14 votes

Ron Paul crowd (10/18) vs Mitt Romney crowd (10/24)

Just figured I'd share this because I thought it was interesting. Someone posted a picture on facebook last week of Ron Paul's rally in Colorado. Well, I also found pictures of Mitt Romney's rally in Reno, NV last night, and noticed something. Look at the size of the crowds for the two events. Is it just me, or is the crowd for Ron Paul's speech still bigger than the crowd for Mitt Romney's speech, months after Ron Paul officially ended his campaign? Links are below. Let me know what you think.

Ron Paul crowd (10/18) - http://sphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/620882_1015129...

Mitt Romney Reno Event album (10/24) - http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=J7&Dato=20121024&Kategori=NEWS19&Lopenr=310240097&Ref=PH&odyssey=mod|galleriespic|umbrella&nclick_check=1

Comment viewing options

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

I took a screen shot of Mitt

I took a screen shot of Mitt standing in front of a sign that read, "We Need A Real Recovery", that will come in handy if he elected, because unemployment busts through 10% in about a year!

I understand Romney's campaign bused people from Utah for the NV

one. He had a big one today too. But he is the nominee now, and that is different.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

Too bad

Ron Paul crowds didnt translate into votes


I heard on gb (I tuned in bc a friend called and said he was

talking about germany calling for an audit of the gold at the NY Fed) anyway he was talking about a crowd of 10K at red rocks (just outside denver). This is an RP size crowd... but RP didn't need:

...Musicians Kid Rock and Rodney Atkins warmed up the crowd. Colorado Rockies legend Todd Helton showed up to give his endorsement. And New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, a rising star in the Republican Party, also was on the bill...

RP didn't need that to attrack 10K!!!

There is no question "the people" favor RP!

it's hard to say--

because the photos are not side by side--

and I don't know the number count--

but it IS very telling that someone who isn't even running can get at least as big a crowd as someone who is a presidential nominee two weeks before elections!

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

What you're not seeing is the committees

where it's just the opposite.. same folks showing up for Romney, very few Ron paul folks showing up for Ron.

It's like you have turned into one of those born again

christians that won't talk about anything other than Jesus... and they obsessively try to convert you to their religion... and anything you say will somehow come back to Jesus.

except it's worse because your religion is the GOP.

I'm a Catholic and my politics is Ron paul RepubliCAN rEVOLution

After the election, what will you be doing?

I think you are missing the point

I was commenting on how you obsess about being in the GOP to the point that it's annoying. Similar to how certain born-agains bring everything back to Jesus. Let me give you and example:

Person A: Did you notice the Crowds at the Ron Paul Rally?

[topic established is crowds at Ron Paul rally

Typical born again: You know Jesus made that possible, can I talk to you about Jesus.

Typical Granger: We should all be in the GOP, and chastise anyone who isn't.

See how both responses deviate from the original topic to the topic that said commenter is obsessing about?

We can't all be in the GOP

In 07/08 there was no way I was going into the GOP.

I hoped RP would run Indy or LP. He didn't.

I understand that some folks can't do the GOP.. been there done that. But that's no reason for me to not talk about my experience in the GOP.

Maybe you want to be surfin for the next two years in Fuji.. I don't know.. you have some reason you don't want to be politically involved for the next two years.. I don't know..

I know we have work to do in and on the GOP.

See, you are doing it again

always looping back around to having to do the GOP. You are reinforcing my analogy.

Very Good Analogy

Ron Paul had lots of power as a congressman but never let it go to his head and did not abandon any of his conservative principals, even to this day, by not endorsing someone so opposite of him even though a republican. I agree with Ron Paul in trying to bring liberty candidates into the republican party from the grassroots level like Justin Amash and Kerry Berntivolio in my home state here in Michigan. These are the only two candidates on the ballot in my state that anyone here in Michigan needs to bother voing for. Isn't it funny how when some people gain a little bit of power their heads swell and everything else goes out the window? (or is it that there was never a strong commitment there to begin with)


very true

some people get a little taste of power and seem to change their focus from why they entered the public sphere to keeping and expanding their power. I guess that's why they say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You are lucky to have Justin and Kerry around, hopefully they can resist the temptations of power as well as Ron did.

You changed the topic.

You confronted Granger about frequently mentioning her presence in the GOP. She stated what her personal plan of action is. Then you claim that she's proving your point by...defending herself? You brought it up: of course she will have to mention the GOP in her response!

If you have an axe to grind, do it with someone else. We're all Ron Paul supporters here, and you're just preaching to the choir.

I confronted her about

I confronted her about obsessively talking about it even when that isn't the topic at hand. I did not confront her about her presence in the GOP. I think the case can be made that it is a worthy endeavor. I think any and all avenue's should be explored. She proved my point by changing the subject to being involved in the GOP and it's importance instead of why it's an appropriate here.


ask the Maine folks about how their committees made out!

The last time I heard so much

The last time I heard so much talk about "committees" was from Han Solo...

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

You don't know what you are talking about.

The Maine people won CAUCUSES.

The committees control the party.

Get a grip. Stop talking out of your @$$.

Is that the beginning of understanding?

I was on the county and state committees, should have been on the Rules Committee at state, but I got stabbed in the back by a power grubbing.... Ron Paul supporter.
Best of luck to you, but I do not see any redemption of a GOP that has embraced corruption so enthusiastically. The passion of RP supporters cannot be matched, but their willingness to "get involved" is RIGHTLY absent. It is the very nature of those who TRULY love individual liberty to also despise trying to control the lives of others. Those who feel at home tend to be those who gave in to their own egos, and develop a thirst for power. Good luck to you, bless you for trying, and I hope in ten years we are all free thanks to your efforts and you get a big, fat "I told you so" in on me. If in ten years we are still slaves being dumbed down by the media and poisoned by Monsanto, look me up - I'll get you started on aquaponics.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:

I have a 250 gal koi tank

I spill that into my chicken litter compost pile and that gets distributed through the gardens.

I hope that we are able to restore the republic and I see Romney as the perfect president to begin exercizing constitutional government, and the rEVOLution being his impeachment coming from his own party who did not have the popular vote, and there are many constitutionally minded allies within the party, where we may disagree on issues now, but eduction is the key. And that's why we stay in this good fight, to continue learning, educating and materializing the message with integrity.

Impeachment coming from his own party is *impossible*

because the Republicans in Congress who will be complicit in helping Romney do those unconstitutional things can't turn around then and impeach Romney for something they are just as guilty of doing.

You talk about trying to pressure Republicans in Congress to hold Romney accountable. If Obama does something unconstitutional, are you going to try to get Rand and Amash and any others who will listen to hold Obama accountable? If not, why not?

I think we owe it to ourselves and our party

I believe this is the reason to go inside the GOP, to hold it and ourselves accountable to the constitution.. that's what we sign an oath to.. it's more important than the oath to the party isn't it?

Rand is already challenging Romney.

It's a noble aspiration

but do you understand how bills become law? Republicans in Congress will write unconstitutional legislation and pass it. Then Romney will sign it into law. Are you expecting the Republicans who gave the legislation to Romney to sign to then call for his impeachment for signing it?

Every unconstitutional thing Romney does, will be done in collusion with *most of* the Republicans in Congress. Do you disagree with that?

Yes, Rand is challenging Romney, to the extent that someone can challenge Romney while also trying to convince everyone to vote for Romney. He's sacrificed a lot for political viability, is he going to throw that away and become a pariah in his party by trying to get Romney impeached for doing (completely expected) unconstitutional things?

Rand *might* however do that against Obama. So might Amash. So, for that matter, might most of the Republicans in the House if they can find an unconstitutional action by Obama that isn't using an unconstitutional mechanism they're also addicted to using for their own purposes. Isn't that something you would want to encourage them to do?

I don't see that

I don't see Rand going after Obama when Romney is as guilty. It's the idea: clean up your own yard before you even think about cleaning mine. Both are guilty so neither has any place challenging the other for lack of constitutional integrity. And yet, the constitution is still in tact.. we still take oaths to it.

And me, took a loyalty oath to party, and I've stuck by it even though I believe Romney, and few within the GOP abetted by MSM, stole the nomination. It's a matter of turning popularity to party leadership, and that's a big learning curve for people.

I think there is something that can or should work in enabling the GOP to correct itself, clean up it's act, and not in a threatening way, but with written resolutions that are distributed and voted on in committees and brought to attention, and addressed.

The wars are unconstitutional and so is the fed. The same issues Ron Paul write resilutions on are there to show us how to write resolutions that if enough voices are saying this on the house floor, in committees, then we will see restoraction.

I think Romney and most Republicans who pull shenanigans because they want what's best and they can deliver.. promises that flip flop, the goal would be getting them to flip for us because we've got solutions, for example Rand talking about industrial hemp in Kansas.

Ron Paul has massive crowds, but they don't show up to the committee meetings, and that's what it's going to take.

Perhaps if grassroots could have a "sit-in" their local committee meeting? People need to show up to "the party".


I don't see Rand going after Obama when Romney is as guilty.

Only one of them will be President. No matter which one is President, they'll do unconstitutional things. The responsibility for holding the President accountable to the Constitution is with Congress, not with a political party. Look at Ron Paul's example. Ron Paul supported the impeachment of BIll Clinton. Ron Paul co-sponsored a bill to impeach Obama. Why wouldn't you want Justin Amash to do the same thing in the House, and Rand to back him up on that in the Senate?

The bottom line is that if you want to get the Republicans in Congress -- enough of them to actually *do* something, not just talk -- to hold the President accountable to the Constitution, they aren't going to go up against Romney if Romney is just doing the kind of unconstitutional things that have become commonplace. They cannot do it because Romney will be signing the legislation they voted for.

But there's a chance, a slim one, that they might be convinced to do what Ron Paul tried to do, namely to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Like I said even that is a stretch for them because all of the unconstitutional mechanisms that Obama uses to further his agenda, they use to further their agenda. If you can get them to impeach Obama, and to go on record on *ANY* constitutional principle, even if partisanship is the larger part of their motivation, then having gone on record it will be that much harder for them to violate that constitutional principle with a President of their own party.

I don't see it

I see what you are saying, however, Clinton's impeachment was a set up to not charge him with going against the constitution as he was for his NWO, but for lying to a judge for a private matter, the way most saw it. And Clinton accepted his impeachment, but never stepped down. So, I for one don't need more charades, which I think the going between both/same parties.party accompliahes, when both are guilty of bereaking the constituion.. I think it's up to one of the parties to clean up their act, and then the acts of all.

I'm not even seeking something so dramtic as an inpeachemnt, but more for the restoration of the republic by offering solutions provided in the constitution and with integrity.

So then what are your expectations?

If Obama is elected, then the impeachment bill that Ron Paul cosponsored, based on unconstitutional acts of war, is just as valid as before. So I think there's some slim chance that the Republicans (certainly not the Democrats) will get so fed up that they'll impeach Obama. The silver lining there, even if it's impeachment without conviction in the Senate, would be getting the Republicans to acknowledge Constitutional limits on war. Do you agree that this scenario is at least possible?

But let's suppose Romney is elected, and the Republicans control both houses of Congress. What do you expect then? You mention Rand and Amash, and I agree that it's reasonable to expect them to continue to criticize Romney if Romney's elected, to the extent they can after endorsing him.

I'd expect that criticism, of behaviors that have been commonplace for quite a while now, to get the same level of attention it currently gets. A few articles in the MSM, quickly forgotten. It won't be enough to stop Romney and the rest of the Republican Congress from doing even one unconstitutional thing.

Is your expectation different? You keep talking about how great it will be to hold Romney accountable, and you've said things about your committee powers that you've had to back down from. But what it seems to boil down to is that there are a very small number of Republicans in Congress who can be expected to criticize Romney. If that's all you've got, it's not what I'd call "holding him accountable."

It's all I've got for now

And if I see a better wat for the next two years, I'll definately check it out.

You are sure fickle. A few

You are sure fickle. A few weeks ago when your boy was behind in the polls you were trashing him here. Now, he is your hero!