Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today, Paul again finishes LAST. He is being soundly rejected as he was 4 years ago. Face reality. Quit this endless nonsense in support of this repulsive candidate, and recognize that Paul is history. I have been saying this since he entered this race. Maybe now, you are seeing the writing on the wall. He's a racist, sincere-sounding, unelectable guy. Nothing more.
A-Lexus, Iowa didn't go so well nor did Maine or Massachusetts for Paul as they were called for Rpmney at first.....UNTIL THE DELEGATES WERE COUNTED...which mostly went to Paul! Paul supporters have NO WORRIES.
Also I think your description of Paul is really below the belt. How in the world could anyone even fathom an idea that he is "repulsive"? What is so repulsive about a 30 year long Constitution abiding elected official.
Personally I'd think most would be more repulsed by an animal abuser and high school bully who thinks the President ought to have the right to assassinate Americans who aren't convicted of anything without a trial.
that's not entirely true. i am worried about the country, because i do still think that paul's chance of winning is slim.
and even beyond that, were paul to actually win, the GOP would pull the same stunts that they are now. they would fudge the numbers, regardless of how obvious it was; or they would just come right out and try to change the rules after the fact, "we've decided that this nomination process should go to the popular vote rather than the delegate count, in order to better serve the wish of the people." or some crap like that.
Quote:
Also I think your description of Paul is really below the belt. How in the world could anyone even fathom an idea that he is "repulsive"? What is so repulsive about a 30 year long Constitution abiding elected official.
an honest, consistent, constitutionally minded representative that aims to put the average citizen in charge of his or her own destiny with all of the responsibilities and charges that this entails truly would scare the average american, because the average american does not desire that much responsibility for their own life and future, much less the life and future of their country and their fellow americans.
the average american, right or left, is comfy with the idea that they will continue to be told what to do and have their freedoms stripped away from them in the name of security and progress. and the average american is all right with the idea that they are losing their homes and their ability to put food on the table, and that the rich and powerful are taking from them only to become more rich and powerful, because today the average american is comfortable. today they still have reality tv, designer clothing, doritos, and celebrity gossip websites, so who needs to worry about tomorrow?
EDIT: and the average american shudders at the inevitable sacrifice that it is going to take in order to get this country back online. they would rather pretend to be oblivious to the problems and hope that they will either go away on their own, or stall long enough that the next generations will have to deal with them.
that's not entirely true. i am worried about the country, because i do still think that paul's chance of winning is slim.
and even beyond that, were paul to actually win, the GOP would pull the same stunts that they are now. they would fudge the numbers, regardless of how obvious it was; or they would just come right out and try to change the rules after the fact, "we've decided that this nomination process should go to the popular vote rather than the delegate count, in order to better serve the wish of the people." or some crap like that.
an honest, consistent, constitutionally minded representative that aims to put the average citizen in charge of his or her own destiny with all of the responsibilities and charges that this entails truly would scare the average american, because the average american does not desire that much responsibility for their own life and future, much less the life and future of their country and their fellow americans.
the average american, right or left, is comfy with the idea that they will continue to be told what to do and have their freedoms stripped away from them in the name of security and progress. and the average american is all right with the idea that they are losing their homes and their ability to put food on the table, and that the rich and powerful are taking from them only to become more rich and powerful, because today the average american is comfortable. today they still have reality tv, designer clothing, doritos, and celebrity gossip websites, so who needs to worry about tomorrow?
EDIT: and the average american shudders at the inevitable sacrifice that it is going to take in order to get this country back online. they would rather pretend to be oblivious to the problems and hope that they will either go away on their own, or stall long enough that the next generations will have to deal with them.
If all you say is true, then why do you believe Paul's radical ideas will be so popular if they come to pass? You painted a picture of a lot of folks who don't want or like the idea of that kind of change.
Since this year has consistently shown a savage split in the Republican party, why do you think the party will put up with Paulista's attempts at hanky-panky?
It is just as likely they will be shown the door and end up convening in the parking lot as some little rump of nothing but a few grumbling dissenters.
That's a mighty ignoble ending to such pure intentions. I think it just goes to show how even the best candidate can attract those who would do dirty deeds done cheaply on the candidate's behalf.
If all you say is true, then why do you believe Paul's radical ideas will be so popular if they come to pass? You painted a picture of a lot of folks who don't want or like the idea of that kind of change.
Since this year has consistently shown a savage split in the Republican party, why do you think the party will put up with Paulista's attempts at hanky-panky?
It is just as likely they will be shown the door and end up convening in the parking lot as some little rump of nothing but a few grumbling dissenters.
That's a mighty ignoble ending to such pure intentions. I think it just goes to show how even the best candidate can attract those who would do dirty deeds done cheaply on the candidate's behalf.
Some changes are better than none. I haven't seen any hanky-panky attempts by RP supporters reported. Either way change is a natural part of reality, just a matter of what and when. One thing is certain change will always happen. Sometimes dramatically and rather quickly.
If all you say is true, then why do you believe Paul's radical ideas will be so popular if they come to pass? You painted a picture of a lot of folks who don't want or like the idea of that kind of change.
i'm not sure that they will be popular. but that is one of the problems with all of the other candidates: they are only thinking of what will be popular, not what will fix our broken government and our broken economy.
my hope is that when we return to fiscally responsible policies and cut the corruption and selfishness out of legislation, people will calm down and decide that being debt-free and prosperous––even if that means not owning a second house and three cars that they can't afford––is better than being temporarily comfortable while spending one's self and one's countrymen into poverty.
Quote:
Since this year has consistently shown a savage split in the Republican party, why do you think the party will put up with Paulista's attempts at hanky-panky?
you're going to have to be more specific than the vague insults you are currently using if you want an intelligent answer. "hanky panky' isn't an intelligent stand-in for whatever it is that you are really trying to say, doesn't lead to intelligent discussion, and doesn't mean anything to me in the context of the elections.
i'll take a shot in the dark and assume that you mean the hordes of paul supporters at the local conventions; is that it? if not, disregard. if so, well, that is what a convention is for, and when paul has more supporters show up than the opposition, then the opposition needs to learn to coordinate better. empty seats don't get to vote.
Quote:
It is just as likely they will be shown the door and end up convening in the parking lot as some little rump of nothing but a few grumbling dissenters.
on the contrary, they've already had to convene in the parking lot a couple of times this election cycle because of the documented dirty "strategies" of the republican party leadership (and by documented, i don't mean some deranged conspiracy blog, but a plethora of video, sometimes with the guilty party going into detail about why it was necessary to cheat so that paul couldn't be elected), and there have been many more than "a few grumbling dissenters." in fact, there have often been a number of romney supporters, and even supposedly some gingrich and santorum supporters at these paul-dominated parking lot reconventions. all because the people did agree, and could not any longer stomach the GOP's ridiculous attempts to fix the caucuses.
Quote:
That's a mighty ignoble ending to such pure intentions. I think it just goes to show how even the best candidate can attract those who would do dirty deeds done cheaply on the candidate's behalf.
no one is claiming otherwise. there are just as many paul supporters that i wish would go away and cease giving me a bad name as there are romney supporters giving him a bad name, santorum supporters and gingrich supporters that are giving them bad names, and obama supporters that are giving him a bad name––regardless and above and beyond whatever the candidates are doing by themselves to sully their own names. it cuts both ways.
and yes, i think paul is the best candidate. is he perfect? nope. do i agree with everything he wants to pass as law? nope. but do i feel even remotely like i'm picking a lesser of multiple evils when i vote for paul? also nope. i can disagree with him on some counts while respecting very much his sincerity and honesty, and recognizing the good that many of his other policies will do for our country––whether or not the rest of america wants any good done for them.
i'm not sure that they will be popular. but that is one of the problems with all of the other candidates: they are only thinking of what will be popular, not what will fix our broken government and our broken economy.
my hope is that when we return to fiscally responsible policies and cut the corruption and selfishness out of legislation, people will calm down and decide that being debt-free and prosperous––even if that means not owning a second house and three cars that they can't afford––is better than being temporarily comfortable while spending one's self and one's countrymen into poverty.
you're going to have to be more specific than the vague insults you are currently using if you want an intelligent answer. "hanky panky' isn't an intelligent stand-in for whatever it is that you are really trying to say, doesn't lead to intelligent discussion, and doesn't mean anything to me in the context of the elections.
i'll take a shot in the dark and assume that you mean the hordes of paul supporters at the local conventions; is that it? if not, disregard. if so, well, that is what a convention is for, and when paul has more supporters show up than the opposition, then the opposition needs to learn to coordinate better. empty seats don't get to vote.
on the contrary, they've already had to convene in the parking lot a couple of times this election cycle because of the documented dirty "strategies" of the republican party leadership (and by documented, i don't mean some deranged conspiracy blog, but a plethora of video, sometimes with the guilty party going into detail about why it was necessary to cheat so that paul couldn't be elected), and there have been many more than "a few grumbling dissenters." in fact, there have often been a number of romney supporters, and even supposedly some gingrich and santorum supporters at these paul-dominated parking lot reconventions. all because the people did agree, and could not any longer stomach the GOP's ridiculous attempts to fix the caucuses.
no one is claiming otherwise. there are just as many paul supporters that i wish would go away and cease giving me a bad name as there are romney supporters giving him a bad name, santorum supporters and gingrich supporters that are giving them bad names, and obama supporters that are giving him a bad name––regardless and above and beyond whatever the candidates are doing by themselves to sully their own names. it cuts both ways.
and yes, i think paul is the best candidate. is he perfect? nope. do i agree with everything he wants to pass as law? nope. but do i feel even remotely like i'm picking a lesser of multiple evils when i vote for paul? also nope. i can disagree with him on some counts while respecting very much his sincerity and honesty, and recognizing the good that many of his other policies will do for our country––whether or not the rest of america wants any good done for them.
That was a fine reply, stycotl, and I truly mean it.
Paul has some qualities in his philosophy I admire, and early on, I was interested in him, but there was to much in his stuff I didn't agree with to stick with him. Interestingly, Ralph Nader shared many of his positions in 2008 and fared the same fate as an independent. I liked Nader, too, but he also had more I didn't agree with than what I liked in him.
Even so, I hope you and others like you can put together a coherent platform that incorporates most of Paul's philosophy and find a candidate who can express it well and logically in the future.
For now, I believe Paul is all done and dusted, and whatever happens in the state and national conventions will amount to nothing more than noise and disruption. Neither will leave a good impression of the man when he leaves the public arena, unfortunately, for any future person who will try to follow in his footsteps.
AL,
Why do you keep digging up old post of candidates you don't even like? That bored?
No man, whomever he is will matter a hill of beans unless we fix our broken system. As to impressions, I don't think that will change much regarding RP regardless of the convention.
The man, as predicted, is as relevant as tumbleweed.
What a waste that this guy was even participating. He stood absolutely no chance from the onset.
Any Paul supporters still believing in him? He's toast.
The question is why do you believe in a big government candidate who has policies that are failures? How is the economy? We hit that 8 percent unemployment even when government cooks the figures? Any Obama supporters still believe in him? The economy is toast. Wake up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any Paul supporters left?
