English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-12-29 03:05:15 · 9 answers · asked by brandon r 3 in Politics & Government Elections

Re: Harley. Kerry did win his parties nomination though.

2007-12-29 03:11:25 · update #1

Re: ktrb. Ron Paul said he kept that white supremacist money because it was less that he do what he did with. Ron Paul has said repeatedly that he does not agree with white supremacists.

2007-12-29 03:14:24 · update #2

Re: ktrb. Freedom is an appealing message, and even those people we disagree with can still agree with us on the idea of freedom and individual rights. If we stop guaranteeing those rights to people because we disagree with them, we will see rights as limited and not guaranteed to all people.

2007-12-29 03:28:11 · update #3

9 answers

They will drop the biggest vote bomb. Please don't worry, I genuinely believe that Ron Paul is America's next president.

2007-12-29 03:49:26 · answer #1 · answered by Ash'ari Maturidi 5 · 4 6

I would more point to Howard Dean as an example than John Kerry.

Generally speaking, there is a statistically significant difference between the political views of those who donate to campaigns and those who vote in primary elections. There are certain candidates who do well with the net activists (and its my personal belief that Ron Paul's candidacy has some of the attributes that play well on the net) but do not appeal to the larger pool of voters -- who tend to be a little bit more pragmatic and less idealistic and revolutionary.

I could be wrong, but my hunch says that Ron Paul gets in the area of 5-10% in Iowa and South Carolina and the area of 10-15% in New Hampshire -- neither figure gets him any delegates which is what counts at this stage.

2007-12-29 03:26:31 · answer #2 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 3 4

Because anyone can put however much money they want behind a candidate, but they still only get one and only one vote.

To the person who said that it looks like Ron Paul isn't on the ballot in Iowa, well, you are 100% correct. Neither is Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Guiliani, Thompson, Hunter, or any other Republican candidate. And no Democrat is on the ballot either.

"WHAT!?!?!? You have got to be KIDDING me!!!!"

No, I am not. There IS no ballot for a caucus. Maybe you should look into the caucus process before you make implications as to a candidate being left off of the ballot.
In 1976, the Democratic winner in the Iowa Caucus was....DAAA!!!!!!DADADADUHDADADUHDADUHHHHHHHH!! UNDECIDED!!! I would like "Undecided" to please stand up and take their place and get their mythical throphy for "winning" the Iowa Caucus in 1976!!

Maybe in addition to reading the Constitution of the United States of America, you should read about how state do things, as in accordance with the 10th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, states have a wide berth as to how they do things.

2007-12-29 03:30:16 · answer #3 · answered by Jam_Til_Impact 5 · 6 5

So Paul being endorsed by the Klan is worse than a Democrat being endorsed by PETA, a known domestic terrorist organization. How about a Democrat being endorsed by the Joyce Foundation, a U.N started program to out law guns world wide and undermining our national sovereignty to do it. How about the Democrat the terrorist in the mid- east have said they would like to see win, or the one receiving Chinese money(now there's an ally).
The vote is not decided, wait till the primaries really start before claiming no votes. Low poll numbers just mean he isn't in all the polls. I have taken 4 polls in the last two weeks and his name isn't mentioned in any of them.

2007-12-29 03:45:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6 5

You are so right!!! We need to have a HUGE VOTE BOMB!!!

For you who are standing on the fact that a few crappy groups have endorsed Dr. Paul... THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE STANDS BEHIND THOSE GROUPS!!!! THE LAST TIME I CHECKED THIS WAS STILL AMERICA AND WE DO STILL HAVE A FEW OF OUR FREEDOMS LEFT. THOSE PEOPLE ARE JUST LIKE YOU.... THEY CAN CHOOSE WHICHEVER CANDIDATE THEY WANT AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CANDIDATE OF CHOICE AGREES WITH THE VIEWS OF THAT GROUP.

2007-12-29 04:30:41 · answer #5 · answered by S.M.K. 2 · 3 5

Because money does NOT equal votes. John Kerry (previous money bomb record holder) is proof of this.
Yes...Kerry did win the Dems nomination, but Kerry was also the best the Dems had to offer. That is not the case within the Republican party.

2007-12-29 03:07:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5 9

Because a lot of Paul's money is coming from some unsavory sources, and once news of that gets out he'll start to lose support. Unlike other candidates, Paul doesn't refuse to accept money from groups like the Klan or the American Nazi party -- that's a big part of what's inflating his funds.

ETA: It really doesn't matter WHY he's keeping it. It's tainted. It's no different than a cop stealing a drug-dealer's stash because hey, he's a criminal, right? If he'll take money from the Nazis, he has no honor and no right to be our president.

2007-12-29 03:09:25 · answer #7 · answered by ktrb 6 · 5 11

because votes result from good ideas, not from connections

2007-12-29 03:09:01 · answer #8 · answered by bubba 6 · 3 6

We can, but it looks as if he isn't on the ballot in Iowa

2007-12-29 03:08:51 · answer #9 · answered by buzzard 1 · 4 6

fedest.com, questions and answers