How Many Paul Supporters Will Switch To Obama?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Status
Not open for further replies.

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 19, 2005
15,663
7,951
1,743
34
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#61
Prior to the invasion, there was no war where the US was involved.. All the casualties listed below were due to his brutal regime.
1990-1991
About 25,000 Iraqi troops are thought to have died in the seven-month Gulf War, which began when US-led forces entered Iraq following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths have varied wildly - up to 200,000. The coalition death toll was 378 and many troops suffered from the unexplained "Gulf War syndrome".

1991
Tens of thousands were killed as Saddam attempted to put down a popular rebellion following his defeat by the US-led forces in February 1991. More than 100,000 Shias were killed; a similar number of Kurds died. About 200,000 Marsh Arabs were killed or made homeless.

1993-1998
About 3,000 prisoners were machine-gunned to death at Mahjar prison in central Baghdad

And he did gas thousands of Kurds.
1978-1979
Up to 7,000 Iraqi communists were executed by orders of the Ba'athist regime.

1982
The specific atrocity for which Saddam was hanged: 148 Shias were murdered in the village of Dujail.

1984

Up to 4,000 political prisoners in Abu Ghraib jail were tortured and killed. Saddam's favoured methods of torture included cutting off genitalia, gouging out eyes and acid baths.

1980-1988
Some 1.7m died on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, started by Saddam.

1987-1989
At least 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in the so-called Anfal campaign. Some were gassed, others cast alive into mass graves.

1988
On March 16, in the worst single atrocity of the Anfal campaign, 5,000 Kurds were killed when Saddam ordered planes to drop a mixture of mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin on the town of Halabja.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?menuID=1&subID=1008
Since the invasion, terrorist bombers ahve done their fair share of killing civilians...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7223769.stm





Oh really?
Yeh, really.

You will eventually grow up and learn that sticking your head in the sand (RP) is not a good alternative to addressing the injustice in the world. This is an unpopular war and has been expensive in terms of loss of life and expense to the US taxpayers but your use of hindsight is 20/20 is old hat and easy. Everyone that is now whining about it now that had a chance to dispute it during the time it was originally addressed agreed with Bush.
The only thing I regret is taking you off ignore, pull your head out.
I said 5 years prior to the Iraq war. If you're not sure what years that was, it was 1998-2003. You posted stuff dating back to 1988. Maybe those numbers will be relevant to the discussion if McCain gets elected and we're discussing the Iraq war casualties in 2018. As it stands, we've been in Iraq for 5 years. The only number you have concerning any mass killings prior to the Iraq war is:

1993-1998: About 3,000 prisoners were machine-gunned to death at Mahjar prison in central Baghdad

and that isn't 5 years prior, that's 5-10 years prior.

I'm not arguing that Saddam's rule was rainbows and butterflies or defending Saddam's actions like some of you are attacking me for, I'm arguing that the war we started has been more costly to human life than what it was after the Gulf War and prior to the Iraq war that we started in 2003.

By the way, I thought you didn't read what I posted or respond to me? :rolleyes:
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,326
2
668
#64
Actually Obama and Paul line up on a few key issues.

The war obviously.

They also support several social libertarian issues

e.g.
repeal of the Patriot Act
legalization/decriminalization of Marijuana

If you will look at Paul's supporters it is primarily two groups of people. He does have supporters on the far far right, traditional economic conservatives or radical fringe groups.

However he also has a strong contingent of college students and young people. To them, the social freedoms are equally if not more important than the economic principles. I wouldn't be surprised to see many of them vote Obama over McCain.

I know plenty of hippies and pot heads (in OK and other places) who switched over from being registered as Independents (libertarians) so they could vote for Obama in the primary.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
34
OKC
#65
IMHO, Obama is the Anti-Paul. I took a political test. I was 75% Paul (my highest by a good margin) and like 17% Obama (my lowest). I don't see why any Paul supporter would go to Obama.
I don't think it's that far fetched. I am for smaller government, more personal freedoms, and getting out of Iraq. imo: Paul = 3/3, Obama 2/3, current GOP = 0/3.
 

OKCPoke

Territorial Marshal
Dec 19, 2006
5,571
6
668
#66
Pathetic...this guy killed hundreds of thousands of his own people but because there is nothing listed as "5 years" prior to the invasion you seem to think he was Santa Claus...yeh, you are defending Sadam as a reason we went in. I never said the war wasn't costly, in fact I just said it again...but hind sight is 20/20, the weanies way out as most of those that oppose Bush NOW say, this after publicly agreeing that what Bush did needed to be done at the time. You don't like me reading your stuff because I point out where you are wrong, maybe if you'd admit it I'd quit reading them.
 

naranjaynegro

Territorial Marshal
Oct 20, 2003
7,145
1,209
1,743
58
Houston area
Visit site
#67
Nah, you read it wrong. I said Obama is the only candidate out of either Republican or Democratic candidates that I have any chance of voting for. I could still vote third party or write Ron Paul's name in.

As covered before: http://www.orangepower.com/showthread.php?t=47799

See...I just don't get this thinking. How can someone consider polar opposite candidates? Their positions are 180 degrees apart. How can that be?
In my way of thinking.....you add up the pros and cons of each candidate and vote for the most "pros" on your side. Not every candidate is going to share our exact positions on issues. I understand that. Now I also understand there might be some of us who have "litmus test" positions....OK....but to say I'm a Ron Paul supporter and then potentially back the most liberal democrat in the race before a fellow republican, I'm perplexed.

They way I see the race shaping up is it's between McCain and Clinton/ Obama. I STILL see this race as the democrats to lose but I'm beginning to think more and more that McCain has a chance, especially with his strong independent pull. If RP runs as an independent....forget McCain and give it to Clinton or Obama.

I never would have considered McCain before but he's the republican's choice and I'll vote for him in the general. I'd NEVER cast a vote for democrat as long as they run on a platform of "right to choose", as that's my "litmus" test in a politician.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 19, 2005
15,663
7,951
1,743
34
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#68
Pathetic...this guy killed hundreds of thousands of his own people but because there is nothing listed as "5 years" prior to the invasion you seem to think he was Santa Claus...yeh, you are defending Sadam as a reason we went in. I never said the war wasn't costly, in fact I just said it again...but hind sight is 20/20, the weanies way out as most of those that oppose Bush NOW say, this after publicly agreeing that what Bush did needed to be done at the time. You don't like me reading your stuff because I point out where you are wrong, maybe if you'd admit it I'd quit reading them.
Where did I say he was Santa Claus? Your argument holds no bearing when you're blatantly misquoting people and I won't even offer a response to your ignorance until you can start arguing with substance rather than crap you're pulling out of your rear. Go argue with your boyfriend, KCPowercat. Oh, yeah. He's banned. You must want to kill yourself now at the fact you have nothing else to do all day, huh?
 

Slugger926

Federal Marshal
Oct 19, 2004
11,721
1,684
1,743
#69
I am curious, how many dedicated Ron Paul supporters will jump on the Obama train? Even though their positions are opposite concerning taxes, government size and the constitution, how many do you think will switch?

I think a lot may over look the fundamental differences and side with the "generational" and charisma of Obama.

Of course this is only assuming that he doesn't run as a third party candidate.
They will have to go with McCain or Huckabee or whoever the GOP puts up.

All of the democrats are against gun rights which means they are against the constitution and you defending yourself against threat. They may want the government to come in and do a report on your corpse after you were denied your right to defend yourself. Remember, Hitler first took the guns away from the Germans before taking the rest of their rights away.
 
Sep 5, 2006
3,889
48
678
KMAF
#70
You will eventually grow up and learn that sticking your head in the sand (RP) is not a good alternative to addressing the injustice in the world. This is an unpopular war and has been expensive in terms of loss of life and expense to the US taxpayers but your use of hindsight is 20/20 is old hat and easy. Everyone that is now whining about it now that had a chance to dispute it during the time it was originally addressed agreed with Bush.
The only thing I regret is taking you off ignore, pull your head out.
BUSH LIED. Are you that thick? People agreed with Bush because HE WAS LYING. If he had stood up and said, "Iraq doesn't have WMDs! They are not supporting Al Qaeda!", do you think people would still have agreed with him? Seriously, COME ON. Saddam was horrible, absolutely. Saddam was also the leader of Iraq, which is a sovereign nation where we have NO BUSINESS BESIDES OIL.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
22,701
12,948
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#71
Where did I say he was Santa Claus? Your argument holds no bearing when you're blatantly misquoting people and I won't even offer a response to your ignorance until you can start arguing with substance rather than crap you're pulling out of your rear. Go argue with your boyfriend, KCPowercat. Oh, yeah. He's banned. You must want to kill yourself now at the fact you have nothing else to do all day, huh?
LOL. Kaje, you got called out and lost your argument, now you start the personal attacks. Who would have seen this coming?:rolleyes:
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 19, 2005
15,663
7,951
1,743
34
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#72
See...I just don't get this thinking. How can someone consider polar opposite candidates? Their positions are 180 degrees apart. How can that be?
In my way of thinking.....you add up the pros and cons of each candidate and vote for the most "pros" on your side. Not every candidate is going to share our exact positions on issues. I understand that. Now I also understand there might be some of us who have "litmus test" positions....OK....but to say I'm a Ron Paul supporter and then potentially back the most liberal democrat in the race before a fellow republican, I'm perplexed.

They way I see the race shaping up is it's between McCain and Clinton/ Obama. I STILL see this race as the democrats to lose but I'm beginning to think more and more that McCain has a chance, especially with his strong independent pull. If RP runs as an independent....forget McCain and give it to Clinton or Obama.

I never would have considered McCain before but he's the republican's choice and I'll vote for him in the general. I'd NEVER cast a vote for democrat as long as they run on a platform of "right to choose", as that's my "litmus" test in a politician.
Sorry, I don't vote on political parties. I'm an American first.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
22,701
12,948
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#73
"Iraq doesn't have WMDs! They are not supporting Al Qaeda!", do you think people would still have agreed with him? Seriously, COME ON.
No because that would have been the lie. Bush wasn't the only person who saw intelligence. Hillary gets to see it too, along with a lot of Pentagon employees. Bush didn't lie, people like Hillary who said they don't exist are lying for political gain. Sad part is she knows its a lie and there is nothing Bush can or will do about it because it is classified information.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 19, 2005
15,663
7,951
1,743
34
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#74
LOL. Kaje, you got called out and lost your argument, now you start the personal attacks. Who would have seen this coming?:rolleyes:
You don't even offer anything to the discussion. You rely on people to make arguments for you so that you can come in and post your moral support. Why don't you actually take part in one before criticizing anyone for winning or losing an argument. And I'm tired of arguing about things I didn't say (what the stupid argument started over with State's amazing reading comprehension).
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 19, 2005
15,663
7,951
1,743
34
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#76
No because that would have been the lie. Bush wasn't the only person who saw intelligence. Hillary gets to see it too, along with a lot of Pentagon employees. Bush didn't lie, people like Hillary who said they don't exist are lying for political gain. Sad part is she knows its a lie and there is nothing Bush can or will do about it because it is classified information.
Yeah, everyone else got to see the intelligence after the White House cut and snipped out any information that proved the information they were providing may be incorrect. If you think members of Congress have access to the same information that the CIA/FBI provides to the President, I'm going to LOL.
 

OKCPoke

Territorial Marshal
Dec 19, 2006
5,571
6
668
#77
Where did I say he was Santa Claus? Your argument holds no bearing when you're blatantly misquoting people and I won't even offer a response to your ignorance until you can start arguing with substance rather than crap you're pulling out of your rear. Go argue with your boyfriend, KCPowercat. Oh, yeah. He's banned. You must want to kill yourself now at the fact you have nothing else to do all day, huh?
Laughable, you really are pathetic. Step out of your ballerina suit and quit ignoring the stats that have already been shown. Boyfriend...obviously you're boxed into that corner called wrong again so you call names. If I want to find something to correct, I just need to pull up any of your posts, they are consistantly wrong. Grow up little one.
 
Jan 17, 2006
3,219
0
0
Tulsa
#78
I'm not ignorant of McCain, I used to be a fan, but his foreign policy is completely against what I believe is best for us. The only thing I can say for him now is he's better than hilldog.
I tend to agree, but I think that McCain's tough war rhetoric is political speech. What I like about McCain is that he's very even headed and thoughtful about tough issues like the war. I don't agree with his tough pro-war stance, but I think if he were in office, he would find a way to resolve the situation much much better than Bush is. I don't think he'll be stuborn about "winning" the war and he definitely won't be the type to try and turn every dictatorship into a democracy.

I back Obama though. I think he's the best man to unite the country and bring something different to Washington than business as usual. If the general election is Clinton-McCain, however, I will vote for McCain, even though I'm a democrat. Clinton is too divisive and republicans will never be able to work with her to get things done. McCain has proven he can reach across the aisle and get things done.
 
Sep 5, 2006
3,889
48
678
KMAF
#79
Yeah, everyone else got to see the intelligence after the White House cut and snipped out any information that proved the information they were providing may be incorrect. If you think members of Congress have access to the same information that the CIA/FBI provides to the President, I'm going to LOL.
Then there were all of our European allies questioning and eventually disagreeing with the motives of the Bush administration.

But really, who the hell needs allies?
 

OKCPoke

Territorial Marshal
Dec 19, 2006
5,571
6
668
#80
Yeah, everyone else got to see the intelligence after the White House cut and snipped out any information that proved the information they were providing may be incorrect. If you think members of Congress have access to the same information that the CIA/FBI provides to the President, I'm going to LOL.
Ah, the old conspiracy dodge...face the facts quoted, you're wrong...again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.