Yes. I did…wishful thinking as even I do not poses the powers of prediction. Reality. What we want is rarely the way it happens.[/quote]
Setting aside my joke with the baseball metaphor demonstrating just how wrong and uninformed you were, precisely what the rest of us argued at the time was that Paul supporters’ “wishful thinking” was not the same as objectively discussing Paul’s chances.
And see, that was the problem all along - even those of us that didn’t support Paul were ok with an objective discussion of him and his candidacy. But all that got ruined - why? You are your fellow supporters couldn’t have that objective conversation because you couldn’t distinguish “wishful thinking” from “political analysis”, and the more the rest of us tried to have it, the more you (collective you) hunkered down and drifted into incoherence and moonbattery.
It was disappointing - but Ron Paul supporters have no one to blame but themselves.
See - still part of the problem. Paul isn’t left standing. He has flatlined, he just doesn’t want to go away. That is ok, but he isn’t “left standing”. There is no chance of him winning (also note he suspended his national campaign).
Once again, “wishful thinking” at the expense of being rational.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And see, that was the problem all along - even those of us that didn’t support Paul were ok with an objective discussion of him and his candidacy. But all that got ruined - why? You are your fellow supporters couldn’t have that objective conversation because you couldn’t distinguish “wishful thinking” from “political analysis”, and the more the rest of us tried to have it, the more you (collective you) hunkered down and drifted into incoherence and moonbattery.[/quote]
I am still waiting for an objective analysis of monetary policy. I am still waiting for an objective analysis of foreign policy.
There has been no political analysis regarding Paul’s positions. Just the use of the word “moonbattery” and discrediting the people defending these ideas.
You make a point about calling me uninformed but none are informed enough to predict the future regarding human action. It should be implied that everything anyone says about tomorrow is a guess.
We all read the threads - the gold standard was argued plenty.
Why lie?
Complete fabrication - c’mon Lifticus. Enough.
No one knows the future - that wasn’t the point. Your incessant defense of internet polls (painful…) and predictions that Paul would win were outrageous. Paul never had a legitimate chance - you can love him to death, but you never gave an objective analysis of his his chances.
You can talk about the electoral race and be objective - you can, you just never did. As such, no rational or interesting discussion ensued.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
And see, that was the problem all along - even those of us that didn’t support Paul were ok with an objective discussion of him and his candidacy. But all that got ruined - why? You are your fellow supporters couldn’t have that objective conversation because you couldn’t distinguish “wishful thinking” from “political analysis”, and the more the rest of us tried to have it, the more you (collective you) hunkered down and drifted into incoherence and moonbattery.
I am still waiting for an objective analysis of monetary policy. I am still waiting for an objective analysis of foreign policy.
There has been no political analysis regarding Paul’s positions. Just the use of the word “moonbattery” and discrediting the people defending these ideas.
You make a point about calling me uninformed but none are informed enough to predict the future regarding human action. It should be implied that everything anyone says about tomorrow is a guess.
[/quote]
Are you serious? We have been through all this stuff. Are you really this forgetful or is this a tactic they teach you at your Ron Paul get togethers?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
See - still part of the problem. Paul isn’t left standing. He has flatlined, he just doesn’t want to go away. That is ok, but he isn’t “left standing”. There is no chance of him winning (also note he suspended his national campaign).
[/quote]
That’s true - he lost the race, by all measures, in January. However, we told you that he wasn’t going to disappear. We told you that he would be here for the entire trip, regardless of his poll numbers.
That’s true - he lost the race, by all measures, in January. However, we told you that he wasn’t going to disappear. We told you that he would be here for the entire trip, regardless of his poll numbers. [/quote]
I never doubted that Paul wouldn’t stick around for the duration - why would he depart, given his attitude? He can stick around precisely because he is irrelevant. Romney sticking around could hurt the party - Paul’s staying or leaving has the same effect: nil. As other candidates have dropped out, none of their supporters flocked to Uncle Ron’s candidacy.
“Refusing to leave” is not the same as “being left standing”. Paul isn’t surviving - he just has won’t withdraw.
Well, technically not true - he had to suspend his national campaign to go fight for his Congressional seat.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You said that “this race will come down to Rudy, Thompson and Ron Paul”
[/quote]
I did NOT say that, you fool. Get it right. I said it would be Fred, Romney, and Paul. I was telling you from the beginning that Rudy’s popularity would be short lived.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Nommy, you are still in denial-Paul got CRUSHED, as I said he would. In fact exactly as I said he would. He never had a chance in NH, as I predicted. You are not only poor at political analysis, you also have a faulty memory.[/quote]
Bullshit. The situation on the ground was very different. Even MSM commentators admit that Paul supporters were canvassing the state. His campaign dropped the ball in NH, period. They had the support and they didn’t use it.
He did get crushed, but not for the reason you think.