talkingpointes
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,503
I wish he would have said something about Rand's endorsement...
He doesn't need too. Ron is a man of principle, he leads by example.
I wish he would have said something about Rand's endorsement...
He doesn't need too. Ron is a man of principle, he leads by example.
Exactly right. His campaign endorsed Romney many months ago. Rand was just following their lead.
Exactly right. His campaign endorsed Romney many months ago. Rand was just following their lead.
This is total garbage. If the aim of Ron Paul/the campaign was truly to get the nomination, then I would at least like to hear some acknowledgement that he did not win. But his speech makes it seem as if things went perfectly according to plan and he is going to have an influence in the Republican party. Who knows if this will happen, I think Pat Buchanan tried something similar a decade ago and no one remembers. He should run as an independent, I see him now as never having been interested in winning. If he doesn't its either Obama or Romney and will need to decide between the lesser of 2 evils.
I'm not happy with the statements that came out of the campaign either but in all fairness, I think that's a gross mischaracterization of what the campaign said. There is a difference between acknowledging that Romney is likely to win the nomination, vs. actually endorsing him. A big difference. It's the difference between saying "I think Romney will probably be the nominee," a statement that does not indicate one's preference, versus "I WANT Romney to be the nominee and I HOPE Romney is the nominee," which is clearly stating one's preference.
Neither Ron Paul nor his campaign ever endorsed Romney.
When is he going to say what the actual plan of action is? They keep talking about it but no one seems to have any idea what it is...
I'm not happy with the statements that came out of the campaign either but in all fairness, I think that's a gross mischaracterization of what the campaign said. There is a difference between acknowledging that Romney is likely to win the nomination, vs. actually endorsing him. A big difference. It's the difference between saying "I think Romney will probably be the nominee," a statement that does not indicate one's preference, versus "I WANT Romney to be the nominee and I HOPE Romney is the nominee," which is clearly stating one's preference.
Neither Ron Paul nor his campaign ever endorsed Romney.
Interesting. The media told us of an alliance, many months back. The Ron Paul campaign usually used questions about Romney, as ways to praise his "business experience", or even use major Romney campaign staffer gafs as ways to defend Romney and attack Santorum and Gingrich (see FlipFlop ad from RP's campaign).
Then, we have Michigan where Ron Paul's campaign openly launched an attack ad AGAINST Rick Santorum, helping Romney win that state.
Then, we have Virginia, the first one-on-one state with Romney. What awesome campaign ad did Ron Paul 2012 and company launch in Virginia? None. Zero. Not a peep at all.
Then, Rick Santorum drops out, Newt Gingrich drops out, and what does Ron Paul 2012's campaign do over raising over 1.5 million (maybe three, I'd had to check the timeline) in Texas? They run an attack ad, alienating ex-Santorum and ex-Gingrich supporters, by attacking Santorum and Gingrich who were ALREADY OUT OF THE RACE!
North Carolina? Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were out, Gingrich the week before NC's vote. What did Ron Paul and company use those millions on in North Carolina to help the Evangelical voters that were turning out on an Amendment do? ZERO. NOTHING!
Nobody around here, or at the official campaign, should ever say the Ron Paul 2008 or Ron Paul 2012 campaigns were EVER serious about winning. You do not raise/spend $50+ MILLION between two campaigns, with the ACTIVE supporters Ron Paul had, and get the results we have and top it off by insulting the Ron Paul supporters that have been giving it their all to become delegates.
If John Edwards was investigated for using campaign funds to cover up his baby's momma, perhaps we could get an investigation into the Ron Paul campaign using funds to help Romney win?
"Some people, if they don't know....you can't tell them." Enough already. Put it in drive and move forward already.
Gotta write the official campaign off. It's been co-opted. That's clear to everyone by now. No use bitching about it now.
Interesting. The media told us of an alliance, many months back.
Not with Ron Paul? Then why waste your time in Grassroots Central on Ron Paul Forums?
But why is Ron Paul's tie black and red? Has he converted to anarcho-communism?
The media also told us Ron Paul supporters were causing "chaos" and "shenanigans" and attempting "hostile takeovers" of caucuses and conventions in an effort to "steal" delegates from Romney who "IS" the nominee. The media is so believable.
You can believe whatever you want, but throwing in the towel now and assuming the worst about the only man in politics who has demonstrated unshakeable integrity and consistency for many years is, in my opinion, a mistake. Things are just about to get really interesting with the lawsuit happening, and Tampa is still more than 2 months away.
It must be really difficult to be a hero making $150K+ a year, spreading a message. You clearly didn't watch any of my videos on the media (unfortunately, YouTube deleted them all with my account, and of course you can't even find a human being to talk with to get an explanation as to why at Google/YouTube) and exposing them in their lies about RP during the campaign, but that's okay...some people will defend a campaign that is/was about raising money, and not winning...all day long apparently.![]()
But why is Ron Paul's tie black and red? Has he converted to anarcho-communism?
What's the red & black connection to "anarcho-communism?"