Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
acidhead

Ron Paul's statement on the 2012 Election

15 posts in this topic

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love Ron Paul.. thanks for posting..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney lost because of Ron Paul supporters....its true.. **** him.. He was a loser from the beginning.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by MysticStrummer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah,just like bush won his second term totally legally . I so believe that

Post about it in the Conspiricy Theory Forums then... :tsu:

If what you say is true, then a vast hidden mass of Ron Paul loyalists voted Romney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.