Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 120

Thread: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

  1. #1
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    This is sad to see. It's one thing to support your candidate, but there's no need to emulate OWS and act like assholes about this. This is a big part of the reason the pop media did not, will not, and won't take Paul seriously. His supporters are acting like jackbooted thugs...

    It's also sad to see them, by any means necessary, subjugating the popular vote and using the state convention process simply to throw a monkey wrench into the works. Nobody was going to deny Paul a chance to speak at the convention, yet these animals who unthinkingly support Paul just can't leave it be. He didn't win any primaries for a good reason: There just aren't many people who support him....hate to say it, but some of these are the same tactics that Hitler used to take over Germany.

    -Throwing punches because their candidate didn't win
    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...convention.php

    -Booed Josh Romney off the stage and called his dad "White Obama" (There's that false narrative again. Just because Romney isn't an extremist and naive utopian, he's "Just the same").
    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...convention.php (same link)

    -Crying because he finished a distant third (Romney won 62% of the popular vote in the caucus), Paul crybabies "Will do scorched Earth if we have to"
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ate-convention

    Even Paul himself is against their actions (same link): "In Idaho, isolated instances of grassroots activists working toward an ostensible "hostile takeover" of the GOP are not sanctioned by the Ron Paul national campaign."

    Essentially, Paul, who has VERY FEW legitimate supporters, are trying to use strong-arm brown-shirt tactics and procedural tricks to circumvent the overwhelming majority of Republican voters who DO NOT FAVOR HIM to try and take over state conventions. This is a shameful way to attempt to keep a largely irrelevant candidate in the spotlight. The best the legitimate GOP party rank-and-file can do at this point is attempt to galvanize and by mobilizing, quash this insolent and petulant little attention whoring rebellion by a few people choking on sour grapes. This is NOT what the GOP needs right now.

    A note: I'm not angry at Paul himself YET, but I am disgusted by his supporters....this seems to be rogue activity by his rabid weirdo fanbase. But he's going to need to tell his attack dogs to heel soon, or there will be repercussions. Dr Paul himself is old and done, but his son has a bright future (in spite of his recent over-the-top comments about Obama "being the gayest President [or something similar]). There is an important message here that is precariously close to being lost completely because of the moronic activities of a few uber radical whack jobs.
    Fire Goodell

  2. #2
    The voice of reason Array title="GoSlash27 has a reputation beyond repute"> GoSlash27's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Haha for a subject that you consider to be "irrelevant", you sure spend a lot of time talking about it

    And really, there's no reason to limit yourself to Hitler references. You could use "moonies", "communists", or even "invaders from Mars". Explore the limits of your hyperbole
    "You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute"> GBMelBlount's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Posts
    8,756

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Regardless of analogies I am assuming that you do not approve of their tactics....or do you?....
    "With love, with patience, and with Faith
    ....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant

  4. #4
    Reigning Black & Gold Array title="venom has a reputation beyond repute"> venom's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    N Y C / Chicago
    Gender
    Posts
    26,248

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    I like to use the term " asswipes "

  5. #5
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    It's quite unfair to label an entire support base off of a few incidents. Weren't people upset at Dems for labeling Tea Partiers as racist?

    I don't agree with their tactics (for the most part...you might not agree with how they're handling the delegate thing, but it's perfectly legal and within their rights), but I understand their frustration.

  6. #6
    Swaggin' University Array title="ShutDown24 has a spectacular aura about"> ShutDown24's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Gender
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    It's quite unfair to label an entire support base off of a few incidents. Weren't people upset at Dems for labeling Tea Partiers as racist?

    I don't agree with their tactics (for the most part...you might not agree with how they're handling the delegate thing, but it's perfectly legal and within their rights), but I understand their frustration.
    I nearly made a similar post on this topic earlier today and decided against it. But in praise of your point, because it's 100% correct, I'll voice my support.

    Obviously anything like this is distasteful. But it is not amplified by the fact that this is a group of Paul supporters. There are plenty of disgraceful acts from every corner of the political support spectrum. I'm sure we could find a group of Romney or Obama supporters who have displayed just as little class.


  7. #7
    Senior Member Array title="smokin3000gt has a reputation beyond repute"> smokin3000gt's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    3,364

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by ShutDown24 View Post
    I nearly made a similar post on this topic earlier today and decided against it. But in praise of your point, because it's 100% correct, I'll voice my support.

    Obviously anything like this is distasteful. But it is not amplified by the fact that this is a group of Paul supporters. There are plenty of disgraceful acts from every corner of the political support spectrum. I'm sure we could find a group of Romney or Obama supporters who have displayed just as little class.
    I agree 100% but I will say that I've only had to block RP supporters from my facebook page because of all the crap they post on a daily basis. I've also noticed that OWS and RP seem to go hand in hand..
    Quote Originally Posted by 86WARD View Post
    Tomlin is that good.



    PATRIOTS**

    BUNGLES
    Steelers - 18 Bengals - 16 #0in25 #anotherseasonBungled




    HTG ¤-

  8. #8
    The voice of reason Array title="GoSlash27 has a reputation beyond repute"> GoSlash27's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by ShutDown24 View Post
    I nearly made a similar post on this topic earlier today and decided against it. But in praise of your point, because it's 100% correct, I'll voice my support.

    Obviously anything like this is distasteful. But it is not amplified by the fact that this is a group of Paul supporters. There are plenty of disgraceful acts from every corner of the political support spectrum. I'm sure we could find a group of Romney or Obama supporters who have displayed just as little class.
    You don't know the half of it. They're just now realizing how much of a threat these Ron Paul people are to their power base and are lashing out accordingly. Too little too late.
    I told you folks this was happening 6 months ago. Nobody was listening then, but I see that's finally changed.
    "You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland

  9. #9
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by smokin3000gt View Post
    I agree 100% but I will say that I've only had to block RP supporters from my facebook page because of all the crap they post on a daily basis. I've also noticed that OWS and RP seem to go hand in hand..
    This could be construed as an isolated incident if it occurred in one state. It has not. It is a well orchestrated guerrilla movement taking place in many, many states, and it's not going to stop. This is the way tiny minorities with extremely radical followers ALWAYS operate, because it's their only path to power. There is no legitimacy, so they attempt to steal it.

    I, too, have had to block Paul cultists here and elsewhere. I really hate to see a teeny tiny minority try to usurp power in the GOP at such a critical time, not because they have a snowballs chance of doing anything, rather that it provides great fodder for the opposition. If I was working in Hopey's campaign, I'd do everything in my power to either pour as much gas on this fire as possible or, alternatively, promote indifference and ambiguity amongst the less astute Republicans and Independents who don't want to be bothered to think too much or too hard about this matter. There seems to be those types of outcomes just in this thread...

    Anyway, this should present an opportunity for real Republicans to come together and cast out rabble rousing extremists bent on those same "scorched Earth" policies. Hopefully, it will. And I still hope Dr. Paul gets out front of this and shuts down his more incendiary and extremist radicals before they start doing irreparable damage. They can't win, but they can sure pout and whine and cry and help the other side win in the process...
    Fire Goodell

  10. #10
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    You know, what if we dumb this down a bit?

    Mommy Wars.
    Culture Wars.
    Class Wars.

    Anyone see a pattern here from our "great uniter"? Now we have GOP state convention attendees fist-fighting each other in parking lots because the obnoxious Paul supporters aren't getting enough attention? Really?
    Fire Goodell

  11. #11
    The voice of reason Array title="GoSlash27 has a reputation beyond repute"> GoSlash27's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    "Well-orchestrated guerrilla movement"...
    You can gauge their desperation by the extremism of their rhetoric. If Suit hadn't started off with the Hitler references, he'd have surely been there by the convention. I'm kinda curious to see what other goofy analogies he can cook up. After all, he hasn't mentioned communicable diseases yet.

    Suit and I have been going back and forth on this subject for months now. I'll leave it to you folks to decide for yourselves which one comes off as the mouth-frothing radical
    "You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland

  12. #12
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    This could be construed as an isolated incident if it occurred in one state. It has not. It is a well orchestrated guerrilla movement taking place in many, many states, and it's not going to stop. This is the way tiny minorities with extremely radical followers ALWAYS operate, because it's their only path to power. There is no legitimacy, so they attempt to steal it.

    I, too, have had to block Paul cultists here and elsewhere. I really hate to see a teeny tiny minority try to usurp power in the GOP at such a critical time, not because they have a snowballs chance of doing anything, rather that it provides great fodder for the opposition. If I was working in Hopey's campaign, I'd do everything in my power to either pour as much gas on this fire as possible or, alternatively, promote indifference and ambiguity amongst the less astute Republicans and Independents who don't want to be bothered to think too much or too hard about this matter. There seems to be those types of outcomes just in this thread...

    Anyway, this should present an opportunity for real Republicans to come together and cast out rabble rousing extremists bent on those same "scorched Earth" policies. Hopefully, it will. And I still hope Dr. Paul gets out front of this and shuts down his more incendiary and extremist radicals before they start doing irreparable damage. They can't win, but they can sure pout and whine and cry and help the other side win in the process...
    First off, I, nor anyone else, stated this was an isolated incident. I said you are basing some of your judgements off of a few incidents. Also, I have to note that there was once a tiny minority of extreme radicals that became leaders of our country. I wonder how you would have judged their actions.

    Keep your views however you want...they just seem very limited and one sided to me. That's fine, to each his own...but know that there are those of us who simply share the same ideals as Paul, and are working for change by BEING change in our local and state governments, or by simply trying to spread the message to others. You don't need to compare us all to people who throw punches in the midst of heavy political debate (is that what REALLY constitutes an extreme radical in your mind?).

    It's a heated time for America right now...some of this shit needs to get out.

    You have to know that so many people are so lukewarm on Romney right now that it's ridiculous. Most anyone I've spoken to, or heard support him, have said the only reason they'll vote for him is because they don't like Obama. Even you have to admit, that's pretty depressing, to know our voters have gotten to that complete 'meh' point. It's actually refreshing to me to see someone spark SOMETHING in people.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array title="stillers4me has a reputation beyond repute"> stillers4me's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Shitzinnati
    Gender
    Posts
    24,842

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Most anyone I've spoken to, or heard support him, have said the only reason they'll vote for him is because they don't like Obama.
    Like the way people voted for Obama because he wasn't Bush?



  14. #14
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by stillers4me View Post
    Like the way people voted for Obama because he wasn't Bush?
    Perfect analogy...and yes. All this voting for one party cause it isn't the other (isn't that why Clinton got voted in, cause he wasn't Bush Sr? I was only 12 then, so I'm honestly asking.), is getting crazy. Especially when things in our country only continue to get worse president after president. People who largely ignore voting on local and state levels as well don't help the matter either, because one man isn't going to fix everything. It has to start bottom to top.

    Something has to change somewhere though, and a true bottom to top change starts in the minds of the people, and how we should be taking control of our gov't back.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    15,903

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    Perfect analogy...and yes. All this voting for one party cause it isn't the other (isn't that why Clinton got voted in, cause he wasn't Bush Sr? I was only 12 then, so I'm honestly asking.), is getting crazy. Especially when things in our country only continue to get worse president after president. People who largely ignore voting on local and state levels as well don't help the matter either, because one man isn't going to fix everything. It has to start bottom to top.

    Something has to change somewhere though, and a true bottom to top change starts in the minds of the people, and how we should be taking control of our gov't back.
    Clinton got voted in because a third party candidate ( Ross Perot) drained votes away from Bush Sr. Could we be looking at a repeat of history to get Obama a second term?
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  16. #16
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Ok..but looking at the numbers, the 18.9% that Perot got from voters drew from Clinton voters as well, who had already won by over 5% of the vote. You'd have to take more than half of the independent voters and give them to Bush for him to even win the popular vote...which doesn't matter when the electoral college was so slanted in Clintons favor.

    Perot didn't win any states or any electoral college votes. Clinton had won nearly twice the number of states that Bush did. I don't think it was Perot's fault lol.

  17. #17
    The voice of reason Array title="GoSlash27 has a reputation beyond repute"> GoSlash27's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by zulater View Post
    Clinton got voted in because a third party candidate ( Ross Perot) drained votes away from Bush Sr. Could we be looking at a repeat of history to get Obama a second term?
    Even going with that (which, as SCM has already pointed out is incorrect), it seems to me that the proper lesson would be "don't run a candidate that even your own base doesn't like". If this is indeed a repeat of history, it's probably needed since the Republican Party didn't get the hint the first time.
    "You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland

  18. #18
    The voice of reason Array title="GoSlash27 has a reputation beyond repute"> GoSlash27's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    The best the legitimate GOP party rank-and-file can do at this point is attempt to galvanize and by mobilizing, quash this insolent and petulant little attention whoring rebellion by a few people choking on sour grapes.
    I actually agree here. That's all the Republican Party status-quo people can do. And if you had been paying attention you would have known that they've been doing everything in their power to shut out these Paul people. Problem is they're outnumbered by this so-called "tiny minority". Moreover, these "mindless followers" know Robert's Rules, the by-laws, and the convention process. Worst of all, they're actually motivated in a way that neither Romney nor the Republican Party can inspire.
    But hey... good luck with that
    "You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland

  19. #19
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    15,903

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    Ok..but looking at the numbers, the 18.9% that Perot got from voters drew from Clinton voters as well, who had already won by over 5% of the vote. You'd have to take more than half of the independent voters and give them to Bush for him to even win the popular vote...which doesn't matter when the electoral college was so slanted in Clintons favor.

    Perot didn't win any states or any electoral college votes. Clinton had won nearly twice the number of states that Bush did. I don't think it was Perot's fault lol.
    lol your self. It's not nearly as cut and dried and you pretend.

    http://www.kevinwillis.net/viewarticle.php?&artID=245

    A lie. Perot drew votes about equally from Bush and Clinton. Certainly he was not the difference maker despite the Republicans' assertions otherwise.

    Then, me again:

    Actually, it's true. I did a lengthy analysis of the '92 election results and there is no way that Perot was not a spoiler for Bush senior. Now, in fairness, that was the landscape of that political year, and Bush could not keep Clinton and Perot at bay. But Perot acted as a spoiler, if by no other measure (such as the extra ad buys he made and press coverage he got where he spent 80% of the time attacking H.W. Bush) then electorally--while it may not be impossible, it is statistically highly improbable that Clinton would have won without Perot in the race. Even if you accept the notion that Perot drew evenly from both candidates, which you should not (were Blue Dog Democrats who had voted for Reagan and Bush really going to vote for Clinton, if Perot had not been in the mix? Probably not, but those folks are counted on the Democrat side of "drawing evenly between the two parties") . . . where was I? Oh, yeah, there were enough states with enough electoral votes where the smallest shift in Bush's favor would give Bush the election.

    I calculated it as something around 35% of the Perot votes going to H.W. Bush gives him the election in 1992. I'd have to go back through the stats again, it's been a long time, but . . . am I really supposed to believe liberal Democrats were enamored with Perot? The Texas Billionaire who talked like a Kentucky Fried chicken? Yes, he had a populist streak, but still . . .

    The fact is, it depends on less that half the people in several states that went for Perot going for Bush, which exit polling at the time and subsequent polls have indicated would be an underestimate. Even if 1/3rd of the vote that went to Perot went to Bush in the popular election, if Clinton still took it it would be the only time in history there was that large a discrepancy between the final electoral count and the popular vote. It seems very unlikely, and intellectually dishonest, to say Perot was a lesser effect than Nader because a particular state was split dead even and Nader made the difference. While heated and close, so more visible and emotionally impactful, Perot did that same thing to Bush in '92, with a hell of a lot more votes, state after state after state. Add that to the fact that Perot spent a ton of money trashing George Bush and a lot less energy (and money) trashing Clinton and had a personal animus against George Herbert Walker, and went so far as to buy an hour of prime time television on ABC to pimp his candidacy and spent almost all of his money courting likely Bush voters, Republicans, evangelicals and disaffected conservatives, and it's just not rational to assert that Perot didn't cost Bush the 1992 election.


    And here they come. Just some quick numbers for '92:

    Arizona went to Clinton, 653,288 to 622,073. Perot got 112,072. If just 1/3 of those Perot votes went to George H. W. Bush, Bush takes Arizona and it's 8 electoral votes.

    California went to Clinton, 5,121,325 to 3,630,574. A tidy victory of 1,490,751 votes. However, Perot got 2,296,006 votes in CA in '92. If 3/4 of those votes went to Bush instead of Perot, Bush would have taken CA, and its 54 honkin' electoral votes.

    Colarado went to Clinton, 629,681 to 562,850. A fairly decent victory for Clinton of 66,831 votes. Perot got 366,010 votes. If just a paltry 1/4 of those votes had gone to Bush, Bush would have taken Colorado by some 25,000 odd votes. That would have given Colorado to Bush, and its 8 electoral votes.

    Connecticut went to Clinton, 682,318 to 578,313. Perot got 348,771 votes. Same as Colorado: a meager 1/4 of Perot voters voting for Bush, Bush takes Connecticut and its 8 electoral votes.

    Delaware: 126,054 to 102,313, Clinton. Perot took 59,213. If half that went to Bush, Delaware goes Bush, and 3 more electoral votes.

    Georgia went to Clinton in '92, 1,008,966 to 995,252. Perot took 308,657. If less than 1/3 of that vote went to Bush, Bush would have taken Georgia, and its 13 electoral votes.

    Iowa went to Clinton, 586,353 to 504,891 for G.H.W.Bush . . . Perot scored 253,468 votes. If a little less than 1/3rd of those went to Bush, Bush would have taken Iowa, and it's 7 electoral votes.

    Kentucky? 665,104 for Clinton to 617,178 for Bush. Perot got 203,994 votes. Less than 1/4th of those tips Kentucky in Bush country, and Bush would have taken Kentucky's 8 electoral votes.

    Louisianna: 815,971 Clinton to 733,386 Bush, 211,478 Perot. You do the math. If Bush scored half of the Perotistas, Bush takes Lousiana and its 9 votes.

    Maine went Clinton, 263,420 to 206,504 for Bush. Perot took 206,820. 1/4th of those to Bush, Bush takes Maine and 4 more electorals.

    Maryland went to Clinton, 988,571 to 707,094 for Bush. If pretty much all of Perot's 281,414 votes went to Bush, it would have been a dead heat, with Clinton still taking it by 63 votes.

    If all of Massachusetts' Perot votes went to Bush, Bush would have won the state by 100,000 votes.

    Michigan went to Clinton, 1,871,182 to 1,554,940. 1/3 of Perot's 824,813 votes bring Michigan, and its 18 electoral votes, into Bush country.

    Minnesota went to Clinton, 1,020,997 to 747,841. However, 3/4 of Perot's 562,506 votes would have swung Minnesota, and it's 10 electorals, for Bush. Missouri went to Clinton, 1,053,873 to 811,159. Half of Perot's 518,741 votes, and Missouri and its 11 electoral votes go Bush.

    Clinton took Montana by 10,000 votes. Perot got 107,225 votes. If 10 percent of Perot voters took Bush instead, Bush takes Montana in 92, and it's 3 electoral votes.

    Nevada went Clinton, 189,148 to 175,828 . . . about 14,000 votes. Perot got 132,580 in Nevada. If 12% of that had gone to Bush instead, Bush takes Nevada, and the 4 Electoral votes.

    New Hampshire went to Clinton. 209,040 to 202,484, a difference of some 7000 votes. Perot won 121,337 votes in New Hampshire. In this case, about 8% of the vote that went to Perot going to Bush gives Bush the victory, and NH's 4 electoral votes.

    New Jersey went Clinton with 1,436,206 to 1,356,865. A difference of 79,341 votes. Perot got 521,829 votes in NJ in '92. Less than 1/4th of that to Bush, and Bush would have taken New Jersey and its 15 electoral votes.

    New Mexico went to Clinton, 261,617 to 212,824. If a little more than half of Perot's 91,895 votes went to Bush instead, Bush takes New Mexico and its 5 electoral votes. At this point, even not counting California, Bush wins with Perot, and we aren't even done yet.

    Ohio and it's 21 electoral votes went to Clinton, with a 90,000 vote victory. However, Perot got over a million votes. 1/10th of that vote to Bush, and Bush takes the state instead. At this point, without the Perot factor, Bush has beat Clinton.

    Oregon went to Clinton, 621,314 to 475,757. Perot got 354,091. If most of that had gone Bush, Bush would have taken Oregon. But, assuming he didn't, he would still beat Clinton, absent the Perot factor.

    Pennsylvania goes Clinton, 2,239,164 to 1,791,841. Perot wins 902,667 votes. A little under half that to Bush, and Bush would have taken Pennsylvania.

    Rhode Island goes Clinton, 213,299 to 131,601. A decisive victory, although if Perot's 105,045 votes had gone to Bush, Bush would have won (although, in cases where all of Perot's vote would have gone to the GOP, I assume Clinton gets it . . . 1/2 or under is the yard stick, and Bush wins using that measure).

    Tennessee goes Clinton, 933,521 to 841,300. Perot scored 199,968 votes. Half that to Bush, Bush takes Tennessee, and its 11 electoral votes.

    In Vermont, 133,592 to 88,122 Clinton. If most of Perot's 65,991 had gone to Bush, Bush would have taken it.

    Washington State: 993,037 Clinton, 731,234 Bush, 541,780 Perot. Just a hair over half of Perot votes to Bush, Bush takes the state. And 11 more electoral votes . . .

    West Virginia, 331,001 Clinton, 241,974 Bush, 108,829 Perot. If Bush had gotten all the Perot voters, he wins.

    Wisconsin, 1,041,066 to 930,855. 544,479 to Perot, Bush takes the state if under half the Perot vote went to him. And 11 more electoral votes. Additionally, if half the popular Perot vote went to Bush, he would have won with a 12% margin of victory, making the win decisive.

    By contrast, there were very few states where the Nader vote could have possibly made the difference. Florida, yes, and he did make the difference. But Perot made the difference in a dozen states, and effectively put Clinton in the Whitehouse in 1992.

    State returns + Perot courting Bush voters + Perot targeting most of his advertising against the Bush administration + Perot's Kentucky-Fried-Billionaire-Populism = Perot was a spoiler, and cost Bush the election.

    No Perot factor, my ass.
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  20. #20
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by zulater View Post
    lol your self. It's not nearly as cut and dried and you pretend.

    But you're still guesstimating and putting IF in front of each of those scenarios for Bush to win. Sorry, but to me that doesn't equal hard fact.

    Thanks for the detailed info though.

    I calculated it as something around 35% of the Perot votes going to H.W. Bush gives him the election in 1992.
    Again, that's just conjecture on your part. You don't have proof that 35% of the people would have voted for Bush. Also, as Slash pointed out, those 35% of people were obviously not happy with Bush anyway, or they would have voted for him over Perot. You can't blame a guy for getting votes, because then it sounds like you don't think people should have the right to vote for 3rd party candidates.

  21. #21
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    15,903

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    But you're still guesstimating and putting IF in front of each of those scenarios for Bush to win. Sorry, but to me that doesn't equal hard fact.

    Thanks for the detailed info though.



    Again, that's just conjecture on your part. You don't have proof that 35% of the people would have voted for Bush. Also, as Slash pointed out, those 35% of people were obviously not happy with Bush anyway, or they would have voted for him over Perot. You can't blame a guy for getting votes, because then it sounds like you don't think people should have the right to vote for 3rd party candidates.
    I said it wasn't as cut and dried as you believe. And i stand by that. I'm 52, I voted in that election and have some sense of what the mindset of most voters were. To suggest that Perot drew equally from Clinton and Bush is absurd.

    However I would say that Ron Paul supporters are probably a lot more left leaning than Perot supporters, so I would guess that a Ron Paul run for Presidency wouldn't hurt Romney nearly as bad as Perot's run hurt Bush Sr. Traditional Republican's did indeed back Perot. I don't really see that being the case with Ron Paul. He's a Libertarian more than a Republican, as are his supporters.
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  22. #22
    Conservatarian Array title="Wallace108 is a splendid one to behold"> Wallace108's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Y-Town
    Gender
    Posts
    2,446

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    The '92 election, like just about every other election I can remember, was the "lesser of two evils." Perot, of course, had no chance of winning. A lot of people liked him, but they didn't want to "throw their vote away" by voting for him. If more people had "thrown their vote away" and supported the guy who clearly had the best ideas for the country, we might not be in the economic mess we find ourselves in today. As SCM stated, it's time for change ... and not the kind of "change" Obama delivered.

  23. #23
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by zulater View Post
    I said it wasn't as cut and dried as you believe. And i stand by that. I'm 52, I voted in that election and have some sense of what the mindset of most voters were. To suggest that Perot drew equally from Clinton and Bush is absurd.

    However I would say that Ron Paul supporters are probably a lot more left leaning than Perot supporters, so I would guess that a Ron Paul run for Presidency wouldn't hurt Romney nearly as bad as Perot's run hurt Bush Sr. Traditional Republican's did indeed back Perot. I don't really see that being the case with Ron Paul. He's a Libertarian more than a Republican, as are his supporters.
    Some are I suppose, but that's something that's really changed over the past 4 years (once a number of liberals and younger folks realized that Obama wasn't the savior they wanted him to be). His main base is actually very conservative...more so than most mainstream Republicans. He is considered the 'godfather' of the Tea Party, after all.

    And you're right, things aren't as cut and dry as I made them out to be, but the fact still stands that if the people wanted Bush, they would have voted for him...3rd party candidate or not.

  24. #24
    Geek God Array title="X-Terminator has a reputation beyond repute"> X-Terminator's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    9,152

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Let's be real here - the only reasons why those liberals support Paul is because of his anti-war stance and because he supports legalizing pot. It certainly ain't because of his conservative viewpoints. If you told them that he was the brains behind the Tea Party movement - you know, those "evil, greedy capitalist pigs," their heads might asplode.








  25. #25
    Quest For Seven Array title="Mach1 has a reputation beyond repute"> Mach1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Gender
    Posts
    5,161

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    A vote for RP is a wasted vote.


    Give a lib a fish--he eats for a day

    Teach a lib to fish--he is back the next day asking for more free fish.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  26. #26
    The voice of reason Array title="GoSlash27 has a reputation beyond repute"> GoSlash27's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by X-Terminator View Post
    Let's be real here - the only reasons why those liberals support Paul is because of his anti-war stance and because he supports legalizing pot. It certainly ain't because of his conservative viewpoints. If you told them that he was the brains behind the Tea Party movement - you know, those "evil, greedy capitalist pigs," their heads might asplode.
    Not quite. They also support him because of his stances on the Patriot Act, NDAA, CISPA, and most individual rights issues. A decent chunk of the Dem base are very libertarian.
    "You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland

  27. #27
    Geek God Array title="X-Terminator has a reputation beyond repute"> X-Terminator's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    9,152

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by GoSlash27 View Post
    Not quite. They also support him because of his stances on the Patriot Act, NDAA, CISPA, and most individual rights issues. A decent chunk of the Dem base are very libertarian.
    Then they aren't the ones I'm referencing. I'm talking about the hardcore leftists who support him because of the issues I mentioned, when they otherwise wouldn't. And where are all of these libertarian Democrats? Why aren't they doing more to eliminate the Obama-types from the party?








  28. #28
    Official Troll Array title="The Patriot is a name known to all"> The Patriot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,306

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by GoSlash27 View Post
    Not quite. They also support him because of his stances on the Patriot Act, NDAA, CISPA, and most individual rights issues. A decent chunk of the Dem base are very libertarian.
    Seriously. I mean, I'm not necessarily a Paul supporter because I think he goes to far in some areas, but I want him to do well because he's the only major politician out there who genuinely supports constitutional integrity and he's giving some important issues national attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by X-Terminator View Post
    Then they aren't the ones I'm referencing. I'm talking about the hardcore leftists who support him because of the issues I mentioned, when they otherwise wouldn't. And where are all of these libertarian Democrats? Why aren't they doing more to eliminate the Obama-types from the party?
    We're trying. You would think a constitutional scholar from Harvard would care about the constitution, but I guess not...

  29. #29
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Bottom line here is that just as we are legitimately seeing a US recovery, and we are on the brink of something remarkable vis-a-vis a new era in US energy dominance and a resurgence in US manufacturing, and I'd hate to see it ruined by a dopey tax-and-spend President who finds his way back into the office simply because the GOP is fractured by a tiny sliver of whiny losers who would rather blow the whole thing up rather than accept the fact that they lost. Badly.

    Paul himself has all but officially thrown in the towel (link at the end). Nobody voted for him, so it's over. Trying to weasel into power via cheap procedural tricks or strong-arm tactics isn't helpful, and it could be rather harmful. I'm mindful of the fact that when things are very bad, it breeds malcontent and malfeasance...we've seen that with the OWS scumbags (who, after attempting to blow up a bridge, are now domestic terrorists in my book). There's no reason for the few million rabid Paul followers to head down the same destructive path. Especially when things appear to be getting a whole lot better. It'd be a shame for us to have a half-assed resurgence and for Hopey to get credit for it in spite of all the harm he did and how many roadblocks he threw up to stop it just because of petty infighting and sour grapes, when we have a real chance here to see a really strong domestic energy and manufacturing position from the US under Romney. Hopefully Paul announces something that calls off his attack dogs soon. Hopefully, they'll listen...

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...GlvbnM-;_ylv=3
    Fire Goodell

  30. #30
    The voice of reason Array title="GoSlash27 has a reputation beyond repute"> GoSlash27's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    ^ Paul isn't "throwing in" anything. He's focusing on racking up delegates and not wasting money on the Primaries (which are meaningless). And as for the "strong-arm tactics" mentioned upstream? It's the Party folks who physically attacked the Paul people. You can also forget about any "half-assed resurgence", since Greece is gonna default before the election and wreck the economy long before then.
    Last edited by X-Terminator; 05-15-2012 at 08:07 AM. Reason: There will be NO name-calling, subtle or otherwise.
    "You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •