The bullet points you listed are your opinions. Provide evidence of every poll being incorrect, other than anecdotal "lots of people show up at rallies" stuff. No poll reaches every supporter of every candidate, yet the numbers are typically accurate enough. Accurate enough, at least, so that 5% in a poll doesn't really equate to 25% in the real world. There is no reason to believe there's some conspiracy to underreport Paul's support, and no reason to believe it isn't really within the margin of error of the middle single digits where it's being reported in poll after poll after poll. You may close your eyes really tight, click the heels on your slippers all day long, and cross every finger you have, but that doesn't make your points facts. And that whole wishing upon a star thing? Jiminy Cricket lied to you.
If the GOP has to adopt any of Paul's more fringe ideas, such as isolationism (regardless of what he chooses to call it... a rose by any other name and all that), the gold standard, etc. in order to survive, then I'd rather see the GOP die. Of course, it isn't really the case that the GOP has to adopt any of those to survive, so the point is moot -- again, regardless of your guarantees.
Look, I happen to agree with a few of Paul's domestic policies. But he's wrapped them so tightly in such an unacceptable foreign policy package deal that I cannot and will not vote for the man. I mean, even the crazy guy on my street who mumbles to himself and drools a lot occasionally says things that make sense. That doesn't qualify him to serve as mayor, now does it?
I'm as yet undecided as to for whom I'll vote. I'm watching as policy statements are released, and the differences in candidate positions are highlighted, and so forth. I'm leaning toward a couple candidates at this point, but that could still change. One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that given the behavior of Ron Paul supporters, both online and in public venues where I've witnessed them, well, they've driven me away from ever considering supporting Paul. If we're known by the company we keep, well, I'd rather not be known based on the behaviors of the rabid Paul people. They, almost as much as his foreign policy ideas, have turned me against their candidate. Even the threads here on FR have helped me make up my mind that I'll never support Paul. Yeah, other candidates have their jerks who support them. But in my opinion, Paul supporters reflect more poorly on their candidate than those of any other. The combination of his policies and his supporters just makes it impossible for me to consider him as eligible for my vote under any circumstances. You and others in here should join the ranks of those who boo veterans at debates, plaster road signs on property that doesn't belong to them, and generally behave poorly in support of your candidate in congratulating yourselves for running off potential fellow supporters. Not exactly how I thought campaigns were supposed to work, but I guess I just don't get this "Ron Paul Revolution". Lucky for me.
Not saying that he's a savior, just pointing out that he's the only candidate who can get a broad coalition together to defeat Hillary, and still retain the traditional GOP base. Which is why attacking Paul is counter-productive. Some of the liberal websites have joined the conservatives in attacking Paul. The lefties are angry that Paul doesn't buy into the global warming BS. CNN tried to ignore him and then trying to portray him as a nutcase with those questions.
The bullet points you listed are your opinions. Provide evidence of every poll being incorrect, other than anecdotal "lots of people show up at rallies" stuff. No poll reaches every supporter of every candidate, yet the numbers are typically accurate enough. Accurate enough, at least, so that 5% in a poll doesn't really equate to 25% in the real world.
Sorry, the evidence says otherwise. Paul wins straw polls, online polls, text polls, and have huge rallies, yet he's "stuck" at "2%?" Give me a break.
If the GOP has to adopt any of Paul's more fringe ideas, such as isolationism (regardless of what he chooses to call it... a rose by any other name and all that), the gold standard, etc. in order to survive, then I'd rather see the GOP die.
If the GOP DOESN'T adopt some of Paul's ideas, they're going to lose to Hillary, and the party will be fractured & the LP and CP will be strengthened as a result. They don't need to compromise with Paul on the immediate withdrawal aspect - but they do need to realize that people are tired of the war and want the troops to come home. Let's finish the job in Iraq and let these people go back to killing each other. How long do you want us to remain there?
One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that given the behavior of Ron Paul supporters, both online and in public venues where I've witnessed them, well, they've driven me away from ever considering supporting Paul.
What do you expect when supporters see their candidate getting smeared in the media and getting crapped on by the very party that's supposed to embrace his beliefs? I don't condone any of the nefarious acts that these supporters are doing, but you have to remember that they're newcomers to the political field and aren't as refined as FReepers are. On the other hand, you have Paul supporters who were banned from blogs like RedState just for posting the facts.
You and others in here should join the ranks of those who boo veterans at debates, plaster road signs on property that doesn't belong to them, and generally behave poorly in support of your candidate in congratulating yourselves for running off potential fellow supporters.
LOL. Military veterans make up a good segment of Paul's support. I've seen Paul's rallies and didn't see any of the blame-America firsters or 9/11 wackos in attendance. You have a handful of nuts who are trying to exploit his campaign, that's all. Now ask yourself this: Why is Paul generating the enthusiasm and support while the other GOP candidates aren't?