1. Reality Is Not an Extraordinary Assertion

Originally Posted by Eyeswideshut

Indicates that Paul Suppoters are drunk and not touch with reality
A bit simplistically interpreted; intoxicated by their cause, euphoric, and so on—it's a common metaphor in American discourse.

The thing is that the Pauline evangelism mixes its principles into reality at a much higher concentration than other political blocs. Belief becomes truth for many Paul supporters, and your post is demonstrative of that point.

Paul has to beat only one opponent but some how Romney is so all powerfull that Paul should just roll over and die, why is so ?
Mathematics.

The simple consideration is the fact that after forty-three contests, Ron Paul has won exactly zero on the popular vote. With fourteen remaining, Rep. Paul cannot win enough states to win the nomination.

However, Ron Paul is maneuvering to collect delegates despite failing to win a state. Consider the delegate count estimation:

• Romney, 847, Paul 80; these numbers include superdelegate preferences. Even if Ron Paul wins the popular votes in the remaining primaries in such a way as to collect every delegate, that is 700 more, still well short of 1,144.

As it is, through victories at the ballot box or procedural maneuvering, Mitt Romney needs three hundred delegates, while Paul needs over a thousand.

One of the problems with the nomination process, though, is that, as Dr. Paul has shown, the actual ballot totals don't mean a whole lot. In Louisiana, where Paul placed fourth with 6.1% of the vote, and Mitt Romney second with 26.7% of the vote, Romney might well end up getting nineteen delegates, Paul 17, and the actual winner of that primary, Rick Santorum, all of 10. Rachel Maddow, on her May 1 show, reflected on how the "Ron Paul delegate strategy is working". The regular MSNBC transcripts appear interrupted as of April 16; I haven't figured out where they put the rest of them. The video segment is just over four and a half minutes, but here's a spot transcription:

Back on March 24 of this year, then-presidential candidate Rick Santorum won Louisiana. He won the Louisiana state Republican primary. Rick Santorum won with forty-nine percent of the vote, Mitt Romney got twenty-seven percent, Newt Gingrich sixteen percent, Ron Paul six percent.

The great state of Louisiana will send forty-six delegates to the Republican convention in Tampa this summer. But even though Ron Paul came in dead last in Louisiana, even though he came in fourth out of four in Louisiana, when Louisiana sends its delegates to the convention in Tampa this summer, Louisiana will retroactively become a dead heat between him and Mitt Romney. It's looking like, right now, maybe nineteen delegates for Mitt Romney and seventeen for Ron Paul; Rick Santorum, who's now out of the race, will still have the remaining ten that he got that March night. But Ron Paul supporters overwhelmingly dominated the Louisiana caucuses this past weekend. Almost three-quarters of the Republicans elected at the caucuses in Louisiana say they support Ron Paul for president.

Also this weekend, there was chaos at the Republican caucuses in the great state of Massachusetts. Less than half of Mitt Romney's delegates were elected to represent him at the convention. Voters instead chose Ron Paul delegates; they even rejected Mr. Romney's former lieutenant governor from his time as governor of the state. She lost as a delegate so Ron Paul delegates could win.

Also this weekend, Ron Paul supporters in the great state of Alaska quite literally took over the state party's convention. A Ron Paul guy won the state party chairmanship. The Paul supporters were so fired up in Alaska, they were just so loud, that Senator Lisa Murkowski, who's a Mitt Romney supporter—

[crowd noise on video segment]

—hear that?—could not deliver her planned speech in the room. Neither could her guest, Wyoming Senator John Barrasso. The crowd is chanting, "Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!" and nobody else is getting a word in edgewise. As a result of all this, a Ron Paul supporter won the election for state Republican Party Chairman. He beat out the guy backed by the current Alaska chairman, who's had the job for over a decade. Alaska is going to end up sending six Ron Paul delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

We've seen this Ron Paul plot before. Do you remember the Iowa Republican Caucuses this year? First they said that Mitt Romney won it, but then it turned out that no, that wasn't right. Then they tried to say it was a tie. Then Rick Santorum was declared the winner. But then it turned out none of it actually mattered in a practical sense, because the Iowa Caucuses did not allocate a single delegate. A state Republican Party committee does that. A state Republican Party committee picks the delegates who go to the Republican Convention. And last month, Ron Paul supporters took over that committee, guaranteeing Ron Paul at least half—at least half—of Iowa's twenty-eight delegates. So in the end, forget all that nonsense. Ron Paul won Iowa. And, oh, by the way, a Ron Paul supporter now chairs the Iowa Republican Party, as well.

Ron Paul supporters have used state party rules and conventions and processes to secure victories large and small that will have a practical effect on the Republican Party; if not the nominating process for president this year, maybe the convention itself. Ron Paul's strategy hasn't been to convert nonbelievers or swing Romney delegates over to his side. The Ron Paul strategy has been to get his own supporters inside, to get them inside the process. And we cannot say we didn't see this coming.

[video excerpt]

Unidentified Man: How do you, from the outside, make positive change, as you're not the party's nominee, and as president if that's the will of the people—being that outside?

Ron Paul: Have the outside become the inside ....

.... We don't win over the insiders by becoming like an insider. We win the inside over by making the outsiders become more appropriate.

[end video excerpt]

Making the outsiders become more appropriate, like, making them take over the state parties.

In addition to those coups this weekend and before in Louisiana and in Massachusetts and in Alaska and in Iowa, Ron Paul has won more than half the delegates in Minnesota and in Washington state. So, yes, Ron Paul won Minnesota and Washington state. He's got his eyes on Maine, on Missouri, and Nevada as well. He's scheduled to speak at the Nevada Republican state convention this weekend. If Ron Paul wins a majority of delegates in five states, his name will officially be entered in nomination at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. And there will be a lot of Republican Ron Paul delegates there to cheer, or do something, when that happens. And then what? Republicans fight it out like gladiators at the colosseum? I love this stuff.

This is what people outside the Pauline evangelism are seeing. Ron Paul supporters seem onboard with the candidate's strategy to use procedural tactics to override what primary and caucus voters say about their preferred candidates.

In and of itself, it's not illegal; these are the rules, after all. But the problem the Paul candidacy presents to the Republican Party is, quite simply, that a Paul nomination would tell voters that what they have to say doesn't matter, and that the real will of the Republican Party follows whoever can shout the loudest, be the most disruptive, and play the best backroom games. In other words, it's exactly what so many voters—and especially libertarian voters—despise about American politics. The Pauline evangelism is seeking to play the role of champions for liberty by undermining the actual voters.

Thus:

And again stating opinion as a fact with no explanation
Mitt Romney has a commanding delegate lead. Of the remaining GOP candidates—including issue candidates like Fred Karger—Romney is the only one who has actually won a state nomination contest at the ballot box. Of those candidates, only Mitt Romney can win 1,144 delegates without usurping caucuses and conventions, without shouting down opponents.

These points are facts that people outside the evangelism recognize. Ron Paul's supporters, however, don't so much seem to despise these facts, but, as you remind, refuse to acknowledge them.

And again stating opinion as a fact with no explanation
For everyone else, the explanation is obvious: Romney, over 800 delegates, multiple state-level victories; Paul, 80 delegates, no state-level victories. Outside the Pauline evangelism, this point is significant, and is the basis for the analysis you reject as being unexplained. You will continue to believe this reality has no explanation as long as you refuse to acknowledge the explanation.

nothing but slamming down Paul supporters
Perhaps it's a slam, but it also has real foundations.

Acknowledging that Ron Paul can't win, and making those contributions about wrangling with the Party over the platform is one thing, but to push the idea that Ron Paul can win the nomination is more than just dishonest; it's a tragically silly tinfoil dream.

What a pandering pile of twisted logic, almost makes you puke... Wanna be loyal to your candidate, go home and dont disgrace your candidate with defeat, lol, sad swan song and all that, again just opinions flavored with "I know better than you" patronizing tone
This outlook does not surprise anyone when it comes from one who refuses to acknowledge reality.

Using hes good name against him, unbelievable horse shit, because he has been fighting the good fight in honorable manner in same style he should go out, but how is just stopping the fight honorable , its not, it would be betrayal ?
The least you could do is attend the analysis instead of ignore it; to wit, I can only reiterate here what you've ignored:

Think back to 2000. Many Democratic supporters blamed Ralph Nader for peeling off Al Gore's votes (i.e., the Florida issue should not have decided the election). Or in 2004, there are plenty of stupid things to blame for Kerry's loss, such as the Swift Boat lies. But in either case, the Democratic candidates themselves carry the ultimate blame. Neither Gore nor Kerry ran strong campaigns.

And it is true that, in the end, when Mitt Romney loses the general election, he will carry the lion's share of the blame. It's his candidacy, his campaign, and he can't seem to let a day pass without embarrassing himself, unless, of course, he spends that day out of the public eye and out of earshot.

However, the longer analysis will also note that Romney buried himself trying to compete with other candidates to woo the various hardline blocs within the party, thus exacerbating his problems with various demographic blocs in the general electorate. And Ron Paul's campaign only adds to that burden, augments that effect.

If Ron Paul ends up contributing to Obama's re-election by weakening Romney's candidacy, will his supporters celebrate?

Ron Paul has more than adequately made his point within the GOP. Wang is, in this sense, suggesting that the congressman quit while he can still assert pride in this campaign's accomplishments. By pushing on, weakening Romney, and helping bolster President Obama's re-election chances, Paul is denigrating his own legacy, and for the moment, it seems his supporters are cheering that debasement.

What is Paul pushing for? Do you really think he can win the nomination and contest Obama directly by winning a procedural strategy that tells Republican voters that they don't matter? Do you really think the Party's power brokers would allow that? The best Paul and his supporters can hope for, if they're really playing for the nomination, is to shred the Party itself by dragging the Convention into absolute chaos.

Let us imagine, for a moment, that this works. Paul arrives at the convention without having won a single state at the ballot box, but also having accrued enough delegates through procedural tactics to contest Romney's nomination. The Republican Party, as a whole, has two basic choices on that front—they can give the nomination to a guy who couldn't win a state among Republican voters, or they can nominate the guy who won a bunch of states.

If the Party gives over and nominates Paul, what will that tell Republican voters? It will tell them that their votes at the ballot box on election day don't matter to the Party. This is not a notion the Republicans want front and center on August 31, when the GOP emerges from its convention and sends forth its nominee to challenge President Obama directly.

If the Party crushes the Ron Paul Revolution despite all their hard work and procedural play, will the Paulines keep their mouths shut?

There is a third option, I suppose, which is to broker the convention and drag out the process through multiple rounds of negotiation and voting, again reminding Republican voters that what they say at the ballot box doesn't really matter to the Party organization.

Most observers outside the evangelism seem to recognize there are two main routes for the Paul campaign to follow: the platform, and the running mate.

Some have suggested Rep. Paul wants his son, Rand, in the vice presidential slot. The long view suggests this would be problematic for the Romney campaign; Rand Paul has said he opposes the Civil Rights Act, and even suggested explicitly that businesses should have the right to refuse service on the basis of race or ethnicity. This won't play well in Democratic-leaning swing states, and in places like Florida and Arizona, which have Republican tendencies and high minority populations, Rand Paul might tip the scales in Obama's favor.

As to the platform, the GOP has endured its presidential aspirants trading boasts of destroying federal departments. This is not, in the end, a winning argument. It might play well among the hardline right and libertarian blocs, but it doesn't help with moderates and swing voters. And Ron Paul's doctrinal anti-abortion outlook, in which liberty omits women, isn't going to help, either. The GOP will manage an anti-abortion platform, but it is worth noting that the whole life-at-conception argument is too much for Mississippi, which scores R+10 on the Cook PVI. In other words, life-at-conception makes for popular rhetoric, but when put to a policy test, even conservative voters hesitate.

What can Paul bring to the platform that wouldn't otherwise be included? Not much, and what there is also looks extreme not only to Democratic supporters and self-described independents, but also many Republican voters.

In the end, a continuing Pauline full-court press is only going to hurt the Republican Party in November. And therein lies the problem. While he has done an excellent job of highlighting vulnerabilities in the GOP's nominating process, and this is something to be proud of, what will people say when he hamstrings the GOP going into the general election? The Paulines see problems of corruption, inefficiency, and general idiocy across the partisan spectrum, but their general tendency is toward the Republican Party.

Are they going to take down the GOP, costing Republicans the presidency and even complicating legislative elections?

Remember that there are several state organizations within the GOP that are suffering financial and organizational problems. Indeed, this is part of what Paul is exploiting in his procedural campaign. But Republicans won the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, as well as a majority of state houses. Throwing the Party and its convention into chaos very well could complicate legislative and state office elections.

If Republicans lose their House of Representatives majority, will the Paulines pat themselves on the back and say, "Good job"?

With Republicans at the state level having opened Pandora's Box in midwestern states like Wisconsin and Ohio, if a Republican Party in disarray costs conservatives victories in midwestern state elections—such as governors and state legislatures—will the Paulines congratulate themselves?

If the whole of the Paul campaign's efforts hurts GOP representation in political offices across the nation, and thus helps advance the Democratic Party, will the Paulines cheer?

Again gearing up the same bullshit twisted logic, pointing out hes own opinion as a fact with no backing
Attending the "sober up" metaphor, one could suggest that your response seems hallucinatory because it depends on an outcome that most others find impossible, that the GOP will hand Ron Paul the nomination after the Texas congressman failed to capture even a single state.

Of course, he could still win Texas, which is a proportional allocation of 155 delegates, so it is possible that Paul will arrive at the convention with one state won at the ballot box. Still, though, any suggestion that GOP power brokers will allow a Paul nomination, with all its implications, is a pipe dream.

Outside the Pauline evangelism, it is not an extraordinary suggestion that the Republican power elite simply will not allow a Ron Paul nomination to the presidential ticket.

Yes, no kidding, lol
Paul's political career either ends with this legislative session, or after his presidential tenure. As the latter is, by all appearances, not going to happen, the good doctor will ride off into the sunset in January, 2013, at the age of seventy-eight.

And how will people remember this last campaign? Will it be for rekindling libertarian fires around the nation? Exposing problems in the GOP nomination process, thus forcing Republicans to do things better? Those are not contributions to eschew. But if the effect of this last campaign is to injure the Republican Party and help Democrats? To shore up President Obama's re-election, and, perhaps, help Democrats reclaim a congressional majority?

Is a second term for Obama, and a Democratic majority, what Ron Paul and his supporters actually want? I sincerely doubt it.

And if, like an aging superstar athlete, his final season in the game costs his team a championship, that is how he will be remembered.

First, the question was aimed to Adoucette as why he offers that one huge pile of horse shit, opinion based propanda, to this conversation, but thanks for the "analysis" anyway...
Frankly, it wasn't that smart of a question to begin with. For instance—

—do you really believe that encouraging Ron Paul to denigrate his legacy would be showing your "support"? Because that is the question other people see. Apparently, however, the Pauline evangelists think it's mere propaganda, and believe that Ron Paul can win the presidential nomination at Tampa this summer.

As I noted before, it seems a cross-partisan phenomenon that a candidate's supporters will blame everyone and everything else for their loss. Al Gore? John Kerry? Sure, there were complicating factors, but had they run better campaigns, perhaps there wouldn't have been room for those complications. And people can blame racism and the liberal media all they want for John McCain's failure in 2008, but the guy was obviously dishonest—he even tried to say he never called himself a "maverick", for heaven's sake—and then he went and picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Blaming everyone else for McCain's loss in 2008 overlooks the fact of the candidate's astoundingly bad campaign.

Likewise, no matter how out of touch Romney appears, no matter how mendacious, no matter how clumsy or spineless or elitist, when he loses in November, many Republicans will blame everybody else. And the greater the friction, the stronger the tremors, that Ron Paul creates in the Republican Party come convention time, the more prominently his name will be scorned by conservative voters looking for someone to blame, and the more prominently history will speak of the Texas congressman as the monkey thrown at the Republican wrench in the 2012 presidential election.

And if it turns out, come convention time, that Ron Paul has long known he can't win and thus has been playing for platform influence, will the Pauline evangelists say they knew it all along?
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Republican Delegate Tally". The New York Times. (n.d.) Elections.NYTimes.com. May 5, 2012. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. May 1, 2012. MSNBC.MSN.com. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47256328

2. @Tiassa

I think were are looking at things from different perspective.

“The Ron Paul Revolution Won’t Stop Here”

I have made the case that Ron Paul is not only changing the Republican Party, but is catering to a new, emerging electorate that eschews the big government aspects of both parties. Writing today at CNN.com, Timothy Stanley makes some of the same observations:

Paul’s campaign represents a message that is bigger and perhaps more popular than the candidate himself. As it continues to collect small numbers of delegates and capture control of local GOPs, Paulism is proving itself to be in rude health. Long after Mitt Romney is nominated, feted at the convention, beaten by Obama and recycled as a question on Jeopardy (“In 2012, he lost every state but Utah.” “Who is … Britt Gormley?”), Paul’s philosophy will still be a factor in national politics — something to be feared and courted in equal measure…

I have to declare a great deal of affection for Paul. Unlike other politicians, he seems motivated by ideas — and he communicates his passion with the zeal of a nutty professor detailing the thrilling possibilities of quasars and black holes. This is a doctor who refused to accept Medicare payments but lowered his prices for patients who couldn’t afford him, who declined a government pension and never voted for a tax increase, who told Republicans they need to end the War on Drugs (and most other wars, too). He’s pure…

Paul’s 2012 candidacy has had certain hidden successes. Aside from all the money he raised, Ron Paul also attracted an unusual coalition of young people, libertarian Republicans, and disaffected Democrats — a coalition large enough for him to run even with Obama in some polls. The pull among the kids was big enough to fuel talk of a new generational voting bloc. In Iowa, he took 48% of the under-30s, compared with Santorum’s 23% and Romney’s 14%. In New Hampshire, he got 47%, while Romney took just 26%…

Within the GOP, the Paulites are still the unbeaten masters of the administrative procedure. Last Saturday, they swept a confusing ballot process in Louisiana to give themselves control of 70% of delegates attending the state’s nominating convention, which could mean they end up numerically “winning” Louisiana. Similar things have happened in Minnesota and even Romney’s home state of Massachusetts.

Combine this administrative brilliance with generational politics and you get a silent grass-roots revolution that is putting many Paulites in positions of power. In 2010, more than a dozen of them won elections as Republicans, including Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan and Sen. Rand Paul (son of Ron) of Kentucky. This year, two dozen active Paul backers are seeking election to Congress, along with more than 200 running for local office. The Paulites have effectively taken over the Iowa GOP. The state central committee now has six members who are passionate for Paul, and the head of the local party is now a Paulite. Given the importance of Iowa to the 2016 nomination, this is a coup in every sense.

All of this means the GOP can no longer ignore its libertarian “fringe.” On the contrary, it will have to reach out to a new generation of activists who don’t regard religious piety or continual warfare as sacred tenets of conservatism. Even Romney will have to take Sarah Palin’s advice not to “marginalize” the Paulites if he is to emerge from the nominating convention with a united party.

Whatever happens in 2012, we are living through a significant moment in the history of conservatism. The age of Bush and Obama — twin specters of lavish spending and imperial design — have birthed anti-government movements of right (tea party) and left (Occupy). The one that will last longest and have the most impact is the one that has been the most pragmatic and politically savvy.

The Ron Paul revolution won’t stop here.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/05/0...ont-stop-here/

But they need to sober up, and go with the program ?

3. I Know How All of This Goes (I've Been Here Before)

Originally Posted by Eyeswideshut

But they need to sober up, and go with the program ?
Is everything so dualistic to you? Is there no middle ground?

Reading through the Stanley's article in full, available at CNN, we might find some additional perspective:

.... Why spend money and raise false hopes if you can't win? Best to get out now and join the veepstakes.

That's the kind of logic that an ordinary, candidate-focused campaign employs. Ron Paul, on the other hand, refuses to drop out. Commanding a plurality of delegates in only one state, and having taken just 10.61 percent nationally so far, it could be argued that the 76-year-old libertarian has even less reason to carry on than Gingrich—except perhaps to collect the air miles.

However, unlike Gingrich, Paul's campaign represents a message that is bigger and perhaps more popular than the candidate himself. As it continues to collect small numbers of delegates and capture control of local GOPs, Paulism is proving itself to be in rude health. Long after Mitt Romney is nominated, feted at the convention, beaten by Obama and recycled as a question on Jeopardy ("In 2012, he lost every state but Utah." "Who is ... Britt Gormley?"), Paul's philosophy will still be a factor in national politics—something to be feared and courted in equal measure.

And therein we find the stake.

What Paul's campaign represents in a broader context, and the notion that the cause is something to be feared and courted, is the stake.

Please understand, as a leftist I believe my side of the argument has long been correct, but I also recognize that some of our actors blew it a long time ago. Leftism has always been despised in the United States, but when the flower power of the 1960s gave way to terrorism, militancy, and philosophical disorganization in the 1970s, the left secured its pariah status for decades to come. Ronald Reagan could not have transformed "liberal" into a pejorative without these mistakes.

It is only now, over thirty years later, that the left is regaining some of its credibility in the United States, and that is a fragile advance. Contemporary would-be Anarchists still have the power to wreck those gains made only because of right-wing overextension.

Libertarianism faces a similar challenge, albeit of a smaller magnitude.

Ron Paul has achieved quite a lot in this campaign. But if he pushes forward, and in doing so injures the Republican Party he has associated himself with, that philosophy to be feared and courted alike will lose a tremendous share of its respectability.

"But they need to sober up, and go with the program ?"

—no, they need to sober up and protect their gains. In Vegas terms, it's knowing when to quit after winning a sizable jackpot. It's the difference between leaving the casino thousands of dollars in the black, or having run oneself deeply into the red as so many addicts do.

It's not a matter of going with the program. Rather, it's making sure they don't wreck everything they have accomplished.

You keep phrasing the question as black and white, ignoring the broad grayscale in between.

And do you really think that you, personally, are doing the movement any good by ducking the issues, relying on other people entirely to express your sentiments, and thus suggesting that you, personally, have nothing to offer the discussion?

Really.

• If Ron Paul ends up contributing to Obama's re-election by weakening Romney's candidacy, will his supporters celebrate?

• If Republicans lose their House of Representatives majority, will the Paulines pat themselves on the back and say, "Good job"?

• If a Republican Party in disarray costs conservatives victories in midwestern state elections—such as governors and state legislatures—will the Paulines congratulate themselves?

If the whole of the Paul campaign's efforts hurts GOP representation in political offices across the nation, and thus helps advance the Democratic Party, will the Paulines cheer?

• Do you really believe that encouraging Ron Paul to denigrate his legacy would be showing your "support"?

This is the stake. Maybe you disagree with the questions, but it would be helpful in communicating your point if you actually tried explaining your perspective.

• And if it turns out, come convention time, that Ron Paul has long known he can't win and thus has been playing for platform influence, will the Pauline evangelists say they knew it all along?

Political observers professional and armchair can see this coming. The Pauline evangelism seems not so much oblivious to the potential, but unwilling to acknowledge it. And if they don't acknowledge it, they will have a hard time offering any useful critique.

"My people", such as they are, have buried themselves repeatedly in the past. I am familiar with the process.

Singing, "Take another look, now, my friend. Take another look, now, my friend. You're the one who said to break and not bend. You're the one who said to break and not bend. Take another look, take another look now. Take another look, take another look now."

I know how all of this goes. The wine and the laughter flows. You push hand into flame. You push hand into the flame, and you watch it like a movie.

Burn, watch it burn—can you feel something's wrong? Your body and soul are telling you something. Time heals all wounds, but it's up to us to make the new ones—and we make 'em like this. We make them just like this.

—Floater, "I Know"
____________________

Notes:

Stanley, Timothy. "Why Ron Paul is not going away". CNN. May 4, 2012. CNN.com. May 6, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/04/opinio...aul/index.html

4. Originally Posted by Tiassa
Is everything so dualistic to you? Is there no middle ground?
It depends. Yes, in things like moral and ethics. To go on suggesting ones candidate to quit the race is just absurd.

And therein we find the stake.

What Paul's campaign represents in a broader context, and the notion that the cause is something to be feared and courted, is the stake.
Let me see, the candidate himself refuses to drop out, so hes supporters should support him by leaving him ? Like I said earlier thats betrayal, simple as that. Maybe Paul is building towards being the third candidate ?

I bet most of Paul supporters are quite happy even if he goes on even in the face of defeat, to them its more important keep the message flowing out than some superficial political points game.
They are for real change and thats a constant long fight.

Please understand, as a leftist I believe my side of the argument has long been correct, but I also recognize that some of our actors blew it a long time ago.
I understand very well, you must talk about the "dualistic" thinking now ?

Leftism has always been despised in the United States, but when the flower power of the 1960s gave way to terrorism, militancy, and philosophical disorganization in the 1970s, the left secured its pariah status for decades to come. Ronald Reagan could not have transformed "liberal" into a pejorative without these mistakes.

It is only now, over thirty years later, that the left is regaining some of its credibility in the United States, and that is a fragile advance. Contemporary would-be Anarchists still have the power to wreck those gains made only because of right-wing overextension.

Libertarianism faces a similar challenge, albeit of a smaller magnitude.

Ron Paul has achieved quite a lot in this campaign. But if he pushes forward, and in doing so injures the Republican Party he has associated himself with, that philosophy to be feared and courted alike will lose a tremendous share of its respectability.
To injure Republican Party ? How is that possible ? You are kidding, right ?

There is no way to injure that pile of mess, Paul is there more like to reform the party by showing what true conservatism is all about, if you would understand this you would understand why in the face of defeat they are quite happy to go on even when ridiculed because of doing so. To them its long term real politics and not some posturing and lip service.

Like I said, I think we have different perspective.

"But they need to sober up, and go with the program ?"

—no, they need to sober up and protect their gains. In Vegas terms, it's knowing when to quit after winning a sizable jackpot. It's the difference between leaving the casino thousands of dollars in the black, or having run oneself deeply into the red as so many addicts do.

It's not a matter of going with the program. Rather, it's making sure they don't wreck everything they have accomplished.
Please tell how can they lose their gains, from my perspective they got much more to win, when you are trying to do fundamental changes in politics, its a marathon, not a sprint.

You keep phrasing the question as black and white, ignoring the broad grayscale in between.
Me ? Right...

Lets see where this all started, from that very black and white article about how Paul should just ride in the sun set, treating politics like a sport game with no in depth analysis what so ever.

So I challenged that piece of garbage.

Wanna see black and white mind frame only, just read this thread again and watch all the dualistic mind attacking towards Paul from left and right with no grey area what so ever.

In example the gold standard and ending the Fed, never mind the fact that Paul himself would let the FED go on paraller with gold and SILVER standard, like in The Constitution. Huge difference.

But watch the kneejerk reactions, no grey area what so ever, Paul is going to slave the masses with gold standard and end the FED in a spot.

Or the abort issue, oh my, lets not go there...

And do you really think that you, personally, are doing the movement any good by ducking the issues, relying on other people entirely to express your sentiments, and thus suggesting that you, personally, have nothing to offer the discussion?
The movement will do just fine with out me, no worries there.

I was just offering point of views other than the usual gibberish, it happened to be so similar of mine and well written that didnt feel the need to garnish it.

• If Ron Paul ends up contributing to Obama's re-election by weakening Romney's candidacy, will his supporters celebrate?

They couldnt care a less, to them there is no real difference between Romney and Obama

• If Republicans lose their House of Representatives majority, will the Paulines pat themselves on the back and say, "Good job"?
Dont know, should they ?

• If a Republican Party in disarray costs conservatives victories in midwestern state elections—such as governors and state legislatures—will the Paulines congratulate themselves?

If the whole of the Paul campaign's efforts hurts GOP representation in political offices across the nation, and thus helps advance the Democratic Party, will the Paulines cheer?

• Do you really believe that encouraging Ron Paul to denigrate his legacy would be showing your "support"?
To Paulines its not the dualistic Rep/Dem paradigm, they are there to "win" in the Republican party first, they are there to do politics, not just to talk about it.

This is the stake. Maybe you disagree with the questions, but it would be helpful in communicating your point if you actually tried explaining your perspective.
Done.

• And if it turns out, come convention time, that Ron Paul has long known he can't win and thus has been playing for platform influence, will the Pauline evangelists say they knew it all along?
They know Rome wasnt build in day and in politics you cant go off the season, its constant grinding week after week

Political observers professional and armchair can see this coming. The Pauline evangelism seems not so much oblivious to the potential, but unwilling to acknowledge it. And if they don't acknowledge it, they will have a hard time offering any useful critique.
Of course they acknowledged the fact that Paul would be underdog in a rigged game but what good does it to stop fighting the good fight; when the shit hits the fan one can say that "at least we tried".

They are not fighting in your paradigm of left/right, they are molding a new one.

5. (Something, something, Burt Ward)

Originally Posted by Eyeswideshut

It depends. Yes, in things like moral and ethics. To go on suggesting ones candidate to quit the race is just absurd.
It seems this is more about name than cause or progress, then.

Let me see, the candidate himself refuses to drop out, so hes supporters should support him by leaving him ? Like I said earlier thats betrayal, simple as that.
So Paul leads, and the supporters just follow? Is this about his name, or about his alleged principles?

Maybe Paul is building towards being the third candidate ?
Subverting the GOP from the inside? Sure, I can imagine that.

At least Buddy Roemer had the decency to quit his GOP campaign to run third-party.

I bet most of Paul supporters are quite happy even if he goes on even in the face of defeat, to them its more important keep the message flowing out than some superficial political points game.
They are for real change and thats a constant long fight.
And if the outcome is a setback for the movement because Ron Paul overplays his hand?

If you play chess the way you're arguing politics right now, you would never win.

I understand very well, you must talk about the "dualistic" thinking now ?
I'm sure you think there is a point in there somewhere.

To injure Republican Party ? How is that possible ? You are kidding, right ?
Well, I suppose that's a fair question. After all—

• The longer Ron Paul relies on procedural maneuvering to gather delegates, and the more chaos he causes in the state parties and at the national convention, the less credibility Republicans will have going forward into the general election.

Think back to 2000. Many Democratic supporters blamed Ralph Nader for peeling off Al Gore's votes (i.e., the Florida issue should not have decided the election). Or in 2004, there are plenty of stupid things to blame for Kerry's loss, such as the Swift Boat lies. But in either case, the Democratic candidates themselves carry the ultimate blame. Neither Gore nor Kerry ran strong campaigns.

And it is true that, in the end, when Mitt Romney loses the general election, he will carry the lion's share of the blame. It's his candidacy, his campaign, and he can't seem to let a day pass without embarrassing himself, unless, of course, he spends that day out of the public eye and out of earshot.

However, the longer analysis will also note that Romney buried himself trying to compete with other candidates to woo the various hardline blocs within the party, thus exacerbating his problems with various demographic blocs in the general electorate. And Ron Paul's campaign only adds to that burden, augments that effect.

Ron Paul has more than adequately made his point within the GOP. Wang is, in this sense, suggesting that the congressman quit while he can still assert pride in this campaign's accomplishments. By pushing on, weakening Romney, and helping bolster President Obama's re-election chances, Paul is denigrating his own legacy, and for the moment, it seems his supporters are cheering that debasement. (#1516)

In the end, a continuing Pauline full-court press is only going to hurt the Republican Party in November. And therein lies the problem. While he has done an excellent job of highlighting vulnerabilities in the GOP's nominating process, and this is something to be proud of, what will people say when he hamstrings the GOP going into the general election? The Paulines see problems of corruption, inefficiency, and general idiocy across the partisan spectrum, but their general tendency is toward the Republican Party.

Are they going to take down the GOP, costing Republicans the presidency and even complicating legislative elections?

Remember that there are several state organizations within the GOP that are suffering financial and organizational problems. Indeed, this is part of what Paul is exploiting in his procedural campaign. But Republicans won the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, as well as a majority of state houses. Throwing the Party and its convention into chaos very well could complicate legislative and state office elections.

If Republicans lose their House of Representatives majority, will the Paulines pat themselves on the back and say, "Good job"?

With Republicans at the state level having opened Pandora's Box in midwestern states like Wisconsin and Ohio, if a Republican Party in disarray costs conservatives victories in midwestern state elections—such as governors and state legislatures—will the Paulines congratulate themselves?

If the whole of the Paul campaign's efforts hurts GOP representation in political offices across the nation, and thus helps advance the Democratic Party, will the Paulines cheer?
(#1521)

• Ron Paul has achieved quite a lot in this campaign. But if he pushes forward, and in doing so injures the Republican Party he has associated himself with, that philosophy to be feared and courted alike will lose a tremendous share of its respectability.

"But they need to sober up, and go with the program ?"

—no, they need to sober up and protect their gains. In Vegas terms, it's knowing when to quit after winning a sizable jackpot. It's the difference between leaving the casino thousands of dollars in the black, or having run oneself deeply into the red as so many addicts do.

It's not a matter of going with the program. Rather, it's making sure they don't wreck everything they have accomplished. (#1523)

—I haven't really made any attempt to explain my thinking on that point, have I?

There is no way to injure that pile of mess, Paul is there more like to reform the party by showing what true conservatism is all about, if you would understand this you would understand why in the face of defeat they are quite happy to go on even when ridiculed because of doing so. To them its long term real politics and not some posturing and lip service.
I think securing a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, increasing the Democratic majority in the Senate, re-electing President Obama, and seeing Democratic gains in state legislatures and governorships would strike quite a blow against the Republican Party.

On the upside, at least we can dispense with the faux-libertarian rhetoric. I appreciate your acknowledgment of Paul's conservatism.

But conservatives are in a difficult spot. They've played an aggressive game these last few years, and find themselves in a tough spot. Right now, some polling suggests that Mitt Romney still has a chance at the ballot box.

Do you really think that Ron Paul will help forestall President Obama's re-election?

If the GOP retains the House, there will still be a legislative body to propose crazy anti-abortion laws; there will still be a legislative body dedicated to keeping homosexuals marginalized; there will still be a legislative body dedicated to overturning Obamacare; there will still be a legislative body opposing Bernanke's monetary policies.

If the GOP somehow won the Senate, there would be a lot of pressure on Obama to play ball with these proposals.

And if the GOP can capture the White House, President Romney will sign the legislation into law.

At the state level, there are labor benefits and union-busting, life-at-conception laws, and other GOP goals Rep. Paul shares at stake.

And if, as you assert, Pauline evangelists believe "there is no real difference between Romney and Obama", it would suggest that they aren't paying attention.

Dont know, should they ?

To Paulines its not the dualistic Rep/Dem paradigm, they are there to "win" in the Republican party first, they are there to do politics, not just to talk about it.
I don't doubt many Paulines actually believe that sort of rhetoric.

They know Rome wasnt build in day and in politics you cant go off the season, its constant grinding week after week
"Offense sells tickets," said the late, great Bear Bryant. "Defense wins championships."

Remember, I'm fine with it if the Pauline evangelism buries its own cause in pride.

Of course they acknowledged the fact that Paul would be underdog in a rigged game but what good does it to stop fighting the good fight; when the shit hits the fan one can say that "at least we tried".
And they also run the risk of saying, "At least we took one step forward before we took two steps back."

They are not fighting in your paradigm of left/right, they are molding a new one.
Or reasserting an old one. Either way, though, there is nothing you are saying with such wide-eyed zeal that I haven't heard before.

But as the Paulines go forth, building Rome as such, I wonder at the metaphorical stumbling blocks along the way. If it turns out they're building part of the city on eroding land that is going to wash away, no, it doesn't make sense to tear down entire city blocks. But it does make sense to protect the seawall, re-engineer the drainage, and generally secure the new construction against potential disaster.

If all that development and progress comes crashing down, or sinks into the swamp, are you going to blame everybody else?
____________________

Notes:

Hohmann, James. "Battleground Poll: Obama, Romney in dead heat". Politico. May 7, 2012. Politico.com. May 8, 2012. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75973.html

6. Tactical Shift

Tactical Shift

Talking Points Memo proclaims, "The Revolution Retreats", but that probably isn't fair; Benjy Sarlin's piece on the new phase of the Ron Paul Revolution would thus suggest a retreat into reality, which isn't as much of an insult as it sounds:

Ron Paul is shutting down all operations in upcoming primary states, dramatically scaling back his campaign due to a lack of resources.

"We will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted," Paul wrote in an e-mail to supporters Monday. "Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have. I encourage all supporters of Liberty to make sure you get to the polls and make your voices heard, particularly in the local, state, and Congressional elections, where so many defenders of Freedom are fighting and need your support."

The announcement comes as Paul supporters are engaged in an active—and increasingly contentious—effort take over delegate slates in states that have already voted. Paul said that the practice would continue even as he abandons hope of competing in major upcoming primaries, like his home state of Texas, that supporters had previously played up as crucial to his campaign.

"Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process," Paul wrote. "We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future."

The real question, then, is what Rep. Paul is planning for the delegates he has already won, as well as those he hopes to muster in upcoming state procedures. We can expect to hear from the Texas conservative soon enough.
____________________

Notes:

Sarlin, Benjy. "The Revolution Retreats: Ron Paul Partially Suspends Campaign". Talking Points Memo. May 14, 2012. 2012.TalkingPointsMemo.com. May 14, 2012. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...republican.php

7. =Tiassa;2933648]It seems this is more about name than cause or progress, then.

So Paul leads, and the supporters just follow? Is this about his name, or about his alleged principles?
What ? You didnt get it ? Paul is NOT important, the message is ! Alleged principles, lol, show me one politician in now days who is more constant with hes principals than Paul...

Subverting the GOP from the inside? Sure, I can imagine that.

At least Buddy Roemer had the decency to quit his GOP campaign to run third-party.
-You think there is realistic way to win the elections NOT being candidate of Dems or Reps ?
-The Buddy (who?) in hes decency has now a chance ?

And if the outcome is a setback for the movement because Ron Paul overplays his hand?

If you play chess the way you're arguing politics right now, you would never win.
-This make no sense what so ever, care to explain?

"But they need to sober up, and go with the program ?"

no, they need to sober up and protect their gains. In Vegas terms, it's knowing when to quit after winning a sizable jackpot. It's the difference between leaving the casino thousands of dollars in the black, or having run oneself deeply into the red as so many addicts do.

It's not a matter of going with the program. Rather, it's making sure they don't wreck everything they have accomplished. (#1523)[/indent]
This just shows just how clueless you are regarding the problems we face right now... "wreck everything they have accomplished"... LOL, tell me, what have they accomplished so far in this political game of yours so far...

I haven't really made any attempt to explain my thinking on that point, have I?
cant tell really, you talk a lot but do you say anything ?

I think securing a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, increasing the Democratic majority in the Senate, re-electing President Obama, and seeing Democratic gains in state legislatures and governorships would strike quite a blow against the Republican Party.
-Here you go again, showing that all that counts is that your side is the THE right side (thinking that your side, left, have been right all along), the game plan and all that bullshit...
Just
On the upside, at least we can dispense with the faux-libertarian rhetoric.
Sorry, but now you have to show how the libertarian rhetoric is a faux...?.
I appreciate your acknowledgment of Paul's conservatism.
Just hollow words...

Do you really think that Ron Paul will help forestall President Obama's re-election?
What ? LOL

If the GOP retains the House, there will still be a legislative body to propose crazy anti-abortion laws; there will still be a legislative body dedicated to keeping homosexuals marginalized; there will still be a legislative body dedicated to overturning Obamacare; there will still be a legislative body opposing Bernanke's monetary policies.
Like I have said earlier, I dont give a shit about abortion&gays in any sense, and so should not you when the shit hits the fan, if only you liberals could/would get a grip about economics and monetary politics !!! That is after all where everything else is depending on...

8. Tiassa has outlined several situations in which the actions of RP's continued push for presidency may damage the strategies of the republican party as a whole. I don't think anyone on either side, dem or rep, could honestly make an argument against that. However, I also believe that many RP supporters feel just as separated from the democratic party as the republican. To that end, what does it matter which side the coin falls on in November? Those who embrace a republican anthem would vote Romney. Those who would vote RP most likely would not, the values simply are not the same. To tell a RP supporter that a vote for RP will hinder the republican party as a whole, is like telling someone who does not like cake that if they don't follow the rules, they cannot have any cake.

9. You fake libertarians need to do better than that

Originally Posted by Eyeswideshut

What ? You didnt get it ? Paul is NOT important, the message is ! Alleged principles, lol, show me one politician in now days who is more constant with hes principals than Paul...
And what is that message? Liberty? Except, of course, for the people Ron Paul doesn't like. You know, like women, homosexuals, and nonwhites.

-You think there is realistic way to win the elections NOT being candidate of Dems or Reps ?
-The Buddy (who?) in hes decency has now a chance ?
Really? You don't know who Buddy Roemer is? Okay. Just don't try to tell me you're politically aware.

And no, Buddy Roemer never stood a chance.

His value is that he is able to communicate across party lines. Of course, I can see how that is anathema to fanatics like yourself.

This just shows just how clueless you are regarding the problems we face right now... "wreck everything they have accomplished"... LOL, tell me, what have they accomplished so far in this political game of yours so far...
Well, until their defeat in Nebraska, Ron Paul's supporters had a chance of winning the right to challenge Mitt Romney at the GOP convention this year for the presidential nomination.

cant tell really, you talk a lot but do you say anything ?
That depends entirely on whether one is listening. And since you're not, the answer is, obviously, no.

-Here you go again, showing that all that counts is that your side is the THE right side (thinking that your side, left, have been right all along), the game plan and all that bullshit...
Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Sorry, but now you have to show how the libertarian rhetoric is a faux...?.
How droll. The fact that the Pauline Evangelism is fake libertarianism does not mean that all libertarianism is fake.

Just hollow words...
Well, in case you hadn't noticed, there are plenty of people who don't buy that ludicrous lie that a conservative is somehow "libertarian".

Like I have said earlier, I dont give a shit about abortion&gays in any sense, and so should not you when the shit hits the fan, if only you liberals could/would get a grip about economics and monetary politics !!! That is after all where everything else is depending on...
Ah, yes. Money. That comes first. Civil and human rights come second. That's why people look at fanatics like yourself as conservatives, and not genuine libertarians.

A real libertarian would fight for human and civil rights, not sacrifice those at the altar of economic and monetary policy intended to exacerbate socioeconomic stratification.

I don't begrudge you the two months it took to come up with that response, but, in truth, I would think you could have found something better.

10. Paul Ryan will be Mitt Romney's running mate. That, I think makes Obama the next POTUS, and me sad. I worked too hard to have the run on the dollar come when a black man is POTUS. Few will correctly call the coming depression by its proper name "GWB´s depression." Obama will be the fall guy taking the blame.

11. Originally Posted by Tiassa
And what is that message? Liberty? Except, of course, for the people Ron Paul doesn't like. You know, like women, homosexuals, and nonwhites.
Indeed, what is the message ? After 77 pages it should be clear, actually it fits in one word, freedom.

The freedom from debt slavery being the first and most important issue to deal with.

Its funny how many people in media and politics have a high opinions about Paul even when they disagree with hes policies, I mean he has been in politics several decades now, under pretty tight scrutiny, and still that racist, homophobic women hater have been able to pull it off, fool every one... well, not every one I guess.

Calling him racist, homophobic misogynist shows as much effort and style as calling Obama puppet of bankers and foreign socialist agent would.

Really? You don't know who Buddy Roemer is? Okay. Just don't try to tell me you're politically aware.
Yes, really.

I guess I failed your politically aware litmus test, now what ?

And no, Buddy Roemer never stood a chance.

His value is that he is able to communicate across party lines. Of course, I can see how that is anathema to fanatics like yourself.
Please tell me how that is anathema for fanatic like me, I fail to grasp it but maybe its because I dont consider my self to be fanatic ?

How droll. The fact that the Pauline Evangelism is fake libertarianism does not mean that all libertarianism is fake.
According to you Pauls libertarianism is fake, how does it show in reality ?

Ah, yes. Money. That comes first. Civil and human rights come second. That's why people look at fanatics like yourself as conservatives, and not genuine libertarians.
Actually to me philosophy (morals, ethics...) rules over economics (finance, trade...), that is one reason why I align my self with libertarians,
there is clear philosophy in their economic models, which starts from the constitution.

The fact that the sorry and fucked up state of economy specially in the finance sector is the most important issue for me in the current political landscape shouldnt be any kind of surprise to anybody...and how do Paul policies undermines civil and human rights ?

A real libertarian would fight for human and civil rights, not sacrifice those at the altar of economic and monetary policy intended to exacerbate socioeconomic stratification.
Just more of the same, lot of talking but what are you saying ?

Me ? fanatic ?

I don't begrudge you the two months it took to come up with that response, but, in truth, I would think you could have found something better.
I´m sorry that I kept you waiting, again, but there is so much to do and so little time...

12. Originally Posted by eyeswideshut
...I dont give a shit about abortion&gays in any sense...
Isn't that the point though?

13. Originally Posted by Tiassa
Well, in case you hadn't noticed, there are plenty of people who don't buy that ludicrous lie that a conservative is somehow "libertarian".
The shorthand definition of "libertarian" is "fiscally conservative but socially liberal." When the movement first began gaining ground in the late 1970s, most of the people who joined came from the right, because they saw communism and socialism as the biggest threat. Leftists weren't worried because at the time it seemed that the liberal social agenda was on its way to complete adoption.

I was one of the few leftists who saw serious danger to personal freedom in affirmative discrimination, the rise of the Religious Right (we never coined the name "the Religious Left" but they were right there marching with us in the anti-war and civil rights movements), the increasingly draconian anti-drug laws, compulsory motorcycle helmets (even though I always wore one voluntarily), the support of very non-libertarian governments like that of Israel, etc.

Anyway, for a long time most libertarians were indeed conservatives. So the confusion is understandable. But today both leftists and rightists are alarmed at the downright fascist trend in government, such as outlawing large sodas and taxing cigarettes up to a half dollar apiece. Here in Montgomery County, MD (Bethesda, Rockville, Chevy Chase, Silver Spring), it's illegal to sell food with transfats. The Girl Scouts couldn't sell cookies here until they found a new supplier.
Ah, yes. Money. That comes first. Civil and human rights come second. That's why people look at fanatics like yourself as conservatives, and not genuine libertarians.
The original Libertarian Party members were fiscally conservative and socially neutral, so he's merely working from an obsolete model.
A real libertarian would fight for human and civil rights, not sacrifice those at the altar of economic and monetary policy intended to exacerbate socioeconomic stratification.
The majority of the party membership is still on the right side of the Nolan Chart, not the left. Just as the Green Party tends to siphon off Democratic votes (Nader threw the 2000 election to the G.O.P.), the Libertarian Party tends to siphon Republican voters (as it did in the 2006 Montana senatorial race, preventing the Republicans from getting a majority in the Senate).

14. Originally Posted by Trippy

eyeswideshut:
...I dont give a shit about abortion&gays in any sense...
Isn't that the point though?
I wonder where you want go with that, but here is it in the context...

Tiassa
If the GOP retains the House, there will still be a legislative body to propose crazy anti-abortion laws; there will still be a legislative body dedicated to keeping homosexuals marginalized; there will still be a legislative body dedicated to overturning Obamacare; there will still be a legislative body opposing Bernanke's monetary policies.
eyeswideshut
Like I have said earlier, I dont give a shit about abortion&gays in any sense, and so should not you when the shit hits the fan, if only you liberals could/would get a grip about economics and monetary politics !!! That is after all where everything else is depending on...
My answer so harshly phrased because I wanted make it clear to Tiassa that hes speculations about such and suchs issue has no relevance when the ship is sinking, it is the ship we have to save first. Then we can go on to improve gay&abortion and such issues again.

I hope that helps.

15. Originally Posted by eyeswideshut
I wonder where you want go with that, but here is it in the context...
Wonder away.

You're awfully sensitive about it though.

Originally Posted by eyeswideshut
My answer so harshly phrased because I wanted make it clear to Tiassa that hes speculations about such and suchs issue has no relevance when the ship is sinking, it is the ship we have to save first. Then we can go on to improve gay&abortion and such issues again.

I hope that helps.
This additional context does nothing to change my statement. It's obfuscation.

Speculation and consideration of a candidates civil rights agenda is perfectly valid regardless of their financial stance - although I imagine you'll want to argue this point.

16. Originally Posted by Trippy
Wonder away.

You're awfully sensitive about it though.

This additional context does nothing to change my statement. It's obfuscation.
Awfully sensitive ? How is that so ?

Your are right though, your statement is just that, obfuscation, pulling out lines ignoring context.

Speculation and consideration of a candidates civil rights agenda is perfectly valid regardless of their financial stance - although I imagine you'll want to argue this point.
OK, you can split the hairs all you want, all that was just pointing out that when economy tanks that should be the main issue.
More obfuscation and assumptions on your part.
Do you really have something relevant to say ?