35 votes

For the Mitt Trolls!

Most Ron Paul supporters are not disgruntled supporters of Obama from 2008. I started understanding what the Constitution was really about thanks to the good doctor in 2005 or 2006. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and will do so in 2012!

If you want to post your annoyances with the Mitt trolls, but can't on their forum/chat due to banning :), post it here.

Some other ones:
We are anarchists - This is unbelievable as we understand and wish to honor the Constitution more than any candidate, especially those like Mitt.

We are all young pot heads - Never smoked pot in my life.

They cry about the media being against Mitt - LOL! I don't even know what to say here. I could prove to anyone with 1+ hours of footage on how deviant and deceitful the media is against Ron Paul.

We are getting delegates illegally - It is because we understand the delegate process that we are getting so many delegates.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

By the way..

you don't know many people that are choosing to vote for paul now but would still vote for romney...you're a liar...and ignorant

"Maybe Romney supporters should talk to you guys more to convince you to support him"...WOW..What a fool you are

De criminalize Liberty!

Again, please... take it down just a notch or two

Lets try to keep it civil. Thanks. :)

My comments are for Shazad...

As I respect and appreciate your concern, this fool is the one that made it a point to comment on my posts when he subscribed a couple weeks ago, being rude, disrespectful, and ignorant..So, from now on, anytime I see a post from this person, I will do the exact opposite of keeping it civil..I've been a member here for half a year, and I have welcomed plenty of newer members that were a bit "reluctant" at first, and this is the ONLY person I've had a problem with..Shazad has had absolutely nothing of substance to offer here in his two weeks..So, I'd love to be civil with you Libertarian American, but Shazad can stick it where the sun don't shine, and you have no right to suggest I take it down a notch when you don't know the dialogue of our previous conversations and how disrespectful he was after being a member for a whole 49 minutes..You just can't fix stupid

De criminalize Liberty!

myajace: Please go here...

... and think about what you read:

http://www.dailypaul.com/230727/please-be-civil-many-santoru...

Thank you.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Jetton: Please go here...

...and think about what you read:

http://www.dailypaul.com/230765/so-people-are-we-mad-yet

Thank You.

P.s...We ARE winning, and that's probably why, in 6 months, Shazad has been the ONLY person at the DailyPaul to ever truly make me mad.
Nothing of substance, nothing to offer, to me, as a Ron Paul supporter..Again, he came here and admitted he was a Mitt troll and that all he wanted to do was find out why "we still think Dr. Paul can win" since Romney "has it in the bag". He could of surfed the dailyPAUL for an hour or two and had all of his one question answered. Otherwise, he most likely has alternative motives for creating an account to ask such a simple question. There's a reason why a number of people continue to down vote almost everything he has written since he came here a couple weeks ago, with the acception of a couple people. I'm not worried about the handful of Romney supporters that are scattered throughout the country, according to him, discussing recipes. But supposedly if anyone wants to go there to have a civilized, adult conversation as to why Romney is NOT the right guy, much less even gonna be the nominee, no ones even allowed in to their forum. They must think the "hijacking" of all these caucuses are a "conspiracy", ya know since one of the first things Shazad tried to point out when he joined the dailypaul was all the "conspiracy" theories that Ron Paul supporters have about all this voter fraud that is apparently just a figment of our imagination...Sorry..Ignorance on his part..The disrespectful are typically disrespected.

De criminalize Liberty!

LOL... well then, I suppose we're all entitled to our opinions..

Let's hope he/she comes around, realizes the error of their ways, and becomes that true liberty convert that we're joking Romney could never be. :)

I'm willing to believe...

...that people can genuinely change their minds; I certainly have. Dr. Paul says he has regarding the death penalty. I'd say that Dr. Paul's supporters would fairly judge a Romney conversion to be sincere, if he made strides with his ACTIONS in accordance with his words. Imagine a Romney so truly won over to Liberty that he wakes up one day and decides to return all Goldman Sachs contributions as a good-faith gesture. Tell me that wouldn't get the attention of RP supporters!

Speaking of abusing analogies, you DO know what happened to Saul after his complete conversion on the road to Damascus, right?: he became Paul. ;). Time for Romney to become Paul if he wants to win.

Shazad, since you used a 7 game series as an illustration...

... I will point out that your post contains 7 paragraphs, and, while paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are noncontroversial enough, paragraph 5 falls into the "poke the hornet's nest" category, and is going to get you flamed. Oh, well.

P.S. My latest post in our ongoing dialogue is here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/226948/what-happened-wyoming#commen...

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

paragraph 5?

I don't see anything at all that's factually incorrect in paragraph 5, and I could back up any of the statements if someone wanted me to. I would have expected paragraph 6 to be more objectionable.

I posted this in hopes of helping people realize why they're not going to have an easy time engaging Romney supporters (in general) in discussions from this point forward, unless there were to be major changes in voting patterns. Romney supporters were much more interested in discussion a couple months ago, but it seems to everyone in the world except for rabid supporters of Ron Paul that Romney is going to be the nominee, especially now that the other competition has dropped out. Maybe that can change. If Ron Paul sweeps IN, NC, and WV on Tuesday night, that will sure flip the narrative. Right now, Romney supporters are thinking about Obama and how to beat Obama. It's not that they're afraid of Ron Paul and purposely ignoring him so that he can't beat us. It's that they already feel they won that battle and don't want to invest the energy into it that could be directed toward winning the general election. If our calculation is incorrect and we don't win the nomination, then it would be incredibly embarrassing. But we just don't see that as having any legitimate chance of happening.

Again, legitimate points. Clearly, I don't agree with you that

Dr. Paul has no chance to win the nomination. In fact, I'm doing everything that I can to try and make sure that he does. If that fails, I'll do the same to get him as many write in votes as possible in Nov at the expense of both Obama and Romney. However, you're likely correct that most Romney supporters (it's still very strange for me to think that they actually exist) probably believe they have this locked up and want to now go after Obama. Which is fine by me. By all means, please attack Obama and concentrate only on him. Don't mind us at all while we pick up delegates and go after your guy using the exact same attack ads on him that he's using on Obama. ;)

BTW, out of curiosity... if Romney is the nominee and then loses to Obama... would you be able to support Rand Paul in 2016? I'm just curious. ... That's gonna by my next bumper sticker if Ron doesn't win in Nov (whether it's Obama or Romney who wins).

it's definitely to your advantage

that everyone thinks the race is over. It's going to make the final margin closer than it otherwise might have been.

It's still way too soon for Rand. He needs to establish himself more. I'm not sure who I'd support in 2016 if Romney lost in 2012. I'd probably be biased toward someone who has experience as a Governor versus someone coming from Congress - unless the right guy/gal ran.

Shazad: 2016 Liberty POTUS candidate

You might be right, Shazad, that Rand Paul's experience level might be on the thin side in 2016 (ditto for Justin Amash, who will be only 36 years old). As an outside observer of the Liberty Movement, who do you think we Liberty folks should be supporting in 2016? (Besides Mitt Romney, of course.)

In addition to Gary Johnson, it seems to me that Tom Coburn and/or Rick Perry could, with some ideological tweaking, be the Liberty standard bearer(s) in 2016. I say this because:

1. Gov. Johnson -- Sort of a "Blue Republican" version of Ron Paul (problems: half-baked foreign policy, lack of focus on Federalism)

2. Sen. Coburn -- Deficit hawk, has turned against the Mideast wars, plain-spoken, as non-partisan as they get in Congress (problem: too much a social conservative for many Liberty supporters)

3. Gov. Perry -- Anti-Washington, anti-Fed, anti-Social Security, pro-10th Amendment (problems: crony capitalism, needs to formulate foreign policy)

Is there someone else I am missing? What do you think, Shazad? Thank you.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

what about Mitch Daniels?

Where do you guys stand on Daniels?

I don't think Gary Johnson has any chance of ever being President. Coburn is a possibility. He may be considered by other conservatives as a plausible candidate. Perry has a ways to go ideologically to match more with your movement, and I'm somewhat questioning his mental capacity after his showing in this year's debates and primaries. But I think he could have potential to at some point in the future be a contender.

Do you think there could really be a fraction of the enthusiasm generated for these guys as there is for Ron Paul, though? Do you think there's danger to the movement in picking the wrong person or running someone too soon? What about sitting out 2016 while Rand or someone else grows into the role?

Shazad, I don't know much about Gov. Daniels...

... so I don't really have an opinion on him.

Coburn: Glad to hear that you could live with him, too.

Perry: At this point I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt; he threw himself into the race without adequate preparation, and, as I understand it, he was coming off back surgery.

Johnson: I am curious as to why you are down on him. You would tend to like a successful two-term Governor, right? At the moment, he does seem to be a closer fit for the Liberty Movement than Coburn or Perry. Is the deal-breaker the fact that he is running third-party in 2012?

2016: Too many Republicans have spent the last 20+ years looking for another Ronald Reagan; one can't let nostalgia distract from moving forward. Just like other factions in the GOP pine for someone wonderful, but eventually choose from those candidates who are available, so the Liberty Movement will settle on someone in 2016. The exception would be if Romney is president and is governing more successfully (and more in a Liberty direction) than I think he will; it would also help him avoid a Liberty primary challenger if he has a VP that is acceptable to the Liberty movement. If we do decide to primary Romney, our choices will obviously be limited to those willing to pursue what will probably be a losing effort.

Note: Coburn has already said that he will not run for Senate again in 2016, and I would think that Perry is not going to run for yet another term as Governor in 2014 (and even if he does, he will be in mid-term); Johnson, presumably, will not be holding down any office in 2016. Rand Paul will be up for reelection in 2016, however, along with Justin Amash (if Amash retains his House seat in 2012 and 2014). This difference in job status could certainly affect who chooses to run, especially if it involved potentially giving up a seat in Congress during an attempt to dislodge a President Romney.

One more thing, Shazad: You wrote on another thread that "I will cut my left arm off if Romney picks Santorum" for VP. Why would you be so surprised if Romney were to pick Santorum? Who do you think Romney, if nominated, will pick? Who should he pick? Thanks.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

thoughts...

You might want to look into Daniels - he could be closer to you guys than most other Republicans.

On Johnson - maybe I was a little too harsh. But there doesn't seem to be any interest in him whatsoever among mainstream Republicans, at least currently. Running Libertarian now will especially hurt him if his vote total in any swing state is larger than the difference between Romney and Obama, and there's even a remotely plausible argument that without him running, an Obama win could have been an Obama loss (kind of how Democrats feel about Nader in the 2000 election, who really did cause Gore to lose).

I'd be surprised on Santorum because he really doesn't bring anything to the table. The only reason anyone was voting for him in the first place is because he wasn't Mitt Romney. Santorum wouldn't help deliver his home state. I just don't see what he adds. My bet is that Romney picks Rubio, Christie, or Ryan. But, there are a number of people who he could potentially take, including Rob Portman, Susana Martinez, Bobby Jindal, Bob McDonnell, or even Condoleeza Rice. Are there any on that list you'd find remotely acceptable? I'd say the most likely pick is Rubio, but the likelihood is still very low. I doubt Romney even knows at this point who he's taking. I think it might be too soon for Rubio. I don't know that there's anyone at this point that he "should" pick. There's not a perfect answer. Safest bet might be Paul Ryan. But maybe Rubio would encourage the largest amount of voter turnout for Republicans.

I'm pretty sure all the Republicans will be

sitting out in 2016 considering President Doctor Ron Paul's incumbency..Perhaps you two should discuss what Democrat will be running against President Paul in 2016..Oh that's right, it's totally impossible for Ron Paul to even win the Republican nomination, right, let alone the presidency,based on all your "factual" opinions.

De criminalize Liberty!

myajace: Dr. Paul will be 81 years old by November of 2016...

... so I don't think that he will run for reelection if he wins this year. Unlike most people who run for POTUS, Dr. Paul seems to care more about his ideas than he does about his own personal status, so I think he would be fine with being a one-termer and then passing the baton to the next Liberty president. Therefore, in my opinion, the discussion of who will run in 2016 is appropriate no matter the election results this year.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

And that's a fair opinion..

I suppose(although I obviously disagree)..But the FACT is that Ronald Reagan was 78 when he left office and lived to be 93 years old, so in MY opinion, the fact you bring up age at all is questionable because it's pretty easy for anyone to see that age is not a factor. Sure, he's technically the oldest candidate. What's your point? Keep in mind DR. Paul is probably the most healthy of ALL the candidates as well (Flip Romney might look good for his age, but keep in mind he's already in his 60's, and if it was up to him, he'd sign an executive order declaring himself King until Death, so I'm not really down for any of the lying, flipping, manipulating, war/fear mongering, carelessly willing to go kill more innocent women and children overseas that he has to offer. What a pitiful waste of a life he's led. Protesting the Vietnam War protesters in the 60's but yet himself DODGING the Draft and leaving the Country like a P*ssy. Then taking bike rides in the European mountains to "get his mind off" all his "friends" that were dying in Vietnam. Disgusting. I agree with you that Congressman Paul would probably be "fine" with being a "one-termer", but what exactly makes you think that Dr. Paul would enter politics with the sole intent of saving our republic, work strenuously for 40 years toward that purpose, finally have an opportunity to make real change, actually win the presidency, but then simply "pass the baton on" to the next "liberty" president after his first term..Keep in mind that deep down inside, Dr. Paul does NOT even want to be running for president right now. That should give you an indication as to the amount of his support. He knows what's at stake, and he has NEVER betrayed the document this country was founded on. He is the ONLY candidate that is a military veteran and he is the ONLY candidate that has taken the hypocratic Oath to do no harm. He is a Medical Doctor and he has been fighting a very difficult battle for decades to save us from the infectious disease known as government.

De criminalize Liberty!

Shazad, I didn't mean that paragraph 5 ("it is a fact that...")

... is incorrect, just that it needlessly "stirs the pot." Sometimes, tone and phrasing make a big difference.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

got it - good point

I think I just wanted to make sure people are aware that Romney supporters aren't just running away in fear from Paul supporters. There are very real reasons, based on actual results, that Romney supporters (and everyone besides Paul supporters) feel this race is over. They have entirely turned their focus to Obama at this point, so they may be less inclined to argue a specific point of policy on which Romney and Paul differ.

There are very real reasons

based on actual results, that romney supporters now know that the race isn't over..Quit being so ignorant

De criminalize Liberty!

Truthbearer's picture

Legitimate?

"But we just don't see that as having any legitimate chance of happening."

You dare use such a word? Legitimate??

At least now your inflammatory usage of verbage has toned down enough to lam-blast your hideous insertions of blogosphere old arse garbage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OVgYCMjr8c&feature=youtu.be

The only reason this hoax of the romney exists is because of a corrupted, tainted, disillusioning multi-billion dollar media fronting propaganda machine that perpetuates the lies. You call that legitimate?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

Look hoe disillusioned this poor misguided individule is. He does note even know that Ron Paul, who is America's number one choice, IS THE ONLY Man calling for an end of the wars. here is a perfect example of the mind-kontrol over this nation by the evil of the propaganda zio-media.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/letters/story/2012-05-0...

And as far as legitimate is concerned, how about those legitimate voting machines that have been proven time and time again to be corrupted and rigging the vote to perpetuate the fraud that the romney is actually winning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OynCgwmD-HM

What is more telling is the actual visual support the media hydra of lies and distortions is ignoring for Ron Paul everywhere he goes. The puny attendance gatherings for the romney only have the media whores and lackey's in attendance thirsty for a sound bite or clip to make him APPEAR that he is winning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfrNz_2hvvM&feature=youtu.be

All a bunch of horse-wash as you well know. Without your media and dollars, the real "legitimate" vote would be known and you would know what everyone else knows. Ron Paul will win the election if he is given the fair coverage and the election is allowed to proceed with out incident, or a false flag event to stop it all.

What is funny is, how the poor people of the internet do a better job of reporting the real truth, than these yellow journalist spew forth in what they call news.

Everyone knows it is just filthy puke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5e1oaen-M

And...it will be interesting to hear you after you break your imperial conditioning with different words later when you have made the full shift to Ron Paul's campaign.

+

what I don't get about the voting conspiracies

is that if some of you believe that Ron Paul really is winning these primary votes but by some conspiracy they're making it seem like Romney is winning, why exactly are they going to stop? Won't they just keep doing that for the rest of the primary? And if Ron Paul still wins the nomination despite that, won't they do it in the general election?

What I don't get about you is

how ignorant you can be

De criminalize Liberty!

They don't mean much to me.

Sometimes they're entertaining. Typically they are polite, however, of course they still run complex troll arguments. TheShazad is a good example. He'll admit he's a Romney troll, yet he doesn't get insane either. It's whatever.