Ron Paul: I Can Still Win

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


What's the difference between Ron Paul's stance and any of the Republican-of-the-week candidates? So far we've had Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Trump, Santorum all being the 'one to beat'. And each has seen their fortunes take the proverbial 180. And Santorum will be next. Once people get a real look at him they'll realize he's a tool.

So as far s I can see no one is any better off in the Republican race that anyone else. And if Ron Paul is selling his supporters 'false hope' than the same can be said for everyone else. As a matter of fact the entire GOP for that matter.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Please, enlighten us as to why we should give up hope to the candidate we love and support. Which candidate do you support? Are you even voting?

For someone with so much disdain for Dr. Paul, you sure do like to enter every Paul thread on ATS to tell us we're insane for supporting him. Your rhetoric is getting old, quick fast and in a hurry.

So please, exactly why should we not support Dr. Paul. Explain your logic to us and don't forget to tell us who you do support, if your voting in this American election, and why the hell you are so gung-ho on casting doubt on this particular individual.

...if I could make a thread, calling you out specifically I would, but it is probably against the T&C of this site.

I'll give you the main reason I am voting for Paul. He's the least full of crap out of every candidate I've seen yet. He follows a simple guideline to ensure our system doesn't become/remain a corrupt system. The constitution.

His beliefs are the closest to my own. He doesn't come off as a smug bureaucrat that puts making his buddy a million dollars before ensuring the rights of everyday Americans. He isn't controlled by the establishment, and doesn't waver to hand behind the curtain.

I could go on and on, but I want to here from you as to why you are so adamantly opposed to Dr. Paul. Give us a reason to listen to your BS.

reply to post by hoochymama


Where did I say Ron Paul should quit?

I'm simply stating that at this point...anyone "can" still win...but the probability that certain people will is very low.

Why did Huntsman drop out? He technically was doing better than Ron Paul at the time he dropped out. He did it because he knew his probability to win was approaching zero.

Ron Paul knows his probability of winning is very close to zero...he really has never intended to win. He is in this to spread his ideology and try to get a speaking position at the convention. I'm starting to think he is in it just to spite the GOP and cause chaos. I'm all for him doing that actually...he has helped create the most chaotic and hilarious GOP primary ever.

And your memory of the 2008 democratic primary is a little faulty...you might want to go research that before you continue to spout off falsehoods.

The majority of these Caucuses, and even Primaries are not binding on the delegates. Ron Paul's campaign learned a lot about the delegate process in 2008, and they are playing as dirty as everyone else this time around. You can lose a caucus and still pick up the most delegates.

The thing is, being non-binding is both a blessing and a curse. It means Ron Paul's campaign could recruit a ton of delegates and go into the RNC in Florida expecting to win! It also means those delegates can vote however they want when they get there, and there is plenty of room for monkey business, and the establishment will likely get whatever the establishment wants!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Again, your argument is faulty. How is his probability zero when he just finished second in Maine which isnt over yet anyway. Also, Clinton was winning at some point so I am not saying anything that is not a fact.

Your Probability argument is based on him not winning a state is that correct?? So, when Obama won Iowa, by less than 1%, Clinton should of conceded defeat and not given false hope to her supporters?? Than, lets say Obama wins 4 straight states should Clinton had conceded defeat and not given false hope to her supporters because again, according to your logic she had ZERO chance to win. But, wait, Clinton than won 4 straight. Now what.

Please continue, this is getting fun.

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

What's the difference between Ron Paul's stance and any of the Republican-of-the-week candidates? So far we've had Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Trump, Santorum all being the 'one to beat'. And each has seen their fortunes take the proverbial 180. And Santorum will be next. Once people get a real look at him they'll realize he's a tool.

So as far s I can see no one is any better off in the Republican race that anyone else. And if Ron Paul is selling his supporters 'false hope' than the same can be said for everyone else. As a matter of fact the entire GOP for that matter.

Do you think Ron Paul is a Republican establishment candidate...or do you think he goes against traditional Republican establishment?

All those people you listed are traditional Republican candidates...what makes you think the base is going to all of a sudden switch over to Ron Paul who doesn't match up with their values???

Santorum is doing good BECAUSE people are getting a good look at him...they love his religious views and hard line stance on social issues....this IS the base of the Republican party.

I never said none of the other candidates aren't giving false hope as well....the difference is that Ron Paul supporters take what Ron Paul as gospel.

You aren't going to convince me to not feel sad for Ron Paul supporters...I do...I have for a long time...they get crushed at every lose he has because his campaign tells his supporters that they are projecting to win despite all data saying he isn't. Like Nevada...his campaign released a ridiculous number of ID'd voters that would have given him a win by a landslide....and then he lost. His campaign is playing his supporters because they know they will all eat it up...and they won't think Ron Paul is lying...they will think the election was stolen from him.

reply to post by hoochymama


You know everyone talks about Ron not being electable and how he will split the vote, and how his popularity won't mean anything, and how he won't be able to change anything, and on and on...

But to my mind none of that matters even if it all is true. A vote for Ron is sending a message that we want the change that Kissinger protege Obama promised, even though he never meant to fulfill those promises. To me all these reasons not to worry with Ron are just Orwellian speak meant to confuse some of us into not trying. Well if trying is soooo pointless, why does everyone seem intent on dissuading us from trying. The only conclusion I can come to is that it isn't pointless after all.

A good friend and former boss used to tell me that one of the secrets of sales was; "When in doubt, baffle them with BS." Doesn't this seem like what we are seeing today?

Chavez couldn't win either, any of his numerous elections, or the Kirchners, or Lula, or Correa, or Truman, or Roosevelt in his third term, or Huey P. Long (the man who was really responsible for the New Deal) and yet they all won. Hmm!

Even if he doesn't win, God forbid, this ball will keep rolling. Maybe it will clear the way for Cynthia McKinney down the road.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you think Ron is angry, Cynthia is pissed, and rightly so. She is who I supported in the last election. Being from Illinois myself, there is no way I could have ever believed in Obama. Crooked politicians is a long standing and seldom broken tradition in Illinois. Even my 90 year old mother sees that, and with no prompting from me. I have never been able to tell mom anything, she is not that kind of lady and I am still her "child" in her eyes. She will always know better than her son. And bless her heart she is voting for Paul. Go mom!

reply to post by becomingaware

Please, enlighten us as to why we should give up hope to the candidate we love and support. Which candidate do you support? Are you even voting?

For someone with so much disdain for Dr. Paul, you sure do like to enter every Paul thread on ATS to tell us we're insane for supporting him. Your rhetoric is getting old, quick fast and in a hurry.

So please, exactly why should we not support Dr. Paul. Explain your logic to us and don't forget to tell us who you do support, if your voting in this American election, and why the hell you are so gung-ho on casting doubt on this particular individual.

I have never said for his supporters to give up hope or to stop supporting him.

I wish Ron Paul himself would stop lying to you guys to give you false hope though.

See the difference?

I'll give you the main reason I am voting for Paul. He's the least full of crap out of every candidate I've seen yet. He follows a simple guideline to ensure our system doesn't become/remain a corrupt system. The constitution.

His beliefs are the closest to my own. He doesn't come off as a smug bureaucrat that puts making his buddy a million dollars before ensuring the rights of everyday Americans. He isn't controlled by the establishment, and doesn't waver to hand behind the curtain.

I could go on and on, but I want to here from you as to why you are so adamantly opposed to Dr. Paul. Give us a reason to listen to your BS.

You go ahead and vote for Ron Paul for whatever reason you want...I've never tried to convince someone not to vote for who they support. If you think I have...go find a quote from me doing so.

I simply comment on his realistic chances of being nominated.

Originally posted by hoochymama
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Again, your argument is faulty. How is his probability zero when he just finished second in Maine which isnt over yet anyway. Also, Clinton was winning at some point so I am not saying anything that is not a fact.

Your Probability argument is based on him not winning a state is that correct?? So, when Obama won Iowa, by less than 1%, Clinton should of conceded defeat and not given false hope to her supporters?? Than, lets say Obama wins 4 straight states should Clinton had conceded defeat and not given false hope to her supporters because again, according to your logic she had ZERO chance to win. But, wait, Clinton than won 4 straight. Now what.

Please continue, this is getting fun.

You aren't great at math are you?

I never said his probability is zero...I said it is close to zero. Because it is...and each state he loses it is getting closer and closer to zero.


The race between Obama and Clinton was a close race...are you honestly trying to compare Ron Paul as being in as close of a race as that? And Clinton was winning at some point...an entire 7 days between Florida and Super Tuesday.


I'm glad you are having fun...but you should really work on facts and your understanding of statistics/probability.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Thats the funny thing, he is a Republican in the sense that he is more Republican than the three he is running against. The Republican party USED to be anti war, USED to be Constitutionalist, USED to be about Liberty, USED to be about many things that is not considered establishment in todays definition. That is the point, the Establishment is broken, and until the People fix it we are stuck in this never ending cycle of Politics as Usual which is doing nothing for you unless your on a Government payroll.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Besides the "near zero", sorry for being so off on my facts on that one, I didn't say anything that was not a fact so thanks for validating everything I said earlier.

Now, why didn't Obama concede defeat or Clinton concede defeat and gave a false sense of Victory to there "followers". You still haven't answered my question because the one thing Everyone seems to get is that this Primary isnt over yet just like the Democratic Primary wasn't over yet. Your logic cant only work in your favor especially when your than going against your own logic to support your argument. That usually doesnt work so well unless the previous poster was right, dazzle them with bull#.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Ok, you're not directly telling us who to support, I'll concede to that, but we can read between the lines.

You're very slick. You are however attempting to cast doubt with that reasoning, that he doesn't stand a chance. That sounds alot like what the media is trying to do.

I wish Ron Paul himself would stop lying to you guys to give you false hope though.

What is he lying to us about? His chances of receiving the nomination? A winner doesn't win if he has self doubt, he has to remain confident.

The republican party has relied on that "religious self righteous" vote for too long. It's fake, they use it to gain votes. I wouldn't run on that platform either, I know I've screwed up in the past. I'm human. When a candidate uses religion as a way to gain votes he's gone too far. I'd much rather see a man run on his family principles and ethics rather than that. I believe that is what Paul is doing. It's more tangible to me. You can still believe in God but don't use it to garner votes, it looses its validity when you do that.

...Now if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you write all these posts not to dissuade us from Paul, but to voice your opinion on his chances? ALL OF THOSE POSTS? To simply state your opinion that he has no chance? ...come on man. I'm really supposed to buy that?

In my opinion, you are using a passive aggresive tone with a hint of cynicism in all of your arguments. You don't have to come right out and directly say "dont vote for Paul" to convey your meaning. You can dance around it and lead us to your meaning without directly saying it. That's what I think you're attempting to do.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by hoochymama
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Besides the "near zero", sorry for being so off on my facts on that one, I didn't say anything that was not a fact so thanks for validating everything I said earlier.

Now, why didn't Obama concede defeat or Clinton concede defeat and gave a false sense of Victory to there "followers". You still haven't answered my question because the one thing Everyone seems to get is that this Primary isnt over yet just like the Democratic Primary wasn't over yet. Your logic cant only work in your favor especially when your than going against your own logic to support your argument. That usually doesnt work so well unless the previous poster was right, dazzle them with bull#.

You are trying to compare Obama losing to Clinton by 6 delegates for 7 days to Ron Paul not winning a single state, being in last place, polling nationally in last place, and polling last place in most upcoming states???

Please tell me how those two are the same.

I never said that if a candidate is losing that they should drop out. I didn't even say Ron Paul should drop out. I'm just being realistic about his chances at actually winning the nomination. They are currently close to zero.


Tell me this...what do you realistically think Ron Paul's chances are at winning the nomination...just give me a rough percentage.

I love Ron Paul but his chances are nil of winning the GOP nomination. I could support a Romney/Paul ticket but it won't happen.

I am not a religious person but I do have respect for Mormons. I also do not buy into prophecies but the Mormons have one that says something like one day the US Constitution will being hanging by a thread and a Mormon will save it.

I think we can all agree that the Constitution is hanging on by a thread and a Romney/Paul ticket could certainly fulfill that prophecy.

Originally posted by jrod
I love Ron Paul but his chances are nil of winning the GOP nomination. I could support a Romney/Paul ticket but it won't happen.

I am not a religious person but I do have respect for Mormons. I also do not buy into prophecies but the Mormons have one that says something like one day the US Constitution will being hanging by a thread and a Mormon will save it.

I think we can all agree that the Constitution is hanging on by a thread and a Romney/Paul ticket could certainly fulfill that prophecy.

How can anyone that says they "love Ron Paul" also say the support a "Romney/Paul" ticket? Why not an Obama/Paul ticket for Christ's sake?

Putting Romney and Paul on the same ticket is absurd! They stand for entirely opposite things! Romney is a extremely moderate to a fault, while Paul is extremely Conservative. Romney is a compromiser and Paul is known as "Dr. No."

If you can say you would support such a ticket, then you really need to research both of their platforms and solidify your own views somewhat.

AND, don't fall into the trap of "anyone is better than Obama," or "anyone can beat Obama." There are worse things than Obama, like Romney, who is an Obama in a Republican suit. AND, Obama is not going to be easily defeated, in fact, Obama will most likely win in November unless the Republican Establishment gets their act together.

reply to post by becomingaware

What is he lying to us about? His chances of receiving the nomination? A winner doesn't win if he has self doubt, he has to remain confident.

Yes, he is giving out false information as to his chances of actually winning in my opinion.

Take Nevada as a perfect example...Ron Paul's campaign claimed they had ID'ed 23,000+ votes...which would have easily won him the state. After the caucus they said there were some "mistakes" on their part in informing those voters on how to vote properly. Paul ended up with around 6,000 votes...do you honestly believe that there were 17,000 valid voters out there that just forgot to vote?

The republican party has relied on that "religious self righteous" vote for too long. It's fake, they use it to gain votes. I wouldn't run on that platform either, I know I've screwed up in the past. I'm human. When a candidate uses religion as a way to gain votes he's gone too far. I'd much rather see a man run on his family principles and ethics rather than that. I believe that is what Paul is doing. It's more tangible to me. You can still believe in God but don't use it to garner votes, it looses its validity when you do that.

I agree...but that isn't what reality reflects.

In reality...a large chunk of Republican voters are religious voters. They have that right to vote on whatever basis they want whether we agree with it or not.

Now if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you write all these posts not to dissuade us from Paul, but to voice your opinion on his chances? ALL OF THOSE POSTS? To simply state your opinion that he has no chance? ...come on man. I'm really supposed to buy that?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I like politics...I like commenting on politics...on ATS Ron Paul is dominating the conversation so that is where I am at.

I really have no desire to try to convince you of that if you don't beleive it. People ask, I answer. You are free to believe what you want about me though.

In my opinion, you are using a passive aggresive tone with a hint of cynicism in all of your arguments. You don't have to come right out and directly say "dont vote for Paul" to convey your meaning. You can dance around it and lead us to your meaning without directly saying it. That's what I think you're attempting to do.

If anyone changes their vote based on an internet discussion forum...they would have probably changed thier vote at some point anyway.

I honestly don't care who people vote for...I'm just here to comment, present facts, and correct misinformation.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
How can anyone that says they "love Ron Paul" also say the support a "Romney/Paul" ticket?

Why not an Obama/Paul ticket for Christ's sake?

If He-Shall-Not-Be-Named goes with Obama. That would be the greatest flip flop and upset in the history of politics.

First He-Shall-Not-Be-Named and Obama are about ten times farther away from each other on constitutional issues than Romney and He-Shall-Not-Be-Named. Second, He-Shall-Not-Be-Named has NEVER NOT ONCE attacked Romney or his record. They are actually friends and are working together! Do some research on He-Shall-Not-Be-Named and Romney's alliance and you'll be surprised at what you find.

Romney/Paul ticket makes a lot of sense, but likely it won't happen. Romney will choose someone more conservative on social issues like McCain or Christie.

There is a serious problem with the He-Shall-Not-Be-Named fan base if they think like this...

reply to post by getreadyalready


Dr. Paul is not going to get the nomination. I do not want another 4 years of Obama. Mitt has shown he can and will change his views and positions, possibly with Paul on his side he may not be so bad and decide to leave the "dark side." Also with Mitt being from Massachusetts and Paul from Texas it would help the balance the ticket for the EC. You are right though, I admit a Romney/Paul ticket is borderline* delusional.

I want to see Ron Paul go third party after the GOP picks their ducks.


*probably a lot more than borderline

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Of course Romney and Paul are closer than Obama and Paul, but not by that much!! No, Paul would not accept a VP slot under Romney, because there is nothing to gain from it. Paul has an agenda and he could not work that agenda as someone's VP.

As for Romney and his platform. It is not all that different than Obama's, and this is his Conservative platform, but his record is much more in line with Obama's record, and we know politicians never come through on much of their platform anyway. If his platform is already moderate, imagine what his presidency will be like!! Wait, you don't have to imagine, I can tell you already, it will be exactly like the last 4 years!

And please don't bring up McCain. McCain is scarier than the rest of them. I voted for Obama last time just to keep McCain out of office!