You guys think there willl be alot of Ron paul supporters at the RNC? Lately i havent seen ron paul do anything, its been quite dead for a while (at least thats how i feel about it).
I still have a little hope left that he might win but for now its discouraging to see everyone rage on about paul ryan, and romney.......
I want to see everyone shout ron paul's name as romney gets picked as the candidate.
Even if he is, who knows, i think paul has alot of chance if he runs independent or for another party...
Thoughts?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
I agree Paul has settled down. Do you know if he is speaking at the convention?
He probably will be but lately it hasnt been picking up, havent heard anything on the media, and the ronpaul2012 website is kinda meh.
Rand tore the Ron Paul movement in half. It's dead because it has no life anymore. Ron pussed out due to the possibility of violence at the state conventions (let alone the national) and Rand went down to the crossroads. Ask his friend boy willy brown.
I really wouldn't want a Rand Paul candidacy in 2016. I hope Justin Amash or Gary Johnson returns to challenge Paul.
The Ron Paul movement was doomed from the beginning. He was never going to win the presidential election even if he somehow won the primary. With this said, we have not even begun to see the tip of the iceberg of what Paul stirred up.
I hope peter schiff runs for presidency. he has alot of money, aligns with our views, and is young enough to not be called grandpa schiff (like many have done so to paul).
The only good thing about Paul Ryan is that he is easy upon the eyes.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Not really, paul ryan is pretty ugly. He looks high all the time.
As far as politicians go, he's about as good as they get. Unlike the current president. I'll never understand how he is perceived to be attractive. As well as being vapid, evil and morally bankrupt I think he looks like a cheerful little monkey.
You can see the media trying to build up a cult of personality for him when they interview his teachers, neighbors, and talk about his younger life, etc, etc, etc; not even did they do this with romney (or did they, i missed it?)
from my understanding ron paul didnt win enough states to get a slot to talk at the convention. Romney/RNC gave the OK to have a speech outside before the convention, but not during.
Also did anyone notice that Dr. Paul stopped almost directly after his breakfast with bernanke? Has Dr Paul come out and said why he had breakfast with him? it was supposed to be off the record i think, but dont know if they ever said.
Ron paul has enough support/delegates etc to talk.
the republican party cheated.
Rand tore the Ron Paul movement in half.
Nah, the people who hate Rand for being a pragmatist and blame everything on the campaign officials split the movement. Jones and Kokesh first and foremost.
Ron pussed out due to the possibility of violence at the state conventions (let alone the national) and Rand went down to the crossroads. Ask his friend boy willy brown.
Pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term do not equal "pussing out."
I don't believe so. I've heard rumors that he was offered a chance to speak, but only if it was a bullshit Unity Unity Rah Rah Rah kind of speech, and he turned them down. Anyway, he's havong a huge rally at the Sun Dome in Tampa this Sunday.
http://www.sundomearena.com/events/detail/ron-paul-rally
Minarchist:Rand tore the Ron Paul movement in half. Nah, the people who hate Rand for being a pragmatist and blame everything on the campaign officials split the movement. Jones and Kokesh first and foremost.
That's like saying "it wasn't the spree killer who made everyone feel unsafe in their own neighborhood...it was those damn loudmouth family members who told everyone about their loved ones being murdered."
Oh please do share these "pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term." I'm on pins and needles.
Many Paulites did not (and still don't) understand the primary process. They wanted to do things at the conventions that they thought would help Paul win, but they were wrong. What they wanted to do would have achieved nothing in the way of getting Paul nominated, but WOULD have made us all look very bad in the eyes of rank-and-file Republicans....you know, the people whose votes we need to win the race we're running. Most of these haribrained schemes revolved around the idea that delegates either were always, or could be made, unbound. And this is based on an incorrect reading of party rules and of a letter sent by an RNC official in the 2008 race.
That analogy only makes sense if we're assuming that Rand was in the wrong.
Minarchist:Oh please do share these "pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term." I'm on pins and needles. Many Paulites did not (and still don't) understand the primary process. They wanted to do things at the conventions that they thought would help Paul win, but they were wrong. What they wanted to do would have achieved nothing in the way of getting Paul nominated, but WOULD have made us all look very bad in the eyes of rank-and-file Republicans....you know, the people whose votes we need to win the race we're running. Most of these haribrained schemes revolved around the idea that delegates either were always, or could be made, unbound. And this is based on an incorrect reading of party rules and of a letter sent by an RNC official in the 2008 race.
I'm sorry, was there some list of "pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term" in there? I must have missed it.
That's like saying "it wasn't the spree killer who made everyone feel unsafe in their own neighborhood...it was those damn loudmouth family members who told everyone about their loved ones being murdered." That analogy only makes sense if we're assuming that Rand was in the wrong.
That's like saying "the cause only makes sense as a cause if we assume effects are caused by causes."
Being "in the wrong" has nothing to do with anything. Since when do you have to be "in the wrong" to be the cause of a divide? Rand broke away from principles of the movement, and some people decided to follow him, while others didn't. Ceteris paribus, had Rand not done or said anything, it's pretty safe to assume this divide between people who support Rand and those who don't, wouldn't exist.
It's like you're trying to blame the fact that the bell cracked on gravity, and absolve the person who actually dropped it.
JJ: I'm sorry, was there some list of "pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term" in there? I must have missed it.
Me: What they wanted to do would have achieved nothing in the way of getting Paul nominated, but WOULD have made us all look very bad in the eyes of rank-and-file Republicans....you know, the people whose votes we need to win the race we're running
JJ: Being "in the wrong" has nothing to do with anything.
Ah, I thought that making an analogy between Rand and a spree killer indicated that you thought Rand was to be blamed....
JJ: Ceteris paribus, had Rand not done or said anything, it's pretty safe to assume this divide between people who support Rand and those who don't, wouldn't exist.
Right, and if people hadn't reacted to what Rand did in the way they did, the divide also would not have occurred. See how that works? Which is why in a situation like this, you look for who is to blame, who was in the wrong, not just who is responsible, as both are responsible, both are necessary conditions.
Minarchist:JJ: I'm sorry, was there some list of "pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term" in there? I must have missed it. Me: What they wanted to do would have achieved nothing in the way of getting Paul nominated, but WOULD have made us all look very bad in the eyes of rank-and-file Republicans....you know, the people whose votes we need to win the race we're running
Um. Yeah...that's what you said, and then I said what you quoted there after you said that. So...uh...what exactly are these "pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term" again?
JJ: Being "in the wrong" has nothing to do with anything. Ah, I thought that making an analogy between Rand and a spree killer indicated that you thought Rand was to be blamed....
You have a real problem with quote cutting don't you? Once again, the sentence that follows the one that you pasted (i.e. the sentence you conveniently left out) offers clarification. I'll say it again: Since when do you have to be "in the wrong" to be the cause of something?
The door is now closed because you pushed it shut. You were the cause of the door-close. Does that mean you were "in the wrong"? Or is "wrong" completely irrelevant to the cause and effect?
Minarchist:JJ: Ceteris paribus, had Rand not done or said anything, it's pretty safe to assume this divide between people who support Rand and those who don't, wouldn't exist. Right, and if people hadn't reacted to what Rand did in the way they did, the divide also would not have occurred. See how that works?
Right, and if people hadn't reacted to what Rand did in the way they did, the divide also would not have occurred. See how that works?
Yes, I see a chain of events, that ended in a divide, and that began with Rand doing what he did. That to me says what happened first was the cause.
Once again, you're saying: Yes, Rand dropped the bell...and then gravity pulled it downward...and it ended up cracked. So if gravity hadn't have pulled it down to the ground, it wouldn't have been cracked.
The whole point is, if Rand hadn't have dropped it in the first place, gravity wouldn't have pulled it downward.
Why you're so insistent on focusing on the middle instead of the beginning, I can't be sure. But it would seem to me you are in the Jack Hunter crowd of apparatchiks with their ready to fire "oh he's thinking pragmatically, he's thinking long term, you gotta give a little to get a little, some is better than nothing, this is how politics is, etc. etc. etc." So my guess as to why you'd want to focus on people who stayed true to the principles of the movement instead of going along to get along when Rand evidently did just that, is because obviously someone has to be blamed, and of course it can't be Rand.
Which is why in a situation like this, you look for who is to blame, who was in the wrong, not just who is responsible, as both are responsible, both are necessary conditions.
You need oxygen to have fire. Oxygen is a "necessary condition". This does not mean that oxygen (a virtual constant in air) is "responsible" or "to blame" for the fire the arsonist ignited.
The amount of acrobatics you apologists will do is just incredible.
It was totally Rand that divided the movement, but it was Ron who took the steam out of things.
The NIGHT that Rand was on that douche bag tv show you could see the divide in the comments. THEN, Jack Hunter et al came out for Rand. They are simply ambitious politicos who happened to be where we were at while Paul stood a chance (...if ever).
RON'S reaction to the divide was silence. This is what pushed him into the irrelevant category for me. I wish him the best, but calling off the troops AS SOON AS there were tiny bits of violence at the state conventions was the single most destructive thing (next to his kid stabbing him in the back) he could have done. He used his bare hands to pull embers from the engine.
Aristophanes: It was totally Rand that divided the movement, but it was Ron who took the steam out of things. The NIGHT that Rand was on that douche bag tv show you could see the divide in the comments. THEN, Jack Hunter et al came out for Rand. They are simply ambitious politicos who happened to be where we were at while Paul stood a chance (...if ever). RON'S reaction to the divide was silence. This is what pushed him into the irrelevant category for me. I wish him the best, but calling off the troops AS SOON AS there were tiny bits of violence at the state conventions was the single most destructive thing (next to his kid stabbing him in the back) he could have done. He used his bare hands to pull embers from the engine.
I'm not sure about the metaphor, but this more or less says the gist.
what exactly are these "pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term" again?
The decision to not do what many of the grassroots were demanding, which subsequently pissed off many of them. For example, the decision not to file lawsuits to release the delegates from their binding. The decision to acknowledge reality and admit that Paul could not win the nomination. The decision for Rand to endorse Romney. The decision to oppose certain grassroots plans for state and local conventions. I'm very pleased that the campaign chose to do what they did, rather than going down in a blaze of futility than would have damaged our image for years to come. I regret that some supporters can't wrap their brains around this, but ah well. It was still a good decision even in hindsight.
As for the rest, I'm not saying those with a negative reaction to Rand's endorsement are solely causally responsible for the divide. Both they and Rand are causally responsible. Likewise, if I say "hello JJ" and somehow the reaction this causes in you is for you to murder your wife, well we are both causally responsible. The question is which action was justified? Was Rand correct in doing what he did? I think he was. What he did was what was best for the cause. Were the grassroots correct in reacting the way they did? I don't think so. I think it was an overreaction based on a misunderstanding of the process and politics in general.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Baseless assumption. Apparently it's impossible that anyone with good intentions for the liberty movement would think Rand's endorsement was a good idea.
RON'S reaction to the divide was silence. This is what pushed him into the irrelevant category for me....his kid stabbing him in the back
Baseless assumption. You have no idea what Ron thinks of Rand's endorsement. Is it possible that Ron is not JUST a principled politician, but also a CLEVER one? Is it possible that he knew they needed to make peace with the GOP, but HE couldn't soil his image by doing an endorsement?
I wish him the best, but calling off the troops AS SOON AS there were tiny bits of violence at the state conventions was the single most destructive thing
"The troops" didn't have the foggiest f-ing clue what they were doing, if by "the troops" you mean the folks who wanted to basically force their inept understanding of the rules on the GOP and try to somehow steal the nomination.
What he did was what was best for the cause.
WHAT CAUSE? Rand is not part of Ron's now defunct cause. I get emails from that goblin Romney because C4L sold my information to them like cheap Asian prostitute. As far as I am concerned, your cause is now different than mine. Doing what's best for RAND is different than doing what is best for US.
Light bulbs or raw milk? Fuck the banks (not pejoratively of course), but fuck worrying about them...RAND knows what's up...Bombing Iran, light bulbs and raw milk freedom. The FED is ... (ahahah)
Oh, I better send Rand an email asking him to go to the Senate and raise hell...I am told I must acquire a low-flow toilet...
But, that is why you are a "minarchist." You need the state...just enough state to bomb Iran and ban raw milk, right? How is Minarchy working out for you?
WHAT CAUSE?
The cause he's promoting. The cause that all his supporters who hold positions within the GOP will be promoting. The cause that all the candidates for public office he's inspired will be promoting.
You have no idea what Ron thinks of Rand's endorsement. Is it possible that Ron is not JUST a principled politician, but also a CLEVER one?
Clever politicians are a red flag.
I'm about to lay down some serious philosophy (well I am not, but I'll quote it).
"And as a person who looks much at his spectacles betrays that he has difficulties in looking through them, so people who appeal much to principles show that they do not know how to act." - Gilbert Ryle Knowing How and Knowing That.
The first part is you. The second part is Ron Paul.
Ron's not knowing how to act (by calling off the troops) is his appeal to principle. It is pathetic that people cling to ideals that they must bend over backwards to get people to even consider, let alone understand.
Revolutions are NEVER non-violent. I have said it before and (you guessed it) I will say it again. The Establishment endorses non-violent protest because they know that non-violent protestors do not pose a threat. If you want revolution...you must get your hands dirty...
Malcom X (endorses violence), Henry David Thoreau, John Brown (endorses not paying ANY taxes, endorses violence), the Sons of Liberty (endorses massive property destruction). They knew what is up. They helped get shit done.
hahahahah. Yup, those are the ones. The ones who took over Romney's home state along with several others. YOU MUST BREAK THE RULES TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. RULES ARE THERE TO PREVENT DIFFERENCE MAKING (particularly in politics).
The cause he's promoting. The cause that all his supporters who hold positions within the GOP will be promoting. The cause that all the Paul-inspired candidates for public office will be promoting.
What a cop out of a response. You know damn well that I named all of his causes...milk, light bulbs, and bombing Iran. Rand is a sellout and you are delusional for thinking otherwise.
"WHAT CAUSE? Rand is not part of Ron's now defunct cause. I get emails from that goblin Romney because C4L sold my information to them like cheap Asian prostitute"
Aristophanes, it's okay, you don't have to hold back anymore. Tell us how you really feel. Let all of your emotions out.
So he finally actually names something, after being asked for examples three times.
Minarchist:would have damaged our image for years to come.
"our" image?
As for the rest, I'm not saying those with a negative reaction to Rand's endorsement are solely causally responsible for the divide. Both they and Rand are causally responsible. Likewise, if I say "hello JJ" and somehow the reaction this causes in you is for you to murder your wife, well we are both causally responsible.
That's a terrible analogy. In the situation we're actually discussing, the people who called Rand out on his selling out were doing the exact same thing they always have...sticking to a set of foundational principles and calling out people who don't. They didn't change. They simply continued doing what they always did. Rand just decided to move himself over to the sellout-who-gets-called-out group.
The question is which action was justified? Was Rand correct in doing what he did? I think he was. What he did was what was best for the cause. Were the grassroots correct in reacting the way they did? I don't think so. I think it was an overreaction based on a misunderstanding of the process and politics in general.
When you and your rebel army are ready to storm the Bastille, give me a ring. In the meantime, I think we ought to try something that actually...you know...has a chance of success.
The "he" I referenced was Ron not Rand.
"And as a person who looks much at his spectacles betrays that he has difficulties in looking through them, so people who appeal much to principles show that they do not know how to act." - Gilbert Ryle Knowing How and Knowing That. The first part is you. The second part is Ron Paul.
This means nothing at all.
Neodoxy:Aristophanes, it's okay, you don't have to hold back anymore. Tell us how you really feel. Let all of your emotions out.
I know right? I'm still waiting for Mr. stonecold to quit bottling everything up.
Precisely, it is because of those with confusion such as yours that Rand's action was so controversial.
When you and your rebel army are ready to storm the Bastille
I knew rthis was the direction the response would go. I, obviously, don't have that power...it is Ron Paul that did.
But, Ron is out of the game. RAND is where it is at. HE gets all of the attention now. Ron is just an old man that everyone thinks is a kook.
"And as a person who looks much at his spectacles betrays that he has difficulties in looking through them, so people who appeal much to principles show that they do not know how to act." - Gilbert Ryle Knowing How and Knowing That. The first part is you. The second part is Ron Paul. This means nothing at all.
haha. Yeah. I didn't think you'd get it. Smarter people will be laughing at you.
Minarchist:That's a terrible analogy. In the situation we're actually discussing, the people who called Rand out on his selling out were doing the exact same thing they always have...sticking to a set of foundational principles and calling out people who don't. They didn't change. They simply continued doing what they always did. Rand just decided to move himself over to the sellout-who-gets-called-out group. Precisely, it is because of those with confusion such as yours that Rand's action was so controversial.
This makes absolutely no sense. You call calling out a sellout "confusion", and allege that it isn't the actual selling out that is controversial, it's just the fact that people didn't blindly go along with it that made it so.
Rand Paul freely admitted he wasn't a libertarian years ago. There were just a lot of people who either didn't notice, or assumed it was just semantics, and that he actually was part of a coalition that his father started. But evidently they were wrong.
The difference between you and them is, they recognized their mistake when it was thrown in their face. You have simply dressed it up and made excuses to justify it, and contort it so as to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Whether this is just because you're too proud and don't want to admit you were wrong about Rand, or can't bring yourself to admit you were fooled, or don't want to face the reality that there isn't another Ron Paul ready in the wings to pick up the torch...or whether you're just too much of a simpleton to even see what's right in front of you, I don't really know.
One more time, this is your guy.
Plus, if the RON Paul delegates would have cause a stir that the media picked up, it would have at least shown the country that the GOP is withering and ready to be replaced. Instead when RAND comes out and starts blowing the senior ranking Republicans it makes it look like people like me really are Republicans (GOP).
I'd rather not be associated with that skidmark of a community (the underpants skidmark, not Laura Bush's hit and run skidmark).
so as to fit a square peg in a round hole.
See, Minarchist, smarter people laugh at you. You should reread that quote I posted, get super high, and then read those links that I posted. Let your intellect be free. Circles aren't squares as much as you want them to be.
Ha, I rhymed.
This was a good one in the thread JJ posted
It's from 2008, but you get the idea. Ron, and even the crowd, LAUGHED OUT LOUD (lol in your terms) at the idea of supporting the GOP.
I knew this was the direction the response would go. I, obviously, don't have that power...it is Ron Paul that did.
I rather doubt Ron would be interested in what you're suggesting.
But, Ron is out of the game. RAND is where it is at. HE gets all of the attention now.
Whose attention?
Of course.
Uh huh, tell me more. Share with me your illumination master.
But, Ron is out of the game. RAND is where it is at. HE gets all of the attention now. Whose attention?
YOURS. You baffoon.
haha. Yeah. I didn't think you'd get it. Smarter people will be laughing at you. Of course.
Yeah, it already happened.
Share with me your illumination master.
I posted the links that will do so.
Here they are again
You call calling out a sellout "confusion"
No, I call mistaking an empty political gesture for a sell-out confusion.
and allege that it isn't the actual selling out that is controversial, it's just the fact that people didn't blindly go along with it that made it so.
Again, that is the interpretation that follows from your confusion.
And? Sorry, where did I say Rand was a libertarian? You're the one who seems to be implying that he was, and that he sold out, and is no longer. Otherwise, what exactly did he sell out?
Or I'm correct and the endorsement was an empty gesture, and Rand may yet do good work for us.