Quantcast

Is a vote for Ron Paul a vote for Barack Obama?

☆The Rock☆ * AFCL* The Sheriff!! 2012/04/25 14:42:44
No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
Yes, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama!!
Undecided
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos
I want to make it clear that I know Obama is destroying this nation with his massive spending and dangerous Socialist policies..The problem I am having is that Romney's healthcare plan is similiar too Obamacare..Folks I am not a happy camper and to be honest I despise Romney..I hear Conservatives yelling a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama! In 2008, I was so angry with the nomination of McCain I was going to vote for the Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin..I wrote my Congress women I told her eventhough I know he can not win at least I voted my conscience and I had the right to complain! Well when Sarah Palin was selected I voted for McCain holding my nose..I really liked Sarah and she had some great ideas!! I am having the same issue this 2012 election! People are saying a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama! Guys, that is not necessarily true..I look at it as a vote for the Constitution, a vote against the New World Order and the establishment! Maybe I am wrong but voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still evil..I mean I am sick of reaching down in the toliet and grabbing the cleanest turd..Hey a turd is a turd and its still repulsive!! Anyway is a vote for Ron Paul a vote for Obama? Can Romney even beat Obama in the general election? Hey, its either we vote for the lesser of 2 evils, vote our concience and the Constitution or stay home!!



Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • ConLibFraud 2012/04/25 15:41:14
    None of the above
    ConLibFraud
    +16
    Ron Paul supporters need to stop the justification of Ron Paul. Ron Paul's record stands on it's own.

    A vote that is for anyone other than Ron Paul is a vote for the destruction and demise of America. It is the anti Paulers who need to justify why they are going to vote for the end of the greatest country in the world.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Bill 2012/05/01 14:33:53
    Yes, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama!!
    Bill
    Lest we forget 1992. Thanks for your help, Ross. A vote for Perot was a vote for 8 years of crap.
  • ☆The Ro... Bill 2012/05/01 15:19:01
    ☆The Rock☆ * AFCL* The Sheriff!!
    Bush would not been much better..At least Clinton followed the GOP to have a surplus!!
  • Bill ☆The Ro... 2012/05/01 16:05:25
    Bill
    Luckily, Gingrich and a Republican controlled House and Senate kept Clinton on a tight leash. However, we can't anticipate such good luck during an election. What if control was still in Democrat hands and Clinton, rather than G.H.W. Bush? A real disaster. Any 3 way vote causes one of the runners to lose when he might not have.
  • Fred 2012/05/01 11:57:42
    Yes, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama!!
    Fred
    Right now Ron Paul has to stand behind Romney and help defeat Obama . We need Paul in the congress were he can do some good ... like always
  • ☆The Ro... Fred 2012/05/01 15:20:21
    ☆The Rock☆ * AFCL* The Sheriff!!
    Paul need a cabinet position or VP..He is retiring form Congress!
  • Adam 2012/04/30 08:32:37 (edited)
    No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
    Adam
    +2
    Of course not. All these things about if you vote for a third party, then you are really just voting for the "bad" guy is just an attempt to scare people out of making a choice. It is the same scare tactics as the OP here saying Obama is destroying the nation and has dangerous Socialist policies. These type of things are non-sense and aren't helpful politically. We need an informed citizenry to make democracy work. A scared citizenry is the antithesis of an informed one. What does fear do at the end of the day? Stop people from making a real choice and choose the 'lesser of two evils'. If you really want to see Ron Paul or any none mainstream candidate have a choice stop with the demonizing of your opponent.

    To be clear I am not just saying this of the right. The left is just as guilty of this. For example, it was the same when Bush was in office. Everyone on the left was going around saying a vote for Nader is a vote for the 'evil' Bush. This behavior is childish really.

    Having political disagreements and different visions of what the country should be is one thing. To demonize anyone who disagrees with you is the real danger. Fear and demonizing the other does not nurture democracy and debate but breeds fanaticism.
  • Zak Smith 2012/04/30 02:09:41
    No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
    Zak Smith
    +2
    No more than it is a vote for Mitt Romney
  • *K'eim*h3reg' *Peh2u *Meg' 2012/04/30 01:07:17
    No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
    *K'eim*h3reg' *Peh2u *Meg'
    +2
    But a vote for Romney is.
  • Juan Iota *K'eim*... 2012/05/01 05:22:32
    Juan Iota
    +1
    WELL PLAYED MY FRIEND. WELL PLAYED
    you saved me the words.
  • *K'eim*... Juan Iota 2012/05/02 01:41:14
    *K'eim*h3reg' *Peh2u *Meg'
    +2
    It was too easy. :)
  • ☆stillthe12c☆ 2012/04/29 22:52:05
    No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    At least not at this time. If he were to run as a third party it would be. Romney's Healthcare that has some similarities. But there are also some big differences. His legislature made it a lot closer to Obamacare. It is like saying that Gingrich's plan had a mandate. Gingrich only state that any such plan would have to have a mandate to work. He was not for a mandate.
  • HAlex1972 2012/04/29 00:49:58
    No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
    HAlex1972
    +2
    Your argument is well thought out.
  • HipJipC 2012/04/28 21:41:19
    None of the above
    HipJipC
    +2
    George said it the best. He didn't vote but if there is someone like Ron Paul in there I'm going to write him in like I did 4 years ago and like I will again ... and that is a vote for my conscience and our Constitution and I don't give a crap if people think my vote will go to someone else. Go ahead, blame me and others who do not vote or write in. People wouldn't expect any of you to be culpable.

  • Juan Iota HipJipC 2012/05/01 05:23:37
    Juan Iota
    +1
    Fantastic post I couldnt agree more, EVERY WORD was on point.
  • HipJipC Juan Iota 2012/05/01 20:11:41
    HipJipC
    +1
    Thanks : )
  • wildcat 2012/04/28 04:50:25
    No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
    wildcat
    +1
    they don't even look alike
  • Aahz_OneAndOnly 2012/04/27 23:47:30
    No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
    Aahz_OneAndOnly
    +3
    Ron Paul For President
    Vets for Paul
    Vets for Paul
    https://motherjones.com/files...
  • JessyBear 2012/04/27 19:31:39
    Yes, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama!!
    JessyBear
    To say anything else is not be honest. If you vote for anyone but Romney at this point - sadly it is a vote of Obama. It sickens me to say this, but we have no choice. If Obama elected a second term we have no country left to argue about. Check out his EO - By Brandon Turbeville
    March 18, 2012
    Activist Post

    In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order (EO) stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense.

    Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime.

    The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human surviv...




































    To say anything else is not be honest. If you vote for anyone but Romney at this point - sadly it is a vote of Obama. It sickens me to say this, but we have no choice. If Obama elected a second term we have no country left to argue about. Check out his EO - By Brandon Turbeville
    March 18, 2012
    Activist Post

    In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order (EO) stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense.

    Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime.

    The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human survival is now available for confiscation and control by the President via his and his Secretaries’ whim.

    The unconstitutionality of the overwhelming majority of Executive Orders is well established, as well as the illegality of denying citizens their basic Constitutional and human rights, even in the event of a legitimate national emergency. Likewise, it should also be pointed out that, like Obama’s recent Libyan adventure and the foregone conclusion of a Syrian intervention, there is no mention of Congress beyond a minor role of keeping the allegedly co-equal branch of government informed on contextually meaningless developments.

    As was mentioned above, the scope of the EO is virtually all-encompassing. For instance, in “Section 201 – Priorities and Allocations Authorities,” the EO explains that the authority for the actions described in the opening paragraph rests with the President but is now delegated to the various Secretaries of the U.S. Federal Government. The list of delegations and the responsibility of the Secretaries as provided in this section are as follows:
    (1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

    (2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

    (3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

    (4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

    (5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

    (6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
    One need only to read the “Definitions” section of the EO in order to clearly see that terms such as “food resources” is an umbrella that includes literally every form of food and food-related product that could in any way be beneficial to human survival.
    That being said, “Section 601 – Secretary of Labor” delegates special responsibilities to the Secretary of Labor as it involves not just materials citizens will need for survival, but the actual citizens themselves.

    Obviously, the ability of the U.S. government to induct and draft citizens into the military against their will is, although a clear violation of their rights, not an issue considered shocking by its nature of having been invoked so many times in the past. Logically, this “authority” is provided for in this section.
    However, what may be shocking is the fact that Section 601 also provides for the mobilization of “labor” for purposes of the national defense.
    Although some subsections read that evaluations are to be made regarding the “effect and demand of labor utilization,” the implication is that “labor” (meaning American workers) will be considered yet one more resource to be seized for the purposes of “national defense.” The EO reads,
    Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:

    (1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation's workforce needs for purposes of national defense;

    (2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;

    (3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor.
    Notice that the language of the EO does not state “in the event of a national emergency.” Instead, we are given the term “purposes of national defense.” This is because the “authorities” assumed by the President have been assumed not just for arbitrary declarations of “national emergency” but for peacetime as well. Indeed, the EO states this much directly when it says,

    The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(b)(1), to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency.
    Presidential Executive Orders have long been used illegallyby Presidents of every political shade and have often been used destroy the rights of American citizens. Although history has often come to judge these orders as both immoral and unconstitutional, the fact is that the victims of the orders suffered no less because of the retroactive judgment of their progeny. It is for this reason that we must immediately condemn and resist such obvious usurpation as is currently being attempted by the U.S. government.
    Nevertheless, some have no doubt begun to wonder why the President has signed such an order. Not only that, but why did he sign the order now? Is it because of the looming war with Iran or the Third World War that will likely result from such a conflict? Is it because of the ticking time bomb called the economy that is only one jittery move or trade deal away from total disintegration? Is it because of a growing sense of hatred of their government amongst the general public? Is there a coming natural disaster of which we are unaware? Are there plans for martial law?
    Whatever the reason for the recent announcement of Obama’s new Executive Order, there is one thing we do know for sure - “It wouldn’t happen here” has been the swan song of almost every victim of democide in modern human history.
    For additional information, please listen to the 2-hour discussion at The Intel Hub

    Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions. Turbeville has published over one hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville is available for podcast, radio, and TV interviews. Please contact us at activistpost (at) gmail.com.
    (more)
  • ☆The Ro... JessyBear 2012/04/27 19:49:16
    ☆The Rock☆ * AFCL* The Sheriff!!
    +2
    Romney is not going to win! Face it...Actually Ron Paul if he ran third party he would take millions of vote from Democrats and Independents away from Obama helping Romney..
  • JessyBear ☆The Ro... 2012/04/27 19:51:47
    JessyBear
    Do you really think so? Hell If I thought he had a chance I would vote for him, but as it stands I just don't see it. It's all about the money, money, money... But I do not want Obama in office anymore. The power grabs are just to much. And the media always gives him a pass. Boy are they going to be pissed when they finally wake up to the truth of this man.
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/04/27 17:08:46
    Undecided
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    Wait and see what happens between now and Convention time.
  • hasher 2012/04/27 12:09:02
    Undecided
    hasher
    we conservatives need to stand together and unite. romeny is 1,000 times better than obama and hes our best chance of beating obama. ron paul doesnt stand a chance in hellof beating obama. and if romney picks someone like marco rubio as his running mate and the chances of that are pretty good then why not???
  • ☆The Ro... hasher 2012/04/27 12:12:55
    ☆The Rock☆ * AFCL* The Sheriff!!
    He not going to win and the fact of the matter is that Paul would take so much Democrats and Indpendents from Obama it would help Romeny!
  • Juan Iota hasher 2012/05/02 02:04:07
    Juan Iota
    I understand you cant help but you appear brain deficient. When you inherit everything in your mind from the media, thats what you end up with, kinda like a rat in a cage. Free your mind and your ass will follow.
  • Charles R. Anderson 2012/04/27 06:49:20
    No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
    Charles R. Anderson
    +1
    There is no problem with voting for Ron Paul in the remaining primaries. Romney will be the Republican nominee for President and I hope everyone will vote for him in preference to Obama in the Presidential election. Obama is a tyrant socialist, who clearly wishes to rule by decree. He wants to spend America into bankruptcy and make us as much a Banana Republic as is much of the rest of the world. He hates the very concept of a limited government dedicated to protecting the equal, sovereign rights of the individual to life, liberty, property, the ownership of one's own mind and body, and the pursuit of personal happiness. As such, he is constantly violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
  • nothingbutthetruth 2012/04/27 06:24:46
    No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
    nothingbutthetruth
    Ron Paul needs to Retired and invite me to his retirement party. That one I will attend!(:
  • ☆The Ro... nothing... 2012/04/27 06:49:32 (edited)
    ☆The Rock☆ * AFCL* The Sheriff!!
    Does the GOP address this? Criticize the man all you want but give him a cabinet post! If Romney wise he would make Paul VP...

    ="425" height="355">
  • nothing... ☆The Ro... 2012/04/29 09:59:29
    nothingbutthetruth
    +1
    Ron Paul needs to Retired!!
  • niviong... nothing... 2012/05/02 02:24:15
    niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20
    +1
    Hi there!. Long time no see.
    He no longer practices medicine, thusly, he is retired.
  • nothing... niviong... 2012/05/03 09:49:23
    nothingbutthetruth
    +1
    Hi! He needs to retired from the Political party and join the Retirement Party instead.
  • niviong... nothing... 2012/05/04 01:34:29
    niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20
    UMMM, looks like we are going to have an argument. What do you think?
    Shall I answer you post and begin? I alwyas like things crystal clear from the beginnings.
  • nothing... niviong... 2012/05/04 04:28:59
    nothingbutthetruth
    +1
    Maybe you can start by arguing with yourself because I sure won't be around you to do it with you.
  • niviong... nothing... 2012/05/04 21:15:44
    niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20
    +1
    Then I will refrain from answering your comment. Thanks
  • nothing... niviong... 2012/05/05 10:09:12
    nothingbutthetruth
    +2
    With Pleasure!(:
  • niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20 2012/04/27 05:08:49
    No a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for Barack Obama!
    niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20
    +2
    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the constitutionality of our nation.
    Anyone voting different, lacks the acumen to add 2+2.
    Romney has nice suits and nice teeth.
    Mr B Obama is a lawyer and can not be president.
    Jesus!, They say Nations have the government they deserve.
    Teri, I admired your passion and dedication, but your mind is way beyond political partidarism. Stay there you will be frustrated. Youur mind is beyond those constraints.,
  • Juan Iota niviong... 2012/05/02 02:09:27
    Juan Iota
    +1
    There is no point in arguing with the smartest people in an insane asylum is there? I mean, even the smartest are crazy.

    Best thing to do is to continue spreading the word, but instead of to brain dead idiots, to people who are actually looking to be informed. Most of these people are team mentality dialectic indoctrinated and used to imbibing thier opinions fron the mainstream "opinion makers". There are hundreds of thousands of people waking up and realizing that all they have to do is open their minds abit, and they will see above the irrational & extreme "us or them" mentality.
  • niviong... Juan Iota 2012/05/02 02:22:22
    niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20
    +2
    Yes Juan but my Mom would have slap me had I phrased my opinion in a different manner..I fully agree with you except for the number; there millions realizing that they have been duped into believing in a system that is rotten to the core.
    Thanks for dropping by.
  • LisaSmith 2012/04/27 05:03:38
    Yes, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama!!
    LisaSmith
    If you know he is destroying the nation why would you not vote for whoever can get rid of him? If Ron Paul would have won I would have supported him even though he wasn't my candidate. It is a huge turn off for me that many Ron Paul supporters will not vote for the candidate who won. That is kind of being like a spoiled baby who is going to take his ball and go home.
  • ☆The Ro... LisaSmith 2012/04/27 05:13:56
    ☆The Rock☆ * AFCL* The Sheriff!!
    +1
    So we should vote for the lesser of 2 evils? I did it twice with the NeoCon Bush! He turned out to be a Progressive RINO NWO puppet..He and Obama are the same! Romney is a Progressive too that supported the Patriot Act!
  • LisaSmith ☆The Ro... 2012/04/27 05:20:43
    LisaSmith
    The lesser evil is a LOT less evil then the real evil that is obama. I really don't know that we can survive another term of obama and come through it as America, at least with Romney we have a chance that he might turn out half way decent. I am willing to roll the dice.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Fun

2013/06/18 23:39:14

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals