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.

 

Hopefully the GOP loss will expose how the system truly works for some.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
In recent times the problem with Republicans, beside words is that they offer no difference from the Democrats. Both want bigger gov't and less freedom for the people. Why?

How the RNC let Romney be its choice, simply tells you that its not about winning. Its solely about the RNC and the DNC making sure that the CORRECT pool of candidates are selected for the masses to pick from.

To control the consumers and the market all you need to do is to control the RNC and the DNC. Lobbyist and special interest groups don't have to worry about which candidate you pick , as long as its one of the two they provide for you to pick from.

Currently they have a 100% Return On Investment (ROI), by marketing their two choices.

Romney was always the riskier candidate because:
The Republican party was made of Republican loyalist and Ron Paul supporters:

Romney votes = Republican cheerleaders

where

Ron Paul votes = Republican cheerleaders + Ron Paul (Republicans/ Libertarians) supporters + young voters

The republican strategist knew that, but they still selected the candidate that would cost them to loose votes within their own party and among the young voters which typically go towards democrats.

Either the RNC strategist were idiots or they just didn't care about winning this election. In reality they were more concerned with making sure that no matter what, it was an Obama - Romney ticket


The biggest issue Republican had against Obama was Obamacare. So what does the RNC do , they picked the guy who credits himself with implementing a successful gov't mandated healthcare program in MA , which led to Obamacare?

Also Ron Paul who somehow managed to win the Key states like Ohio that are known to be extremely important, was called UN-electable by his own party?

Ron Paul not only won Ohio ,but he had more votes than all the other Rep candidates combined together. Ron Paul got 53% of the vote while Romney got 8% in 3rd and 9-9-9 pizza guy got 25%. Yet he was unelectable?

Then they criticize Ron Paul supporters for being overly supportive and its just the young people that like him? Well the young people is what helped get Obama elected again and since when are STRONG grass roots support a bad thing for a candidate?


So ask yourself why did the RNC strategist fought so hard to bastardize one of their own (Ron Paul) and select Romney which had the potential to lose votes within its own party?

It was because Ron Paul truly had a voting record and history against bigger gov't and that is what they fear the most. The bigger gov't the more control they have of the consumers and the market. That is why the Republican establishment have also created bigger gov't and dislike Ron Paul.

Maybe Ron Paul might not have won either , but why did the Republican establishment work so hard to label one of their own that had the strongest grass roots campaign in ages as un electable? Why did the Republican establishment work so hard to throw away the young voters which typically goes to the Democrats by denouncing Ron Paul?

The democrats are primarily in charge of creating bigger govt while the Republicans are primarily n charge of taking away your freedoms with things like patriot act,SOPA,PIPA , NDA to just mention a few. However, they do interchange positions in order to spread the blame.

edit on 9-11-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
GOP lost because Romney is a douche. It was that simple for me. The guy doesn't represent the reality I live in and ultimately does not offer me anything.

I throw away too much of me life working and don't need another boss telling me what to do with my life.

Something the GOP does not understand is that when they led us into 2008, millions of people lost everything. The side effect of losing everything is liberation and freedom. You wake from your slumber and you check in with what is really important.

Material crap is not important when you have no hope of a home. GOP wants to continue to drive this economy which is really just sheering the sheep and milking the livestock...aka American citizens.

This wasn't even a battle of red v. blue. The question was simple. Is Romney better for America?

The answer was Nope, we already have a corporate stooge. Why swap that out?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42

Also Ron Paul who somehow managed to win the Key states like Ohio that are known to be extremely important, was called UN-electable by his own party?


False


Ron Paul not only won Ohio ,but he had more votes than all the other Rep candidates combined together. Ron Paul got 53% of the vote while Romney got 8% in 3rd and 9-9-9 pizza guy got 25%. Yet he was unelectable?


Romney had 37.9% Santorum had 37.1% Gingrich had 9.3% Paul had 9.3% in Ohio.
Are we using special math here?



edit on 9-11-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Originally posted by interupt42

Also Ron Paul who somehow managed to win the Key states like Ohio that are known to be extremely important, was called UN-electable by his own party?


False


rt.com...



The Ohio Republican straw poll was held in the Buckeye State on Saturday, and the majority of the votes cast went to the Texas congressman who continues to show both success and support in his race for the GOP nomination, despite little attention from the mainstream media.



Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Ron Paul not only won Ohio ,but he had more votes than all the other Rep candidates combined together. Ron Paul got 53% of the vote while Romney got 8% in 3rd and 9-9-9 pizza guy got 25%. Yet he was unelectable?


Romney had 37.9% Santorum had 37.1% Gingrich had 9.3% Paul had 9.3% in Ohio.
Are we using special math here?


The fact that he tied Gingrich is special in itself, since the GOP purposely labeled Ron Paul as crazy and told the Republicans that he was not electable.

The point is why did the GOP never give him any credit as he deserved or even try to propel him like the rest. Santorum, Gingrich,Cain,Romney got their 15 minutes of fame from the Republican press. Ron Paul got 15 minutes of slander from them. Why?
edit on 9-11-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
You gotta love Ron Paul supporters.

They are the ultimate optimist.

Let's get real though, Ron Paul would have zero chance against Obama. A lot of Republicans stayed home and didn't vote for Romney, even more would have stayed home and not vote for Paul.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
You gotta love Ron Paul supporters.

They are the ultimate optimist.

Let's get real though, Ron Paul would have zero chance against Obama. A lot of Republicans stayed home and didn't vote for Romney, even more would have stayed home and not vote for Paul.


The ones that went to vote where the "anyone but obama crowd" and the "Republican loyalist" and both would have backed Ron Paul. The ones that stayed home were the ones that saw no difference between Romney and Obama and the Ron Paul supporters. Hence Romney was riskier of a selection.

Like I said , Ron Paul might not have won either but the Republican establishment worked extremely hard against one of their own. Which makes you ponder ,, why?
edit on 9-11-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
It just baffles me how some people think that Ron Paul would have won the election vs. Obama when Paul couldnt come even remotely close to winning his own party nomination. He did admirably in a few states and I congratulate him on that, but he would have been crushed. Some of his ideas are sound, but his ways of getting there are very dramatic, and that would do a wonderful job of pushing people away from voting for him.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


interupt42....how many SEC regulators would you like to cut from the government? how many pentagon personal would you cut from the government? do you think NY and NEW JERSEY would do just fine with no government help?...what government watchdogs would you eliminate from our government. would you privatize the post office, the EPA, the FBI, the NSA, NIH,? would you eliminate the IRS, and trust businesses, the wealthy, and the rest of the people to voluntary pay enough taxes to fund whats left of our government? would you let energy companies dictate what energy to use, who gets it, and how much to charge? would you let each state decide on who has property rights, drilling rights, easement rights? would you let businesses set the wages for its workers? or how many hours to work? or the conditions they work in?

if you start noticing a pattern, it's because there is one....it's to protect the common man from the wealthy man.
when you have a king, it's great for the royals and the top merchants, everyone else suffers from poverty. therefore in history, the elightened age of representative government came into being, after thousands of years of rule only by the wealthy.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter
It just baffles me how some people think that Ron Paul would have won the election vs. Obama when Paul couldnt come even remotely close to winning his own party nomination. He did admirably in a few states and I congratulate him on that, but he would have been crushed. Some of his ideas are sound, but his ways of getting there are very dramatic, and that would do a wonderful job of pushing people away from voting for him.


he wouldn't get elected because he wouldn't be able to standup and explain the details of his governing plan....actions have consequences, please ask Paul supporters what would be the detailed consequences of a paul government.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
This new breed of conservative does not deserve the courting that they so poignantly pine for. There seems to be a real lack of gamesmanship in all of the passion and zeal they claim to have for the game. They want to play by their rules, on their terms- and any defeat must be because they were cheated or had some disadvantage or insurmountable obstacle placed in their way. The lefts' lack of sportsmanship is obvious in the way they hurl insults when they lose, or gloat when they win; but this Ron Paul Revolution has this twisted schizoid view of politics, finances, and life in general. If comraderie, humility, and sportsmanship have become dying relics, a hinderance to the once Grand Ol' Party, then I suppose we have gotten what we deserve and many of us traditional conservatives should just bow out gracefully.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
The wheels are coming off this bus regardless of who's driving it (economically speaking). The PTB designed it that way to push the US into the arms of the one worlders. When the dollar crashes, you'll see the IMF and the World Bank and the BIS all ready and waiting to catch us in their loving global embrace with NEW money and BIG hopes for the future. People will buy that one, too.

How much better for the PTB will it be if a black democrat is driving this bus when it crashes? How much better will it be for them if they can say YOU PICKED the driver? They'll shake their heads sadly and say, "tsk tsk, you dumba##es, you brought it all on yourselves", even though they planned it this way and have been driving the national bus remotely ever since the founding of the nation. Centralize centralize centralize.

The best method for usurpation and centralization is through debt and the founders borrowed hugely (21 loans from the European bankers before the constitution was even written.) That's why the big C calls for repayment of outstanding loans ~ by the people, of course, who didn't even know there WERE any loans to repay.

No president can hold the banker's feet to the fire, but four tried: McKinley, Garfield, Lincoln and JFK. All Shot Dead. And the centralizers tried their magic bullet trick on Jackson, too, but he was armed. Besides, he wasn't out of office but a few years before the money powers were back in the saddle, or in today's vernacular, the driver's seat. Ron Paul and his audit the fed promise? Shoot that was easy, they didn't even need a gun because they had the media and they had US.

As long as the people keep using the banker's best tools, they'll be enslaved. Period. But apparently the
American people don't like driving their own bus enough to learn how to shift gears.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by flyswatter
It just baffles me how some people think that Ron Paul would have won the election vs. Obama when Paul couldnt come even remotely close to winning his own party nomination. He did admirably in a few states and I congratulate him on that, but he would have been crushed. Some of his ideas are sound, but his ways of getting there are very dramatic, and that would do a wonderful job of pushing people away from voting for him.


he wouldn't get elected because he wouldn't be able to standup and explain the details of his governing plan....actions have consequences, please ask Paul supporters what would be the detailed consequences of a paul government.


1. Less taxes and less gov't control of your own money> More money in my pockets. The gov't has the unique ability to always somehow think that they can take better care of me.

According to the Social Security sites calculators: I will have to work till I'm 70 to be able to come close to what I'm paying now on a monthly basis.

According to the Bureau of Census website I will have a likely life span of 75 years of age.

Therefore , I will have paid into the system for about 57 years by the time I turn 70. That means after 57 years of payment towards SS, I'm likely to only collect for 5 years before I die. Those are odds that any casino would love in Vegas. Yeah, no thanks I will prefer to handle my own savings for retirement or at least offer me the option to opt out.

2. Terrorism: Simple, Don't take a $hit in your neighbors front door and most likely he will not want to take one in your front door.

3. Helping those Americans that can't help themselves: Stop spending billions in nation building, stop providing foreign aid , and stop maintaining bases all around the world that are not needed. Then take that money and then give it back to the American people who need it.

4. Economy: Gov't should only be involved in the economy to ensure a free market exists . Create an environment for small business and mid size business to thrive. Versus only appealing to large corporations who create the laws in this country with their massive billion dollar lobbying industries . The regulations they place is their way of working around monopoly laws.

When was the last time that Republicans deregulated any Oil regulations when they had full control?

In essence , you could lower taxes and still get better services if the money that they currently get was used more efficiently. The way the gov't currently works it doesn't deserve more money, it deserves less. Once we separate the special interest groups from Washington, then we can talk about rebuilding the services that you want gov't to provide for you. Right now gov't caters to Lobbyist and Special interest groups under the disguise of helping the unfortunate.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


A trillion S&F's.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join