RNC Shuns Ron Paul, Supporters Root For Romney Defeat

[Project972]

He seemed happy on tv at the r nc today . Read cfp today. Things may go hot quickly.

 

[Expat]

Man, the Paul delegates are really embarrassing themselves during the nomination roll call. It's over, put on your big boy pants and act like adults.

 

[Expat]

What happens IF Romney appoints 3 Roberts?

What happens WHEN Obama appoints 3 Roberts or worse?

At least with 3 more Justice Roberts our gun rights will be secure.

 

[netsecurity]

You know how all Republicans voted for Hillary in 2008, just to spite Obama? Well, I think that is what is going on here. These aren't conservatives or Libertarians like they want us to believe. That is why they would rather Obama win than Romney, and why they bash Romney every single day, while never saying anything bad about Obama. All this talk is just a cover for the fact that they are progressive Democrats stirring the pot. I'm going to start tuning out this noise.

 

[Expat]

You know how all Republicans voted for Hillary in 2008, just to spite Obama? Well, I think that is what is going on here. These aren't conservatives or Libertarians like they want us to believe. That is why they would rather Obama win than Romney, and why they bash Romney every single day, while never saying anything bad about Obama. All this talk is just a cover for the fact that they a progressive Democrats stirring the pot. I'm going to start tuning out this noise.

They do seem quite enamored with President Obama.

 

[hornadylnl]

You know how all Republicans voted for Hillary in 2008, just to spite Obama? Well, I think that is what is going on here. These aren't conservatives or Libertarians like they want us to believe. That is why they would rather Obama win than Romney, and why they bash Romney every single day, while never saying anything bad about Obama. All this talk is just a cover for the fact that they a progressive Democrats stirring the pot. I'm going to start tuning out this noise.

They do seem quite enamored with President Obama.

Here we go with the INGO race card again. "You must be a democrat!"

 

[Lex Concord]

You know how all Republicans voted for Hillary in 2008, just to spite Obama? Well, I think that is what is going on here. These aren't conservatives or Libertarians like they want us to believe. That is why they would rather Obama win than Romney, and why they bash Romney every single day, while never saying anything bad about Obama. All this talk is just a cover for the fact that they a progressive Democrats stirring the pot. I'm going to start tuning out this noise.

I could see why one would think that, but I disagree.

I honestly think they are Paul backers (not leftists or liberals, not necessarily conservatives by some definitions) who are honked off by the way the party has, in their eyes, given them a raw deal. I haven't seen any of their actions on the floor, so I won't say what they're doing is good or bad.

I think the conclusion that they are progressive Democrats stirring the pot just because they aren't going along with the party is a wide miss.

In fact, getting libertarian-minded folk to agree has been likened to herding cats; any non-conforming behavior could easily be attributed to that mindset.

 

[buckstopshere]

They do seem quite enamored with President Obama.

I can't speak for everyone however, I think the reason the focus is on Romney is that we all agree BHO is a big shiny POtuS. That is so obvious that I just don't think it is even worth discussing.

The voting options being discussed are not should I vote for Obama, Romney or Johnson its should I vote Romney or Johnson.

I'd rather be called stupid than be inferred as someone who would cast a vote for BHO.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think the conclusion that they are progressive Democrats stirring the pot just because they aren't going along with the party is a wide miss.

Calling them liberals is just their way of shouting down the opposition. No different than the race card. If you refuse to back Romney, you're a liberal.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You know how all Republicans voted for Hillary in 2008, just to spite Obama? Well, I think that is what is going on here. These aren't conservatives or Libertarians like they want us to believe. That is why they would rather Obama win than Romney, and why they bash Romney every single day, while never saying anything bad about Obama. All this talk is just a cover for the fact that they a progressive Democrats stirring the pot. I'm going to start tuning out this noise.

Try finding news about the Johnson campaign. Outside of the Johnson campaign web site, I've found very little objective coverage of note. It's difficult to be fair and even handed in your criticisms of all of the candidates' speeches, rallies, and gaffes when not all of them are covered. They have to pick on Romney because johnson has the luxury of anonymity...if a politician gaffes in the woods and nobody's there to hear it....

 

[ViperJock]

Ok, so someone explain this to me. (I voted for RP in the primary so I am playing Devil's advocate) Assume I voted for Romney as did the Majority of my state in the primary election. BUT the RP supporters were crafty and got their own people elected as delegates. Now, according to the rules, the RP delegates can essentially overthrow the majority vote by "gaming" the system?

IS this or is this not what happened? Except the RNC got wise and said; uh, no, Romney won the Primary, he will be getting the votes. Essentially the went for democracy over republic; so to speak.

Now, while I would prefer to have RP as the candidate, it seems to me in the long run, I would prefer that my vote in the primary actually MEANS something and that clever groups of people can't insert supporters that will overthrow the majority vote in favor of the less popular candidate.

So while the RNC/Romney have clearly changed or violated the letter of the law, it seems to me that the RP folks that planned to vote AGAINST the majority of voters in their state, were about to violate the SPIRIT of the law.

Please, rational arguments or points only. I will ignore any emotional outbursts or rages including personal feelings or attacks on anything but the intention of the law and the what matters more the gamesmanship or the will of the individual voters in the primary.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Ok, so someone explain this to me. (I voted for RP in the primary so I am playing Devil's advocate) Assume I voted for Romney as did the Majority of my state in the primary election. BUT the RP supporters were crafty and got their own people elected as delegates. Now, according to the rules, the RP delegates can essentially overthrow the majority vote by "gaming" the system?

IS this or is this not what happened? Except the RNC got wise and said; uh, no, Romney won the Primary, he will be getting the votes. Essentially the went for democracy over republic; so to speak.

Now, while I would prefer to have RP as the candidate, it seems to me in the long run, I would prefer that my vote in the primary actually MEANS something and that clever groups of people can't insert supporters that will overthrow the majority vote in favor of the less popular candidate. At the same time, I want minority blocs to be heard and their ideas to be considered when we're deciding what political principles we're going to support or not support.

So while the RNC/Romney have clearly changed or violated the letter of the law, it seems to me that the RP folks that planned to vote AGAINST the majority of voters in their state, were about to violate the SPIRIT of the law.

Please, rational arguments or points only. I will ignore any emotional outbursts or rages including personal feelings or attacks on anything but the intention of the law and the what matters more the gamesmanship or the will of the individual voters in the primary.

I don't know if this is a "rational" argument or not, but I'd prefer that the RNC found a solution that didn't have the potential to freeze out the voters and the State Party organizations in favor of their chosen candidate while still negating the insurrection attempt by supporters of RP. I think both actions are reprehensible. I don't want to see voting minorities of any stripe get to take control of the national election process; that invalidates what most of us think we're voting for.

 

[nprecon]

Somehow, I think it'll be the GOP that suffers most from this. I'm feeling more and more confident that we'll have more than two major parties in the future. And if that entails defections from the GOP and alienation of young voters, the GOP will lose influence.

Assign blame where you will, but the fact of the matter is that many former Republicans are seeing that the party just doesn't represent them.

No hard feelings on either side.

I totally agree with SirRealism. I think it takes an actual blind person to NOT see there are FEW functional differences between the current DNC and RNC flags. They simply play issues against their constituents... with the able assistance of the thousands of pundits on cable and satelite talk shows and the 'constituents' (for the most part) buy into it hook, line and sinker as if election outcomes were a NFL football game versus the destiny of our nation.

That said, not supporting Romney (either by write in ballot or NOT voting) means you support Obama's second presidency. I don't see any positives coming out of those actions. A new party is building in America. IF the RNC continually ignores the growing demand for accountability a third party will arise. I'll even give it a name: the American Party.

Our national debt is already passed the point of no return. The idiots continue to add to the debt. We won't work our way out of this amount of debt as it exists. There will be changes in our monetary policies which will have draconian effects on our nation. It is NOT avoidable at this point. I'm not being pessimistic, I'm simply being realistic. The math is on the board. Go figure!

 

[nprecon]

I don't see anyone whining about nullifying any support Newt, Cain, Santorum, etc... had. Why is it supposedly only Paul being "nullified"? He was simply another potential nominee, no different than any other in that regard.

Your statement isn't exactly true. If Paul supporters (as some here have stated) decide to vote for Obama out of spite (sour grapes) Romney's outcome could/would be manipulated also. Contrary to the false assumption ideologs want to try to force on everyone, while Romney isn't perfect, he is no Obama. He is unarguably closer to Paul than Obama.

Firehawk, Paul (specifically) was 'nullified' because his positions were radically different than ALL the other candidates. That is THE point that made him unique within the primary. Ironically, Paul is the ONLY candidate who consistently based his positions on our existing constitution. Other candidate referenced our constitution... but their positions differed from the constitution. They said one thing - then proposed something else. Paul "rocked the RNC boat" too much. He is vehemently against the Federal Reserve's manipulation of the American dollar, he is against wasteful spending under the guise of "military budgets", he wants the size and scope of the Federal government greatly reduced AND he is against the infringement of American's daily privacy by the federal government via the Patriot Act. To top all of this off... his positions also threaten the future profit margins of many LARGE American and foreign corporations, threatened the future positions of tens of thousands of federal employees, and threatened the benefits and power of many wall street and union organizations. Now, where do politicians derive most of their political campaign funds from??? Paul's positions (although I believe time will prove him correct) simply rocked the boat TOO hard. Money talks and people walk.

It is one thing to say Americans didn't agree with Paul's views. It is quite another to manipulate the rules in order to place Paul (above all others) at a distinct disadvantage. The media were even accommodating the isolation of Ron Paul and his message. Note the reporting of his standing in the various state primaries. Even when he was 2nd or 3rd, his success were seldom covered or even mentioned by the media. We had a new glamour boy "front runner" about every 4 weeks... Paul was rarely mentioned. How many times did the front runner status change within the media and how many of these glamour boys held on until the end? Not many of them. Cain, Perry, Johnson, Gingrich were all 'flashes in the pan' so to speak. The evidence is there, if you will look.

That said, for Paul supporters to 'throw their vote away' by write in ballot or a protest vote would prove NOTHING but would increase the likelihood of a second term for Obama. I think Ron Paul was the BEST candidate in the RNC primary by FAR, however, I also think Obama is the worst president for our nation. That trumps who I vote for and should trump other's decisions as well.

 

[hacksawfg]

I was watching TV earlier, and I saw this spot. For some strange reason, this time the robot made me think of the current Republican Party leadership, and the two Cheetoh eaters the "I'm for liberty but I'm not 'wasting my vote' on Johnson" crowd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvCXOZAlA38

I really hope Johnson gets invited to at least one of the debates so I can see something besides two s***wiches pointing fingers at each other. If nothing else maybe he could shed some light for us on how he would get the things he is proposing done...

By the way, my self-imposed exile from this thread didn't last too long did it.

 

[.45 Dave]

Calling them liberals is just their way of shouting down the opposition. No different than the race card. If you refuse to back Romney, you're a liberal.

Not at all, sir. I would never think of you as liberal nor would I call those who want to vote Libertarian liberals. Misguided, yes, in this election where so much is at stake, but never a liberal.

 

[hornadylnl]

Not at all, sir. I would never think of you as liberal nor would I call those who want to vote Libertarian liberals. Misguided, yes, in this election where so much is at stake, but never a liberal.

The Obama supporter accusation has been made several times already in this thread.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Not at all, sir. I would never think of you as liberal nor would I call those who want to vote Libertarian liberals. Misguided, yes, in this election where so much is at stake, but never a liberal.

"But theres so much at stake in THIS election." You know that argument got old years ago. Maybe this election wouldnt be the end all be all of elections if people quit voting for candidates that didnt represent them

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Not at all, sir. I would never think of you as liberal nor would I call those who want to vote Libertarian liberals. Misguided, yes, in this election where so much is at stake, but never a liberal.

Apart from maybe getting SCOTUS appointees who favor the individualism, liberty, & state autonomy recognized in the US Constitution, what else is at stake?

The way I see it, the popular POTUS choices offer one of two things:

1. D™ Spend my grandchildren's money on social welfare & international warfare while diminishing my 2A rights & imprisoning millions of non-violent drug offenders.
2. R™ Spend my grandchildren's money on corporate welfare & international warfare while diminishing my 2A rights, imprisoning millions of non-violent drug offenders, & using tax-based coercion to control morals.

Both are entirely y deals that I want nothing to do with...

The fear I have is that a Romney win means we continue the back-and-forth blame game for another 4-8 years w/out many citizens realizing that national-level D™ & R™ are really not so different when it comes to state & individual rights. A large part of me believes that an Obama win might be the true medicine that my fellow citizens require. It will show them that the national R™s are out of touch, in Whig-like decline, & in need of repair or replacement. A Romney win just means the 'party' goes on.

And honestly, I don't expect that Romney would appoint a SCOTUS judge who has any respect for my liberties, based on his pre-POTUS-campaign speeches & actions.

If it looks like there's a chance of Johnson getting 5%, my vote is heading that direction with the aim of securing Libertarian Party™ public financing in 2016 & perhaps further spreading the message of individual liberty/responsibility. If he doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting 5%, I may skip that section on the screen or even vote D™ (in effort to get people to pay attention to the shell game). The only thing I can say with certainty is that I won't rubber-stamp Romney or national R™s mistreatment of the other primary candidates.

 

[hacksawfg]

Posted this same thought in another thread, but it bears repeating here as well.

In 7 years, children of voting age will have spent their ENTIRE lives living with the Patriot Act. Heck, in four years that's all the newest voters will be able to remember. We will have a generation raised on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, where sharing your life for the world to see is just the way things have always been done (for them). The government being able to see as well will be no big deal for them. They will not have lived any part of their life knowing privacy or freedom.

Combine that with the growing disparity in income, and you have a recipe for disaster. THIS is why we don't have time to do this slowly. The economy can fix itself, as long as people know what's going on. Putting one party in office only to possibly switch four later with someone who says we're going to change everything (again) and of course people will be uncertain and hesitant. Get rid of the IRS, corporate, and income taxes, go with consumption based taxing. No more worries about how much of your income you'll have to spend, because you will know. Companies won't have to concern themselves with "am I going to have to pay more taxes in 2 years or not?" because there won't be any.

Remember when you could say goodbye to your loved ones at the airport gate? Or you could give a parent returning from a business trip a hug as soon as they got off the plane? It's a distant memory for those of us who are old enough to remember it, just like privacy and individual liberty will be as well if we don't do something about it NOW.