Poll: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

[christiefan915]

Economically he's very libertarian but we were just talking foreign policy here. He definitely fits into the get out of Afghanistan yesterday group and he would go after Obama for escalating the war there thus my comment he would be to the left of him.

Yeah, here's the list of his foreign policy positions. I could definitely support a lot of them.

* We spend $1 trillion a year overseas; it’s needed at home. (Sep 2008)
* Can’t spread our goodness through the barrel of a gun. (Feb 2008)
* We tax people to blow up bridges overseas then rebuild them. (Jan 2008)
* Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007)
* Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify. (Dec 2007)
* Bush humble foreign policy was hijacked into nation-building. (Dec 2007)
* US must obey treaties human rights abroad. (Dec 2007)
* Focus on the Iraq war and foreign policy. (Dec 2007)
* Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead. (Dec 2007)
* Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire. (Dec 2007)
* Stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. (Nov 2007)
* No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)
* Don’t pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
* Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)
* Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)
* Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
* Interventionism perpetuated by politician’s false patriotism. (Jun 2007)
* No foreign aid; no treaties that commit US to future wars. (Jun 2007)
* Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
* Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire. (Jun 2007)
* Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
* Avoid double standard--follow international law. (Jun 2006)
* No nation-building; no world policeman; no pre-emptive war. (Jan 2006)
* UN membership leads to impractical military conflicts. (Feb 2003)
* Neutrality on Israel-Palestine; start by defunding both. (Dec 2001)
* Policy of non-intervention, neutrality, & independence. (Dec 1987)
* $140B to protect Europe creates competitive disadvantage. (Dec 1987)
* Foreign aid helps dictators, not the people of aided country. (Dec 1987)
* Voted NO on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan. (Jun 2009)
* Voted NO on cooperating with India as a nuclear power. (Sep 2008)
* Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
* Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
* Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
* Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
* Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
* Allow Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000)
* Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
* Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. (May 2001)
* Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003)
* Sponsored bill to end the Cuban embargo. (Apr 2003)
* Sponsored resolution to withdraw from UNESCO. (Jun 2004)
* Allow travel between the United States and Cuba. (Feb 2009)

 

[DamnYankee]

and if the VAST Majority of Conservatives voted in the primaries your point might actually have some weight. Paul did not win a single state in the last election cycle. Every two years fiscal conservatives jump up and down about how Paul is doing so well in polls. He cannot win a primary battle. There is nothing in his past to show he can even come close. Republicans are not going to elect someone that does not tow the social conservative line. But pretend away.

I don't recall Paul being in the NC primary in 2008, so I voted for Keyes. Why do you say social conservatives won't vote for him? I would.

Paul's biggest problem is that he's a geek. Rudy marginalized him during the debates by laughing at him, and Paul didn't handle that well. He needs to be able to slam opponents that use ridicule as a debate tactic. Just like I slam you when you try to ridicule me.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

I don't recall Paul being in the NC primary in 2008, so I voted for Keyes. Why do you say social conservatives won't vote for him? I would.

Paul's biggest problem is that he's a geek. Rudy marginalized him during the debates by laughing at him, and Paul didn't handle that well. He needs to be able to slam opponents that use ridicule as a debate tactic. Just like I slam you when you try to ridicule me.

Poor Southern Old Man.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dano, if this guy is SOOOO electable why doesn't HIS party nominate him? He could not win a single state last election. YOUR party doesn't like him because with the exception of abortion, based on his previous occupation and not religious beliefs, he doesn't the social conservative line. Republicans don't like him and won't elect him.

The fact that he follows classic conservative lines and ignores the social conservative's bullshit is exactly why he could get elected.

A fiscal conservative is the best bet for defeating the dems.

I would vote for Ron Paul.

 

[Socrtease]

The fact that he follows classic conservative lines and ignores the social conservative's bullshit is exactly why he could get elected.

A fiscal conservative is the best bet for defeating the dems.

I would vote for Ron Paul.

As would I. But I will NEVER get a chance because the GOP will not nominate him.

 

[Topspin]

Ron 2012

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't recall Paul being in the NC primary in 2008, so I voted for Keyes. Why do you say social conservatives won't vote for him? I would.

Paul's biggest problem is that he's a geek. Rudy marginalized him during the debates by laughing at him, and Paul didn't handle that well. He needs to be able to slam opponents that use ridicule as a debate tactic. Just like I slam you when you try to ridicule me.

One of the big things Paul has going for him is that he is not part of the standard GOP rank & file.

Stooping to the bickering and attempts at slams would be counter-productive. Much like your futile attempts at slamming Soc.

 

[Topspin]

I don't recall Paul being in the NC primary in 2008, so I voted for Keyes. Why do you say social conservatives won't vote for him? I would.

Paul's biggest problem is that he's a geek. Rudy marginalized him during the debates by laughing at him, and Paul didn't handle that well. He needs to be able to slam opponents that use ridicule as a debate tactic. Just like I slam you when you try to ridicule me.

it morons like you in the party that are sinking it

 

[Socrtease]

Here is one of the things that would kill Paul with Conservatives:

In Tavis Smiley's All-American Forum debate at Morgan State in September 2007, Paul stated: "Over the years I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."

 

[Socrtease]

And this:

Paul contends that prohibition of drugs is ineffective and advocates ending the War on Drugs. "Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime." The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. He believes the war on drugs is a racist policy against African Americans, who are affected disproportionally.

Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws, noting in 2000, "Many prisoners are non-violent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimal sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have non-violent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers."

 

[DamnYankee]

Here is one of the things that would kill Paul with Conservatives:

In Tavis Smiley's All-American Forum debate at Morgan State in September 2007, Paul stated: "Over the years I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."[

In other words, Paul's not a conservative, since the correct position would be to stop the silliness that goes along with rich folks murder trials and require conclusive scientific evidence before administering the death penalty in all cases. Take the OJ case for example- it went on for what, a year? That's asinine. Same with waiting 20 years before 35 appeals can be made to administer the death penalty. There should be a set trial length and set length and number of appeals and that's that.

 

[DamnYankee]

And this:

Paul contends that prohibition of drugs is ineffective and advocates ending the War on Drugs. "Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime." The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. He believes the war on drugs is a racist policy against African Americans, who are affected disproportionally.

Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws, noting in 2000, "Many prisoners are non-violent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimal sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have non-violent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers."

I agree with all this except the race card. That's bullshit and one more reason why Paul needs a makeover before he can appeal to a majority.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here is one of the things that would kill Paul with Conservatives:

In Tavis Smiley's All-American Forum debate at Morgan State in September 2007, Paul stated: "Over the years I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."

While I am not opposed to the death penalty, I agree with 99.9% of his comments above. Anyone on death row that was convicted more than 10 years ago should have their sentences commuted to life. Way too many errors (not to mention prejudice) to allow all of the previous convictions stand.

That said... cowards like McVeigh and psychotic bastards like Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy, Manson and Franken are all prime death penalty candidates in my opinion.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And this:

Paul contends that prohibition of drugs is ineffective and advocates ending the War on Drugs. "Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime." The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. He believes the war on drugs is a racist policy against African Americans, who are affected disproportionally.

Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws, noting in 2000, "Many prisoners are non-violent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimal sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have non-violent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers."

Agree 100% with the above.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I agree with all this except the race card. That's bullshit and one more reason why Paul needs a makeover before he can appeal to a majority.

Ummm... if you look at the statistics, it is very hard to argue that he is wrong. Look at sentencing of a black man vs. a white man for the same crimes. I do not have one of the studies at my fingertips, but it isn't even close to being fair.

The drug war also discriminates against the poor vs. the rich. Which should also not occur.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

What would be really interesting, imo, in a race between the two is I bet Obama would run to the right of Paul on some/most foreign policy issues. Again this is all hypothetical but would we see an ad similar in nature to LBJ's against Goldwater with the 'do you trust this guy with his finger on the button' theme from Obama?

Except Goldwater was running an an extremely interventionist platform that called for using tactical nukes in Vietnam.

 

[DamnYankee]

Agree 100% with the above.

So drug laws are racist?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I still think this poll is an extreme outlier. Ron Paul is not more electable than Romney, and Romney is nowhere close to Obama in the polls. It's important to note that this is Rasmussen and that there were a lot of undecideds for some reason.

 

[Socrtease]

Agree 100% with the above.

And if it was guys like you that dominated the GOP primaries Paul would win hands down. But social conservatives won't vote for him. He got 21 total delegates in 2008. Results of the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ambox_outdated_serious.svg" class="image"><img alt="Ambox outdated serious.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Ambox_outdated_serious.svg/40px-Ambox_outdated_serious.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/8f/Ambox_outdated_serious.svg/40px-Ambox_outdated_serious.svg.png are the results of ALL the 2008 republican primaries. He is not one of the popular kids in the GOP. The party appartus works against him. He is a libertarian's wet dream, but a dream nonetheless.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The two social issues Soc listed are very big issues and it would honestly be enough to make me undecided all by itself.

But to most Americans it would make him less desirable.