Posted on 04/14/2010 7:41:14 AM PDT by Woebama
Edited on 04/14/2010 3:31:35 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
This is not a vote FOR Paul, it a vote against Obama. Rass needs to pit Paul against all the other Republicans and Obama to get a real picture of Dr Paul's strength.
Basically all this poll tells us is a growing segment of the populations is saying "Anyone is better then Obama and the Democrats".
You get it. Ron Paul is a worthless candidate that siphons off needed votes. Ron is a retard because he thinks he matters. There is nothing worse than a leader that gets in the way and wrecks things. He's nothing more than another Ralph Nader distraction. The way to deal with him is to play cat and mouse with him like a toy. That's all the attention that he deserves. He doesn't know when to give it up. His followers are like children. They don't know when to give it up either. So we toy with them as they deserve to be toyed with. You get it.
“I’m asking you why you are so upset?”
You’re not too bright are you?
My posted link wasn’t just about SS, it has all the facts on libtard Paul that you have been screaming didn’t exist.
You are either as dumb as a bucket of river sludge, or just a paultard liberal troll.
He should STFU.
Libtard.
Dr Paul's claims he would favor “going back to a traditional isolationist US Foreign policy”. That notion demonstrates Dr Paul is completely ignorant of even the most basic grasp of US History.
It is Dr Paul's simple minded inability to deal in facts instead of pat political dogmas, that renders him a fringe irrelevance on the modern US political scene.
Paul likes to claim the “foundering fathers were isolationists”.
No they were not.
The founders fought an Undeclared Naval war on Revolutionary France and launched putative expeditions against the Barbary Pirates. They engaged with Napoleon to buy Louisiana and drove the Spanish out of most of Florida. They fought another war with the Brits from 1812-1815 that had NOTHING to do with “national defense”
During the supposed “Isolationist” era between WW1 and 2 the US military waged any number of punitive wars in Central American, and Caribbean nations. The US also maintained a strong military presences in the Philippines and China.
Defending the National Interests of the USA has never involved doing nothing beyond cowering in bunkers on American borders as Dr Paul would have his worshipers believe.
No. THANK GOD that Paul will be lucky to get 1 - 2% of the GOP vote for the nomination.
I said Paul's FP was suicidal, we're not disussing current or past FP.
Have a good day.
Paul is an isolationist liberaltarian. He might be somewhat on the limited government side, but part of that is that he doesn't even recognize the valid role of government in terms of national defense and border security. He runs as a republican because he would not have a chance of getting elected if he ran on the libertarian ticket.
Well, I looked up a couple links based on your post, and watched videos of Paul and he made a lot of sense. The characterizations of him are a LOT worse than any misteps he made that are being characterized, which is what I would expect from the tone of the anti-Paul crowd here. I think you guys are just over the top on this. He believes in small government, getting rid of the Fed and non-intervionist international policies. That’s what American conservatives have believed in for most of our history.
CLean up on isle 39 please.
I’ve seen polls with Obama vs. the other challengers one on one and Obama was beating them. There was a poll in the last few days, which is what makes this so surprising. I just think people really don’t trust bankers, really don’t want us going around the world in wars and really do want a smaller and more limited government. What he says makes sense. He just is going against the tide. The moderate Republicans have done us in . . . not the guys like Paul.
Here's all you need to know about Ron Paul.
In case you antiwar Paulistas haven't noticed, Free Republic supports the war effort 100%. Many of our chapters protest against the antiwar moonbats either weekly, monthly or whenever the opportunity arises. The DC Chapter has been protesting against the antiwar moonbats EVERY Friday night at Walter Reed for three years.
Free Republic has co-sponsored several cross country caravans and hundreds of rallies in cities all across the country and in DC against the antiwar moonbats and in support of our Commander-in-chief, our troops, the war effort and our Gold Star and Blue Star families, many of whom are FReepers.
When you are supporting antiwar moonbats you are working against Free Republic's mission, hurting our efforts, hurting our families who have lost loved ones or have loved ones involved in the fighting, hurting our troops, damaging their morale, working against our efforts to defeat the enemy, and, in fact, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Antiwar moonbats are the domestic enemy. Antiwar moonbats willingly give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. In my book, that's tantamount to treason. Ron Paul is an antiwar moonbat. You figure it out. If antiwar moonbats are the enemy and Ron Paul is an aid and comfort supplying antiwar moonbat, then Ron Paul IS the enemy!
If you Paulistas are looking for support on FR for an antiwar moonbat who is giving aid and comfort to our enemies, you're nuts! Free Republic will NEVER support antiwar moonbats!
As far as our official policy on Ron Paul is concerned, it's the same policy we have for his antiwar moonbat allies the traitors Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, CodePink, International Answer, et al and their flaming antiwar spam monkeys. Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!
Where the hell did you guys ever get the idea that enemy supporting antiwar moonbats would be welcome on FR?
That plain enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
168 posted on Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:22:47 PM by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)"
I get that you think that he’s playing a game. I just think YOU are getting played by a system that gives you Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, and McCain as your candidates for the last 20 years. You are losing the cat and mouse game over and over and over if you really are a conservative.
No, I’m plenty bright, you linked specifically to his Social Security views, I read them and liked them so I thought you might be a Paul supporter or I thought you might be a liberal Republican that thinks wanting to change social security is a bad thing. You just went off on me when I asked! Everythings ok. Calm . . . :)
That same system gave you Reagan.
I was feeling sorry for you but now I see the others here were right.
You are a Paulbot.
Another welded shut mind completely incapable of any independent, rational thought when the topic is your god Dr Paul.
Expect a “where’s your facts” post...
Amazingly, these Paulistinians get even Testier when you IGNORE them.
I’m getting flamed more now that I was when I tried to give these idiots the facts they demanded.
Well, the fact is, there has not been one poll that I’ve seen-—and I follow this pretty closely-—that has had anyone beating O. So you can’t just throw that out and expect it to stick. I agree polls are pretty much irrelevant now for 2012-—but not for 2010. But there is no poll showing Obama would lose to a named opponent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.