Ron Paul -- Going BACKWARDS in the REAL polls

Out here in Western Washington, Ron Paul signs are everywhere. In fact, As my ol' pal and I were taking the onramp to the freeway right next to the puyallup fair the other day, there was some asshole taking one down. We yelled at him.

This is a sure, certain omen that Ron Paul will be the next leader of the free world. The man is the real deal.

Come to Puyallup if you don't believe me. He'll be #44.
 
cawacko said:
Not a rhetorical or flame question, why do you see Paul's anti-war stance as not principled?
Click to expand...

Thank you, and I hope you don't take my response as rhetorical or flaming.

Perhaps "principled" was the wrong word to use, but rather that my antiwar principles differ from his. One his major problems with the Iraq war is that it wasn't declared by Congress.

"In 2002, I offered an amendment to declare war, up or down. Nobody voted for the war. And my argument there was, if we want to go to war, the Congress should declare it. We don't go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea, because the wars never end."

I don't believe when should have invaded Iraq under any circumstances. Whether the Congress declared it or not, it was still and illegal and contrived war.

I'm perplexed by his vote to authorize the attack on Afghanistan. I guess it was because Congress declared the action without standing on UN Resolutions ..

"It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build" in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don't even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban "target" remains suspect by many.

Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July over duplicitous dealings with the Taliban and our oil interests. O'Neill then took a job as head of the World Trade Center security and ironically was killed in the 9-11 attack. The charges made by these authors in their recent publication deserve close scrutiny and congressional oversight investigation- and not just for the historical record."
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm

That sounds like me talking .. but why then did he vote to attack Afghanistan?

I suspect that voting against it at the time wouldn't have played well in his district.

I believe that it is sometimes necessary to take up arms to protect innocent people outside of our borders. Paul's antiwar stance here appears to based on the premise of "it's not my problem." His lone vote against the Darfur Resolution is indicative of this. I'm not sure I'd call "it's not my problem" a principle.

Taken all together, Paul has a much more sane perspective of war and some issues of foreign policy than many of Congress. If war was the only issue I was voting on and I didn't have to consider his ugly side, I would be supporting Paul and Kucinich.
 
BLAAAARRRRRGGGGG!!! NOOOOOOOOOOO! It's like taking a knife and jabbing it through my heart! You mean, Ron Paul won't be the next President of the United States? NOOOOO!!!

Who cares, no matter who we get, we are still going to be in debt, in Iraq, but hell, we might have a shitty healthcare plan.
 
Jesus bac... He proposed the declaration to make a point. He did not support declaring war against Iraq. I guarantee he would have voted against if it had gotten anywhere.

On Afghanistan, he was pushed into it by staffers. He should not have done it. Google asshole Eric Dondero (not the asshole, though that will appear in many hits). He talks, critically, about how he and others had to beg Paul to vote for the Afghanistan bill.
 
Actuall maybe he did vote against it.

"In 2002, I offered an amendment to declare war, up or down. Nobody voted for the war. And my argument there was, if we want to go to war, the Congress should declare it. We don't go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea, because the wars never end."
 
RStringfield said:
Jesus bac... He proposed the declaration to make a point. He did not support declaring war against Iraq. I guarantee he would have voted against if it had gotten anywhere.

On Afghanistan, he was pushed into it by staffers. He should not have done it. Google asshole Eric Dondero (not the asshole, though that will appear in many hits). He talks, critically, about how he and others had to beg Paul to vote for the Afghanistan bill.
Click to expand...

I've spoken to Eric Dondero and I know exactly why supposedly "others" were able to "goad" him into supporting the war on Afghanistan. .. It's called political expediency. He did it for political purposes .. and because he can blame "others" (ala, "those were not my words"), he can always say mommy made me do it.

So, let me get this straight .. Mr Principled, voted to go to WAR because lowly paid unelected "staff members" told him it was a good idea?

:shock:

Bullshit. he did it because it was politically expedient.
 
blackascoal said:
I've spoken to Eric Dondero and I know exactly why supposedly "others" were able to "goad" him into supporting the war on Afghanistan. .. It's called political expediency. He did it for political purposes .. and because he can blame "others" (ala, "those were not my words"), he can always say mommy made me do it.

So, let me get this straight .. Mr Principled, voted to go to WAR because lowly paid unelected "staff members" told him it was a good idea?

Bullshit. he did it because it was politically expedient.
Click to expand...

Possibly, and I have criticized him for it. If you've talken to asshole then you know he was strongly against it.
 
blackascoal said:
I've spoken to Eric Dondero and I know exactly why supposedly "others" were able to "goad" him into supporting the war on Afghanistan. .. It's called political expediency. He did it for political purposes .. and because he can blame "others" (ala, "those were not my words"), he can always say mommy made me do it.

So, let me get this straight .. Mr Principled, voted to go to WAR because lowly paid unelected "staff members" told him it was a good idea?

:shock:

Bullshit. he did it because it was politically expedient.
Click to expand...
Right. We look at the pattern of votes, one is odd out. R. Paul doesn't vote for expedience.
 
RStringfield said:
Possibly, and I have criticized him for it. If you've talken to asshole then you know he was strongly against it.
Click to expand...

What Dondero is strongly against is Ron Paul, although I don't agree with his reasons why. His argument against Paul is far different than mine.

I've also spoken to Chris Peden, Friendswood Mayor Pro Tem and multi-millionaire, who will be running against Paul in CD 14. Paul's duplicity on war will be a campaign issue. I suggest that Paul end his doomed to failure delusional run for president and get his ass back to his district.

But back to Afghanistan, He was "strongly against the war" but allowed "others" to convince him to support it?????

Sure.
 
blackascoal said:
What Dondero is strongly against is Ron Paul, although I don't agree with his reasons why. His argument against Paul is far different than mine.

I've also spoken to Chris Peden, Friendswood Mayor Pro Tem and multi-millionaire, who will be running against Paul in CD 14. Paul's duplicity on war will be a campaign issue. I suggest that Paul end his doomed to failure delusional run for president and get his ass back to his district.

But back to Afghanistan, He was "strongly against the war" but allowed "others" to convince him to support it?????

Sure.
Click to expand...

I was not talking about what Dondero was against (my bad unclear use of the pronoun). Dondero has made clear that Paul was strongly against war with Afghanistan. There is no more duplicity than what Kucinich shows. Bet you are just as critical of Kucinich? Sure you are...
 
blackascoal said:
Since there's a new Ron Paul thread everyday and the Ronbots seem to believe that he who wins the thread wars becomes the President, I'm sure they're real happy about my contribution to his campaign.

Given that in the libertarian/Ron Paul bizarro world where up is down, racism equals "freedom", inhumanity equals "liberty", and most importantly, going backwards means progress, it should be cause for celebration by his supporters that he is going backwards in real scientific polls.

This is a sure indication of his progress.

In the latest polls ...

Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll
Ron Paul -- 0% -- Down from 2% in their last poll (His all-time high)

Zogby America Poll
Ron Paul -- 1% -- Down from 3% in their last poll (His all-time high)

USA Today/Gallup Poll
Ron Paul -- 1% -- Down from 3% in their last poll (His all-time high)

ABC News/Washington Post Poll
Ron Paul -- 1% -- Down from 2% in their last poll (His all-time high)

Then there are polls that show he's stuck in mud at the same place

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll
Ron Paul -- 1%

Newsweek Poll
Ron Paul -- 2%

American Research Group poll.
Ron Paul -- 1%

Diageo/Hotline Poll
Ron Paul 2%

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll
Ron Paul -- 1%

And there are polls that show he's increased his number (singular) by a whooping 1 or 2%

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
Ron Paul -- ROCKETS to 3% .. up from 2%

Quinnipiac University Poll
Ron Paul -- STEAMROLLS to 2% .. up fom 1%

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey
Ron Paul -- BLASTS away to 2% .. up from ZERO%

http://pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

That equals an average of 1.4% out of 12 major polls.

:shock:

An absolutely amazing display of political prowess.

Never let it be said that I didn't do my part for Ron Paul.

:cool:
Click to expand...

1.4%?!!?!

OMGZ! That's WAY better than even my wildest dreams!
 
RStringfield said:
I was not talking about what Dondero was against (my bad unclear use of the pronoun). Dondero has made clear that Paul was strongly against war with Afghanistan. There is no more duplicity than what Kucinich shows. Bet you are just as critical of Kucinich? Sure you are...
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I am. Kucinich has heard from more than just me about Afghanistan.

Of course, Kucinich didn't hide behind "others".
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
As a matter of fact, I am. Kucinich has heard from more than just me about Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Like I said I have been critical of Paul's vote here.

blackascoal said:
Of course, Kucinich didn't hide behind "others".
Click to expand...

BS! The claim does not come from Paul. I have not heard him say anything about staff on that. It comes from Dondero, his ex staff, who has criticized Paul for how much he and others had to beg him to vote for the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top