Ron Paul Is Trying To Steal The GOP Nomination
May 2, 2012 99 Comments
The Ron Paul supporters, known affectionately around here as Ronulans, are an interesting bunch. You’ll never meet people more committed to a candidate or case, you’ll also never meet people more delusional about their chances of winning. It is true Paul was able to fill a lot of college gyms for campaign events and it’s true that Paul’s passionate supporters will turn out in droves for every single internet poll. But that doesn’t translate into actual votes, something Paul’s largely young following doesn’t seem to understand. Unable to get more than 15% of the Republican vote, now the Ronulans believes he can out maneuver everyone and win the delegate count at the GOP Convention. It is the height of lunacy.
Ron Paul isn’t going to be able to pull off a stunning delegate victory, no matter how much his supports fantasize about it. Mitt Romney is the nominee. While a good 60% of the party didn’t vote for him, 90% or more are prepared to vote for him in the November election. Moreover 90% of the party views him as the legitimate GOP nominee. He won fair and square.That the Ronulans want to pretend like there’s any shot at winning in Tampa is the height of absurdity. That they think Paul can win with an underhanded and illegitimate stealth delegate campaign shows where these people are coming from.
Let’s go into Ronulan fantasy land and pretend that Paul pulls off the stealth delegate maneuver and walks out of Tampa with the nomination. He will not be viewed as the legitimate GOP nominee. It won’t just be the establishment that views matters this way, the rank and file will as well. None of Romney’s primary voters will vote for Paul, ensuring his absolute defeat to Obama. A good portion of non-Romney primary voters will also be turned off by Paul’s underhanded steal of the nomination. At this point a Ron Paul stealth victory ensures that Obama is re-elected. Romney has at least a 33% chance of winning, Paul has a 0% chance.
A Paul stealth victory would be a disaster for the conservative cause. Right now conservatives are in the middle of the GOP, with the establishment to their left and the libertarians to their right. The establishment and the libertarians tend to balance one another, particularly when it comes to Congressional and other local campaigns and issues such as the GOP platform. If Paul pulls off the stealth win, the balance of power in the GOP will be fundamentally and forever altered. The establishment will purge the libertarians from the GOP, this shifting the balance of power left. Make no mistake this will happen. The end result is bad for conservatives and it’s bad for libertarians as well. Whether the libertarians want to admit it or not, their only hope of advancing their cause is in the GOP. Simply put, the overwhelming majority of the country will not vote for the libertarians should they be relegated exclusively to meaningless third parties.
Most of us aren’t particularly happy about Romney’s nomination. He’s a Massachusetts moderate, the worst kind of establishment Republican. Like it or not, he’s the nominee. He’s won most of the state primaries and caucuses. He earned his victory. Libertarians will do nothing for their cause by trying to create a convention battle. They’ll turn most Republicans, who at their base have a sense of fairness about them, against the libertarians. Nothing will bother the rank and file more than Ron Paul seemingly trying to cheat his way into the nomination. Such a move will reflect poorly not only on Paul but on libertarians as well. They will never be trusted again by the very people libertarians need to recruit if they should ever want to make a serious run at the Republican nomination in the future.
About Steven
“Most of us aren’t particularly happy about Romney’s nomination…Like it or not, he’s the nominee.” That mentality is exactly why he is. Don’t you get that?
You do realize that we the people have the power to decide who the nominee is? If you don’t like the nominee then you do something to change the nominee. The anyone but Obama mantra isn’t cutting it anymore. Ronmey is Obama who is Bush. Turn off you TV and think for yourself.
Have you watched this video. Please do.
http://onesquarelight.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/neocons-romney-ralley-cry-anyone-but-obama-a-big-joke/
There is only one real choice. I think you know who it is.
I voted for Rick Santorum for President, what more do you want? I reject the notion that Obama equals Bush. Such a position is completely contrary to facts of both administrations. Bush wasn’t as conservative as I would have liked, but he isn’t Obama. The idea that Ron Paul is the only “choice” is ridiculous and arrogant beyond belief.
Let me rephrase. If you don’t like Romney or Obama and you consider yourself a conservative there is only one real choice for president. We know you don’t like Romney and Obama and you call yourself a conservative, ergo you have one choice. Perhaps the case is that you are not a conservative in which case you should be able to sleep sound at night after casting a vote for any moderate/socialist you prefer.
Forgive me, who is that one “real” choice? The race is between Romney and Obama. The primary is over, it was over for me on Feb. 28th when Michigan voted. Like I said, I voted for Rick Santorum who I wasn’t in love with but who I preferred over Romney. I’m not going to support Ron Paul in a primary because I don’t believe in his godless libertarianism. I don’t like Romney but Obama needs to go and whether the libertarian absolutists want to admit it or not Romney isn’t as liberal as Obama. He’ll slow the tide of socialism. He won’t stop it or reverse it, no one should be under such an illusion. But he will slow it. The choice is between falling off the cliff at 100mph or 60mph. I’ll take the 60mph and hope that next time around we’ll nominate someone more conservative.
You’re also an idiot and a fool who hasn’t researched the political stratedy of Ron Paul. To say that is “underhanded” for seizing the delegates, well YOU’RE the establishment GOP…the establishment set the rules to favor a candidate regardless of the votes. Why do YOU think the 3rd party was made rellavent? You’re a Republican, not a conservative…you vote to get Obama out of office, and replace him with someone of equal or lesser value. You slander good men to simply make yourself rellavent.
Thank you for stopping by. Come again soon.
Hey man, enjoyed your article! However, I disagree with you…Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are virtually the same person. Both will balloon the debt, both will start/continue wars with other countries in the name of the military industrial complex, and both will obey what their financial supporters and lobbyists tell them to do. And both will do/say anything it takes in order to get elected.
I’m not in love with Romney and I haven’t decided whether I’ll vote for him or not. I probably will. There are differences between the two though. We’re more likely to get a good Supreme Court Justice out of Romney. We’re one vote away from overturning Roe. We have a better shot at getting that vote with Romney than with Obama.
Overturning Roe is a horrible idea. God has no place in politics. None whatsoever.
I fundementally disagree with the notion that God has no place in government. God is at the center of government, he after all ordained government. Having said that, there are plenty of arguments against abortion and the Roe decision which are not based in faith.
Let’s be more accurate here: religious freedom is at the center of our government. That’s what the founding fathers intended. This includes the freedom to have no religion.
That being said, overturning Roe is a serious setback to women’s health issues and is, again, a terrible idea. For the sake of the mother, there are cases were abortion can be warranted: rape, incest, miscarriage, unusually severe birth defects, or a high likelihood of the death of the mother. Abortions for other reasons are not such a good idea; adoption would be a better solution.
“God” had no help in determining the above. Rational thinking did.
Our nation was founded by Christians. Religious freedom means freedom to be in whichever Christian denomination one wishes to be part of. Yes, it includes being an atheist but the fact is that religious freedom at the founding was about Christian freedom.
As for abortion, it is always a setback to the baby’s health when abortion is allowed. Nowhere in the Constitution is abortion protected or even contemplated. What you’re advocating with some of this is eugenics. Who are we to determine what life is worthy of living? Is this the libertarian position?
I’m not sure where I came off as Libertarian. There’s no eugenics involved here, it’s morality, plain and simple.
Are you saying you’re OK with births by rape and incest? Or forcing women to go full term with miscarriages, or to potentially suffer death by giving birth when the woman’s life could instead be saved?
Is this the Republican position?
Forgive me for assuming as this post is more or less about libertarianism.
Anytime you talk about aborting babies who have disabilities you’re talking about eugenics. There is nothing moral about killing children, be it for mere selfish reasons or because you imagine their life isn’t worth living.
You failed to answer my questions, Steven. Point by point answers would be nice. By the way, they’re not babies (yet), nor are they children. They are fetuses, incapable of life outside the womb. But back to my questions, please.
1. I am absolutely ok with the birth of a baby conceived by rape or incest. Just because a baby is conceived in an evil manner doesn’t mean it must be met with evil in death.
2. If a baby is a miscarriage it’s already dead, I don’t know how you propose to force an already dead baby to term.
3. There’s no such thing as saving the life of a mother these days. C-sections have all but eliminated this argument, save for the absurdity of political argument.
4. The GOP position is pro-life, you’ll have to consult individual Republicans to figure out how far it goes. As for my family, we don’t believe in abortion under any circumstance.
Then our ideologies will have to agree to disagree. Thanks!
Fair enough.
The above piece displays the height of confidence.
Just wondering, if Ron Paul becomes president, what happens to all these people writing articles like these? (and there’s alot of them)
I wonder if they introspect or question their paradigm?
I wonder if they come to peace with the fact that their intellect has been severely comprimised?
Obviously, history tells us much stranger things have happened.
If Paul becomes President let me know what happened to you after the dust settled. I would be really interested to find out how your philisophy changes if you end up being completely wrong.
Heck, that kinda wrong might change a Christian to an Atheist.
Such certainty in the media today – it is fascinating.
Since Ron Paul will not be President, none of your questions are particularly relevant. My philosophy is consistent. I’m a reformed Christian and conservative Republican. I am not a libertarian and don’t hold myself out as one. Let’s pretend my piece is wrong, if I’m wrong it won’t be the first or the last time. But I don’t think I am wrong here.
I’m a Christian and a Ron Paul supporter. I’m also a state delegate in Minnesota, and we have succeeded in electing a majority of Ron Paul supporters as national delegates. Libertarianism is perfectly compatable with the Christian faith. God gave man free will. If he didn’t, he would have stopped Adam and Eve from eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, but he did not. As a result, we live in a fallen world. Choices have consequences, we reap what we sow, be it for good or for bad. If we sow good seeds we bear good fruit, if we sow bad seeds we bear bad fruit. If we work hard and act responsibly we prosper, if we do not we bring poverty upon ourselves. This is the essence of Dr. Paul’s philosophy, to let those who work hard keep the fruits of their labor, and let those who are lazy deadbeats suffer the consequences of their actions. Nobody gets bailed out by the government, each individual is responsible for their own actions. That is totally Biblical. Ron Paul is a Christian man, as proven by not only his principled actions in Congress, but in the way he also conducts his personal life. Romney, on the other hand, is not a Christian, he’s a Mormon who’s continually flip-flopped on the abortion issue. Ron Paul is 100% pro-life, as evidenced by his voting record. Those are the facts.
Libertarianism, as stated by Paul and the Austrian School which he is closely associated with, is not compatible with scripture. I’m reformed, I don’t believe in free will. The problem with libertarianism is that while Paul claims to be pro-life, he views the morning after abortion pill as perfectly acceptable and banning it would be a “unenforcable legislation of morality.” His view on homosexuals isn’t compatible with scripture either, he says he’s against homosexual marriage but we both know there are plenty of libertarian arguments for keeping the state out of marriage. For that matter there are plenty of libertarian arguments in favor of abortion. One can hear them from time to time at the Mises Institute in Alabama.
I haven’t decided whether I’ll vote for Romney or not. But I will not and did not vote for Ron Paul. God does not stand for no government. Unless Ron Paul decides he’s going to enforce God’s law and God’s law alone, there’s really no basis to say that Christians should only vote for him.
You know those of us who didn’t like the way the GOP establishment rigged the caucuses , committed voter suppression and the way the establishment media blacke out Ron Paul is a Reason why none of us will never vote for Romney , “ensuring that Obama kicks his butt” ……
Ron Paul is just using the very rules that the GOP established to prevent a takeover against them.. He studied them and is using their own rules against them.
We are taking over the party .. The old gaurd are on their way out … If Ron Paul is not the next Potus we have RAND in 2016 ….. We will Prevail
I’m not buying the media black out of Ron Paul. Paul was covered but his problem is that he was never capable of getting above 12-15% in any poll. Rick Santorum wasn’t covered until he won Iowa. So let’s not pretend that there’s some big black out of Paul based on ideology. It’s purely poll driven.
You’re failing to mention all the voter fraud along the way that helped romney shore-up those early states…Lest we forget the nevada caucus last year, where it was later admitted that they stole the victory from Paul. Using the system that was given to them to try to win the nomination is not “stealing” or “cheating” moreover, Paul has just as good, if not FAR better chance of beating obama than romney, as basically all polls suggest.
Ok, give Paul Nevada and Maine. Does that change the outcome? I highly doubt it.
Ron Paul won 8 states and Romeny has won 2 state based on conventions. The founders created a democracy and not a republic so the majority of people don’t violate the rights of the minority. If the majority voted to steal your property, the Electoral College and delegate system would prevent that from taking place.
You never voted for a President in your lifetime. The delegates and Electoral College do. If you don’t like our system then move to another country where you will have lynch mobs or become a demcorat because that is what you sound like.
Also this is also why we have a jury system, if you are accused of an unconstitutional law, the jury can aquit you. This is is known as jury nullification and the tradtition has been around since the Magna Carta.
I understand why we don’t directly elect a President in the general election. Don’t assume my opposition to Ron Paul equals ignorant of the Constitution or the founders reasons for writing the Constitution. I’ve read the Federalist Papers more than once.
The Constitution in no way dictates how parties choose their nominee for President. In theory, one of the parties could do away with their convention and simply award their nomination to whichever candidate has the most nationwide votes or wins the most states. There’s nothing in the Constitution preventing that, there’s nothing in the Constitution about how candidates get placed on the ballot.
So then there is nothing underhanded about Ron Paul’s convention victories because as you say there is nothing in the Constitution about political parties, it is whoever is in charge and Ron Paul supporters are taking charge.
Just because the Constitution doesn’t address something doesn’t mean said something cannot be underhanded. When people have voted for a candidate and the state rules award delegates based on those votes to then have another candidate swoop in and steal earned delegates is underhanded. It would be the same thing in the electoral college, if the people of Michigan vote for Obama but the electors all vote for Romney that’s underhanded and not right. It’s why most states require electors and delegates to vote in accordance with election results on the first ballot no matter who the delegate really supports.
“Just because the Constitution doesn’t address something doesn’t mean said something cannot be underhanded. When people have voted for a candidate and the state rules award delegates based on those votes to then have another candidate swoop in and steal earned delegates is underhanded. It would be the same thing in the electoral college, if the people of Michigan vote for Obama but the electors all vote for Romney that’s underhanded and not right. It’s why most states require electors and delegates to vote in accordance with election results on the first ballot no matter who the delegate really supports.”
Really what you are saying is that we should scrap the Electoral College and the RNC should scrap the delegate system and have a full direct popular vote.
I disagree, we cannot have mob rule. The majority shouldn’t vote away your rights such as gun ownership, or your right to your income, etc.
Politicians would be able to pander away these rights to a simple majority, that is wrong.
Not at all, I’m not calling for direct election of the President. The electoral college protects states. But if the people of a state vote in the majority for a certain candidate it should be expected that the electors of that state vote for the winning candidate. Likewise, if the people of a state vote in the GOP primary for a candidate another candidate should not be able to show up at a convention and steal away the delegates. Elections have to mean something otherwise they’re nothing more than straw polls.
Romney losing wouldn’t be underhanded, it would be the biggest choke job in the history of US politics even bigger than Dewey.
Romney isn’t going to lose. I think the Ron Paul people are so focused on stirring the pot on this that they cannot see the damage winning would do to their own cause. As it stands, most states require delegates to vote for the winner on the first ballot. So Ron Paul people will either be breaking the law by voting for Paul or they’re stuck voting for Romney on the first ballot. Since it won’t go to a second ballot Romney already has the race locked up.
One more thought, of course it would be underhanded. He’s won 6 million votes and was the leader in all but a couple states. For him to not win in delegates would be a travesty and the way the Paul people are going about it is underhanded even if it is within the rules. If there’s one thing Americans like it’s fair play and what Paul is up to isn’t fair or right.
Ronald Reagan nearly pulled off this delegate strategy at the 1976 National Republican Convention. He fell short of just 110 delegates even though he didn’t win that many primaries. He shook hands with Gerald Ford when it was over and united the party to beat Jimmy Carter.
President Warren G. Harding lost most primaries and caucuses in 1920 and came into the National Convention with the fewest delegates. He ended up winning the national convention and headed to the White House.
It’s impossible to compare 1920 to today because the system was completely different. As for Reagan, had he pulled off the upset he would have destroyed his own movement. He would have been resented by half the party, he would have lost the election to Carter and we never would have had him as President. It’s important to think about the consequences of a Paul win and they aren’t good.
For Harding, contrary to popular opnion, the system is not different from 1920. There is nothing in the Republican National Convention rules that makes it different.
First of all Ford lost to Carter. You have no historical proof that Ronald Reagan would have ruined his own movement had he won. If you can cite some, I’d be interested.
Harding won on the 10th ballot and only because of a smoke filled room deal. That’s quite a bit different than how it works today, what few primaries there were really didn’t matter.
As for Reagan, it’s called logic. No Republican was going to win in 1976 because of Watergate. Reagan would have been beaten, just like Ford. With Reagan’s defeat the conservative, anti-Soviet cause he championed also would have been defeated. He wouldn’t have won the 1980 nomination, being a loser and all, and we likely would have had George Bush Sr. as the nominee. He’s a far cry from Reagan.
You’re assuming it won’t go to more than one round. Have you even read the GOP Convention Rules?
Your argument about Reagan is not logic, it is your personal opinion.
I’m sorry Mike it isn’t personal opinion. You cannot ignore the dynamic of 1976 or the profound effect Watergate had on the American public. No Republican was going to win against Carter because they all were associated with Nixon.
I am certain that the GOP Convention will not have more than one round of voting. There are enough states that require delegates to vote for the primary winner to thwart any Paul takeover. He will not win and if gets close it’s a safe bet that the establishment will ensure that he does not and cannot win. The GOP will not allow an illegitimate candidate win the delegate vote. Make no mistake, Paul is the illegitimate here. He’s barely received 10% of the GOP vote, if he won he would never be accepted and he would lose in November in a landslide because the GOP will withdraw support.
Sometimes its best to live to see another day. Paul’s libertarian movement doesn’t stop in 2012 unless he illegitimately wins the nomination. Stop focusing on the minutia of Convention rules and look at the bigger picture and how a Paul win would negatively impact his movement. The libertarians cannot win in 2016 or beyond if they aren’t trusted and nothing will destroy trust more than knocking off Romney and losing to Obama. Look at the big picture.
Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy on your part! If you look at Ron Paul’s victories and call them it an upsets or a great comeback victory if he were to get nominated, which it is, the public would be excited about Republican politics because the suspensful conventions would make the best television.
You hate the libertarian movement otherwise you wouldn’t support Santorum. If Ron Paul gets the nomination, you want him to lose so the libertarian movement will go away. You’re a sore loser and you are trying to rationalize it.
Nice try!
I am absolutely against the godless libertarian movement of Ron Paul. That’s pretty clear, you only have to look at my post encouraging Christians not to vote for him. But what I’m saying still applies to the libertarian movement, it applies to any movement within either party. You can’t win with 10% of the vote and if you do via what many will view underhanded means (whether they’re permitted by the rules or not) you’ll destroy your own movement.
The big picture is getting rid of Obamacare and no one has a candle to it more than a medical physician. An obstetrician that is against abortion. Fully supports the second amendment. Want to get rid of the IRS.
As President he can pardon everyone for tax evasion, non-violent gun possession, etc. The only limitation is any impeachment against him.
The voting process is only a very small part of the picture. It’s the issues that matter most.
Wrong, that’s the short term. Getting rid of Obamacare is a short term goal with long term ramifications. For the libertarian movement (like others within the GOP) the long term goes well beyond this Presidential election and the particular issues at play this year. The long term is 4, 10, maybe 25 years down the road. That’s how long lasting grass roots coalitions are built. The libertarian to win the GOP nomination isn’t going to be Ron Paul, you guys should be focused on cultivating the next guy to run. If you want to win let me suggest he not be as annoying as Paul.
Well you just let your bias show and in the long run, Ron Paul will reduce spending much more than Romney. Romney getting rid of Obamacare is lip service. He pretend as though he wants to get rid of it but he won’t and he’ll make exucses on why he isn’t and then he will create some other program which is just as bad and neocons such as you will get behind it.
According to Rule 32 and rule 38, Ron Paul will win this nomination, I guarentee it.
I’m done wasting my time with you, so don’t expect me to reply.
I’m not a journalist, I write opinion pieces. If my bias isn’t showing than I must be doing something wrong. Whether Romney is paying lip service to repealing Obamacare remains to be seen. Frankly, the same can be said for Paul. After all, the President doesn’t repeal a bill on his own. Congress has to act first.
I hope you return in late August so we can see which of us is right. I suspect you won’t be returning when Romney wins easily.
Majority rules is always great isn’t it?
I said I won’t come back but this is FINAL esp after what I posted. Of course you won’t get it at first but if you don
‘t, I can’t help you.
Welcome back, that didn’t take long. When did I ever support majority rule? We’re not talking about general elections here, we’re talking about a private political party and how it chooses a candidate.
NOT TRUE VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!!!!!!
What isn’t true and why should I vote for Ron Paul?
After we seek the nomination with delegates, will become electoral college members and beat Obama. We are NOT a demcoracy. THESE ARE THE FACTS, GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!
I don’t recall ever suggesting we had a democracy. Having said that, the founders didn’t dictate how individual parties select their candidates. Perhaps you should get that through your head.
The founders didn’t dictate to how political parties are set up but the way they are set up is through delegates that are decided at state conventions. The delegate system is far more complicated then you make it out to be.
I understand that parties have set up elaborate delegate systems. Where I object is to your position which seemed to be that delegates were required by the Constitution. The electoral college, which we’ll vote on in November, is far different than party primaries.
One final thing, conventions are boring when you know the outcome. I think if all the candidates really stood for something and fought hard to the end then it would be worth it. Instead most of them throw in the towel only to unite as a party. We shouldbe having the best candidate chosen from well informed electorate at conventions. Informative and suspenseful, that is how it should be done.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be good sports. We should shake hands with the winner but only till after a hard fought convention.
Conventions haven’t mattered in nearly 40 years. Where have you been all this time? Conventions are little more than a dog and pony show where the end result of the Presidential race has been determined long ago. They’re basically an advertisement for the party and winning candidate, at least in terms of what’s out there for public consumption. There might be some back room platform battles but none of that will make it to the convention floor. That’s how it’s been since at least the 70′s.
Actually, you are wrong. The candidates could put up a fight but tradtionally they throw in the towel for unity or they don’t have the grassroots support to fight it out. The rules are not against what Ron Paul is doing.
I think you are just a sore loser when it comes to these convention victories by Ron Paul. It is ok to be disappointed but it is un called for to not accept the process and if you don’t like suspensful conventons then you are a coward!
Most candidates throw in the towel because they don’t have any money and someone else is clearly the winner and/or has the money to keep running. I voted for Rick Santorum, largely because I was voting against Romney. Those two earned all the Michigan delegates, Michigan Republicans didn’t support Ron Paul. And yet, at the Michigan GOP Convention Paul’s people are going to try and steal both Santorum and Romney’s delegates. That’s what I have a problem with.
I apologize for calling you a coward.
Anyway, where in the rules does it say that the national convention is a pony show?
The National Conventions have been a dog and pony show since the 50 states started holding primaries and caucuses, which largely started in the 60′s and 70′s Primaries were supposed to put an end to convention floor fights and smoke filled back room deals. They don’t guarantee that someone will get 50% of the delegates but so far it’s never been an issue. Even in 2008 the Democrats didn’t have a problem and there was an actual battle between Hillary and Obama. Ron Paul can’t even get 20% of Republicans to vote for him.
Ron Paul got the most votes in Virgin Islands but Ronney’s supporters won the delegates. We lost that fair and square but I’m not going to whine about it.
If Ron Paul should have won the Virgin Islands then he should have gotten the delegates. I’m not a Romney shill, I don’t like the guy. But he has over 6.3 million votes in the primaries, Paul only has just over 1.5 million. There should be no pathway to delegate victory for Paul based on those numbers.
“If Ron Paul should have won the Virgin Islands then he should have gotten the delegates. I’m not a Romney shill, I don’t like the guy. But he has over 6.3 million votes in the primaries, Paul only has just over 1.5 million. There should be no pathway to delegate victory for Paul based on those numbers.”
No, we should not have won the Virgin Islands. We didn’t show up to vote where it mattered most. It is our own fault we lost that one, not Romney’s.
If the people voted for Ron Paul he should get the delegates. Otherwise the election is just a meaningless straw poll.
It is a meaningless straw poll.
My bible reads “Thou shalt not judge, lest ye be judged” and yet, here you are a self proclaimed Christian judging Ron Paul and calling him Godless for him being a Libertarian. Way to be a Sunday Christian, hypocrite.
Ron Paul is the only true conservative left in this bunch, he is one of only a few politicians who want to wrest control of this country back from the elites. He is the only one that is going to BRING this country back from the brink of destruction.
Ron Paul is the savior this country has been needing for the last 100 years. And it’s people like you that can’t stand the fact that WE THE PEOPLE. Are waking up. You may, make jokes about us being Ronulans, or Paul bots. We are neither, we are people who want this country to go back to the roots it was founded upon.
To think you actually believe that Mitt Romney would do better for this country, would be anything more than Obama JR. You’re sadly mistaken, and with that I bid you a good day, and God bless you, you need it.
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (John 7:24) Since we are to interpret scripture with scripture it is fairly clear that we are to judge so long as it is righteous. Otherwise we would never be able to enforce God’s civil law. As for Ron Paul, I never said he himself was godless. I never said anything about his religion. I attacked his libertarian philosophy as godless because it is rooted in man not in God.
If you believe Ron Paul is the savior of the country you have fallen into the same leader worship trap as the people of Germany in the 30′s, the people of Russia during Stalin’s reign and the people of North Korea for the past 50 years. Ron Paul isn’t the savior of anything. He can’t even get 11% of the vote in his own party.
I have not endorsed Mitt Romney and I am not committed to vote for him. At this point, I can’t see myself voting for him. He troubles me more for his godless Mormon faith than his pandering politics. He is the sort of person who will make an illegitimate cult that has nothing to do with the Christian faith suddenly declared Christian by evangelicals who want nothing more than a Republican in the White House. Such toleration of a wicked cult is intolerable to believers who examine what the Mormons believe in the light of the Bible.
Don’t know where you got the idea Libertarianism was ‘godless’? It’s just a philosophy based on the non aggression principle and self ownership.You can be whatever you want inside just as long as you don’t lay your hands on another person except in self defense.
The libertarianism of Ron Paul, which largely comes from the Austrian School, is a godless philosophy that finds its root in the thoughts of man rather than in scripture.
Well honest weights and measures are mentioned in the bible and Paul used that in his campaign.The Constitution also mandates that only gold and silver can be used by states in the payment of debts and no emitting of bills of credit (paper money).Paul also has his statement of faith on his website or did last time I looked.It’s up to christians to follow scripture but not to impose their morality by law.God knows mens’ hearts,I don’t.I maintain my existence by my own thoughts every day.Government is pure force and attracts the worst kinds of people.I want a minimal government as anything else inevitably leads to ever increasing tyranny.
The problem with Paul is that his philosophy doesn’t come from scripture but rather it comes from Mises, Rothbard and Hayek. According to Paul’s libertarian philosophy man is trustworthy, the banning the morning after baby killing pill is an “unenforceable legislation of morality” and homosexual marriage is a “state” issue. In short, while Paul may appeal to scripture at times the fact is his philosophy is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
I’m sorry Steven, but you can’t say you understand the difference between a republic and a democracy when you continue to wish or think that the straw poll is is or should be binding in some way. A republis is purposely designed NOT to work like this. Here is an actual piece of journalism that should set you straight:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/may/10/why-cant-romney-win-delegates-ron-paul/
How a private political party determines its candidates is not a matter for debating the difference between a democracy and a republic. Why can’t you understand this. The GOP could have a direct election of its nominee, it could decide that a committee of 9 people decides it or it could pick its nominee through a complicated delegate system. But of course, we aren’t talking about government here we’re talking about a private political party.
All of this is moot anyway now that Paul has dropped out of the race.
The republican party model its candidate selection process after (surprise, surprise) … a REPUBLIC!!! The reason for the delegate process is to avoid mob rule and so that the voters are somewhat educated before voting rather than going with whoever the mainstream media shoves down their throat. Again Steven, this is very basic stuff. As for Ron Paul’s campaign, it has not ended – more misinformation I’m afraid.
Except that the GOP isn’t a republic, it’s a party. These days the delegate game is largely a show to make it appear like the Convention actually matters. It will be the same this year, it’s just a dog and pony show.
Only the Ronulans believe his campaign goes forward.
Who said it was a Republic? – I said it was “modelled” on one – as for the dog and pony show – this time around the dog’s getting put down and the pony out to pasture. It’s only the RoMulans that do not realise that the revolution will not be televised. Don’t worry though, you’ll come along for the ride, albeit kicking and screaming.
You’re the one dropping terms like democracy and republic while talking about the GOP nomination. You never used the term modelled.
As for the GOP Convention, your boy Paul has already dropped out and has so much as said there is no pathway to victory. The Ronulans might cause a stink over the platform but no one has ever been bound to follow the platform.
I’m about as likely to vote for Ron Paul in November as I am Mitt Romney. In short, not very likely. I have every intention of providing commentary during the GOP Convention and if I’m kicking and screaming it’s because a liberal is the nominee.
wow – and I quote “The republican party MODEL its candidate selection process…”
As for your statement on Ron Paul – again, mainstream misinformation – he hasn’t dropped out – them are just the facts
What wasn’t what you initially said. As for Paul, he so much as admits that he has no chance at getting the necessary delegates to win. In fact, he seems to be concerned with and distancing himself from the out of control Ronulans at state party conventions. You guys are setting your own movement back in a short sighted attempt to force the GOP to nominate Paul.
if the republican republic-like rules are followed, no force necessary…
incredible to see paul in tampa – i remember hundreds of articles saying he wouldn’t come close to tampa
But he isn’t close to winning. That he’ll make an appearance in Tampa isn’t a shock, all of the former candidates will appear.
don’t need to win – just need romney to not hit the 1144 which he won’t (he hasn’t even topped 400 delegates yet) – then comes the brokered convention – then comes the fun
Are you just after chaos or do you have some reason why you want a chaotic convention? Who do you imagine would emerge at a brokered convention? Surely you don’t believe Ron Paul would win. So you must have someone else in mind. Who?
Incidentally your own candidate says Romney is less than 200 away.
The candidate who is going to emerge at a brokered convention will be the candidate who gets the most votes from all of those fresh and newly unbound delegates.
You’re right – 200 away (according to the msm – no point in arguing or looking at any sources that might suggest entirely different numbers…)
Romney should just sit back and relax eh? It’s a done deal.
(head towards the sky whistling)
So citing the Ron Paul campaign is unacceptable to you? Not even Ron Paul can be believed anymore. What has the world come to? I get the feeling though that you’re not really a Ron Paul guy as much as you’re a chaos guy.
You were not citing Ron Paul. You were citing Ron Paul citing the Associated Press.
I think that they are quite happy to remain underestimated and misrepresented rather than spend their energy and time disputing the continual onslaught of misinformation being spread by the msm.
The blackout, the downplaying, the suggestion that RP has suspended his campaign – they know this is all a silly and pointless battle and certainly not the battle that’s going to win them the nomination.
A brokered convention and unbound delegates on the other hand…
So when Ron Paul assents to the AP assertion that Romney is less than 200 delegates away from winning outright we aren’t to take that seriously because he’s citing someone else. When Paul says he’s suspending his campaign he isn’t actually suspending it and to suggest otherwise is to believe msm lies.
I’m quite tired of hearing Ronulans complain about a media blackout. Rick Santorum didn’t get any media attention until he won Iowa. In fact, prior to Iowa Paul got a lot more media attention than Santorum did. Then Santorum won and then he got more media coverage. If Ron Paul wanted media attention he should have gone out and won a primary. Instead he came in third or fourth most of the time and in several early states he did worse than 2008. But for some reason the media is supposed to give the 4th place candidate unwarranted attention.
Santorum won a state with an actual media blackout, stop whining about the media and actually get on the ground and convince voters Paul is the guy. His people like to talk big and bad online but they’re largely talking to themselves or people who have already made up their mind they don’t like Paul. The way to win is to reach undecided voters and Paul’s campaign never did that. The evidence is in the primary results and Paul’s consistant inability to get more than 15% of GOP support in the polls. You want media coverage, go do what Santorum did and win a state in their primary.
You may not like the fact that what the msm is telling you is incorrect but that does not make it correct.
You may not like all the “whining” about the blackout but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist – again, if you do your research you will find that it is well and truly obvious.
There is a power structure in place and it is petrified of RP’s message. If you cannot see this sir, then you are both naive and in denial.
Steven, I’m not going to do your homework for you. Suffice it to say you clearly need to do some.
89 seconds. John Stewart. Honest mistake. Few easy ones for you.
Fact: no one paid any attention to Santorum before Iowa. Fact: Santorm was dismissed as an irrelevant candidate who couldn’t get more than 5% of the vote. Fact: during this period Ron Paul received far more media play than Santorum. Fact: even without media play Santorum won in Iowa. If you want to win it takes a lot more than media play. Santorum proved that in Iowa.
Fact: the above are not facts – Santorum recieved 10x the coverage RP did.
I’m sorry Craig, you’re going to have to prove that Santorum received 10x the coverage Paul did prior to Iowa. Santorum couldn’t even get asked a question during the debates back then because he was polling 2-3%. That he got 10x the coverage of Paul is absurd. So prove it.
I personally watched every single debate – Paul scored last for talk-time every single time – and usually, by a substantial margin.
I watched all the debates as well and you’re way off. Paul had plenty of time to talk, he had more time than Santorum during most if not all of the pre-Iowa Caucus debates.
http://www.infowars.com/scientific-study-confirms-ron-paul-being-given-least-face-time-in-debates/
You’ve shown us three debates. What is now shown here is the disproportionate amount of time spent on Ron Paul during the foreign policy debate in November. In fact, it is the foreign policy debate that effectively destroyed Paul’s chance of winning. There are a lot of conservatives who are willing to go along with Paul’s economic policy but his foreign policy is what scared everyone off.
Even if we go along with this three debate sample, Paul hardly had 10 times the coverage of Rick Santorum. Newt barely had more face time than Paul. Mind you this assumes infowars is accurate.
It’s the same bias for all the debates and I didn’t say 10x in the debates, I said 10x altogether. Debates have to have the illusion of fairness unlike the rest of the msm’s biased reporting. This is where it truly falls off the cliff. it’s all there – you just have to look for it.
I’m aware of media bias but Ron Paul was hardly singled out for bias. Romney was clearly the media darling both at Fox and at the mainstream networks. The bias was against anyone not named Romney or the #2 guy. Had Paul gotten up into Bachmann territory in September or Cain territory in October, he would been focused on more. But the fact is, he didn’t get to the #2 position in the polls. The fact is that despite very little media coverage Santorum worked Iowa and won the Caucus. Until Paul can do something like that, I really don’t care to hear about media bias. Media didn’t win Iowa for Santorum, hard work on the ground did.
So now you accept the bias. Even using your criteria, Paul was in 2nd over Huntsman, Bachman and Gingrich on many occasions and was not mentioned at all – Jon Stewart did a classic piece on this exact scenario. It was blatant. He was in the #2 spot many times though you wouldn’t have known it.