Ron Paul on MSNBC (video)

Good chance his name is not on the polls, just like Kucinich and Gravel. ~ Lo

Dandelion Salad

CSPANJUNKIEdotORG

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 MSNBC

see

Should You Be President? Take the Survey

This is Why Kucinich is Down in the Polls By Manila Ryce

11 thoughts on “Ron Paul on MSNBC (video)

  1. With unity for TRUTH there is great fear & blowback. Blackout & smear. Remember perot anderson carter rfk jfk & of course, 911. Web 2.0 truth to power

  2. It seems that they may not know the candidates position. For example, how do I know that the people who constructed the poll know that Paul opposes same-sex marriage? It doesn’t seem to people I talk to that they have any knowledge of Paul’s core positions:

    1. Opposes same-sex marriage
    2. Opposes government efforts to combat racism
    3. Opposes a woman’s right to choose
    4. Opposes the separation of church and state
    5. Supports government regulation of private sexual conduct.

    So I am suspicious that the poll is actually very useful.

  3. Ron Paul is a racist homophobe who believes there is no separation of church and state, that there is no fundamental right to privacy, and that the government should regulate private sexual conduct and a woman’s reproductive capacity. You can’t get anymore right wing wacko than this. For pete’s sake, the man is talking about states rights. What is this? Alabama circa 1963?

    I see that my using the “wacko” term has disturbed people, but Ron Paul leans way heavy to the fascist side, and if you can’t call a fascist names then you live in a truly PC world. Hitler was a wacko. Mussolini was a wacko. Paul is a wacko. (Kucinich is not a wacko.)

    As for whether I agree with his views on this or that issue, the form of argument being used against me is a fallacious one. Hitler was an environmentalist, does this mean that because I agree with Hitler on the subject of environmentalism I should want his name to appear on a candidate list?

    See, the problem isn’t than Ron Paul is correct on a few issues. The problem is that Ron Paul is wrong on most everything else. He’s way out there in right-wing conservative crazyland. You don’t get behind a nut like Paul because he doesn’t like the PATRIOT ACT. You oppose authoritarians like Ron Paul because their vision of the American dream is a nightmare for everybody who isn’t a white male heterosexist property owner.

  4. He’s a conservative, I’m not. Kucinich is against the Patriot Act, torture, etc, too. Kucinich has introduced a bill to impeach Cheney! He also wants to investigate 9-11. There are a few similarities to these candidates, but overall I prefer the progressive liberal one, Dennis Kucinich.

  5. You don’t agree with his stance against the patriot act? Or how about his stance against illegal torture and no habeous corpus in prisons, or constitutional government. There’s more to Ron Paul than his anti-war stance, that’s why he so appealing to a wide spectrum of people. Very often in history have idealist been labeled wack jobs. Sure Ron Paul maybe a little overboard when it comes the ideas of free markets, but in an ideal world free markets would work pretty well. And for all those who are afraid of his overly capitialist ideas just remember that Ron Paul is not running for dictator of the USA, he’s running for president of the USA, where as a strong constitunalist it would be his job to execute law and order not legislate it. That’s the job of the congress which is very diverse in ideas. The American people have forgotten about the separation of powers since 9/11. While Ron Paul might make a horrible dictator(but who wouldn’t) He’d make a great President. He’s the the only candidate that’s campaigning on restoring the constitution in goverment and that’s what separates him from both the capitalist republicans and the sociailist democrats.

  6. Andrew, you know full well there are not hundreds of presidential candidates. (Well, there probably are a few more totally unknown candidates who are not campaigning beyond their neighborhoods, but that’s not what we are talking about here.)

    Name calling is unnecessary. Believe it or not those with differing political views are NOT “wackos”. I’ve been involved in politics for almost 30 years now. I’ve learned not to take politics personally and to respect others’ opinions that I do not share. It’s called “agree to disagree” and go from there.

    Knowing all sides of the various issues and the platforms/stances of the candidates is a good thing. It reinforces what you believe in, imo.

    Many times I’ve stated that I disagree with most of what Ron Paul’s stances are on the issues with the exception of getting out of Iraq. What Ron Paul has done with his campaign is get a lot of people, especially young people interested in politics, I think that is a good thing.

  7. I agree with Andrew, but I think we should take it one step further. We need to silence all the nut jobs. We should start with Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and the 911 truth movement. History has shown us how dangerous these nut jobs can be when heard. Take for example that nut job Ralph Nader, consumer rights? come on. Or how about that nut job Martin Luther King. Different people living in harmony? That’s just crazy. Noam Chomsky (The crazy self hating jew) or Mahatma Ghandi. We need to silence these nut jobs and their crazy ideas before it’s too late and people actually start believing that world is not flat. Thanks Andrew, it’s good to know that I’m not alone here.

  8. Hundreds of people run for public office. As someone trained in public opinion polling, I can tell you that if we put all their names on the list nobody will respond to the surveys. You simply can’t administer polls in such a fashion.

    So the question is, which names do you leave off the list? When it comes to leaving names off the list, leaving off Ron Paul, along with the dozens of other racist homophobes running for political office, is not something progressives should be troubled about.

    It’s not analogous to the Kucinich case. Kucinich is a rational progressive, something not represented by the other Democratic candidates. Ron Paul represents nothing new for the Republican Party except that he hasn’t learned to mainstream his fascist tendencies in nice sounding language.

    You do a disservice to Kucinich by equating him to a wacko like Paul. Worse, drawing an analogy between Paul and Kucinich legitimizes Paul, who is a deplorable person.

  9. Oh, I disagree with you, Andrew, we all should care if any candidate’s name is left off the polling that is done. We constantly hear so and so is leading in the polls from our media, and some are only getting 1% or less. Well, no wonder, if many of those running aren’t even included! It doesn’t make any difference if you agree with their politics/platform or not, they shouldn’t be left off the polls.

    Ron Paul is way too conservative for my liking but he should be allowed to be in the debates and the polls.

Comments are closed.