Challenge to the "lesser of two evils" crowd

[Animus]

Judging from the thousands that still gather at Paul rallies regularly, I don't see why anyone believes Romney will be the nominee. I haven't seen half as many people attending any of his rallies.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Judging from the thousands that still gather at Paul rallies regularly, I don't see why anyone believes Romney will be the nominee. I haven't seen half as many people attending any of his rallies.

Is that a joke. You need 1144 delegates to get the republican nod, romney has 1084, paul has 119.
The sad fact is people are not voting for him no matter how passionate those few are.


In truth is doesn't much matter. romney obama... whatever.
They are both liars and anti 2A. romney... I won't say he's ANTI-gun just do anything for support including anti gun.
Check out some of the anti-gun moves he's made
http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm

 

[Animus]

Oh, are write-ins not allowed this year? Because it won't matter how many delegates they have or even if Romney gets the nomination. Those passionate "few" will still vote, and it isn't unrealistic at all to expect a write-in victory if it comes to that. Gary Johnson is the only complication--only one great candidate at a time please, or the votes really will be too divided to make a difference.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

The sad fact is people are not voting for him no matter how passionate those few are.

Oh REALLY? I assure you there is a significant number of people on this forum that ARE voting for Ron Paul, and even more people who are not on this forum who feel the same way.

But I'm sure you have some study or poll or other credible source to cite from that explains how and why people who support Ron Paul won't be voting for him. Right? Because you wouldn't just prop up your personal opinion as indisputable fact, right?

 

[DrakeZ07]

Oh REALLY? I assure you there is a significant number of people on this forum that ARE voting for Ron Paul, and even more people who are not on this forum who feel the same way.

But I'm sure you have some study or poll or other credible source to cite from that explains how and why people who support Ron Paul won't be voting for him. Right? Because you wouldn't just prop up your personal opinion as indisputable fact, right?

Hmm, since when does the Constitution, or other laws require someone to post citations to their personal beliefs, and/or opinions?

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

LOL, seriously, bro? Did I bring up the Constitution or any other document? Nope. Nice attempt at a straw man though.

If it is his OPINION, he should say so. If he believes it is (and presents it as such, which HE DID) a FACT that no one will vote for Ron Paul, then he should cite to authority, per forum rules.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

per forum rules[/I].

It's not a baseless opinion, it's a qualified conclusion based on the number of delegates. If one canidate has over 1000 delegates and another has barely 100 I find it a reasonable conclusion to state relatively few people are voting for him. Try to remain calm. I understand you may be passionate about Paul, and he may very well have been better for our country than the other. But it's a pipe dream. The media, along with the people who make these decisions have allready choosen out presidential nominies.

Editted to add:

For others reading this I believe this to be the "forum rule" I am alledgely breaking. It's the only thing close:
"If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority."
Obviously I stated no rule of law. I think Pistol may be a little too passionate about her Paul support possibly allowing it to manifest as baseless accusasions and attacks.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Please quote my alleged "attack" or "baseless accusation".

I am very calm, I assure you, and I do not hero worship Ron Paul. I simply dislike when others presume to judge the actions of others based off of opinion presented as fact. You said "It's a sad fact..." so therefore I want you to back your facts up. If you can't, then it shouldn't hurt you to admit it's merely opinion and speculation that you presume to be true because of base information that has no bearing on the action of individuals.

Or, in other words...

You're predicting the actions of free thinking persons based on what the numbers reported by the media. You're making the generalization that no one is going to vote for Paul, and I know for a FACT, that myself and others here as well as across the country, will be. Ron Paul most likely won't get as many votes as Romney, but that's not the same as saying no one is voting for him.

 

[PrayingForWar]

It's not a baseless opinion, it's a qualified conclusion based on the number of delegates. If one canidate has over 1000 delegates and another has barely 100 I find it a reasonable conclusion to state relatively few people are voting for him. Try to remain calm. I understand you may be passionate about Paul, and he may very well have been better for our country than the other. But it's a pipe dream. The media, along with the people who make these decisions have allready choosen out presidential nominies.

Editted to add:

For others reading this I believe this to be the "forum rule" I am alledgely breaking. It's the only thing close:
"If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority."
Obviously I stated no rule of law. I think Pistol may be a little too passionate about her Paul support possibly allowing it to manifest as baseless accusasions and attacks.

The only people I've ever meet more obnoxious or irritating than libturds are Paulbots, especially the 9/11 truthtard sort. Even when you agree with them most of the time, even questioning or opposing ANYTHING the man says makes them go completely bat$#!t. If you disagree at all, you're a "shill", guilty of treason, ignorant, a RINO a "neocon" (whatever the **** that is) or all of the above.

Pointing out that he has little chance to win anything significant is the higfhest form of blasphemy. Suggesting it has anything to do with his foriegn policy makes you a warmonger at the very least.

Don't take it too personally. After Herman Cain dropped out I'm voting for Paul in the primary tommorrow, but I'd never put his sticker on my car or advertise my support for him due to the actions of his zealots. I don't want too be associated with them, and I think there are plenty of people who feel the same way.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

The only people I've ever meet more obnoxious or irritating than libturds are Paulbots, especially the 9/11 truthtard sort. Even when you agree with them most of the time, even questioning or opposing ANYTHING the man says makes them go completely bat$#!t. If you disagree at all, you're a "shill", guilty of treason, ignorant, a RINO a "neocon" (whatever the **** that is) or all of the above.

Pointing out that he has little chance to win anything significant is the higfhest form of blasphemy. Suggesting it has anything to do with his foriegn policy makes you a warmonger at the very least.

Don't take it too personally. After Herman Cain dropped out I'm voting for Paul in the primary tommorrow, but I'd never put his sticker on my car or advertise my support for him due to the actions of his zealots. I don't want too be associated with them, and I think there are plenty of people who feel the same way.

God knows we should all aspire to be more like you.

 

[Daylen]

Judging from the thousands that still gather at Paul rallies regularly, I don't see why anyone believes Romney will be the nominee. I haven't seen half as many people attending any of his rallies.

maybe because he has been winning almost every primary and almost has enough pledged delegates to have an uncontested convention...

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

The only people I've ever meet more obnoxious or irritating than libturds are Paulbots, especially the 9/11 truthtard sort. Even when you agree with them most of the time, even questioning or opposing ANYTHING the man says makes them go completely bat$#!t. If you disagree at all, you're a "shill", guilty of treason, ignorant, a RINO a "neocon" (whatever the **** that is) or all of the above.

Pointing out that he has little chance to win anything significant is the higfhest form of blasphemy. Suggesting it has anything to do with his foriegn policy makes you a warmonger at the very least.

Don't take it too personally. After Herman Cain dropped out I'm voting for Paul in the primary tommorrow, but I'd never put his sticker on my car or advertise my support for him due to the actions of his zealots. I don't want too be associated with them, and I think there are plenty of people who feel the same way.

Hey I'm all for passionate support for a candidate you like. But I'm glad you, as someone who votes for Paul, don't take this extreme zealot approach. You certainly don't do anything for your candidate of choice when you take such an over-the-top, chip-on-the-shoulder, fingers-in-the-ears (LALALALALALALALA) attitude toward even the slightest mishandling of the Paul idea.

Remember this whole thing started when I said it was a SAD fact he wasn't getting votes. Imagine if I had said something negative

 

[PrayingForWar]

God knows we should all aspire to be more like you.

Please don't. I won't have anyone to argue with then.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Hey I'm all for passionate support for a candidate you like. But I'm glad you, as someone who votes for Paul, don't take this extreme zealot approach. You certainly don't do anything for your candidate of choice when you take such an over-the-top, chip-on-the-shoulder, fingers-in-the-ears (LALALALALALALALA) attitude toward even the slightest mishandling of the Paul idea.

Remember this whole thing started when I said it was a SAD fact he wasn't getting votes. Imagine if I had said something negative

Oh goodness, y'all, you're hurting my little paulbot feelings

You did say it was a fact he wasn't getting votes.

I asked you to back it up.

So far you seem incapable of doing so. If you had said "He won't be getting as many votes as Romney" I would agree with you because you'd be right. But when you say he isn't getting votes, and that is factually wrong, you're touting personal opinion as fact, and that adds zero credibility to this forum or you.

...Since there is nothing to gain by trying to convince you otherwise, though, I'll put my stick down and let y'all make yourselves feel like big men by mocking someone whose personal and political ideologies you know nothing about. Have fun (incorrectly) speculating!

 

[()pen(arry]

The only people I've ever meet more obnoxious or irritating than libturds are Paulbots, especially the 9/11 truthtard sort. Even when you agree with them most of the time, even questioning or opposing ANYTHING the man says makes them go completely bat$#!t. If you disagree at all, you're a "shill", guilty of treason, ignorant, a RINO a "neocon" (whatever the **** that is) or all of the above.

I'm aware that there are some over-bearing, even zealous, Paul supporters out there. However, most of what non-libertarians interpret as zeal and intractability is merely misunderstanding.

The classic and typical political mindset consists of an amalgamated collection of individual policy views that, at some point in time, are considered to be party canon. A given party adherent may differ on a few specific issues, but by and large he or she cleaves to the platform, because it's the platform, and has enough regurgitateable talking points memorized to be able to justify (most importantly, in his or her own mind) holding these views. Often these are not views that the person in question would have developed, left to his or her own devices; instead, they are the views that they have adopted because the party they adhere to has told them they are the views they should hold, and they take the party's word for it.

Enter the libertarian. An actual libertarian is a person who has thoroughly divorced himself or herself of party-driven adherence to assumptions, justifications, and dogma; has started from scratch with the core principle that liberty is sacrosanct; and has developed a political worldview that is predicated upon this principle. A libertarian, typically, spent far longer than he or she would care to admit bridled to one party or another, and was so startled when his or her eyes were finally opened that he or she avoids the common morass like the plague. When such a person encounters another person who still has the blinders on but has begun to see glimmers of light (such as a Republican who claims that he or she would vote for Ron Paul, if it didn't mean guaranteeing a second Obama term), this libertarian is frustrated that the other person hasn't finished removing the blinders. The libertarian can deal with those who are still set in their folly; he or she is irritated by those who are in transition and won't just finish the job.

Now, to the other person, the person observed to be partially unblinded, this irritation and frustration appear to be intractability. To this partial convert, the end-results of liberty-oriented principles are just new positions; to the libertarian, they are necessary conclusions of principle. Because of this difference, the partial convert is not consist in adherence to principle; the libertarian is frustrated by this inconsistency, the partial convert doesn't understand why and interprets it as zeal.

In short: they aren't zealots; they're men and women of principle, and they're annoyed that you aren't.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

You did say it was a fact he wasn't getting votes.
If you had said "He won't be getting as many votes as Romney" I would agree with you because you'd be right

Ok I see.
All right everyone in so much that I don't want to take away from the credibility of this forum I will apologize.
When I said "The sad fact is people are not voting for him", I did not LITERALLY mean he has received ZERO votes.
Since some here did not recognize that this was not meant to be a LITERAL statement, I will retract it to be replaced with the following:
In my personal opinion is it unfortunate that Paul is not getting enough support (ie votes) to the make it probable for him to win the GOP nom.
I am sorry.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I'm aware that there are some over-bearing, even zealous, Paul supporters out there. However, most of what non-libertarians interpret as zeal and intractability is merely misunderstanding.

The classic and typical political mindset consists of an amalgamated collection of individual policy views that, at some point in time, are considered to be party canon. A given party adherent may differ on a few specific issues, but by and large he or she cleaves to the platform, because it's the platform, and has enough regurgitateable talking points memorized to be able to justify (most importantly, in his or her own mind) holding these views. Often these are not views that the person in question would have developed, left to his or her own devices; instead, they are the views that they have adopted because the party they adhere to has told them they are the views they should hold, and they take the party's word for it.

Enter the libertarian. An actual libertarian is a person who has thoroughly divorced himself or herself of party-driven adherence to assumptions, justifications, and dogma; has started from scratch with the core principle that liberty is sacrosanct; and has developed a political worldview that is predicated upon this principle. A libertarian, typically, spent far longer than he or she would care to admit bridled to one party or another, and was so startled when his or her eyes were finally opened that he or she avoids the common morass like the plague. When such a person encounters another person who still has the blinders on but has begun to see glimmers of light (such as a Republican who claims that he or she would vote for Ron Paul, if it didn't mean guaranteeing a second Obama term), this libertarian is frustrated that the other person hasn't finished removing the blinders. The libertarian can deal with those who are still set in their folly; he or she is irritated by those who are in transition and won't just finish the job.

Now, to the other person, the person observed to be partially unblinded, this irritation and frustration appear to be intractability. To this partial convert, the end-results of liberty-oriented principles are just new positions; to the libertarian, they are necessary conclusions of principle. Because of this difference, the partial convert is not consist in adherence to principle; the libertarian is frustrated by this inconsistency, the partial convert doesn't understand why and interprets it as zeal.

In short: they aren't zealots; they're men and women of principle, and they're annoyed that you aren't.

I can totally see eye to eye with you. Specifically addressing the red and green highlights above, I was once an "idealistic" libtarded teenager who knew far more about the world than my tight assed conservative parents. Imagine how dumbfounded, not even "startled" I was when I started working for a living and took being "open minded" to heart and read books from the opposition. I now view the "common more ass" as PC liberalism combined with "right wing" religious fascists. They're all "liberals" in my mind because they all promote GOVERNMENT as the solution. I don't just avoid them now, I LOATHE them. They're beneath my contempt.

When I encounter someone who is leaving the "more ass" I'm not frustrated at all. They're on they're own path to evolution and independent thought. You can actually be a complete communist and have your own independent beliefs. Though in my mind the communist with independent thoughts knows damn well he's leading mankind into an ant farm society and wants to sit atop the mound.

I digress.

I do not see people who have too much to do in their lives and follow the republican party (even to their own detriment) but reject Ron Paul as "having blinders on" or not having made the full transition. These are people know instinctively that ideas like:

1) Complete legalization of drugs will have horrible results until:

A) all the bodies of the addicted who refuse treatment and continue aggressive criminal behavior are cleaned up and properly disposed of
B) Massive amounts of money are spent rehabilitating and educating addicts who finally submit and decide to contribute to society
C) the "justice" infrastructre is refocused on prosecuting actual crime
D) There will still be horribly heinous crimes commited by new addicts who can easily obtain mind****ing drugs. Like the cannibal homeless guy in Miami who took "bath salts" that apparently aren't even "illegal" yet.

2) There are very dangerous and sinister people in complete control of entire countries, and that if there are no consequenses for their evil acts, more evil actors are likely to rise in less stable countries.

3) Getting rid of Fractional Reserve Banking, that every other country on earth uses, and going on a gold standard, that no one in the universe that we know of uses, might not be the pie in the sky some predict.

Now I must say there are only a couple of RP "zealots" on this board at all that I find irritating. Some are humorous, almost all are intellectually stimulating to say the least. Even one of the irritating ones are stimulating, but so obnoxious I don't need to be stimulated and pist off at the same time. For 75% of our shared principles, I find it silly that they regard me as just as culpable an enemy, as the stinky hippy driving the Prius with an Obozo 2012 sticker on it.

EDit BTW, I voted RP in today's primary knowing he would not win. Since it seems certain Romney is the repuke nominee, he will get my vote over the moonbat messiah.

 

[()pen(arry]

*lip service*

You've adequately demonstrated my point. I did not expect to convince anyone, with my previous post, that they had blinders on. Heavens no; they have blinders on, after all. I was simply explaining to you that what you see as zealotry is usually just annoyance. You either hold the principle that liberty is sacrosanct or you don't. You don't.

And, frankly, I don't for an instant believe that there's a Democratic candidate on the planet against whom Mitt Romney could run, in which situation you'd actually vote for Ron Paul. You'll always have some justification for doubling down on the party.

I voted RP in today's primary knowing he would not win.

The only reason you did so was because you were comfortably assured that Mitt Romney would win anyway. You just said so yourself. See what I mean?

 

[PrayingForWar]

You've adequately demonstrated my point. I did not expect to convince anyone, with my previous post, that they had blinders on. Heavens no; they have blinders on, after all. I was simply explaining to you that what you see as zealotry is usually just annoyance. You either hold the principle that liberty is sacrosanct or you don't. You don't.

And, frankly, I don't for an instant believe that there's a Democratic candidate on the planet against whom Mitt Romney could run, in which situation you'd actually vote for Ron Paul. You'll always have some justification for doubling down on the party.



The only reason you did so was because you were comfortably assured that Mitt Romney would win anyway. You just said so yourself. See what I mean?

Thanks for that gracious response. You're also a mind reader? Nice to know all Paulbots aren't abrasive jack asses.

 

[()pen(arry]

Nice to know all Paulbots aren't abrasive jack asses.

See here.