You vote for Romney because Ron Paul would never win...but... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : You vote for Romney because Ron Paul would never win...but...


Eurodriver
10-04-2012, 17:53
http://i46.tinypic.com/15h9qa.jpg

Gundude
10-04-2012, 17:59
Its absurdity doesn't make it any less true.

countrygun
10-04-2012, 18:02
http://i46.tinypic.com/15h9qa.jpg

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
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 candyThat 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
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. :wavey:

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
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
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
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! :rofl:

Jerry
10-04-2012, 18:33
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! :rofl:

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

countrygun
10-04-2012, 18:33
Yeah, that's not quite how it went but you keep on telling lies though. :wavey:

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
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
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
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
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? :rofl:

Cavalry Doc
10-04-2012, 19:28
Wow, two anti-Romney threads with IDENTICAL titles. What are the odds? :rofl:

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...

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/002/023/644/bradyhokegiantbomb_display_image.jpg?1331687280

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

Jerry
10-04-2012, 19:49
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.

fortyofforty
10-04-2012, 20:12
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.

Here's an idea. How about Paulistas focus on winning local offices, like Mayor and City Councilman. They could balance local budgets, impose strict fiscal policies and spend within their own limits. They could reduce or even eliminate the inefficient and unnecessary programs, and show fiscal surpluses.

Once they proved their success at the local level, they could move up to statewide offices like State Senator and Governor. There they could test and prove the efficacy of their ideas and fiscal policies. They could run a state and turn it into one of the best in the nation in terms of quality of life and growth. Jobs and businesses would flock to those cities and states, if the ideas worked well.

After proving their ideas work at the local and statewide levels, Paulistas could at least point out the successes of their programs rather than simply throwing bombs and critiquing programs put in place by others. Instead of grabbing for the whole pie, like the Presidency, try starting with a slice, like Mayor or Governor.

It’s easy to criticize; it’s quite another to govern, at any level.

Syclone538
10-04-2012, 21:07
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.

He probably would have vetoed the same % of bills that he voted against. I think that would be a huge step in the right direction.

Diesel McBadass
10-04-2012, 21:11
the two party system exists because most people support one of the parties, the third party types are in the minority usually cause most people dont support them. Its simple.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 21:34
Sent from either dailypaul or ronpaulforums.

They are desperate to avoid the irrelevance that they have achieved.That you both missed the point again is unsurprising. Look at the text in my opening post of the other thread for a hint.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 21:49
Wow, two anti-Romney threads with IDENTICAL titles. What are the odds? :rofl:
Wow, two IDENTICAL incorrect and clueless posts. What are the odds? :rofl: