Why Ron Paul is lagging in the polls

[livendive 8]

Quote

It seems to me that one of the reasons he is lagging in the polls is due to a lot of the internet supporters he has aren't actually registered REPS and are not being polled.

I think I'm still registered as a democrat and have not yet decided which primary I'm going to vote in. It'll either be Obama or Paul, and I'm starting to lean more towards the latter. Another factor for me, and a growing percentage of the population, is I have no landline for pollsters to call me on. I don't know what the political demographics of the "cell only" crowd are, but I imagine they deviate at least somewhat from the population as a whole.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Another factor for me, and a growing percentage of the population, is I have no landline for pollsters to call me on. I don't know what the political demographics of the "cell only" crowd are, but I imagine they deviate at least somewhat from the population as a whole.

Blues,
Dave

This is really something to think about.

Thanks
There may be many more of "you" than many of us might think!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

wow. what an amazing distortion of ron paul's positions.

From the first article;

Quote

Two specific regulations proved to be disastrous for dealing with the thugs who, without even a single gun, took over four airliners and created the havoc of 9/11. Both the prohibition against guns in cockpits and precise instructions that crews not resist hijackers contributed immensely to the horrors of 9/11.

Instead of immediately legalizing a natural right of personal self-defense guaranteed by an explicit Second Amendment freedom, we still do not have armed pilots in the sky.

I'm sorry, but if you don't recognize that as being code words to reassure the NRA of his positions, then I can't help you. Using scare tactics of gun issues combined with 911 in this sense bugs the crap out of me.

I'll address the tinfoil hat contributors in a bit . . . gotta get back to work for a few.

I agree with him in that respect, and it's not a scare tactic. Prior to GCA '68, anyone could carry their pistol on an airplane, and did. I'll let you do the comparison to the number of hijackings pre/post GCA '68

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Prior to GCA '68, anyone could carry their pistol on an airplane, and did. I'll let you do the comparison to the number of hijackings pre/post GCA '68

Uh . . . ok . . . http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841562,00.html.

Pretty sure not a whole lot of aircraft are not currently heading toward Cuba.

From that time period to September 11 there were considerably fewer hyjackings per year.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Interesting - I was unaware of the Cuba hijackings. My thought was that other armed passengers would prevent the hijacking. I certainly stepped in it with *that* thought, didn't I?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

no way in hell is he ever getting elected to the Oval. He has zero chance.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg

I believe in that contest Truman was at least the candidate for a major party in the general election. When Ron Paul achieves that status, I'll be willing to talk. Unless, of course, you wanna start making bets or something.

You are basing your thoughts off the common media. The internet will have more of an impact on each election because it gives a voice to the individual.

Ron Paul isn't Perot and a lot has changed since that time. There is a small revolution going on against the media and I think this will have a direct impact on where the votes go.

I'm not a Paulite, but he is my current choice. That being said I wouldn't count him out yet.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Another factor for me, and a growing percentage of the population, is I have no landline for pollsters to call me on. I don't know what the political demographics of the "cell only" crowd are, but I imagine they deviate at least somewhat from the population as a whole.

Blues,
Dave

Don't forget that every one pretty much has caller id now. Most don't pick up the phone if they don't recognize the number. I would wager that the polls are off and will continue to be false as they stick to outdated methods of measure.

This is really something to think about.

Thanks
There may be many more of "you" than many of us might think!

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

I think I'm still registered as a democrat and have not yet decided which primary I'm going to vote in.

I know here in TX, you have to have been a registered voter for atleast 30 days to vote in any election. Tx is also a closed primary so you have to be a member of that party to be able to vote.

here is also an interesting snippet.

http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/vce/0201.html
"Two types of primaries are used in the United States: open and closed. Open primaries do not require voters to declare in advance the party with which they wish to be associated. So, any registered voter may vote in any party's primary – but voters can vote in only one party's primary during a single primary period. Closed primaries require advance declaration of partisan affiliation in order to vote in a specific party's primary.

Officially, Texas has closed primaries. But in practice, any registered voter may vote in the primary of any single party, as long as they have not voted in the primary of another party. Texas's primaries are closed in a less direct way: once a registered voter has in effect declared his or her party affiliation by voting for the nominees in a party's primary, that person cannot participate in the proceedings (for instance, a runoff primary or convention) of another party. "

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

I'm sorry, but if you don't recognize that as being code words to reassure the NRA of his positions, then I can't help you. Using scare tactics of gun issues combined with 911 in this sense bugs the crap out of me.

Though this is off topic from the thread, shit most of the responses have been off topic anyway...

Dr. Paul's stance on the 2nd amendment is very clear. I don't think he needs to use 'code' to reassure the NRA or any other person / organization what his position is on this topic.

[quade 4]

Quote

You are basing your thoughts off the common media. The internet will have more of an impact on each election because it gives a voice to the individual.

I believe Ron Paul is an internet meme. He is the political equivalent of the "Chuck Norris" joke. Nobody in his right mind thinks Chuck Norris would actually make a good Texas Ranger, but kids enticed by the "idea" of Chuck Norris think he's cool and the jokes are funny. And again, I think they think Ron Paul is "cool" because he IS a nutcase.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

Quote

You are basing your thoughts off the common media. The internet will have more of an impact on each election because it gives a voice to the individual.

I believe Ron Paul is an internet meme. He is the political equivalent of the "Chuck Norris" joke. Nobody in his right mind thinks Chuck Norris would actually make a good Texas Ranger, but kids enticed by the "idea" of Chuck Norris think he's cool and the jokes are funny. And again, I think they think Ron Paul is "cool" because he IS a nutcase.

It is unfortunate that your opinions on this matter will influence others.

this doesn't sound like a nutcase to me.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

you may disagree with some of his policies, but calling a former Armed forces surgeon and longtime politician with by far the most consistent voting record based on his firm stance with the constitution a "nutcase" is pretty sad.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Quote

You are basing your thoughts off the common media. The internet will have more of an impact on each election because it gives a voice to the individual.

I believe Ron Paul is an internet meme. He is the political equivalent of the "Chuck Norris" joke. Nobody in his right mind thinks Chuck Norris would actually make a good Texas Ranger, but kids enticed by the "idea" of Chuck Norris think he's cool and the jokes are funny. And again, I think they think Ron Paul is "cool" because he IS a nutcase.

He's more honest and consistent and more in touch with reality than any of the other candidates. If that makes him a nutcase, then I like this nutcase.

@dan_iv

Quote

It is unfortunate that your opinions on this matter will influence others.

Even though quade is a moderator, I doubt he's taken seriously enough here to influence others, especially in light of his completely biased, baseless and ignorant comments regarding Ron Paul's candidacy.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[quade 4]

Quote

He's more honest and consistent and more in touch with reality than any of the other candidates. If that makes him a nutcase, then I like this nutcase.

"Honest" and "in touch with reality" aren't actually word that you should be using to describe Ron Paul.

He says we should immediately eliminate the IRS, FBI, CIA, DHS, HHS, SS . . . tell me, do you REALLY think that's being honest and in touch with reality or simply pandering?

It would be chaos.

Our government can't be dismantled over night and have every thing be rosy the next day. It simply can not be done and anyone that says it can is NOT in touch with reality or being honest with the public.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

"Honest" and "in touch with reality" aren't actually word that you should be using to describe Ron Paul.

I respectfully disagree.

Quote

He says we should immediately eliminate the IRS, FBI, CIA, DHS, HHS, SS . . . tell me, do you REALLY think that's being honest and in touch with reality or simply pandering?

It would be chaos.

Our government can't be dismantled over night and have every thing be rosy the next day. It simply can not be done and anyone that says it can is NOT in touch with reality.

Of course those organizations can't be dismantled overnight.

However, someone with such ideas will bring the balance we desperately need in our government, as both parties are completely out of control in regard to spending money we don't have.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

He's more honest and consistent and more in touch with reality than any of the other candidates. If that makes him a nutcase, then I like this nutcase.

"Honest" and "in touch with reality" aren't actually word that you should be using to describe Ron Paul.

He says we should immediately eliminate the IRS, FBI, CIA, DHS, HHS, SS . . . tell me, do you REALLY think that's being honest and in touch with reality or simply pandering?

It would be chaos.

Our government can't be dismantled over night and have every thing be rosy the next day. It simply can not be done and anyone that says it can is NOT in touch with reality or being honest with the public.

I agree, the infrastructure in place couldn't go away over night.....or maybe that's what those in DC want us to believe. Slimming things down may be the best way to buck the system and break the commonality of unethical practices. I don't know what power the POTUS has to single handedly do this, so I believe he is over promising to have more leverage for negotiations down the line. At least he is smart enough to know how the game is played and knows that it needs to be changed.

The system is broken, and the first person that has the balls and power to do so is labeled a nut job? Seems to me you are just as comfortable with taking the good with the bad in DC. And really, how more damaging would it be to have someone in office that is trying to improve our country over the ego driven bastard that is there now destroying everything this country has achieved in the past?

BTW, I don't think any other internet meme has produced this much money before either. Not only are people voting with their internet traffic, they are using cash as well. Don't forget that some memes do grow beyond their original hype.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[SpeedRacer 1]

as I said before, some of Ron Paul's ideas may seem a bit extreme by those of us living in today's status quo, but remember: we're electing a President, not a dictator. If Paul became president, things wouldn't change overnight, and he knows it.

We need to think more in terms of what general trend the government should take. The government clearly needs to be reigned in both on the domestic and foreign fronts. None of the other candidates show any signs of doing that.

Elect any of the other Republican candidates & you're basically getting Bush III with only a few cosmetic alterations.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Para_Frog 1]

Bingo.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[GeorgiaDon 379]

He's made it clear that he would abolish the EPA and return environmental protections to the sort of thing we had in the 1800's, based on property rights. http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/ That is to say:
1) You determine that you (or your property) is being contaminated with toxic pollutants. This requires that you constantly pay for testing of the air/water. Or you develop some illness related to exposure to pollutants.
2) You attempt to determine the source of the contamination.
3) You take the allegedly offending party to court and attempt to get some redress for the damage you (or your property) have suffered. Of course, by that point the damage has already been done, and it might not be possible to undo it. How much money would compensate for a terminal disease, or kids with life-altering birth defects, or even just your property so contaminated you can't use it in the way you intended? Does anyone believe an individual would be able to prevail against a wealthy corporation with an army of lawyers? Or that any compensation would arrive in time to do any good? Or that the court system would even be able to handle the case load on top of all that it already has to deal with?
That approach didn't work, which is why the EPA was created in the first place.
I gather that, in a similar vein, Ron Paul would do away with the FDA, the CDC, and NIH. He doesn't specifically state that (or contradict it) on his web site, but that is consistent with his stance on the EPA, Homeland Security, etc, and it is the stated policy of the Libertarian groups he seems to be close to. In the case of the FDA the argument is the same as the EPA, if you are harmed by a drug, and you can 1) prove that specific drug did the harm, and 2) find the manufacturer (assuming they have corporate offices in the US and not the Bahamas or something), you can try to take them to court. Good luck with that.
I think it is also his policy to sell off all federal lands, including national parks. (There is an oblique reference to this in this interview: http://www.lewrockwell.com/casey/casey12.html). Enjoy hiking/camping in national parks, national forests, or on BLM land? Better do it now, before its given away to corporate interests and people with the $$ to buy it up. After that it'll just be fences or sky-high fees to go anywhere.
And no, he can't personally do these things overnight. But he can veto any spending bills that include funding for any departments or agencies he doesn't like. He isn't called "Dr No" for nothing. Shut down the government? I don't think that would be much of a deterrent for him. It's what he's all about.

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[SpeedRacer 1]

Hey everyone:

I'm testing a theory. Please go into the Bonfire & vote on the Cell Phone vs. Landline poll.

Thanks!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,070]

>If Paul became president, things wouldn't change overnight, and he knows it.

Another thing that would happen is that the Libertarian party would be tempered by actual exposure to real world politics - and would rapidly morph into something a bit less extreme. Would benefit the party greatly I think.

[quade 4]

Quote

>If Paul became president, things wouldn't change overnight, and he knows it.

Another thing that would happen is that the Libertarian party would be tempered by actual exposure to real world politics - and would rapidly morph into something a bit less extreme. Would benefit the party greatly I think.

Is that an admission that he's either not dealing in "the real world" or is simply lying about realities?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

>If Paul became president, things wouldn't change overnight, and he knows it.

Another thing that would happen is that the Libertarian party would be tempered by actual exposure to real world politics - and would rapidly morph into something a bit less extreme. Would benefit the party greatly I think.

I think you're right, & I've talked to libertarians about that.

The Democrat & Republican parties are "Big Tent" parties. They don't all need to absolutely agree on every issue. Within each party, some members are more hardcore & others are more moderate.

The same should be true of the libertarian party if it wants to increase its membership. The problem is, you've got some purists in there that want to excommunicate anyone who isn't as extreme as they are. They need to relax & allow some wiggle room.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

>If Paul became president, things wouldn't change overnight, and he knows it.

Another thing that would happen is that the Libertarian party would be tempered by actual exposure to real world politics - and would rapidly morph into something a bit less extreme. Would benefit the party greatly I think.

Is that an admission that he's either not dealing in "the real world" or is simply lying about realities?

No.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,070]

>Is that an admission that he's either not dealing in "the real world" or
>is simply lying about realities?

So the question is - is he wrong, or are you right?

He has some high ideals, based on his party's, that won't work quite the way he thinks they will in the real world. Every politician out there has the same story. Bush said he would not engage in nation-building. Pelosi had a "first 100 hours" thing that didn't quite go as planned. Pete Wilson had a great plan for power company deregulation; didn't work out so well there either.

He's not lying about anything, nor is he "living in a dreamworld." I have no doubt that he will try to implement most of what he has promised. He won't always succeed, and the lessons learned will get cranked back into the libertarian party platform.

To use a closer to home example, a friend of mine from Perris got invited on the 400-way. He was pretty excited, and talked about getting the record, how cool it would be etc. Unfortunately he got cut before the final record jump.

Was he not living in "the real world?" Was he simply lying about realities? Or did he just give it his best shot - and through a combination of bad luck and a mistake or two, failed to achieve all of what he wanted?

[quade 4]

Quote

Was he not living in "the real world?" Was he simply lying about realities? Or did he just give it his best shot - and through a combination of bad luck and a mistake or two, failed to achieve all of what he wanted?

bill, you're a fairly reasonable man. I know this because we've dealt with each other over the years on-line and in real life. I respect you because, well, you're also one of the most intelligent people I've ever met.

Knowing how intelligent you actually are, if I may ask you a question, bill, do you play the lottery?

I'm guessing here, but I'd say probably not because you have taken a certain amount of math in school and realize it is, after all extremely unlikely that you'd ever be able to win.

I look at Ron Paul in much the same way. Yeah, it's "fun" to think about never having to pay taxes again and reform the government. Sure, I get that. But I also think it's incredibly dishonest for him to even talk about it the way he has. He has to be either a Pied Piper leading people with his promises he never intends to keep or he has to be a complete and total wacko for thinking it actually can be done. He absolutely has to be one or the other; there is no third way. Certainly not by anything he's ever said in public.

People talk about his consistency of message not varying over the course of time. To me, in this case, that's not a good thing. He's spoken for 20 some odd years about this "plan" of his, without even mentioning that, "well, if elected I'll have to just work within the system and do what I can do." No. He's consistently talked about the abolishment of vast sections of the government, parts of which are sort of really required by the U.S. Constitution.

The guy is a nut job, has spouted the same crazy talk for years and is unwavering in his message. Sounds a lot like another President I can think of that also happened to come from Texas.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver