[Nets]

The title says it all. I'm curious what people think.

No "other" option given as the poll is relative.

[Lensky1917]

Ron Paul.

He has a following as devoted as Chuck Norris'.

[NYYS]

Come on Nets, this is opinion polls, you can't go around asking things that have right and wrong answers.

Ron Paul.

[Dr House]

I may be biased, but what the hell.

Barack Obama

The man is running a campaign based on saying absolutely nothing of importance. All he ever does is endlessly chant "hope, change, hope, change", and the crowds swallow it up. Ron Paul at least talks policy, his following fell in love with the ideas, not the man.

-Dr House

[W01f]

Ron Paulism is a cult as far as I'm concerned. Nothing sane, logical, or appealing about his policies (foreign policy aside, which is the only thing of his that makes a slight bit of sense). For the most part he appeals to naive, ignorant individuals who don't know how "things" work and shouldn't be involved in politics in the first place. But that's where his following comes from. He appeals to just those people, who otherwise wouldn't be involved in politics.

Barrackism is more like a religion. He's got the masses, because what he says actually makes sense, or at least, is very hard to argue. He gives people a light at the end of the tunnel while still keeping it sane. In other words, it appeals to the average person. It might not be true, it might all just be an act, but it's a damn good one, and it sure beats the depressing atheism that would be another 4 years of republican rule.

[Rancid]

I may be biased, but what the hell.

Barack Obama

The man is running a campaign based on saying absolutely nothing of importance. All he ever does is endlessly chant "hope, change, hope, change", and the crowds swallow it up. Ron Paul at least talks policy, his following fell in love with the ideas, not the man.

basically my exact opinion.

appeals to naive, ignorant individuals who don't know how "things" work and shouldn't be involved in politics in the first place.

I think you got mixed up... you're talking about socialist...

or at least, is very hard to argue.

there is nothing to argue about because he never says anything...

[Abood]

The man is running a campaign based on saying absolutely nothing of importance. All he ever does is endlessly chant "hope, change, hope, change", and the crowds swallow it up. Ron Paul at least talks policy, his following fell in love with the ideas, not the man.

Obama has provided many policies, such as ones regarding the war in Iraq and healthcare. He's just more charismatic. He mentions hope and change a lot because that's what's going to unite Americans. Americans don't want some dogmatic blueprint such as the one Ron Paul is offering them.

[Nets]

He mentions hope and change a lot because that's what's going to unite Americans.

Looks like someone has had the koolaid already.

[Koga]

Well this depends on what you define as a cult.


Do you define it as a bunch of brainwashed twits who believe the same thing, and alienate the rest of the world with their insane and often impractical ideas while ideally worshiping a man as though he were a god?

If so, Paul-whores...


Do you define a bunch of ignorant fucktards who have no idea what their savor believes or what he will do, but follow him anyway based off vague ideals and the promise of change?

If so, Obama-fags...

[Dr House]

Obama has provided many policies, such as ones regarding the war in Iraq and healthcare.

I know that, Abood, he's actually the more sensible of the Democratic contenders. But his followers don't care about that and that's what worries me. He could easily be the second coming of Hitler, and as long as he keeps the crowds chanting "hope, change, hope, change" he's still gonna get elected. This poll isn't about who you disagree with, it's about whose followers are more brainwashed. And that honor rests on the Obamamites.

-Dr House

[Koga]

I disagree House. (Btw, you do him no justice...)


Paul-whores are definitely more cultist in nature. As a ron paul fan I know what I'm talking about.


Paul-whores are practically scientologists..

[The Immortal Goon]

Obama - holds the majority of states in the DNC race so far, the majority of delegates, the majority of endorsements, the majority of swing votes, and the majority of pledged super delegates. It is almost mathematically impossible for him to lose the nomination.

Ron Paul - Just put out another campaign ad to try and win the GOP election from McCaion, despite it being completely impossible for him to win at this point.

Despite however vague Obama might be, one has a leader that has proven to draw people on a realistic and - thus far - politically viable platform (despite what one might say about how vague it is) - the other one apparently lives in fucking outerspace where 1+1=3 because RON PAUL IS GOING TO SWEEP THE ELECTIONS! MCCAIN DOESN'T HAVE A CHANCE! RON PAUL IS MORE POWERFUL THAN MATH!

[ingliz]

Ron Paul

[Thunderhawk]

Both Obama and Ron Paul supporters could be considered Cultish. Obama's message is basically upbeat populism. Paul's is simply unreasonable, and people are no longer willing to accept the unreasonable.

[Goranhammer]

Gonna go with NYYS and Lensky on this one. When I see people on the internet invoke Obama's name as much as Paul, I'll reconsider.

However, Paulites are absolutely cultish. And stupid.

I'm a fucking libertarian, and I can't stand Paulites. That should tell you something.

[Dr House]

You're not a libertarian, Goran. You're a conservative. Libertarians don't defend welfare, regulation, public roads and taxes.

-Dr House

[Red Rebel]

When I'm driving through the middle of no where and I can only see farmland, I gurantee I'll see a "Ron Paul 08" sign.

[Goranhammer]

Once again, the difference between libertarians and ancaps.

Libertarians are minarchists, not anarchists. They defend minimal and deserved welfare, minimal regulation, minimal taxation, and understand the need of public funding for public goods.

[Potemkin]

However, Paulites are absolutely cultish. And stupid.

I'm a fucking libertarian, and I can't stand Paulites. That should tell you something.

Ron Paul - the Trotsky of Libertarianism!

[Dr House]

Libertarians are minarchists, not anarchists. They defend minimal and deserved welfare, minimal regulation, minimal taxation, and understand the need of public funding for public goods.

No, that's actually classical liberals, classical conservatives and very moderate/progressive libertarians. Harder core minarchists see the role of government to be strictly limited to defense, law enforcement and courts.

Personally, I believe in a limited provision of public goods and welfare, no direct taxes, and absolutely no regulations.

-Dr House