Economist Poll: "Should Ron Paul be considered a serious contender?"

[havoc37]

You can vote here: h xxp://www.economist.com/economist-asks/should-ron-paul-be-considered-serious-contender-republican-nomination

Upvote and Digg this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/jor4p/economist_poll_should_ron_paul_be_considered_a/
http://digg.com/news/politics/econo...rious_contender_for_the_republican_nomination

 

[havoc37]

lol @ the neoliberal and neocon uneducated trolls in the comments section:

Ron Paul is very, very dangerous. He blames problems in the Muslim World on US foreign policy collateral and wants to shut down the CIA. He is a nut-job hippie - not someone who should be in charge of the security of hundreds of millions of people. I mean, these are nice rhetorical points for which there are clear solutions (be isolationist) and it would be great if everything was this simple, but it really isn't. O and btw, his monetary policies aren't something we've seen for 100 years and again, are naive and only something that college-kid know it alls who are "too cool" to be progressives would support.
Bachmann & Perry have the same policies as him btw, they're just more aggressive people and are more appropriate politicians - but still horrible, horrible choices. Huntsman, Romney, and Santorum are the best in terms of policies, but again, I don't see any of them as effective presidents. So basically, the field sucks and we're stuck with Obama for another 4 years.

 

[rprprs]

voted

 

[sailingaway]

voted and broke link

 

[johnald]

voted

 

[Travlyr]

The Economist Asks
Should Ron Paul be considered a serious contender for the Republican nomination?
You voted: Yes
Current total votes: 3212
78% voted for Yes and 22% voted for No

 

[bolidew]

voted and need more.

 

[AdamT]

Voted. 79% yes.

 

[darkstar725]

Just voted and it said 50% voted yes and 13% voted no...how does that add up?

*Update: 79% - 21%...