Breaking: Michele Bachmann Iowa campaign co-chair endorses Ron Paul

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
as her campaign winds down to nothing?

That's the only thing you got right.

Since you think Ron Paul can't win, does that mean you'll not be voting, or do you like O?

reply to post by TinfoilTP
You must think Paul is the ultimate supervillian genius, having his people originally tell Sorenson they didn't know if he was running, JUST KNOWING Bachmann would call and ask him to join her campaign, so they could later activate their secret Manchurian programming to do this to her 6 days before the caucus!

Brilliant! Mwuahahaha...

Oh jeez, come on...seriously, TP?

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Yea Ron Paul has secret agents in each candidate's campaign collecting information and waiting on orders to defect so he could win this whole race

Not only that but he has been chosen and groomed all this time by the illuminati, need proof? He's an establishment insider purposely exposing the federal reserve so they could crash the dollar and bring in the Amero!

Seriously, how low will you guys go?

edit on 29-12-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

No but is speaks volumes that Ron Paul specifically helped this guy get into the Iowa Senate 2 years previous, yet did not join the Paul campaign, he joined the Bachman campaign.
Now is he an ingrate?
Is Paul's support so meaningless that he couldn't attract him from the start?
Did this guy always know there was an open door anytime he wanted to hop on over? Notice he didn't wait for Bachman to call it quits, it was done with as much media fanfair as possible.

reply to post by TinfoilTP
And yet, I'll say once again - you detractors like to call PAUL a conspiracy theorist, while you're spinning these yarns?

It is actually good to point out too he said he will not be receiving the normal presidential pay scale of $400,000.00
a year. This is how good a man RP is, he wants to be paid only $38,000 a year, same as an average middle class American. Now that shows class!!!
Is any other canidate asking for that? Don't think so.


Ron Paul 2012!!!!

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

And yet, I'll say once again - you detractors like to call PAUL a conspiracy theorist, while you're spinning these yarns?

At least there is damning evidence in this case.
A lowball dirtbag State politician who owed Paul for aid he gave him 2 years previous.
The timing of the switch is laughably obvious, Sherlock Holmes could stay asleep while Watson's cat solved this one.

Originally posted by Destinyone
Michelle reminds me of a bitter scorned lover.

I guess next...she'll go bomb his FB with her tirade....that's what scorned lovers do right.....

I don't want to anger anyone, but gee, how would you feel, there is this thing called loyalty, why didn't he endorse Paul in the first place, seems after seeing Michelle wasn't going to stand a chance he jumped ship, says something about a persons character, do you really blame her for being angry?

reply to post by TinfoilTP
Yes, knowing that rats will swim from a sinking ship to one they feel will stay afloat and may even suit their preferences has nothing to do with it...

My goodness, you certainly are a lot of fun to have around!

EDIT:
Didn't you just say this guy had no recognition and was a nobody, and didn't YOU allude that the guy is just trying to keep his gravy train running when you first came on thread? So is it a conspiracy, or is Sorenson just looking out for himself?

Which story are you going to run with on this one - please pick and stick with it. And if you pick the most recent one, please let me know exactly what benefit it is to Paul to have 6 days' worth of Sorenson's support in Iowa when he's already pretty much top-spot.

You know what always makes me laugh as far as the 2012 campaigning is concerned? Bachmann's complete and total lack of grace in everything and anything that she does. How could it have possibly seemed like a good idea to come out and accuse Sorenson of taking money to join the RP campaign when she had no evidence that that ever occurred? Especially with her credibility and base of support as small as it is. And then her political director comes out and says that, no, Sorenson did not take money. Could that woman do any more to undermine her credibility?

--

On an unrelated note, people keep bringing up Ron Paul's lack of congressional success as a reason not to support him. People who do this: please understand that being a congressman is not like being a doctor. He is not working alone to save a dying patient (or, in our case, a dying country). He is working alone to save a dying patient while hundreds of other "doctors" are crowded into the same room trying to kill the same patient. Yes, this metaphor strains credibility, but I think you'll take my meaning. His personal efforts are failing because of the number of congressmen working against him, not because of any personal weakness.

He would have a higher "success" rate if he supported the ideas that were politically popular rather than those which he actually believed in. He would have a higher success rate if other congressmen actually shared his beliefs. If anything, his poor success rate demonstrates his persistence and consistency in the face of adversity, not some weakness of character or lack of skill as a politician.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation with two congressmen, A and B. A has introduced five pieces of legislation, all true to his political convictions. None of them have passed. The country has not been changed. B has introduced five pieces of legislation as well, mostly influenced by party politics and under-the-table dealings. Two of them have passed. The country has changed...for the worse. Is B better because of his higher success rate as far as passing legislation is concerned? Or is A better because he stuck to his positive political convictions in spite of their lack of popularity?

My point is, quite simply, that numbers don't tell us everything. If you see that Ron Paul has been nearly ineffectual as a legislator and use that as grounds not to support him, you are missing the point. It is important to look into the reasons behind his lack of legislative success and into the nature of the legislation he has introduced. I'm not even giving my unreserved support to Ron Paul, here. But his congressional record, examined numerically, is a foolish and illogical reason NOT to support him.

reply to post by backwardluminary

Bachmann's complete and total lack of grace in everything and anything that she does.

Aw, come on that's not necessary, all of them have had their moments, she just got screwed, how would you feel.

reply to post by Stormdancer777
I agree somewhat, but then my pity flies out the window with Bachmann making up lies that will get civilians and our military killed if followed through on (about Iran's constitution, stated goals, capacity & intent) as well as bad-mouthing Paul over foreign policy because of these things she makes up and her apparent inability to understand what seems to be common knowledge at the CIA, and american history as regards our relationship with the muslim world in the first place.

It's not fun to get abandoned, but when your stated policies are controlling people's lives by force of government, and continuing to be overly-agressive militarily thus desiring to indirectly lead to what is likely to the deaths of what is likely to become at least tens of thousands...I have a hard time feeling very sorry.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


You're making it way too easy.....



Kent Sorensen supported Ron Paul the entire time, he received an invitation to join Bachmann's campaign. He delayed them as he called to inquire whether or not Ron Paul was running, there was no definite answer at the time so he supported the next best Tea Party candidate.

You're just trolling way too hard here, just let go.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


No there no evidence of anything, you're taking the actual story and twisting it to make them all look bad. That is all she wrote.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Yes, knowing that rats will swim from a sinking ship to one they feel will stay afloat and may even suit their preferences has nothing to do with it...

My goodness, you certainly are a lot of fun to have around!

EDIT:
Didn't you just say this guy had no recognition and was a nobody, and didn't YOU allude that the guy is just trying to keep his gravy train running when you first came on thread? So is it a conspiracy, or is Sorenson just looking out for himself?

Which story are you going to run with on this one - please pick and stick with it. And if you pick the most recent one, please let me know exactly what benefit it is to Paul to have 6 days' worth of Sorenson's support in Iowa when he's already pretty much top-spot.

edit on 12/29/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

Both, he lines his pockets and looks out for his wallet while Paul collects his IOU from the guy.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

You're making it way too easy.....



Kent Sorensen supported Ron Paul the entire time, he received an invitation to join Bachmann's campaign. He delayed them as he called to inquire whether or not Ron Paul was running, there was no definite answer at the time so he supported the next best Tea Party candidate.

You're just trolling way too hard here, just let go.

As if anybody really thought Ron Paul wasn't running, especially an insider that got aid from Paul like this guy.
What you provided was the evidence of the time of their collusion. You give evidence of their contact prior to joining Bachman. Thanks for making the case deeper.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


lol, there is no case.

He isn't an 'insider' he is like any other tea party candidate that Ron Paul supported and personally endorsed.

You can twist it all you want as you continue your trolling but your tricks are old, everybody knows how you roll.

You're as discredited on ATS on the topic of Ron Paul as the Iowa caucus is discredited by the MSM.

reply to post by eLPresidente
Mr. President - let's just let him find some billy goats to eat and have his fun elsewhere.

EDIT: alright, before we go off-thread and fall into ad hominems, let's either address what he says or let him be. TP's entitled to his opinions, but no response to them is needed if we can't stay focused on what he says.

A 3rd party which is moderate in nature is being created, just announced today. They see the Ron Paul momentum, and I have a feeling that this is a deadly weapon to counter it.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Since we know who you don't like, I'm taking a wild guess that you're an obot troll, because that's what it looks like. Ron Paul is probably the only candidate o fears.

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
A 3rd party which is moderate in nature is being created, just announced today. They see the Ron Paul momentum, and I have a feeling that this is a deadly weapon to counter it.

edit on 29-12-2011 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)

Can you provide a source? I'd like to read up on this.
Thanks!