Shared publicly  - 
Do you think Ron Paul should drop out?
Jack Lathrop's profile photoLauchlin MacGregor (Lauch)'s profile photoTony Camero's profile photoJames Massa's profile photo
I think he should drop out and put his support behind Gary Johnson.
Rich S
Ron Paul opposes views held by both Romney and Obama. He's very well aware that he has no chance of winning the presidency, but as long as he's getting airtime, he's able to spread his message.

When you see Romney campaigning, he'll reference "Obama's failed policies", but won't actually reference any facts. If you watch Ron Paul speeches, he tends to focus on explicit solutions, rather than on vague attacks. And as long as he gets media attention, he has a platform from which to preach.
That's the thing, no one knows he's running or sees his speeches. He should do his ACTUAL job and do something with the position he was elected to.
Romney and Obama are the same. So who cares?
I'm fine with people wanting Paul to stay in, and those who want him to bow out.....I'd be happier if people actually realized that there are other parties worth looking at and other candidates worth voting for. +Gary Johnson is worth spending time learning about....especially for those who think that Ron Paul is the only candidate who speaks truth.
Ron Paul supporters will still be campaigning for him long after Romney is sworn into office. Denial is a wonderful thing...
He's still running? I will miss the Rumpelstiltskin jokes if he ever "drops out."
Ron Paul will never drop out, even after the Election is over.
It's not about defeating Obama for him. Ron Paul hardly has the same agenda as the Republicans so it's more about bringing the libertarian philosophy to the table. He's the first person in politics in possibly forever that actually represents libertarians and anarchists.

Though since he joined the Republicans I think he's made libertarianism seem more unrealistic since he's let slip a few hypocrisies.
Hasn't he? I haven't heard his name in months. I thought he died.
Go back to your warm beer dickweed...
I really don't care about Ron Paul anymore. His ideas are just rehashed rhetoric we've been hearing from pseudo-libertarians for a long time now.
This guy +Paul Hill almost defines the concept of Paul-tard. Absolutely clueless to nuance and rude about it to boot. Also, anybody who types "I'm not an ARROGANT FUCK" non-ironically needs to get checked for autism.
Please, keep posting, I'm feeling lazy and I need an easy target.
Where exactly is this "true capitalism" that you speak of padawan? Give us the global co-ordinates. Point it out to us so that we may all go there and look at it's wonders this place where nobody gets a government support check and corporations act solely as responsible citizens. Surely it's light must shine like a beacon.
The guys a obgyn he knows what hes talking about
Right. So many governments operate without taxation. Sorry but scrapping income taxes is the worst idea ever. We've been trying that in steps for thirty years and it doesn't work. If low taxes were the magic beans of full employment Mexico would be begging for U.S. immigrants but it doesn't work that way.

Periods of relatively higher taxes on the wealthy correspond with greater economic growth in the U.S.. Look it up.
Romney will not win. End of story. Republicans need to welcome the Libertarian movement that Paul believes in, and helped to start with the Tea Partiers in 2008. Neo-Conservatism will be the death of the GOP
According the RNC Rule 38 no state is allowed to force a delegate to vote for a particular candidate. In other words, there is no such thing as a bound delegate at the state convention. This was upheld in court back in 2008 by the RNC when a McCain delegate wanted to vote for Romney instead (Ironic, huh). As of 5/29/2012 that means that Romney only had 600 delegates to Ron Pauls 200 with nearly 1300 delegates to be determined at state conventions. I don't think Romney is going to get the number required to win on the first ballot. After that ... all hell is going to break loose. Ron Paul has won the majority of delegates in Maine, Massachusetts, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, and Nevada. It is too close to call who won in Virginia, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Anyone that claims it is over doesn’t know how the system works.
+Lou Gagliardi You're correct, they either don't know or don't care about details that get in the way of their narrative. Just like with Duke Lacrosse, Kathie Gifford, Dharun Ravi, and Trayvon Martin ... why let facts get in the way of a good story.
This statement cracked me up:
"Why does he need to support evolution? It doesn't exactly happen in one life time.. not going to make a difference to a maximum of 8 years of presidency.. lol"

Ok - so if it does not directly affect me, then I should just ignore it....brilliant strategy!! I can't stop laughing.
+Lou Gagliardi I know, it's too bad all the facts, rules, and laws support my side of the arguement because I would of loved a debate on the subject. Unfortunetly this would be too close to trying to convice a flat earther that the Earth is a sphere.
+Lou Gagliardi I think Ron Paul matters, and I do think he's brought attention to a GOP who has strayed from it's conservative values.

This election has taught me one main thing - over-generalization kills kittens. Poor silly kittens....whether it be those gays or those Ron Paul supporters or those Occupy Wall Street hippies or those Conservative Christian wackos or those birthers or those Socialists.....yep.....we should think about the kittens
+Lou Gagliardi Like I said, flat earth society. All your bigot claims were thoroughly repudiated by multiple investigations and are only believed today by pseudo intellectuals like yourself. When the president of the NAACP comes out to defend you from the charges of “racism” then the battle is over man, let it go. In almost every state convention thus far, Ron Paul has come out with 50% or more of the delegates. Hell, that so-called “official” count still has all Massachusetts delegates going to Romney when Paul won nearly all of them at the state convention. How are you going to stand there and try to debate me with incorrect figures, hearsay, and your opinion? The ONLY thing that matters are the facts and you aren’t offering any.
Fortunately for Paul supporters - the race isn't over. The way delegates are given, Paul still has a chance to win over the required delegates to have them vote his way. Will they? who knows..we won't find out till the convention, but saying there is absolutely no truth to the notion is short sighted.

My biggest complaint is that Paul running as a Republican has taken away from the Libertarian party, which is really what Paul should be running as....but I digress.
+Lou Gagliardi Why should facts matter? "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

Facts are all that matters. Romney doesn't have the magic number yet and saying he does doesn't change the facts ... yours or the medias. When you actually have facts to counter or break that statement then please feel free to continue. Else you are just engaging in the childish game of arguing for the sake of arguing.

As far as libertarians are concerned (nice deflection from the argument you were losing badly), that unborn child has the same rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as everyone else. It isn’t that child’s fault that the mother made a choice she regretted. It’s like a gambler that rolls the dice and then wants to abort the debt he/she racked up. Life doesn’t work that way and neither should the law. Women have the right to keep their legs closed. When THAT right is violated I can understand some leeway, but unless that right has been violated or there is some major medical reason ... then that woman made her choice. The baby didn't and letting government decide where the line is drawn when you are granted so-called "Natural" rights (Life, Liberty, ect ... in case you needed to be reminded) is the biggest mistake mankind could ever make.
+Lou Gagliardi - I'm not going to waste my time and go back to read some ignoramus' statement (which offended you)... but I assure you, I as a libertarian, as do the majority, have the highest regard for an individual's right to choose for themselves. It's the basis of libertarian philosophy. Cheer up, not everyone is an asshole. :)
PEOPLE: Ron Paul is quietly collecting a MAJORITY of delegates to the Republican National Convention.Duh!

The guy COULD ACTUALLY WIN the GOP Nomination on the floor...

+Lou Gagliardi As expected, you ignore what was said and claim ignorance as your defense. I would suggest you look up the word leeway on your own time as your entire retort is factually false by what was already written. The whole Pro Choice movement is the only one I know of where it is argued that less information is the best course of action for all those involved, so it shouldn't really surprise me that you don't want to be (or can't be) educated.
It's the 21st century Mr Gagliardi, it’s pretty much universally understood where babies come from and how they are made. The reasons why a woman chooses to have sex is their own business, but it doesn’t change the fact that they made a choice and know that a baby is a predictable statistical probability. Or are you arguing that women don’t have the right to keep their legs closed because if they do they are all sluts? Gee, Mr Gagliardi, if I was female I might find that point of view offensive.
I would recommend not trying to twist your arguments together in order to cover up the lack of subject matter in your arguments. It only makes you look more foolish.
+Lou Gagliardi Which claim would that be, Mr Gagliardi. There is no context to your statement, in fact it is so generic that it could be applied to anything. Certainly not something you want to do when trying to make a point ... if that was what you were attempting to do.
+Lou Gagliardi As for your continuing lack of reading comprehension or lack of knowing what leeway means, I already said that should the right to keep ones legs close is violated or if there are major medical complications that exceptions (synonym of leeway) would be understood. Did your brain somehow blot that out of my original statement in order to fit the narrative that you were somehow going to play the pseudo intellectual hero?
+Lou Gagliardi No Mr Gagliardi, it is you who have performed the comprehension fail long, long ago.
+Lou Gagliardi When the only thing you can write is insults, you have lost the arguement. I feel sorry for humanity when it can't learn from its mistakes and failures, like the ones you have committed on this subject. I wish you well.
No, you are upset that I brought sourced facts into an argument you were waging with hearsay and opinions. An argument in which you lost and then attempted to cover-up by muddy the waters and dragging this into a debate on women’s rights. After you realized that the very thing you have been ostracizing me about for the last hour was the result of bad reading comprehension on your part, you became embarrassed. Now you are trying to do the equivalent of "running to teacher" and pulling off a sob story thinking that this would somehow manipulate me. I am sorry to disappoint you, but my values are fixed and beyond encroach.
You don't seem to understand ... I never said I wanted you to change your support; all I have done since I began was point out how misinformed you are. What I did wasn't for you, it was for people that may read this, mistake you as informed, and actually listen to you.

All that matters to you is your opinions and you don't want to hear differently. You sound like a child who is threatening to hold his breath. I really don't think any political party really needs someone that makes broad generalizations, willing to create arguments where there are none (or just has bad reading comprehension), and doesn't care about the facts.

Actually, that last part should disqualify you from everything from Jury Duty to holding a job above Janitor.
I stated RNC rules as to why Ron Paul still has a chance to deny Romney a first round ballet victory at the RNC and even show case president where the GOP not only acknowledged this rule, but were the ones fighting for it. Yet you considered this biased information because it was from a republican source ... about their rules ... of their convention. You stopped making sense a long, long time ago.
I also stated state convention results from 10 different states that showed Ron Paul with at least 50% or more of the delegates from states where he lost the popular vote, but I guess Google news is also a biased source.
These facts won't stop you though, all +Lou Gagliardi knows how to do is change the subject and add new tangential arguments in an attempt to squeeze out some twisted sense of victory. I personally can't wait to see where the temper tantrum takes him next.
Add a comment...