• 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

Oh please, Ron Paul was impeded by a number of factors, like the media deliberately belittling his candidacy, and notoriety obviously. However, far more people know about Ron Paul now and polling clearly reflects that. Also, he can do like his son and take advantage of the Tea Party energy. Unfortunately as long as the establishment is so deadset against him there will always be roadblocks.

McCain belittled his canididacy... he kicked him out of the National Convention and then begged for him to come back in hopes of winning his supporters. Of course there were strings attached if Paul did accept the invitation. He insulted Paul and his supporters...
 
I like Ron Paul, and find him refreshingly honest. I think it is good that he is in there making noise.

However, it's sorta like this: I'll be listening to him speak, nodding my head, and thinking "Yeah, that's right!"

Then, all the sudden, he goes WAY off the deep end and gets really extreme, and my jaw hits the floor and I think "Oh hell no!"

To put it simply, I think this is why he just isn't really electable. There are too many issues on which his views are too extreme.

Palin and Newt go off the deep end IMO...
 
Paul has lit the "brushfires of freedom" within the Republican party. While he *might not be a president in his lifetime, he is a success by forcing the GOP to actually realize their own stated principles should mean something. The mainstream republicans only pay lip service to the constitution. They don't actually respect it with their actions. I'll make a generalization here (which always has it's few exceptions): The mainstream republicans inspire the old gray-haired old men and their subservient wives who all march to the tune of god and country regardless of the atrocities they commit to the constitution; meanwhile Ron Paul inspires the youth who still read and understand the constitution. The GOP is learning, or had better learn, from this. Otherwise they will have no future.

But I wouldn't count the guy out in the next election. He has my vote and monetary contribution. I couldn't say the same for any other possible candidate. It is refreshing to hear a politician speak about his ideals, then to research that person's voting record to find he has never wavered. I can't think of hardly any politicians that can lay claim to such honesty.

I am going to vote for him too...
 
Palin and Newt go off the deep end IMO...

On Palin, I agree, but I disagree on Newt who, IMHO, is still a political genius. His problem is one of baggage.
 
Fox News wouldn't allow it? I always found it odd that Paul fans thought certain agencies or small groups were preventing this man from becoming President or the Republican nominee. Liberals liked him for his foreign policy rhetoric, and absolutely despised (but politely ignored) his domestic policy rhetoric. Independent/Moderate voters wanted someone in a compromise position. Conservatives (sure, go ahead and question their credentials on being "conservative", but don't be idiotic and suggest that somehow "real" conservatives make up the majority of the conservative lexicon in America at present) adored his fiscal policies but censured his foreign policy aims. The first in brief measure said they may vote for him, but that would not be a reality because any Democratic candidate would seemingly be preferable to Paul, because *shock* being an anti-war candidate was all the buzz for Democrats, and one may as well keep Democratic party welfare state policies. The second either could not live with domestic policies such as his, or could not invision foreign policy positions so clear cut and different as his. The last loved his domestic policies, but were completely horrified by his ideology surrounding the War on Terror. Lastly, who on earth really believes young people truly carry the day on getting a politician elected? They can show up in large numbers, but their large numbers are as fickle as the latest fashion and number as many as fans of an indie rock band (well, the "cool" and "enlightened" ones are counted in this, anyhow). They are there for you before you need them and then suddenly do not show up, nor are most of them even politically interested. Democrats had to learn that lesson the hard way in the late 1960s and 1970s. It would be a shame for Republicans to rely upon such a crowd.

I am sorry, Paul fans, but his positions did not satisfy a significant portion of voters. His positions were just too hot/cold for many groups. Don't blame Fox News for American political reality.

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.
 
If you want another 4 years of Obama (and financial ruin) just elect Rube Paul to the Republican nomination.......... Nuff said

Ok, financial ruin, at this point, is a mathematical CERTAINTY.

How is it that he hasn't even announced that he's going to run and already the same campaign pushing that it's impossible that Ron Paul get elected when he's already been elected to office a number of times??? I mean, this guy's got a track record for excellence, so I understand that Ron Paul is over-qualified to be president, but that doesn't mean that if he was given an HONEST chance, instead of this defeatist attitude that Ron Paul can't win...

He also can't get asked fair questions, he can't be debated on issues, he can't be allowed a fair shot because he represents a risk to the status quo... when he does get elected, the bigger worry is that he'll be assassinated before he can truly do any good.

The media can't stand that there's a REAL candidate that ACTUALLY has a level of integrity, and so the demonization campaign starts early.
 
Ok, financial ruin, at this point, is a mathematical CERTAINTY.

How is it that he hasn't even announced that he's going to run and already the same campaign pushing that it's impossible that Ron Paul get elected when he's already been elected to office a number of times??? I mean, this guy's got a track record for excellence, so I understand that Ron Paul is over-qualified to be president, but that doesn't mean that if he was given an HONEST chance, instead of this defeatist attitude that Ron Paul can't win...

He also can't get asked fair questions, he can't be debated on issues, he can't be allowed a fair shot because he represents a risk to the status quo... when he does get elected, the bigger worry is that he'll be assassinated before he can truly do any good.

The media can't stand that there's a REAL candidate that ACTUALLY has a level of integrity, and so the demonization campaign starts early.

While his domestic policy does have some appeal, his idea of being a pre- 1941 isolationist country is not based in reality considering the state of the world today.

There are way too many Hitler wanna be's that would would be emboldened to cause trouble if the US just minded her own business. Sorry but this disqualifies him from being a serious candidate.

Dont waste your time on this guy, he is not going to get elected.
 
While his domestic policy does have some appeal, his idea of being a pre- 1941 isolationist country is not based in reality considering the state of the world today.

There are way too many Hitler wanna be's that would would be emboldened to cause trouble if the US just minded her own business. Sorry but this disqualifies him from being a serious candidate.

Dont waste your time on this guy, he is not going to get elected.

Paul will not get elected but his ideas will only grow in power. What do you think neo-isolationism is in the context of the current American political dynamic of paralysis?
 
While his domestic policy does have some appeal, his idea of being a pre- 1941 isolationist country is not based in reality considering the state of the world today.

No, NOT isolationist... he believes in non-INTERVENTIONIST policies...

There are way too many Hitler wanna be's that would would be emboldened to cause trouble if the US just minded her own business. Sorry but this disqualifies him from being a serious candidate.

HAHA... you are seriously that scared of the rest of the world??? Look, if the US wasn't out causing revolutions / chaos all around the world as the country has been doing, well, there wouldn't be the level of hatred of the US the world over.

Well... verification of citizenship didn't stop Obama, what's different is that the majority of people no longer buy into the media smear campaigns anymore, so, just like how Rand Paul got elected in spite of being publicly accused of kidnapping, occult worship, faking his doctorate, Clinton and others campaigning against him, etc... he still managed a significant lead.

The media will keep pulling the trigger on these types of smears, but in the real world, these shots are little better then blanks as far as the the majority of people are concerned.

Dont waste your time on this guy, he is not going to get elected.

No, there's no way he will be allowed to win and take power... even though he's definitely got the potential to secure the winning number of votes.
 
Interesting to see Christie finally pop up on a National poll, if somewhat partisan-limited.

I have several times posted that Romney would likely win and draft Christie as VP. (the latter perhaps a favorite in 2016)
But there's something unexciting about Romney.

In any case, here's the graphic on the CPAC #1/#2 choices.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Tz6I-T2Pg...sSlqEw/s1600/110212-cpac11-straw-poll-100.jpg

A dismal showing for Palin, Pawlenty, Huckabee.

True. Similar to last time except Palin's has been cut in half.
 
None of the votes in question regard directly interfering in the Taiwan/China conflict, but I wouldn't expect someone as pro-Beiping as you to understand the difference...

Paul is not just against direct intervention, but any form of intervention. He does not support foreign aid. He does not support arms sales to any foreign military. He does not even support non-binding resolutions that comment on a foreign matter. Unless the U.S. or its citizens are directly concerned he does not want us involved in any way.
 
Paul is not just against direct intervention, but any form of intervention. He does not support foreign aid. He does not support arms sales to any foreign military. He does not even support non-binding resolutions that comment on a foreign matter. Unless the U.S. or its citizens are directly concerned he does not want us involved in any way.

I'm sure he is sincere in those ideas, but if elected he'll have to face the realities of the world just as President Obama did when confronted with the closure of GITMO.
 
I'm sure he is sincere in those ideas, but if elected he'll have to face the realities of the world just as President Obama did when confronted with the closure of GITMO.

The reality is that America's foreign enemies are a result of blowback. Are there countries that hate the U.S.? Sure. Have we given countries reasons to hate us? You bet.
 
The Donald is right: this man can never be Prez.
 
...there's no way he will be allowed to win and take power... even though he's definitely got the potential to secure the winning number of votes.

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.
 
Dr. Paul has demonstrated that, while he may not have much of a shot at being president, his ideology is the most accepted at CPAC, and that says quite a bit. It says that, according to CPAC itself, Dr. Paul has become the mainstream of the Conservative movement and Palin and Beck have become the lunatics, which is quite true. I also have the feeling that the Neocons and other statists on the right are going to start calling CPAC a subversive Liberal anti-American organization now. :mrgreen:

I agree with you but he still can't win the nomination or election being the person he is. I'm not sure you can win being the real McCoy and has honest and straight forward as he is. It's sad but true.
 
McCain belittled his canididacy... he kicked him out of the National Convention and then begged for him to come back in hopes of winning his supporters. Of course there were strings attached if Paul did accept the invitation. He insulted Paul and his supporters...

McCain was and is an idiot.
 
I never endorsed Trump. I don't even think he'll run. Regarless of how many elections Trump or Paul has won, Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination.

Based on the 2008 elections and how rabid his supporters were, I think most Paul supporters have a problem with reality. So, you may as well start getting used to it now.


Trump is a big mouth moron. He couldn't win his way out of a paper bag.
 
On Palin, I agree, but I disagree on Newt who, IMHO, is still a political genius. His problem is one of baggage.

Sorry I think he's full of himself and it's obvious to most people.
 
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.

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.
 
Trump is a big mouth moron. He couldn't win his way out of a paper bag.

And... So? I'm trying to figure out what Trump's unlikely candidacy has to do with the fact that Ron Paul can not win the general or even the Republican nomination.
 
Ron Paul should run in 2012. Although he should run as what he really is - a libertarian - and not a republican.
 
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.

Here, just for you:

FOX News Ignores Ron Paul

It's a conspiracy I tells ya!
 
Back
Top Bottom