Comments on: Gallup: 1% Veteran Support For Ron Paul

By: David Morrison

David Morrison — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:08:04 +0000

Could Jim S repeat his post in English???

By: David Morrison

David Morrison — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:04:32 +0000

Justin,

I must say, you have convinced me! I was a paratrooper 1972-1975. I have never voted because until Ron Paul, there’s never been a politician I felt was worth voting for. But I guess I’ll give up and vote for Girliani, …when pigs fly!!!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:21:40 +0000

Stephen…

\”…Remember, main goal of using a call center is to expand your business…\”…

By: Jim S

Jim S — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:21:08 +0000

If churches eclipse the state in importance then we cannot maintain a civil society with the variety of religions we have in the United States. We might as well eliminate the country right now. Look at the constant denigration of the concept of secularism engaged in by Ron Paul and many other conservative religious people. If you think that religious differences won’t lead to violent disagreements just because we’re the United States, think again. After all, once churches eclipse the state in importance they will also eclipse the state in who people identify with. And Americans do not show a particular tolerance for the “other”.

By: Akston

Akston — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:32:27 +0000

I found the source of your quote, and it is indeed from Ron Paul. My apologies for implying you might be pulling a fast one.

As with abortion, I disagree with Dr. Paul on several points in this statement. Not being a member of the religion in question, I’m just as happy to see a wall of separation between church and state. I prefer that governmental organizations continue to be barred from using my money to support any religion, or any business unrelated to the government’s narrow functions, or any private person.

I have no problem with being wished a “Merry Christmas” or a “Happy Holiday”. I’m not aware of any governmental limitations on expressing either.

And seeing as how churches are voluntary associations, I have no trouble at all with them “…serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.” People should be free to make churches as important as they like in their own lives.

Also, while I believe that there are certainly other ways to develop morality and civility than religion; government is indeed a most inappropriate instructor.

The constitution does not provide for religious entanglements at the federal level, so Ron Paul is unlikely to support any. But I don’t see him opposing any State-level efforts to embrace religion.

Definitely one for the “con” column, but not nearly enough to my revoke my support of Dr. Paul’s platform in general. 90% agreement instead of 95%. Will that shift me to a 30% candidate? What would you guess?

By: Akston

Akston — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:10:56 +0000

To Jim S:

Ron Paul has apparently bought into the “War on Religion” and “War on Christmas” memes. To quote from one of these articles…

This argument is (intentionally?) misleading. You seem to imply that the referenced quote is from Ron Paul. Is it? If so, do you have a link or reference to the source? Until I see one, I’ll reserve comment. Thank you for the link to HR 4379. This is hard information I find interesting. Again, it doesn’t surprise me much, given Dr. Paul’s interest in a much-smaller, constitutionally-limited federal government. Having read the bill, and rereading the pertinent portions of the constitution, I can see why Ron Paul proposed it, and possibly why you oppose it. Ron Paul’s position remains consistent: “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.” HR 4379 and other bills like it are based on two principles: Dr. Paul is opposed to abortion, based on his experienced as an obstetrician.The constitution does not empower the federal government to decide these issues one way or the other. It’s the wrong venue. I’ve already mentioned that I disagree with Dr. Paul about when a fetus should become a person with rights. With the nation split almost evenly in half on the issue, I do not see how enforcement at the federal level in either direction would be anything but a tyranny of the majority no matter how it came down. And again, unconstitutional. HR 4379 also enumerates issues of sexual orientation, marriage, etc. The text simply reiterates what Ron Paul espouses: the Constitution of the United States does not define these issues as federal, in either direction. Amendment 10 states that issues not explicitly given to the federal government are to be handled by the States and the people. Amendment 14, Section 1 states that no State shall “…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This is pretty clear to me. Without an appeal to fear, or an assumption that everyone agrees on highly-controversial issues which should then be enforced federally, and unsubstantiated assumptions of explicit religious motivation, I find it difficult to disagree with this method of resolution. Again…any suggestions of a better way to handle it?

By: Jim S

Jim S — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:07:08 +0000

Ron Paul has apparently bought into the “War on Religion” and “War on Christmas” memes. To quote from one of these articles:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

In addition he introduced the We the People Act in 2005. Basically it states that the federal courts would have absolutely no jurisdiction over social issues. To quote from the Wikipedia article (which also has a link to the full text of the bill):

If made law, the act would restrict the authority of federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing specific cases on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments. The legislation would be immune to any constitutional challenge other than to the act itself.

So any state or city could pass any law they wanted circumscribing individual rights based on sexual orientation and it would be legal and unchallengeable. They could return to the good old days of teacher lead school prayer that ignores the children in the classroom who might not be Christians and there would be no appeal. The list goes on. And yet the Paul supporters insist on believing that he supports individual rights. Sure.

By: Jeffery J.

Jeffery J. — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:33:13 +0000

I think if more people were informed they would see that Ron Paul is the only intelligent choice for this country. If he does not become President we will have a Verichip implanted in our bodies as directed by the Real ID Act. The North American Union will happen. The first, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments have been critically weakened by Bush legislation. With the exception of Ron Paul it really doesn’t matter who wins the Presidency. The Illuminati, Jesuits and Bilderburgs control the Republican and Democratic parties as well as the House and Senate. They control all media outlets with the exception of the Internet (for now) and that is why you never hear about Ron Paul except on the Internet. It is for this reason that Ron Paul will not win. Has anyone ever heard a mainstream media commentator very confidently state that Ron Paul won’t win? There is a reason for that. I will support Ron Paul because I love his message and I would love to have my freedoms back. I also know that it won’t do any good because electronic voting machines will be used. There is a reason for that too. Maybe if we stop fighting among ourselves about trivial things and do some research on the big issues we may have a chance to save our country before it is too late for all of us.

By: Akston

Akston — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:20:37 +0000

Looks like the straw men are really taking a beating on both sides of this debate :-) Regardless of what group a person appears to represent, I’ll try not to assume anything not in evidence here.

There are two classes of things we can discuss, and I want to try not to mix the two. One class is what’s true and legal, the other class is what changes would be desirable.

Given that even “what’s true and legal” (which should be the easiest to answer) has been a full time profession for the entire judicial system from the start, I’ll just state my understanding. I have not yet found a section of the U.S. Constitution which provides for the FTC, FDA, EPA, and OSHA. Given that they not are provided for there, Amendment 10 would place the definitions of those (and all other possible extensions) in the hands of the states, or the people themselves.

As for class two, I see that as much more open, and perhaps the thrust of Jim S’s comments.

I am not aware of a single regulatory agency that he is not in favor of eliminating, including the parts of the FTC that protect against consumer fraud, the FDA, EPA and OSHA. I think that is a completely delusional idea. His form of individualism is too extremist for my taste and conflicts with what I’ve seen in the real world.

I can see where it would be easy to view our vast array of regulatory bureaucracies as a security blanket, without which we’d all be at the mercy of evil corporate giants. The problem I have with regulatory bureaucracies, besides no constitutional basis for them, is that there is no practical check on their power. They tend to wield that power with the same disregard that all unchecked bureaucracies do. One size will fit all, or it will not be allowed to exist. Presidents and congressmen at least have to bow to the voters occasionally. Companies have to bow to reactions from their customers and shareholders. Voluntary interaction with private companies yields the most responsive arrangement available.

Life, and especially liberty, does indeed come with risks. I would just maintain that by giving in to fear of voluntary associations with businesses and opting for the perceived security of mandatory interactions with an ever-growing number of government bureaucracies, you trade away your right to control your life to other people. The magazine Consumer Reports exists because of a viable market interest in comparative information about products, but Consumer Reports will never be able to tell you that you have to die before trying a new cancer medication.

His supporters say that he believes in individual freedom but in fact he has no problem with individual freedoms being limited in the name of morality so long as it is done at the state level instead of the federal government.

Given Dr. Paul’s spoken and written record on the issues, I’d doubt he has no problem with individual freedoms being limited in any arena, except perhaps abortion (where he defines a fetus as a legal person who should be protected from murder), and even on that one, he does not propose a one-size-fits-all answer.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:35:25 +0000

Scott proves my point about Ron Paul supporters who don’t have a clue. He says that the private sector should be trusted to regulate itself. Or maybe the states could be allowed to so long as they compete with each other in a race to the bottom to sell out the rights and health of their citizens for the sake of promises of jobs that could well turn out to be illusory as has happened so often in the competition that states and cities already have. Private corporations good, government bad. It appears to be the limit of what politics he can understand and he has absolutely no grasp of history.

In addition he has no apparent ability to understand that just maybe letting minorities have rights is a good idea and maybe that even on the state level theocracy or laws derived solely from the religion of the majority aren’t a good idea. Of course his hero doesn’t understand that either.

By: Scott McDonnell

Scott McDonnell — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:49:07 +0000

All of those regulatory agencies you mentioned should be maintained by the state and/or private sector. In fact, I would argue that this is would increase competition among the states as they try to be more business-friendly to attract companies, which would increase revenue, jobs, and quality of services.

By: Scott McDonnell

Scott McDonnell — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:44:14 +0000

“His supporters say that he believes in individual freedom but in fact he has no problem with individual freedoms being limited in the name of morality so long as it is done at the state level instead of the federal government.”

Right, because you have no control over what your state or city does? The Federal government is the answer. If one state must be opressed, all states must be opressed. Good luck trying to change anything in Federal government.

Sorry, but I don’t care how ‘extreme’ you think Ron Paul is, you are debating the constitution, and until people like you succeed in finally burning it, it is the law of the land. All I want is our government to obey the law.

The authority goes: individual, state, and then federal. Not the other way around. Try reading the constitution sometime, before spouting of ‘progressive’ ideas about how you ‘think’ government should be. Either change the law or obey it, we are sick and tired of the selective enforcement that just leaves our laws and freedom in an unpredictable state every 4 to 8 years.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:39:16 +0000

Ron Paul believes that everything would work out just fine in the “relation” between individuals and corporations if all regulatory restraints on corporations were removed. I am not aware of a single regulatory agency that he is not in favor of eliminating, including the parts of the FTC that protect against consumer fraud, the FDA, EPA and OSHA. I think that is a completely delusional idea. His form of individualism is too extremist for my taste and conflicts with what I’ve seen in the real world.

His supporters say that he believes in individual freedom but in fact he has no problem with individual freedoms being limited in the name of morality so long as it is done at the state level instead of the federal government.

Those are my objections in a nutshell.

By: Akston

Akston — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:55:34 +0000

To Jim S,

After reading this thread I think that there is a strong relation between enthusiasm for Ron Paul and paranoia, conspiracy theories and complete and utter fanaticism.

I might suggest that there will always be some number of fanatics devoted to each candidate, and therefore judging any candidate based on his or her most disturbing supporters might result in supporting no candidate yourself. But there is another point that could be made here. That is: why one candidate seems to attract more zealous support than others. When one looks at a highly political chameleon (such as Willard Romney for instance), just what exactly is there in the candidacy to become passionate about? “Hurray. He looked great today, didn’t say or do anything offensive, and appeared to promise to tailor America just for me!” Doesn’t really inspire me. You?

All that said, I should be clear that at least one of Ron Paul’s zealous supporters does not support ad hominem attacks in either direction. They are worse than dissuasive; they immediately surrender the point to any person still discussing the issue at hand.

But this is a good segue into your other statement:

I have looked at Ron Paul’s positions on the issues. That is why I would never support him.

I want to thank you for actually mentioning Dr. Paul’s positions on the issues, rather than anyone’s guess as to whether he’ll be Homecoming King. Seeing as you did mention them, however, I would be interested in which positions you disagree with, and why. Any would do. I’d just like to hear that in the discussion for a change.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:09:14 +0000

After reading this thread I think that there is a strong relation between enthusiasm for Ron Paul and paranoia, conspiracy theories and complete and utter fanaticism. There is a complete lack of understanding of the difference between a straw poll or other self-selected small audiences and a true attempt to select a representative sample from the population even among those who don’t decry the polls as rigged or part of the anti-Paul conspiracy.

I have looked at Ron Paul’s positions on the issues. That is why I would never support him.

By: Jackson

Jackson — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:36:41 +0000

Dear Justin:
You called yourself a reporter, sir, not I. And I quote: You’re intrepid reporter here, finding the facts so you don’t have to.

Apparently YOU don’t know what you are saying, rather than it being I that do not know of which I speak. Bloggers are not reporters. Reporters report the news. By calling yourself one, you are claiming to be a news source no matter what site you are posting on. In case you think you can get off by using the modifier intrepid, all that means is: audacious: invulnerable to fear or intimidation; “audacious explorers”; “fearless reporters and photographers”. You sir have claimed yourself to be a news source, not I.

You are obviously anti-Paul because the only stuff you print is negative and you ignore all of the positive. That is bias. You may wish to pretend you are not, but that does not change reality.

Your bias is clear to the rest of us, I wonder why you have such a hard time seeing reality? Well, I suppose a blogger who calls himself a reporter and then attacks a guest for pointing out the obvious may not have such a firm grip on the real world.

Now quit being a child, realize you actions have consequences and stop spouting junk just to get ratings. It is pathetic.

By: Chris S

Chris S — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:21:59 +0000

Another blogger has come to tell all us Paul supporters that the sky is falling…

What else is new?

Next…

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:16:06 +0000

This is in response to Jackson specifically…

Donklephant is a blog, not a news source. If you found this post via Google it’s because their algorithm spidered our site and posted this entry prominently in their news results. I’m neither pro-Paul or anti-Paul, but I am intrigued by his campaign. So please, for everybody’s sake (including your candidate’s), don’t post comments that make it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.

By: Jackson

Jackson — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:00:41 +0000

Obviously this “reporter” and I say that in the loosest sense, writes defaming articles about Ron Paul so that he will get lots of hits. What his editors may not realize is that by printing this they show no credibility. A real story can be found on gambling911 where it shows that Mitt Romney is now stealing Ron Paul’s lines. A real story is that in spite of all this “wonderful” gallup polling that is oh, so realistic, Ron Paul just ran away with several polls that count - the kind people actually vote in. Alabama, NH.

I sure hope that lawsuit goes through where some guys are trying to sue media outlets who continue to defame Dr. Paul and mislead the public.

Justin, I hope you are named in the suit.

One question for you - do you really hate the United States this much to do this much damage to the only man who can actually save our country from economic ruin, just so you can get a few “hits.”

The word traitor comes to mind. Seriously. This junk is evil, has some effect on the public, and never once do you think about what will happen if one of those other jokers becomes President. Your prices will rise, you salary will decrease, you may face hyper-inflation, if you are under 40 you may get drafted - I sure hope you are the first - you face a crumbling nation and instead of giving it a hand you grab for a sledge hammer.

You are an appalling person. And stupid. So very stupid.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:05:07 +0000

The reason the media tries to censure Ron Paul is that once people hear what he has to say, withot the media’s twisted interpretations, people can equate with him. He is very intelligent in economics and a great statesman for freedom which is a powerful message and our monetary and tax also needs to be exposed. He wakes people up and they start to think on their own. I talked to a wealthy elderly couple this morning, who asked me about him. I gave them some info and directed them to the website. They agreed that the economic system is failing and we are on the verge of a huge depression. That usually does it. The only downfall is these poll numbers which I do not believe are truthful at all. RP08!

By: Scott McDonnell

Scott McDonnell — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:37:34 +0000

They say Ron Paul wins all these straw polls only because his supporters are dedicated and will vote enmasse.

Umm… I thought that was the point? To get people devoted to you and get out and vote for you enmasse, so you can win.

Just what exactly is the message here. He can not win no matter how much the people want him or vote for him, because the establishment doesn’t want him? Does THAT sound like the America you pledge your allegiance to?

Basically, they are telling you that votes don’t matter. So when the winner is picked for us, they will just say, “yeah, but the other guys just looked like winners because people actually voted for them and skewed the results.”

Time for an armed revolution, perhaps?

By: Scott McDonnell

Scott McDonnell — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:35:20 +0000

They say Ron Paul wins all these straw polls because his supporters are dedicated and will vote enmasse. Umm… I thought that was the point? To get people devoted to you and get out and vote for you enmasse, so you can win.

Time for an armed revolution, perhaps?

By: Layne Buck

Layne Buck — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:33:04 +0000

I am a six year navy veteran. I love my country and the founding Constitutional principles which established her. Ron Paul is the only candidate who stands for what I believe in. If Rudi wins the nomination I will no longer support the Republican Party.

By: Brock

Brock — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:01:45 +0000

I’m a vet and I have to say I am very dissappointed in this disinformation. First off RUDY GULIANI IS A PIECE OF SH!T, war mongering, NWO supported LIAR.

I swear, it’s either Ron Paul supporters this and that…
Ron Paul won’t win
Ron Paul is low on land line polls
Ron Paul is ugly

JESUS CHRIST can’t you report a relevant issue? Can’t you actually judge his ideas??? I mean after all that is what is waking everyone up from this matrix of a government we have, that is what is making people like me take 5 hours a week to help spread the word because the MSM news stations completely ignore him and fill Americans and “vets” (meaning old people who are clueless to what is happening).

75% of people under 30 didn’t vote last year. 95% of them are waking the other 25% up and spreading the word to the older folks who are duped by the media.

WAKE UP fool, we aren’t believing the propoganda

By: AB

AB — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:00:18 +0000

You’re not a reporter. You just keep pushing your ‘he can’t win’ opinion. Your ‘net hits are up solely because your articles use Dr. P’s name.

No Paul supporters will continue to read you if he loses. Then it’ll be back to the day job for you boyo.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:54:38 +0000

This war is just like the nanny-state we’ve gotten for the last 50+ years. People inside the beltway tell us that we need them to take care of us. And then people get hooked like those on drugs.

They say… You don’t know how to run your schools. You can’t own a gun, you can’t talk in private, your at our mercy because you can’t defend yourself. Essentially, you can’t make decisions for yourself. We’ll tell you what’s right or wrong. blah, blah, blah. You need us to protect you from all these evil people in the Middle East.

There’s always something that gives the government more control and us less liberty and less of our own money! Rudy will be the master of this, which is what he did in NY. Ran it like a dictator.

By: Joe Lawson

Joe Lawson — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:34:06 +0000

Justin, How old are you 13? A third party candidate CANNOT WIN, unless you are a billionaire and Ron Paul is NOT.

I have been on many third party campaigns and helped independents run and guess what they all lost. You cannot beat the two party system with the election laws we have at this time. Change the laws and we have a chance. To even suggest that Ron Paul go third party is crazy. As a matter of fact its actually an old Republican trick that was tried with Reagan during his 1976 run for President and he refused. Its a way for as they use to call them (Rockafeller Republicans or NeoCons today) to get rid of unwanted candidates. Nice try, but no takers.

Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:32:01 +0000

It seems to me that Paul can translate online action into actual votes…

Straw Poll Results Compilations.

April 21st, 2007, Greenville, SC
Last 0.24% 1 / 421 votes
April 21st, 2007, Spartanburg, SC
Last 0% 0 / 700 votes
April 21st, 2007, Richland, SC
Last 0% 0 / 126 votes
June 16th, 2007, LibertyPapers.org conference
2nd 16.7% # of votes NA at press
July 7th, 2007, Concord, NH
1st 61.9% 182 / 294 votes
July 28th, 2007, Georgetown, SC
2nd 18% 40 / 223 votes
August 4th, 2007, St. Louis, MO
3rd 14% # of votes NA at press
August 11th, 2007, Ames, IA
5th 9.12% 1,305 / 14,302 votes
August 13th, 2007, Gaston, NC
1st 36.6% # of votes NA at press
August 17th, 2007, Springfield, IL
3rd 18.87% 174 / 922 votes
August 18th, 2007, Stafford, NH
1st 72.7% 208 / 286 votes
August 18th, 2007, West Alabama
1st 81.2% 216 / 266 votes
August 18th, 2007, Tippecanoe County, IN
4th 11.7% 21 / 180 votes
August 21st, 2007, Ronald Reagan Club, WA
1st 28.1% 45 / 160 votes
*August 22nd,2007, HRCC, MN
3rd 16%

1st place x 5
2nd place x 2
*3rd place x 3
4th place x 1
5th place x 1
Last place x 3

By: stanky

stanky — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:27:20 +0000

Anyone who still has this much faith in Gallup, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

By: rob

rob — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:12:07 +0000

another interesting article cretiquing ron paul’s stance/policies on important issues.
good thing you’re not focused on reporting non scientific numbers in order to draw baseless conclusions.
i mean, who needs more of that?

By: Matthew Miller

Matthew Miller — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:53:05 +0000

After seeing loose change in december of 2006 I spent the next 6 months researching 911 3 to 4 hours a day and 8 to 10 hours a day on the weekend, my wife can attest to this fact, I can say without one single doubt that the Bush Cheney administration was absoloutely involved in 911,sadly the mountain of evidence is ill refutable, I am still amazed at the number of people who are in denial.
with that said the only obvious choice for our next president would be one that wants to have a new 911 investigation and get to the bottom of it.
with that said there are only two choices Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich,
Both have said we need a new investigation, Ron Paul has went on record as saying that 911 was not an inside job but wants a new investigation to reveal governmental incompetency, Dennis Kucinich has went on record saying 911 was an inside job and it was planned.
I live in Cleveland and I have to say that Dennis Kucinich is a great guy, but the fact is that even if there was a remote chance that he won the democratic primary it would come out that when he was mayor of Cleveland that he bankrupted the city,
there is no way Dennis can get elected!!
Ron Paul on the other hand is a financial genius,has a huge loyal following!!and wants to eliminate the federal reserve,
The federal reserve is the root cause of 911.
Our next presidential election will be the most important election in the history of the united states, all people who understand who was responsible for 911 need to come together and vote for Ron Paul, its now or never!!
Together we stand, divided we fail!!
sincerely
Matthew D Miller

By: Johnnyb

Johnnyb — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:18:35 +0000

The polls are bogus, half will not even include Paul, the poll taker says. I don’t see his name, so undecided. Undecided seems to be winning. Main st. is not awake yet, I gaurantee that. When they do I gaurantee he is in the top three til the end. Virtually any polling expert will tell you its a name recognition device at this point, anyway but the media play it up like only the CFR candidates deserve a shot. Top teirs run away from any event they think Paul can win. Any debate has been proven to have given the top teir 3X more time to speak. No wonder people do not know him.

By: Tim Gennesy

Tim Gennesy — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:40:03 +0000

Gallup who?

Why are you quoting a polling service that no one believes is objective?

Too bad Gallup is the backbone of your entire argument, huh?

Gallup — isn’t that what a horse does?

By: ctjohnson

ctjohnson — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:20:48 +0000

Navy vet here and I 100% support Ron Paul…and yes I voted for Bush twice. I regret that decision more than you know. I have other vet friends as well that support Ron Paul…I served to protect our Constitution…Iraq is not defending…it is pure capitalistic imperialism! Google Mussolini with corporatism, a fascism…down the rabbit hole you go :P Even better yet go to wikipedia and search corporatism and see what Mussolini had to say…you want the red pill or the blue pill?

By: JimCotton

JimCotton — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:57:18 +0000

Ron Paul will win !!

http://jimcotton.blogspot.com

By: Scott McDonnell

Scott McDonnell — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:52:08 +0000

A pollster called my house yesterday. They asked for me, but I was at work. My sister-in-law answered the phone. They were conducting a Presidential Preferrence poll. So, they asked her the questions. They asked her what party she belonged to. She said Republican. So then they asked her which candidate she would vote for if the elections were held today. They listed off all the candidates, except Ron Paul. This included Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, who aren’t even declared candidates yet. They EVEN mentioned John Cox. But not Ron Paul.

So my sister-in-law said “other” and then they asked her who she supported. She told them Ron Paul.

She asked them why Ron Paul was not on the list and they told her that the list was compiled of who the national news media considered to be “credible candidates.” Nice, huh?

Moral of the story? When you see “other” or “none of the above” on poll results, that is Ron Paul. And in many of these polls, that is the category that is winning.

So, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

When you get a call from these pollsters and they do not list Ron Paul, CONFRONT them. Find who is paying for the poll, what organization is conducting the poll, how large is the sample, etc.. Ask to speak to a manager. We have to stop this crap. Confront them.

By: Scott Harmon

Scott Harmon — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:47:09 +0000

Believe the polls, believe the TV, believe advertisers. And buy a used car with this information. No one would do it–because this information is steeped in business interests and self-serving motivations. Now, I’m getting tired of the so-called “analysis” by the “hit-squads” who want to reduce Paul’s supporters. Who cares what they have to say? If you, Donklephant (whatever the Hell that means) were concerned about numbers and facts and logic, you’d report on the speciousness of the polling process (as noted by Gallup). And, you’d investigate the incongruities between the “poll numbers” and the number of people who turn out to support Paul. I can’t get that. (Can you?) And, I don’t understand the poll numbers. I admit that. But, if my brain were affixed to the television set and what is “reported,” I’d be as jaded as you are. So, just try to consider that there MIGHT be some difference between the reported facts and the reality. It just seems amazing to me that there is so much dialogue by the “hit squads” to reduce Paul and very little dialogue to promote the level of interest that is being shown by his supporters. That’s amazing. So,why don’t you come clean–what’s YOUR AGENDA?

By: Tracy

Tracy — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:37:39 +0000

“So who is winning the popularity contest with vets? Why, Rudy of course. He’s still pulling support across the board, from both veteran and non-veteran.”

I find that extremely frightening.
I would love for Ron Paul to win, but if he doesn’t, please-god-don’t-let-it-be-Giuliani.
And not just because I have to look up how to spell his name if ever I want to write it!
I think our country is in deep trouble already, and to vote into office most of the people up for nomination, from either the Rep. or Dem. party, will just send us further into the hole we’ve been digging for oursleves for years.
We need to get back to the basics before it’s too late.

By: DesertRat

DesertRat — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:25:51 +0000

There are a lot of Bloggers out there that are doing everything they can, working at a feverish pitch just to inform Ron Paul supporters that he JUST CAN”T WIN. Why? If Ron Pauls is a sure loser, why bother?

Personally, for me, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate. If doesn’t make it, I simply won’t vote at all (unless Ron Paul goes independent). Virtually everyone else in the race is a bought and paid for CFR member, and they ALL sound like they are in an echo chamber pounding war drums, crying TERROR, TERROR. No thanks! America is VERY sick and desperately needs a doctor. Ron Paul 08′

By: Barack Obama

Barack Obama — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:19:16 +0000

Hi,

Great entertainment in all this, but I have a question for the author.

What is a ‘land line’ ?

Ron Paul supports the constitution which, unfortunately,
is just a another piece of paper in our society.

If you don’t understand that, just go ask King George.

More and more Americans don’t accept the constitution anymore,
and that’s why the Clinton/Obama message can’t get sidetracked.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:19:13 +0000

Wow, interesting discussion. At this point I don’t care why the article was posted, any publicity is good publicity as they say. Look at the discussion it got going here. Not everyone will change their minds and run out and vote for Ron Paul but it at least got people thinking and the facts commented on. Our country is in sad, sad, shape and if you look into what’s been passed as law with no defense by our Congress we are worse off then many are willing to admit. Our rights are systematically stripped away while anything off center is used to justify it especially the words “national security”. Heck, if it weren’t for the words Patriot Act and shoved at Congress at the last minute without time to study the pages and pages of writing, it probably wouldn’t have gotten passed. Noone wanted to look like they weren’t a Patriot. Yet, a patriot would never have passed the act. MHO

Gallup, if I read correctly, only polls approx 1000 “probable” voters. They exclude anyone who has never voted before no matter what age, the young voters who are voting for the first time, and anyone who has recently changed parties (since the last election) no matter what age or how many times they voted in the past. It doesn’t say if it is random across all 50 states or if they do it regionally etc.

The MSM will NEVER allow too much Ron Paul publicity. They can’t “afford” to. They are bought and paid for. Look who owns them and the subsidizing they receive. That’ll give you a clue. It’s “hidden” but it’s out there. Just snoop around a bit. Of course they will promote those that fit within their personal agendas to the largest extent and snub those that would cause their money and agendas to be pulled.

Wake up America, we ARE headed to a one world government, it’s inevitable it will happen sooner or later. My hope is Ron Paul will win because there will be enough who will look at the real facts and timing on bills that have been passed and realize that we are being played. Let’s not help promote this one world agenda. It’s why we’re in the war, the leaders want the oil and the control. JMHO

Thanks to all the servicemen (and women) who are trying to make a difference. Let’s get Ron Paul in office and get them home where they belong.

By: ManFaded

ManFaded — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:15:55 +0000

Take Back America In 2008. Vote Ron Paul!

By: mw

mw — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:13:29 +0000

Iowa Republicans want to get out of Iraq in 6 months by 51% to 39%. For the love of god Chuck Hagel - Get in the friggin'race!

By: Sorry

Sorry — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:10:08 +0000

I don’t believe the Gallup polls. They are nothing but lies. Ron Paul is huge on the internet, winning straw polls all over the country or placing well, he’s had more donations than any other candidate from the military (the other 99% didn’t donate I guess, that’s a whole story other in itself) and yet Gallup puts him at 0.000040005%. I’m sick of it. It’s total bull. Just like how they’ve been trying to ignore him. It’s B.S. and I for one don’t believe a word of it. Ron Paul will win because the people want the truth. The end.

By: daren

daren — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:58:19 +0000

I can’t believe they hired you, you suck as a journalist. Get a life Justin and read the real news about Ron Paul.

By: Akston

Akston — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:48:47 +0000

How should people select who they vote for? Should I try to guess who most of the other voters will vote for? That sounds a little error-prone to me. Maybe I should just wait for the election to be over, and then cast my vote for whoever won. Then I’d be sure to have been right.

“Right.”

…yes…hmmmm…

Maybe (and you may want to read this a couple times) the right choice has to do with where you want the country to go, not whether you’re likely to have voted for the winner.

Thanks for the information, but I think I’ll go with the candidate who best supports what I value for America. Not only because I don’t want to vote for another pandering drone just because some group guesses that he or she will win, but also because if I don’t vote for the best choice, then I’m the problem.

Will Ron Paul win? Which is a more accurate forecaster: phone polls, straw polls, campaign contributions, burning goat entrails? I actually find it surprising, and irrelevant, that anyone cares.

Being fairly libertarian myself, I would never presume to intrude on your pursuit of happiness. If tea leaves make you happy, knock yourself out. :)

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:16:44 +0000

Sorry all, I was wrong with the 63 number.

He’s 31 points behind Giuliani.

Again, my apologies.

By: jake

jake — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:09:03 +0000

There are plenty of reasonable responses here but some that seem off. Ron Paul’s straw poll performance has been encouraging, but it’s a single drop in a huge bucket. All of the straw polls which Paul “won” had close to 300 people TOTAL, and some had even less. It’s a definite stretch to suggest that because Paul won these polls that it is a reflection of anything except Paul’s support among a small group of fervent supporters in a few equally small area. Despite all of the great news (fundraising, myspace friends, etc…) about Paul’s campaign, there’s just not a way to get a good read about his popularity, at least not yet. Even the best news about MeetUp growth still doesn’t guarantee that Paul’s won’t end up with 100,000 -200,000 great supporters. That’s enough to hang around until the campaign, but it will take 100 TIMES that to win in a primary (assuming 10 million votes are needed to win in a split election with approximately 25% turnout).

By: Paul N Ca

Paul N Ca — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:05:24 +0000

A couple of months ago I signed up on the Ron Paul website http://www.ronpaul2008.com. Every couple of weeks or so I get an email from the good Dr. It usually ends with a request for help in the form of a donation. Even though I really am in no position to give, I immediately send him some money. Whatever I can afford at the time. Why? Because in spite of this country’s many flaws - I still love it, and hate what this government in doing to our constitution , to its own people, and to the world. The fact that the media is so ignorant and complacent to what is going on is even more upsetting. Dr. Paul may be our last chance in my lifetime to turn this country around.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:03:52 +0000

Active duty Marine here and I support Ron Paul, My father is still an active duty Marine and he also supports Ron Paul. My brother who is also a Marine is voting for him also.