Ron Paul suspends campaigning



Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Oct 12, 2011
Posts: 2328

14 May 2012, 2:06 pm

Because of a lack of funds, Ron Paul suspends campaigning.

Ron Paul Suspends Primary Campaign, Continues Hunt for Delegates

Quote:
Ron Paul sent out a letter to supporters today announcing that he will no longer be campaigning in states that have yet to have their primaries.

“we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”




:(

Sad thing is, I bet Paul got more individual donations, but it hurt him that he didn't get them from the big guys.

But he's still in the race, fighting for delegates.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sep 21, 2008
Posts: 31579
Location: New Jersey

14 May 2012, 2:17 pm

snapcap wrote:

Sad thing is, I bet Paul got more individual donations, but it hurt him that he didn't get them from the big guys.

But he's still in the race, fighting for delegates.


Primary Election outcomes are not determined completely by donations. Ron Paul's program to dissolve government handouts does not go down with many voters. Even Republic voters like there little goodies and handouts from the Government.

ruveyn



Weiss_Yohji
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: Apr 25, 2010
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware

14 May 2012, 2:46 pm

This is why America needs to adopt coalitions between political parties. If European countries can do it, why can't we? What do the parties think is going to happen?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Dec 10, 2007
Posts: 6089
Location: Arizona

14 May 2012, 2:48 pm

He's not suspending his campaign, he's just no longer going to focus money on states that haven't voted already that he realistically has no chance at winning. He is instead focusing his money on acquiring delegates for the convention.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Oct 12, 2011
Posts: 2328

14 May 2012, 3:09 pm

Weiss_Yohji wrote:
This is why America needs to adopt coalitions between political parties. If European countries can do it, why can't we? What do the parties think is going to happen?


How about limiting the dollar amount you can donate to a campaign? Then you won't have cronies coming in and taking power.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Oct 12, 2011
Posts: 2328

14 May 2012, 3:13 pm

ruveyn wrote:
snapcap wrote:

Sad thing is, I bet Paul got more individual donations, but it hurt him that he didn't get them from the big guys.

But he's still in the race, fighting for delegates.


Primary Election outcomes are not determined completely by donations. Ron Paul's program to dissolve government handouts does not go down with many voters. Even Republic voters like there little goodies and handouts from the Government.

ruveyn


Donations could be determined by primary outcomes.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Apr 29, 2012
Posts: 792

15 May 2012, 3:36 am

As Jacoby said, Paul hasn't actually suspended his campaign. He is just no longer focusing on primaries, focusing on caucuses and state conventions instead.

While I understand his strategy, I don't understand announcing it since the mainstream media has been doing its best to count Ron Paul out from the beginning.

When it comes to delegate counts, the AP is just doing guess work. It's very hard to tell who exactly has how many delegates because many of them are 'unbound', meaning they can vote for whomever they want on the first ballot at the national convention.

I don't really think Ron Paul can get the GOP nod, but I think there will be a messy, exciting national convention.



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Jan 20, 2012
Posts: 1880

15 May 2012, 3:52 am

Weiss_Yohji wrote:
This is why America needs to adopt coalitions between political parties. If European countries can do it, why can't we?


It's not a cultural difference. It's simply because the electoral systems are different. Any mathematician who works with voting systems could tell you that the American system is guaranteed to be dominated by two large parties.

New Zealand used to have a similar system to the US, and we were indeed dominated by two large parties. We had a referendum and changed the electoral system. Now there are lots of small parties on the scene and we are often governed by a coalition.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Oct 12, 2011
Posts: 2328

15 May 2012, 12:17 pm

Jacoby is right, but I still think it hurts him a bit admitting to quit campaigning for the primaries. But it's a money thing, so really he's minimizing the problems associated with that.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


Xenu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Dec 26, 2008
Posts: 1438

15 May 2012, 12:43 pm

What's pissing me off is how many anti-paul news outlets like CNN are saying that he is dropping out to try and manipulate voters on the fence with Paul against him. Paul isn't dropping out and still has a chance for the nomination if he can get enough delegates to cause issues at the convention and it's disgusting how the media is playing so dirty to get people against him.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Oct 12, 2011
Posts: 2328

15 May 2012, 1:03 pm

ruveyn wrote:
snapcap wrote:

Sad thing is, I bet Paul got more individual donations, but it hurt him that he didn't get them from the big guys.

But he's still in the race, fighting for delegates.


Primary Election outcomes are not determined completely by donations. Ron Paul's program to dissolve government handouts does not go down with many voters. Even Republic voters like there little goodies and handouts from the Government.

ruveyn


I doubt he would take away the food off people's tables. Sounds like a scare tactic.

What are you talking about, anyways? Ron Paul isn't in office yet.

House Votes to Cut Food Stamps to Avoid Defense Reduction

Quote:
The U.S. House voted to cut food stamps, federal workers’ benefits and other domestic programs to avoid scheduled reductions in defense spending.

The chamber today passed, 218-199, a plan to cut about $310 billion in spending to replace automatic defense-spending reductions that lawmakers in both parties agree shouldn’t be allowed to take effect in January.


No one can blame it on Paul!


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


Billybones
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: Jan 27, 2012
Posts: 140

15 May 2012, 1:04 pm

snapcap wrote:
How about limiting the dollar amount you can donate to a campaign? Then you won't have cronies coming in and taking power.


Great idea, but that was blasted out of the water by the Citizens United decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Besides, isn't it the "libertarian" credo that money equals speech, that any limitation on what a candidate can spend seeking office is an unconstitutional violation of his "free speech" rights?

This points to the ultimate problem with "libertarian" ideology - if carried to its logical conclusion, the end result is plutocracy, & the rule of money. Besides, on subject after subject, when we peel away the rhetoric, we find that most people who call themselves "libertarian" don't have very much regard for individual rights anyway.



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Apr 29, 2012
Posts: 792

15 May 2012, 2:15 pm

Billybones wrote:
snapcap wrote:
How about limiting the dollar amount you can donate to a campaign? Then you won't have cronies coming in and taking power.


Great idea, but that was blasted out of the water by the Citizens United decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Besides, isn't it the "libertarian" credo that money equals speech, that any limitation on what a candidate can spend seeking office is an unconstitutional violation of his "free speech" rights?

This points to the ultimate problem with "libertarian" ideology - if carried to its logical conclusion, the end result is plutocracy, & the rule of money. Besides, on subject after subject, when we peel away the rhetoric, we find that most people who call themselves "libertarian" don't have very much regard for individual rights anyway.


It's a private property rights issue. It's my money; ergo, I can spend it how I want.

If you really want to fix the country, abolish the government.



Billybones
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: Jan 27, 2012
Posts: 140

15 May 2012, 3:35 pm

CSBurks wrote:

It's a private property rights issue. It's my money; ergo, I can spend it how I want.

If you really want to fix the country, abolish the government.


According to this sort of reasoning, property rights are considered absolute & supersede all other rights or imperatives. It's a fallacy, & additionally it's inimical to a functioning democratic state.

The property right must reign supreme - even if it subverts democratic governance, even if it results in economic monopoly, even if it pollutes air & water & ruins the land, even if it results in discrimination. But none of these matter; none are considered to be within the legitimate scope of government to regulate - the free market must always reign supreme. The ideology must be applied always, without regard to the real-world implications.

It's such a callow, sophistic way of thinking. It's really sad that the hard right has managed to hijack the language of liberty & individual rights. Even sadder that so many people have bought into it. Because it's the left, not the right, that has traditionally fought for individual rights & dignity.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sep 21, 2008
Posts: 31579
Location: New Jersey

15 May 2012, 6:43 pm

Billybones wrote:
According to this sort of reasoning, property rights are considered absolute & supersede all other rights or imperatives. It's a fallacy, & additionally it's inimical to a functioning democratic state.



Democracy. A political order ruled by the mob and the demagogues.

It is just barely preferable to monarchy and oligarchy.

ruveyn



Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to: