The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: formerlurker on October 08, 2011, 06:39:36 PM
-
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/371475/thumbs/r-RON-PAUL-VALUES-VOTER-STRAW-POLL-large570.jpg)
Paul's campaign could prove to be a major 2012 GOP spoiler. The AP noted on Monday how Paul's libertarian lean has energized some conservatives.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/08/ron-paul-2011-values-voter-straw-poll_n_1001575.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|102740
You couldn't write this stuff if you wanted to kids.
-
How many Paulbots would vote for Herman Cain if he is the nominee?
-
How many Paulbots would vote for Herman Cain if he is the nominee?
Um, none? Seriously, I've yet to meet a rational Paultard.
-
If Ron Paul runs as a third party, I will send him fifty pounds of cat shit.
Honestly, I think if he did, the GOP establishment in DC would lynch him. Perot wasn't part of DC... they couldn't do much to him in '92.
-
If Ron Paul runs as a third party, I will send him fifty pounds of cat shit.
Honestly, I think if he did, the GOP establishment in DC would lynch him. Perot wasn't part of DC... they couldn't do much to him in '92.
Don't put it past him. He did it in 2008, although he got fewer votes than Nader, Barr, or McKinney. He also claims he's not running for Congress again in 2012, but I'll believe it when his name isn't on the primary or general election ballot.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&minper=0&f=0&off=0&elect=0
-
:thatsright: I forgot.
-
Don't put it past him. He did it in 2008, although he got fewer votes than Nader, Barr, or McKinney. He also claims he's not running for Congress again in 2012, but I'll believe it when his name isn't on the primary or general election ballot.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&minper=0&f=0&off=0&elect=0
And the fact that he pulled fewer votes in that election than either Alan Keyes (nothing against him, but the man didn't stand a chance in a national election) or Cynthia McKinney should tell him something
-
I won as many states in the 2008 primates as he did, and I wasn't even running.
-
The only, and I mean ONLY reason he's polling anywhere near where he is now is because of his previous campaigns and his moonbat supporters. Consider that in the last several weeks:
--He's expressed support for the OWS protestors.
--He's packed straw polls with his supporters in an attempt to gain credibility.
--He's STILL trying to distance himself from HIS newsletter. Sorry, Ron, but it's YOUR newsletter. YOUR responsibility.
--He's still blaming the US for 9/11.
--He thought we shouldn't have killed Bin Laden and AlAwlaki in the way they were dealt with by our government.
--He sees no problem with Iran developing nuclear weapons.
--He whines that he can't get any media attention, and yet when invited to appear on various shows (O'Reilly, et al.,) refuses.
The ONLY reason he's on anyone's radar is because he claims to be a Republican. Nevermind the fact that he quite publicly and vocally dismissed the GOP back in 1988 when he first left Congress to run for President, he realized the only way he'd ever hold any power was to abandon his principles of libertarianism and run as a Republican. IOW, it's a purely political/financial decision he's a Republican, in name only of course. Ron Paul is living proof of the "Elvis Factor" in polling.
-
How many Paulbots would vote for Herman Cain if he is the nominee?
I was behind Paul for a long while. Now I'm behind Cain. (so there, Sparky)
-
I was behind Paul for a long while. Now I'm behind Cain. (so there, Sparky)
What, specifically, drew you to Dr. Nutz? Legitimate question, because I utterly fail to see where and how he has attracted ANY kind of following (other than the guys in the white coats and carrying the jacket with really long arms).
-
What, specifically, drew you to Dr. Nutz? Legitimate question, because I utterly fail to see where and how he has attracted ANY kind of following (other than the guys in the white coats and carrying the jacket with really long arms).
I'm a libertarian, but if more Republican candidates were, well, MORE REPUBLICAN, I'd be a Republican. There are certain issues that I'm definitely not libertarian on - such as abortion. If pressed, I'd have to say that I wasn't so much drawn to Paul as I was repelled by the Republican candidates of 2008.
-
I'm a libertarian, but if more Republican candidates were, well, MORE REPUBLICAN, I'd be a Republican. There are certain issues that I'm definitely not libertarian on - such as abortion. If pressed, I'd have to say that I wasn't so much drawn to Paul as I was repelled by the Republican candidates of 2008.
Okay, thanks for your response.
You indicate you're a libertarian, but does that mean you are a member of the Libertarian Party?
This business with Paul and his professing to be a Republican basically throws a monkey wrench into the issue. Why is it that there's such a wide disparate view on the issues with the Repubs, while the Dems seem to grow more and more moonbat? That one puzzles me.
While we're all different and have different perspectives on the issues, thereby meaning there is no definitive definition of any political party, I agree with Sparky that Dr. Nutz is simply an opportunist who, knowing he'd never be elected as a member of the Libertarian Party, chooses to LIE about his politics and call himself a Republican.
There isn't much more in this world that's more despicable than the guy who won't make a stand and align himself with his views -- but then again, that's why we have career politicians. We need 'em as negative role models. :whatever:
-
Okay, thanks for your response.
You indicate you're a libertarian, but does that mean you are a member of the Libertarian Party?
This business with Paul and his professing to be a Republican basically throws a monkey wrench into the issue. Why is it that there's such a wide disparate view on the issues with the Repubs, while the Dems seem to grow more and more moonbat? That one puzzles me.
While we're all different and have different perspectives on the issues, thereby meaning there is no definitive definition of any political party, I agree with Sparky that Dr. Nutz is simply an opportunist who, knowing he'd never be elected as a member of the Libertarian Party, chooses to LIE about his politics and call himself a Republican.
There isn't much more in this world that's more despicable than the guy who won't make a stand and align himself with his views -- but then again, that's why we have career politicians. We need 'em as negative role models. :whatever:
Might be like me. I consider myself fairly (l)ibertarian, but don't associate me with the (L)ibertarians who are whacked-out f'n morons. I'm VERY strong on national defense; those idiots have no problem with Iran stockpiling a cache of nukes.
-
I'm a libertarian, but if more Republican candidates were, well, MORE REPUBLICAN, I'd be a Republican. There are certain issues that I'm definitely not libertarian on - such as abortion. If pressed, I'd have to say that I wasn't so much drawn to Paul as I was repelled by the Republican candidates of 2008.
HEAR HEAR!
While we're all different and have different perspectives on the issues, thereby meaning there is no definitive definition of any political party
HEAR HEAR!
You indicate you're a libertarian, but does that mean you are a member of the Libertarian Party?
Whaaa...? YOU just said its rare to be 100% definitively aligned to a party.
I mainly vote republican. I am not a republican. I have voted libertarian. I am not a libertarian.
I can say this because it is near impossible to have a political party that represents me 100%.
just like "i am with paul on some of his issues, especially his main fiscal stances. i am not a paulbot."
If asked about my political party, i usually just say, I am mainly a conservative. If pressed for further details i'd say im a Constitutional Libertarian with my main concerns being smallest government constitutionally possible (which is what i used to think republicans were suppose to be)
-
Whaaa...? YOU just said its rare to be 100% definitively aligned to a party.
I mainly vote republican. I am not a republican. I have voted libertarian. I am not a libertarian.
I can say this because it is near impossible to have a political party that represents me 100%.
just like "i am with paul on some of his issues, especially his main fiscal stances. i am not a paulbot."
If asked about my political party, i usually just say, I am mainly a conservative. If pressed for further details i'd say im a Constitutional Libertarian with my main concerns being smallest government constitutionally possible (which is what i used to think republicans were suppose to be)
It's a question for Sherry/Bully -- and requests her to explain the lower-case "l" versus the upper-case "L".
I simply would like for her to make that distinction -- because while it's rare for one political party's platform to fit everybody's positions on the issues, it can and does happen.
FWIW, I think we're both saying the same thing -- and I suspect Sherry/Bully means the same thing as well. But it's a point of clarification I'm seeking.
-
FWIW, I think we're both saying the same thing
all 3 of us are. i was mainly just using your back n forth as an intro to my post where i felt like throwing my 3cents in.
-
Pretty much what Rugnuts said. I'm not registered "L"ibertarian, but more of a Constitutional "l"ibertarian. I feel that the Republican party (in Washington) has strayed so far from its roots, where the Libertarian party represents what old school Republicans used to be. However, I can't go as far as to say I'm a "L"ibertarian because of those annoying foreign policy and abortion issues.
ETA> It is really hard to align myself 100% to any party...the only thing I know is that I will never vote Democrat.
-
On Bret Baier's show this week, in the "after the show show" segment, Dr. Nutz did not rule out a third-party run if he didn't get the nomination. :argh: :mad: :censored:
He just might be a Ross Perot or a Ralph Nader (2000).
-
On Bret Baier's show this week, in the "after the show show" segment, Dr. Nutz did not rule out a third-party run if he didn't get the nomination. :argh: :mad: :censored:
He just might be a Ross Perot or a Ralph Nader (2000).
With any kind of luck, Ralphie-boy will jump in the fray and then we've got a real cluster-**** on our hands. Ralphie might even steal 1-2% from Barry's base.
Dr. Nutz should be committed -- and quickly.
-
With any kind of luck, Ralphie-boy will jump in the fray and then we've got a real cluster-**** on our hands. Ralphie might even steal 1-2% from Barry's base.
Dr. Nutz should be committed -- and quickly.
Apparently, Dr. Nutz denied that he would run third-party today. Someone hopefully got to him and "explained" things to him. :hammer:
-
Apparently, Dr. Nutz denied that he would run third-party today. Someone hopefully got to him and "explained" things to him. :hammer:
You mean like he didn't run 3rd party in 2008?