Well said. If Ron Paul is remembered at all, he'll be mentioned in the same sentences as Harold Stassen and John Anderson - other insignificant 3d party presidential candidates. Coming in dead last isn't really so hard to do.
Finally, Ron Paul says he is done
- Thread starter davekc
- Start date
Well said. If Ron Paul is remembered at all, he'll be mentioned in the same sentences as Harold Stassen and John Anderson - other insignificant 3d party presidential candidates. Coming in dead last isn't really so hard to do.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
It was simply a "general" statement saying that i can understand what was said...for me personally, i tune most of this stuff out as none of it is going to impact my decisions who to vote for one way or the other.
But yes people can be and are influenced by the most vocal supporters of a canidate and that is true of all canidates, not just RP and his supporters...When people consider a candiates supports to be over the top fringe "activist" make it a "my way or you are and idoit" way of supporting a canidate, that just just pushes "the average" voter away...the average person doesn't take the time to educate themselves to what is what for each canidate, they simply look at "what can he/she do for me?" and that is it...so beating them and attacking them with all of the "facts" that a more educated "activist" supporter will do, isn't going to gain or changing the mind of the average voter...all he see's is someone how he thinks a certain canidate will benefit or hurt him, and a rabid support is seen as fringe and a turn off...
Me, i support RP because i feel he is the only candiate that will "move" us (not take us back to, becauae it won't happen in the short term) back to how our government back to as Abe Lincoln said, "of the people, for the people, by the people....." Yes he has more then a few ideals that i don't agree with ( and don't start on everything he wants is based on the Constitution, i really don't care) but i cannot let those "issues" override the totality of what he supports, i am not a "single issue voter"...and for me , no ones rants are going to get me to vote for anyone..thats my decision to make, based what i see from each candiate....and that will be Romney , because RP won't be there, and id vote for the dog that Romney put on the roof of the car over barry or his dog.....
witness23
Veteran Expediter
The above is exactly the reason why you will have another four years of Obama. Uneducated electorate.
Rlent is trying to explain(hope you don't mind me speaking on your behalf) to some of you, is that what you are reading in the headlines and what is not being reported and the facts about the delegates aren't necessarily true and or accurate. Also, the media has been lazy about reporting these facts about the things that have been happening behind the scenes.
A perfect example was the screen shot from RealClearPolitics. It doesn't show the whole picture and is incomplete if you will. The guy is educating you on the process and you refuse to listen or even try and understand what is going on behind the scenes. Dr. Paul may or may not win the nomination but his race has not been reported on accurately. As much as Rachel Maddow annoys the heck out of me, she at least does one good thing, journalism.
That's all fine, well, and good, but the problem, as Xiggi and Pilgrim nailed it, is all too often the tenor of the explanation of Ron Paul supporters has not been, "you're ignorant" on these issues, but rather, "you're an idiot", which rather than setting a tone for informational educational debate, simply puts people on the defensive where they tune it out. Something to keep in mind, perhaps, for future debates.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Yeah well......I think if you go wayyyy back and take a look at Rlent's posts about Dr. Paul to the present, I think you will find his tenor was and has been for the most part informative, educational and of the civil type. When that same tone isn't reciprocated and you have members of the forum calling Dr. Paul a fringe, radical, delusional, insignificant candidate one can understand why that tenor may change over time. Especially when you have the usual provocateurs throwing around these assertions of Dr. Paul.
All I can say to xiggi, pilgrim and the others that want to write off Dr. Paul as kook. Don't come crying when President Obama is re-elected. Just take your medicine and suck it up.
Like our friend, and I'm sure most in the soapbox see her as a goddess said,
Let's disabuse anyone from thinking Ron Paul is the leader of a political movement. Ron Paul is no more a leader than is Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum.
Furthermore, this silly notion that the Tea Party has supported Ron Paul is not correct. The Tea Party is a real and powerful force in American politics. When the Tea Party gets behind a candidate or slate of candidates, they win. An example would be the 2010 Congressional election when Tea Party-backed candidates won a historic victory overthrowing Democratic control of Congress. The Tea Party handed republicans the biggest electoral gains in 70 years. The Tea Party is a real movement. If the Tea Party had gotten behind Ron Paul, he would have been unstoppable. But, the Tea Party did not lend support to Ron Paul and he lost big time. The Tea Party is a grass-roots conservative movement. Ron Paul has never enjoyed conservative support because he is a libertarian. Libertarians are destined to watch from the bleachers. Libertarianism is correctly seen as a fringe element unable to muster anything but tiny numbers.
Ron Paul will be remembered, if at all, as an annoyance and distraction. A sideshow at best. Why did Ron Paul run on the GOP ticket? For giggles? As a Trojan horse? To draw campaign cash? To satisfy an over-weaning ego? Libertarian philosophy cannot be sold in the USA.
Furthermore, this silly notion that the Tea Party has supported Ron Paul is not correct. The Tea Party is a real and powerful force in American politics. When the Tea Party gets behind a candidate or slate of candidates, they win. An example would be the 2010 Congressional election when Tea Party-backed candidates won a historic victory overthrowing Democratic control of Congress. The Tea Party handed republicans the biggest electoral gains in 70 years. The Tea Party is a real movement. If the Tea Party had gotten behind Ron Paul, he would have been unstoppable. But, the Tea Party did not lend support to Ron Paul and he lost big time. The Tea Party is a grass-roots conservative movement. Ron Paul has never enjoyed conservative support because he is a libertarian. Libertarians are destined to watch from the bleachers. Libertarianism is correctly seen as a fringe element unable to muster anything but tiny numbers.
Ron Paul will be remembered, if at all, as an annoyance and distraction. A sideshow at best. Why did Ron Paul run on the GOP ticket? For giggles? As a Trojan horse? To draw campaign cash? To satisfy an over-weaning ego? Libertarian philosophy cannot be sold in the USA.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Was at one point early on. Not anymore my friend.
If you were aware of who is behind the Tea Party and its "grassroots" movement, that would be more of reason to get behind the good Dr. Paul. There is a reason why they haven't backed him, he is not for sale to the highest bidder and will not sacrifice his convictions.
If the movement hadn't been hijacked and still was actually "grassroots", I think you would have seen an endorsement for Dr. Paul. He is for everything the Tea Party says they are and represent. With the exception of overseas wars and occupations of foreign countries. I find it hard to believe that that one issue would disqualify him as a candidate.
Tea Party and grassroots should not be used in the same sentence anymore. Talk about disabuse.
Why would any so called conservative movement every get behind Paul? Paul is not what is called a conservative by today's standards. Not even close. He is not one of today's 'liberals' either. He ONLY appeals to those who believe in our Constitution and the two groups mentioned before, do not. Neither does anyone who supports them.
For the most part, you're right. The problem is with the parts that didn't and doesn't fall under the "most" umbrella.
I can fully understand why they tenor may change - it's human nature to do so. But it's not very productive, and is actually counterproductive to what you want to accomplish, assuming what you want to accomplish is to be informative, educational and civil, and most important, persuasive.
An excellent example of what I'm talking about. Telling someone that puts them on the defensive, where they are likely to do just the opposite. There are some who are so defensive that they actually think Ron Paul is not the leader of a political movement. These are the same people who think the Tea Party is still a grassroots movement and hasn't been hijacked by conservatives, because they refuse to remember that the Tea Party was invented by Ron Paul supporters and was born out of his 2008 presidential campaign. These are the same people that classify Libertarianism as fringe because Libertarians refuse to entertain the notion of allowing religious doctrine to be imposed on the masses via legislation.
Third party not a bad idea but so long as we have a corrupt government we can have fifty parties and have the same crap politicians.
As for Ron Paul who had allot of good ideas I think that the fatal blow delivered early in the race was being portrayed as the crazy uncle living in the basement and it stuck.
Lets HOPE for a CHANGE on ellection day.
The way I see it, Right Wing or Left Wing it dosent matter both wings of the same bird of prey.
As for Ron Paul who had allot of good ideas I think that the fatal blow delivered early in the race was being portrayed as the crazy uncle living in the basement and it stuck.
Lets HOPE for a CHANGE on ellection day.
The way I see it, Right Wing or Left Wing it dosent matter both wings of the same bird of prey.
Ron Paul leads a political movement? There is evidence of a Paul campaign, but where's the movement?
We know Ron Paul supporters like to credit Dr. Paul with every good idea of the last quarter-century. Then, his supporters allege election violations or claim something was stolen from their guy when he loses. Now, we are to believe the Tea Party was his baby and that was stolen away from him as well? How does everything slip away from Ron Paul? Is he unlucky? Incompetent? Has Paul been a victim of inept handlers? His camp plays the victimhood card a lot. It's easier to cry foul and play the victim than admit overwhelming defeat.
We know Ron Paul supporters like to credit Dr. Paul with every good idea of the last quarter-century. Then, his supporters allege election violations or claim something was stolen from their guy when he loses. Now, we are to believe the Tea Party was his baby and that was stolen away from him as well? How does everything slip away from Ron Paul? Is he unlucky? Incompetent? Has Paul been a victim of inept handlers? His camp plays the victimhood card a lot. It's easier to cry foul and play the victim than admit overwhelming defeat.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Because this isn't a democracy. Those numbers mean nothing, if the delegates choose to back him. Romney could have 100% of the vote, but not get a single delegate.
"...a Republic, ma'am, if you can keep it."
When will people learn that voting does not mean you're part of the process.
Last edited:
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Was the Tea Party always a conservative movement?
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Because, they knew if they didn't, they'd be dead in the water.
But I digress... establishment Republican neo-cons and RINOs and freedom don't go together. The tea party has become, essentially, an "anybody but Obama" campaign. Liberty be dammed.
Last edited:
Quite a few posts that hit it out of the park when describing some Ron Paul supporters. The banter can be entertaining while looking for loads. Kind of a mixture of delusional thoughts with some comic relief thrown in. Almost comparable to talking with a religious cult and trying to convince them the world isn't going to end tomorrow.
But of course many like to think they are always right regardless of the facts. And if the information wasn't provided by a Ron Paul approved source, why then it must be a lie.
You currently have Paul's own campaign manager stating the nomination for them is over, yet you still have a handful that thinks he is going to walk right into the Oval Office. Just not going to happen.
None of this was hard to predict before it even started as someone else mentioned. Same platform as 08 and as we see, pretty much the same results. Picked up a few points/delegates just because he was running against a marginal competitor. Still packed some places with supporters but couldn't translate that into votes or enough money. Same in 08.
As for whether Ron Paul would take money from a the same pool as Romney's, who knows when you put 10M on the table. Politicians are politicians. Can't see him turning it down if offered.
Problem is, those with that kind of money don't see him as a good investment so there is little reason to offer.
Lastly, I wouldn't characterize Ron Paul as insignificant because his platform of ideas have helped shape some of this years Republican debate. But six months from now, he will be on the shelf retired and basically forgotten.
Supporters will come around but there will always be those few that will blame everything and anyone for why their candidate lost.
Like I said, not so much a bad message, but poorly delivered by the wrong guy.
But of course many like to think they are always right regardless of the facts. And if the information wasn't provided by a Ron Paul approved source, why then it must be a lie.
You currently have Paul's own campaign manager stating the nomination for them is over, yet you still have a handful that thinks he is going to walk right into the Oval Office. Just not going to happen.
None of this was hard to predict before it even started as someone else mentioned. Same platform as 08 and as we see, pretty much the same results. Picked up a few points/delegates just because he was running against a marginal competitor. Still packed some places with supporters but couldn't translate that into votes or enough money. Same in 08.
As for whether Ron Paul would take money from a the same pool as Romney's, who knows when you put 10M on the table. Politicians are politicians. Can't see him turning it down if offered.
Problem is, those with that kind of money don't see him as a good investment so there is little reason to offer.
Lastly, I wouldn't characterize Ron Paul as insignificant because his platform of ideas have helped shape some of this years Republican debate. But six months from now, he will be on the shelf retired and basically forgotten.
Supporters will come around but there will always be those few that will blame everything and anyone for why their candidate lost.
Like I said, not so much a bad message, but poorly delivered by the wrong guy.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Take a good long look at the Republican party. It is FILLED with wrong guys. If the right guy would show up in the Republican party, and share the news like Ron Paul does, then my guess is he wouldn't be in the party for long, and/or he'd be labelled a nut like Ron Paul is. It's so easy to quash what you're so afraid of when you can hypnotize the masses with utter BS.
Maybe Ron Paul supporters are seen as crackpots because there is nothing without liberty; and definitely no compromising those values. But we are definitely seen as the fringe to the MSM; and, as proven on here, they teach their children well.
It's not like we have a lot of choice here, Dave. ONE GUY out of the 585 representatives, senators, and governors is determined to fight for our liberty. Just one. It's sad.
Maybe Ron Paul supporters are seen as crackpots because there is nothing without liberty; and definitely no compromising those values. But we are definitely seen as the fringe to the MSM; and, as proven on here, they teach their children well.
It's not like we have a lot of choice here, Dave. ONE GUY out of the 585 representatives, senators, and governors is determined to fight for our liberty. Just one. It's sad.
If you look at the republican party there are more and more tea party candidates being elected. In Indiana, Mourdock won the primary over the establishment candidate Lugar. In Nebraska the establishment candidate for senator lost to the more conservative one. The tea party is trying to purge the party of the RINOS. To say the tea party isn't for liberty, well that's a bunch of crap.