Keeping Ron Paul Supporters

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Voting for the status quo is like throwing in the towel. I'd rather rather take the K.O. punch and hit the canvas. At least when the fight was over I could still live with myself. Screw these politicians who have sold out our country.

 

[speciallyblend]

these types of articles are perfect to expose why it is NO ONE BUT PAUL. We cannot vote for obama republicans,status quo. Reading those comments pretty much exposes newt,romney,santorum as biggovgop. I shared and liked the article . I will be using many of those issues(ndaa,sopa,pipa,spending,drug war,illegal undeclared wars,trust etc etc) in my delegate speech,based on issues alone it is NO ONE BUT PAUL because the rest are obama republicans. I will not be pulling any punches at caucus.

 

[georgiaboy]

No, you have a choice, either nominate RP or prepare for four more years of Obama.

Without us, you lose, and every other machine candidate is in no appreciable way any different than Obama.

No One But Paul

ETA - this whole thread is full of win

Well, exactly, AF.

I'm ready to start seeing bloggers write posts titled "Why the GOP should just go ahead and nominate Paul".

The list for why to do so is a country mile long. Record, personal life, conservative policies, military service, polling against Obama, on and on it goes. It's not like Paul is some red communist vying for the GOP nomination -- he's a bona fide conservative for heaven's sake!

The list for why not to do so -- tiny if any, unless there are some other motives besides promoting small constitutional government working within the GOP.

This is the type of thing the GOP rank & file should be thinking about, even disturbed about. It defies logic, and therefore should be really concerning to honest conservatives.

 

[kathy88]

Kathy88 on January 25, 2012 at 10:47 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You keep referring to the Tea Party being able to make a difference if one of the non-Paul candidates happens to get the nomination, and less likely, with the general election. From a Paul supporter’s standpoint there really is no difference in the “Tea Party” and the GOP who opposed us last cycle. We started the concept of the “tea party” and then it was adopted as the battle cry of a completely differently represented faction in the GOP. To me, GOP and Tea Party are synonymous, especially in light of the fact that they are backing Gingrich who is just plain unstable. There are scattered tea party groups who do support Ron Paul, but they are in the minority.

 

[kathy88]

Well, exactly, AF.

I'm ready to start seeing bloggers write posts titled "Why the GOP should just go ahead and nominate Paul".

The list for why to do so is a country mile long. Record, personal life, conservative policies, military service, polling against Obama, on and on it goes. It's not like Paul is some red communist vying for the GOP nomination -- he's a bona fide conservative for heaven's sake!

The list for why not to do so -- tiny if any, unless there are some other motives besides promoting small constitutional government working within the GOP.

This is the type of thing the GOP rank & file should be thinking about, even disturbed about. It defies logic, and therefore should be really concerning to honest conservatives.

This is an excellent idea.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Kathy88 on January 25, 2012 at 10:47 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You keep referring to the Tea Party being able to make a difference if one of the non-Paul candidates happens to get the nomination, and less likely, with the general election. From a Paul supporter’s standpoint there really is no difference in the “Tea Party” and the GOP who opposed us last cycle. We started the concept of the “tea party” and then it was adopted as the battle cry of a completely differently represented faction in the GOP. To me, GOP and Tea Party are synonymous, especially in light of the fact that they are backing Gingrich who is just plain unstable. There are scattered tea party groups who do support Ron Paul, but they are in the minority.

Well said Kathy. I've always wanted to express my misgivings with the Tea Party.

 

[Txrose4ever]

man, some of the best comments I've ever seen are on that post. Excellent work, people!

Oh, and NOBP!

I know! I read through some AWESOME commentary from Paul supporters, and so well spoken!

 

[Anti Federalist]

Bump

 

[cajuncocoa]

Just went over to read the many comments on that article that weren't posted in this thread. Every last one of the comments is a winner!! I am SO proud to be a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[mmadness]

This can play into our hands, people. If anyone in the GOP is feeling that they want to keep us happy, then make sure you barter/ask for chair positions or delegate spots. Do what you have to do to get our people into committees, etc. in the state GOP. Make it seem like we are no threat to them anyway.

Strength through stealth and numbers!

 

[Brett85]

People here shouldn't try to speak for all Ron Paul supporters. Yes, very few of the hardcore Ron Paul supporters on this forum will vote for the eventual GOP nominee. But people have to realize that the average member here doesn't necessarily reflect the average Ron Paul supporter. You have a lot of people who simply voted for Ron Paul who aren't the kind of hardcore activists who campaign, donate money, etc. The South Carolina exit polls showed that 38% of Paul supporters wouldn't vote for Romney if he were the GOP nominee. While that percentage was higher than any of the percentages for the other candidates, it still shows that 62% of Paul voters in South Carolina would vote for Romney or at least consider it. So I don't really think it's a good idea for people here to speak for every single person who voted for Ron in the primaries.

 

[slamhead]

Why is it that the author can use the term interventionist to describe the others that want to engage in military adventurism but the opposite side of the field is termed isolationist.

 

[jmdrake]

My comments:

Here is the problem. Obama is a bad president not because he is different from our last republican president George W. Bush, but rather is he a black democratic version of George W. Bush. Both Bush and Obama ran up record debt. Both have massively increased entitlements, Bush through Medicare part D and Obama through Obamacare. Both supported bailouts to private industry. Both have supported an expansionist foreign policy that eshews the checks and balances of congress and that is helping to bankrupt this nation. Both have relied on the federal reserve madly printing more money to sustain their unsustainable welfare/warefare states. Both have been HORRIBLE on civil liberties. The gropings of the TSA started under Bush and have accelerated under Obama.

Ron Paul is the only candidate I see that is committed to rolling back the Bush/Obama years. So no other GOP candidate could get my vote.

 

[tuggy24g]

I might give Johnson a shot on the Libertarian ticket, would be cool if he got 10-15% of the vote.

Would do the same here. Last time around I voted for Bob Barr, but he screwed me with a Romney endorsement ugg!

 

[JK/SEA]

Hey!..did anyone hear that?....listen....whoa...there it is again...one more time, and try not to make any noise..listen...AGAIN!....there it is!...you must've heard it this time. The sound of NEOCONS digging in their heels....

 

[slamhead]

My Email to the writer:

Dear Tom,

Thank you for the above mentioned article. I am 46 years old and a life long
Republican. In 2007 my eyes were opened to the fact that the GOP has lost
it's way and abandoned it's conservative roots. I have been an active Ron
Paul supporter since then.

First off I wanted to correct some terminology you used. "Isolationist" has
become a meme among people who refuse to understand the foreign policy of
Ron Paul. You used the term interventionist to describe the current state of
our foreign policy that both parties support. Why would the opposite not be
termed non-interventionist. If anything the current policy of not talking to
or trading with all nations is isolationism. Ron Paul supporters have awaken
to the insanity of our foreign policy that makes us less safe. The fact that
the Al-Qaeda flag now flies over Benghazi, Libya is just one example how our
empty headed military adventurism continues to hurt this nation.

You wrote that Ron Paul supporters are up for grabs. This could not be
further from the truth. The reason Ron Paul rarely goes down in support is
that his base has given up on the left and right paradigm. We view both
parties as one and the same. When Romney speaks of cutting two trillion
dollars we know it is just empty talk meant to deceive the uninformed. We
know he means ten years from now our country will be 20 trillion in debt as
opposed to 22 trillion. Newt and Santorum are no different. They are part of
the establishment the Ron Paul supporters have come to despise.

Sarah Palin has warned many times that it would not be wise for the GOP to
marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters. She is absolutely correct but
unfortunately for the GOP the damage has already been done. When we hear the
likes of Bill O'Rielly actually try to spin Ron Paul's position on the drug
war as a cause of the increase of child molestation, Sean Hanity and his
posse constantly ridicule Paul, and the "conservative" voice Rush Limbaugh
just last week say that Ron Paul sounds like an Islamic terrorist, it does
nothing but insure we will get 4 more years of Obama.

I don't know one Ron Paul supporter that will vote for any GOP nominate
other than Paul. Time is of the essence and we see no difference between
Romney, Newt, or Obama. We would rather see a lame duck in office than a
RINO. Unless we get some serious austerity measures we are facing a global
economic collapse to rival the great depression.

A lot of commentators have totally missed the entire dynamics of the Ron
Paul movement. You cannot mention the Tea Party without including Ron Paul.
It was us, Paul's grassroots, that started the tea party movement on Dec 16,
2007. The tea party movement soon got hijacked by the establishment GOP as
their own. To add injury to insult the GOP actually tried to unseat Ron Paul
in the next election by running a "tea party" candidate against him.

No, I will not vote for Romney nor Newt. The fact that neither Santorum and
Newt are on five state ballots and miss out on 564 delegates I will be
looking forward to a brokered convention. If Ron Paul does not get the
nomination I will be writing Ron Paul in as I did in 2008.


P.S. You mentioned the news letters. I suggest you watch these two videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGH77lZsglU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP-mYq4DaJI

If you think that Ron Paul's foreign policy is a detriment to Paul take a
look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM