Ron Paul has already lost!

Originally posted by hawkiye
LOL at shills claiming they just wanted to ask a few questions and got treated meanly and they were just curious but now they want nothing to do with Ron Paul cause his supporters are scary and now they continue to spam the board bashing him due to his supporters.... Sigh!

Make your case. I call you out as a liar. Read my first several posts. Show me where I bashed Ron Paul. Tell me how many of my posts are responses to people posting to me vs. just me posting to spam the board.
All that information is available and after looking at it you are a liar. Feel free to prove me wrong. I never bashed Ron Paul once in this thread and all my early posts are just questions about Ron Paul. You can look all this up.
What did you actually do? You called people shills and lied about them. Way to win me over.


Is there a single Ron Paul supporter her that actually wants other people to support Ron Paul at all?

reply to post by Littikani

The trollmaster of logic...
Winning vs. winner. Only one is a noun.
And, yes, there are multiple levels of winning. Pretty deep stuff, though, your head might explode at such a concept so I will leave it alone if you don't mind.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Littikani

 

The trollmaster of logic...
Winning vs. winner. Only one is a noun.

Your point? What the # does that have to do with anything?

And, yes, there are multiple levels of winning. Pretty deep stuff, though, your head might explode at such a concept so I will leave it alone if you don't mind.

Uh oh yeah?
Please explain these levels of winning when running for president. I know one level of winning and that is getting elected president. What else is there? I am dying to hear this.

reply to post by Littikani


If Dr. Paul's voting record, his adherance to the constitution, his policies regarding less government interference in our lives, and more doesn't "change your mind" about who to vote for then probably nothing will. Ron Paul has the best platform of any of the Republicans and the Democrats as well. Your personal attack against people (calling someone an idiot) is childish and immature and does nothing to help your cause. I also seem to be unable to find where the member you are refering to made the statement you say that he made. Saying that there will be a revolution does not in any way translate into a desire to have our troops killing Americans. The simple truth is, there will probably be a revolution in this country if a viable and honest person is not elected in November. The majority of the citizens of this country are fed up with the current class of politicians and it shows in just how fast Dr. Paul is surging in popularity. The fact that he gets alot of his campaign donations from service members is proof that his policies are well recieved by the men and women protecting this republic. Whether the revolution starts because of the economy or the final trashing of our rights makes no difference. The outcome will still be a revolution. The question is on which side will your loyalties lie.

Originally posted by zaintdead
His big chance was Iowa. First place there would have been a huge boost, but they stole it from him.

You can't be serious. You DO know that Iowa was a non-binding caucus, don't you? Not even ONE delegate was chosen in Iowa. It was an attention-grabbing waste of time. As for it being "stolen" from him, that was a predictable claim. Ron Paul cannot possibly lose, therefore when he does, it must have been stolen from him. What nonsense.

He won't win any state... coming in 2nd or 3rd from now on = lose. If you listen to him talk, you can see he knows this and is content with just being able to 'shape the message' at the republican convention by having enough delegates to have some stage time.

You are exactly correct. No quibble there, so I guess the two even out.

reply to post by Littikani

You are a troll, I don't expect you to respond in a rational manner. I do expect you to carry out your agenda, and you WILL.
You are very predictable and transparent. Your only intention is to further an agenda, the "scary Paul supporters" agenda, and you will continue to do so.
So, this is my last address to you as I don't engage known trolls. I full expect, however, a line by line rebuttal.
Don't disappoint me.

Im just an outsider looking in this thread, I dont post very much but I read alot here. Anyways I just wanted to say how ridiculous this thread is, why do some of you even bother? Its obvious half of the users posting here just want to instigate people and argue to no end. Just seems like a waste of time. Atleast have a productive debate, try ignoring any posts that are obviously not worth your time. My 2 cents, back to reading.

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by BLKMJK
Could you please link me to where he said "He wants the troops to come back home to start killing Americans."?

Please quote his exact remark claiming this, I cannot seem to find it, thank you in advance.

Right here

Why do you need me to quote a post on this page that I just linked you to? How hard a time are you having reading one page? If you still cannot figure out where in that post he says it, feel free to ask again. You will notice it was not argued against by the person that said it so have fun defending that.

I went back and read that guy's post, he didn't say ANYTHING about the military killing anyone:

The last of the honourable military should come down on the bankers and crooked politicians, and war criminals and arrest the whole lot....

Hhhmmmm...

It looks like he said he wants the military to do their job and ARREST the criminals in Washington for tearing apart our Constitution.

So you accuse members here of lacking reading comprehension, but then you go and accuse another member of desiring the murder of American citizens.

Clearly you are here to merely smear Ron Paul supporters.

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by stirling
Yer lookin at four years of rule direct from Kolob should Romney get in.....
Theres something sinister about that whole bunch......
If not Ron then, revolution.....
The last of the honourable military should come down on the bankers and crooked politicians, and war criminals and arreest the whole lot....
That would go a long ways to restoring the average americans faith in their govt, and military
Perhaps they could see about getting back some of the tens of trillions the fed ripped us off for too......

You want our troops to come onto American soil and wage war against Americans they feel are the enemy? You represent the type of people that support Ron Paul do you? I can hardly think of anything less American then having our troops fight on American land against other Americans.

Ron Paul fans are really really starting to scare me

Right because Americans have never before in the history of this country waged war against eachother. It has never happend and could never happen! I'm curious, what do you think the term "both foreign and domestic" means?

Not that I want a war or even a revolution in this country, it's just to think that it could never happen is a bit naive.

reply to post by Littikani

I wish these people would get that. I came to ATS with the idea that Ron Paul was probably the best of the bunch but there was a lot I was not sure about. Now, I am most definitely certain that I do not like the people that support him, how they act, and what they have to say. Ron Paul fans took me from being on the fence to shoving me off of it on the other side completely.

You're an idiot. If you wanted to learn about Ron Paul, watch his interviews and speeches, they're posted all over the web.

Huurr durrr, i want know bout ran paul, much ask hist fans derrr

reply to post by dalan.

I am quite sure that the referenced member did NOT come to ATS believing that Ron Paul was the candidate of choice, but then, we "scared" her SO bad!
LOL. What a joke.
And winning and winner is the same thing, thus Paul has already lost....some logic.

Ron Paul is going to surprise everyone. He's here stay and the MSM knows it.

reply to post by Littikani


I've seen you and one other member in particular in almost every thread that so much as mentions Paul with nothing to contribute but an attempt to hijack the thread, as evident here. The OP was about Paul's chance of being elected, but you've successfully set everyone off for over three pages talking about agreeing/disagreeing with policy. You also tend to repeat the same points over threads.

Now, I have a question: What happened to your life?

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by zaintdead

 

Ron Paul can still win...how? (Write-in) votes.

Here is a list of past politicians that have won by (write-in) votes.

en.wikipedia.org...

Repeat, repeat....read the above...he can still win!

reply to post by Littikani

I have been nothing but insulted by people like you in response.

Dude!
Seriously?
I just looked at your astoundingly long-lived post history (wow, all of three days!), and it's as clear as crystal that you are here with an agenda, NOT honest questions. Your rantings and insults, if they came from an established member, would have earned you a handful (at least) of T&C violations.

Uh, we've read the handbook. You're not a convincing "newbie" with legitimate questions, bro.

Just sayin'.

And I don't mind being sanctioned for saying so (this prior comment addressed to mods)

(now back to you) because the best strategERy is to call out the obvious ones.

reply to post by zaintdead


Man I hate to say it but I almost agree...but I have to keep apparently false hope, alive...if its romney,vs Obama I'd be disturbed. What's the difference between the two?

Originally posted by Littikani

Please explain these levels of winning when running for president. I know one level of winning and that is getting elected president. What else is there? I am dying to hear this.

OK, I see part of the problem here. Perhaps you don't understand the process very well. Understandable as the rules seem to vary by state laws, circumstances, moods, and whatever.

Before we vote for the POTUS there are "primary" elections where the states are polled to find their preferrences among the pre-candidates who are hoping to be nominated by their party to represent them in the general elections. The various states have different rules about how they conduct their primaries but there is no direct vote by "the people" as to who will be nominated. That is decided around the time of the various party conventions in an election year as to who will be their nominee. Generally at this point in the cycle anyone placing high among the hopefuls in the various states are considered to be in a good position for the nomination even if they did not receive top vote in all the states.

I consider Ron Paul very much alive and in the running thus far. I believe he very much has a better chance now than I may have given him even a month ago. Even if he does not receive the Republican nomination he is seeking he does have the momentum to give a good run as an independent. He likely has the best chance of any independent I have seen in my lifetime and could pull-off what might seem by many to be quite unlikely and win as POTUS even as a write-in.

In the general elections it is still not the vote of the people that put the POTUS in office but is the Electoral College. There have been Presidents elected and sworn-in that had not won the popular vote. This happened most recently in year 2000 in the contest of Gore vs Bush.

As has been suggested in this thread, it would perhaps serve you best to do your own investigation of the candidates and weigh their merits or lack of them and then vote your conscience or your choice. Many people you may ask online or on the street may not have the panáche or clarity of words to express to you adequately or correctly their feelings about their candidate of choice. Those persons may not be presidential material and hopefully the candidate who you choose does have those qualities. For reasons as those it might not be the best idea to put the full weight of your decision on what others might tell you.

If, as you say, you have considered Ron Paul and are still considering others in the field - which in my view is quite wise at this stage - then I might suggest you make a list of the others that interest you, yes, go so far as writing all this down, and note their attributes and whatever reservations you may have with them. Hopefully such an exercise can help you make a wise choice.

Please, do share with us what you find if you do this process. I myself have only made mental notes about the various hopefuls and so far Ron Paul, although not perfect, is the best choice I have personally found so far. I am still hoping someone will post about Romney, Gingrich, or others about their merits and hopefully find something I may have overlooked so I can give that adequate consideration.

Good luck with your research as these are important decisions and may we all have even better days tomorrow.

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by stirling
Yer lookin at four years of rule direct from Kolob should Romney get in.....
Theres something sinister about that whole bunch......
If not Ron then, revolution.....
The last of the honourable military should come down on the bankers and crooked politicians, and war criminals and arreest the whole lot....
That would go a long ways to restoring the average americans faith in their govt, and military
Perhaps they could see about getting back some of the tens of trillions the fed ripped us off for too......

You want our troops to come onto American soil and wage war against Americans they feel are the enemy? You represent the type of people that support Ron Paul do you? I can hardly think of anything less American then having our troops fight on American land against other Americans.

Ron Paul fans are really really starting to scare me

NDAA is not very American, but it was passed by the Senate, House, and POTUS. Your outrage is too little to late.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by Littikani

Please explain these levels of winning when running for president. I know one level of winning and that is getting elected president. What else is there? I am dying to hear this.

OK, I see part of the problem here. Perhaps you don't understand the process very well. Understandable as the rules seem to vary by state laws, circumstances, moods, and whatever.

This entire post was a bunch of empty gibberish. I understand the process just fine. There is one prize - being president. Anything else is losing. No one comes in second president.

Originally posted by Siberbat

NDAA is not very American, but it was passed by the Senate, House, and POTUS. Your outrage is too little to late.

Please explain what this post is supposed to mean to me. What are you hoping I take away from it? What is your point? I do not recall claiming to be a huge fan of the current government so I am at a complete loss here. I am also getting kind of tired of reading posts in these threads that are just rambling nonsense for some reason directly addressed to me.