Paul Not Given Role at Republican Convention

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I can hear the parades of masses already, "WE WANT PAUL! WE WANT PAUL!"

Liberty or death.




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
 


Where? May I ask where you have been hiding good sir?

I believe we have similar interests ...

While it is true that the whole list of RNC speakers has not been announced, it is worth noting that Sarah Palin did not get a prime time speaking role.


Hmmm... Romney is not on that list either. Oh, Right! Maybe active Republican presidential candidates don't need to be listed.

Tampa! Love that southern rock. The Allman Brothers Band. >clap, clap< People can you feel it? Love is in the air.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


why would corrupt people support Ron Paul?



His message destroys their lies...












posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing

All of his supporters say if they can't vote for Paul, they will vote for Obama.


Wrong!

I am not voting for Mitt or Barry. That final decision will depend on what Paul does but doesn't include either of those clowns.

If my not voting for Mitt, registered Republican as I am, means that Barry gets the gig, well there is about three weeks left for the GOP to nominate and put an actual candidate on the ballot in November.

Didn't ATS learn you not to make such bold general statements? Feign Awareness!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
this is a shame, though i don't support paul for president, i was truly looking forward to him speaking to the whole world once again.

he does have a level of economic sanity, which most politicians lack.

everyone should call the RNC , and demand he get a spot.

replace mccain with paul.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 

Don't vote for Obama, either write Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson.
Obama can be dangerous for four more years.
.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 

Don't vote for Obama, either write Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson.
Obama can be dangerous for four more years.
.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Ron Paul being able to speak or not, changes nothing. Sadly the RP supporters wouldn't change their minds even if he got to speak, it would just re-affirm their beliefs that he should have won the nommy. And there goes a big block of votes against Obama.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobstones
reply to post by zarp3333
 

Don't vote for Obama, either write Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson.
Obama can be dangerous for four more years.
.



And when it turns out that it wasn't enough votes and Obama gets re-elected, who should we blame?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoonyConservative


And when it turns out that it wasn't enough votes and Obama gets re-elected, who should we blame?



Blame Bush.


I hear that's popular still...................





posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well this was incredibly stupid. Just stunningly. overwhelmingly stupid. I believe all so many asked for was Dr. Paul to have his moment to say whatever was on his mind at the Convention. He more than earned that. He absolutely did earn that much.

I'd say this sure alienated a whole block he didn't have to do this to....and it knocked a whole lot of people off the fence and not in his favor. Very low class.
edit on 7-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Obviously the only people that think he earned it are his supporters.

The RNC and the GOP have no love for the guy. He endlessly caused trouble during the primary and showed he cared more about himself than his party; no surprise from a guy who is only a Republican when it suits his agenda.

edit on 7-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)


Most all of them there are only Republican when it suits their agenda. If they are judging by that, they should have felt right at home having him there.


How many Republicans have stood for an election as a member of another party? What percentage?

How many have voted against the GOP as much as Paul?

And now he wants to be one of them..?

Good luck.


How many Ron Paul supporters would Romney have earned if he had invited him? That's my point. It was an opportunity that Romney did not take advantage of.

Judging by ATS, which I think is representative of his supporters, little to none. He would have spoken a message contrary to Mitt, and his fringe supporters would just write Paul in. It's lose-lose. My opinion is Paul has no class as when he lost he did not support his party's nominee. If he had they would probably let him speak, win-win. Blame Paul.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well this was incredibly stupid. Just stunningly. overwhelmingly stupid. I believe all so many asked for was Dr. Paul to have his moment to say whatever was on his mind at the Convention. He more than earned that. He absolutely did earn that much.

I'd say this sure alienated a whole block he didn't have to do this to....and it knocked a whole lot of people off the fence and not in his favor. Very low class.
edit on 7-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Obviously the only people that think he earned it are his supporters.

The RNC and the GOP have no love for the guy. He endlessly caused trouble during the primary and showed he cared more about himself than his party; no surprise from a guy who is only a Republican when it suits his agenda.

edit on 7-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)


Most all of them there are only Republican when it suits their agenda. If they are judging by that, they should have felt right at home having him there.


How many Republicans have stood for an election as a member of another party? What percentage?

How many have voted against the GOP as much as Paul?

And now he wants to be one of them..?

Good luck.


How many Ron Paul supporters would Romney have earned if he had invited him? That's my point. It was an opportunity that Romney did not take advantage of.

Judging by ATS, which I think is representative of his supporters, little to none. He would have spoken a message contrary to Mitt, and his fringe supporters would just write Paul in. It's lose-lose. My opinion is Paul has no class as when he lost he did not support his party's nominee. If he had they would probably let him speak, win-win. Blame Paul.


Just because you have absolutely no backbone to support principles, doesn't mean Ron Paul doesn't have to.

You like sellouts that would abandon you at a whim? You have Romney and Obama.

When you're ready for somebody with integrity, people like Ron Paul are still going to be there.


And if Ron Paul supporters are so fringe, why does the Romney presidential campaign give them so much attention when he is the supposed nominee. Does Romney *GASP* need Ron Paul's 'fringe' supporters?

Of course, the Ron Paul 'fringe' supporters have nothing to do with Ted Cruz's victory last week and Kerry Bentivolio's congressional victory today.



Who whines so much about the 'fringe'? anyways?



edit on 8-8-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
...when he lost he did not support his party's nominee.


If and when he loses he may elect to do so. The convention is still almost three weeks off yet. It would seem to make little sense to endorse another candidate while one is still running for the same office.

Romney is not on that list either. I would suppose eligible candidates are rather expected to be there and might have some part to play in it.

edit on 8-8-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Did you expect anything less?






Excellent Post, BTW



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I been working all day, Im tired, beat ..worn out...just want to relax..

but after reading this...

I feel the need to take a shower.

Im washing myself completely. Need to get that dirty GOP stench out of pores it
was trying to get attached to.

SoS pad should do it.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Why did you reply to me if you aren't going to address anything in my post, seems fairly pointless, well, no, your post was completely pointless. How about you address my post if you care to reply to it.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
...when he lost he did not support his party's nominee.


If and when he loses he may elect to do so. The convention is still almost three weeks off yet. It would seem to make little sense to endorse another candidate while one is still running for the same office.

Romney is not on that list either. I would suppose eligible candidates are rather expected to be there and might have some part to play in it.

edit on 8-8-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)


Good point, regardless Paul has already admitted Romney has the delegates to win, not interested in debating that any more. I was more replying to why Paul would not be given a role, assuming he has lost and won't be given one. As I have seen on ATS, Paul supporters claim they will never vote for Romney, so Romney has nothing to gain. If indeed Romney is the winner and Ron Paul the loser, Ron Paul not supporting his party would be sour grapes, and very uncouth. As you have stated, the convention has not occured, so I have nothing to say about RP's character. If he loses I would like to see him support Romney, and be allowed a speaking role that conforms to Romney's message while remaining true to what Paul believes. If he won't support his party's candidate that says a lot about him to me, and nothing good.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Would you want to be forced to back a guy you have nothing in common with ideally whatsoever?

wont be sour grapes.

Romney is a corrupt cardboard cutout- why would I vote for that? Why would I back that?

psh.

Edit- Paul supporters dont care about moronic party politics. Thats why we are independants mostly. =)
edit on 8-8-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Would you want to be forced to back a guy you have nothing in common with ideally whatsoever?

wont be sour grapes.

Romney is a corrupt cardboard cutout- why would I vote for that? Why would I back that?

psh.

Edit- Paul supporters dont care about moronic party politics. Thats why we are independants mostly. =)
edit on 8-8-2012 by Common Good because: (no reason given)


Sorry, but that's party politics, which is why Paul shouldn't be given a speaking slot. He takes the party's money, and uses their clout, when it suits him, but when they want something back, tough luck.

The Republican Party shoulda dumped him years ago, for not being a team player, when it comes to PARTY political stuff.

He may or may not support Romney, but either way he's a pretty crap member of the modern GOP.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Sorry, but that's party politics, which is why Paul shouldn't be given a speaking slot. He takes the party's money, and uses their clout, when it suits him, but when they want something back, tough luck.

The Republican Party shoulda dumped him years ago, for not being a team player, when it comes to PARTY political stuff.

He may or may not support Romney, but either way he's a pretty crap member of the modern GOP.


I have got to be one of the worst Republicans ever, and fortunately there are plenty more like me who don't cast a vote for someone merely because he has an R after his name. A main reason for my registering Republican is for the amount of voter information material they send, which I tend to study and research beyond. And often as not I vote for another party's candidate. I have NEVER voted for any Bush - Ron Paul in '88 and Clinton in '92.

I am grateful to Paul for breaking ranks and voting against Patriot Act and such things, I just wish there were more like him with their own set of cojones to do the same.

What money are we talking about Ron Paul accepting from the Republican Party? His congressional pay is from the US Treasury and he doesn't accept money from lobbyists. I suppose he does attend some Party-paid functions but that may be more obligatory than elective on his part.

I could only hope for more politicians to break ranks and vote in the interest of their constituents and in the interests of the people in general than for what suits the interests of the Party. Party politics is likely responsible for our current state of the Union so I suggest it would be more in the general interest of the American people if others from the major parties would break ranks as well in order to pass legislation that benefits the citizenry rather than the paid interests.

You would likely be very correct to assume most Paul supporters are not big Party faithfuls and backers. I assume our interests are much larger than that. When I look at the larger global picture Republican Party interests seem rather petty in contrast.

Not long back the world had an amazing amount of respect for America. That respect now seems to have largely been replaced by fear of the American government and what it can unleash on the people of the world. The only ones that "hate us for our freedoms" is now our own government and they are rapidly eliminating that threat. Party politics is only catering to that government objective and its own self-serving interests, it is feeding a cancer that has stricken a once healthy body. No more treating symptoms, this requires a cure. Is there a doctor in the House?

edit on 8-8-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join