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.
Well, if I was a conservative who hadn't considered Paul, the last few sentences of that declaration would put me off.
Finding a candidate who can beat Obama is the one common goal all the Repubs have. To declare flatly that Paul is the only one who can do it slaps the face of all the other candidates' supporters. All the candidates believe they can beat Obama. Dr. Paul is not special in this just because his supporter says so.
And the 2 last words in the declaration ' be warned.', are a threat. No voter likes to be threatened, period. Furthermore, be warned of what? Some Paulista who is going to peer over your shoulder in the voting booth? Or some peevish Paulista who will go sulk and take his ball home if the game isn't played by his rules?
This is one more time when a Paulista has just shot at Dr. Paul's chances through the angry and hostile way he expressed himself in his declaration.
How can new supporters be attracted to Paul if their first impression of him comes from his followers, and they are acting like a bunch of jerks and bullies? Paulistas, you don't need to change your message, but you sure need some serious work on your tone, and some anger management, if you want Paul to ever actually gain some delegates.
No one cares who you people will vote for. I know this is making the rounds on the fan sites everybody is giving each other a pat on the back. Along with a bunch of people spamming "me 2, me 3"). Nobody really cares.
No one is caring about what a last place candidate polling between 8-14% or his fans will do.
People write in names all the time. People are/were writing in Colbert and Stewart, among others. People decide to not vote for a nominee all the time.
The PaulCult just wants more attention I guess. This sounds like:
"LOOK AT ME. LOOK AT WHAT I'M DOING." Like some child try to get attention.
You can whine, ***** and basically attempt to Blackmail all you want, It's seems the American people (The Voters) don't want your 77 years old gimmick.
yeah, this is a really sad post. you just don't get it...and that's okay. i'm certainly not going to try and convince you to vote for Ron Paul, but it is a fact that I will not vote for anyone else. the message is, Ron Paul supporters have a backbone, and aren't willing to continue with the status quo. you, on the other hand, seem to be looking forward to the next heaping spoonful of establishment rhetoric.
Well, if I was a conservative who hadn't considered Paul, the last few sentences of that declaration would put me off.
Finding a candidate who can beat Obama is the one common goal all the Repubs have. To declare flatly that Paul is the only one who can do it slaps the face of all the other candidates' supporters. All the candidates believe they can beat Obama. Dr. Paul is not special in this just because his supporter says so.
And the 2 last words in the declaration ' be warned.', are a threat. No voter likes to be threatened, period. Furthermore, be warned of what? Some Paulista who is going to peer over your shoulder in the voting booth? Or some peevish Paulista who will go sulk and take his ball home if the game isn't played by his rules?
This is one more time when a Paulista has just shot at Dr. Paul's chances through the angry and hostile way he expressed himself in his declaration.
How can new supporters be attracted to Paul if their first impression of him comes from his followers, and they are acting like a bunch of jerks and bullies? Paulistas, you don't need to change your message, but you sure need some serious work on your tone, and some anger management, if you want Paul to ever actually gain some delegates.
i think you're reading too much into it...and i'm certain you're not going to the be only one to do so.
yeah, this is a really sad post. you just don't get it...and that's okay. i'm certainly not going to try and convince you to vote for Ron Paul, but it is a fact that I will not vote for anyone else. the message is, Ron Paul supporters have a backbone, and aren't willing to continue with the status quo. you, on the other hand, seem to be looking forward to the next heaping spoonful of establishment rhetoric.
Right on! We also don't buy into the lame stream media and them telling us who we should vote for. Oh well. I know who I'm voting for, and it isn't any of the other candidates.
I am done trying to convince the sheep that Romney and Newt are more of the same. Nobody wants to look at records, economics and solutions. I listened to a "undecided" voter call in Hannity and wanted to know who she should vote for in FL. She was making her decision on Sarah Palin asking for Newt and didnt think Mitt could debate Obama like Newt. These are the people I call "SHEEP" They can't think for themselves without looking at policy they look at who can beat OBAMA based on debate skills while ignoring big government records. EVEN their records point to more spending, more wars, more government with a R next the name. We are broke but it appears big government republicans are the solution ONCE AGAIN because the media and pundits say so. But its ok we WON we beat Obama YEA!!!!! Its like people see republican vs democrats right now like the superbowl and everyone is just coming along for the commericals.
So since my 2 choices might be 2 piles of S*hit come November I will choose something else.
Foxnews and the rest the talk radio pundits and republican party continue to treat this idea of liberty from Paul crackpot nonsense then let them drown in their loses. Rush was quoted as saying Ron Paul is going to destory the republican party. But I say the republican party destoryed itself long before Paul even ran for president with supporting welfare, warfare, neocon democratic ideas. Those who ignore princples for Newt, Santorium and Mitt just to beat Obama will never see spending cuts will never balance a budget. You will likely see more bailouts, and the never ending idea that all this entitlements programs wont bring us to our knees. I will go back to my tin foil hat, hold on to the constitution and wait for the destruction that America voted for. Even after its all over you will stand with your broken country of corruption and wall street, big government ideas and call this place the land of the free.
If it comes to "write ins". I do think the write in approach could cause problems so I would like to see, at some point, if needed some organizing around write ins by state, much like they did for hr1207.
i think you're reading too much into it...and i'm certain you're not going to the be only one to do so.
Maybe.
But if I'm supporting an underdog, I don't try to alienate anyone who is interested in him, or try to claim that he's going to win by the force of my will alone.
It's like buying a car. No one likes a pushy salesman who knocks the other brands, but one who is positive and presents the car nicely often gets all the sales.
First, I would like to say that I think it is unfortunate that we only have two viable parties to choose from. To me that is not democracy in the truest sense ... in many other countries the voters have more choices and options.
Secondly, it seems to me that supporters of Ron Paul are beginning to realize that his campaign is sinking ... this appears like a last gasp of desperation. It almost sounds like a threat. Even with the defection of some Ron Paul supporters the Republican candidate - whoever that may be - still has a decent chance of beating Obama in November. Obama's approval ratings are not that good and he is vulnerable.
I guess I'm a little older and old fashioned, so I've developed the bad habit of accepting the "lesser of two evils." If it gets Obama out of office, I'd actually vote for Romney or Santorum. Newt ... that's just asking too much.
Putting it into perspective, I see it like this:
Newton LeRoy Gingrich:
Newt is the Model T. The old reliable of yester-year -- and completely obsolete!
Rick Santorum:
Rick Santorum is the Edsel -- one of the biggest automobile manufacturer flops in history.
Barack Obama:
Barack Obama is the Yugo, a car so completely awful that nobody I know has seen one that still runs in well over a decade.
Willard "Mitt" Romney:
Willard is the VW Beetle, a decent car that will get you from point A to point B while looking only sorta pathetic in the process.
Ron Paul:
Ron Paul is the Bugatti Veyron.
1.) Goes from 0 to 60 in 2.4 seconds, the fastest acceleration of any street legal car on the planet.
2.) Can maintain a cruising speed of 268 mph, the fastest street legal car on the planet.
3.) Features a 1200 horsepower engine.
4.) Is the most luxurious car on the planet.
I completely understand why my fellow Ron Paul supporters do not want to give up on the Veyron in favor of any of the other options! It's completely obvious! But if I come to the conclusion that we absolutely cannot have the Bugatti Veyron, then I'll cast my vote to trade in our current not-even-running Yugo for an Edsel if I must, or preferably the VW Beetle.
Doesn't mean I didn't want the Veyron. And seriously, if you thought you might get the Bugatti Veyron and had to settle for a VW Beetle ... that's pretty damned depressing!!
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.
We also don't buy into the lame stream media and them telling us who we should vote for. Oh well. I know who I'm voting for, and it isn't any of the other candidates.
