RNC Shuns Ron Paul, Supporters Root For Romney Defeat

[IndyDave1776]

I will keep this very simple. Is Ron Paul a member of the Republican party?

Yes. He made the same mistake that some people are trying to feed us as sage wisdom, specifically that there is something to gain by trying to work within the party when clearly there is not.

 

[foszoe]

He is not one who feels beholden to support the Establishment or its agenda.

Ron Paul on Romney: "I don't fully endorse him for president."

So? He has not joined the Libertarian party. I don't know anyone and I do mean anyone at all that fully endorses either one of these idiots we will wed in the next two weeks, but most I know are voting for one of them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So? He has not joined the Libertarian party. I don't know anyone and I do mean anyone at all that fully endorses either one of these idiots we will wed in the next two weeks, but most I know are voting for one of them.

Since Paul is out of the election barring a personal appearance from God at the convention...

Let's say that approximately half of Republican voters don't like Romney but are voting for him because we can't have Obama and Johnson can't win.

Let's say that approximately half of Democrat voters don't like Obama but are voting for him because we can't have Romney and Johnson can't win.

Let's say that most of these people come to the realization that being manipulated into voting for an establishment candidate because we can't allow 'X' to win and no one else has a chance came to the realization that the only reason Johnson doesn't have a chance is because they won't vote for him because they have been convinced he doesn't thus bringing a self-fulfilling prophesy full circle.

Could get interesting...

 

[firehawk1]

No, it's that they, whether in collusion or convenient coincidence, cheated him even though nearly everyone knew that he had very little chance of winning.

Nice false dichotomy, though.

Nothing false about my "dichotomy" at all. Ron Paul LOST because not enough voters agreed with his message.... PERIOD end of discussion. He may have the right message, but he is the wrong messenger. Besides he lost the race LONG ago, not recently so why the problem now all of a sudden at convention time?

I have no beef with Ron Paul, or Johnson. It is this false premise that no one but their supporters has any intelligence, understanding of where we are as a nation, etc... and they and ONLY they understand and have the answers, sorry that is just a load of crap. And you guys wonder why you can't convince anyone to join your side. Continue to settle for 5% and continue blame it on everyone else, it's been working SO well for you so far.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Nothing false about my "dichotomy" at all. Ron Paul LOST because not enough voters agreed with his message.... PERIOD end of discussion. He may have the right message, but he is the wrong messenger. Besides he lost the race LONG ago, not recently so why the problem now all of a sudden at convention time?

I have no beef with Ron Paul, or Johnson. It is this false premise that no one but their supporters has any intelligence, understanding of where we are as a nation, etc... and they and ONLY they understand and have the answers, sorry that is just a load of crap. And you guys wonder why you can't convince anyone to join your side. Continue to settle for 5% and continue blame it on everyone else, it's been working SO well for you so far.

I have one question for you: If Paul is completely irrelevant and had no chance, why was it necessary to play fast and loose with the rule, refuse to seat delegates which had been won, and change rules as we go along. Why did the GOP not simply let him die off of natural causes?

 

[firehawk1]

I have one question for you: If Paul is completely irrelevant and had no chance, why was it necessary to play fast and loose with the rule, refuse to seat delegates which had been won, and change rules as we go along. Why did the GOP not simply let him die off of natural causes?

I go back to an earlier post. The winners get to write the history books, AND make the rules. Just the way life is. Besides, Ron Paul "died" long ago, can't remember the last time I've seen anything in the media about him.

Find someone like a Ronald Reagan to deliver the message THEN we could make some headway!

 

[hornadylnl]

I go back to an earlier post. The winners get to write the history books, AND make the rules. Just the way life is. Besides, Ron Paul "died" long ago, can't remember the last time I've seen anything in the media about him.

Find someone like a Ronald Reagan to deliver the message THEN we could make some headway!

He who has ears to hear! Let him hear. Doesn't matter who's giving the message if those receiving it refuse to listen.

 

[firehawk1]

He who has ears to hear! Let him hear. Doesn't matter who's giving the message if those receiving it refuse to listen.

I have to respectfully disagree, the messenger plays a BIG role IMO.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Exactly. You want to get better? You have to take your medicine.

Sometimes you have to rebreak someones nose before repairing it.

People want the easy way out. That's what got us into this mess.

A nation of cowards gets the nation it deserves and right now, the American electorate is filled with cowards... and fools.

THIS ^ . There's no real difference between either party at this point .

 

[hornadylnl]

I have to respectfully disagree, the messenger plays a BIG role IMO.

If style is BIGger than substance, we're hosed. Truth is truth, no matter how you package it. If you deny the truth because of how it's packaged, I've got nothing for you.

 

[jbombelli]

I have to respectfully disagree, the messenger plays a BIG role IMO.

I go back to an earlier post. The winners get to write the history books, AND make the rules. Just the way life is. Besides, Ron Paul "died" long ago, can't remember the last time I've seen anything in the media about him.

Find someone like a Ronald Reagan to deliver the message THEN we could make some headway!

If Reagan was alive today and running for President (assuming of course he wasn't already President in the 80's), he'd be shunned by today's GOP, just like Ron Paul, and he'd be running as an independent. And in the end you'd still vote for Romney.

 

[netsecurity]

Actually, the "liberal" parties throughout the world generally oppose the "socialist" and social democratic parties, which favor large government.

I don't know where you got the idea that "liberals" support large government or socialism, or why you, and others, think that the extreme Democrats in the United States, who generally refer to themselves as 'progressives' or 'social democrats' are 'liberals.' They are not. Liberals do exist in the Democratic party, but they are generally the more moderate, pro-market, pro-individual liberties members.

Conservatism is a political ideology without any philosophical basis. The only distinction between a moderate conservative and an extreme one is the degree to which they seek to conserve the status quo. Historical examples of extreme conservative governments have been extremely oppressive; few would doubt that basically no libertarian values would survive such a regime.

I don't know where you got the idea that the "liberals" are the enemy. It's not an accident that the word "liberal" and "liberty" have the same roots. They are overlapping philosophical ideas.

Without a firmly rooted history of "liberalism," there would be no "libertarian" ideas. Maybe you should fly over to the UK and tell their "liberal" party members that they really should hate the market and side with the labour party because they're actually the same thing and see how they respond.

We are not in the UK. In the US a "liberal" is basically a left leaning Democrat--and left of the traditional Democratic social justice system is clearly socialism. How old are you not to know this? Here, look it up. A liberal (as I obviously used the term) is not a libertarian.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Americas

 

[poptab]

Why is it you purist, elitist, wannabe modern day Paul Revere patriot types seem to think anyone who simply doesn't see things the same as you are somehow mind controlled robots? Personally I think the Founding Fathers would frown upon such talk. But hey, whateva.

ok so Jefferson did not call John Adams a (and I quote) "hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man or the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The question still needs to be asked, is it better to not be born, or better to be born to someone who doesn't want you, won't love you, etc.? I would say if you support the possibility of being born into a loveless home where you are an afterthought, you don't really have a gripe about hoodlum kids who may have been born into that circumstance.

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Ben Franklin

In fact, call me a cold-hearted SOB (again), but I'll submit this:

"A 2001 study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute found that the average overall cost of an abortion in the United States was $468, a figure that has probably risen since then due to inflation, but that the average amount paid for an abortion (due to subsidies) is $372."

I'm guessing that whatever it costs today for a first or second term abortion is significantly less than the costs government pays out in welfare, possibly incarcerating kids who grow up in bad households or with irresponsible parenting. I would almost even go so far as to say if you want to make real welfare reform, take away any extra welfare benefits for having extra kids, let the government subsidize free birth control to those on welfare, and subsidize abortions for those who actually use the birth control (because nothing is fail-safe).

Of course, the alternative to abortion is the possibility for more people like this roaming around:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/231797-unbelievably_stupid_people.html

Actually, I think in their case, I would even support manslaughter. Nothing good can come of that union.

Yep, I'd have to agree with you about your condition.

Let's put things another way, how many Einsteins, Saulks, Curies, Newtons, Michael Jordans, or Shaquille O'Neals have we murdered before they had a chance to make a difference in the world? People rise up from bad beginnings all the time; who are WE to arbitrarily snuff them out without any recourse?

There are long waiting lists of married couples who would love to adopt ANY child, why doesn't the Government allow more to be adopted? Of course, the rat in the cheese that seldom is discussed is that the vast majority of babies who are aborted are from poor minority mothers; Margaret Sanger's vision to cull America of its "lower classes and defectives" has been realized, much to our dishonor.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Since Paul is out of the election barring a personal appearance from God at the convention...

Let's say that approximately half of Republican voters don't like Romney but are voting for him because we can't have Obama and Johnson can't win.

Let's say that approximately half of Democrat voters don't like Obama but are voting for him because we can't have Romney and Johnson can't win.

Let's say that most of these people come to the realization that being manipulated into voting for an establishment candidate because we can't allow 'X' to win and no one else has a chance came to the realization that the only reason Johnson doesn't have a chance is because they won't vote for him because they have been convinced he doesn't thus bringing a self-fulfilling prophesy full circle.

Could get interesting...

You are doing quite a bit of "assuming" based on not a lot of evidence. Libertarians - or third parties in general - seldom get a sizable percentage of the popular vote; I doubt the Libertarians will get enough votes this time to get the "magical" election funding that you think will vault them into the mainstream.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

If Reagan was alive today and running for President (assuming of course he wasn't already President in the 80's), he'd be shunned by today's GOP, just like Ron Paul, and he'd be running as an independent. And in the end you'd still vote for Romney.

Says you.

 

[poptab]

We are not in the UK. In the US a "liberal" is basically a left leaning Democrat--and left of the traditional Democratic social justice system is clearly socialism. How old are you not to know this? Here, look it up. A liberal (as I obviously used the term) is not a libertarian.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Americas

He/she was talking about the real meaning of liberal/liberalism and is completely correct. Your arguing about the defenition americans have come to associate with the word. How old are you not to know this?

 

[IndyDave1776]

You are doing quite a bit of "assuming" based on not a lot of evidence. Libertarians - or third parties in general - seldom get a sizable percentage of the popular vote; I doubt the Libertarians will get enough votes this time to get the "magical" election funding that you think will vault them into the mainstream.

Yes, I did venture well into the realm of assumption but I feel that I did a presentable job of explaining how the self-fulling prophecy maintains the status quo.

 

[jbombelli]

Says you.

Yup.

And I know without a shadow of a doubt that I'm right.

We could have a Ronald Reagan/Milton Friedman ticket, and if they WEREN'T part of the GOP establishment, all the Romney voters would still vote Romney and laugh/point at Reagan and Friedman, and accuse all their supporters of helping Obama win.

 

[hacksawfg]

Yep, I'd have to agree with you about your condition.

Let's put things another way, how many Einsteins, Saulks, Curies, Newtons, Michael Jordans, or Shaquille O'Neals have we murdered before they had a chance to make a difference in the world? People rise up from bad beginnings all the time; who are WE to arbitrarily snuff them out without any recourse?

There are long waiting lists of married couples who would love to adopt ANY child, why doesn't the Government allow more to be adopted? Of course, the rat in the cheese that seldom is discussed is that the vast majority of babies who are aborted are from poor minority mothers; Margaret Sanger's vision to cull America of its "lower classes and defectives" has been realized, much to our dishonor.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say we see a lot more thugs and criminals come from such circumstances than Einsteins, Saulks, Curies, etc. I agree with the sentiment than the government should allow more children to be adopted, at the same, how many adults want to adopt someone who ISN'T a baby? There's a lot of kids bouncing around foster homes who would probably love a permanent family.

It's a very complicated issue, please note I used the word "almost" in my quote. In my opinion, though, if someone doesn't want a child or recognizes that they may not be a responsible parent, and it affects them enough to end their pregnancy, it is NOT the governments responsibility to prevent them from doing so. If they can't live with that, let them put it up for adoption - if they can live with it, then maybe at that time they're not the kind of people who would raise a solid citizen anyway. Either way, they are NOT infringing on my personal freedoms, and it should be their decision and their decision alone.

For the record, I personally don't like abortion, but I'm also not going to tell someone else what to do with their body. Certainly the issue has moral/ethical considerations during the third trimester that are very difficult to resolve; at the same time that's an issue that the potential parents have to consider - whatever consequences/emotional/spiritual ramifications arise from their decision is up to them. .