This so-called good hearted man is nothing more than a spoiler. He is exactly what the democratic party needs to win. It matters not what he calls himself, he will only affect the republican party. The more he increases in the polls, the better it is for any opposing candidate.
Do not forget the last idiot ,Nader! I am not in favor of a republican winning any more than I am against a democrat. I simply have ABSOLUTELY NO respect for spoilers. If he stays in the race and he will, look for it to be a sweep throughout the country.
This prop will increase in popularity. The more popular he becomes, the more embedded a democratic candidate is in becoming the next president of the USA.
Many of his supporters will one day cry in disbelief when Hillary wins. At which time, this man will fade like the last one. Where is Nader today? Why did he not run if he really wants to be president? He is spoiler, much like Ron Paul. Hillary chose the right time to run for office.
2007-11-24 17:04:10 · 18 answers · asked by shawnLacey 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
They usually run because they are arrogant elitists and think their way is the only answer to whatever the percieved problem is.
2007-11-24 17:10:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 8⤋
Nader is endorsing Ron Paul (or at least has glowing words for him). Perot was 100% correct about NAFTA, so those who discount an "idiot" like him ... I'll keep thinking you are talking about yourself. When Nader and Perot ran, grassroots were ok, but not connected like Ron Paul's campaign is.
Why? It's connected by a much faster medium called the internet, you might have heard of it, everyone is on it these days. Howard Dean didn't have a message as strong, and the internet was not as interactive or as popular. With instant social networking sites like facebook, meetup, myspace, even youtube, things are really coordinated. In fact, Ron Paul supporters used to be accused of using multiple identities from their momma's basements. I don't know how he made that 4.3million in a day if someone STILL thinks that.
This internet can break a candidate in millions of pieces; case in point, George Allen, and his macaca video. He was slated to run for president this time around, and now he is gone. Even Hillary cannot control the contents of youtube, and all the flip flops she has done. The internet can also bring information about a candidate that is much more impartial than before, with media and print. Sorry you can't see the possibilities and optimism, and only focus on the way things were.
Lastly, Dr. Ron Paul (a 10 term Republican Congressman) is NOT running as an independent, so your whole question is just another baseless attack. He's running to win, and I'm doing my part to make sure that happens. Good luck with your candidate, I did my research, how about you?
2007-11-24 19:18:52 · answer #2 · answered by Jen O 3 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Who really knows what will happen. Another wild card would be Mayor Bloomberg. He could take away a lot of votes from both parties in my opinion and who knows how much of each? Plus the guy could spend a billion bucks of his own money and basically buy the election. I think someone needs to lock Nader away if he tries another time. He hasn't ruled it out yet. The reason 3rd party candidates have a platform is because everyone is sick of the Reps and the Dems. Neither party is doing a good job of governing.
2007-11-25 01:01:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
i could be completely surprised if Ron Paul were given elected. i imagine he's the better guy even if the total gadget is fantastically corrupt. it truly isn't any longer about the applicants a lot because the spin and fiscal backing behind them, which, like maximum advertising, has a tendency to push human beings in route of particular guidelines. Obama grew to change into elected because of his recognition. (He changed into an greater decision in a lot of techniques on the time! it truly is affirming something!) The Occupy circulation will be totally behind Ron Paul, because he seems to appreciate them far better than the different out of contact applicants. Ron Paul could revolutionise united statesa. if given the prospect.
2016-10-25 00:54:11 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please explain how Ron Paul is a spoiler. To be a spoiler you have to be a third party candidate, Nader and Perot were both third party candidates, Ron Paul is a republican running to WIN.
As far as beating Hilary goes, Ron Paul would defiantly win the election over Hilary for many issues. Ron Paul is more trustful and honest with people, you know all of his positions. He has a better foreign policy (the only one that works) which is a nonintervention foreign policy meaning we can talk and trade and be friends with other nations but we cannot intervene in their political affairs. This intervention policy that we have is ruining our country and creating new enemies. Hilary does not want to change this because she wants to continue building these HUGE permanent bases that we are building in the Islamic holy land and she doesn't find it realistic to get out of Iraq by 2013. Think about this people, how would you like it if i was building a fort in your backyard, YOUR property, and you couldn't do anything about it because I am stronger than you.
2007-11-24 17:57:50 · answer #5 · answered by pain train 1 · 7⤊ 3⤋
no the people voting for Hillary and Rudy mitt and obama are the real spoilers, because none of them are going to even try to make the changes this country so dearly needs. so don't blame Ron Paul he would if elected bring the country back where it belongs. how dare you be so high and mighty in opinion that you know better than everyone else. we vote by what is best for America not who can win in your opinion, grow a pair and vote for the honest man for once
2007-11-24 17:16:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Ron Paul isn't running as a spoiler. He is running as a Republican. He is taking the running seriously and doesn't want to run as an independent because he realizes it will cause more harm.
If Ron Paul gets the republican nomation this will be good. Atleast he is anti the war. And he can put a stop to all those other war mongers on the republican side. Plus, I think Hillary vs Ron Paul gives Ron Paul a wonderful chance of winning. I do hope it ends up with Barack and Ron Paul.
www.ronpaul2008.com
VOTE RON PAUL!!!
www.teaparty07.com
www.rudysreadinglist.com
2007-11-24 17:09:00 · answer #7 · answered by ummlayth 2 · 8⤊ 6⤋
There is not much difference between the Tax and Spend Democrats and the Borrow and Spend Republicans.
Vote for a real change.
Vote for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul being anti war is taking votes away from Hilary too.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
2007-11-24 17:50:48 · answer #8 · answered by Dennis Fargo 5 · 8⤊ 3⤋
So much has been said about Ron Paul. Check infos for yourselves.
www.ronpaul2008.com
2007-11-25 00:28:19 · answer #9 · answered by Buggy 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
ty for pointing that out bout nader. As for Paul i did not realize he was going to run as independent. He may not have same effect as Nader did. Nader was far left and only took vote from Gore/Kerry as I think he was paid to do. Paul's correct anti war stance may pull votes from hillary as well. Paul could actually hurt her more then republicans. If paul won republican nod he is only one i think could even think of beating any dem cause people are so sick of war recession
2007-11-24 17:57:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
What are you talking about? He's running for the Republican nomination. How can he be a spoiler? Besides, if he doesn't run, I'll probably vote Democrat anyway. Six years of Republican controlled Congress and a Republican president and all they can accomplish is the biggest spending deficits in our history despite record tax revenues and our first pre-emptive war, based on shoddy evidence. Either nominate a true conservative or prepare for Democrats in power.
2007-11-24 17:09:39 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 12⤊ 4⤋