Paul campaign believes GOP cheating cost Paul a win in Arizona

Originally posted by freakjive


1.) Many of them were first-time voters who were swooned by the false hopes and empty promises that Obama was preaching. It's tough to admit you were wrong.

While I can agree I believe that many of those voters have realized they were fooled and won't fall for it again.

Partisanship is still a big part of the game to them. After all, the GOP gave them Bush - TWICE.

Can't argue with that.

2.) There are many who are completely fine giving up their personal freedoms for the false security of the government handouts and free-flowing subsidies. These folks like the welfare system and big nanny government. It's an amazing crutch.

Sad isn't it. Unfortunately, I see a lot of those types in this county.

3.) The color of the man's skin. (flamesuit on)

This one I just don't know about. I'm sure there are those that will vote for him based solely on that but, I'm sure there are just as many who won't vote for him for the same reason.

reply to post by rival

Well, at least you're honest. I'll add you to the short list of Romney supporters I have encountered.

Please dont.

reply to post by frazzle

But you obviously have no dog in this race so why are you here? You could be out flashing Obama signs all over town so no one could say they haven't seen anyone doing that.

Maybe because I don't feel the need to constantly blast support of my candidate at every turn.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by frazzle

 

But you obviously have no dog in this race so why are you here? You could be out flashing Obama signs all over town so no one could say they haven't seen anyone doing that.

Maybe because I don't feel the need to constantly blast support of my candidate at every turn.

Yeah, you just feel the need to constantly blast anyone else's support for their candidate at every turn.

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by frazzle

 

But you obviously have no dog in this race so why are you here? You could be out flashing Obama signs all over town so no one could say they haven't seen anyone doing that.

Maybe because I don't feel the need to constantly blast support of my candidate at every turn.

Yeah, you just feel the need to constantly blast anyone else's support for their candidate at every turn.

Right, and apparently Paul supporters love to do that just as much, if not more. After all, a quick review of the thread shows that Paul supporters are the ones claiming everyone else is ignorant and their candidates are stupid and corrupt. So its alright for them to blast Obama and Ronmey, but I cant blast Paul?

reply to post by TsukiLunar


You obviously can and you do.

But please, no whining when someone calls you out for it.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

You obviously can and you do.

But please, no whining when someone calls you out for it.

Right, I wont whine. However, you called me out on nothing. I am, in fact, the one that called you out on your hypocrisy. After all, it can be nothing else when you get on to me for blasting a candidate I don't support and do not do the same for those blasting Obama and Romney.

Its ok, I know what the problem is You don't like Obama or Romney, so its okay for everyone to blast them. You support Paul however and that means its not okay to blast him. I get it, I really do. Even if you dont admit it.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Look, the integrity of the voting system is fundamental to the quality of government we end up with and election fraud impacts everyone, including you, because it takes the choice right out of the hands of the people. So if you like the quality of government we have now just hold onto your hat because you're likely to get a whole lot more of it than you really wanted.

And then it'll be too late for a mea culpa.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Look, the integrity of the voting system is fundamental to the quality of government we end up with and election fraud impacts everyone, including you, because it takes the choice right out of the hands of the people. So if you like the quality of government we have now just hold onto your hat because you're likely to get a whole lot more of it than you really wanted.

And then it'll be too late for a mea culpa.

edit on 22-5-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)

Th federal government is not perfect, to be sure. I think it should be better, not gone.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Who said anything about it being gone? Government should not be the dominent force in your life, but as it stands right now, you could be plucked off the street and thrown into indefinite detention for god knows what "crime" and never heard from again. Its the law. Its on the books. Who put it there? Who would rescind that law?

I thought those Hitler political videos were getting a little stale (another has already cost a UK MP his job) but I truly loved it, especially the bit where the Nazi woman says: "don't cry we can still vote democrat"). I am definitely sharing this with friends!!!

Originally posted by rival
What bothers me about some people's opinions of Ron Paul's economics is that they have yet to
be tested IRL.


BUT


Mitt Romney's personal economic policy has been tested.

1. Buy an undervalued American company full of American workers with American families.

2. Fire all the American workers

3. Sell off all the assets of the company at high profit.

4. Tithe ten percent to a racist church and enjoy your life, never stopping to GIVE A DAMN about
all the suffering you have caused to all the families of the workers you have put on the unemployment
line........that's Bad Economic Policy 101.....not a very presidential take on economics


Hmmmmm.....I like Ron Paul's economics better

edit on 22-5-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)

No wonder you like Ron Pauls economic ideas you have no clue what a venture capitalist does do you?

Bain capitol is a private equities company what they do is people give them money to invest in companies.With this capitol they acquire they loan it to companies who need liquidity.Usually for investment to save companies in difficult situations.Or to make it simple for you if a company is going to declare bankruptcy they can go to bain capitol for infusion of cash to reinvest in the business.now most of the time if they deem it worth the risk or in other words think the company can make it they give them money.This can work in a couple of different ways,first it could be as simple as heres the money and we get this if you dont pay us.Works the same as a home loan dont pay the loan they get your house.

However this isnt the main reason companies went to Bain most companies went for option number 2.If Bain deemed the company salvageable they can buy into the company they will infuse cash and advise them how to make the company profitable again.Bains record on this is currently running 70 percent or in other words 70 % of the time they were able to save the companies from bankruptcy.In fact you probably know some of the companies they helped from going under.They helped AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.Think if Bain capital wasn't there how many jobs could have been lost. do they make money trying to invest in companies of course they do however if you provide an opton to keep companies in business and you do it successfully you should get paid.

Now not all there investments work and yes sometimes they aquire or help companies that cant be saved.But you must keep in mind when companies contact Bain there already breathing their last breaths they know there company is going under.And they are hoping with advice and investment they can breath life back into the company.But sometimes companies are to far gone or in the case of the steel plant cant get concessions from the union that was there to lower costs,Unions hurt companies teetering on the edge because they negotiate themselves out of jobs look at Detroit.

Do you know why Obama invested in GMC there wasnt a firm large enough to help them. So the government took on the role of an equities company and bailed out the auto maker.So your bashing a company who tries to save other companies do they fail yes what happens they declare bankruptcy assets are paid out company closes.But guess what thats how capitalism works.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I predicted last week, when it was announced that RP would not spend any more money, that these cries would get louder and more frequent. Its an obvious tactic.

Yeah well if I was wasting all my money on a game which turned out to be rigged, I'd be pissed off too, and I'd certainly be saying something about it.

edit on 21-5-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

What a load.

Rp has said himself, more than once, that winning was never much of a reality, and that it was about the message being spread.

And there you said it. His message also includes a system of cronyism in this country which permeates many parts of our government from corporate influence to yes...our elections. Paul is challenging the system of manipulation of delegates....which has been revealed many times...with his own "manipulation"....the BIG difference is he is ANNOUNCING it along the way so we can see how this crap really works. Don't you get it?
All of the anti-Paul folks that get in line to whine don't...or are incapable....of seeing the bigger picture.

reply to post by dragonridr

No wonder you like Ron Pauls economic ideas you have no clue what a venture capitalist does do you?

Thanks for the post, now I understand what venture capitalists do.

I was, however, citing one instance of Mitt Romney's "vulture" capitalism--buying and dismantling
functioning companies that the NYSE has undervalued as to their stock to asset ratio.

Now back to Paul's economic policies.

I do not agree with completely unrestricted free-trade capitalism, or libertarian Austrian economics.
But I understand that a Ron Paul presidency wouldn't be able to accomplish an across the board
transition to his economic policy. As those who argue against Ron Paul's efficacy as a potential
president will tell you, he may no be able to accomplish much. But in a metaphorical way I do expect
him to be able to plug up the leaking dyke that is our economy as opposed to either Obama (who is
using dynamite to blow the levee up) or Romney who can't be trusted to be fiscally responsible at all.

I believe there are important sectors of a free-market society that government MUST regulate and
protect from monopoly. One of these is sectors is news reporting. The rich can get as rich as the want,
but they cannot be allowed to consolidate and control mainstream news sources. This is an example
of just one area that government must keep an eye on for the good of all its citizens, because when
you have a small cabal of owners controlling the majority of mainstream news, you have a recipe for
economic tyranny, if not outright tyranny.

A Paul presidency may not be able to turn the country around, but the US is hurtling headlong towards
the abyss of disaster and tyranny, and I am just looking for a candidate who will at least have the
common sense to step on the brakes...

reply to post by empireoflizards


Id say your missing the big picture.If we followed Ron Paul first we would get a repeat of the robber barrons such as rockafeller and getty, since Ron Paul would decentralize the banks and remove regulations because Austrian economics doesnt believe in market regulations. So we have alot more poor but wait Ron Paul doesnt believe in food stamps either so these poor would have to go to there local churches hoping they could help.But now the churches are overwhelmed just too mant poor to feed.But good news Ron Paul has a plan let them starve they should have figured out a way to make money right?So now we have homeless families begging for food they become malnourished and get sick.Oh wait Ron Paul doesnt believe in public health care as he said in one speech they could barter right?Hmmm well all they have left is there coats i guess they could give that if they could find a doctor willing to accept tattered coats as payment.

But the funs not over Ron Paul admitted in the republican debates people just die but up side is thats one less person looking for a job.Yes were lowering unemployment and we can hire people to get all the dead people off the street theres more jobs.OOOpps just realized whos going to pay for that i guess only cities that can afford it.Hey but at least you have a job did i mention without labor laws your making 2 dollars a day but you have a job.Allows you to buy bread you wont starve so your good just dont get sick because im sure the doctors wont want a loaf of bread..If you want to live in your world by all means move to south america open up a commune.But for gods sakes KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY AMERICA.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Of course if Ron Paul doesn't win, it's because someone cheated...

It's amazing to me that Ron Paul would accuse someone of cheating and corruption when his whole entire campaign is focused on getting covert delegates to vote for him and cheat the American people out of their vote for president... :shk:

If this was the 1850's someone like you would probably be on the side of keeping slavery legal only because the "abolitionists were cheating the mainstream american vote". The abolitionists were a small force in the government but managed to change over 100 years of a horrible practice with political power.

This just shows very vocal and energetic group shows that they are more willing to work for the freedom of all despite a majority of apathectic and/or ignorant citizens. This is the reason we are a constitutional Republic, because the founders knew that the majority should not be able to impose it's will on the minority, because many times that same minority may very well be noble and correct in their views.

reply to post by Skerrako

If this was the 1850's someone like you would probably be on the side of keeping slavery legal only because the "abolitionists were cheating the mainstream american vote". The abolitionists were a small force in the government but managed to change over 100 years of a horrible practice with political power.

Allow me to jump in here, but I feel comparing Mrs. Benevolent to slave owners -or saying she would be one- is very uncalled for. And your argument does not even make sense.

What does an opinion of the loopholes in our election system and the strategy's that came about to exploit them have to do with opinions regarding the superiority and/or ownership of people of other races? Please explain.


ETA: I think I understand now. You were not comparing her to slave owners, you were saying that because she is stubborn she would let people be owned and abused and violated by other people. Because thats the type of person she is. Is that right?

reply to post by TsukiLunar


You are not getting the comparison So I will state it differently

My comment had nothing to do with anyones personality. I was drawing the line between abolitionists and Ron Paul supporters because they were/are at odds with workings of the current system, and their ideas were/are not within the "mainstream" discussion. The abolitionists succeeded in pushing through their unpopular ideas, because they were the more heartfelt and energized group and simply did more than the apathetic public. Similar to what RP supporter do.

Since Benevolent seems to think that because non-binding caucus votes were cast for one person, the appropriation of delagates should mirror that. Instead the more focused and dedicated group is securing many spots, even though some consider them not the majority. This is perfectly normally in a constitutional republic. That is how the will of the majority can be offset. Otherwise the majority of voters would constant force its will on the minority in a caste-like society

Did that help?

reply to post by Skerrako

You are not getting the comparison So I will state it differently

By all means.

My comment had nothing to do with anyones personality. I was drawing the line between abolitionists and Ron Paul supporters because they were/are at odds with workings of the current system, and their ideas were/are not within the "mainstream" discussion. The abolitionists succeeded in pushing through their unpopular ideas, because they were the more heartfelt and energized group and simply did more than the apathetic public. Similar to what RP supporter do.

Then why did you bring it up? Either way it does zilch to help your arguments or justify your viewpoint, so why the comparison in the first place if you had no case?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


After a post with these kind of references/links I can not believe that is your only comment to make.