Shared publicly  - 
 
Lol, uh... did you not get the memo that +Mitt Romney won the nomination? Where's +Ron Paul at? Is he dropping out, or will he be the GOP's "Ralph Nader?"
1
Mark Koschwitz's profile photoWard A's profile photoMatt “Big Hustle” Champion's profile photoArthur “TheAlchemyst” Gwynne's profile photo
45 comments
 
a) Paul's currently winning in 7-10 states at least, why would he drop out. b) doesn't matter anyways, he's packing 3k-6k people at each rally, 4-6 a week.

His political movement is growing, the GOP is getting overrun - soon, the GOP will be our party and we can kick out the neocons and theocrats

Gingrich, meanwhile, was being bitten by penguins and his biggest event in the past few months was at a diner with 3 dozen people attending
Ward A
 
But we all know that doesn't matter right now. It's politics. RP can gather all the people he wants - there are more far right folks than these people that will vote for him. His point is moot right now - just like last year. If he's doing these every year to gain supporters; fine. But at the end of the day he's taking his supporters' money to lose. And that doesn't seem like a good value in a candidate to me.
 
If he can gather all the people he wants, why do you hear stories about a few dozen people gathering for such and such event, but you never see the thousands of people at his rallies on the news? What could 'they' be so afraid of?

Don't worry Ward, you can keep pretending like Dr Paul doesn't matter. The rEVOLution will continue on. I don't think we'll hack the GOP enough to win the POTUS nomination at this point, but hopefully we'll get to choose his running mate. 2014 is our next point of action, as we take over the GOP machines (look at IA, AK, LA, MA, NV, CO, and MN for examples of our success so far) we'll be putting Liberty folk into power in the party
Ward A
 
+Arthur Gwynne Who says they are afraid? That comment reminds me of the dude in Santa Rita jail saying: "Omg, are they separating us because we have that much power and we'll corrupt the jail?!" No. It's because they'll beat your candy ass if you come at them talking that commune shit to a buncha niggas in jail.

RP... they're not reporting on him because he doesn't have the capital that Mittington Romneython has. jakdshnaisudhjasfn

I wish my brain would wake up so I could continue this argument with you as I usually do. But fuck, I had to bounce from Occupy Oakland last night so I didn't get arrested.
 
If it's easier for you to deal with folks like me by thinking we're a marginalized minority, that's fine. Sometimes it takes a while for new realities to seep in. The real question will be, when you are presented with the new reality, do you keep running into the shrinking shadows of ignorance, or will you eventually accept it?
Ward A
 
Why accept an alternate reality that I don't agree with?
 
He sucks at straw polls, for sure (although he didn't do too shabby in VA). I'm not contesting that. But like I said, he's won the majority of delegates now from 7 states (IA, CO, AK, MA, ME, MN, LA), and is the only POTUS candidate who is consistently packing rallies with thousands and thousands of supporters - order of magnitude difference from anyone else.
 
Ron Paul is doing real good on the Internets, but he didn't vote against CISPA so he's just as fake as all the other GOP candidates.
 
+Arthur Gwynne You should be glad that the mainstream media doesn't cover a lot of Ron Paul events. The best thing that Ron Paul supporters could do to help him is to shut the fuck up and let the man make his points on his own.

He has some good ideas but everything he says is overshadowed by the moonbats and lunatics in his fan base who act as if he's the second coming of Christ and merge his talking points in with their personal racist and/or religious beliefs.
 
+Matt Champion I don't know who you've been interacting with. I hope that isn't the case - I don't know any Paulites like that. The last thing we need is to be co-opted by the neocons and theocrats like the Teaparty was

+Even Sandve sorry he was too busy speaking to crowds of thousands rather than make a protest vote that would do nothing to stop anything
 
By the same logic you are not going to vote in the Election, Ron Paul will never win, so why bother right?
 
I voted for him in the primaries. Obviously if he wins the GOP nom I'll vote for him, but barring that I'll probably be voting for Gary Johnson. If I had something to do that would have a more positive effect than a protest vote for a Libertarian, then I'd do it
 
+Arthur Gwynne I've been interacting with the folks who call into the conservative talk radio station here in St. Louis. The morning drive time guy is a Paul supporter but regularly argues with other Paulites because they call in with all kinds of off the wall insane shit.

Hell, look at what you've posted in this discussion. Stating that the media doesn't cover Ron Paul because they're afraid? Accusing +Ward Anderson of being close-minded because he doesn't think Ron Paul is the savior of the USA?

Handwaving Paul's not voting down CISPA even though he's been outspoken about it being evil is burying your head in the sand.He should be doing his job and voting down what he believes is wrong. Calling it a 'protest vote' is ignoring the fact that his job is to vote on bills and he refused to do his job.
 
But that's OK, +Ward Anderson. Ron Paul doesn't have to cast protest votes. Meanwhile if Ron Paul is not winning the election I'll vote for someone who no one has ever heard of because I want to protest the two party system.
 
Actually he didn't oppose CISPA in full, he supported some amendments that would have ensured our rights weren't steamrolled. But in general, I understand and accept his reasoning for not bothering to vote on it.

As for the kooks and fundies who are part of the camp, I mostly interact with G+ Paulites. Perhaps we are a bit more liberal and modern than other slices of life, or perhaps I weed out the racists and assholes as I go along, not too sure.

I do know that one of the great things about our community is we are constantly challenging each other as to what Liberty means. If I run into a Paulite who thinks that the Church should be given more political power, or who think mandatory Unions aren't a bad idea, or who think that preemptive war isn't all that bad, or whatever - we are able to have a positive and growthful debate about the topic. I myself enjoy mixing in people of all viewpoints to ensure we don't hit an echo chamber (hence why I keep dragging poor +Ward Anderson into these uncomfortable situations)
 
While many Republicans have supported CISPA, many in the Libertarian wing of the party have opposed it. Ron Paul called it “Big Brother writ large” and “essentially an internet monitoring bill that permits both the federal government and private companies to view your private online communications with no judicial oversight–provided, of course, that they do so in the name of ‘cybersecurity.’ “

Read more: http://techland.time.com/2012/04/30/the-breakdown-who-supports-cispa-and-who-doesnt/#ixzz1tj2DOPtP
Ward A
+
1
2
1
 
Lol +Arthur Gwynne you're not dragging me anywhere. We're trolling each other. I'll respond more shortly. Just hopped off the train and lol'd
 
What was his complaint about the amendment? Unless i'm mistaken, it prevents the government from using info gathered for cyber security reasons to build a regulatory case against them and prevents private companies (ISPs) from being forced to share info with the government. Those don't sound sinister to me.

It also doesn't excuse the fact that he should be a senator first and foremost, voting on these bills regardless of whether he's in the minority or not. This is a problem that I have with ALL members of the house/senate, I'm not just pointing fingers at Paul.
 
No, he supported the amendments. But I got you. I can't do anything to defend that other than I think he has more important work right now to do than be Dr No
Ward A
 
But what is he doing right now that's so important not winning? He was elected to do a job and he's not doing it, period.
 
.... are you leading me on a circular argument for a reason? He's doing rallies with thousands of people, fomenting the rEVOLution
 
How exactly did you 'get me'? He disagreed with the majority of the bill yet didn't vote it down. He should be doing his job, not running a failing re-election bid.
Ward A
 
What is this rEVOLution going to do exactly? Vote for Ron Paul?
 
nope. again, I am repeating myself here, so let me just copy and paste from above:

"His political movement is growing, the GOP is getting overrun - soon, the GOP will be our party and we can kick out the neocons and theocrats"

" I don't think we'll hack the GOP enough to win the POTUS nomination at this point, but hopefully we'll get to choose his running mate. 2014 is our next point of action, as we take over the GOP machines (look at IA, AK, LA, MA, NV, CO, and MN for examples of our success so far) we'll be putting Liberty folk into power in the party"
Ward A
 
You guys keep throwing around the word Liberty as if it's a term that only y'all can use. It's like when the GOP calls themselves patriots and anyone that doesn't agree Liberals or Terrorists. Fantastic! What does Liberty mean to you in your own words?

Y'all didn't win those states... https://www.google.com/search?aq=1&oq=Ron+Paul+Primaries+&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ron+paul+primaries+results He lost every single state. What?! I don't even...

I understand that you're saying: "We're trying to get more backing because we are the rational people. We need more folks to think like us, and see the truth in Ron Paul. The more we have, the more we can influence. And if we get enough people to rEVOLt against the GOP, we might be able to become the most useless person on the ticket Vice President nomination and get a foot in the White House." I understand that. But you're riling a base that will only vote for him, and those votes detract from mainly the GOP. Which, will make my President win.
 
+Misha Belle if you mean the Paul supporters within the GOP, yes. We've placed supporters as chairmen of both IA and AK recently, more and more taking over positions every day. Those were the two that made my news cycle, not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes tbh
Ward A
 
+Arthur Gwynne and what electoral votes do those states carry?

IA - 6
AK - 3
LA - 8
MA - 11
NV - 6
CO - 9
MN - 10

So he won, what, one liberal state in a GOP primary? Can he win that liberal state vs a Democratic Incumbent? No... How many did he lose though?

Also: You posted the same link twice for LA / MA.


http://i.imgur.com/yy9bB.png
 
you are always free to do your own Googling ;p

So what, now winning in 10 states doesn't matter? Then why were you so adamant that he wasn't doing it?

total delegates:

IA - 28
AK - 27
LA - 46 (some tied to straw poll)
MA - 41
NV - 28 (some tied to straw poll)
CO - 36
MN - 40
ME - 24 (forgot a link I'm sure you can find it yourself)
Ward A
 
Electoral votes, not delegates is what I'm asking. (And I provided the result). Yes, sure, he won 10 states. Good work! That's great, but at the end of the day he got steam rolled. In what order did he win these states?

He's all about Liberty and all that shit, but doesn't vote on NDAA because he's campaigning... And he was losing at that time. Spending money to keep losing. I think the money spent on his travels and campaigning won't materialize into any solid movement to get him as the nominee for the GOP in my lifetime. He's about at the age where no one is going to vote for him. Four more years and he'll be 80. Sorry, and you may love him for his ideas and all that shit - but no one is going to vote for an 80 year old to run the country. He'll start becoming more senile like John McCain and it's a wrap.
 
they're still rolling in, it's the caucus states. If you want to watch something important, I'd keep an eye on CA and TX coming up
 
Electoral votes for the general election you mean? That's neither here nor there. General Election is a whole different monster for Paul
 
I made bacon wrapped eggs this morning for breakfast. It was fuckin' delicious.

Ron Paul would also think it's delicious
 
I materialized a solid movement a few minutes ago +Ward Anderson. I named it Ron Paul and watched it rEVOLve in the swirling water as it rushed off to not cast protest votes.
Ward A
 
I think I just came up with my new argument against Ron Paul aside all of the other shit I've said: He's going to be 80 at the next election. Y'all need another whacky successor.
 
You changed my mind, +Ward Anderson. I want to vote for him now. He'll have just enough time to isolate the US from rest of the world so that when Kim Jong Paul dies his divinely blessed son Kim Rand Paul can take over his spot as GLORIOUS PRESIDENT.
 
yeah, that's a big problem actually. A lot of it is honestly personality cult (take what you will of that admission)

His son Rand is the 'obvious' successor, which I do not actually support. He's a lot more... teaparty-ey than I like, and almost has a sliminess to him. The fact that his succession is supported by MSM and Congress also really concerns me.

I personally think Justin Amash is the one who deserves it, but frankly as long as we don't see the rEVOLution turn into the same shitbag that the Teaparty did we'll be ok.
 
The idea is kill all the unConstitutional shit (like the Fed Depts) and end all the unConstitutional wars (all of them)

Then budget wise we've got this: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Whether or not Congress approves the budget or makes up their own doesn't matter - he won't spend a dime more than he would consider Constitutional and no one can force him to spend money on things he doesn't want to spend money on
 
What he's saying is that because not enough people are on board to effect change at local/state levels, the 'plan' is to elect someone who will force those changes on the system from the top.

In other words, they want to do the same thing they complain about the Reps and Dems doing: Casting down orders that the majority doesn't agree with from up on high.
 
I must admit that's exactly what I used to believe +Matt Champion. However I've since seen an enormous influx of people who support Dr Paul entering low-level politics. They're running for state and federal congress. They're running for GOP chairs. They're running for AG and police chief and freaking dog catcher.

I never really got it til now that the rEVOLution isn't about putting Dr Paul at the POTUS - and I've got a sneaking suspicion that wasn't the point in the first place.
Add a comment...