No dude, you are behind the times. They half ass supported Paul in 2008 because of the War in Iraq. Once Bush was out of office Paul's support from the left has gone to zero. Trust me, I have a lot of liberal friends that loved Paul in 2007 and 2008. Now, they call him a kook, can't stand him. He served their purpose at the time. Recent polls show Paul's support from the left to be a fraction of what it was in 2008. Even Bill Maher who use to have Paul on Real Time all the time and even once called him his hero has basically thrown Paul under the bus. He wants nothing to do with him now and thinks he is a nut. People use people in politics, the left used Ron and now they are done with him. Ron Paul with a republican house and senate would be the worst thing ever to happen to the democratic party.
Regarding the Debate
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
No dude, you are behind the times. They half ass supported Paul in 2008 because of the War in Iraq. Once Bush was out of office Paul's support from the left has gone to zero. Trust me, I have a lot of liberal friends that loved Paul in 2007 and 2008. Now, they call him a kook, can't stand him. He served their purpose at the time. Recent polls show Paul's support from the left to be a fraction of what it was in 2008. Even Bill Maher who use to have Paul on Real Time all the time and even once called him his hero has basically thrown Paul under the bus. He wants nothing to do with him now and thinks he is a nut. People use people in politics, the left used Ron and now they are done with him. Ron Paul with a republican house and senate would be the worst thing ever to happen to the democratic party.
http://www.dailypaul.com/977/demographics-of-ron-paul-supporters
Looks like about 9.76% of respondents
The two largest groups of Paul supporters are Republicans and Independents.
Any more of your fantasies you'd care to share with us?
Many democrats that I know would vote for Paul over Obama.Not every democrat is a democrat because they want a nanny state
Democrats like myself want a balanced or near balanced budget and limited use of our military,the 2 democratic presidents before Obama provided that and so would Paul
Paul is a bit extreme but I can live with that if he balances the budget and only use our military if we are attacked
Many democrats like myself do not want gun control.Many democrats do not want religious bullshit from their elected officials.I am pro choice but don't want the government paying for it.I want all drugs legalized and so do many other democrats.Many democrats hate being molested when they they go to the airport,we know Paul would stop that.Many democrats are against the patriot act and the civil liberties that Bush has taken and Obama continues to take etc
Many democrats are social libertarians and vote democrat to keep the religious right out of our lives.Many from that libertarian and independent group probably vote democrat
You didn't know that on social issues democrats are closer to libertarians then republicans ?
The commentators were disappointed the candidates didn't go after each other, but I think it was the right way to handle it. Reagan's 11th Commandment was not to attack fellow republicans, and it's generally a good rule. Romney tried attacking McCain last time and it blew up in his face. Also, they know that the VP candidate will likely come from their ranks, so why needlessly antagonize someone who could select you?
I tend to agree with the general consensus that the winners were Romney, Bachmann and Gingrich. Romney seemed presidential and fully ready to take on Obama. Bachmann has some of the Palin charisma but is also very informed in detail on numerous issues and has a solid record. Gingrich cut to the chase several times and exposed fallacies or hidden assumptions in the questions. I'm not a big fan but he came across as very capable.
I thought Paul's best moment was when he replied to Romney's typically cautious answer about withdrawal from afghanistan by saying that he would be Commander in Chief and would tell the generals what to do, not the other way around as Romney suggested. We know the generals plan on being there for decades and spending trillions of dollars nation-building. Time to recognize they were wrong and cut our losses.
Cain seemed a little out of his depth. I thought he would be one of the candidates who had traction, but now I'm not so sure. Bachmann is clearly more polished and capable and appeals to the same constituency.
Pawlenty looked foolish and weak when he wouldn't stand behind his "obamney" care remark from the day before. He and Santorum scare me because neither seems to recognize any limit on using military force. It's like they've been asleep the past 10 years.
I tend to agree with the general consensus that the winners were Romney, Bachmann and Gingrich. Romney seemed presidential and fully ready to take on Obama. Bachmann has some of the Palin charisma but is also very informed in detail on numerous issues and has a solid record. Gingrich cut to the chase several times and exposed fallacies or hidden assumptions in the questions. I'm not a big fan but he came across as very capable.
I thought Paul's best moment was when he replied to Romney's typically cautious answer about withdrawal from afghanistan by saying that he would be Commander in Chief and would tell the generals what to do, not the other way around as Romney suggested. We know the generals plan on being there for decades and spending trillions of dollars nation-building. Time to recognize they were wrong and cut our losses.
Cain seemed a little out of his depth. I thought he would be one of the candidates who had traction, but now I'm not so sure. Bachmann is clearly more polished and capable and appeals to the same constituency.
Pawlenty looked foolish and weak when he wouldn't stand behind his "obamney" care remark from the day before. He and Santorum scare me because neither seems to recognize any limit on using military force. It's like they've been asleep the past 10 years.
I don't believe that.