Ron Paul won the Straw Poll

[STAGE 2]

You don't have to support him, but you could at least quit complaining about those that do. Whether you agree with their method or not, they're trying to preserve your rights. If you insist that there are other people in Washington who are as fiercely protective of the Constitution and BoR (I'd love to hear a name or two), then by all means get loud and obnoxious about them instead of whining about how loud and obnoxious we are..

I'm complaining because its very likely that Paul will have the Nader effect in the upcoming election and thats going to cost me my rights. In the choice between ineffective government and a hostile government I'll take the former. This is especially the case since even the greatest candidate will be only as good as the congress he is deal. The idea that Paul will go in and change everything is totally unrealistic.

As such, I'd much rather have someone who 1) can get elected and 2) is supportive or at least not openly hostile to my rights.

You heard it here folks. Stage2 believes that gun control is "constitutional".

I'm beginning to understand things now. However what I would like to know is how you figure I support gun control by thinking that people shouldn't be able to sue gun companies for the independent acts of third parties.

There are others, such as.....?

Duncan Hunter, Brian Bilbray, Darrel Issa off the top of my head. Undoubtedly there are many more who don't get the national spotlight. Just because they don't rub elbows with the talking heads on a nightly basis doesn't mean they don't exist.

There are better ways, such as...?

Oh I don't know, doing pro bono work on 2nd amendment/civil liberties cases, preparing amicus briefs, drafting legislation, preparing research briefs to california assembly members who subsequently voted against further gun control legislation.

Of course none of that means anything since I won't vote for Ron Paul.

 

[Fremmer]

its very likely that Paul will have the Nader effect in the upcoming election

I doubt it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that it'll happen.

If you insist that there are other people in Washington who are as fiercely protective of the Constitution and BoR (I'd love to hear a name or two), then by all means get loud and obnoxious about them instead of whining about how loud and obnoxious we are..

Yes, RP supporters are protective of Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution, although Ron Paul seems to think that everything is unconstitutional, despite hundreds of years of rulings to the contrary by the United States Supreme Court.

 

[Scott Conklin]

I'm complaining because its very likely that Paul will have the Nader effect in the upcoming election and thats going to cost me my rights.

Not certain what the problem is here. Other than Thompson, who still isn't officially a candidate, all the rest are basically the same politicritter. Hillary/Obama/Rudy/McVain, et al, will come down on firearms about equally hard, while foisting any number of big government scams from higher taxes to socialized healthcare on us(assuming the left keeps control of CONgress). In short, it really doesn't matter who else wins or what their party label is.

...despite hundreds of years of rulings to the contrary by the United States Supreme Court.

Hundreds of years of conflicting, overiding, opposing SCOTUS interpretations of what THEY thought at any given time the Constitution said? Sorry, but as long as the SCOTUS keeps coming up with things like Roe, Miller, Kelo, and the idea foreign precedent has relevence in US law I'm going to have to place a lot more value in what we can do via elections than in the natterings of that group of appointed fools.

 

[Rembrandt]

The issue about voting machines being rigged was being voiced by Ron Paul supporters before the straw poll vote had even been taken. Several news organizations were running the story before the Saturday event.

I attended and did vote in the Iowa Straw Poll. As I exited the polling area the group from "Voter Fraud.org" began wanting me to vote again in their exit poll. The way these guys were pressing people was suspect. When I asked what their purpose and goal was he reluctantly explained they didn't trust the voting machines and they were going to compare their exit polling with that of the Iowa GOP's. I declined to participate as did others.

Interesting that this group already had a preconceived premise that the vote was rigged, hence why would they already have an organization and people on site to prove their agenda. Further more, who is watching this group to make sure they didn't rig their exit poll? Why is it only Ron Paul supporters think this is an issue, other campaigns didn't.

There are a number of things Ron Paul and I agree on....unfortunately some of his supporters have done harm to his campaign with the in your face intimidation style of politics. If you can't win people over with your message, yelling it louder and calling people names won't work either.

Here's the story from the local news.....

http://www.kcci.com/politics/13851881/detail.html

DES MOINES, Iowa -- This weekend's Republican Straw poll is being challenged.

That comes from a national group that is threatening legal action over the voting machines that the Republican Party of Iowa is using.

A supporter of Republican candidate Ron Paul, who is not connected to the campaign, made the legal threat, NewsChannel 8 reported.

The Iowa GOP said the straw poll is fraud-proof.

At a Creston restaurant, Paul greeted people Wednesday and hoped some of them would vote for him at the Ames straw poll.

"It's pretty important and if we do well, we'll certainly send a strong signal, but I have no idea how well I'll do. We're doing our very best," Paul said.

Paul campaign staffers acknowledge asking Iowa Republican leaders to count paper ballots in the straw poll as well as using voting machines.

They said the Diebold machines to be used have been decertified in other states.

On Jan Mickelson's show on WHO radio, the leader of a group called Voterfraud.org., who is also a Paul supporter, threatened to file a lawsuit over the machines.

Paul said he doesn't know anything about a possible lawsuit and would not want one if it's frivolous.

"Everyone wants an honest election. So if there's a question, this is the time the question should be asked," Paul said.

In a statement, the Republican Party of Iowa said the straw poll will be fraud-proof, honest and secure.

Everyone must provide a photo identification and will be issued credentials. They will also have to dip their thumbs in purple ink to indicate that they have voted.

Political analyst Dennis Goldford, who stressed that he is not a lawyer, doesn't see how the GOP could be sued over the straw poll.

He said that technically there is no real election going on and that the straw poll is a measure of sentiment.

Paul said the candidates are allowed one poll watcher and he thinks that will help verify the results.

The Republican Party said the Story County auditor will provide the voting machines, which have been used in official elections.

A representative for Mitt Romney's campaign said they believe the results will be fair.

 

[STAGE 2]

Not certain what the problem is here. Other than Thompson, who still isn't officially a candidate, all the rest are basically the same politicritter. Hillary/Obama/Rudy/McVain, et al, will come down on firearms about equally hard, while foisting any number of big government scams from higher taxes to socialized healthcare on us(assuming the left keeps control of CONgress). In short, it really doesn't matter who else wins or what their party label is.

I'm sick of hearing this as well. Its a fallacious argument often used by Paul supporters to try to pigeonhole the other candidates.

These people are not the same on firearms. Obama has outright said he wants to ban semi auto pistols and hillary's significant other gave us 10 years of "safety".

Sorry, that argument just won't wash. And this doesn't even begin to address things like taxes, judges, foreign policy and alike.

 

[Scott Conklin]

I'm sick of hearing this as well. Its a fallacious argument often used by Paul supporters to try to pigeonhole the other candidates.

I don't have to pigeonhole them. I just have to look at their past actions. Rudy, for example? Romney?

These people are not the same on firearms. Obama has outright said he wants to ban semi auto pistols and hillary's significant other gave us 10 years of "safety".

The only difference is how active they will be. Obama will be agressive. Rudy probably would be, too. McVain will simply rubberstamp whatever a Dem CONgress sends him. That's not enough difference to matter to me, sorry.

Sorry, that argument just won't wash. And this doesn't even begin to address things like taxes, judges, foreign policy and alike.

It washes fine, you just don't like it. As for taxes, eliminate enough government and you can eliminate a lot of taxes. Other than keeping the military strong I'm all for eliminating pretty much everything. As for judges, it's not possible to do worse than the last two POTUS, nor worse than the other current alternatives would. As for foreign policy, mild isolationism is a wonderful thing and certainly no worse than the past 14 years or so.

 

[Oldphart]

I've been married more than once so I know I can make mistakes. I don't think I'm making one here though. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
A lot of people here (and elsewhere) are still smarting from the Ross Perot thing that gave us eight years of Bubba. Now they're afraid that Ron Paul will get them another dose of something worse so they're fighting tooth and nail to keep him from getting noticed, let alone nominated.
They might be right. Maybe he'll suck enough votes away from Romney to allow the Hildabeast to get in. If she does get in we can certainly expect a whole bunch of gun control bills to sail right through the Democrat-controlled congress.
Of course, if Rino-Romney manages to get in we will get exactly the same thing . . . only it'll be packaged in red, white and blue "security" bills so the "conservative" base (those are the ones who only want "good" laws passed) won't call for his head on a platter.
How do I know this? I don't, of course, but I can look at his political history and see how he did in the past. As governor of Massachusetts he somehow forgot to repeal any gun control laws while passing others. Under his leadership (?), they continued to accelerate their descent into full-blown socialism until they can no longer live up to their own constitution, let alone that of the nation.
I know, some will continue to chant the mantra that he'll 'be better than Hillary' but will he? In spite of the letter in front of his name, doesn't he hold the exact same views about freedom for the serfs as do the Democratic candidates?
Back when we were having these same discussions regarding Bush and Gore I said that both of them would deliver us to the doorstep of Socialism, only Gore would do it quickly while Bush would wander through the countryside first. I was right too and if anyone doesn't believe it they're smoking something illegal.
Hillary and Romney are cut from the same cloth. They're both politicians and both will lie to get ahead. Neither can be trusted any further than Bill Clinton.
On the other hand there is one candidate whose history shows that he either has real scruples or his planning has been very long-range. He's never voted for a gun-control bill. He's never voted for higher taxes. He's never voted for personal pay raises. He has consistently voted against the Iraq war as an undeclared war. He believes the Constitution as it was and is written, is the supreme law of the land (as we all do too ).
So what do his detractors have to say about him? Well, he'll "cut and run" from Iraq. Not likely, though if he were elected he'd make Congress do what it should have done in the first place and formally declare war. He'll open the borders to illegals. Maybe, but first he'd restrict the benefits many of them are coming here for. He'd legalize harmful drugs. Geez, I hope so. Then maybe with the profit removed from the business, the gangs would have to find something else to do - like work.
Ron Paul isn't perfect but, if I remember my history right, the last time we had a perfect man we crucified him. It looks like his detractors are trying to get a head start.

 

[STAGE 2]

I've been married more than once so I know I can make mistakes. I don't think I'm making one here though. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course if Romney isn't the nominee then your theory kind of goes to squat.

 

[Oldphart]

Yeah, but if we look at all the "help" the media is giving, I believe Romney will be the one. Let's face it - he's the superior politician among the Pubbies. His only big stumbling block is his Mormon religion and already the media is making him a "victim" of religious bias.
Much as I'd like to see Paul in the White House I don't think it's gonna happen. Of course, as I said in my earlier post, I could be wrong.

 

[Manedwolf]

To defeat Romney, all one has to do is point out his overseeing of the Big Dig, as well as his signing of some of the most draconian antigun laws in the country.

 

[ConfuseUs]

I have my doubts about this poll but I'm not going to say that it was rigged. I'll just say that it could have been rigged and we probably would never know if it was.

The smart money is not so much on "rigged" as it is on "bought" by the winner. That's because the "winner" knows his support in the rank and file will evaporate when his not-at-all-Republican (NAAR) career comes to light later on. He's hoping that a strong showing in the poll will at least give his campaign a softer landing than it deserves. :barf:

Edit to add: And the way Romney handled the Iowa Straw poll tells us all about how good of a steward of the taxpayer dollars he'll be in office too.

 

[GoSlash27]

Stage2,

I'm complaining because its very likely that Paul will have the Nader effect in the upcoming election and thats going to cost me my rights.

Then, curiously enough, you say this:

Duncan Hunter, Brian Bilbray, Darrel Issa off the top of my head. Undoubtedly there are many more who don't get the national spotlight. Just because they don't rub elbows with the talking heads on a nightly basis doesn't mean they don't exist.

So Paul's 1,300 votes in Iowa discounts him as a candidate, and Hunter's
175 somehow make him viable? I can't even begin to follow that one.

The idea that Paul will go in and change everything is totally unrealistic.

He will go in and change everything he can. We are expected to go in and change everything we can, and that includes voting in people who will respect our rights. This whole 'freedom' thing doesn't work if you're not willing to help.

And to answer your statement about the "Nader effect", that can't happen in the primary and won't happen in the general election if he's the nominee. And if (unlikely) it did happen in the general it'd be immaterial since #1) the rest of the Republican front-runners are just as bad as the Dems and #2 they don't stand a chance against the Dems anyway.

I would like to know is how you figure I support gun control by thinking that people shouldn't be able to sue gun companies for the independent acts of third parties.

Nothing wrong with thinking that. We all do and so does Dr. Paul. But YOU said that piece of legislation was "constitutional" and it contained gun control. So explain your position.

Oh I don't know, doing pro bono work on 2nd amendment/civil liberties cases, preparing amicus briefs, drafting legislation, preparing research briefs to california assembly members who subsequently voted against further gun control legislation.

Of course none of that means anything since I won't vote for Ron Paul.

A lot of work done on behalf of just one of your rights, and you want to promote candidates who would betray that one?
No. I don't understand you at all.

 

[Redworm]

Ron Paul's currently the only candidate I can see myself voting for...and even I'm getting sick of seeing his name everywhere.

 

[Freedom_1st]

Paul has no chance in this age of intellectual laziness and sound bites. Anyone with half a brain can see Paul is one of the few politicians who are offering real solutions, not pandering to special interest.

Americans dont want someone who will tell them the truth, they want someone who will pander to their own narrow special interest and pat them on the back telling them everything will be OK. Paul doesnt do either.

Hillary will be our next president.

 

[Scott Conklin]

You have a mighty low opinion of We The People.

I shared it until just recently. Events have made me look at my life, and other people, a bit differently. I see them in a better light and I think there are enough people out there wanting the truth to give Paul, or any other candidate willing to say it like it is, a chance. It's just a matter of getting them to believe they can make a difference and actually get out and vote.

But if you're right and Hillary is our next POTUS I truly do fear for this nation. With a Dem House and Senate I don't think a lot of us will be able to function...comfortably...in her brave new AMerica. :barf:

 

[buckster]

Election fraud

Mitt Romney's people ran the machines, go figure. Ron actually won, and that will just fuel the fire for more people to join Ron's team. Wake up people!

 

[Redworm]

You have a mighty low opinion of We The People.

I shared it until just recently. Events have made me look at my life, and other people, a bit differently. I see them in a better light and I think there are enough people out there wanting the truth to give Paul, or any other candidate willing to say it like it is, a chance. It's just a matter of getting them to believe they can make a difference and actually get out and vote.

But if you're right and Hillary is our next POTUS I truly do fear for this nation. With a Dem House and Senate I don't think a lot of us will be able to function...comfortably...in her brave new AMerica.

Honestly I think Paul's biggest chance lies with the youth. Those just old enough to vote and up to the mid 30s are the ones really getting his message. My generation realizes that a lot of the problems we face today are the direct result of the mistakes the baby boomers have been making for many years - both the right wingers and the hippies, mind you.

Ours is the generation most comfortable with the internet, ours is the one that puts more focus on what's right rather than what's traditional, ours is the one with the most influence if we actually get out and vote. That's where Paul's victory may lie, in the youth trying to fix the mistakes of their parents.

 

[Oldphart]

"My generation realizes that a lot of the problems we face today are the direct result of the mistakes the baby boomers have been making for many years - both the right wingers and the hippies, mind you."

No one likes to admit they've made a mistake. That's why divorces are often so bitterly contested, with each party dredging up the mistakes of the other. We human beings tend to use the same tactic in other fields too, especially in politics where it's easy to blame the other guy for whatever problem the current administration is causing.
I don't know whether that straw poll was rigged or bought or whatever, but considering the technology present today it certainly could have been. Even reverting to paper ballots isn't completely tamper-proof as evidenced by the elections in Athens, Tennesee (I think) of several decades ago.
I remember working at a polling place once (in California) where we counted the ballots before forwarding them to the county. We kept a copy of our tabulation until the precinct lists were published and had to check our count against that of the county. Such a system is slow and cumbersome compared to the computer generated results the media seems to want today, but it was nearly foolproof since any fraud would have to be so widespread it couldn't be kept secret.
Ah, the good ol' days.

 

[Fremmer]

I don't know whether that straw poll was rigged or bought or whatever, but considering the technology present today it certainly could have been.

That's right! Everyone knows that the neo-cons rigged the machines from the beginning. But the conspiracy didn't stop there: Halliburton convinced the Straw Poll leaders to exclude ticketholders who didn't own land-lines, so all of the RP supporters with cell phones never got to cast their votes. Even worse, the Masons used mind-control to force undecided voters to vote for Romney, and the Illuminati's secret agreement with Halliburton, Cheney, and the Masons resulted in a special "count process" which was designed to unfairly count votes in favor of the other candidates.

Yes, that was a very sarcastic response. But come on, RP supporters, you have to do better than re-hashing Al Gore's whining about counting the votes. Please. It sounds so silly that it detracts any undecided Republican voter from RP's positions on the issues, and it make RP sound bizarre. And I'm not just saying that to insult RP supporters, but all of the conspiracy stuff is is not going to make the conservative Republican base vote for RP. It might make them laugh, but it won't earn their votes.

And the way Romney handled the Iowa Straw poll tells us all about how good of a steward of the taxpayer dollars he'll be in office too.

No, it tells us that Romney spent a lot of money and time to win. RP could have spent more money, and then he might have had an opportunity to win. The RP campaing elected to spend less, and therefore bought fewer votes.
It was a straw poll, people, which means the candidates bought and paid for their votes. That's all. It doens't accurately predict how the conservative Republican base will vote during the primaries. If you disagree, then I'd say that Ron Paul is in a lot of trouble with winning the nomination.

 

[Rembrandt]

....Mitt Romney's people ran the machines, go figure. Ron actually won, and that will just fuel the fire for more people to join Ron's team. Wake up people!

Tin-foil hat "Kool-Aid" drinkers have plenty of reasons Ron Paul didn't win except the most obvious....just maybe he didn't have the support of voters and they wanted someone else.

Romney's campaign had nothing to do with straw poll voting machines, they were run by the Iowa GOP and county election officals from all over the state.

In contrast, the exit poll vote was in control of the "voterfraud.org" group led by Ron Paul supporters.

As I understand it, Ron Paul supporters wanted a manual count of the votes, Iowa GOP said sure...we'd be glad to but you'll have to pay $150,000 for the manpower to do it.....they declined. Sounds like the Ron Paul camp should put up or shut up.