RNC Shuns Ron Paul, Supporters Root For Romney Defeat

[firehawk1]

It's called freedom. Get used to it. If Romney doesn't get enough votes to win, it's ROMNEY'S fault. Nobody else's.

So... does it remain Ron Paul didn't win because everyone else cheated him, (childish excuse) or is it Paul's own fault. Can't have it both ways and remain credible.

Definitely looks/sounds like sour grapes to me too.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You mean the GOP? I think they have.

You're right. I meant officially!

Pragmatism has gotten us into this crisis - it won't be pragmatism that gets us back out of it. This assumes, of course, that we can extricate ourselves from our prior bad decisions.

Absolutely. Pragmatism, in its most absolute form, requires cashiering principle in favor of practical application, which is exactly how we have arrived where we are. We may have won a few elections this way (if you can call the results winning) but we have arrived at the point of losing the republic.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So... does it remain Ron Paul didn't win because everyone else cheated him, (childish excuse) or is it Paul's own fault. Can't have it both ways and remain credible.

Definitely looks/sounds like sour grapes to me too.

You are arguing two different concepts. In Romney's case if he loses it is simply because he cannot manage to collect the support of enough voters. The issue with Paul is that rules are being manipulated to nullify the support he has gathered. If there is nothing there but sour grapes, I would think that there would be no need to manipulate rules to silence and exclude Paul's supporters.

 

[SirRealism]

Why is "sour grapes" being leveled at RP? He worked within the system. Why are Romney and the GOP changing rules?

 

[jbombelli]

So... does it remain Ron Paul didn't win because everyone else cheated him, (childish excuse) or is it Paul's own fault. Can't have it both ways and remain credible.

Definitely looks/sounds like sour grapes to me too.

Of course it does. You think Romney deserves all those votes JUST because he's the "Republican", and thanks to the two-party system's talking heads, he's the "only guy that stands a chance."

Well, I've been there and done that. For 30 years I voted for Republicans, and the end result is what we have today. Things have only gotten worse and worse and worse. I no longer buy into the propaganda put forth by both parties about how they're they only ones who can defeat each other. The only reason that self-fulfilling prophecy has remained true, is because of pragmatic people who throw their beliefs aside and vote for the lesser of two evils, as directed by those two evils.

So go be pragmatic. Vote for Romney. Follow your masters' instructions.


By the way, the GOP has changed their rules mid-stream SPECIFICALLY to shut out Ron Paul. What would you call that?

My sour grapes have nothing to do with Ron Paul. They have to do with being lied to for 30 years by Republicans who said one thing and did another.

 

[firehawk1]

You are arguing two different concepts. In Romney's case if he loses it is simply because he cannot manage to collect the support of enough voters. The issue with Paul is that rules are being manipulated to nullify the support he has gathered. If there is nothing there but sour grapes, I would think that there would be no need to manipulate rules to silence and exclude Paul's supporters.

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.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

You're right. I meant officially!



Absolutely. Pragmatism, in its most absolute form, requires cashiering principle in favor of practical application, which is exactly how we have arrived where we are. We may have won a few elections this way (if you can call the results winning) but we have arrived at the point of losing the republic.

Precisely - if you're willing to sacrifice principle for mass appeal, then by definition you're merely watering down your ideals. I won't re-hash Goldwater's vice-and-virtue quip, but was he wrong? I don't think so. I think that if your ideals are genuinely helpful to people, and in the best interests of a free Republic, then informed people will tend to gravitate towards those ideas without need of making them more bland or more toothless to be more palatable.

 

[netsecurity]

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 realize there is precious time to waste, but getting elected IS more important than being right. That is how democratic election system works. I'm sure there are many, many politicians who would've made this country better, but never got elected, and so they accomplished nothing. I'm all for a third party, but taking a bite out of Republican voters, and thereby aiding the re-election of the worst president ever, is plain stupid IMO.

 

[jbombelli]

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 realize there is precious time to waste, but getting elected IS more important than being right. That is how democratic election system works. I'm sure there are many, many politicians who would've made this country better, but never got elected, and so they accomplished nothing. I'm all for a third party, but taking a bite out of Republican voters, and thereby aiding the re-election of the worst president ever, is plain stupid IMO.

I've been hearing that argument for 30 years, and followed it faithfully for most of that time.

The result?

We have yet to start "tilting in the right direction."

 

[firehawk1]

Follow your masters' instructions.

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.

 

[netsecurity]

I've been hearing that argument for 30 years.

Well then, if you really want a third party to gain real power, enough to be actually electable in a presidential race, you should start by feeding campaigns locally, and state wide. Voting Libertarian on the presidential ticket this year will not help Libertarians. Until they begin to occupy local and state government seats, they won't have enough clout to become president, period.

What you are really saying is "I'm fed up with the system, therefore I am giving up." And what that equates to is letting Obama win.

 

[jbombelli]

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.

I've spent 30 years watching it happen.

Talk about wannabes? You GOP types talk about loving freedom and liberty, but you vote and legislate otherwise. What does that make you?

 

[jbombelli]

Well then, if you really want a third party to gain real power, enough to be actually electable in a presidential race, you should start by feeding campaigns locally, and state wide. Voting Libertarian on the presidential ticket this year will not help Libertarians. Until they begin to occupy local and state government seats, they won't have enough clout to become president, period.

What you are really saying is "I'm fed up with the system, therefore I am giving up." And what that equates to is letting Obama win.

Giving up would be keeping my mouth shut and not voting instead of trying to convince people of the error of their ways, as futile as that is.

YOU are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[Prometheus]

You are arguing two different concepts. In Romney's case if he loses it is simply because he cannot manage to collect the support of enough voters. The issue with Paul is that rules are being manipulated to nullify the support he has gathered. If there is nothing there but sour grapes, I would think that there would be no need to manipulate rules to silence and exclude Paul's supporters.

Ron Paul supporters were told to work within the system. They did.

Now the system changes at the last minute to exclude them.

Even people who don't support Ron Paul should be livid over this.

Most of the gop sure hards will die of old age in the next decade.

The gop has solidified it's choice to become irrelevant (on. The national level) over the next two cycles.

Only a fool could believe the natonal party believes in truth, integrity or has any moral standing. They certainly aren't fiscally conservative either.

The only sour grapes are those being proffered by the gop.

Reality. It's coming.

 

[netsecurity]

Giving up would be keeping my mouth shut and not voting instead of trying to convince people of the error of their ways, as futile as that is.

YOU are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I consider myself Libertarian, and then Republican, and that is where my heart is. You don't need to convince me of anything other than that a Libertarian is electable, which by the way should never be necessary, because of a candidate is popular then by definition everyone would already know it. I would vote L over R every single time if they could beat the D's, but I'm not going to be foolish enough to let the D's win and move the country even further in the wrong direction. Obama and Romney have very little in common, so drop that charade now that the primaries are well over.

So am I part of the problem for being a realist, or is reality the problem? Do you want Obama or Romney to be president in 2012? That is the question you should answer because there is no other possibility.

 

[firehawk1]

Ron Paul supporters were told to work within the system. They did.

Now the system changes at the last minute to exclude them.

Even people who don't support Ron Paul should be livid over this.

Most of the gop sure hards will die of old age in the next decade.

The gop has solidified it's choice to become irrelevant (on. The national level) over the next two cycles.

Only a fool could believe the natonal party believes in truth, integrity or has any moral standing. They certainly aren't fiscally conservative either.

The only sour grapes are those being proffered by the gop.

Reality. It's coming.

Reality isn't coming it's arrived. Paul lost, Like it or not Romney won. Winners right or wrong get to set the rules. Children **** and moan when things don't go their way, not adults.

 

[SirRealism]

Do you want Obama or Romney to be president in 2012? That is the question you should answer because there is no other possibility.

There is no other possibility because we've never told them "no".

 

[jbombelli]

I consider myself Libertarian, and then Republican, and that is where my heart is. You don't need to convince me of anything other than that a Libertarian is electable, which by the way should never be necessary, because of a candidate is popular then by definition everyone would already know it. I would vote L over R every single time if they could beat the D's, but I'm not going to be foolish enough to let the D's win and move the country even further in the wrong direction. Obama and Romney have very little in common, so drop that charade now that the primaries are well over.

So am I part of the problem for being a realist, or is reality the problem? Do you want Obama or Romney to be president in 2012? That is the question you should answer because there is no other possibility.

You would vote for the (L) everytime over the (R), BUT YOU DON'T. YOU are the reason the (L) never wins at the national level. YOU PERSONALLY. YOU help perpetuate the self-fulfilling prophecy that the (L) cannot win. You ask if reality is the problem, but it's the reality that YOU helped build.

If more people like you, who said exactly what you just said, would vote their conscience instead of helping d-bag #1 to beat d-bag #2, this country would be far, far better off. If for no other reason than the GOP would be forced to move further to the right, instead of further to the left with every election.

I don't want either one of them to be President, and I'm not going to help either one of them get there.

 

[Deadly Z Driver]

In Johnson County they didn't change any rules they just ignored their rules and State Law!

 

[downzero]

You would vote for the (L) everytime over the (R), BUT YOU DON'T. YOU are the reason the (L) never wins at the national level. YOU PERSONALLY. YOU help perpetuate the self-fulfilling prophecy that the (L) cannot win. You ask if reality is the problem, but it's the reality that YOU helped build.

If more people like you, who said exactly what you just said, would vote their conscience instead of helping d-bag #1 to beat d-bag #2, this country would be far, far better off. If for no other reason than the GOP would be forced to move further to the right, instead of further to the left with every election.

I don't want either one of them to be President, and I'm not going to help either one of them get there.

Except people like him aren't going to make a difference either way, because he's not actually a libertarian anyway.

Libertarianism is not an ideology for extreme Republicans, even if it does appeal to some of those people. Honest libertarianism should draw from both major parties, and from independent voters who desire a government with greater focus on social and economic liberty.

Libertarians are not libertarian because we want to preserve the status quo. Libertarianism is perhaps the most radical political idea of all, because we are willing to upset the status quo if necessary, preserve it if it is the ideal policy, or come up with something entirely new if necessary to preserve liberty.

You're replying to a guy who has a jab at "liberals" in his signature line, even though at its core, libertarianism IS liberalism. And that's actually what they call us everywhere else in the world.

The guy who confused libertarianism with some sort of conservative ideology isn't someone who is going to be persuaded to our side anytime soon. Open mindedness to drastic political change is a prerequisite to becoming a libertarian.

Libertarianism is the rejection of conservative values because it doesn't seek to preserve anything, except liberty, from which it and the word "liberal" have the same roots.