Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Breaking: Michele Bachmann Iowa campaign co-chair endorses Ron Paul

page: 8
116
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I saw this. Excellent news with just 6 days until the caucus! Ron Paul is on fire!


I've said this in about 200 other posts, but... Ron Paul is going to win Iowa in a landslide.


I think you might be right, but the MSM would like you to believe it's a real horse race with ever-changing leaders coming into the home stretch... just to confuse voters.

I guess we'll see Tuesday.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 
Thousands of deliveries, and he didn't recall one, oh nos. No, you're still in the minority on that one pal. Baaah!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
Even if he does run Independent people will still know who Ron Paul is, and what his goals are as President. I am sure even as an Independent he will get a lot of support.


And if he wins as an independent he will have totally be hung out to dry by both parties in the house and senate and we will have 4 years of no government. Not that a big R republican or a Democrat of any flavor are any better. I just see Ron Paul as a way to split the right vote and ensure an obama victory.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
so Bachmann is accusing him os being a sellout ?




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
More staffers leaving to go to Ron Paul:

five former New Hampshire staffers of former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson announced Friday that they are now endorsing Ron Paul for president.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
You are just getting on the bandwagon because everyone else is.
You are just following the crowd and a few steps behind at that.
You are just trying to go along with what the MSM is telling you is cool to do now.

Oh, wait. That is what happens when suddenly people start supporting a democrat. Nevermind.


Oh come on, the media spent the whole Obama run on their knees, there are no similarities between the two.

It's like Obama's people calling themselves a grassroots organization.

A sitting president with the largest campaign budget in history is as far from grassroots as you can get.


You are addressing, attacking, and responding to Obama and what Obama did.
What I very clearly and specifically addressed were the actions of the supporters of these people.

Sorry you got so confused.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by ker2010
 




You are being fed an image that is not true.

Have fun with that.


You mean this image



seeing this here proves what I assumed anyway.
I already responded to this clip in another thread after already listening to it from yet another thread.

Keep spammin!

You are alll just doing what you spent four years blasting Obama voters for.

All those newsletters with blatant racism in Paul's name, some right in his hometown, make him look bad so you all say they mean nothing. They are facts. They are verified and admitted yet they mean nothing.

One random guy says some random good thing happened and that...well that means the #ING WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!
edit on 31-12-2011 by Algernonsmouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by budcin
It is actually good to point out too he said he will not be receiving the normal presidential pay scale of $400,000.00
a year. This is how good a man RP is, he wants to be paid only $38,000 a year, same as an average middle class American. Now that shows class!!!
Is any other canidate asking for that? Don't think so.


Ron Paul 2012!!!!


Wow, how charitable. I bet you feel bad Mitt Romney is unemployed too. It is nice when rich people say stupid things like that. Tell me how that benefits you or myself in any way at all.
Be specific and factual.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

Then entire article is worth reading in full, but I like those parts, personally.

Take care.


Not really because even with a slight skewing it uses, it still makes my point. This is equal to a coin flip. You just proved that yourself. So whoever Iowa picks in their handwritten, handshaking, not official, secretly held count little election is about as accurate as a coin flip as far as what the future will bring to the winner.

That was my point. Apparently it is now yours too.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 
I'd say the last 3 republican presidents and at least one nominee are fairly useful to the discussion (I was just running down the historical list), but I can definitely get that for you in the morning if you like?

Sorry, I'm in bed on my android right now and it's just...cumbersome. Will follow up tomorrow. G'night!



I'd say you like to skew lists. Lets get back to that general look you wanted to take so badly.
Democratic winners.
John Kerry
Al Gore
Tom Harkin
Dick Gephardt
Walter Mondale
Edmund Muskey
Republican Winners
Mike Huckabee
Bod Dole
Bod Dole (yeah twice)


Whatever makes you all feel better. I would just think that really supporting a candidate means actually supporting a candidate and not sitting around hoping a coin toss suddenly carries some weight.
Is this going to change how you feel about your desire to vote for Paul?
I do not even understand why anyone who supports anyone cares about Iowa. Go vote for the guy for president regardless.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 
I think you may have misunderstood the point of the article, and it applies equally well regardless if Paul wins Iowa or not, frankly - it's responding to the party's threat to go after Paul as harshly as possible and why it won't work. And, if the party DOESN'T do so, either as a result of Paul not winning Iowa or just as result of their benevolent graciousness (insert eye roll here), then that gives the campaign breathing room, a less hostile environment to work in, and less of an uphill battle fighting such significant attack campaigns.

Sure, Iowa's little better than a coin flip historically, but Paul's campaign is top-notch, well-funded, and not afraid to shake things up.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 
Didn't you previously get on to me for including the democrats? And I would say the second Dole example doesn't help much as he was the nominee that year. Regardless...

Whatever makes you all feel better. I would just think that really supporting a candidate means actually supporting a candidate and not sitting around hoping a coin toss suddenly carries some weight.
Is this going to change how you feel about your desire to vote for Paul?
I do not even understand why anyone who supports anyone cares about Iowa. Go vote for the guy for president regardless.

You're certainly right, supporting someone absolutely means more than that - what's your point? Oh...an unspoken assumption that we don't? Gotcha. Not correct, but understood (surely you've heard quite a few things about "Paultard" activism and our various campaigns, fundraising, and being the only supporters who are ever consistently out there working for our guy?).

As far as Iowa carrying weight - historically, it always did and was considered VERY significant by both parties and gave a lot of momentum and spotlight to the winner, as the first in the nation event and first real test of the candidates and their organizations - until it began to seriously look like Paul would win it this year. I'll let you put in the historical research there yourself so you can understand. And we most certainly will vote for Paul regardless. Principles over party, and no more voting the lesser of evils for a good many of us.

Haven't you heard the big question in the media wondering if Paul's supporters will bother coming out for someone else if Paul doesn't get the nomination? It's one they definitely should be considered, as given the percentages it looks like a very tough time for them to win the general election otherwise, and we tend not to see any significant differences between Obama and the rest.

Take care.
edit on 1/1/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by AlgernonsmouseDidn't you previously get on to me for including the democrats? And I would say the second Dole example doesn't help much as he was the nominee that year. Regardless...


Yes which is why I explained why I even bothered to give it back. I guess you just glanced?



You're certainly right, supporting someone absolutely means more than that - what's your point? Oh...an unspoken assumption that we don't? Gotcha. Not correct, but understood (surely you've heard quite a few things about "Paultard" activism and our various campaigns, fundraising, and being the only supporters who are ever consistently out there working for our guy?).

Um no.

Why do you assume so much about me and what I have heard? I actually have not heard anything remotely like that. I have noticed even more the opposite. Not that you are the only ones out there working for him. Just that a few of you are really working overtime for him. Because well, he does so well anytime he can get more than one vote from the same source. But I digress.



As far as Iowa carrying weight - historically, it always did and was considered VERY significant by both parties and gave a lot of momentum and spotlight to the winner, as the first in the nation event and first real test of the candidates and their organizations - until it began to seriously look like Paul would win it this year.


That is not true even a little.

HISTORICALLY IT DID NOT EVEN HAPPEN. You are talking about a 30 year old tradition and applying it to history of picking presidents of the US????

AND IF YOU ARE PAYING ATTENTION, in its short life it has been no better than a coin toss. I have pointed all this out to you and if you can refute it, great. Just denying it and making things up about history will only convince me that some people need to have made up facts in order to support what they do.


I'll let you put in the historical research there yourself so you can understand. And we most certainly will vote for Paul regardless. Principles over party, and no more voting the lesser of evils for a good many of us.





After I put in the research and for some reason you cannot seem to see it. Explain to me what I got wrong so far. I provided names and everything.



Haven't you heard the big question in the media wondering if Paul's supporters will bother coming out for someone else if Paul doesn't get the nomination? It's one they definitely should be considered, as given the percentages it looks like a very tough time for them to win the general election otherwise, and we tend not to see any significant differences between Obama and the rest.

Take care.


So you are a hive mind bunch where any one of you can tell me what you all see? That is interesting and even more off putting.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


How does any of this make me want to not vote for Ron Paul? FAIL

Tell your lord obama his time is short.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 

Why do you assume so much about me and what I have heard? I actually have not heard anything remotely like that. I have noticed even more the opposite. Not that you are the only ones out there working for him. Just that a few of you are really working overtime for him. Because well, he does so well anytime he can get more than one vote from the same source. But I digress.

I assumed such because it's frequently mentioned on news reports or articles discussing Paul's campaigns, mentioned by the other candidates during debates, and discussed on his Wikipedia campaign pages? My apologies. He had the first grassroots-funded presidential campaign blimp in history, trounced the other 2008 candidates in Meetup group organization by a significant margin, has grassroots-created documentaries, a few all-time fundraising records (before finally being surpassed - allegedly? - by Obama), and so forth.

And yes, we can only do well when getting multiple votes from single people, leading him to have the highest military, government employee, and government contractor fundraising out of all the republicans as well as the only endorsements from intelligence and terrorism experts that I'm personally aware of...I'm sure the openly-admitted media and party bias has nothing whatsoever to do with it...


That is not true even a little.

HISTORICALLY IT DID NOT EVEN HAPPEN. You are talking about a 30 year old tradition and applying it to history of picking presidents of the US????

AND IF YOU ARE PAYING ATTENTION, in its short life it has been no better than a coin toss. I have pointed all this out to you and if you can refute it, great. Just denying it and making things up about history will only convince me that some people need to have made up facts in order to support what they do...

...After I put in the research and for some reason you cannot seem to see it. Explain to me what I got wrong so far. I provided names and everything.

Fine - you argue with the media about their coverage and their claimed importance of Iowa last time compared to this time around, and how tragic it would be for Paul to win since it would lose SO MUCH credibility and weight in the political world...:



So you are a hive mind bunch where any one of you can tell me what you all see? That is interesting and even more off putting.

No, but just like common believers in pretty much anything else, we DO tend to share some common views. God, are you ALWAYS this dense? I can do the same thing (in general) for republicans, conservatives, liberals, and probably most other groups.

Can we grow up now? You're not impressing anyone other than yourself, I'd hazard to guess.
edit on 1/1/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
And Bachmann only thought she had Muslims and lesbians to worry about.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Alger,
Is your point that this Iowa election is meaningless because if you win it, it doesn't mean you will become the nominee or President? Couldn't you then also argue that, just because you run for President it doesn't mean you are going to win?...in fact...the odds are you won't.

Most people like winners, they like supporting them because then they too feel like they are winners.
( sure are more Packer fans in the past two years then I have seen in the past 30 years)

Winning is important! Period! Iowa matters. People vote for winners. A candidate needs the votes from that demographic group.

To my friend, I forgot your name, but who hasn't ever voted in 37yrs. You should have voted for Obama last election like every single loyal American should have or did. I believe it was an act of treason when McCain allowed Sara Palin to run with him. Sometimes you need to fall on your sword to protect what you love.
....now if it is between Romny and Obama...go ahead and stay home, it won't make any difference.

I have yet to disagree with a single thing Ron believes, and I am very uncomfortable with that. There is always two sides, we always have to weigh the good and the bad to make good decisions especially when it comes to politicians and significant others. I need to know that Ron has some political faults so my world view can be maintained. As it is right now, this guy could be "The" greatest President our Country has ever had....and more importantly....it would come at a time when it couldn't be more important to our Country's future.






top topics



 
116
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join