Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristopherV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_Olszewski said:
This is true of any candidate. McCain/Palin didn’t convince 51% of us so did he and she not waste our time and show that they were not viable?
Click to expand...
They convinced more than 9%

Point is Paul simply isn’t going to be the Republican candidate. It doesn’t matter how persistant his backers are. He is a fringe candidate and that isn’t going to change any time before 2012.
 
gilliam said:
They convinced more than 9%

Point is Paul simply isn’t going to be the Republican candidate. It doesn’t matter how persistant his backers are. He is a fringe candidate and that isn’t going to change any time before 2012.
Click to expand...
I’ll presume then that all the GOP candidates, other than those that get the nomination, are fringe. Not that it matters. If Paul gets it, good for him, if someone else, then bully as well.

What I don’t understand is the hostility towards Paul’s candidacy by the GOP followers on the Forum. As though he has his nerve to run. No one talks about the other candidates that way, even about Cain, who hasn’t a prayer of being nominated. :confused:
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I’ll presume then that all the GOP candidates, other than those that get the nomination, are fringe. Not that it matters. If Paul gets it, good for him, if someone else, then bully as well.

What I don’t understand is the hostility towards Paul’s candidacy by the GOP followers on the Forum. As though he has his nerve to run. No one talks about the other candidates that way, even about Cain, who hasn’t a prayer of being nominated. :confused:
Click to expand...
I don’t have hostility, but I don’t pretend he is going to win the nomination which will never happen. So why pretend it will?

Your right Cain has no chance either and neither does Santorum or Newt (who I think is in Hawaii today :rolleyes:)
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
He is the only GOP candidate with cross-over appeal to pro-life Democrats …
Click to expand...
All five of them?

(Okay, I’ll admit that’s hyperbolic. There are, indeed, some prolife VOTERS, (not officeholders on the national scale) who inexplicably vote for abortionists.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
What I don’t understand is the hostility towards Paul’s candidacy by the GOP followers on the Forum. As though he has his nerve to run.
Click to expand...
I’ve been puzzled too …they do protest too much and it’s just not on CAF! Sometimes that’s indicative of a real threat. I think it might be his demeanor which, I must admit, is neither charismatic nor particularily alluring.
 
gilliam said:
I don’t have hostility, but I don’t pretend he is going to win the nomination which will never happen. So why pretend it will?
)
Click to expand...
It is not pretense to admit that we are bound by time and have no divine foreknowledge of the future. I may be wrong, but I do not see anyone saying he will definitely win. However, I have seen Catholics here who say he will definitely not. So I ask you, is this a matter of confusing the difference between fact and opinion or an attempt to engage in fortune-telling?
 
Tigg said:
I’ve been puzzled too …they do protest too much and it’s just not on CAF! Sometimes that’s indicative of a real threat. I think it might be his demeanor which, I must admit, is neither charismatic nor particularily alluring.
Click to expand...
There are two groups that are rabid in their support of voting for Ron Paul regardless of whether he gets the nomination or not. Ron Paul supporters and Obama supporters.
 
I am also puzzeled by the way Dr. Paul’s adherents react to his lack of support. It seems that those that refuse to support his candidacy, according to his adherents, are simply lacking in sufficient intelligence to grasp his supposed genius; are morally bankrupt; complicit in some conspiricy to elect a “pro-abortion” candidate; complicit or a dupe of a conspiricy by the media or some mesmerizing establishment to prevent his candicacy from moving forward. Could it be that voters have weighed and measured both he and his policies and found them lacking? I mean he’s been around a long time. He has consistently and persistently pushed forward his various positions and theories social, economic, and foreign policy wise throughout. He has and continues to pursuade a small, devoted, and, indeed, enthusiastic following. They are to be commended. However, it seems obvious that his ideas are simply not appealing to a wide enough sector of the electorate to be what could in any way be described as competitive. It’s just an observable fact. Why can’t his adherents just accept that he is not ever going to be an acceptable candidate for a wide enough audience to make him electable for President? Wear it as a badge of honor. Be glad, that at least in your own estimation, you are right and we’re all wrong. This is the lot of the loyal opposition. It has a proud tradition in American politics. Perhaps one day he will be vindicated though I doubt it.
 
pnewton said:
It is not pretense to admit that we are bound by time and have no divine foreknowledge of the future. I may be wrong, but I do not see anyone saying he will definitely win. However, I have seen Catholics here who say he will definitely not. So I ask you, is this a matter of confusing the difference between fact and opinion or an attempt to engage in fortune-telling?
Click to expand...
No, it is a fact. He will not be the Republican nominee. You can bet your house on it. No one, absolutely no reliable source says he has the remotest of chances to be the nominee. Even Paul knows he won’t be. If you are holding out hope that we wake up tomorrow and the majority of Republicans all of a sudden change their fundamental beliefs in foreign policy, economics, legalizing drugs and conspiracy theories, you are going to be disappointed. Things like that don’t happen in the real world.
 
gilliam said:
No, it is a fact. He will not be the Republican nominee. You can bet your house on it. No one, absolutely no reliable source says he has the remotest of chances to be the nominee. Even Paul knows he won’t be. If you are holding out hope that we wake up tomorrow and the majority of Republicans all of a sudden change their fundamental beliefs in foreign policy, economics, legalizing drugs and conspiracy theories, you are going to be disappointed. Things like that don’t happen in the real world.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Gilliam, indeed.
 
gilliam said:
No, it is a fact. He will not be the Republican nominee. You can bet your house on it. No one, absolutely no reliable source says he has the remotest of chances to be the nominee. Even Paul knows he won’t be. If you are holding out hope that we wake up tomorrow and the majority of Republicans all of a sudden change their fundamental beliefs in foreign policy, economics, legalizing drugs and conspiracy theories, you are going to be disappointed. Things like that don’t happen in the real world.
Click to expand...
If we were united in prayer, and it was the will of the Father, I’m sure he could be elected…in the real world. 😉
 
I like the new ad.

I like the movie trailer theme of his two official campaign ads.
 
gilliam said:
No, it is a fact. He will not be the Republican nominee.
Click to expand...
Thank you for such a great demonstration of the misuse of the word “fact”. I could not have demonstrated the fallacy better. No, it is not hope I hold out. Rather, I understand history and how many times people who have said things like you are saying have been proven wrong.

“DEWEY WINS!”

“That’s why the play the game.”

“It ain’t over 'til its over.”

Come on folks. If we were to think like this, there is no reason to even fight to end abortion. The idea of rescinding Roe v. Wade has also been called impossible. Sometimes you just have to ignore the mainstream media, or those that imitate their rhetoric and vote your conscience.
 
Big_Ro said:
rollcall.com/news/perrys_no_tea_party_darling_in_texas-208210-1.html

“HOUSTON — Texas Gov. Rick Perry might seem like the ideal tea party presidential candidate, but he hasn’t been winning over activists at home — and it’s not just because he’s competing with Rep. Ron Paul, a fellow Texas Republican, for their affection.”

A little grist for the mill.
Click to expand...
As a fellow Texan, we know him. He has been a windsock politician and I for one have listened to him lie for the last time. I have found him to be the epitome of a modern politician. I swore time before last that I would never vote for the man again. My distaste for Perry has nothing to do with my liking Ron Paul, other than the fact that Ron Paul is honest even when it is unpopular.
 
Big_Ro said:
I am also puzzeled by the way Dr. Paul’s adherents react to his lack of support. It seems that those that refuse to support his candidacy, according to his adherents, are simply lacking in sufficient intelligence to grasp his supposed genius; are morally bankrupt; complicit in some conspiricy to elect a “pro-abortion” candidate; complicit or a dupe of a conspiricy by the media or some mesmerizing establishment to prevent his candicacy from moving forward. Could it be that voters have weighed and measured both he and his policies and found them lacking? I mean he’s been around a long time. He has consistently and persistently pushed forward his various positions and theories social, economic, and foreign policy wise throughout. He has and continues to pursuade a small, devoted, and, indeed, enthusiastic following. They are to be commended. However, it seems obvious that his ideas are simply not appealing to a wide enough sector of the electorate to be what could in any way be described as competitive. It’s just an observable fact. Why can’t his adherents just accept that he is not ever going to be an acceptable candidate for a wide enough audience to make him electable for President? Wear it as a badge of honor. Be glad, that at least in your own estimation, you are right and we’re all wrong. This is the lot of the loyal opposition. It has a proud tradition in American politics. Perhaps one day he will be vindicated though I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Are all those reasons proportionate among all the nominees? :rolleyes:

The same as those that don’t believe he can be elected, it’s the same as bringing another cut from the same cloth as all the other nominees that might not garner the support necessary to make a change in the white house. But no one here can see the future, so we’ll just have to wait and see.
 
pnewton said:
Thank you for such a great demonstration of the misuse of the word “fact”. I could not have demonstrated the fallacy better. No, it is not hope I hold out. Rather, I understand history and how many times people who have said things like you are saying have been proven wrong.

“DEWEY WINS!”

“That’s why the play the game.”

“It ain’t over 'til its over.”

Come on folks. If we were to think like this, there is no reason to even fight to end abortion. The idea of rescinding Roe v. Wade has also been called impossible. Sometimes you just have to ignore the mainstream media, or those that imitate their rhetoric and vote your conscience.
Click to expand...
If we all believed that none running were truly electable, especially this early in the game, what’s the point of even voting? 😉
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Are all those reasons proportionate among all the nominees? :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I was thinking. If an Obama supporter were on here defending his support based on these reasons, he would be raked over the coals by the same people that are using this to attack Dr. Paul. Consistency folks, or at least give a passing nod to the Golden Rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top