RP's followers chase Sean Hannity....

[WhyteP38]

Pat H: Again, fair enough.

My contentions are the same as in my first post in this thread:

1. Howling mobs of a candidate do that candidate more harm than good. They turn off potential supporters and drive them into the opponents’ camps.
2. The math shows that the above statement is true.
3. If you really want your candidate to win, you’ll disown, rather than condone, such behavior. Obama’s non-negative campaign against Hillary’s all-negative campaign shows this statement is true.
4. Mathematically, RP needs to get moving before it’s too late for him. He and his true supporters need to get the memo out to the rowdy element.

And I agree: There is no certainty about a winner or loser.

 

[STAGE 2]

Wyoming has the largest per capita number of donors to the Ron Paul campaign, yet none of them could vote because of the method Wyoming uses to determine who votes for candidates. It's nothing new, and it's all available for anyone to verify.

Hmmm. So we have yet another state where Paul has huge support and he loses. Whether he lost because no one like him or he lost because of the method is irrelevant. Paul doesn't have many states (if any) where he has lots of support.

Paul isn't blowing anything out in NH. All the Paulistas have been saying that NH is the other state where Paul has his big support. If Paul doesn't win this state, then mathematically, how do any of you explain his ability to win.

Further, polling accuracy is declining from the 1992 period to today, not improving. I don't think there's certainty about a winner or loser at all.

Its like listening to the guy who struck out say "I had sand in my eye".

 

[Leif]

Much ado about nothing, or at least, nothing that matters in the end.

 

[Molson]

My contentions are the same as in my first post in this thread:

1. Howling mobs of a candidate do that candidate more harm than good. They turn off potential supporters and drive them into the opponents’ camps.
2. The math shows that the above statement is true.
3. If you really want your candidate to win, you’ll disown, rather than condone, such behavior. Obama’s non-negative campaign against Hillary’s all-negative campaign shows this statement is true.
4. Mathematically, RP needs to get moving before it’s too late for him. He and his true supporters need to get the memo out to the rowdy element.

And I agree: There is no certainty about a winner or loser.

well put, and i agree. especially about the obama part. i cannot stand the man's policies, but i greatly admire him for taking the highroad against clinton in this process. i think he is worthy of praise, if for that alone.

i would also like to add a point that someone brought up on one of the local radio shows i listen to in the morning.

if we are to judge someone by their followers or supporters instead of the person or their message, Jesus should be the most dispicable person imaginable to us ("God hates f**s", among many other things done in his name).

 

[mountainclmbr]

Hannity said something to the effect of "I'm not going to avoid them, I'm going to walk right past them". So he was the bait and they took it. I am sure the RP supporters like their candidate and feel frustrated at the poor showing so far. If RP did not come across as being slightly crazy I think his message would be getting more of a fair hearing though.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I can't wait until the election.It seems like that will be the only point when some will realize that Ron Paul is not going to be president. If you want to blame somebody, blame the 90+ percent of the people who think he is a foul ball.

 

[kjm]

It seems like that will be the only point when some will realize that Ron Paul is not going to be president.

Agreed. It is then that many of his supporters will vacate the Republican party back to the Democratic party where Obama seems to at least have some sanity left.

I hope that he is around through most of the primaries though so some of the candidates may look over there and see a younger group supporting this kook who wants a constitutional government again.

The Republicans will turn their back on Ron Paul's ideas and alienate a lot of younger people who could have re-energized the party and put it back on the direction of true conservatism, but alas- they are content to lose the election, not because they can't turn out the same old folks, but because they can't seem to turn out anybody new.

 

[STAGE 2]

It is then that many of his supporters will vacate the Republican party back to the Democratic party where Obama seems to at least have some sanity left.

You sit here and tell us that we are all evil because we don't respect the constitution, and in the same breath say that Obama is sane.

If I never did before, I now understand why the Paul camp and I never got along.

 

[kjm]

Stage: Tell me in what post specifically I called you evil.

Dare you...

Thought so.

I believe that like a lot of religeous folks who have never read, nor understood their holy writings, believing what they believe about their faith only that which another has told them, but never actually verifying it themselves. The Roman Catholic church tried that for a couple hundred years until the Gutenberg Bible was printed prompting the reformation.

I believe a lot of folks try to reconcile the US Constitution with the politics of the day, letting the politics of the day be the defacto supreme law of the land rather than the Constitution. They assume that we have a constitutional government but become slightly uncomfortable when it is pointed out that we do not have a government that constrains itself within constitutional limitations. Blatant and obvious examples abound if you want examples.

The NFA or GCA '68 are two prime examples. Either they infringe or do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Still- I guess you believe that the Constitution means what the Government says it means. I believe it means what it says and it is my duty as a citizen to enforce that on the government with my vote. That is exactly what I intend to do. That kinda settles the RP argument for me.

 

[ZeroJunk]

KJM, I will make no comment of who is right or wrong.

But, a large enough majority to elect a president would look at a collection of posts from Ron Paul supporters on just this forum and consider them driven by fringe agendas that they either don't agree with or have no effect on their life.

It's been that way from the start.

 

[Thunderhawk88]

If RP did not come across as being slightly crazy I think his message would be getting more of a fair hearing though.

That's it in a nutshell.SOME of his ideas are great, but the whole package is too strange to handle.

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage: Tell me in what post specifically I called you evil.

Dare you...

Thought so.

You didn't need to. You've take refuge with Pat and others who have said the same thing for months now, namely that if someone votes for anyone other than Paul then they hate the constitution.

I believe a lot of folks try to reconcile the US Constitution with the politics of the day, letting the politics of the day be the defacto supreme law of the land rather than the Constitution. They assume that we have a constitutional government but become slightly uncomfortable when it is pointed out that we do not have a government that constrains itself within constitutional limitations. Blatant and obvious examples abound if you want examples.

While I certianly agree that the pendulum has swug too far in the direction of ignoring the constitution, Paul and others want to swing it back too far in the other direction. People make statements like "any war is unconstitutional unless there is legislation titled declaration of war" or "the feds have zero power to regulate drugs", that have no basis in the constitution. Every single executive agency isn't unconstitutional simply by virtue of its existence.

Add to this the sheer lunacy of Pauls ideas for foreign policy and you have some very substantial reasons not to vote for him. Believing that the constitution is not a suicide pact is not a belief that someone is free to ignore it. Paul and his followers seem perfectly content marching us to our graves, and as long as the letter of the constitution is followed, everything is sound. That isn't kosher with me.

 

[ssr]

You sit here and tell us that we are all evil because we don't respect the constitution, and in the same breath say that Obama is sane.

If I never did before, I now understand why the Paul camp and I never got along.

You must not understand where a lot of Ron Paul's support comes from, just like the media and Republican party do not (which is why the Republican party is shrinking).

I am a traditional conservative voter. I am a doctor (a huge number of doctors in my group also support RP), a gun owner, second amendment supporter, who believes in limited governmental power, personal freedom, and fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Constitution. The party, for some reason, has forsaken these ideals. I was sucked into the neo-con agenda for awhile and did not see how far the party has strayed, until I saw their negative reaction to Ron Paul.

The term "conservative" has now become a misnomer, just like the term "liberal" has. Conservative has no more connection with traditional values than liberal has to liberty (like many liberals believe).

How can I, as someone who believes in any of the things I hold dear, vote for a any of the other candidates?

 

[STAGE 2]

How can I, as someone who believes in any of the things I hold dear, vote for a any of the other candidates?

Since you're a doctor I'll explain it to you this way. Not voting for a viable candidate because Paul isn't going to win is the same as not treating someone with cancer because in the end they are going to die. You do what you can when you can, even if it doesn't fix things 100%.

Its better to survive until something better somes along than not do anything and let the cancer destroy us.

 

[9mmHP]

Aren't you the guy that keeps misquoting the Constitution while railing that none of the candidates except Paul know the Constitution? Do you always, like Ron Paul, speak in non-sequitors?

kjm blathered:
Again 9mmHP, you are ignoring that RP is simply passing on information that the Head of the CIA's binLaden group has said and written, and also the FBI's similar group. Sorry, I guess as far as the Republicans are concerned, both Ron Paul, the CIA and FBI are all nutjobs. A bunch of crackpots who know nothing about which they speak.

Oh- and the reason your dollar is falling in value is because we don't have enough troops deployed around the globe. The federal deficit is caused by underspending too huh?

 

[ssr]

Since you're a doctor I'll explain it to you this way. Not voting for a viable candidate because Paul isn't going to win is the same as not treating someone with cancer because in the end they are going to die.

It doesn't matter if he is "not viable". I cannot vote for the other candidates because I do not believe in and cannot endorse what they are proposing. No vote for freedom is a wasted vote. Throwing your vote away on a candidate that you do not believe in for the sake of "viability" is wasting your vote. This is not medicine and treating patients. This is voting your beliefs. I have a candidate that espouses the Constitution, something I have been waiting for. How can I NOT vote for him?

Voting for gun banners, free speech rights limiters, big spenders, civil liberty infringers, and deficit spenders, if you do not believe in such things is wasting your vote. How will the party ever come back, if they get votes despite their actions?

 

[9mmHP]

So, if you can't have your idea of the perfect Constitionualist then your quite willing to throw your support to a socialist snake oil salesman who has made it more than abundantly clear that he will treat the 2nd Amendment as so much as his morning roll of Charmin. Amazing, it speaks volumes. Can't have your way so flush it all. All the Paulistas noble-sounding rhetoric is revealed as so much hot air.

kjm incredibly blurts out:

Agreed. It is then that many of his supporters will vacate the Republican party back to the Democratic party where Obama seems to at least have some sanity left.

I hope that he is around through most of the primaries though so some of the candidates may look over there and see a younger group supporting this kook who wants a constitutional government again.

 

[ssr]

The Ron Paul "camp" , likewise, is not a "camp" per se. His message of freedom attracts a diverse group of people all longing for freedom. Part of freedom and individual responsibility is that everyone is responsible for himself. In that way, if someone does something reprehensible, it is not a reflection on me and is not my responsibility, and therefore, it is not for me to apologize for his actions.

This thinking that others have to always apologize for someone else's action is another example of political correctness gone astray. It becomes more and more clear to me that true freedom is being chased out of every nook and cranny of our society. People just do not understand or want true freedom. It requires responsibility for ones actions and allowing others to live with theirs.

 

[nate45]

To 9mmHP

Well instead of insulting RP and his supporters, why don't you tell us of all the endearing qualities of the Republican candidate dejour?

I heard Hannity sucking up to Romney on his radio program today is that who all the rinos, psuedo conservatives and neocons are supporting this week?

If so why don't you tell us why he would be a good POTUS.

 

[STAGE 2]

If so why don't you tell us why he would be a good POTUS.

Because he's not Hillary or Obama.

Politics isn't about wishful thinking or living in the realm of the fanciful. Its about reality. Sometimes reality presents you with two crappy choices. Thats life.

Pretending that this doesn't exist, or refusing to participate unless its sunny skies, 70 degrees and no chance of rain whatsoever is unrealistic and an almost childish mentality.

You strive for the best and then deal with what you are played. Thats reality.