This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
As Disenchantment With Idiocy Surges, Ron Paul Support Soars
Every legacy media and central planner's worst nightmare is slowly coming true: as the broader field of GOP candidates is rapidly dropping like US secret drones blowing up nuclear power plants in Iran, due to general idiocy, incompetence, too much baggage-ness or general reverse American Idol syndrome where Americans get tired with any given "leader" only to vote them out of the primary the following week, the one clear winner is becoming Ron Paul, who according to Public Policy Polling has seen his support soar in the past week and is now neck and neck with presidential candidate du week, Newt Gingrich. From the PPP: "There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%."
More on this news which will be welcomed by supporters of the only person in the GOP crowd who actually deserves to be president:
Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul's strength in Iowa and Barack Obama's in 2008- he's doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters:
-59% of likely voters participated in the 2008 Republican caucus and they support Gingrich 26-18. But among the 41% of likely voters who are 'new' for 2012 Paul leads Gingrich 25-17 with Romney at 16%. Paul is doing a good job of bringing out folks who haven't done this before.
-He's also very strong with young voters. Among likely caucus goers under 45 Paul is up 30-16 on Gingrich. With those over 45, Gingrich leads him 26-15 with Romney at 17%.
-Among Republicans Gingrich leads Paul 25-17. But with voters who identify as Democrats or independents, 21% of the electorate in a year with no action on the Democratic side, Paul leads Gingrich 34-14 with Romney at 17%.
Young voters, independents, and folks who haven't voted in caucuses before is an unusual coalition for a Republican candidate...the big question is whether these folks will really come out and vote...if they do, we could be in for a big upset.
And if Paul can sustain the surge in momentum from Iowa, he may we have a chance to take New Hampshire where Romney still has a modest lead according to Rasmussen:
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney remains on top of the New Hampshire Republican Primary field, but the race for second place between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul is a lot closer than it was just two weeks ago.
The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters shows Romney with 33% of the vote, followed by Gingrich at 22%. Paul now picks up 18% support, his best showing in the Granite State so far. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman comes in fourth with 10% of the vote, with no other candidate reaching double digits. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Support for Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman is little changed from the previous survey, but Paul has now closed the 10-point gap between him and Gingrich to just four points.
Luckily, there still is more than enough opportunity for the other candidates' broad stupidity to shine through, which will benefit only one of the candidates. Furthermore, should the global economy collapse and the Fed proceed with doing the only thing he knows how to do, and as a result focus the broader population's attention even more on monetary policy, there will be only one winner: the one who has made the Fed his nemesis not only during this presidential election cycle, but his entire career.
We wish him all the best.
h/t John
»
- 38436 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Please explain.
Wait for it....Christine O'donnell (of the Wiccan/Virgin O'Donnell's) is making her GOP presidental endorsement announcement tonight on Hannity.
Full disclosure, i have no clue what a Hannity is.
try googling "santorum"..........
While I don't care for Rick Santorum, his name last means "Holy" not some made up, stupid, sexual inference.
Ron Paul 2012!!!
not anymore
+1000 internets to you
Agreed. That will always be funny.
Google Bomb - The first political WMD (Weapon of Mote Destruction)
bachman chomping down on the corn dog does it for me man......
... Deleted.
The only thing Ron Paul needs is for once it to look like he could win and then the people who intellectually understand he is the best choice but didnt believe he could get elected will flock to him.
Unfortunately that is only 3% more but it helps those of us fully behind his type of change.
*edit - The number is so low because of a lack of people in the former category...not the latter.
It makes sense. Ron Paul isn't political like others. He says what he believes. This is a plus.
More importantly, Ron Paul is not a "Lawyer" of which 27 past presidents were.
My new bumper sticker:
We have had enough lawyers in the White House,
How about a Physician this time?
VOTE Ron Paul, M.D. 2012
G.W Bush was not a lawyer. MBA from Harvard.
GW was a career politician.
Even worse, lol.
Not saying an MBA is better then a lawyer just correcting the record. Oh I would not put much stock in a M.D. as president. Most M.D.s are just pill pushers for big Pharma and really are just "practicing" medicine. Not saying Dr. Paul is such as I don't have a clue or care what kind of Dr. he was.
He's an OBGYN...and he is for food, farm, and health freedoms! He even sponsored a bill to protect raw milk and organic farmers from federal tyranny.
Feel better now?
MBA: More Bush Asswipes
Was it before or after he got his MBA from Harvard that he forgot how to spell and say nuclear?
Dr. Benjamin Rush would be so proud...and could return to resting peacefully in his grave instead of turning over constantly as he is presently doing!
RP is the man - this will shock only media meatheads and snooky fans when he "upsets" the list of yutz's he's running against
I heard an interview from Jim Willie where he brought up a wonderful point to articulate exactly what you said. Somethign to the effect of - there is 50% of the population that is not involved, doesn't participate in our voting, and just wants to get along without doing anything to alter the course. Another 25% that follows the main stream media and uses 30 second soundbites to determine their position. But there is a 25% of politically engaged and aware citizens that get involved beyond just voting - i.e. delegate process, caucus after voting, and are hyper involved. The hope all sits in the latter of the three.
Media remembers to talk to Ron Paul after the debate, if only to ask him what he thinks about his opponents: http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-ron-paul-debate-2011-12 As usual, the MSM is useless.
Disenchantment of the disenfranchised.
ah, polls. You can run a flag up it. You can refuse to use it to touch someone. You can even use the term for dragging someone out of their stupor for a moment and try to remember what tv told them to answer if anyone ever asked. They even call them places to vote when a machine has already chosen for you.
How many polls does it take to change a President?
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=669534
Don't ride in any open limousines Mr. Paul. TPTB are certainly afraid of you, and will do anything to prolong their miserable existence.
RON PAUL 2012!
Maybe he could get that secret service detail that was assigned to that Koch creature, Pizza-boy Cain.
If Ron Paul won the general election in a landslide victory against Obama the media wouldn't report it.
If Paul makes it as the nominee, expet the elections to be cancelled under the guise of a terror attack.
Paul is going to win big in Iowa Jan 3rd. The excuses are already being thought up.. Gingrich wasn't prepared for media "coverage" making him a front runner and thus he didn't have enough phones in his campaign offices.. Why would you run for president and not prepare yourself?
Mainstream media drives me nuts.. Which is why I love ZH!
I'm late to the thread but I can first hand tell you RP is getting a bid here in Iowa...Iowa NPR had a whole hour devoted to the man this morning...6 months ago, he was a blip at best...
Nice, I'm from Iowa too. I was in Des Moines 4 Years ago for the last caucuses. I've never voted republican in my life but I would vote for Paul.
Wish there was a Libertarian party that could rival democrats and republicans. I'd vote libertarian every time.. Just like John Hancock, or Lafayette prolly would if they lived today.
Ron Paul ran as Libertarian his first time. He learned how the system works. He's stuck in that shithole party.
Hawkeye here Pallen37...Iowa City is a sure win for RP...Been here 15 years and an Alum....you can't really fool too many people here in Iowa City...one of the most educated cities in the US...
Awesome Deleuzian, great to hear from the front lines. Fair or not we're counting on y'all.
I wonder how many uncommitted entities (warm blooded or not) will vote with their conscience out there...Seems to this simpleton that voting for RP is like fighting the Revolutionary war in cyberspace...
Nice, I'm from Iowa too. I was in Des Moines 4 Years ago for the last caucuses. I've never voted republican in my life but I would vote for Paul.
Wish there was a Libertarian party that could rival democrats and republicans. I'd vote libertarian every time.. Just like John Hancock, or Lafayette prolly would if they lived today.
Dude, like someone upthread said, DO: There is no "would".
It's from Empire...
Yoda: Do or don't due, there is no try
I Like (IKE) Paul
He is the only one not reading scripts! He actually believes what he says, and doesn't take bribes.
He only accepts gold!
I like what Ron Paul has to say like the rest of the sensible people but if elected he would be THE OLDEST president ever in office. Not going to happen people.
I think he's only 7 years older than Ronald Reagan and Reagan was good President.
Reagan was a good candidate, but a TERRIBLE president.
With him, the "borrow and spend" Republican was born, which lead directly to the rise of the Neoconservative movement.
Things were much nicer when you didn't have two parties that were almost exactly the same.
If you compare Reagans presidency to presidents of the last 40 years, he was the best in my opinion.
That's a low bar.
Reminds me of the "Five Good Roman Emperors". I doubt Reagan will be one of the "Five Good American Presidents".
I didn't the set the bar.
Well get to it. It's Happy Hour.
Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. A century that saw Constitution-destroyers like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and George W. Bush do considerable damage to the country. And pathological liars like Clinton and Obama wreck the dignity of the office.
Reagan was a principled man who had extremely clear, very well thought-through positions about freedom, government, and the constitution.
His biggest mistake was selecting (or rather, allowing the selection of) George H.W. Bush as his VP. Bush and his crew of lackeys hijacked the Reagan presidency pretty early on and actively undermined everything Reagan stood for.
I wonder how many people here realize that John Hinckley Jr. was a close friend of the Bush family? That fact got covered up pretty quickly after the assassination attempt.
Coolidge.
You confuse talk with action. He talked the talk, but consistantly failed to walk the walk. He refused to cut spending, he refused to return to a metal standard, and he appointed fucking Alan Greenspan to be chairman of the Federal Reserve board.
Greatest president of the 20th century??? Bullshit at it's worst. Better presidents?
Theodore Roosevelt - National park system, Bull Moose party, etc.
Franklin D Roosevelt - The 2nd Bill of Rights! Where is that today? He died too soon.
Dwight D Eisenhower - The interstate system! Anti-business, especially the Military-Industrial complex, which is amazing considering he was a 5 star general! America's BEST years ever were under Ike, taking into account the oppurtunity and standard of living for all citizens.
John F Kennedy - He wouldve really shaken things up for the establishment given time.
Jimmy Carter - Unsuccessful as a President, he was at least are far more good hearted and honest person than Regan could ever be. Not a presidential accomplishment...Habitat for Humanity.
Regan's accomplishment? The shithole United States we have today.
agreed...it all came to fruition with reagan
unless you spend your time reading 'revisionist history' that is
Jimmy Carter was safe for the mic, jfk was not...look where that got him
If you haven't figured out that Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were the 3 worst presidents in terms of undermining everything this country originally stood for then you need to STFU because you are part of the problem. FDR was a fucking disaster.
Disagree completely, except for Wilson. Wilson was a horrible president just for the Federal Reserve alone, but he fucked up in lots of other areas as well. I would like to hear how to abolishment of slavery and standing up to the New York and European banks made Lincoln a bad president. States rights and Slavery were wrong, Without a United America we would likely be under either USSR or Nazi rule today, not to mention the federal approach uncorrupted was the correct one. You can't argue that the US had the best system until crony capitalism, trickle down economics, outsourcing, abandoning the gold standard, etc all took hold and warped the system FDR's legacy is undeniable as well, his programs would have led to a fair and honest society if not picked apart in the following decades. Looking out for your brothers and fellow citizens is not some ugly agenda, its what makes us human. If we can't do that while we live in abundance, then we're really fucked up.
It depends on your criteria. Geo-politically, you cannot deny Reagan's role in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union and the predominance of the American empire over the world. Economically, his policies were a nightmare that lead to massive deficits and crony capitalism.
You cannot deny Reagan's role in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union and the American empire. Both nations lost the cold war. The Soviet Union lost 25 years before the United States did.
Socialism caused USSR to collapse. Not Reagan.
USA is still one of the richest and freest countries on the planet, despite its mounting flaws.
Reagan did borrow a lot to build up the military. But this put pressure on the USSR and eventually lead to its breakup. So you could argue that the money was well spent. Also, the Reagan recovery lead to nice economic growth which caused tax revenues to rise, partially helping to balance the increased military spending.
After the breakup of the USSR, military spending should have been cut, but Bush I didn't do this. However Clinton did restore a surplus (reluctantly and mainly because he was forced to by a Republican congress.) But Bush II returned to deficit spending.
So I think the main blame for breaking the balanced budget tradition goes to Bush I, Bush II and Obama.
They all sucked up to the military.
Boy, you don't have much faith in free markets if you think you have to resort to government spending to make a Communist economy collapse.
Also, note that Clinton didn't return a surplus, Greenspan set the easy money machine on full, and Clinton just happened to benefit from it. The imbalances that were built up were never fully unravelled, leading us down the path to today.
Communist governments don't require economic success to remain in power. Look at North Korea, for example. It's economy sucks. There are periodic reports of starvation. But the government is still able to remain in power. Only military action could dislodge it.
But their economy? Collapsed.
Same as all the others.
Without an economy, their government doesn't matter any more than any two bit African dictator, save perhaps for the threats they might issue to use their nukes in order to extract aid from free nations, as North Korea does. But the cost of such aid is minimal to a free nation.
Yes, starting the trend of deficit spending to oblivion to build up the military was brilliant. It was so successful in forcing the USSR to do the same and thus causing its collapse, that we're continuing to do it decades later with no specific enemy. So now we're deficit spending to oblivion for the MIC and wars, and the result will be the collapse of another country...the United States. Again, fucking brilliant! Uh, wait a sec...
monster zero mouth
Ron paul could run circles around your sorry ass
and gincretch can hardly waddle across the floor
80 isn't old anymore. 80 is the new 60.
Yea cause driving around in limos and helicopters is really tough. If you saw the schedule this man has, and even going back to the last campaign, he's indefatigable and will actually WORK in the office instead of taking holidays and playing golf or doing press ops.
Repeat after me
"Avoid Convertibles near grassy knolls". (Actually, avoid convertibles altogether)
"Avoid being in a hotel room alone with a member of hotel staff"
"Avoid being in a hotel room alone with Bruno"
All he needs is a slogan : "A breath of fresh air".
How about: " I will DELIVER America from the Anus of Wall Street"
How about: "#Occupy WhiteHouse"
How about "There is no left/right in Ron Paul - only liberty."
You don't need to make it that complicated, it says it on the can... just needs a little capitalisation for emphasis;
"The United STATES of America"
How about an honest one, from the M.D.: "This is gonna hurt", or "We've got to amputate the finger to save the hand".
Even so, I hope he gets elected.
Granted his domestic policies are batshit crazy....but his hatred for the Fed and pro-online gaming+2nd Amendment stances are awesome.
If he DOES get elected President, I also want the under in the death pool. Trend looks bullish (Lincoln, Kennedy, Jackson) for that.
"Granted his domestic policies are batshit crazy"
What's so crazy about liberty and freedom?
It's crazy in this era where normal is dependency. God forbid we have to owe up to our own failures.
The liberty and freedom part is what I love about Paul. If Ron Paul was president, I'd still be playing online poker.
The man also wants to eliminate Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, and Food Stamps. Not reform (which I agree these all need); eliminate. He also would give MORE tax breaks to billionaires (granted he also pledged to eliminate corporate welfare......I'd have to see it to believe it).
Unless once he gets elected, everyone in the country is going to start making $60K a year, methinks cutting off social safety nets won't be good for an already fragile economy.
He's explained this.
It wouldn't be like overnight all that shit is over. For example with medicare he would give those 25 and under the option of opting out of the program. They would be phased out slowly.
Social safety nets have metastasized into entitlement. Collecting unemployment benefits for 99 weeks? Give me a fuckin' break.
Why would you need any of those programs when there were no taxes (automatic raises for everyone)? Hell, even the unemployed would be able to get jobs from all that extra money being reinvested into businesses. Think about all the governemnt workers who's primary job is to block productive people from producing--all gone and forced into productive work.
For those who are down on their luck, there are numerous charities that would see an influx of extra cash as people have more to give. Such charities don't really breed dependence like those federal programs. This is good. All of it.
To add to that...
Ron Paul Supporters To Collect 5 Tons Of Food For Charity
“We want to show the country that we don’t need the government to take care of people. Americans are the most generous people in the world. From the beginning of this country’s history, communities across America have always been willing to lend a hand to those who need it,”
http://www.starhq.com/2011/12/12/ron-paul-supporters-to-collect-5-tons-of-food-for-charity/
Don't be afraid Shizzmoney, maybe someday you'll find really productive work that you enjoy. That doesn't require you to write negative shit about honorable people and that offers something of value to others.
shitzzmoney
domestic policies are batshit crazy
well go ahead and list a couple of those policys so we can see where your dependency lie .. and your batshit is .
Z
Funny though Shizzmoney, Ron Paul is probably the only Pres. candidate that would not have you detained indefinitely for that bullshit. I'm guessing that your main-street boys wouldn't miss you, wherever you ended up.
Reality Check: Has the Patriot Act thwarted 42 terror attacks? Aaah no of course not. Be wary of MSM ... especially Fox
Fuck You Fox News
Phook the entire MSM!
Most of you are very smart people, but do you guys really think it would make any difference if Paul is elected???
The answer is NO.....No difference...Not even a little....Same shit, different puppet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk
I disagree. Ron Paul would rattle some cages. No, he can't undo decades of layered bureaucracy that is crippling our nation, but some needed reforms would get done.
Don't deny the veto pen and its ability to stop much of the financial extensions required for the continuation of the bureaucracy. Debt ceiling billto be signed? Veto. Patriot Act reathorization? Veto. Next needed bailout? Veto. You get the point.
This is exactly right. If he did nothing else, other than veto unconstitutional legislation, this country would start pulling up out of its nosedive, as we are screaming towards impact.
And don't forget executive orders!
As of now everything unconstitutional is actually unconstitutional.
I'll rain on this parade. Ron Paul is not going to get the Repub nomination; the pty oligarchs will not permit it. If he somehow got the nom, he would be hit, or the election stolen or cancelled. Ultimately, he is up against the Redshield and all its hirelings. Best he can do is go 3P, probably throwing the election to Obama w less than 45% of the vote. And that, plus an economic collapse, should precipitate Civil War. Which is the only way we are ever going to get rid of the Beltway Crowd. One man simply cannot do it.
Did it ever occur to you that being elected proves he will have lots of support. Of course "one man can't do it", but he has the most enthusiastic supporters just waiting to back him up.
Don't be afraid of Ron Paul winning. Worst things could happen.
Ron Paul is againt using EO's for legislation purposes.
Most importantly it shows that some of the sheeple are finally waking up!!!!!
You need a new Calendar. Here try mine. It's made with 40% less bullshit and 80 more freedom. You can order it at Ron-Paul-Is-the-only-true-jeffersonian-american-running-and-is-exactly-what-we-need-so-shut-the-freak-up.com
Oops. Its actually .org...asmic....
If Paul is elected it will be a BIG difference. He is not the establishment candidate. The direction of our country will be different.
Notice I didn't say it was going to be better. I don't think that's going to happen, whoever gets elected.
Not unless "They" have some sort of mind control ray.
He can unilaterally withdraw troops from around the world. That is a trillion dollars a year saved with the stroke of a pen. He can also eliminate a huge number of government positions, also with the stroke of a pen.
Don't know how the bureaucrats will like that, though.
Besides the veto bullet, the executive branch makes all the regulations to enforce the laws written by congress. The president can affect a whole lot of things by deciding what to enforce and what not to.
If they find he loses, i bet it will be by a narrow margin. I think the voting is rigged, but to make sure ron paul supporters dont stage an uproar, they will tell us he almost won.
Iowa is a caucus state so they meet at like a school and rooms are set up for each candidates supporters to "caucus". At the end they count the total caucus goers per room and send it in to the state total.
The interesting part is that you need a certain number of people per room for the candidates caucus. This is where your organization comes in. I was in Des Moines IA the day after the caucus in 2004 and they were laughing how some "surging" democrats couldnt muster enough people and had to chose a new candidate. So, from Huntsman, Bachmann and Santorum where do you go to support your #2 candidate. Is it Ron Paul?
This is what makes the Iowa Caucus so different for the opening salvo.
Yes, the caucus system requires Morlocks who dwell deep within the machinery to operate the levers.
The Paulistas learned a lot in the runup to 2008, and hopefully, will be better prepared this time.
This might turn out to be some fun after all.
WOOHOO, WOOHOO, WOOHOO, WOOHOO, WOOHOO, WOOHOO, WOOHOO, WOOHOO, WOOHOO.
It would be funny if RP won the nomination and the media never mentioned the name of the guy running against Obama and he would win anyways. The only problem I see with the guy is that he is pretty old--my parents are in their 70s, they're not as sharp as they once were. Granted, Paul is a smart dude, so even if he is less sharp than he was, that still puts him well above average.
He is anti-Fed, though. Would the machine try to assassinate him? They can't have this guy win the election and actually do all the things he says he would do. Millions of government employees who need to get the boot would actually get the boot. There would be years of chaos as the US reorganizes itself. I am positive that such reform would be good in the long run, but Americans don't think in the long run--they only think about today. I can't even believe New Ginrich is leading the pack right now--doesn't anyone remember this asshole from the early 90s? He was censured or drummed out of office or whatever. Ginrich's political career was over and dead.
My other thought is that we needed Ron Paul back in 2000 and that it is really just too late--the ship is going to sink now no matter what.
For your second paragraph you should read about Andrew Jackson.
Basically told the people that there would be a quick depression and then we would get back on our feet if we eliminated The Central Bank. TOLD the people there would be a depression and he still got elected because people understood the central bank and business cycle back then
Amen to that avatar!
Wondering what happens if the president-elect is assassinated.
Revolution.
But why even speculate about such a thing? Why are such a large portion of comments in Ron Paul Might Win posts predictions about assassination attempts? Always with the negative waves!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuStsFW4EmQ&feature=results_main&playnext...
Was just wondering what the Constitution had to say on the matter because I was too lazy to look it up. I really don't think there will be an assassination attempt. More like the opponents of liberty will use it as an opportunity to 'prove' Austian economics is wrong because things aren't better by March 2013.
A New Age
The only problem is the majority of voting is done through electronic voting booths... They will rig the results...
That is why delegates will play such a key role in the upcoming brokered convention.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin
yes , that is why they use electronic voting now...........to make sure the "count " is correct........
It would be amazing he pulls off a win in Iowa and rolls on to victory. Barack Obama against Ron Paul is like a wet dream.
Yeah democrats are going to crossover and vote for ron paul in republican primaries where allowed. They would love for him to be the nominee.
I support ron paul, but he woyld hand the election to obama
Of course Ron Paul's going to win. Got a noisy dog yappin in the yard? Throw it a bone.
Where's that damm sealing? He hit it at 8% right?
ceiling
Huh? What does clubbing baby seals have to do with it??
I think that the one thing that will come out of this if Ron Paul emerges as the clear front runner is this: Even the most idiotic and hopeful of Americans will see, once and for all, the truth that their vote does not matter because despite the will of the people...Ron Paul will never be given the GOP nod for the run for president. It's a club and Ron Paul is far too smart and honest to ever be granted access...But at least Americans will finally see what a sham this so called "democracy" really is.
Maybe then they will finally grow a pair and do something about it...but I doubt it.
Why do I have this nagging feeling that if Ron Paul wins the Republican Primary the Establishment Republicans will run a third party candidate in an effort to get Obama reelected. The worse thing that could happen to both party’s is a Ron Paul Presidency.
I think Perot made that impossable now.
I don't think you understand. The race isn't run to win, but to split the election like Teddy did back in his bull moose campaign in order to throw the election to Wilson. See, Taft was too much the constitutionalist, not being fond of "Progressive" politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912
The candidate this time if needed is named Bloomberg. You might recall he waited in the wings last time as well, just in case.
I understand but who is likable enought to lead a third party, no one is there this time. Clinton needed Perot to win an election, who is Obamas Perot?
Trump would be a set up guy to peel votes from Ron Paul. There is enough stupid people out there who take him seriously.
Trust me, Trump would NOT peel many votes away from RP
Chris Christie? Rudy G.? Trump?
Perot himself came out of nowhere. They would find someone.
perot was a badass
Perot had the right ideas but he he was in it for the wrong reason.
Dr. Engali
Perot had the right ideas but he he was in it for the wrong reason.
Revenge, cost us 8yrs of more lost RIGHTS thanks to the little dumbo eared dictator.(got us Obama part 1).
You should hear the stories from dudes that worked for him............sheesh, it would have been 1st degree.
taft was the biggest fuckstick ever
sculls and bones, bitchez
I'm not certain why you are getting junked. I agree with what you are saying. I'm a Ron Paul supporter but the establishment is clearly against him. I have no doubt in my mind they would do something diabolical to stop him. I saw somebody mention Perot. Perot was never in it to win. He just wanted to split the vote because he hated the Bushes. When he started winning in the poles he began acting erratic, enough to throw off his support. The repubs would do the same thing to Ron Paul. They would put somebody in to peel off votes.
Ron Paul is my favorite candidate. But let's be real. He has an awesome ground operation in Iowa. It's not a surprise he is doing well there. That doesn't mean he will be the GOP candidate. In fact, he is extremely unlikely to be the candidate due to his ability to clearly tell us how things really work. He's a geek who is well read and understand what is going on. That isn't the type of guy who usually becomes president. People desperately want someone to lie to them.
JACKASS FOR PRESIDENT!!
I just love those movies :)
Things Jhonny Knoxville could do to the US.... PRICELESS!!
and why not? You guys already elected a cowboy actor and a Terminator with a speech defect.
Can I get a relevance test on that statement please?
Yes, as it turns out the state has deemed your comment as irrelevent to the conversation and you will now be terminated with prejudice...we can do that now you know...?
Muuuhnhhhhaaaaaaaaa.
I'm Ben Bernanke, and this is Hyperinflation Nation.
Ron is exactly what we need which is why he doesn't have a chance. The Banks have already bought the Presidency for Obama in 2012. They've donated more to his campaign than all Republicans running combined. Hate to say it but it's already a done deal!!
RP will woop Obama like the trick he is
debates....woop!
Ads...woop!
Paul '12
RON PAUL! THE ONLY AMERICAN CANDIDATE WHO PROTECTS,DEFENDS AND SERVES, THE CONSTITUTION! FUCK THE ZIO-PLUTOCRATIC BANK SUCKING FRAUDS!
Ron Paul is the only politician today that has my support. He is a great American in the old sense of the word, and is despised by the corrupt thugs that have ruled this country for the past 100 years or more.
Sadly, if he does break out the mainstream media will crush him as they have done others (at this time there is no defense I am aware of against the MSM). America is too dumbed down for anyone to win under the current system. The only way to change they system is to destroy what exists....that won't be pretty or easy.
Yes, it would make a shit-ton of difference!
So, just how many more candidates will have to be produced to keep the air filled with noise? And in what order?
Next up is...
Guliani?
Bloomberg?
Trump?
*checks intrade.com*
Looks like Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan lead the race amongst non-candidates.