Any Ron Paul supporters here? - Page 27

No one explained "sucking bass".

While the other GOP candidates are speaking to a few hundred, Ron Paul's crowds went from 1,000+ to 3,000+, and at his most recent appearance he garnered over 6,000 people.


I'm waiting for the time someone will say the oft heard meme "Over 9,000!", which will probably be very soon.

Looks like it came sooner than I thought.
Was expecting 4,900 at the Straus Stadium at the Los Angeles Tennis Center...
Capcity was hit, and this is with the capacity being over 9,000! (At full capacity, the LATC can accommodate 10,000 spectators).


Ron Paul is somewhere in there ^

Wow, with that many fans, Ron Paul must have the nomination!

Doubtful, the LA Times had no mention of this event. No mention on any MSM channels like CNN. The only interviews I've seen of Ron Paul are full of loaded questions asking him to drop out and what his secret deals are with Romney.

Despite Romney having a few hundred turn up for his events and with such a low public opinion in addition to performing under Paul and Santorum in a matchup with Obama he's somehow winning all these straw polls in the primaries. This is because 1) Media intervention, 2) A lot of fools, 3) Vote fraud conspiracies. Or maybe it's an all of the above type of thing.
No matter how one looks at it, the cards are stacked against Paul. He's picking up a good majority of the unbound delegates (or in some cases sweeping them all up) but the only way he can get a win is if this goes to a brokered convention and that is rather unlikely. For that to happen Romney cannot get the 50% in New York (which will be a winner take all scenario like in Florida) and Paul and Santorum need to take hold of Texas and California. Otherwise it would be estimated Romney hits 1144 delegates maybe early June.
Any other alternative to that scenario is compounded with problems of media bias and dirty tricks when selecting delegates.

So, unlikely, but those are just my thoughts. I still think Ron Paul is the best of the bunch (by far), nothing will change with Romney (or it will actually get worse) and I really don't have to say much about Santorum. Ron Paul has some edgy beliefs, but the only things he could change in his term would be ending the wars (which would cut $1 trillion of spending) and getting rid of these horrendous bills like NDAA.

Odd how someone who can get 9,000 people at a convention must blame the media when they can't successfully run for president.

Or perhaps the truth is that 9,000 people at a convention isn't that many people in the grand scheme of things. Some minor league baseball teams will get that attendance at a game. And most people can't name minor league baseball teams.

The Augusta Green Jackets! So there!

But, I think it points more towards gullible people being gullible; more than anything.

You're silly if you think he's blaming the media. He's said even if he were to become president it would mean nothing unless we the people make the real change.

And it's "over 9,000", know your memes.

Someone should inform Ron Paul that crowd size is not a determining factor in the Republican primaries. Also, he might consider winning some states.

I don't think Ron Paul made any posts here about crowd size being the determining factor in the primaries.
He has won a primary (by "win" I think you mean the straw poll)... surprise, the media said Romney won because he got more delegates. Of course if that were the case Ron Paul has "won" the most states.
Funny how these things are presented to us.

I have seen, on many forums, similar posts by Ron Paul supporters blaming the media for Ron Paul's failure to win primaries. While I agree that media coverage is very important in political campaigns, Ron Paul has spent a decent amount of campaign cash and has participated in a dozen debates, trying to get his message out to Republican primary voters, a segment of the voting population that should be more inclined toward his libertarian, anti-government rap, but he still has done extremely poorly in most of the contests.

Ron Paul has won the least number of delegates. This is not golf they're playing.

Originally it was stated Ron Paul was saying this. His supporters can say whatever they want, just don't confuse the two of them.
[/QUOTE]


Yeah, a decent amount of money from the hardworking people of the country and big donation from active military and veterans... not from huge corporations like financial giant Goldman Sachs who fund other candidates. That small change Paul raised was used wisely to get the message of liberty out there and it's worked, in my opinion he has been one of the most influential political figures in decades (he did hit #1 in Time's recent poll).

However, I question why you say he has done extremely poor in most of the "contests". Prior to the primaries he won the most straw polls and these straw polls were said to mean "nothing" by the mass media because they were just popularity votes. When the primaries rolled around and it came to nearly a 3-way tie in Iowa the media was quick to declare Romney the "winner" of the straw poll popularity contest... it was later discovered Santorum had won (this was discovered from Ron Paul supporters!). After Paul's close 2nd place in New Hampshire, Maine's poll came up and Paul was set to win... once again Romney was prematurely declared the winner before the votes came in; I believe to this day many precincts' votes are still "missing" (the area where Paul was highly favored... coincidentally).
Similar events keep happening in each state that follows and we see when Romney wins a Straw Poll popularity vote he is declared the "Winner" of the state... Now this is when things get interesting... when Ron Paul wins a primary Straw Poll you would think it would be declared he "won"... but what happens? Romney is declared the "Winner" because he got more delegates than Ron Paul in the primary... why? Because Straw Polls don't mean anything, they're just popularity contests... what really matters is the delegates won!
If that's the case then Ron Paul should be declared the "winner" in Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Washington, etc. where he SWEPT THE DELEGATES (taking ALL or a large majority).

But what happens when the stories of the delegates is reported on? We hear about how Ron Paul supporters are "cheating" the system and taking the delegates from the real "winner" that the people voted for in the non-binding straw poll popularity vote and yet somehow has no delegates... incredible.

Go ahead and look all that up, or I can provide plenty of references for you if you want (a bit pressed for time to dig them up atm). But this is why many Paul supporters are very upset about what has transpired.


Please quote your source for the actual number of delegates "won". Chances are it is from a major news outlet; most of the news given on the delegate count are simply just projections based on the non-binding straw poll votes which are not accurate at all. Paul has been picking up the majority of delegates at the caucuses despite what the popularity vote tells.
I don't think there's a truly accurate count to be found anywhere, and Paul simply smiles and says his campaign is doing very well with delegates and they will keep picking them up until Tampa where we find out who the delegates are voting for.
Santorum had virtually no delegates despite these projected numbers having him in 2nd place. This coupled with the notion that he would lose his "home state" of Pennsylvania were reasons why he is now officially suspending his campaign for presidency (also his campaign funds dried up).

Ron Paul leads Obama in a national head-to-head match-up, according to the latest survey from conservative polling outlet Rasmussen:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ied-nationally

Notice how the title of the article reads: "Rasmussen: Obama, Romney tied" as they focused on how Romney tied with Obama and had no mention in title of the real story that Ron Paul actually edged out Obama.

The next day the poll was taken down and the new poll does not include Ron Paul and does just a head-to-head with Romney and Obama. With Paul out of the picture Romney does much better than Obama.
Special interests at work making sure we get to choose from their two choices of candidates. No Ron Paul, no Gary Johnson, and possibly no Rosanne Barr; no need to use your brain or think for yourself, just look at the establishment Republican and Democrat choice the wealthy elite have provided for us, that is all.

If you keep cherry picking poll results, your conclusions won't be valid.

There's no way Ron Paul's power level is that high.

You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you believe this.

It's in response to people saying he can't win. There was no claim that one poll conclusively validates a win, but it does give a better field of view (putting claims to "can't" out of the field of reason)


Too late, he filled a 10,000 capacity arena :^D


Sorry, those weren't high expectations, what I was referring to was already an occurrence.
Iowa, Nevada, Main, and Washington have reports back on their caucus and recently a St. Charles, MO Caucus member said: "We won all of the delegates and alternates from St. Charles county. 59 delegates and 59 alternates to CD2, 88 delegates and 88 alternates to CD3, and 147 delegates and 147 alternates to State."

Even if everything ends right here right now I'd be very impressed where things have gone, no disappointments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgsg7...youtu.be&t=46s

But it looks like the message of liberty is going very well from here :^D

Glad to hear it. I was just making a Dragon Ball Z joke.

When one poll seems to contradict other polls, either that poll, or the other polls are wrong. Logically, one poll being wrong is probably more likely than the other polls being wrong.

Ohhhhh, dang I missed that at first.
Haha.
What?! That's impossible!


There's a +/- %4.5 with the polls... so, actually, it's accepted that they're all wrong to some degree.

Now the interpretation of these polls can go however the talking heads want to spin it. As shown with the links I've been providing, when Paul is a point behind Obama but still within the margin of error he's "losing", yet when he's ahead of Obama and still within the margin of error the title is "Romney Tied with Obama"...

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I don't see how people can think that Ron Paul is anything different from the typical GOP racist, homophobic cookie-cutter candidate. He's just the same as the other doorknobs who think they know what they're talking about.

Well, no.

Have you seen anything this guy has done?

Yes.

Which led me to believe that whilst hardly perfect, he is not quite like your average run-of-the-mill GOP candidate.

Okay.

Because he's not really a GOP candidate. He had to run as one to even stand a chance. Because Libertarians don't get a fair shot in this country.

He also thinks we should go back on the gold standard.

And pull out of the UN.

Oh, and you forgot the misogyny part.

Or (L) wasn't interested in putting him on the ticket, what with him being OK with lots of little governments all up in your bedroom business and womens' clinic room business and wedding business and bong business.

Also thinks that global warming is a myth...