• 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!

Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

I would vote for him if got the nomination, but it's too early for me to decide.

I was hoping to see a true Statesman emerge in the run up to the primary elections, and so far I don't see anyone who is a stand out.

It's clear it has to be someone who could beat Obama or who ever gets the Democrat nomination in the case Obama keeps falling in the polls because he hasn't yet learned that pretending he's our dictator against the majority of American opinions is no way to win re-election.

that's hardly riveting analysis. of course it has to be somebody who could beat the democrat, and you are mistaken that obama goes against the majortity of american opinions. some, yes. a majority? no. your party will need a smart, MODERATE person to beat a dem. it won't be paul, it won't be palin, it won't be trump. i think, reluctantly, you all just might run romney, for lack of a better candidate.
 
Here, just for you:

FOX News Ignores Ron Paul

It's a conspiracy I tells ya!

No doubt that FOX wants the strongest Republican to win. This is why Paul should go third party and be his own man in control of his own campaign and not be dependent on FOX like so many of the other GOP candidates would be.
 
No doubt that FOX wants the strongest Republican to win. This is why Paul should go third party and be his own man in control of his own campaign and not be dependent on FOX like so many of the other GOP candidates would be.

does it matter?
 
The Donald is right: this man can never be Prez.

Well, I'd vote for Paul over Donald any day, and I don't think Donald could ever be president.
 
Trump is a big mouth moron. He couldn't win his way out of a paper bag.

I couldn't agree more... He is just loud and arrogant, and his biggest flaw is that he can't relate to the majority of Americans.
 
On Palin, I agree, but I disagree on Newt who, IMHO, is still a political genius. His problem is one of baggage.

Newt went off the deep end about the NYC Mosque Community Center... Comparing Muslims to Nazis. WTF.

My family is Turkish, Yugoslavian, Muslim, Christian, etc. He doesn't have my respect after that sh*t. I liked Paul's statement on the whole matter and his words towards the GOP, which is another reason why I like Ron Paul.
 
I wish I could find the electon results picture for the Nevada primary where FOX ommited Ron Paul when he was in 2nd place. Anyone know where I could find it? You can't make that stupid of a mistake. It had to be on purpose.

I think I remember when that happened... did you try youtube? :shrug:
 
Just got a phone call. A poll being conducted by Real Politics. One question asked me who I thought was going to be the nomination for the repub ticket, but they only named three....

Mitt Romney
Mitch Daniels
and I can't remember the third choice but it wasn't Dr. Paul.

Look, I think that the Repub administration that takes over in '12 should definitely start eyeing Dr. Paul as a cabinet position holder, but President? Come on....


j-mac
 
A few of the many examples of Paul's racist, anti-gay writings:

June 1990:

The Pink House? What an outrage that, for the first time in our nation's history, the organized forces of perversion were feted in the White House.... I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.

October 1990:

A mob of black demonstrators, led by the "Rev." Al Sharpton, occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City "to reclaim it for our people." Hmmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis? But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.

November 1990:

[David] Duke's platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing.... To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his apst, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.

December 1990:

[Martin Luther King, Jr.] was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration. King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that King had made a pass at him many years before. And we are supposed to honor this "Christian minister" and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on a par with George Washington?

January 1991:

Martin Luther King: Socialist: St. Martin was a world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours ("non-violence" didn't apply in all spheres, I guess). He was a flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate. He replaced forced segregation in a few states with forced integration in all states. And he was a dedicated socialist. What a guy. He probably deserves two holidays.

January 1994:

[G]ays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense. They have stopped practicing "safe sex."... First, these men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners. These conditions do not make one's older years the happiest. Second, because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.

Daily Kos: Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters Revealed
 
I'm neither a conservative nor libertarian and I think a lot of Paul's ideas are really "out there," but I rather like him. At least he's got integrity, is honest about his beliefs and hasn't yet compromised on his principles, and isn't a complete asshole like several other keynote speakers at CPAC.

Agreed. I don't agree with Ron Paul on the issues often times but i think it would be hard to find someone that is more brutally honest on what he believes then he. I wish all elected officials were as honest as him.
 
it seems more liberals like paul than do cons

maybe it has something to do with values

either way the congressman from texas is certainly capable of bluntness

from his newsletter: "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"

Daily Kos: Ron Paul, In His Own Words

the dude certainly is colorful
 
Can we change the thread to Ron White Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC?
 
it seems more liberals like paul than do cons

maybe it has something to do with values

either way the congressman from texas is certainly capable of bluntness

from his newsletter: "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"

Daily Kos: Ron Paul, In His Own Words

the dude certainly is colorful

The KOS LOVES Ron Paul...as long as he can be used against the republican party. but let him win the nomination and actually have a lead over Obama and watch how quickly they drag out the charges of racism.
 
it seems more liberals like paul than do cons

maybe it has something to do with values

either way the congressman from texas is certainly capable of bluntness

from his newsletter: "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"

Daily Kos: Ron Paul, In His Own Words

the dude certainly is colorful
Which explains why he won the LPAC straw poll the last two years... Oh wait...

If I want to hear the same crap regurgitated over and over again without any actual critical thinking involved I'll turn on cable news. Leave it to the experts dude.
 
Leave it to the experts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/13/AR2011021301463.html

Losers

Ron Paul: Yes, he won the straw poll for the second straight year. But his speech - heavy on talk of defunding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as odd pronouncements such as "Government should never be able to do anything you can't do" - displayed the limits of his reach within the GOP. Paul is a sensation, but among only a sliver of the Republican electorate.
 
Here, just for you:

FOX News Ignores Ron Paul

It's a conspiracy I tells ya!

Yes that's the one. Thank you. Not sure if it's a conspiracy but it sure looks suspicious. It's either that or abolute incompetence on the part of a cable news network. Either answer is not impressive.

BTW the only candidate in the last race i contributed to was Ron Paul
 
There is no conspiracy in the U.S. to deny Ron Paul the opportunity to win the Presidency. He will very likely fail, because his political positions have insufficient appeal. One needs broad-based appeal to win one's Party nomination and then the general election. An energized but narrow base is not enough.

The fact all the organs of the establishment are arrayed against him certainly plays a role in limiting his chances. Do you really think Romney and Huckabee are doing well in the polls because they resonate with the minds of the people? :doh


Hey look, someone trotting out the same worthless bull****.

I am not saying Fox News is what stands between Ron Paul and the Republican presidential nomination. All I said was that regardless of Paul's chances, Fox News does not want him to win and has shown bias against him in the past. Fox News intended to exclude him from the 2008 New Hampshire Republican presidential debates despite him polling better than Thompson and being tied with Huckabee. His campaign fundraising was unparalleled at that point by and of the other Republican candidates.

Check out this question he was asked during the 2008 primary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlacFmRGPgI

Totally absurd thing to ask. No other candidate was asked that.

Their agenda against Ron Paul was just so obvious and disgusting that I have been avoiding the network ever since.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Let me preface this by stating I voted for the guy in the primaries in 2008. Now lets look at some reality.

1. Ron Paul is OLD. He's going to be 77 come 2012. Look at the past 30 or 40 years, and you'll notice something. We haven't had a President elected over 70 EVER and haven't had one elected over 65 years of age since James Buchanan in 1971. His age is a strong factor against him.

2. Outside of his supporters, which frankly the primaries last time should show its reasonable to suggest that said grouping is small relatively speaking, he's generaly regarded as somewhat of a "weird" guy without a lot of Charisma. Pundits and casual observes generally don't rate his presence or his speaking ability exceptionally high. While some of his more fervent supporters may state "that's not important" or "They just don't get his charisma!" ultimately...yes, it is. Charisma plays a huge part in elections and ignoring that is ignoring reality.

3. He is an outsider. Not just a Washington outsider but a political establishment outsider. The news agencies generally aren't fond of him, news papers generally aren't glowingly writing about him, pundits aren't lauding him with praise. His supporters may say that doesn't matter, I'd say they're fools willingly lying to themselves to believe that. You could say it SHOULDN'T matter, but the fact is the majority of voters in this country are not the massively politically informed who spend hours on end researching nuanced political opinions but rather get most of their facts from various news sources. Which isn't going to help Paul.

4. He's got a huge problem with explaining nuance. Or put a different way, he can't make the complicated simple. Ron Paul is incredibly intelligent politically. I am sure if you sit down with him for 30 minutes he could give you so many facts, figures, and reasons why the Department of Education should be shut down completely that it'd make your head spin and you'd probably come around. The problem is, we don't live in a world where its realistic to suggest that you're going to have 30 uninterrupted minutes to make your point on things. We live in a sound bite society and no matter how many legitimate reasons he may have, sounds bites of "We need to go to a gold standard instead of paper money" or "We need to disassemble the Department of Education" give the impression of someone who is a crazed extermist. Paul has seemingly little to know grasp on how to state his complicated points in a more easy to digest sort of way. Its that very nature that got him in trouble last election season with his 9/11 comments.

I like Paul, but Reagan's zombified corpse has a better chance of winning the Presidency before Paul does. What's Paul's legacy has the potential for is something more Goldwater than Reagan, where his ideas and views touch a more charismatic, better communicating politiican who has a bit of pragmatism in him and can properly articulate that message to the public.
 
ron paul's filthy racism and homo-hate are worthless, alright

it all comes down to values

I find it ridiculously hillarious that you would sit here and bash, degrade, and attack the DailyKOS if it was an article about any other politician you liked...and yet you're using them as some kind of go to source in this case.
 
it seems more liberals like paul than do cons

maybe it has something to do with values

either way the congressman from texas is certainly capable of bluntness

from his newsletter: "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"

Daily Kos: Ron Paul, In His Own Words

the dude certainly is colorful

I have been called liberal, socialist, communist, progressive and any other name the right can come up with. And I despise Ron Paul and his progeny.
 
Let me preface this by stating I voted for the guy in the primaries in 2008. Now lets look at some reality.

1. Ron Paul is OLD. He's going to be 77 come 2012. Look at the past 30 or 40 years, and you'll notice something. We haven't had a President elected over 70 EVER and haven't had one elected over 65 years of age since James Buchanan in 1971. His age is a strong factor against him.

2. Outside of his supporters, which frankly the primaries last time should show its reasonable to suggest that said grouping is small relatively speaking, he's generaly regarded as somewhat of a "weird" guy without a lot of Charisma. Pundits and casual observes generally don't rate his presence or his speaking ability exceptionally high. While some of his more fervent supporters may state "that's not important" or "They just don't get his charisma!" ultimately...yes, it is. Charisma plays a huge part in elections and ignoring that is ignoring reality.

3. He is an outsider. Not just a Washington outsider but a political establishment outsider. The news agencies generally aren't fond of him, news papers generally aren't glowingly writing about him, pundits aren't lauding him with praise. His supporters may say that doesn't matter, I'd say they're fools willingly lying to themselves to believe that. You could say it SHOULDN'T matter, but the fact is the majority of voters in this country are not the massively politically informed who spend hours on end researching nuanced political opinions but rather get most of their facts from various news sources. Which isn't going to help Paul.

4. He's got a huge problem with explaining nuance. Or put a different way, he can't make the complicated simple. Ron Paul is incredibly intelligent politically. I am sure if you sit down with him for 30 minutes he could give you so many facts, figures, and reasons why the Department of Education should be shut down completely that it'd make your head spin and you'd probably come around. The problem is, we don't live in a world where its realistic to suggest that you're going to have 30 uninterrupted minutes to make your point on things. We live in a sound bite society and no matter how many legitimate reasons he may have, sounds bites of "We need to go to a gold standard instead of paper money" or "We need to disassemble the Department of Education" give the impression of someone who is a crazed extermist. Paul has seemingly little to know grasp on how to state his complicated points in a more easy to digest sort of way. Its that very nature that got him in trouble last election season with his 9/11 comments.

I like Paul, but Reagan's zombified corpse has a better chance of winning the Presidency before Paul does. What's Paul's legacy has the potential for is something more Goldwater than Reagan, where his ideas and views touch a more charismatic, better communicating politiican who has a bit of pragmatism in him and can properly articulate that message to the public.

who can fill the bill, though? there is a distinct lack of viable candidates on the republican side, especially if people take trump and palin seriously.
 
Yes that's the one. Thank you. Not sure if it's a conspiracy but it sure looks suspicious. It's either that or abolute incompetence on the part of a cable news network. Either answer is not impressive.

They decided not to cover candidates that had no chance of winning. Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter are two candidates that they stopped covering. You can make an argument that it's incompetence. I would argue that it's a good idea, so that we can actually hear more from the candidates that might actually win. For example, I don't need to hear the ideas of the candidate put forth by the "rent is too damn high" party. I think including him in the debate was actually a disservice to the voters and took away time that we could have heard from the serious candidates. I feel much the same about Ron Paul's candidacy, especially after it became clear he was not a real contendah.
 
Back
Top Bottom