backing what we print.
His stance on NAFTA & WTO is we should drop them.
His stance on illegal aliens, is to enforce our laws and our police should enforce all our laws of the land.
Why don't you explain to us exactly what stances or issues you do NOT agree with Ron Paul on? Besides the fact that he's 75 years old, doesn't have media support, and lacks charisma....what exactly is it about Ron Paul that you disagree with?
I'd love to know.
I do not like his view on legalizing drugs, even though I am not oppossed to legalizing pot. He mentioned in his interview with Stossel there are people in prison because they used pot for medical purposes even though it is legal to do so: I think he is wrong on this. Most pot uses (especailly today) do not end up in prison. They do if they are selling. Believe me, I know a few who use it, they are nowhere near going to prison.
I do not like his stand on amnesty particularly even though I realize something has to be done. We can't send 20 mil people back across the border (any border)
Living so close to the flood area in TN and MS I was shocked with his view on helping the victoms. His comments were cold and calculating in my view. This does not mean I have respect for or like FEMA.
I think he is off base when he said most prostitutes sell their bodies to buy drugs. BULL, the profession was around way before drugs. Again, this is not saying I think prostitution should or should not be legal
Some of what he seems to believe, I do not and some, I may agree with, but not his reasoning.
Those are just my feelings for starters. and yes, his overall personality rubs me wrong. I think that might be the thing that does him in.
Drugs
I don't use drugs, but I'll explain why I believe it's smart to legalize them. Portugal decriminalized all drugs, and they had a severe heroin problem. They did so, not on the moral grounds, but on the fact that it cost so much to enforce drug laws. The PM decided that instead of incarcerating everyone who used drugs, the country would use that money to treat the addiction, the disease behind the problem, instead of sending their people to, what essentially is(just like here) a school that educated them how to be better criminals(yes, basic prison).
The changes started to happen immediately. The use of all drugs decreased significantly. Because they were also regulating the drugs, organized crime dropped significantly. In fact, all violent behavior dropped significantly. In addition to being able to control the drugs better, the government was also able to bring in revenue from the sale of these goods.
Aside from what anyone may think is morally right, when it comes to how the law is written, I do not believe that the outcomes of this drug was are moral. In fact, with a little knowledge of the outcomes, I would hope more people change their moral stance. Yes, it's partly for the freedoms of the individual to do as they please without the use of violence. But the amount of lives saved, the amount of crime prevented, the overall cost. It becomes a no-brainer. Legal or not, we will still have a drug issue, but to actually put the issues in our sights and have the situation under far more control than we have it now... what is so wrong with that? Portugal is not the first country to do this with success, in fact, prohibition of anything has always caused an opposite effect historically.
Amnesty
Paul doesn't believe Amnesty works. I don't know what is wrong with that. People wait patiently for their opportunity to become citizens, and if anything, our irregular quotas cause the most problems. Amnesty allows people to jump in front of the line, and offers an incentive for illegals to rush over here, and take advantage of our system. Those that are waiting now, that worked hard, and are almost at the point of being legal citizens, get royally screwed. The tax payer gets screwed as well. Amnesty in itself is a bad idea.
Emergency Relief
Ron Paul thinks emergency relief from the government is perfectly fine. Why is that a bad thing? He doesn't like the ill-effects of FEMA. FEMA distorts everything for the consumer and property owner. It also creates an incentive for people to buy poorly built homes(poorly, in terms of the standards needed to withstand likely disasters that apply to regions.) If you want to live by the beach, you should also apply modern engineering to build your home to withstand the most likely of disasters, and it's up to you, to get insurance. How is this not fair? What sounds like "cold hearted" to a small group, ends up being very cold hearted to the victims who buy homes with some false sense of security, then making everyone pay.
Government can still offer relief, aid, and protection. Just without a mismanaged agency.
If you don't like his personality, thats your issue. But to imply that he does not care for people, is very mis-informed. I know, he gets annoyed when people demagogue him repeatedly. Like when they call him an isolationist, or take an issue that has the utmost, lowest priority, then spin it into his main focus, like the prostitution issue. I would get annoyed too, because he has clarified the issue with some of the reporters, and they still pull the same crap with him. That indicates that they prejudge him before the interview, which is not fair reporting, by any means. Ron Paul isn't exclusive to this type of treatment in politics, but he is human, not a professional liar. One of the rare cases.
So maybe you want to attack him. Fine, whatever, that's your beef. But Ron Paul, regardless of what you think, is growing constantly with support, and with his views. He doesn't use his campaign to trick these straw polls. Nice guys don't always finish last.
Drugs
I don't use drugs, but I'll explain why I believe it's smart to legalize them. Portugal decriminalized all drugs, and they had a severe heroin problem. They did so, not on the moral grounds, but on the fact that it cost so much to enforce drug laws. The PM decided that instead of incarcerating everyone who used drugs, the country would use that money to treat the addiction, the disease behind the problem, instead of sending their people to, what essentially is(just like here) a school that educated them how to be better criminals(yes, basic prison).
The changes started to happen immediately. The use of all drugs decreased significantly. Because they were also regulating the drugs, organized crime dropped significantly. In fact, all violent behavior dropped significantly. In addition to being able to control the drugs better, the government was also able to bring in revenue from the sale of these goods.
Aside from what anyone may think is morally right, when it comes to how the law is written, I do not believe that the outcomes of this drug was are moral. In fact, with a little knowledge of the outcomes, I would hope more people change their moral stance. Yes, it's partly for the freedoms of the individual to do as they please without the use of violence. But the amount of lives saved, the amount of crime prevented, the overall cost. It becomes a no-brainer. Legal or not, we will still have a drug issue, but to actually put the issues in our sights and have the situation under far more control than we have it now... what is so wrong with that? Portugal is not the first country to do this with success, in fact, prohibition of anything has always caused an opposite effect historically.
Amnesty
Paul doesn't believe Amnesty works. I don't know what is wrong with that. People wait patiently for their opportunity to become citizens, and if anything, our irregular quotas cause the most problems. Amnesty allows people to jump in front of the line, and offers an incentive for illegals to rush over here, and take advantage of our system. Those that are waiting now, that worked hard, and are almost at the point of being legal citizens, get royally screwed. The tax payer gets screwed as well. Amnesty in itself is a bad idea.
Emergency Relief
Ron Paul thinks emergency relief from the government is perfectly fine. Why is that a bad thing? He doesn't like the ill-effects of FEMA. FEMA distorts everything for the consumer and property owner. It also creates an incentive for people to buy poorly built homes(poorly, in terms of the standards needed to withstand likely disasters that apply to regions.) If you want to live by the beach, you should also apply modern engineering to build your home to withstand the most likely of disasters, and it's up to you, to get insurance. How is this not fair? What sounds like "cold hearted" to a small group, ends up being very cold hearted to the victims who buy homes with some false sense of security, then making everyone pay.
Government can still offer relief, aid, and protection. Just without a mismanaged agency.
If you don't like his personality, thats your issue. But to imply that he does not care for people, is very mis-informed. I know, he gets annoyed when people demagogue him repeatedly. Like when they call him an isolationist, or take an issue that has the utmost, lowest priority, then spin it into his main focus, like the prostitution issue. I would get annoyed too, because he has clarified the issue with some of the reporters, and they still pull the same crap with him. That indicates that they prejudge him before the interview, which is not fair reporting, by any means. Ron Paul isn't exclusive to this type of treatment in politics, but he is human, not a professional liar. One of the rare cases.
So maybe you want to attack him. Fine, whatever, that's your beef. But Ron Paul, regardless of what you think, is growing constantly with support, and with his views. He doesn't use his campaign to trick these straw polls. Nice guys don't always finish last.
you obviously did not hear his words on the relief and aid for the victoms in MS and TN. He said, if they should know better than to build where there is flooding. I am going to try and dig up the exact comments. i didn't say he didn't care, I said that is how the comment came out and this is what I have been saying all the time: it isn't so much what he says but how he says it.
Did you watch the interview today that was done by Stossel? obviously we see or hear things different. I don't attack you for how you see things, why do you think you can attack others who do not agree with you?
I certainly do not think Chris Wallace and certainly not Stossel were prejudice against him before they started their interviews.
By the way if you would open your eyes and ears, you would see where I have said many times, he will do better this time around than in the past. yes, he is gaining but my personal opinion (whether you like it or not I have every right to it) is he will not get the nomination. I have also said many times I admire those who beleive in him and yes, I do have respect for his standing up to what he believes in. That was the one thing I have always admired Sarah Palin for, that doesn't mean I think she would be a good Pres or that I believe in everything she stands for.
It does amaze me how some here do believe that Paul is 100% right about everything.
you obviously did not hear his words on the relief and aid for the victoms in MS and TN. He said, if they should know better than to build where there is flooding. I am going to try and dig up the exact comments. i didn't say he didn't care, I said that is how the comment came out and this is what I have been saying all the time: it isn't so much what he says but how he says it.
Did you watch the interview today that was done by Stossel? obviously we see or hear things different. I don't attack you for how you see things, why do you think you can attack others who do not agree with you?
I certainly do not think Chris Wallace and certainly not Stossel were prejudice against him before they started their interviews.
By the way if you would open your eyes and ears, you would see where I have said many times, he will do better this time around than in the past. yes, he is gaining but my personal opinion (whether you like it or not I have every right to it) is he will not get the nomination. I have also said many times I admire those who beleive in him and yes, I do have respect for his standing up to what he believes in. That was the one thing I have always admired Sarah Palin for, that doesn't mean I think she would be a good Pres or that I believe in everything she stands for.
It does amaze me how some here do believe that Paul is 100% right about everything.
NIta
Yes, please dig it up.
Also, which Stossel interview? I have seen both big ones, but he has done a few with Paul. This is the most recent one. Hulu - Stossel: Thu, Apr 28, 2011 - Watch the full episode now. (http://www.hulu.com/watch/241731/stossel-thu-apr-28-2011#s-p1-so-i0 - broken link)
Wallace said he takes him seriously now.
And I never said Paul is 100% right. But the points that you have mentioned, are not right, you are either distorting or misinformed.
I do not like his view on legalizing drugs, even though I am not oppossed to legalizing pot. He mentioned in his interview with Stossel there are people in prison because they used pot for medical purposes even though it is legal to do so: I think he is wrong on this. Most pot uses (especailly today) do not end up in prison. They do if they are selling. Believe me, I know a few who use it, they are nowhere near going to prison.
Well, first off, he's declared that it is a state matter. Most states have laws against drugs, so by eliminating the federal programs that are unsuccessfully fighting and eating up billions of dollars of money each year, he's allowing states to handle the problem themselves. You can't "legalize" something that isn't already in the constitution. If you believe in what the constitution says, then Ron Paul doesn't have to do anything to legalize it, it's already legal in the eyes of the constitution and should be in the eyes of the federal government.
I agree mostly people selling and distributing are going to jail, but even that doesn't sound like crime worth 5 years in a prison system that will mostly likely get you hurt/raped/killed. Hardly seems fair. Unless you forceably injected someone with heroin, I don't see how the distributors are justifiably paying the harsh price to make money in a black (true) market economy where there is demand.
Quote:
I do not like his stand on amnesty particularly even though I realize something has to be done. We can't send 20 mil people back across the border (any border)
What do you consider his stance on amnesty? Your last sentence sounds like you agree with him.
Quote:
Living so close to the flood area in TN and MS I was shocked with his view on helping the victoms. His comments were cold and calculating in my view. This does not mean I have respect for or like FEMA.
What did he say? You are saying you don't agree with his stance on an issue, but you aren't declaring what his stance is....
Quote:
I think he is off base when he said most prostitutes sell their bodies to buy drugs. BULL, the profession was around way before drugs. Again, this is not saying I think prostitution should or should not be legal
Some of what he seems to believe, I do not and some, I may agree with, but not his reasoning.
Well the reason WHY prostitutes sell their bodies is irrelevant to the fact that it is a liberty taken away. Why is prostitution illegal in the first place? What is the reason for it being illegal? They sure haven't done anything to stop prostitution in an effective manner. They've been "enforcing laws" that have had no effect in deterring those who wish to sell their bodies from doing so. Just like drugs. Just like alcohol.
Quote:
Those are just my feelings for starters. and yes, his overall personality rubs me wrong. I think that might be the thing that does him in.
Obama was voted in for his personality, look where that got us....he hasn't done a single thing he promised, except try to increase spending. What happened to the war mongering GOP party needs to be stopped and Obama is bombing Libya. No troops have been withdrawed as promised either. The economy is worse than when he received it. He bailed out governments and corporations and banks. That's favoring big business, what happened to being anti-big business??
You claim to be involved in politics for such a long time yet a statement like this just astounds me, that you base so much on "how the guy rubs you" instead of the fact his words and his actions are 100% in sync with each other. Please....PLEASE try name one other politician that has done so.
The man writes books specifically explaining his view and stance on 50 issues....can you even tell me where the other candidates stand and provide their actions or voting record to back it up?
OFGS, the 50 to 1 was simply off the top of my head, of course no one knows the actually chances or him getting the nomination. I did read in our local paper it was about 3 to 5%, I think that was from a column written by Dr. Krauthammer, but I am not sure. Even that wasn't meant to be taken literally. If you take these statements totally to heart, either you are very niave or need to lighten up; maybe both.
Whether you can understand this or not. The actual numbers don't matter. To say he is a longshot is off base. He is usually polling in the top 3 or 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
but whether you can understand this or not, everyone does not agree with you, he is the best choice nor does everyone like or think his ideas are right and/or workable.
Whether you can understand this or not. Making things up about others does nothing for credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
May I also ask you to give me some examples where I have attacked his supporters? I am floored you would make such a comment. I have just referred to you as niave, only because you are taking statements too literally, but I have never attacked his supporters. I have given my opinion over and over, but happen to agree with many of his supporters on a lot of issues and have built a email friendship with some.
Nita
1-those who do support him think he is God; someone was elected 3 years ago because too many thought he had no faults:
This is your comment which was posted right above my comment.
Whether you can understand this or not. Your false perception on Ron Paul supporters likening him to God is absurd.
Whether you can understand this or not. As much as I disagree with Obamas supporters I have not heard many say he is without fault. I don't think I've heard one say it.
Whether you can understand this or not. You may know what policies Ron Paul supporters back, but to say you know what Ron supporters think, is arrogant. It's a theme in this post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
