Revisiting the Romney endorsement 4 years later (split)

[Krugminator2]

Mealy, smarmy, used car salesman talk.

So, he grifted hundreds of thousands of dollars, many of which from people who could barely afford it.

And you defend it.

$#@!ing shameful, all around.

It is immoral to let a sucker keep his money. Ron Paul was done after South Carolina which was in January 2012. Rand endorsed in JUNE. The race was over for five months. Ron won zero states and finished a distant 4th in the vote tally.

Anyone who donated to Ron Paul with the expectation of him winning, especially after the first few primaries, is a life fish and is going to blow money their money on televangelists, herbal remedies, homeopathy, astrology, 900 number psychics, etc. It may well go to Ron where it is going to put to some good use promoting liberty candidates. Ron asked. People voluntarily gave. I have no sympathy.

 

[Krugminator2]

Here's the bottom line:

Rand lied to us.

"We're in it to win it, we're in for the long haul."

.

Rand lost. He had no way forward. That is why he dropped out. He left on a high note getting 5th in Iowa. It was only getting worse in NH and SC.

Rand answering that he is in it for the long haul is the equivalent of the CEO of Bear Stearns saying the company is solvent in March of 2008. If he doesn't answer that way he creates a self-fulfilling prophesy that guarantees failure. He took all the steps necessary to have a campaign that could compete for the long haul. But he got decimated.

 

[Matt Collins]

Mealy, smarmy, used car salesman talk.

So, he grifted hundreds of thousands of dollars, many of which from people who could barely afford it.

And you defend it.

$#@!ing shameful, all around.

No, people voluntarily gave their money and it was their choice to do so, but it wasn't put to waste. It was actually used to promote the cause by continuing to amass delegates.

You do realize that because of those efforts and fundraising that the GOP is in the position it is in now, right? (civil war)


Ron, because he continued to amass delegates, has effectively created the conditions that allowed the GOP to be split.

If we didn't have any or many delegates in 2012 then we would not have been able to cause the establishment to change the rules on us at the Convention because we wouldn't have been a threat. After Iowa Ron wasn't a threat to win the nomination but he was a threat to upset the apple cart which he did very well in Tampa. He exposed the establishment for what they are. That helped to create a massive anti-establishment sentiment which is what lead to the rise of Trump. I don't support Trump but he is taking 2012 to its logical conclusion; hammering the wedge in the Party.

 

[Matt Collins]

Anyone who donated to Ron Paul with the expectation of him winning, especially after the first few primaries,

At that point the goal wasn't for him to get the nomination, but for him to acquire as many delegates as possible.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Anyone who donated to Ron Paul with the expectation of him winning, especially after the first few primaries, is a life fish and is going to blow money their money on televangelists, herbal remedies, homeopathy, astrology, 900 number psychics, etc. It may well go to Ron where it is going to put to some good use promoting liberty candidates. Ron asked. People voluntarily gave. I have no sympathy.

That's exactly my point.

If the Rand action was all agreed upon and delivered in a nice shiny package to Sean Hannity, according to whatever political metric they were using, and for whatever political gain they they they could garner, then that left any further fundraising efforts for Ron's campaign to be relegated to the level of Jimmy Swaggart begging for money on teevee, just like any other political whore.

I suppose you're right, it's my fault.

I let an inner hope (here's a politician that is a statesman, that I can actually trust) override my natural bitter cynicism.

The fact that Ron is out there hawking Porter Stansberry's doom porn is telling.

Won't ever make that mistake again in my lifetime.

Ya'll carry on and have fun.

 

[thoughtomator]

[MENTION=1866]AntiFederalist[/MENTION] that people are actually comparing Rand to a line-up of scammers and hucksters as a method of defending him is remarkable, and telling.

 

[Krugminator2]

The fact that Ron is out there hawking Porter Stansberry's doom porn is telling.

It shouldn't tarnish your view of him because it is completely in line with his life history. Ron is great but he is basically an effective salesman and marketer, which I see as a positive. He isn't a saint though and he certainly isn't above being politician.

@AntiFederalist that people are actually comparing Rand to a line-up of scammers and hucksters as a method of defending him is remarkable, and telling.

I don't see anyone defending Rand comparing him to scammers and hucksters. You are doing that . Rand worked a grueling schedule and kept up his Senate duties for the privilege of low support and constant irrational complaints.

Rand and Goldwater are the only two major liberty candidates in the last 200 years. These kinds of candidates don't grow on trees. There was no one to get out of the way for.