Thread: New polls show Ron Paul more electable than Romney vs. Obama

Originally Posted by ericams2786

You still aren't making an argument of any kind. You're just making crap up. Every post you make like this, when you are directly challenged to provide an actual argument, backed by something, ANYTHING, and your complete refusal to even try, referring instead to distract with nonsense, shows that you literally have no argument. You just hate Paul, period. There is no reason he is "crazy". You just believe he is and pander that off as TRUTH. At least if you attempted to show he was crazy by some criteria, by maybe, oh I don't know, attempting to build a case against his positions and arguments using logic and maybe some real world statistics or other data, I could at least say "well to each his own" or "ok let's debate this, here's my argument". But see, you just post nonsense. You just don't like the guy, therefore he is "crazy". That's all you have, nothing more. You want to debate? Let's do it. Provide an argument. Because otherwise you're just using the "liberal" tactic of distracting and shutting down the conversation when you have no argument to refute another's position. With posts like this you are simply doing the "liberal" tactic of calling someone "racist". It's the same thing. You just want to shut down the conversation because you know you can't actually show he is crazy by anything other than your opinion or that of others. So you just call him "crazy".

It is just coincidence That every time Romney is threatened by a candidate Paul attacks the candidate........I am sure it is only by weird chance that he also attacks whoever Romney is atacking in the debate... I mean It cant be he is getting marching orders from him right????? Of course only the severely naive would believe this.

Here's an analysis...
The media no longer mentions Paul and barely mentions Newt.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Eh, the support he gets isn't relegated to only Republicans. In the end, it doesn't matter, does it? Ron Paul has brought more young people, and has done more to grow the aging Republican party than any other candidate in a long time. If Ron Paul goes so goes that growth and the Republican party will continue to shrink and become irrelevant.

I agree that Ron Paul has broad appeal to people who are fed up with major party bullshit, and want real change in Washington, and he has tremendous appeal to young people, but he doesn't appeal to the leadership of either party, and he doesn't appeal to the old guard of the GOP who lie to talk about limited government, but mean government limited to spending huge amounts with their constituencies, which aren't the people but are the special interests. So neither party has a place for him, he should run as a Libertarian, and maybe get the Libertarian Party on a lot of ballots, and maybe make his ideas get incorporated into both party platforms in an attempt to woo his followers.

Threads like this bring to light how much certain rightwing elements absolutely HATE Ron Paul. Its almost as bad as Liberals talking about Palin or Bush ... except its rightwingers talking about a GOP candidate.

Ron Paul will not be elected because of rightwingers who despise him and therefore will never let him come anywhere close to the nomination. That is the only reason he is 'unelectable'...abject paranoid fear that he would actually limit government, decrease spending and follow the constitution, something a large fraction of the rightwing would abhor.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

That is the only reason he is 'unelectable'...abject paranoid fear that he would actually limit government, decrease spending and follow the constitution, something a large fraction of the rightwing would abhor.

There's nothing the establishment in the Republican party hates more than honesty and integrity. That's why Ron Paul's moral opposite, Mitt Romney, is being lavished with praise.

Originally Posted by goober

I agree that Ron Paul has broad appeal to people who are fed up with major party bullshit, and want real change in Washington, and he has tremendous appeal to young people, but he doesn't appeal to the leadership of either party, and he doesn't appeal to the old guard of the GOP who lie to talk about limited government, but mean government limited to spending huge amounts with their constituencies, which aren't the people but are the special interests. So neither party has a place for him, he should run as a Libertarian, and maybe get the Libertarian Party on a lot of ballots, and maybe make his ideas get incorporated into both party platforms in an attempt to woo his followers.

It's pretty much a given that 3rd party doesn't work. The two party system has everything on the lock-down. There are a few randoms, here and there, that can hold a Congressional seat but they will never hold a leadership position in the Congress nor will they ever get close to the Presidency. The best chance someone has is changing one of the parties from within, or at least getting moderate reforms. We're simply screwed, regardless. We put a D in office, we're screwed. We put an R in office, we're screwed. Those are your two choices.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Threads like this bring to light how much certain rightwing elements absolutely HATE Ron Paul. Its almost as bad as Liberals talking about Palin or Bush ... except its rightwingers talking about a GOP candidate.

Ron Paul will not be elected because of rightwingers who despise him and therefore will never let him come anywhere close to the nomination. That is the only reason he is 'unelectable'...abject paranoid fear that he would actually limit government, decrease spending and follow the constitution, something a large fraction of the rightwing would abhor.

Hey...at least Ron Paul has a certain amount of clout in the Republican party, even he won't be supported for the Presidency. The Democrats kicked Dennis Kucinich to the curb.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

It's pretty much a given that 3rd party doesn't work. The two party system has everything on the lock-down. There are a few randoms, here and there, that can hold a Congressional seat but they will never hold a leadership position in the Congress nor will they ever get close to the Presidency. The best chance someone has is changing one of the parties from within, or at least getting moderate reforms. We're simply screwed, regardless. We put a D in office, we're screwed. We put an R in office, we're screwed. Those are your two choices.

Which is why I tell everyone who'll listen (and some who won't) that state-level races should be single-issue races: "Do you support the adoption of acceptance voting?" The only reason to say no is because one supports the current paradigm of corruption, and thus is actively part of the problem. (Well, okay, there's also the possible reason that the candidate is too stupid to understand acceptance voting, but that also means they're too stupid to qualify for the office. Which unfortunately does not necessarily mean they're too stupid to get elected...)

Originally Posted by thanatos144

It is just coincidence That every time Romney is threatened by a candidate Paul attacks the candidate........I am sure it is only by weird chance that he also attacks whoever Romney is atacking in the debate... I mean It cant be he is getting marching orders from him right????? Of course only the severely naive would believe this.

The media surged candidates that threatened Romney would also and did threaten every other candidate, including Paul. Paul had at least one ad in the beginning of the fall attacking the top three at the time, including Romney. He's had several other ads attacking Romney. This argument that because Paul attacked the other surging candidates, he is therefore helping Romney is stupid. The other candidates also attacked the surging candidates at several points, so were the other candidates who attacked say Perry or Cain also helping Romney? Of course not, at least not intentionally. They are in a race to win the nomination. Obviously you attack up, not down, meaning that if a candidate is "surging" or is seen as more successful that you at the time, you attack. That's what Paul (and others) did. When Santorum attacked Gingrich during the debates when Gingrich was surging, was he deliberately helping Romney? According to your logic he was. Then again, according to your logic if Paul had attacked Romney, somehow that would have completely destroyed him and ONLY because he didn't attack Romney all by himself, Romney is helped to the nomination. So I guess with that, you are admitting that Paul's attacks on other candidates worked and were effective, correct?

By the way, great way to distract yet again and "argue" using nothing but your opinion and a conspiracy theory. You have no evidence, hard concrete evidence, that Paul is in league with Romney, and besides this argument is once again a distraction: it has nothing to do with you providing an actual logical argument for why Paul is "crazy".

Originally Posted by ericams2786

The media surged candidates that threatened Romney would also and did threaten every other candidate, including Paul. Paul had at least one ad in the beginning of the fall attacking the top three at the time, including Romney. He's had several other ads attacking Romney. This argument that because Paul attacked the other surging candidates, he is therefore helping Romney is stupid. The other candidates also attacked the surging candidates at several points, so were the other candidates who attacked say Perry or Cain also helping Romney? Of course not, at least not intentionally. They are in a race to win the nomination. Obviously you attack up, not down, meaning that if a candidate is "surging" or is seen as more successful that you at the time, you attack. That's what Paul (and others) did. When Santorum attacked Gingrich during the debates when Gingrich was surging, was he deliberately helping Romney? According to your logic he was. Then again, according to your logic if Paul had attacked Romney, somehow that would have completely destroyed him and ONLY because he didn't attack Romney all by himself, Romney is helped to the nomination. So I guess with that, you are admitting that Paul's attacks on other candidates worked and were effective, correct?

By the way, great way to distract yet again and "argue" using nothing but your opinion and a conspiracy theory. You have no evidence, hard concrete evidence, that Paul is in league with Romney, and besides this argument is once again a distraction: it has nothing to do with you providing an actual logical argument for why Paul is "crazy".

You really don't see the difference do you? You really cant see what transpires before your own eyes...No wonder Paul is popular with the youth.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

You really don't see the difference do you? You really cant see what transpires before your own eyes...No wonder Paul is popular with the youth.

You can't see the logic in allowing the other runner-ups to spend their money attacking Romney, while Paul spends his money attacking them, so if their messages about Romney are believed then Paul picks up votes at their (and Romney's) expense? I mean regardless of the fact that you passionately hate Ron Paul, can't you see the logic in that strategy?

Originally Posted by thanatos144

You really don't see the difference do you? You really cant see what transpires before your own eyes...No wonder Paul is popular with the youth.

There is nothing transpiring before my eyes. It's speculation and rumor, that's it. You have no proof of it and can't even attach a link to your post "proving" your assertion. It's your opinion, which you do have the right to, but it's an opinion nonetheless. Thirty years of a consistent record and NEVER selling out tells me he will not sell out to Romney. That may be my opinion, but at least its backed up by a thirty year record of consistency and never doing such a thing. And still you make no argument for Paul being "crazy", still after numerous posts asking you for said argument.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

You really don't see the difference do you? You really cant see what transpires before your own eyes...No wonder Paul is popular with the youth.

So, do you get pleasure out of tossing out a one or two liner to a fully thought out post that you don't deserve? Reminds me of the saying about wrestling a greased pig, sooner or later, you realize the pig likes it.