Paul Not Given Role at Republican Convention

The Mittens thinking goes, by ignoring Paul, the political process will ignore him too.

This logic fails in perceiving the strong support Paul and his message has received in particular younger voters, as well as more aware audiences. These votes may not count but 15% (these are active voters after all) - but which could mean win or loose for Mittens when weighing against Obama. If this base will not bring him votes - the man is toast.

So, looking from the overall perspective, this was a great loss for Mittens. Add to this exposure for major scandals all the way through his campaign so far, and with tainted past, that including being vulture-capitalist - he is really tough love for voters.

reply to post by deckdel


I don't know if that's a realistic analysis honestly.

The other thing is that I find it oh so annoying that, just because CT sites like RP, he's automatically the candidate of the "aware" person.

I've seen so many RP fans who have almost no idea what he stands for, aside from a few top level issues, and when pressed, don't know his positions really well at all.

Not that that is you, but also not that his supporters are super "aware" or as many RP supporters claim, more intelligent, than any other candidate's supporters.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Well that is just absurd. Of course he does. He got out a HUGE VOTE, and won enough states delegate wise. He represents more people ideologically than Romney does. Paul has over 500 delegates in this convention that is huge considering he ran a clean campaign solely on the support of the people and Romney had the media on his side and every GOP agent stuffing ballot boxes, removing votes for Paul, and pushing fake slates.

He has every right to speak, however, they haven't announced all of the speakers yet as I understand it and I find it hard to believe they won't invite him. If they don't then they honestly are afraid of what he might say, because it really only makes sense to invite him to try to pacify his support rather than incite them.

reply to post by longlostbrother


He is the candidate for the aware person. The anecdote you relate is worthless in proving or disproving the concept. When people are voting for Ron Paul it is generally because they agree with his ideas and have heard him speak or heard his intentions. When people are out to vote for Romney they NEVER know his intentions, they don't agree with him, he is just the face they have been pushed and the "Not Obama" they think has a chance.

Paul's supporters are generally aware because they have to be in order to spread support for Paul. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Every supporter of Paul's is hard won. Romney has the t.v. to feed the ignorant masses (which must be extra ignorant this year) his lines. Do the experiment. I have a many times. Ask a "Romney supporter" (ie an ex Santorum/ex Cain/ex Huntsman supporter as there are no Romney supporters) what Romney's plans are for fixing the economy and so on. They can't tell you. Romney won't tell you many of his plans (something you can only get away with in this retarded two party system because you don't have to) he says "when i tell my plans I lose elections" WTF? Romney supporters actually buy the line that Paul's plan to NOT send aid and bombs at other countries for no reason is dangerous LOL.

Romney isn't going to win this election guys. He was never meant to and he can't because he DOES NOT have the support. They may never relate the real numbers, but after the convention it will become glaringly obvious despite Fox news saying he has a chance. Obama will win, Paul was the only one that could beat Obama this year and they clowned all these GOP idiots out of voting for him.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Well that is just absurd. Of course he does. He got out a HUGE VOTE, and won enough states delegate wise. He represents more people ideologically than Romney does. Paul has over 500 delegates in this convention that is huge considering he ran a clean campaign solely on the support of the people and Romney had the media on his side and every GOP agent stuffing ballot boxes, removing votes for Paul, and pushing fake slates.

He has every right to speak, however, they haven't announced all of the speakers yet as I understand it and I find it hard to believe they won't invite him. If they don't then they honestly are afraid of what he might say, because it really only makes sense to invite him to try to pacify his support rather than incite them.

I don't actually think he represents a huge number of people ideologically, if I'm honest. Romney just represent almost no one.

As for Paul's party trying to stop Paul, there's the decent chance, as Paul has pretty extreme views, that the GOP just wanted someone more mainstream. Romney is a hugely non-mainstream and poor choice, but, they're pushing him as "generic Republican" - good luck doing that with Paul.

As for his "right" to speak, no he doesn't have a right. They can do whatever they want.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

He is the candidate for the aware person. The anecdote you relate is worthless in proving or disproving the concept. When people are voting for Ron Paul it is generally because they agree with his ideas and have heard him speak or heard his intentions. When people are out to vote for Romney they NEVER know his intentions, they don't agree with him, he is just the face they have been pushed and the "Not Obama" they think has a chance.

Paul's supporters are generally aware because they have to be in order to spread support for Paul. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Every supporter of Paul's is hard won. Romney has the t.v. to feed the ignorant masses (which must be extra ignorant this year) his lines. Do the experiment. I have a many times. Ask a "Romney supporter" (ie an ex Santorum/ex Cain/ex Huntsman supporter as there are no Romney supporters) what Romney's plans are for fixing the economy and so on. They can't tell you. Romney won't tell you many of his plans (something you can only get away with in this retarded two party system because you don't have to) he says "when i tell my plans I lose elections" WTF? Romney supporters actually buy the line that Paul's plan to NOT send aid and bombs at other countries for no reason is dangerous LOL.

Romney isn't going to win this election guys. He was never meant to and he can't because he DOES NOT have the support. They may never relate the real numbers, but after the convention it will become glaringly obvious despite Fox news saying he has a chance. Obama will win, Paul was the only one that could beat Obama this year and they clowned all these GOP idiots out of voting for him.

edit on 7-8-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Paul could beat Obama, quite a stretch indeed.

Many of Paul's ideas are quite non-mainstream and even if you agree with a lot of his wackadoo ideas (I obviously don't) they're often "5-step plans" which are very difficult to sell, as soundbites, whether they have merit or not.

On top of that, America doesn't really want a hardcore Christian Libertarian isolationist as a President. They don't want someone who is pro-corporate monopoly, and anti-safety net. They just don't. Not in number that would beat Obama.

And btw., I still think there's a LOT of Paul supporters who strongly agree with one or two policies and really have no clue that he, as I said before, opposed public funding of primary schools, or the complete deregulation of the lobbying industry.

I've talked to many Paul supporters and many of them make false claims about his opinions/beliefs.

reply to post by longlostbrother


You can be honest, but you are wrong.

He represents millions of voting aged people. He actually probably represents the majority if informed voters. We know he represents a large chunk because his percentages, and probably a much larger chunk because those percentages are manipulated.

In a Republic, what we are supposed to be, the informed voter should trump the casual voter. It's important when you consider that MANY voting age people don't vote, so how many voting age people vote, but just barely and vote based on trivial matters? Our voting system is outdated and caters to democracy rather than a republic. Majority rule isn't how this country was supposed to work.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Again, that's what you get for thinking.

Paul would take Obama because the dems are disenfranchised. Dems are leaving the ship left and right. So Paul would have the independent vote, the disenfranchised dems (I was a dem - changed to GOP last year to vote for Paul along with 4 other people I know and millions country wide), all of the libertarians/paul supporters, and the GOP by default if he was nominated.

He would have beat Obama, that is why there was such an orchestrated effort against Paul. Widespread fraud and blatant disregard and even mocking in the MSM.

See even you yourself are spouting the ignorant MSM anti Paul talking points. Isolationist is the most ignorant of the arguments of course. Do you know what an isolationist is? Obviously not. North Korea is an isolationist. How on Earth does a candidate not wanting to give billions of our tax dollars away in aid to countries that use it improperly or don't need it (pakistan and Israel), wants to end the wars we are in, remove some of are excessive military basis (that are being used to enforce illegal sanctions on a country), and wants to avoid fighting a war we don't need to fight, how is that an isolationist? That is just someone with some common sense vying for the job. Those are all reasonable common sense things. It makes no sense NOT to do them. He has said that if someone attacked us we would hit back. He is not an isolationist he is a non interventionalist. That is why he is misunderstood, not because it's hard, but because people aren't equipped with enough brains anymore to do it.

Anyone that doesn't support the upcoming mass murder about to committed in Iran will not be allowed to speak at the RNC. Republicans would rather have Obama speak at their convention than Paul because they know Obama supports cold blooded murder.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Again, that's what you get for thinking.

What? What? What does this mean? It means that you only want people to vote for Ron Paul and for people to think like you. Well, that's a dictatorship and I like to think for myself. Sorry.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Again, that's what you get for thinking.

Paul would take Obama because the dems are disenfranchised. Dems are leaving the ship left and right. So Paul would have the independent vote, the disenfranchised dems (I was a dem - changed to GOP last year to vote for Paul along with 4 other people I know and millions country wide), all of the libertarians/paul supporters, and the GOP by default if he was nominated.

He would have beat Obama, that is why there was such an orchestrated effort against Paul. Widespread fraud and blatant disregard and even mocking in the MSM.

See even you yourself are spouting the ignorant MSM anti Paul talking points. Isolationist is the most ignorant of the arguments of course. Do you know what an isolationist is? Obviously not. North Korea is an isolationist. How on Earth does a candidate not wanting to give billions of our tax dollars away in aid to countries that use it improperly or don't need it (pakistan and Israel), wants to end the wars we are in, remove some of are excessive military basis (that are being used to enforce illegal sanctions on a country), and wants to avoid fighting a war we don't need to fight, how is that an isolationist? That is just someone with some common sense vying for the job. Those are all reasonable common sense things. It makes no sense NOT to do them. He has said that if someone attacked us we would hit back. He is not an isolationist he is a non interventionalist. That is why he is misunderstood, not because it's hard, but because people aren't equipped with enough brains anymore to do it.

edit on 7-8-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

No.

I know that's a common Paul support fantasy, that Paul was colluded against, etc., but there's scant evidence of a hugely popular Paul being conspired against. No matter what the Paul true believer think.

As for you rant on US foreign policy.... I don't agree with it, all of it, but I also don't agree with Paul's all or nothing approach. His ideology. You say he doesn't want to start wars, well guess what, Obama hasn't started any, has he? Especially relative to the last Republican, Paul's party remember, that held the office.

Romney WILL start wars (the Republican way).

As for Dems being disenfranchised, they're not. There is DEF some people that wanted Obama to be better, like we all did, but that's not the same thing. OF those people, a very significant majority will still vote Obama, over Paul, because Paul's Libertarian claptrap is not mainstream. People don't want to cede power to corporations, people don't think businesses should self-regulate and people don't think the poor should be left to die without insurance.

They just don't.

I think a lot of people would agree with Chomsky who says that American Libertarians are extreme advocates of corporate tyranny. I do.

While you're all expecting Ron Paul to solve your problems, he's just busy being a Freemason...
aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
losingfreedomdotorg.files.wordpress.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Some folks make a good point about this not being announced officially either way yet. However, this isn't a rumor on a Heavenly site, either. Hardly. A google hit shows reports about this from media outlets and the usual sources all over the net. Reliable, unreliable...everyone seems to have something to say. Here is the latest I found and Dad may not get a say, but Rand Paul sounds like he might.

As each round of speakers for the Republican National Convention in Tampa are announced, Mitt Romney’s vice presidential short list grows shorter and shorter.

According to CBS, the presumptive presidential candidate’s former competitor, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul were among those scheduled to be speaking at the four day long nominating convention, which convenes in two weeks.

Source

I don't know HOW the heck someone says Santorum earned a spot but Paul didn't... Whatever... This is what I intend to help change by sheer numbers and force of will by 2016. This party isn't about the people, if it ever was. It's ALL about the power of those running it now.

I look forward to hearing Rand speak though. Nice... At least one decent man will be heard from in Tampa!

Rand Paul ost a lot of stature not supporting his fathers bid for the presidency at least till The Dr. himself stepped down.......
I dont think the RP campaign got fair, honest , or honourable threatment during the primaries......or from the MSM....
But i had thought they would be better able to counter such machinations with a show of voter support.....
From where i sit its almost as if the fight was conceeded before the down and dirtys were gotten down to.....
The good part of RPs campaign was the fact it illustrated that the GOP as well as the Dems, are run by self serving criminals who will stop at nothing to retain power within their elite circle.....whats new?
The country is run by rich people for rich people, so help them God!
It would take regiments of soldiers marching past Tampa headquarters of the convention, carrying RP signs,
Literally tens of thousands of supporters meeting his planes and trains when he came to town....that would be the kind of pressure that would make them cringe in the back rooms....
They would have bowed down for it if the pressure was brought to bear...it just wasnt there.....
But still it looked like the RP campaign was shut down early by some outside force rather than RP himself...
It all just sort of Tapered awayyyyy......into..silence....just a few die hards left crying foul....
I wont ever understand what stopped the whole thing so pprematurely...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

 

Paul said he wouldn't run third party. He'd be breaking his own word and violating exactly what makes him so good as a candidate.

I never heard Paul say anything of the sort. He has always been very careful and precise with his wording. He did say a third-party run was not in his plans at all, not considering it, not entertaining the thought. This has not changed but it very well could after the Convention, who knows?

If I were seeking the Republican Party nomination I myself neither would be entertaining anyone with any thoughts about doing anything otherwise than seeking that nomination. It is STILL primary season and he possibly has the delegate count to prevent Romney from winning on a first ballot vote. After that it could be anyone's game. Didn't Lincoln become the nominee in a similar manner, with no delegates going into the convention?

A final third-party run could still be a possibility for this longtime dedicated REPUBLICAN congressman. But for another three weeks at least, Ron Paul for Republican Party nominee 2012!! No other thoughts or hopes are currently on my mind.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe
Are they scared to let him speak? I figured this would happen.

The "Majestic 2" have been chosen already. Time to line up like good citizens and vote for those that were hand picked for us.

This makes me think the movie "A Few Good Men" where if Ron Paul is asked to speak "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" will be raining down from the sky.

:shk: If he is no threat as they claim....why will they not let him speak?

Paul has no RIGHT to speak.

He couldn't get out the vote and he lost. The rest is sour grapes by his small number of vocal supporters.

Nowhere did I claim he had the RIGHT to speak. I was saying what would it have hurt to let him speak. As far as I know...it would not have hurt at all. That is the problem with all this political BS. All of them are out for themselves. Whenever possible members from both sides of the line should allow anyone to aid them in making this country a better place, or let them express their ideas. More people working together will find solutions faster. That is just common sense.

But no... that's never going to happen because nobody wants to share credit with anyone else or do anything to promote the ideas of an "opponent". There shouldn't be any opponents in reality. They should care about what they are going to do to help the country improve and not so much about wanting to be the only hero IMO.

edit on 8/7/2012 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

You said, "why would they not let him speak?"

Why would they?

He's a fringe candidate with a very small base and a message that's incompatible with Romney's.

Why shoot themselves in the foot?

So some guy can blah blah blah about positions that Romney disagrees with (today)?

It's illogical.

Your logic is flawed. If Ron Paul's ideas are so fringe why does the media manipulate the news? Why are there proven instances of election fraud against Ron Paul? Why do people like YOU even bother with somebody so unimportant?

Of course Ron Paul is incompatible with Romney, that is why people like Ron Paul.

I find it so hilarious you think you are logical but can manage to blurt out so much horse dung.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Again, that's what you get for thinking.

Paul would take Obama because the dems are disenfranchised. Dems are leaving the ship left and right. So Paul would have the independent vote, the disenfranchised dems (I was a dem - changed to GOP last year to vote for Paul along with 4 other people I know and millions country wide), all of the libertarians/paul supporters, and the GOP by default if he was nominated.

He would have beat Obama, that is why there was such an orchestrated effort against Paul. Widespread fraud and blatant disregard and even mocking in the MSM.

See even you yourself are spouting the ignorant MSM anti Paul talking points. Isolationist is the most ignorant of the arguments of course. Do you know what an isolationist is? Obviously not. North Korea is an isolationist. How on Earth does a candidate not wanting to give billions of our tax dollars away in aid to countries that use it improperly or don't need it (pakistan and Israel), wants to end the wars we are in, remove some of are excessive military basis (that are being used to enforce illegal sanctions on a country), and wants to avoid fighting a war we don't need to fight, how is that an isolationist? That is just someone with some common sense vying for the job. Those are all reasonable common sense things. It makes no sense NOT to do them. He has said that if someone attacked us we would hit back. He is not an isolationist he is a non interventionalist. That is why he is misunderstood, not because it's hard, but because people aren't equipped with enough brains anymore to do it.

edit on 7-8-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

No.

I know that's a common Paul support fantasy, that Paul was colluded against, etc., but there's scant evidence of a hugely popular Paul being conspired against. No matter what the Paul true believer think.

Uhh...false.

I guess the ATS slogan isn't being put to good use lately. Or you're just trolling.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

He is the candidate for the aware person. The anecdote you relate is worthless in proving or disproving the concept. When people are voting for Ron Paul it is generally because they agree with his ideas and have heard him speak or heard his intentions. When people are out to vote for Romney they NEVER know his intentions, they don't agree with him, he is just the face they have been pushed and the "Not Obama" they think has a chance.

Paul's supporters are generally aware because they have to be in order to spread support for Paul. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Every supporter of Paul's is hard won. Romney has the t.v. to feed the ignorant masses (which must be extra ignorant this year) his lines. Do the experiment. I have a many times. Ask a "Romney supporter" (ie an ex Santorum/ex Cain/ex Huntsman supporter as there are no Romney supporters) what Romney's plans are for fixing the economy and so on. They can't tell you. Romney won't tell you many of his plans (something you can only get away with in this retarded two party system because you don't have to) he says "when i tell my plans I lose elections" WTF? Romney supporters actually buy the line that Paul's plan to NOT send aid and bombs at other countries for no reason is dangerous LOL.

Romney isn't going to win this election guys. He was never meant to and he can't because he DOES NOT have the support. They may never relate the real numbers, but after the convention it will become glaringly obvious despite Fox news saying he has a chance. Obama will win, Paul was the only one that could beat Obama this year and they clowned all these GOP idiots out of voting for him.

edit on 7-8-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Paul could beat Obama, quite a stretch indeed.

Many of Paul's ideas are quite non-mainstream and even if you agree with a lot of his wackadoo ideas (I obviously don't) they're often "5-step plans" which are very difficult to sell, as soundbites, whether they have merit or not.

On top of that, America doesn't really want a hardcore Christian Libertarian isolationist as a President. They don't want someone who is pro-corporate monopoly, and anti-safety net. They just don't. Not in number that would beat Obama.

And btw., I still think there's a LOT of Paul supporters who strongly agree with one or two policies and really have no clue that he, as I said before, opposed public funding of primary schools, or the complete deregulation of the lobbying industry.

I've talked to many Paul supporters and many of them make false claims about his opinions/beliefs.

edit on 7-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, North Korea is isolationist that heavily regulates all communication and trade with the rest of the world. There is a CLEAR difference which you will never acknowledge because it does not agree with your propagandized, pre-digested, spoon-fed opinions.

Ron Paul does not support FEDERAL funding for education, as should any other CONSTITUTIONALIST.

Of course Ron Paul doesn't care about lobbyists, he wants to get government out of the free market completely. Leaving government lobbyists without a job.

Talk about making false claims about Ron Pauls opinions and beliefs, you are definitely one to talk.

During the height of the primary, Ron Paul tied or beat Obama in national polls much more than Romney could. Ron Paul's grassroots support and vote totals show high enthusiasm in general election swing states whereas Romney could not, despite proven election fraud and proven media manipulation.

You have proven yourself to be unable to deal with facts.


You could always make a new account and start fresh. I'd recommend that.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

You can be honest, but you are wrong.

He represents millions of voting aged people. He actually probably represents the majority if informed voters. We know he represents a large chunk because his percentages, and probably a much larger chunk because those percentages are manipulated.

In a Republic, what we are supposed to be, the informed voter should trump the casual voter. It's important when you consider that MANY voting age people don't vote, so how many voting age people vote, but just barely and vote based on trivial matters? Our voting system is outdated and caters to democracy rather than a republic. Majority rule isn't how this country was supposed to work.

So because people want national parks, want laws against sexual harassment, want to be able to have an abortion if they so choose, want student loans, want a department of Ag, want some sort of protection from companies they are not informed voters? I am pretty sure Ron Paul represents the view of very very few. I know Paul supporters seem to think that he is some sort of messiah that should be crowned President despite the fact his ideas are vastly unpopular but, it does not work that way. It does not help him that most of his supporters come off as overbearing and kind of wacky.

Text
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17767352


hey mods isn't it time to update the autoban bot to include these idiots?
citing: Anonymous Coward 16069571


We have to fight fire with blaze.

We try to talk about the matters, yet they (GOP) are immune to such reasoning and outcome to insults...

we have to revert to Mitt's magical underwear...

I myself believe that it is comical that they want to make joy of Ron Paul's undergarments, when THEIR OWN candidate wears the stupidest magical bull# that I have ever perceived of...

And yet 'we' are the fringe idiots...