http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx Polling registered voters establishes who is and is not "electable", and they seem to think he's just as electable as anyone else. Let's put that groundless meme to bed once and for all.
I think "unelectable" just means he doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected, and he doesn't. Maybe one of these mush Republicans will win and be just as spineless against the Islamists as Ron Paul would be, though. You never know.
You're claiming he can't win because he can't win. That's what the rest of us call circular logic. He's polling in the top tier nationwide and the early primary States, He's got a nationwide ground presence, and he's raising plenty of cash. That pretty much defines "electability".
Not to mention he has twice as much funds from military donors than the other republicans put together. He even has more the Obama. Listen to who the military wants, they are only the ones MOST affected by 10 years of war.
It would have been interesting if during that poll they'd thrown in a made up possible GOP contender. I've got a hunch that some generic Americanish sounding name, maybe taking the most popular male first and last names, would score a good 40+% against Obama. Ron Paul right now is highly unknown by the American public. Even a lot of his supporters seem to have no freaking idea what Ron Pauls stated positions are or even what a Libertarian is in the first place. They just know he says mean things about stuff they don't like. And he gets away with this because nobody has ever considered him a serious political threat on a national level. I doubt there has been a single attack ad directed at him outside of his home district (if there). And the national press barely acknowledges him, much less seriously discusses his positions. But if he ever does get the nod, it'll be ugly. Obama might come out winning by record amounts.
The war on the Islamists is a created war and now its turning against the American people. The war on terror is the war on freedom, created by AAE interests to forward the new world order. http://www.radioliberty.com/nlmar02.htm
Uhh... I *think* people are aware of who he is by now. Here's the latest one from Rasmussen: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...n_2012_presidential_election/obama_39_paul_38 Obama 39 Paul 38.
Oh, I'm sure if you showed them a picture of him, many people would know that's crazy uncle Ronnie. But, again, from other threads here, I've found his supporters are woefully unaware of his positions. Like the sorts of positions he writes about in his book. One RP fan here didn't seem to know that he favored a gold standard. Another thought Ron Paul was all about sticking it to the corporations to get them to give more of their profits to the "rest of us". And that's his fans, on a political discussion forum. What do you think "joe sixpack" knows about RP, Mises, anarcho-capitalism, or minarchies? Though since the debate he was in some word is getting around. The libertarians at the office were getting razzed around the coffee pot about that whole "let Iran have nukes" business. If RP is at some point considered to be a serious contender, he will be pilloried by attack ads, debate moderators, media of almost every bias, and the American public in general.
He doesn't favor the gold standard. Ron Paul advocates for a free market of competing currencies. Ron Paul is the sworn enemy of the banking system. Sounds about right to me.
The only Republican candidate that Obama would fear would be Huntsman is smart and thoughtful. He won't be running on Reproductive Rights, Homosexual marriage or Creationism.
Is the man "electable" or not? If not, what standard are you using to define it? /all the *objective* standards say he's very electable.
Oh, I'm sure if you showed them a picture of him, many people would know that's crazy uncle Ronnie. But, again, from other threads here, I've found his supporters are woefully unaware of his positions. Like the sorts of positions he writes about in his book. One RP fan here didn't seem to know that he favored a gold standard. Another thought Ron Paul was all about sticking it to the corporations to get them to give more of their profits to the "rest of us". And that's his fans, on a political discussion forum. What do you think "joe sixpack" knows about RP, Mises, anarcho-capitalism, or minarchies? Though since the debate he was in some word is getting around. The libertarians at the office were getting razzed around the coffee pot about that whole "let Iran have nukes" business. If RP is at some point considered to be a serious contender, he will be pilloried by attack ads, debate moderators, media of almost every bias, and the American public in general.
Ron Paul has a couple of things working against him; 1. His age. He's too old; 2. His political platforms are too extreme for the Republican Party; 3. He doesn't have the political capital to make it past the primaries. I predict that the mainstream republican party will quietly push him out the door because he represents a threat to the "old guard".
I listened to Ron Paul speak the other day. What is so crazy about bringing the troops home and letting them spend the money they are paid here? What is so crazy about having a currency backed with something of value? Germany had to back theirs with land at one time. What is so crazy about the U.S. minding its own business? What is so crazy about thinking the Patriot act did not adress the real problem with terrorism and instead just restricted Americans freedom? What is so crazy that thinking we learned nothing from prohibition and have wasted trillions on the war on drugs? As much as I am against Islamic terrorism...the U.S. brought it on themselves through terrible foreign policy.
Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian political ideology that should be confronted even more forcefully than Nazism. It is responsible for millions of deaths dating back to the 7th century. There have been major campaigns of jihad and Islamic expansionism that were only stopped by force. Force is the only thing that can stop Islamists. Instead of marching into Europe with weapons this time, they are exploiting Europe's open borders immigration policy and invading from within. Apologists like you make me sick. You'd rather (*)(*)(*)(*) on your own country than oppose the scum known as Islamic fundamentalism.
I am not apologising to anyone...especially not you. Did you ever think that their main goal is to make us spend ourselves to death?...and it is working? I do oppose Islamic terrorism...and putting a target on the back of my countrymen (the armed forces)...will not help. Did you ever consider that we have no authority to tell Europe what to do? Did you ever think that the people of Europe resent the fact that the Americans even think they can tell them who to let into THEIR countries and who not to let in. We should mind our own business...I do not hear Europe asking for help. Did you ever think that we should protect our own country first?
Same as Christian fundamentalists marching into the middle east for the past... ummm 800 years... I agree with you 100%.. fanatically aggressive religious zealots should be stomped into the ground.. no matter where they come from
As much as Americans may hate it...it is a fact. Europe belongs to the Europeans. Egypt belongs to the Egyptians. Syria belongs to the Syrians. Libya belongs to the Libians. That is the way it is...We do not own the world...and it is the height of arrogance to think so. We need to protect ouselves and let them sort out their problems...it is stupid to bring others problems on ourselves. You can not spread democracy with the barrel of a gun.