Ron Paul Email

[chudrockz]

Bingo. Bango. Bongo.

Bingo, bango, bullcrud. The email is DEFEATIST, and each one like it drastically reduces the number of "soldiers" willing to carry on the fight. It is the last thing on earth Ron Paul would do.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What if drama on the convention floor is exactly what (latterly quixotic and fringe) Ron Paul does NOT want at the absolute pinnacle of his career? What if nominating drama sullies the RAND ADVANCEMENT "game playing" plan? FINE BY ME but, as you know, I am not among those who ever bought into the Republican Party Takeover strategery.

You are saying it is all about Rand and it is not. It's about US succeeding in our effort to regain liberty. All kinds of people will be running for office under our banner and all of them will be trying to advance our goals.

If people would just read what Dr. Paul said, he was pretty clear about what he hoped we would gain from the RNC and then, we move on from there.

 

[sailingaway]

Honestly, IMHO, the people that have their excitement level decreased by the recent communications from Ron and the campaign are likely the ones who had unrealistic expectations in the first place. Just think of some of the things that people got their hopes up for in the last couple of months: people were so sure the RNC would be brokered, people were so sure that all delegates were unbound, people were so sure that the "stealth delegate" plan really meant Paul was going to steal the nomination, etc, etc, etc.

So yeah, some people have come back down to earth because they are finally accepting that there is no Santa Claus and Ron Paul is not going to be the nominee. He's not going to give the finger to the GOP from the podium at the RNC.

Reality sucks, when one has been living in delusion.

But for those that have accepted reality all along - this email is a great reminder of the incredible strides we have made this year. In 2008, he had 35 delegates IIRC, this year he will have around 300. Only double the votes, but 10 times the delegates. That is a great thing, and it demonstrates to the GOP that the libertarian-conservative wing is strong, organized and growing. As Ron said in his email, "our liberty movement is the future of the GOP".

there are a number of people on here with their own agenda, and you are one imho, you want minimum rocking of the boat and for people to work for your candidates you call liberty candidates, some of whom I would seriously have to disagree with you on. You have even said that voting for Romney wouldn't be so bad. You were trying to get people to give up and move on BEFORE the campaign started sending these emails.

as for cheapseats, he wants people to vote for Gary Johnson.

 

[sailingaway]

Bingo, bango, bullcrud. The email is DEFEATIST, and each one like it drastically reduces the number of "soldiers" willing to carry on the fight. It is the last thing on earth Ron Paul would do.

this, imho.

I have seen NOTHING from Ron directly about not pushing for all we can get, respectfully but standing up for our rights, and these emails set a very different 'don't rock the boat at all costs' tone.

 

[tbone717]

Bingo, bango, bullcrud. The email is DEFEATIST, and each one like it drastically reduces the number of "soldiers" willing to carry on the fight. It is the last thing on earth Ron Paul would do.

The email is very positive. It is only defeatist if someone was holding onto the idea that somehow Ron Paul would be the nominee. The email clearly lays out the reality of the present situation and positively lays out the impact RP delegates can potentially have at the RNC.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Bingo, bango, bullcrud. The email is DEFEATIST, and each one like it drastically reduces the number of "soldiers" willing to carry on the fight. It is the last thing on earth Ron Paul would do.

You don't care about your liberty, so you would throw in the towel? Because that is what it sounds like. This isn't about Ron Paul.

 

[sailingaway]

The email is very positive. It is only defeatist if someone was holding onto the idea that somehow Ron Paul would be the nominee. The email clearly lays out the reality of the present situation and positively lays out the impact RP delegates can potentially have at the RNC.

No it isn't. It is defeatist about the way it speaks of the LEAST we might win as if that were all we were going for. We go for everything. Why not? And win what we can.

 

[sailingaway]

You don't care about your liberty, so you would throw in the towel? Because that is what it sounds like. This isn't about Ron Paul.

No, people were quoting DELEGATES who were wondering if this was worth it. I am sure the emails cost us delegates. There were a number of places, Texas and Oregon for two, where one more vote would have gotten us delegates in key votes. It just makes no sense to put these out, in my opinion.

Regardless, there it is.

Onward.

 

[LibertyEagle]

this, imho.

I have seen NOTHING from Ron directly about not pushing for all we can get, respectfully but standing up for our rights, and these emails set a very different 'don't rock the boat at all costs' tone.

I don't read that at all, Sailing. He said, "You and I must ensure that as many of my supporters as possible are credentialed at the Republican National Convention." That means he wants all the delegates he can get in Tampa. It also sounds to me that he is trying his best to let everyone know that there really isn't much of a chance, if any, for him to win. But, he's also trying to remind people of what we can get done at the RNC. To me, that is positive. All is not lost and it hasn't been for naught. But, if someone has been believing that he still might win, then yes, I can see why it would be depressing. But, I don't think that is what he intended at all.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Good for Dr. Paul; trying to snap some people out of their pie-in-the-sky fantasies about him waltzing into the convention having not won a state, and walking away the nominee.

 

[tbone717]

there are a number of people on here with their own agenda, and you are one imho, you want minimum rocking of the boat and for people to work for your candidates you call liberty candidates, some of whom I would seriously have to disagree with you on. You have even said that voting for Romney wouldn't be so bad. You were trying to get people to give up and move on BEFORE the campaign started sending these emails.

Out of the listing of RLC candidates that I posted a month or so ago, Ron Paul has endorsed the majority of the ones running for the House or Senate. With maybe one or two exceptions, the only ones that did not receive an endorsement were incumbents (incumbents typically do not receive endorsements) and candidates that are polling so low, they have a near zero chance of winning (national figures typically do not endorse candidates that have an extremely low chance of winning). The remaining candidates are all at the state level, they received the endorsement of either the national or state level RLC. Folks can decide for themselves who they choose to support, but the information was provided here to inform people whom the RLC (one of the few national organizations that endorsed Paul for President) had endorsed at the state and national level.

Incidentally, my desire was not for people to completely give up and move along, but to be able to multi task, instead of focusing all efforts, money and time on one race. Folks like Gunny and Karen K (both RLC endorsed btw) were the ones that suffered, IMHO, from the inability of people to focus on more than one race. When the chances of a brokered convention became very slim (I estimated it at around 1%), it seemed foolish to me to focus 100% effort on something that had an incredibly small chance of occurring. If you took that as a desire to "give up" then you misinterpreted my intentions.

As far as Romney, Rand's endorsement of him was what caused me to make some considerations. I have not made my mind up as of yet, but when I consider that legislation such as the repeal of Obamacare and the Fed Audit bill have zero chance of being signed with Obama in the White House, I think Rand may be making a valid point when he endorsed the presumptive nominee.

 

[chudrockz]

Good for Dr. Paul; trying to snap some people out of their pie-in-the-sky fantasies about him waltzing into the convention having not won a state, and walking away the nominee.

I've never, in nearly five years here, negative-repped ANYONE, and I'm not going to, but if anything were deserving of such, this is.

"having not won a state"

Are you friggin' KIDDING me?!?! Do you work for CNN???!

 

[LibertyEagle]

Good for Dr. Paul; trying to snap some people out of their pie-in-the-sky fantasies about him waltzing into the convention having not won a state, and walking away the nominee.

He has actually won a number of states. The delegates are what count.

 

[sailingaway]

I've never, in nearly five years here, negative-repped ANYONE, and I'm not going to, but if anything were deserving of such, this is.

"having not won a state"

Are you friggin' KIDDING me?!?! Do you work for CNN???!

He doesn't count delegates, and apparently doesn't count Ron's landslide in the Louisiana Caucus, either. But whatever. These threads bring people to the subforum who are not closely following the campaign.

 

[jbauer]

As I said, Ron Paul is either under threat OR he's genuinely worried that the convention may turn violent. I just don't know.

Yeah, read the whole what 12 pages now. I really think that Ron is concerned about the saftey of his own supporters and everyone else. I think he's trying to stop a Kent State type event from happening. If the GOP isn't careful I could honestly see things turning VERY ugly. Ron's just trying to not be the one who sent out the shot heard round the world.

You have to respect the man for who he is. He is a nonconbative person, I wouldn't expect anything less from him.

 

[cheapseats]

as for cheapseats, he wants people to vote for Gary Johnson.

You neglect to mention . . . oh that's right, you weren't HERE then, unless you changed your username . . . that I argued like a bastard for Ron Paul to make a third-party run, instead of clinging to the THOROUGHLY CORRUPT Republican Par-taaay. I lost that argument.

Ron Paul had serious momentum going into Iowa, and again amidst the extraordinarily well-attended California rallies. Fumbled Iowa, dropped the ball after California. TWO DAYS' NOTICE on the UCLA rally, yep, I remember.

I'da warned y'all about the bizarre last-minute word to NOT watch the vote in Iowa, but I was banned at the time...for questioning The Campaign generally and Matt Collins specifically. There shuuuure have been a lotta vote-count irregularities since Iowa, dontcha think?

AFTER IT WAS CLEAR TO ME, if not to the Devoted, that Ron Paul would NOT secure the GOP nomination, I returned to The Bubble and argued for Ron Paul to bail on the Republican Par-taaay that treats him so ill, and go ALL IN on a third-party run while the Libertarian Party nomination was still available. Re-MEM-berrrr?

 

[sailingaway]

He said we have a right to stand up for ourselves and we shouldn't let ourselves be pushed around.

 

[sailingaway]

You neglect to mention . . . oh that's right, you weren't HERE then, unless you changed your username . . . that I argued like a bastard for Ron Paul to make a third-party run, instead of clinging to the THOROUGHLY CORRUPT Republican Par-taaay I lost that argument.

Ron Paul had serious momentum going into Iowa, and again amidst the extraordinarily well-attended California rallies. Fumbled Iowa, dropped the ball after California. TWO DAYS' NOTICE on the UCLA rally, yep, I remember.

I'da warned y'all about the bizarre last-minute word to NOT watch the vote in Iowa, but I was banned at the time...for questioning The Campaign generally and Matt Collins specifically. There shuuuure have been a lotta vote-count irregularities since Iowa, dontcha think?

AFTER IT WAS CLEAR TO ME, if not to the Devoted, that Ron Paul would NOT secure the GOP nomination, I returned to The Bubble and argued for Ron Paul to bail on the Republican Par-taaay that treats him so ill, and go ALL IN on a third-party run while the Libertarian Party nomination was still available. Re-MEM-berrrr?

I saw you make a lot of arguments for him to run 3d party. That doesn't change the fact that now that he hasn't you are trying to get people to vote for Johnson.

 

[cheapseats]

He said we have a right to stand up for ourselves and we shouldn't let ourselves be pushed around.

Tell me you don't need someone to give you permission to do that.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

No, people were quoting DELEGATES who were wondering if this was worth it. I am sure the emails cost us delegates. There were a number of places, Texas and Oregon for two, where one more vote would have gotten us delegates in key votes. It just makes no sense to put these out, in my opinion.

Regardless, there it is.

Onward.

I adore Ron Paul as a candidate, but these announcements remind us of old-school limitations of his campaign. Wherever there has been a moment of decision to hardcore charge ahead or do a soft roll back, the campaign has done the latter. There's a good reason why elsewhere there is a 600 post thread debating 'working within the GOP.' The supporters of doing so basically say 'stay with the plan Paul has adopted' and build upon his reform efforts, while the other side points to campaign messages like this, the Rand compromises, and the GOP fighting both of them tooth and nail, and say the future belongs to movement moving boldly beyond dependency on the party, and the Paul machine.