Reality Check: Did Mitt Romney Really Secure GOP Nomination With Texas Win?
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
speciallyblend
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 20,351
No,No,Yes,Yes.
Last edited:
Liberty74
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,949
Romney has this thing wrapped up. I tried to warn people but too many bull headed faithfuls in here who can't grasp reality.
There will be no fight in Tampa. We don't have enough delegates. As per the campaign, this has become more about getting Paul a speaking slot and the ability to add stuff to the meaningless platform that will be completely ignored as usual.
I refuse to be swallowed by the criminals in the GOP who only want our vote instead of real change. We need to regroup after Tampa and take control over the Indy party where 40% of the people reside with no leader and no platform. That is where real change will happen.
Last edited:
tuggy24g
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 517
How can you say it is all over? There is still a bunch of states that did not even hold there convention yet for delegates. Between June 3-7 there will be over 400 delegates up for grab. If Ron Paul can grab most of them then we will be sitting very well. Also delegates can abstain and are not bound to any candidate. The fight is not over and if you make it over now then we lose. We need to work hard to get all the delegates we can all over different state conventions. So keep fighting!!
Revolution9
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 9,323
Well, let's give you a frikkin' cookie and a boot in the arse as an in-kind reward for your ever loving tender feelings for emotions that may get be hurt when reality hits. You clowns are a hoot!
Rev9
SilenceDewgooder
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2012
- Messages
- 694
The convention hasn't started, so how can it be over? It only takes a moment for the political winds to change. I have notice that several people seem to have accepted that either Romney or Obama will hold the oval office for the next 4 years. Just think of what Obama has done in the past year, do you really think if he gets re-elected without the possibility of a 3rd term that he would be less aggressive on dissolving the freedoms that still remain? Obama: "I'll have more flexibility after the election". Drones over America in 2015, a year before the next election; coincidence, I think not. And Romney will continue with the same itinerary.
In my eyes, I don't have an option but to continue. Not for myself, but for my daughter who turns 18 months old in 3 days. If the past/current actions are any indication of what is to come, then what kind of a world will she be forced to live in?
Athan
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,784
Your "street cred" just got spanked with that stupid comment. Seriously, do you really think that HASN'T been tried before?
I don't really support anyone. I guess I nominally support Romney now, but I'm not going to do anything more than vote for him in November (i.e., I won't give him money, help him with my extensive list of contacts, etc). I have a lot of friends who are high up in Romney's campaign and my nominal support is more due to their friendship than my feelings for Romney (I wanted to back Thune, but he didn't run, then I ended up being pretty high up on Pawlenty's campaign, but Nick Ayers and 'I refuse to take Romney on about Obamneycare' during that one debate killed his chances, then I wanted Giuliani or anyone else to get in the race but they didn't. Thought about backing Perry but thank God I found out he was an idiot before I did. I have a few friends that did and have regretted it ever since).
I'd argue that the race was never between Romney and Paul, but rather between Romney and not-Romney, who would be a more traditional conservative. Santorum actually had a shot to beat Romney had he taken Michigan and Ohio, for instance.
I know a lot of media types, and most would say something along the lines of 'You need to win to get coverage', that 2008 proved that Paul could raise huge amount of money, but that all of that money was from a small amount of die hard supporters, and that until he proved he could get more people than simply that relatively small group they would give him more coverage. Every loss afterwards simply feed that image.
Also, and I'll never be able to get the guy (a person who works on the advertising end of the NYT) who told me this to admit it, but positive coverage of Paul angers a lot of people on, say, the New York Times. They kind of need the money and thus really don't want to antagonize its average reader.
Just my opinion.
Completely not true. History is full of examples of persons stifling debate with negative consequences. And no one ever believes there are going to be negative consequences because the ones doing the stifling have an idea of what is acceptable and think that removing anything to the contrary is beneficial.
But to be more specific, look at the kinds of posts that have been removed here. Posts with legitimate criticisms of the campaign were removed in droves. The idea is to only give a positive message here. But the organizations with phenomenal performances are the ones that evaluate where they are and take positive steps to ameliorate their weaknesses. The companies that fail are the ones that continually give positive, rosy pictures of what is going on, do not grasp reality, give positive reports to outsiders, and then implode. There is never a chance for any real learning to take place here because no serious discussion is allowed.
Notice the other kinds of posts that are deleted - posts on delegate counts, whether Ron Paul should run as an independent, etc. It is damaging to the campaign to not have serious discussions that could impact his chance of winning the nomination.
On other forums I see posts deleted when a member attacks another member, when someone links a site that has nothing to do with politics or the Paul campaign, for posts that clearly offend moral sensibilities, etc. But here, there is someone reading posts and intellectually deciding to delete certain ones. And the unfortunate result is that discussion here is lower than other places and ultimately Paul's campaign is damaged.
As a non-Paul supporter, I welcome your right to criticize any of Dr. Paul's positions. This is how stronger understandings ensue. There's no question that Romney is intelligent and really all the candidates have their strong points.
To someone else's point, it is not the case that Ron Paul did not win that much and so did not get much media attention. It has been demonstrated mathematically that his coverage in the media was drastically less than what would be commensurate with the number of votes that he was getting, unlike other candidates.
I think you are overestimating the amount of influence this forum has, in all honesty. I'm not arguing that stifling debate is a good thing, just that this forum is not large enough to do serious damage to Paul's chances of winning. And truth be told most websites I go on have stricter mods, but that might just be a random thing.
The contrary, actually, I think you're underestimating the amount of influence of the forum. Do you think the actual results Dr. Paul got was as a result of the official campaign or the grassroots movement? I think it's more related to grassroots. There also have been significant state movements organized here and I would say most of the delegates won in the conventions have been due to the activity here.
It's also not just the question of the forums damaging the campaign, but the ability of the forums to improve the campaign. When you consider both the damage and the lack of improvement, it is quite significant.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
we have private sub-forums where people can 'debate' more controversial subjects and we have forums created as much as outreach to newcomers as anything. Those are moderated accordingly. As a non Paul supporter you are welcome here if you abide by forum rules, but it is private property. In a free society, you are free to go and create your own forum.
It's not state law, the political parties are private organizations.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
In AZ there is a statute. I don't know the penalties for violating and if it is like a traffic ticket or something worse, but it is a statute. In fact you have to check the rules and laws of each state, and some of the penalties will or will not be enforceable if your area has penalties. But it isn't across the board in terms of whether you will be penalized. In some places some might think it worth it, and in others there are no penalties, though.
asurfaholic
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,156
Im not asking for positive coverage. Just fair and unbiased reporting. Many of the media outlets have been downright hostile in their misrepresentation of Dr Paul and his positions. If media had just been fair in their job of reporting then we would likely be singing a different tune this point in the election.
You guys should stop bringing up the media as an excuse for doing a poor job. Media has one purpose and that is to make money and to serve its interest and the interest of its owners. They are a free enterprise as everyone else. It is the job of the listener to determine if what they say is true or not. Since most people want to be fed bullshit, they are feeding the news people want.
It is the people that are not doing there homework, not the media. They are doing just fine at what they usually do best: propaganda.
ClydeCoulter
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Messages
- 11,108
Wow, really? Let's see, they totally skip him when he gets 2nd place by only 200 votes shy of 1st, but mention others almost last? Yea, the sheep all called in and said "Stop saying Ron Pauls name or we'll boycott you". Get a clue.
Welcome to the forums and please hang around even after 2012 is over. I think it's great we have supporters of other candidates visiting the site and differing opinions make healthy debate. This is one of the most active political forums on the net and if you enjoy political conversation this is the place to be.
I thank you much for your honesty and explaining how you see things. I have heard the "you need to win to get coverage," response many times and actually expected it. I really don't buy this at all however and has really been a poor attempt by those in the media at rationalizing their continued blackout type treatment of Paul, thus greatly altering the outcome of the popular vote totals this year. You being here tells me you're an open minded individual which I certainly appreciate, but don't fall for this type of rationalizing as remotely being true. If this was the case then what about Pawlenty, Cain, (like you said) Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, and especially Santorum? All these candidates enjoyed a great prop up by the MSM without ever prior to the Iowa caucus' won anything in this presidential race. Santorum was going no where FAST, but when it was evident that Paul was going to win Iowa the MSM had to step in with a proven fake CNN poll to create the artificial Santorum "surge." The proof, was provided by PPP the polling firm which said there was no surge until CNN ran their artificial poll followed by non stop coverage from the MSM pumping Santorum, while at the same time finally giving Paul some media coverage, but not the kind you obviously want. Two weeks of constant negative attacks by all those in the MSM was enough to kill the real surge that was taking place in December and that was Paul moving out front in Iowa by a large margin in a crowded field. Once Iowa was over no more coverage for Paul positive or negative. This is just focusing on Iowa and how it turned out which set the tone for the following races, but what about all the free media given to Herman Cain and for what reason exactly?
Same goes for Bachmann and Perry. Obviously two folks that showed their true colors and are a few sandwiches shy of a picnic putting it mildly, yet all this media given to them with never once winning a race. I could break them each down one by one, but I'll just lump them all together because all their situations are basically the same with the exception of Perry due to the fact that he actually had a good bit of money. Paul had more money than the rest of the field and a grassroots organization that can be matched by NO candidate. This imo is what the msm "should" have been basing their media coverage on. The truth. Everyone knows that it's money and organization that wins elections and combining these two figures Paul was easily the 2nd best positioned candidate to win the nomination, but the msm never told anyone this. Instead Hermain Cain's love affairs and broke candidates with absolutely no organizations were more worthy of free press and certainly "top tier" candidates even though Paul, who has proved through fundraising and a massive grassroots organization that he was, is, and always been the real threat to Romney. Sure everyone was looking for the "non-Romney," but based on real factors that contribute to winning an election it was always Paul who was the real anti-Romney but was always treated as if he was some third tier Jon Huntsman. A study was done that showed that Paul recieved about the same amount of press as Huntsman even though they knew what Paul was bringing to the table, but simply could not whatsoever inform the general public that Paul was the real threat to win the white house. I guess from a different perspective one could call this sour grapes and maybe so, but if the media had simply reported the truth, not propped up or exatterated just a constant acknowledgement by those in the media that Paul has the money and organization to equate to a top-tier campaign that could win the nomination. This would not have been to much to ask. After all, it is simply, the truth.
Similar threads
