Ron Paul Needs To Drop Out

[uptownlivin90]

With his pitiful 4th place showing (barely ahead of Herman Cain) and weak perfomances Ron Paul has proven he has "no viable way forward" in this campaign.
He needs to drop out, endorse someone else, and go back to doing what he knows best:running his mouth for his half-crazy supporters.

Shut up.

You weren't peddling this crap when Rick Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and Newt all lost races and could only gather single digits in the last two states.

All this "drop out" crap is an elitist attack on democracy, we've had three races, and we'll never have a decent presidential candidate until every state has it's own voice heard and has a chance to make a decision on a wide variety of candidates.

I wasnt peddling this crap because we hadn't had any primaries yet. Now that we've had two real primaries we can see which way it is going. And it isn't going Paul's way. If he can't show decently in a very conservative state with a large military population like SC then he isn't going to do well period. Weren't his claques here touting that Paul's major source of contributions were the military?

Santorum had 17%. Arguably he should drop out as well if Paul should...

you chose to single out Paul because you don't like his politics or his supporters and you have this ridiculous need to alienate people who have different views then you and an urge to suppress a key demographic in the republican party. Sure, you can disagree with his foreign policy, I happen to agree with him on MOST foreign policy issues, I lean towards Santorum on social issues, but your obsession with Ron Paul is making you look stupid.

You're a dishonest anti-Paul nutjob. You contribute nothing to the conversation besides "Paul is crazy and so is his supporters". How was your candidate doing in the polls compared to Paul even before he dropped out? How'd he do in Iowa and New Hampshire?

You're a freaking joke, dude.

 

[Oddball]

Whatever.

You chumps are worse than the democrats....At least a few of them can own up to the fact that they're a bunch of socialists.

Yeahyeahyeah, go tell it to Sweeney.

I'm telling it to you, comrade.

 

[Jroc]

Paul has never been in this so-called "race" because he could win. He always knew he could not win.

He's lookin' to make a place for his pathetic teabagger son to move in to.

That probably won't happen though because most people see through the act, see if for what it is - that the crumb doesn't fall far from the fruitcake.

What people see is that Ron Paul, for his nuttiness, means well.

Rand Paul means anything but "well".

Really? Check your facts idiot

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul will trade the weighty topics of national debt and health insurance, which he talked about Thursday with the Lexington Rotary Club, for surgical garb Sunday morning.
Paul, a licensed ophthalmologist in Bowling Green, will perform six free cataract eye surgeries as a volunteer for the non-profit organization Surgery on Sunday at the Lexington Surgery Center on Harrodsburg Road.
Senate rules prohibit Paul from receiving pay for performing surgeries, so he keeps his practice sharp by performing them for free.
Paul joked before a crowd of several hundred at Fasig-Tipton that his volunteer work for Surgery on Sunday "is kind of a selfish thing on my part.
"While I won't get paid, I want to have a backup in case I lose my day job,"

Founded in 2005 by Dr. Andrew Moore of Lexington, Surgery on Sunday, Inc., provides outpatient surgical services for people who cannot afford insurance and are not eligible for federal or state programs

Rand Paul trading political rhetoric for surgical garb Sunday in Lexington | Politics and Government | Kentucky.com

 

[uptownlivin90]

Nobody wants too talk about the fact that our party's front-runners are a Massachusetts liberal and a Washington-insider who does commercials with Pelosi in his spare time promoting the globalist climategate agenda.

You just want to call Ron Paul wacky. I call the guy saying he's going to repeal a health care program he helped create wacky... I'm just freaking saying.

 

[The Rabbi]

Shut up.

You weren't peddling this crap when Rick Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and Newt all lost races and could only gather single digits in the last two states.

All this "drop out" crap is an elitist attack on democracy, we've had three races, and we'll never have a decent presidential candidate until every state has it's own voice heard and has a chance to make a decision on a wide variety of candidates.

I wasnt peddling this crap because we hadn't had any primaries yet. Now that we've had two real primaries we can see which way it is going. And it isn't going Paul's way. If he can't show decently in a very conservative state with a large military population like SC then he isn't going to do well period. Weren't his claques here touting that Paul's major source of contributions were the military?

Santorum had 17%. Arguably he should drop out as well if Paul should...

you chose to single out Paul because you don't like his politics or his supporters and you have this ridiculous need to alienate people who have different views then you and an urge to suppress a key demographic in the republican party. Sure, you can disagree with his foreign policy, I happen to agree with him on MOST foreign policy issues, I lean towards Santorum on social issues, but your obsession with Ron Paul is making you look stupid.

You're a dishonest anti-Paul nutjob. You contribute nothing to the conversation besides "Paul is crazy and so is his supporters". How was your candidate doing in the polls compared to Paul even before he dropped out? How'd he do in Iowa and New Hampshire?

You're a freaking joke, dude.

Santorum probably will. No regret on my part. No one thought he had a chance anyway.
It is worth it to watch the Paulites explode as their candidate continues to reprise his performance in every presidential race he's ever run. He proves that narco-libertarianism is largely popular only on the internet among the 20-30 year olds.

 

[dblack]

Paul has never been in this so-called "race" because he could win. He always knew he could not win.

He's lookin' to make a place for his pathetic teabagger son to move in to.

That probably won't happen though because most people see through the act, see if for what it is - that the crumb doesn't fall far from the fruitcake.

What people see is that Ron Paul, for his nuttiness, means well.

Rand Paul means anything but "well".

I seriously doubt the theory that RP is lobbying for his son. He's doing the same thing he's always done: speaking up for liberty. He's trying to steer the Republican party away from the neo-cons and the fundamentalists and toward libertarian values. Lots of us are damned glad he's making the case.

Though, personally, I think it's doomed to fail. Republicans don't give a flying fuck about freedom.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobody wants too talk about the fact that our party's front-runners are a Massachusetts liberal and a Washington-insider who does commercials with Pelosi in his spare time promoting the globalist climategate agenda.

You just want to call Ron Paul wacky. I call the guy saying he's going to repeal a health care program he helped create wacky... I'm just freaking saying.

Actually the Obama campaign will love to talk about that. Anyone who opposes Obama will look at the good points of both candidates and see a Republican who has actual business experience as well as a successful record in a heavily blue state, and a former Speaker who was able to work with the opposition and still get a balanced budget. Newt is a survivor. He wasn't my choice, and he isn't my favorite. But either one of them will be worlds better than Obama.
The conservatives had better start figuring out why they have not been able to field a viable candidate in two election cycles.

 

[dblack]

It is funny to watch the Paul-bots' tiny heads explode as they realize: The uprising has been canceled.

Hmm... I wonder who'll have the last laugh if Paul takes his support elsewhere? I'm going to enjoy watching Republicans embarrass themselves this election.

 

[The Rabbi]

Paul has never been in this so-called "race" because he could win. He always knew he could not win.

He's lookin' to make a place for his pathetic teabagger son to move in to.

That probably won't happen though because most people see through the act, see if for what it is - that the crumb doesn't fall far from the fruitcake.

What people see is that Ron Paul, for his nuttiness, means well.

Rand Paul means anything but "well".

I seriously doubt the theory that RP is lobbying for his son. He's doing the same thing he's always done: speaking of for liberty. He's trying to steer the Republican party away from the neo-cons and the fundamentalists and toward libertarian values. Lots of us are damned glad he's making the case.

Though, personally, I think it's doomed to fail. Republicans don't give a flying fuck about freedom.

No. Republicans don't give a flying fuck about Ron Paul. Which is fine, because Ron Paul doesn't give a flying fuck about the GOP.

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't think Paul is going to quit, he isn't going to be the nominee but he can have some say in the GOP platform. Not sure how much support and money Santorum has left, he'll try to hang around to see if Gingrich says something stupid. Somebody's gotta be the anti-Romney, it ain't gonna be Paul.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is funny to watch the Paul-bots' tiny heads explode as they realize: The uprising has been canceled.

Hmm... I wonder who'll have the last laugh if Paul takes his support elsewhere? I'm going to enjoy watching Republicans embarrass themselves this election.

Spoken like a true member of the Democratic Underground. Four more years, honkey.

 

[dblack]

It is funny to watch the Paul-bots' tiny heads explode as they realize: The uprising has been canceled.

Hmm... I wonder who'll have the last laugh if Paul takes his support elsewhere? I'm going to enjoy watching Republicans embarrass themselves this election.

Spoken like a true member of the Democratic Underground. Four more years, honkey.

Hehehe....

 

[Avorysuds]

Rabbi, let me help you out. Newt should drop out because he pulled 10% in Iowa and NH... Less than Paul in SC when Paul was polled to pull 9% just 2 weeks ago in SC.

Paul went up, Newt was at 35% in Iowa and managed to destroy himself. Newt was also expected to do well in SC months ago, and Florida.

 

[dblack]

I don't think Paul is going to quit, he isn't going to be the nominee but he can have some say in the GOP platform. Not sure how much support and money Santorum has left, he'll try to hang around to see if Gingrich says something stupid. Somebody's gotta be the anti-Romney, it ain't gonna be Paul.

You're not really suggesting Newt is the opposite of Romney, are you? These are exactly the two stooges the insurance lobby wants running for the Republican party. The two candidates who, more than any of the other Republicans who ran, support the exact same policies the Democrats passed. Republican voters should simply be ashamed. What a buncha pussies!

 

[Wiseacre]

It is funny to watch the Paul-bots' tiny heads explode as they realize: The uprising has been canceled.

Hmm... I wonder who'll have the last laugh if Paul takes his support elsewhere? I'm going to enjoy watching Republicans embarrass themselves this election.

Well, he's gotta know if he runs as a 3rd party then Obama gets re-elected. Might be some pushback against his son Rand, if that happens. Plus it takes away his libertarian narrative, and changes his entire legacy to one of personal bitterness.

 

[LibertyForAll]

It is funny to watch the Paul-bots' tiny heads explode as they realize: The uprising has been canceled.

Hmm... I wonder who'll have the last laugh if Paul takes his support elsewhere? I'm going to enjoy watching Republicans embarrass themselves this election.

Spoken like a true member of the Democratic Underground. Four more years, honkey.

Racist!

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, let me help you out. Newt should drop out because he pulled 10% in Iowa and NH... Less than Paul in SC when Paul was polled to pull 9% just 2 weeks ago in SC.

Paul went up, Newt was at 35% in Iowa and managed to destroy himself. Newt was also expected to do well in SC months ago, and Florida.

Um, Newt just won a major primary. Paul has yet to do credibly anywhere (he polled about half what Romney did) and he has a history of failure.
As for your contention: WRONG Romney was favored as recently as last week.
Pre-Debate Rasmussen Poll Shows Romney Ahead in South Carolina | The Weekly Standard

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't think Paul is going to quit, he isn't going to be the nominee but he can have some say in the GOP platform. Not sure how much support and money Santorum has left, he'll try to hang around to see if Gingrich says something stupid. Somebody's gotta be the anti-Romney, it ain't gonna be Paul.

You're not really suggesting Newt is the opposite of Romney, are you? These are exactly the two stooges the insurance lobby wants running for the Republican party. The two candidates who, more than any of the other Republicans who ran, support the exact same policies the Democrats passed. Republican voters should simply be ashamed. What a buncha pussies!

No, definitely not. For a number of reasons there's a large number of repubs who don't want Mitt as the nominee, and both Newt and Santorum need those people to win the nomination. They're in effect fighting for the same voting block, but coming from different paths.

 

[dblack]

Well, he's gotta know if he runs as a 3rd party then Obama gets re-elected. Might be some pushback against his son Rand, if that happens. Plus it takes away his libertarian narrative, and changes his entire legacy to one of personal bitterness.

Nonsense. He wouldn't do it out of bitterness, and I'm pretty sure he's not concerned with his son's status. He'll do it if Republicans dismiss the tea-part/libertarian wing of their party - which they'll almost certainly do. From our view, establishment Republicans are no better than establishment Democrats. None of them deserve our votes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, he's gotta know if he runs as a 3rd party then Obama gets re-elected. Might be some pushback against his son Rand, if that happens. Plus it takes away his libertarian narrative, and changes his entire legacy to one of personal bitterness.

Nonsense. He wouldn't do it out of bitterness, and I'm pretty sure he's not concerned with his son's status. He'll do it if Republicans dismiss the tea-part/libertarian wing of their party - which they'll almost certainly do. From our view, establishment Republicans are no better than establishment Democrats. None of them deserve our votes.

There is no "tea-party-libertarian" wing. That is a fantasy spun by the wookie-suiters. The Tea Party is still largely pro-defense.