Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ron Paul Effectively Ending Presidential Campaign

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the and-then-there-were-two dept.

Republicans 745

New submitter Dainsanefh sends this quote from the LA Times: "Ron Paul, Mitt Romney's lone remaining rival for the Republican presidential nomination, announced Monday that he would stop spending money on the party's 11 remaining primaries, in effect suspending his campaign. ... Apart from President Obama and Romney, Paul has raised more money than any other White House contender this year – more than $36 million. His calls for strict adherence to the Constitution and his no-nonsense manner have spawned a vocal and well organized group of followers, but not enough to give him a realistic shot at the presidency."

cancel ×

745 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so what? (2, Troll)

ronpaulisanidiot (2529418) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999495)

ron paul still has a dedicated nationwide cult of devoted followers. they will happily lay down their jobs, their money, and their lives to spread the gospel of ron paul. this changes nothing.

Re:so what? (2, Insightful)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999669)

He is the only candidate that talks truth, which of course makes him unelectable.

No one ever wants to vote for reality.

Re:so what? (3, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999781)

Randians and reality are utterly unacquainted with each other.

Re:so what? (5, Interesting)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999857)

I'm still planning on voting for him.
I think that the two party system we have is inherently broken. Do I think Paul would be the best president? not by a long shot. Do I think he would shake things up enough? hopefully.

Re:so what? (4, Interesting)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999945)

Do I think Paul would be the best president? not by a long shot. Do I think he would shake things up enough? hopefully.

... and that's why the House of Reps needs him exactly where he is. He does a great job putting what brakes he can on legislative excess before things get out of the committees he's on. People who want him to run for President don't often think of how well he does keep things shaken up. His positions fit his current position just right.

Re:so what? (1, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000013)

Except that he is currently retiring and not running for the House again this time around. So you won't have him anywhere.

Not that that's a bad thing. Someone up above said "he is the only candidate that talks truth"; this only applies where "truth" includes insane goldbuggery, hermitic levels of nativism and xenophobia, extreme isolationism, and a standard monologue that ought to begin with "ok, everyone put on your tinfoil hats now."

Ron Paul is to the Republicans what Lyndon LaRouche was to the Democrats - a weirdo who attached himself to their party for his own goals and who manages to get by on a cult-of-personality effect while never remotely breaking into the mainstream because when you get right down to it, his "fundamental principles" have been disproven by history time and again.

Re:so what? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999861)

Yeah, it has nothing to do with Paul's extremely unpopular opinions on most topics and crazy old man demeanor. People "just can't handle the truth".

Re:so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40000039)

Libertardianism in a nutshell. If there i one thing a libertardian can be relied on to do it is to blame the government for their own failures. Everything is coloured through this world view. Everything. I know because I am a recovering randroid.

Re:so what? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999889)

He is the only candidate that talks truth, which of course makes him unelectable.

i am not familiar with this strange new kind of "truth: you are referring to. ron paul's ideas would bring great opportunity for a very select and small number of people and oppression and misery for many, many, more. on top of that, much of it requires him to do things that are not within the power granted to the president.

No one ever wants to vote for reality.

no paullower would recognize reality if it bit them in the ass.

and yes, that was my comment. but because i have pissed off the slashdot paullowers i am not allowed to post more than twice a day under my own name on slashdot..

Re:so what? (5, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999907)

If you hate a machine and don't know what to do, throw a monkey wrench at it. At the very least, the grinding of gears will make for a change of pace.

VOTE RON PAUL!

Wrong (5, Informative)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999505)

He is no longer seeking primary votes, and is instead focusing 100% on taking delegate positions. This race is not over.

Re:Wrong (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999597)

It's over in that there is absolutely no chance of anyone other than Romney taking the nomination.

Re:Wrong (5, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999711)

Correct, but getting Ron Paul's follower's support is key #1 to the Republican strategy. If they don't get them, they'll lose to Obama. If they do get them, they'll win. Having a presence at the convention will just make that key even more important. The GOP is on a tight rope. What will they do?

Re:Wrong (3, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000029)

" If they don't get any of them, they'll lose to Obama. If they do get the amount of them that they are likely to get, they'll still lose to Obama. "

FTFY

Re:Wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999873)

I think Paul is hoping to get a VP nomination.

Re:Wrong (5, Interesting)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999975)

Know what I'd like to see?

Ron Paul as a Democrat's VP.

He'd never do it but that might be the most productive position for him.

Re:Wrong (2, Troll)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999633)

He is no longer seeking primary votes, and is instead focusing 100% on taking delegate positions. This race is not over.

FYI Romney has more delegates than the rest of them combined and with everyone else giving up their campaign there's no way he'll lose the majority he already has. Even if Ron got 100% of Santorum's and Gingrich's delegates behind him, which I find unlikely given how wildly different the candidates are it still wouldn't be close to enough. But reality never much seemed to bother Ron or his followers...

Re:Wrong (5, Informative)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999671)

Except that the delegates that you and the MSM count as being Romney's are 75% Paul people, and they are unbound by party rules.

Whoops.

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999827)

I hope he pushes this issue to overthrow Romney. It would be hilarious to see the public reaction when Ron Paul tries to circumvent public opinion of who should head the Republican party. That sounds like a great tactic to win the general election.

Re:Wrong (5, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999863)

Reagan did it. Not exactly the guy that Repubs love to hate.

Re:Wrong (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999961)

Yes, I'm sure that all those delegates that are technically not bound by their constituents' votes will suddenly discover their deep and unabiding love for Paul, and will vote for him during the Republican Convention.

Man, I really wonder what will happen to all you Paul-fans when Romney gets the overwhelming number of delegates during the Convention. I'm sure there'll be something along the lines of him winning a write-in campaign during the actual election, because, let's face it, all the REAL Ron Paul fans haven't really voted yet.

Re:Wrong (0, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999723)

False. According to this website Romney has about ~300 confirmed delegates (keyword: confirmed) versus Paul's ~100 confirmed. That's it. Any other numbers you see are GUESSES, because those states have not held their delegate-electing conventions yet. http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/ [thereal201...ecount.com]

For example, Romney won the popular vote but Paul won the majority of delegates in Massachusetts. Those persons belong to Paul not Romney. (Of course it's possible Paul has no plans to push the issue... and will just let Romney have his delegates. We'll have to wait and see.)

Re:Wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40000051)

Yes wait and see. Just like "Physics" tells us the sun will rise in the east tommorow. Maybe it will, maybe not. We'll just have to wait and see.

Re:Wrong (4, Interesting)

flitty (981864) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999647)

Exactly. In several states where delegates are non-committed, Paul has walked away with the majority of delegates, even if he lost the popular vote.

Re:Wrong (-1, Flamebait)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999895)

Paul sucked up a majority of delegates here in Nevada, I forget the exact numbers, but Romney may have the vote, but Paul has the delegates.. This should be VERRRRY interesting.. That is, assuming we actually *have* a November election.. A whistleblower from DHS recently reported that there is a plan afoot by the Obama regime to pull a "Reichstag Event", which would allow him to declare martial law, postponing (or cancelling) the election.. Funny that.. I've been expecting to hear reports of this ever since he took office... Believe it or don't.. Either way, America is swirling down the drain.. Not a whole heck of a lot we can do to prevent it...

Re:Wrong (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000023)

A whistleblower from DHS recently reported that there is a plan afoot by the Obama regime to pull a "Reichstag Event", which would allow him to declare martial law, postponing (or cancelling) the election..

Your DHS whistleblower is insane. As is a significant fringe of Republicans, who seem to think that cooperation and democratic principles don't matter anymore, because the wrong guy is sitting in the White House.

Re:Wrong (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999655)

He is no longer seeking primary votes, and is instead focusing 100% on taking delegate positions. This race is not over.

So what I take from this is, the only people with less knowledge than Ron Paul of the concept of reality as it relates to how American politics work (as well as how the American public works) are Ron Paul's supporters. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification!

Re:Wrong (-1, Flamebait)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999729)

I love people who claim that reality is what they say it is because they said it. That is why I watch Bill O'reily and masturbate to the thought of WMD's in $ENEMYOFTHEWEEK's hands.

Re:Wrong (5, Informative)

flitty (981864) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999825)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/with-romney-all-but-the-nominee-ron-paul-snags-delegate-majority-at-maines-gop-convention/2012/05/06/gIQAjJS05T_story.html [washingtonpost.com] There are several stories very similar to this, if you care to read them. I'm no Ron Paul supporter, but he is working the delegate strategy, not the Popular vote money strategy, which is very savvy.

Re:Wrong (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999747)

You really have no idea how much of a key it is to the upcoming election for the GOP to appease the Ron Paul vote in order to have a chance to win in the general election. Without his supporters, Romney is dead in the water.

Re:Wrong (0, Troll)

mykie242 (2449478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999659)

You think the LA Times would do that. Just write a misleading headline and lie in the mainstream media like that?

Re:Wrong (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999673)

Circumventing democracy at its best! I may not have agreed with Ron Paul before, but I used to at least respect the man for staying true to his principles.

Cheating the system to get elected... no respect for this man now. (Yes I know its not technically cheating the letter of the law, but it flies in the face of a proper democratic election.)

Re:Wrong (2, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999799)

So you would rather that he fall in line with a corrupt system that cheats him and his supporters at every opportunity? I've never seen so many people at any campaign event as I have seen at Paul's, despite a total media blackout.

But hey, if you like the way things are going in this country, keep doing what you have always done, and vote for only mainstream R and D candidates. If you happened to vote for the loser, at least you can say "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos".

This is the last chance for America. Obama and Romney are the Same, just like Obama and McCain and Bush were the same. A vote for them is a vote for the status quo, which is pulling a Thelma and Louise as we speak.

Re:Wrong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999997)

How has he been cheated exactly? Not given enough air time? They gave very little air time to the guy with a boot on his head, or the rent-is-to-high guy. The media should be proper journalists and take the time to interview candidate and help to filter out the wastes of time.

No I don't support Ron Paul based on his ideals. His own ads are convincing enough not to give him the time of day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZA7Uw60bnBc#t=50s

Oops, sorry I always confuse that with the real one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCZVmQ74OA

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999849)

Ron Paul is far from the first to go after the delegate strategy. In fact, others have won nominations because they were able to run away with delegates despite losing all over the primaries. Paul is smart enough to know that the rules of the game don't play by proper democratic election at this stage in the game, and he's just going about the game in the way that actually does matter. If you're gonna bitch about that, bitch about the rules of the game here, not that Ron Paul is actually taking an effective method towards attempting to win it (even if he doesn't, he's showing a good fight if you really start looking at the numbers at this point).

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40000047)

Gotta love the Ron-Fanboys. He could take a gun and shoot himself in the face, the comments would be the same, "it's not over yet, he still has a chance, if not this time, next time!!!"...

The end of one battle, not the war (4, Informative)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999515)

He's trying to put like minded people in as state GOP officers, and to amass delegates. And he'll keep doing that until all the primaries and caucuses are over this summer.

Re:The end of one battle, not the war (1)

I am a Derpetologist (2612289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999567)

I'm not completely familiar with US politics, but does this mean that he's going to continue running under a third-party ballot?

Re:The end of one battle, not the war (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999677)

I'm not completely familiar with US politics, but does this mean that he's going to continue running under a third-party ballot?

No. Nothing has really changed except not wasting money on campaign stops, which is very costly. He's still 100% in the race.
Many of his followers use the internet to their advantage - there's simply no point in reiterating the same points over and over when you can hop on Youtube or elsewhere and find plenty of information.
He's still on the Republican ticket, he's still pushing for the presidency, and most of all, he's getting precinct delegates to join the fight which has the GOP scared shitless. Win or lose the presidency, liberty-minded folks are taking over the Republican party conventions and will have a huge say not only in this election cycle, but the next on who becomes the nominee.
Ron Paul has refused to go into debt for his campaign, unlike his rivals. Unlike Romney who spends $40,000 per day of taxpayer dollars for secret service protection, he has refused it, even though he's legally entitled to it.

Re:The end of one battle, not the war (5, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999731)

I'm not completely familiar with US politics, but does this mean that he's going to continue running under a third-party ballot?

No. He never has and will not run as a "third-party" candidate. And the LA Times quote, of course, entirely mischaracterizes the announcement.

Note that the media has stubbornly refused to cover ANY of his campaign in the last few weeks. He has been gaining delegates and winning states (at least 8 so far), enough to be officially on the ballot for the ACTUAL selection of the Republican nominee (which the mainstream media does NOT get to decide, even if they think they do). But of course when Paul announces some pull-back or strategy shift in his campaign, they use it to declare once and for all "Romney is the winner!" - which they have been trying to do all along.

Ron Paul has decided not to spend any campaign resources in the remaining primary states. He will, however, continue to amass "delegates" for the Republican National Convention, where the nominee is officially declared. And we still hope to see a brokered convention, which will be a lot of fun, because the Republican establishment wants it to be a show, not a real contest.

Re:The end of one battle, not the war (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999989)

(1) He's not allowed, according to Ron. (2) He's retiring from congress. He told Judge Napolitano a year ago he's sick of politics. (3) Last time he did not run third party but instead founded the Campaign for Liberty. I suspect that is where he will put his focus.

Re:The end of one battle, not the war (0, Flamebait)

ronpaulisanidiot (2529418) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999593)

He's trying to put like minded people in as state GOP officers, and to amass delegates

and as we've seen, ron paul and his cult don't care about the will of the people in the process [slashdot.org] , as only they know what the people really want.

Re:The end of one battle, not the war (1, Troll)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999693)

I'm sure you mean the will of Diebold.

As Stalin pointed out, it isn't the votes that matter, it is who counts the votes that matters.

Re:The end of one battle, not the war (4, Informative)

ep32g79 (538056) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999739)

Kinda like what happened in Oklahoma [youtube.com] , where the RNC tried to railroad the convention by refusing to follow Robers Rules of Order and Romney supporters physically assaulting [youtube.com] Ron Paul supporters?

Re:The end of one battle, not the war (-1)

Rasperin (1034758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999881)

Stop posting worthless links to your (worthless) slashdot journal troll.

misrepresentative (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999545)

He is not actively campaigning in the primaries because he is focused on the delegate process. He has a plurality of delegates in more than 5 states, so he will be on the ballot at the convention. If he stops Romney from getting the majority, then 2nd round of delegates can all vote for whoever they want to.

Re:misrepresentative (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999645)

Yea, but facts won't stop the media, morons, and plain-ol' haters from trying to pretend he's not in this race to win it, or that he's somehow worse than the bought-and-paid-for corporate spokesmonkeys he's running against.

Re:misrepresentative (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999987)

Yea, but facts won't stop the media, morons, and plain-ol' haters from trying to pretend he's not in this race to win it, or that he's somehow worse than the bought-and-paid-for corporate spokesmonkeys he's running against.

Sure, and May 29, when Romney wins enough delegates to avoid a brokered convention, Ron Paul loonies will still be saying he's in the race to win. I realize people have an almost religious love of the man, but he's got no traction beyond that core group and will never do better than his poor showing this year. Don't blame everyone else for his problems. The problem is him.

Re:misrepresentative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999917)

And when was the convention ballot wasn't purely theater? 1972?

Give it up, the party will fix the rules so Paul gets a 10AM speech and that will be it.

Nice twisting. (5, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999565)

He stopped spending money on ads, and is diverting the money to the state conventions (where he's winning). It seems a logical stance to take if his goal is to win the delegate vote.

Re:Nice twisting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999649)

It's logical, but it's still not going to happen. I don't think he ever thought he had a chance to win, but he runs to get his issues out in front.

Re:Nice twisting. (4, Funny)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999697)


Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead.
Press: Here's one.
Dead Collector: That'll be ninepence.
Ron Paul Campaign That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
Dead Collector: What?
Press: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
Ron Paul Campaign That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Press: Yes he is.
Ron Paul Campaign That Claims It Isn't: I'm not.
Dead Collector: He isn't.
Press: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
Ron Paul Campaign That Claims It Isn't: I'm getting better.
Press: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.

Re:Nice twisting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999935)

I am missing something here - sorry to spoil the joke by asking for an explanation. Why do you write "Ron Paul Campaign That Claims It Isn't", rather than just "Ron Paul Campaign"?

Re:Nice twisting. (4, Informative)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999985)

I copied the text from wikiquote. In true Monty Python style, the actual name of the character is 'The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't.' I won't lie, I learned something, too. :)

Needs his organizers to stay on message. (5, Interesting)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999583)

Saw him give a speech in Idaho, it was a fantastic experience. Just thought it was odd the local organizers that got on the mic to introduce him first gave a speech espousing the ideals of the christian nation and a strong military budget. While when Paul actually got on stage he said exactly the opposite. Limited foreign involvement, liberty as an ideal for the inclusion of all beliefs, etc., etc. Maybe he would of had a better shot if he wasn't surrounded by people spouting the same old tired right wing talking points.

Re:Needs his organizers to stay on message. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999777)

As a small-l libertarian, I may agree with Paul on an number of issues. I will never vote for him, however, as he does not believe in the separation of church and state.

Re:Needs his organizers to stay on message. (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999869)

You misunderstood the purpose of the speech. It was intended to co-opt your support for Ron Paul. They didn't count on you actually paying attention.

"calls for strict adherence to the constitution" (0, Troll)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999601)

NO, he doesn't. He says, anything I Ron Paul agree with is constitutional, and anything I don't is not... I feel really sad that people are taken in by this guy eg, if Texas wants to enact a law saying gays and blacks have to sit at the back of the bus, thats OK with R Paul (although, come to think of it, that is Obama's posistion to; I wonder how many liberals praising Obama for being for gay marriage by state would praise obama if he saidn miscegenation laws should be left up to the states.)

Re:"calls for strict adherence to the constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999705)

You're completely brainwashed and you don't even know it.

Look at the guy's voting history. That says it all. Stop hating just because you fear REAL change.

Re:"calls for strict adherence to the constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999721)

Good post. I'd say he's the best of three evils. I didn't think so before but I do now.

Re:"calls for strict adherence to the constitution (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999745)

He says, anything I Ron Paul agree with is constitutional, and anything I don't is not... I feel really sad that people are taken in by this guy eg, if Texas wants to enact a law saying gays and blacks have to sit at the back of the bus, thats OK with R Paul

What he is saying is that it's not okay with him as a person, but that he would not be able to support it in good conscience as a president, if elected.

Re:"calls for strict adherence to the constitution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999821)

At least he tries to stick to his interpretation of it rather than just doing whatever the fuck he wants. I'm pretty sure if you had a good enough argument about why his views on the constitutionality of a matter were incorrect, he would at least consider it. The Constitution isn't perfect, which is why there's still a lot of debate on some ambiguous matters, but there are plenty of politicians who blatantly ignore it. I'd rather have someone who is at least interested in following the Constitution, even if I disagree with his or her interpretations of it. It's better than someone who has no respect for it and will do whatever they please with utter disregard for the Constitutional legality of it.

Re:"calls for strict adherence to the constitution (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999971)

Actually, I don't think he would consider it, or more importantly, wouldn't consider the real fix. Constitutional revision to improve our system of government's foundational principles would enable a lot of impediments to be fiedx, or at least foster some discussion on how we really want to run things.

Instead, we have people like Ron Paul who puffs out his tune, and closes of his ears.

He doesn't want discussion. He's not open to it. He puts up a flat wall of rhetoric that offers no opening.

Maybe to you he sounds principle, to me he seems dogmatic.

Re:"calls for strict adherence to the constitution (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999841)

>>> if Texas wants to enact a law saying gays and blacks have to sit at the back of the bus, thats OK with R Paul

Um no. The Supreme Court already ruled that segregation is a violation of the equality amendment. (14? 16? I forget). As for Obama's position: Marriage licenses are not granted by the Congress. They are granted by the People and their Legislatures. The U.S. has no authority to overrule what local people desire, anymore than the E.U. has the authority to force the Greeks or Poles or Spaniards to issue gay marriage licenses.

Re:"calls for strict adherence to the constitution (4, Insightful)

Rasperin (1034758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000003)

He states that the government doesn't have the right to tell people how to think. If someone is racist and murders a black person for being black he's not going to say that man should get away with it. The man should be condemned for murder still. Why would anyone think the government knows best for how I think. BTW I'm Native American (something that makes me laugh about the illegal immigrants woe's) and my people were raped, murdered, then condemned to true ghetto's. It's wrong to discriminate, but it's far more wrong for the government to tell me how I think is wrong. As long as I don't impede on others rights I should be able to consume what I like, say what I like, do what I like.

Always remember you supposedly have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those who forget that don't belong here, and that goes for most of our current politicians. Note, I also mostly vote typically democratic, as I believe "Obamacare" falls under the right to life, and both parties disagree with my right to liberty. One win is better than none.

TL;DR Summary: Ron Paul believes in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the government doesn't have the right to tell a man how to think.

According to the Paulbots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999609)

Ron Paul already has 1000% of the delegates, so what's the point?

He is a very spendthrift man, let the Democrats run Fake Republicans to force primaries if they want.

They can pay for them.

Wait, wait you mean that's what Republicans do? Oh dear, guess they'll need some sponsors. Poor Democrats.

Look at the bright side, Ron... (1)

Shoten (260439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999613)

Government just got a tiny bit smaller!

So... No $ = No Campaign? (5, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999619)

Anyone else see that as a scathing social commentary regarding American political priorities?


Doesn't matter, voting for him anyway.

Hey, it could be worse: I could be planning to vote for one of the candidates owned by Goldman Sach's. [opensecrets.org]

Re:So... No $ = No Campaign? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999685)

You mean...Mitt Romney?

Because they gave him 5x as much as any other candidate. So I have to assume he's the only one they could possibly "own."

Celine's Third Law (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999767)

You must not be familiar with Celine's Third Law: "An honest politician is a national calamity."

Sounds crazy until you start thinking of politicians who weren't sellouts, then it suddenly makes a lot of sense.

Re:Celine's Third Law (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999955)

I can't come up with any. Eugene Debs?

Anyway, I reject the premise on which the third law is founded. An honest politican can bring about change through political means by repealing laws just as well as by passing laws. Or he can improve their quality, without affecting the quantity.

Re:So... No $ = No Campaign? (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000041)

And this is why Ron Paul says we need public campaign funding. Oh, wait...

You're seriously bemoaning the influence of money in the GOP primary, and with respect to the Paul candidacy at that?

If you don't firmly believe that money should not only be an influence in politics but the only influence, you're in the wrong damned place.

Good Guy Ron Paul (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999621)

>Runs out of money
>Stops spending money

The dream ends, not with a bang, but a whimper... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999623)

And, thusly, the hopes and the dreams of half of Slashdot's libertarian kook fringe, have been dashed...

Come on, all together now:

AAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!

You forgot to add... (0, Troll)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999735)

And nothing of value was lost.

SLASHDOT: Citation please. (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999629)

I'd like a citation from the articles where Paul or his manager say We are "ending" the campaign. Please.
IF you're going to act like FAUX News with distortions
THEN I'd like you to back up that distortion with direct-linked quotes
ELSE retract. Thank you.

Re:SLASHDOT: Citation please. (2)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999837)

How's this from Politico [politico.com] :

Ron Paul announced Monday that he would no longer campaign in states that have yet to hold their presidential primaries, effectively putting an end to the last remaining primary challenge to Mitt Romney. “Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Paul said in a statement released by the campaign Monday afternoon. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”

Re:SLASHDOT: Citation please. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000053)

Then I'll just repeat the same request: DEAR POLITICO: Please give us a citation where Ron Paul or his manager said --- We are "ending" our campaign. --- I'm sure if you asked them directly (and someone like CNN probably will), they would both laugh at the idea as ridiculous. Slashdot/Politico are just exerting their OPINIONS and expecting us to buy the rhetoric like brainwashed sheeple.

Ron Who ? (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999637)

What vested interest decided to totally ignore Ron Pauls campaign. "Paul came in third in the Iowa Republican Caucus held on January 3, 2012 [wikipedia.org] ", despite a total media blackout. Faux News even had to dub-in some boos when he won some vote. I guess the main problem with Paul is he hasn't been bought-and-paid-for unlike the rest of the candidates.

He's running for office in the wrong country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999643)

Dr. Paul's ideas would be fine for certain countries of Europe, like maybe Norway, Sweden, Finland, or Switzerland.

Not for the US. The US economy depends on continuous access to trade partners around the world, especially for fossil fuels, and that requires massive military resources and commitment on a global scale. You can't get that with the kind of isolationism that Dr. Paul advocates. In fact, the US is one of the few countries for which his foreign policy ideas make no sense (Israel, China, and Russia would be among the others).

Re:He's running for office in the wrong country (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999845)

What, so the only way for us to get oil is to invade oil rich countries?

Are you suffering from some form of organic brain dementia, by any chance?

Ok..on to Rand Paul for 2016! (1, Insightful)

demonic-halo (652519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999653)

I think most centralist will side with Paul on many issues. Who wants the leader of the free world to look like a Treasure troll who's losing his hair right? But since the invention of TV, the prettier candidate has always won since JFK. Gore vs. Bush was probably the only exception. But who knows what really happened with Florida right?

I think Rand Paul will be a serious contender for the GOP ticket in 2016. He'll have many of the views that make Ron popular, but better looking and be serious considered for the ticket.

Politricks (-1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999665)

What tha fuck does this have to do with a slash and a dot? or a pound and bang for that matter? WTF?? How the fuck is this news for nerds? What the fuck is happening to Slashdot lately? Useless unrelated political crap and Google bashing is about all you find these days.

Re:Politricks (0)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000049)

What tha fuck does this have to do with a slash and a dot? or a pound and bang for that matter? WTF?? How the fuck is this news for nerds? What the fuck is happening to Slashdot lately? Useless unrelated political crap and Google bashing is about all you find these days.

Lately? You must be new here.

bump on the 'how the fuck is this news for nerds'

I know how brainy people can have a wide range of interests,
but that's not what this site is for. It's for a narrow/deep range
of interests that geeks as a whole, respond to. Politics, is
not one of those subjects. Electronic Voting is. Zimmerman
is not. Electronic gun countermeasures are.

Any tonic diluted enough will eventually just be water.

News for nerds, stuff that matters... oh woe the comma.

-AI

Same sh*t, different medium... (4, Interesting)

M4n (1472737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999679)

I'm from the UK and so have no vested interest but I am a bit of a Ron Paul fan and this article smacks of the same shit that saw him completely ignored in almost every single MSM news piece and article on the GOP nomination race.

Well there's your problem... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999687)

You see, you have a government and that's the problem. With me, RP, you get rid of that pesky government and if you don't have a government then how can you have a problem?!

That's okay, a write-in anyway (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999727)

That's okay, if he's not on the ballot come November I'll write in his name anyway.

I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of stances, including most of his core ones. However, of all the politicians I've followed for any kind of time (which is only a few dozen), he has been the most steadfast in his ideals (i.e. he doesn't change with the direction of the wind) and he'll tell it like it is. I also completely agree with his States' Rights stance. While I think he would make a terrible President, I think he makes a great candidate since his participation usually calls out the other guys on something or other, and he at least questions the status quo. I will write him in because I want to encourage him to continue running for President (but never win.)

Also because the other choices don't interest me in the least.

Re:That's okay, a write-in anyway (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999913)

I also completely agree with his States' Rights stance.

Is this strictly regarding issues of economics and commerce, or do you think human rights issues are best left to individual states to decide as well? Because, uh, that's kind of crazy.

Re:That's okay, a write-in anyway (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000011)

That's okay, if he's not on the ballot come November I'll write in his name anyway.

In most (perhaps all) states, write-in votes in general for candidates who haven't filed papers as a "write-in candidate" are exactly equivalent to non-votes and are not counted. This is particularly true in the case of Presidential general elections, where you aren't actually voting for the candidate whose name is printed on the ballot (or written in) but for a slate of state-level Presidential Electors pledged to vote for the candidate.

So, even as a protest, this is particularly pointless.

there you have it folks (4, Funny)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999741)

you have a choice between a democrat devil or a republican devil who thinks he has superman underwear

Re:there you have it folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999831)

I actually have superman underwear.

Wrong (5, Informative)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999759)

The Paul campaign is redirecting their attention to the delegate strategy---which is turning out to be very successful. This is being discussed [dailypaul.com] at The Daily Paul. They predicted that the media would intentionally misrepresent this as Ron Paul ending his campaign, and they were right.

Talk about the constution.. (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999773)

Amusing that so many people claim the Constitution as their banner and claim it represents their precise political views, when it predates basically all modern political discourse and their own views are so reprehensible. Amusing that the Libertarians might claim to be the same party as the Democratic-Republican Party, or the Federalist Party, and claim all sides of the First Party System as themselves.

Everyone loves RP... he has a platform for all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999783)

The problem with RP's thinking is that we already did exactly as he spouts. The result were robber barons, Standard Oil, most US citizens living in squalor except for a few like Carnegie and Frick, health insurance being your rosary, food quality being as good as the sausage from "The Jungle", and zero economic growth until things got so bad in the early 1930s that the nation nearly had a revolution, as starving people don't give a care about much else.

The politicians have drilled it into our heads that the people born during the 1950s were the only Americans in history who had honor a work ethic, and gave a squatting shit about the country, but do we have to run the country into the ground ever deeper with each passing election year? It wasn't that long ago where you could go to college with any major, get a decent job, and have a family. Now, there are very few majors that are marketable at all, so a college grad either joints the military as a PVC, or they join O* and enjoy the hospitality of the private prison system.

RP thinking will mean that nations that have zero scruples will be the ones dictating the rules and owning the resources. Think oil is bad now? Pull all the US troops out, and it will be just a happy dream once the PLA gets its garrisons around the world. RP has zero clue about the importance of international politics... but he plays to the dumbest of the dumb, which seem to be an ever-increasing voting bloc these days.

Dr. Paul understands strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999787)

Dr. Paul has enough primary votes that he officially qualifies for the Republican convention stage. He's now saving resources. Dr. Paul applies the same strategy to government. We should spend what we need to get the effects we desire but no more.

Romney by contrast is wasteful and arrogant attempting to buy victory without any strategy besides big spending. Romney acts just like Bush Jr.

Good Riddance ( Score: +5, PatRIOTic ) (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999809)

Ron Paul is a lunatic. The 20% of his potentially useful commentary is ruined by the 80 % of his lunatic rants such as :

1 The gold in the U.S. Treasury is not 99 percent fine but only 96 percent.
2. Eliminate the Department of Education ( Thanks for contributing to U.S. illiteracy and innumeracy )
3. The U.S. should return to the Gold standard ( You forgot something, the WORLD dropped the gold standard ).

Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout, C.I.O.

P.S.: Ron Paul's agenda is further the political career of his nutjob son, Rand Paul. I'll this wacko for a later essay.

uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999941)

why the fuck is this on slashdot?

Lesser Evil (2)

Lando (9348) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999951)

I've pretty much decided to vote for the lesser evil this year. Pretty sad to think that Cthulhu is the lesser evil when compared to Mickey Mouse.

Campaign Not Over (1)

AdamStarks (2634757) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999959)

He's just focusing on the state conventions instead of the popular votes, which is a completely healthy and viable strategy.

For instance, he lost the Nevada Primary: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/04/nevada-caucus-results-2012_n_1254069.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Only to win almost all the actual delegates later on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-wins-majority-of-nevada-delegates/2012/05/06/gIQA1An15T_blog.html [washingtonpost.com]

This is not a campaign in decline, just one that's only spending money where it counts, instead of wasting it on beauty contests.

Huh. (0, Flamebait)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999977)

I thought his "popularity" was due to his anti-war, pro-drug, and pro-racism stances. Although generally not all 3 in the same Paulite.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>