Paul campaign believes GOP cheating cost Paul a win in Arizona

Its been clear from the get go that Paul never had a chance. It was amusing for a while reading all those post holding up the same few polls handpicked out of hundreds claiming it was proof the American people want Paul, but the masquerade is up! The dying shrieks of the Paul campaign is proof enough.

reply to post by litterbaux

If you mark that little bubble next to anyone other than Ron Paul you are personally responsible for all future deaths of our military personal. You are also personally responsible for any future debt that future generations have to endure.

Hmm. Your logic does not pan out like you want. It is certainly not in your favor.

Let me explain why. Say for instance Paul is elected. All the foreign aid that would be used to genuinely help the more than under privileged, doesn't do so under Paul. Instead, those would be saved are now blood on Paul supporters hands.

At the same time, people that need social services to survive, for whatever reason, will suffer without it. Their suffering is now on Paul's and his supporters hands.

Kids that cant attend a decent school because their parents cant afford a pricey academy. Instead, they go to a third rate school (and I mean THIRD rate)that is convenient because its cheap. Their lack of a half way decent education is on Paul's and his supporters hands.

Whatever selfish reason compels you to choose anyone other than Ron Paul, be prepared to carry that weight on your shoulders for the rest of your life.

Choosing Paul is a selfishness in itself. Selfish is practically his motto.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


If you think that is the reason he would lose you are absolutely blind.
How can you guys be in such denial? Sure you don't like Ron Paul, but seriously?
We are talking about a guy with solid ideas, more real informed support than any candidate in decades, a huge expanding base, yet he is only on t.v. to be criticised? He is ignored most other times and given no time in debates. Voter fraud is rampant against him, including the media reporting that he has dropped out.

He actually WOULD have the support. All that had to happen was the media say he did, or at the very least not raise one cadidate above the other. The media is supposed to report news not manipulate it.

If this was a campaign where you cut out the MSM and each candidates supporters did the footwork, and people got their info from fair debates. Ron Paul would have been the winner. No one likes Romney. No one liked any of them.

One thing I am absolutely certain about.. if Obama gets back in.. or Romney, in 4 years we will be saying I told you so. Without a doubt. 2013 might end up a very tough year.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


What money would that be?
What money genuinely helps the under priveliged?

I would love to know what country we are sending it to whose government is actually taking that money and helping their people with it?

That is laughable.

Nothing in your post made a damn bit of sense.

corruption WILL bring a an armed revolt. This can only go on so long before people lose their minds. We will see DC in flames if our leaders don't learn about honor and virtue of office. The party will end eventually.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

What money would that be?
What money genuinely helps the under priveliged?

I would love to know what country we are sending it to whose government is actually taking that money and helping their people with it?

That is laughable.

Nothing in your post made a damn bit of sense.

edit on 22-5-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

www.usaid.gov...

Here is USAID website. I suggest you take one of these "Fake" projects and debunk their lies for me. Otherwise, claiming by default that all the money is falling into the hands of bloated plutocrats is something that makes your post make no sense.

reply to post by frazzle

Originally posted by frazzle
You know Ron Paul would pull many democrats...

You say Ron Paul would pull Democrats...
He would do it if what?
Why doesn't he do it?
Why hasn't he done it?
What's stopping him?
Who's to blame for Ron Paul's repeated failure to gain the candidacy?

Who is Ron Paul a victim of today?

The GOP?
The media?
Obama?
Romney?
Democrats?
Weather patterns?

Makes cheating okay I suppose.

I am not, in any way defending anyone who cheats. If you think I'm defending the GOP you couldn't be more confused about my position. I suggest you read my posts again.

reply to post by litterbaux

Originally posted by litterbaux
If you mark that little bubble next to anyone other than Ron Paul you are personally responsible for all future deaths of our military personal.

Threatening me being personally responsible for the ills of the world is typical GOP fear-mongering, guilt-inducing BS. Well, I'm not buying it. I'll take care of my responsibilities, you take care of yours.

This mindset of being a victim to everything and everyone else is truly classic. But of course, Ron Paul promotes it - as he is the head victim.

Whatever selfish reason compels you to choose anyone other than Ron Paul, be prepared to carry that weight on your shoulders for the rest of your life.

First, what other possible reason do people have to vote other than to do what's best for themselves and their families? Isn't it "selfish reasons" that compel you to vote for your chosen candidate? Yes, for "selfish reasons", I will vote for the candidate of my choice, thanks. You do the same. That's how this election process works.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
If you think that is the reason he would lose you are absolutely blind.

Enlighten me. Why will Ron Paul lose this election?

How can you guys be in such denial?

Denial of what? If you explain what I'm denying, I'll try my best to answer the question. I may not be able to answer for "us guys", but I can give you my take.

We are talking about a guy with solid ideas, more real informed support than any candidate in decades, a huge expanding base, yet he is only on t.v. to be criticised? He is ignored most other times and given no time in debates. Voter fraud is rampant against him, including the media reporting that he has dropped out.

People have WARS with the aid only of Facebook and Twitter. If Ron Paul's presence was really that great, and his base was so powerful and large, no amount of MSM criticism or debate time would change that. If the people REALLY wanted what Ron Paul is offering, NO amount of criticism from the media would matter. The GOP doesn't want him, that's for sure, and I don't doubt that they are cheating to ensure that Romney gets more delegates that he's due, so he doesn't split the vote in the general election, but the majority of the people don't want the drastic policies of Paul. His ideas are solid, yes, and he's trustworthy, but many (including myself) disagree with him on too many fundamental issues to vote for him.

The majority does NOT want what Ron Paul is offering!

One thing I am absolutely certain about.. if Obama gets back in.. or Romney, in 4 years we will be saying I told you so. Without a doubt. 2013 might end up a very tough year.

2013 is likely to be a tough year no matter what. We're coming out of a recession. If saying, "I told you so", is important to you, then have at it. You can even just go ahead and say it now if you want. Because either Romney or Obama is our next president...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The majority does NOT want what Ron Paul is offering!

Well that's convenient, because the US is not a democracy. It was designed so that a vocal minority would have more influence than an ignorant majority. What the "majority" seems to always want is tyranny.

Plato, in his Republic, tells us that tyranny arises, as a rule, from democracy. Historically, this process has occurred in three quite different ways.

...

The first road to totalitarian tyranny (though by no means the most frequently used) is the overthrow by force of a liberal democracy through a revolutionary movement, as a rule a party advocating tyranny but unable to win the necessary support in free elections. The stage for such violence is set if the parties represent philosophies so different as to make dialogue and compromise impossible. Clausewitz said that wars are the continuation of diplomacy by other means, and in ideologically divided nations revolutions are truly the continuation of parliamentarism with other means. The result is the absolute rule of one “party” which, having finally achieved complete control, might still call itself a party, referring to its parliamentary past, when it still was merely a part of the diet.
Democracys road to tyranny

The Wide Awakes was a paramilitary campaign organization affiliated with the Republican Party during the United States presidential election of 1860. Similar organizations affiliated with the Democratic Party were called the "Douglas Invincibles", "Young Hickories" or "Earthquakes". Southern organizations were called the "Minute Men".
Wide Awake Republicans.

You know how it seems both major political parties in the US are actually just ONE party... ever wonder how that got started? It could be the above.

The second avenue toward totalitarian tyranny is “free elections.” It can happen that a totalitarian party with great popularity gains such momentum and so many votes that it becomes legally and democratically a country’s master. This happened in Germany in 1932 when no less than 60 per cent of the electorate voted for totalitarian despotism: for every two National Socialists there was one international socialist in the form of a Marxist Communist, and another one in the form of a somewhat less Marxist Social Democrat. Under these circum stances liberal democracy was doomed, since it had no longer a majority in the Reichstag. This development could have been halted only by a military dictatorship (as envisaged by General von Schleicher who was later murdered by the Nazis) or by a restoration of the Hohenzollerns (as planned by Bruning). Yet, within the democratic and constitutional framework, the National Socialists were bound to win.

AKA Nazis ^^

Third times the charm, now listen well because this is the important one:

Then there is the third way in which a democracy changes into a totalitarian tyranny. The first political analyst who foresaw this hitherto-never-experienced kind of evolution was Alexis de Tocqueville. He drew an exact and frightening picture of our Provider State (wrongly called Welfare State) in the second volume of his Democracy in America, published in 1835; he spoke at length about a form of tyranny which he could only describe, but not name, because it had no historic precedent. Admittedly, it took several generations until Tocqueville’s vision became a reality.

He envisaged a democratic government in which nearly all human affairs would be regulated by a mild, “compassionate” but determined government under which the citizens would practice their pursuit of happiness as “timid animals,” losing all initiative and freedom. The Roman Emperors, he said, could direct their wrath against individuals, but control of all forms of life was out of the question under their rule. We have to add that in Tocqueville’s time the technology for such a surveillance and regulation was insufficiently developed. The computer had not been invented and thus his warnings found little echo in the past century.

What does that sound like? Sounds a lot like the US now huh? Predicted.

You see, "majority rule" historically has never been a good thing.

reply to post by RSF77


I know the US is not a democracy. I wasn't saying it is. I was simply stating that the majority of people don't want Ron Paul. (Most times, the majority drives the Electoral College.)

Do a search for my name and "majority rule"... You'll find I have railed against it many times.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by RSF77

 

I know the US is not a democracy. I wasn't saying it is. I was simply stating that the majority of people don't want Ron Paul. (Most times, the majority drives the Electoral College.)

Do a search for my name and "majority rule"... You'll find I have railed against it many times.

I tend to think money has been driving the electoral college, but that is only my opinion.

Sorry for the rant focused on that one sentence, but I figured it would be useful information for everyone. It is human nature for people to divide into groups and the biggest one always tries to commit atrocities against the others.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Maybe rather than answering as you read you answer after you have completed reading so you wouldn't have to ask so many superflous questions.

The majority want what the t.v. tells them they want.

So when you guys wanted change from Obama what we are getting, that is absolutely what you thought we were gonna get, this is what you wanted? If people weren't so ignorant they could see through the lies and they would see that it actually is what they want. They only hear what the media says about Ron Paul, not what Ron Paul says himself. Same goes for you, how much do you know about Obama? What do you know about him? What makes him appealing to you in any way shape or form?

There is nothing. You tow the party line.
Maybe Ron Paul doesn't have the majority of voters, but he has the majority of informed voters. They know what they stand for and they know their candidate. The majority of Obama voters are just ignorant people that still think he's some kind of God or celebrity. Like you they don't know anything about him. Romney voters tried literally every single person before Romney and are only voting Romney because he's not Obama.

Thank God voting is easy or the majority of Romney and Obama supporters wouldn't be able to do it. Although they probably shouldn't be allowed to because to them voting is just a multiple choice question where the answer is whichever name you heard the most.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You say Ron Paul would pull Democrats...
He would do it if what?
Why doesn't he do it?
Why hasn't he done it?
What's stopping him?
Who's to blame for Ron Paul's repeated failure to gain the candidacy?

I am not, in any way defending anyone who cheats.

Ron Paul HAS pulled in democrats who are sick to death of these immoral wars, democrats who are sick to death of tax revenuer's grasping hands, democrats who are sick to death of TSA goons putting their hands down the pants of grandmothers and babies, democrats who are sick to death of seeing their tax money going to prop up foreign dictators instead of helping people at home, democrats who are sick to death of being raped by Wall Street which is under the heavy protection of their bought and paid for congress, democrats who are sick to death of being lied to by bought and paid for media whores.

Nothing is stopping him from educating democrats on these issues and more that it doesn't have to be this way. I suspect you even know some of them. I suspect you even know that many of the candidates running for congress this term fully support Ron Paul's philosophy.

So whether or not Paul wins, people are ready for a real change and they'll bring it.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Maybe rather than answering as you read you answer after you have completed reading so you wouldn't have to ask so many superflous questions.

I read your post, then I answered it... I'm not sure I understand why you think my questions are superfluous... unless you really DON'T want to have a discussion... or maybe you don't have an answer... That's OK, too. I'll try to keep the questions to you to a minimum...

reply to post by frazzle


Yeah.. He definitely has. I was a Democrat from the time I could vote until last year.
I know about 10 other people that switched the same.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
The majority of Obama voters are just ignorant people that still think he's some kind of God or celebrity. Like you they don't know anything about him. Romney voters tried literally every single person before Romney and are only voting Romney because he's not Obama.

And they call Ron Paul supporters "cultish":



This "teacher" (more like propagandist) evidently doesn't believe in or know what freedom of speech is. The sad thing is I half expected the MSM to side with her.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So you don't want to vote for a trustworthy guy with sound ideas because you disagree with some of his stances.. that doesn't make any sense when you consider that you have NO idea where Obama stands. The reason you don't know what his plans are. He gives you goals, the things you want to hear, but his actions our conterintuitive to those goals. That tells me that his intentions are not what he claims.

I would love for someone to lay out what Obama is going to do to save this sinking ship because he just keeps taking us further out to sea. Whenever a president does one thing bad, one thing that takes away American's rights, or further endangers their lives, or steals their money (Obama is guilty of ALL of these things) then why do you guys look the other way and think they are going to all of a suddent do a 180 and stop? It's insane.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by frazzle

 

Yeah.. He definitely has. I was a Democrat from the time I could vote until last year.
I know about 10 other people that switched the same.

Good for you. About the only people I know who Paul doesn't appeal to are those who have skin in the current corrupt party game and they are not representative of the population at large, nor do they have the best interests of this country or the world in mind, only their own "skin". That may sound harsh, but then the truth often is.

Yes they stole Interpoles files Ron Paul and you know damn well who I am.