Ron Paul Scales Back, Shifts Focus to Congressional Race

Thumper,
And it's *your* logic that brought us George H.W.'s ban, Dubya's general buffoonery, and the current state of affairs.
There is no comparison between Paul and Perot. None. A vote for Paul in no way, shape, or form hurts McCain's (nonexistent) chances at the presidency.
 
A vote for Paul in no way, shape, or form hurts McCain's (nonexistent) chances at the presidency.
Click to expand...

And yet for gun right's voters, it does...

As far as McCain's "nonexistent chances at the presidency," I think I'll go with Rasmussen's spectacularly accurate opinion over your (wildly inaccurate to this point...we don't need to cover that again) views.

Scottie has McCain beating Clinton and within 2% points of Obama...pretty close and a DIRECT parallel to the Perot situation for gun owners.
 
And true to form you take the low road and wonder why the Paul supporters are so hostile. :rolleyes:

All an aside. Paul is no threat to McCain's chances. Refute if you disagree.
 
A vote for Paul in no way, shape, or form hurts McCain's (nonexistent) chances at the presidency.
Click to expand...

Weren't you the guy who said that Huckabee had no shot in Iowa, Paul was a shoe in for New Hampshire, and started a whole "I told you so" thread about Pauls electability.

Mighty accurate with those predictions if you ask me:rolleyes:
 
Another bald faced lie from Pat.

Dr. Paul ran against Democrat Shane Sklar in 2006 and won with overwhelming Republican support.

In 2004, Dr. Paul ran unopposed!

Such BS from Paul's supporters...and you guys wonder why he never made any headway...
Click to expand...

Umm, if Republican insiders wanted to get rid of Paul, they would challenge him in the primary, not the general elections.

Just like he is now being challenged in the primary by republicans.
 
Wow, are you two related or somethin'?
Paul is no threat to McCain's chances. Refute if you disagre
Click to expand...

No, I was addressing your assessment that McCain has no chance at the whitehouse. Currently he is within the margin of error in national polls running with both Hillary and Obama.

Your history with making accurate political predictions is simply nonexistent.
 
I don't know. I DO know that your logic bought me an AWB when I voted for Perot.

Fool me twice, shame on me.
Click to expand...
BS and you know it!!

If Bush 41 wasnt such a moderate.....you would not have voted for Perot...there would not have been a need too. So nice try.

Once you stop blaming real conservatives for sticking to their principles....you may get the party you want. (but compromising moderates like you are in very large numbers...and this is where the party is right now)
 
No, I was addressing your assessment that McCain has no chance at the whitehouse.
Click to expand...
Right, because it makes a convenient distraction from the issue you're so desperately avoiding.
Paul is no threat to McCain's chances. Therefore any comparison to Perot is inaccurate. Refute if you disagree.
 
Right, because it makes a convenient distraction from the issue you're so desperately avoiding.
Paul is no threat to McCain's chances. Therefore any comparison to Perot is inaccurate. Refute if you disagree.
Click to expand...

I'm avoiding nothing and your logic is flawed. Because Paul doesn't present a threat to McCain winning the nomination does not mean he won't effect his chances.

In an election as close as this one is likely going to be, even Paul's pathetic cadre of supporters will be relevant if liberals are going to be kept out of the whitehouse.
 
Seriously, is there any reason he shouldn't be in congress?
Click to expand...

Yes, namely because his constituents don't want him there. Obviously he did something they didn't like. There is no "right" to be a congressman.

And yes, less than 20 delegates at a million a pop is a pathetic showing.
 
Geez, why pick on Paul for his delegates to dollars ratio, when there's Rudy? 60 million and how many delegates? For a truly pathetic campaign, I guess we'd have to consider that Duncan guy. What was his last name again? ;)
 
There is a common theme here. Every Paul post degenerates to a bashing fest lead by the same people.

We all would like less government, more liberty, blah blah. I would think it would be in the GUNOWNERS interest (after all this is a FIREARM forum) to have a Ron Paul in congress. Can we really afford to lose another voice?

I voted for RP. I didn't vote for any of the other 11 candidates of which 3 are left.

Personally, I'd like to apologize for Dr. Paul. He's not slick. He's not polished. He's not a very good lier. He's not rude enough to demand more time in the debates. He trusts people too much to the point of placing traitors in his campaign staff.
 
If Bush 41 wasnt such a moderate.....you would not have voted for Perot...there would not have been a need too. So nice try.
Click to expand...

People voted for Perot as a protest vote against Bush's moderate tendencies because they were confident that the nation would not elect Clinton. It backfired on them. I doubt anyone would have voted for Perot because of his conservatism given his nutty behavior during the campaign, and what was revealed about him.
 
Actually, I think that if it weren't for "his nutty behavior during the campaign" Perot might have been president. Many people, myself included, were set to vote for him prior to that.
Also at that time, I was influenced by feel-good rhetoric. I wasn't the active Constitutionalist that I am now.
 
4sarge,

I would have to agree with you on your last post somewhat.

Ron Paul has the voice we need but he is not the messenger. Without the proper messenger to get the message out, it gets lost in the static.

Rather than taking this thread down another 10 notches into Paul bashing and getting it closed, back on topic...

Hopefully he has learned from his Presidential run that you need to be more proactive in getting your message out while at the same time trying to keep the muzzle on all of his nutball supporters. That alone would have helped him perform much better. Add to that some cajones for speaking out about his lack of debate time and some good public relations to get his message out and he may have done better.
 
In an election as close as this one is likely going to be, even Paul's pathetic cadre of supporters will be relevant if liberals are going to be kept out of the whitehouse.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate. And if what you suggest is true, how wise is it to refer to the people who can make or break a Republican presidency as "a pathetic cadre"?
 
Does anyone here really hold out any hope whatsoever that a Republican can get elected? The numbers for Hillary or Obama are staggeringly in favor of the Dems. And let's be real. Not many Hillary or Obama supporters is going to vote McCain, which is sort of funny , because McCain was a hair away from going Democrat. That McCain will win the Republican nomination is in of itself a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top