PDA

View Full Version : Why did Ron Paul drop out?




JosephTheLibertarian
06-24-2008, 09:54 AM
He should have stayed in until after the convention. Why drop out early? You don't need to campaign to stay in it. Abraham Lincoln didn't drop out when he had only a handful of delegates. What gives?

acptulsa
06-24-2008, 10:02 AM
He should have stayed in until after the convention. Why drop out early? You don't need to campaign to stay in it. Abraham Lincoln didn't drop out when he had only a handful of delegates. What gives?

He appears to have decided that the CFL needed his leftover money and relief from those weird campaign finance laws we've been dealing with all season.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-24-2008, 10:06 AM
He appears to have decided that the CFL needed his leftover money and relief from those weird campaign finance laws we've been dealing with all season.

It was just a little longer of a wait.... talk about bad timing over and over again. His campaign was staffed by fuckin' amateurs, no doubt.

nate895
06-24-2008, 10:10 AM
It was just a little longer of a wait.... talk about bad timing over and over again. His campaign was staffed by fuckin' amateurs, no doubt.

The official campaign really gets me worked up. If only they had done their jobs, and done them well, Ron Paul would be the presumptive nominee. But, alas, it appears as if no one at HQ knew how to win an election, and Ron Paul, I believe, wasn't all too enthused either about the campaign.

amy31416
06-24-2008, 10:11 AM
You think he could have planned and announced his parallel convention in St. Paul if he were still in the race? Probably not.

Mahkato
06-24-2008, 10:11 AM
Not dropping out = every RP supporter sits around until September, gets angry when McCain is nominated, continues sitting around, and gets angry when Obama or McCain is elected in November.

Dropping out = every RP supporter becomes an active supporter of the Campaign for Liberty, which will (hopefully) spread Ron Paul's message in perpetuity, eventually waking Americans up to the fact that the United States is no longer theirs.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-24-2008, 10:16 AM
The official campaign really gets me worked up. If only they had done their jobs, and done them well, Ron Paul would be the presumptive nominee. But, alas, it appears as if no one at HQ knew how to win an election, and Ron Paul, I believe, wasn't all too enthused either about the campaign.

Yeah, I think he staffed too many Libertarian Party loser campaign workers, people that are used to never winning. His campaign should have been purged on a regular basis.

IRO-bot
06-24-2008, 10:48 AM
He should have stayed in until after the convention. Why drop out early? You don't need to campaign to stay in it. Abraham Lincoln didn't drop out when he had only a handful of delegates. What gives?

Uhm, because he lost and felt his time and the money earned could be better spent elsewhere. Not a hard concept to grasp. ;)

Lovecraftian4Paul
06-24-2008, 11:40 AM
It is troubling that he dropped out shortly after rumors started to surface from Alex Jones and other sources about plots behind the scenes against Ron Paul. Nothing life threatening or anything, but rather maneuvers from henchmen in Congress to go after his seniority and commission seats, rendering him powerless.

I hate to think so, but part of me can't help but wonder if someone or some group got to Ron Paul and coerced him out. I hope to be proven wrong soon once it becomes clearer what the CFL is going to be and do.

SnappleLlama
06-24-2008, 11:42 AM
It is troubling that he dropped out shortly after rumors started to surface from Alex Jones and other sources about plots behind the scenes against Ron Paul. Nothing life threatening or anything, but rather maneuvers from henchmen in Congress to go after his seniority and commission seats, rendering him powerless.

I hate to think so, but part of me can't help but wonder if someone or some group got to Ron Paul and coerced him out. I hope to be proven wrong soon once it becomes clearer what the CFL is going to be and do.

It's funny, because I was wondering the same thing. I hope that doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist!

Truth Warrior
06-24-2008, 11:46 AM
Because in addition to his day job, and the POTUS primaries being over, he wanted to start CFL!

Paulitical Correctness
06-24-2008, 02:31 PM
Stop worrying about "what if this" and "if only that". :rolleyes:

The World is three days:

As for yesterday,
it has vanished,
along with all that was in it.

As for tomorrow,
you may never see it.

As for today,
it is yours,
so work in it.

- Hasan al-Basri

dannno
06-24-2008, 03:13 PM
Ron Paul ended his campaign, he did not drop out of the race. God dammit. Stop spreading these lies.

dannno
06-24-2008, 03:23 PM
From an e-mail:

"I wanted to put out an email along these lines but Nathan has stated below exactly what this newest development means. Not a darn thing! He's still in it and it's up to us, as it has always been As Dr. Paul stated on the video he put out, this is a legal formality only for shutting down the official campaign (read as in Romney's suspension of his campaign). This means there is no longer a legal campaign entity and is purely a regulatory change only. These are his own words."




http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=143077

"Conference call with Dr. Paul yesterday in Harrisburg

Dr. Pauls first question was would he accept the nomination if he could get the majority in 5 states. He said yes of course, but it would be up to us to convince other delegates in the "mini caccuses" before the convention to nominate him. If only for the sake of fairness and allowing him the opportunity to speak. He has only suspended the campaign, he has not withdrawn from the race, he has not released his delegates. Big difference. In his usaual fashion he is again letting it up to us to do our thing. So, it's not over. Our group believes we can do this with AK, MT, ID, NV, WA to name some. The conversation lasted 15-20 minutes and the good Dr. was on his game. We did tape the conversation I'll see if I can find out if it's posted anywhere. In other bussiness we had a very productive meeting. We came from all over the state, all walks of life, all ages, all party affilations. We will be called, Pennsylvania Campaign for Liberty. We will be an umbrella organization under the CFL. The first order to vote was we will be a non-partisan group. We elected a chair, vice chair, and a steering commitee. The State organization will advise and communicate with the county organizations. We adopted a mission statement, goals and strategies. We will meet quarterly. Liberty is alive and well in PA, and the convention is still over 2 months away. My Freinds, it's not over."

ultimaonliner
06-24-2008, 10:53 PM
Not dropping out = every RP supporter sits around until September, gets angry when McCain is nominated, continues sitting around, and gets angry when Obama or McCain is elected in November.

Dropping out = every RP supporter becomes an active supporter of the Campaign for Liberty, which will (hopefully) spread Ron Paul's message in perpetuity, eventually waking Americans up to the fact that the United States is no longer theirs.

I appreciate your optimism and wish that I could share in it. I tend to think that his decision to end the campaign is a huge loss for all of us who were following not just the ideas of liberty, but of Ron Paul himself.

I know RP keeps telling everybody it's the message and not him, but that's B.S.

Elections are won by people voting for individual candidates and frequently, the voters don't even know anything about their issues. Nixon vs Kennedy televised debate is telling in how voters are influenced by a person's physical looks alone.

For many, the interest in RP was not just merely about his ideas, but about a tremendous respect for RP the man himself.

Akus
06-24-2008, 11:27 PM
He should have stayed in until after the convention. Why drop out early? You don't need to campaign to stay in it. Abraham Lincoln didn't drop out when he had only a handful of delegates. What gives?

Because I consider him indifferent to actual social and political shifts in this country. I will always admire his never ending energy to fight this unfightable unwinnable wall and his hard immobile stand on principles, but his words/actions ratio makes him look more and more like a demagogue.

I hope I am wrong, I want to be wrong.

But I don't think I am.

LibertyEagle
06-24-2008, 11:59 PM
Because I consider him indifferent to actual social and political shifts in this country. I will always admire his never ending energy to fight this unfightable unwinnable wall and his hard immobile stand on principles, but his words/actions ratio makes him look more and more like a demagogue.

I hope I am wrong, I want to be wrong.

But I don't think I am.

Why do you say that? It seems to me that he has a pretty darn good record of doing what he says he's going to do, for more than 30 years.

Paulitician
06-25-2008, 01:06 AM
Because Ron Paul had no chance at the Republican nomination, and he knew he was going to go back to congress, so he did the smart thing and ended his campaign.

Also, he was going nowhere in his presidential bid.

Akus
06-25-2008, 01:41 AM
Why do you say that? It seems to me that he has a pretty darn good record of doing what he says he's going to do, for more than 30 years.

Have you read "A foreign policy of freedom"? Have you seen how he ends all of his apocalyptical description of consequences of yet another bill or a war? He doesn't say "stop" or "this is insane" or "you can't be serious". He politely, gently "warns" and "urges to think". He doesn't fight.

His campaign was weak and beyond subpar. You probably remember Jonathan Bydlak's big thread of the official campaign. Somebody, and you may remember this as well, has stated that we the grassroots achieved more with less and the official campaign has achieved much less with more. Ron Paul had many opportunities to make his campaign a war machine.

I don't want to get off on a rant, as I will say nothing that hasn't been said before, but this is basically why I feel like I do. Too much talk, too much hope that the populace will stop following Paris/Britney/Lohan and start following Jefferson/Madison/Franklin.

We need someone with power, not another freedom movement, which is already showing signs of disintegration.

Barr vs Baldwin, anyone?