Warrior_of_Freedom
01-12-2012, 04:51 AM
Just wanted to emphasize how much the tables have turned. Think about Iowa and New Hampshire, one out of every FOUR people that went to vote voted for Ron Paul, I've heard here on the forums even Ron Paul came 2nd in the democratic primary in New Hampshire (didn't verify, but the write-in votes were 2nd to Obama)
Now we heard the GOP talking all day long, and the media, about getting someone who can beat Obama. Who better than Ron Paul? He gets people to switch parties just to vote for him, gets 50%+ of the young vote (Which Obama depended on for victory) and not too far from half of the independent vote among the other GOP candidates. People who hate Obama will vote GOP anyway, but Ron Paul will get votes from independents and democrats, so in my eyes I see no one more fit to beat Obama (Since voting against a candidate seems to be more popular with older voters than actually voting for a candidate)
So I think we need to burn it into peoples brains that "Hey, if Ron Paul isn't nominated, he won't draw the independents and democrats--and especially not the young vote, because most of them will not compromise everything just to see Obama gone." Indeed, if Ron was to lose the nomination, an Obama reelection would be better because it would be near impossible to oust Romney during the primaries and caucuses for his reelection campaign (Assuming he would actually win) to get Rand or someone else up there. (But the way things are going with NDAA, SOPA, etc, I don't think losing this election is an option) People that attend political events need to get Romney on camera talking about his opinion on legislation like NDAA and SOPA. I don't think he would ever try to stop SOPA or reverse NDAA, just like the patriot act. But I'm going on a tangent now so /OP
Now we heard the GOP talking all day long, and the media, about getting someone who can beat Obama. Who better than Ron Paul? He gets people to switch parties just to vote for him, gets 50%+ of the young vote (Which Obama depended on for victory) and not too far from half of the independent vote among the other GOP candidates. People who hate Obama will vote GOP anyway, but Ron Paul will get votes from independents and democrats, so in my eyes I see no one more fit to beat Obama (Since voting against a candidate seems to be more popular with older voters than actually voting for a candidate)
So I think we need to burn it into peoples brains that "Hey, if Ron Paul isn't nominated, he won't draw the independents and democrats--and especially not the young vote, because most of them will not compromise everything just to see Obama gone." Indeed, if Ron was to lose the nomination, an Obama reelection would be better because it would be near impossible to oust Romney during the primaries and caucuses for his reelection campaign (Assuming he would actually win) to get Rand or someone else up there. (But the way things are going with NDAA, SOPA, etc, I don't think losing this election is an option) People that attend political events need to get Romney on camera talking about his opinion on legislation like NDAA and SOPA. I don't think he would ever try to stop SOPA or reverse NDAA, just like the patriot act. But I'm going on a tangent now so /OP