View Full Version : The Ron Paul plan to win the convention:
KG4JYD
05-01-2008, 04:06 AM
This was just e-mailed to me:
______________
"Momentum is building in states all across the country. People must stay on track and do whatever it takes to get out all the delegate support we as Ron Paul supporters can for the CD and state conventions in every county and CD and State convention.
This is especially important for anyone coming from "bound" states.
This is of MAJOR importance, for if they are bound, they DO NOT HAVE TO CAST A VOTE IN ROUND ONE FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!! They can simply say "NO VOTE" when it is their turn to cast a vote.
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK FOR RON PAUL?
This means that McCain will NOT receive his NEEDED 1191 delegate votes in round one, and will then unbind many states! When it goes to a second ballot, 17 of the 33 bound states become unbound. When it goes to a third ballot, 9 of the 16 remaining states are then unbound, leaving only 7 states that are bound until released!
We can build this into a national brokered convention if people keep pushing and calling, talking and participating. In this game, 95% of winning is just SHOWING UP, and folks have to be convinced that it is true.
The establishment will try every trick in the book. As they do, they will offend more and more beyond just the Ron Paul supporters in their desperation to stop the move of the Party to the NeoCon left. "
KB9YCO
05-01-2008, 04:17 AM
Wow, Ron Paul, almost forgot about him. Is he still dreaming the dream that an unconnected and non-two-party candidate will actually get anywhere? The two biggies won't let that happen in this country.
I'll give him and his fans credit though, they stick it out, even if they are completely unrealistic about their chances.
NA4BH
05-01-2008, 04:23 AM
This Convention you speak of, might it be The Shriners? I am waiting for the Clowns and the small cars...........
w5klb
05-01-2008, 05:43 AM
Hey, let the man dream on.
Next up...
Festive hats you can make from Aluminum Foil and what to do about those pesky black helicopters that may be circling your home. Brought to you by Prozac: The Libertarian wonder drug.
AE6IP
05-01-2008, 05:47 AM
I know I am highly impressed by any candidate that would stoop to this level of cheating to win a nomination.
n2ize
05-01-2008, 06:23 AM
Wow, Ron Paul, almost forgot about him. Is he still dreaming the dream that an unconnected and non-two-party candidate will actually get anywhere? The two biggies won't let that happen in this country.
I'll give him and his fans credit though, they stick it out, even if they are completely unrealistic about their chances.
It doesn't matter how unrealistic winning may be at the moment. The only way that we will ever break out of the status quo, tweedledum and treedledee, 2 party "lesser of 2 evils" syndrome is if people get behind a third party or alternate candidate and stand by that candidate. Rather than abandon the party or the candidate they should stick it out. The game is not about winning. It's about building an alternative and and garnering support.
Personally I am no big fan of Ron Paul. But at least some of the Ron Paul supporters have the right idea and are not abandoning their goals. I hope others can do the same.
KC9IUX
05-01-2008, 07:38 AM
know I am highly impressed by any candidate that would stoop to this level of cheating to win a nomination.
Where is the "cheating"?
Looks like how the rules can work.
W3MIV
05-01-2008, 10:07 AM
It doesn't matter how unrealistic winning may be at the moment. The only way that we will ever break out of the status quo, tweedledum and treedledee, 2 party "lesser of 2 evils" syndrome is if people get behind a third party or alternate candidate and stand by that candidate. Rather than abandon the party or the candidate they should stick it out. The game is not about winning. It's about building an alternative and and garnering support.
Personally I am no big fan of Ron Paul. But at least some of the Ron Paul supporters have the right idea and are not abandoning their goals. I hope others can do the same.
While you are correct in your surmise as to the means of breaking the strangle-hold the two current parties hold on the political process in the US, it is the candidate, more than the party, that must carry the power to achieve success in such a venture.
The problem here, John, is Ron Paul himself. His "platform" emphasizes ludicrous and impractical schemes in an effort to attract the lunatic fringe that identifies itself as "Libertarian" in order to achieve an "engine of success," but at the cost of alienating the vast bulk of responsible voters who recognize the zany nature of his appeal and realize that at the end of day, we need a president and not a clown or a mountebank.
Add to that the personal quirks (the little-girl, whiny voice and the ticks and grimaces, the odd tongue chewing and the owlish expressions during interviews) and you have what amounts to a sideshow more than a presidential campaign. It is designed to appeal to a very few young and unsophisticated rubes and social outcasts.
However, it is a marvelous illustration of the power of the internet to coalesce and bilk a bunch of wackos.
Wow, MIV..you made my day. You have forced me to admit that my support for Ron Paul and a desire to break the DemoPublican stranglehold on this country indicates that I am an unsophisticated rube and a wacko.
The freedom you have given me by forcing me to realize I am a social outcast is the finest gift one could five.
I shall live this day forward unfettered by the chains of "normalcy"!!! Outcasts no longer have to play by the rules and in fact are expected not to.
It will be great fun.!!!!
W3MIV
05-01-2008, 11:12 AM
I am gratified that my poor powers of analysis have given your life a lift.
Please take time to return the favor by giving us the benefit of the political wisdom that underlays your decision to support Ron Paul. More to the point, please provide us some glimpse of a realistic performance plan -- not to achieve success in the election, but to achieve successful governance by your Lilliputian hero after winning the election.
I await with bated breath...
Wow, MIV..you made my day. You have forced me to admit that my support for Ron Paul and a desire to break the DemoPublican stranglehold on this country indicates that I am an unsophisticated rube and a wacko.
The freedom you have given me by forcing me to realize I am a social outcast is the finest gift one could five.
I shall live this day forward unfettered by the chains of "normalcy"!!! Outcasts no longer have to play by the rules and in fact are expected not to.
It will be great fun.!!!!
I am gratified that my poor powers of analysis have given your life a lift.
Please take time to return the favor by giving us the benefit of the political wisdom that underlays your decision to support Ron Paul. More to the point, please provide us some glimpse of a realistic performance plan -- not to achieve success in the election, but to achieve successful governance by your Lilliputian hero after winning the election.
I await with bated breath...
I believe the first sentence of my post states my main reason for supporting Ron Paul quite clearly, in case you are a bit foggy this morning, I shall restate it: A vote for Ron Paul sends a message to the Dems and Repubs that they should not feel so comfortable and that the people are willing to at least consider change. A number of states don't even have a mechanism for adding a third party to the ballot.
We will never see any real change in this country until people have the freedom to break away from the entrenched two-party system.
I realize you fear that somehow electing a President who is not a Democrat or Republican would instantly doom America.
I think it would be a breath of fresh air. Nothing more complicated than that.
Now I have to go to work so I can pay my taxes.
W3MIV
05-01-2008, 12:44 PM
I believe the first sentence of my post states my main reason for supporting Ron Paul quite clearly, in case you are a bit foggy this morning...
I am "a bit foggy" every morning, but that does not obviate my ability to see clearly the childishly naive hope that animates your callow ideal.
...I shall restate it: A vote for Ron Paul sends a message to the Dems and Repubs that they should not feel so comfortable and that the people are willing to at least consider change.
Such messages have been sent time and again, and by better men than your Lilliputian "man on a horse," come to rescue the nation from the criminal classes that dominate the two of the Two-Party System. If a man of the calibre of Theodore Roosevelt could not bring it off, what makes you think your defective analog of Lyndon LaRouche has any chance whatever? More importantly, what makes you think that either of those Two Parties will even deign to take notice of your whiny little girl's blowfish gestures long enough to even smile in contempt?
A number of states don't even have a mechanism for adding a third party to the ballot.
Noticed that, did you? If you take the briefest moment to consider the rationale that underlay such a posture, you will see the style of chevaux-de-frise that incumbency has erected against any challenges by the unwashed and unbaptized demagogues of the moment. Many a better man than Ron Paul has mangled himself on such defenses.
We will never see any real change in this country until people have the freedom to break away from the entrenched two-party system.
People have that "freedom" now, but the energy required of the reaction is such that it takes the exceptional to unleash it, not a resident of Wolkenkuckkucksheim like Ron Paul. A big task demands a big man, not a little girl with moonstruck ideas.
I realize you fear that somehow electing a President who is not a Democrat or Republican would instantly doom America.
No president, alone, has the power to doom the United States, not even one with the foolish and implausible notions of your hero. Even were he to become the nominee, he will never be elected; even were he elected, his programs (bizarre through brilliant) would be DOA in the Congress. He would either resort to "bidness as usual" and consort with the powers at the other end of PA Ave or he would accomplish nothing at all. Nothing I can imagine would do more to ensure that those Two Parties you deprecate would gain increased durability than such a failure.
I think it would be a breath of fresh air. Nothing more complicated than that.
I would suggest that your reason to chance success or failure on such a callow rationale brings you no luster.
Now I have to go to work so I can pay my taxes.
Please do so, we need the money. Pray pay particular attention to your FICA payments; we retirees look forward to seeing the COLA increased.
N4VGB
05-01-2008, 03:45 PM
Now that I've regained some level of composure again, after being overcome with laughter!!!
I'm afraid Ron Paul is not the man that I could vote for in this election, no matter how much the "shock value" to the two major parties appeals to me.
AE6IP
05-01-2008, 05:48 PM
Where is the "cheating"?
Looks like how the rules can work.
the sad thing is that I believe you honestly don't know.
the sad thing is that I believe you honestly don't know.
What a pointless contribution to the discussion. Enlighten us, oh great one!!
Is the decision to not vote illegal??
K0RGR
05-01-2008, 06:23 PM
Forget Ron Paul - support Jesse Ventura and the Independence Party. He's a proven winner, and the best governor Minnesota has had since I've been here.
Besides which, he'd out-rassle Ron Paul any day!
&^%$%^&*&^ politicians in St. Paul are at it again. They're trying to pass a law making it legal for a cop to pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt. Ventura vetoed that nonsense when he was governor. I bet our current GOP governator will kiss the thing when it comes to him for a signature - Republicans like "Law'n'Order" and the more the cops pull people over, the more "Law'n'Oder" there will be.
KB9YCO
05-01-2008, 06:41 PM
As has been mentioned, probably more succinctly then I could manage right now, it's less about third party and more about the fact that Ron Paul is kind of wacky. I'm all for sending a message that the two-party system is out of date, but I don't see Dr. Paul as being the 'man of the hour' for that problem. I also have no problem with some libertarians, though I've noticed that it's a rather eclectic mix of people in that party since some are pretty far right or left, makes it kind of hard to vote for a party based on party ideology when they're all over the road philosophically.
Just a thought or two.
I know I am highly impressed by any candidate that would stoop to this level of cheating to win a nomination.
My thoughts precisely.
W3MIV
05-01-2008, 07:04 PM
...it's less about third party and more about the fact that Ron Paul is kind of wacky.
Fundamentally, I agree with your post, Brett; not least, of course, with the bit of understatement quoted above.
;)
N4VGB
05-01-2008, 07:20 PM
Perhaps a Presidential campaign was needed to boost his new book sales? :eek:
AE6IP
05-01-2008, 08:14 PM
What a pointless contribution to the discussion. Enlighten us, oh great one!!
Is the decision to not vote illegal??
The contribution had a point.
Sorry it went over your head.
W3MIV
05-01-2008, 08:30 PM
Sorry it went over your head.
Seems it wasn't even close enough to part his hair. :rolleyes:
The contribution had a point.
Sorry it went over your head.
All talk and no substance. What would be the matter with simply answering the question.? And how would this bit of creativity in obtaining the nomination be any worse than simply buying it like the major candidates of the two main parties do?
W3MIV
05-01-2008, 09:29 PM
All talk and no substance. What would be the matter with simply answering the question.? And how would this bit of creativity in obtaining the nomination be any worse than simply buying it like the major candidates of the two main parties do?
Do you have proof of your assertion? Or is that simply all talk and no substance?
Do you have proof of your assertion? Or is that simply all talk and no substance?
I take it you have never watched TV, listened to the radio, or read newspapers during a campaign.
W3MIV
05-01-2008, 09:55 PM
I take it you have never watched TV, listened to the radio, or read newspapers during a campaign.
Don't avoid the question; answer it.
Don't avoid the question; answer it.
The only third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt who made a decent showing (19%) of the popular vote, was H. Ross Perot, who spent some 60 million of his own money in the campaign.
If you can't see that money and the publicity it buys greatly influence the primaries, hence the nomination, and ultimately the general election, you certainly do need a new optical prescription.
The point is, the status quo sucks and it is time for a change. I really don't care WHO it is. If you were running, MIV, I would rather vote for you than McCain, Clinton, or Obama.
W3MIV
05-01-2008, 10:32 PM
If you were running, MIV, I would rather vote for you than McCain, Clinton, or Obama.
If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. I do, however, appreciate the intelligence of your choice.
And the Paulettes kick off their come back tour!
Too bad, I was glad that noise was over when it finally ended.
kf6rdn
05-01-2008, 10:42 PM
It doesn't matter how unrealistic winning may be at the moment. The only way that we will ever break out of the status quo, tweedledum and treedledee, 2 party "lesser of 2 evils" syndrome is if people get behind a third party or alternate candidate and stand by that candidate. Rather than abandon the party or the candidate they should stick it out. The game is not about winning. It's about building an alternative and and garnering support.
Personally I am no big fan of Ron Paul. But at least some of the Ron Paul supporters have the right idea and are not abandoning their goals. I hope others can do the same.
Not often I agree politically with 'ize, but gotta agree with this.
The 2 party system, or I should say both parties are broken, too much special interest influence. I would LOVE to see a candidate with Libertarian leanings, but I'm not sure about Paul.
KG4JYD
05-02-2008, 12:45 AM
I know I am highly impressed by any candidate that would stoop to this level of cheating to win a nomination.And who are you referring to?
I join with many who think that many and perhaps most politicians are a group of hucksters, buffoons, liars, and charlatans. That being said I fail to understand how going from two political parties to three or more will change that nature of politicians. And there is a serious problem in governments with more than two political parties. As long as a majority rather than a plurality of the votes rule, such systems either require that one party have a great deal of power (more than 50%) and the remaining parties have very little power or coalitions must be formed. Generally such governments operate with coalitions. If you look at governments that rule by coalitions you will find quite a few of them are unstable. The coalitions form for a while and then split leading to new elections and a reforming of the government. This is not the form of government that I want for my country.
So here is my question. Does anyone think that any of the candidates for the presidency this time (including those who have dropped out) would be any different or any better if we have three or more political parties? If you answer “yes” it would be nice to hear your rationale.
AE6IP
05-02-2008, 01:05 AM
All talk and no substance.
Yes, yes indeed, Dr Paul is all talk and no substance.
What would be the matter with simply answering the question?
What would be the matter of having asked it in a civilized manner?
And how would this bit of creativity in obtaining the nomination be any worse than simply buying it like the major candidates of the two main parties do?
Well, besides betraying the faith of the people who sent those electors expecting that they would represent their votes and demonstrating that your candidate is more interested in tricking his way in than in accepting the will of the electorate, I can't think of anything.
KG4JYD
05-02-2008, 12:22 PM
The problem here, John, is Ron Paul himself. His "platform" emphasizes ludicrous and impractical schemes WOW!!! Amazing that the US Constitution is called "ludicrous and impractical"..... Either you are ignorant and uneducated, or really of the lowest character. :confused:
W3MIV
05-02-2008, 05:26 PM
WOW!!! Amazing that the US Constitution is called "ludicrous and impractical"..... Either you are ignorant and uneducated, or really of the lowest character. :confused:
Matt, you wouldn't know the US Constitution if it wrapped itself around your head and tried to relieve the vacuum. You have proven as much time and again, in post after post.
And, BTW, "ignorant and uneducated" is a redundancy: They both mean precisely the same thing, which is proof of your own educational achievements.
AE6IP
05-02-2008, 09:00 PM
And who are you referring to?
Ron Paul, if he tolerates the nonsense his fans are attempting to perform to hijack the nomination against the will of the majority of the party members.
KG4JYD
05-03-2008, 01:30 AM
Perhaps a Presidential campaign was needed to boost his new book sales? Interesting concept and honestly there is a grain of truth to that.
When Ron Paul was talked into running for President, he decided that his only objective was to get face time at the debates so that he could espouse his ideas to a national audience. His best actual outcome would be to actually change the course of discussion.
However he FAR exceeded ANY expectations of the above and went above and beyond. Not only did that happen, he actually had (and still might, although slim) a chance of winning the nomination and the Presidency. What he also has done is revealed and amplified LARGE fractions within the Republican Party which will indeed change the face of the party forever. And largely thanks to Ron Paul "libertarianism" is now a mainstream term no longer on the fringe.
So while Ron's goal wasn't to profit from the campaign, his original goal was to spread ideas which he has indeed accomplished. The book is a result of that.
W3MIV
05-03-2008, 11:28 AM
When Ron Paul was talked into running for President, he decided that his only objective was to get face time at the debates so that he could espouse his ideas to a national audience. His best actual outcome would be to actually change the course of discussion.
However he FAR exceeded ANY expectations of the above and went above and beyond. Not only did that happen, he actually had (and still might, although slim) a chance of winning the nomination and the Presidency.
"Slim" is one of your better euphemisms. "Non-existant" offers a far better fit to reality, however.
What he also has done is revealed and amplified LARGE fractions within the Republican Party which will indeed change the face of the party forever. And largely thanks to Ron Paul "libertarianism" is now a mainstream term no longer on the fringe.
The dream continues, I see. "Libertarianism" has been a "mainstream" term since before you were a gleam in the paternal eye, Matt. Ayn Rand wrote long before you were imagined, as just a single example of the many wacky and irresponsible philosophies that form the core of what you call "Libertarianism." In the final analysis, it is a political philosophy of the self at the expense of the commonweal -- all justified on the basis that self-interest writ large will benefit all. It was always, and it remains, a political philosophy of, on and for the fringe.
So while Ron's goal wasn't to profit from the campaign, his original goal was to spread ideas which he has indeed accomplished. The book is a result of that.
"Ron's" goal was ALWAYS to profit from the campaign. The campaign has become his entire life, and he now must fight to retain his seat in the Congress, not because he will do anything either for his District or for the nation, but simply because he needs to retain his seat to retain his credibility among those of you who swallowed his "log" and, like the followers or L. Ron Hubbard or a myriad of other mountebanks, march happily into the political mists, dispensing dollars with the improvidence of rose petals and humming Kumbaja.
You have been duped. Fleeced. Shorn. Mugged. Get it?
KG4JYD
05-03-2008, 01:17 PM
I take it you have never watched TV, listened to the radio, or read newspapers during a campaign.I canceled my cable on Feb 6th. I consume VERY little media now and my life is better for it.
Most news I get comes from active forum discussion groups.
W3MIV
05-03-2008, 02:57 PM
I canceled my cable on Feb 6th. I consume VERY little media now and my life is better for it.
Most news I get comes from active forum discussion groups.
Go back to cable. Given the evidence, you will do better than you have shown yourself to date.
Paulnuts gone wild at the Republican convention??
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/12/paulnuts-to-run-wild-at-the-convention-leading-to-7-chaos/?print=1
KG4JYD
05-20-2008, 12:01 AM
The only third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt who made a decent showing (19%) of the popular vote, was H. Ross Perot, who spent some 60 million of his own money in the campaign. The problem is that the Dems and the Reps have the laws stacked in their favor.
Ross Perot even with his billions could not get ballot access in all 50 states.