Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Ron Paul wins NH Straw Poll by a massive LANDSLIDE!

noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267

Presidential candidate Ron Paul today won the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers (CNHT) straw poll at their annual picnic in Hopkinton, New Hampshire. Dr. Paul received 182 of 294 votes cast, or 65 percent. In second place was Rudy Giuliani with 24 votes, or 8 percent.

"Today's strong victory is further proof that Dr. Paul's message is resonating throughout New Hampshire," said campaign manager Lew Moore. "Dr. Paul is the only candidate in this race truly dedicated to smaller government and lower taxes for all Americans."

CNHT is a statewide, grassroots organization dedicated to reducing the size of government at all levels, stopping judicial activism, providing students and parents with a choice of educational opportunities, expanding job markets, and protecting property rights.

http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/07/press-release-r.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I couldn't even make it to the straw poll because I was working today, same with my family. 

______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American

Comments

  • FinweFinwe Member CommonPosts: 3,106

    I think no matter who wins next election, our nation is done for. If any mainstream candidate wins, they will only further the corruptive over-bearing power of the government, causing the beast to grow even fatter.

    If someone like Ron Paul wins, it'll be like joining two extremely combustible chemicals together. If he's allowed to accomplish what he wishes to, our system of government will not be able to continue properly running, and a collapse will happen.

    "The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis

    "If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979

  • hazmatshazmats Member Posts: 1,081

    Keep in mind that that is a CNHT Straw Poll in New Hampshire. Most polls for New Hampshire don't even have Paul in the picture at all.

  • CharslesTCharslesT Member Posts: 366

    The American people are seeming to get it.  I think they are starting to look out for themselves, which they should. 

     

     

    I want what is best for America. God Bless you, America.

    Boycott EA Games. RIP Sim City.

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267
    Originally posted by Finwe


    I think no matter who wins next election, our nation is done for. If any mainstream candidate wins, they will only further the corruptive over-bearing power of the government, causing the beast to grow even fatter.
    If someone like Ron Paul wins, it'll be like joining two extremely combustible chemicals together. If he's allowed to accomplish what he wishes to, our system of government will not be able to continue properly running, and a collapse will happen.



    A collapse of this insane government model that we have is a good thing. Yeah there will be political commotion, but the controversy would get people talking and get people off their ass and learn about what's going on in the world. They might ask "Why is he getting rid of the fed", "Why is he severing membership to the U.N?"....ect. This would be awesome.





    Anyways Ron Paul has said many times that getting rid of any government welfare program won't be on the top of his priorities and that he will slowly erode them and teach people to be responsible for themselves and let people donate on their own time and with money that they actually can donate instead of forcfully taken away at gun point by the IRS.

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • FinweFinwe Member CommonPosts: 3,106
    Originally posted by AlexAmore
    Originally posted by Finwe

    I think no matter who wins next election, our nation is done for. If any mainstream candidate wins, they will only further the corruptive over-bearing power of the government, causing the beast to grow even fatter.

    If someone like Ron Paul wins, it'll be like joining two extremely combustible chemicals together. If he's allowed to accomplish what he wishes to, our system of government will not be able to continue properly running, and a collapse will happen.



    A collapse of this insane government model that we have is a good thing. Yeah there will be political commotion, but the controversy would get people talking and get people off their ass and learn about what's going on in the world. They might ask "Why is he getting rid of the fed", "Why is he severing membership to the U.N?"....ect. This would be awesome.

    You're right, it is a good thing. I have no love for this current form of government. But we have a system that started with FDR. Alot of infrastructure has been built on that foundation. With that foudnation ripped out, the infrastructure will fall.





    Anyways Ron Paul has said many times that getting rid of any government welfare program won't be on the top of his priorities and that he will slowly erode them and teach people to be responsible for themselves and let people donate on their own time and with money that they actually can donate instead of forcfully taken away at gun point by the IRS.

    Unless Ron Paul takes a very offensive stance and attacks it like a verocious beast, he will be no different than bush trying to change income tax to a spending tax. In other words, it won't happen. Because unless it's on major priorities, and pursued with a valiant hammer rivalling the might of thors, then what's the point?

     

    "The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis

    "If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979

  • ColdmeatColdmeat Member UncommonPosts: 3,410

    Paul can have all the wacky fun talking about getting rid of the Fed, but I'd love to see him actually do it. If only so I could watch the stock market fall through the floor, then I'd like for all the conspiracy types to step forward, and explain how it was a good idea again.

    This is, of course, ignoring the fact that all of his talk about taking a chainsaw to the Gov't amounts to a whole lot of hot air. Unless he somehow got Congress replaced with a whole mess of Libertarians, all the cool talking points he's made are for naught.

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267
    Originally posted by Finwe

    Originally posted by AlexAmore

    Originally posted by Finwe


    I think no matter who wins next election, our nation is done for. If any mainstream candidate wins, they will only further the corruptive over-bearing power of the government, causing the beast to grow even fatter.
    If someone like Ron Paul wins, it'll be like joining two extremely combustible chemicals together. If he's allowed to accomplish what he wishes to, our system of government will not be able to continue properly running, and a collapse will happen.



    A collapse of this insane government model that we have is a good thing. Yeah there will be political commotion, but the controversy would get people talking and get people off their ass and learn about what's going on in the world. They might ask "Why is he getting rid of the fed", "Why is he severing membership to the U.N?"....ect. This would be awesome.

    You're right, it is a good thing. I have no love for this current form of government. But we have a system that started with FDR. Alot of infrastructure has been built on that foundation. With that foudnation ripped out, the infrastructure will fall.



    And we will have a small government, exactly what all the mainstream Republicans talk about. Mainstream Republicans just talk about cutting taxes, and that's apparently all there is to small government. Little do they tell you about the fact that in turn they ask China, Japan, Mexico...ect to finance us. lol. So we then just spend taxes on the interest on the debt. Ron Paul actually talks about the deficit and is headstrong on getting that gone along with the borrowing.






    Anyways Ron Paul has said many times that getting rid of any government welfare program won't be on the top of his priorities and that he will slowly erode them and teach people to be responsible for themselves and let people donate on their own time and with money that they actually can donate instead of forcfully taken away at gun point by the IRS.

    Unless Ron Paul takes a very offensive stance and attacks it like a verocious beast, he will be no different than bush trying to change income tax to a spending tax. In other words, it won't happen. Because unless it's on major priorities, and pursued with a valiant hammer rivalling the might of thors, then what's the point?



    Of course he is going to go after certain things like a beast (IRS, FED, U.N..ect), but you can't just outright cut certain welfare programs that people have relied on for years...or else they get completely ****ed. My mom's company gives her a nice bonus every month because she does her job very well; unfortunately corporate is having a little money issues and cut any chance of her getting a bonus this month and she just bought a new car. Thankfully I can help her out financially, but for anyone else that might hurt because it was a complete cut off and not an erosion that she could plan ahead for. That's all I mean when it comes to government welfare programs.

     

     

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267
    Originally posted by Coldmeat


    Paul can have all the wacky fun talking about getting rid of the Fed,

    Ron paul is the most consistent player in the political game. Everyone else are the wacky flip flopping talkers. He just recently introduced legislation to get rid of the Fed.

    but I'd love to see him actually do it.

    He actually fought and tried SERIOUSLY go after Osama, but not many actually wanted to do it and we ended up in Iraq. Ron is VERY proactive and ambitious, you don't have to worry about him being lazy.



    If only so I could watch the stock market fall through the floor, then I'd like for all the conspiracy types to step forward, and explain how it was a good idea again.

    Ron Paul introduced the "Honest Money Act". Ron Paul supports an alternative currency that would be backed by gold and silver (Or whatever is right...i'll let an economist figure it out). He would then allow it to flood the markets and make it popular. No depression needed.
    This is, of course, ignoring the fact that all of his talk about taking a chainsaw to the Gov't amounts to a whole lot of hot air. Unless he somehow got Congress replaced with a whole mess of Libertarians, all the cool talking points he's made are for naught.

    Bush seems to be able to do a shitload of things without Congressional approval because of "national security". Well what Ron Paul is doing is actually a matter of national security. I'm not saying Ron should bypass the Congress, but don't think Ron wouldn't be in a powerful position to do what he needs to do. I would rather have someone who could at least halt our government's insanity, instead of allowing it to act like an animal zoo. He would certainly have a lot of vetoing power....he is Dr. No.

     

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • I'm inclined to agree with Coldmeat here. It's not so much that I doubt Paul's commitment to his ideals, his voting record speaks for itself, but I don't know if anyone can pull off what he wants as rapidly as he wants.



    That said, how do most Libertarians feel about returning the gold standard?

  • CharslesTCharslesT Member Posts: 366

    Realistically, as President, he would be a great President.  I predict this and premise this not on the theory that he would implement his public policy preferences.  He would challenge the owners of the Democratic and Republican parties, and the owners of those parties overlap and control both. 

     

     

    America truly needs some one to do that, an independent voice and leader to expose and challenge their ideas, methods, and records.

    Boycott EA Games. RIP Sim City.

  • ColdmeatColdmeat Member UncommonPosts: 3,410


    Originally posted by AlexAmore

    Originally posted by Coldmeat

    Paul can have all the wacky fun talking about getting rid of the Fed,
    Ron paul is the most consistent player in the political game. Everyone else are the wacky flip flopping talkers. He just recently introduced legislation to get rid of the Fed.
    but I'd love to see him actually do it.
    He actually fought and tried SERIOUSLY go after Osama, but not many actually wanted to do it and we ended up in Iraq. Ron is VERY proactive and ambitious, you don't have to worry about him being lazy.

    If only so I could watch the stock market fall through the floor, then I'd like for all the conspiracy types to step forward, and explain how it was a good idea again.
    Ron Paul introduced the "Honest Money Act". Ron Paul supports an alternative currency that would be backed by gold and silver (Or whatever is right...i'll let an economist figure it out). He would then allow it to flood the markets and make it popular. No depression needed.
    This is, of course, ignoring the fact that all of his talk about taking a chainsaw to the Gov't amounts to a whole lot of hot air. Unless he somehow got Congress replaced with a whole mess of Libertarians, all the cool talking points he's made are for naught.
    Bush seems to be able to do a shitload of things without Congressional approval because of "national security". Well what Ron Paul is doing is actually a matter of national security. I'm not saying Ron should bypass the Congress, but don't think Ron wouldn't be in a powerful position to do what he needs to do. I would rather have someone who could at least halt our government's insanity, instead of allowing it to act like an animal zoo. He would certainly have a lot of vetoing power....he is Dr. No.



    I'd say that much of what Bush has done, was done with the approval of Congress, whether tacitly, or by dint of their lack of action to prevent him from riding roughshod all over the Constitution.

    As far as converting to a gold standard goes, we would have to convert to a 100% gold standard if it were to have a chance of working, and I doubt we have enough gold in our reserves to guarantee all the currency we have in circulation at this point. Flooding the system with gold backed currency would be totally pointless, as the whole point of using the gold standard is to prevent a government from just printing off more money as fiat currency, and thus deficit spending. There's also the fact that, inasfar as I know, gold is currently valuated in relation to the US Dollar, rather than the other way around.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

    On a more personal note, if you think the rich have all the money now, switch to a gold standard, and see what happens to the little guy. I don't think it would turn out so well for them. It'd probably work out pretty good for me, being in the Financial sector, though. ::::20::

    There are a few other positions of his I take personal issue with, such as his position on abortion. Namely overturning Roe V. Wade, and making abortion a States Rights issue. If you're going to do that, then you open the door for overturning a number of other things, such as Brown v. Board of Education by claiming it's a States Right issue. At which point you have to ask, are we the United States or not? If we are not to be united as one country, then why have a Federal Gov't at all? Why not just cut to the chase, and revert to a connected group of Country-States that sort of get along with each other. Which, given Collegiate sports, and the fact that the Fed have basically fucked off the citizenry of the US, that's sort of what we have already. States legalizing pot, gay marriage, putting religion in public schools, etc, despite Federal laws against those things(gay marriage isn't law yet, but not for lack of trying)

    I consider myself a Libertarian, though by no means do I tow the party line. Probably Anarcho-Libertarian-Social Darwinist would be the most apt description.

    Assuming Ron Paul gets elected, which I don't think he will, he would get nothing done, due to his desire to dismantle the system to which the rest of the Gov't has become addicted to like methadone. You thought people put partisanship aside in the wake of 9/11, it's nothing like what you'd see if Ron Paul stepped foot in the White House. Nothing brings Demicraps, and Republicunts together like someone threatening to take away their gravy train.

    Short of armed revolution, or a major paradigm shift in the American voting populace, you're not gonna see anything change, just a slow slide into Christian Fundamentalist based Totalitarianism. Or Totalitarianism that at least pays lip service to Fundamentalist ideals. Got Bush elected twice.


    Edit: Before anyone brings up China holding a majority of our 9 trillion in debt, it should be noted that we in turn prop up their (burgeoning) economy by being the #1 importer of their goods, and as such, any threat that they would dump our debt, thus forcing a run on the dollar, is strictly sabre rattling, as causing our economy to collapse would cause theirs to collapse as well, and probably take much of the rest of the world down with it, if only temporarily.

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267
    Originally posted by Coldmeat


     
    I'd say that much of what Bush has done, was done with the approval of Congress, whether tacitly, or by dint of their lack of action to prevent him from riding roughshod all over the Constitution. 



    As far as converting to a gold standard goes, we would have to convert to a 100% gold standard if it were to have a chance of working, and I doubt we have enough gold in our reserves to guarantee all the currency we have in circulation at this point.

    That's why we can also use silver. 

    Flooding the system with gold backed currency would be totally pointless, as the whole point of using the gold standard is to prevent a government from just printing off more money as fiat currency, and thus deficit spending. There's also the fact that, inasfar as I know, gold is currently valuated in relation to the US Dollar, rather than the other way around.

    Gold has been around a long time before the U.S dollar, i'm sure we can figure something out.



    Right now you're not providing ANY solutions and you keep saying how we're going to crash if we do anything like go to Gold. Well I got news for ya, we're going to crash anyways like we have crashed before and maybe worse.


    On a more personal note, if you think the rich have all the money now, switch to a gold standard, and see what happens to the little guy. I don't think it would turn out so well for them. It'd probably work out pretty good for me, being in the Financial sector, though. ::::20::

    A poor person wouldn't need as much money because it wouldn't be so devalued and he could save up his little money without being in fear of inflation...the invisible tax that hurts the poor today. Remember in history class when you learned that one could buy a loaf of bread for a nickel?...Not any more since fiat currency inflated to astronomical levels.



    There are a few other positions of his I take personal issue with, such as his position on abortion. Namely overturning Roe V. Wade, and making abortion a States Rights issue. If you're going to do that, then you open the door for overturning a number of other things, such as Brown v. Board of Education by claiming it's a States Right issue. At which point you have to ask, are we the United States or not?

    Look into the Constitution...does it say the FEDERAL government can decide on issues of abortion and education? Absolutely not. The Fed are supposed to simply manage international things in relation to the U.S. and manage money and the post office.



    State power is good because it gives you a bigger voice.

    If we are not to be united as one country, then why have a Federal Gov't at all?

    Maybe you can read the Constitution and find out. It's all in there. I've read it.

    Why not just cut to the chase, and revert to a connected group of Country-States that sort of get along with each other. 

    That's basically how it's supposed to be. Who wants a big centralized government dictating every part of people's personal life? I would rather have states with more power and then if I wanted too, I could move to another state with a more similar belief system as mine. Right now with a big bloated centralized government...I have to move to another country for a search of a better place to live.



    Which, given Collegiate sports, and the fact that the Fed have basically fucked off the citizenry of the US, that's sort of what we have already. States legalizing pot, gay marriage, putting religion in public schools, etc, despite Federal laws against those things(gay marriage isn't law yet, but not for lack of trying)

    That's great because that means the will of the people is taking over! People want gay marriage in some states and some states have people who smoke a lot of marijuana. All this is happening and nobody seems to have gotten hurt and people seem to be more free.
    I consider myself a Libertarian, though by no means do I tow the party line. Probably Anarcho-Libertarian-Social Darwinist would be the most apt description.
    Assuming Ron Paul gets elected, which I don't think he will, he would get nothing done, due to his desire to dismantle the system to which the rest of the Gov't has become addicted to like methadone. You thought people put partisanship aside in the wake of 9/11, it's nothing like what you'd see if Ron Paul stepped foot in the White House. Nothing brings Demicraps, and Republicunts together like someone threatening to take away their gravy train.

    What's your point? Let a warmonger or a socialist in so he can DO something? What would he DO? Nothing that I want. Maybe Ron Paul should get in to stop the animal zoo in their tracks and DO what he can while vetoing all their garbage.
    Short of armed revolution, or a major paradigm shift in the American voting populace, you're not gonna see anything change, just a slow slide into Christian Fundamentalist based Totalitarianism. Or Totalitarianism that at least pays lip service to Fundamentalist ideals. Got Bush elected twice.

    I actually see a Democrat winning 2008. No way is a Republican winning unless it's Ron Paul. Nobody wants to be in this war except 30% of America. I guess I don't consider Obama and HIllary fundies...perhaps they are.


    Edit: Before anyone brings up China holding a majority of our 9 trillion in debt, it should be noted that we in turn prop up their (burgeoning) economy by being the #1 importer of their goods, and as such, any threat that they would dump our debt, thus forcing a run on the dollar, is strictly sabre rattling, as causing our economy to collapse would cause theirs to collapse as well, and probably take much of the rest of the world down with it, if only temporarily. 

    They also import very dangerous crap over to us. Dangerous children toys and dangerous dog food and whatever else. We don't inspect hardly anything.

     

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • olddaddyolddaddy Member Posts: 3,356

    Originally posted by AlexAmore


    Presidential candidate Ron Paul today won the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers (CNHT) straw poll at their annual picnic in Hopkinton, New Hampshire. Dr. Paul received 182 of 294 votes cast, or 65 percent. In second place was Rudy Giuliani with 24 votes, or 8 percent.
    "Today's strong victory is further proof that Dr. Paul's message is resonating throughout New Hampshire," said campaign manager Lew Moore. "Dr. Paul is the only candidate in this race truly dedicated to smaller government and lower taxes for all Americans."
    CNHT is a statewide, grassroots organization dedicated to reducing the size of government at all levels, stopping judicial activism, providing students and parents with a choice of educational opportunities, expanding job markets, and protecting property rights.

    http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/07/press-release-r.html

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    I couldn't even make it to the straw poll because I was working today, same with my family. 

    Not exactly a statistically valid sampling method, is it?

     

  • CharslesTCharslesT Member Posts: 366

    America would benefit tremendously from some one like Ron Paul in the White House.

    Boycott EA Games. RIP Sim City.

  • noname12345noname12345 Member Posts: 2,267
    Originally posted by olddaddy


     
     
    Not exactly a statistically valid sampling method, is it?



    Everyone in NH was allowed to go. It shows that Ron Paul supporters are clearly more energetic and loyal. Did you see what happened at the Iowa Forum? Did 800 Mitt Romney fans come to support him? Nope...but Ron Paul fans did.



    "Scientific" Polls aren't scientific either. If they want to know how much support is there for Ron Paul, they have criteria for making calls:

    1. Must be a registered Republican who is likely to vote. Ron Paul has a lot of support from Liberals and independents as well, and many people weren't likely to vote at all until Ron Paul came along.

    2. Must have a landline. A lot of Ron Paul supporters don't even have a landline...it's a demographic thing.

    3. Many "scientific" polls didn't even include him, and instead you see "Other" getting 19% or something.

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • abbabaabbaba Member Posts: 1,143

    Originally posted by AlexAmore


    Presidential candidate Ron Paul today won the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers (CNHT) straw poll at their annual picnic in Hopkinton, New Hampshire. Dr. Paul received 182 of 294 votes cast, or 65 percent. In second place was Rudy Giuliani with 24 votes, or 8 percent.
    "Today's strong victory is further proof that Dr. Paul's message is resonating throughout New Hampshire," said campaign manager Lew Moore. "Dr. Paul is the only candidate in this race truly dedicated to smaller government and lower taxes for all Americans."
    CNHT is a statewide, grassroots organization dedicated to reducing the size of government at all levels, stopping judicial activism, providing students and parents with a choice of educational opportunities, expanding job markets, and protecting property rights.

    http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/07/press-release-r.html

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    I couldn't even make it to the straw poll because I was working today, same with my family. 
    Lol really, he won a straw poll at a picnic for an organization of people that agree with him? No way.

    That's like Hillary Clinton winning 65% of a feminist straw poll and going 'OMG she must be going to win!'

Sign In or Register to comment.