I refuse to get behind any man. I only stand by men that stand behind the ideas I stand behind. I was mistaken to believe Rand was one of those people, as either he has sold out or is playing some dirty tricks with Romney. Either way he isnt the man I thought he was.
All I have to say to Rand is that selling out will only hurt you and those you care for more than you can imagine. You've turned your back on those that supported your first run for the Senate, and once Romney and his handlers dont need you anymore, they will turn their backs on you as you did to your support base.
And you sold out for what? Because your families are... similar? Not politically - just in size and the fact that members run for office and have failed before? You're excuse is pathetic. You'll compromise your stances on the NDAA, secret arrests, the patriot acts, illegal wars, assassinating Americans, foreign aid, Obamacare and its mandates, and so much more... And you do this all for... the fact that Romney's father ran for president and lost? You're lost.
I will stand behind Ron Paul's ideas and stand by Paul as long as he respects and represents those ideas.
Rand Paul Endorses Romney: Should Ron Paul Endorse Romney?
Fef
2012/06/08 05:47:12
|
|
|||||
|
35 votes
|
|
47% | ||
|
39 votes
|
|
53% | ||
Ron Paul declined to endorse fellow Republican in name-only, Senator John McCain in the 2008 election. Ron Paul may again skip endorsing the GOP nominee for president against Barack H. Obama in the 2012 election. But Ron Paul's son, Senator Rand Paul, endorsed the Republican Mitt Romney:
File this under signs the Ron Paul campaign is really, truly over: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul threw his support tonight to Mitt Romney. The endorsement came in an appearance on "Hannity," a little less than 24 hours after the elder Paul acknowledged in an email that his delegate total is "not enough to win the nomination."
Read More: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/...
You can take this ABO crap and SHOVE IT!
I will continue to support Ron Paul until/unless the RINO party kicks him under the bus. If that happens, we go Libertarian with Gary Johnson and watch us have Ron Paul and all his followers with us.
It's gonna be the hard way to get rid of Obama, but the RINO's seek to destroy their shattered remains anyway - this will help make them #3.
Don't answer that, I am plain disgusted with the ABO BS
No, I think not.
Most people don't bother learning about the candidates or doing any thinking for themselves. So they see an endorsement from some candidate they trust (for whatever insane reason...why would anyone trust a politician?) and figure their research is done.
Besides, there's some pretty heavy respect and symbolism involved here, since he refused to endorse McCain. This time around he'd be telling his fans "I really do think Obama's worse." Although most of us probably won't agree.
Carbon Tax supported by Romney.
Universal Health Care originally put into effect by Romney at a state level as a testing ground for national level.
Amnesty supported by Romney.
Banker bailouts supported by Romney.
NDAA supported by Romney.
Patriot Act supported by Romney.
Less freedom for you and larger government was is and will be supported by Romney.
There wont be any type of policy change domestically or internationally with Romney.
I'll tell you what sickens me. Last time around, I took your principled position and voted for neither Obama nor McCain. I voted 3rd party for the Constitution party candidate who was on the ballot in TX. It was foregone conclusion that McCain would win TX, but I hoped enough people would vote for a 3rd party to wake up the party. It didn't. TX will vote for Romney, no matter whom I vote for. So my vote matters little. I can make the same kind of protest vote, but it never gets reported and frankly that is because so few end up voting like that.
There are some things I can abide in Romney, anyway. One is the whole health care fiasco. It is one thing to promote government run health care at the state level and another at the federal level. If the people of MA want state run health care, more power to them. If he was able to design a plan that was passed and has had some success, more power to him. That is a state's right. I don't know how far we can trust him, but he has said he is not for federally run health care. He said he has renewed his position on abortion. A lot of people have. I'll take him at his word until he goes back on it. He may violate all political promises or he may uphold all of them. It is our job to boot him out if he fails to live up to his promises. But there has to be an alternative. Maybe it is Rand Paul or maybe it is Gary Johnson or maybe somebody else altogether. But we need to start the search as soon as this election is over. There is a lot of grass roots work to be done. And the guys in Congress need to be busy over the next few years trying to turn things around or at least keep them from going over the edge should Obama happen to win.
It's been my experience that the old guard running the GOP is quite satisfied with the statist quo. They generally act like they want fresh blood, but they actually want fresh neocn blood. They want youngsters who are humble enough to do what they're told, back the Chosen candidates, and do the legwork to prove their party loyalty.
We have a fundamental personality clash. They despise me, and I despise them. Over the course of our convention process, I had exactly three of them treat me with any sort of respect. With two of them, that was after I proved to them I'd earned it. The third's a back-stabbing weasel, but he at least believes in following the rules and being polite about the betrayal.
I totally agree with you about the third parties. But, if you've been paying attention to news about the various conventions behind the scenes, you know this isn't reform. It's an attempt at the same sort of coup that put the conservatives in charge of the party under Goldwater.
It probably won't pan out this year, though it's been a lot more successful than the MSM will admit. *Way* more successful than 2008. All we have to do is keep showing up. (No, not just to the elections. Those are largely symbolic in many, if not most, states).
Libertarians are ready with Gary Johnson. If the RINO party goes with Romney, they will become the #3 party overnight.
Why? What's the point? If Republicans expect me to vote for their nominee, they're going to have to start nominating someone who's meaningfully different than his opponent.
I didn't leave the Republican party. It left me.
I was going to just leave that part of the ballot blank again. But I promised months ago that I *will* vote for Obama if the Republicans were/are stupid enough to nominate Romney.
He's another tool who won't change anything.
AFAICT, re-electing Obama will save moving expenses. I don't see any other meaningful difference.
Should Ron Paul not win the nomination out from under Romney's nose (the best possible outcome in Tampa), I would expect him to endorse the Constitution Party candidate, or Gary Johnson (tho Johnson is not half the proponent of real freedom Ron Paul is). The GOP is committing suicide by not giving all its support to Paul, when the national convention is over, if Ron Paul is not the nominee, the party will be dead party walking. ALL the really serious Ron Paul people will abandon the GOP and turn to either the Constitution party or the Libertarian Party because the GOP will have proven then that it has completely turned away from ALL of its founding principles and become a puppet party, just like the Democrats.
Assuming Romney *is* the lesser. Each election I see, I figure the new guy can't be any worse than the last. I keep getting proved wrong. It seems to be one of the main signs of a dying nation. The leaders just keep getting worse.
3rd party candidates don't have much chance because everyone believes they don't. No one wants to vote for a loser. If the candidate's pretty much guaranteed to lose anyway, they feel like they're throwing away a vote.
Nobody stops to consider that voting for a candidate you despise truly *is* throwing away your vote. For that matter, unless you live in a swing state, your vote in the general Presidential election is totally meaningless.
So pretty much everyone with libertarian leanings might as well vote for whatever third party option they have available, unless they live in a swing state. Then the question switches to "Do I think Romney would be better, worse, or basically the same as Obama?"
Personally, I figure "basically the same." Which means there's absolutely no point to vote for him.