• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

PPP Iowa & Rasmussen NH Polling

Because essentially no Democrats are radical Christian rightwingers on individual rights, women's rights, gay rights, school prayer, government paying for religious schools and other social issues?

I think you are wrong. A great many democrats would switch sides just to see that their main issue is met.


Here, Ron Paul explains how he will work with progressives:


But I think it would take quite alot for a committed Democrat to abandon Obama. But once Ron Paul is the nominee, and he gets his message out, more will support him. You either completley love the guy, or hate him.
 
For one, every person on this forum who is outspoken for Paul identifies himself as male.

That hardly counts as evidence.

Oh, PS>...

Donor Demographics by Gender | OpenSecrets

84% men - Ron Paul supporters.

Given women are 52% of voters who vote in November...

Ok, I'll give you that. I called you out and you backed up your claim. Kudos.

There aren't enough angry white men in the USA for Ron Paul to have a chance.

Enough with infusing racism into topics. What makes you think that "angry white men" vote anyway? And what makes you think that those people would vote for Ron Paul?
 
I think you are wrong. A great many democrats would switch sides just to see that their main issue is met.

But I think it would take quite alot for a committed Democrat to abandon Obama. But once Ron Paul is the nominee, and he gets his message out, more will support him. You either completley love the guy, or hate him.

I agree it does come to love or hate him.

That's why he'd get obliterated. As Paul's folks note, the media hates him. Women (except the most extreme pro-lifers) have reason to hate him. So do gays. So does anyone who isn't a strict isolationist. Anyone on government benefits. Atheists. Jews. The list is quite long.

Ron Paul's campaign is based upon hate and anger. His small group of followers do love him so for it. He is their outlet. The angry white guy's outlet. White men just get no respect like they used to. Infuriating, huh?
 
Ron Paul is really old and frailty is showing. If he dies or has some major health collaspe, where to you think his supporters will go? Is there a backup Great White Hope Messiah?
 
That hardly counts as evidence.



Ok, I'll give you that. I called you out and you backed up your claim. Kudos.



Enough with infusing racism into topics. What makes you think that "angry white men" vote anyway? And what makes you think that those people would vote for Ron Paul?

That's based mostly on observation of Ron Paul's supporters on forums in both 2008 and 2012.

Since you were honest enough to acknowledge my response has some documentation behind it, I'll tell you one of many reasons the Paul candidacy so frustrates me.

On the Republican side of things, Ron Paul sucked all the life out of more viable candidates with similar views on the military and government - such as Gary Johnson. Lesser so, Huntsman, maybe. Many more who decided not to try. It is the EXTREMES of Ron Paul that are NOT going to be acceptable to the general public, yet that is what attracts his supporters.

So an actual "conservative" in old school ways (minimize foreign involvement, limit government, keep government off people's backs) never had a chance because Paul sucked up all that oxygen and support.

Inside yourself, you really do know Ron Paul can't make it - fair or unfair - because the media would never allow it if no other reason. So while Paul is pushing other Republicans to run to the Christian right, for those it's just words and nothing more. Because of Paul, there isn't and couldn't be a "NORMAL" old school conservative potential.

I wish Obama was NOT the Democratic candidate, but will be. I would like to see the election be between an old school ideological Democrat versus and old school ideological Republican. Both so rooted in their values they are someone immune to corruption if elected.

The CRISIS in government in my opinion is NOT partisan. I see the Republicans and Democrats both as a collection of liars, thieves and traitors, with a run-amuck corrupt federal government on an administrative level. That isn't left or right, conservative or liberal. It is about corruption. In short, Paul couldn't win, but his candidacy kept any possible conservative Republican on economic and foreign policy issues (rather than all the rightwing, Religous redflag social issues like always) from having a chance.

So November will be a selection between two 100% unlimited funds for the military, totally corrupt and fully dishonest candidates. Mostly, we're picking which side we want to be able to steal a little more money than the other. Little else.

There are other more personal specific issue reasons why, but setting all those aside I do not see Ron Paul as a positive effect on the election process.
 
Last edited:
Paul is the most conservative candidate ever to run for office. He makes Goldwater look like a raging pinko. He might draw a few Dems who are just fed up with the whole system, or who don't get what he's up to, but they would be outnumbered by far by conservative independents and Republicans who would otherwise vote for the Republican.

Some might nitpick if he really is "conservative" - that word has so many different meanings - your analysis is accurate. Few to no Democrats would go his way. But he could have real problems, particularly with independents and especially independent women voters.
 
On the Republican side of things, Ron Paul sucked all the life out of more viable candidates with similar views on the military and government - such as Gary Johnson. Lesser so, Huntsman, maybe. Many more who decided not to try. It is the EXTREMES of Ron Paul that are NOT going to be acceptable to the general public, yet that is what attracts his supporters.

I certainly don't think Paul hindered Gary Johnson or Huntsman. If Ron Paul were never in this race, Johnson and Huntsman would be exactly where they are. Do you think they'd be frontrunners? Maybe Johnson, as all Paul people would naturally gravitate towards the libertarian candidate, but certainly not huntsman. If not for Paul, there would be no talk of the Federal Reserve. Generic candidates are actually speaking about it for the first time, not that once they are in position, they will do anything about it, but they are acknowledging it. Newt called for a flat out audit, and firing of Ben Bernake! The fact is that Ron Paul has cured many people's political apathy; they are interested once again in which way this country goes, and that can't be a bad thing.



Inside yourself, you really do know Ron Paul can't make it - fair or unfair - because the media would never allow it if no other reason.

Well to be honest, at times after seeing how the sheeple vote, primarily for how the candidate is packaged, and how the vast majority don't have the time to look up Paul's stances, just trust as Gospel what their t.v. says, there are moments when I think that. For instance, why would the elites who control basically everything, allow someone to get this far who could potentially destablize everything they have worked tirelessly for? But every single poll throws those thoughts out of my head. I haven't seen this much enthusiasm from people for awhile, and I never seen the establishment this scared of a single candidate ever! They would have us beleive that Dr. Paul doesn't even exist, but being is he keeps winning, they have no choice but to acknowledge him! The wick is weakening; Dr. Paul is getting a bit more attention, and it'll only compound when he wins Iowa!




In short, Paul couldn't win, but his candidacy kept any possible conservative Republican on economic and foreign policy issues (rather than all the rightwing, Religous redflag social issues like always) from having a chance.

If the GOP fails to nominate him, despite him winning numerous states and having gargantuan endorsements, they would be sealing their fate. I would think that they know this. I think talking heads are angling themselves to say they always supported Ron Paul, as they know he will be the nominee. If he doesn't win, his ideas will live on!

So November will be a selection between two 100% unlimited funds for the military, totally corrupt and fully dishonest candidates. Mostly, we're picking which side we want to be able to steal a little more money than the other. Little else.

Well we usually choose whoever is less likely to screw us the most. But something tells me this time is different.
 
Last edited:
I agree it does come to love or hate him.

Right, there are no in- betweens. I never, ever heard "I don't care about Ron Paul. If he wins, I'll vote for him!"

That's why he'd get obliterated. As Paul's folks note, the media hates him.

The media is starting to come around, slowly. This will all snowball after Ron Paul wins a few primaries, then all the talking heads will fall in line like dominoes.



Women (except the most extreme pro-lifers) have reason to hate him.

Only women whose most important point is abortion.


So do gays.

I would think they would hate bachmann. But I don't buy that Ron Paul would turn away gays.



So does anyone who isn't a strict isolationist.

You don't have to be an isolationist to be against immoral wars. Americans are tired of sending their loved ones off to war, and not knowing if they will return. Americans are tired of liberating countries who would never, ever welcome us if we had trouble here. If the dollar collapses, and it will if we keep spending, what country will come here and help us?


Anyone on government benefits.

For the most part i agree, but there are many exceptions. Alot of unemployed people genuinely want to work, and they know that Ron Paul can solvent this economy.



Atheists. Jews. The list is quite long.

Well not all Jews are against him, if they really knew the down low, they would realize that a Ron Paul Presidency would help Isreal more then hinder them. And atheists are usually liberals, and they can go either way.

Ron Paul's campaign is based upon hate and anger.

At the government.



The angry white guy's outlet. White men just get no respect like they used to. Infuriating, huh?

Please either reference a link to show that "angry white men" support Ron Paul or please stop saying that.
 
Watching last night's debate, I believe Ron Paul blew himself away in basically accusing our military of killing 1,000,000 Iraqis. It seems impossible for Ron Paul not to talk in absolute terms - no middle ground, no circumstantial relatively, only the most absolute extreme stances. Thus, while a person might agree with 75% of what he says very strongly, the 25% they don't is simply too unacceptable.

His view of total withdrawl from the world in terms of military presence and going so far in his statements about Iran as to be Iran's PR spokesperson, while the most horrific attack against the USA as mass killers, eliminates any chance that Republicans, the conservative/Republican media or powers that be from economic to military to institutional will ever allow him to win.

Both the questions and then follow up interview made it clear that FOX - that 70% of Republicans watch as their news source - is fully and with great biase against Ron Paul.

Ron Paul lost it last night and I think polls are likely to show that, even in Iowa. He has evolved from a realtively anti-Republican and dove-ish candidate, to virtually outright anti-USA and anti-USA military, and in a very alarmist Chicken Little's The Sky Is Falling presentation.

(I agree with you that Huntsman never had a chance and those who support Paul largely would have supported Johnson)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom