You vote for Romney because Ron Paul would never win...but...

Eurodriver · 10-04-2012, 17:53

Gundude · 10-04-2012, 17:59

Its absurdity doesn't make it any less true.

countrygun · 10-04-2012, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eurodriver

You completely fail to account for the fact that Ron Paul was dismissed in the primary because people just didn't like some of his policies.

Not every child gets in the van with the guy that offers them candy

Fed Five Oh · 10-04-2012, 18:10

Ronulans are in full melt down. Weird.

Gundude · 10-04-2012, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun

You completely fail to account for the fact that Ron Paul was dismissed in the primary because people just didn't like some of his policies.

Not every child gets in the van with the guy that offers them candy

That was an unfortunate title for that graphic, but the message of the graphic itself is valid. Unfair, frustrating, but all too true.

Ruble Noon · 10-04-2012, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun

You completely fail to account for the fact that Ron Paul was dismissed in the primary because people just didn't like some of his policies.

Not every child gets in the van with the guy that offers them candy

Yeah, that's not quite how it went but you keep on telling lies though.

Flying-Dutchman · 10-04-2012, 18:15

The “Cult of Paul”

I don’t get it.

Paul ran, he lost.

countrygun · 10-04-2012, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying-Dutchman

The “Cult of Paul”

I don’t get it.

Paul ran, he lost.

Yah, but they are squealing all of a sudden because Barry lost the debate.

JFrame · 10-04-2012, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying-Dutchman

The “Cult of Paul”

I don’t get it.

Paul ran, he lost.

I'm getting that way myself -- and I actually like a number of Paul supporters on this forum...

.

Gundude · 10-04-2012, 18:22

Since this is a new thread, let's do an experiment and keep track of who's more rabid: the Ron Paul supporters or the Ron Paul detractors.

Let's also see how many posts go by before anybody else acknowledges that the graphic really isn't about Ron Paul, something the OP apparently also missed.

JFrame · 10-04-2012, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundude

Since this is a new thread, let's do an experiment and keep track of who's more rabid: the Ron Paul supporters or the Ron Paul detractors.

Let's also see how many posts go by before anybody else acknowledges that the graphic really isn't about Ron Paul, something the OP apparently also missed.

Gundude -- I appreciate the empirical analysis you're trying to accomplish at this point -- but it may be impossible to assess, because of past (and often incredibly bitter) history that has occurred for the past 6-8 months.

If there was some way to declare peace between all participants from this juncture, and start from scratch, there may be some point to the analysis. But otherwise -- I dunno.

.

**Jerry** · 10-04-2012, 18:25

Edited: I'm referring to the OP.

Actually that's pure BS. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries because I though he was the better man. Romy won! I'm now voting for Romney because I KNOW between him and The Obimination he's the BETTER MAN.

Gunnut 45/454 · 10-04-2012, 18:29

And you Paulbots are voting for who? Garry Johnson? Cause RP isn't on any bailot!!! I see epic fail! So take your marbles home cause we don't want to play!

**Jerry** · 10-04-2012, 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454

And you Paulbots are voting for who? Garry Johnson? Cause RP isn't on any bailot!!! I see epic fail! So take your marbles home cause we don't want to play!

If you call me a Palbot again I'll hunt you down and open fire with my SuperSoker.

countrygun · 10-04-2012, 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Yeah, that's not quite how it went but you keep on telling lies though.

Face Facts.

Paul's domestic policy was attractive BUT much like all of Obama's Fundamental Restructuring could not work without the support of a party in Congress. Paul doesn't have a party in Congress, ergo, because of the limits established for the POTUS by the Founders, he would be impotent.

His foreign policy was was his weakest point. In short most Americans viewed it as nuts, yet because of the structure of the Government, it was the part a POTUS could have the most effect on by himself.

We were therefore guaranteed that he could do the worst part, and highly doubtful that he could do the good part.

That doesn't take into account the fact that, even with the promise of legalized weed (which he actually couldn't do by himself), he couldn't draw enough votes to make a blip on the radar. If he was truly "running in the Republican primary" and his voter pull was so low, how was he going to draw enough from the Dems to get elected? If he could do that then why wasn't he running against Obama in the Dem primary?

Give it up folks. you are just embarrasing the libertarians and making it harder on those who might want to run for other important offices.

**Jerry** · 10-04-2012, 18:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun

Face Facts.

Paul's domestic policy was attractive BUT much like all of Obama's Fundamental Restructuring could not work without the support of a party in Congress. Paul doesn't have a party in Congress, ergo, because of the limits established for the POTUS by the Founders, he would be impotent.

His foreign policy was was his weakest point. In short most Americans viewed it as nuts, yet because of the structure of the Government, it was the part a POTUS could have the most effect on by himself.

We were therefore guaranteed that he could do the worst part, and highly doubtful that he could do the good part.

That doesn't take into account the fact that, even with the promise of legalized weed (which he actually couldn't do by himself), he couldn't draw enough votes to make a blip on the radar. If he was truly "running in the Republican primary" and his voter pull was so low, how was he going to draw enough from the Dems to get elected? If he could do that then why wasn't he running against Obama in the Dem primary?

Give it up folks. you are just embarrasing the libertarians and making it harder on those who might want to run for other important offices.

He's believes in the Constitution. Yah, he may be a little crazy (or a lot. Arguable!) but then so am I. I really would liked to have seen what happened with him as president. God knows it couldn't be any worse that what's going on right now.

countrygun · 10-04-2012, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

He's believes in the Constitution. Yah, he may be a little crazy (or a lot. Arguable!) but then so am I. I really would liked to have seen what happened with him as president. God knows it couldn't be any worse that what's going on right now.

I would like to see how a President with no one in Congress could change domestic policies. He would only have "Executive Orders" which is what Obama is abusing.

I would like to see someone like him WITH ENOUGH SUPPORT on the Hill to get things done. But I am afraid that looking to the highest office in the Federal Government to cure the problem of a Federal Government that is too big is a bit like wiping your tail on a hoop.

In a way it is either oxymoronic or ironic (depending on how it is said) to look for one person to solve the problem of a centralized Federal Government. It's kind of like hoping a new bartender can help you stop drinking.

Ruble Noon · 10-04-2012, 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun

Face Facts.

Paul's domestic policy was attractive BUT much like all of Obama's Fundamental Restructuring could not work without the support of a party in Congress. Paul doesn't have a party in Congress, ergo, because of the limits established for the POTUS by the Founders, he would be impotent.

His foreign policy was was his weakest point. In short most Americans viewed it as nuts, yet because of the structure of the Government, it was the part a POTUS could have the most effect on by himself.

We were therefore guaranteed that he could do the worst part, and highly doubtful that he could do the good part.

That doesn't take into account the fact that, even with the promise of legalized weed (which he actually couldn't do by himself), he couldn't draw enough votes to make a blip on the radar. If he was truly "running in the Republican primary" and his voter pull was so low, how was he going to draw enough from the Dems to get elected? If he could do that then why wasn't he running against Obama in the Dem primary?

Give it up folks. you are just embarrasing the libertarians and making it harder on those who might want to run for other important offices.

Keep wallowing in your ignorance.

countrygun · 10-04-2012, 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Keep wallowing in your ignorance.

Well I have been put in my place by your well crafted argument. Obviously, from your response, you have laid your intellectual cards on the table right there and I am defeated.

GAFinch · 10-04-2012, 19:20

I understand Ron Paul's policies and agree with some of them, but I just straight up don't like him.

Libertarians have been around for a long time, but in general they have a hard time screening candidates for backgrounds and/or craziness. Saw that problem a couple years ago during our gubernatorial race that a good friend of mine got involved in. Many of the normal party volunteers get fed up and return to the Republican Party. People also tend to get more socially conservative as they get older and start families.

**Cavalry Doc** · 10-04-2012, 19:21

Personally, I blame the candidate and his supporters.

The candidate was lame. The supporters were repulsive.

Both made their beds, and now will sleep in it. If you want to know why, you need a mirror, not a spotlight.

fortyofforty · 10-04-2012, 19:25

Wow, two anti-Romney threads with IDENTICAL titles. What are the odds?

**Cavalry Doc** · 10-04-2012, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by fortyofforty

Wow, two anti-Romney threads with IDENTICAL titles. What are the odds?

Sent from either dailypaul or ronpaulforums.

They are desperate to avoid the irrelevance that they have achieved.

fortyofforty · 10-04-2012, 19:36

Paulistas remind me a little of...

"Did you say 'over'? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"

**Jerry** · 10-04-2012, 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun

I would like to see how a President with no one in Congress could change domestic policies. He would only have "Executive Orders" which is what Obama is abusing.

I would like to see someone like him WITH ENOUGH SUPPORT on the Hill to get things done. But I am afraid that looking to the highest office in the Federal Government to cure the problem of a Federal Government that is too big is a bit like wiping your tail on a hoop.

In a way it is either oxymoronic or ironic (depending on how it is said) to look for one person to solve the problem of a centralized Federal Government. It's kind of like hoping a new bartender can help you stop drinking.

No argument! But I still would like to have seen the outcome.