PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul supporters bolt Rand Paul camp



Common
03-27-2015, 05:11 AM
When you flipflop and manuever to capitulate for self gain, eventually people start to pick up on it. It seems Rand Pauls chameleon politics are catching up to him, they always do.

As he pulls together his expected presidential campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sen. Rand Paul is confronted by defections from an unexpected quarter: the die-hard idealists whose energy powered his father’s campaigns.

That network of committed supporters was expected to convey to Paul, the natural successor to Ron Paul’s libertarian movement, providing him with a plug-and-play ground organization in the make-or-break early voting states. But instead of embracing the Kentucky senator, many of those grass-roots activists are turning their backs on him, disillusioned by the younger Paul’s concessions to mainstream politics.

One of the most prominent defectors is Drew Ivers, chairman of Ron Paul’s 2012 Iowa campaign, who says he will not endorse Rand Paul for president. On Tuesday, three members of Iowa’s Ron Paul-aligned Liberty movement — state Sen. Jason Shultz and former Iowa Republican Party central committee members Chad Steenhoek and Joel Kurtinitis — announced the same, adding that they will support Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Ivers said he does not plan to endorse any candidate.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ron-paul-leave-rand-paul-camp-116439.html#ixzz3VZzN99XB

Chris
03-27-2015, 11:59 AM
As a libertarian this is hardly surprising. While he never claimed to be, Paul is libertarian in many respects. Just not enough.

Ron Paul supporters bolt Rand Paul camp (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ron-paul-leave-rand-paul-camp-116439.html#ixzz3VbdOfdsa)


...That network of committed supporters was expected to convey to Paul, the natural successor to Ron Paul’s libertarian movement, providing him with a plug-and-play ground organization in the make-or-break early voting states. But instead of embracing the Kentucky senator, many of those grass-roots activists are turning their backs on him, disillusioned by the younger Paul’s concessions to mainstream politics.

...Ivers, who had dinner with Rand Paul in August, said the Kentucky senator has abandoned many of the stances that made Ivers loyal to his father.
“He’s moderating on most of them, not taking a real clear stance on a number of them,” said Ivers. “The strategy of sending a blended message is one that has risk.”

...The stylistic distinctions between father and son became clear at the 2012 GOP convention. Ron Paul was denied a speaking slot in large part because he refused to meet the pre-conditions — which included an endorsement of Mitt Romney. But the Kentucky senator endorsed the nominee despite some misgivings — and got a prime speaking slot.

...“One of the big concerns is whether or not he’s left his liberty base and is he moving towards the center in reality or just for the purpose of optics,” he said. Day cited Paul’s endorsement of moderate Republican Scott Brown’s failed New Hampshire Senate bid and his lack of support for tea party activist Andrew Hemingway’s gubernatorial primary bid against the eventual nominee Walt Havenstein as two episodes that turned off Free Staters.

...

Hal Jordan
03-27-2015, 12:02 PM
To be honest, the only thing that surprises me about this is that it didn't happen sooner.

Common
03-27-2015, 12:04 PM
He and his father have been and are the standard bearers of libertarianism. Ron Paul had principles and I respected him. He chose a position and stood by it no matter how much criticism he recieved. He believed in what he said. His son is entirely different, every speech is designed for the audience and he changes and flip flops his positions depending on who hes talking too.

Btw this is a duplicate post I posted this same thread earlier

Chris
03-27-2015, 12:08 PM
I'll look and merge...merged threads.

The Xl
03-27-2015, 01:05 PM
Rand was always a fake.

Captain Obvious
03-27-2015, 01:37 PM
Maybe it was just Rand finishing his cheeseburger.

:biglaugh:

Common
03-27-2015, 01:59 PM
Rand was always a fake.

That coming from you surprised me, I always thought you and aloysha and the marines were all very pro rand paul.

BTW at one time I thought you were aloyshas brother

Common
03-27-2015, 02:00 PM
I really did respect Ron Paul, you can disagree with a person but respect their belief and honesty and steadfastness. Rand always hit me in the gut as a phony.

The Sage of Main Street
03-27-2015, 03:19 PM
When you flipflop and manuever to capitulate for self gain, eventually people start to pick up on it. It seems Rand Pauls chameleon politics are catching up to him, they always do.

As he pulls together his expected presidential campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sen. Rand Paul is confronted by defections from an unexpected quarter: the die-hard idealists whose energy powered his father’s campaigns.

That network of committed supporters was expected to convey to Paul, the natural successor to Ron Paul’s libertarian movement, providing him with a plug-and-play ground organization in the make-or-break early voting states. But instead of embracing the Kentucky senator, many of those grass-roots activists are turning their backs on him, disillusioned by the younger Paul’s concessions to mainstream politics.

One of the most prominent defectors is Drew Ivers, chairman of Ron Paul’s 2012 Iowa campaign, who says he will not endorse Rand Paul for president. On Tuesday, three members of Iowa’s Ron Paul-aligned Liberty movement — state Sen. Jason Shultz and former Iowa Republican Party central committee members Chad Steenhoek and Joel Kurtinitis — announced the same, adding that they will support Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Ivers said he does not plan to endorse any candidate.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ron-paul-leave-rand-paul-camp-116439.html#ixzz3VZzN99XB




Lizardtarianism can be summed up as, "Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost." In Rand's case, all he will have left is the hindmost.

Bob
03-27-2015, 03:27 PM
He and his father have been and are the standard bearers of libertarianism. Ron Paul had principles and I respected him. He chose a position and stood by it no matter how much criticism he recieved. He believed in what he said. His son is entirely different, every speech is designed for the audience and he changes and flip flops his positions depending on who hes talking too.

Btw this is a duplicate post I posted this same thread earlier

Rand is following the path of Obama. It worked well for Obama and it seems Rand thinks he can use the same formula.

Today, you will find that Obama tailors his talks to the specific audience and feeds them his claptrap.

Common
03-27-2015, 03:29 PM
Rand is following the path of Obama. It worked well for Obama and it seems Rand thinks he can use the same formula.

Today, you will find that Obama tailors his talks to the specific audience and feeds them his claptrap.

Bob I believe that you attribute the sky being blue to Obama and that of course was a mistake because the sky should be orange

Bob
03-27-2015, 03:47 PM
Bob I believe that you attribute the sky being blue to Obama and that of course was a mistake because the sky should be orange

I compared the path of Paul to that of Obama. Why isn't that fair?

I did not bring up sky colors.

Hal Jordan
03-27-2015, 03:50 PM
Rand is following the path of Obama. It worked well for Obama and it seems Rand thinks he can use the same formula.

Today, you will find that Obama tailors his talks to the specific audience and feeds them his claptrap.

In other words, the path of the politician. The same is seen on both sides.

The Xl
03-27-2015, 04:40 PM
That coming from you surprised me, I always thought you and aloysha and the marines were all very pro rand paul.

BTW at one time I thought you were aloyshas brother

Lol nah, no relation to her.

I was and still am very pro Ron Paul, never Rand though

Bob
03-27-2015, 05:00 PM
In other words, the path of the politician. The same is seen on both sides.
That to me is not the main issue.

I still put the blame on the public.

Yeppers, that will be my story for a long time.

Hal Jordan
03-27-2015, 08:29 PM
That to me is not the main issue.

I still put the blame on the public.

Yeppers, that will be my story for a long time.

The public does keep buying into what they're selling, sadly...

Common
03-27-2015, 08:31 PM
I compared the path of Paul to that of Obama. Why isn't that fair?

I did not bring up sky colors.

Seems you compare everything to obama

Common
03-27-2015, 08:33 PM
That to me is not the main issue.

I still put the blame on the public.

Yeppers, that will be my story for a long time.

I agree the voters are the most at fault

Bob
03-27-2015, 08:34 PM
The public does keep buying into what they're selling, sadly...

I have for many years called for the public to end voting for presidents.

We had such a system for many years and it in my view was working fine.

Bob
03-27-2015, 08:41 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1017943#post1017943)
That to me is not the main issue.

I still put the blame on the public.

Yeppers, that will be my story for a long time.


I agree the voters are the most at fault

I see so much lying on forums that i am positive voters simply are just not informed. If informed, they lack the acumen to know who to select.

I recall my days just that way.

Bob
03-27-2015, 08:47 PM
Seems you compare everything to obama

Well, not scientists.

Bob
03-27-2015, 08:47 PM
Seems you compare everything to obama

Oh, I also don't compare him to honest men.

Green Arrow
03-27-2015, 08:52 PM
I have for many years called for the public to end voting for presidents.

We had such a system for many years and it in my view was working fine.

I'm sure tyrants would love that idea.

Captain Obvious
03-27-2015, 08:53 PM
I'm sure tyrants would love that idea.

Technically...

We don't vote for presidents, that would be an actual democracy.

Green Arrow
03-27-2015, 08:56 PM
Technically...

We don't vote for presidents, that would be an actual democracy.

We do vote for Presidents, the vote just isn't worth shit.

Captain Obvious
03-27-2015, 09:01 PM
We do vote for Presidents, the vote just isn't worth shit.

We vote for states (electoral college) who in turn vote for presidents. A true democracy I believe has voters directly electing presidents.

Green Arrow
03-27-2015, 09:03 PM
We vote for states (electoral college) who in turn vote for presidents. A true democracy I believe has voters directly electing presidents.

I'm just saying we check a person's name on the ballot and that person is a candidate for President. It's not quite like in primaries where you vote for individual delegates who are for a specific candidate (at least, that's what we do in primaries in Tennessee).

But, as you said, it's really just a vote to decide which candidate the state's EC votes go for. It's a crapshoot in my opinion.

Tahuyaman
03-27-2015, 11:09 PM
Rand was always a fake.


I disagree.

Still, he has no chance of being elected because people associate him closely with his nutty father. Rand Paul would have a better shot if his name was Rand Wilson. He'd probably have a better shot if he was Rand Bush.

Bob
03-28-2015, 12:16 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1018284#post1018284)
I have for many years called for the public to end voting for presidents.

We had such a system for many years and it in my view was working fine.


I'm sure tyrants would love that idea.

The current tyrant loves things as they are.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 12:24 AM
The current tyrant loves things as they are.

I'm sure he does. He can get elected with only about 25% of the vote.

Bob
03-28-2015, 12:26 AM
I'm sure he does. He can get elected with only about 25% of the vote.

Which is one reason why I wish to revert to the pre 1830 system.

Don
03-28-2015, 12:38 AM
I have for many years called for the public to end voting for presidents.

We had such a system for many years and it in my view was working fine.

I don't agree with turning back to that system. Popular vote for president may not be good but its no more dangerous than that old system. I do worry that the electoral college will be done away with making it 100% popular vote.

I wouldn't mind going back to having state legislators choosing our Senators like they used to.

I think we in the public put way too much importance in the presidential race. As it is now the only two candidates who have any chance are players from within the two establishment parties. We should focus our attention on electing representatives (and unless we change the system) senators who reflect our values. People who have the fortitude to rein in the out of control spending and other unconstitutional acts of the federal government, including the executive branch. People who will return the power usurped by the executive over the last 100 years back to the house and senate.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 12:46 AM
Which is one reason why I wish to revert to the pre 1830 system.

It wouldn't make a difference. The popular vote is just a show, it doesn't actually mean anything.

Bob
03-28-2015, 01:01 AM
It wouldn't make a difference. The popular vote is just a show, it doesn't actually mean anything.

It does not mean a thing which is why I stated it would be an improvement to rejoin the founders and use the previous system.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 01:04 AM
It does not mean a thing which is why I stated it would be an improvement to rejoin the founders and use the previous system.

We're still using the previous system, Bob.

Bob
03-28-2015, 01:12 AM
I don't agree with turning back to that system. Popular vote for president may not be good but its no more dangerous than that old system. I do worry that the electoral college will be done away with making it 100% popular vote.

I wouldn't mind going back to having state legislators choosing our Senators like they used to.

I think we in the public put way too much importance in the presidential race. As it is now the only two candidates who have any chance are players from within the two establishment parties. We should focus our attention on electing representatives (and unless we change the system) senators who reflect our values. People who have the fortitude to rein in the out of control spending and other unconstitutional acts of the federal government, including the executive branch. People who will return the power usurped by the executive over the last 100 years back to the house and senate.

Lets see how well the old system worked.

We got George Washington, and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and James Monroe and John Q Adams, all enormously respected presidents. I can't think of much to complain about in those.

Post the change

We got Andrew Jackson who simply is not remembered for much as president, then Martin Van Buren, recalled for a depression and not much more. Then we had William Harrison remembered for what?

Get the drift?

Bob
03-28-2015, 01:13 AM
We're still using the previous system, Bob.

Actually not. The system changed around 1829

Bob
03-28-2015, 01:20 AM
We're still using the previous system, Bob.

The previous system did not use public voters.

iustitia
03-28-2015, 01:35 AM
https://scontent-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/14053_468837449936513_486880843638127369_n.png?oh= ee2ae9e19fb20f21ff2e69c7008666b4&oe=55ABF6B5

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 01:39 AM
https://scontent-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/14053_468837449936513_486880843638127369_n.png?oh= ee2ae9e19fb20f21ff2e69c7008666b4&oe=55ABF6B5

What's wrong with the last one? We did it with Israel, why not the Kurds? They at least have more of a claim...

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 01:40 AM
The previous system did not use public voters.

Bob, the public vote is meaningless. It's for show, bread and circuses. The system still operates the same as it did when the founders established it. The electoral college elected presidents then, and it elects them now. The popular vote only exists to make the populace feel like they have a say, when in actuality they don't.

Common
03-28-2015, 02:37 AM
Rand is certainly not his father and thats nuff said.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 03:24 AM
He's not, which I find disappointing. However, I do think he'd be considerably better than most of the choices we have. Maybe better than all of them.

Common
03-28-2015, 04:54 AM
He's not, which I find disappointing. However, I do think he'd be considerably better than most of the choices we have. Maybe better than all of them.

I want you to know ive taken note of your ability to change your mind. I remember when you were a staunch rand paul supporter even before you came here. If I remember right on the other forum you and I had a conversation about Paul. Its good to be able to change or admit to it.

I was a staunch McCain guy for a long time, now I know it was more loyalty for his nam service than his policies. I cant handle the pro war lets go gettem solution to everything anymore. McCain is still a good american and a patriot.

The Sage of Main Street
03-28-2015, 08:39 AM
The public does keep buying into what they're selling, sadly... What choice do we have? The way to resolve this is to institute government by referendum, replacing this Representavist fraud.

Chris
03-28-2015, 08:47 AM
What choice do we have? The way to resolve this is to institute government by referendum, replacing this Representavist fraud.

What, with a democratic fraud?

Bob
03-28-2015, 10:00 AM
Bob, the public vote is meaningless. It's for show, bread and circuses. The system still operates the same as it did when the founders established it. The electoral college elected presidents then, and it elects them now. The popular vote only exists to make the populace feel like they have a say, when in actuality they don't.

Well, proves you refuse to learn.

At that time, the public did not select the electoral college. If you bother checking on the public vote for Washington, you can't find any of the public voting.

That is a major difference.

We do not use the same system used for the first presidents.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 10:19 AM
Well, proves you refuse to learn.

At that time, the public did not select the electoral college. If you bother checking on the public vote for Washington, you can't find any of the public voting.

That is a major difference.

We do not use the same system used for the first presidents.

No, Bob, I am happy to learn. You refuse to listen.

Tahuyaman
03-28-2015, 10:24 AM
Rand is certainly not his father and thats nuff said.

Youre right, he's not. But, he has no chance to be elected president of the US because he can't overcome the stigma of his father.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 10:25 AM
Youre right, he's not. But, he has no chance to be elected president of the US because he can't overcome the stigma of his father.

I would love to have that crystal ball of yours.

Tahuyaman
03-28-2015, 10:28 AM
I would love to have that crystal ball of yours.

it doesn't take a crystal ball. You know he has no chance nationally. You know this is because of who his father is. Be honest now.

Bob
03-28-2015, 10:32 AM
No, Bob, I am happy to learn. You refuse to listen.


I know this topic inside and out. It is you not listening. I will say it slower.

The public vote did not exist in the first presidents era.

They did not have the problems we have today.

Chloe
03-28-2015, 10:36 AM
I know this topic inside and out. It is you not listening. I will say it slower.

The public vote did not exist in the first presidents era.

They did not have the problems we have today.

It still left the populace at the mercy of party politics though, did it not?

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 10:36 AM
I know this topic inside and out. It is you not listening. I will say it slower.

The public vote did not exist in the first presidents era.

They did not have the problems we have today.

The public vote is a sideshow. It's meaningless. It has zero effect on the election.

Say it with me, Bob.

The public vote has no effect on the election.

The first presidents used the electoral college. We use the electoral college.

The public vote only exists to make people think they have a say in the electoral college, but they don't. We still elect presidents with the electoral college.

Bob
03-28-2015, 10:40 AM
It still left the populace at the mercy of party politics though, did it not?

That is a very good question. I believe that in the early era, the public put next to no faith in DC. That the states were the prime source of government that does impact on you locals. They saw a state as the government to be more loyal to.

So, since the Feds were at the time far weaker, the public was more isolated from politics in DC.

As to DC, I am sure by joining a party, those directly impacted by DC were subject to party politics since they were in the ruling area.

Today, Most states governments are conservative.

Bob
03-28-2015, 11:01 AM
The public vote is a sideshow. It's meaningless. It has zero effect on the election.

Say it with me, Bob.

The public vote has no effect on the election.

The first presidents used the electoral college. We use the electoral college.

The public vote only exists to make people think they have a say in the electoral college, but they don't. We still elect presidents with the electoral college.

The nature of the electoral college is vastly different today. Why don't you study history?

Holy cow, you really need to understand history.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 11:25 AM
The nature of the electoral college is vastly different today. Why don't you study history?

Holy cow, you really need to understand history.

The only changes to the electoral college system happened in 1804 and 1868, and neither were substantive changes. The Twelfth Amendment in 1804 instituted separate electoral college ballots for President and Vice President (the previous election had to be decided by the House of Representatives because Jefferson and Burr, despite being the President and Vice President nominees, were technically voted on by the same ballots and ended up with the same number of votes for President) and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 allowed for a state's electoral college votes to be reduced if they denied anyone of legal standing the right to vote.

Neither of those changes were substantive, as I said, and the electoral college has been functioning roughly the same as it has from the beginning.

Bob
03-28-2015, 11:32 AM
The only changes to the electoral college system happened in 1804 and 1868, and neither were substantive changes. The Twelfth Amendment in 1804 instituted separate electoral college ballots for President and Vice President (the previous election had to be decided by the House of Representatives because Jefferson and Burr, despite being the President and Vice President nominees, were technically voted on by the same ballots and ended up with the same number of votes for President) and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 allowed for a state's electoral college votes to be reduced if they denied anyone of legal standing the right to vote.

Neither of those changes were substantive, as I said, and the electoral college has been functioning roughly the same as it has from the beginning.

My god.

The first election where the popular vote was taken was 1824

The first president where the public voted was for When John Q Adams won but lost the electoral college vote

I hoped you might wish to learn.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 11:36 AM
My god.

The first election where the popular vote was taken was 1824

The first president where the public voted was for When John Q Adams won but lost the electoral college vote

I hoped you might wish to learn.

The 1824 election was decided by the House of Representatives after Andrew Jackson won the majority of the popular vote and electoral college, but didn't win the plurality of votes necessary to win the election outright. The House handed the election to Adams on the first ballot.

The sad part is I've done nothing but write facts. You're just too bullheaded to accept that you might be wrong.

Bob
03-28-2015, 11:47 AM
The 1824 election was decided by the House of Representatives after Andrew Jackson won the majority of the popular vote and electoral college, but didn't win the plurality of votes necessary to win the election outright. The House handed the election to Adams on the first ballot.

The sad part is I've done nothing but write facts. You're just too bullheaded to accept that you might be wrong.

You did not tell me any new things.

Your claim is the vote is a circus.

That was NEVER the topic.

The topic was that the electoral college operates different today than then.

Do you see presidents elected today when they did not win the electoral college?

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 11:55 AM
You did not tell me any new things.

Your claim is the vote is a circus.

That was NEVER the topic.

The topic was that the electoral college operates different today than then.

Do you see presidents elected today when they did not win the electoral college?

Nope. Because the electoral college, not the popular vote, elects the President. Just like it always has since the beginning.

Bob
03-28-2015, 12:02 PM
Nope. Because the electoral college, not the popular vote, elects the President. Just like it always has since the beginning.

i give up.

You refuse to admit the changes.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 12:40 PM
i give up.

You refuse to admit the changes.

I named the changes.

Bob
03-28-2015, 12:51 PM
I named the changes.

Lad, this is back to square one before you diverted.

We need to stop the public from voting for president. They are not qualified and we need use only the electoral college.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 01:10 PM
Lad, this is back to square one before you diverted.

We need to stop the public from voting for president. They are not qualified and we need use only the electoral college.

That, I suppose, is the fundamental difference between us. I believe in freedom, you believe in slavery.

The Xl
03-28-2015, 01:45 PM
I disagree. Still, he has no chance of being elected because people associate him closely with his nutty father. Rand Paul would have a better shot if his name was Rand Wilson. He'd probably have a better shot if he was Rand Bush. I missed where supporting The Constitution, personal liberties, sound economics, and not wanting to spend trillions bombing brown people is nutty.

Bob
03-28-2015, 02:16 PM
That, I suppose, is the fundamental difference between us. I believe in freedom, you believe in slavery.

Oh right, If I don't vote for president I am a fucking slave.

How bright is that.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 02:19 PM
Oh right, If I don't vote for president I am a fucking slave.

How bright is that.

You would take away the right of Americans to choose their masters. You would force them to live under the rule of someone they do not want.

Yep, sounds like slavery to me.

Bob
03-28-2015, 02:22 PM
You would take away the right of Americans to choose their masters. You would force them to live under the rule of someone they do not want.

Yep, sounds like slavery to me.

I wouldn't do shit. It takes a change to the constitution.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 02:25 PM
I wouldn't do shit. It takes a change to the constitution.

A change you have already said you support.

Bob
03-28-2015, 02:26 PM
A change you have already said you support.

Correct. That is the time you told the truth. But it required the constitution be changed.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 02:37 PM
Correct. That is the time you told the truth. But it required the constitution be changed.

I've been telling the truth in this whole thread.

Bob
03-28-2015, 02:41 PM
I've been telling the truth in this whole thread.
In your opinion.

I for one don't preach being a slave.

Common
03-28-2015, 02:41 PM
Im having a blast reading these Green Arrow-Bob and GA-Mac threads. Its hilarious, hes beating both of YOU at your own game. Hes got mac needing new bloomers and bob geriatrically dazed and confused, loolol

Bob dont step in shit especially if youre barefooted.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 02:44 PM
In your opinion.

I for one don't preach being a slave.

But you do, Bob. You would have the elites choose who runs this country like the Master chooses the foreman of his slaves.

Bob
03-28-2015, 02:46 PM
But you do, Bob. You would have the elites choose who runs this country like the Master chooses the foreman of his slaves.

You said it is still the same way as it was when I said I liked the system.

Make up your mind.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 02:48 PM
You said it is still the same way as it was when I said I liked the system.

Make up your mind.

Because it is, Bob. The electoral college still picks the president without approval from the people.

Bob
03-28-2015, 02:52 PM
Because it is, Bob. The electoral college still picks the president without approval from the people.

Not true but keep thinking that.

I ought to try to educate you on why the 1824 election produced vast changes.

Hell no,. i get tired of this nonsense.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 02:53 PM
Not true but keep thinking that.

I ought to try to educate you on why the 1824 election produced vast changes.

Hell no,. i get tired of this nonsense.

Good, then I accomplished what I set out to do. Now you know what it's like for most of the intelligent people on this forum to try and carry on a discussion with you.

Bob
03-28-2015, 02:54 PM
Good, then I accomplished what I set out to do. Now you know what it's like for most of the intelligent people on this forum to try and carry on a discussion with you.

Hell, I give it back. Don't dish out what you can't take.

Also, you are not the spokesperson for all posters.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 02:58 PM
Hell, I give it back. Don't dish out what you can't take.

Also, you are not the spokesperson for all posters.

I never claimed I was, Bob. You're the one that tries to pretend you speak for all posters. I was very clearly talking about a specific portion of the forum.

Bob
03-28-2015, 03:12 PM
I never claimed I was, Bob. You're the one that tries to pretend you speak for all posters. I was very clearly talking about a specific portion of the forum.

That part about me is one more lie.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 03:13 PM
That part about me is one more lie.

Nope. You've told me on a number of occasions that nobody on the forum agrees with me.

Bob
03-28-2015, 03:15 PM
Nope. You've told me on a number of occasions that nobody on the forum agrees with me.

Son, I have shit to get done today. This sort of BS gets boring.

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 03:20 PM
Son, I have shit to get done today. This sort of BS gets boring.

I am not your son, and you are not my father. Do not call me "son" again.

Bob
03-28-2015, 03:22 PM
I am not your son, and you are not my father. Do not call me "son" again.

Why not stop your act?

Green Arrow
03-28-2015, 03:24 PM
Why not stop your act?

No act here.

Bob
03-28-2015, 03:36 PM
No act here.

OK, I am formally asking you per rules to stop harassing me.

Hal Jordan
03-28-2015, 03:51 PM
I think it would be best to just return discussion to Rand Paul...

Tahuyaman
03-28-2015, 10:40 PM
I missed where supporting The Constitution, personal liberties, sound economics, and not wanting to spend trillions bombing brown people is nutty.

The Ron Paul crowd has no ability to see things as they are. In spite of what they believe, Rand Paul is saddled with the baggage of his father.

iustitia
03-28-2015, 10:43 PM
The Ron Paul crowd has no ability to see things as they are.

Wut.

Tahuyaman
03-28-2015, 10:49 PM
Wut.
The Ron Paul crowd has no ability to see things as they are. In spite of what they believe, Rand Paul is saddled with the baggage of his father.

There, got it this tine?