Ron Paul beat Peden
- Thread starter publius42
- Start date
mvpel, I once read someone sum it up like this...
"A humans instinct to survive will almost always point him towards the popular direction, no matter if it is off a cliff."
I think theres some validity here. People seem to like their decisions made up for them. Just look at the amount of threads asking what firearm or accessory YOU would buy.
"A humans instinct to survive will almost always point him towards the popular direction, no matter if it is off a cliff."
I think theres some validity here. People seem to like their decisions made up for them. Just look at the amount of threads asking what firearm or accessory YOU would buy.
The fact that they don't pass Ron Paul's various government-reducing bills is more an indictment of the rest of our government than of Ron Paul.
If we're going to measure the quality of congresscritters by counting bills or votes, my suggestion would be to count "NO" votes, and the guy with the most is clearly the best.
Unregistered
Moderator
People really should go back and look at all the pot shots taken at Ron Paul in Stage 2's "Paul losing congressional race"...
Stage 2 has a lot of people keeping him company eating crow tonight.
Stage 2 has a lot of people keeping him company eating crow tonight.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Baloney. He got whipped, beaten, smashed, pummeled, (add other descriptions as needed here), in his own back yard in the presidential race. Of all places, he should have been well known there.
You're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong neighborhood on who's to blame on not "getting" his message...
I'm not speaking for Stage2 or anything, but from my observations on the threads of L&P, there are plenty of factors why a thread gets locked. And, to insinuate just because Stage2's thread gets locked he's poking the bear with a stick. Obviously, you haven't engaged in many of them that I've seen and there's PLENTY of blame to go around as to why Paul subject matters get under skins around here.
The media pointed to the "cliff" after only 5% of the delegates were selected in a handfull of early primaries. That's the sad defeatist saga in todays GOP. Too many half assed candidates who never had intentions of staying in the race. Rudy, Fred, Mitt to name a few.
Yet the ODD thing is, the democrats are having a real primary.
Paul has been in congress over 20 years. Thats decades. His time in congress spans several decades as well.
I never said that Paul was going to lose the primary election. My thread dealt with the fact that according to some polls, Paul was being beaten by his opponent.
Illustrating the pie in the sky mentality of some people who put "Paul for president" in their sig is not a commentary on Paul losing his congressional race, its a commentary on the leap of logic that is required.
Ok. Lets bring it back down to 5%. Did Paul manage to achieve even that?
Once again I ask for some perspective here. Paul, an incumbent, has beaten his opponent (not crushed but beaten) who has no prior experience in running for and federal office, SO THAT HE CAN RUN FOR HIS SEAT AGAIN.
If you folks think that this is worthy of eating crow then I can completely understand why you felt that Paul was viable.
Unregistered
Moderator
I haven't gone back looking for quotes, but the implication about the RP Congressional race that many made, including Stage 2, was he was about to lose, and the reason he was going to lose was because the people in his district had somehow just found out about what RP stood for because of the presidential debates.
There was a sense of glee and jubliation on the part of many who responded in Stage 2's thread about the prospect of Ron Paul losing. Ron Paul supporters were belittled, insulted, and disregarded. There were accusations made that the Republican party didnt need Ron Paul supporters. Such bravado will, of course, come back to haunt the Republicans when they lose to Obama or Hillary. But at least they got to beat up on an underdog.
About 817,000 people voted for Ron Paul nationwide... I suspect an extra 817,000 votes would have looked good in November to the Republican party.
There was a sense of glee and jubliation on the part of many who responded in Stage 2's thread about the prospect of Ron Paul losing. Ron Paul supporters were belittled, insulted, and disregarded. There were accusations made that the Republican party didnt need Ron Paul supporters. Such bravado will, of course, come back to haunt the Republicans when they lose to Obama or Hillary. But at least they got to beat up on an underdog.
About 817,000 people voted for Ron Paul nationwide... I suspect an extra 817,000 votes would have looked good in November to the Republican party.
Well, since it was my thread, I'll save you the guesswork. Simply put, the implication was that there has been a wholesale rejection of Paul and his ideas to the point that polls indicated that he could lose his seat in congress.
Oh please. There wasn't anything given that hasn't been dished out by the Paul camp tenfold. This "the big bad neocons are pickin on poor little me" routine is just hogwash.
If fairness is going to be the word of the day, and we've endured probably hundreds of threads including those entitled "I told you so" (irony abounds), then its ridiculous to cry foul when the opposition sends you some of your own medicine.
Just like Paul was going to win the primary (or even just Iowa and New Hampshire), and how Huckabee had no chance in Iowa, or how Hillary was definitively the dem nominee.
If you haven't learned by now (this of course applies to real candidates) its folly to make presumptions about this election. Especially in light of the fact that every poll out there has McCain and both dems running within the margin of error.
Why? McCain did it without your help to in the primary, and there are enough of us that are going to hold our noses for the good of the nation.
You see, when you throw your lot in with an irrelevant candidate, that makes you... well... irrelevant.
Yeah, I guess said is the wrong word. It would be more accurate to say that you rejoiced in the prospect of Paul losing, even renaming the title of your thread to "Paul losing" from the more cautious title used in the original article. That sounds a bit different from "Hes been a congressman for decades and its likely that he will continue to be one."STAGE 2 said:
This sounds a bit different as well:
and this:
"Can't win" and "could likely lose" seem to have morphed into "victory for an incumbent is likely."
Last results I saw said 37,000 to 15,000 votes. Makes me wonder about the polls you started a thread about, and wonder just what margin of victory would deserve a stronger word than beaten. Pajamas media said they were internal polls from both campaigns, but I somehow doubt that they really got access to internal polls from the Paul campaign. If they did, the pollsters definitely need to be fired, having reported a 10% lead for Peden not long before the actual 2:1 vote in favor of Paul. But that seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely to me that after their exclusive interview with Peden, pajamasmedia was fed some carefully selected polling data by his campaign, then just claimed they had gotten similar access (despite their obvious hostility) to the Paul campaign.
Stage2: In your perfect world who's a viable candidate? One that's simply able to win? You and your collective voice have done your share to squelch RP. I guess we must applaud your outcome. You have been bashing RP and his supporters for quite awhile. What is your goal in posting on this thread? To get it locked down?
Wholesale rejection...by the Media. Anyone with a thimble full of intelligence should be able to see this bias.
And now we nice to see the status quo falling in line with the chosen viable candidate. While the dollar falls and oil and gold prices post daily record highs. Again these are problems that RP has brought to light thru his campaign. RP has brought up many points, laws, acts, etc. that have pushed this country in the wrong direction, something that NO OTHER CANDIDATES have the courage to talk about.
Let's all enjoy being fat, dumb, and happy americans and suck it up to vote for the status quo. Sweep RP under the rug, there's no room for a STATESMAN.
So, why is Reason magazine biased? After reading their latest issue last week, and going back to read what else they written, I have no respect for Paul, at all. I think he's dishonest and a phoney. What else is new, you say? His supporters are proclaiming him the real deal. I just don't think so.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html
OK .... not really sure what kind of answer / non answer that was , but I assume you mean McCain.
And on McCain ... as you call Paul dishonest and a phoney(sic) , McCain , the man it sounds like you support , the man who most certainly barring tragedy will get the Republican Nomination , has referred to Paul as "The most honest man in Congress".
I'm betting he knows him better than you or the writers of the very limited smear articles on Paul of which there were so few , seemingly all on the same subject because that was the ONLY straw they could grasp for.
You might want to think about that.
And on McCain ... as you call Paul dishonest and a phoney(sic) , McCain , the man it sounds like you support , the man who most certainly barring tragedy will get the Republican Nomination , has referred to Paul as "The most honest man in Congress".
I'm betting he knows him better than you or the writers of the very limited smear articles on Paul of which there were so few , seemingly all on the same subject because that was the ONLY straw they could grasp for.
You might want to think about that.
Again, why would Reason do a smear? They laid out their case, Paul has danced around it. No one else's supporters have pretended that their candidate is as pure as newly driven snow, except maybe Obama who is another messiah wannabe phony. Are you still holding out for Paul's nomination? I admire your faith and hope.