GOP Would Rather Lose Than See Ron Paul Nominated

Whatever the excuses are, it doesn't change the reality of it.

Of course, every other thread here is about him, and everyone can pretty much see the effort to "bump" and keep those threads to the top. That would explain why those that are NOT for him comment.

I suppose we could do like some seem to be doing, and blame it on "dumb Americans" for not knowing any better and/or not knowing what the Constitution is. I wouldn't think that's a good strategy though.

 

I don't think most Americans are dumb, I think they are mislead. My personal experience tells me that given say, thirty minutes, to fully explain Ron Paul and his views, without the spin, that at least 75% of people are interested and want to know more, and that most of those people end up being Ron Paul supporters. I've personally converted my brother, my mother, my friends Mike, Mike, Andy, and Steve, and just found out Mike has his father supporting Ron Paul. The only failures so far have been my father who is a politically apathetic northerner who is probably voting for Guiliani just because he was mayor of New York, and a few friends who don't care about politics at all anyway.

 

I think its the converse that is true, actually. The left would love the GOP to nominate RP to ensure a loss. Cuz as everyone knows that would be the outcome. Put down your RP koolaid and face reality.

 

Who said anything about 'dumb' not following politics or knowing the constitution does not equal being dumb, it's just a simple fact most Americans do not follow politics are trully know or ever read the constitution.

The reality was a simple man noticed him, at first thought he was a nut until someone explained some of the things to him. Once this was done the guy understood his message a bit more instead of dismissing it.

Not all Americans follow politics, very few actually follow it that deeply at all.

 

70% of the American public wants us out of Iraq, so your solution to win the general is to nominate a pro-war candidate? That's genius!

History has shown us that in most presidential elections, the more moderate of the two candidates usually wins the election. Hillary represents FAR LEFT thinking and dogma. Most of the GOP candidates represent FAR RIGHT thinking (preemptive war, fervently pro-choice, fervently anti-gay). Ron Paul has a lot of issues that resonate with both sides: he has traditional Republican values, but at the same point has ideas that the Democrats can support, or at a minimum, hate less.

One example of this is abortion: he's fervently pro-choice, but his "leave it to the states" philosophy will certainly win more moderate/on-the-fence votes than some of the far right like Huckabee or Thompson. His stance on the war has already attracted a lot of people to register Republican who were not Republican -- they want both a Republican candidate and someone willing to admit Iraq is a clusterfuck, and they like that; these are people against the war, but alienated by the Democrats.

If you think the solution to the opposition running a politically radical candidate is to also run a politically radical candidate, go for it, but it's why the Democrats lost the election in 2004. Also keep in mind, the religious right that supported Bush in 2000, and 2004, will NOT support a candidate like Romney/Guiliani. The difference this time around is most of America is willing to give Democrats some more time to fuck stuff up, as they have only had the reins two years with a stubborn President and split Congress. If you run a politically far right candidate, America will have 4 years of Hillary. Only with someone who has ideas that both sides can appreciate have the Republican gotten a chance in 2008.

 

Curious. If that 70% -really- wanted us out why aren't we out? Surely the democrats aren't scared of that huge majority are they?

About as clueless as it gets here. Hillary is hardly "far left" - at worst she is cold and calculating with a little socialism mixed in, but certainly she is not far left - but ron paul is very much at the far right (he is libertarian after all). I'd also disagree that your definition of "far right" is accurate at all. But that's another topic.

But I do think its quite humorous that you are painting Paul as a moderate, when clearly he is the anti-thesis of what a big government democrat would vote for. Step off the single issue and accept that his support comes from several distinct small groups - truthers, anti-israel types (of various styles), and star wars geeks who want a candidate.

Oh and dont forget that terrorist sympathizers -heart- Ron Paul

http://muslimsvoteronpaul.com/

 

Because your country is run by a corrupt cabal that doesn't listen to what its citizens say.

 

So you and lorien1973 are helping Ron Paul. I guess there is always hope

 

There was a recent head to head poll, and Paul's issues confront Hillary better than any other Republican.

Don't believe the 2% polling #s. Pollsters are notorious for fixing the results, and Paul has been left off several polls, with his 2% showings being "write in" votes.

RP just spent 1.1 million on TV advertising, and is set to spend another 430k on radio.

Remember, remember, the 5th of November. This 11/5 might be the biggest single day of fund raising in Presidential campaign history.

 

I think you mean "EVERY country".....

 

Touche. Every country with a central bank fo' sho

 

Been reading some Freeper feedback from the debate last night. One thing I found interesting was that the Freepers could applaud the mainstream media for having the sense to marginalize Paul and limit his speaking time, but at the same point, denounced mainstream media as trying to hide real conservatives like Hunter and to a lesser extent Thompson, in a liberal attempt to get a less conservative nominee (like Guiliani or Romney) elected so Hillary would win.

Does anyone besides me see that as a little bit crazy? So the MSM is rightfully limiting Paul, but this mainstream media is being liberal trying to "hide" Hunter? Wow they are insane over there.

 

Thought I would add, that if the GOP doesn't play this right, Paul might still run third party and gain the Libertarian, Reform and Constitutional Party endorsements, and a 10% finish is not unrealistic, spoiling the election in the Democrats favor.

Funny when someone subverts the neocons. Kinda ironic.

 

He should run no matter what. I think it's quite clear they would never support him if he were the nominee. And what difference does it make if Giuliani or Clinton or Romney wins? The only one who will make a difference is Ron Paul. That's why they ignore him, and when that doesn't work they attack him.

 

I think you will see the party rally around the candidate even the Christians.

Except for Giuliani.

 

My personal favorite part of this all is the way we back up support. There are two huge factors in determining the power of a candidate: polls of all types, fund-raising numbers. People have to say they like a guy, and people have to support that guy financially, for him to stand a chance.

Now on the side of evidence that Ron Paul has no support is: "scientific" phone polls. That's it. On the other side of evidence is public support, grassroots support, straw polls, online polls, text polls, fund-raising numbers, and another relatively undiscussed factor: how many people does he get support from outside of the candidate's party base.

I've reiterated so many times how phone polls are no longer scientific. They work on some assumptions, for one being that people supporting him are very republican and vote that way, and two that landline telephones are a good polling medium. I'll discuss his support in a minute, but it is without question that listed, landline telephones are not a good polling medium, representative of America as a whole. This is the same reason the internet is not an accurate polling medium; it is not a random subset of the American public as a whole. Undeniable is how common it is for younger generations to not have landline telephones, or at least unlisted telephone numbers.

Now to his support. Ron Paul is pulling in droves of voters from being undecided, and from other parties (primarily Democratic and Libertarian). You guys say "this shows Ron Paul is not a true conservative, whereas I say it just shows that he's got great electability. You people are so shortsighted, to the point of spending 15 minutes of a debate arguing over who's more conservative. That will become irrelevant come March or so, when the person the Republicans make clear as their favorite, will suddenly have to become America's favorite. How do people fail to realize this? As I've said in previous posts, the winner of the general election next year will be someone who attracts people from other parties. You will have your majority who will always vote Democrat, or always vote Republican, but the real decider of the elections is that 20% who are in between.

How can people construe the same action we are seeing now as something bad, but if it happened 6 months from now, we'd look at it as a great positive? Republican leaders, even the most fervently anti-Paul, are ecstatic at the way he's pulling people over to this party. I'd be interested to see registration rates as Republicans, they must be growing tremendously!

The bottom line is the writing is on the wall. People are speaking with their dollars that Ron Paul is a viable candidate, someone they not only support in words, but that they are seeing an investment worthwhile for his success. People are speaking with their time, that they will campaign for him, unpaid, because they truly believe in his message. People are speaking with their pens, showing that they are willing to become Republicans because of how much they believe in this man's message. The only thing saying he isn't liked is a tired old media who tells us it's so, and a tired old media's polls which are slanted the same way. Ron Paul is making it clear he'll bring together people from both sides, and that he has the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton.

He's either going to draw this huge bipartisan support and the endorsement of Republicans who should realize he espouses most of their ideals, or he's going to draw these same supporters to him either way, and take away from the Republicans. I am almost positive Ron Paul would run independently if not nominated, and that tells me one simple truth. One thing is for certain, Ron Paul will be a factor in this election, a significant factor. The Republicans can either wake up and support him, or most certainly lose without him. You want to talk about lesser of two evils like was so commonly thrown about in past elections? Take your pick.

​

 

I don't think it's the question of 'text plan' but the question of how many phones they own/borrowed & brought to fix the results

 

Right, well once I'll see some evidence, I'll consider that, but until such a day, you're as crazy as the damned truthers. How about you respond to the huge post I just made instead?

 

It's easier to have funny little inside jokes that are backed with zero logic. Absolutely hillarious, it's good at proving points and winning elections as well.

BTW I had my friend and his wife check out Ron Pauls site. He never heard of him.
He read his bio, his stances and liked what he read. Looks like Paul can chalk up 2 more supporters. God it's easy, simply getting people to look at his stances and record. I have had many do this so far and all so far have loved what they read.

Go figure.

 

You make it sound like i direspected your wife & your upset.

It was obviously a fix did you watch it?

Is it about Ron Paul?