I hate to say it...

[progressiveforpaul]

but I told you so. (Okay...It does feel just a little good to say it.)

[kcchiefs6465]

See ya.

[sailingaway]

which thing did you tell us?

[jj-]

What did you tell me?

[Anti Federalist]

Told you so...what?

[SpreadOfLiberty]

I told you someday you'd come crawling back and asking me to take you in.

[Anti Federalist]

Told ya the lights would go out in the Superdome.

[DGambler]

I told you that man was really a woman (she had an Adams apple afterall), now stop crying and get out of the corner.

[kcchiefs6465]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjqj3iJfuM

[ClydeCoulter]

You can view his previous posts through his handle.

[sailingaway]

You can view his previous posts through his handle.

There were too many. I suspect he is saying Ron should have run with Kucinich and taken on half of his issues. I don't agree that would have won, if so, and it wouldn't have been Ron's message.

[ClydeCoulter]

There were too many. I suspect he is saying Ron should have run with Kucinich and taken on half of his issues. I don't agree that would have won, if so, and it wouldn't have been Ron's message.

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/06/if-we-are-ever-going-to-win-this-win.html

[sailingaway]

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/06/if-we-are-ever-going-to-win-this-win.html

Yeah, but not winning doesn't mean that had a better chance.

[Anti Federalist]

Told ya you shouldn't have dropped that acid.

[ClydeCoulter]

Yeah, but not winning doesn't mean that had a better chance.

It was his attempt at a temporary alliance. I was not completely against it, at the time, as you can see from my reply to his post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381637-A-win-win-Strategy-Is-the-Only-Path-to-Victory

But it was kind of late for the progressives to signup as republicans and for delegates or for a third party run. But it would have been a good thing should Ron had won the nomination.

[brushfire]

http://capitolcommentary.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/576091_10150943934680911_794114471_n.jpg

[sailingaway]

It was his attempt at a temporary alliance. I was not completely against it, at the time, as you can see from my reply to his post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381637-A-win-win-Strategy-Is-the-Only-Path-to-Victory

I wasn't completely against it either, but I don't see that anyone can say it would have won had it been done.

[kcchiefs6465]

It was his attempt at a temporary alliance. I was not completely against it, at the time, as you can see from my reply to his post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381637-A-win-win-Strategy-Is-the-Only-Path-to-Victory

But it was kind of late for the progressives to signup as republicans and for delegates. But it would have been a good thing should Ron had won the nomination.
Exactly. While getting some Democrat and independent votes is necessary to win the election it wouldn't have done anything to help Ron Paul win the nomination. Had I seen the thread that far back I would have stated as much.

[ClydeCoulter]

I wasn't completely against it either, but I don't see that anyone can say it would have won had it been done.

Well, if something were to be done, it would have to be agreed upon ahead of time. On a large enough scale, it could be huge. Just a thought.

[GunnyFreedom]

p4p would have worked if it had started ~18-20 months earlier than it did. There are a LOT of cross-platform issues 'back around the other side' of the left/right paradigm. It's more than a legitimate strategy, and I'd hope p4p sorts would help find Constitutionalist Democrats, who do exist. Problem this-go was it all came up too late to be implemented well enough to work.

[Danke]

Told ya the lights would go out in the Superdome.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM8o0QDUhQ0

[John F Kennedy III]

I bring these few rags back home this evening & lay them at your feet
Miserable witness to a day of tragic sadness & disbelief
Hope you’ll find me wanting
Take me to bed
Get me drunk (lay me out)

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

progressiveforpaul accidentally the point of his own thread



...and this post still makes more sense than the OP.

[phill4paul]

p4p would have worked if it had started ~18-20 months earlier than it did. There are a LOT of cross-platform issues 'back around the other side' of the left/right paradigm. It's more than a legitimate strategy, and I'd hope p4p sorts would help find Constitutionalist Democrats, who do exist. Problem this-go was it all came up too late to be implemented well enough to work.

Ack...need moar coffee. I actually went back and looked to see if I had posted anything in this thread. Phill4Paul /= p4p. Ack. Lol.

[Origanalist]

You can view his previous posts through his handle.

Ummmmm, no.

[pcosmar]

I hate to say it...

(Okay...It does feel just a little good to say it.)
The few small points you had were outweighed but the huge piles of bullshit you spewed.

Much like this thread..
You have no clue.

[acptulsa]

Was this the guy who said Ron Paul should announce Kucinich as his running mate before he got the nomination (tacky--the losing candidate doesn't need a running mate) but after it was too late in most states for Democrats to change their registration and vote for a Republican in a closed primary?

In other words, Ron Paul shouldn't have just lost because Fox News didn't want the Republicans to someone who could win, but should have lost by doing something so stupid that Fox News would be off the hook for throwing the election?

Fail.

[nobody's_hero]

You're absolutely right.

You told me to wear a rubber, and now it burns when I pee.

[Todd]

You can view his previous posts through his handle.

Red rep bar. Why bother.

[jmdrake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM8o0QDUhQ0

I used to think Beyonce' was talented. Oh well.

[jmdrake]

p4p would have worked if it had started ~18-20 months earlier than it did. There are a LOT of cross-platform issues 'back around the other side' of the left/right paradigm. It's more than a legitimate strategy, and I'd hope p4p sorts would help find Constitutionalist Democrats, who do exist. Problem this-go was it all came up too late to be implemented well enough to work.

True. The problem with P4P's "strategy" is that it involved ignoring areas where progressives and libertarians actually agree on and instead began the discussion with demands of concessions from libertarians. Here's what I mean. From his blog:

Why the persistent divide? Obviously, it's economic issues. We progressives think that in these economic circumstances what we need is increased spending on domestic programs, especially, education, green energy and infrastructure, universal single payer health care, basic research and development. Pay for this by raising taxes on the wealthy and making massive cuts in unnecessary and counterproductive spending on the military industrial catastrophe and its numerous corporate cousins.

Libertarians on the other hand want massive reductions in military, foreign and domestic budgets along with gutting of most regulations in all sectors of the economy all to pay for massive tax reductions for all Americans, especially those who are most productive, the rich.

We could yell and scream at each other for how stupid the other is and let the beast continue to run wild. We could each sit back and say to ourselves, truth is on our side and truth will prevail while corporate media continues to lie, lie, lie. We could smugly plant our proud posteriors in pedantic think tanks while the powers that be laugh all the way to the banks they already own. We could even make another blog to shout into the wind.

Rather than focusing on the obvious agreement, that both libertarians and progressives want massive cuts in defense spending, he focused on the area of disagreement, that progressives want tax increases on the rich and massive increases in domestic spending. The Ron Paul position was already a compromise. Massive decreases in defense and foreign aid spending and using the savings to shore up the unfunded liabilities in social spending we already have and as a transition period to help people move away from government dependence.

Here's the deal. Progressives should have gotten on board. They had nothing to lose. Obama was running unopposed. They could have given the GOP a black eye by participating in their nomination process and electing an antiwar candidate. Instead they in general either chose to support Obama or send us their "list of demands". The problem with that is if Ron and moved to the left on taxes and spending as they wished, he would have lost support of Republicans AND libertarians.

That said, there is some "I told you so" that should be going around. Those like Matt Collins (who I still consider my friend) who felt the need to say "Only focus on likely republican voters" whenever anybody talked about any type of outreach to democrats were wrong. They'll never admit it, but they were. It's one thing to change your message to reach disgruntled democrats. It's another to just ask for their vote. I know I got at least 4 - 8 of my friends / family who voted for Obama in 2008 to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. I know of another friend who told me she loved Ron Paul but didn't vote for him because she didn't think he could win. I wish I had been talking to her during the primary. I would have said "Well waste your vote for him anyway. You don't have anyone to vote for in the democratic primary." And while my numbers may seem small, if every 2008 Ron Paul voter had won over 4 to 8 dems, Ron Paul would have gotten the nomination. Instead we concentrated on trying to people to donate money they didn't have and to make phone calls to strangers.

[acptulsa]

Rather than focusing on the obvious agreement, that both libertarians and progressives want massive cuts in defense spending, he focused on the area of disagreement, that progressives want tax increases on the rich and massive increases in domestic spending.

What's more, we already had that covered. You want more domestic spending, all right. We respect the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Let your state spend on that stuff. Let your state have a single payer health care system, a la Massachusetts. The problem with doing that on the federal level is the corporatists have too easy a time corrupting one government. A powerful Washington is one-stop shopping for influence buyers. Do it at the state level. No libertarian in federal office will stop you unless you trample on people's rights in the process.

The OP ignored that roundly. Yet without that angle, we're just lap dogs for the corporations, and we can attract no real, principled liberals by being lap dogs for the corporatists. Our specialty is real, principled solutions to corporatism.

So the OP told us so--told us to abandon any hope of winning Republican primary votes by selling out our principles and thereby ensuring we got no liberal crossover votes in the general election. And we told him it was a lose/lose, and we weren't going to do it.

Furthermore, I stand by that assessment. Just because someone had an alternate plan doesn't mean that plan was worth a shit.

[ClydeCoulter]

Ummmmm, no.

Click on his handle on the left upper conner (of his post, above his avatar/rep, etc). A popup will appear where you can choose "View Forum Posts".

[ClydeCoulter]

...

Furthermore, I stand by that assessment. Just because someone had an alternate plan doesn't mean that plan was worth a shit.

You are right, others are right, that's right.

Now, if we want to move forward, and there are not enough travelers to carry all the goods needed to get over the mountain, where might we find some to travel, at least part of the way, with us.

We, also, can say "I told you so" at this point. "I wrote in Ron Paul".

Now, in the spirit of moving forward from where we are today...

[emazur]

Nobody likes playing guessing games. Say what you came to say or don't bother posting

[VBRonPaulFan]

Nobody likes playing guessing games. Say what you came to say or don't bother posting

Oh, he's just saying if Ron Paul would've catered to progressives that he would've won the Republican nomination. You know, because progressives register Republican and vote in Republican primaries.

He's probably right, progressives are such a huge, powerful voting block. After all, look at how many get elected :rolleyes:

[sailingaway]

Oh, he's just saying if Ron Paul would've catered to progressives that he would've won the Republican nomination. You know, because progressives register Republican and vote in Republican primaries.

He's probably right, progressives are such a huge, powerful voting block. After all, look at how many get elected :rolleyes:

His idea was to combine the principled people in each side, just as the squishes on each side now combine on things like NDAA. I absolutely agree with that. It is easier in issue specific stuff like CISPA and NDAA because we have no disagreements. It is harder, so far, on candidates, because over the spectrum of politics there are disagreements. WE would have to focus on priorities.

[emazur]

Oh, he's just saying if Ron Paul would've catered to progressives that he would've won the Republican nomination

If that's the case he should have said it 3 to 6 months ago when the election and and GOP convention actually happened. Posting such a thing now is just out of desire to open a can of worms

[VBRonPaulFan]

His idea was to combine the principled people in each side, just as the squishes on each side now combine on things like NDAA. I absolutely agree with that. It is easier in issue specific stuff like CISPA and NDAA because we have no disagreements. It is harder, so far, on candidates, because over the spectrum of politics there are disagreements. WE would have to focus on priorities.

I remember reading a couple of his articles before I stopped giving his site traffic. They were generally along the lines of 'RP should compromise on this and that to get progressive appeal...'.

They were mostly a joke, imo.

[VBRonPaulFan]

If that's the case he should have said it 3 to 6 months ago when the election and and GOP convention actually happened. Posting such a thing now is just out of desire to open a can of worms

He does it just to drive traffic to his site. He very rarely says much on here besides posting links to articles on his blogs. He's just trolling for traffic.

[ClydeCoulter]

His idea was to combine the principled people in each side, just as the squishes on each side now combine on things like NDAA. I absolutely agree with that. It is easier in issue specific stuff like CISPA and NDAA because we have no disagreements. It is harder, so far, on candidates, because over the spectrum of politics there are disagreements. WE would have to focus on priorities.

^^ THIS ^^