CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?

reply to post by Cavalier


As far as you know???

Libertarians would deregulate the entire lobbying industry giving business complete control of government.

But hey, as far as you know...

Look I am sorry that your man ROM PAUL isn't doing as well this time in the voting, but I really think you're being a bit conspiratorial even for a conspiracy website. The fact is that off the internet he isn't nearly as popular as you seem to think.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Cavalier

 

As far as you know???

Libertarians would deregulate the entire lobbying industry giving business complete control of government.

But hey, as far as you know...

Again, (even Captain Obvious could figure this out) follow the money. If this were true, and it would greatly benefit corporations, they would be supporting Ron Paul in mass. This claim is a canard. Deny ignorance my friend. This one is easy.

Originally posted by sirric

Originally posted by maus80
I don't understand the point that you are trying to make here; Are you trying to say the two are completely exclusive of each other? Because that's not the case. If you are trying to say that a Republic cannot be a democracy, that's kind of obviously not true.

Time for a History lesson:
Watch and learn the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.

Sirric

This has educated me greatly.

If One does not bother to show up then why vote for them. If he or she does not care enough to be there then why should people care to vote for them.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


No they wouldn't. If you knew anything about businesses you'd know they don't invest in hugely risky things and they do invest in maintaining a status quo that makes them consistent profit.

Libertarians would create monopolies, meaning the top 1% would become the top .001%. Where the other 99.999 are not owners. Basic libertarian ideology. Remove all gov regulation of everything. Let the Market regulate itself completely. Survival of the fittest.

Just cause you're ignorant doesn't mean I'm wrong. Go read up on Objectivism, Ayn Rand, US vs international Libertarianism, etc and then come back to me.

Learn more about what you're promoting!

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

No they wouldn't. If you knew anything about businesses you'd know they don't invest in hugely risky things and they do invest in maintaining a status quo that makes them consistent profit.

Libertarians would create monopolies, meaning the top 1% would become the top .001%. Where the other 99.999 are not owners. Basic libertarian ideology. Remove all gov regulation of everything. Let the Market regulate itself completely. Survival of the fittest.

Just cause you're ignorant doesn't mean I'm wrong. Go read up on Objectivism, Ayn Rand, US vs international Libertarianism, etc and then come back to me.

Learn more about what you're promoting!

Businesses don't invest in risk? Ha, you have no idea who I am or what I do for a living.(still :lol Suffice it to say you have a great deal to learn.

Again just look where the money is being spent. It has nothing to do with preservation though that naive suggestion is good for a laugh.

Originally posted by knightrider078
If One does not bother to show up then why vote for them. If he or she does not care enough to be there then why should people care to vote for them.

edit on 12-2-2012 by knightrider078 because: (no reason given)

Ron Paul didn't show up, and wasn't supported. Best argument so far. It's hard to refute. But
historically Paul has done well at CPAC, and historically CPAC votes were tallied without
electronic voting machines.

I doubt core libertarians would be swayed by whether or not their candidate showed up
for an event. Even MSM will tell you that the Paul supporters represent a firm base
of campaigners and voters.

I believe the only real variable in this instance is the electronic voting machines.
They have been proven to be easily manipulated, and should not be trusted.

Vote Ron Paul....DEMAND paper and write him in. Stand firm.

Or vote for your favorite candidate...DEMAND paper and write him in.

DEMAND a paper ballot everytime you vote!

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Business don't invest heavily when the chance of a decent return is near zero. Risk is part of any investment, but Romney, for example, represent a real possible return, whereas Paul represent a fantasy.

Btw., either you know enough about Libertarians and their stance on deregulation and youre deliberately ignoring the substance of my comment to avoid admitting the truth, or you need to learn more about Libertarianism, Objectivism, etc.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

>> I voted for Obama -- but in a few states, it's likely that the vote for Hillary got switched to Obama, possibly by these same RNC operatives who figured Obama would be the weaker candidate.

Applying Occam's Razor to this situation...

Do you really think TPTB wanted McCain and lost? If that were the case half of the arguments against Ron Paul would have already proved way off base, i.e. he will never win, they will never let him. Is it not possible for the difference between Dems and Reps to be about as much as the difference between Coke and Pepsi. Yes there is a difference, but not much.

If you have more money than you know what to do with, no real job in the sense that you have to be there and apply yourself, and the willingness to use your money to influence the outcome of things in the political arena, don't you think that it would occur to you to bribe both sides of the isle into total acquiescence. Call it an investment. Do you really think that those that pull the string are dim enough that they never thought of doing such a thing. If these guys had scruples we really wouldn't have anything to bitch about. We would still have jobs in our country, we would have homes to live in that we could afford to keep, and gas wouldn't be sky high even though we are aware of more oil on the planet now than we once thought ever could exist.

I mean think about it...

They could not get us to continue to vote in either Democrat exclusively or Republican exclusively. Buy, and therefore control them both and then simply be sure the guy with the official nomination is in your camp before the nomination is bestowed. Seems pretty simple to me. And part of that process would be to work the media to bring the one you want to the forefront. Add to that a little voter fraud and with a little luck no one would be the wiser. But we are, as I said earlier, thanks to Mr. Palast's and Mr. Kennedy's work over the last 12 years.

If you could own both parties, wouldn't you? I think we had better realize that if I could think of this - though not the first by any means - wouldn't they? I think this should be basic logic for us by now.

Democrats and Republicans... Just an illusion for us but a tool for them to use on us. The important thing is that we believe the fairy tale or it will no longer work. I no longer believe, therefore where I am concerned, this tool is now broken. They should have bought a Craftsman brand!

reply to post by rival


Paul's largest group of supporters has been shown to come from the youth vote. This is a demographic that even has trouble voting in an actual election. Do you actually think their going to vote for Paul in a straw poll at a conference that he's not even taking part in?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by MsAphrodite

 

Business don't invest heavily when the chance of a decent return is near zero. Risk is part of any investment, but Romney, for example, represent a real possible return, whereas Paul represent a fantasy.

Btw., either you know enough about Libertarians and their stance on deregulation and youre deliberately ignoring the substance of my comment to avoid admitting the truth, or you need to learn more about Libertarianism, Objectivism, etc.

edit on 12-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

You can't have it both ways. That is not what you were asserting in your earlier posts.

To be clear, my stance is representative of Ron Paul's stance.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

But, paying attention is not something Paul supporters are great at so I'll slowly and carefully explain it to you again.

Okay, I will give you this; Ron Paul's Free Market policy is the one thing that bothers me about him. However, he is the only one to want to go after the Federal Reserve Bank and as Deitrich Bonhoeffer was quoted by his wife "A dictatorship is like a snake, if you grab it by the tail it will just bite you. You must strike at the head" His wife can be seen quoting him on the Thames/A&E series The World At War (1972).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

To my mind the snake we face is an economic one and the head of that snake in this country is the boys who control the printing presses and have no gold or other securities to back them. The first Central Bank was removed after twenty years by Thomas Jefferson (Noam mentioned him too didn't he?) and the second by Andrew Jackson after twenty years. Our third and present one has been at it for nearly a hundred years now and controls our country. Honest to God if Beelzebub himself were on the ticket and wanted to deal with the Fed he would have my vote. At least we would be rid of the source of our immediate problems. Ron Paul also wants to do away with the income tax for individuals. Bravo again. If in the Orwellian speak of today, if that is what we are calling tyranny, then evidently I didn't get that email.

He also wants to end FEMA, Homeland Security, and the Department of Education, another Orwellian name. Sounds like we are on the same side here after all. Whew, you had me worried for a minute. If all this leads to tyrrany, well that's the kind of tyranny I want. Sounds to me like he wants to rid us of what I call tyranny.

Regulations on corporations? Yes, we need them, but lets plug the hole in the dike and put out the fire in our cashbox first shall we? Who knows, it just might end up being the right kind of quantitative easing after all.

I like Noam Chomsky, and the old man writes constantly, but he is talking about Semantics and we are talking about economics. Oh, so did he, what do ya know? Noam however is talking about Adam Smith, and we are talking about Keynesian economics and Milton Friedman's disastrous ideas (See pre-Chavez South America) versus Austrian economics as taught by Ludwig Von Mises and others. If you ask anyone from South America, tyranny is what was imposed by the US controlled IMF under the Friedman form of Free Market. What Chavez and the others is doing today is much closer to the Austrian ideas that Ron Paul wants to put in place.

mises.org...





Again, sounds like my kind of tyranny. Indeed Hugo droves his own SUV down the streets and the citizens greet him enthusiastically and want to shake his hand. (See Oliver Stones documentary South Of The Border)
He has no Secret Service surrounding him, just people he has helped, and yet our media tells us he is a dictator despite all the elections he has held and won.

If that is the tyranny we are in for with Ron Paul, can I have a double helping? Because I, and most of us, have a real big empty plate.

Everytime Ron Paul Loses the "Paulbearers" cry fraud

reply to post by knightrider078

Everytime Ron Paul Loses the "Paulbearers" cry fraud

How lucid, persuasive and concise.

Do you have anymore one line gems that are so convincing?

reply to post by Ittabena


I forgot to mention I like Chompsky as well, it's just, in this instance, I disagree with him.

I will also admit that pure libertarianism is an in-road to corporate take-over of government.
The old adage that "...he who has the gold makes the rules" does apply. But pure libertarianism is
not an option. Thankfully we have a buffer against a pure "anything" which is inherent in our democratic
consensus of opinion.

You eloquent post leads me to believe you are not a drug-crazed, prostitute frequenting, too young
to vote idiot. But simply a well-informed citizen who thinks for himself and is aware of the MSM
propaganda. Bravo...

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
MAINE

Now you see. Now you know. There is a rot in America. There is a Rot within the Republican Party.

The whole systems is flawed and rotten.. not just one party..

The elite will never stand to see Ron Paul, or anyone that they do not want selected, to be elected. The fallacy is choice, we think we actually have a choice in who will continue the plan of the Elite.

Am I wrong? I bet if I do a search on here ill find that Paul supports claim election fraud every time.He lost a vote this year.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by knightrider078

 

Everytime Ron Paul Loses the "Paulbearers" cry fraud

How lucid, persuasive and concise.

Do you have anymore one line gems that are so convincing?

reply to post by rival


The problem is that there is a tipping point. Paul believes in Ayn Rand BS and would work with the corporate interests in both parties to deregulate lobbying and business. At some point they would be deregulated enough to exert enough influence to remove the safety barriers you trust.

In other words, before they hit that barrier they'd have corrupted government enough to change governement and remove the barrier. This is what corporations do.

You're basically saying, I'll vote for candidate X even though he believes in nuking Israel, because he'll never be allowed to nuke Israel.

A better plan is to vote for someone who doesn't represent an inherent threat to America.

The fix is in. In the old days, TPTB would've whacked Ron Paul. These days, they just manipulate the media and hope the sheeple don't wake up.

And all this talk about putting Ron Paul on the ticket as Veep is hogwash. I hope he runs as an independent/Third Party guy.