acidhead Posted November 11, 2012 #1 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Nov. 10, 2012 Ron Paul Yesterday America is over $16 trillion in debt. The "official" unemployment rate still hovers around 8%. Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial. Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance. Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads . It's not hard to see why, though. To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, "stimulus packages," and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans' liberties I’ve named above. As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor. GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn't perform better. They're looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies. My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together. Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed. As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday’s outcome. A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country. I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future. ***** 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted November 11, 2012 #2 Share Posted November 11, 2012 He brings up a great point. Republicans know they need to change their platform. Why not embrace a more Liberatarian slant? It would certainly be better than spending 300 million and still taking a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
with bells on Posted November 11, 2012 #3 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Love Ron Paul.. thanks for posting.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simbi Laveau Posted November 11, 2012 #4 Share Posted November 11, 2012 He should have been the GOP candidate. He was actually,but they raped him of it. If he had become president ,and began changing things ,he probably would have been assassinated ,as that's how true change is dealt with . . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted November 11, 2012 #5 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) I'm still wondering in my District, that Obama got 60%, the Democrat for Senator got 60%, and the Democrat for the House got 60%, but for the State Senate the Republican got 60%, and for State House, the Republican got 60%. People seem to think Liberal on the National scale, but Conservative on the Local scale. Seems.... Weird to me... I don't think Ron is quite nailing it. I think that the Republicans lost because they are called Republicans. And too many people voted Against the word "Republican", rather then voting FOR President Obama. Edited November 11, 2012 by DieChecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
with bells on Posted November 11, 2012 #6 Share Posted November 11, 2012 He should have been the GOP candidate. He was actually,but they raped him of it. If he had become president ,and began changing things ,he probably would have been assassinated ,as that's how true change is dealt with . . i agree simbi, they so would of assassinated him.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted November 11, 2012 #7 Share Posted November 11, 2012 He should have been the GOP candidate. He was actually,but they raped him of it. If he had become president ,and began changing things ,he probably would have been assassinated ,as that's how true change is dealt with . He wasn't even close to the nomination for the Republicans. Even if all his "raped" delegates, and his "Sleeper" delegates (RP guys who were elected to be delegates and forced to vote as the state wanted.) were all to have voted for his, he still would have lost the Domination. He had a large underground following of very loyal followers. But not an Overwhelming number of followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted November 11, 2012 #8 Share Posted November 11, 2012 i agree simbi, they so would of assassinated him.. There would be no need. With the entire Congress and Supreme Court against him. As well as the entire DC Lobbiest corps. And the News media. And the Bankers. And the Big Oil men. And Wall Street. He would have had near zero power and simply ended up either getting nothing done, or ended with so much compromise that Obama might just as well have been elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted November 11, 2012 Author #9 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Romney lost because of Ron Paul supporters....its true.. **** him.. He was a loser from the beginning. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysticStrummer Posted November 11, 2012 #10 Share Posted November 11, 2012 With the entire Congress and Supreme Court against him. As well as the entire DC Lobbiest corps. And the News media. And the Bankers. And the Big Oil men. And Wall Street. He would have had near zero power and simply ended up either getting nothing done, or ended with so much compromise that Obama might just as well have been elected. Exactly right. People focus on the presidential elections, but in many ways it's the least important vote you can cast. The majority of the government would have to be replaced for there to be any real change. Voting for the president is just choosing which hood ornament to put on a car that has lots of mechanical problems. I like a lot of what he has to say, but electing Ron Paul would have changed nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysticStrummer Posted November 11, 2012 #11 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) Romney lost because of Ron Paul supporters....its true.. **** him.. He was a loser from the beginning. Romney lost because he didn't have a clear position on most issues and because the vague details he would divulge about his economic plan pointed back to the GW Bush years. The math didn't work then and it doesn't work now, though given the decline in the quality of american education many people may think it does. A further reason is the basic Republican platform, which says government needs to stay out of our lives... except of course for the most personal parts of them, along with a perceived disdain for science. In a nutshell, Republicans pander to the evangelicals too much. In a country with freedom of religion, trying to legislate according to one faith is just ridiculous. Edited November 11, 2012 by MysticStrummer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simbi Laveau Posted November 11, 2012 #12 Share Posted November 11, 2012 He wasn't even close to the nomination for the Republicans. Even if all his "raped" delegates, and his "Sleeper" delegates (RP guys who were elected to be delegates and forced to vote as the state wanted.) were all to have voted for his, he still would have lost the Domination. He had a large underground following of very loyal followers. But not an Overwhelming number of followers. Yah,just like bush won his second term totally legally . I so believe that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted November 11, 2012 #13 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Romney lost because of Ron Paul supporters....its true.. **** him.. He was a loser from the beginning. That is not true. The Independant vote was not enough to have mattered in a single state. Unless you are talking about the RP folks that stayed home?? Voter turnout was down, but Republican turnout was suppoed to be Up. I think that is why Romney got 48% of the popular vote. Now we just need to move a bunch of the Red State Guys over into some of the marginal Blue States...... Hummmmmm...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted November 11, 2012 #14 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Yah,just like bush won his second term totally legally . I so believe that Post about it in the Conspiricy Theory Forums then... If what you say is true, then a vast hidden mass of Ron Paul loyalists voted Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissMelsWell Posted November 12, 2012 #15 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I'm still wondering in my District, that Obama got 60%, the Democrat for Senator got 60%, and the Democrat for the House got 60%, but for the State Senate the Republican got 60%, and for State House, the Republican got 60%. People seem to think Liberal on the National scale, but Conservative on the Local scale. Seems.... Weird to me... I don't think Ron is quite nailing it. I think that the Republicans lost because they are called Republicans. And too many people voted Against the word "Republican", rather then voting FOR President Obama. Correct. It's the populace's way of trying to keep a balance when the candidates that are offered up for election are SO right or SO very left. By spreading the load, it keeps the balance in a very wrong way. Both parties need to reform more to the middle, cater more to the middle class and stop trying to make the very poor or the very rich happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now