Originally posted by Amaterasu

What Universe do you live in? Gore won in 2000, but because of Florida and "not wanting to recount or redo the election," the Supreme Court appointed Bush.

Kerry would have won in 2004, but that Diebold ensured that Ohio "voted" for Bush. The exit polls were skewed off the charts from what the machines said happened - and that has never happened before. The margin of error in exit polls has always been quite small, yet in Ohio, a statistically impossible skew was seen.

Don't tell ME we "voted Bush in." We absolutely DID NOT. Ever.

Hope this doesn't derail yet another Ron Paul post...but it's a Ron Paul post so no one will know the difference.

Kerry lost in 2000...not because of Florida, but because he lost his home state of Tennessee. The people he once represented rejected him. Pretty sad .

2004...you believe exit polls but not the actual vote?...mmmkay. You are going to be in for a surprise in 2008 then, because there are going to be alot of people who say they voted for Obama when they actually didn't. Skewed polls in 2004, you haven't seen anything yet.

BACK ON TOPIC:

It was pointed out earlier that Ron Paul thought his alliegence to the Republican Party was more important than his alliegence to his supporters.

I agree

Originally posted by RRconservative

Originally posted by Amaterasu

What Universe do you live in? Gore won in 2000, but because of Florida and "not wanting to recount or redo the election," the Supreme Court appointed Bush.

Kerry would have won in 2004, but that Diebold ensured that Ohio "voted" for Bush. The exit polls were skewed off the charts from what the machines said happened - and that has never happened before. The margin of error in exit polls has always been quite small, yet in Ohio, a statistically impossible skew was seen.

Don't tell ME we "voted Bush in." We absolutely DID NOT. Ever.

Hope this doesn't derail yet another Ron Paul post...but it's a Ron Paul post so no one will know the difference.

Kerry lost in 2000...not because of Florida, but because he lost his home state of Tennessee. The people he once represented rejected him. Pretty sad .

Are you rewriting history, then? It was because of Florida and its tangled election debacle, that the Supreme Court (against the Constitution, even!) APPOINTED Bush.

2004...you believe exit polls but not the actual vote?

You show me that the Diebold machines provided "actual votes" and I will concede this point. The facts remain that these machines had opaque code (so could be written to perform perfectly during "tests" and then, on the date of the elections, change to give whoever they wanted the "win"), that exit polls have historically been very close to the actual outcome, that in this specific instance they were statistically IMPOSSIBLE, showing a handy lead by Kerry, and the whole affair stinks to high heaven.

...mmmkay. You are going to be in for a surprise in 2008 then, because there are going to be alot of people who say they voted for Obama when they actually didn't. Skewed polls in 2004, you haven't seen anything yet.

What? You think that in Ohio a statistically astronomical number of people LIED about who they voted for??? Yeah, right. If you truly believe that, may I offer you some awesome swampland? EXCELLENT investment, trust me!

BACK ON TOPIC:

It was pointed out earlier that Ron Paul thought his alliegence to the Republican Party was more important than his alliegence to his supporters.

I agree

It was also pointed out that it had less to do with "alliegence to the Republican Party" and more to do with wanting to stay in Congress over having to leave because of a Texas law about "Sore Losers" to run on an independent ticket he was likely to lose, thereby leaving him nowhere in politics.

Are you missing that?

Originally posted by MarkAkaSilent
It may seem strange to you but outside the US Ron Paul is not known! Theres no media coverage at all, I heard of him a couple of years ago through the likes of Alex Jones and Jeff Rense. Is that the case over there? That most Americans don't know who he is.

The reason for that is the greedy clowns who run the show made damn good and well sure that nobody got any exposure to Ron Paul. They made certain that he never was allowed to participate in any meaningful debates, they blacklisted him from any media coverage except for negative lies and B.S. propaganda that was spread through Limbaugh and Hannity and the other paid liars.

He was not allowed on the ballot, he was not allowed to participate in any meaningful way. They made a mockery of the man. It was straight up text book CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

And you wonder why he doesnt want to run as an Independant? Because he was elected to Congress as a Republican and he refuses to abandon the people who have voted to elect him ten times. Loyalty.

Something the rest of the GOP losers could learn a thing or two about.

I dont blame Dr. Paul for not wanting to run, they attacked his character and his mental stability and when that failed they tried to paint him as a racist. When that failed they labeled him "fringe" which is just another word for crazy. And they made sure that every time his name came up for any reason the mouth pieces attacked him like a pack of wild dogs.

The politicians and the idiot voters deserve what they are about to get for voting and electing a war criminal twice over. Then they wonder how the rug could have been pulled from under them.

You made you bed stupid, now go and lay in it.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Are you rewriting history, then? It was because of Florida and its tangled election debacle, that the Supreme Court (against the Constitution, even!) APPOINTED Bush.

Tennessee was more important than Florida, because it was Algore's homestate. If you can't win your own homestate, you don't deserve to be President.

BTW The Supreme Court didn't appoint anyone. All they did was stop the endless recounting of the votes, that confirmed Bush won Florida. The Constitution does have States rights provisions, and the Supreme Court choose to follow them.

Originally posted by RRconservative

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Are you rewriting history, then? It was because of Florida and its tangled election debacle, that the Supreme Court (against the Constitution, even!) APPOINTED Bush.

Tennessee was more important than Florida, because it was Algore's homestate. If you can't win your own homestate, you don't deserve to be President.

Pish. The one with the most overall votes wins - in an honest election. Whether or not one's "home state" shows a majority for one is irrelevant. On top of that, I have to wonder how many inroads Diebold had in Tennessee... If any, the whole result is doubtful.

BTW The Supreme Court didn't appoint anyone. All they did was stop the endless recounting of the votes, that confirmed Bush won Florida. The Constitution does have States rights provisions, and the Supreme Court choose to follow them.

Pish, again. There were LOTS of questions about the votes. There were also people who had streets blocked off in black neighborhoods and couldn't even GET to the polls. There was a LOT of hanky panky. What the SC did was decide NOT to do the voting over again, and just declare (appoint) Bush the winner.

It was NOT an issue of stopping a recount.

[edit on 9/25/2008 by Amaterasu]

just a hypothetical here... but if none of the other candidates were around to become president then Ron Paul could still win, he had some good numbers. up to 20% in some states.

what do you call 1000 politicians in front of a firing squad. A good start.

I find it funny that everyone is saying Ron Paul is a true republican so he was correct not to run as an independent.
He is still carrying all the same libertarian values he did when he ran as a (shock) libertarian.
If he had run as the Libertarian presidential candidate with
the strong support system he created for himself while running with his Rep. hat on, he could have brought attention to not only the libertarian party, but also promoted the necessity of killing the 2 party system.

Originally posted by joi
I find it funny that everyone is saying Ron Paul is a true republican so he was correct not to run as an independent.
He is still carrying all the same libertarian values he did when he ran as a (shock) libertarian.
If he had run as the Libertarian presidential candidate with
the strong support system he created for himself while running with his Rep. hat on, he could have brought attention to not only the libertarian party, but also promoted the necessity of killing the 2 party system.

I agree that running as a Libertarian initially would have done him better (maybe - but I have watched the MSM in past elections report returns as if the Libertarian party didn't exist).

But as for cutting from the Reps after failing to even be noticed by the MSM, he can't - unless he wants to lose his seat in the Senate. ANY run at this point will put him under Texas's "Sore Loser" ruling and he would lose his seat.

Better to have him IN the System, fighting for our founding documents that to have him out altogether. (He wouldn't win... Too many rely on the MSM - and THEY would ignore him as a Lib as much as they did as a Rep.)

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
The United States of America let down Ron Paul. He offered Americans hope for the future, but they were too busy watching Dancing with the Stars.

I could not have said it better myself...

Americans let Dr. Paul down by being dis-informed, misinformed, and plain IGNORANT except to who is on American Idol.

If Ron Paul went as an independent he would have had even less exposure than he got in the run for his precidency as an conservative. With the limited options he had he did the best thing possible, he got some national exposure in MSM instead of none whatsoever. So no, RP did the best he could with the options he had if he went for independant or libertarian the campaign for liberty (where he put his grass-roots money in when he bowed down) would not have the following or funding he has now. Ron Paul would only have done better when he agreed with the PTB or POO ( Powers of old ) to push their agenda, he didn't so the institute that is called USA gov cheated him out of media exposure and did the thing it did best, it ridiculed and ignored Ron Paul.

I'm just jumping in here, so I don't know if this has been said:

Ron Paul was marginalized by the 2-party system and the MSM because he would have siphoned votes away from the 2 major parties.

Even if he had been able to participate in the debates, he never stood a chance, since he is too honest to be corrupted by PAC and lobbyist money, such as from unions, big pharma, etc.

Now, his age is working against him.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by jsobecky]