I'm quite certain John Adams and his cousin Sam had this exact same discussion about 237 years ago. Not that either side is wrong. Passion leads to spirited debate and different approaches to the same problem, and it probably takes some of both to bring about the change we seek!
Hidden Cam: WA State GOP recommends voting on delegate slates for 3 of the 4 candidates
- Thread starter justatrey
- Start date
I agree, some do have a personal agenda, but that doesn't change the fact that Paul n company must finish the game. And to those that apparently haven't a clue there is nothing wrong nor illegal about aquireing delegates through roberts rules of order. We live in a republic and this is how it was meant to be. Goodluck to whomever you support..
What's the PURPOSE of it?
I'm not going to argue with who is to blame.
We need 1144 to win in Tampa. We aren't going to get to 1144 with previously identified Ron Paul supporters, whether they're our delegates, or "stealth delegates". We're going to have to convince people, people who are not Ron Paul supporters on the airplane to Tampa, to vote for Ron Paul in Tampa. Hostile, confrontational, being an asshole, is not going to achieve that goal.
The PURPOSE of not being an asshole is to get people who don't like Ron Paul too much to vote for Ron Paul in Tampa.
What is the PURPOSE of NOBP?
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,568
I'll own the NOBP blame.
I have no idea what purpose it will serve delegate wise, or at the convention, my thoughts on that are pretty clear: anybody pulls a stunt like what I've seen laid out on the convention floor, and the GOP brass will shut the whole thing down, and when you vocally protest, they'll call SWAT and have everybody arrested.
That said, for me NOBP is just a simple commitment.
The GOP rank and file had a chance to get on board and get behind RP who consistently polled better than all of the GOP candidates against Obama, thus having the best chance to "beat" Obama in the fall, in addition to setting presidential policies that reflected peace, freedom and adherence to the constitution.
They ignored, mocked and scoffed us.
Very well.
You had you chance, now, in the fall, I and thousands of others will vote for Ron Paul, regardless of anything.
And, barring a sea change in the political winds, the GOP will lose to Obama, again.
No One But Paul
Last edited:
opinionatedfool
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,340
Well said. +rep
Chainspell
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,004
f***ing sh*t
Acquiring delegates through Roberts rules of order is not what I mean by being an asshole. They're not really worried about Ron Paul getting 1144. They're worried about Ron Paul Supporters, after someone, presumably Romney, gets 1144, acting like assholes on the floor of the Convention, and outside the convention, causing a ruckus. It appears that that's the argument that the Romney people are using to try to persuade Gingrich supporters and Santorum supporters. Their argument isn't that Ron Paul is bad, the argument is that Ron Paul Supporters will not behave appropriately. And the reason they say that is because often we do act like assholes. NOBP is the kind of hostile message that creates, here's a word, blowback. Outward hostility, by Ron Paul Supporters, to all Republicans who are not Ron Paul is what is creating hostility to Ron Paul. What again, I ask, is the PURPOSE of NOBP, of using that as a rallying cry?
ichirix
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2012
- Messages
- 161
PolicyReader
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,399
Because happening there it's an excuse to expand Pax Americana while happening here it would be a call to reform or possibly revolution.
The mainstream media is mainstream for a reason, they like tricky Ricky know how to go along to get along. Ben Swann is a rarity because he reports the facts rather than playing sycophant to the insiders club that currently flexes it's wings as the "left" and "right".
When was the last time you saw an mega corp do anything that didn't benefit it's bottom line? The trouble with it is that in a crony-capitalist system good business is likely to be bad policy and bad ethics.
Honestly Paul, and by extension his supporters (aka us) don't get all this resistance because we're "young" or "hippies" or "insurgents" or "rude" or "loud" or "disruptive" etc. it's because Ron Paul, and by extension those who support him aren't part of the club. The club isn't a political party, or even a secrete it's just a nation wide network of self-serving people who's mantra is "go along to get along". If you seek debate, if you stand on principle (regardless of what those principles may be), if you threaten the primacy of the club by not participating in the club then the whole club is against you. There's not really a conspiracy against Paul, or liberty for that matter, conspiracy (at least to me) implies some secrecy and there's nothing secrete here it's just everyone who benefits from the Status Quo of corruption trying to smother the sparks of change because it disrupts their cozy little arrangements.
No One But Santorum would achieve the same result. All the socons staying home would have a much much greater effect than Ron Paul supporters staying home. No One But Gingrich would achieve the same result. But we're the only ones who are saying NOBP. And Republicans aren't responding in a way that helps us. They're pissed. Because they want to keep a coalition together, with parts are aren't always in agreement. And you know, the socons are a larger segment of the Republican Party than we are.
What you might be missing is that by saying NOBP, you're being hostile to rank and file Republicans. It's almost as if you won't support the nominee. And that's what they want, for everyone to support the nominee. And since saying No One But Paul, you're explicitly saying that you won't support the nominee. And they don't like that. It's as if you don't like Republicans, and you don't want to defeat Obama.
We have to persuade people in Tampa.
When they hate Ron Paul Supporters, it is harder for Ron Paul Supporters to persuade the delegates to vote for Ron Paul.
What, again, is the PURPOSE of this? The EFFECT of this is to get the delegates to hate Ron Paul Supporters, and to try to keep them away from the Convention. Is that also the PURPOSE, to have Republicans, because they find Ron Paul Supporters so distasteful, work hard to keep Ron Paul Supporters away from the Convention? This HURTS RON PAUL. The EFFECT HURTS Ron Paul, is that also the PURPOSE?
I created this account to post here, been lurking for a while.
This was at the Tacoma Convention Center on Saturday. There's nothing illegal or fraudulent at all.
We made a deal with the Santorum delegates to shut out Romney, since it was in both our interests to deny him delegates, unfortunately our ally was very disorganized, most of them having no idea what they were supposed to do and filled out their ballots incorrectly (denying both of us delegates).
After 3 votes to elect delegates, I think we had 5 of the 22 selected (just for our precinct not the entire County), and all were Romney supporters.
The guy in the video, I never got his name,came in right before the final 4th vote and announced for all the Santorum supporters to meet him outside. I guess this is what they talked about, the people we had been voting for turned on us. They told us when they came back in to "stick to the plan", but they switched, and I think Romney got just about all of them.
Hopefully they realize they need to shut out Romney to help Santorum, and that Ron Paul is not the man they're running against.
We should have gotten everyone together after it was clear they (Santorum delegates) were clueless after the first vote. If we'd have done that it would have been mostly RP/Santorum delegates.
This is how caucus' are, nothing fraudulent occurred in the video, though the caucus itself seemed pretty fishy with the Chair not knowing/following the rules properly.
I could actually converse with the Romney delegates, they mostly support Paul outside his foreign policy (and would vote for him if he ran on an economic platform). The Santorum delegates were another story, very irrational and difficult to discuss anything with.
Edit: Another problem we have is not enough people getting involved in their local party. Here in Peirce County, it's entirely volunteers. It's difficult to get angry with them when they're donating the time and we aren't. After the caucus, I'm going to start getting more involved, like the poster below me states, yelling is not the answer. We take the party over from within, get motivated and do it. If we care as much as we think we do, invest the time to make the changes you want to see.
This was at the Tacoma Convention Center on Saturday. There's nothing illegal or fraudulent at all.
We made a deal with the Santorum delegates to shut out Romney, since it was in both our interests to deny him delegates, unfortunately our ally was very disorganized, most of them having no idea what they were supposed to do and filled out their ballots incorrectly (denying both of us delegates).
After 3 votes to elect delegates, I think we had 5 of the 22 selected (just for our precinct not the entire County), and all were Romney supporters.
The guy in the video, I never got his name,came in right before the final 4th vote and announced for all the Santorum supporters to meet him outside. I guess this is what they talked about, the people we had been voting for turned on us. They told us when they came back in to "stick to the plan", but they switched, and I think Romney got just about all of them.
Hopefully they realize they need to shut out Romney to help Santorum, and that Ron Paul is not the man they're running against.
We should have gotten everyone together after it was clear they (Santorum delegates) were clueless after the first vote. If we'd have done that it would have been mostly RP/Santorum delegates.
This is how caucus' are, nothing fraudulent occurred in the video, though the caucus itself seemed pretty fishy with the Chair not knowing/following the rules properly.
I could actually converse with the Romney delegates, they mostly support Paul outside his foreign policy (and would vote for him if he ran on an economic platform). The Santorum delegates were another story, very irrational and difficult to discuss anything with.
Edit: Another problem we have is not enough people getting involved in their local party. Here in Peirce County, it's entirely volunteers. It's difficult to get angry with them when they're donating the time and we aren't. After the caucus, I'm going to start getting more involved, like the poster below me states, yelling is not the answer. We take the party over from within, get motivated and do it. If we care as much as we think we do, invest the time to make the changes you want to see.
Last edited:
PolicyReader
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,399
I respect your insight on many issues and frankly you bring a much needed cool head in many conversations. On this tho I've gotta say that you seem to have the cart before the hours.
Their argument now isn't that Ron Paul is bad, but it was. Paul is; "crazy", his foreign policy is "dangerous", his economics are "outdated", his social policies are "naive". They've actively trivialized and degraded Paul specifically and his polices generally for years now and the only thing that finally changed the way they talk about it is that time has proven Paul right about so much it is starting to become bad politics to treat all his views with such open scorn. Finish this sentence "I like Ron Paul except ____" but why aren't we hearing that as much lately? Because suddenly more of what it's like on the ground in Afghanistan is becoming known and it's politically poisonous to talk about it with quite the same heavy handedness.
Blackout didn't work (and it's never been just the media, the local establishment of the GOP has largely done the same), the newsletters didn't work (oh but they tried, tried hard), the "he's crazy" narrative was fading in the face of video after video of speeches proving he's been right for years, the "unelectable" rhetoric started wearing thin because he inspires real support the kind other politicians like Obamny pay for (in fact both Obama and "mitt" have payed for it in their elections) so what's the new attack? How do you kill someones chances when they actually have some form of popular support? Why you turn their strength into a weakness of course (Sun Tzu would be proud). You provoke and degrade, you mock and smear, not the man, not the message, but the followers. And it turns out the average person when faced with consistent unprovoked abuse responds in a less than completely decorous manner.
So it becomes "oooo this works, let's provoke them some more" and they have, over and over again. But even that wasn't enough so it was time to throw more lies into the mix, add some false flags (Huntsman anyone?), Dick commenting on how "no true patriot could support Ron Paul", the list goes on and on.
If you're a Paul supporter you're a "fanatic", you're part of a "cult", you're an "insurgent". If you call Point of Order as the GOP violates the rules and commits fraud in front of your very eyes your actions are "disruptive". If you organize, spend hours for weeks and months on end to train and recruit delegates and you succeed playing 100% by the rules you "hijacked" the caucus.
Most people don't have the restraint and class that Ron Paul does, it's damned hard to always take the high road and keep on the kid gloves when your opponents are willing to sucker punch you in the crotch every chance they get.
So yeah people give reports of Paul supporters being loud, and sometimes aggressive. But it takes being loud and aggressive to fight back against a chair illegally distorting the process. And even when we're quite calm and very orderly (which lets be blunt is the rule on the exception when it comes to the political process rather than an even like a sign wave or rally) we're still called rude and hostile. Chant "Point of Order" or "Division" until a legal call for them is acknowledged and you're "being an asshole". Vote exclusively for your delegate slate and it's "rude". I've even read blogs where GOP insiders talk about how "Paulbot cultists" were "rude" and making the process "chaotic" simply because the author didn't get the delegate slot she's grown accustomed to.
And in the face of all this the GOP establishment tries to spin the narrative that we're not worth of a place at the table because we won't promise to put submission to party hierarchy above loyalty to our principles or the constitution.
So while the establishment has been chanting "submit, submit, submit" and supplying lie after lie as the reason we've eventually reached this boiling point where we have been alienated so much that we started chanting back No One But Paul because not only is it a simple statement of fact, not only is a rallying cry to remind people they are not alone in standing on principle, but maybe, just maybe it's a language the GOP will actually understand.
Now do I think walking into a caucus waring Paul gear and chanting "end the fed" is wise? Would I advise someone to tell a super-delegate or the little old lady next to them whos voting for Santorum "No One But Paul!" Of course not that would be wasteful and foolish on more than one level.
Is NOBP a talking point to bring to the table when working politics? Nope.
Is NOBP a commitment to carry in your heart when working politics? Absolutely.
I don't advocate outward hostility towards anyone in the political process, it's bad politics if nothing else. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a rallying cry within our own ranks. We could make it "No One But Those Candidates Who Respect The Rule Of Law By Following The Constitution" which is the point behind it really, but in this election there is no one who fits that bill besides Paul, and "Paul" is less of a mouthful than the above.
To conclude, I highly advise that everyone in your political interactions be courteous and calm. But not at the cost of letting yourself get cheated or railroaded.
Because the GOP has proven they'll take every opportunity to not only fight dirty, not only try and provoke and degrade all Paul supporters, but to outright cheat by committing fraud (and to pre-plan how best to commit that fraud).
So don't play into their hands and validate the "Paul supporters are jerks" false narrative, but if it comes down to a choice between feeding that narrative or stopping them from disenfranchising us through ramrodding the process and/or outright cheating then hang the narrative and fight for every inch.
Here's an example of this (true to life) from another thread:
Yes it ended at 10:15p that night.
They did all sorts of things to attempt to stack the deck in their favor legally.
First of all, because of redistricting, they had to create an entirely new organization. Therefore all officers had to be elected, bylaws had to be adopted, and the rules for the convention had to be changed too. That's a long process. But they wanted to keep lots of the previous organization intact along with "the way we've been doing it". Most of the rules favored the establishment and were essentially an incumbent protection plan. This is a very heavy Romney area.
There were several things in the rules and bylaws we were trying to get changed to remove their built-in advantage. I won't go into great detail but when it came time to vote for delegates about 50 people got in line behind the mic to nominate themselves. They put up the list on the screen of delegates who they wanted to be nominated (all establishment people) and made a motion to vote on it. We interjected (I instructed our people to hover around the mic) and started trying to nominate people. They fought that, and then someone moved to close nominations. The Chair was going to take a vote on closing nominations but that was out of order. I had a copy of RRO in my hand and was whispering to our 2 or 3 people on exactly what to say since I wasn't allowed to speak aloud by way of addressing the convention/chair.
At this point the room went berserk as our people (including many Santorum people I suspect) were livid that the establishment was trying to ram through their slate of delegates without allowing any other nominations. Our people got into a yelling match with the Chair both yelling over each other over the mics and PA system. I thought we were about to have a fistfight followed by a riot in the chairs as the Romney /establishment people in the crowd were yelling against others en masse.
RRO clearly stated that a call to close floor nominations was out of order if people were still attempting to nominate themselves (about 50 people were). The Chair and parliamentarian didn't seem to care, or know RRO, and they didn't seem inclined to be bothered to look it up either.
We weren't winning that argument so I instructed my guy at the mic to let this one go, because RRO requires a 2/3rd majority in order to close floor nominations and I was confident they didn't have those numbers. And I told him even if he did, then we could appeal the motion anyway because it was in clear violation of RRO. So the chair called for a vote for closing floor nominations after only 1 person had been nominated. A vote was taken, the chair tried to sneak it through by saying the "ayes have it" which was utter BS. Our people screamed "DIVISION" at the top of their lungs and forced a handcount. I don't remember the exact numbers of that vote but the numbers were that they were essentially 1 vote short of being the required 2/3rd to close nominations.
Because of our quick action, we were able to allow floor nominations for everyone who wanted it. To say that the establishment was LIVID would be an understatement
We had flexed our parliamentary muscle and won in that instance which was good. We had to fight them on a few more items but not quite as hard. Even after being shouted down they still tried to ram votes through. But yeah, that was the hi-light of the day. Some of it is on film.....
During the Convention we had non-establishment rank and file Republicans coming up to us explaining that they were glad we were putting a foot in the door of the establishment here. One guy said "they've been doing this to us for decades, and now you are able to stop them".
Ultimately it is important that the establishment be made aware that we WILL fight these unfair rules and will not allow these types of exclusive advantages to stand. Let's just say that we taught the establishment in this area yesterday a lesson that they will not forget for a loooooooong time. We broke up their little private country club and made it so that they were not the exclusive arbiters of power anymore. This is how the GOP changes over the long term.
For those of you wanting to know the results, sorry to disappoint but I am not going to post the results of the convention, or any other convention I've had a hand in up here in Minnesota. Only a small handful of people know the real numbers, and we don't want anyone to know how strong or weak we may or may not be.Strategic we want to keep the opposition guessing.
good post. it's good to hear what happened.
There's so much here. I agree with most of what you're saying.
I think that I might've seized upon NOBP wrongly. Booing at debates is the more classic example. Protesting at rallies for other candidates is another.
Because the context here is caucuses, county conventions, district conventions, state conventions, the harm from NOBP isn't really found in those places, regarding our actions at those places.
Their concern is that we'll act like assholes in Tampa. That's their expressed worry, and they have a reason to think that. They aren't worried that we're going to be tough, and work our asses off to win. They're worried that instead of joining hands and smiling, no matter who the nominee is, we'll act like assholes.
You're a reasonable person, and I do tend to agree with you. Back last summer I was talking a lot more about RPSAA, and how it was important that we avoid that.
RPSAA is not a new phenomenon. (I just checked, I was talking about RPSAA a lot in June 2011).
The examples you're using aren't what I'm talking about. I'm not worried about what is happening when we're winning delegates. We're younger and have better stamina, for the most part. If we have to be dicks to win, we do it. And they'll complain, but that's just going to happen.
I ask, what's the PURPOSE of something. Clearly, when we're being tough, angering people, in order to win delegates, the PURPOSE is clear - winning delegates. I'm in favor of that. I'm more concerned about acting like assholes when there is no clear purpose.
In terms of an internal rallying cry, well, do we need it? Are there soft supporters here? Should we take every mention of NOBP and take it to hot topics? Because in other cases, we are reminded that others might be watching. Well, NOBP turns off those people who might just be lurking.
What exactly is the PURPOSE of an internal rallying cry? The GOP certainly does understand it. What it says is "Ron Paul Supporters are not one of us, and we don't want them, they're more trouble than they're worth, and look, there are 2 somewhat viable parties for them already - Libertarian and Constitutional - so go there" That is exactly what they've been doing for years. 1st they say "go away to Libertarian or Constitutional" and then they say "don't waste your vote on Libertarian or Constitutional." Unhappy Libertarians is not something new for them. They have a method for dealing with them.
What we need to do, where possible, is be nice. And that means not being assholes where there's no real purpose in doing so. Being tough is different. I'm not complaining about what we're doing to get delegates. Booing, protesting, marches, NOBP, things like that are what concern me, not point of order, division, etc etc at conventions. That stuff is great.
And I want to point out again that I'm not really disagreeing with you, but clarifying.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?299454-Please-stop-yelling-RON-PAUL-RON-PAUL../page2 - See this thread from June 2011 where were were discussing this very issue - the subject was "Please stop yelling RON PAUL RON PAUL"
Last edited:
PolicyReader
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,399
You make a very good point, or rather points. I think there are a couple of things going on, one is that on average as a group we have a higher level of participation in the process than we do experience when compared with other groups. On balance I think this is a great thing for us but it does run us into some brambles for example the supporters who (with full good intentions) try to debate the legitimacy of talking points being used at another candidates speaking engagement.
I can't fault those people for their passion, or even for their logic as far as the issues are concerned, and I certainly like seeing two-faced public figures called out... but sadly that's usually not the most effective way to deal with a two-faced public figure.
I say the above because I think some of the point you are trying to make is getting lost in translation for a number of folks on these boards. I'll be the first to own up to forgetting sometimes (and specifically when it comes to NOBP) that this forum is/could be viewed by fence-sitters. GRC especially I treat a bit as a HQ for ideas and coordination of grassroots efforts and as such I often overlook that it is in fact a public forum.
You are correct, as much as I feel support for NOBP it's is not a tactically, or diplomatically sound statement to make in conversation with undecided voters or when collaborating with supporters outside our camp. Upon reflection I believe I will alter my phrasing henceforth --> Ron Paul 2012!
That at least for me serves all the same purposes emotionally an functionally as NOPB without as much potential for being misrepresented to our detriment.
Tactics isn't just about content (elaborating more than explaining, I'm confident you already know this) it's also about presentation. I think the friction you're getting has been largely a misunderstanding of your advocacy. You are (and correct me if I'm wrong here) saying the presentation needs refinement for our best advantage. And what I see happening is that it's being taken as a critique of the content being expressed.
Here's an example of how this might play out. I'm not going to vote for Romney, I couldn't do it because no matter what policy he said he'd support his record makes it so I can't trust him. <-- That's the content. However if I'm talking to a Romney supporter I'm not going to say "you're a sell out" or "how could you support Mitt what's wrong with you?" or "only banksters and crony-capitalists want Mitt". Speaking like that would be a waste, first off it's uncivil and reduces the likelihood that they'll consider any middle ground (for example in a caucus where Paul and Romney are outnumbered by Santorum). Secondly, and more importantly (IMO), aggressive statements like that usually overlook nuance for example someone who doesn't know about Romneys past record, or who has false information about Paul, who if they knew the facts would be happy to support Paul will likely never bother to listen to those facts if their first contact with a Paul supporter is abrasive at that level.
That's a loss for us, and those voters are most certainly out there. I've talked to a few (usually older) in this cycle and I've read about more.
I think we can win this nomination, but I also think it likely we'll need to gather soft support when we do it. And that means being able to reach out a hand to these misinformed voters and remind them we're aiming for many of the same things, to look at a Gingrich supporter and say "help us win this, we can take Obama out of the white house" not "line up behind us because Grinch doesn't have a chance".
Part of why Romney is so successful is that voters (including some insiders and delegates) believe he's the best shot to beat Obama. Honestly their wrong, Ron Paul has a stronger hand against Obama but we'll persuade more people of that by appealing to what they want, the aspects we have in common, rather than saying "it's our way or the highway". Paul elected is our way, so let's not focus on saying that let's focus what we say on how Paul Elected gets them what they want.
(Note: there are people, especially holding positions within the GOP that are flat out corrupt and need to go for them I say no quarter, but think of how we've heard stories about Santorum or Romney or Gingrich delegates who were outraged by being disenfranchised by those same corrupt party insiders. We're organized, we've got clout, and know how and will. How are those people going to see us? As a group of thugs who fought it out with the current thugs in power? Or as the ones who stood up for a fair process? Honestly some of them will view us both ways regardless of what we do, but we have the ability to effect how many see us in which light, is it not to our benefit to be seen as by the book as much as possible? When in doubt ask "what would Ron Paul do?" he's wouldn't back down, but he'd stand up in a classy way, and that I think is our mark to aim for. Even folks like me who have tempers to wrestle :o )
parocks, would you say I've accurately represented/understood the point you're making?
PauliticsPolitics
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,190
[I have to jump in and say that I always love the several paragraph exchanges prompted by parocks; I still have fond memories of the many page discussion in one of the Illinois threads last week. I think it is great that he is able to maintain his opinionated fervency while still portraying detailed rationale. He is someone I am happy to disagree with as he does a GOOD job of representing the realism element needed in this forum without resorting to defeatism.]
PolicyReader
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,399
+rep for agreement.
speciallyblend
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 20,351
NOBP TO ME REPRESENTS , Principles over Waffling. It is not that i would only vote for Ron Paul. There is only Ron Paul to vote for! The gop is trying to sell outdated products in (santorum,romney and newt) I want a Fresh Product /Ron Paul 2012 ps honestly santorum,newt and romney have no sides to any issues. They are on all sides. I do my best to remind the gop establishment. They have 2 options Ron Paul or Obama!
Last edited:
Noblegeorge
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2012
- Messages
- 135
But is it not also the case that a lot of the reports of 'disruptions caused by Ron Paul supporters'- at St Charles for instance- were just not true. That was a case of serious misrepresentation of what actually happened and spread of disinformation. That was not the fault of "rowdy" RP fans, but a deliberate attempt to fuel the anti - RP supporter sentiment that already exists. What i'm saying is yeah, you have a point but at the same time Ron Paul fans at large, while passionate, are not the crazy, dishonest hijackers they're painted out to be.
In any case, I don't hold it against any RP fan or delegate if they get emotional and upset at the systems attempts to marginalize them. We are human after all. But, I do understand where you are coming from. To get other supporters on board one needs to take a logical approach and appeal to peoples reasoning, even if that can be tough at times. Gandhi actually struggled with the same thing Ron Paul is struggling with now, to a different extent of course, but his supporters were so passionate that they threatened to cross the line at times. Of course he reined them in, and Ron has tried to do the same thing at times and lead by example. But its human nature and when people believe strongly in a wrong that should be righted it is inevitable that some will be very passionate, aggressive (defensive) and act outside societies accepted norms.
Similar threads
