Should Ron Paul Drop Out of the Republican Presidential Race?

by SodaHead Politics Posted 2012/05/09 03:42:56

Related Topics: 2012 Election, Ron Paul, Polls, Republican, BP, Election, Race, Presidential, Presidential Race, Poll, Survey, Romney, This Week, Questions

Read More

1,733 votes
Read all 2,107 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	602 votes	35%
	No	1,131 votes	65%

We know you want to make your opinion count -- especially during the time of a serious election. So, every week, SodaHead will host a handful of up-to-date polls having to do with the upcoming 2012 election.

Vote on this week's election questions below and make sure to come back every Tuesday to see how everyone voted -- and to receive a new batch of questions worth pondering. It's a great time to have an opinion. So, dive right in to our 2012 Election poll.

+40

Add a comment above

Michael=Constitution & Liberty 2012/05/09 04:39:23

No

+23
a resounding HELL NO!
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Politics

S* to DrGreen 2012/05/10 06:16:09

well, you seem to jump all over the map with your message. I did not say we have an isolationist government now, but Ron's Non-interventionalism certainly sounds like that. I am a liberal/moderate, but I do believe that a show of force is a mitigating negotiating chip in play. I do not want to be the world's police, but I do not want to be caught blindsided. I do not believe that being the worlds police is the sole reason we were attacked. We seem to at the top of the dung heap, and that attracts much interest.
Creating wars is crazy, I will grant you that. World war 2 ended long ago. I suspect a typo . Be good and be safe. S.

reply
DrGreen to S* 2012/05/10 06:24:37

+4
If world war 2 ended long ago, we wouldn't have bases in Germany and Japan :). We have an isolationist government right now. We can show force without using force. That's the ideals our nation was founded on. We didn't start wars, we won them. The more we won, the less we had to fight after. It wasn't until the early 40s when we had to start spreading the empire that we had the problems caused by our current isolationist policies. I'm not all over with my response, just trying to open your eyes to the fact that we are isolated right now. Being the world police is why we were attacked, you can read it in the 9/11 commission report. Those are actual facts, not sensationalized media talking points!

reply
S* to DrGreen 2012/05/10 06:30:36

Nice comment. It runs contrary to my thinking right now. My idea of a show of force in not shooting the other nation. If you think of world war two, and if England had fallen to Germany, we would never have had a base to launch a D day attack from. Where would we be? That is the fundamental idea of outlying bases.

reply
DrGreen to S* 2012/05/10 07:28:09

+2
We didn't have military bases in England until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Germany declared war on the Americans. Roosevelt met with Stalin and Churchill, and then decided to plan 'Europe first' which declared Hitler's Germany was more of a threat then Japan, and they would deal with Germany first, and then Japan. We utilized England's own HMS Excellent, Whale Island, naval base to launch the attack. It was/is owned by them. After we destroyed Japan we started to take advantage of the world's new found fear of America by placing military bases all over the place. Even our Russian allies turned against this because it threatened their sovereignty. This is why it is important to maintain strong diplomacy, not our current isolationist bullying. What if we didn't have such strong relations with England and even Stalin's Russian at this time?? What if World War 2 was happening with our diplomatic relationships at their current state? The world is simply fed up with America writing the laws. Do you ever see any Americans getting excited for an election in any other foreign nation? Everyone around the world follows our Presidential elections because the winners' policy can drastically affect the entire world.

reply
S* to DrGreen 2012/05/10 09:46:10

I agree with most of what you say, but the kernel of truth is a bit more elusive.

reply
Tully to DrGreen 2012/05/10 11:48:36

+2
Doc, you make too much sense for these people.

reply
Tully to DrGreen 2012/05/10 11:39:45

+2
If anyone can put it in perspective you just did, DrGreen. Hit the nail on the head.

reply
DrGreen to Tully 2012/05/12 04:53:09

+1
Thanks Tully. I just hope that a few people see my posts, and think " I never thought of it that way".

I've noticed there are 2 types of people. Type 1 will respectfully disagree with your comments, but they do it with a poise that shows you they are open to learning. I think a lot of them even agree by the end of the debate, but pride is a hard thing to let go of, especially in public. That's completely understandable, and natural. They are more likely to turn around and spread the knowledge they've obtained outside of your debate, and this brings real change.

Then there is Type 2. These are the people that you can throw fact, after fact, after fact at them refuting each and every one of their talking points, and they end up calling you names or telling you to stop watching fox or cnn, or whatever channel is associated with the opposite party they are loyal to.

If we can get enough people to start thinking like type 1, our country will be in good shape. Unfortunately it seems like the mass of people in America believe that their ignorance is equal to, or better then your knowledge.

reply
marylou5 2012/05/10 05:03:28

No

+6
Paul's the best candidate! He should stay engaged. Romney needs further education that Conservatives are not going to roll over for him.
Romney needs to stop listening to RINOs and the RNC if he plans to get the nomination. He will not win the election without the support of Paul supporters, Conservatives and the Tea Party. He hasn't got the message yet, but he'll hear it loud and clear at the Convention.
Paul needs to remain and be the voice of reason, and could pull ff a miracle!
In politics, nothing is impossible or totally predictable.

reply
Sheepdog 2012/05/10 04:50:32

No

+8
I am inspired by those such as Ron Paul who, despite unbelievable pain and hardship, have chosen to become victors.

reply
bt sedlock 2012/05/10 04:49:11

Yes

+1
He should drop out of the Republican presidential race and run as Libertarian.

reply
DrGreen to bt sedlock 2012/05/10 06:02:42

+4
What good would that do? You understand that the republican parties roots are classic liberalism right? That's today's libertarian. I think Romney should drop out of the race and run as a Fascist.

reply
bt sedlock to DrGreen 2012/05/14 03:44:34

This presidential race could be a repeat of the 1912 presidential race when three political parties the Republican president William H. Taft, ex-president Theodore Roosevelt and his splinter group the Progressive Party, and Woodrow Wilson of the Democratic Party all vied for control of the White House. The split in the Republican Party between Taft's conservatives and TR's progressives paved the way for a Democratic victory with Wilson as the 28th POTUS.

reply
DrGreen to bt sedlock 2012/05/14 03:55:00

Lol, even if that unlikely scenario played out, we still get screwed because Romney and Obama are self proclaimed progressives. I'll vote for the only republican left running, Ron Paul.

reply
bt sedlock to DrGreen 2012/05/19 21:04:02

Are you familiar with the 1912 presidential campaign? Have you read about it? It's colorful. Not only did Taft, Roosevelt and Wilson run for the presidency of the United States, but also the Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs. This year of course is the 100th Anniversay of that momentios and colorful election and of course nobody cares, most people would rather watch the JERSEY, DANCING WITH STARS, JERRY SPRINGER and other crappy tv instead of something educational.

reply
bt sedlock to DrGreen 2012/05/19 21:12:04

You're right it is an unlikely scenario, but history has a way of repeatng itself. The 1912 presidential race had repeated itself in 1992 when three candidates; incumbent President George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and H. Ross Perot for whom I voted for.

reply
bt sedlock to bt sedlock 2012/05/19 21:52:06

Lets 's hope Romney wins.

reply
DrGreen to bt sedlock 2012/05/20 08:20:10

Yea, I agree history repeats itself. This isn't 92 though. We weren't in dire need of Ross Perot like we are dire need of Dr. Paul. Our government has grown leaps and bounds since 1992. You didn't get molested by TSA agents in 1992.

Most people who voted for Ross Perot would have voted for George Bush had Perot not ran. That is not the case with Ron Paul. Most people I encounter that would vote for Ron Paul, will pull the lever for Obama in November if Ron Paul isn't on the ballot. A lot of these supporters like Ron Paul because it's the 'cool' thing right now, since Obama was a flop for them. The rest of the supporters are well informed, so they understand who is funding both Obama and Romney's campaigns. They refuse to vote for never ending wars and the shredding of our bill of rights. This will inevitably come no matter who wins the election.

reply
bt sedlock to DrGreen 2012/05/23 03:09:47

If Ron Paul stays in the election he should take part in the three presidential debates this coming fall with Obama and Romney.
Btw what are TSA agants?

reply
DrGreen to bt sedlock 2012/05/23 03:19:54

If he wins the republican nomination he'll get to debate with Obama. That's really the only way the major networks would let him debate. You don't know what TSA agents are? Transportation Security Administration, you know, those guys that grab your privates before you get on an airplane if you don't want to get unnecessary radiation from their full body scanners.

reply
bt sedlock to DrGreen 2012/05/23 03:25:33

Oh now I know what you mean. That's horrible! Fortunately for me I've never undergone that.

reply
Phyl *In God i Trust* 2012/05/10 04:33:13

Yes

+2
sorry the math does not add up for him to win over obama.Vote for Ron paul ourlive with obama...

reply
DrGreen to Phyl *I... 2012/05/10 06:04:23

+3
What math is this? He is stealing Obama's youth vote, and independent. In WV last night, Obama won 60% of the votes in the primary. A PRISON INMATE FROM TEXAS got the other 40%. Obama doesn't have 'numbers' to conclude any math doesn't add up to favor Paul. If Paul runs third party, Obama loses by a large margin to Romney.

reply
Wolfman 2012/05/10 04:21:32

Yes

Of course. His presence is pointless and a vote for him helps Obie.

reply
stormy rae to Wolfman 2012/05/10 05:32:24

+4
not a vote for mitt helps ovomit, mitt should drop out so america wins

reply
Wolfman to stormy rae 2012/05/10 05:43:38

Have another hit, stormy.

reply
DrGreen to Wolfman 2012/05/10 06:07:58

+6
Do you really think a vote for Paul takes away one from Romney? Yea right, you can't be that naive. If anything it takes away a vote from Obama. Anyone that wants Paul to win, simply will not vote for Romney. It's that simple. Most of the people who would vote for Paul are independents or the youth. Romney has no handle on these categories. A 3rd party run for Paul takes away more votes from Obama then Romney. If you can't see this, you probably shouldn't be telling other people to 'Have another hit'. Because you sound like your intelligence has been degraded by some sort of mind altering substance.

reply
Wolfman to DrGreen 2012/05/10 06:40:12

I see Paulistas as misguided conservatives. They are following a Texas congressman who hasn't authored one significant piece of legislation in 20 years in congress. He does have some good, conservative fiscal ideas. However, his chances of winning are absolutely zero. So instead of voting to rid ourselves of the Marxist-in-Chief, the Paulistas choose to vote for Paul, thus wasting a vote that could have been Romney's. No, Romney isn't a conservative but he isn't a Marxist either.

I made the "have another hit" comment because the meaning behind the phrase "not a vote for mitt helps ovomit," completely eludes me and the idea of the front-runner dropping out is ludicrous.

reply
DrGreen to Wolfman 2012/05/10 07:43:10

+7
I'm assuming you mean Ron Paul supporters when you say Paulistas. We are in no way misguided conservatives. We want to conserve the exact ideals this nation was founded on. He hasn't authored any legislation in 20 years because, if you haven't noticed, there's no chance of him getting the support by our bought and paid for congress. If anyone is voting for Romney, they are the true misguided conservatives that have allowed the media to pick their front runner. Romney is a left wing progressive. That essentially means he's a marxist. There's no denying it. There's videos of him saying his views are progressive. Things will get worse with Romney because he won't over turn Obama care or face the important issues. He also is a major stock holder of General Electric, which owns a majority of the weapons manufacturers in America. He is a major player in the military industrial complex. His old company (that he is still a majority stock holder in) Bain Capital owns Clear Channel broadcasting. They own Fox News. This would be a major violation to our freedom of speech because it becomes a branch of government with a Romney Presidency. This primary season has opened the eyes of many Americans, and many of them that trusted their news network no longer do.

Romney can'...

I'm assuming you mean Ron Paul supporters when you say Paulistas. We are in no way misguided conservatives. We want to conserve the exact ideals this nation was founded on. He hasn't authored any legislation in 20 years because, if you haven't noticed, there's no chance of him getting the support by our bought and paid for congress. If anyone is voting for Romney, they are the true misguided conservatives that have allowed the media to pick their front runner. Romney is a left wing progressive. That essentially means he's a marxist. There's no denying it. There's videos of him saying his views are progressive. Things will get worse with Romney because he won't over turn Obama care or face the important issues. He also is a major stock holder of General Electric, which owns a majority of the weapons manufacturers in America. He is a major player in the military industrial complex. His old company (that he is still a majority stock holder in) Bain Capital owns Clear Channel broadcasting. They own Fox News. This would be a major violation to our freedom of speech because it becomes a branch of government with a Romney Presidency. This primary season has opened the eyes of many Americans, and many of them that trusted their news network no longer do.

Romney can't win regardless. He can't draw support from anyone except the media pawns who want "anyone but obama". The success rate of an anyone but candidate is 0%. Romney can't even draw crowds over 2k to come see him speak. It's very sad that the general populous can't think on their own anymore and draw these conclusions. If everyone who says "I'd vote for Ron Paul, but he can't win!" would actually trust their intuition and vote for Ron Paul, don't you believe that he could then, actually, win? He has the support of independents, pulls democrats from Obama, and has gained a majority of Obama's youth support. Something Romney has no chance of gaining.
(more)

reply
Wolfman to DrGreen 2012/05/10 08:09:35

You assume correctly. Paulistas are Ron Paul supporters. Paul hasn't recieved any support for his legislation because he has no friends or supporters in congress. HGe did co-author a pot-bill with Barney Frank recently. He is very good a bring-home the earmarks to Lake Jackson as he tells everyone to "stop the spending".

Fox News was launched by Rupert Murdoch in 1996; but, as of 2010, Fox News is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group. This Fox Entertainment Group is a subsidiary of News Corporation. Romney is no longer employed by Bain. AFAIK, Bain has nothing to do with News Corp. Even if they did, so what?

Romney isn't a Marxist, he's a moderate. The media didn't make Romney the front runner; the voters did. Ron Paul was present in every debate. People in great numbers don't like him or his ideas so he lost the nomination. My pick was Bachmann; when she dropped it was Santorum. Romney was chosen for the nomination. He was not my favorite but he is the only man in America that can beat Obama. The best thing we can do is surround Romney with conservatives in Congress and the Senate.

reply
DrGreen to Wolfman 2012/05/10 08:35:59

+5
Clear Channel broadcasts Fox. NewsCorp is heavily involved with Clear Channel broadcasting. Romney is a majority stock holder of Bain. He might not be CEO, but if you think that means he has no pull, you're out of your mind. What's the problem with this? They decide what news to broadcast, and how to. This is very common in places like North Korea, and was even noted by Hitler as one of the major factors of being a successful leader.

Romney is a progressive. A progressive is a marxist. A moderate is a made up term to hide that they're moderately marxist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There, in his own words.

Do you think if the media continuously said "Romney can't win! He's unelectable." That the tables would be turned? Do you think that if they gave Dr. Paul a fair chance at the debates and asked him questions based on anything besides his foreign policy, the election would look differently?

The media chose Mitt Romney. There's no question. I've yet to meet a Romney supporter, that actually supports him for his positions. They don't exist. The people didn't pick Romney, he bought his nomination.
People don't like Paul because they can't think for themselves, and will do no further research then what Fox news told them.

Ron Paul supporters are Ron Paul supporters because they are informed.

reply
Wolfman to DrGreen 2012/05/10 08:46:52
DrGreen to Wolfman 2012/05/10 08:55:52
Tully to Wolfman 2012/05/10 11:58:58

+2
The youtube video hit on a good point. You want to turn America into a gilded cage?

reply
lolly to Wolfman 2012/05/10 09:27:41

+1
You are a Romneyista now. There is a possibility that your man Romney will be disqualified. That's a no-no to buy votes by giving away subs to influence votes. The court hearing is in June. Now if Romney is nominated, Obama and the Democrats are sure to use that and something else Romney did to disqualify him. Obama has done it before in Illinois. With Romney out that would make Obama the winner unless a third party candidate beats him.

reply
Tully to DrGreen 2012/05/10 11:54:35

+2
"Romney can't win regardless. He can't draw support from anyone except the media pawns who want "anyone but obama". The success rate of an anyone but candidate is 0%."

Nailed it. Doc you make too much sense for Sodahead.

reply
stormy rae to Wolfman 2012/05/10 08:00:33
Wolfman to stormy rae 2012/05/10 08:13:07

Paul can't even win a nomination. How could he possibly get elected? You had that hit, huh?

reply
Mike to Wolfman 2012/05/10 20:10:24

+1
You realize that Romney is pro choice right? Tell me how Romney is better then Obama? please tell me?

reply
Wolfman to Mike 2012/05/10 23:39:41

Obama is a Kenyan Marxist that is using the Cloward-Pivin strategy to destroy the country. Romney is an astute businessman.

reply