Fox Admits Romney Cannot Win With Out Ron Paul Supporters

[RobertNashville]

I want to here Romney supporters argue for and about Romneys strengths and why he should be president without saying "Cause Me Hates Obama"

There would be no point in spending the time doing so unless the one listening were truly listening and willing to be persuaded to support Romney.

Moreover, it's unnecessary in any event since anything one wants to know about Romney, good and bad, is readily available to anyone who wants to find it.

Edited July 25, 2012 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

Except in my above remark I was joking (which I thought would have been obvious); the ones I'm talking about berating me were most definitely not joking. In fact, one the most vile and abusive of the bunch I've personally had an encounter with this election cycle is in the video that is the subject of this thread, standing behind RP.

If I'd not heard similar statements not made in joking many times perhaps it would have been easier to discern as humor. Or perhaps it was the choice of smiley.

It's not like Dr. Pauls supporters have the greatest market share of unsavory behavior. Most large groups will tend toward an even distribution of stupidity and acrimony. Perhaps you just bring out the best in folks.

Edited July 26, 2012 by sigmtnman

[plank white]

There would be no point in spending the time doing so unless the one listening were truly listening and willing to be persuaded to support Romney.

Moreover, it's unnecessary in any event since anything one wants to know about Romney, good and bad, is readily available to anyone who wants to find it.

Hmm I have tried and anything Good he claims he is gonna "do for the people" goes against something he has said or done previously. This would be why I dont , Like , Trust , or even think about voting for Romney . I would honestly like to here otherwise if im misled or im misrepresenting the facts about the guy .

The honest to god only defense I here for Romney is "I hate Obama " Or "Obama is Bad" well I feel the same way now that that is done . Why would Romney make a good POTUS ?

[Oh Shoot]

...Why would Romney make a good POTUS ?

Because he's a practical man, knows how to wield power effectively, not chained to a rigid ideology, and loves the USA. And doesn't care if he ever makes another buck. All qualities that are 180 degrees from BHO.

What many criticize as "waffling" through the last 20 years of so, could also be seen as "changing to meet the realities of the age".

Flexibility in fast changing times is not necessarily a drawback. Slick Willy saved his presidency by "waffling", and in so doing also gave the US it's last truly great prosperity. Ronald Reagan was an uber liberal Hollywood union president, before he "waffled" into a God of Conservatism.

- OS

[sigmtnman]

His gun control statements have been made as recently as 2004. So say he has seen the light and really feels different... He supported the wall street bailouts, wanted Washington to save the retirements of the car industry, supports NDAA and I could go on, but why? Not to mention Bain Capital was given to him with no financial risk to him, he most likely misled folks about his involvement and at worst flat out lied on election filings, based on SEC filings. This is a man I'm supposed to support?

I see it as a further merger of .com and .gov. Do I really have to choose between communism and corporate fascism?

Edited July 26, 2012 by sigmtnman

[plank white]

Because he's a practical man, knows how to wield power effectively, not chained to a rigid ideology, and loves the USA. And doesn't care if he ever makes another buck. All qualities that are 180 degrees from BHO.

What many criticize as "waffling" through the last 20 years of so, could also be seen as "changing to meet the realities of the age".

Flexibility in fast changing times is not necessarily a drawback. Slick Willy saved his presidency by "waffling", and in so doing also gave the US it's last truly great prosperity. Ronald Reagan was an uber liberal Hollywood union president, before he "waffled" into a God of Conservatism.

- OS

Those are great Opinions atleast thats more than most can say for him .And I honestly do respect you opinion and don't mean any disrespect when I say Romney supporters should stick with Opinions when talking about his good traits .

and Lets be clear Im not bashing you or the other Robertnashville fella on here I like a good simple debate about the guy everyone wants me to vote for .

and all i get is bashing of Obama so atleast i got to here something other than that

His gun control statements have been made as recently as 2004. So say he has seen the light and really feels different... He supported the wall street bailouts, wanted Washington to save the retirements of the car industry, supports NDAA and I could go on, but why? Not to mention Bain Capital was given to him with no financial risk to him, he most likely misled folks about his involvement and at worst flat out lied on election filings, based on SEC filings. This is a man I'm supposed to support?

I see it as a further merger of .com and .gov. Do I really have to choose between communism and corporate fascism?

Its an uphill battle when arguing Facts against Opinions But I feel ya man Edited July 26, 2012 by plank white

[RobertNashville]

Hmm I have tried and anything Good he claims he is gonna "do for the people" goes against something he has said or done previously. This would be why I dont , Like , Trust , or even think about voting for Romney . I would honestly like to here otherwise if im misled or im misrepresenting the facts about the guy .

The honest to god only defense I here for Romney is "I hate Obama " Or "Obama is Bad" well I feel the same way now that that is done . Why would Romney make a good POTUS ?

Maybe because he isn't a Marxist/communist who's greatest goal as President would be to fundamentally transform America???

[plank white]

^^^^ Awsome answer to that question

Edited July 26, 2012 by plank white

[RobertNashville]

His gun control statements have been made as recently as 2004. So say he has seen the light and really feels different... He supported the wall street bailouts, wanted Washington to save the retirements of the car industry, supports NDAA and I could go on, but why? Not to mention Bain Capital was given to him with no financial risk to him, he most likely misled folks about his involvement and at worst flat out lied on election filings, based on SEC filings. This is a man I'm supposed to support?

I see it as a further merger of .com and .gov. Do I really have to choose between communism and corporate fascism?

I'll take corporate fascism over communism any day...I've been to communist countries and spent time there; it aint for me and needs to be avoided at almost any cost.

I'll take Romney's "gun control" statements any day over Obama who would absolutely confiscate all private firearms if he could and WILL sign any gun control legislation that crosses his desk. Romney may or my not sign such measures but I suspect he won't.

I'll take Romney's multiple supreme court nominations any day and twice on Sunday over anyone Obama will nominate in a second term.

I believe Romney will do a good job as President...I believe he's honest and a man of faith and will at least try to do what is right. I'm not deluded into thinking that he is George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Ronald Reagan (and neither is Ron Paul) but it doesn't matter because none of them are running.

Ron Paul needs to state flatly that he will not run for President as a write-in, third-party or in any other fashion and urge support of Romney; that is the grown-up thing to do when you run for the nomination and lose...if RP doesn't do that then it will confirm the suspicions I've had of him for a long time.

Edited July 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[kieefer]

Because he's a practical man, knows how to wield power effectively, not chained to a rigid ideology, and loves the USA. And doesn't care if he ever makes another buck. All qualities that are 180 degrees from BHO.

What many criticize as "waffling" through the last 20 years of so, could also be seen as "changing to meet the realities of the age".

Flexibility in fast changing times is not necessarily a drawback. Slick Willy saved his presidency by "waffling", and in so doing also gave the US it's last truly great prosperity. Ronald Reagan was an uber liberal Hollywood union president, before he "waffled" into a God of Conservatism.

- OS

Obviously his business experience plus his government service far out weighs anything BHO has ever done. He has proven leadership skills which is poorly lacking in government.

I believe he is an honest man and like Oh said he loves America, both points BHO fails on miserably.

I think he will cut spending and do what he can reforming the tax code among other issues.

I also think he will try to be a President for ALL people and won't play the class warfare game. I look at him as everything BHO isn't, I can live with him despite any flaws. BHO, not so much.

[RobertNashville]

If I'd not heard similar statements not made in joking many times perhaps it would have been easier to discern as humor. Or perhaps it was the choice of smiley.

It's not like Dr. Pauls supporters have the greatest market share of unsavory behavior. Most large groups will tend toward an even distribution of stupidity and acrimony. Perhaps you just bring out the best in folks.

Perhaps I do and you are right, they don't have the greatest market share.

I suppose I've developed a sort of thin skin...when I've served and still do serve my country in uniform and when I've worked for many years to acquire multiple undergrad and graduate degrees it tends to make me a little angry to have my patriotism called into question by someone who has never worn the uniform or to be berated and called uneducated and uninformed by that same wet-behind-the-ears former disk jockey who I don't believe has completed even one degree and was fired from his last job and to suffer all that simply because I don't support Ron Paul.

True, he is only one person and has been especially insulting but I've seen enough similar behavior this cycle out of RP supporters that it's enough reason to give pause and why RP seems to attract more than his fair share of such folks.

[RobertNashville]

^^^^ Awsome answer to that question

Thanks...occasionally I get one right here and there.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Ron Paul needs to state flatly that he will not run for President as a write-in, third-party or in any other fashion and urge support of Romney; that is the grown-up thing to do when you run for the nomination and lose...if RP doesn't do that then it will confirm the suspicions I've had of him for a long time.

I'm puzzled why you are so fixated on that. Regardless whether RP runs write-in or not, or endorses Romney or not, will make scant difference in the behavior of his most ardent followers. It is puzzling why you would get so upset if Ron Paul does or doesn't do something that can't have practical significance either way.

Call them Paulbots or Ronulans, and sure maybe they are fanatic, but if RP endorses Romney they will denounce RP as a traitor and do what they want to do regardless. RP is only the current figurehead of their movement. When Rand Paul said "good things" about Romney a couple of weeks ago within a day most of the Paulbots and Ronulans were hopping mad and had Rand written off as a traitor. They would do the same to Ron.

If Romney's success lies in the hands of Paulbots, then it is the Paulbots which Romney must convince, directly. Even if Ron Paul would be a "judas goat" then his sheep won't follow.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[RobertNashville]

I'm puzzled why you are so fixated on that. Regardless whether RP runs write-in or not, or endorses Romney or not, will make scant difference in the behavior of his most ardent followers. It is puzzling why you would get so upset if Ron Paul does or doesn't do something that can't have practical significance either way.

Call them Paulbots or Ronulans, and sure maybe they are fanatic, but if RP endorses Romney they will denounce RP as a traitor and do what they want to do regardless. RP is only the current figurehead of their movement. When Rand Paul said "good things" about Romney a couple of weeks ago within a day most of the Paulbots and Ronulans were hopping mad and had Rand written off as a traitor. They would do the same to Ron.

If Romney's success lies in the hands of Paulbots, then it is the Paulbots which Romney must convince, directly. Even if Ron Paul would be a "judas goat" then his sheep won't follow.

I'm fixated on it because when I've seen him asked the question about running independently/third-party, etc. he's done everything but stand on his head to avoid answering the question and when a politician avoids answering a direct question it's usually because they know (or at least think) that the answer won't be very popular.

Moreover, I've long had the suspicion that Ron Paul's designs on the Presidency has a lot less to do with doing what's right for the country and a lot more about doing what makes RP important...I think his own ego is what is driving him to run...I think that's why, even though he is truly a Libertarian in his politics, he's chosen to run for the Republican nomination because, unlike some of his supporters, RP knows he'll never win the Presidency if is isn't the R nominee...frankly, it bothers me and seems just a bit dishonest that he would use the Republican party that way.

Now...I know all the above is just my opinion but my opinion is the only thing I can really claim expertise in. that said, I think my opinion is based on observation and experience. Whether it's right or wrong; I don't know.

Aside from all that, it's beyond whether Romney can or can't win without the Paul faithful...accepting defeat graciously and doing nothing to impede the Republican candidate and at least giving verbal support to the person who beat you is simply the right thing to do...it's the honest thing to do...anyone who won't do that is someone who I don't think deserves to be President. Again; just my opinion.

Edited July 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest ThePunisher]

I'm fixated on it because when I've seen him asked the question about running independently/third-party, etc. he's done everything but stand on his head to avoid answering the question and when a politician avoids answering a direct question it's usually because they know (or at least think) that the answer won't be very popular.

Moreover, I've long had the suspicion that Ron Paul's designs on the Presidency has a lot less to do with doing what's right for the country and a lot more about doing what makes RP important...I think his own ego is what is driving him to run...I think that's why, even though he is truly a Libertarian in his politics, he's chosen to run for the Republican nomination because, unlike some of his supporters, RP knows he'll never win the Presidency if is isn't the R nominee...frankly, it bothers me and seems just a bit dishonest that he would use the Republican party that way.

Now...I know all the above is just my opinion but my opinion is the only thing I can really claim expertise in. that said, I think my opinion is based on observation and experience. Whether it's right or wrong; I don't know.

Aside from all that, it's beyond whether Romney can or can't win without the Paul faithful...accepting defeat graciously and doing nothing to impede the Republican candidate and at least giving verbal support to the person who beat you is simply the right thing to do...it's the honest thing to do...anyone who won't do that is someone who I don't think deserves to be President. Again; just my opinion.

Well said.

[plank white]

[Guest ThePunisher]

Everyone in this country will be looking like that if Obummer gets re-elected and he tanks the country down the toilet.

[sigmtnman]

I'm fixated on it because when I've seen him asked the question about running independently/third-party, etc. he's done everything but stand on his head to avoid answering the question and when a politician avoids answering a direct question it's usually because they know (or at least think) that the answer won't be very popular.

Moreover, I've long had the suspicion that Ron Paul's designs on the Presidency has a lot less to do with doing what's right for the country and a lot more about doing what makes RP important...I think his own ego is what is driving him to run...I think that's why, even though he is truly a Libertarian in his politics, he's chosen to run for the Republican nomination because, unlike some of his supporters, RP knows he'll never win the Presidency if is isn't the R nominee...frankly, it bothers me and seems just a bit dishonest that he would use the Republican party that way.

Now...I know all the above is just my opinion but my opinion is the only thing I can really claim expertise in. that said, I think my opinion is based on observation and experience. Whether it's right or wrong; I don't know.

Aside from all that, it's beyond whether Romney can or can't win without the Paul faithful...accepting defeat graciously and doing nothing to impede the Republican candidate and at least giving verbal support to the person who beat you is simply the right thing to do...it's the honest thing to do...anyone who won't do that is someone who I don't think deserves to be President. Again; just my opinion.

He does not answer the question because it is not relevant at this time. His goal is the nomination and until he actually looses it, he has no reason to talk what ifs.

Dr. Paul is running as a Republican because he has been registered as one from 1956–1988, ran as a libertarian in 1998 and has been R since after that failed bid. What hard evidence has given you the idea that his ego drives him? He served his country in the military and achieved multiple degrees, which by your own statement, should mean something? You get upset when someone questions your patriotism and use those characteristics as proof otherwise.

As far as accepting defeat, the convention has not happened and he has not officially "lost", so there is no defeat to accept graciously. It would be quitting if he gave up at this point. Sure it is looking like he has lost, but it aint over till the fat lady sings.

Edited July 26, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm fixated on it because when I've seen him asked the question about running independently/third-party, etc. he's done everything but stand on his head to avoid answering the question and when a politician avoids answering a direct question it's usually because they know (or at least think) that the answer won't be very popular.

Moreover, I've long had the suspicion that Ron Paul's designs on the Presidency has a lot less to do with doing what's right for the country and a lot more about doing what makes RP important...I think his own ego is what is driving him to run...I think that's why, even though he is truly a Libertarian in his politics, he's chosen to run for the Republican nomination because, unlike some of his supporters, RP knows he'll never win the Presidency if is isn't the R nominee...frankly, it bothers me and seems just a bit dishonest that he would use the Republican party that way.

Now...I know all the above is just my opinion but my opinion is the only thing I can really claim expertise in. that said, I think my opinion is based on observation and experience. Whether it's right or wrong; I don't know.

Aside from all that, it's beyond whether Romney can or can't win without the Paul faithful...accepting defeat graciously and doing nothing to impede the Republican candidate and at least giving verbal support to the person who beat you is simply the right thing to do...it's the honest thing to do...anyone who won't do that is someone who I don't think deserves to be President. Again; just my opinion.

Thanks for the explanation Robert. If it makes sense to you then its fine. I just don't get it, but am not trying to convince you otherwise.

Dunno why any of them run for president. Ron Paul is the only one to run because of an ego trip? Maybe some of them run "for the good of the nation". I'm not a mind-reader. Dunno. I occasionally think that if there are any who honestly run because, "I want the very best results possible for the USA and I alone among 300 million people am most qualified to lead this great nation." Am tempted to suspect that any person thinking thataway is so insane that such persons would be least qualified for the job.

Arthur C Clarke in some of his SF worlds, any person who wants the job of president is automatically disqualified. The president is selected as the most qualified person who doesn't want the job and must be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the responsibility. It wouldn't work in practice because it would only result in a contest of people trying to pretend they don't want to be president even more than the other fellow doesn't want to be president. On the other hand it does seem likely that most folks who want the job would be immediately suspect of unsavory motives, unqualified for the job due to personality flaw, or simply insane. Supposedly George Washington became president "against his will" but on the other hand maybe he was saying, "Please Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

Tis doubtful Ron Paul expected to be president any time he ran. That is kinda not the point in my opinion, though I'm not a mind reader and dunno RP's motives. I'd guess it had to do with pushing a set of ideas rather than trying to get hired for a job, but that guess could be way offbase. Why does anybody ever tilt at windmills?

I don't understand the party loyalty thang. If I belong to the chinese food party and I want General Tso's Chicken, then if I can't have that dish and I must accept Cashew Nut Chicken as a substitute, then if Cashew Nut Chicken is not acceptable I don't feel any loyalty to take what I don't want just because I can't get what I do want?

If I vote with my wallet at the music store and ask for some Charley Parker music. The clerk says, "Sorry we don't have any Charley Parker but if it's jazz sax you want, we have plenty of Kenny G." I don't feel the slightest loyalty to buy Kenny G just because I actually wanted Charley Parker!

[RobertNashville]

He does not answer the question because it is not relevant at this time. His goal is the nomination and until he actually looses it, he has no reason to talk what ifs.

Saying Paul hasn’t lost the race for the nomination is about as meaningful as saying the sun may not rise tomorrow. The sun may not rise and RP may yet somehow get the Republican nomination; either of those two things happening have about the same probability.

There is nothing irrelevant about the question; he has run on a third party ticket in the past and currently, his faithful have made it known that they want him to do exactly that (run as a write-in/independent/third-party) so asking the questions is absolutely reasonable and his refusal to give an answer is telling.

Dr. Paul is running as a Republican because he has been registered as one from 1956–1988, ran as a libertarian in 1998 and has been R since after that failed bid.

Calling himself a Republican and being one are not equal. I would even suggest that it’s his significant and public disagreements with the Republican party that has endeared him to many of his faithful.

His actions of registering as a Republican, then running as a Libertarian then again registering as a Republican, which you correctly recite, smells more like expediency to me than it does conviction…it seems he is simply using the Republican party rather than being honest about his actual politics. His policies are clearly libertarian and the only nomination for President he has ever won was the Libertarian nomination. He is a libertarian but he knows he can’t win as one so he’s willing to call himself a Republican. As I said before, that seems a bit dishonest to me or call it dishonorable if that makes it more palatable.

What hard evidence has given you the idea that his ego drives him?

None…I thought I already made that clear when I stated that it was my opinion based on experience and observation.

He served his country in the military and achieved multiple degrees, which by your own statement, should mean something?

It does mean something; but it doesn’t mean he should be President just as it doesn't mean that I should be.

You get upset when someone questions your patriotism and use those characteristics as proof otherwise.

Yes I do get upset when someone who has shown little objective evidence of patriotism questions my own and only because I don't agree with his choice for a Presidential candidate . However, since I wasn’t questioning Paul’s patriotism I fail to see what your point is....I question his motives for running for President; I didn't and never have questioned his patriotism and I've not been given a reason to do so.

Lot's of people have served in uniform; even done heroic things and some of them have run for President (McCain, Gore and Kerry come to mind)...I never questioned their patriotism but with all three men, I did have reservations about their motives for running for office.

As far as accepting defeat, the convention has not happened and he has not officially "lost", so there is no defeat to accept graciously. It would be quitting if he gave up at this point. Sure it is looking like he has lost, but it aint over till the fat lady sings.

Well, I guess we are back to whether the sun will rise in the morning aren’t we. True, the fat lady hasn't sung yet but she is in the wings just behind the curtain. In any case, I doubt if a whole chorus of fat ladies singing will make any difference to those faithful who refuse to accept defeat.

I guess we'll see how gracious he'll be after the fat lady takes the stage.

Edited July 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

Watch this video and tell me that th MSM has not worked to forge you guy's opinions.

and the belligerence here as well

The agenda to is fairly obvious and is undoubtedly working well.

Edited July 26, 2012 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

Saying Paul hasn’t lost the race for the nomination is about as meaningful as saying the sun may not rise tomorrow. The sun may not rise and RP may yet somehow get the Republican nomination; either of those two things happening have about the same probability.

...

They may have the same probability, but why are you so insistent on the man quitting before the actual end?

My opinion is that Dr. Paul runs and speaks out because he is a true patriot, so it is a valid response to your opinion of why you think he runs.

If the savior Romney wins the presidency, hopefully he will live up to all you guys expectations. If not, you are all personally accountable.

[RobertNashville]

I don't know what "MSM" is nor do I understand the phrase "you guy's opinions."

I'm not sure what relevance these two videos are to this thread and more to the point I'm not sure what "agenda" is working well.

And by the way, he has been saying "I have no plans to do so" which is a hell of a lot different than "NO I WILL NOT RUN as an independent/third-party"...he is clearly hedging and it's reasonable to wonder why...I think it's because he wants to leave that door open which I find disingenuous at best.

If he does want to leave that door open he ought to be honest and just say so.

If he really won't run other than as the Republican nominee then he ought to be honest enough to say so.

The "I have no plans to do so" answer is just a typical politician's answer; something I though Paul wasn't supposed to be.

Edited July 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

...but why are you so insistent on the man quitting before the actual end?

I'm not insistent on him quitting before the "actual end"; you and I just have different ideas of when the "end" is; I think it's already happened.

My opinion is that Dr. Paul runs and speaks out because he is a true patriot, so it is a valid response to your opinion of why you think he runs.

As I said, I haven't questioned his patriotism I'm just not convinced that it's his patriotism that is his motivation for running for President.

If the savior Romney wins the presidency, hopefully he will live up to all you guys expectations. If not, you are all personally accountable.

"Savior"? When did I ever call Romney a "savior"???

I don't think any of the candidates deserve that term applied to them; I'm not sure if any candidate has ever deserved it except perhaps for Washington.

Edited July 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I've seen that trend at Fox, also. They have been pushing Romney since very early in the primary process.

I thought they were a bit blatant, too. He wasn't the only one several of the people at Fox painted unfairly.

That said, I remember Hannity gave a bit of good time to most of the candidates, for what it's worth.

There was also a lot of the other media sources pushing Paul, kind of like they meant it. I think they really

still want him in the race to be that Perot type spoiler, because I think they are worried about Obama's

re-election chances, which are shrinking.

I still ask why Paul has to only be a President. Can't he perform elsewhere in the adminstration effectively,

if his patriotism is driving him? It's happened with other contenders in the past.

My picks have long been removed, but I don't think they have given up on the country just because they can't

become President this time, or ever. They still seem to be engaged in other ways.

My question remains the same about him. Why didn't he get another handler to help him become just enough

mainstream to be palatable to more voters? I think it could have made a huge difference. But that's history, now.