TIME FOR RON PAUL FANS TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION

[txradioguy]

There is no more time for games, no room for hurt feelings. Ron Paul fans, you need to choose, because not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama. It’s that simple. And you could make the difference.

Maybe Romney isn’t the uncompromising Ayn Rand hero you’d design if you could build your ideal candidate from scratch, but he’s a lot better than the guy on whose watch this happened:



Making no choice in this election is a choice – it’s a choice for a collectivist who will get two or three Supreme Court picks over a man who picked a guy, Paul Ryan, who understands capitalism and its unbreakable link to human freedom.

Now, this is a two-way street. Romney and Ryan need to reach out to libertarians over their common ground. Fortunately, there is lots of common ground.

No, the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, but it is the only party with any libertarian element. It’s the only place you have any chance of being heard. And with guys like Rand Paul and the libertarian-friendly Tea Party elements, you can be in the GOP.

Sure, the Democrats posture as guardians of freedom on a couple of issues – abortion, gay marriage – but that’s just a pose. It’s not part of any philosophy of human freedom; these are one-off policy choices made not because of a love for the Constitution but because they are demanded by the interest groups Democrats need to win elections.

When freedom becomes inconvenient, Democrats drop it like it’s hot.

You can say a lot about libertarians, but they are principled about their view of the Constitution. They don’t compromise, and in many cases they earn the respect of conservatives (though never, ever, of Democrats).

It’s hard to count how many times conservatives have watched GOP debates and muttered “Damn, I’d vote for Ron Paul if he’d just stop talking about foreign policy.”

There’s overlap with the Republicans but there is none with the Democrats. And that’s not surprising. Libertarians believe in principles of liberty, as they see them. Liberals believe in raw power to impose their will as they see fit.

Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Virgil Goode do not stand for collectivism. But right now, they stand in the way of stopping collectivism.

Let’s not sugar-coat it – there are some real differences between libertarians and conservatives. Foreign policy comes to mind; we conservatives see libertarian foreign policy as naive, while libertarians see conservative foreign policy as overseas adventurism. The drug war is another difference of opinion, though one the libertarians would have a hearing on in the GOP as their influence grows. We don't need to agree on everything.

With the Democrats, you agree on nothing. We all saw the Democrat convention. It was a collectivist congregation worshiping at the altar of big government. Free this, free that, bailouts this, bailouts that.

There was no there there for principled libertarians. Nothing.

The Republicans are not libertarians, but at least libertarian-conservatives make up an influential and growing part of the party. There are exactly zero “libertarian-liberals.” Nor can there be; Democrats embrace everything libertarians oppose.

That’s why it’s silly to dismiss Romany as no different than Obama. Some wave off their obligation to choose with a cliché, that Romney is just “the lesser of two evils.”

Even if that’s true, the key is “lesser.” If you have to choose between encountering a hubcap thief and an axe murderer, you'd be a fool to shrug your shoulders and risk some face time with the dude with the hatchet.

This is no time to “make a statement” or pout that Ron Paul got treated badly in Tampa. He did get treated badly in Tampa, and that was stupid and unnecessary. But if you are truly dedicated to the Constitution you won’t let it be trampled in order to make some soon-to-be-moot point to the anonymous GOP party hacks responsible for not giving Ron Paul a primo speaking slot.

Priorities, people. Nothing less than the Constitution is at stake here.

No choice is a choice, and with the polls showing a dead-even race every vote that does not go to Romney is effectively a vote for Obama. There's no debate here; you opt out and you support Obama by default. How can any principled libertarian do that?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/18/Time-for-Ron-Paul-Fans-to-Support-the-Constitution

[BlueStateSaint]

 

[Mr Mannn]

Ron Paul fans only claim to support the constitution. Their true loyalty only flows to the idol that has become their god...Ron Paul.

Right here at CC, paul trolls proudly proclaimed their plan to subvert the vote of free men, and install Paul as president via the convention. Such a plan was worthy of a dictator, not a constitutional republic. The minions of Paul respect no legal authorities, only what power they can seize.

I doubt they will do anything for America. Their worship of Paul and the cult of personality blinds them to all else.

[Big Dog]

I am no Paulista. I am a Frontiersman, a libertarian who is conservative on fiscal issues, and Don't-Care-atarian on other people's social issues. I expect the government to keep its distance from my wallet, my bedroom, and my liquor cabinet. I vote for the candidate who comes closest to the principles found in the Constitution.

Your argument fails by stating a logical fallacy (false dichotomy) in the first paragraph, and the people you are trying to convince know it. The only vote for Obama is the vote cast for Obama. A vote for a third party candidate, a write-in, or a vote withheld does not get added to Obama's total.

If you want to convince Paulistas, big-L Libertarians, Objectivists, Constitution Party members, libertarian Independents, and principled conservatives who don't trust Romney based on his history, you must do better than "there is no debate here." We know the debate doesn't end until Election Day.

Earn our votes. Tell us why Romney is best of all candidates for America, not why he is the lesser of two evils. Principled voters don't vote for evil, even when it is the lesser evil. There is always another option.

So, as the man said, check your premises.

[wasp69]

I am no Paulista. I am a Frontiersman, a libertarian who is conservative on fiscal issues, and Don't-Care-atarian on other people's social issues. I expect the government to keep its distance from my wallet, my bedroom, and my liquor cabinet. I vote for the candidate who comes closest to the principles found in the Constitution.

Your argument fails by stating a logical fallacy (false dichotomy) in the first paragraph, and the people you are trying to convince know it. The only vote for Obama is the vote cast for Obama. A vote for a third party candidate, a write-in, or a vote withheld does not get added to Obama's total.

If you want to convince Paulistas, big-L Libertarians, Objectivists, Constitution Party members, libertarian Independents, and principled conservatives who don't trust Romney based on his history, you must do better than "there is no debate here." We know the debate doesn't end until Election Day.

Earn our votes. Tell us why Romney is best of all candidates for America, not why he is the lesser of two evils. Principled voters don't vote for evil, even when it is the lesser evil. There is always another option.

So, as the man said, check your premises.

Tx, your points are salient, well thought out, and have historical precedence (92 and 96 election).  The above quote is why you have as much of a chance of getting libtard collectivists to vote for Romney/Ryan as the "true conservatives".

[Lacarnut]

I am no Paulista. I am a Frontiersman, a libertarian who is conservative on fiscal issues, and Don't-Care-atarian on other people's social issues. I expect the government to keep its distance from my wallet, my bedroom, and my liquor cabinet. I vote for the candidate who comes closest to the principles found in the Constitution.

Your argument fails by stating a logical fallacy (false dichotomy) in the first paragraph, and the people you are trying to convince know it. The only vote for Obama is the vote cast for Obama. A vote for a third party candidate, a write-in, or a vote withheld does not get added to Obama's total.

If you want to convince Paulistas, big-L Libertarians, Objectivists, Constitution Party members, libertarian Independents, and principled conservatives who don't trust Romney based on his history, you must do better than "there is no debate here." We know the debate doesn't end until Election Day.

Earn our votes. Tell us why Romney is best of all candidates for America, not why he is the lesser of two evils. Principled voters don't vote for evil, even when it is the lesser evil. There is always another option.

So, as the man said, check your premises.

I have some facts for you...no premises. During the primaries I said I would not vote for Romney. I am a southern conservative right winger that believes in the bible. Check #1
Check #2 This election is not about me, me, me which you seem to indicate. If it was, I would vote for Obama cause my income has doubled in the last two years because of my oil royalties. The price might go to the moon if he is reelected. Plus, my investments in metals might go up also.   
Check#3 I put my own disagreements with Romney aside for the betterment of this great country. You speak of liberty and the constitution. I am not saying that Repubs are good at this issue but Obama has been horrible. If you think that Romney is evil and that he will not get this economy going, I think you are wrong.
Check #4 I will vote for Romney. He is not my kind of politician but at least he loves this country and is head and shoulders above Obama.
Check #5 Vote for who you want to. All I ask is that you project what this country will be like in 4 years if Obama is reelected. Like I said, this election is not about a single individuals but as the country as a whole.       

[sunsettommy]

I am voting for Romney because it is the PATRIOTIC thing to do since Obama is a muslim loving communist who has made it clear that he does not respect the America that was built as a Constitutional Republic.

[txradioguy]

Tx, your points are salient, well thought out, and have historical precedence (92 and 96 election).  The above quote is why you have as much of a chance of getting libtard collectivists to vote for Romney/Ryan as the "true conservatives".

I know.  If by this time people can't see why Romney is the one to vote for...they'll never see it.  ANd they'll be the first in line to bitch about what Obama does to us in the second term.

[Big Dog]

I know.  If by this time people can't see why Romney is the one to vote for...they'll never see it.  ANd they'll be the first in line to bitch about what Obama does to us in the second term.

Like you said, there is no room for hurt feelings. That includes yours.

You started this discussion, with the intent to convince the idealists of the Ron Paul wing to abandon their ideology and support Romney. You made a flawed argument. Your opening point, "Anything but a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama," is false on its face.

Like a cake made with dog poop instead of butter. there is no way to make a flawed argument good. So, go back and correct your logical fallacy.

Make the case for Romney being the best candidate of all. Convince the Paulistas to cross the Rubicon.

[txradioguy]

Like you said, there is no room for hurt feelings. That includes yours.

Mine are hurt?  Far from it.  I pity the Ron Paul supporters and their futile attempts to prop this sham nut job up as some kind of savior to the Conservative movement.

The only thing funny about it is that you think because I don't let the stupidity just pass by I'm some how suffering from "hurt feelings".

Ummm yeah ok.  

You started this discussion, with the intent to convince the idealists of the Ron Paul wing to abandon their ideology and support Romney. You made a flawed argument. Your opening point, "Anything but a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama," is false on its face.

How is my statement false?  You won't vote for Romney.  That vote uncast for a Republican helps Obama...hence is a defacto vote for the Dem.  Pretty easy for anyone but a brainwashed Ronulan to see.

You claim that the rest of us are asking you to abandon your principals...yet you turn around and want us to do the same thing and vote for Ron Paul.  Tell the rest of us that we're not "real conservatives" unless we vote for him and support his "real conservative" values.

But myself and the rest of us here that think Ron Paul is batshit crazy are "flawed" in our argument?

Like a cake made with dog poop instead of butter. there is no way to make a flawed argument good. So, go back and correct your logical fallacy.

Why don't you shit in one hand and demand a retraction from me and see which one fills up faster.

You don't seriously believe that anyone here will believe your theory of a flawed argument just because you say do do you?

Do you?  

Make the case for Romney being the best candidate of all. Convince the Paulistas to cross the Rubicon.

How about you make the case that I've said ANYWHERE on here that Romney was the best candidate of all?

You won't be able to because I've never made that claim.  He is however...the best of the two running.  And right now when you look at what Romney says he wants to do as President and what Obama has done and promises more of...the only choice is Romney.

But you'll never see that no matter how much evidence is laid out before you.  You'd rather sit home and not vote....your tantrum cause Ron Paul didn't get the nod and see Obama get elected again...than put this Socialist in Chief out of a job.

And for that...the Obama campaign thanks you for your support.

[rich_t]

Like you said, there is no room for hurt feelings. That includes yours.

You started this discussion, with the intent to convince the idealists of the Ron Paul wing to abandon their ideology and support Romney. You made a flawed argument. Your opening point, "Anything but a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama," is false on its face.

Like a cake made with dog poop instead of butter. there is no way to make a flawed argument good. So, go back and correct your logical fallacy.

Make the case for Romney being the best candidate of all. Convince the Paulistas to cross the Rubicon.

Either the "Paulistas" will vote in the best interest of the country or they won't.  There are only 2 viable candidates on the ballot in November.  One is Romney the other is Obama.  Which one do you want in office?

It disgusted me to vote for McCain in 08, but I thought him the better choice over Obama.  It turns out that I was right about how destructive that Obama would be. 

On occasion, I think that pure ideology needs to be set aside for the greater good.

I shudder to think of Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder sitting on the bench for example.

If the ideologists want a viable 3rd party, start from the ground up with local and state level elections and build a party that people are willing to support in national elections.

We haven't reached that point yet and I am a person that is pretty well fed up with both the Republican and Democrat parties these days, especially at the national level.

[Zeus]

The Choices in the upcoming Presidential election is between Romney & Obama. Only one of those fellows is going to be elected/reelected.

An Incumbent has a slight edge as they are already in place as known entity so in practical terms not voting for the opposition is a vote for the Incumbent as it is not a vote against him/her.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Bush won FL in 2000 by less than 400 votes.

What if 400 Paulestinians had decided protest votes were more important than beating Gore?

[Big Dog]

Do you remember why you started this thread? Something about convincing Ron Paul supporters to vote for Mitt Romney.

I pity the Ron Paul supporters and their futile attempts to prop this sham nut job up as some kind of savior to the Conservative movement.

Good luck with that whole convincing Ron Paul supporters to vote for Mitt Romney thing. Insulting people, while asking for their votes, is  counterproductive. You may have driven a Ronulan somewhere into BHO's arms; how do you feel about that?

***

The only thing funny about it is that you think because I don't let the stupidity just pass by I'm some how suffering from "hurt feelings".

You have it backwards. I didn't say you had hurt feelings when you wrote it. I was telling you that I expected to hurt your feelings, and I was not concerned about it. I'll keep at it, because the truth is a hard thing, and it hurts sometimes.

***

Why don't you shit in one hand and demand a retraction from me and see which one fills up faster.

Suck it up, Buttercup. I didn't, and won't, demand a retraction. I told you that your shit is weak. Your original statement contained a classic logical fallacy called the false dichotomy. It's not a theory; I didn't invent it; go look it up.

I'll wait.

Are you back? Good. As I said before, it's like making a cake with dog shit. If you want to make a good point, don't start with a flawed premise. 

***

You won't vote for Romney.

I haven't told you who I am voting for, or if I'll vote at all. Unless you have both the gifts of mindreading and fortune-telling, you're talking out of your ass.

***

That vote uncast for a Republican helps Obama...hence is a defacto vote for the Dem.

Still faulty, no matter how many times you say it. It's still a false dichotomy.

Only a vote cast for Obama helps Obama. Only a vote cast for Romney helps Romney. A vote withheld favors neither. A vote for another candidate only hurts a candidate if that voter would have voted for him in the first place, but gave the vote to the other candidate instead. If Ronulans would never have voted for Romney, their refusal to vote for him after your attempt to sway them is a zero-sum, unless they swing all the way over and vote for Obama.

***

How about you make the case that I've said ANYWHERE on here that Romney was the best candidate of all?

You won't be able to because I've never made that claim.

When you're right, you're right. I agree with you 100%. You haven't done that.

What I said, and what I say again, is that you will need to do it to convince ideologues to pull the lever for Romney.

***
The first thing I wrote on this thread was "I am no Paulista". You responded that I expect you to vote for Ron Paul. You also wrote that I "Tell the rest of us that we're not "real conservatives" unless we vote for him and support his "real conservative" values."

Are you mistaken, or are you lying? You tell me.

I've never said that, here or anywhere. Since I am not a Paulista, don't think Ron Paul is a Conservative, and wouldn't vote for him if he was on the ticket, the likelihood that I would encourage you to vote for him is roughly the same as you admitting you ****ed up.

***
So, Buttercup, like I said before: check your premises. Can you convince the Paulistas to vote for Romney without using a logical fallacy?

[sunsettommy]

I find it amusing that there are people who are still obsessed about Ron Paul who is going to do little in November because he is not running for president anymore.

Ron Paul Rules Out Third Party Run

He is no longer a republican.

Breitbart: Ron Paul – Republican No More

Let him go and you will feel better.