Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire How Ron Paul was cheated out of the Presidency

No schit? Could you tell us something we don't know for a change?

Many Paul supporters fell on their swords rather than support the Republican nominee in the general election. That's what I'm talking about poindexter....

It was all over this board. You accuse us of telling you how to vote, yet you tell us we should have supported Paul, who had little or no chance against Obama in the general election.

Why? Sour grapes.. Many Paulistas sat at home and refused to vote. ---

So tell me who the retard is dimwit. Those who voted for the Republican candidate in an attempt to remove Barak Obama from power?

Or

Those who sat at home and pouted because their boy didn't make the big show, thereby helping give the country 4 more years of this guys garbage?

Adult, responsible decisions obviously ain't your strong suit.

preach all you want about how smart you are but at the end of the day, you claim to be a conservative and didn't vote for one.


I can assure you until you convince those supporters you are serious about voting in a conservative president, then we think all your blustering is just self gratifying horseshit.

...and there it is.

In his world a man who votes for no one voted for a Liberal, while a man who voted for a Liberal voted for a Conservative.

Perhaps someday we will reach the high pedestal of enlightenment necessary to see the "logic" therein, but it may take a while. JM has been following Isaac around for a long, long time to have it all down this tight.

Huh???? You awake yet?

his issue is nuance , he believes that the .05% difference between Obama and Romney is a cause worth rallying for.

If your goal is to vote for anyone to replace Obama, then that's what you'll get - just anyone. The GOP knows this and will take you for granted every time with their bought and paid for candidate.

My goals are more specific. Real spending cuts, balanced budget, enforcement of immigration laws, reduction in size and scope of our government, reduction in regulation created by our government, reduction in taxation burden on the American people


I voted for a candidate that represented those issues - in both the primary and national election.

and what really infuriates the folks like Moses is - I'm gonna do it again in 2016.

I'm giving him fair notice so this time around he can tell his candidate that if he wants to win, he better try to get my vote instead of ignoring it.


Maybe that will motivate him to do something besides post condescending bullshit on a website - but I suspect he'll be blaming me for electing Hillary when I should have voted for Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.

Only you two could fail to see that Romney was a better choice than Obama...

"I will stand on principle! I will not vote for the most conservative candidate in the election because he is not conservative enough!!!"

I think you two have been following that old foghead Paul around too long. You sound just like him.

Simple minded, clueless and perfectly content in that condition.

KFWA,

Don't flatter yourself, you're less than a gnat on my radar cupcake.

Trying to say Romney and Obama are with in .05% of each other is laughable and only further demonstrates the extent of your cluelessness.

Back away from the crack pipe.

yea, that's why you've posted like 8 times on this thread - because you don't care.

its easy to see why so few buy what your selling.

Yeah man it shows. You've nearly convinced yourself. Just keep repeating it...

So how is it again that those who amount to less than gnats are responsible for Romney's loss?

Again, logic ain't yer strong suit but continue showing us how little we rate by continuing your blather.

I am disappointed to say I voted Romney in 12 but learned my lesson.

It'll be Conservative or nothing in 16.

JM convinced me that this is the appropriate course by arguing he would do the opposite.

Thanks JM!!

C'mon, you guys, it doesn't matter.

Look here: Oligarchy, not democracy: Americans have �near-zero� input on policy � report

I read that yesterday. Quite depressing but not altogether surprising given what I've seen

such as Americans view on immigration, gun control - even soda consumption

That BLM thing does show however that Americans fuse of tolerance in these matters is getting decidedly shorter as life gets harder each decade.

If we continue on our current path, there will eventually be a straw that breaks the camels back.

Unless.....They string this out over decades and the American people slowly become accustomed to being told what to do and when to do it in exchange for goobermint goodies.

I'm sure they realize this, as it's been going on for decades already.

Obviously, the lessons of 2012 is that Obama is a lot worse than Romney would have been.
Any fool should be able to see that�

Second is that not enough conservatives believed Romney. Not enough evangelicals trusted him.
Moderate Mitt did rather well with the moderate voters. The Independents.

So it follows that Conservatives are more than ready to rally behind a Conservative they believe in and trust.
The numbers have never been better for our side than they are today.

GOP primaries tend to veer more conservative than the general election.
I believe than any Conservative who wants to win those primaries needs to start building that trust now in this year�s mid-terms.

Not just endorse, but get out there in the mud and the blood and work for Conservatives.
Hit the road, Jack and rebuild the base. Rebuild voter enthusiasm and bring the little people and their small donations back into the race where they belong.

How did Reagan win two landslides? Voters trusted him.
Conservatives like myself believed in his message.
Moderates believed in part of the message, but they liked the man.

We all turned out and voted.

It's painfully obvious that you don't hear about a lot of things.

Total Bull!
This is what I posted.
When Gingrich beat Romney in South Carolina, the GOP machine spend millions in places like Florida to make sure that did not happen again.

If they ever bothered to spend a dime to stop Ron Paul; I didn�t hear about it.

What the GOPe spent on ads against Santorum and Gingrich is an easy look-up.
Show me the money spent to destroy Paul. Show me the ads.

How about an example of them getting ready to do it for Rand for the same reasons?

-----------
Hawkish Republicans and hawkish Republican donors considered Ron Paul a nuisance, though occasionally a useful and amusing one. Rand Paul, on the other hand, is a real political talent. He is less stiffly ideological than his father. He more easily translates his libertarian instincts into words the GOP base understands.

And that means that Paul the son is a threat to the hawkish wing of the GOP. If it looks like he could win more than a few primaries in 2016, chances are he'll face a tidal wave of money from neocon donors opposing him.

Last month Zeke Miller reported on the speakers at the Republican Jewish Coalition who talked about Rand Paul in a kind of code. GOP hopefuls offered the usual euphemisms about fighting "a rising tide of isolationism" in their party, or pumping America's "need to be engaged." Translated roughly: "When the time and the checks come, I'll put a knife in Rand's larynx and make a big show of it." Are you not entertained?

The donors that spoke off the record were even more explicit about their willingness to take Paul down. From Miller's report:

Several prominent GOP donors at the conference suggested that [Sheldon] Adelson, who spent more than $100 million backing Newt Gingrich and Romney in 2012, is likely to spend vast sums against Paul if he appears to be well positioned in the Republican primaries. Adelson's spending is largely motivated by his strong concern for Israel, and Paul's positions may well put a target on his back. [TIME]

For Adelson, $100 million is a small fraction of his estimated $37.5 billion net worth. And with a Supreme Court very friendly to blowing by limits on political cash, Adelson could go wild. The strategy is already being field tested in the midterms. Paul-like GOP congressmen in the House are already seeing how hard the GOP establishment will push to take them out. For example, Walter Jones and Justin Amash, two reliably anti-war Republicans, are facing well-funded primary challengers.

we can also read about how the GOP potentially screwed themselves in the 2016 RNC because they created the "Ron Paul" rules in 2012

"While this might worked out nicely for those controlling the GOP convention in 2012, the amended rule now poses a serious change in how the game is to be played in 2016. What�s more, given that the rule cannot be changed until the next round of delegates arrive at the convention in 2016 and the Rules Committee convenes to establish the new rules of the convention, the Republicans are stuck with what they have wrought in 2012.

And that represents a very significant problem for anyone who believes the voters should have something to say about their party�s nominee or those who don�t favor a convention where the bosses and delegates get to decide who is the nominee, irrespective of what home state Republicans might have to say.

Based on the RNC issued memo in 2011 ruling that �winner-take-all� elections will only be permitted when a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast in the primary battle, and given the deep bench of candidates likely to seek the 2016 GOP nomination, it seems unlikely that there are going to be a whole lot of states producing majority wins for candidates.

Thus, a Republican candidate who receives 49 percent of the vote in a �winner-take-all� state will not be permitted to get 100 percent of the state�s delegates. And that means it is an almost certainty that there will not be a candidate walking into the GOP convention with the requisite eight states producing a majority of delegates supporting a candidate now required to have one�s name placed into nomination."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...republicans-and-hands-it-to-party-elite/

This has been posted before and my reply was�

The GOP seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the 2012 convention.
It was not just Ron Paul who was squeezed out. It was the Tea Party.
They did not want to hear about 2010 nor anything else from any Tea Party spokesperson.

The Mitt Machine spent millions destroying Newt after his South Carolina landslide.
Newt won that state after Todd and Sarah both went down there to lend a hand.

So the convention didn�t need them either. How dare they grab all the headlines at a New Hampshire clambake on the day Mitt announced.

That is what cost them the election. Millions of Conservatives said�Fine, you don�t want us�we don�t want you�

incidentally, the lawyer who worked for Mitt and headed the implementation of those conventions rules was appointed by Obama to head up a committee on voter reform.


you can't tell the players without a program.............