GOP Commits Suicide By Nominating Romney and Ignoring Ron Paul

[kieefer]

I would love to see a 69 day ban on political topics here. Everyone has their minds set on who is going to get their vote and I seriously doubt that anyone's mind will be changed from where they are right now.

Geez!!!

Seriously?

It's really easy to avoid if you try.

[RobertNashville]

I would love to see a 69 day ban on political topics here.

Now that's an interesting idea - a ban on political topics from the "Politics and Legislation" forum which is a sub-forum of the "Legal and Political" topic group on TGO.

That sort of defeats the purpose of the section doesn't it?

[Mike.357]

Ron Paul is an un-electable old coot. He has no chance, never did and there are many good reasons why. Those reasons have been hashed and rehashed here many times over.

I will be glad when the election is over. I don't even care who wins anymore.

[Garufa]

I will be glad when the election is over.

Then we'll be back to the daily Obama this, Obama that.

[Links2k]

Then we'll be back to the daily Obama this, Obama that.

Heh heh heh.

[Volzfan]

Now that's an interesting idea - a ban on political topics from the "Politics and Legislation" forum which is a sub-forum of the "Legal and Political" topic group on TGO.

That sort of defeats the purpose of the section doesn't it?

I know but what can anyone say that hasn't been said already?

[Daniel]

I seriously doubt TGO David would ever give anyone there own sub-forum to post anything they want. Nice thought though.

I didn't say a subforum. I said a thread.

[Daniel]

Also, on each forum there is a dark blue bar if you hover over the far right it will have a + or - which if you click will collapse that forum. Of course if you hit the new topics button it wont matter.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Daniel

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

I didn't say a subforum. I said a thread.

One thread would get real messy, so as I said sub-forum is better option.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Ok, here is the issue I saw with the situation. The Romneybots vs. the Paulbots. That should be long barried by now, if everyone claims to "unify" for the party and "move forward."

Did the Romneybots make a mistake by dissing the Paulbots? Yes, I think so. Created controversy where there was none. Did it lose Mitt votes? You bet. Does every vote count in this election? You bet.

So, it was a bad choice. Plus, the rule change will come back to haunt the party in the future. (Mighty non-democratic of them.)

[plank white]

[RobertNashville]

Ok, here is the issue I saw with the situation. The Romneybots vs. the Paulbots. That should be long barried by now, if everyone claims to "unify" for the party and "move forward."

Did the Romneybots make a mistake by dissing the Paulbots? Yes, I think so. Created controversy where there was none. Did it lose Mitt votes? You bet. Does every vote count in this election? You bet.

So, it was a bad choice. Plus, the rule change will come back to haunt the party in the future. (Mighty non-democratic of them.)

There most certainly was a controversy...a group of rabid Paulbots who were willing to flaunt their state election laws and threatened to cast their delegate votes for Ron Paul rather than the primary's winning candidate, Mitt Romney. That was the imputus for the entire affair. This rule change doesn't impact anybody except third-tier candidate supporters who want to exercise more control than the election results provide.

As to losing Paubot votes; first, you are assuming Mitt was going to get them anyway. Second, how many dozens of times if not hundreds of times have Paul supporters claimed that not voting at all or writing in Ron Paul or voting for third-party wasn't going to help Obama - either their not voting for Mitt hurts Mitt and helps Obama or it doesn't so which is it?

The libertarians have their own party - why do they feel they need to control the Republican party as well???

[MikePapa1]

Congressman Paul does seem to have a hard core group of supporters who believe he is a Messiah. Even if I agreed with him I think I'd be put off by the cult of personality that surrounds him and believes him to be a Savior.

[kieefer]

http://bcove.me/xpzbfgza

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There most certainly was a controversy...a group of rabid Paulbots who were willing to flaunt their state election laws and threatened to cast their delegate votes for Ron Paul rather than the primary's winning candidate, Mitt Romney. That was the imputus for the entire affair. This rule change doesn't impact anybody except third-tier candidate supporters who want to exercise more control than the election results provide.

As to losing Paubot votes; first, you are assuming Mitt was going to get them anyway. Second, how many dozens of times if not hundreds of times have Paul supporters claimed that not voting at all or writing in Ron Paul or voting for third-party wasn't going to help Obama - either their not voting for Mitt hurts Mitt and helps Obama or it doesn't so which is it?

The libertarians have their own party - why do they feel they need to control the Republican party as well???

Because they realize they never built a broad enough base to do the heavy lifting.

[Seabeejason]

I still say that I hate the fact that I have to choose between two parties that really don't give a damn about this country. They are all in it for themselves. That's why we have over $16 trillion in debt, which will NEVER be paid off.

I'll vote for Romney/Ryan because Obama is a lot worse in my opinion. But, it's still just the less of two evils. Honestly, if Ryan was running for the top spot I'd feel a lot better about it. He'd make a better POTUS than Romney.

[eapking]

I still say that I hate the fact that I have to choose between two parties that really don't give a damn about this country. They are all in it for themselves. That's why we have over $16 trillion in debt, which will NEVER be paid off.

I'll vote for Romney/Ryan because Obama is a lot worse in my opinion. But, it's still just the less of two evils. Honestly, if Ryan was running for the top spot I'd feel a lot better about it. He'd make a better POTUS than Romney.

Agreed.

The Paulines need to give it up. Primaries are the time for such movments, not a couple of months before the election (of our lifetimes). His chances are far worse than Perot's were.

Edited August 30, 2012 by eapking

[Will H]

When Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Act, and I found out that McCain also supported it I threw my hands up and decided to hell with it. I will still vote the big R, but I think Merle Haggard was right. We are rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell.

[plank white]

When Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Act, and I found out that McCain also supported it I threw my hands up and decided to hell with it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

McCain is history. There are many around here who said that the NDAA was only "normal defense outlay" and others were being too tinfoiled

about it. I agree with you, btw, but is is a bit historical and the problem lies with the Patriot Act if you wish to delve into history. It's nothing

more than a zinger and an eyesore at this point, but could cause real problems, soon.

Paul will only continue to spoil for Obama, also. I wish that wasn't the case. Our problem, other than the Democrat Party, now a bunch of

communists, is the GOP and its progressive bent. That will take time we may not have. Well, a few other things need to be addressed, but

some of those will only stir controversy around here.

Edited August 31, 2012 by 6.8 AR