Are You Willing To Give Dems the 08 Election if RP Doesn't Get the Nomination?

[Captain Shays]

I don't know how many of us there are or who would support this, but let's jsut say that the RNC succeeds in keeping ROn Paul out of the debates and undermining his chances through the media like they have been trying to do.

What if we all wrote letters saying that if they do succeed we'll still vote for Ron Paul anyway effectively giving the White House to the Dems?

To me it really doesn't matter if any of the Dems or any of the Reps outside of Ron Paul gets elected. We'll still be on a path toward socialism one world government, wars and mor wars.
More corporate welfare. Open borders. The Federal Reserve gaining mastership over our children and their children. The IRS (I Represent Satan) robbing our hard earned money while those in our government send it in huge chunks all over the world.
They'll continue to rob socialist security for their pork projects and maintain the unconstitutiional war on (some) drugs.
We'll see the Pharmeceutical Industrial Complez gain more power over our choices of what doctor to see, when to see him, what drugs to take (either denied our choice or forced by them) or even what vitimans to use.

We'll see the state become more powerful while we continue to lose our freedoms whether its F-Fed Thompson or the Hildabeast or Osama bin Obama. It just doesn't matter. We all lose either way if Ron Paul doesn't get elected.

So I suggest that along with our campaign to get Ron Paul elected yes, we vote for him and none other in 08 as our pledge to bring our votes somewhere else.

If the RNC doesn't like us, or respect us or think we're all that then screw them big time.

[kylejack]

I'm voting for Ron Paul in the general election. Period.

[winston84]

Here here!

[lundbaek]

I forget who it was who firsst stated that "there's not a dimes worth of difference between the Democrat and the Republican Partys". They are both controlled by the same puppet masters.

[NewEnd]

It depends on the candidates

Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Dodd

No

Gravel, Kucinich

yes

[kylejack]

It depends on the candidates

Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Dodd

No

Gravel, Kucinich

yes

Category A, most likely.

[NewEnd]

I forgot Richardson, who I also like.

And Ron Paul said he would support a Kucinich candidacy.

[J_M]

Gravel and Kucinich are the biggest nanny state socialists of them all. The only thing going for them is probably NORML support and being adamantly anti-war. Kucinich is also very wrong on the 2nd Amendment and has sponsored a bill to outlaw all handgun ownership. Kucinich also seems to be bad on energy policy and and business. He is anti-Nuclear energy and against expanded oil exploration. Gravel seems as bad on most issues. Basically these guys are the opposite of Ron Paul on everything except Iraq and I don't see the leap from Libertarian to Socialist.

I couldn't vote for the big name Democrats.

I would potentially vote for Richardson since he is decent on the 2nd Amendment. However, this would only be if he was up against Romney or Giuliani and with a Democrat run House and Senate there is no guarantee he would veto any gun legislation.

The only other big candidate I could vote for would be Thompson if he won the Republican nomination and it seemed close in Texas. I will be voting for Paul in the primaries and will probably just vote for a third party since Texas is almost guaranteed to be Republican.

[Brandybuck]

I forget who it was who firsst stated that "there's not a dimes worth of difference between the Democrat and the Republican Partys". They are both controlled by the same puppet masters.
I don't believe in puppet masters. That's a fatalist attitude. But I will agree that there's not much difference between the two parties. This is because both parties are trying to attract the undecided, and move to the center where they become indistinguishable from each other.

[NewEnd]

Gravel and Kucinich are the biggest nanny state socialists of them all. The only thing going for them is probably NORML support and being adamantly anti-war. Kucinich is also very wrong on the 2nd Amendment and has sponsored a bill to outlaw all handgun ownership. Kucinich also seems to be bad on energy policy and and business. He is anti-Nuclear energy and against expanded oil exploration. Gravel seems as bad on most issues. Basically these guys are the opposite of Ron Paul on everything except Iraq and I don't see the leap from Libertarian to Socialist.

I couldn't vote for the big name Democrats.

I would potentially vote for Richardson since he is decent on the 2nd Amendment. However, this would only be if he was up against Romney or Giuliani and with a Democrat run House and Senate there is no guarantee he would veto any gun legislation.

The only other big candidate I could vote for would be Thompson if he won the Republican nomination and it seemed close in Texas. I will be voting for Paul in the primaries and will probably just vote for a third party since Texas is almost guaranteed to be Republican.

foreign policy, and war on drugs are my two biggest issues, though. So I could vote for either.

Of course, they don't hold a candle to Ron Paul.

[J_M]

I can understand that. Of course, none of the top contenders in either party seem to be open to ending the war on drugs or adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy.

NewEnd, I would like to see where Ron Paul said he would support Kucinich for President. If you can't cite a source that is fine and I will take your word for it but they seem to be opposite on the support for free markets, the 2nd amendment, and a lot of other issues. I really can't see how he could support him based solely on the Iraq issue and drugs given how bad he would be on the rest of the issues that define Paul.

[Shmuel Spade]

I'm voting straight LP in lieu of a Paul nomination. With a Paul nomination I'm voting straight LP except for the POTUS.

[Kregener]

If we do not get Ron Paul, it does not matter which other Republicrat or Demoblican gets the ..."job".

[NewEnd]

I can understand that. Of course, none of the top contenders in either party seem to be open to ending the war on drugs or adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy.

NewEnd, I would like to see where Ron Paul said he would support Kucinich for President. If you can't cite a source that is fine and I will take your word for it but they seem to be opposite on the support for free markets, the 2nd amendment, and a lot of other issues. I really can't see how he could support him based solely on the Iraq issue and drugs given how bad he would be on the rest of the issues that define Paul.


its in a recent New Hampshire town meeting, perhaps someone should get teh Youtube chennel to add this little series, it had alot of interesting paul points.... let me see if i can find it, and it was more than Iraq, it was that Kucinich also voted against his own party when it came to clintons military incursions..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHBicL123C4

at 3:26

actual "endorsement" would be around 5:30

[giskard]

Fred Thompson is a CFR member.

Which candidates aren't anyway, other than RP?

[BuddyRey]

There is one great Democrat in the race, but he's getting very little attention; Mike Gravel. I'd vote for him any day. I actually think most people would be surprised to learn how much Paul and Gravel have in common.

[JaylieWoW]

Yes, and for several reasons.

1. I absolutely and positively believe that if the Republican Party does not nominate an anti-war candidate, the Dems are going to win anyway. I think something that gets regularly overlooked on the polls are the high numbers of potential voters who are still saying "unsure". One poll I looked at had the unsure numbers at a higher percentage than the highest ranked Republican (Rudy) at like 29%. Which is also why I'm not in the least bit daunted by Ron's perceived "lack of support" on scientific polls.

2. I'm a firm Ron Paul voter. I will write him in regardless of what it means on who gets the White House. The GOP exodus is very real and it's about time we start dismantling our 2 party system for the fraud that it is. I hate to see the Republican party be the first to flounder but if the GOP can't see beyond their heightened sense of hubris they deserve what's coming their way.

3. Even if the Dems get the White House, specifically Hillary, and things DO get much worse than where they are already headed, it will spell doom for the Dems as well.

4. I can honestly say to people (including a few in my own family) who start whining about the sad state of affairs to come and who say I'm crazy to support a nutjob like Ron Paul .... "I tried to warn you, maybe next time you'll listen."

#4 might be a weak "I told you so", but what better way for America to finally listen.

Staunch and determined!
Christy

[CurtisLow]

"nutjob like Ron Paul" They all must watch Fox News... no doubt


Lets say RP does not get the Nomination..
Even tho he says he's not going to do a third party, I find that hard to believe. In my opinion, the only reason why he's a Republican is so he can be in the mainstream in the debates. Without the debates he would have no TV and no news about him. If he gets a huge following and it's growing more and more everyday there's no stopping him. I don't care what party he's in. I'm voting for the man, Ron Paul and what he stands for. Not the party.

my 2 cents

[JaylieWoW]

Yes, and for several reasons.

1. I absolutely and positively believe that if the Republican Party does not nominate an anti-war candidate, the Dems are going to win anyway. I think something that gets regularly overlooked on the polls are the high numbers of potential voters who are still saying "unsure". One poll I looked at had the unsure numbers at a higher percentage than the highest ranked Republican (Rudy) at like 29%. Which is also why I'm not in the least bit daunted by Ron's perceived "lack of support" on scientific polls.

2. I'm a firm Ron Paul voter. I will write him in regardless of what it means on who gets the White House. The GOP exodus is very real and it's about time we start dismantling our 2 party system for the fraud that it is. I hate to see the Republican party be the first to flounder but if the GOP can't see beyond their heightened sense of hubris they deserve what's coming their way.

3. Even if the Dems get the White House, specifically Hillary, and things DO get much worse than where they are already headed, it will spell doom for the Dems as well.

4. I can honestly say to people (including a few in my own family) who start whining about the sad state of affairs to come and who say I'm crazy to support a nutjob like Ron Paul .... "I tried to warn you, maybe next time you'll listen."

#4 might be a weak "I told you so", but what better way for America to finally listen.

Staunch and determined!
Christy

Republican Exodus... I rest my case!! (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070601-122909-8977r.htm)

[mdh]

There're really four candidates in the 2008 presidential election, the way I see it. Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Third Party, and Neo Con. Third party folks have the same amount of chance that we always had. Thanks to ballot restrictions and the inherent two-party-ness of the whole system, its not a good one. All of the other dems and republicans are neocons, no matter how you slice it up, so a vote for any is a vote for any, as it were.

[aravoth]

I Ron Paul doesn't get the nod, I will write him in. I will not waste one more vote on a neo-con warmongering coward like benito Guiliani, or a Communist Democrat Like Billary, period.