Ron Paul = DISAPPOINTMENT!

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
reply to post by solidguy
 


Like the good Republican he is.....he gave it to the RNC. I agree 100% with your post. He stayed in he's parties lines & did exactly what his party wanted him to do. He goes AWOL for the last 8 weeks and two day's after the election he starts stirring the crap. I have lost all respect for Mr.Paul. His failure to run third party was the straw that broke my back. It shows his un-dying support for the RNC. Anything he say's from now on...Is irrelevent. Means nothing.



What are you talking about? What did he GIVE to the RNC?

Where did Ron Paul go AWOL? He was doing plenty of interviews just like he did on before election day, on election day and after election day.

So you lose respect for Ron Paul because he didn't run third party? OH Boo hoo. I wasn't happy about it either but I understood what it meant for the future of the liberty movement and the FACT that he had already lost ballot access in MANY states. Ron Paul supporters even had to file LAWSUITS to all 50 states to even be able to write the guy in. Only 13 states settled and the lawsuit was started two months before the election, which was RIGHT AFTER the RNC.

You guys really have no idea how campaigns are run, just a bunch of back seat drivers that FOLLOW and not LEAD.

No passion & no soul, just a huge 'what are you going to do for me' mentality.

After the 2012 elections, it isn't Ron Paul who is irrelevant, it is people like YOU who give up at the first sign of challenging times. Ron Paul has stood strong for over 30 years, he did it in an inoffensive and NON-aggressive way and just because he's not aggressive enough for you, doesn't mean his method wasn't working. After 30 years, his message is still alive and he is still spreading it. His message is for people that want to hear it and if you don't want to hear it, somebody else will.

Because of Ron Paul over 75% of Americans now support auditing the FED but you say he's now irrelevant to you.

LOL, sorry for laughing but thats just such a ridiculous thing to say.

edit on 12-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
I agree, if he's running in 2016 it will only be because it's his full time job, to run for president every 4 years no matter what, there have to be loop holes on selling merchandise, he rolled over like a dead fish for the past 3 months, because his mission was already accomplished, raise funds, it's not like he's raising money to fight cancer


Enough of this B.S. running around dropping accusatory bombs from hearsay and rumors with no evidence whatsoever. If you have a problem with Ron Paul's campaign donations and spending you better have the ammo to back it up.

Here is every monthly report of the Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign.

If YOU find any irregularities, YOU be sure to let us know.

The same goes for ATS members; Trustfund and solidguy.

You have no excuses now, all of the campaign fiscal data is right here in the link. If you find any actual proof that there was funny financial business, you go and make your argument.

www.fec.gov...


If you guys fail to respond, I'm going to have to create a thread and call all of you out.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hoochymama
reply to post by solidguy
 
Spent it on the $10,000 a minute ads just to try and compete with the 100's of millions per month spent by the other two top tier candidates. How much overall did RP raise?? I think he was happy when he got 10 million dollars for the money bombs which were maybe 1 every 2 months. The other candidates were raising 100 million for the month.

Your question should be, what are the other candidates doing with that money. Nice that you look at RP and say he is doing something wrong.



Yeah, it's funny how many people come to supposedly find truth but then anyone who actually takes action and does something to promote it is a snake oil salesman... :shk:



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Anybody think of the possibility that he was STOPPED from running? It would make sense.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheTimeIsNow
 


As a complete outsider may I say that maybe Ron Paul at his age, and let's face it he is getting on, thought that he would be past dealing with all that next time round. Again from an outside perspective I believe Ron Paul has done a huge amount of good with his campaign.

I believe that he deserves respect for what he achieved.


edit on 12/11/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I think you have a good point there. He is knocking on a bit, another 4 years is a bonus at his age.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Now all you folks know.

This is what happens when you make threads without understanding the facts surrounding the situation.

Ron Paul said it HIMSELF. Running independent was not out of the question but was mainly concerned about not getting ballot access in MANY states.

Now, aside from what Ron Paul said, there is Rand. If Ron goes outside the party, he ruins any chance of Rand Paul becoming president in 2016 and getting us the hell out of Afghanistan and finally balancing the damn budget.



I understand the facts sir so screw off with your condescending little statement.

"This is what happens when you make threads without understanding the facts surrounding the situation."

Seriously FU

No matter how much he was"railroaded" by the media HE STILL GOT HIS MSG OUT AND PEOPLE KNEW WHO HE WAS. HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN 5%

Gary Johnson was on the ballot.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheTimeIsNow

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Now all you folks know.

This is what happens when you make threads without understanding the facts surrounding the situation.

Ron Paul said it HIMSELF. Running independent was not out of the question but was mainly concerned about not getting ballot access in MANY states.

Now, aside from what Ron Paul said, there is Rand. If Ron goes outside the party, he ruins any chance of Rand Paul becoming president in 2016 and getting us the hell out of Afghanistan and finally balancing the damn budget.



I understand the facts sir so screw off with your condescending little statement.

"This is what happens when you make threads without understanding the facts surrounding the situation."

Seriously FU

No matter how much he was"railroaded" by the media HE STILL GOT HIS MSG OUT AND PEOPLE KNEW WHO HE WAS. HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN 5%

Gary Johnson was on the ballot.


Cussing...ok...do you feel better now?

You say you understand but I honestly don't think you actually 'UNDERSTAND' the facts like you claim.

The Libertarian party already had their nomination process, there was a huge storm of arguments within the liberty movement saying it would be unfair for Ron Paul to just come in and ruin the entire electoral process of the libertarian party just like the RNC did to the Ron Paul people. If we just went in like Tyrants and installed Ron Paul as the libertarian nominee, we would be hypocrites.

So which parties selection process would you suggest Ron Paul destroy just because he and his supporters wanted to go third party? I told you, I wanted him to run third party too, I was apart of the entire process to organize libertarian leadership to make this happen, due to circumstances we couldn't control, it just couldn't happen. We had to ADMIT to ourselves it just wasn't going to happen and wait for our turn in the 2014 midterm elections and 2016 presidential elections. Does that mean we failed? No, it just means theres a lot of work to do.

Were you apart of that? were you involved in the process of getting Ron to run third party? I was, I was there. WERE YOU?

He was not eligible for ballot access in so many states that Ron Paul supporters had to SUE all 50 states just to write him in, only 13 states won ballot access a few days before the election, there was almost no time to get the word out to all of the supporters in those states.
edit on 12-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by TheTimeIsNow

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Now all you folks know.

This is what happens when you make threads without understanding the facts surrounding the situation.

Ron Paul said it HIMSELF. Running independent was not out of the question but was mainly concerned about not getting ballot access in MANY states.

Now, aside from what Ron Paul said, there is Rand. If Ron goes outside the party, he ruins any chance of Rand Paul becoming president in 2016 and getting us the hell out of Afghanistan and finally balancing the damn budget.



I understand the facts sir so screw off with your condescending little statement.

"This is what happens when you make threads without understanding the facts surrounding the situation."

Seriously FU

No matter how much he was"railroaded" by the media HE STILL GOT HIS MSG OUT AND PEOPLE KNEW WHO HE WAS. HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN 5%

Gary Johnson was on the ballot.


Cussing...ok...do you feel better now?

You say you understand but I honestly don't think you actually 'UNDERSTAND' the facts like you claim.

The Libertarian party already had their nomination process, there was a huge storm of arguments within the liberty movement saying it would be unfair for Ron Paul to just come in and ruin the entire electoral process of the libertarian party just like the RNC did to the Ron Paul people. If we just went in like Tyrants and installed Ron Paul as the libertarian nominee, we would be hypocrites.

So which parties selection process would you suggest Ron Paul destroy just because he and his supporters wanted to go third party? I told you, I wanted him to run third party too, I was apart of the entire process to organize libertarian leadership to make this happen, due to circumstances we couldn't control, it just couldn't happen. We had to ADMIT to ourselves it just wasn't going to happen and wait for our turn in the 2014 midterm elections and 2016 presidential elections. Does that mean we failed? No, it just means theres a lot of work to do.

Were you apart of that? were you involved in the process of getting Ron to run third party? I was, I was there. WERE YOU?



He was not eligible for ballot access in so many states that Ron Paul supporters had to SUE all 50 states just to write him in, only 13 states won ballot access a few days before the election, there was almost no time to get the word out to all of the supporters in those states.
edit on 12-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



He would have been eligible if he had run as a LIBERTARIAN. I know and understand that Gary Johnson was selected BUT if RON Paul had chosen to he could have gotten that nomination.

Thus he would have been on the ballots AS A LIBERTARIAN.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Don't be mad at him....


Ron Paul was set up by TPTB to be the 3rd party alternative for all the freedom loving red necks, as a way to funnel and control all of those people under one party. That way they don't go trying to set up anything real on there own. Possibly like the tea party had tried (that's if they're real). They wanted one person dictating policy and agenda to those holdouts so Ron Paul was a good choice. People actually believed that he was trying to buck the system when infact he was working for them all along.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheTimeIsNow
 


Ron Paul could not have made a 3rd Party run. There was not enough time to get him on all the ballots for all 50 States.

And no.. he could not have done so even as a Libertarian. Even if he ran as a Libertarian, he (as an individual) would still have to meet specific requirement to get on the ballot.
edit on 12-11-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Don't be mad at him....


Ron Paul was set up by TPTB to be the 3rd party alternative for all the freedom loving red necks, as a way to funnel and control all of those people under one party. That way they don't go trying to set up anything real on there own. Possibly like the tea party had tried (that's if they're real). They wanted one person dictating policy and agenda to those holdouts so Ron Paul was a good choice. People actually believed that he was trying to buck the system when infact he was working for them all along.


Oh? which internet character told you that?

Just more rumors and hearsay...



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by TheTimeIsNow
 


Ron Paul could not have made a 3rd Party run. There was not enough time to get him on all the ballots for all 50 States.

And no.. he could not have done so even as a Libertarian. Even if he ran as a Libertarian, he (as an individual) would still have to meet specific requirement to get on the ballot.
edit on 12-11-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)


That's why he should of chose the Libertarian nomination,

Ron Paul is smart his people are smart they had to of known they were no going to get a fair shake in the republican primary.

He should of gone for the 3rd party Lib nom in Jan 2012



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by r2d246
Don't be mad at him....


Ron Paul was set up by TPTB to be the 3rd party alternative for all the freedom loving red necks, as a way to funnel and control all of those people under one party. That way they don't go trying to set up anything real on there own. Possibly like the tea party had tried (that's if they're real). They wanted one person dictating policy and agenda to those holdouts so Ron Paul was a good choice. People actually believed that he was trying to buck the system when infact he was working for them all along.


Oh? which internet character told you that?

Just more rumors and hearsay...


IS this your MO just insult people with your "know it all attitude"

Where I come from we call those people D*CKS!



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheTimeIsNow

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by r2d246
Don't be mad at him....


Ron Paul was set up by TPTB to be the 3rd party alternative for all the freedom loving red necks, as a way to funnel and control all of those people under one party. That way they don't go trying to set up anything real on there own. Possibly like the tea party had tried (that's if they're real). They wanted one person dictating policy and agenda to those holdouts so Ron Paul was a good choice. People actually believed that he was trying to buck the system when infact he was working for them all along.


Oh? which internet character told you that?

Just more rumors and hearsay...


IS this your MO just insult people with your "know it all attitude"

Where I come from we call those people D*CKS!


Facts are facts but rumors are...well, rumors.

Sorry but thats just how things work.

Again, I asked what experience do you have to 'know' how the LP and Ron Paul camp situation worked? Are you going by rumors? or the facts?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by TheTimeIsNow

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by r2d246
Don't be mad at him....


Ron Paul was set up by TPTB to be the 3rd party alternative for all the freedom loving red necks, as a way to funnel and control all of those people under one party. That way they don't go trying to set up anything real on there own. Possibly like the tea party had tried (that's if they're real). They wanted one person dictating policy and agenda to those holdouts so Ron Paul was a good choice. People actually believed that he was trying to buck the system when infact he was working for them all along.


Oh? which internet character told you that?

Just more rumors and hearsay...


IS this your MO just insult people with your "know it all attitude"

Where I come from we call those people D*CKS!


Facts are facts but rumors are...well, rumors.

Sorry but thats just how things work.

Again, I asked what experience do you have to 'know' how the LP and Ron Paul camp situation worked? Are you going by rumors? or the facts?


The fact was the Ron Paul stated several times he was not running 3rd party and he was not a 3rd party candidate for any of the parties--are those facts or just rumors?

Which IMHO was a huge mistake and a genuine dis service to the American people



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheTimeIsNow
That's why he should of chose the Libertarian nomination,

Ron Paul is smart his people are smart they had to of known they were no going to get a fair shake in the republican primary.

He should of gone for the 3rd party Lib nom in Jan 2012


Ron Paul has addressed this issue MANY times over.

He has stated, publicly, that the reason he will not run 3rd Party is because 3rd party Candidates are forced to spend all the money they raise to get on the ballot for all 50 States and it leaves nothing to even campaign with. Even after getting on the ballot, they are still excluded from being in the debates. His goal was always to get the message out. In order to accomplish this goal, he had to be able to participate in the debates and inject real issues. Considering the fact that Ron Paul has run as a 3rd party Candidate before, I think his perspective is much clearer than your own.

Let me counter the question you ask in the OP.....

Do you really think Ron Paul could have gotten 5% of the total National vote if he was excluded from the debates and NOT given a platform to speak?

Gary Johnson was ignored and barely was able to pull 1%. That is roughly 1 million votes for Gary Johnson. Fact is, Ron Paul got the amount of votes he did in the primaries, because HE WAS in the debates and it was much harder to ignore him when he is standing on that stage- even though the media still tried to do so by limiting his participation.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Do you really think Ron Paul could have gotten 5% of the total National vote if he was excluded from the debates and NOT given a platform to speak?

YES YES I DO BELIEVE HE STILL COULD HAVE DONE IT.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheTimeIsNow
 


Well that is fine. I disagree. I do not think he could have received 5% of the total national vote if he was NOT included in the debates.

Fact is, without being in the debates you are not in the national spotlight. Sure- you may have some interviews. Even Gary Johnson had some, which then get heavily edited and are reduced to 20 second sound bytes.

The reality is, Ron Paul did run 3rd party early on and his perspective, from experience, holds more weight than yours or mine.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by TheTimeIsNow
 


Well that is fine. I disagree. I do not think he could have received 5% of the total national vote if he was NOT included in the debates.

Fact is, without being in the debates you are not in the national spotlight. Sure- you may have some interviews. Even Gary Johnson had some, which then get heavily edited and are reduced to 20 second sound bytes.

The reality is, Ron Paul did run 3rd party early on and his perspective, from experience, holds more weight than yours or mine.


The reality is, Ron Paul did run 3rd party early on and his perspective, from experience, holds more weight than yours or mine.

This i cannot dispute

Ron Paul has a huge following with people who can get out the msg.

Also even with Pauls own perspective his not running is still a dissapointment





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join