• 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 for president

Would you vote for Ron Paul for President?


  • Total voters
    41
Course they were. And Iraq had WMD's. Believe one lie why not believe another.

I trust the government more than internet hoaxes, not that either have much validity.
 
Goodoleboy-Duke is ineligible because of tax fraud
 
If he was then why would he be considering a run? Of all people he would know this...he must know something we don't.

He is legally disqualified and that is the way it is.
Heck I don't know, but he sounds like a hard-core loon to me so I wouldn't put it past him to run anyways.
 
Course they were. And Iraq had WMD's. Believe one lie why not believe another.

Moderator's Warning:
We have a section of the forum for conspiracy theories. Please keep them there.
 
Yes, earmarks serve to put the Congressman's name on projects so he can tell the voters at home that he, too, can steal money from people living elsewhere.

Yes, but the money will not be returned so why not make the request? And Paul did not vote in favor of the spending bills because he did not want the money spent. However, if the money will be spent regardless, I don't see why a request should not be made. His constituents pay taxes too. Should they just lose the money without seeing anything in return?
 
As if I care what you, a random anon, assumes: I like how you made something up and then demand that I support it as though I made the clam. Bad form, one of the reasons why I don't care what random anons assume.

I do believe you made the claim Paul had no interest in becoming POTUS despite running for election. All I ask for is a quote from Ron Paul that verifies your assertion. I'm assuming 'anon' stands for anonymous , in which case, I have no idea why you would be on the internet discussing politics.
 
I do believe you made the claim Paul had no interest in becoming POTUS despite running for election. All I ask for is a quote from Ron Paul that verifies your assertion. I'm assuming 'anon' stands for anonymous , in which case, I have no idea why you would be on the internet discussing politics.

I guess I don't know why you think a direct quote from Ron Paul is the only possible evidence, why you think I claimed to have such a quote, or why the object of the scam would admit it's a scam. Steven Colbert didn't admit it was a publicity stunt. Neither did Trump, but at least Ron Paul has announced. Neither has any of the many celebrities who announced in the 2008 elections.

What I did say I had was Ron Paul's own supporters saying this is just an 'educational campaign'. I even quoted one such supporter saying exactly that in this thread. So if you think it's wrong, fine, go confront Ron Paul supporters.
 
Last edited:
There I did your homework for you since you were incapable.

White Nationalism is about establishing a home for the white race. White Nationalists want to be separate from other racists but do not necessarily believe they are better than the other races, just different. White Nationalists are very proud of their race and culture and want to preserve that culture in its native locations while sending other races back their own native locations. White Supremacists on the other hand believe that the white race is superior to all other races and often White Supremacists are violent and condone hurting and killing people of other races.

This is nothing but white nationalist propaganda. White Nationalists are as racist as nazi skinheads.
 
Oh believe me Duke will get a LOT of votes you do realize the people of Louisiana voted him into office and he almost was elected Governor as well....I doubt all those people that voted for him were White Nationalists.

The only votes that Duke will get is from other racists and from folks too stupid to not be conned by his lying about being a racist.
 
If he was then why would he be considering a run? Of all people he would know this...he must know something we don't.

Because he's stupid and a liar. He's intelligible.
 
If he was then why would he be considering a run? Of all people he would know this...he must know something we don't.

Because he's stupid, a liar, or doing it for propaganda. He's intelligible.
 
The only votes that Duke will get is from other racists and from folks too stupid to not be conned by his lying about being a racist.

Just like the same morons who voted for the racist kenyan communist obama....we see how well that turned out he got elected...
 
Just like the same morons who voted for the racist kenyan communist obama....we see how well that turned out he got elected...

The fact that you think Obama is a communist and a racist show how ignorant you really are.

That's a lie spread by the liberal politicians and liberal media. Those things will be destroyed if something isn't done.
What's Ron Pauls answer. :)

Get rid of them slowly. Republicans answer is to keep them in limbo and give the money those programs produce to corporations via a voucher system which is Corporatism .
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the money will not be returned so why not make the request? And Paul did not vote in favor of the spending bills because he did not want the money spent. However, if the money will be spent regardless, I don't see why a request should not be made. His constituents pay taxes too. Should they just lose the money without seeing anything in return?

Because Paul's a hypocrite.

Where's his principles? Only pulled out when convenient, like when he, too, needs to take a leak on the Constitution. (Well, that metaphor is backwards, but the intention is plain enough...)
 
Well would ya vote for him? Or do you prefer large government and interference in your life?

Dude, you're committing the fallacy of Guilt by Association. Just because someone doesn't vote for Ron Paul does not mean they prefer large government and intereference in their lives.
 
Dude, you're committing the fallacy of Guilt by Association. Just because someone doesn't vote for Ron Paul does not mean they prefer large government and intereference in their lives.

Every other candidate is a big government conservative.So yeah it does.
 
Every other candidate is a big government conservative.So yeah it does.

The implication of the OP is that you either vote for Ron Paul, or you'd rather have the government interfere in every aspect of your life. That's a logical fallacy. It should be self-evident.

Secondly, simply because some candidates may be less libertarian or libertarian-leaning as Ron Paul, doesn't mean they advocate large government interference in citizen's daily lives. According to the OP, if you don't vote for Ron Paul than you favour big government interference in your life. I can vote for another candidate and still be anti-big government. (In fact, many libertarians voted for conservative candidates that supported measures like the Patriot Act, but that doesn't mean they actually support large government intervention programs and measures).
 
Last edited:
This is a absolutely retarded pseudo polls.
 
Back
Top Bottom