Skip to comments.Accept No Substitutes? [Just who are Ron Paul Supporters?]
Posted on 05/28/2007 2:00:11 PM PDT by bnelson44
Analysis of the GOP Bloggers Straw Poll
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ron Paul supporters like nobody less than Giuliani for whom most observers called that debate based on his response to Pauls blowback comments, even as the Ronbots contended that the very same exchange proved Ron Paul the obvious winner.
Unlike supporters of the realistic (and popular, arguably faddish and maybe unrealistic) candidates, Ron Paul supporters apparently would not vote for any other GOP candidate in the Republican primary though intriguingly, a minority would consider Tancredo.
I submit this as fair evidence that Ron Pauls online base of support is not drawn from actual Republican party primary voters. Activists for every other candidate have their fallbacks, nemeses and frenemies, but no other group is so far outside the mainstream as the activists for Ron Paul.
Maybe Ron Paul is the GOP vanguard. More likely, his support measures something besides the current Republican mood.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogpi.net ...
The gops rosie
His supporters are DUmmies, Buchananites and 9/11 “Truthers”.
His supporters do tend to be people who have read the Constitution a time or two and are quite displeased over the two Big Spender parties.
I need to read more about RP, but I like what I have heard. He has read the Constitution, he does not want the USA to be “world police,” he does not believe Americans should only have a choice between Dumb and Dumber (Spendocrats vs Spendpublicans).
Mostly Libertarian drug addicts.
Totally strange man. Far out. Woooooeeeeeoooooo.
Interesting....yeah, I suppose that’s how it goes for them.
They were big spenders before the war also...or were you not paying attention?
Sounds as though the country is in real trouble bigtime.
It would be nice if we did not have to take on the role as "world police", but I do not trust the UN, EU, China, or the former USSR in that role. If we don't do it, you know someone else will.
You should do more research—try Pat Buchanan, but more so, try the John Birch Society..if that appeals to your tastes, you should dump the Republican Party forever...But don’t just leave in name only, just leave, and don’t be a RINO.
He's a real moron.Believes that the US military should be guarding our border instead of the Korean,German,and Iraqi borders.
The entrenched establishment fears Ron Paul, and that should make the people think...
Based upon Paul’s previous attempt at the Presidency, I’d not worry about him being much of a force in this election.
In 1998 he managed to get some 431,000 votes or about 0.47% of the vote as the Libertarian presidential candidate. I doubt he’ll cause much of a ripple among the GOP primary voters once all is said and done. He gets a lot of internet play but he doesn’t have the money nor the organization to deal will a hard fought GOP primary campaign, imo.
Check out his rankings on YT. His supporters over there seem to think that Dr. Paul hates the U.S. as much as they do...so of course, they are supporting his campaign.
Nobody fears Ron Paul.
Probably those who are looking for someone who has more to offer than policies that have the support of 30% of voters.
Ron Paul is a clown. Just observe for youselves.
I’m sure that Ron Paul is Osama bin Laden’s favorite Republican.
Raising the question of how many Ron Paul supporters are truly Republicans... How many lifelong Republicans look at a field of ten other candidates (if you include Thompson) and say, “I reject all of them”?
Just did a check. Of the 6195 votes for Paul right now,
4063 of them came from this site:
Not sure what that means (maybe spamming, not sure)
Absolutely right. Unless Ron Paul is in the primary, I actually will not vote in the Republican primary at all, although I've been a registered Republican for 25 years. If the Republican Party can only see fit to run and nominate opportunists like Romney, @$$holes like McCain, and fascists like Giuliani, I'm not voting Republican at all any more---not in the primaries or general elections.
Good way to slur those of us that believe in the Constitution instead of falling lockstep behind partisan hacks that would use it for another catchphrase or soundbite.
I fit into none of the categories you mentioned, as my posts can attest. Course I imagine if you squint real hard you can work up a slur for me instead of debate Rep. Paul's valid points, domestically and on foreign policy
He also does not want the U.S. to have any military at all as evidenced by his votes against every military appropriations bill since 1997.
I don’t think bashing Ron Paul does anyone any good.
This is the GOP primary and myself personally I like his domestic views quite a bit.
His foreign policy views are disastrous though.
This notion that anyone outside the mainstream GOP is an anti-semite racist or evil is senseless. I would like to see political correctness purged from the GOP. Bush and his advisors have used it well enough already....to ill effect.
What is much more important right now is to stop social liberals from gaining control of the mess that Bush has created in the GOP.
That is the fight folks. Paul is almost irrelevant though if everything falls apart he will have a table at the ashes to be sure like all the other pieces.
I am a Tancredo man but being a realist I hope my homeboy Fred can make me feel better that he is going to be a real conservative and clean up the crap left by the ruling GOP now (yes...there are exceptions like Sessions etc)
“This is the GOP primary and myself personally I like his domestic views quite a bit.”
-Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
-Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
-War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
-Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
-Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
-Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
-Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
-Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
-Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
-Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
-Voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act
-Voted against the 2002 congressional endorsement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
I’d agree, deebee, for the most part, but Paul’s views on border control are not libertarian by any means.
-Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)......(agree, with exceptions)
-War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000).....(agree especially about confiscations)
-Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001).....(I think that would be fine)
-Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003).....(so?)
-Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)....(I think it should be reviewed every 5 years maybe)
-Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004).....(some think it should be up to states...not me though however Congress hasn't busted a grape on this so he's hardly an outlier)
-Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)......(I don't think we need this specific amendment really)
-Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)......(depends on the charge....Federal sentencing guidlines are draconian)
-Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)....(here I would disagree)
-Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003).....(I bet he thinks this is not proper use of fed tax revenue per the Constitution literally...I would vote to ignore the Constituion on that)
-Voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.....( I wholeheartedly agree with him there, but btw....Paul did not serve in 1964)...a small oversight)
-Voted against the 2002 congressional endorsement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ......( i agree with his vote)
You left out a couple of supporters:
Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo. He’s listed as a contributer on both their sites.
Raimondo is a big ‘truther’. He posted here frequently util Jim Rob banned him for his articles blaming 9-11 on the Jews. Rockwell publishes a lot of the truther stuff as well.
Speak for yourself there, sport.
And people who have a modicum of understanding and support for the U.S. Constitution.
Sorry, I should have said he was and is against the Civil Rights act of 1964. And it appears you are too.
Ron Paul wants to more than legalize medical dope. He wants to get rid of all federal laws against drugs.
IMHO, that is where his support comes from.
If so, your chances of ever getting into real politics are nill.
BTW, much better to fight that war on German, Iraqi and Korean borders than in downtown San Diego. Ever since the development of the reciprocating engine and the discovery of electricity, the effective size of the world has become quite small.
It would be nice if someone else would take on the role of "world police". Maybe then I wouldn't have to surrender to minimum-wage government employees at the airport who seem to want to inspect the inside of my shoes and underwear.
Speak for yourself, there "Nutroot".
No only do you fear Ron Paul, you fear people like him.
It would be nice if some "Republican" would advocate attacking Osama Bin Laden rather than the rest of us.
....not all, but those that do learned it from the Ron Paul detractors.
All the evil stuff was taught to you by others.
That right there is evidence that you're not really up to the job of governing this country.
Imagine that - the only conservative candidate getting a lot of votes from a conservative website.
you’re right that he has libertarian support
his foreign policy views are really very odd....dangerous actually
I have fought pretty hard elsewhere against those who like his worldview
I am not in favor of drug legalisation
yes....I have a problem with civil rights legislation that used the Commerce clause to supercede individual rights to discriminate even if wrongly
and where that has led...but that is just me and yes I realize that most here would disagree with me on that
putting the PC genie back in the bottle is too tall an order for my lifetime
and that argument is unsolvable.....the act is here and all it has brought forth
Wrong. If he wants to run for President, he needs to run in whichever manner he thinks he could win.
And your point is.........what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.