Ron Paul Finally Admits He Wont Win Nomination

[lukep]

So close, Luke. So close.

What, you feel the Delegates' votes count for nothing too?

That's not what the history books say, nor is it what the founding fathers said.

I toyed with the idea that the founding fathers' wishes had just been watered down over the years and now are completely gone on these matters, but then I looked at the results of presidential and nominational elections throughout history, and even though some questionable deals have been made at the conventions, the will of the delegates is still usually obvious and elected in the end.

...So there's a tiny glimmer of hope, my friend, just a tiny, last holdout of the founding father's vision... Which is, afterall, what Paul is fighting so hard about, is it not?

 

[crackp0t]

What, you feel the Delegates' votes count for nothing too?

That's not what the history books say, nor is it what the founding fathers said.

I toyed with the idea that the founding fathers' wishes had just been watered down over the years and now are completely gone on these matters, but then I looked at the results of presidential and nominational elections throughout history, and even though some questionable deals have been made at the conventions, the will of the delegates is still usually obvious and elected in the end.

...So there's a tiny glimmer of hope, my friend, just a tiny, last holdout of the founding father's vision... Which is, afterall, what Paul is fighting so hard about, is it not?

Can't you see what RP is really doing? He's a massive real life troll getting everyone to follow him. He's what Borat was based on. I hear weev taught him everything he knows.

You're wasting your energy typing in this thread Luke.

 

[pfgannon]

What, you feel the Delegates' votes count for nothing too?

That's not what the history books say, nor is it what the founding fathers said.

I toyed with the idea that the founding fathers' wishes had just been watered down over the years and now are completely gone on these matters, but then I looked at the results of presidential and nominational elections throughout history, and even though some questionable deals have been made at the conventions, the will of the delegates is still usually obvious and elected in the end.

...So there's a tiny glimmer of hope, my friend, just a tiny, last holdout of the founding father's vision... Which is, afterall, what Paul is fighting so hard about, is it not?

Pretty much.

I just came to this realization within the past few months actually. Not only does your vote not matter, but it also goes against the idea that we're sovereign individuals and that imposing your will on others is immoral. The added benefit of not voting is that you can finally wipe the last specks of blood off your hands and, better yet, you don't have to watch the circus any more.

It's hard to give up on Ron Paul. I get it. He showed me the light, and life will never be the same. But it's time to take those starting points he's provided you with, and follow them through to their logical conclusion. I suspect that may have been his motive all along.

 

[lukep]

Can't you see what RP is really doing? He's a massive real life troll getting everyone to follow him. He's what Borat was based on. I hear weev taught him everything he knows.

You're wasting your energy typing in this thread Luke.

Oh crackp0t, not you too bro... Et tu?

I just came to this realization within the past few months actually. Not only does your vote not matter, but it also goes against the idea that we're sovereign individuals and that imposing your will on others is immoral. The added benefit of not voting is that you can finally wipe the last specks of blood off your hands and, better yet, you don't have to watch the circus any more.

I was there after the 2008 election. I had hope for Paul then but the media's Tea party trick dissalusioned me into thinking these exact same thoughts you're expressing here.

Since then I've read a bit about what the FOUNDING FATHERS wanted and how the REPUBLIC we live in operate. There are some rules, despite what the the establishment show you, that must be followed. Rules that federal judges and the SCOTUS have to arbitrate to keep control over the constant disputes we'd have without them.

One of those rules is this: Delegates and Electors do the voting here. This is indisputable. The MSM avoids talking about it every chance it gets because that is where the real source of the coverup is; if the masses don't know that delegates have power, then they can keep the masses away from the power.

The Founding fathers knew the problems with democracy, as they have written about quite profusely, and designed it that way, although they couldn't have known about the power of the MSM today.

TLR; I was there, but facts popped up that I can't dispute... Paul DOES INDEED still have a chance to win it all if you look at all the facts.

But it's time to take those starting points he's provided you with, and follow them through to their logical conclusion. I suspect that may have been his motive all along.

His motive all along was to start the liberty movement and see it become a dominant party in the USA. He would have preferred it be a 3rd party named "the liberty party," but taking over the GOP will have to do, after all it was historically the liberty-minded party off and on throughout history.

The logical conclusion is that Paul doesn't really want to be the President but his attempts to create a popular Liberty party have succeeded all to well and he's faced with the prospect of being forced into the whitehouse against his will... Likely to be assassinated, but I believe he'd rather die a Martyr for this cause than fail it.



To those that feel I'm still being Naive and that Paul has literally no chance now, I say to you prove it. Don't just say "but he threw in the towel already" or "Romney has all the delegates" because those OPINIONS are worthless. Show me some facts not rumors perpetuated by Paul's rivals and I'm all ears.

P.S. SupplyShock and theunicorn; don't bother, you're on my ignore list now anyway.

 

[JakeStratham]

...but it also goes against the idea that we're sovereign individuals and that imposing your will on others is immoral.

Paul, you might enjoy reading The Ethics Of Voting. Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Some passages are grueling. But there are lots of good points throughout.

 

[pfgannon]

Paul, you might enjoy reading The Ethics Of Voting. Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Some passages are grueling. But there are lots of good points throughout.

Just read over the first section, and I look forward to finishing it. Thanks for another great share on the topic.

 

[Moxie]

Evolution (macroevolution, rather) is a theory. Who *believes* in something that hasn't been proven?

Answer: someone matching the description in the post quoted above.

Which theories in science have been proven?

Answer: none of them.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_wCANPsMzw]Can Theories Be Proven? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[pfgannon]

I feel like you dodged a lot of my points, but I'll address yours anyway.

I was there after the 2008 election. I had hope for Paul then but the media's Tea party trick dissalusioned me into thinking these exact same thoughts you're expressing here.

I don't think we had these same thoughts for the same reasons. Voting can definitely change elections and the direction of nations. Sadly, they all lead to the same destination, failure. Because involuntary government is fundamentally flawed, it ain't ever going to work, no matter how many fancy rules you layer on top of it.

Since then I've read a bit about what the FOUNDING FATHERS wanted and how the REPUBLIC we live in operate. There are some rules, despite what the the establishment show you, that must be followed. Rules that federal judges and the SCOTUS have to arbitrate to keep control over the constant disputes we'd have without them.

The rule makers have no obligation to follow the rules they make. Laws are only followed to maintain the facade that the system works, or to destroy political enemies from time to time.

One of those rules is this: Delegates and Electors do the voting here. This is indisputable. The MSM avoids talking about it every chance it gets because that is where the real source of the coverup is; if the masses don't know that delegates have power, then they can keep the masses away from the power.

Delegates and Electors elect presidents. As long as they're on the State-approved list of candidates. Remind me again, when was the last time we had a president that wasn't an undeniable scoundrel?

The Founding fathers knew the problems with democracy, as they have written about quite profusely, and designed it that way, although they couldn't have known about the power of the MSM today.

But they didn't know all the problems that would arise with democracy, nor were they fully aware of the problems of a democratic republic. Who can blame them though? After all, it was the first time people had ever attempted an experiment like this on such a grand scale. I assure you, it's not just the MSM. They are but a symptom.

The economies with the least control over them will always be the most prosperous, and the people the most free. But grant somebody or some group control over the populace, no matter how limited, and it's only a matter of time before that power is exploited to the utmost degree. Welcome to modern America.

His motive all along was to start the liberty movement and see it become a dominant party in the USA. He would have preferred it be a 3rd party named "the liberty party," but taking over the GOP will have to do, after all it was historically the liberty-minded party off and on throughout history.

I'm not so sure this is true, but who knows, right?

The logical conclusion is that Paul doesn't really want to be the President but his attempts to create a popular Liberty party have succeeded all to well and he's faced with the prospect of being forced into the whitehouse against his will... Likely to be assassinated, but I believe he'd rather die a Martyr for this cause than fail it.

It's always been pretty clear that Paul never really wanted to be the president, but is willing to be, if that's what it takes. There's a reason Paul has always been the non-politician politician, and is only running for POTUS out of some (arguably strange) rationalizations. And I don't think it's for "personal reasons". I tend to believe it's because he doesn't think anyone should have that much power, and possibly for other moral reasons. We can never really know his true motives, so this is all just speculation.

 

[ly2 from WF]

 

[lukep]

Finally, a decent conversation in this thread. Thanks for piping up pfgannon!

I don't think we had these same thoughts for the same reasons. Voting can definitely change elections and the direction of nations. Sadly, they all lead to the same destination, failure. Because involuntary government is fundamentally flawed, it ain't ever going to work, no matter how many fancy rules you layer on top of it.

Agreed, 100%. I am personally working towards making this country a Voluntaryist society one day... However, I just don't see this as relevant in Paul's case. Anything Paul achieves will bring about a far more voluntary society than we're headed for now.

Yes, I've read the theory that we can't get to a voluntary society without a collapse and it should therefore be encouraged, not slowed down by the liberty movement, but I don't know that it'll work either, although I'm pretty sure it won't pay off in my lifetime.

So I'm not fighting for the exact same thing my fellow AnCaps are; I want to see success in my lifetime and I'm not willing to stand in any mile-long bread lines to get there... There is a better way.

The rule makers have no obligation to follow the rules they make. Laws are only followed to maintain the facade that the system works, or to destroy political enemies from time to time.

But that facade is delicate and they do get caught from time to time, making it a tool we can use in our favor to hold them back from going to far.

...And one way to go to far is to not let us vote in the guy we want. They're being reminded of that right now.

Delegates and Electors elect presidents. As long as they're on the State-approved list of candidates. Remind me again, when was the last time we had a president that wasn't an undeniable scoundrel?

Just the assassinated ones.... Which goes to your point, I know... But those guys didn't become Martyrs somehow, did they? The MSM was all-powerful then, there was no internet and the newspapers told all citizens to believe that some lone gunman got them all, acting alone.

Today no one believes that fairy tale, and the MSM's ratings keep sinking beyond new record depths... Meaning the internet has killed this ability to stop american martyrs from existing. Paul would be the martyr of our century, as no libertarian anywhere would believe a word of spin about his death. Not a single word. We're just sitting here waiting for it to be spoken, so we can find and tear apart the people who speak it!

...It's a very different world today bro.

But they didn't know all the problems that would arise with democracy, nor were they fully aware of the problems of a democratic republic. Who can blame them though? After all, it was the first time people had ever attempted an experiment like this on such a grand scale. I assure you, it's not just the MSM. They are but a symptom.

What are you talking about? They didn't read about the Greeks? Of course they did, they knew and planned for every problem Imaginable excepting for mass mind control, which would have seemed like magic to them.

...For everything else, they've made the 2nd amendment, and have been hinted that occasional bloodshed is necessary to keep politicians honest. That was a damn fine thing to do by a bunch of politicians...!

There's a reason Paul has always been the non-politician politician, and is only running for POTUS out of some (arguably strange) rationalizations. And I don't think it's for "personal reasons". I tend to believe it's because he doesn't think anyone should have that much power, and possibly for other moral reasons. We can never really know his true motives, so this is all just speculation.

I think his 30-year-strong libertarian speech and voting records points out his motives very well. Heck, after 30 years of saying one thing so consistently, even if you didn't start off believing it you'd brainwash yourself to believe it fully well before 30 years!

 

[pfgannon]

Finally, a decent conversation in this thread. Thanks for piping up pfgannon!

I felt bad for never responding to your PM a little while back, so it's the least I can do. :bowdown:

Agreed, 100%. I am personally working towards making this country a Voluntaryist society one day... However, I just don't see this as relevant in Paul's case. Anything Paul achieves will bring about a far more voluntary society than we're headed for now.

Sure, it may be MORE voluntary, but it won't BE voluntary in the absolute sense and is therefore still flawed. Here's a weird analogy for ya...

The bailouts were often compared to putting a band-aid on the crumbling economy. It may ward of total collapse for a while longer, but it's only a matter of time. I imagine putting Paul in office would play out similarly. After writing this, I notice you alluded to a similar point in the next part of your response. Oh well.

There's also no real track record of success in changing the State from within.

Yes, I've read the theory that we can't get to a voluntary society without a collapse and it should therefore be encouraged, not slowed down by the liberty movement, but I don't know that it'll work either, although I'm pretty sure it won't pay off in my lifetime.

The state's got it covered. I wouldn't waste the energy. Though I am a fan of agorist tactics.

So I'm not fighting for the exact same thing my fellow AnCaps are; I want to see success in my lifetime and I'm not willing to stand in any mile-long bread lines to get there... There is a better way.

I don't expect it to happen in our lifetime either, regardless of how it happens. I think the the better way is to act in accordance with your moral foundation. The better way is to refuse to participate in their game that blackmails us into being their co-conspirators.

But that facade is delicate and they do get caught from time to time, making it a tool we can use in our favor to hold them back from going to far.

...And one way to go to far is to not let us vote in the guy we want. They're being reminded of that right now.

Partially agree. Sometimes we do get the desired results. The State consists of some of the most corrupt people in the world. To think you can beat them, when they have ridiculous home team advantage, is naive, IMO. Your game doesn't even come close.

Just the assassinated ones.... Which goes to your point, I know... But those guys didn't become Martyrs somehow, did they? The MSM was all-powerful then, there was no internet and the newspapers told all citizens to believe that some lone gunman got them all, acting alone.

Today no one believes that fairy tale, and the MSM's ratings keep sinking beyond new record depths... Meaning the internet has killed this ability to stop american martyrs from existing. Paul would be the martyr of our century, as no libertarian anywhere would believe a word of spin about his death. Not a single word. We're just sitting here waiting for it to be spoken, so we can find and tear apart the people who speak it!


...It's a very different world today bro.

Sure.

What are you talking about? They didn't read about the Greeks? Of course they did, they knew and planned for every problem Imaginable excepting for mass mind control, which would have seemed like magic to them.

...For everything else, they've made the 2nd amendment, and have been hinted that occasional bloodshed is necessary to keep politicians honest. That was a damn fine thing to do by a bunch of politicians...!

You seem to be focused on the MSM and this idea of mind control. I believe it has more to do with still being fairly primitive beings that have known nothing but violence for most of our existence.

Sure, the US Constitution is the probably the best thing to happen to society in a long time. They tried to plan for everything imaginable. The problem is the unimaginable. Which is why expecting government (of all fucking institutions) to be able to react to the unimaginable is foolish.

 

[dreamache]

Sure, it may be MORE voluntary, but it won't BE voluntary in the absolute sense and is therefore still flawed. Here's a weird analogy for ya...

The bailouts were often compared to putting a band-aid on the crumbling economy. It may ward of total collapse for a while longer, but it's only a matter of time. I imagine putting Paul in office would play out similarly.

This is pretty much how I've aligned my political beliefs as of late. This debate takes place in the video below:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jEEnP7YEQE"]Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio on the Peter Schiff Radio Show - YouTube[/ame]

 

[lukep]

THIS THREAD IS NOW OFFICIALLY ABOUT THE ROAD TO VOLUNTARYISM.

Sure, it may be MORE voluntary, but it won't BE voluntary in the absolute sense and is therefore still flawed.

I'm not going to be alive for the unflawed one.

I have no children either, so what's the point in me working my whole life so somebody else's unborn children will receive the benefits of my hard work?

Logic dictates that If I can't bring about an unflawed one within my lifetime then the next best thing I can do is bring about a LESS flawed one.

There's also no real track record of success in changing the State from within.

I know it, and I know Lew Rockwell says so too, but despite all the fail going on around here lately, the Delegates keep rolling in...

& if R$ fails to get 1144 at the first vote in Tampa, then there finally will be an occurrence of it.

I think the the better way is to act in accordance with your moral foundation. The better way is to refuse to participate in their game that blackmails us into being their co-conspirators.

Well I don't vote, but I do try to change the system from within because I see a tiny chance in Paul's campaign. But without Paul winning something significant, I fail to see how it helps.

The State consists of some of the most corrupt people in the world. To think you can beat them, when they have ridiculous home team advantage, is naive, IMO. Your game doesn't even come close.

In 2008 I would have agreed with that remark, but I can see something happening at state conventions around the nation that is remarkable; We're in the Majority. Every time. And we don't compromise 1%. How do you beat a thing like that?

Talk about an unstoppable force hitting an immovable object... Should make for one hell of a boom regardless!

You seem to be focused on the MSM and this idea of mind control. I believe it has more to do with still being fairly primitive beings that have known nothing but violence for most of our existence.

Actually all I mean about mind control is the actual existence of information among the masses... For instance, people might actually vote for Ron if they didn't constantly ignore him and introduce him as "the candidate that has no chance to win."

In fact they'd VERY LIKELY vote for Ron if they accurately reported on the real numbers of supporters out there that exist... I'd say Ron Paul has something like 55% of this country wishing he'd be the next president while Romney only has 1% of the most un-informed backing him. Obomba probably about 25%.

It's nothing less than Mind control on a mass scale to make THOSE SAME PEOPLE believe that Obomba as 44%, Romney has 42%, and Paul only about 5%... And when they believe Paul has no chance to beat obomba, they vote for Romney.

That's controlling their minds to control the vote. And it works very well.

Sure, the US Constitution is the probably the best thing to happen to society in a long time. They tried to plan for everything imaginable. The problem is the unimaginable. Which is why expecting government (of all fucking institutions) to be able to react to the unimaginable is foolish.

Agreed, just not going to happen in my lifetime without lots of bloodshed or perhaps a successful seastead. I'm not going to wait that long for something far better, & neither are you. That's why I'm trying my best to take this shot at a good-enough solution for now.

 

[theunicorn]

fuck off you delusional idiot. start your own shitty thread.

this is about ron paul admitting he wont win the election. also rand paul endorsing romney 2012.

 

[BluAffiliate]

Luke.

Have you heard of the horseshoe theory?

It's the concept behind why vegetarians become Nazis, why anti-war people become militant assholes..

You've come around to the other side. A libertarian that is concerned with freedom becomes a a close-minded groupthinker.

I hope you see the error in your ways.

 

[dreamache]

Luke.

Have you heard of the horseshoe theory?

It's the concept behind why vegetarians become Nazis, why anti-war people become militant assholes..

You've come around to the other side. A libertarian that is concerned with freedom becomes a a close-minded groupthinker.

I hope you see the error in your ways.

does that mean you're going to become an anarchist?

 

[erifdekciw]

Will someone close to lukep put him in a mental hospital before he goes on a shooting rampage killing any of my voters.

 

[johnmatrix]

I'm an asshole for bringing this up, but lukep you sound like you did in that thread about Chromebooks. You said to bookmark it and come back in a year too. You were so strongly convicted to them being the next big thing, calling people sad for not agreeing with you.

http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/123983-anybody-gettin-chromebook-2.html#post1278153

Specifically:

The more I think about it; the more I'm convinced that Chromebooks will do exactly the following:

Nothing at all to phones and Tablets.
DESTROY the entire industry of Netbooks, bar none.
Steal ~ 20% of the full-powered Laptop market, mainly the cheapos.
Nothing at all to the high-end laptop market.
DESTROY the entire industry of cheapie desktops for offices and schools.
Nothing at all to the high-end desktop market.

Bookmark this thread and come back in a year... This is the way it's going down.

 

[lukep]

I'm an asshole for bringing this up, but lukep you sound like you did in that thread about Chromebooks. You said to bookmark it and come back in a year too. You were so strongly convicted to them being the next big thing, calling people sad for not agreeing with you.

Lol; You got me on that one, dead to rights. I can't even find a chromebook now except on ebay.

Honestly, I'm no tech guru, in fact my mouse still has a cord. :uhoh2:

I think quite a lot about Politics though; and there's really an underlying principle here, beneath the surface of every topic this thread has touched, that we all seem just a bit afraid to talk about. I'll let John F Kennedy say it for me, for he said it best the year before he was murdered:

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

This is not conspiracy talk; it is nothing less than the core of politics itself. JFK was rather painfully reminding 1960s Americans that if politics breaks down in the way we see clearly happening today, you will be shedding blood soon or having yours shed.

The central theme of the liberty movement is to avoid this end. Liberty is the opposite of that tyranny.

My reasoning above is based upon my 100% assuredness in these facts, and rather an extension of them. I also happen to know a little history, and of most importantly I happen to keep up with the NUMBERS (not the superfluous hype-talk) of delegates we are winning in each state.

Right now, hours after Rand pulled a Benedict Arnold on our movement, the Texas delegation is meeting and is overwhelmingly composed of obvious Ron Paul people. They fill up a stadium, over 8,000 delegates in one room... Mostly Paul folk, and these are the people who choose the National delegates amongst themselves to go vote in Tampa. News all over twitter is that Rand's move hasn't hurt them one bit... If anything they're more mad at the system that corrupted Rand and will work HARDER to destroy the establishment.

So while this news is devastating, it's not hurting our drive at all; because we have no where else to go but towards violence.

 

[theunicorn]

So while this news is devastating, it's not hurting us; because we have no where else to go but towards violence.

post forwarded to homeland security.