Poll would you support Ron Paul running in 2016 considering Rand and others were running?

[klamath]

Ron Paul
Rand Paul
Gary Johnson
Jim Demint

[MikeStanart]

Ron hasn't been able to bridge the gap between us & the sheeple. Rand is a great bridge-builder. This country needs help ASAP. Rand 2016!

[Anti-Neocon]

Hypothetical situation that will never happen. Ron and Rand aren't both going to run at the same time, and we all know this. Rand vs DeMint vs Gary Johnson vs Jesse Ventura would be a better poll.

I'd maybe think of supporting Ventura over Rand, but DeMint and Clinton are just plain bad on the issues, and Ron and Johnson don't have that ability to reach mainstream appeal.

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul is not running in 2016. I vote Rand Paul.

[itshappening]

Ron is not running in 2016, he will be 81 years old.

His future is with CFL.

Rand Paul 2016!

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Ron Paul is not running in 2016. Why not include Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) among the poll options too? It would be about as realistic.

[klamath]

Ron Paul is not running in 2016. Why not include Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) among the poll options too? It would be about as realistic.
Are you so sure. NOBP write in!

[tangent4ronpaul]

I've never seen Ron say he will not run in 2016 and Rand will still be a bit green behind the ears, politically. I have heard Rand state that he won't run against his father. I could see a Paul/Paul ticket, but lets see what the country looks like in a couple of years and let Ron decide for himself.

Besides, this country is in a hell of a mess and it's going to take more than 8 years with a Paul in office to fix it! I'd rather see 8 years of Ron followed by 8 years of Rand.

-t

[KCIndy]

As much as I would love to see Ron Paul running again in 2016, there is a part of me that would hate to see it.

Dr. Paul has been busting is ass in defense of liberty for decades. Decades! And he has done it unflinchingly and with the utmost integrity all while facing the most vitriolic and demeaning personal attacks.

For decades.

I can't think of another human being alive who is more deserving of a peaceful and restful retirement.

So while part of me would love to see him run in '16, another part of me would just as soon see him take a well deserved rest with the luxury of being able to do whatever he wants when he wants to.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Rand.

Ron Paul will be too old.

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul is not running in 2016. Why not include Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) among the poll options too? It would be about as realistic.

Realism isn't the objective here.

Shit disturbing is.


Are you so sure. NOBP write in!

See?

[cajuncocoa]

Realism isn't the objective here.

Shit disturbing is.



See?You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

[klamath]

Realism isn't the objective here.

Shit disturbing is.



See?
You came into the world a shit stirrer and haven't put your paddle down yet.

[Anti Federalist]

You can into the world a shit stirrer and haven't put your paddle down yet.

You don't shit, or disturb shit, where you eat.

LOL

ETA-And why are you busting my stones?

I said I'd support your guy.

[Anti Federalist]

This +rep

I couldn't even ask the man to do so, in good conscience.


As much as I would love to see Ron Paul running again in 2016, there is a part of me that would hate to see it.

Dr. Paul has been busting is ass in defense of liberty for decades. Decades! And he has done it unflinchingly and with the utmost integrity all while facing the most vitriolic and demeaning personal attacks.

For decades.

I can't think of another human being alive who is more deserving of a peaceful and restful retirement.

So while part of me would love to see him run in '16, another part of me would just as soon see him take a well deserved rest with the luxury of being able to do whatever he wants when he wants to.

[klamath]

You don't shit, or disturb shit, where you eat.

LOL

ETA-And why are you busting my stones?

I said I'd support your guy.
because you came into this thread shit stirring

[Anti Federalist]

Are you so sure. NOBP write in!


because you came into this thread shit stirring

http://www.sadtrombone.com/

[klamath]

http://www.sadtrombone.com/
You anti Rand people have been shit stirring a long time now you are all crying.

[Anti Federalist]

You anti Rand people have been shit stirring a long time now you are all crying.

How "anti Rand" can I be when said I'd support him?

[Agorism]

Definitely Ron Paul.

...duh

If Rand endorses the Democrats immigration and tax plan as he says he has, I think Jim DeMint could be at least competitive with Rand for a lot of people.

[klamath]

How "anti Rand" can I be when said I'd support him?
With support like yours who needs enemies. You and CC must have exchanged about a 100 +reps to each other in the last week.

[papitosabe]

Hypothetical situation that will never happen. Ron and Rand aren't both going to run at the same time, and we all know this. Rand vs DeMint vs Gary Johnson vs Jesse Ventura would be a better poll.

I'd maybe think of supporting Ventura over Rand, but DeMint and Clinton are just plain bad on the issues, and Ron and Johnson don't have that ability to reach mainstream appeal.

Ventura!?!? WAAAT???

[Anti Federalist]

With support like yours who needs enemies. You and CC must have exchanged about a 100 +reps to each other in the last week.

Now you're just being childish.

Two reps, I think I gave CC over the past week or so, if I had to count.

Maybe she'll post them.

So should I GTFO now or later?

LOL - Shit, if I had an FRN for every time someone told me to GTFO out of this "thing of ours" I'd be rich man now.

Oh, almost forgot:

9/11 was an inside job!

[klamath]

Damn, I didn't see GTFO in any of my posts, Hmmmm. maybe you need to check your monitor, might be scrambling something.

[RickyJ]

They are not going to run against each other. Ron might run again, but he won't run against his son unless he has some major disagreements with him.

[MelissaCato]

Ron Paul :eek:

[BuddyRey]

Ron Paul for the win.

[Qdog]

Now you're just being childish.

Two reps, I think I gave CC over the past week or so, if I had to count.

Maybe she'll post them.

So should I GTFO now or later?

LOL - Shit, if I had an FRN for every time someone told me to GTFO out of this "thing of ours" I'd be rich man now.

Oh, almost forgot:

9/11 was an inside job!

Its because 911 was an inside job that I would support Ventura over Rand. I think Rand is smarter, better at politics, but Jesse will say the truth and doesn't give a shit. I like that!

I dont like democrats OR republicans. They both suck. I support Rand not because he is a (R) but because he is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. (just like his father was).

[IPSecure]

http://i47.tinypic.com/142bup2.png (http://www.dailypaul.com/262023/should-i-order-this-er-sticker-and-get-started-early)

[iamse7en]

Re: thread question.

Is the pope catholic?

[ican'tvote]

Ron, but this scenario would never happen.

[specsaregood]

i'm on record saying Rand should have run instead of Ron in 2012.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't wish to see Ron's legacy tarnished by another failed run. That would make him Lyndon Larouche.

I'd much rather see him seen as a distinguished statesmen whispering wisdom and advice into the ear of the next President.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/06/t1larg.ron-rand-paul.t1larg.jpg

[kcchiefs6465]

Are you so sure. NOBP write in!
Amen. But at this point you are more distancing those who might come around to Rand's approach. (Going along to get along/infiltration) Even though you are four years premature... you do realize that right? There are four more years to decide. Perhaps another approach would help your candidate in the long run? Though I must admit, during the next four years I might forget most of what the fuck YOU have to say and remember more of what RAND PAUL ACTUALLY DOES. Is that so hard for you to understand Klamath/the rest of those who feel the need to pointlessly promote a presidential nominee that has yet to announce? And all I see is "well Ron voted for AUMF" so why can't you vote for his son who voted for sanctions? First of all are you that simple minded to not see that two wrongs don't make a right? I know where Ron Paul's heart was in his vote. I do not know where Rand's is. You expect an ample arguement to be, "well Ron Paul voted for AUMF so don't worry about Rand's sanction "yays?" Are you fucking kidding me? It is NOBP... and that doesn't mean a last name for those simple enough to forget what this movement was/is supposed to achieve. It means an ideology.. and you're fucking 'A' right I will vote NOBP, no matter what their last name happens to be. I'm tired of this lesser of two evils, political maneuvering, pandering, repertoire bullshit. FUCK. :mad:

[Victor Grey]

I hope Gary runs for senate.

[klamath]

Amen. But at this point you are more distancing those who might come around to Rand's approach. (Going along to get along/infiltration) Even though you are four years premature... you do realize that right? There are four more years to decide. Perhaps another approach would help your candidate in the long run? Though I must admit, during the next four years I might forget most of what the fuck YOU have to say and remember more of what RAND PAUL ACTUALLY DOES. Is that so hard for you to understand Klamath/the rest of those who feel the need to pointlessly promote a presidential nominee that has yet to announce? And all I see is "well Ron voted for AUMF" so why can't you vote for his son who voted for sanctions? First of all are you that simple minded to not see that two wrongs don't make a right? I know where Ron Paul's heart was in his vote. I do not know where Rand's is. You expect an ample arguement to be, "well Ron Paul voted for AUMF so don't worry about Rand's sanction "yays?" Are you fucking kidding me? It is NOBP... and that doesn't mean a last name for those simple enough to forget what this movement was/is supposed to achieve. It means an ideology.. and you're fucking 'A' right I will vote NOBP, no matter what their last name happens to be. I'm tired of this lesser of two evils, political maneuvering, pandering, repertoire bullshit. FUCK. :mad:
Well the way I see it the NOBP meme was exactly that.
I hate your party!
I hate your candidates!
I hate you!
We are taking over your fucking party!
I hope you fucking old people die.
I will never fucking vote for ANYBODY YOU EVER nominate unless it is RP. No body but fucking Paul! (RON Paul!)
I spent ten thousand of my personal dollars and ten thousand hours telling people this and they still didn't vote for RP. Everybody should praise me and beg on their knees for me to work on their campaign because I am dedicated. Now vote for RP you fucking, miserable, sheeple, morons.

Wow! I wonder why RP got locked out of the convention.

[KingNothing]

Definitely Ron Paul.

...duh

If Rand endorses the Democrats immigration and tax plan as he says he has, I think Jim DeMint could be at least competitive with Rand for a lot of people.


Um, Rand never said he'd endorse the tax plan. I think you've had a really hard time wrapping your brain around the way he's politicizing the issue.

[erowe1]

Ron Paul is not running in 2016. I vote Rand Paul.

+1

[KingNothing]

i'm on record saying Rand should have run instead of Ron in 2012.

There's a chance that Rand would have won, but I'm not sure if that would have been preferable or not. I think the nation as a whole and we as a movement learned a TON about the issues near and dear to our hearts, the political process and the forces at work against us with Ron's run this year. In the end, that could end up meaning a lot more than forcing Rand up against the Obama machine.

[phill4paul]

It is posts like this that make me wonder who the Rand party opposition players really are. Certainly, seeking further to divide the members of this forum would have that result.

[Brett85]

Rand. Ron will be over 80 years old by 2016 and wouldn't have any better chance of winning over Republican voters than he did in 2012.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron isn't going to Run. I voted for Rand.

[cajuncocoa]

We all know Ron isn't going to run, but the question was posed hypothetically as if he would...so of course I voted for Ron Paul. If anyone puts him on my state's ballot, he's got my vote again.

[LibertyEagle]

We all know Ron isn't going to run, but the question was posed hypothetically as if he would...so of course I voted for Ron Paul. If anyone puts him on my state's ballot, he's got my vote again.

I think it's a stupid question. One, Ron and Rand would not run at the same time. Two, I hope Ron doesn't make another try at it, because I think it would lower his stature and make him less effective at getting out the message.

But, I would vote for whichever of them that ran.

[Maximus]

You seriously don't think father and son would be on the same page about running for President? They've probably strategized about this for 10+ years.

[klamath]

I think it's a stupid question. One, Ron and Rand would not run at the same time. Two, I hope Ron doesn't make another try at it, because I think it would lower his stature and make him less effective at getting out the message.

But, I would vote for whichever of them that ran.
That is exactly the point of the poll.
The point of the poll is to show that any run by by RP would be a downward spiral now. His supporters still love RP but they are moving on as far a electable office. A year ago RP would have received 99% percent of the vote on these forums.
His vote totals would go down and that would harm his message.

[cajuncocoa]

I think it's a stupid question. One, Ron and Rand would not run at the same time. Two, I hope Ron doesn't make another try at it, because I think it would lower his stature and make him less effective at getting out the message.

But, I would vote for whichever of them that ran.Yes, I think all of the polls we've seen here lately (especially the one between Rand and Kucinich :rolleyes:) are stupid.

Ron WON'T make another run at it so you can relax, but I wouldn't be sorry if he did. And I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

[cajuncocoa]

That is exactly the point of the poll.
The point of the poll is to show that any run by by RP would be a downward spiral now. His supporters still love RP but they are moving on as far a electable office. A year ago RP would have received 99% percent of the vote on these forums.
His vote totals would go down and that would harm his message.That's mostly because Rand's supporters are driving a wedge between themselves and Ron's supporters. In my opinion.

[klamath]

That's mostly because Rand's supporters are driving a wedge between themselves and Ron's supporters. In my opinion.
What "mostly because". Your post makes no sense.

[KingNothing]

That's mostly because Rand's supporters are driving a wedge between themselves and Ron's supporters. In my opinion.

You've got to be kidding me.

[cajuncocoa]

You've got to be kidding me.Not kidding at all.

[klamath]

You've got to be kidding me.
The only way we're not going to be considered driving a wedge is if we passively allow Rand to be ripped from limb to limb. You better stand back and let them kick the shit out of Rand while he is curled up in a fetal position on the ground. Try and defend Rand and it's "Hey man your dividing us".:rolleyes:

[dinosaur]

The only way we're not going to be considered driving a wedge is if we passively allow Rand to be ripped from limb to limb. You better stand back and let them kick the shit out of Rand while he is curled up in a fetal position on the ground. Try and defend Rand and it's "Hey man your dividing us".:rolleyes:

Yep, and that is how flamers work. They go over to the Rand section and bait people to defend Rand. If anyone takes the bait, they are accused of being divisive.

edit: I'm not trying to make a blanket statement about all who have genuine disagreements with Rand at all! I actually like having to defend him because it makes me think. Its just that there is a difference between baiting and having a genuine disagreement, and that difference is sometimes pretty obvious.

[KingNothing]

The only way we're not going to be considered driving a wedge is if we passively allow Rand to be ripped from limb to limb. You better stand back and let them kick the shit out of Rand while he is curled up in a fetal position on the ground. Try and defend Rand and it's "Hey man your dividing us".:rolleyes:

Rand isn't perfect, but he's the best Senator in America (by a large margin), which puts him high in the ranking for "Best Major Politician on Earth." Apparently there are people who do not want to acknowledge this.

The WORST he has done is vote for sanctions that basically every other politician in Washington endorsed. Some of us can say "well, that was a terrible decision in a vacuum, but it's the only really bad thing he's done and it would have happened regardless of his vote." Others... well... others will only support a man like Ron, which is a shame because there will never be another man like Ron running for president.

[sailingaway]

Yep, and that is how flamers work. They go over to the Rand section and bait people to defend Rand. If anyone takes the bait, they are accused of being divisive.

If people bait Rand supporters in Rand Paul subforum, report it. That isn't ok. Questioning and getting answers is one thing. But that's his subforum.

[cajuncocoa]

The only way we're not going to be considered driving a wedge is if we passively allow Rand to be ripped from limb to limb. You better stand back and let them kick the shit out of Rand while he is curled up in a fetal position on the ground. Try and defend Rand and it's "Hey man your dividing us".:rolleyes:Nope, not at all. It's when Rand's supporters kick the shit out of those who don't support him that's driving the wedge. And we're told "don't pay attention to what he says, pay attention to what he does" and then he does something that's questionable, and we're told he has to do this or that in order to be acceptable to Hannity listeners..."but he's just like his Dad!" Not.

[cajuncocoa]

If people bait Rand supporters in Rand Paul subforum, report it. That isn't ok. Questioning and getting answers is one thing. But that's his subforum.I think it would also be fair not to bait those who don't (yet) support Rand in his subforum...maybe it's not a good idea to start a poll in Rand's subforum asking if RPF members are ready to support Rand at this point if one doesn't want "no" to be an option.

[kcchiefs6465]

Well the way I see it the NOBP meme was exactly that.
I hate your party!
I hate your candidates!
I hate you!
We are taking over your fucking party!
I hope you fucking old people die.
I will never fucking vote for ANYBODY YOU EVER nominate unless it is RP. No body but fucking Paul! (RON Paul!)
I spent ten thousand of my personal dollars and ten thousand hours telling people this and they still didn't vote for RP. Everybody should praise me and beg on their knees for me to work on their campaign because I am dedicated. Now vote for RP you fucking, miserable, sheeple, morons.

Wow! I wonder why RP got locked out of the convention.
I'm not sure how you got this out of my post but since I was one of the people saying 'NOBP' I guess I'll try my best to respond.

I hate your party
Yes, I do hate your party. They hinder actual discussion.

I hate your candidates
Yes, I do hate your candidates. (Referring to 2012 election)

I hate you
No, I do not hate you or the millions of people voting this way or that way. I only try to wake them up. I could make the arguement that actually this means I love them because of this but why lie? The truth is I have selfish motives of wanting my own liberty.

We are taking over your party
Wasn't one who saw this idea as plausible. I did applaud those who gave the extra effort and tried.

I hope you fucking old people die
Does this really even deserve a response?

I will never fucking vote for ANYBODY YOU EVER nominate unless it is RP. No body but fucking Paul! (RON Paul!)

In the 2012 election, NOBP meant no one but Ron Paul. It has a different meaning now. (At least to me, anyways)

I spent ten thousand of my personal dollars and ten thousand hours telling people this and they still didn't vote for RP. Everybody should praise me and beg on their knees for me to work on their campaign because I am dedicated.
The only person around here who seems to strive for praise is Matt Collins. Every other volunteer/contributor has a more humble approach.

Now vote for RP you fucking, miserable, sheeple, morons.
Another part that I really don't know if it deserves a response. Whose rhetoric are you referring to?

Wow! I wonder why RP got locked out of the convention
And you wonder why I hate your party...

[sailingaway]

I think it would also be fair not to bait those who don't (yet) support Rand in his subforum...maybe it's not a good idea to start a poll in Rand's subforum asking if RPF members are ready to support Rand at this point if one doesn't want "no" to be an option.

I agree that makes sense, however, at some point, Rand's subforum is Rand's subforum. On the other hand, the more people self censor what they say there, the less the views there represent the whole.

I think people who aren't yet focused on 2016 have little reason to participate in threads/polls particularly if they get jumped on for the wrong answer, but that is sort of their club house.

[erowe1]

Yep, and that is how flamers work.

Just be patient. The time will come for this forum to be a major resource for Rand Paul 2016 grassroots. When that happens, those people won't last here long if they can't come around.

[Anti Federalist]

Well the way I see it the NOBP meme was exactly that.
I hate your party!
I hate your candidates!
I hate you!
We are taking over your fucking party!
I hope you fucking old people die.
I will never fucking vote for ANYBODY YOU EVER nominate unless it is RP. No body but fucking Paul! (RON Paul!)
I spent ten thousand of my personal dollars and ten thousand hours telling people this and they still didn't vote for RP. Everybody should praise me and beg on their knees for me to work on their campaign because I am dedicated. Now vote for RP you fucking, miserable, sheeple, morons.

Wow! I wonder why RP got locked out of the convention.

Romney underperformed McCain by millions of votes.

Many of those were "our people".

The ball is in the GOP's court, do you want to "win" or just keep losing?

I could care less what they think of us.

And what, "taking over the party" is now off limits?

I thought that was what we were supposed to be doing?

Fuck, this is confusing...

[JK/SEA]

I picked Ron, but....if Rand is on the ballot.....i'm there.

[klamath]

I'm not sure how you got this out of my post but since I was one of the people saying 'NOBP' I guess I'll try my best to respond.

Yes, I do hate your party. They hinder actual discussion.

Yes, I do hate your candidates. (Referring to 2012 election)


No, I do not hate you or the millions of people voting this way or that way. I only try to wake them up. I could make the arguement that actually this means I love them because of this but why lie? The truth is I have selfish motives of wanting my own liberty.

Wasn't one who saw this idea as plausible. I did applaud those who gave the extra effort and tried.

Does this really even deserve a response?

In the 2012 election, NOBP meant no one but Ron Paul. It has a different meaning now. (At least to me, anyways)

The only person around here who seems to strive for praise is Matt Collins. Every other volunteer/contributor has a more humble approach.

Another part that I really don't know if it deserves a response. Whose rhetoric are you referring to?

And you wonder why I hate your party...
Everyone of the statements have been said on on these forums including "I hope old people die." I have seen ever freaking last one of those statements.

[ican'tvote]

Romney underperformed McCain by millions of votes.
Romney got more votes than McCain.

[LibertyEagle]

Romney underperformed McCain by millions of votes.

Many of those were "our people".

The ball is in the GOP's court, do you want to "win" or just keep losing?

I could care less what they think of us.
Of course you don't. You have given up on political action.


And what, "taking over the party" is now off limits?

I thought that was what we were supposed to be doing?

Fuck, this is confusing...

BECAUSE there are not enough of us, AF. It will be necessary to bring in a number of our fellow Americans. Why would we want to intentionally create enemies? It makes 0 sense.

[sailingaway]

Romney got more votes than McCain.

really? I had read differently. Maybe it was less percent.

[Anti Federalist]

Romney got more votes than McCain.

Ah, so you're right.

My mistake, it was the total vote count that was down.

[erowe1]

really? I had read differently. Maybe it was less percent.

For some time after the election there was a lot of talk about the lower voter turnout this year, including speculation that Romney got fewer votes than McCain. But in the final tally that turned out not to be the case.

[Anti Federalist]

For some time after the election there was a lot of talk about the lower voter turnout this year, including speculation that Romney got fewer votes than McCain. But in the final tally that turned out not to be the case.

The turnout was lower than 2008.

Total votes cast in 2008 was 129,446,839.

Total votes cast in 2012 was 126,245,343.

Romney got roughly 800,000 more votes than McCain did in 2008.

But that does not take into account population increases.

I think the 2-3 million figure was based on a percentage that should have turned out for the GOP.

That had they turned out in the "battleground states" Romney would have won an EC victory.

[satchelmcqueen]

id vote rand cause ron is not going to run. id love to see ventura, demint and johnson on stage as well.

2007..1 liberty candidate on stage.
2011..2 liberty candidates on stage.
2015 .. 4?? i hope so.

[erowe1]

The turnout was lower than 2008.

Total votes cast in 2008 was 129,446,839.

Total votes cast in 2012 was 126,245,343.

Romney got roughly 800,000 more votes than McCain did in 2008.

But that does not take into account population increases.

I think the 2-3 million figure was based on a percentage that should have turned out for the GOP.

That had they turned out in the "battleground states" Romney would have won an EC victory.

Right. What I meant was that there was early speculation that Romney got fewer votes than McCain, which turned out not to be the case.

[KingNothing]

Romney did better than McCain because it would be hard for a politician to do worse than McCain nowadays.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yes, I think all of the polls we've seen here lately (especially the one between Rand and Kucinich :rolleyes:) are stupid.

Ron WON'T make another run at it so you can relax, but I wouldn't be sorry if he did. And I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Of course YOU think they are stupid. They're showing how many irrational actors are in our midst and how completely out of touch these people are.

[sailingaway]

people are allowed to have different opinions. What is the use of a poll if you didn't expect to see that?

[klamath]

The Daily Paul poll result was a surprise to me but it does fit into why RP had such a hard time in the primaries with a majority of the people supporting Kucinich over Rand in such a big RP site. With those kinds of supporters swarming the net and grass roots campaign I am sure many republicans were given the impression voting for Paul was a vote for Kucinich. Oh well. Very informative. Explains a LOT. 1.5% of voters.

[erowe1]

people are allowed to have different opinions.

Irony.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The Daily Paul poll result was a surprise to me but it does fit into why RP had such a hard time in the primaries with a majority of the people supporting Kucinich over Rand in such a big RP site. With those kinds of supporters swarming the net and grass roots campaign I am sure many republicans were given the impression voting for Paul was a vote for Kucinich. Oh well. Very informative. Explains a LOT. 1.5% of voters.

The Daily Paul poll seems highly suspect. Not because of the results (really don't know), but just the amount of votes, especially considering that the threads the polls are in don't have a lot of replies from very many different people. Seems to be one of those types of polls you can clear your browsing history for, and vote as many times as your heart desires.

[klamath]

The Daily Paul poll seems highly suspect. Not because of the results (really don't know), but just the amount of votes, especially considering that the threads the polls are in don't have a lot of replies from very many different people. Seems to be one of those types of polls you can clear your browsing history for, and vote as many times as your heart desires.
I don't hang out there but i hope you are right.

[PatriotOne]

Seems to be one of those types of polls you can clear your browsing history for, and vote as many times as your heart desires.

It is. I checked yesterday and was able to vote twice by clearing my browsing history.

[klamath]

It is. I checked yesterday and was able to vote twice by clearing my browsing history.
That's also reveiling considering the results....

[cajuncocoa]

Maybe there was an agenda on the part of those who want to smear DP.

[Dystopian]

I would vote for Ron Paul again.

I don't like Rand Paul and I'm not voting for him. He can't win anyways, the only thing he will do is raise a shit ton of money for Je$$e Benton and all the other campaign leaches and then drop out after a few states and start campaigning for Rubio or whatever establishment hack whose coattails he wants to ride.

[Natural Citizen]

Dr. Paul has been busting is ass in defense of liberty for decades. Decades! And he has done it unflinchingly and with the utmost integrity all while facing the most vitriolic and demeaning personal attacks.

For decades



I don't know that enough people understand that this is what is involved in real change or even remember that it serves as the guide to motivate future reason. Too many want thunder without lightening "at this point". It's become popular to concede that looking back and seeing where it was that we started the long haul is not practical or relevant to where we wish to go. As such, vision is lost where it was last perceived to point us. Many are stuck in the here and now with short term sight in acheiving things that are closest within reach or intellectually capable of seeing and by default relegate to remain content to accept these small tasks as permanent fixtures leaving no clear map to navigate all of the steps that need to be taken enroute to re-establishing the notions left by our founders. Seems like there is such a big old hurry to go no place in particular with all of the hurry up speak that is becoming the meme. I was reading some place here where some youngin was talking bout how well his plan was coming together. I got to chuckling about that. Was like....riiiiight.:rolleyes:

Decades Indeed though. And decades more will be required. We need to maybe remind some of our youth that the tireless work of Ron and the commitment of prescribed principles of which he premised his decades of service is a history book initself and one that they shouldn't soon dismiss as worthy to pack for use along the way after he removes himself from the over-sensationalised politics of it all. It's the only relevant map that will truly guide them beyond the rush of here and now that is so popular with many of them.

Of course, I do not discount their motivation as far as they understand it to be but it's becoming far too common to see them scoff when some remind them to look in this theoretical history book of sorts whenever it's seen that they may need a nudge back in the right direction. This is a mindset equally contributing to separation but unfortunately, it is one that creates separation of principle as it were. The path to where Ron wanted to take us started from a prescibed vision. Two points. One at the beginning where he started and one at the end where he envisioned it to be. Any points in between that would resteer it otherwise simply exist for the most part to redirect whether it be "at this point" or "at that point" or at whatever point is convenient to sell the illusion that we must. That practice is more relevant to "look at me" shenanigans as opposed to the look at the larger picture as it is truly drawn model. Not a very practical means of connecting the dots that ultimately scribble up the picture of liberty we would perhaps see if we were so motivated to maybe turn around and look back to remind ourselves of what it looked like.

All of that that may seem irrelevant of your response to this particular thread but it was your response that made me remember that too often we are forgetful of where it was we came when considering where it is we think we want to go. We don't always remember. Of course, often we're sold blindfolds as well so...yeah.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I would vote for Ron Paul again.

I don't like Rand Paul and I'm not voting for him. He can't win anyways, the only thing he will do is raise a shit ton of money for Je$$e Benton and all the other campaign leaches

"I would vote for Ron Paul again!"

"I won't vote for Rand Paul, he has no chance and will only raise a ton of money, some of which will go to Benton!"

[bolil]

Uh oh, here comes the schism. well hell, it was fun while it lasted.

[Natural Citizen]

Uh oh, here comes the schism. well hell, it was fun while it lasted.

Not really. Only if the schism is where one is content to focus.

[musicmax]

Rand if distances himself from Benton/Wead/Hunter and hires Tom Woods.

[DylanWaco]

Rand if distances himself from Benton/Wead/Hunter and hires Tom Woods.

So not Rand then