Animus
Regular Member
Judging from the thousands that still gather at Paul rallies regularly, I don't see why anyone believes Romney will be the nominee. I haven't seen half as many people attending any of his rallies.
Judging from the thousands that still gather at Paul rallies regularly, I don't see why anyone believes Romney will be the nominee. I haven't seen half as many people attending any of his rallies.
The sad fact is people are not voting for him no matter how passionate those few are.
Oh REALLY? I assure you there is a significant number of people on this forum that ARE voting for Ron Paul, and even more people who are not on this forum who feel the same way.
But I'm sure you have some study or poll or other credible source to cite from that explains how and why people who support Ron Paul won't be voting for him. Right? Because you wouldn't just prop up your personal opinion as indisputable fact, right?
PistolPackingMomma;1761515If it is his OPINION said:per forum rules[/I].
It's not a baseless opinion, it's a qualified conclusion based on the number of delegates. If one canidate has over 1000 delegates and another has barely 100 I find it a reasonable conclusion to state relatively few people are voting for him. Try to remain calm. I understand you may be passionate about Paul, and he may very well have been better for our country than the other. But it's a pipe dream. The media, along with the people who make these decisions have allready choosen out presidential nominies.
Editted to add:
For others reading this I believe this to be the "forum rule" I am alledgely breaking. It's the only thing close:
"If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority."
Obviously I stated no rule of law. I think Pistol may be a little too passionate about her Paul support possibly allowing it to manifest as baseless accusasions and attacks.
The only people I've ever meet more obnoxious or irritating than libturds are Paulbots, especially the 9/11 truthtard sort. Even when you agree with them most of the time, even questioning or opposing ANYTHING the man says makes them go completely bat$#!t. If you disagree at all, you're a "shill", guilty of treason, ignorant, a RINO a "neocon" (whatever the **** that is) or all of the above.
Pointing out that he has little chance to win anything significant is the higfhest form of blasphemy. Suggesting it has anything to do with his foriegn policy makes you a warmonger at the very least.
Don't take it too personally. After Herman Cain dropped out I'm voting for Paul in the primary tommorrow, but I'd never put his sticker on my car or advertise my support for him due to the actions of his zealots. I don't want too be associated with them, and I think there are plenty of people who feel the same way.
Judging from the thousands that still gather at Paul rallies regularly, I don't see why anyone believes Romney will be the nominee. I haven't seen half as many people attending any of his rallies.
The only people I've ever meet more obnoxious or irritating than libturds are Paulbots, especially the 9/11 truthtard sort. Even when you agree with them most of the time, even questioning or opposing ANYTHING the man says makes them go completely bat$#!t. If you disagree at all, you're a "shill", guilty of treason, ignorant, a RINO a "neocon" (whatever the **** that is) or all of the above.
Pointing out that he has little chance to win anything significant is the higfhest form of blasphemy. Suggesting it has anything to do with his foriegn policy makes you a warmonger at the very least.
Don't take it too personally. After Herman Cain dropped out I'm voting for Paul in the primary tommorrow, but I'd never put his sticker on my car or advertise my support for him due to the actions of his zealots. I don't want too be associated with them, and I think there are plenty of people who feel the same way.
God knows we should all aspire to be more like you.
Hey I'm all for passionate support for a candidate you like. But I'm glad you, as someone who votes for Paul, don't take this extreme zealot approach. You certainly don't do anything for your candidate of choice when you take such an over-the-top, chip-on-the-shoulder, fingers-in-the-ears (LALALALALALALALA) attitude toward even the slightest mishandling of the Paul idea.
Remember this whole thing started when I said it was a SAD fact he wasn't getting votes. Imagine if I had said something negative
The only people I've ever meet more obnoxious or irritating than libturds are Paulbots, especially the 9/11 truthtard sort. Even when you agree with them most of the time, even questioning or opposing ANYTHING the man says makes them go completely bat$#!t. If you disagree at all, you're a "shill", guilty of treason, ignorant, a RINO a "neocon" (whatever the **** that is) or all of the above.
You did say it was a fact he wasn't getting votes.
If you had said "He won't be getting as many votes as Romney" I would agree with you because you'd be right
I'm aware that there are some over-bearing, even zealous, Paul supporters out there. However, most of what non-libertarians interpret as zeal and intractability is merely misunderstanding.
The classic and typical political mindset consists of an amalgamated collection of individual policy views that, at some point in time, are considered to be party canon. A given party adherent may differ on a few specific issues, but by and large he or she cleaves to the platform, because it's the platform, and has enough regurgitateable talking points memorized to be able to justify (most importantly, in his or her own mind) holding these views. Often these are not views that the person in question would have developed, left to his or her own devices; instead, they are the views that they have adopted because the party they adhere to has told them they are the views they should hold, and they take the party's word for it.
Enter the libertarian. An actual libertarian is a person who has thoroughly divorced himself or herself of party-driven adherence to assumptions, justifications, and dogma; has started from scratch with the core principle that liberty is sacrosanct; and has developed a political worldview that is predicated upon this principle. A libertarian, typically, spent far longer than he or she would care to admit bridled to one party or another, and was so startled when his or her eyes were finally opened that he or she avoids the common morass like the plague. When such a person encounters another person who still has the blinders on but has begun to see glimmers of light (such as a Republican who claims that he or she would vote for Ron Paul, if it didn't mean guaranteeing a second Obama term), this libertarian is frustrated that the other person hasn't finished removing the blinders. The libertarian can deal with those who are still set in their folly; he or she is irritated by those who are in transition and won't just finish the job.
Now, to the other person, the person observed to be partially unblinded, this irritation and frustration appear to be intractability. To this partial convert, the end-results of liberty-oriented principles are just new positions; to the libertarian, they are necessary conclusions of principle. Because of this difference, the partial convert is not consist in adherence to principle; the libertarian is frustrated by this inconsistency, the partial convert doesn't understand why and interprets it as zeal.
In short: they aren't zealots; they're men and women of principle, and they're annoyed that you aren't.
*lip service*
I voted RP in today's primary knowing he would not win.
You've adequately demonstrated my point. I did not expect to convince anyone, with my previous post, that they had blinders on. Heavens no; they have blinders on, after all. I was simply explaining to you that what you see as zealotry is usually just annoyance. You either hold the principle that liberty is sacrosanct or you don't. You don't.
And, frankly, I don't for an instant believe that there's a Democratic candidate on the planet against whom Mitt Romney could run, in which situation you'd actually vote for Ron Paul. You'll always have some justification for doubling down on the party.
The only reason you did so was because you were comfortably assured that Mitt Romney would win anyway. You just said so yourself. See what I mean?