It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do Ron Paul Supporters Want a Totalitarian Regime?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
What Ron Paul supporters want so desperately is validation. They think that anyone who does not worship Paul must be brainwashed by the MSM etc. The guy knows how to work his small loyal audience and if he says he is going to win he has to win or that means he was just spinning like every other politician. His followers desperately cling to anything to validate all the worship of the guy. I honestly do not get it but, I do not get the worship of the Kardashions either. Oddly they both have managed to pass the same numbers of bills.




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
What Ron Paul supporters want so desperately is validation. They think that anyone who does not worship Paul must be brainwashed by the MSM etc. The guy knows how to work his small loyal audience and if he says he is going to win he has to win or that means he was just spinning like every other politician. His followers desperately cling to anything to validate all the worship of the guy. I honestly do not get it but, I do not get the worship of the Kardashions either. Oddly they both have managed to pass the same numbers of bills.


And your rant about Ron Paul supporters means what to the thread? Or did you too ignore the OP and used this thread as an opportunity to attack RP supporters?
edit on 30-4-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I don't want a totalitarian regime.

The strategies being employed by Ron Paul supporters in order to hopefully have Ron Paul become the Republican nominee, is not illegal. It's not even underhanded. It works within the system of the electoral college. It's a strategy being used to try and win the same nomination that Mitt Romney is attempting to win via a different strategy. If there was anything wrong with the strategy being employed here, would not such a strategy have been made impossible to implement?

In terms of the talk going around about delegates abstaining from voting, if a delegate can and is allowed to do such, what's the problem with it? Would it even have warranted a thread being created if the delegate chose to abstain from voting for reasons having nothing to do with Ron Paul? If such an option exists for a delegate and some (you for example) may see it as underhanded or dishonest in a sense, why has the option not been removed? If the option exists and a candidate can use said option as part of a strategy to win a nomination, is it not more indicative that the system itself is broken instead of a politicians, or their supporters morals?

I support Ron Paul, but he is a politician working within the political system. If he knows how to do things within the system to win the nomination, why not pursue those options?

If a nomination can be won via what some may define as "dishonest" means, but those means are not against the rules, I guess the entire party has declared those means as valid! Even if it wasn't Ron Paul who may benefit, the rules apply to all Republican delegates and candidates.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by R0CR13
 


That's what I thought as well. However, look at some of the strategies being laid out in the threads on here. They want to ignore the will of the majority and work the system in a way that will benefit their interests. How is that any different than the tactics used by corporations and 1%?


OMG, here we go again. Cry me a friggin' river. As has been pointed out in previous threads....every candidate has the same opportunity to acquire delegates as Ron Paul does. If their supporters are not as enthusiastic and willing to engage in the delegate process effectively, that's their choice. Trying to manipulate Paul's success to look like it's unethical does nothing but make you look like a big fat whiner. BOOOOO....HOOOOOOOOOO.......HOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Don't like the election process we have? Write your state representatives and tell them you want change. Good luck with that. And, while you're at it, tell them you think we should write a whole new Constitution because I'm assuming you dislike the one we have since Ron Paul's entire history shows him to be a strict Constitutionalist.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 





What Ron Paul supporters want so desperately is validation.



You're on the late freight, dude. We achieved validation long ago. We have bigger fish to fry.....like acquiring the nomination for Dr. Paul.

Please try to keep up.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by MrSpad
What Ron Paul supporters want so desperately is validation. They think that anyone who does not worship Paul must be brainwashed by the MSM etc. The guy knows how to work his small loyal audience and if he says he is going to win he has to win or that means he was just spinning like every other politician. His followers desperately cling to anything to validate all the worship of the guy. I honestly do not get it but, I do not get the worship of the Kardashions either. Oddly they both have managed to pass the same numbers of bills.


And your rant about Ron Paul supporters means what to the thread? Or did you too ignore the OP and used this thread as an opportunity to attack RP supporters?
edit on 30-4-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)


Yes, Swills, that's exactly what he did. That's all he ever does.

Poor guy needs to get out more.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


As I tried to lay out in my opening post it's not the strategy that Ron Paul is using but the reaction of his supporters. I have seen people say that only those who have educated themselves on the candidates should be allowed to vote. At the same time I have seen supporters pretty much saying that only Ron Paul supporters have educated themselves in regards to the candidates. Put those two together and pretty much what you have are Ron Paul supporters saying they should be the only ones allowed to vote. They seem to exude this sense of superiority and as a result they give off the impression that only they know what's best for everyone. As I asked in the OP if you could invalidate the votes of everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul would you? So far I've only seen one person attempt to answer this.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
First off, I disagree with your title "Do Ron Paul Supporters Want a Totalitarian Regime?"

Anyone is free to make a private political party and make any rules they see fit to nominate their choice of a candidate.

Totalitarian is a bit harsh.

totalitarian |tōˌtaliˈte(ə)rēən|
adjective
of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state: a totalitarian regime.




Originally posted by Xcalibur254

So, I guess I'll end this post with a question to all Ron Paul supporters that I hope can cut to the heart of what I've seen. If you could invalidate the votes of everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul would you?


Wouldn't bother me in the least, as I do not believe that 'binding delegates' is congruent with the Bill of Rights. In fact, forcing someone to vote against their will, sounds a little 'totalitarian' to me.

Many things can happen between the straw votes and the actual nomination. Say, like whatta ya do, if ya bind delegates to a guy;and, between then and the nomination, the guy is proven to be a crook; and, no one really wants him anymore?

It is very obvious that one candidate did not get equal time in the debates, or, within the mainstream news. In fact the man was treated as if he did not exist.

The caucuses are actually a safeguard for a candidate, who attracts people to the party, that will actually participate. We live in a Republic, where we vote for others to vote for us. If the majority does not become involved in electing the representatives, then they are to blame for being in ignorance of the rules of their very own party. They are given a chance!

Where are the real Romney supporters? Enthusiasm about this guy? Really? Romney is paying $8 for every $1 donation, just to try and appear like his support comes from the people, when in fact, huge corporations are funding him. Hmm. Maybe your thread should read, "Do Romney Supporters Want a Fascist State?"


edit on 30-4-2012 by ogbert because: typo



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Haven't you heard, Ron Paul supporters know better than everyone else.

They are the only ones that know the "true" meaning of the Constitution.

They are the only ones that know the real delegate count.

They are the only ones that know the true level of support Ron Paul has (by the way, it is close to 99%...according to them).

They are the only ones who's votes matter.

They are the only ones who really know the rules.

They are the only ones that matter.

They are the only ones who are "awake".

And they are the only ones that believe all of the above.
edit on 30-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)


OH, SNAP! That's right.

You were just recently waving s chart around and crowing about how RP could never win the nomination because of the bound delegates.

abovetopsecret

Kinda blows that right out of the water, doesn't it?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


As I asked in the OP if you could invalidate the votes of everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul would you? So far


As long as it was legal and done according to accepted democratic protocol-HELL YEAH!

But, your question says 'everyone' ;and, I do not know if this is even possible. In that case, if I was given some kind of 'supreme authority' to make that decision, then I would say no.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I can't think of a passage in the U.S. Constitution which lays the groundwork for political nomination, aside from eligibility criteria. So I'm uncertain what you meant by, "While the specifics are a little different it is more or less a representation of the government laid out in the Constitution."

Would you elaborate and/or clarify that further?


If you could invalidate the votes of everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul would you?


No.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Couldn't you think of a more antithetical thread title? I believe the word best suited for what Ron Paul supporters want is AUTONOMY

autonomy (plural autonomies)
1.Self-government; freedom to act or function independently.
2.(philosophy) The capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision.
3.(mechanics) The capacity of a system to make a decision about its actions without the involvement of another system or operator.en.wiktionary.org...


Wikipedia has an article on:
Autonomy
(excerpt - emphasis added)

In the United States government, autonomy refers to one's own self-governance. One former example of an autonomous jurisdiction into the United States government belong to the Philippine Islands; The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 provided the framework for the creation of an autonomous government providing the Filipino people (Filipinos) broader domestic autonomy, though it reserved certain privileges to the United States to protect its sovereign rights and interests.

Indigenous people such as the Kuna people have used Autonomous principles as their original governance. Other indigenous groups such as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation have taken on this structure in recent years as a response to globalization.


Do Ron Paul supporters want autonomy? Yes.

Perhaps you are feeling cheated or betrayed and lashing out at an opposition of strong following of candidate supporters who may influence an election by voting, by becoming actively involved with their party and with their election process. This bothers you? Why? What efforts have you taken to support your candidate of choice? Perhaps you are upset because active grassroots participation may trump Media and Big Money this time in selecting your candidate for you? *NEWSFLASH* Anybody can do this!! It is encouraged! It is not illegal, and it is precisely what you have been told all your life that you must do to have good representational government. Every interested citizen should be involved in this vmost basic act of having a government. It is the one thing you are still allowed to do.

Or are you just an anti-patriot in this society? Do you actually feel better about "election anomalies" and not-so-tamperproof electronic voting? Or private non-public vote counts suits you better? Whatever election strategies Paul and supporters use are out in the open. Nothing is hidden and all are free to do the same, if only you all were interested enough to do so... less apathetic, possibly??

If you're nutz about Newt, love the Etch-a-Sketch malingerings of Mitt, bonkers over Obama, then this is your season to get down to task. If totalitarian regimes are your turn-on - and they are so in-vogue with the global societal elite these days - then it's your time to turn-to.

I like autonomy, and that is my stake in these elections. Ron Paul is the only major candidate striding that platform. The rest just seem to dig your totalitarian devotion to the powers-that-be thing. Not for me. Ron Paul or no one at all.


edit on 1-5-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join