You guys think there willl be alot of Ron paul supporters at the RNC? Lately i havent seen ron paul do anything, its been quite dead for a while (at least thats how i feel about it).
I still have a little hope left that he might win but for now its discouraging to see everyone rage on about paul ryan, and romney…
I want to see everyone shout ron paul’s name as romney gets picked as the candidate.
Even if he is, who knows, i think paul has alot of chance if he runs independent or for another party…
Rand tore the Ron Paul movement in half. It’s dead because it has no life anymore. Ron pussed out due to the possibility of violence at the state conventions (let alone the national) and Rand went down to the crossroads. Ask his friend boy willy brown.
The Ron Paul movement was doomed from the beginning. He was never going to win the presidential election even if he somehow won the primary. With this said, we have not even begun to see the tip of the iceberg of what Paul stirred up.
I hope peter schiff runs for presidency. he has alot of money, aligns with our views, and is young enough to not be called grandpa schiff (like many have done so to paul).
As far as politicians go, he’s about as good as they get. Unlike the current president. I’ll never understand how he is perceived to be attractive. As well as being vapid, evil and morally bankrupt I think he looks like a cheerful little monkey.
You can see the media trying to build up a cult of personality for him when they interview his teachers, neighbors, and talk about his younger life, etc, etc, etc; not even did they do this with romney (or did they, i missed it?)
from my understanding ron paul didnt win enough states to get a slot to talk at the convention. Romney/RNC gave the OK to have a speech outside before the convention, but not during.
Also did anyone notice that Dr. Paul stopped almost directly after his breakfast with bernanke? Has Dr Paul come out and said why he had breakfast with him? it was supposed to be off the record i think, but dont know if they ever said.
Nah, the people who hate Rand for being a pragmatist and blame everything on the campaign officials split the movement. Jones and Kokesh first and foremost.
Ron pussed out due to the possibility of violence at the state conventions (let alone the national) and Rand went down to the crossroads. Ask his friend boy willy brown.
Pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term do not equal “pussing out.”
I agree Paul has settled down. Do you know if he is speaking at the convention?
I don’t believe so. I’ve heard rumors that he was offered a chance to speak, but only if it was a bullshit Unity Unity Rah Rah Rah kind of speech, and he turned them down. Anyway, he’s havong a huge rally at the Sun Dome in Tampa this Sunday.
That’s like saying “it wasn’t the spree killer who made everyone feel unsafe in their own neighborhood…it was those damn loudmouth family members who told everyone about their loved ones being murdered.”
Oh please do share these “pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term.” I’m on pins and needles.
Oh please do share these “pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term.” I’m on pins and needles.
Many Paulites did not (and still don’t) understand the primary process. They wanted to do things at the conventions that they thought would help Paul win, but they were wrong. What they wanted to do would have achieved nothing in the way of getting Paul nominated, but WOULD have made us all look very bad in the eyes of rank-and-file Republicans…you know, the people whose votes we need to win the race we’re running. Most of these haribrained schemes revolved around the idea that delegates either were always, or could be made, unbound. And this is based on an incorrect reading of party rules and of a letter sent by an RNC official in the 2008 race.
That’s like saying “it wasn’t the spree killer who made everyone feel unsafe in their own neighborhood…it was those damn loudmouth family members who told everyone about their loved ones being murdered.”
That analogy only makes sense if we’re assuming that Rand was in the wrong.
I’m sorry, was there some list of “pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term” in there? I must have missed it.
That’s like saying “the cause only makes sense as a cause if we assume effects are caused by causes.”
Being “in the wrong” has nothing to do with anything. Since when do you have to be “in the wrong” to be the cause of a divide? Rand broke away from principles of the movement, and some people decided to follow him, while others didn’t. Ceteris paribus, had Rand not done or said anything, it’s pretty safe to assume this divide between people who support Rand and those who don’t, wouldn’t exist.
It’s like you’re trying to blame the fact that the bell cracked on gravity, and absolve the person who actually dropped it.
JJ: I’m sorry, was there some list of “pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term” in there? I must have missed it.
Me: What they wanted to do would have achieved nothing in the way of getting Paul nominated, but WOULD have made us all look very bad in the eyes of rank-and-file Republicans…you know, the people whose votes we need to win the race we’re running
JJ: Being “in the wrong” has nothing to do with anything.
Ah, I thought that making an analogy between Rand and a spree killer indicated that you thought Rand was to be blamed…
JJ: Ceteris paribus, had Rand not done or said anything, it’s pretty safe to assume this divide between people who support Rand and those who don’t, wouldn’t exist.
Right, and if people hadn’t reacted to what Rand did in the way they did, the divide also would not have occurred. See how that works? Which is why in a situation like this, you look for who is to blame, who was in the wrong, not just who is responsible, as both are responsible, both are necessary conditions.
Um. Yeah…that’s what you said, and then I said what you quoted there after you said that. So…uh…what exactly are these “pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term” again?
You have a real problem with quote cutting don’t you? Once again, the sentence that follows the one that you pasted (i.e. the sentence you conveniently left out) offers clarification. I’ll say it again: Since when do you have to be “in the wrong” to be the cause of something?
The door is now closed because you pushed it shut. You were the cause of the door-close. Does that mean you were “in the wrong”? Or is “wrong” completely irrelevant to the cause and effect?
Yes, I see a chain of events, that ended in a divide, and that began with Rand doing what he did. That to me says what happened first was the cause.
Once again, you’re saying: Yes, Rand dropped the bell…and then gravity pulled it downward…and it ended up cracked. So if gravity hadn’t have pulled it down to the ground, it wouldn’t have been cracked.
The whole point is, if Rand hadn’t have dropped it in the first place, gravity wouldn’t have pulled it downward.
Why you’re so insistent on focusing on the middle instead of the beginning, I can’t be sure. But it would seem to me you are in the Jack Hunter crowd of apparatchiks with their ready to fire “oh he’s thinking pragmatically, he’s thinking long term, you gotta give a little to get a little, some is better than nothing, this is how politics is, etc. etc. etc.” So my guess as to why you’d want to focus on people who stayed true to the principles of the movement instead of going along to get along when Rand evidently did just that, is because obviously someone has to be blamed, and of course it can’t be Rand.
You need oxygen to have fire. Oxygen is a “necessary condition”. This does not mean that oxygen (a virtual constant in air) is “responsible” or “to blame” for the fire the arsonist ignited.
The amount of acrobatics you apologists will do is just incredible.