Informal presidential election poll

This is posted on another site of mine, and I find the results rather interesting. So I figured I would see what happens here with the same thing. But I did add one other option......

Ron Paul, without a doubt.

LOL AT RON PAUL This is hilarious.

Originally Posted by BrooklynJoe

LOL AT RON PAUL This is hilarious.

I don't think it is funny, why did you say that?

Originally Posted by Lucille

I don't think it is funny, why did you say that?

The same reason why every other American has responded to the thread. My birth right of freedom of speech lol.

However seriously all candidates are crippling this country with their open ended policies, their hypocrisy, and lack of provided genuine change. All of these candidates have a true lackluster in a failing system, they have not truly gained the respect of constituents. Ask around, from the missing votes and do fourth.

This leads me to recognize Mr Ronald Ernest Paul. While he did gather some balls and has been known for his ballsy statements, backings, it is all hypocrisy coming from him. While he SEEMS to take radical approach of change but taking a stand against legal tender which I like, he also stood for the right to bare arms which I like the protection of this amendment/right.

While i disagree with his stance against the civil rights act, because of his lack of defined reasoning. I strongly disregarded his sweeping/dismissal of the newsletter controversy as well as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. As he(Ronald) is a texas native, he voted against MLK Jr bday to be recognized as a holiday(which he played a part in this thing called American History). This than leads me to his newsletter's depiction of MLK as some licentious individual, is more than offensive to this nation and the nations people. Once again his lack of moral responsibility for the newsletter has also deemed him unfit of "CHANGE" which is the new political verb thrown around loosely by all candidates.

Well this is where I stand and my perspective. I must be honest I have grown old of seeing, hearing the same group of political candidates, who happen to be of the same age groups believing the same things. I'm truly done with any candidates over 40 lol !!!

We want true change! Change the age of the candidates !!! Changing their skin color, hair, accent, names, sex, sexual orientation do not mean a darn thing! Change the ages!!! Well as always all politics are local, and you know who the presdential candidate is when you check their local politics. Please vote responsibly during ALL ELECTIONS!

Originally Posted by BrooklynJoe

While i disagree with his stance against the civil rights act, because of his lack of defined reasoning.

Lack of "define reasoning"? That's a joke right? Actually, his reasoning was defined to the basic constitutional right of private property regardless of if you agree or disagree with his positions. There is no wiggle room here.

Ron Paul consistently stated the Jim Crow laws were wrong. Period! That if he had been in office he would have voted against them or if he could have repealed them without attacking private property rights, he would have, Period! The protection of private property by law has changed so much since that time it would be unrecognizable for many under the age of your electability requirements for a presidential candidate "under 40".

It seems to me you just took the talking points and came to a conclusion. You would not have come to the same conclusion if you actually read or listened to his full statements on the topics.


So what you and others have done is take the principled reasoned responses as to why someone believed that there was a better way than force to achieve equality and turn it to "Well he most be racist" is a total perversion of the facts.

It was bad and unconstitutional laws that created the inequality and some felt adding similar unconstitutional laws to fix it, was just as bad.

First you had government dictating to business and the populace separate but equal (segregation), then you had government dictating that you can't.
Some felt the government had no place in either position.

If it were any other infringement on personal liberty his response would have been the same regardless. His vote on the issue had nothing to do with not wanting to strike down the Jim Crow laws and everybody who has ever listened to a word he has stated knows so. There was no racist motivation.

You can put all of his stances on the same page and every time someone tries to do exactly how you try to make it appear.

Take his illegal drug stance.
People automatically state he is pro drugs.

Personally he states he thinks illegal drugs are bad for you and it is a poor choice for someone to chose to do them but it is your choice. That is a far cry for advocating the use. He doesn't. He just believes that it is your right regardless if it is a bad decision. Caging someone for the harm they chose to do to themselves is wrong.

Same thing here. He believes racism is wrong. Forceful segregation on the population is wrong. Easy for the majority to agree on, right?

Well, the only consistent liberty orientated position to take is, ALSO forcing people not to be racist is also wrong even if you don't agree with them. People who own property, businesses, etc. should be allowed to do with their possession what they chose.

But let's us look at it from today's perspective. Could a business survive or thrive in a climate like that today? I think not. Do you really think that it is best to hide racism and outlaw it? Does that ever work for anything else, ever? IS it gone if racist comments are uttered quietly instead of spoken out loud? Do prevailing ideas win out by silencing opposing ones? No, they fester and grow with disdain.

For me, I would prefer to know who wouldn't want me in their business in today's world. Why would I want to give my hard earned money to someone who despises my presence? That if he/she legally could forbid me from his/her premise they would do so. Instead their thoughts are held in private while they walk to the bank with my funds.


My whole point is Agree or Disagree but his reasoning is sound in principle and it has nothing to do with racism. It was about property rights and his consistent positions. To borrow from a previous campaign, It's the Constitution Stupid!

Protecting thought, speech and property when someone is using it in a manner that you disagree with is very hard thing to do. Particularly when people who tot the standard answers are standing there waiting for a consistent person to remain consistent across the board.

As for the newsletters he has addressed them for years. He took them head on in 2008 and here we are again.

Once again his lack of moral responsibility

He stated plainly he doesn't agree with what those articles stated, he didn't write them, didn't see them at the time, they aren't his opinion. He denounced them and isn't his opinion and wrong. What moral responsibility is he lacking? Seriously, lacking moral responsibility? OK what would be morally responsible? I mean, besides denouncing them.

Actually, I find the fact that a man that has never stated anything racist, never personally wrote anything racist, consistently preaches the opposite of categorizing any individual into any group, be so loosely called a racist because of his stance on personal property and the words written by another that he never read until years after the fact.

Ron Paul

Obama...SERIOUSLY?!?!

I bet Obama gets re-elected. It really doesn't matter anymore though, does it? Obama, Romney, Newter, they are all the same. My vote here goes to Ron Paul. He is the only one saying anything different, and at this point I think we all know that if we don't make some MAJOR changes to America then we are done.

Originally Posted by KelliH

I bet Obama gets re-elected. It really doesn't matter anymore though, does it? Obama, Romney, Newter, they are all the same. My vote here goes to Ron Paul. He is the only one saying anything different, and at this point I think we all know that if we don't make some MAJOR changes to America then we are done.

We do need a change, and desperately now. Plus I love how Ron Paul calls the other canidates out when they are wrong.