Ron Paul Wins Maine

Most everyone I know will NOT be voting for Romney-Noodle or Obama-jad. They are all writing RP in on the ballot. Some might say I’m wasting a vote. Maybe so, but at least I will be walking away from the polling station with a smile on my face. Can you honestly say the same about Mittens or Obama? I think not! I will NOT be voting for the lesser evil!

If I had a second choice, I would vote in Morgan Freeman.

reply to post by Propulsion

Why don't you vote for a candidate that would split the vote and keep Romney out? What about Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

You're not wasting a vote with writing in Ron Paul because he may not win. You're wasting a vote because it won't be counted at all, and thus you may as well have not voted.

Unless RP goes to every state and files paperwork for a write-in campaign, no write-in vote for him has any value. You may as well write-in Morgan Freeman in that case.

reply to post by MrSpad


Your comment doesn'y hold water.
The only reason Ron Paul doesn't get recognition is because the media doesn't give him air time.. The reason he's not currently campaigning is because he lacks the funds. He lacks the funds because unlike Obummer and mittens he doesn't cater to the corperate elite. Therefore they don't support him.. But they do control the media.. Everything you see and hear.. (Puppet much?)

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Your comment doesn'y hold water.
The only reason Ron Paul doesn't get recognition is because the media doesn't give him air time.. The reason he's not currently campaigning is because he lacks the funds. He lacks the funds because unlike Obummer and mittens he doesn't cater to the corperate elite. Therefore they don't support him.. But they do control the media.. Everything you see and hear.. (Puppet much?)

I couldn't agree more. I was never so disgusted with Rush and the rest of the big "conservative" talk radio hosts as I was this Primary. They so totally ignored Dr. Paul in such an obvious fashion that I don't think anyone can truly call them conservative.

Had they thrown in at least some support for Dr. Paul, and had been open to talking about his ideas, we might be seeing alot more media coverage of him. Instead Rush announces to his listeners that Ron Paul questions or comments will not be entertained before opening his show to calls.

What a joke.

reply to post by ReAwakened


Well, your point isn't repeating so it's worth perhaps one more comment here.

Your point about the system being broken ..well, it's well taken and by the electoral college, we don't elect the President anyway. Just the delegates that vote.

However, I don't go to the polls to vote for President to be honest. The President doesn't set my property taxes or the policies my son lives under in his school. Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the ordinances passed in my city or within my state. In the end, very little which actually touches my life directly comes from the desk of the President, whoever that may be.

Down-Ticket races are ALWAYS worth going to vote for. Always. The nation and even statewide voting totals may be beyond hope or maybe just badly warped. The local races are getting too granular to fudge much though. People know roughly how such things ought to turn out and who is totaling what, by what method. Just my two cents..but I hate to hear anyone say they just won't vote at all. The President and Congress are in some ways the LEAST important choices on the average ballot, IMO.

Originally posted by tpsreporter
The Romney supporters just need to accept it.

True Ron Paul supports WILL NOT be voting for Romney. Another 4 years for Obama is not at the feet of the Ron Paul supporters, it's at the feet of the elite and TPTB and the people who keep insisting RP is'n t White House worthy

Then welcome to four more years of hope and change. RP is White House worthy. His message is awesome, but even he has conceded by suspending his campaign. Even the man himself has sad "enough is enough, we can't win this thing" and you won't listen to him on that point? I'd stand next to you if he had stayed in the race. HE HASN'T. Your ideology and passion is commendable but understand the REALITY of the situation - if you stay home, if you vote for Gary What's his name, if you write in a candidate, YOU are handing the election to OBAMA. Since one plus one equals two, why not just vote for Barry?????

I am a Paul supporter. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS. Look, if I said here are 3 numbers - if you pick the first two correctly, you are likely to win 100 bucks when we pull that number out of the hat (or at least it's 50/50), if you pick number 3, you are likely to win ZERO - WHICH WOULD YOU PICK?

Originally posted by Propulsion
Most everyone I know will NOT be voting for Romney-Noodle or Obama-jad. They are all writing RP in on the ballot. Some might say I’m wasting a vote. Maybe so, but at least I will be walking away from the polling station with a smile on my face. Can you honestly say the same about Mittens or Obama? I think not! I will NOT be voting for the lesser evil!

If I had a second choice, I would vote in Morgan Freeman.

edit on 30-7-2012 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)

Let me know if you have a smile on your face the day after the election. And then when the market has it's say and crashes again because the market understands Barry isn't good for business.

Just because the delegates elected were Ron Paul supporters surely doesn't translate into a win for this state for Ron Paul?

I'm an avid RP supporter, but this statement makes no sense.

Originally posted by DarkATi

Originally posted by japhrimu
reply to post by Propulsion

 

YOU have the right idea on how to win the election. Get the prettiest girl you can think of to endorse your candidate.

I'm on board already because for one, Ron Paul has more class than to misuse democracy like that, unlike Romney. Romney's at the wailing wall in Israel on the top picture of CNN.com, as I type this. If I were religious, I wouldn't go to pray at a religious shrine of another's religion. He's such a political slut. (sorry bout that last word. I'm not against cursing, but calling someone a slut, and online just doesn't seem right... Well, I guess it's just right enough, cause I'm leaving it.)

Christians are interested in Jerusalem too, ya know? I don't disagree with your characterization of the man. I don't like Mittens, myself. However, I would pray at the wailing wall, and I'm a Christian. I wouldn't wail there per se... (pun intended), but still I think it's a bit harsh to slam the dude just for where he prays.

A little more on topic: Go Ron Paul. I will write him in if he does not receive the nomination. Obama and Romney are essentially the same. Ron Paul revolution, baby! Give me back my Constitution!!!

Cheers,
Cody

Mittens is a Mormon.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I don't think Obama cares any more or less than Romney.. They are both bought and paid for. Have you noticed that neither one really go after each other on any issues that actually matter? Wars? Fast and Furious? Bailouts? Nah. I agree about Obama, he's horrible, and it's delusional to think Romney is any better IMO.

EDIT: Oh and have a good night!

edit on 30-7-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

Except that the market usually fairs much better with a pro-business, anti government regime. Since 1950 it's been 9-5 in favor of the GOP because most people understand this but will vote the left in after an unpopular right winger. With the exception of JFK.
1. Carter after Ford, who was popular but people did not like that he pardoned Nixon
2. Clinton after Bush Sr because "it's the economy, stupid" and Ross Perot
3. Obama - out of nowhere with no proper vetting because of how Bush turned his back on the GOP and the economy. McCain never had a chance.

Think about Ross Perot. Ross Perot won Clinton the White House, not Clinton. Now in retrospect he was a decent fiscal president, and Barry has already proven otherwise. So let's not go through this until almost the end of the decade, shall we? At least Romney will ensure that the economy improves. Obamacare is bad for business - the facts back that up. So unless you want to continue to afford the computer and internet access you are reading this on by keeping your job, getting one or being promoted, just do the right thing. Maybe not right in a sense that the system is corrupt, but right by your family and your neighbors and getting them back to work. Come on...

Originally posted by flashtrum
...if you pick number 3, you are likely to win ZERO - WHICH WOULD YOU PICK?

If I pick #1 I will get 4 more years of bad luck.

If I pick #2 I will probably get 8 years of bad luck. Romneycare/Obamacare, what is the difference?

If I pick who I want I likely won't get it but at least I'm not preventing you from getting who you want, and whatever the consequences of it won't be my fault.

The choices all suck, but the last one seems least objectionable to me.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by flashtrum
...if you pick number 3, you are likely to win ZERO - WHICH WOULD YOU PICK?

If I pick #1 I will get 4 more years of bad luck.

If I pick #2 I will probably get 8 years of bad luck. Romneycare/Obamacare, what is the difference?

If I pick who I want I likely won't get it but at least I'm not preventing you from getting who you want, and whatever the consequences of it won't be my fault.

The choices all suck, but the last one seems least objectionable to me.

edit on 30-7-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

The difference is that Romney feels (as more true conservatives do) that these types of choices should be left to the states and having the Feds involved in anything isn't really good for anybody.

My Dad used to say that the Post Office was the only self-sufficient government agency. Now look where we are. It's a mess because of government-centric ideals.

And the consequences WILL be your fault. The time to "make a statement" is long gone. But go ahead, write in Paul. It will make ZERO difference, except if the stock market loses enough points the day after and the company you work for decides that the layoffs there were considering are actually worth following through on, your job is gone, and in order for you to get to this site you'll need to take the bus down to the public library.

Again, I love the idealism and was a Paul supporter. But it is what it is people. Argue that there's little difference between Romney and Obama all you want. I'll trying to get you to look at this thing as it is. #1, there are two candidates left. There will be no crazy delegate fight. #2, go with every conspiracy in the book and Romney is still better for your checking account. He just is. If you put gay marriage ahead of making sure your kid goes to college, by all means vote for Barry. As a US Citizen it's your right. If you want any shade of what this country used to be and could be again, however faint - sorry but Mitt is our only choice here.

reply to post by CaptainBeno

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Could someone please shed some light on Ron Paul's slice of the pie at the moment. We (Australia) don't really get much news about RP down here. What is the overall picture? Is there a chance?

Sorry, when it comes to US politics I (Personally) don't understand or know. But, I am interested. We only get dribs and drabs of information and it's really hard to keep up.

Hey I dont think anyone provided you with this yet here is a LIST

United States presidential candidate in 1988, 2008, and 2012, have been labeled conservative,[1] Constitutionalist,[2] and libertarian.[3] Paul's nickname "Dr. No"[4] reflects both his medical degree and his assertion that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution".[5] This position has frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation. The central tenet of Paul's political philosophy is that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else

reply to post by GoldenRuled


It is great that RP may well have a chance to speak at the national convention. I only hope some of TPTB in the MSM allow it to be aired to the general populace. No doubt he will be educating the audience in a manner that hasn't been seen since the days of our founding fathers who understood tyranny all too well.

reply to post by flashtrum


I'll get flamed for this, but here goes anyhow. Clinton presided over a period of grossly overstated profits and internet "boom" which led to unfounded optimism, a high flying stock market and inflated everyone's sense of net worth. So timing more than anything afforded him to be a financially responsible president. That and he was too busy.. not having sex with that woman.. Hillary..

Otherwise, I agree with your assertions. RP2012





www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by flashtrum

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Romneycare/Obamacare, what is the difference?

The difference is that Romney feels (as more true conservatives do) that these types of choices should be left to the states and having the Feds involved in anything isn't really good for anybody.

And the consequences WILL be your fault.

If you put gay marriage ahead of making sure your kid goes to college, by all means vote for Barry. ... - sorry but Mitt is our only choice here.

An issue like universal healthcare you feel is a state issue and Romney has no intention of going national with it? OK, then.

Voting against Obama or Romney I can do with a clear conscience, much clearer than voting FOR either one of them.

Same-sex marriage and state universities I view as state issues also, but you indicate I should choose our federal Executive based on these issues?? Do you expect by federal decree Romney may possibly ban same-sex marriage nationally? Do you expect Romney may commit federal funds to private universities? expand a national university system?

One issue which various states have approved and the general US populace favors is medical MJ which I have seen Romney speak out against, implying he will continue, or likely even enhance, federal resources for enforcement to override state authority in this manner.

Sorry, I remain unconvinced that Romney is any kind of good choice.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by flashtrum
...if you pick number 3, you are likely to win ZERO - WHICH WOULD YOU PICK?

If I pick #1 I will get 4 more years of bad luck.

If I pick #2 I will probably get 8 years of bad luck. Romneycare/Obamacare, what is the difference?

If I pick who I want I likely won't get it but at least I'm not preventing you from getting who you want, and whatever the consequences of it won't be my fault.

The choices all suck, but the last one seems least objectionable to me.

edit on 30-7-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

Yes and yes Eron.

I love how some will say we vote for Obama by not voting Mitt, but cannot grasp what you just pointed out so well

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Or we can write in someone ...just for the sake of it...and tell our kids we didn't even choose between the choices we DID have,..before the world they were to inherit blows apart.

I don't know how I'd tell my kid that years from now...so I think I'll vote and Mitt..well.. hell.... It is what it is.

That's the spirit. Give up while facing impossible odds - that's the attitude that shaped your country from the start Voting for one of two evils is still evil brother. Whatever Obama's gonna do on his next term, Romney will also do, because they both answer to the same superiors. Vote Ron Paul or eat a bullet - those are your choices right about now. And in the likely event that Ron Paul doesn't get in - prepare for the worst if you haven't already.

Maybe if all the Americans jaded into complacency by their own political system snapped out of it, something could be done about it. Until that day, the world waits in growing anxious tension for the End. Is that what you want to tell your kids? That you "didn't think that freedom and liberty had a chance, so I gave up on it"? And then somehow find a way to twist that fact into a favor you did in the name of your children? Jesus man, we're losing our humanity so fast I'm worried to even blink lest the human race mutate into demonic bloodthirsty freaks in that very moment. What a god damned nightmare we all dwell in

well...thank God in 1775 for the 3% that didn't just....go with the flow

RP all the way

reply to post by TheAnarchist

You know what I find most disturbing about that line of thought in Ron Paul or bust for writing him in? If your truly serious and this is how you feel to your core, as strongly as I feel Obama MUST be defeated, then I have a rather direct question.

What happens when either Obama or Romney IS the winner?

The true extreme of what you are saying almost has to lead to rash action if Ron Paul isn't somehow the winner by write in or what have you. At that point this is truly and absolutely over for that being any kind of possibility. Dr. Paul has said, I believe, he is not running for anything again if he loses this. I HATE the idea of Obama winning, but I plan nothing foolish. I plan to learn how to change this damn system from within and by becoming skilled enough to accomplish it. To each their strength when change must come by almost any means.

If Romney wins...I only hope 4 years is enough for people to get their crap together and back Rand or whoever, because Ron Paul people got ROLLED this time and at almost every level. NEXT time we don't need 50 at a caucus. We need FIVE HUNDRED at the caucus. When those idiots try and say they control it, they need to see the citizens are 15-20 to their 1, however many the party has. THAT is how this changes....in my opinion.