Ron Paul Wins CA GOP Convtn Straw Poll

[thecuch 2]

[haugpatr 972]

I like Ron Paul, I think he would be the best choice. I just think it is too late, all the previous politicians have dug to big of a hole. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

This straw poll is meaningless. Ron Paul is a kook without a hope in hell of winning the nomination.. which is a good thing, cause he couldn't win the general election either.

 

I'll vote for a can of orange juice over Barry, but I'd like to have a GOP candidate to vote for who doesn't subscribe to pre-industrial revolution isolationism, as Ron Paul does. He also indirectly blames us for 9/11.. which is just sickening, no matter how he tries to rationalize it.

[haugpatr 972]

This straw poll is meaningless. Ron Paul is a kook without a hope in hell of winning the nomination.. which is a good thing, cause he couldn't win the general election either.

 

I'll vote for a can of orange juice over Barry, but I'd like to have a GOP candidate to vote for who doesn't subscribe to pre-industrial revolution isolationism, as Ron Paul does. He also indirectly blames us for 9/11.. which is just sickening, no matter how he tries to rationalize it.

 

 

Ron Paul only tells it like it is. Regardless of wether you think we should be involved/isolationalist is irrelevant. We don't have any money! We are broke! As I stated above, it is too late, but someone like Ron Paul might buy some time for preparation. As Hans and Franz used to say, "Here me now, and believe me later"

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

This straw poll is meaningless. Ron Paul is a kook without a hope in hell of winning the nomination.. which is a good thing, cause he couldn't win the general election either.

 

I'll vote for a can of orange juice over Barry, but I'd like to have a GOP candidate to vote for who doesn't subscribe to pre-industrial revolution isolationism, as Ron Paul does. He also indirectly blames us for 9/11.. which is just sickening, no matter how he tries to rationalize it.

 

 

Ron Paul only tells it like it is. Regardless of wether you think we should be involved/isolationalist is irrelevant. We don't have any money! We are broke! As I stated above, it is too late, but someone like Ron Paul might buy some time for preparation. As Hans and Franz used to say, "Here me now, and believe me later"

 

On some topics, e.g. limiting the Fed Gubmint to the powers it was specifically granted in the Constitution, the rest reserved to the States, (always adhering to the Bill of Rights, of course), I agree with him 100%. On foreign policy and military spending, I completely disagree with him. If I were POTUS, my proposed budget(s) would completely gut the illegitimate, (and usually harmful), DC agencies and wasteful "discretionary" spending, and take a portion of that to double military spending at the least, and try to target R&D for a 5x increase in funding. I'd bring the F-22 back into production

 

While I doubt any 2012 GOP candidate supports all the military funding I do, (though they shoud, national defense is one of the few legitimate responsibilities of the federal government), most come a lot closer than Ron Paul, and are just as solid when it comes to domestic spending and regulation.

 

As of now, Rick Perry has my vote. Is he perfect? No. Is he pretty solid, (far better than Ron Paul), and can he easily beat Barry in the general election? Absolutely.

[Bean.223 365]

You know I drank the Ron Paul Kool Aid, but the more he talks the more I'm switching to good Ole Tea...

[MinutemanX 32]

As of now, Rick Perry has my vote. Is he perfect? No. Is he pretty solid, (far better than Ron Paul), and can he easily beat Barry in the general election? Absolutely.

 

 

Yeah MAYBE, but whats the point of replacing Berry with another Berry? Rick Perry is trash to me for two standout reasons among others: First, he was a big Al Gore supporter in the late 80's and second he's a Bilderberg attendee. Those should be two major red flags. Guys like Perry are there to suck your vote into oblivion. No change is done. Nothing is done to protect your right to bear arms. Instead, these supposedly "God-fearing, Liberty-Protecting" Republicans pass monstrosities like the Patriot Act. So to me a vote for Rick Perry may as well be a vote for Berry. They've got the same puppet handlers.

 

As far as Ron Paul being a "kook" for his 9-11 stance... I'd like to offer the following quote from historian James Webb:

 

The "occult" has not formed part of the overt concerns of members of the academic fraternity. Any writer on the subject from outside these cloistered courts runs the risk of being branded partial- not, it should be said, without justification. It is my case that this quite natural state of affairs has led to a partial view of history; that to ignore the occult revival of the 19th century is to ignore a large slice of modern intellectual developement, and that the proper understanding of the workings of the occult mind explains much which has been puzzling commentators on the history of the last fifty years as well.

 

I've been studying the occult now for the past two years and came to the same conclusions as Mr Webb: You will never understand whats going on in the world today without knowing the history and objectives of the modern occultic movement. People will probably write me off for saying all this, but one only needs to look at globalspirit.org to get a real idea of the scope of things. Its a New Age Occultic website with such members listed as Al Gore, The Clinton's advisor Jean Houston, former presidents of Russia, Ireland, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia, UN officials, leading busnessman- Steven Rockefeller among them, educators, artists and entertainers... and these are just a sample. The site itself is dedicated to expanding global conciousness, or the idea that mankind is telepathically connected and evolving into a new kind of human- homo noeticus. This movement has a history that goes all the way back to Francis Bacon and colonization. The Central Banking system is one of the ways they've been able to accomplish so much.

 

Highly recommend this non-partial resource for a quick understanding of the occultic belief system- its time to meet your government officials:

http://www.holisticthoughts.com/holistic-ecology/the-new-age-movement/

 

So Paul will get my vote. Getting rid of the Fed is a major step in the write direction toward getting the government back into the hands of the people. Ron Paul winning is only the first of many obstacles I'm sure that awaits him- and like the other poster stated it may already be too late. If he doesn't win, I truly don't see this country lasting much longer... I'll point to this article as an example of the direction we are headed thanks to ANOTHER former Texas Governor ie Bush: http://noisyroom.net/blog/2011/05/18/wikileaks-evidence-of-north-american-union-april-28-2011-nau-01/

 

Anywayz, thats my fifty-cents take it for what its worth

 

 

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

Just cutoff all foreign aid and minding our own business will balance the budget. If thats called being isolationist, sign me up.

[poolingmyignorance 2,191]

As of now, Rick Perry has my vote. Is he perfect? No. Is he pretty solid, (far better than Ron Paul), and can he easily beat Barry in the general election? Absolutely.

 

 

Yeah MAYBE, but whats the point of replacing Berry with another Berry? Rick Perry is trash to me for two standout reasons among others: First, he was a big Al Gore supporter in the late 80's and second he's a Bilderberg attendee. Those should be two major red flags. Guys like Perry are there to suck your vote into oblivion. No change is done. Nothing is done to protect your right to bear arms. Instead, these supposedly "God-fearing, Liberty-Protecting" Republicans pass monstrosities like the Patriot Act. So to me a vote for Rick Perry may as well be a vote for Berry. They've got the same puppet handlers.

 

As far as Ron Paul being a "kook" for his 9-11 stance... I'd like to offer the following quote from historian James Webb:

 

The "occult" has not formed part of the overt concerns of members of the academic fraternity. Any writer on the subject from outside these cloistered courts runs the risk of being branded partial- not, it should be said, without justification. It is my case that this quite natural state of affairs has led to a partial view of history; that to ignore the occult revival of the 19th century is to ignore a large slice of modern intellectual developement, and that the proper understanding of the workings of the occult mind explains much which has been puzzling commentators on the history of the last fifty years as well.

 

I've been studying the occult now for the past two years and came to the same conclusions as Mr Webb: You will never understand whats going on in the world today without knowing the history and objectives of the modern occultic movement. People will probably write me off for saying all this, but one only needs to look at globalspirit.org to get a real idea of the scope of things. Its a New Age Occultic website with such members listed as Al Gore, The Clinton's advisor Jean Houston, former presidents of Russia, Ireland, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia, UN officials, leading busnessman- Steven Rockefeller among them, educators, artists and entertainers... and these are just a sample. The site itself is dedicated to expanding global conciousness, or the idea that mankind is telepathically connected and evolving into a new kind of human- homo noeticus. This movement has a history that goes all the way back to Francis Bacon and colonization. The Central Banking system is one of the ways they've been able to accomplish so much.

 

Highly recommend this non-partial resource for a quick understanding of the occultic belief system- its time to meet your government officials:

http://www.holistict...w-age-movement/

 

So Paul will get my vote. Getting rid of the Fed is a major step in the write direction toward getting the government back into the hands of the people. Ron Paul winning is only the first of many obstacles I'm sure that awaits him- and like the other poster stated it may already be too late. If he doesn't win, I truly don't see this country lasting much longer... I'll point to this article as an example of the direction we are headed thanks to ANOTHER former Texas Governor ie Bush: http://noisyroom.net...28-2011-nau-01/

 

Anywayz, thats my fifty-cents take it for what its worth

 

 

I prefer Paul over Perry. That said, what you just posted concerning the occult did absolutley DICK for persauding me to like Paul more. Infact, I'm going to have to rethink him if eccentric superstitious cooks is all he attracts and find out why. The LAST thing we need is more superstitious/religious ( it's the same thing check the defintion) in goverment. Why is it that while everybody says " Constition this consititon that" they finish the sentance with "Under god, or god bless" when the consition clearly states " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's easy to forget that the original freedom of religion is freedom FROM religion. Be it my freedom from your religion, or your freedom from mine. So lets think about whats good for our nation and not whats good for our churches.

[MinutemanX 32]

Just cutoff all foreign aid and minding our own business will balance the budget. If thats called being isolationist, sign me up.

 

 

I've got an amazing book by Curtis B Dall, son-in-law of FDR, called: FDR My Exploited Father-In-Law. Here was a great quote on isolationism from him:

 

In the "thirties", the image makers unveiled the word "isolationist" for their self-serving purposes, to confuse us. That word means "to set apart from others". Did not our forefathers endure great physical hardship and privations to come from afar to these shores for just that purpose? ...The terms, "isolationist" and "isolationism" are image words which were persistantly promoted to become "dirty" words. That promotion has turned out to be most successful for "one-worlders" - for us, however, most expensive!

 

If you're one of those going around calling Ron Paul an "isolationist"... congrats! You're a victim of government and media propoganda dating all the way back to the 1930s! Ron Paul himself has already stated he is emphatically "not" an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist.

[chevyman097 2,579]

Saiga forums has a section for political discussions.

 

 

[Foxtail207 23]

Saiga forums has a section for political discussions.

 

 

 

maybe so, but .....

 

• forum.Saiga-12.com
• > WELCOME
• > General Discussion - Any topic is welcome here!!!

[jimdigriz 580]

He also indirectly blames us for 9/11.. which is just sickening, no matter how he tries to rationalize it.

 

Why do people refuse to consider the possibility that terrorists are at least partially motivated by some of our actions and interventions overseas? What is sickening about that? None of that is to say that we had it coming or that they were justified in murdering civilians, just that - even as the CIA has said - our actions overseas do in fact produce blowback. You can't go around dropping bombs on people (including civilians) and basing tens of thousands of troops on their soil and expect them to not be pissed off by that.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Jim Digriz

[Dudethebagman 222]

Any third party candidate with a chance of getting 5% of the popular vote is who I'm voting for (because then that party gets federal funding). I don't care what party it is, as long as it helps break the corporate stranglehold on the election cycle.

 

The two-party system is a joke.

 

I can't voice my support for my second amendment rights without voting for some slick politician (who actually just supports the corporate sponsors of his campaign) catering to ignorant flat-earth warmongering religious fanatics. "Conservative common sense" is too often just oversimplification spun by someone wanting you to nod along to their agenda.

 

8 years of Bush Jr. was too much. He was a sellout to big business.

 

On the other hand, I can't voice my support for any kind of necessary government regulation (like keeping rivers from catching on fire, or keeping bankers from playing shell games that destroy the economy then moving to the Cayman Islands) without voting for some slick politician (who actually just supports the corporate sponsors of his campaign) catering to wide-eyed big-city dwellers who have never held a gun, operated a shovel, or been more than 25 miles from a Starbucks in their lives. "Bleeding heart liberals" are overly idealistic. People aren't intrinsically good; we are intrinsically self-interested and lazy. We can't "all just get along" when certain groups' interests are inimicable to others.

 

3 years of Obama was too much. He was a sellout to big business.

 

Politicians just preach whatever is the popular sentiment at the time to get elected and serve their sponsors.

 

And since these corporate-sponsored politicians appoint our Supreme Court justices, we get decisions like Citizens United v. FEC (which says that since corporations are legal "persons", they have free speech rights, and therefore limiting corporate campaign finance spending infringes those "people's" free speech rights).

 

In the meantime, corporations are just sitting on their record profits while actual people lose their homes, jobs, healthcare, etc. Big business won't create more jobs right now no matter how many tax breaks we give them because consumers have no money to spend on the products and services those business offer. The deregulated market has totally cannibalized the middle class that provided its profits. Now they're just sitting on their piles of money. Maybe they can sell to China? That's where all the jobs are now, anyway.

 

The "class warfare" you see disparagingly referred to in the news is nothing new. It's been being successfully waged against the middle class for the last 60 years. Anyone who recognizes this reality and fights back against it is labeled a Marxist who doesn't understand how business actually works. Well, they don't want you to know how it actually works, hence the name-calling. What we're experiencing now is the product of how big business works in America: keep your hand out for government subsidies while lobbying to keep wages and taxes low. If you do the math, you can see where all the money is going and why our treasury is drained.

 

We need more than two parties. The choices we have now are hardly choices at all. If we had a coalition-style government, we could vote more on individual issues rather than the "lesser of evils" package deals we have now. Partisan groupthink is destroying this country.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Dudethebagman

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

 

The two-party system is a joke.

 

 

We need more than two parties. The choices we have now are hardly choices at all.

 

Agreed

[storm6490 2,768]

He's a Vietnam Veteran, Medic, Doctor, Husband, Father and Politician who never changed his tune. I'm all for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul for President!

[Joseph 141]

I defiantly won't keep playing the two parties game of,

 

"Oh but you've got to vote for Rick Perry in the primaries because he's the ONLY one who can beat Obama, Sure he's on our payroll but c'mon you REALLY hate Obama right?"

 

They did a similar job on bush in 08.

 

I'm voting for Paul in the primaries and if he loses,

 

I'm voting for a Independent candidate, i'm certifiably not getting strong armed into Rick Perry aka Berry Lite,

 

Because I'd RATHER vote for the best candidate and get stuck Obama than have to lower myself to voting for sellouts like Mitt Rhino or Rick perry

Edited September 19, 2011 by Joebanks

[Heath_h49008 442]

Paul in the primaries....

 

...if he loses, I'm voting straight Democrat down to dog-catcher.

 

Either we fix the problem, or we speed up the process of collapse and pick up the pieces afterwards. Limping this dog along is tiresome.

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

...Either we fix the problem, or we speed up the process of collapse and pick up the pieces afterwards. Limping this dog along is tiresome.

 

I might agree with ya, Heath, if the collapse were a purely academic excersise and wouldn't potentially result in thousands of dead Americans, and God knows how many billions of $ in property damage.

 

Ya might want to rethink your position, with reality in mind.

Edited September 20, 2011 by post-apocalyptic

[jimdigriz 580]

I might agree with ya, Heath, if the collapse were a purely academic excersise and wouldn't potentially result in thousands of dead Americans, and God knows how many billions of $ in property damage.

 

Some sort of collapse is inevitable at this point. It's just mathematics.

[haugpatr 972]

I might agree with ya, Heath, if the collapse were a purely academic excersise and wouldn't potentially result in thousands of dead Americans, and God knows how many billions of $ in property damage.

 

Some sort of collapse is inevitable at this point. It's just mathematics.

 

 

+1, well said, this is the simple point I was trying to make in earlier posts, you just said it better

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

Guys; I understand your frustrations and your general argument/s against the electoral system as it exists today.. but one election is not going to magically "fix" this. We've got to start somewhere, and it's gotta be realistic, (Ron Paul winning the national election is not realistic).

 

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" -Voltaire

 

If you plan to vote 3rd party, you might as well vote for King Barry. Don't kid yourself.

Edited September 20, 2011 by post-apocalyptic

[haugpatr 972]

 

If you plan to vote 3rd party, you might as well vote for King Barry. Don't kid yourself.

 

 

This is also a great point, kinda demonstrates the problem. I think we are all on the same page here, just coming from slightly different angles, the real problem is the people that are too ignorant to see the problems that we are able to. The problem is the "sheeple"

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

To add to my last post...

 

Ron Paul reminds me of Ross Perot.. and that squeaky little clown's antics ensured BJ Clinton's victory and the '94 AWB. Surely I'm not the only one who can learn from history.

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

 

If you plan to vote 3rd party, you might as well vote for King Barry. Don't kid yourself.

 

 

This is also a great point, kinda demonstrates the problem. I think we are all on the same page here, just coming from slightly different angles, the real problem is the people that are too ignorant to see the problems that we are able to. The problem is the "sheeple"

 

You're right. Ignorance is always extremely dangerous.. that's no less true when it comes to presidential elections as it is with firearms.

 

I'll vote for whoever the GOP nominates, but I'd really prefer the candidate to be a conservative who can kick Barry's political ass in the 2012 national election. Ron Paul doesn't fit that description.

 

An absolute truth that those who refuse to support anyone but the "perfect" Ron Paul seem to miss is that removing Barack Hussein Obama from office in the next election is critical. He's the most radical and damned dangerous president we've ever had, and if he gets another 4 years to pursue his "fundamental transformation of America" agenda, (this time without having to worry about reelection), I honestly don't know if the country can avoid deep economic depression and possible civil war. No one here wants that.

 

Hell, I'd prefer Paul Ryan, and wish he'd run.. but I'm not gonna write his name in to "keep it real" and cancel out my own vote; helping keep Obama on his throne and further destroy my country.

 

Of those conservatives who are currently running and have a solid chance to beat Barry by a significant percentage, (if it's close, we'll have to fear the usual Dem election fraud), I support Rick Perry.

Edited September 20, 2011 by post-apocalyptic

[Dudethebagman 222]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" -Voltaire

 

If you plan to vote 3rd party, you might as well vote for King Barry. Don't kid yourself.

 

I think you missed my point.

 

The barely palatable is also the enemy of the good. Voting while holding our noses is what got us into this mess in the first place. It's what "they" are counting on. Republicans know most conservatives won't vote for the anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice party, so they know with your lack of choices they don't have to promise much. They just have to be not the Democrats. Most Democrats know that most liberals won't vote for the warmongering anti-environment and pro-life party, so they know with your lack of choices they don't have to promise much. They just have to be not the Republicans. It's a race for the political center where both parties know that they won't really have to promise or accomplish much. They know that most of us aren't voting the the candidate we like most of the time, but against the candidate we hate.

 

Did Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election, or did Al Gore cost Al Gore the 2000 election? Will the Tea Party steal votes from the Republicans, or did the Republicans not earn the conservative vote? Both parties are taking your vote for granted. As long as you allow them to do that, they will continue to do so.

 

I don't pretend that any 3rd party candidate has a chance of winning in 2012, but like you said, "one election is not going to magically "fix" this. We've got to start somewhere." A vote for either major party is a vote for the corporatocracy that we have now - more of the same.

 

How is a vote for Perry (who you obviously dislike and don't believe in) going to improve anything?

 

Rhetoric notwithstanding, I don't see a significant difference between the policies of GWB and BHO. There's lots of sabre-rattling and appeals to their political base, but their actions speak louder. Both have fought wars in the Middle East. Both have spent freely and given away our tax money to corporations when those corporations fucked up. Both have had lax attitudes toward environmental regulation. The Economy has gotten shittier under both, and gas has gotten more expensive under both. Hell, even Obama's insurance reform is really just a subsidy to private insurance companies. Even though Saddam was an evil fucker, there are plenty of evil fuckers in power that we haven't gone to war with. The Iraq war was mostly just a subsidy to Haliburton and the oil companies the GWB administration worked for.

 

BHO got elected by running as the anti-Bush because people were sick of where Bush was taking the country. But almost anything GWB started, BHO has perpetuated. In my opinion, neither one has made this country any better off.

 

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." - Gore Vidal (also a forum member's tagline).

 

Anything we can do to erode the "heads I win, tails you lose" two-party system we have now will give us a better shot at real options in the future. We may end up with leaders we don't like in the short term, but I kind of think that's going to be a given whether you're voting for the candidate you like or against the candidate you hate.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Dudethebagman

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

Dude, you need to abide.

 

Read the post I made just before your latest.

[Dudethebagman 222]

Dude, you need to abide.

 

Read the post I made just before your latest.

 

The Dude was writing his manifesto while you were writing that last post.

 

So you're voting against Obama, yes?

 

I'm voting against the two-party system. My state is definitely going GOP anyway. If you live in a strongly red or blue state, you don't have anything to lose by voting for a third party.

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

...If you live in a strongly red or blue state, you don't have anything to lose by voting for a third party.

 

Perhaps. Unfortunately, these days Colorado is more of a purple state. Here, my vote will definitely make a difference.

[dayofruin 425]

The problem seems to be not having a candidate from any party that is in it for their country, that isn't/won't be in the pockets of big corporations. This country needs someone that truly wants to better the country and make us strong again. Are we really tied so strongly to the big corporations that our politicians have to work for them? Not just right or left... Who would be close to this description. By bettering the country I mean making cuts in the right places. Free welfare, foreign aid (when we are so far in debt already), the bail outs, the list could go on.

Any ideas? I know that we will likely be stuck voting for the lesser of 2 evils though.