Ron Paul simple did not get elected because the elite did not want him .deal with it.

Mushroom's comic strip was comletely baseless with no substance to back it up. At least you admit Paul is probably likeable as a person, but if we don't elect someone who is serious about cutting costs, the debt, civil liberties and a sound foreign policy we get more of the same and nothing is ever fixed.

 

I believe most Ron Paul supporters wouldn't have had as much of a problem if the convention were handled differently. I, for one, would have been disappointed my candidate didn't win, but if things were done fairly and respectfully, I could have lived with it a lot more easily. Did you watch the convention? Did you see how the vote was brought up at the last minute for a rule change? Did you see how the voice vote was too close to call? Even conservative talking heads such as Malkin and Palin had a big problem with the rule change empowering the establishment and diminishing the grass roots. Also, if you watch Boehner rule on the voice vote, it appears he was reading off the teleprompter, so this leads many to believe the vote ruling was prescripted. Whether it was or not, it was too close to call and should have been put up for another vote. Again, if the delegates would have been seated, and the theatrics of the rule change and the rule change itself were done differently or not done at all, and Paul was allowed to speak without his speech being vetted, I don't believe there would have been much of an uproar by the Paul supporters. Here's an idea. If Romney really was a shoe in, why not mess with anything and let the chips fall where they may? Then it wouldn't even have been an issue.

 

They're straight talkers rather than the usual BSers, that's all. They say what a number of us at least realise and acknowledge.

I wish we had a congress full of men like them.

 

Yeah, it just seems the establishment types need to discredit him somehow. They fall back on the earmarks thing sometimes, but more often the racist claims. I have seen the one lady on several videos. She seems pretty cool and really intelligent. I like how she said Paul appealled to different people of different backgrounds. It is so true. These are the things we could all have in common, reducing the size and scope of government, civil liberties, liberty, a sound economic policy enabling us to have more right to our property than the government and a sound foreign policy.

- - - Updated - - -

He's more about liberty than party loyalty.

 

He's more about liberty than party loyalty.

 

Well, it was a strong possibility for Paul to win via the delegate strategy, but we see how that went. There was an outcry. Didn't you see? Also, why did major networks, to include Fox, not give Paul as much attention and ignore him while he was high in the polls, primarily in 2008?
You seem to be way too trusting of our government and the media industrial complex.

 

Maybe Paul would have beaten Obama?

 

It's definitely an informative video. I would say they not only need to watch it, but some of the videos following it as well, which play automatically. However, if testimony from a programmer doesn't convince them, videos of ballots being stolen, corruption, and rule changes won't either. They will continue to trust their government and label anyone questioning the government as a conspiracy theorist.

 

Never in a million years.

You guys still cannot change the fact that Paul didn't have the votes and the ONLY way he was going to get into a convention is through backdoor delegate hijinks, people going against the way the voters in their states had voted, even if they were technically allowed to.

Paul did not have the appeal to get votes in the general election where there are no delegates to sneak him in.

 

Oh I don't know about baseless. I think it was more of a commentary on the impression given by his supporters rather than the man himself. That's how I interpreted it anyhow.

- - - Updated - - -

I admire and respect the virtue in him but despise his politics. You are right though, if there were more people of his personal caliber, I think we might be better off, but that's all dependent on the politics. A good respectable virtuous man with the best intentions but bad ideas is not automatically good.

 

I won't argue that the Republicans have some work to do on running a fair convention. I did not see theirs however(though I did watch the Eastwood speech afterwards), nor did I see the Democrats.

So, I can't comment too much about the hijinks that happened there. But it still comes back around to the bottom line, which was that Paul simply didn't have the votes. He would have never won the general election if he couldn't even win the primaries amongst his own party. His support was overblown by what I believe to be a small but very vocal and passionate base, something else I thought was admirable and refreshing in today's political world.

I just think Paul's political style is about 150 years too late. He'd never have my support because I'm not interested in radical change nor trying to run a country with outdated political methods.

 

Do you consider more of the same, violating civil liberties, out of control spending, pursuing an empire, and running up the debt to be feasible, acceptable, and pleasant alternatives to radical change and outdated political methods?

 

Rand Paul's lip service regarding slashing the military/industrial complex renders his anathema to the vested interests that control the GOP.

The Conservative Daily News expressed a sentiment to which Haliburton, etc. would heartily ascribe:

Is Randy a casualty of Turdblossom's War with the TPs? The pseudo-libertarian has already made the Israeli lobby nervous and, regardless of the validity of his outrage at a self-sustaining, prosperous nation (with an extensive social welfare system that includes universal, single-payer health coverage) being subsidized to the tune of more than $110 billion from the U.S. since it became a state in 1948,) no one that intimates a reduction of US taxpayer tribute to Israel is should plan on being nominated by the GOP. The right-wing Washington Times:

Rand Paul may have fantasies of downsizing America and demanding that Israel walk on its own. The GOP will make sure they remain fantasies.

 

Which is one fine example out of many that the GOP is NOT conservative.

 

No more that the Democratic Party is "liberal" or Randy "libertarian."

Latitudinarianism is the ideology of practicality.

 

In some respects, yes. I'm not interested in creating entirely new problems, ones that are entirely foreseeable. We don't need to scrap the current system, we just need to fix it. This country needs a strong government, all modern nations do. I won't ever argue that there aren't areas where the government has overstepped the bounds of what is necessary and acceptable, but those each need to be analyzed on a case by case basis. I'm not interested in running a country that operates purely on utopian visions and platitudes, or even worse than that, one that thinks it can compete in the modern world by creating 50 bloated state governments just to limit the federal government, or even worse than THAT, just letting the power vacuum fill up with whomever has the resources to wield it. That's is one of the stark errors in Mr. Paul's vision. We don't have to be robots, but everybody doing their own thing with no centralizing organization is just as bad, very likely worse, than what we have now.

There are no countries in the world right now where any of us would want to live that get by with weak government. That's a thing of the past.

So I'm not interested in deconstruction, however renovations are certainly acceptable, because centralized power makes the most sense.

 

What's so bad about his ideas, then? Don't you like freedom and liberty?

 

thats the understatement of the century.

yeah someone is a kook if they dont believe in wars abroad and killing people and done attacks on innocent women and children. a kook as well for saying we need to get back to the constituion and have free speech which we dont have now.you cant even protest without getting beat up by cops now.what a free country we have.

if RAND becomes president then he will have to become a member of the evil CFR group.you cant become president if you are not a member.it would not surprise me if he became one though since he sold out his father endorcing Romney. I dont trust rand like i do gary johnson or ralph nader,but if he was out ONLY chance of someone of those 3 getting in,i would cross my fingers and hope that he was just playing their game pretending to be corrupt but really on our side.

 

exactly.his posts always are.stands up and gives standing ovation.

- - - Updated - - -

instead we have a bought off and paid for corrupt congress with the majority endorcing AIPAC.

 

another understatement of the year.they sure ignored him alright,they were saying things like he had no chance of winning yet they never said ANY of that stuff about CFR candidates Newt,Bachman,and Cain.yep no conspiracy against ron paul by the media establishment.

 

I guess not.hee hee.

 

of course not in a million years.when elections are rigged and you have karl rove counting the decisive state vote and last minute rule changes to win delegates of COURSE you dont have a prayer in a million to win,we keep spelling that out to you but you arrogantly keep ignoring ti cause your in denial.thats WHY he didnt have the votes charlie.do you ever get tired of humiliating yourself in your posts?

 

obviously he didnt see it because he is playing dodgeball again.hee hee.

 

I see someone here is too afraid to look at it cause he only sees what he WANTS to see.yeah time to move on to someone else,if testimony from a programmer doesnt convince them and like i said before,FDR himself saying -its not how many that vote that counts,its who counts the votes that count,if none of that stuff convinces them,then rule changes and videos of ballot stuffing wont convince them either.

 

such hypocrisy,you need to look in the mirror when telling someone they need to grow up.you keep cowardly dodging everyone of my facts not addressing them saying crap like I have no facts instead of trying to disprove them.

Now THAT is childish.this is your last chance and the last time I am going to bother with you if you keep cowardly avoiding the facts and crying in defeat when you are cornered.

1.Fact.YOU CANT WIN THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION WHEN THE "KEY" STATE IN THE PRIMARYS THAT DECIDE THE ELECTION ohio,is stolen from you.

Its a well known fact votefraud occured in that state and you CANT WIN VOTES when we have rigged elections.you are in denial that elections are rigged for the office of the presidency obviously.

2.Fact.hard to win when they sabatoge your strategy to get delegates with last minute rule changes the last day which sabotoge your strategy.

Rightwing explained that to you earlier and you ignored him just like you ignore everyone here that takes you to school on this.

Paul knew he could not win with votes since elections are rigged and they were so rigged against him,deal with it charlie.

apparently FDR himself once saying-its not how many that vote that decides the elections,its WHO COUNTS the votes that decide the elections.Election fraud has been going on for DECADES son.you cant seem to handle this little fact.

3.fact.someone like Gary Johnson,Ron Paul,or Ralph Nader will never be allowed to win the election because they believe in freedom and the constitution.,you killed your credibility earlier calling them lunatics so i know i cant reason with you on this.

4.fact-there is no difference between Romney and Obama.neither believe in the constitution and BOTH are member of AIPAC.because of those facts,Paul never had a prayer because he is not a member there and not a supporter of Israel.

5.FINALLY fact #5.and most critically.Unlike Obama and Romney,Paul is not a member of that evil organization the CFR which I dount you even know what that means.Because of the fact that he is not a member of that evil organization which considers amercans who are not greedy ,rich and powerful their enemy,people like ron paul,gary johnson and ralp nader will never be elected president because to be president,you have to be a member of that evil organization the CFR.

you clearly have reading comprehension problems because i have said this over a HUNDRED times on this thread and you have played dodgebll with every point coming back with crap like- he did not have the votes after i have EXPLAINED WHY he did not have the votes.