Paulians: What’s this popular vote thing you speak of?
According to the Washington Times, Ron Paul may have ended his campaign for the presidency months ago, but his supporters are trying to make an end run around the will of the voters. Even though Paul garnered only single digits among primary voters in every state except in states in which he was one of two choices, somehow Ron Paul’s supporters think they know better than the majority who should be president;
A federal judge this week allowed delegates supporting Mr. Paul to file an amended complaint in a case in which they accuse the Republican National Committee of manipulating the delegate allocation process.
Judge David O. Carter did, however, grant the RNC’s motion to dismiss a previous complaint. The Paul delegates’ amended complaint is due by Aug. 20, just a week before the Republican National Convention is scheduled to begin.
Nevertheless, Mr. Paul, though he effectively ended his campaign in May without having won the popular vote in any state, has relied on an intensely loyal cohort of followers and staffers who took advantage of sparsely attended caucuses and entered into state party organizations to expand their influence and increase his delegate count across the country.
And then they wonder why the rest of the party thinks they’re crackpots. They claim that they’re the only ones who understand the Constitution and then they show how much they care about the Constitution by circumventing the will of the voters. Although I agree with much of Ron Paul’s domestic policy, his foreign policy is juvenile and more suited to an 18th century agrarian nation. If he suddenly became brilliant in regards to foreign policy, I still wouldn’t support him because I don’t want to be associated with the infantile jerk-offs who do. Grow the hell up, for crying out loud.
Category: Ron Paul
I like Ron Paul on everything but foreign policy. Well, some parts of his foreign policy I do like, but others are unrealistic.
That being said, Paulbots (as opposed to normal libertarians) are Paul’s worst enemy.
JP: add some of the others supporting him who aren’t Ronulans (Stormfront, David Duke). And don’t forget some of the racist crap that he’s published in the past under his signature, but now claims he “never read” or “was taken out of context”.
Ronulans! I love it!
I would be able to look past the Stormfront, etc endorsements because one can’t control who supports them ( Isn’t that what the left always says about Obama?) but how does one not know about racist newsletters their staff put out, or how can comments like the ones in question be taken out of context? That’s complete bullshit and inexcusable, IMO.
Oh yeah, and the truther bullshit really irks me, too.
I could give Paul a pass re: Stormfront endorsement if he hadn’t been photographed with Stormfront leadership at at least one public event. That raises legitimate questions of whether Paul courted them vice merely receiving unsolicited support from a questionable source.
Ya gotta love these ri-tards who claim they’re supporting the “true conservative” candidate who “supports the Constitution as it was written” but who have no problem pissing all over it to pimp a guy who is, IMHO, eaten up with the dumbass himself.
I agree with JP and have been saying it for years. Ron Paul’s supporters are his worst enemies.
The problem is they’re genuinely convinced that Ron Paul does have the popular support and that it’s somehow being suppressed by the establishment machine! They’re absolutely sure of it!
The other problem is that their love for Ron Paul is a cult of personality. They don’t care so much about his views, and they have little understanding of defense and foreign policy issues. They worship the personality that is Ron Paul.
See also:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sMS1PXUS0Fs/TvBJdT31SFI/AAAAAAAAJhs/talAtMqVW4k/s1600/Ron+Paul+2012+Tin+Foil+Hat.jpg
So basically everyone here is in a agreement that foreign policy is the most important issue facing voters?
Anyone need a ride to the recruiting station? Lemme know.
Um, Lizzie, you need to check out our “Members’ Gallery” before you imply that we haven’t served our country. I think we all know the way to the recruiters’ office, thanks.
It’s not just that, Lizzie–his domestic policies are like red meat to his followers, but what they fail to realize is that sometimes shitcanning the entire system rather than work to implement the changes needed is often WORSE than doing nothing at all.
Ron Paul is a weak candidate at his very best and a bit of a loon at his worst….consequently he has that ability to attract those who feel somewhat disenfranchised from the current political mainstream. Thus as you all have already pointed out, those most attracted to him are the motivated fringe elements of the electorate. Consequently there is little reality at work already in the minds of these folks, thus they are blind to the reality that the best there guy can do is 10 out of 100 voters thinking he could be a viable candidate and in many places it’s less that 7 out of 100….
@10 I have a photo from ’78 at Fort Dix….how do I get it to you sir?
Jonn,
Oh I’m familiar. Seems to me you and your cadre wouldn’t need to be prodded to man up one more time…given the importance of foreign policy and all that.
Sounds like resting upon one’s ‘laurels’
#13; I guess that’s better than you and the rest of the Paulians resting on our laurels, isn’t it?
VOV: send it to Jonn at the address found at “Contact Us” above.
Lizzie,,,,I do think if we were to take the foreign policy off of the table for all candidates, Ron would still fall very short compared to the others. I personally like his take on the Constitution and some of his ideas, but, I really do not believe I would want him as my Commander in Chief. I have had the opportunity to talk to a few, and I do mean, few of his supporters and to a person, the only thing they can agree on is the legalization of MJ.
BTW – Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and no where does it have “laurels” on it.
Hey, Jonn – know anyone in Boise, ID?
So basically, little Lizzie here is all butthurt over the fact that we can have an opinion based on experience far beyond hers, her fellow Paulbots, and even beyond that of their little cult leader himself.
Boo fucking hoo.
“…given the importance of foreign policy and all that.”
I think I read somewhere that we tried isolationism before and that didn’t work out too well.
Nicely said, Twist. That seems to be overlooked by the Paulians.
Many on here are still manning up, Lizzy. What are YOU doing?
Lizzie: Reference your question in comment 8 – that would likely be a “no”. But it’s important nonetheless. And demonstrated naive idiocy in foreign policy, a la Ron Paul, is evidence a candidate is probably not well qualified to serve as POTUS.
I’m not a Paulbot, a Ronulan, a RuPaulian or whatever.
Let’s stay on topic here.
If foreign policy is the number one issue amongst the decorated veterans here, why aren’t you signing up to fight?
If something’s important to you, you find a way to do it. Certainly your drill sergeants beat that into your heads.
So yeah, I’m calling your bluff. You guys are more concerned about past ‘glories’ than you are about standing up for what you claim is important to you.
I see. So anyone who cares about foreign policy has to necessarily sign up to fight?
OK. My last deployment was 2007. I now work for the DoD and am deployable. Haven’t been called up yet, but I am on the list.
Where are your creds?
Well, since you want to go there – sure, let’s stay on topic here, Lizzie. The original topic. Are Paul’s supporters trying to subvert the electoral process? Do you agree or disagree that they are? If so, why? Don’t they believe in fair elections and the Constitution? Why or why not? Are they just butt-hurt because they didn’t get their way? Or are they just Ronulan Sycophants so far gone they simply can’t accept reality?
Since you want to stay on topic, please restrict your comments to those issues vice bringing up unrelated topics.
After all, that – and not your blatantly transparent attempt to provoke Jonn and others here in an effort to change the subject – was the original topic of discussion.
Awwww lighten up Hondo – it was a simple, and accurate, deduction based upon what was written.
Nicki, I’m not taking the bait. Pissing matches are a poor substitute for logic.
All I’m saying is Jonn’s actions don’t follow from his words.
“Nicki, I’m not taking the bait. Pissing matches are a poor substitute for logic.” — I see. So you demand proof from all of us that we walk the walk, but won’t offer any of your own? That’s called hypocrisy, and it’s a no-go.
Now why don’t you answer the questions Hondo posed to you? Is it because a) you can’t or b) you came here just to troll?
I was a delegate at the Libertarian National Convention this year in Vegas. I hold Libertarian values. I also know that Ron Paul’s foreign policy views are unrealistic. I’m at least honest enough to admit that.
You, on the other hand…
Not so much.
Put up or shut up, Spanky.
Ron Paul has failed to ignite the voters, period. His followers should suck it up and understand he can’t win elections.
The respondents inability to offer a counter argument beyond asking veterans to serve again because they find Ron Paul’s foreign policy naive does little to further the case for a Ron Paul presidency. State what makes his policy intellectually superior and clearly not naive, educate us as to the direction he will take beyond isolating the nation. I am a huge fan of Jeffersonian based libertarianism, but Ron Paul does little to excite my imagination as a grand problem solver.
His comments regarding Afghanistan carry some truth, and it’s clear he’s not stupid. His baggage from his past is starting to smell bad though, and his ideas regarding a return to isolationist America are unrealistic in a tightly interlocked global economy. It demands attention that Obama and Bush mismanaged, perhaps Romney will find an appropriate path. Time will tell.
@23 “..Past glories?”
Lizard, I’m curious as to when you’ve served anything that didn’t require asking “you want fries with that?”
Nicki, we’re talking about the disconnect between foreign policy hawks and their inability to get to the recruiting station.
I offered a solution. No one (including you) took me up on the offer.
My qualifications, your qualifications, the cadre’s past ‘glories’ don’t matter. Calling me a troll, a Paulbot, a Ronulan, etc. serves only to distract readers from the reality at hand: you simply won’t put your money where your mouth is.
Actually, Lizzie – no, it wasn’t. It was a deliberate attempt to seize on a single minor point at the end of the original article to deflect attention away from the main thrust of the article. That main thrust was that Paul’s supporters claim to be the “true Constitutionalists” but don’t seem to want to accept the results of free elections because their “guy” didn’t win. You then added a gratuitous insult that was completely unrelated to the subject at hand.
Then you compounded your error by trying to falsely “get back on topic”. Hell, you were the one who got thing off-topic in the first place!
Not even a nice try, youngster. Too transparent and clumsy. Try again.
Lizzie: what you “offered” was a change of subject and an insult. It wasn’t any kind of “solution”. It was a deliberate distraction.
Now, get back on topic. You said you wanted to do that, so let’s do exactly that. Why don’t Ron Paul’s supporters accept the results of the democratic process and persist in acting like petulant children instead?
You lie. I gave you my bona fides. I’ve been deployed and am currently deployable. Many folks here are currently IN the military, so “taking you up” on your offer would be moot.
Now answer my direct question to you: Do you believe that only those who are currently serving in the military have any standing to be concerned about foreign policy? It’s a simple yes or no. Answer it.
Damn, Nicki – you know better than to feed the trolls! (smile)
Hondo, how would I know? I can’t think for other people, nor can I claim to know their reasons behind what they do. Anyone who claims otherwise is (a) a liar, (b) a damn fool, or (c) both.
But thanks for acknowledging that I didn’t derail the conversation as the foreign policy point was indeed in the article.
Nicki, no.
We’re getting off topic again. I’m speaking to those who are not currently in the military who claim foreign policy is the most important issue facing voters. I’d like to know if they’d like a ride to the recruiting station.
Hondo, I just want the troll to answer a simple question.
Again: Do you believe that only those who are currently serving in the military have any standing to be concerned about foreign policy? It’s a simple yes or no. Answer it.
Lizzie: are you really incapable of comprehending simple English, or are you deliberately being mendacious?
I’m betting on the latter. And you’ve just used a second well-known unethical argument technique: deliberate misrepresentation of others’ words. You know full well that I didn’t say what you claim.
I confirmed nothing remotely close to what you claim, kid. I clearly indicated above that (1) you seized on a throwaway fact that was not the main point of the original article, and (2) by doing so had in fact attempted to change the subject of the discussion to suit your own purposes. By lying about that above, you’ve now proven to me your original attempt to change the subject was deliberate.
Now, get back on topic – the original topic of discussion. After all, you’re the one who derailed the original discussion in the first place, then asked we get back on topic. Quit sidestepping the issue, and quit deliberately dissembling.
Wasting your breath arguing, Nikki. You won’t get a straight answer. If Lizzie answers yes, she’s an obvious fool. If she answers no, she proves herself to have asked a rhetorical question. Either way, if she answers she proves herself to have been trying to change the subject. It would also require her to deviate from the script and think for herself.
Hondo, I’ve answered your question. I don’t know what other people are thinking or their motivation. Absent a discussion with folks engaged in the behaviors you find deplorable, you don’t know either. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing you and the rest of the cadre haven’t discussed the Ronulan/Paulbot motivation.
You admitted my point was in the article, so it is fair game. Your classification of that point as ‘throw away’ does not change the point’s relevance.
Really, I don’t know what else to say.
As a matter of fact, I volunteered to go back on active duty during the Iraq surge, I’m still on the retiree mobilization list. They just haven’t seen fit to call me back. Probably due to my health and my age. But, I’m on the list, regardless.
Hondo, Nicki, see first sentence of comment #36.
My answer to Nicki’s question was no.
Let’s get back to my initial charge, shall we? Why aren’t all non military members who claim foreign policy to be the most important issue in the upcoming election running to the recruiting station?
Jonn, an answer, thanks. Have you considered becoming a mercenary?
You can admit you were deliberately trying to change the subject to one of your own choosing rather than the original main point made in the article. That much is obvious.
But you’re not going to do that. Attempting to deliberately deflect attention from the subject at hand is one of the most common illegitimate rhetorical argument techniques. It’s generally regarded as highly unethical.
You could also admit the sheer stupidity of your own original question. I’d guess the vast majority of regular commenters here are (1) term of service retirees, (2) serving active duty military, (3) serving reservists, (4) DoD civilian employees, (5) medical retirees, and (6) persons having a VA disability rating. Guess what, cupcake? Everyone in categories (1) through (5) is already serving and is subject to recall and/or deployment based on the needs of the service. And if someone has a VA disability of 40% or higher, or is old enough, by DoD policy they’re barred from further active duty service.
So your original insulting question was also an incredibly stupid one. I’d guess better than 80% of the regular readership here is either already serving or is not eligible to return to active duty. Had you bothered to do your homework (e.g., look at the Member’s Gallery page prominently featured above), you’d have probably been able to figure that out.
If you want to discuss something here, fine. If you came here to troll and insult, please go play elsewhere. Like maybe the DC beltway at rush hour.
Oh the appeal to chickenhawkism-always especially hilarious when trotted out on milblogs.
(FWIW-my last deployment was last year and I am a regular lurker at Hit and Run-the reason.com blog, which I coincidentally started reading while on deployment in ’09 because it was a right-leaning blog that could get through the filters on our internet).
Lizzy is on the prod. She’s hitting a soft spot, and that’s the value of veteran’s service. She’s a troll, and not worth further discussion or debate.
Jonn … we are all on the recall list … till’ we are dead and gone!
Trust me … if (or when) we go to war with China (current models suggest by 2020 or so) … I am going to be recalled to to help reactivate old steam powered ships because there won’t be any $28.00 green fuel to be had on the market for all the newly converted GREEN Navy ships. Geeze …. now I all pissed off again about that …. Gum Gagnet!
WTF? What in the name of common sense does “becoming a mercenary” have to do with foreign policy? And, for the record: many professional soldiers will find that question even more insulting than your first.
Its also a non sequitur/red herring. That’s a third common illegitimate rhetorical technique. Done unintentionally, it shows poor logic. Done deliberately, it’s a deliberate distraction and is unethical as hell.
PintoNag: I know he/she is trolling. I’m deliberately calling him/her on that fact to make that fact crystal clear.
@48 way over my head … I am Former BT!
I wonder if Lizzie realizes that in answering Nicki’s question with a “no” that he/she has just proven her original question to have been a ridiculous one. Because if foreign policy is of concern to all, that makes whether or not one is serving in the military a completely irrelevant point regarding any discussion of foreign policy.
While I’m not a retiree, I am too old to be taken back, Lizzie. But by having served I’ve done more for my nation than 97-plus percent of my age group simply having raised my hand at all.
Can you make the same claim?
Oh and foreign policy is important along with a whole host of other issues, most of which Paul is either wrong about or at best woefully ignorant and misleading.