RecoveringNeoCon
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 305
Hey all! I've been having a good conversation over the past few days my favorite uncle on facebook. He's always been an independent-minded person who's always said there needed to be a 3rd party. He thought Ron Paul was the best of the bunch, but he was not a pure Ron Paul supporter like many of us, nor part of the "Revolution". He struck up the conversation after he saw my facebook post that linked to the article from Bloomberg, quoting Ron Paul as saying that the US is "far gone", etc etc......
Him:
Yeah, he's right, but, you know what. The republicans forgot the number one rule of battle, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The Liberals, socialists, anarchists, secularists and radical Muslims all understand this and actively support one cause...destroying America or at least the version of America that gets in their way. The Republicans, including Ron Paul forgot how important this battle was. They fought for months tearing each other down, handing Obama some of the best attacks in the general election. Was Romney a flawed candidate, FUCK YES! I wouldn't share a bowl of soup with that asshole. But given the choice, I'd take him every day of the week over my confused brother From Chicago. But instead they sniped each other, at the Rep Convention Ron Paul refused to "endorse" Romney and the Romney folks did not let him speak. The whole thing was just fucking stupid. Ron has a big following and he should have sacrificed his fucking ego and got behind the stupid mormon. It's all or nothing, so I don't want to hear his fucking whining now. Of course he's completely correct. He knew better than anyone how important it was to move the country in a new direction but he jumped ship. So fuck him. I hope a bunch of occupiers ramsack his home and thrown him out in the street. He along with all the other backbiting, republican dinosaurs, (Gingrich, Christie, Rick Perry and the twit from Minnesota) all of them should hang themselves. They're a pack of chess playing, honky Judases. I would say we have Rubio to look forward to but I'm not sure it isn't too late. There's nothing really left to do but close my company, collect welfare and check into the closest community college and finally learn how to play the tuba. Good night and good luck.
Me:
Totally.
BUT, two responses. The first response is a very accurate and well-written analysis that I came upon today from a fellow Ron Paul supporter regarding the casting of blame on Ron Paul and his supporters for not voting Romney.
Following that, is a link to a massive article chronicling the events of the entire campaign season that led I, my family and most Ron Paul supporters to vow never to cast a vote Romney come November. It was personal. It was astounding. We were cheated. Blatantly. Period. and Fox News and "conservative" media outlets were nowhere to be seen. And, then they wanted us to fall in line like good little Republicans and cast our vote for them because "We're better than the alternative, Obama?" Not a chance.
Response #1:
When we lose a race, we first start out in a somber mood and then after thinking about the loss over and over we begin to rationalize how we lost and cast blame. We justify the loss by blaming someone or something else and most times we blame others when we shouldn't be. This is one of those times.
Ron Paul's supporters are one of the most missunderstood subjects for the general Republican. His supporters aren't the same as a Santorum supporter or a Newt supporter or even a Bachmann supporter. Those who support any of those three candidates are in the "general Republican" demographic, meaning they are a Republican who will support all Republicans regardless of who that Republican is. When Bachmann dropped out of the Presidential race, her supporters latched onto the Republican candidate that was their second choice, perhaps someone like Newt. On the other hand,
Ron Paul's supporters come from a variety of areas. I would break down his supporters into the following percentages:
25% General Republicans
25% Disenfranchised Democrats
25% Libertarians
25% Independents
These percentages explain alot. The general Republican assumes that Mitt Romney would have received all of the votes from the Ron Paul supporters IF Ron Paul had thrown his support and endorsement behind Romney and this is not true.
During this election, the 25% of Ron Paul supporters that were in the "General Republican" category ended up voting for Romney. This happened regardless of a Paul endorsement.
The 25% of Paul supporters that were Democrat went back to voting for Democrats, mainly Obama. They ONLY voted "Republican" because they liked Ron Paul and not because they had an epiphany and seen the light only to switch parties. These supporters would only vote for a Republican Presidential nominee if that nominee were Ron Paul. When that wasn't the case, they went back to the Democrat party.
The 25% of Paul supporters that were Libertarian, like the Paul Democrats, went back to voting for the Libertarian Party candidates. Paul brought them in and they were only going to stay if he were the nominee. In their eyes, Romney was so far left and nowhere near their Libertarian beliefs, that they would NEVER vote for him and they didn't. Those votes went to Gary Johnson. It is worth noting, the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson both said they wouldn't run a Presidential candidate if the Republican's had nominated Ron Paul.
Now the other 25% of Paul supporters are a mix of disenfranchised Green Party voters, Constitution Party voters, etc. They, most likely, went back to voting for their Party's candidates, although I'm sure a few voted for Romney, Obama and Gary Johnson also.
The reason I point all this out is because Ron Paul brought in ALOT of potential voters to the Republican Party and when Romney won the nomination, close to 75% of those voters left the Republican Party.
It's easy to blame Ron Paul for Mitt Romney's loss but this is a wrong. The one person we should blame for Mitt's loss is Mitt himself. This is proven by the losses the Republicans suffered in the lower races. In Presidential election years, the top of the ticket tends to influence how the rest of the ticket does. Meaning, the stronger the Presidential candidate, the more votes the lower candidates get because they ride on his or her coattails. Mitt was not a strong candidate and thus didn't bring in a lot of enthusiasm to the party so there wasn't any enthusiasm to carry over into the congressional races, senate races and state races.
At this point, those of us that are "general Republicans" need to step back and assess our Party's future and plan for two years from now and four years from now. My first suggestion is to stay away from nominating moderates and nominate a conservative.
Response #2 (To really get what I'm talking about, you must take the time to click on as many of the links in the article as possible. They're there for proof. It is angering, and it was quite honestly, lovely to see Romney go down in flames on election night.)....****I then linked to the "How the GOP stole the nominomination, chronicling all the events****
http://www.examiner.com/article/how-the-gop-stole-the-nomination
He:
Anyway, I read your response and I get what you're saying. I've actually followed Ron Paul since the McCain run.
I understand your point. His followers aren't a single voting block. Your response puts forth an explanation as to why "RP voters" voted they way they did. You may be right on the money. Whether your analysis is accurate or not is irrelevant. It doesn't address the main point I was trying to make in my over-zealous rant. That is, that the list of Republicans, including RP, did not support their party's candidate.(Ron Paul is a Republican, he has always been a Republican which mean he's been voted in by "general Republicans" for three decades) But, my rant was not simply pointed at RP but all the other sniping Honkies as well. It was RP's whining that made me point him out specifically.
Just a couple more thoughts. On one hand it seems your saying he's a worthy candidate but on the other (and I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, if so, please correct me) it sounds like your saying, no matter how brilliant he is, he doesn't have enough sway with his followers to convince them who to vote for. By the tone of his whiny, elfish voice, I'm inclined to believe that. But still I say, it's irrelevant. Whatever pull he had he should have used. But he chose not to! That makes him culpable, at least in some measure, for the loss. There's no way around that. What good is raising an army of believers if they won't fight the enemy when you tell them to. Do you mean to tell me, that his followers were so angry that they would place the treatment of their candidate ahead of their country. In other words, if their candidate was fed well and if they played some cool music and let him strut around with a mic for a few minutes, and perhaps even place some of his issues in the party platform, then they would have voted the way he asked? It just seems so shallow that he would play his cards that way. If he really believed what he was saying, the way he was treated wouldn't have mattered, he would have expressed to his followers the urgent need to defeat Obama. He didn't do any of that. Now he's whining! After Obama cuts his Medicare he's going to sit in a wheel chair and roll himself of a cliff.
I'm not a registered Republican and I never cared for Romney, but I understand the simply fact, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Ron Paul forgot this and apparently was unable to convince his followers of this.
That's the strength of the Liberal movement. Many groups, some of them diametrically opposed to each other, ban together for a single purpose. Gays, who would be shot by radical muslims, blacks who get shit on by this economy, they all come together when it's time to vote. Republicans, Libertarians and like-minded Independents didn't come together and Ron Paul is a perfect example of that.
Or, maybe i'm overstating how bad Obama is. Maybe Obama should become the supreme leader of a new world order. I know, I'm being stupid. The truth is we'll all just put our heads down and schlogg through another four years of lies, broken promises and pure party politics. Oh shit, pass the blunt, it's legal now.
I kinda have a sense of where I'm going to go next, but I wanted to get the input of you all, and how you would respond in general.
- Anthony
Him:
Yeah, he's right, but, you know what. The republicans forgot the number one rule of battle, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The Liberals, socialists, anarchists, secularists and radical Muslims all understand this and actively support one cause...destroying America or at least the version of America that gets in their way. The Republicans, including Ron Paul forgot how important this battle was. They fought for months tearing each other down, handing Obama some of the best attacks in the general election. Was Romney a flawed candidate, FUCK YES! I wouldn't share a bowl of soup with that asshole. But given the choice, I'd take him every day of the week over my confused brother From Chicago. But instead they sniped each other, at the Rep Convention Ron Paul refused to "endorse" Romney and the Romney folks did not let him speak. The whole thing was just fucking stupid. Ron has a big following and he should have sacrificed his fucking ego and got behind the stupid mormon. It's all or nothing, so I don't want to hear his fucking whining now. Of course he's completely correct. He knew better than anyone how important it was to move the country in a new direction but he jumped ship. So fuck him. I hope a bunch of occupiers ramsack his home and thrown him out in the street. He along with all the other backbiting, republican dinosaurs, (Gingrich, Christie, Rick Perry and the twit from Minnesota) all of them should hang themselves. They're a pack of chess playing, honky Judases. I would say we have Rubio to look forward to but I'm not sure it isn't too late. There's nothing really left to do but close my company, collect welfare and check into the closest community college and finally learn how to play the tuba. Good night and good luck.
Me:
Totally.
BUT, two responses. The first response is a very accurate and well-written analysis that I came upon today from a fellow Ron Paul supporter regarding the casting of blame on Ron Paul and his supporters for not voting Romney.
Following that, is a link to a massive article chronicling the events of the entire campaign season that led I, my family and most Ron Paul supporters to vow never to cast a vote Romney come November. It was personal. It was astounding. We were cheated. Blatantly. Period. and Fox News and "conservative" media outlets were nowhere to be seen. And, then they wanted us to fall in line like good little Republicans and cast our vote for them because "We're better than the alternative, Obama?" Not a chance.
Response #1:
When we lose a race, we first start out in a somber mood and then after thinking about the loss over and over we begin to rationalize how we lost and cast blame. We justify the loss by blaming someone or something else and most times we blame others when we shouldn't be. This is one of those times.
Ron Paul's supporters are one of the most missunderstood subjects for the general Republican. His supporters aren't the same as a Santorum supporter or a Newt supporter or even a Bachmann supporter. Those who support any of those three candidates are in the "general Republican" demographic, meaning they are a Republican who will support all Republicans regardless of who that Republican is. When Bachmann dropped out of the Presidential race, her supporters latched onto the Republican candidate that was their second choice, perhaps someone like Newt. On the other hand,
Ron Paul's supporters come from a variety of areas. I would break down his supporters into the following percentages:
25% General Republicans
25% Disenfranchised Democrats
25% Libertarians
25% Independents
These percentages explain alot. The general Republican assumes that Mitt Romney would have received all of the votes from the Ron Paul supporters IF Ron Paul had thrown his support and endorsement behind Romney and this is not true.
During this election, the 25% of Ron Paul supporters that were in the "General Republican" category ended up voting for Romney. This happened regardless of a Paul endorsement.
The 25% of Paul supporters that were Democrat went back to voting for Democrats, mainly Obama. They ONLY voted "Republican" because they liked Ron Paul and not because they had an epiphany and seen the light only to switch parties. These supporters would only vote for a Republican Presidential nominee if that nominee were Ron Paul. When that wasn't the case, they went back to the Democrat party.
The 25% of Paul supporters that were Libertarian, like the Paul Democrats, went back to voting for the Libertarian Party candidates. Paul brought them in and they were only going to stay if he were the nominee. In their eyes, Romney was so far left and nowhere near their Libertarian beliefs, that they would NEVER vote for him and they didn't. Those votes went to Gary Johnson. It is worth noting, the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson both said they wouldn't run a Presidential candidate if the Republican's had nominated Ron Paul.
Now the other 25% of Paul supporters are a mix of disenfranchised Green Party voters, Constitution Party voters, etc. They, most likely, went back to voting for their Party's candidates, although I'm sure a few voted for Romney, Obama and Gary Johnson also.
The reason I point all this out is because Ron Paul brought in ALOT of potential voters to the Republican Party and when Romney won the nomination, close to 75% of those voters left the Republican Party.
It's easy to blame Ron Paul for Mitt Romney's loss but this is a wrong. The one person we should blame for Mitt's loss is Mitt himself. This is proven by the losses the Republicans suffered in the lower races. In Presidential election years, the top of the ticket tends to influence how the rest of the ticket does. Meaning, the stronger the Presidential candidate, the more votes the lower candidates get because they ride on his or her coattails. Mitt was not a strong candidate and thus didn't bring in a lot of enthusiasm to the party so there wasn't any enthusiasm to carry over into the congressional races, senate races and state races.
At this point, those of us that are "general Republicans" need to step back and assess our Party's future and plan for two years from now and four years from now. My first suggestion is to stay away from nominating moderates and nominate a conservative.
Response #2 (To really get what I'm talking about, you must take the time to click on as many of the links in the article as possible. They're there for proof. It is angering, and it was quite honestly, lovely to see Romney go down in flames on election night.)....****I then linked to the "How the GOP stole the nominomination, chronicling all the events****
http://www.examiner.com/article/how-the-gop-stole-the-nomination
He:
Anyway, I read your response and I get what you're saying. I've actually followed Ron Paul since the McCain run.
I understand your point. His followers aren't a single voting block. Your response puts forth an explanation as to why "RP voters" voted they way they did. You may be right on the money. Whether your analysis is accurate or not is irrelevant. It doesn't address the main point I was trying to make in my over-zealous rant. That is, that the list of Republicans, including RP, did not support their party's candidate.(Ron Paul is a Republican, he has always been a Republican which mean he's been voted in by "general Republicans" for three decades) But, my rant was not simply pointed at RP but all the other sniping Honkies as well. It was RP's whining that made me point him out specifically.
Just a couple more thoughts. On one hand it seems your saying he's a worthy candidate but on the other (and I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, if so, please correct me) it sounds like your saying, no matter how brilliant he is, he doesn't have enough sway with his followers to convince them who to vote for. By the tone of his whiny, elfish voice, I'm inclined to believe that. But still I say, it's irrelevant. Whatever pull he had he should have used. But he chose not to! That makes him culpable, at least in some measure, for the loss. There's no way around that. What good is raising an army of believers if they won't fight the enemy when you tell them to. Do you mean to tell me, that his followers were so angry that they would place the treatment of their candidate ahead of their country. In other words, if their candidate was fed well and if they played some cool music and let him strut around with a mic for a few minutes, and perhaps even place some of his issues in the party platform, then they would have voted the way he asked? It just seems so shallow that he would play his cards that way. If he really believed what he was saying, the way he was treated wouldn't have mattered, he would have expressed to his followers the urgent need to defeat Obama. He didn't do any of that. Now he's whining! After Obama cuts his Medicare he's going to sit in a wheel chair and roll himself of a cliff.
I'm not a registered Republican and I never cared for Romney, but I understand the simply fact, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Ron Paul forgot this and apparently was unable to convince his followers of this.
That's the strength of the Liberal movement. Many groups, some of them diametrically opposed to each other, ban together for a single purpose. Gays, who would be shot by radical muslims, blacks who get shit on by this economy, they all come together when it's time to vote. Republicans, Libertarians and like-minded Independents didn't come together and Ron Paul is a perfect example of that.
Or, maybe i'm overstating how bad Obama is. Maybe Obama should become the supreme leader of a new world order. I know, I'm being stupid. The truth is we'll all just put our heads down and schlogg through another four years of lies, broken promises and pure party politics. Oh shit, pass the blunt, it's legal now.
I kinda have a sense of where I'm going to go next, but I wanted to get the input of you all, and how you would respond in general.
- Anthony
Last edited:
