RNC Shuns Ron Paul, Supporters Root For Romney Defeat

[jbombelli]

But it's so much fun! Especially when the Libertarians run screaming "Mitt and Ryan and Palin, OH MY"

Will you be all

when we have more deficits and more debt, and we're worse off in 4 years than we are now, and we've lost yet more of our freedoms?

And if the Libertarian Party is so irrelevant why do so many of you try to convince every last one of us that we HAVE to vote for Romney or Obama will win?

 

[smokingman]

After the rules change they are trying to make with delegates being meaningless unless they are for the front runner the GOP can kiss my a$$.

What gives the head of the GOP the right to replace any and all delegates chosen and voted as such,to delegates they choose?

Talk about the death nail of the party.If the rule passes you may as well never vote in another primary because your vote will be totally meaningless.They will choose the front runner,and give them delegates who support them period.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

If the rule passes you may as well never vote in another primary because your vote will be totally meaningless.They will choose the front runner,and give them delegates who support them period.

Do you honestly believe your vote ever mattered anyway ?

The system has been rigged for so long it's the only way they know how to run it any more .

They (R's & D's) pick who they want in office and you get to "choose" between the two of them .

 

[Ted]

......If Romney doesn't win the election very little, if any, blame can be lain at the feet of the folks who voted a third party candidate........

2000 Presidential election results

Electoral Votes: Bush 271, Gore 266

Margin of electoral vote between Bush and Gore: 5 votes

Florida Popular Vote:
Bush 2,912,790; Gore 2,912,253; Nadar 97,488

Margin of popular vote between Bush and Gore: 537 votes

Florida carries 25 electoral votes

So now explain to me how Ralph Nadar didn't affect the Florida race.

 

[teddy12b]

This country was built on the complete opposite of that sort of defeatism. Why on earth would you think that's the cure for what ails us?? That just boggles my mind.

I look at it as a market correction and purging the system of sickness. If there was to be an economic collapse and government finally realized that people have to take care of themselves then you'd see an end to a lot of government programs. You'd also see the troops come home and the US to stop being the worlds policeman/dramaqueen. Please don't think that I like the idea by any means. I wish we'd have stayed on the gold standard, and allowed competing currencies, but instead we've printed ourselves into stupidity with no means to pay the bill. If we went through a bankrupty it'd purge some of the sickness from the system and we'd all be better off on the other side.

I believe that bankruptcy is coming and a vote for Obama will get us there sooner than a vote for Romney. At that point it becomes a matter of if you want to rip a bandage off, or take the pain slowly.

 

[teddy12b]

Has anyone explained why, if the Libertarian viewpoint is so superior to the Republicans, it is that Paul ran on the Republican ticket? How can you support a guy who turned coat like that? Could it be that he realized that the Libertarian Party is a dead end after 40 years of trying and having essentially no impact? (except on INGO, of course.)

That's actually a lot easier to explain than the way you have it presented. It all depends on what the name "republican" by itself means to you. If it means anti bailouts, anti debt ceilings being raises, anti offensive wars and supporting living within our means then yes Paul is absolutely a Republican. If the term republican to you means that they pass the patriot act, raise the debt ceiling, vote for more offensive wars, and could care less about bigger spending so long as it has an "R" by it's name then of course he certainly isn't a republican.

Ron Paul isn't a turn coat and if you investigate his record you'll find that he's been a consistant member in "republican" ideas while the party has changed over time. The fact of the matter is that even while running as an "R" he's been treated like crap by his own party, the media, and by people too ignorant to read up and try to understand a lot of what he's talking about. Just as the old saying "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner", the libertarian party is the smallest of the three by a long shot. If we think he got treated like crap trying to run within the "R" party, just think of how much more easily he'd be dismissed by running as an "L".

When Ron Paul ran as a "R" what he did was probably the greatest favor he ever could have done to the "R" party by trying to save it from it's own demise. Instead of embracing Pauls message and remembering a time when "R's" used to have fiscal sanity they've doubled down on corruption and letting the party elites decide how things are run. Since the GOP has decided to take this stance it's driven a wedge between those who liked Pauls message and now see no difference between the corruption of the "D" party or "R" party. Vote however you want, but I won't be supporting that.

 

[wagyu52]

I like Paul but he is not the nominee, I'll throw my support behind Romney. ABO

 

[octalman]

Thank you Rev. Wright

Looks like the gop has managed to **** off enough Paul supporters with their shenanigans at the convention that they're going to lose those votes and have many people actively working against their chosen candidates. Can't say it wasn't coming, tho. From the state level to the national the gop did nothing but shove them aside and change the rules to shut them out. The chickens will come home to roost.

Thanks for reminding us more chickens will be returning home. Obama and his cronies must go. Obama is a socialist. He believes the US is too rich, too powerful, consumes too many resources, and is the root of all problems around the world. If you are SOOOO convinced that Ron Paul is the source of all that is good and pure, then you must believe Obama is the exact opposite. So what if Romney does not measure up to the perfection of Ron Paul? Romney is not Obama, nuff said!

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

So now explain to me how Ralph Nadar didn't affect the Florida race.

Hey, dont blame us, blame Romney. Its not OUR fault he doesnt represent us.

Heres to the electoral college! With Spain counting our votes, and them choosing the president, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Thanks for reminding us more chickens will be returning home. Obama and his cronies must go. Obama is a socialist. He believes the US is too rich, too powerful, consumes too many resources, and is the root of all problems around the world. If you are SOOOO convinced that Ron Paul is the source of all that is good and pure, then you must believe Obama is the exact opposite. So what if Romney does not measure up to the perfection of Ron Paul? Romney is not Obama, nuff said!

Romney isnt Obama only because they have different mothers and fathers. What will Romney do differently than Obama?

 

[teddy12b]

Thanks for reminding us more chickens will be returning home. Obama and his cronies must go. Obama is a socialist. He believes the US is too rich, too powerful, consumes too many resources, and is the root of all problems around the world. If you are SOOOO convinced that Ron Paul is the source of all that is good and pure, then you must believe Obama is the exact opposite. So what if Romney does not measure up to the perfection of Ron Paul? Romney is not Obama, nuff said!

Wrong.

Because Romney doesn't amount to anything resembling Ron Paul we're going to have to rely on the other branches of government. I think people like you just have a different perspective than a Paul/Liberty supporter does. You still put "the R team" on a pedistal and think in terms of us (R) vs them(R). The most liberating thing I ever did in my life toss away any loyalty to a political party and tell myself that I was going to start from scratch. When you start to look at all of the mess from the outside looking in you'll really start to see for yourself just how alike the two parties really are.

Show me the party that thinks Congress should vote on an act of war, or the party that is trying to get rid of the patriot act.

 

[GREEN607]

WOW!


All I can say, after having read this thread in it's entirety, is........ thank God, that the majority of Republicans (in fact, the majority of Americans) do not share the thinking process that many (not all) of the 'regulars' on this forum section on this board have stated they believe in.

If it were up to many of you, (again, not all).....we would have an election process with twelve to fifteen "nominees" from that many 'parties'.... and due to the shotgun approach of voting in such an election, would likely result in someone like Pee Wee Herman being elected, due to the "true patriots" votes being so widely dispersed between another dozen candidates.

Be careful what you wish for, peeps!

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

I think what you RP die hards do not understand is that, while RP's message is spot on, it is too much a shift to be acceptable to the main stream voters (i.e. Independents, swing voters, etc.). For God's sakes, they elected Barrack Obama, do you really think those same voters would vote for Ron Paul--hell no, that is why RP is unelectable. Like steering the Titanic, we must tilt slowly in the right direction.

I think what you do no understand that is that Paul polled better with self described independents than the rest of the republican field in most states...

How does Romney do with independents? Hopefully better than Bob Dole and John McCain...

This belief that we must take baby steps to get to what you called spot on is insane. For every supposed step we take forward, you claim we take 2 (or 10) steps back when to Clinton or Obama win terms in office. After witnessing this genius plan, it looks to me like as more time passes we move further and further in the wrong direction.

Then again, maybe you have finally come around to the idea that it is insanity. Hence your "like steering the Titanic" comment, since I'm pretty sure you understand what happened to the Titanic...

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

WOW!


All I can say, after having read this thread in it's entirety, is........ thank God, that the majority of Republicans (in fact, the majority of Americans) do not share the thinking process that many (not all) of the 'regulars' on this forum section on this board have stated they believe in.

If it were up to many of you, (again, not all).....we would have an election process with twelve to fifteen "nominees" from that many 'parties'.... and due to the shotgun approach of voting in such an election, would likely result in someone like Pee Wee Herman being elected, due to the "true patriots" votes being so widely dispersed between another dozen candidates.

Be careful what you wish for, peeps!

With 15 candidates wouldnt we have a better chance of getting a decent president?

 

[NYFelon]

With 15 candidates wouldnt we have a better chance of getting a decent president?

Statistically, that is the only logical outcome.

 

[teddy12b]

With 15 candidates wouldnt we have a better chance of getting a decent president?

Even with 15 candidates you'd still run into the establishment sheep saying that a vote for anyone other than their masters chosen son is a vote against them.

 

[.45 Dave]

Will you be all

when we have more deficits and more debt, and we're worse off in 4 years than we are now, and we've lost yet more of our freedoms?

And if the Libertarian Party is so irrelevant why do so many of you try to convince every last one of us that we HAVE to vote for Romney or Obama will win?

First of all, I frankly believe that the economy is so far gone that no one can save it from collapse. So I won't blame Romney and Ryan for trying. I just realize that Obama will push it over the cliff that much sooner and given Obama's proclivity for acting like a dictator I certainly believe that our freedoms WILL disappear then!

2nd, you're right. There really is no reason to argue about a trickle of water when the flood is all around you. As I said it's just fun.

BTW, I was a Libertarian, an actual member of the party, until I realized they really stand for everything and thus nothing. Talk about a house built on shifting sand! They are for individual freedoms and small government but their definitions of those terms are incredibly vague and open to a lot of abuse! In fact, their whole policy reminds me of the love everybody, do-your-own-thing, flower power hyperbole of the hippies. It's a wonder you guys aren't wearing flower shirts that say "Power to the People!" and having love-ins!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

With 15 candidates wouldnt we have a better chance of getting a decent president?

Statistically, that is the only logical outcome.

Even with 15 candidates you'd still run into the establishment sheep saying that a vote for anyone other than their masters chosen son is a vote against them.

Absolutely. This has worked SO WELL for other representative democracies like Greece, Italy, France, and Israel.

 

[.45 Dave]

That's actually a lot easier to explain than the way you have it presented. It all depends on what the name "republican" by itself means to you. If it means anti bailouts, anti debt ceilings being raises, anti offensive wars and supporting living within our means then yes Paul is absolutely a Republican. If the term republican to you means that they pass the patriot act, raise the debt ceiling, vote for more offensive wars, and could care less about bigger spending so long as it has an "R" by it's name then of course he certainly isn't a republican.

Ron Paul isn't a turn coat and if you investigate his record you'll find that he's been a consistant member in "republican" ideas while the party has changed over time. The fact of the matter is that even while running as an "R" he's been treated like crap by his own party, the media, and by people too ignorant to read up and try to understand a lot of what he's talking about. Just as the old saying "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner", the libertarian party is the smallest of the three by a long shot. If we think he got treated like crap trying to run within the "R" party, just think of how much more easily he'd be dismissed by running as an "L".

When Ron Paul ran as a "R" what he did was probably the greatest favor he ever could have done to the "R" party by trying to save it from it's own demise. Instead of embracing Pauls message and remembering a time when "R's" used to have fiscal sanity they've doubled down on corruption and letting the party elites decide how things are run. Since the GOP has decided to take this stance it's driven a wedge between those who liked Pauls message and now see no difference between the corruption of the "D" party or "R" party. Vote however you want, but I won't be supporting that.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I understand your point.

 

[firehawk1]

Did I make either statement? If so, please show me, I have forgotten. If not, please direct this to someone else or stop erecting straw men.

YMMV but I'll accept your premise for the sake of argument.

My disgust is a false one? Stating that you asserted that the ends justify the means is false? (refresher below)

I guess you're the one who brought Hitler into this?

I'm not sure what you're saying was false there, but I am still quite disgusted by the whole blind eye to fraud thing. I'm not afraid to share my morals either.

I like to believe that Paul wouldn't have perpetrated fraud to do so, though. I might be wrong...he's human and, therefore fallible. We'll never know, however, just like we'll never know whether he had the most or second most delegates due to the widespread willingness to ignore any and all allegations of fraud, and possibly furtherance of the same at the national convention.

You mean that's where you want it to claim it comes from after having been called out on the original quote

I haven't attempted to insult or degrade you any further than to point out 1) your desire, until recently to prop up straw men and argue around the points presented and 2) your admission of being okay with fraud as part of the process of "getting everyone behind Romney", even though, as I have pointed out, it started with the process of "getting Romney in position to actually get someone behind him".

You're free to believe what you will...there are plenty of others on here who believe as you do regarding Romney being better than Obama, and Obama being the most dangerous man to occupy the White House (you might do well to note that I haven't disagreed on this yet, nor do I intend to) but if you're going to point a big red arrow at being at peace with fraud (most flavors are crimes), don't whine and cry elitist when someone points it out. If that's what you believe, wear it with pride.

If pointing out such an attitude (hey, I'm cool with fraud, so long as Obama goes) and being disgusted by it is elitist or condescending, then I guess I am guilty on both counts.



[strike]Sleep well....you are still dodging one question.

Is that Mr. Collins in your Avatar, or isn't it?[/strike]

Sorry, missed your response.

I won't continue with this discussion simply because you are purposely being obtuse. You know exactly what I have been saying, but you continue to spin it to make your talking points. For who's benefit I have NO idea. Feining outrage over something that has been going on for years simply because this time around it is your ox being gored is pathetic. What has happened is NOTHING new.

I will take a guess and say if Paul was going to be the nominee and Romney was whining about "they cheated me, they changed the rules, life's not fair, etc...." the silence would be deafening.

Carry on.