GOP now ironically begging Ron Paul supporters for help

[sailingaway]

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/9a/4d/9a4d2bc1197113c2e285d48b32a2cc15.jpg

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-now-ironically-begging-ron-paul-supporters-for-help

[CaptainAmerica]

Only to blame us and scapegoat ron paul voters as the reason they lost the elections?

[DeMintConservative]

What's ironic about it? Politicians ask for people's votes. And especially those of their own party.

[sailingaway]

What's ironic about it? Politicians ask for people's votes. And especially those of their own party.

after cheating Ron blatantly at RNC, it is ironic.

[DeMintConservative]

I don't agree with that cheating theory - and neither do people like Rand Paul, I think. Does Ron Paul? I don't think so. In the end, Romney won the nomination overwhelmingly. Is it because of the speaking slot?

Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who are open to the idea of voting for Romney, if only to not allow Obama to get away with all he did in these four years. Otherwise the lesson will be that there's no repercussion from being the most statist president in generations.

I'm sure there are others who would never vote for the GOP nominee if it wasn't Ron Paul, but Ryan wasn't talking to those.

[ninepointfive]

I don't agree with that cheating theory

the Delegates were cheated - and no we're not debating it. look into it if you want on your own time

[DeMintConservative]

The Maine and Lousiana delegates? I've read plenty.

[sailingaway]

The Maine and Lousiana delegates? I've read plenty.

Not just them, but the six states that filed to put Ron in for nomination for his speech, when only 5 were required, and after that Boehner pretended not to hear that the voice vote went against changing that threshold and that there were objections and points of order after he pretended a motion to carry the rule change (including the rule, retroactively, on number of states needed to place a name in nomination) had passed by voice vote. There is video that vote and of the delegations turning in the state petitions to nominate Ron.

The ultimate GOP nomination would be determined by delegate vote and barring something highly unlikely, would have been Romney, but Ron being placed into nomination from the floor with an unedited nominee speech as hadn't happened since 1976 was his by right, and they cheated him and us out of it.

[ClydeCoulter]

@DeMintConservative,
There's a thread here that is sticky that details a lot of the cheating. There's really no question as to "did it happen", only "how much".

[Brian4Liberty]

The Romney Campaign went full retard with foreign policy. Never go full retard.

[JK/SEA]

Why frankly, i'm flattered that they would ask for my support, truly i am. However...go fuck yourself GOP.

[Dr.3D]

The Romney Campaign went full retard with foreign policy. Never go full retard.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jwtk36MoqM

[TCE]

They burned absolutely every bridge with us and now they're trying to tell us it is the rational thing to forget about that for four weeks. Don't even think about it for a second. The minute Romney gets in, he would ignore us completely. Voting for Romney in this election makes absolutely no sense.

[bunklocoempire]

I don't agree with that cheating theory - and neither do people like Rand Paul, I think. Does Ron Paul? I don't think so. In the end, Romney won the nomination overwhelmingly. Is it because of the speaking slot?

Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who are open to the idea of voting for Romney, if only to not allow Obama to get away with all he did in these four years. Otherwise the lesson will be that there's no repercussion from being the most statist president in generations.

I'm sure there are others who would never vote for the GOP nominee if it wasn't Ron Paul, but Ryan wasn't talking to those.

Who do you believe the learners of that lesson would be? Voters who are already convinced that repercussions are only for Democrats? Or?

:confused:

[JK/SEA]

I don't agree with that cheating theory - and neither do people like Rand Paul, I think. Does Ron Paul? I don't think so. In the end, Romney won the nomination overwhelmingly. Is it because of the speaking slot?

Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who are open to the idea of voting for Romney, if only to not allow Obama to get away with all he did in these four years. Otherwise the lesson will be that there's no repercussion from being the most statist president in generations.

I'm sure there are others who would never vote for the GOP nominee if it wasn't Ron Paul, but Ryan wasn't talking to those.


frickin' troll...

[DeMintConservative]

Who do you believe the learners of that lesson would be? Voters who are already convinced that repercussions are only for Democrats? Or?

:confused:

Politicians.

It'll move the Overton Window to the left.

I keep saying: if Obama wins and Rand Paul runs in 2016, he'll run on "making Obamacare sustainable".

[NoOneButPaul]

I've said before... and i'll continue to say to every NeoCon friend/family member I have...

They wouldn't even SPEAK, yes SPEAK! our Candidate's name but we're suppose to vote for theirs? Hell no.

They made their bed when they refused to even say "his" name. Now the Gingrich's of the World who thought Rand would pull in 90% are waking up to reality...

Too bad... soo sad... you guys fucked up hardcore at the convention and now you get to live with it.

[TCE]

Politicians.

It'll move the Overton Window to the left.

I keep saying: if Obama wins and Rand Paul runs in 2016, he'll run on "making Obamacare sustainable".

If Romney wins, every Republican will move to the Left. It will prove that only moderates can win elections and any Jim DeMint type will be forced to either support Romney with his vote or be a rebel without a party. If Romney wins in 2012, no other Republican will challenge him in 2016, so we are stuck with a moderate that we don't like or a Democrat until at least 2020. Romney will not repeal Obamacare. He won't have the votes to do it. A Romney win hurts everyone.

And you really believe that Rand won't have some out-of-the-box approach to stop Obamacare? How about threatening to veto any budget that funds it.

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure Obama can move further left than Romney also wants to go.

[Brett85]

I'm sure there are others who would never vote for the GOP nominee if it wasn't Ron Paul, but Ryan wasn't talking to those.

And there's others like me who voted for Bush and McCain but can't vote for Romney this time. I'm tired of the neo-conservatives. Romney simply supports war, war, and more war. He doesn't believe in limited government to any extent whatsoever.

[ILUVRP]

i do know this ----without ralph nader running & the scotus gw bush would never have been elected and over 4500 gi's would be alive .

this country cannot stand another useless war . i will vote gary johnson , no more war mongers , send them all packing.

[DeMintConservative]

If Romney wins, every Republican will move to the Left. It will prove that only moderates can win elections and any Jim DeMint type will be forced to either support Romney with his vote or be a rebel without a party. If Romney wins in 2012, no other Republican will challenge him in 2012, so we are stuck with a moderate that we don't like or a Democrat until at least 2020. Romney will not repeal Obamacare. He won't have the votes to do it. A Romney win hurts everyone.

And you really believe that Rand won't have some out-of-the-box approach to stop Obamacare? How about threatening to veto any budget that funds it.

If you think Republicans will move to the left if Romney wins, you should see what's going to happen if he loses.

I've been hearing about that strange rationale in which if the GOP candidate loses to a democrat, the next GOP candidate will be more conservative for years. I read about it in this site all the time.

I never really understood how's that supposed to work and why it has never worked so far. After Bush lost in 92, how on earth Dole won the next nomination? If McCain lost, why would a guy who's even more moderate than McCain win this time around? Even more interesting: this time Rommey run more to the left than he did in 08. Shouldn't it have been the other way around?


Mind you, there's a reason why Romney would be too conservative to be elected pretty much anywhere else in the world besides the US. If it's the more left-wing option that wins, that reveals the electorate preference is trending to the left and the political class will adjust to that. Not the other way around.

My point is that Rand will be supporting Obamacare in 2016 because that's going to be the only way of being electable. He'll talk about reform and long-term phasing out and whatnot. Obamacare will either be killed in the next 2 years - and I think Romney will do it - or it'll become too late. The popular support for it will increase as more people start benefiting from the program and the status quo ante is forgotten.

[devil21]

I don't agree with that cheating theory - and neither do people like Rand Paul, I think. Does Ron Paul? I don't think so. In the end, Romney won the nomination overwhelmingly. Is it because of the speaking slot?

Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who are open to the idea of voting for Romney, if only to not allow Obama to get away with all he did in these four years. Otherwise the lesson will be that there's no repercussion from being the most statist president in generations.

I'm sure there are others who would never vote for the GOP nominee if it wasn't Ron Paul, but Ryan wasn't talking to those.

The GOP will win some soft RP support votes for Romney but they won't win hardly any of the RP activists energy, money or votes. They blew that remote possibility with the RNC bullshit.

[DeMintConservative]

The GOP will win some soft RP support votes for Romney but they won't win hardly any of the RP activists energy, money or votes. They blew that remote possibility with the RNC bullshit.

Nah. that was never going to happen. You just needed to read this forum and DP before the RNC to know that. Actually, some of those RP activists have actually so little in common with the GOP that they're probably closer to the far-left than the center-right.

[Okie RP fan]

What's ironic about it? Politicians ask for people's votes. And especially those of their own party.

Perhaps you weren't/aren't aware of how Ron Paul supporters were treated during the primary season?

Here's a hint:

Worse than dirt.

I could elaborate if you would like. Don't think it's some conspiracy, there's proof everywhere of how we were treated.

[bunklocoempire]

Politicians.

It'll move the Overton Window to the left.

I keep saying: if Obama wins and Rand Paul runs in 2016, he'll run on "making Obamacare sustainable".

I disagree with your view of Rand Paul concerning that matter.

Could you please give me an example in U.S. history/issues and previous elections where the Overton Window was moved towards freedom from government force instead of towards it?

EDIT: Using a 'keep the Overton Window right' example. Sorry for the muddy question. :o

I'm not finding any specific example.


Joseph Overton observed that in a given public policy area, such as education, only a relatively narrow range of potential policies will be considered politically acceptable. This "window" of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election. In general, then, the window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them. Click here for a video explaining the Overton Window.

[devil21]

Nah. that was never going to happen. You just needed to read this forum and DP before the RNC to know that. Actually, some of those RP activists have actually so little in common with the GOP that they're probably closer to the far-left than the center-right.

First, you can't prove a negative so whether it could have happened or not is speculation. It was remote but some could have been swayed by a fair RNC. The GOP will never know.

[RonRocks]

I don't see how any self-respecting Ron Paul supporter can vote for Romney. Have you seen all the war mongering he's been doing lately? It's disgusting. Neocons have to be given the boot NOW!

[Carlybee]

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Don't ever forget.

[georgiaboy]

This was embedded along with the article. Sums it up nicely. Especially the "we're winning" part. That's the story behind the story. More and more conscientious conservatives have figured it out, are protesting en masse, but at the same time they are taking back the GOP state by state, district by district, election by election. Wonderfully paradoxical.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydJAAtVOGJc&feature=player_embedded

Sorry, GOP, yet again conservatives have no one to vote for this cycle, so we'll be protesting just like we did in 2008.

Hint: next time around, you should have your talking heads, media pundits, radio hosts, etc., gin up support for an actual conservative. Follow our lead. We know who to choose, and the follower crowd will just join right in!

Otherwise, Dem will beat Dem-lite every time.

[satchelmcqueen]

youve got your head up your ass then. where ya been the last 5 years?? more so the last 6 months??
I don't agree with that cheating theory - and neither do people like Rand Paul, I think. Does Ron Paul? I don't think so. In the end, Romney won the nomination overwhelmingly. Is it because of the speaking slot?

Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who are open to the idea of voting for Romney, if only to not allow Obama to get away with all he did in these four years. Otherwise the lesson will be that there's no repercussion from being the most statist president in generations.

I'm sure there are others who would never vote for the GOP nominee if it wasn't Ron Paul, but Ryan wasn't talking to those.

[sailingaway]

Nah. that was never going to happen. You just needed to read this forum and DP before the RNC to know that. Actually, some of those RP activists have actually so little in common with the GOP that they're probably closer to the far-left than the center-right.

On some issues, like NDAA, sure we are, and bless the far left.

I am thinking your idea and mine of what is conservative are fairly different.

But a lot of Ron Paul supporters really think Obama should be out, and had the RNC been fair, they'd have gotten a lot farther than by cheating. More, conservatives BEYOND Ron Paul supporters saw how unfair they were, and I've seen blogs by others beyond us saying they aren't going to vote for that, either.

RNC wasn't just cheating, it was blatantly and visibly cheating.

[Cap]

Why frankly, i'm flattered that they would ask for my support, truly i am. However...go fuck yourself GOP.Have a +rep

[DeMintConservative]

On some issues, like NDAA, sure we are, and bless the far left.

I am thinking your idea and mine of what is conservative are fairly different.

But a lot of Ron Paul supporters really think Obama should be out, and had the RNC been fair, they'd have gotten a lot farther than by cheating. More, conservatives BEYOND Ron Paul supporters saw how unfair they were, and I've seen blogs by others beyond us saying they aren't going to vote for that, either.

RNC wasn't just cheating, it was blatantly and visibly cheating.

Nah, in other issues, like markets, freedom of religion, state rights and parenting. Check some of the threads going on.

I'd have voted against the NDAA but that doesn't make me close to the far-left. I oppose it on completely different grounds. They'd eagerly support far worse things than the NDAA as that is necessary to impose their totalitarian worldview.

Conservatism is not a dogma. It's not a schematic doctrine or an ideology. It's not Marxism. So every conservative will have a different idea of what conservatism is.

[DeMintConservative]

youve got your head up your ass then. where ya been the last 5 years?? more so the last 6 months??7

I get you disagree with my post, but in regards exactly to what?

That plenty of Ron Paul supporters are going to vote for Romney? Just wait for the election night. You can tally the number of Johnson and write-in votes. That some would never vote for any other GOP nominee except Ron Paul? The vast majority of the posters here have explicitly said so.

[sailingaway]

Nah, in other issues, like markets, freedom of religion, state rights and parenting. Check some of the threads going on.

I'd have voted against the NDAA but that doesn't make me close to the far-left. I oppose it on completely different grounds. They'd eagerly support far worse things than the NDAA as that is necessary to impose their totalitarian worldview.

Conservatism is not a dogma. It's not a schematic doctrine or an ideology. It's not Marxism. So every conservative will have a different idea of what conservatism is.

I am entirely for freedom of religion, as is the Constitution, are you saying the left is more in favor of strict adherence to the Constitution as we are? I'm for states and parents rights, I really don't know where you are coming from on any of that. On markets, I don't believe in corporatism, but free markets. Do you believe in corporatism? Are you arguing that is a good and better than some position you call left? Because I think it is about theft and representation of the people, and I don't think you have to be left or right or anything in particular to dislike that.

[newbitech]

Since the Tea Party movement was adopted by Ron Paul and his supporters in 2007

nerp..

[puppetmaster]

I don't agree with that cheating theory - and neither do people like Rand Paul, I think. Does Ron Paul? I don't think so. In the end, Romney won the nomination overwhelmingly. Is it because of the speaking slot?

Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who are open to the idea of voting for Romney, if only to not allow Obama to get away with all he did in these four years. Otherwise the lesson will be that there's no repercussion from being the most statist president in generations.

I'm sure there are others who would never vote for the GOP nominee if it wasn't Ron Paul, but Ryan wasn't talking to those.

Romney cheating....it is not a theory it is fact.
Not one Ron Paul person I know will vote for this slime bag.

[puppetmaster]

7

I get you disagree with my post, but in regards exactly to what?

That plenty of Ron Paul supporters are going to vote for Romney? Just wait for the election night. You can tally the number of Johnson and write-in votes. That some would never vote for any other GOP nominee except Ron Paul? The vast majority of the posters here have explicitly said so.

tally the non votes......that is where many will be on voting day

[MozoVote]

The RNC rules cram down is beyond slighting Paul. It is a top-down putsch by the DC insiders, and I'm hoping to see rebellion next year by rank and file party members at the state conventions. If that doesn't happen, I'm washing my hands of the party and going back to unafilliated.

[DeMintConservative]

I am entirely for freedom of religion, as is the Constitution, are you saying the left is more in favor of strict adherence to the Constitution as we are? I'm for states and parents rights, I really don't know where you are coming from on any of that. On markets, I don't believe in corporatism, but free markets. Do you believe in corporatism? Are you arguing that is a good and better than some position you call left? Because I think it is about theft and representation of the people, and I don't think you have to be left or right or anything in particular to dislike that.

Not sure what you mean about freedom of religion. I'm saying the left is less in favour of adherence to the Constitution and doesn't care much about freedom of religion. Obama mandates on the Catholic church as well as some posts in this forum about the relation between government and religion show that.

States and parenting rights: check the threats about the Ken Buck/marijuana thing, the California law that prohibits parents from taking their kids to counsellors and the spanking law thread. I wasn't talking about you specifically.

I don't believe in corporatism, I believe in free-markets with no special groups being favoured. I'm in favour of eliminating every subsidy, tax expenditure and protective tariffs and regulations.

Corporatism, NDAA, religion... you've been kind of striking out so far.

[DeMintConservative]

tally the non votes......that is where many will be on voting day

Maybe.

We'll be able to check which percentage of Paul primary voters stayed at home in election day once the voting lists are published, so it'll be interesting to check that metric. Adjusting for write-in/Johnson votes, we'll get a good idea if the ended up voting for Romney or not. For the record, I think you guys GROSSLY underestimate the amount of soft support Paul got and the the majority of them will vote for Romney.

[Cleaner44]

If you think Republicans will move to the left if Romney wins, you should see what's going to happen if he loses.

I've been hearing about that strange rationale in which if the GOP candidate loses to a democrat, the next GOP candidate will be more conservative for years. I read about it in this site all the time.

I never really understood how's that supposed to work and why it has never worked so far. After Bush lost in 92, how on earth Dole won the next nomination? If McCain lost, why would a guy who's even more moderate than McCain win this time around? Even more interesting: this time Rommey run more to the left than he did in 08. Shouldn't it have been the other way around?


Mind you, there's a reason why Romney would be too conservative to be elected pretty much anywhere else in the world besides the US. If it's the more left-wing option that wins, that reveals the electorate preference is trending to the left and the political class will adjust to that. Not the other way around.

My point is that Rand will be supporting Obamacare in 2016 because that's going to be the only way of being electable. He'll talk about reform and long-term phasing out and whatnot. Obamacare will either be killed in the next 2 years - and I think Romney will do it - or it'll become too late. The popular support for it will increase as more people start benefiting from the program and the status quo ante is forgotten.

I disagree. The GOP has been doing their best to cast themselves as a Christian leftist party and all they do is fail. From 2000-2006 they owned D.C. and they produced massive failure. The brand is a disaster and after back to back losses to an admitted socialist the GOP will be forced to re-examine their brand and why it isn't working.

In 2008 Obama beat the pathetic McCain with Americans 18+ years of age:

29% voted McCain
33% voted Obama
38% did not bother with the charade


The GOP can't even get a third of the potential voters on board with their fascist platform. The only question now is whether Romney will break the 30% mark.

If the GOP moves even further left they will produce a 3peat of presidential failure. America is desperate for a choice and the GOP is doing their best to out liberal the liberals.

[acptulsa]

I don't believe in corporatism, I believe in free-markets with no special groups being favoured. I'm in favour of eliminating every subsidy, tax expenditure and protective tariffs and regulations.

We spent six years trying to get the public back in the republic, and the Republican Party permenantly, obviously and obnoxiously took the public out of the republic. It's beyond reprehensible. We Colonists despise that.

You Brits don't understand. You're happy to pay your obescience to your Queen. But your contention that conservatism--Colonial conservatism--favors some royal family like the Bushes over We, the People cuts no ice with people on this end of the Pond and south of 54-40.

So, do us a 'favour' and go drink your tea. Our voter lists will tell you nothing as Paul voters will be at the polls voting, if for no one else, 'down ticket' as we Yanks say.

Getting lessons on how to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from a Tory. That's some real irony, right there.

[Brian4Liberty]

Mitt Romney wants our vote so bad he went and made a speech that translates to "go screw yourselves Ron Paul supporters".

Let's summarize Mitt's positions:

"I'm going to Police the world!"
"I'm going to nation build!"
"I'm going to interfere in the politics of other nations."
"I'm going to contribute to destruction and bloodshed."
"I'm going to take us to war with more nations."
"And the Constitution and Federal Debt be damned to achieve all of the above."

Well, that certainly convinced all of the Ron Paul supporters that were on the fence about voting for Mitt.

[bunklocoempire]

Originally Posted by DeMintConservative

Politicians.

It'll move the Overton Window to the left.

I keep saying: if Obama wins and Rand Paul runs in 2016, he'll run on "making Obamacare sustainable". I disagree with your view of Rand Paul concerning that matter.

Could you please give me an example in U.S. history/issues and previous elections where the Overton Window was moved towards freedom from government force (right) instead of away from it (left)?

EDIT: Using a 'keep the Overton Window right' example. Sorry for the muddy question. :o

EDITED the question again. Sorry.

I'm not finding any specific example.


Joseph Overton observed that in a given public policy area, such as education, only a relatively narrow range of potential policies will be considered politically acceptable. This "window" of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election. In general, then, the window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them. Click here for a video explaining the Overton Window.

Self quote bump -still asking for an example. My question got buried pretty quickly.

[sailingaway]

Not sure what you mean about freedom of religion. I'm saying the left is less in favour of adherence to the Constitution and doesn't care much about freedom of religion. Obama mandates on the Catholic church as well as some posts in this forum about the relation between government and religion show that.

States and parenting rights: check the threats about the Ken Buck/marijuana thing, the California law that prohibits parents from taking their kids to counsellors and the spanking law thread. I wasn't talking about you specifically.

I don't believe in corporatism, I believe in free-markets with no special groups being favoured. I'm in favour of eliminating every subsidy, tax expenditure and protective tariffs and regulations.

Corporatism, NDAA, religion... you've been kind of striking out so far.

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I thought you were saying Ron Paul supporters who would not vote for Romney also were more like leftists on states rights, freedom of religion etc. I am not voting for Romney, and am about as conservative as you can get on all those issues.

[acptulsa]

What? No denials from the tory?

Perhaps he'll do us a 'favour' and spare us his silly 'defence'...

Be sure to extend our gratitude to Her Majesty for sending you to teach us how to be better Republicans.

[sailingaway]

Maybe.

We'll be able to check which percentage of Paul primary voters stayed at home in election day once the voting lists are published, so it'll be interesting to check that metric. Adjusting for write-in/Johnson votes, we'll get a good idea if the ended up voting for Romney or not. For the record, I think you guys GROSSLY underestimate the amount of soft support Paul got and the the majority of them will vote for Romney.

I think a ton of those not GOP primary voters will simply not be moved to vote at all.

[Dianne]

Never !!!! F em all . The GOP doesn't deserve a post on this forum.

[sailingaway]

What? No denials from the tory?

Perhaps he'll do us a 'favour' and spare us his silly 'defence'...

DeMint conservative is British?

[Dr.3D]

Never !!!! F em all . The GOP doesn't deserve a post on this forum.
Yep, they are dirt. They are as plastic as Romney is.

When I want butter, I don't buy margarine. I don't like things that are fake.

[acptulsa]

DeMint conservative is British?

They don't spell 'favor' with a 'u' in West Texas.

[ninepointfive]

DeMint conservative is British?

He'd sympathize with the British - so yeah same difference

[sailingaway]

They don't spell 'favor' with a 'u' in West Texas.

they do in Canada, and he might have once been either and now be a citizen here. Or have been anywhere they learn English from the British taught, such as India, and now be a citizen here. I thought he spoke as a voter is all, but maybe I just assumed that.

[acptulsa]

they do in Canada, and he might have once been either and now be a citizen here. Or have been anywhere they learn English from the British taught, such as India, and now be a citizen here. I thought he spoke as a voter is all, but maybe I just assumed that.

Haven't seen a lot of denials yet. Of course, he may have gone to bed. Most of the pubs are closed.

[Chris from Upstate NY]

Maybe.

We'll be able to check which percentage of Paul primary voters stayed at home in election day once the voting lists are published, so it'll be interesting to check that metric. Adjusting for write-in/Johnson votes, we'll get a good idea if the ended up voting for Romney or not. For the record, I think you guys GROSSLY underestimate the amount of soft support Paul got and the the majority of them will vote for Romney.


I have a 15 month old son. For his sake, I would not vote for Romney under any circumstance. The man is pure neo con. I don't see much difference between him and Obama, so the lesser of two evils plea is pissing in the wind as far as I am concerned. I have not decided whether I will vote GJ or stay home on election day. One thing is for certain, I would not vote for Romney if I was asked with a gun to my head. When you go and show your support for the GOP, could you do me a favor and give them this for me??? Thanks.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i151/wingmanchris518/finger_zps03f0bef6.jpg

[Dr.3D]

Haven't seen a lot of denials yet. Of course, he may have gone to bed. Most of the pubs are closed.

Well, that's how the Limey's spell flavor, colour me surprised. He could be from Australia as well as any number of Limey places.

[coastie]

Soooo, lemme get this straight:

They tell us all during the election that Ron Paul has NO or very little support. After all, that was why he couldn't win.


Now, they say they can't win without his supporters, and/or will blame us when he loses?

Hey, GOP......TOUGH SHIT. Most left the sinking ship already, you guys are only making the holes on the ship bigger so it sinks faster. Tough titty said the kitty.

PS-I hope you enjoyed my letter and registration card I returned to you. Good going, your plan worked-you purged RP supporters from your ranks. Since you always said there's only 30 of us in our parent's basements and we were a non-factor, I find it hysterical that now you want us to vote for the guy you put in place by CHEATING. If you would have promoted Ron Paul the entire time, hell, Obama probably would have already started WWIII by now to distract that he was losing by 90% to Ron Paul.

[acptulsa]

When you go and show your support for the GOP, could you do me a favor and give them this for me??? Thanks.

Don't expect him to do it exactly that way...

Yo, DMC. Here's one you can understand:

http://www.intac.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/v-sign-215x300.jpg

[bunklocoempire]

I'm fascinated by this 'Overton Window' thing.

Still waiting for an example that allows one to thwart 'leftism' in the future by accepting it's existence in the 'opposition party' in the present.

Or perhaps "thwart" isn't the word.


Joseph Overton observed that in a given public policy area, such as education, only a relatively narrow range of potential policies will be considered politically acceptable. This "window" of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election. In general, then, the window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them.

[Chris from Upstate NY]

Don't expect him to do it exactly that way...



HAHA, yeah you are right.

[acptulsa]

I'm fascinated by this 'Overton Window' thing.

Still waiting for an example that allows one to thwart 'leftism' in the future by accepting it's existence in the 'opposition party' in the present.

Or perhaps "thwart" isn't the word.

Sure it is. They thwarted Toryism by turning it into leftism. Next thing anyone knew, the Tories heard themselves being team players and realized they had turned into Union Jack-waving union organizing pinkos. Mr. Brit DeMint is simply trying to share this 'wisdom' with us so we can have the same benefits in terms of failing currency, failing economy, failing Constitution and failed Empire that they've been enjoying since Maggie Thatcher passed.

[Origanalist]

Well, that's how the Limey's spell flavor, colour me surprised. He could be from Australia as well as any number of Limey places.

Well there's this.....


I live in Portugal/Spain, including frequent travels to Cataluña, for about half of the year. I'm here as I type this.

The independence feeling has historically been associated with economic conditions. It peaks during times like this, then regresses to the mean.

Even in recent polls, the support for an independent state is still in the low 30s. This is the normal for those peaks. I'll go back to the 20s during normal economic times. We're just seeing that phenomenon happening - mostly because of the central government refusal to bailout the Cataluña's government (and rightly so, IMO).

Not everybody in that march were pro-independence. I personally know a few who went to the march and would never vote for independence in a referendum. There were many people who are merely against the status quo and for a different arrangement within the Spanish state (a federal state, a change in the autonomy statutes, fiscal autonomy, etc) and, frankly, many we are just angry (with the contribution of the Catalan political class that, to save their own rear end, is selling their voters that "the austerity" is some evil plot from Madrid and that if it wasn't for the central government they'd be just fine).

So yeah, separatism was always a minority tendency in Cataluña, it still is, it's not particularly close. There are no deep historical and social roots for a Catalan separatism as you see in other places. Cataluña in its current form was never an independent state At least since 1100 and something, when it became part of the Kingdom of Aragorn. Before that it was one of the many feudal counties.

[jmdrake]

And there's others like me who voted for Bush and McCain but can't vote for Romney this time. I'm tired of the
neo-conservatives. Romney simply supports war, war, and more war. He doesn't believe in limited government to any extent whatsoever.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Traditional Conservative again.

[Origanalist]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Traditional Conservative again.

Took care of that for ya.

[jolynna]

My child is in the military. I'd slit my throat before I'd vote for Romney.

We are looking at more Vietnam's and Iraqs where our young people die, FOR NO GOOD REASON--ONLY WORSE. No way Russia and China won't get involved. It isn't just my kid. This might mean a war that comes here and as a result the blood of you and yours will be spilled too.

If Obama wins and goes to war, I'll be in the front line of every protest.

Obviously I am NOT anti-war or my child would never have enlisted. But, I think our government lied about Iraq. I think they are lying now. We were betrayed and I am mad. I feel bad for the mothers of our enemy and the enemy's family too. I am opposed to war for NO reason except petrodollars and oil or oil lines. Killing people for no reason except to steal their resources is evil. It is murder. No ifs ands or buts. I refuse to support it.

I protest exterminating human beings without reason with every breath in my body.

My opinion.

[TCE]

My child is in the military. I'd slit my throat before I'd vote for Romney.

We are looking at more Vietnam's and Iraqs where our young people die, FOR NO GOOD REASON--ONLY WORSE. No way Russia and China won't get involved. It isn't just my kid. This might mean a war that comes here and as a result the blood of you and yours will be spilled too.

If Obama wins and goes to war, I'll be in the front line of every protest.

Obviously I am NOT anti-war or my child would never have enlisted. But, I think our government lied about Iraq. I think they are lying now. We were betrayed and I am mad. I feel bad for the mothers of our enemy and the enemy's family too. I am opposed to war for NO reason except petrodollars and oil or oil lines. Killing people for no reason except to steal their resources is evil. It is murder. No ifs ands or buts. I refuse to support it.

I protest exterminating human beings without reason with every breath in my body.

My opinion.

Loved this. One good thing Obama has done is decrease our presence in Iraq. I am not foolish enough to buy that we are completely out, but the situation now is better than it would have been under McCain. With Romney, that one advantage is gone.

[Brian4Liberty]

Loved this. One good thing Obama has done is decrease our presence in Iraq. I am not foolish enough to buy that we are completely out, but the situation now is better than it would have been under McCain. With Romney, that one advantage is gone.

Well, the Iraqi's insisted that Obama abide by an agreement that Bush had signed, so Obama doesn't really get any credit. On the other hand, who knows what McCain would have done. He may have dissolved the Iraqi government by force, and made Bill Kristol the President of Iraq. Spreading Democracy!

[ILUVRP]

Well, the Iraqi's insisted that Obama abide by an agreement that Bush had signed, so Obama doesn't really get any credit. On the other hand, who knows what McCain would have done. He may have dissolved the Iraqi government by force, and made Bill Kristol the President of Iraq. Spreading Democracy!

i have lived in AZ for 49 yrs , we have the 2 worse US senators in the country , hearing mccain ( one of the 3 stooges , liberman and graham ) we would be in endless useless wars in the middle east for a long time , don't people remember what Ron Paul wanted to do ---get the hell out of the middle east .

[TCE]

Well, the Iraqi's insisted that Obama abide by an agreement that Bush had signed, so Obama doesn't really get any credit. On the other hand, who knows what McCain would have done. He may have dissolved the Iraqi government by force, and made Bill Kristol the President of Iraq. Spreading Democracy!

Remember the "I am willing to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years in order to win" speech McCain was touting? And since when do neocons abide by any type of agreements?

[nobody's_hero]

The Romney Campaign went full retard with foreign policy. Never go full retard.

Yeah, it would almost be funny if it weren't so sad.

here comes Romney, fresh off of his post-debate bump in the polls, and he wants to go loud-mouthing about spreading the war on terror to new countries, negating the bump. FULL RETARD!

[jllundqu]

No thanks, GOP. Keeping my powder dry ;)

[Ronulus]

Begging ron paul supporters for votes? I thought we were all pot heads that didn't vote anyways?

[sailingaway]

Begging ron paul supporters for votes? I thought we were all pot heads that didn't vote anyways?

They slip now and then and say things like 'you pot heads had better vote for Romney!' before they remember they are trying to convince us of something.

It is funniest when they say we need to vote for Romney to save the Constitution. I demolished a guy on twitter over that demand.

At least, I think I demolished him.

[Ronulus]

They slip now and then and say things like 'you pot heads had better vote for Romney!' before they remember they are trying to convince us of something.

It is funniest when they say we need to vote for Romney to save the Constitution. I demolished a guy on twitter over that demand.

At least, I think I demolished him.

Might have made him at least think about it. Which is always a win.

[TCE]

This is the best argument the Romney people have: Romney flip-flops so often, that there is a 15% chance he'll become a libertarian in 2013. 15%! Vote Romney!

[ChristianAnarchist]

Vote for Romney.... now THAT"S funny....

Who (among us RP supporters) could possibly WANT 8 years of such a neo-con? There would be so much damage done we can't imagine. Sure, Obama ain't better, but 4 years is shorter than 8. Not sure if O can do double the damage of Romney but I'm sure as hell not voting for either of these puppets...

[sailingaway]

Well, the Iraqi's insisted that Obama abide by an agreement that Bush had signed, so Obama doesn't really get any credit. On the other hand, who knows what McCain would have done. He may have dissolved the Iraqi government by force, and made Bill Kristol the President of Iraq. Spreading Democracy!

That agreement ran in 2008, didn't it? In any event the UN Resolution justifying military action per the terms of the Congressional authority ran then.

[angelatc]

i do know this ----without ralph nader running & the scotus gw bush would never have been elected and over 4500 gi's would be alive .



That's kind of a silly assumption to make.

[DeMintConservative]

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I thought you were saying Ron Paul supporters who would not vote for Romney also were more like leftists on states rights, freedom of religion etc. I am not voting for Romney, and am about as conservative as you can get on all those issues.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about you. It was a necessary generalization. Again, just check the aforementioned threads.


We spent six years trying to get the public back in the republic, and the Republican Party permenantly, obviously and obnoxiously took the public out of the republic. It's beyond reprehensible. We Colonists despise that.

You Brits don't understand. You're happy to pay your obescience to your Queen. But your contention that conservatism--Colonial conservatism--favors some royal family like the Bushes over We, the People cuts no ice with people on this end of the Pond and south of 54-40.

So, do us a 'favour' and go drink your tea. Our voter lists will tell you nothing as Paul voters will be at the polls voting, if for no one else, 'down ticket' as we Yanks say.

Getting lessons on how to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from a Tory. That's some real irony, right there.

I was using a British English auto spellchecker and I'd likely support the UKIP if I were Brit but that's actually a great example to illustrate my point: check how all those years on the opposition moved the Tory leadership in terms of ideology. Have the continued beatings they took from Blair pushed them to the right? Nope, they started with a very respectable, for non-America standards, William Hague and ended up with an environmentalist, nanny-statist, globalist, moderate David Cameron. Very linear progression: Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron.

Why? Because every Labor victory would push the center electorate a little more to the left.




I disagree with your view of Rand Paul concerning that matter.

Could you please give me an example in U.S. history/issues and previous elections where the Overton Window was moved towards freedom from government force (right) instead of away from it (left)?

EDIT: Using a 'keep the Overton Window right' example. Sorry for the muddy question. :o

EDITED the question again. Sorry.

I'm not finding any specific example.

Practically every time the most righ-wing candidate won.

It isn't that Republican victories will necessarily push the country to the right in absolute terms. It's about the margins. Let me highlight part of that definition:


but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election.

If you assume the premise that the guy actually winning the election is consistently the guy with more left-wing ideas, what's the corollary? What are the losers going to the conclude?

That they're to the right of the political centre (im doing this on purpose now), hence they need to move left.

The country moved right in the 80s in spite of the Reagan/Bush administrations not being particularly conservative.

There was a world of difference between Bill "The era of big government is over" Clinton and old school tax'n'spender like Walter Mondale.

Yet, Gore was already willing to run to the left of Clinton and Bush ran on that compassionate conservatism crap because it became CW you couldn't win nationally on a "coldhearted conservative platform".

Even though Bush was a socialist disaster, Obama obliged to run pretty much as a pragmatic, non-ideological, centrist four years ago.

This year he's running as the most leftist democrat candidate since Mondale. He's the first candidate in 24 years who's willing to say he'll raise taxes (and Dukakis didn't even run on raising taxes, he'd admit it as a possibility "in last resort").

Even Romney is running to the left of his '08 self.

So, in the margins, this works every time.

I'm not saying the country will move right if Romney wins. I'm saying that if Obama wins, the country - the effect from the election on the Overton Window - will be more to the left than it'll be if he loses.

[sailingaway]

To be clear, I wasn't talking about you. It was a necessary generalization. Again, just check the aforementioned threads.



.

Except people who go on those threads are interested in those controversies. I'm not interested in that stuff and didn't go. Nor did most of the other 11000 people a day who come here. Generalizations based on posts on a thread are pretty poorly sourced.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Romney wins = no one thanks RP supporters
Romney loses = they blame RP supporters

[sailingaway]

Romney wins = no one thanks RP supporters
Romney loses = they blame RP supporters

...so... life as usual, right?

[mz10]

I'm not saying the country will move right if Romney wins. I'm saying that if Obama wins, the country - the effect from the election on the Overton Window - will be more to the left than it'll be if he loses.

For the (relatively few) Paul supporters who are voting for Obama so that Rand can be elected in 2016, I think you're right. But if Gary Johnson gets a high percentage of the vote, I think it would pretty clearly demonstrate that the reason Romney lost was that the conservative base didn't like him, and the Republican Party will take note. You're point is valid but I think you are overgeneralizing.

[sailingaway]

For the (relatively few) Paul supporters who are voting for Obama so that Rand can be elected in 2016, I think you're right. But if Gary Johnson gets a high percentage of the vote, I think it would pretty clearly demonstrate that the reason Romney lost was that the conservative base didn't like him, and the Republican Party will take note. You're point is valid but I think you are overgeneralizing.

Or if the none of the above undervote is exceptionally large, and we spread it, it will show wide rejection of the choices. I consider that most telling, and accurate, of all.

[mz10]

Or if the none of the above undervote is exceptionally large, and we spread it, it will show wide rejection of the choices. I consider that most telling, and accurate, of all.

Also too, the Overton window doesn't have a whole lot to do with election results, it's more of a correlation than a causation. Look what happened after McCain lost, the Tea Party took off and moved the Republican Party to the right.

[sailingaway]

Also too, the Overton window doesn't have a whole lot to do with election results, it's more of a correlation than a causation. Look what happened after McCain lost, the Tea Party took off and moved the Republican Party to the right.

Which is a huge point. When there is a Dem in office, conservatives are very active. When a Republican liberal is in office, they start justifying it. It is like the left and war.

[DeMintConservative]

Except people who go on those threads are interested in those controversies. I'm not interested in that stuff and didn't go. Nor did most of the other 11000 people a day who come here. Generalizations based on posts on a thread are pretty poorly sourced.

Yes, there's probably self-selection bias in those threads, but wouldn't you say people who post in this forum are representative of Ron Paul hardcore supporters?


For the (relatively few) Paul supporters who are voting for Obama so that Rand can be elected in 2016, I think you're right. But if Gary Johnson gets a high percentage of the vote, I think it would pretty clearly demonstrate that the reason Romney lost was that the conservative base didn't like him, and the Republican Party will take note. You're point is valid but I think you are overgeneralizing.

He won't and they won't conclude anything like that. They'll conclude that those Libertarians are simply a lost cause or, at least, more difficult to conquer than a few more voters from the center. And I believe that to be the right conclusion. I suspect that Johnson won't hurt Rommey more than Obama (at least in swing states). The last polls I've seen show Johnson taking more from Obama than from Romney when he's included and I suspect the margin is even higher with GJ hardcore supporters.

[DeMintConservative]

Also too, the Overton window doesn't have a whole lot to do with election results, it's more of a correlation than a causation. Look what happened after McCain lost, the Tea Party took off and moved the Republican Party to the right.

And Romney won the nomination campaigning to the left of McCain. The Tea Party was a reaction to Obama's overreach, not McCain's defeat and a movement of activists, not of voters.

[sailingaway]

Yes, there's probably self-selection bias in those threads, but wouldn't you say people who post in this forum are representative of Ron Paul hardcore supporters?


.

I'd say they are fairly representative of the RANGE of hardcore supporters, but a few of one sort can dominate a thread others don't even post in. I wouldn't say a single THREAD or topic were representative.

[sailingaway]

And Romney won the nomination campaigning to the left of McCain. The Tea Party was a reaction to Obama's overreach, not McCain's defeat and a movement of activists, not of voters.

I don't think Romney's to the left of McCain, he just has nicer hair.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't vote for gun banners.

Romney is the only person running that actually signed into law a comprehensive gun ban.

That alone would be enough for me.

[Pisces]

And Romney won the nomination campaigning to the left of McCain. The Tea Party was a reaction to Obama's overreach, not McCain's defeat and a movement of activists, not of voters.

I disagree that Romney won by running to the left of McCain. He was much further to the right of McCain on immigration and he ran to the right of Santorum on fiscal issues. I'm not saying he was genuine about it, but it's just not true to say that Romney ran to the left in the primaries. He even touted himself as a "severe conservative."

I don't think you can predict that the country will move left if Obama wins. Congress and state legislatures have moved decisively to the right since 2008. It's not so simple as you make it out to be. However, if conservatives and libertarians give up on working to spread their beliefs, the country definitely will become more socialist.

[mz10]

And Romney won the nomination campaigning to the left of McCain. The Tea Party was a reaction to Obama's overreach, not McCain's defeat and a movement of activists, not of voters.

Romney didn't win because the voters liked his ideas. Romney won because the other options were a James Dobson clone, a megalomaniac, and a man whose ideas they were not ready for yet. He won purely by default, and his victory proved nothing.

[DeMintConservative]

I disagree that Romney won by running to the left of McCain. He was much further to the right of McCain on immigration and he ran to the right of Santorum on fiscal issues. I'm not saying he was genuine about it, but it's just not true to say that Romney ran to the left in the primaries. He even touted himself as a "severe conservative."

I don't think you can predict that the country will move left if Obama wins. Congress and state legislatures have moved decisively to the right since 2008. It's not so simple as you make it out to be. However, if conservatives and libertarians give up on working to spread their beliefs, the country definitely will become more socialist.

I definitely agree with your last sentence - I was isolating presidential elections as a single factor for the purpose of this analysys, not claiming nothing else matters to the ideological direction of the country besides who wins the WH - but not voting for the lesser evil in an election doesn't contribute to that.

McCain was running as a conservative as well. Easy to run to the right of Santorum on fiscal issues considering his record. At the very least, we can agree that the guy positioning himself as the most moderate real contender won the primary. Again.

That mechanism people talk about where Romney loses and suddenly GOP voters have an epiphany and decide to back a rock ribbed conservative doesn't exist and it doesn't even make sense.



Yes, there's probably self-selection bias in those threads, but wouldn't you say people who post in this forum are representative of Ron Paul hardcore supporters?


He won't and they won't conclude anything like that. They'll conclude that those Libertarians are simply a lost cause or, at least, more difficult to conquer than a few more voters from the center. And I believe that to be the right conclusion. I suspect that Johnson won't hurt Rommey more than Obama (at least in swing states). The last polls I've seen show Johnson taking more from Obama than from Romney when he's included and I suspect the margin is even higher with GJ hardcore supporters.


And another data point:

NV, PPP poll:
Obama 51 Romney 47 ( down from a 9 point lead)

When Gary Johnson is included, Obama's lead shrinks to... 1. Obama 48 Romney 47 Johnson 3. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-heller-lead-in-nevada-1.html

I'm fully convinced my theory is correct. Good luck trying to convince conservatives and republicans that Glen Johnson voters are a natural GOP constituency disgruntled by Romney's pick. That's simply not the case. There's really no point in going after those people because it'd turn out to be a net negative.

[mz10]

At the very least, we can agree that the guy positioning himself as the most moderate real contender won the primary. Again.

A lot of times, the "rock-ribbed conservatives" come across as wackos and alienate people (see: Perry, Bachmann, Palin, etc.). Rand Paul comes across as cool, level-headed and thoughtful. Just like...dare I say it...Reagan.

In my opinion, that makes a huge difference.

[Pisces]

That mechanism people talk about where Romney loses and suddenly GOP voters have an epiphany and decide to back a rock ribbed conservative doesn't exist and it doesn't even make sense.

It's not that GOP voters have a sudden epiphany. The party has been moving to the right since 2008. A lot of this is due to the fact that there has been no clear leader of the GOP. If Romney wins, he becomes the de facto leader of the GOP. His moderate supporters will take control over the national party. His moderate spokesmen will be the voice of the GOP in the mainstream media. Even conservative Republicans will hesitate to oppose his more left-leaning policies for fear of appearing disloyal.

If Romney loses, there will again be no clear GOP leader so the party's activist base will have a stronger hand in pushing the party rightward. Sure, media pundits and more moderate Republicans will say the party needs to move left. The party base hasn't really listened to these people in some time. They certainly didn't after the 2008 loss. As for non-activist voters, I think they tend to be easily persuadable. I don't think they are committed centrists or moderates. Romney won in my view because he had the most money and he just came off better than his opponents. Too many people were not ready to accept Ron's views or at least their misunderstanding of Ron's views.

[Carson]

What do they want us to do; Help falsify an election? Help change the rules after the fact? Break a few fingers? Arrange seating to divide and conquer. Chant USA, USA and drown out someone trying to participate?

Just what do they really expect from us now?

Personally I think they can go hug a nut.


Long live Matt McDonald's tally.

Check out about 3:20 or so.

Reality Check - Ron Paul Cheated in Maine Caucus? - Ben Swann Breaks it Down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgMQmfOGhQs

[Anti Federalist]

Romney didn't win because the voters liked his ideas. Romney won because the other options were a James Dobson clone, a megalomaniac, and a man whose ideas they were not ready for yet. He won purely by default, and his victory proved nothing.

Exactly.

Once the first primaries were over, rank and file GOP closed the ranks and fell in line.

Just like I said they would.

The only thing that RMoney has going for him in the "red states" is the fact that he's white.

Harsh?

Possibly.

So is, "I don't care, just so long as we get rid of that nigg*er in the White House."

I have heard this more than once.

[patriot2008]

http://www.examiner.com/video/paulbots-vote-for-romney-or-else

[FSP-Rebel]

So is, "I don't care, just so long as we get rid of that nigg*er in the White House."

I have heard this more than once.
Phrased that way, I only hear that from ignorant distant relatives that aren't around me enough to be positively reinforced to what's really going on despite them not liking R-money. To them and the others that come off slightly different in tone, I say they need four more years of Obama so they'll truly understand why a guy like Ron is what it will take to have a chance at turning the ship around for themselves and their posterity. Getting them to see through the Fox News and radio mafia trap is another thing, tho I think Rand goes a long way in making us competitive.

[ClydeCoulter]

I want to thank the establishment, for revealing themselves in all of their glory.

edit: antidisestablishmentarians anyone?

[jolynna]

Yes, there's probably self-selection bias in those threads, but wouldn't you say people who post in this forum are representative of Ron Paul hardcore supporters?


No.

I've been a hardcore RINO for 30 years.

Only had a change of heart last summer. My vote against Romney has NOTHING to do with Ron Paul. I didn't even know who Ron Paul WAS until this year. My NOT voting against Romney is because I can't condone his stances or his moral core (he has none). I won't vote for Obama for the same reasons.

I'm done voting for the lesser of evils. And in 2012 at the presidential level, the evils have reached the fiendish level. Both Romney and Obama are just fine with exterminating human beings we are NOT at war with and who have done us no harm. Which is murder. What the U.S. is doing is no different than what the Turks did to the Armenians or Hitler did to the Jews. I'm sure the people in Germany and Turkey that led the victims to their deaths or that knew and didn't object rationalized away their participation or indifference.

I won't. If I did I'd be an accomplice.

In my opinion.

[jolynna]

This is NOT about Ron Paul.

I NOT o.k. with giving up the Bill of Rights that have protected our nation for over 200 years. Although that is exactly what we have done. While people live for each week's Dancing With the Stars, our country has stopped being a Republic.

No foreign nation took away a single freedom. Our government did. We let them. And sent our young military men and women off to die or come back maimed or psychologically scarred from killing people for NO legitimate reason, except to steal resources (Look up the suicide statistics on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans...think they are not bothered by what they have seen and done????). Think about the freedoms we've given away next time you see a picture of a flag covered coffin. And keep rationalizing why voting for ANYONE who says in advance they are FOR advancing the preceding scenario is right.

My own opinion.

[TCE]

Well said.

[jasonxe]

The GOP doesn't even understand the concept of blowback in domestic affairs.

[Monotaur]

Great article, thanks for sharing.

[bunklocoempire]

To be clear, I wasn't talking about you. It was a necessary generalization. Again, just check the aforementioned threads.



I was using a British English auto spellchecker and I'd likely support the UKIP if I were Brit but that's actually a great example to illustrate my point: check how all those years on the opposition moved the Tory leadership in terms of ideology. Have the continued beatings they took from Blair pushed them to the right? Nope, they started with a very respectable, for non-America standards, William Hague and ended up with an environmentalist, nanny-statist, globalist, moderate David Cameron. Very linear progression: Hague, IDS, Howard, Cameron.

Why? Because every Labor victory would push the center electorate a little more to the left.





Practically every time the most righ-wing candidate won.

It isn't that Republican victories will necessarily push the country to the right in absolute terms. It's about the margins. Let me highlight part of that definition:



If you assume the premise that the guy actually winning the election is consistently the guy with more left-wing ideas, what's the corollary? What are the losers going to the conclude?

That they're to the right of the political centre (im doing this on purpose now), hence they need to move left.

The country moved right in the 80s in spite of the Reagan/Bush administrations not being particularly conservative.

There was a world of difference between Bill "The era of big government is over" Clinton and old school tax'n'spender like Walter Mondale.

Yet, Gore was already willing to run to the left of Clinton and Bush ran on that compassionate conservatism crap because it became CW you couldn't win nationally on a "coldhearted conservative platform".

Even though Bush was a socialist disaster, Obama obliged to run pretty much as a pragmatic, non-ideological, centrist four years ago.

This year he's running as the most leftist democrat candidate since Mondale. He's the first candidate in 24 years who's willing to say he'll raise taxes (and Dukakis didn't even run on raising taxes, he'd admit it as a possibility "in last resort").

Even Romney is running to the left of his '08 self.

So, in the margins, this works every time.

I'm not saying the country will move right if Romney wins. I'm saying that if Obama wins, the country - the effect from the election on the Overton Window - will be more to the left than it'll be if he loses.

Yet that same concept doesn't apply to the GOP. :rolleyes:

Truth and the strategy derived from truth must come from truth applied equally.

[carclinic]

No.

I've been a hardcore RINO for 30 years.

Only had a change of heart last summer. My vote against Romney has NOTHING to do with Ron Paul. I didn't even know who Ron Paul WAS until this year. My NOT voting against Romney is because I can't condone his stances or his moral core (he has none). I won't vote for Obama for the same reasons.

I'm done voting for the lesser of evils. And in 2012 at the presidential level, the evils have reached the fiendish level. Both Romney and Obama are just fine with exterminating human beings we are NOT at war with and who have done us no harm. Which is murder. What the U.S. is doing is no different than what the Turks did to the Armenians or Hitler did to the Jews. I'm sure the people in Germany and Turkey that led the victims to their deaths or that knew and didn't object rationalized away their participation or indifference.

I won't. If I did I'd be an accomplice.

In my opinion.
100% truth

[DeMintConservative]

No.

I've been a hardcore RINO for 30 years.

Only had a change of heart last summer. My vote against Romney has NOTHING to do with Ron Paul. I didn't even know who Ron Paul WAS until this year. My NOT voting against Romney is because I can't condone his stances or his moral core (he has none). I won't vote for Obama for the same reasons.

I'm done voting for the lesser of evils. And in 2012 at the presidential level, the evils have reached the fiendish level. Both Romney and Obama are just fine with exterminating human beings we are NOT at war with and who have done us no harm. Which is murder. What the U.S. is doing is no different than what the Turks did to the Armenians or Hitler did to the Jews. I'm sure the people in Germany and Turkey that led the victims to their deaths or that knew and didn't object rationalized away their participation or indifference.

I won't. If I did I'd be an accomplice.

In my opinion.

Seems to me you're a hardcore Ron Paul supporter, even if you weren't in the past. So your post sustains my point.

And yes, what the U.S. is different than what Hitler did to the Jews and it's ridiculous to say otherwise, regardless of who is in the WH.

Now, Godiwn's law apart, had the Germans coalesced around the lesser evil Hitler would have never been elected chanceller.


Exactly.

Once the first primaries were over, rank and file GOP closed the ranks and fell in line.

Just like I said they would.

The only thing that RMoney has going for him in the "red states" is the fact that he's white.

Harsh?

Possibly.

So is, "I don't care, just so long as we get rid of that nigg*er in the White House."

I have heard this more than once.

Yeps, those Republican racists in red states that keep voting for people like Bobby Jindal, Tim Scott, Alan West, Nikki Haley and so on will only vote for Romney because he's white.


It's not that GOP voters have a sudden epiphany. The party has been moving to the right since 2008. A lot of this is due to the fact that there has been no clear leader of the GOP. If Romney wins, he becomes the de facto leader of the GOP. His moderate supporters will take control over the national party. His moderate spokesmen will be the voice of the GOP in the mainstream media. Even conservative Republicans will hesitate to oppose his more left-leaning policies for fear of appearing disloyal.

If Romney loses, there will again be no clear GOP leader so the party's activist base will have a stronger hand in pushing the party rightward. Sure, media pundits and more moderate Republicans will say the party needs to move left. The party base hasn't really listened to these people in some time. They certainly didn't after the 2008 loss. As for non-activist voters, I think they tend to be easily persuadable. I don't think they are committed centrists or moderates. Romney won in my view because he had the most money and he just came off better than his opponents. Too many people were not ready to accept Ron's views or at least their misunderstanding of Ron's views.

I agree people aren't ready to accept Ron's views. We had a discussion here over this, I'm glad to see some support for my POV that Ron Paul ended up with 10% of the popular vote simply because his views are still fairly unpopular.

The problem is that an Obama win will contribute to make those views even more fringe and unpopular while making totally opposite views more acceptable and mainstream.

What will be clear if Romney loses is that the ideological center of the voting population is to his left. Nothing else. And Republicans don't want to win primaries, they want to win general elections. Sure, congressmen can move right, but that depends on the PVI of their districts. With all the gerrymandering, it's normal congressional caucus moves right. But guys who are competing with constituencies that replicate the nation - swingy - will move left. All the rest is wishful thinking.


A lot of times, the "rock-ribbed conservatives" come across as wackos and alienate people (see: Perry, Bachmann, Palin, etc.). Rand Paul comes across as cool, level-headed and thoughtful. Just like...dare I say it...Reagan.

In my opinion, that makes a huge difference.

In my opinion too, but, say, Perry was supposed to be a powerhouse, so we'll need to know.

I don't believe for a second Rand Paul runs for president in '16, he'll run for reelection, but whenever that happens, he'll move to the center, if only to not be destroyed with the electability issue. Plus, he'll disappoint many of those who post here in other ways.

And you guys who say "oh, but liberals and the anti-war left would vote for Paul.." are into a huge surprise. Once he becomes a serious threat to beat a Democrat, those guys will quickly start calling him out as a heartless extremist conservative bought by the banks and rich people.

[sailingaway]

It isn't liberals and the anti war left, it is principled people who really care about what parties use as talking points. It is the mass of people who don't vote, and declare no party 'theirs' for starters.

[bunklocoempire]

Exactly.

Once the first primaries were over, rank and file GOP closed the ranks and fell in line.

Just like I said they would.

The only thing that RMoney has going for him in the "red states" is the fact that he's white.

Harsh?

Possibly.

So is, "I don't care, just so long as we get rid of that nigg*er in the White House."

I have heard this more than once.


Yeps, those Republican racists in red states that keep voting for people like Bobby Jindal, Tim Scott, Alan West, Nikki Haley and so on will only vote for Romney because he's white.


It has been my experience that the folks who only vote party will start with party and end with party.

An 'R' woman or a minority is wheeled out and the party voters that I've had contact with lay it out like this:

1. The candidate is 'Republican'

2. The candidate is a minority or a woman. "Oh I like them"

3. We should run that candidate for a win. In so many words: "They put in a black? We'll raise it with a woman or a minority of our own." Affirmative action Republican style. A bunch of friggin' Carl Rove Dick Morris wannabees. "Here's what the GOP has to do -then the dirty D's can't play the race card and we'll win" :rolleyes:

Voting records and loyalty to the constitution and Bill of Rights has ZIP to do with party voters reasoning to run candidates. All they do is regurgitate what the msm feeds them. -It's ALWAYS about the easy win and nothing to do with discipline or a real working strategy.

[Pisces]

I agree people aren't ready to accept Ron's views. We had a discussion here over this, I'm glad to see some support for my POV that Ron Paul ended up with 10% of the popular vote simply because his views are still fairly unpopular.

The problem is that an Obama win will contribute to make those views even more fringe and unpopular while making totally opposite views more acceptable and mainstream.

What will be clear if Romney loses is that the ideological center of the voting population is to his left. Nothing else. And Republicans don't want to win primaries, they want to win general elections. Sure, congressmen can move right, but that depends on the PVI of their districts. With all the gerrymandering, it's normal congressional caucus moves right. But guys who are competing with constituencies that replicate the nation - swingy - will move left. All the rest is wishful thinking.



In my opinion too, but, say, Perry was supposed to be a powerhouse, so we'll need to know.

I don't believe for a second Rand Paul runs for president in '16, he'll run for reelection, but whenever that happens, he'll move to the center, if only to not be destroyed with the electability issue. Plus, he'll disappoint many of those who post here in other ways.

And you guys who say "oh, but liberals and the anti-war left would vote for Paul.." are into a huge surprise. Once he becomes a serious threat to beat a Democrat, those guys will quickly start calling him out as a heartless extremist conservative bought by the banks and rich people.

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I think your view of the current ideological landscape is just not correct. It assumes that swing voters are all committed moderates. I don't agree. Some are and some are people disgusted with both parties. Most, however, are just people who don't pay attention to politics that much and so are easily swayed by various things. Their personal perception of the candidate and how they feel about him as a person probably plays the biggest role. The bandwagon effect is also important. Of course, the mainstream media will do everything it can to make moderates look like the most attractive candidates but their influence is decreasing every year.

If Obama wins there will be plenty of RINO's in politics and the media who will say it is because the country has moved left. If we buy into that idea, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe if Obama wins it's because he was better liked and ran a more effective campaign. Plus, your idea that a Democrat winning the Whitehouse means the country moves left can not explain what happened in the 2010 election.

As for Rick Perry, few of us who actually live in Texas saw him as a powerhouse. If you believe everything the so-called political experts say, though, I can see where you might have believed that.

[sailingaway]

It has been my experience that the folks who only vote party will start with party and end with party.

An 'R' woman or a minority is wheeled out and the party voters that I've had contact with lay it out like this:

1. The candidate is 'Republican'

2. The candidate is a minority or a woman. "Oh I like them"

3. We should run that candidate for a win. In so many words: "They put in a black? We'll raise it with a woman or a minority of our own." Affirmative action Republican style. A bunch of friggin' Carl Rove Dick Morris wannabees. "Here's what the GOP has to do -then the dirty D's can't play the race card and we'll win" :rolleyes:

Voting records and loyalty to the constitution and Bill of Rights has ZIP to do with party voters reasoning to run candidates. All they do is regurgitate what the msm feeds them. -It's ALWAYS about the easy win and nothing to do with discipline or a real working strategy.

And that is why I say aiming at independents and the general election voters is the way to go. I am glad Ron is doing colleges again, but I am really sorry he didn't get his speech at RNC, because this general election audience IS his audience.

[mz10]

DeMintConservative, are you a Paul supporter? I'm not trying to trap you here, just asking.

[The Gold Standard]

I have to laugh at the Overton window, left-right nonsense. Electing Obama moved the window. And Bush. And Clinton. And on and on. They all moved the window toward totalitarianism. Both parties move the window in the same direction. Electing Romney will not stop the window. It will continue to move in that direction at least as quickly. Even if Romney was going to repeal Obamacare, which he won't and probably doesn't even want to, he will still introduce new police state measures, slaughter countless thousands of people, and continue the manipulation and destruction of our money. To stop the window is going take a hell of a lot more than electing a piece of shit, warmonger, statist like Mitt Romney.

[DamianTV]

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-now-ironically-begging-ron-paul-supporters-for-help


The Houston Chronicle posted their weekly report on Saturday detailing their top 10 most popular articles of the week. Third most popular was an article describing GOP Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's plea to Ron Paul supporters, begging for their support, just weeks after the GOP and the media egregiously shunned Paul supporters at the national convention and throughout the entire 2012 nomination process.

Potentially hoping the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters have already forgotten how badly they were treated during the election season, by the GOP establishment, in almost every state they had an opportunity to participate, all of the sudden it seems as though they are important enough to the Republicans they feel it necessary to now start begging for help.

(more on link...)

They turned their backs on us, now they want us to support not only their phoney illegally placed candidates, but to support and embrace the very corruption that we have strived to get rid of? The entire corrupt GOP can go fuck themselves for all I care. If there is a next time, I'll do everything in my power to make sure every mother fucker in the GOP is ousted from their positions of authority.

[bunklocoempire]

I have to laugh at the Overton window, left-right nonsense. Electing Obama moved the window. And Bush. And Clinton. And on and on. They all moved the window toward totalitarianism. Both parties move the window in the same direction. Electing Romney will not stop the window. It will continue to move in that direction at least as quickly. Even if Romney was going to repeal Obamacare, which he won't and probably doesn't even want to, he will still introduce new police state measures, slaughter countless thousands of people, and continue the manipulation and destruction of our money. To stop the window is going take a hell of a lot more than electing a piece of shit, warmonger, statist like Mitt Romney.

No kidding. The theory that I've found observes that the dumbed down-scared out of their wits-afraid to discipline-lied to 24-7 society will decide where the window goes.

No shit sherlock.

Now just where do these folks get their info? Oh yeah, from 'leaders' who feed the msm garbage to spew at society.

Rinse, repeat. Exactly what this movement loathes, and seeing it on Ron Paul Forums-Liberty Forest is a joke.

Change the msm? You could try.

Change society? Educate, educate, educate x's 300 million.

Change or destroy the machine that cranks out crap leaders and change leaders? Yes. Just give me some truth.

[Origanalist]

Help? I_don't_think_so.

[parocks]

the Delegates were cheated - and no we're not debating it. look into it if you want on your own time

you are 100% right. There is no debate. We got 6 states to put Ron Paul's name into nomination. A month before the convention, you needed 5, at the convention, it became 8. That's just ONE example of cheating.

There was cheating all over the place. Romney cheated when he didn't even have to.

[DamianTV]

I don't agree with that cheating theory - and neither do people like Rand Paul, I think. Does Ron Paul? I don't think so. In the end, Romney won the nomination overwhelmingly. Is it because of the speaking slot?

Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who are open to the idea of voting for Romney, if only to not allow Obama to get away with all he did in these four years. Otherwise the lesson will be that there's no repercussion from being the most statist president in generations.

I'm sure there are others who would never vote for the GOP nominee if it wasn't Ron Paul, but Ryan wasn't talking to those.

I do think so and I do think Ron Paul thinks so as well, since he has stated it publicly a couple of times. So the whole push to replace all the known Ron Paul Delegates from EVERY state with known Romney Delegates wasnt cheating? Disqualifying Delegates in Maine because they refused to sign an oath to vote for Romney isnt cheating? Not counting the votes isnt cheating? The whole fucking election process is a top down process which invalidates the very purpose of voting to begin with. It is a sham. Its a dog and pony show intended to keep the fucking morons of this country just as entertained as Jersey Shore and Dancin with the Starz.

I was a State Delegate (not National, couldnt afford it) and the tactics that were pulled on us here, and in every other state shows that the quality of character of those "in charge" want nothing more than to tell us exactly who to vote for and we are not supposed to say a damn thing about it.

So hows about it, any other Delegates in this thread that want to point out the obvious corruption in the electoral process?

[A. Havnes]

So the whole push to replace all the known Ron Paul Delegates from EVERY state with known Romney Delegates wasnt cheating? Disqualifying Delegates in Maine because they refused to sign an oath to vote for Romney isnt cheating? Not counting the votes isnt cheating?

Don't forget the nonsense with that bus (or was there more than one) that just drove around during key votes, and was later detained. That's absolutely cheating. Oh, and let's not forget that video of the teleprompter.

Personally, I think that Paul Ryan wasn't really begging for our votes. What he was doing with that simple statement was preparing to scapegoat us. Basically, he was indirectly saying, "See? These people aren't real Republicans, and they don't care if Obama wins or not." It was a message to the people who vote Republican regardless of who is on the ballot and always believe that the one with the R next to his name is the lesser of two evils. He was telling them that we really aren't part of the party - we're just here temporarily for Ron Paul.

There's already a movement within the GOP establishment to expunge us from the party, and Paul Ryan is just adding fuel to the fire. Perhaps they feel we've gained too much momentum and need to be relegated to a third party? Paul Ryan doesn't want our votes. He and Romney, as well as those in charge of the RNC, made that extremely clear.

On that note, I always find it sad that instead of talking about why anyone should vote for him, Ryan just replies with, "If you don't, Obama will win." I would love to follow up with, "Well, what makes Romney different from Obama."

I got a mailing from the Romney campaign the other day, and the only difference it highlighted between the candidates was pro-choice Obama vs. pro-life Romney, and abortion is an issue that Romney flip-flops on constantly!

[ChristianAnarchist]

Seems like everyone here is taking this voting ritual WAY toooooo seriously. I KNOW that my vote means NOTHING. I'm not trying to fool myself into thinking that what I do in that little booth will change a damn thing. When I vote I do so ONLY for me. It makes me feel good to put on paper what my feelings are. My feelings are that Ron Paul is the only man fit for the job, and that's what I'm going to put on that little piece of paper even though I KNOW that in my state, it won't even be counted. It WILL be counted in my heart and mind where it really matters.

You all can debate about how the "ideological center" is here or there but none of it matters. The actual MATH tells you that all this will come to an end soon when confidence of the dollar vanishes like a puff of smoke. None of us know when that will happen, but I really doubt that we will have another presidential election before it does. When you see bread at $100 you know that $1000 is not far behind...

[DamianTV]

Your vote means nothing by itself, but in large numbers, it packs quite a wollop!

"Paulbots, Vote for Romney or ELSE!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydJAAtVOGJc&feature=player_detailpage
(Pro Ron Paul Video)

You are / were part of a much larger movement that continues to grow in numbers and in strength.