Ron Paul is NOT dropping out, the Mainstream Media is LYING.

So its pretty much apparent that hes's not going to be president, but why not show up to the polls anyway and at least represent yourself by putting his name in the ballot? A lot of people will vote for someone else or not vote at all after this, but if everyone who supports him writes his name in, won't that at least show this country how many of us are behind him?

reply to post by Allenb83


The Florida Primary was a winner take all state. It was also the place where Herman Cain dominated the Straw Poll, so the Florida voters were obviously anti-status quo. It is also the home of the RNC this year, and it is also a state with a hugely influential Tea Party. A Tea Party that was sparked by Ron Paul in the very beginning and then hijacked by mainstream Republicans.

Of course, I am not a political strategist, but I am involved in politics in this state, and I think Ron Paul could have pushed all his chips into Florida, won the state, taken a frontrunner position, energized his fundraising, and rode the momentum all the way to Tampa in August! Instead, he skipped the state, went lukewarm through all the additional primaries, never had a clear win anywhere, and now he is out of money and no longer campaigning.

If Romney had won the Straw Poll, then I can see skipping Florida, but Cain won the Straw Poll! Paul should have smelled blood in the water in Florida and jumped on it like a shark!

reply to post by Gazrok

Speaking at the GOP convention or not, and if I have to write it in, Paul's got my vote. Not because I think he can win, but because I'm voting for I'd like to see President...a true representative vs. one bought and paid for by special interest groups. I will not throw a vote to Romney or Obama because someone thinks I'm "wasting" it otherwise. The only "wasted" votes are the ones not cast, or the ones for a candidate one doesn't believe in.

I entirely agree with this, and the rest of your post. I'm disappointed that Paul doesn't take his own campaign as seriously as his rabid supporters do, but he is still the only candidate with any understanding of how serious our current situation is, and the only candidate with some real world solutions that provide immediate results.

I will be voting for Ron Paul in November as well. I may have to write it in, but he is the only one that actually cares about Liberty and the foundations this country was built upon.

I'm still upset with his campaign errors, and I still question his natural ability to lead, but I know he is a smart guy and he'll supplement his weaknesses by hiring strong folks to surround him.

reply to post by NightGypsy

Ron Paul's delegates have been acquired legitimately. If anyone doesn't like the way they were accumulated, they should address the appropriate individuals in the government and suggest the U.S. election system be redesigned.

.....And thanks a lot for jumping on the propaganda bandwagon with the "stealing" nonsense.

I'm not a fan of the whole electoral system. It was necessary back in a day when it took a month to travel to a poll by horse and buggy, but these days it is entirely useless. I get your point about them following the rules, but is it really an honest strategy to ignore campaigning for the popular vote, and instead just focus your attention on bumrushing the delegate selection? Is it really an honest strategy for the delegates to go to Tampa and ignore the will of the voters in their state and cast a vote in their own interest instead?

As I said earlier, the delegate strategy is a great supplement to a campaign, but it should not be the core of a campaign, it just seems like a backdoor, dishonest tactic to rely solely on the delegate selection and ignore the actual poll.

Originally posted by vkey08
You are only focusing on the two things that most Paulites focus on, ending wars (not a bad idea) and Ending the Fed.. People have not given enough thought to what it would mean to people if he actually did away with certain agencies (other than the government savings) did away with the Civil Rights Act (I can't believe anyone would think that's a good thing) amongst all of the other things in his platform that if he actually got through would devastate most families in this country.. Yeah let's forget all that and end all wars, yay.... we ended all wars... now can I have some food please/ What? I can't because why? Or Sorry President Paul I didn't know you were serious about cutting all Federal programs to help people...Oh by the way my kids wanna know when they can go back to school? Oh they can't? Oh I'm sorry I forgot disabled kids only went to school because of the Civil Rights Act and the Dept of Education, I forgot you did away with those.. Sorry, I'l just go grovel and hope that like you say my neighbors will help me out...But so far most of them have said they can't or won't and wonder why I don't just die as my retarded kids are breathing their air, I forgot we have no right to protections form that sort of hateful talk anymore......

I know it's extreme, but....... when you look at it all, ending wars, (again i never said it was a bad idea) and Ending the Fed, don't look like so much reason to elect the man.... But of curse Rabid Paulites will be all over me and I'll get nasty messages about how un-amercian I am, and how stupid and moronic I am, but as I said to him at his little appearance around these parts, when he can say he's raising 3 severely disabled kids on his own, and sometimes need a little help paying for all the services, then he can cut them.. until then.. leave my kids alone.

If anyone is calling you moronic, it may be due to complete false post such as the one I am quoting here.

Can you please show me where Ron Paul has said he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act?

I know Ron Paul has said that Libertarians would like to repeal it, but no where have I seen or heard him say he would. So before passing this off as fact, do you have anything to show us that backs it up?

That being said, what makes you think repealing the civil rights act is really such a bad thing? The world we live in today is VERY different from the world we lived in which brought the Civil Rights Act to life. As a matter of fact, I actually support a repeal of the Civil Rights Act. I firmly believe people should have every right to be a complete racist if the choose to be and should have no fear at all in speaking their mind. If a store owner wants to hang a sign on his front door refusing service to Blacks, he has that right. Let him do it.

Many would view that as completely insane, but hear me out. It is my belief that the Civil Rights Act did nothing to abolish racism. If it had, then racism would not still to this day be such a hot topic of debate. What the Act did do effectively is HIDE racism. So let us use the example of a business owner refusing service to a person based on skin color. How could I possibly view this as a good thing? Easy. It empowers me, the consumer. If I go into a store that refuses to provide a service to a black person, I now have a choice to take my money and my business elsewhere. I have a choice to not support that business. Is it possible that business will stay open on the business of those who feel the same way as the store owner? Sure it is possible, and so what? White Supremacist have been supporting like minded individuals since the Civil Rights Act was passed anyway. They did not disappear, we simply hid them from the public eye. So what did we really accomplish?

I am not going to go in depth in regards to the Department of Education. If you really can not understand why a Federal one size fits all program of education is a problem, than no one can help you see the light. You can do what may others do and scratch your head completely bewildered as test scores continue to fall.

reply to post by Wookiep


Well, the main stream media is doing what it does best and that's lie. Look at all the other things too many to name individually but two off the top of my head is the real Unemployment numbers Of which we'll never ever hear out of their mouths and the real state of the economy.
It's about time people start waking up in this country before shtf to the face the fact the people they thought they could trust with bringing them real information is just a political shill for whoever's in charge at the top. If they don't wake up any sooner, they're in for a very rude awakening.

Ron Paul has dropped out of the race. Yeah that's right, Ron Paul has dropped out of the race, it's all over the news. No need for you Oromney voters to bother voting in your primaries now. All you need to do now is stay home and watch the national convention in Tampa on TV. That's all you need to do, just stay home, and watch what happens.

reply to post by getreadyalready
I never understood why he went to Maine instead of trying to put his "stamp" on this Election by going "all in" in Florida. The delegate fight would have gone the way it is going right now regardless. Now, add in a Hard Fought win in Florida (it wouldnt have been easy) and his momentum would of carried him through. Add in the other crazy stuff going on at that time in Iowa and this could of been a whole different ball game. It almost was anyway but still, Florida could of been a game changer.

Cain is the same as Romney, and former head of the Fed in Kansas City I believe, so him carrying Florida wasnt that big of a Surprise because at that time Cain was leading all the Presidential Contenders. I think if RP was very aggressive in Florida against Romney he might have swayed a lot of Cain's followers as I think Cain was loosing momentum anyway. Cain was done anyway soon after.

Either way, his showing in Washington really got me believing he had a shot. Watching the YouTube video of a line that must of went 1 mile or more waiting in cold ass weather waiting to watch RP Speak. That was a telling point for me that he got the masses moving again. Not sitting on there arse watching Ellen and Wheel of Fortune while I pay for them to sit on there arse and Vote for Obama or Romney because the TV told them to, Or Cain at the time.

Anyway, the main point is that this whole thing has been a "Wag the Dog" scenario anyway so it didnt really matter. Like you said, the only way that impact could of been "swayed" was him fighting in Florida. Sometimes the Media has NO Choice to follow a story whether the TPTB are involved or not. Money is the most important thing and as some have mentioned on this site, if RP was close to getting the nomination he better pick a much Scarier VP just to have protection.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by vkey08
You are only focusing on the two things that most Paulites focus on, ending wars (not a bad idea) and Ending the Fed.. People have not given enough thought to what it would mean to people if he actually did away with certain agencies (other than the government savings) did away with the Civil Rights Act (I can't believe anyone would think that's a good thing) amongst all of the other things in his platform that if he actually got through would devastate most families in this country.. Yeah let's forget all that and end all wars, yay.... we ended all wars... now can I have some food please/ What? I can't because why? Or Sorry President Paul I didn't know you were serious about cutting all Federal programs to help people...Oh by the way my kids wanna know when they can go back to school? Oh they can't? Oh I'm sorry I forgot disabled kids only went to school because of the Civil Rights Act and the Dept of Education, I forgot you did away with those.. Sorry, I'l just go grovel and hope that like you say my neighbors will help me out...But so far most of them have said they can't or won't and wonder why I don't just die as my retarded kids are breathing their air, I forgot we have no right to protections form that sort of hateful talk anymore......

I know it's extreme, but....... when you look at it all, ending wars, (again i never said it was a bad idea) and Ending the Fed, don't look like so much reason to elect the man.... But of curse Rabid Paulites will be all over me and I'll get nasty messages about how un-amercian I am, and how stupid and moronic I am, but as I said to him at his little appearance around these parts, when he can say he's raising 3 severely disabled kids on his own, and sometimes need a little help paying for all the services, then he can cut them.. until then.. leave my kids alone.

If anyone is calling you moronic, it may be due to complete false post such as the one I am quoting here.

Can you please show me where Ron Paul has said he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act?

I know Ron Paul has said that Libertarians would like to repeal it, but no where have I seen or heard him say he would. So before passing this off as fact, do you have anything to show us that backs it up?

That being said, what makes you think repealing the civil rights act is really such a bad thing? The world we live in today is VERY different from the world we lived in which brought the Civil Rights Act to life. As a matter of fact, I actually support a repeal of the Civil Rights Act. I firmly believe people should have every right to be a complete racist if the choose to be and should have no fear at all in speaking their mind. If a store owner wants to hang a sign on his front door refusing service to Blacks, he has that right. Let him do it.

Many would view that as completely insane, but hear me out. It is my belief that the Civil Rights Act did nothing to abolish racism. If it had, then racism would not still to this day be such a hot topic of debate. What the Act did do effectively is HIDE racism. So let us use the example of a business owner refusing service to a person based on skin color. How could I possibly view this as a good thing? Easy. It empowers me, the consumer. If I go into a store that refuses to provide a service to a black person, I now have a choice to take my money and my business elsewhere. I have a choice to not support that business. Is it possible that business will stay open on the business of those who feel the same way as the store owner? Sure it is possible, and so what? White Supremacist have been supporting like minded individuals since the Civil Rights Act was passed anyway. They did not disappear, we simply hid them from the public eye. So what did we really accomplish?

I am not going to go in depth in regards to the Department of Education. If you really can not understand why a Federal one size fits all program of education is a problem, than no one can help you see the light. You can do what may others do and scratch your head completely bewildered as test scores continue to fall.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional infringement on liberty and by leading to quotas has in his view increased racial disharmony.[295]

I could post a ton of more stuff he's either said or is in his official platform but you get the drift... And I gotta tell you that my school districts test scores are higher than any other in our state, and rank pretty high up in the country, and my "special" kids that get extra help from the DoE for their services, are the ones setting the curve for the rest of the school....Do NOT even attempt to state my children do not deserve an education.

Forgive me for not reading the entire thread, please disregard if it's been asked before. Who cares whether Ron Paul drops out or not? I suppose it might make some emotional difference to his supporters, but really, what does it change? It will still be Romney v. Obama, Paul will still make speeches about his vision, his supporters will still cast votes for him. People will still wonder if the torch is being passed to Rand. I don't get it.

reply to post by vkey08


Opposing something and asking that something be repealed are two separate things. We all know he opposes the civil rights act, even I am against it as I explained above.

Now can you show us where he calls for it to be repealed?

Surely after 30 years in Congress he has proposed a bill to repeal the Act. After all this is the man who proposed a bill to repeal the 14 Amendment. So please.... I ask again... where is your proof that he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

It was your claim, so I would imagine you would have no issue finding it. Right?

Going back to Education.... when did I say anyone does not deserve an Education? I said that a Government one size fits all policy to Education is a problem. Not that anyone does not deserve an Education. Perhaps you should reread my post?

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by vkey08

 

Opposing something and asking that something be repealed are two separate things. We all know he opposes the civil rights act, even I am against it as I explained above.

Now can you show us where he calls for it to be repealed?

Surely after 30 years in Congress he has proposed a bill to repeal the Act. After all this is the man who proposed a bill to repeal the 14 Amendment. So please.... I ask again... where is your proof that he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

It was your claim, so I would imagine you would have no issue finding it. Right?

Going back to Education.... when did I say anyone does not deserve an Education? I said that a Government one size fits all policy to Education is a problem. Not that anyone does not deserve an Education. Perhaps you should reread my post?

edit on 15-5-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

Considering the Civil Rights Act has been altered and amended to not only deal with Racism, you must also be against assistance for disabled individuals and rights for them which is clearly stated in the act.

This is from a website, in fact it doesn't much like Romney or Obama either, but it summed up Paul's stated position, and honestly reading RP's drivel makes my stomach turn so here's the summary.

Ron Paul is a conservative. He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act, privatize public education, abolish Social Security, kill Medicare, re-establish DADT, eliminate public housing, abolish federal student loans, kill Planned Parenthood, end the Departments of Energy and Education and the EPA, abolish the minimum wage, end affirmative action, disagrees with equal pay for women, and wants to end FEMA

Now, onto Education, without the Department of Education it would be up to localities who got schooling, that would eliminate all funding for special needs programs as well, and I can tell you, states and municipality have trouble keeping up with those costs as it is, so yes You are against educating these kids if you think that the one agency that helps them should be eliminated and that all they do is "one size fits all schooling"

My problem with you is that you are unwilling to see or even consider there's a downside to this man.. Hell I wann end wars, I wanna repeal the Federal Reserve Act and replace it with something better, but devastating all social programs, and making statements like this:

“You don’t have a right to a house, you don’t have a right to a job, you don’t have a right to medical care.”

and this

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

Well I could go on.. but that just irks me.. I am not Christian, and I don't' wanna be todl what to do based upon his religion..

Now to Clarify something: I do not like Obama, I think he's a liar and a fake, I always have. I do not like Mitt Romney he turned Massachusetts into a socialist state and seems to think that it's ok to do so. Honestly I don't like ANY of the candidates out there, but at least I was willing at one point to listen and concede that all of them had some points i liked, and up until recently didn't care who anyone else really liked or disliked. It's this messiah complex everyone has, first it was for Barry O and now it's for "savior Paul" that has me worried.

I could pull up a ton of more quotes, but it's late, I'm tired and my children get up way too early for me to stay up any longer.. please if you wish to continue this, message me privately....

reply to post by vkey08


Oh this is going to be fun for me.

The amazing thing about this boards is a moment like this when I have a chance to explain things a little better to a person who is clearly confused and misguided. I do not mean that as any kind of an insult, fact is I was once that way too. Look at this as a chance to maybe open your mind a little, if your willing to do so. Many people are actually against that kind of thing.

Considering the Civil Rights Act has been altered and amended to not only deal with Racism, you must also be against assistance for disabled individuals and rights for them which is clearly stated in the act.

I am against anyone receiving special treatment. A disabled person is not worth more than one who is fully functional. Just like a fully functional, healthy person is not worth more than a disabled person. So when we talk about rights for people, we should be talking about HUMAN rights. Not rights for gays, not rights for blacks, not rights for the disabled. Rights for all, regardless of your color, sex, religion or disabilities. Why should one group have rights that another group should not? At the heart of it all, this is the real issue. Blacks don't have the same rights as Whites. Disabled people do not have the same rights as non disabled people, etc etc. Well they should, but as soon as we stop thinking of people in terms of groups and start thinking of all people as people, we will never achieve much. Concerning the assistance portion, we will get to that a bit later.

This is from a website, in fact it doesn't much like Romney or Obama either, but it summed up Paul's stated position, and honestly reading RP's drivel makes my stomach turn so here's the summary.

Ron Paul is a conservative. He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act, privatize public education, abolish Social Security, kill Medicare, re-establish DADT, eliminate public housing, abolish federal student loans, kill Planned Parenthood, end the Departments of Energy and Education and the EPA, abolish the minimum wage, end affirmative action, disagrees with equal pay for women, and wants to end FEMA

So let me get this right... I asked you to show us proof of your claim that Ron Paul has said he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. Instead of showing that, you decide to show me the opinion of some other person about what Ron Paul wants? I see a whole list you quoted of what Ron Paul wants to do according to some mystery person from some random website, but even what you linked does not show Ron Paul's words. Do I even need to point out why this is a problem? Plus you did not even provide a link for your source.

Now, onto Education, without the Department of Education it would be up to localities who got schooling, that would eliminate all funding for special needs programs as well, and I can tell you, states and municipality have trouble keeping up with those costs as it is, so yes You are against educating these kids if you think that the one agency that helps them should be eliminated and that all they do is "one size fits all schooling"

Actually I believe we can do better. I believe there is a better solution. The Department of Education is a failure. As the Department of Education grows, the overall quality of Education has gone down. That is a fact no one can deny or hide from. The issue here, by your own postings, is how this will effect YOUR kids. You give zero thought to how this large Government Department is effecting the quality of Education for ALL kids. Your simply concerned with YOUR kids. Personally, I think that is a very selfish and small minded attitude to have when discussing an entity that effects MILLIONS of kids, not just yours.

My problem with you is that you are unwilling to see or even consider there's a downside to this man.. Hell I wann end wars, I wanna repeal the Federal Reserve Act and replace it with something better, but devastating all social programs,

The "problem" with me? You don;t even know me to have any room to judge me or assume you know what my "problem" is. Yet here you are assuming that I am unwilling to see or consider anything else. Again... pretty small minded of you and very easily disproved. If I was so unwilling to consider anything, why are we even having this discussion? Obviously by continuously interacting with you and having a polite conversation (at least on my part), I am willing to hear and consider your views.

"Devastating all social programs"? Your basing your opinion on what some mystery man on some random website has said Ron Paul wants to do. Have you ever heard Ron Paul tell you himself what his idea is? If you have, you would know better and you would know that this is simply untrue.

Continued in next post::::

and making statements like this: “You don’t have a right to a house, you don’t have a right to a job, you don’t have a right to medical care.”

You do not have a right to a house. If you want a home, you work and you earn it. That is a choice, not your right. That is what it means to be in control of your life and make decisions to improve yourself as a person and your quality of life. It is no wonder we have a whole generation of people who think they are simply entitled to things because they were born. Guess what? Your not entitled to anything in this life. You are not owed anything just because you were born and share my air. You want a home? Go out and work for it. It is not your right to own one, it is your choice to own a home.

Job? You think you have a "right" to a job? You don't. If you were an employer and I showed up to apply for a job with your company for a Customer Relations type of position. A position where I would be physically interacting with your customers. Do I have a right to have that job simply because I applied for it? What if show up with my face tattooed and half my head pieced so I look like Lizard Man. Should you be forced to hire me because I have a "right" to a job? Of course not. You do not have a right to a job, you go out and find a job. You get trained, you conduct and carry yourself like a reasonable person and you EARN your job. You are not entitled to it.

Medical care..... guess what? You do not have a "right" to Medical Care. You seek it from a trained professional and he should receive compensation for his services. A person who goes to school for 10 years to master his craft is not required to treat you because it's your "right". You have a right to choose weather or not you wish to see a Doctor, but the Doctor is under no obligation to give you free treatment. It is a service provided. If people have a "right" to Medical Care where does it end? Do you have a "right" to have your oil changed? Do you have a "right" to get your hair or nails done? No, it is a service provided to you, it is not a "right".

and this: The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

Well they did, which I will explain more after this...

Well I could go on.. but that just irks me.. I am not Christian, and I don't' wanna be todl what to do based upon his religion..

Well he is not telling you what to do based on his religion. First off, I am not a Christian either. I am very "down" when it comes to all organized religions. With that being said, once upon time Churches actually did things and served their communities. It was one way for them to gain converts and gather people into the church. Back then Churches provided a service. They took care of the poor, they provided for the sick, and they helped people in need. Today the Churches are much more selective in these areas about who they help. Today it is more of a PR stunt to solicit donations. The Church takes in billions of dollars per year, never pays any taxes, and always needs a little bit more. Once upon a time, the Church's gave back to the Communities and were active in the Community. It was more than just holding a service on Sunday to gather donations from your sheep, which is exactly what it has become today.

So once upon a time the Church did serve as a vital institution and with the Federal Government not supporting people from cradle to grave, they did eclipse the State in importance. This is why I laugh at Christians today. What would Jesus do? I don't know, but I am sure he wouldn't continue taking money from the poor to build bigger and better churches and new vehicles for his staff. I would imagine he would take that money that was donated in love and use it to feed the poor and help the sick. Going back to a point I passed up on at the start of my post... Do you know who else would benefited from such assistance from the Church? The disabled.

Now to Clarify something: I do not like Obama, I think he's a liar and a fake, I always have. I do not like Mitt Romney he turned Massachusetts into a socialist state and seems to think that it's ok to do so. Honestly I don't like ANY of the candidates out there, but at least I was willing at one point to listen and concede that all of them had some points i liked, and up until recently didn't care who anyone else really liked or disliked. It's this messiah complex everyone has, first it was for Barry O and now it's for "savior Paul" that has me worried.

Messiah complex everyone has? I do not think of Ron Paul as a savior of any kind. Comparing him to Obama is just silly and it is such a lame and tired argument that we see on these boards every day. I do not know one single Paul supporter who views him as a "Savior". We view him as the best option. There is a huge difference.

Obama came on the scene with smooth talk and promises of change. Ron Paul has been delivering the exact same message for over 30 years. No one embraced that message. Listening to him discuss the drug war in the 80's he sure did seem like a nut. Looking back now and seeing where we are and where we came from and the path we have taken, I can now see his argument about the Drug War in the 1980's was absolutely right. What used to be considered an isolated incident where Police raid the wrong house and shoot an unarmed man with a remote control in his hand is no longer the exception. It has become the norm. No one is shocked by it anymore when it happens. We expect it and it has gotten worse with the introduction of no knock warrants. Ron Paul never coasted in with smooth talk, he continued to deliver the exact same message, and it was a message that people did not want to embrace, but many of us have learned through time that we were wrong. As we allowed small pieces of our Liberty to be taken in the name of keeping us safe from things ranging from the crack epidemic all the way to terrorism, we are finding out that we are not any safer. If anything we allowed a new enemy to come into power.

A Savior? Not to me, he is just a man, but he is a man who was right and willing to speak the truth even when no one else agreed with him.

Originally posted by FoosM

I heard that R.Paul also had a private meeting with Bernanke.
I wonder what that was about. Maybe they threatened Paul too.

edit on 15-5-2012 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

I also wonder if that meeting had anything to do with anything..

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Wookiep

 

Paul's campaign is working with the Romney campaign...and Benton says that an endorsement isn't out of the question...I'm just curious how is supporters will re-act to that. I still think they will fall into line with whatever Ron Paul tells them to do.

What a ridiculous generalization. Of course, if Ron Paul endorsed Romney, some of his supporters would follow suit. Duh. He does have a lot of support from traditional Republicans who will of course vote R instead of D no matter what.

As far as my personal situation, and I know it's a common situation for Ron Paul supporters, I would never support Mitt Romney. Not if Ron told me to, not if Jesus told me to.

Duh

I find it bizarre that people never believe ex.mainstream media aka the presstitutes but when they say Ron Paul is dropping out all those so called enlightened people go into 'OMG' mode!

reply to post by getreadyalready


I think Ron Paul was never trying to win the Presidential nomination, I think he was trying to overthrow the Republican Establishment. Think about all those Ron Paul delegates. Those delegates are now used to the Political process. Their inhibitions in running for Party positions, and elected positions is gone/greatly reduced.

What is the point of a Ron Paul presidency when the Republican Party is still full to the brim with neo conservatives, social conservatives and progressives?