[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Ross Perot was far bigger than Paul and this was in the days befoe the internet could be used as a political tool.
Perot support was nowhere near as large as Ron Paul’s is. Perot didn’t have to win a primary.[/quote]
Prove this. I shit load of people voted for Perot. How many Paul supporters can you claim?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Prove this. I shit load of people voted for Perot. How many Paul supporters can you claim?
[/quote]
This is nothing more than a “guesstimate” but the facts are in front of your face.
Caucus Turnout
Internet News Hits
Money Raised
Straw Poll Wins
Post Debate Poll Wins
60,000+ Volunteers
Volume of Supporter Created Media
The fact of the matter is the only thing the MSM anointed “front runners” can claim is the outdated phone polls. And we all know why they are useless. We are going to see the death throws of the MSM in the very near future because they have staked their credibility on outdated technology.
You can cite this as only sheer motivation of the Paul supporters if you want – in fact, you can keep your blinders on for the duration of the election cycle and say it doesn’t mean anything – I don’t care. Ron Paul has already surpassed Perot.
There is something more massive going on here than people want to give his campaign credit for. Perot did not change people’s minds about the role of government.
Perot is money-rich. Paul is people-rich.
If we are to judge by the this forum, Paul is the most popular candidate by far. No other candidate comes even close.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Perot is money-rich. Paul is people-rich.
If we are to judge by the this forum, Paul is the most popular candidate by far. No other candidate comes even close.[/quote]
Perot was people-rich as well - had he not exited the race when he did, many believe he likely would have won. More than a blip on the radar, Perot had a great shot at winning the presidency from a third-party bid in a system that suppresses third party bids.
By contrast, Paul won’t even come close to the presidency via any party.
People-rich? Try again.
As to your predictable nonsense about Paul being the most popular candidate on this forum - if true, might that have something to do with the fact that many posters have sought more fertile debating ground on the internet in which to spend their spare time? I can attest that my answer is no hypothetical.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Prove this. I shit load of people voted for Perot. How many Paul supporters can you claim?
This is nothing more than a “guesstimate” but the facts are in front of your face.
Caucus Turnout
Internet News Hits
Money Raised
Straw Poll Wins
Post Debate Poll Wins
60,000+ Volunteers
Volume of Supporter Created Media
The fact of the matter is the only thing the MSM anointed “front runners” can claim is the outdated phone polls. And we all know why they are useless. We are going to see the death throws of the MSM in the very near future because they have staked their credibility on outdated technology.
You can cite this as only sheer motivation of the Paul supporters if you want – in fact, you can keep your blinders on for the duration of the election cycle and say it doesn’t mean anything – I don’t care. Ron Paul has already surpassed Perot.
There is something more massive going on here than people want to give his campaign credit for. Perot did not change people’s minds about the role of government.[/quote]
Perot got nearly 20,000,000 votes. Paul has 60,000 followers that spam internet polls and are active in straw polls. I am sure he has even more people that would vote for him. Perhaps even a few million. Still no where near Perot’s support.
Who are you voting for lixy? Oh wait you can’t. No offense to Paul supporters, but it seems to me that most of the people pushing for him on this site don’t have a vote.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Perot was people-rich as well - had he not exited the race when he did, many believe he likely would have won. [/quote]
Yes. But what distinguished him from other candidates was his money. I think we’ll all agree that you need a hell of a lot of dough to become American president. Some candidates sell their souls to the devil to raise money (to big lobbies), others play demagoguery, and there’s always the few that are just filthy rich to start with.
I don’t think Perot’s crowd can be considered grassroots in the same sense as Paul’s. Remember: money can buy votes.
So my question still stands; Has there ever been a candidate whose campaign was basically run by “the people”?
Nonsense? What’s nonsensical about it?
Name one candidate with a similar level of support among the regulars on this board. Out of the top of my head, I can think of a dozen of American adults who vowed to vote for Ron Paul. Nobody other candidate even comes close.
About your “fact that many posters have sought more fertile debating ground on the internet in which to spend their spare time”, I’m afraid I don’t see your point. One would think that T-Nation is as representative of the political spectrum as the next website. Granted, the attitude towards steroid might bias things a bit, but at the end of the day, I’m pretty confident juicers are a small minority.
Do elaborate on your point. If all this noise around Ron Paul on the board is mere hype, it shouldn’t be so hard to get past the smokescreen.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Who are you voting for lixy? Oh wait you can’t. No offense to Paul supporters, but it seems to me that most of the people pushing for him on this site don’t have a vote.[/quote]
I’m not pushing for him. Paul is far - very far - from the type of candidate I’d vote for if I was American. He is advocating a rule of the jungle where corporations can thrive at the expense of the individual. That might have been all nice and dandy back in the 18th century when there were no corporations, but in a time when some companies have more power and money than countries, his ideology scares me more than anything else.
I’m just intrigued and interested by grassroots movements. Paul’s supporters are a anti-establishment, and that alone deserves respect.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
seems to me that most of the people pushing for him on this site don’t have a vote.[/quote]
I think you’re wrong.
Another supporter created Paul video…whats up with all these loony basement dwellers:
[quote]lixy wrote:
Yes. But what distinguished him from other candidates was his money. I think we’ll all agree that you need a hell of a lot of dough to become American president. Some candidates sell their souls to the devil to raise money (to big lobbies), others play demagoguery, and there’s always the few that are just filthy rich to start with.
I don’t think Perot’s crowd can be considered grassroots in the same sense as Paul’s. Remember: money can buy votes.[/quote]
You really have no idea about Perot, do you? His appeal was to disaffected voters tired of the two big parties. His constituency was not moneyed interests, but the broader, disaffected middle-of-the-road voter.
Perot’s money only gave him the ability to get his message out a different way - most of us remember his “infomercials”. Perot’s candidacy’s wasn’t “bought” - it was sustained by his straight talk to frustrated voters.
Do you ever get history right?
[quote]Nonsense? What’s nonsensical about it?
Name one candidate with a similar level of support among the regulars on this board. Out of the top of my head, I can think of a dozen of American adults who vowed to vote for Ron Paul. Nobody other candidate even comes close.[/quote]
Right - so ask yourself why Paul’s support here doesn’t come anywhere near the support he has (or doesn’t) in the ordinary cross-section of American voters.
Now wrap your tiny head around the fact that around this forum, the garden variety center-left liberal Democrat has practically no support or voice here - but that viewpoint represents {roughly} 50% of the country, and there will be millions more true blue Democrats voting than anarchist-libertarians.
Easy math, Lixy - if you aren’t immune to common sense.
Precisely your problem. Intelligent posters that used to frequent here have headed to more interesting places, and their absence means absence, not a shift in opinion. Take away those voices, and you see a disproportionate amount of Paul support. It doesn’t mean “Ron Paul Rising” - it means the sample size of opinions have dwindled.
The noise is hype, and it was “gotten past” months ago. There is revolution. Paul is headed nowhere - America isn’t interested in his brand of crazy.
Lift wrote
“I think you’re wrong.”
no shampoo is betta
Lixy wrote:
“I’m just intrigued and interested by grassroots movements. Paul’s supporters are a anti-establishment, and that alone deserves respect.”
Mark it down, I agree with you on this. I still think he has no shot. Just saying.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The noise is hype, and it was “gotten past” months ago. There is revolution. Paul is headed nowhere - America isn’t interested in his brand of crazy. [/quote]
lets see…balanced budgets, no nation building or preemptive wars, restored constitutional integrity, strengthen the dollar…yeah thats crazy alright…
Who in their right mind wants any of that?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lets see…balanced budgets, no nation building or preemptive wars, restored constitutional integrity, strengthen the dollar…yeah thats crazy alright…
Who in their right mind wants any of that?[/quote]
Of course - that is why Paul’s brand of politics currently has him as the GOP frontrunner.
Oops. One problem with that.
To your point, you’ll find that the principles you listed are, by and large, in the wheelhouse of the average conservative candidate - minus the messenger coming off as a clownish fringe personality, twitchy with phrases like “Tri-Lateral Commission”.
Also to your point, you scaled down Paul’s radical agenda to a few garden variety conservative bullet points. That isn’t what Paul is selling - at least, that is not what he and his Lemmings keep telling me. You alternatively try and pass Paul off as a practical politician and a radical messianic revolutionary.
You sound as silly as he does - but you knew that.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lets see…balanced budgets, no nation building or preemptive wars, restored constitutional integrity, strengthen the dollar…yeah thats crazy alright…
Who in their right mind wants any of that?
Of course - that is why Paul’s brand of politics currently has him as the GOP frontrunner.
Oops. One problem with that.
To your point, you’ll find that the principles you listed are, by and large, in the wheelhouse of the average conservative candidate - minus the messenger coming off as a clownish fringe personality, twitchy with phrases like “Tri-Lateral Commission”.
Also to your point, you scaled down Paul’s radical agenda to a few garden variety conservative bullet points. That isn’t what Paul is selling - at least, that is not what he and his Lemmings keep telling me. You alternatively try and pass Paul off as a practical politician and a radical messianic revolutionary.
You sound as silly as he does - but you knew that.[/quote]
You deny the Tr-Lateral commission exists? Don’t be so naive:
http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm
I don’t find Paul’s forthrightness radical at all – in fact, he’s well aware of the challenges of changing the direction of this country philosophically but he seems to be doing a good job nonetheless.
I find the pandering being done by all the other candidates disgusting. This shows they all lack principle and are only in it to run people’s lives.
Have you even been listening to the candidates that have been on stage with Paul in the debates…? Amateurs…all of them.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You deny the Tr-Lateral commission exists? Don’t be so naive:
http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm [/quote]
So odd - nowhere did I say the Tri-Lateral Commission didn’t exist, and yet you came to that conclusion. Hmmm.
And the irony of you warning against naivete is not lost on me.
You never say who they are pandering to. So who is it?
Of course, Lifticus - then why does no one agree with you except Paul’s legion of lemmings?
Oh wait - yet again.
Paul’s supporters simply cannot be counted on to rationally evaluate the candidates and Paul’s chances - any objective discussion is impossible - it always dissolves into some Paul supporter sounding like a 3rd grader discussing his favorite super hero.
Count yourself among the idiots.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Count yourself among the idiots.[/quote]
Yes, all of us Paul supporters don’t really understand the world. We are all living on mommy’s basement.
I find it ironic to be called an idiot by a person that worships murderers. Yeah, you!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Of course, Lifticus - then why does no one agree with you except Paul’s legion of lemmings?
Oh wait - yet again.
Paul’s supporters simply cannot be counted on to rationally evaluate the candidates and Paul’s chances - any objective discussion is impossible - it always dissolves into some Paul supporter sounding like a 3rd grader discussing his favorite super hero.
Count yourself among the idiots.[/quote]
Wait.
If I decided to vote for Hillary would that make me a “deluded lemming”, or a smart voter since she has a reasonable chance of winning?
I keep forgetting if I should vote for the most popular candidate or the one whose policy I most fully support…
This here polyticks thang shure is complimicated.