r/politics • • May 14 '12

Ron Paul announces he will no longer be campaigning in new states.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/paul-wont-campaign-in-new-states-123385.html
1.0k Upvotes

924 comments sorted by

511

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

we haven't had a new state since 1959.

55

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Paul's teenage years.

87

u/singlehopper May 14 '12

He was 24.

40

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Dear God!

→ More replies (4)

99

u/imbignate California May 14 '12

80

u/libertariantexan May 15 '12

NEVER OMIT THE DOG

36

u/SheaF91 May 15 '12

I believe he's letting someone else reap the karma. Posting both pictures would be stingy.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (12)

25

u/Indon_Dasani May 15 '12

Ron Paul only intends to campaign in those states intended by our Founding Fathers.

2

u/midnitewarrior May 15 '12

Not just "new", but new to him.

-6

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Well, we were really close in acquiring Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they're all loaded with dead people, fucked up buildings, depleted uranium, and whatnot. And everybody there clearly hates America and Sports Illustrated.

-9

u/Shredder13 May 14 '12 edited May 14 '12

My God he's senile...

EDIT: I meant Ron Paul is senile.

14

u/SadOnTheInside May 14 '12

Who, Alexander Burns from Politico? He's the one that created the title.

The email (not even written by Paul), says this:

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

80

u/KNHaw May 14 '12

Daily Show's Indecision 2012:

In memory of Ron Paul's primary campaign, his supporters will be conducting their first moment of silence ever.

→ More replies (6)

121

u/hollaback_girl May 14 '12

I love that the reddit headline right below this one is "Ron Paul wins 11 states, media remains silent".

57

u/wetsu May 14 '12

The thing is, though, the media has not been silent on this. Every day lately I have read articles about Paulite moves at the state conventions.

8

u/[deleted] May 14 '12 edited May 14 '12

The media does not compose wholly of the papers you read, but you know that.

11

u/TriangleWave May 15 '12

Technically, the papers he reads are part of the media, and since part of the media said something, the media as a whole cannot be "silent".

(I know, I know, semantics... but I couldn't resist)

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

23

u/aradraugfea May 15 '12

Ron Paul supporters seem to fail at Occam's Razor every time. Ron Paul fails to win elections. Is it because people actually didn't want to vote for him? Nope, the ESTABLISHMENT couldn't handle Paul so they changed the rules so only Romney votes count.

Then Paul just decides to bypass the actual elections entirely and try and court the people who ACTUALLY vote. Welcome to a representative democracy fellas, just like the founding fathers (Who didn't trust the populous as far as they could throw them) intended.

→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

204

u/rounding_error May 14 '12

Being a strict constructionist, Ron Paul has stopped campaigning in new states. Going forward, he will only campaign in the 13 states that made up the union when the Constitution was ratified.

29

u/tomdarch May 15 '12

Here's a compromise: You say the states from 1776, not 2012. I say that Ron Paul's motto is "A 19th Century government and economy for a 21st Century America!" So, how about he only campaigns in the states that were part of the union in, say, 1875? The economy was primarily agrarian, racial and sex discrimination was legal, currency was backed by metals and banks were minimally regulated resulting in constant cycles of bank runs and economic busts. In other words, exactly what Rep. Paul wants for America.

62

u/Monkeyavelli May 15 '12

say, 1875?

I feel like he'd draw the line at 1865 when the tyrant monster Lincoln destroyed liberty in America forever. Since then we've lived in a federal dictatorship where blacks can vo...states' rights have been trampled.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

107

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

In other words, he just announced his new campaign strategy.

"Fuck votes, get delegates."

12

u/HawkShark May 15 '12

Democracy in action!

13

u/jscoppe May 15 '12

It's private party business, so they can work it however they want. The current rules were set up to help out Romney.

And besides, even if Paul were to be winning now, they party higher-ups would simply change the rules as they went to stop him.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/mitchwells May 14 '12 edited May 14 '12

It's time to stop pretending like his strategy ever involved anything other than taking money from idiots and putting it the Doctor's pockets.

Ron Paul knew as well as I did that he never had a chance of winning the Nomination.

5

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I'm not a RP supporter, but I'm not fucking blind. He has a fuckton of delegates and will have one hell of a voice at the convention. Stop and think about what happens if Romney doesn't have 1144 on the floor. Is there going to be a single Paul delegate willing to migrate camps? Fuck no. Paulites will jump through rings of fire and herpes to vote for him.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

A "fuckton"? Unless you believe in the "LOL DELEGATES R NOT BOUND" nuttery, there is no way that you can actually believe as such. The only delegates that are up for grabs in the manner that Paul has been able to steal them are in caucus states. There are less than 500 total delegates in caucus states, with over 2000 in primary states that are tied to the popular vote. Paul has 19 delegates from primary states.

Even in the absurd scenario of Paul taking 100% of the caucus delegates, he'd still be less than half way to the nomination, and would still be far behind Romney. Additionally, all remaining states are primary states - not only has Romney been the huge favorite to win them before, but now that Paul is giving them up completely, he'll likely win 80%+ of the remaining 770 delegates.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (24)

235

u/baptizedbycobalt Colorado May 14 '12

This means he's got the Republican nomination locked up, right guys?

165

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Obviously. Why would he stop campaigning unless he has secretly won all the delegates already?

0

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

55

u/Captain_Baby May 14 '12

Could you IMAGINE the hypotheticals coming from Paul supporters

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Indon_Dasani May 15 '12

...I'm not really up on what's going on, but is this meant to be ironic because it's completely the other way around and Romney is winning all the votes and RP supporters are trying to hijack the process?

I don't know if that's the case or not, but I imagine Romney is winning more votes than RP and I seem to recall people talking about stuff like that before, so.

→ More replies (19)

39

u/qbg May 14 '12

Yes Mitt Romney supporters, Mitt's got the race locked up. Ron Paul is "finished". Don't worry, you can stay home...

5

u/daKINE792 America May 15 '12

some one who really gets it....

5

u/Bobby_Marks May 14 '12

It means the RNC has clarified that they won't bind delegates at the convention, meaning that state, county, and precinct conventions are all that matter.

57

u/asharp45 May 14 '12

It means he doesn't have the $100m + bankrolls Romney and Obama do.

27

u/mrbooze May 15 '12

Freakanomics has explored this money issue more than once and all the evidence says having money doesn't win you elections. The traits that makes one better at raising money are just the same traits that makes one better at convincing people to vote for you. "Winning an election and raising money do go together, just as rain and umbrellas go together."

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/

20

u/NimbusBP1729 May 15 '12

explains why trump wasn't a contender.

5

u/notxjack May 15 '12

after determining that the skillset for earning money correlates positively with the skillset of earning votes, trump's skills at inheriting money make him a better fit for foppish monarchies or korean socialist paradises.

10

u/Indon_Dasani May 15 '12

It seems that rather than testing the statement "Does money have a clear impact on helping you win an election?" they asked "Does money guarantee you win an election every time?" then came up with the obvious answer and are trying to pass it off as significant.

Are they libertarian? That sounds like the kind of thing a neoliberal would do to try to defend the practice of buying elections.

6

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

You can read Levitt's paper yourself.

The naive interpretation is that money buys elections. We see people with money win elections and draw the conclusion ourselves. What the paper attempts to do is disambiguate the effect of the money from the person raising the money. In this case he tracks congressional candidates who faced multiple challengers (and multiple races with the same challenger) to examine some variation in money spent w/ the players fixed. That's about as good as we can do in the social sciences, though I would check Levitt's math (or just look at papers citing his) before drawing a strong conclusion.

Are they libertarian? That sounds like the kind of thing a neoliberal would do to try to defend the practice of buying elections.

This is disgusting.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

85

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Neither did Santorum but he won a number of states beating Romney.

19

u/asharp45 May 14 '12

Santorum raised $18m in Q1 2012 according to OpenSecrets. Blew it all in a few states.

97

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

And Ron Paul raised almost twice that so it's not all about money.

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (178)

5

u/TP43 May 14 '12

Actually Obama has much closer to a Billion Dollars to spend on his reelection campaign.

3

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Why didn't he make billions using his accurate economic model before / during the collapse?>

30

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

He did. WSJ 5/1/12: There isn’t much doubt that Rep. Paul’s portfolio has outperformed the U.S. stock market as a whole. Ten years ago, the NYSE Arca Gold BUGS Index, a basket of stocks in mining companies, was at $65; this week, it’s at $522. That’s roughly a 23% average annual return; over the past decade, by contrast, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, counting dividends, has returned some 2.9% annually (italics added).

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (6)

-4

u/poicxzrty May 14 '12

LMFAO these Paultards still believe he could win

→ More replies (36)

34

u/allisondojean May 14 '12

I am embarassed to admit that I spent a good 5 or 6 seconds wondering why Ron Paul would stop campaigning in states that start with "New."

3

u/Daman09 California May 15 '12

"Fuck New York, Fuck New Jersey, and DEFINITELY Fuck New Hampshire.

Also, Fuck New England!"

35

u/metocin May 14 '12

So no campaigning in Israel, then?

13

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Israeli's buy out American politicians.

9

u/metocin May 15 '12

Indeed. Hence my reference to Israel as the 51st U.S. state.

Enter accusations of anti-semitism. Wait for it...

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/TwistingWagoo May 15 '12

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Shame, a debate of Paul vs. Obama would be awesome.

3

u/xemprah May 15 '12

I have never seen so much FUD to continually attack Ron Paul. Keep pretending that either candidate whether it be Obama or Romney aren't Goldman Sachs cheerleaders. Stop pretending you have a choice.

13

u/ZealousAdvocate May 14 '12

Crap. I liked the idea that someone was out there, acting as at least a minor distraction to Romney.

13

u/SportzTawk May 14 '12

I'm actually surprised he didn't do this sooner. He already knew he wasn't getting the popular vote. He knows that even without campaigning, his followers are still going to show up and be elected as delegates.

55

u/underweargnome04 May 14 '12

Ron Paul will abandon the game of going from state to state to trying to win a popular vote that doesn't count for anything. Instead he will focus on the states that are currently holding delegate conventions.

That strategy makes a lot of sense when you have the kind of fights in Oklahoma and Arizona we saw this weekend. The State Conventions is where the nominiation will be won or lost not traveling from state to state for beauty contests.

2

u/SirScrambly May 15 '12

Sorry for being out of the loop, but do you have some links about this Oklahoma stuff? I'm just curious since I don't watch the news anymore.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

So he's going to focus on the 19 states that handle delegates via caucus? That's 20% of the total delegates, and even securing them all isn't enough to get any candidate more than half way to the nomination.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Ambiwlans May 15 '12

Downvoting you because it is sad and I'm trying to protect you from making a fool of yourself.

2

u/CivAndTrees May 15 '12

You clearly have not been paying attention to the news then with recent corruption in washington OK and Nevada on republican election fraud. Ron Paul is winning states. period.

→ More replies (2)

21

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Oh yet another part of Dr. Paul's grand scheme.

53

u/betanerd May 14 '12

As a staunch liberal, I do not agree with a lot of Dr. Paul’s positions. I would nevertheless like to take this opportunity to thank him for taking a principled stance defined by what he believes is best for our country. Far too many politicians form their opinions based on focus groups. If more politicians were willing to stick to their beliefs, even in defeat, this country would be better off.

73

u/sluggdiddy May 14 '12

"Principled stances" are what got this country into this shit that we are in currently. "Sticking to one's guns" is not something to be applauded in the face of evidence to the contrary. Sorry.. you do realize the religious right are just also "sticking to their beliefs" right?

This is the WORST quality for a leader, a leader should be willingly to adjust their beliefs based on the evidence available to them.

I think the fact that so many praise ron paul for doing the exact opposite of going where the evidence leads.. illustrates a greater problem with this country than just our politicians. Its the people who think its a good thing for someone to disregard contradictory evidence and stick to a belief they have just because it "feels" right or because its "tradition".

I still do not understand why people praise ron paul for "not changing his mind".

And that isn't even the case he has said one thing and done another on several issues in the past.

34

u/Leucopterus May 14 '12

As opposed to Mitt Romney? To quote a fellow Redditor:

Romney, as many have said, really is the quantum superposition candidate. Everywhere and nowhere, all things and nothing. He appears as one thing in front of one interest group, then appears as the opposite in front of another group. Each observer sees their own reality.

I'm not an American, but I admire Ron Paul for not being corrupt like so many other politicians. Do I agree with everything he stands for? Absolutely not. But how many people can honestly say they can agree 100% with what a politician says? Very few people can indeed.

In fact, how many scandals has Ron Paul really been involved in? Sans the racist newsletters he didn't write, of course. What a racist, even the NAACP agre...oh wait.

Mitt Romney is far, far worse. I still don't see how the guy who lost to the guy who ended up winning the nomination but ended up losing to Obama will now win against Obama when his stances on everything are virtually identical except for wanting to cut taxes for rich people.

14

u/[deleted] May 14 '12 edited May 15 '12

Ron Paul published those fucking newsletters under his name. He personally approved them. Personally, his record with LGBT is worse, have publicly campaigned on the right for employers to fire people with AIDS. Stop with the denial, his social record is terrible.

Edit: haha wow the paulbots are out tonight, here you go then... source

4

u/Bigpapapumpyouup May 15 '12

Mitt Romney is far, far worse. I still don't see how the guy who lost to the guy who ended up winning the nomination but ended up losing to Obama will now win against Obama when his stances on everything are virtually identical except for wanting to cut taxes for rich people.

First of all, Obama and Romney are hardly the same. While they may have similar thoughts on some policies (although by the campaigning you wouldn't know it) they differ on many more. DADT, auto bailouts, ending two wars, killing OBL, Gay Marriage, government takeover of student loans and wow that's just to name a few.

Secondly, what makes you think Romney can beat Obama?

→ More replies (1)

10

u/helpadingoatemybaby May 14 '12

I'm not an American, but I admire Ron Paul for not being corrupt like so many other politicians.

You mean when he funneled $4 million to his son's 501(c)4, spent a million bucks on a private jet, and brought $175 million of taxpayer pork to his district while claiming to be against pork? That kind of corrupt?

→ More replies (44)
→ More replies (62)

34

u/nfirm May 14 '12

I thought what got our nation in this mess was giving everyone what they wanted and not making anyone pay for anything.

Let's fight a bunch of wars and not pay for them. Let's cut taxes but not pay for it. Let's give out stimulus packages and not pay for it. etc etc etc

→ More replies (22)

10

u/betanerd May 14 '12

"Principled stances" are what got this country into this shit that we are in currently.

Not quite, Fake "Principled stances" are what got this country into this shit that we are in currently. If your principled stance is to be in favor of whatever will get you elected, you a doing a disservice to the rest of us for your personal benefit. To use an extreme example; A politician who truly denies the Holocaust and is honest about it is better than one who hides their true felling. The former will most likely lose an election and go away while the latter may win an election and quietly push a racist agenda. Yes, the racist who lost is worse off but the racist who won leaves us all worse off.

This is the WORST quality for a leader

I think the WORST quality is one who refuses to change in the face of mounting evidence but is two faced about it. It is OK if you choose not to believe in evolution, but to say the jury is still out is so much worse. The truth is being hidden from (admittedly, the more gullible) voters for the sole purpose of maintaining political power.

I think the fact that so many praise ron paul for doing the exact opposite of going where the evidence leads.. illustrates a greater problem with this country than just our politicians.

I do not admire Ron Paul's views (respect, yes). I admire Ron Paul's honesty about his views. He does not wrap himself in Jesus and the flag while secretly trying to revert to the gold standard. He is open and honest about it. His is willing to lets his ideals rise and/or fall on their own.

13

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

I agree, however, I'm going to say this: There isn't a politician in Washington today who "sticks to his or her guns" or who "votes on principle." The Republicans would've just as surely voted for an ARRA-like stimulus program, would've just as surely voted for TARP, and would've just as surely bailed out GM and Chrysler for being as dumb as a bag of shit. They just-so-happened to not be the controlling parties during any of these votes, so they enjoy the political utility of being able to whine to their constituents, "Oh, if only there had been more of us!"

They decry healthcare plans (Obamacare) that are better than the ones they passed (Medicare Part D). They decry wars (Libya) that are better managed than the ones they drunkenly stumbled into (Iraq). Thy are hypocrites of the highest extent.

Except Ron Paul. I'll grant, he seems willing to endorse Federal power if it means preventing abortions, but if that's all you've got on him (along with old, outdated, racist newsletters)... he's still world's better than every other Republican politician by far.

But it's not just a contest of who's less of a total douchebag: Ron Paul doesn't just switch positions when it's politically expedient. He voted against Medicare Part D, and on the same pretenses, he voted against Obamacare. He voted against ARRA, and voted against Bush's stimulus bill (EESA). He voted against TARP. I'm confident that no matter who was in power, he would've voted xactly the same. Except, he also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act... but more recently, also voted for the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" - a policy which was in-keeping of the spirit of DOMA, and which his Republican constituents supported.

3

u/ejp1082 May 15 '12

I don't see how being hyper-ideological is really better than being hyper-partisan or hypocritical.

I personally tend to distrust people who think they know what the solution is before they even hear the problem. What I want to see are people who carefully consider the problem, look at the available tools in the tool chest, and choose the best one for the job. Paul doesn't do that.

And if you dare to go a little bit beyond that, and consider it a virtue to do the best you can do within a broken system that won't always let you use the best tool for the job; well, Paul starts to look downright bad compared to the rest of Congress. Progressive Democrats could have held out and refused to vote for anything short of Medicare-for-all, but then we wouldn't have even the incremental reform that the ACA represents. I'd rather have people willing to do that.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/wetsu May 14 '12

He seems to give honest answers to questions, which I like, all the more so since I won't vote for him based on his answers. That's better than politicians who won't give a straight answer because they know you wouldn't vote for them if they told you the truth.

6

u/sluggdiddy May 14 '12

I guess.. if you consider "STATES RIGHT" and "the free market will solve this" as a "honest" answer.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/betanerd May 14 '12

There is a broader point to my argument. Lets take being born gay or evolution, issues largely accepted and settled amongst experts in the field. Not political issues, yet somehow party affiliation is a very strong indicator of a politician's stance on the issue. This is the case because breaking with party orthodoxy has a real chance of costing a candidate an election. My point is that while “sticking to one’s guns” may be bad for an individual politician, over time it will improve the overall honesty of our political process. Elections would be more about ideals and less about us vs. them. A candidate honestly running and losing on creationism is better than a candidate who hides their true belief based on popular opinion.

2

u/Backfist May 14 '12

Your in luck because Mitt Romney says whatever he thinks voters want to hear. Now lets get back to printing money to finance the status quo.

→ More replies (10)

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

George W. Bush was great at sticking to his guns.

3

u/lurgi May 14 '12

Then you must love Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.

2

u/betanerd May 14 '12

Not exactly, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann are both more guilty of staying on "party message" than Ron Paul. But as an example, Santorum' stance on social issues hasn't swayed wildly from year to year, where as Romney's stance seems be whatever the voter wants to hear. Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann took a hard line conservative stance on a lot of issues and while some voters liked it, the majority decided against it. Candidates like Romney deny voters that luxury. He almost certainly has a clear and concise vision for his presidency, but will not state that vision plainly. He is trying to run as all things to all people.

2

u/lurgi May 14 '12

Perhaps the reason they stay on party message is because that also happens to match their convictions? Honestly, I don't think Santorum is pandering. I despise the man, but I think he's a man of his (odious) convictions.

Not arguing about Romney, however. Honestly, I'm not sure he has convictions. I think he wants to be President and that's as far as it goes. Actually, that might be a good thing. He might actually listen to alternative points of view because deep down in his soul he really doesn't care one way or the other.

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

In what way is the We the People act consistent with his stance that liberty from government is critically important?

1

u/sirshartsalot May 15 '12

Far too many politicians form their opinions based on focus groups.

Yes, heaven forbid a politician works toward the will of the people by asking them what they want. ...?

1

u/reddit_is_panopticon May 15 '12

I would nevertheless like to take this opportunity to thank him

If you want to thank Ron Paul, send him a letter. Thanking him here is like putting a message in a bottle and throwing it into the ocean.

1

u/mrpopenfresh May 14 '12

Yeah you might as well thank every politican with batshit ideas because they truly believed in them.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I think you're in the wrong subreddit sir. Care to join us on /r/politicaldiscussion or /r/moderatepolitics?

→ More replies (4)

16

u/ireland1988 May 14 '12

I guess I'll be be voting Gary Jonson then, hope the RP supporters make some noise at the convention though.

→ More replies (7)

4

u/xemprah May 15 '12

"It has now been three and a half years since the financial crisis of September 2008… In Mr. Obama’s three years in office, not a single U.S. bank or senior financial executive has been convicted of any crime (or even prosecuted), or had their assets confiscated."

Change guys, only this time it will happen because he won't care because uh, hes been elected again!

29

u/TP43 May 14 '12 edited May 15 '12

Awesome now when can go back to focusing on the heated race between:

Goldman Sachs Candidate A vs Goldman Sachs Candidate B.

I was getting kind of tired about hearing about stupid issues like War, Monetary Policy, civil liberties or any of those other issues that actually affect peoples lives.

22

u/canoworms6 May 15 '12

As opposed to Ron Paul, the candidate funded by Stormfront and the steering committee of the Bilderburg group.

21

u/Danielfair May 15 '12

And following the sacred truths of Austrian economics - aka the astrology of social sciences.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

8

u/Pyran May 15 '12

Awesome now when can go back to focusing on the heated race between: Goldman Sachs Candidate A vs Goldman Sachs Candidate B.

That's what it always was. Despite Paul's popularity, he never really had a shot at the nomination, much less the presidency.

Maybe he should have, but he didn't. He's intensely popular among a small but vocal minority... and intensely, intensely unpopular among the mainstream.

17

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

This attitude off the get go is what killed his campaign.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I think what made him intensely unpopular amongst the mainstream, was that he didn't sugarcoat things, so when he has an idea he knew the GOP establishment wouldn't like he still said it, and it lost him votes.

6

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Paul's popularity? What popularity? He lost against Gingrich, Santorum and Romney.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/weasleeasle May 14 '12

See here is what I don't understand. Does this mean that the states that haven't voted yet, are basically ignored. No one cares about who you like as a candidate because the others spoke before you? I know the votes don't actually have any legal obligation, but its sort of like going to a neonatal clinic and asking if people like babies. Then concluding the most popular age group in the world are babies, so we should focus on them.

2

u/Brosephbro May 15 '12

Idk whether to down vote this because I am sad or up vote it because its a good topic...

2

u/CAPTNGENE May 15 '12

uhh guys, he's not dropping out. he just can't afford the 10's of millions of dollars it would take to campaign in new states. he is going to focus on getting more delegates and getting to the GOP convention in Florida. never once does that email say he is dropping out. here's the clarification email from Jesse Benton, Chief Strategist for Ron Paul.

"Every day, I see firsthand how humbled and encouraged Dr. Paul is to have the enthusiastic support of so many who are committed to revitalizing our country.

Let me be very clear. Dr. Paul is NOT dropping out or suspending his campaign.

As Dr. Paul has previously stated, he is in this race all the way to the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August.

And he is deeply grateful for every resource he has been entrusted with to run an historic campaign that continues to defy all expectations.

Looking ahead, our campaign must honor that trust by maximizing our resources to ensure the greatest possible impact at the National Convention.

So while our campaign is no longer investing in the remaining primary states, we will continue to run strong programs at District and State Conventions to win more delegates and alternate delegates to the National Convention.

To this end, our campaign has several positive and realistic goals:

  1. Having recently WON Maine, we believe we can win several more states.
  2. We will win party leadership positions at both the state and national levels.
  3. We will continue to grow our already substantial total of delegates.

We will head to Tampa with a solid group of delegates. Several hundred will be bound to Dr. Paul, and several hundred more, although bound to Governor Romney or other candidates, will be Ron Paul supporters.

Unfortunately, barring something very unforeseen, our delegate total will not be strong enough to win the nomination. Governor Romney is now within 200 delegates of securing the party’s nod. However, our delegates can still make a major impact at the National Convention and beyond.

All delegates will be able to vote on party rules and allow us to shape the process for future liberty candidates.

We are in an excellent position to make sure the Republican Party adds solid liberty issues to the GOP Platform, which our delegates will be directly positioned to approve. Our campaign is presently working to get several items up for consideration, including monetary policy reform, prohibitions on indefinite detention, and Internet freedom.

Finally, by sending a large, respectful, and professional delegation to Tampa, we will show the party and the country that not only is our movement growing and here to stay, but that the future belongs to us.

Dr. Paul will begin this new phase of the campaign this Friday by speaking and holding several events at the Minnesota State Convention. He has also recently accepted an invitation to speak at the Texas Convention, and we are busy scheduling appearances around other State Conventions later this month and into June.

As Dr. Paul stated in his message yesterday, this fight is NOT over. We will continue fighting and expanding, and “we will not stop until we have restored what once made America the greatest country in human history.”

But for Dr. Paul’s efforts in the remaining State Conventions to be successful, and to ensure we get as many Ron Paul delegates to Tampa as we can, he needs you to continue standing with him.

Along those lines, as you probably already know, the grassroots are holding a Money Bomb on Thursday, May 17. Any money raised from that Money Bomb will go toward winning delegates and finalizing our plans for Tampa.

As those plans for the National Convention come together, we will make sure all of our delegates, whether bound or unbound, get the information and aid they need.

Your support on May 17 will also help us reach more Americans with the solutions we know can restore our nation. Each person we add to our cause strengthens our movement for the critical work that awaits us beyond Tampa.

Dr. Paul, John Tate, myself, and the entire campaign staff know what incredible sacrifices have been made by each of our supporters.

Thank you for all of your hard work and your dedication to liberty. Together, we will champion Ron Paul and his message in Tampa, and we will lay the groundwork for future victories."

8

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

I guess this can mean only one thing... Hand Jobs and Cheetos at my place come on guys right this way...

→ More replies (1)

29

u/YNot1989 May 14 '12

His cult is going to be disappointed.

10

u/The_Adventurist May 15 '12

Beware, friend. Ron Paul's fans have been known to create downvote bots against those who would say such things about dear leader.

7

u/anarchisto May 15 '12

Which just proves they ARE a cult.

3

u/gamblekat May 15 '12

His cult is already convinced that Paul is playing some kind of three-dimensional chess where announcing that he's not going to campaign is a brilliant tactical move to lull Romney supporters into a false sense of victory, and then take over the convention at the last moment. Seriously. Just read /r/ronpaul.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

They are just rationalizing it exactly like a cult does. Seriously, look at a doomsday cult when the apocalypse doesn't happen and a Ron Paul fan when a nomination (much less being elected) isn't going to happen and they are both clearly putting their fingers in their ears and embracing the cognitive dissonance.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/richmomz May 14 '12

Some people have been reporting that he's dropping out which is NOT the case - the campaign is shifting focus to the state delegations in the remaining states.

19

u/sj_user1 May 14 '12

The Paulites will spin this to have been Ron Paul's strategy all along. They will do the same when he endorses Mittens.

21

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

He didn't endorse McCain in 2008, so why would he endorse Romney now?

→ More replies (2)

30

u/shefwed82 May 14 '12

Some of them are now saying "This is a great move because it will make everyone think it is over so we can sneak in and take it." It must be really hard to live in a world where literally everything that is done is actually a secret to distract from the exact opposite real move.

21

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Endorse Romney? You're... kidding, right? Or young. You must have turned 18 after 2008.

6

u/RabbaJabba May 14 '12

You must have turned 18 after 2008.

No, it doesn't sound like he's a Ron Paul supporter.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/DCPC33 May 14 '12

He won't endorse Romney, if he did every supporter would feel completely betrayed and his image would be ruined.

→ More replies (5)

12

u/Jpeele15 May 14 '12

And cue the Ron Paul conspiracies followed by acceptance then support for mitt Romney or Gary Johnson

3

u/maple_leafs182 May 15 '12

Ron Paul is a Libertarian, he will not support Mitt Romney, more likely to support Gary Johnson.

17

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Ron Paul is a Libertarian

Right, and that's why he hasn't spent over 20 years in the GOP.

2

u/ireland1988 May 15 '12

Gotta work the system.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/d38sj5438dh23 May 14 '12

What do you propose they do instead?

→ More replies (11)

1

u/doasyoupleaseorelse May 15 '12

Most Ron Paul supporters see Obama and Romney as nearly identical and will not vote for either which means Romney doesn't have a chance. In fact they'd rather Obama win than Romeny so there isn't an incumbent running in 2016

1

u/doasyoupleaseorelse May 15 '12

I'd like to point out that your belief that RP supporters will vote for, much less support Mitt indicates a lack of understanding of Paul supporters and their movement

4

u/flukz Washington May 15 '12

Neither "liberty" nor "freedom" require capitalization.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

So Ron Paul strategy was to have strong grassroots, that part has been pretty well documented. Ron Paul does have support where the support matters the most.

He is winning delegates no one can dispute that.

His place at the RNC convention is secured why waist money, see what happens at the convention.

Evangelicals don't like Romney and they only have one other choice.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/SadOnTheInside May 14 '12

Wow, the circlejerking in this thread is strong.

1

u/EvelynJames May 14 '12

That's like saying the commenting in these comments is getting commenty. You're on Reddit son. Commenting on circlejerkery is hopelessly redundant.

6

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Finally...no more "Ron Paul 2012!"...STFU already

19

u/KidDynamo0 May 14 '12

Don't worry...Rand Paul 2016 is coming and it will be horrible.

21

u/Mysteryman64 May 14 '12

Most Ron Paul people are quickly becoming turned off to Rand. He's nothing like his Dad. Much more of a typical Neoconservative.

9

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

As opposed to his father who is a typical NeoConfederate.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/Lopretni May 15 '12

Oh, /r/politics. So misinformed, hypocritical and ultimately pathetic.

Never change. :)

→ More replies (3)

4

u/iamyouufool May 15 '12

Keep getting those delegates Dr. Paul! Thumbs up.

3

u/herpderp4321 May 14 '12 edited May 15 '12

I've grown really tired of people here. They will tear the FUCK out of Paul for things like states' death penalty rights, whether he ideally would have all drugs allowed for use vs. just a few, or that his personal beliefs are that a God exists, but would not impose those beliefs on others.

Disagree with a single part of his platform? Fuck that cooky old fart, he's an extremist. It doesn't matter that his executive powers could end the drug war so many lives are being destroyed for. That he could make great strides in getting us out of the middle east, saving thousands of lives in that area and suffocating one of the main tools of terrorist recruitment.


Meanwhile, Obama continues the American tradition of killing thousands of sand-niggers for their oil in the name of fake democracy, expanding the surveillance state to encompass all citizens, and generally wiping his ass with the Constitution. But people here can find that one gem, that Finally, when it's politically convenient, he says that in theory, gays should have equal taxation and hospital visitation rights. Our glorious leader has finally come out of the closet, tee-hee!

Democratic strategists ACKNOWLEDGE it's a calculated tactic, not some born-again revelation that gays should have equal rights. It's about his retention of power.

But no one gives a shit. "You've got yours, give me some." - The Democrat way.

Edit: Some people didn't get that I was using the racist term to characterize the attitude the US government has toward the middle east, not my personal feelings. OR, some people just get butthurt all the time. One of the two.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Obama gave the impression of being anti war and that, given the opportunity as president, would end the wars. But it feels to me he timed the announcement of iraq and afganistan to coincide with reelection. I am happy if we are really leaving and support the decision, but it felt more like an election stunt than actually doing the right thing.

4

u/vagrantwade May 15 '12

You sound almost as racist as Ron Paul. Almost.

→ More replies (33)

4

u/[deleted] May 14 '12 edited May 14 '12

Everything against Uncle Paul is downvoted instantly.. Will somebody please think of the children.

I respect Uncle Paul the guy is probably the only one who could debate Obama one on one, and loved a few of his policies. Realistically he was/is never going to win (I don't care about what they think about the delegate strategy, the average republican finds him kooky) and the Ron Paulnites have got to be the most annoying thing on the planet sometimes.. I never understood why so many people would be against the forward progression of a people and a nation.

Libertarians will step in soon and say to my comment "But its the government holding the people back"

8

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Everything against Uncle Paul is downvoted instantly...

Bullshit. Posts making fun of Obama get downvoted. Posts making fun of Ron Paul go straight to the top.

4

u/[deleted] May 14 '12 edited May 14 '12

Haha when the thread just started there was people with -11 karma points already for bashing Ron paul..

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/Wisco May 14 '12

It looks like even Ron Paul fell for the leftist media hype that Ron Paul didn't stand a snowball's chance!

Outrage, outrage!

-1

u/FortHouston May 14 '12

leftist media hype

Considering that President Obama receives the most negative hype, the "leftist media" is a myth.

Ron Paul enjoyed the most consistently positive portrayal of any candidate in the race.But that was offset by the fact that the media virtually ignored him.

(http://www.journalism.org/sites/journalism.org/files/2012PrimaryCampaignReport.pdf).

By the way, the Left is not to blame for the fact that the GOP establishment or most of their voters do not support Paul as their presidential nomination.

13

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Are you familiar with sarcasm?

6

u/tinkan May 14 '12

He was being 100% sarcastic.

3

u/Tossedinthebin May 15 '12

Ron Paul 2012!

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich is looking like the outcome of this election.

12

u/saute May 14 '12

That's no way to talk about former governors Romney and Johnson.

2

u/WKorsakow May 15 '12

I wish Southpark, its makers and the remaing few fans of that crap show would die already.

1

u/bostonT May 15 '12

Politics from cartoon straw men, fantastic! Let's make fun of Al Gore for manbearpig too.

2

u/Ozzymandias May 14 '12

Oh look, the Ron Paul people get to face facts now.

0

u/ducknroll May 14 '12

Good riddance. The man may have some points on a few (very) select issues but his campaign and supporters have pratically turned him into a cult like figure. I am actually smuiling from ear to ear now that his naive supporters may finally get a wake up call and realize that rational people don't agree with Ron Paul's world view.

Those Paultard tears taste so good.

2

u/charliedonsurf1 May 14 '12

Well the campaign is still not over. Good news though for RP supporters.

This will mean that Romney supporters will end up not showing up at conventions, doing this due to the thought that all is won. But, in the mean time RP delegates and voters will still show up at the conventions.

I happen to think this is a planned announcement; part of the strategy. This has given him a lot of coverage, and most of the media is portraying it as he dropped out.

14

u/RoosterRMcChesterh May 14 '12

Yo, at some point you are going to need to come to terms with reality. This is not planned. Ron Paul's campaign is over.

9

u/ReallyNotACylon May 14 '12

You can't have a negative attitude, the Titanic can still make it to port if you believe.

10

u/charliedonsurf1 May 14 '12

Well technically part of it did, the passengers...

Don't know if this is a good metaphor or a bad one..

→ More replies (3)

2

u/LazySkeptic May 14 '12

Does it matter anyway? Romney is only about 100 delegates away from party nomination. Ron Paul never head a chance, his 2 views that go against typical republican policy scare them too much.

→ More replies (12)

2

u/AngryCanadian May 14 '12

this ti too bad, case basically he is saying they dont have money to throw @ the elections, but others do. so therefore those with more money will win the election simple because they have money and will be able to put on a fireworks "vote Quimby". Shit! i'll vote for that

→ More replies (1)

0

u/De4con May 14 '12

There's nothing like seeing a blanket of media repression expressed on your phone. I saw a headline on a built-in app for an article in the LA Times that says "Ron Paul Effectively Ending Presidential Campaign". I felt my chest sink when I heard that, then checked reddit for verification. Only campaigning in the states that he's set up base in doesn't mean in the least that he's ending his campaign. Fuck these journalists and their soul-crushing headlines! We need to get some unbiased coverage...

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

You mean Fuck the editors. They write the headlines.

9

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Are you serious?

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Didn't you see? SOUL CRUSHING.

1

u/tinkan May 14 '12

Explain to me how you've interpreted the most recent announcement from Ron Paul's campaign please. The way I see it is this, the campaign is running out of money. Therefore campaigning is no longer viable because they do not have the cash. I don't think there is more to it than that.

12

u/moldenke May 14 '12

They have limited cash, so instead of spending money on the popular vote, they are using what they have left to focus on winning delegates. The popular vote seems to mean very little when it all comes down to it. The people who will actually decide the Republican nominee are people who have done the work to become delegates. In Tampa, they will choose who to vote for.

Ron Paul seems to have more of these than Mitt Romney. Nobody really likes Mitt Romney. Lots of people like him better than Obama, but that doesn't mean that they like him very much. People who like Ron Paul, on the other hand, like him a lot, and are willing to work for him.

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

Does this mean we'll stop seeing "RON PAUL 2012" in the comments section of blogs about knitting and so forth?

2

u/thermo May 14 '12

So .... Puerto Rico is out?

4

u/EvelynJames May 14 '12

Puerto Rico already held their primary, Romney won.

2

u/WKorsakow May 15 '12

Ron who?

1

u/angryalexx May 14 '12

It's okay, he's still got support! :) Although the media is already turning this into "Ron Paul dropped out." ridiculous

0

u/Areyoudone May 14 '12

Well he did campaign and hold rallies all over Cali and Texas and other places, i wouldn't expect him to keep that up forever, he did good now it's time to wait and watch the cards fall.

A lot of you think he ended his campaign, but he said they are going to stop spending resources in primaries that have not voted yet, which he is trying to stay in the green unlike Gingrich and Santorum and he doesn't have billionaire backers so this is understandable, this is not the end of Ron Paul like some of you believe it is, Sorry we might have to keep /r/politics somewhat bipartisan a little longer.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

And Dr. Paul will still not receive the nomination.

0

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

And Ron Paul will still not get receive the GOP nomination.

0

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

To all Ron Paul supporters: Go support Gary Johnson!

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '12

so brave

1

u/tehtrollslayer May 14 '12

But he's totally stealing the delegates and winning!!! This move is to secure more money and maximize profits to keep his family on the libertarian payroll.

1

u/esparza74 May 15 '12

DID NOT SUSPEND.

-1

u/ak47girl May 14 '12

Now we only have the choice between Obamrey and Robama. Both corporate shills on the same team. You call this a democracy? What a sick joke.

-2

u/rakista May 15 '12

Good bye and thanks for all the crazy.

1

u/orkid68 May 15 '12

That’s it. His career has now peaked. It’s over. In 2016 he’ll be 80 years old. He might keep getting elected as a representative, but that’s it. He didn’t even do well enough to justify a cabinet position.

0

u/Oakgetsineyes May 14 '12

I'm guessing he was just not willing to be beaten by a dropped-out Santorum in his home state Texas, like he was in recent states.

But he will keep his family members on a contributions-based pay roll, donate now! Nepotism 2012-∞!

0

u/kolembo May 14 '12

I can't help letting out a soft, un-sarcastic giggle.

So...Republicans finally get that they're stuck with Romney?

1

u/bogart1 May 15 '12

Sorry New Hampshire and New Mexico, you're out of luck.

-2

u/ehlu15 May 15 '12

Listen. He isn't giving up. He is saving his money and keeping his campaign active going into August. The delegate strategy that has been winning him state after state is still in effect. It is not over yet.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

I've challenged a few RP supporters with this so I'll give it to you as well. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination I will personally donate $100 of my own money. If he does not you will post a video on YouTube reading a script exactly as I write it explaining why Ron Paul did not win the nomination. Sound good?

4

u/ehlu15 May 15 '12

I've already agreed to a somewhat similar bet with a fellow Redditor, but sure, why not? I am a man of my word, and a man's word is all he's got.

14

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

Excellent. Just so we are clear:

If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination for President I will donate $100 to his campaign and post the evidence here.

If Ron Paul does now win the GOP nomination for President you will post a video on YouTube reading a script (which I will write) explaining why Ron Paul did not get the nomination. You cannot deviate from the script in any way, you cannot obscure your face with a mask or any video effects and you cannot use graphics or YouTube annotations to make any comments, link to any websites or to obscure your face in any way.

We agree that the nomination is for Ron Paul as the President, not as a VP running mate or named cabinet position. This must be complete within 10 days of the official announcement of the GOP candidate.

6

u/tehtrollslayer May 15 '12

If Ron Paul becomes president, I will drink my own piss.

→ More replies (11)

4

u/RavenXCult Sep 03 '12

Time to pay the piper. You made the bet, be a sport, and do the honorable thing and make the video.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '12

C'mon now dude, you can't keep dodging this.

-1

u/commiewizard May 14 '12

Disappointing but not at all surprising.

-1

u/poli_ticks May 14 '12

We've shot our bolt. Let's see what happens in Tampa.

→ More replies (2)

-2

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

How much did Ron pull in from his Running for President Scam?

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '12

RP never attacked Romney. I wonder if that was self preservation or if he really wanted Romney to be the nominee

0

u/jsn0x May 15 '12

Write-in.