The New Ron Paul Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron Paul is getting attention because he is the first politician in many generations who is not chock full of impacted fecal matter. After the unimaginable hubris and incompetence of the current administration, people are finally ready for a change.

No one else will get my vote, either, even if I have to write in Dr. Paul's name on the ballot. I honestly don't believe the country can handle four more years of a president like Bush (or Cinton, or Obama, or Guliani, or McCain, or... pretty much anyone who is not Ron Paul, including Fred Thompson).
 
Ron Paul has raised more money than every other Rep candidate except Rudy and Mitt Cheezeball. So I love hearing he has not chance. If he does not get the nomination and runs as an independent I will vote for him again.

I can see the commercial media now. Nothing to see hear folks, Ron Paul has no chance, carry on.... Nothing to see here...."
 
I don't really care much about polls, especially at this point. Name recognition is the biggest hurdle for Ron. The fact that he's getting so much support from individuals, relative to the number of people that even know who he is, shows that he has the best chances of all the GOP candidates. At some point, there will be more people that know who Ron is than don't, and at that point he will have more supporters than the other goons and the so-called scientific polls will reflect that. After that, its game over...because it seems like most of Ron's criticism comes from people that let the polls decide for them anyway.
 
Paul has more cash in hand than MCcain which is pretty big news. He did not raise more than MCcain.
 
One reason I like Dr. Paul.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=145
I oppose gun laws on constitutional grounds, but I often wonder why those who say they want to be reasonable do not ask the gun grabbers straight away for some evidence that their approach works. Or, why they do not demand evidence that a new proposal will bear the promised results of cutting crime. Without some measurement of the effects of gun laws how can anybody tell if they have been successful? The administration simply trumps up its statistics after-the-fact.
Actually, I realize why the gun grabbers are never called onto the carpet in such a way. Simply, those who refuse to stand up for constitutional rights like to say they are compromising, but the fact is they are cowering. It is one thing to be a coward with one's own life, but it is entirely immoral to run in fear when it comes to defending the constitutional rights we are sworn to uphold.
Click to expand...
Also see, http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=662
There are other positions of his that I like, but for me this is important.
 
Well polls might not mean anything, but this still isn't good news for Ron Paul:

"Giuliani has the support of 30% of "Republicans and Republican leaners," vs. 28% a month ago; Thompson comes in with 20%, vs. 19% in June; McCain has 16%, vs. 18% a month earlier.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney remains in fourth, at 9% vs. 7% in June.

The current numbers for the rest of the Republicans included in the survey: Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, 6%; former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, 2%; Rep. Duncan Hunter, 2%; Rep. Tom Tancredo, 2%; Sen. Sam Brownback, 1%; Sen. Chuck Hagel, 1%; former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, 1%. Neither former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore nor Rep. Ron Paul registered any support."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-poll.html
 
How is that possible?
Click to expand...

I have doubts about the veracity of the poll. Look at the sample size.
The survey of 394 Republicans and voters who "lean" Republican has a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points...The survey of 516 Democrats and voters who "lean" Democratic has a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points.

The latest numbers are all based on a national telephone survey conducted Friday through Sunday (July 6-8).
Click to expand...
 
Rasmussen has always had a rep for being uncanny in accuracy. I know what you mean though, you wouldn't think so by the numbers but they sure have been spot on in the past.
 
Here is a good comparison of the candidates, DOCTOR NO, THE 3 MUSKETEERS & THE 7 DWARFS:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett70.htm

The portion of the article about Ron Paul and Fred Thompson I quote, as the balance of the candidates seem to be unpopular here at THR:

Mary Starrett said:
Ron Paul: The Congressman from Texas is quite simply, ‘the best they’ve got’. The physician is the only candidate who has a 100% constitutionally-correct voting record. Because he votes against unconstitutional bills every time, he earned the label “Doctor No.”

He alone in the entire GOP lineup is the only one who voted against the war in Iraq. On every single issue he is a pure, unadulterated, founders-woulda-loved him conservative.

Paul never voted to raise taxes. Not once.
Paul never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Paul never voted for any infringement on gun rights.
Paul never voted to raise his pay.
Paul voted against the blatantly-unconstitutional power grab that is the Patriot Act.

Paul does not participate in the congressional pension program and he returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year – a rare Congressman who practices what he preaches!

The attempts to ignore Congressman Paul have been calculated and sinister. Though MSNBC reported that Ron Paul scored the highest positive votes in both Republican presidential debates and the polls showed he beat Romney, McCain and Giuliani, the media took no notice. Next, a text message poll after the Fox News GOP debate showed Ron Paul winning handily; still no notice from the media lapdogs.

Sean Hannity was less than fair and oh-so–off-balance the night of the Fox News debate when he “refused” to believe Paul won the debate. In fact, Hannity was downright apoplectic. Within short order, the poll numbers quickly showed a lagging Giuliani had overtaken Paul. Kind of makes you want to say “hmmmm.”

In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. So many men, so few true Constitutionalists.

A very natural question at this point would be, “Why is the Constitution Party not supporting the campaign of Ron Paul?”
Click to expand...

Mary Starrett said:
Fred Thompson: Sorry folks, the kindly actor you’ve come to know through the TV series “Law and Order” is not who you’d like him to be. Despite the polls (AP/ IPSOS 6/9/07) which tout Thompson as a darling among conservatives, most are apparently ignorant of his political pedigree. Like his friend, McCain and other GOP leaders, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a main group behind the North American Union.

Thompson’s “Pro-Life” position in his own words: "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.”

After 8 years as a US Senator from Tennessee, Thompson racked up some votes that should be cause for concern. He voted YES:

1. in support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act- the law to silence grassroots conservative groups.
2. to expand NAFTA. Modeled after the European Common Market, NAFTA was a first step toward open borders in North America and the North American Union.
3. on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
4. on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
5. for permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
6. for funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
7. to fund the GOP Medicare prescription drug benefit debacle.

Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq. (Freemarket news.com) Prior to his run for U.S. Senate, he was a Washington lobbyist for 20 years.
Click to expand...
 
I have doubts about the veracity of the poll. Look at the sample size.
Click to expand...

By this you only show your ignorance of statistics, just like a few weeks ago, when you tried to make the same argument. Did you even click on the link I provided, explaining the nature of sampling, with a calculator that would show what sample sizes would provide specific confidence levels?

You could perhaps question the randomness of the sample, but the sample size is sufficient.
 
I think the "randomness" of the sample is in question. Many folks today do not use a land line, and those that do use caller ID to screen calls.
This is a sample of those that sit home on the weekend and answer.
Hardly a representative sample of the population.
The evidence is in Dr. Pauls significant increase in donations, and McCains loss of support. Romney has just used 6 million of his own money to prop up his campaign. I can't understand Rudys numbers, other than people know the name but nothing about him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Key GOP Group Endorses Ron Paul
Replies
17
Views
691
obxned
O
B
  • Locked
Ron Paul Mega-Thread (Mergeness)
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Replies
730
Views
30K
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
NYT to do Sunday "hit piece" on Ron Paul and his supporters
Replies
1
Views
639
Art Eatman
A
S
  • Locked
Pat Buchanan defending Ron Paul
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
4K
Art Eatman
A
M
  • Locked
New York Times Magazine: Mega Ron Paul Story
Replies
15
Views
1K
geekWithA.45
G
Back
Top