Ron Paul supporters: What will convince you that Romney won fair and square?

Originally posted by NightGypsy
I'm wondering why this OP hasn't been banned already for political trolling.

He is asking a valid question...and the answers are very telling of Ron Paul supporters...why should he be banned?

Almost every Paul supporter has responded saying NOTHING will ever convince them that Romney actually won...it's a frightening display of cultish thinking.

Nothing. There is already widespread primary fraud. Any more fraud just adds to it.

Romney hasn't won. That's a fact.
It is possible that in the future he COULD win, but he has not YET won.

So, with that being said, nothing can convince ANYONE that Romney has won because technically he has not yet won.

Thread question: 100% answered.

Close 'er up.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
2. We can't trust the GOP authorities because, well, it's all some conspiracy.

And what makes that such a strange thing? If you research fraud related to what Romney and his people have been doing you'll find evidence all over the place. So yeah, maybe it is, and nope, it's not far fetched at all if you research.

I'll give you a quick bit of help, try watching this :



And then know there's a whole lot more of it.

Just wanted to share this too :

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by Nite_wing

 

You ask what is better, socialism which is where we are going, or fascism, the other choice.

There you go again. Socialism vs Fascism.
Canned rhetoric.
Do they actually mail the same notebooks to you folks to pull pages from?

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by Nite_wing
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Sorry, same old story. They are the same. I am not interested in canned remarks.

I went a bit further than canned remarks with my justifications for them based on what I've seen of their policy proposals, opinions on a range of issues, and lack of understanding of constitutional limitations on the scope of federal authority.

I also asked for you to explain how this is not the case. As it seems you're apparently unable to do so, I'm forced to continue believing there is no valid reason for me to bother holding my nose and supporting Romney.

I see. I understand now. You've convinced me. You won me over by regurgitating the same old press releases.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by JeffreyCH
Sorry, not going to read 4 pages of this drival.....fair and square in American politics....your joking right?!?!

edit on 9-5-2012 by JeffreyCH because: typo

Are you a Paul supporter? Can you actually answer the question? Is there anything that will make you accept Romney is the clear winner? Or are you going to be like the other Paul supporters here and just deny anything and everything??

Sorry...but I do not support politics as practiced in this country today at all. I have no idea who a 'clear' winner would or could be. I can tell you who the clear loser will be....the american people! The up coming election will be a sham, the same as the one before, and the one before that, and the one before that, and the one before that......

The only reason I watch the Paul campaign is because of the overwhelming support I see every place I look on the net, and the complete lack of him even being mentioned in the MSM. It's a SHAM! IMO anyone that thinks any different is a fool. Of course Rommey won, he won the nomination before a vote was ever cast by anyone. Take a look at the Reagan era, toted as one the greatest presidents blah blah blah, an actor with the former head of the CIA as a vice president, can you say puppet on a string? Then the Busch dynasty? The Clinton joke? The Obama joke?

I do like how you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a Paul supporter, if I support anyone it would probably be the convict in Tx. at least he has to admit he is a crook. Or maybe even Roseanne because we already know she is a joke. So please go ahead and keep playing with your toy bobble head politicians it can't get much worse. Right? RIGHT!

Convict dude 2012!!

Ill answer that After the convention, where Paul will win.........

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by NightGypsy
I'm wondering why this OP hasn't been banned already for political trolling.

He is asking a valid question...and the answers are very telling of Ron Paul supporters...why should he be banned?

Almost every Paul supporter has responded saying NOTHING will ever convince them that Romney actually won...it's a frightening display of cultish thinking.

Like some people we know who support Obama even after evidence is put forth that he didn't keep his words that he said before he was office. That everything he said he would do when he became president, is a lie. Also, your 5th and 6th line is generalization of a group of people. You shouldn't do that.

Fair and square? Lulz.... fair and square don't ever apply to politics, especially this years primaries. There already has been multiple episodes of major fraud going on and yet you want RP supporters to admit Romney won fair and square.... Like, really?

Where have you been these past few months?

Btw, 3 whole flags after 5 pages. I read that you said you're not in it for the S&F but it's painfully obvious there are barely any Mitt Romney supporters on ATS, or any other website except for his own lulz. ATS Mods should create a poll asking us who we support so we can see the "hard" numbers of who supports who.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Almost every Paul supporter has responded saying NOTHING will ever convince them that Romney actually won...it's a frightening display of cultish thinking.

"Frightening"

Is it really "frightening" to you? Other peoples opinions "frighten" you because you believe there is some cult out to get you?

The irony is that there really is such a cult and you support them.

Politics is an unfair game in any circumstance. The one with the biggest pocketbook, most liked by media outlets, and who has the most friends in high places (Bankers, CEO's, other politicians, etc) will most likely win. Thus Romney has the advantage in all respects. Does that make his message right? Does that make him more "sane" or ethical than the rest? No.

Just because he may win, doesn't mean he's right about anything.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


are you not aware of how that makes no sense?
Are you actually implying electronic, paperless and non reproducable voting is an honest mans method to win an election in the usa?
really?
You try too hard to make the ridiculous look sensible to sensible people.And then you claim thats ridiculous to believe.

I'm not much for politics or politicians, I distrust all of them. This year is the first year I went to the caucuses and was really shocked at how easily the entire thing could be manipulated and fully believe fraud runs rampant in the entire system. We were put in a room with our little group and things were counted simply by a show of hands. It so happened that this man's daughter was in the room and she would count too. He miscounted MANY MANY times. He would say what he counted and his daughter would pipe up with "no that is not what I got" and he would count again. A few times he would have to count a couple of times until they both got the same number. Now while I don't think this guy did it on purpose and there was someone to make sure it got counted right, it still was something that could have quite easily been messed up.

This was just in my little rinkydink town too, I can imagine on a larger scale and how the entire system is easily corrupted. If someone really wanted to skew the results, they quite easily could.

So I can't think of anything that would convince me that these things are fair and legitimate. If it involves a politician on any level it is most likely corrupt. No convincing me otherwise!! I like Douglas Adams quote "The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

I don't trust politicians or the lengths they will go to to get put in a position. Romney is just like any other politician out there, he isn't going to do anything so much better or worse (I hope) than any other idiot president we have had.

I live in a small town, pop about 3,000 - 4,000. Since all the campaigning began, I have never met, or when asked, anyone who admitted to be a Romney follower. Now, I know some areas are slanted toward a particular candidate, but not one Romney fan, bumper sticker or campaign sign in yards? Believe me, I have asked. NOT ONE.
You see him on the news and no one is chasing him for a handshake or autograph, he has to go to them.
So, how is he winning?

Originally posted by DAVID64
I live in a small town, pop about 3,000 - 4,000. Since all the campaigning began, I have never met, or when asked, anyone who admitted to be a Romney follower. Now, I know some areas are slanted toward a particular candidate, but not one Romney fan, bumper sticker or campaign sign in yards? Believe me, I have asked. NOT ONE.
You see him on the news and no one is chasing him for a handshake or autograph, he has to go to them.
So, how is he winning?

My guess would be that hes paying people, money talks.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by NightGypsy
I'm wondering why this OP hasn't been banned already for political trolling.

He is asking a valid question...and the answers are very telling of Ron Paul supporters...why should he be banned?

Almost every Paul supporter has responded saying NOTHING will ever convince them that Romney actually won...it's a frightening display of cultish thinking.

cultish thinking?

is it over?

reply to post by Nite_wing
Same old press releases? Let's try this a different way - give me three policies on which they have any meaningful and substantial differences, and I'll gladly look into revising my view on this as necessary.

I haven't been able to notice them myself, so perhaps you can help here. If not, then perhaps you can admit that I might just have a valid point.

Take care, Nite_wing.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by litterbaux

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
What evidence do you have that this source of mine lied to me? Do you have an alternative impartial source with an actual delegate count? And don't tell me pledged delegates don't exist.

You're the one with the thread

Yes, and you're the one telling me that my source is misleading on the delegate count, so I'm asking you to prove it is different through another impartial source.

Like we did on the other thread you made that you conveniently left after we proved that your data was in some spots 2 YEARS OLD?

You continually link stuff that is inaccurate then go off on a mission.........when you are called out, you either

A. Refuse to answer the questions....
or
B. Abandon thread........

which makes me wonder, whats your angle?

IMHO youre just a provocateur , who enjoys getting a rise out of people even if your posts are proven inaccurate.......