View Full Version : Ron Paul's own convention
Rather silly I think.......if he is this disappointed with the way the Republican Party is run........he should run as Third Party and be done with it. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/10/1129290.aspx)
Ron Paul's own convention
Posted: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:06 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Paul
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
That thorn in the Republican establishment side is back.
Ron Paul's campaign is planning an event at a "large venue" with a "sizable"
crowd Sept. 2 -- the Tuesday of convention week -- in the St.
Paul-Minneapolis area a couple of miles from the convention site.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton confirms this is certainly in the works but
details are being worked out and not yet finalized. He wouldn't divulge the
specific location because contracts have not yet been signed, though this
report indicates Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota.
Paul hopes to fill the arena the day before the vice presidential nominee
would speak. On that Thursday, McCain will officially be selected as the
nominee.
The impetus for the mini convention of sorts was, in part, not getting a
spot to speak at convention, but it "goes a lot deeper than just an
invitation to speak," Benton said.
"We have said from the beginning that we are going to have a presence in St.
Paul," Benton added. Paul "has said he'd be honored to have an invitation to
speak. He's not holding his breath; he's not expecting one. ... No
invitation was extended. We're fine with that, so we're going to go ahead
and have our own event."
Paul's supporters are really "looking to build a national organization that
is going to run at a grassroots level, be organized at a precinct level, and
to identify candidates to support," Benton said, "real constitutionalist
candidates."
Paul camp expects to have about 50 delegates to the national convention.
They will attend the Paul convention and the campaign is encouraging them to
go to the official GOP convention as "active and positive." But, Benton
added, Paul's supporters are independent-minded and aren't going to be told
what to do.
"They're free individuals, and they can do what they like," Benton said. "We
want to send a message to the Republican Party, a message to return to its
limited government roots ... common sense foreign policy that is non
interventionist, reject the Patriot Act and move back to respecting the
Constitution and rule of law."
It doesn't mean Paul is ready to abandon the Republican Party, either.
Benton insisted Paul will not be running as a third- (or fourth- or fifth-)
party candidate. And even though Paul will not endorse McCain -- over
disagreements on foreign policy and a host of other issues -- "there's
respect there," Benton said. "We're not going to to say anything negative
about McCain."
"There are a lot of good things Republican Party does," Benton added, "but
the Republican Party is facing some tough reality at the polls." That's
because of its foreign policy and its movement away from limited government,
Benton said. Paul and his supporters "are ready to work for a party and be
active long term for a party that embraces" those principles.
Paul's campaign likes the Constutionalist candidate and elements of
Libertarian candidate Bob Barr's platform (but likely won't endorse anyone).
And Paul's certainly not going to support Obama whose "foreign policy is not
much different than Sen. McCain's," Benton said.
Aside from Paul and his supporters, the campaign promises "real brand-name
entertainers" at their event. Details are expected to be finalized on
location (and entertainment) in the next few days.
Elrathin
06-10-2008, 11:10 PM
I've said it before, Ron Paul is a hypocrite. He cries for change and denounces his party, but when he actually has a chance to try for change (run as an independent), he runs back to the Republican base.
PostmodernProphet
06-11-2008, 12:53 AM
I predict there will be more press there than Paul supporters.....
lauren
06-11-2008, 01:27 AM
i think this is humerous...
Alonzo
06-11-2008, 04:09 PM
He's making a mockery of himself and his supporters......
I LIKE IT!
NortheastCynic
06-11-2008, 04:13 PM
I've said it before, Ron Paul is a hypocrite. He cries for change and denounces his party, but when he actually has a chance to try for change (run as an independent), he runs back to the Republican base.He's realistic. He knows a third party candidate will have no chance. He hardly goes to the Republican base, what he does do is use the GOP as a tool to get his message out. He's a politician, that's what they do, use things to get a message out.
That said, I really don't feel one way or another about the 'convention'.
-NC
NoMoreDems-Reps
06-11-2008, 04:14 PM
I've said it before, Ron Paul is a hypocrite. He cries for change and denounces his party, but when he actually has a chance to try for change (run as an independent), he runs back to the Republican base.
This is more of a tactical move. Look at what happened to Ross Perot.
He got ~19% of the American vote, but 0% of the Electoral votes (the ones that
count). Paul knows that if you are not in the REP or DEM party you will need an act of God
to make a change in American politics ! If he can go through the REP party he can most
likely have more of an effect/make change in US Politics. So while I agree that it would be
good for Paul to be an Indy, what he is doing has good merit too. America is in trouble we
need all the help we can get from all possible angle. More power to Paul !
He's realistic. He knows a third party candidate will have no chance.
If he truly believes in his ideals and lets face it, it's not the same ideals as the Reublican party holds, then he has a duty as a man and as a politician to do the right thing and divorce himself from the party that doesn't hold up to his standards.
He hardly goes to the Republican base, what he does do is use the GOP as a tool to get his message out. He's a politician, that's what they do, use things to get a message out.
Then he is a user and I'll tell you one thing, NC.......in life you will find out that users are the lowest of the low.
NortheastCynic
06-12-2008, 05:34 AM
If he truly believes in his ideals and lets face it, it's not the same ideals as the Reublican party holds, then he has a duty as a man and as a politician to do the right thing and divorce himself from the party that doesn't hold up to his standards.In a perfect world, sure. In the real world his options are thusly: A: Stick to your principles, declare yourself an independent or Libertarian and not have any effect in American politics at any level or B: Join up with the Republicans despite their opposition to your views and have a say in the House. He chose the latter. That's politics. He's a politician. Since when do politicians follow up with their duties as men and as statesmen?
Then he is a user and I'll tell you one thing, NC.......in life you will find out that users are the lowest of the low.So low that we have a word just for them: politicians. Every politician uses someone, Lily, Ron Paul is no different.
-NC
He's making a mockery of himself and his supporters......
I LIKE IT!
How is he making a mockery out of me?
That's a personal insult. You can't help yourself, can you?
I've said it before, Ron Paul is a hypocrite. He cries for change and denounces his party, but when he actually has a chance to try for change (run as an independent), he runs back to the Republican base.
Look at your own sig. 'Conservatives' are no longer conservatives.
They're free individuals, and they can do what they like," Benton said.
"We want to send a message to the Republican Party, a message to return to its limited government roots ... common sense foreign policy that is non interventionist, reject the Patriot Act and move back to respecting the Constitution and rule of law."
I think that sums it up.:peace:
Osborn F. Enready
06-12-2008, 03:54 PM
I find it funny that so many look for so many ways to bash Ron Paul, when there is little to bash him about, yet they ignore or gloss over the PROVABLE treason of the other major party candidates while claiming those candidates are "better" than Paul........
Proof of sheeple is what it is.
Alonzo
06-12-2008, 04:34 PM
How is he making a mockery out of me?
That's a personal insult. You can't help yourself, can you?
If you want to call that a personal insult then about half of the anti-hillary posts were attacking me.
Osborn F. Enready
06-12-2008, 04:36 PM
Calling something an insult is not the same as saying its an insult WORTHY OF PUNISHMENT.
I think its clear it was obviously an insult to Paul supporters, but not an insult worthy of reprimand or points, but clearly an insult.
If you want to call that a personal insult then about half of the anti-hillary posts were attacking me.
Did they bash 'her supporters?' Were they by admin? As an admin your posts have more weight - they set the example of what is OK and not OK here.
I'm listening to CNN right now and everyone's talking about all the things RP has been trying to warn us about - we're going to become a fucking 3rd world nation as we sell ourselves off to continue to make war.
He's the only person that tells the goddamn truth and I'm sick of him being written off as a nutjob, and his supporters, of which I am one, being written off as they same.
Yes, it is a personal insult because I am a supporter and I am here on this forum.
In a perfect world, sure. In the real world his options are thusly: A: Stick to your principles, declare yourself an independent or Libertarian and not have any effect in American politics at any level or B: Join up with the Republicans despite their opposition to your views and have a say in the House. He chose the latter. That's politics. He's a politician. Since when do politicians follow up with their duties as men and as statesmen?
Huh? I thought he once ran as a Libertarian, didn't get what he wanted, then went back to the Republican party.......how is that making things better? Also, from what I've been reading from the Paul supporters........he's the only one that can make things right. Other candidates in the House and Senate have done just fine running as a 3rd party.......me thinks he likes the bucks too much to change permantly.
NortheastCynic
06-13-2008, 03:02 AM
Huh? I thought he once ran as a Libertarian, didn't get what he wanted, then went back to the Republican party.......how is that making things better?Who said anything about 'making things better'? I didn't. Nor did I deny that he ran for Pres. as a Libertarian in '88, didn't win very many votes, and joined the GOP. That doesn't alter the fact that I'm being accurate when I say that his two choices are: A: Be a libertarian with no power as a 3rd party candidate or B: Join the GOP and have a chance at power. That's all politics is, doing what you need to do to gain power.
from what I've been reading from the Paul supporters........he's the only one that can make things right.Well, I'm not sure what you mean by this. But for the love of God, don't attribute what 'Paul supporters' say, with myself. I don't think Paul is a saint or deity, so I'm unlike most Paul supporters.
Other candidates in the House and Senate have done just fine running as a 3rd partyThere are 2 members of Congress who are independents. Lieberman [and really, are we going to count Lieberman?] and Saunders. There are no third party candidates in Congress. I'm not sure what you're talking about Lily, but 3rd party candidates do not do 'just fine' in any election in this country; especially Congressional elections.
me thinks he likes the bucks too much to change permantly.
That's a theory. Not a good one, but its a theory. He likes the 'bucks'. Who's bucks? He likes being in power. Again, he goes third party and he effectively resigns, he continues to be a Republican and he's a Congressmen. It's the difference between being a nobody with principles, or compromising your principles slightly to stay in power [which should be the definition of politics].
-NC
There are 2 members of Congress who are independents. Lieberman [and really, are we going to count Lieberman?] and Saunders. There are no third party candidates in Congress. I'm not sure what you're talking about Lily, but 3rd party candidates do not do 'just fine' in any election in this country; especially Congressional elections.
That's a theory. Not a good one, but its a theory. He likes the 'bucks'. Who's bucks? He likes being in power. Again, he goes third party and he effectively resigns, he continues to be a Republican and he's a Congressmen. It's the difference between being a nobody with principles, or compromising your principles slightly to stay in power [which should be the definition of politics].
-NC
Doing just a quick search. Paul has been in politics since 1977.....are you trying to tell me he would lose his seat if he ran 3rd party???
NortheastCynic
06-13-2008, 03:21 AM
Yes.
If you'd research Paul's electoral history, lily [wikipedia has it I think], you'll notice an extremely contentious relationship with the national and state GOP. If he runs as a libertarian, the GOP would heavily fund a GOP candidate to run in opposition, and God knows a Democrat isn't getting elected in his district. He would face a GOP-favored [on a national level] candidate and would have to win over independents with a strange label [Libertarian] next to his name. Or he could run as a Republican and have absolutely on competition. If you were trying to get elected, which would you prefer, Lily?
-NC
What does Ron Paul say about why he is a Republican? Any chance it's true?
I'm going to agree with Os. The stupid shit people have to come up with to make him seem anything close to the hypocrisy and corruption of all the other candidates is pitiful.
He would face a GOP-favored [on a national level] candidate and would have to win over independents with a strange label [Libertarian] next to his name. Or he could run as a Republican and have absolutely on competition. If you were trying to get elected, which would you prefer, Lily?
-NC
In all honesty, NC..........to me it wouldn't make much of a difference........I vote for the person, not the party........so yeah, if Paul was my Congressman, and he was doing a good job, I would vote for him, no matter what letter was after his name.
What does Ron Paul say about why he is a Republican? Any chance it's true?
I'd like to know the answer to that.
NortheastCynic
06-13-2008, 03:45 AM
I believe you, Lily. But you are far more reasonable than most people. Switch [R-Texas] to [L-Texas] and Ron Paul is not a congressman. You know who Ron Paul is if he switches parties? Me.
A principled nobody :)
-NC
4Reaganomics
06-13-2008, 03:54 AM
So the Libertarian party is a bunch of principled nobodies?
The objective in the political realm is not to stand for the principles you believe in and lead a party that shares those principles...it is strictly to gain politically?
Ron Paul will be more prosperous with this strategy in the long run, but noble...not so much
NortheastCynic
06-13-2008, 03:56 AM
How is attempting to revive the libertarian presence in the GOP not noble, 4?
And yes, the LP is a bunch of principled nobodies. This is coming from an LP member.
And as to your second question: you can only lead a party that shares those principles to some meaningful end if you gain political power.
-NC
4Reaganomics
06-13-2008, 03:59 AM
I understand where you are going. It makes his views more known if he attempts to reform the Republican party which has a much larger base to cater to. I still wish he wasn't part of something with such a strong distaste for him at the present moment. Reform must start somewhere though
I wonder if we will get some type of Harry Truman to return the Democratic party to their principles.
One thing is for certain, Jim Webb is the best American with a (D) next to his name in quite some time. He scares the hell out of me as Obama's running mate. Probably a slam dunk ticket
I've said it before, Ron Paul is a hypocrite. He cries for change and denounces his party, but when he actually has a chance to try for change (run as an independent), he runs back to the Republican base.
No - his goal is to 'change' the rep party to get it to what it started as. I guess this is too simple to understand.
I'd like to know the answer to that.
Well, he's said it 100 times - on which part are you confused?
Mia said:
What does Ron Paul say about why he is a Republican?
I want to know what he says on why he is still a Republican.
Alonzo
06-14-2008, 03:11 AM
No - his goal is to 'change' the rep party to get it to what it started as. I guess this is too simple to understand.
So to go home a loser is better than to fight for the hearts of disgruntled republicans in the presidential race? Couldn't he start a party called the "Constitutional Republican Party" and run as their candidate?
NortheastCynic
06-14-2008, 03:41 AM
So to go home a loser is better than to fight for the hearts of disgruntled republicans in the presidential race? Couldn't he start a party called the "Constitutional Republican Party" and run as their candidate?Oh Zo, please. You and I both know that if he ran as a 3rd party candidate, you'd be pointing out his hypocrisy, after all, he said months ago that he'd never run independent of the GOP. And he isn't just 'going home a loser' he's regenerated the libertarian wing of the GOP, literally, overnight. What's Hillary done since she conceded?
-NC
Alonzo
06-14-2008, 03:49 AM
Nothing, the same as Paul has done since he conceded. He got his fan base to sign a website, big deal.
And I'd be calling him a liar, not a hypocrite. If he had never made that promise then I'd just stick to calling him the things I normally call him.
NortheastCynic
06-14-2008, 04:02 AM
Oh. So if he did what you just said he should have done, you'd call him a liar.
You're looking for things to criticize, this is getting comical.
Nothing? The Campaign for Liberty has just over 40,000 members...It's existed for under 48 hours. It's membership will likely surpass that of the Republican Liberty Caucus [which was founded in 1976] within months.
But let's not let perspective get in the way of your ongoing, one-sided feud with Ron Paul.
Apologies for the edit: 100 people joined the Campaign for Liberty while I was posting. I therefore had to change 'under 40,000' with 'over 40,000'.
-NC
Muser
06-14-2008, 06:39 AM
Someone needs to tell me WTF there is to disagree with here. Mr. Devil will need to meet up with Mr. Details, of course, but if more people would at least start from this foundation, we might...might...have a shot at rescuing this nation from its rapid descent into 2nd-world (at best) status:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/img/mission/statement.jpg
Americans inherit from their ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity – a light shining in the darkness of tyranny.
But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of “change,” neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table.
This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.
That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them into the American political conversation.
The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is fidelity to its own governing document. Claims that our Constitution was meant to be a “living document” that judges may interpret as they please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the Framers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow in his distinguished lineage.
With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy. Inspired by the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country.
We believe that the free market, reviled by people who do not understand it, is the most just and humane economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.
We believe with Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and F.A. Hayek that central banking distorts economic decisionmaking and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks’ interference with interest rates sets the stage for economic downturns. And the central bank’s ability to create money out of thin air transfers wealth from the most vulnerable to those with political pull, since it is the latter who receive the new money before the price increases it brings in its wake have yet occurred. For economic and moral reasons, therefore, we join the great twentieth-century economists in opposing the Federal Reserve System, which has reduced the value of the dollar by 95 percent since it began in 1913.
We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution.
We oppose the transfer of American sovereignty to supranational organizations in which the American people possess no elected representatives. Such compromises of our country’s independence run counter to the principles of the American Revolution, which was fought on behalf of self-government and local control. Most of these organizations have a terrible track record even on their own terms: how much poverty have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actually alleviated, for example? The peoples of the world can interact with each other just fine in the absence of bureaucratic intermediaries that undermine their sovereignty.
We believe that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial.
Our stances on other issues can be deduced from these general principles.
Our country is ailing. That is the bad news. The good news is that the remedy is so simple and attractive: a return to the principles our Founders taught us. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty.
bishop
06-16-2008, 01:07 PM
Oh. So if he did what you just said he should have done, you'd call him a liar.
You're looking for things to criticize, this is getting comical.
don't forget that you're also debating someone who advocates political vengence against obama by clinton supporters..
Alonzo
06-16-2008, 02:50 PM
don't forget that you're also debating someone who advocates political vengence against obama by clinton supporters..
Do you have evidence of this, or are you just making this up as you go along?
bishop
06-16-2008, 04:18 PM
nope, not making anything up - i'm just reading your previous posts:
http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=13827
the insinuation that not choosing hillary to be the vp resulting in refusal of her dead-end die-hards to support obama is an advocation of political vengence.
Alonzo
06-16-2008, 05:20 PM
Ummmm......... political vengeance would include a desire to seek revenge against Obama, in other words to harm him. There's a difference between that and convincing him to take hillary, something I think is good for him anyway.
Vengeance: (the act of taking revenge (harming someone in retaliation for something harmful that they have done) especially in the next life)
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vengeance
bishop
06-16-2008, 10:33 PM
good for him - or else...
i don't buy your argument at all. you go off in one thread, supporting threats to force hillary to be the vp nominee, and now appear to backtrack from that posture.
Oh. So if he did what you just said he should have done, you'd call him a liar.
You're looking for things to criticize, this is getting comical.
Nothing? The Campaign for Liberty has just over 40,000 members...It's existed for under 48 hours. It's membership will likely surpass that of the Republican Liberty Caucus [which was founded in 1976] within months.
But let's not let perspective get in the way of your ongoing, one-sided feud with Ron Paul.
Apologies for the edit: 100 people joined the Campaign for Liberty while I was posting. I therefore had to change 'under 40,000' with 'over 40,000'.
-NC
53,706 people interested in real change since it's inception - was that Wednesday or Friday?
I think the 100,000 by September goal will be easy to make.
NortheastCynic
06-16-2008, 10:43 PM
At this rate, I'll be shocked if that mission isn't accomplished by mid-August, at the very latest.
-NC
Well, the people already on board racked the numbers up really fast. Now the job is to keep spreading it, one person at a time if that's what it takes.
R U READY?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjauAv6I-E8
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Muser
06-17-2008, 02:50 AM
That was a freakin' awesome video! Quite well done.
Wish I could be there.
If wishes were horses, we all could fly ;-)
BE THERE or be square :nana:
Muser
06-17-2008, 08:25 AM
If wishes were horses, we all could fly ;-)
Ooooo...that made me think of one of my favorite Melissa Etheridge songs I haven't heard in a while; her oldest stuff was her best stuff, IMO.
If wishes were horses, this beggar would ride
I'd have my cake and eat it, with a little on the side
I'd never want for money, never want for friends
I wouldn't have to make excuses for the shape that I'm in
Shakin'....and crazy.
BE THERE or be square :nana:
If only! Are you going?
Hell yes, I'm going!
ROAD TRIP!!!!!!
I love that song too - brave and crazy.
If I could have my way,,,,,;-)
Muser
06-18-2008, 06:27 AM
Hell yes, I'm going!
ROAD TRIP!!!!!!
Those 2 words are like a dog whistle to me - I hear 'em and immediately come running, panting and ready to go. Unfortunately, due to my life's current dramas, I won't be off-leash for a while. :shame:
I love that song too - brave and crazy.
If I could have my way,,,,,;-)
Awwwww yeah! I knew I sensed simpatico. I don't about you, but I wore that CD *out*.
Truth_and_Power
06-18-2008, 02:11 PM
Yay, another thread of people who don't support ron paul's policies at all criticizing him for not running as a third party candidate. In reality they just want him to run as a third party candidate to take away some votes that would go to the greater of two very similar evils. So I will call all of you hypocrites for criticizing someone's idealism for very utilitarian reasons.
NoMoreDems-Reps
06-19-2008, 05:58 PM
Yay, another thread of people who don't support ron paul's policies at all criticizing him for not running as a third party candidate. In reality they just want him to run as a third party candidate to take away some votes that would go to the greater of two very similar evils. So I will call all of you hypocrites for criticizing someone's idealism for very utilitarian reasons.
Or maybe it's because the parties in Government now are so bad that anything is better
than what our ONLY TWO options are.
Or it might be that they would rather have R.Paul not run under the GOP flag ?
I don't agree 100% with Nader or Paul but I will be voting for one of them!
They both will be better for America than having another REP or DEM go back in
and keep the Status Quo being the Status Quo !!!!!!
Alonzo
06-19-2008, 06:08 PM
Yay, another thread of people who don't support ron paul's policies at all criticizing him for not running as a third party candidate. In reality they just want him to run as a third party candidate to take away some votes that would go to the greater of two very similar evils. So I will call all of you hypocrites for criticizing someone's idealism for very utilitarian reasons.
If utilitarians criticize idealism for utilitarian reasons, how are they hypocrites? If utilitarians criticized idealism for idealistic reasons then you may have a point.
At this rate, I'll be shocked if that mission isn't accomplished by mid-August, at the very latest.
-NC
59,918
yowza
08-15-2008, 06:10 AM
ron paul should have run third party....screw bob barr! but he is better than mccain and obama.
AlanC
08-15-2008, 08:05 AM
Well it looks like his supporters intend to do more than he is willing to do himslef then:
Paul's supporters are really "looking to build a national organization that
is going to run at a grassroots level, be organized at a precinct level, and
to identify candidates to support," Benton said, "real constitutionalist
candidates."
It would appear that they should all just join the Constitutionalist Party. Further fracturing of those who are of similar mind will not gain them any momentum and will likely have the opposite effect.
Well it looks like his supporters intend to do more than he is willing to do himslef then:
If you read on his site, www.campaignforliberty.com, you would know that IS what he is doing. It was his idea.
At the State Convention in Houston he did not drop out verbally to the crowd, but I was at home watching it on a live feed in one window and had his original site in the other.
I watched the letter go up stating he was ending his campaign for Presidency and announcing 'phase two' with directions to the new site.:thumbsup:
Can't wait for the National Convention!
Truth_and_Power
08-15-2008, 06:34 PM
You can work for change from within or from without. Ron Paul can stand up for his ideals from within the republican party or from outside it. The same way I can vote for an anti-war candidate, or start making plans to bomb american military facilities. Seems to me that the duopoly supporters don't like anyone with real ideas about change in their parties, it makes them look bad. The more marginalized they can have all the real ideas candidates, the better they can convince the public that the only two choices are "right" or "left".
The same people that criticise ron paul for staying in the republican party will criticise him in another thread because his ideas are "too radical" and say he won't be able to compromise with the rest of congress.
The same people that criticise ron paul for staying in the republican party will criticise him in another thread because his ideas are "too radical" and say he won't be able to compromise with the rest of congress.
Yup.
We ARE working from within. That's why I and several others in my group (some of them delegates), will be attending BOTH 'National Conventions' :thumbsup:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.