If you could elect anyone from this list in 2012, who would it be?

[SoCalBronco]

As of this moment, from the list, who would you vote for?

[SoCalBronco]

I'd vote for Jon Huntsman.

[Spider]

Hillary

[BroncoInferno]

Put Bernie Sanders on there.

[Pony Boy]

Harrison Ford

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Put Bernie Sanders on there.

Co-signed.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Propaganda

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Propaganda

Yep, you got me - any one of those three guys is a virtual lock for the WH in 2012.

[mosca]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Put Bernie Sanders on there.

I've been a big fan of Bernie since the days of him co-signing w. Ron Paul on auditing the Federal Reserve. He'd make a great presidential or VP candidate on a ticket with someone like Nader, Paul, or Kucinich.

Some of these guys need to put their differences aside and get on a ticket together is all I'm saying.

[tnedator]

Looking at that list, it makes me realize how weak the options are. I went with Christie, although I do think he has some warts. There is a lot I like about Ron Paul, but I think some of his views are a bit extreme -- even though you could argue extreme is exactly what we need right now to get our ship righted.

P.S. You notice you never 'left' a ship, you only 'right' it?

[Tombstone RJ]

Ron Paul!

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by tnedator

Looking at that list, it makes me realize how weak the options are. I went with Christie, although I do think he has some warts. There is a lot I like about Ron Paul, but I think some of his views are a bit extreme -- even though you could argue extreme is exactly what we need right now to get our ship righted.

P.S. You notice you never 'left' a ship, you only 'right' it?

Actually, it's a pretty strong list brosef. Yah, you can always pretend a guy like Kerry is a "strong" candidate for the whitehouse, but you'd be wrong. The last presidential election got Barry Oba elected and well yah, he's not really a "strong" candidate.

[mosca]

Originally Posted by tnedator

Looking at that list, it makes me realize how weak the options are. I went with Christie, although I do think he has some warts. There is a lot I like about Ron Paul, but I think some of his views are a bit extreme -- even though you could argue extreme is exactly what we need right now to get our ship righted.

P.S. You notice you never 'left' a ship, you only 'right' it?

How come all we hear about Ron Paul is 'I like him, but...'

Everyone has some kind of excuse. They support him on so many issues, but... [excuse]

When most of the other mainstream candidates, you really can't think of much anything good about any of them.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'd vote for everyone save Obama, really.

Obama has proven to be an utter disaster of epic proportions. If you have Obama v. anyone else, I vote anyone else 10 times out of 10. It could be a stuffed animal with George Washington's face on it and I'd vote for it over Obama.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by mosca

How come all we hear about Ron Paul is 'I like him, but...'

Everyone has some kind of excuse. They support him on so many issues, but... [excuse]

When most of the other mainstream candidates, you really can't think of much anything good about any of them.

It's because of the "but..." There is a fine line between too much status quo and to much change.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by mosca

How come all we hear about Ron Paul is 'I like him, but...'

Everyone has some kind of excuse. They support him on so many issues, but... [excuse]

When most of the other mainstream candidates, you really can't think of much anything good about any of them.

Its because people are afraid to consider something that the media doesnt endorse.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

Its because people are afraid to consider something that the media doesnt endorse.

That's asinine.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by tnedator

That's asinine.

Not at all.

People are influenced immensely by media.

If that wasnt true, then liberals wouldnt spend millions of dollars trying to pick at conservative news outlets. See mediamatters.org.

Television media is most peoples' primary source for information. How that information is presented, with what type of tone, and which stories they choose to cover...all of these things are subtle nudges.

If you aren't aware of it, you should be.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

Not at all.

People are influenced immensely by media.

If that wasnt true, then liberals wouldnt spend millions of dollars trying to pick at conservative news outlets. See mediamatters.org.

Television media is most peoples' primary source fit information. How that information is presented, with what type of tone, and which stories they choose to cover...all of these things are subtle nudges.

If you aren't aware of it, you should be.

I'm aware of all of that, but your simplistic conclusion about why many people don't support Paul, is both narrow minded and false.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by tnedator

Looking at that list, it makes me realize how weak the options are. I went with Christie, although I do think he has some warts. There is a lot I like about Ron Paul, but I think some of his views are a bit extreme -- even though you could argue extreme is exactly what we need right now to get our ship righted.

P.S. You notice you never 'left' a ship, you only 'right' it?

The reason it'd be OK is because the things that he could actually force to change are the things currently on questionable ground. Would he draw down the wars and stop fighting them? I don't doubt it a bit. Would he give rights back to the states? I'd say yes. Would he take us back to the gold standard? Well, he'd like to but Obama originally said he preferred single payer but he knew that wouldn't actually happen here. It'd be the same with the gold standard. The only way any true changes would happen would be if enough of congress agreed with him.

I do think that the country would be on more fundamentally sound footing when he was done with office than when he went in. All of his ideas wouldn't be enacted just because he can't do anything by himself. If the Rs magically won a super-majority in both chambers and Paul were elected president, I think I'd be weary of what cooky things they could come up with. I don't foresee that being an issue though.

[TheDave]

None of the above... what a disgrace.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by tnedator

I'm aware of all of that, but your simplistic conclusion about why many people don't support Paul, is both narrow minded and false.

Its 100% true.

Paul's political ideas are more in line with the average citizen than any of the above listed politicians, but yet some think that a vote for him is a wasted vote and that he's "crazy".

If they were informed about the issues, they'd see through it.

[baja]

Long shot that he is Ron Paul is the only hope for this country.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

Its 100% true.

Paul's political ideas are more in line with the average citizen than any of the above listed politicians, but yet some think that a vote for him is a wasted vote and that he's "crazy".

If they were informed about the issues, they'd see through it.

People think he's 'crazy,' because of what comes out of his mouth. Most people agree with a lot of what Paul says and believes, but most people tend to disagree with other points he makes. It the disagreement varies by person. Some don't agree with his isolationist position, others don't agree with eliminating some of the federal agencies, some are put off by his statements such as the Gold being stolen from Fort Knox (by the government), or the CIA running the military.

Point is, you can have the simplistic and self-important view that people don't agree with you, because the media paints a poor picture of Ron Paul, but that just shows how narrow minded you are.