PDA

View Full Version : Those Against VP Spot




tennman
03-07-2012, 01:49 PM
For those against Ron or Rand taking a VP spot, I have this sincere question/observation/challenge.

I keep reading here that the liberty movement has to build from the ground up - that we can't just hop in the White House right off. Why in the world then, if a President Paul is not possible, would we oppose a VP Rand Paul?

When Reagan was forced into choosing Bush Sr. as his VP when he din't want to, what came of that? President Bush.

Why would we want to give up that potential? We'd have a liberty-minded person in waiting for the presidency! And, as an added bonus, he'd have the ear of a President who genuinely likes his father.

Remember that for better or worse, Cheney shaped Bush's decesion making. Mostly for worse since Bush seemed to start out as a physical conservative and noninterventionist. Rand (and Ron) could help shape Romney and then have an experienced Rand with the almost default backing of the Republican party!

Just like in chess, you don't quit if you can't capture the king in the first few moves, we've got to be wise about the future.

I love Ron Paul and what he stands for and that's why I'll take a massive inroad like this instead of nothing. Flame away, but I'm just being honest and, I belive, logical.

Your thoughts?

G-Wohl
03-07-2012, 01:53 PM
Upfront: I would not be opposed to a Paul VP slot, if the only alternative would be RP being absent from the ticket at all.

That said, Reagan left office with a 60-something percent approval rating. The majority of Americans were fond of the Reagan/Bush administration. I am reluctant to say that Romney would end his presidential career with such an approval rating - particularly during such economically and militarily tumultuous times.

DerailingDaTrain
03-07-2012, 01:54 PM
How much influence does Joe Biden have as VP? Also, I can't support it because they are nothing alike, Romney is a warmonger who likes the Fed and thinks they're doing a great job. I guess what I'm saying is that no matter who is VP if the POTUS isn't Ron then we are ****** even if it is Rand.

amonasro
03-07-2012, 02:00 PM
How much influence does Joe Biden have as VP? Also, I can't support it because they are nothing alike, Romney is a warmonger who likes the Fed and thinks they're doing a great job. I guess what I'm saying is that no matter who is VP if the POTUS isn't Ron then we are ****** even if it is Rand.

It's not so much about influence as it is perceived credibility. As VP you know Ron would milk that seat to the max in order to get the message out.

Then again, VP is President of the Senate, and can cast tie-breaking votes.

kylejack
03-07-2012, 02:01 PM
I'm against Rand Paul, not a VP spot for Ron. I still wouldn't vote for a Romney/Ron ticket, though.

Article V
03-07-2012, 02:02 PM
If Rand can't help his own father win Kentucky, then I seriously doubt anyone will consider him for a VP spot in 2012.

Ron Paul himself may, however, still be a VP contender; because, unlike Rand, Ron truly has a national presence and a national campaign.

Mark37snj
03-07-2012, 02:04 PM
It would dishearten, co-opt, and disintigrate the Liberty movement. It would take years to reassemble the pieces.

alucard13mmfmj
03-07-2012, 02:06 PM
Let's just make sure we have delegates... and we better make damn sure Ron doesn't just get a lame speaking platform at the convention. We need to make deals and get something TANGIBLE form this. Either a VP slot of a person of our choice or make a deal with our enemies for the pledge of their delegates.

Article V
03-07-2012, 02:10 PM
I'm against Rand Paul, not a VP spot for Ron. I still wouldn't vote for a Romney/Ron ticket, though.Having Ron one breath away from becoming Commander in Chief is as close as any liberty-lover can ask us to get in 2012 if Ron does not win the GOP nomination.

In a future where life & health are uncertain and where America is likely to be involved in 4 theatres of war while suffering massive inflation, massive bankruptcies, and massive riots, it's very possible that a lone nutcase may target the President. Having Ron Paul as our VP would do a lot to quell my fears in such a dangerous scenario.

And, besides that, Ron as VP would be the best way to market and spread the liberty message, because the man would be able to command national media attention whenever he spoke for 4 years, which is something no other liberty candidate would be able to do during that time or has been able to do in the past.

The Binghamton Patriot
03-07-2012, 02:11 PM
For those against Ron or Rand taking a VP spot, I have this sincere question/observation/challenge.

I keep reading here that the liberty movement has to build from the ground up - that we can't just hop in the White House right off. Why in the world then, if a President Paul is not possible, would we oppose a VP Rand Paul?

When Reagan was forced into choosing Bush Sr. as his VP when he din't want to, what came of that? President Bush.

Why would we want to give up that potential? We'd have a liberty-minded person in waiting for the presidency! And, as an added bonus, he'd have the ear of a President who genuinely likes his father.

Remember that for better or worse, Cheney shaped Bush's decesion making. Mostly for worse since Bush seemed to start out as a physical conservative and noninterventionist. Rand (and Ron) could help shape Romney and then have an experienced Rand with the almost default backing of the Republican party!

Just like in chess, you don't quit if you can't capture the king in the first few moves, we've got to be wise about the future.

I love Ron Paul and what he stands for and that's why I'll take a massive inroad like this instead of nothing. Flame away, but I'm just being honest and, I belive, logical.

Your thoughts?

this is a compromise. We don't compromise.

DerailingDaTrain
03-07-2012, 02:12 PM
Having Ron one breath away from becoming Commander in Chief is as close as any liberty-lover can ask us to get in 2012 if Ron does not win the GOP nomination.

In a future where life/heath are uncertain and where America is likely to be involved in 4 theatres of war while suffering massive inflation, massive bankruptcies, and massive riots, it's very possible that a lone nutcase may target the President. Having Ron Paul as our VP would do a lot to quell my fears in such a dangerous scenario.

And, besides that, Ron as VP would be the best way to market and spread the liberty message, because the man would be able to command national media attention whenever he spoke for 4 years, which is something no other liberty candidate would be able to do during that time or has been able to do in the past.

But with President Romney bombing Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and any other country who doesn't agree with us how will that make RP the peace candidate look as VP? Also, the tie breaking vote is irrelevant.

Article V
03-07-2012, 02:14 PM
It's not so much about influence as it is perceived credibility. As VP you know Ron would milk that seat to the max in order to get the message out.

Then again, VP is President of the Senate, and can cast tie-breaking votes.Yes on all accounts. Plus, post-2012, a tie-vote Senate is surprisingly more likely than ever.

harikaried
03-07-2012, 02:18 PM
What change can the VP spot bring about now, in 4 years, 8 years, etc?

VP spot (assuming win):
now: not much
4 years: not much (unless people really hate the president)
8 years: potential shoe-in for president

VP spot (assuming loss):
now: media attention (e.g., Palin)
4 years: slight boost in 2016 run
8 years: second term

no VP spot (Obama reelected):
now: not much
4 years: open 2016..


It might seem like a Rand Paul VP spot with people voting against the ticket might be the better option if the other option is Ron Paul for VP spot. Although it's hard to tell how people/media will react if not-Paul/Rand ticket loses in terms of Rand Paul's future run.

Article V
03-07-2012, 02:19 PM
But with President Romney bombing Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and any other country who doesn't agree with us how will that make RP the peace candidate look as VP?It'll make him look like the only reasonable person in the administration. And it'll make him look like a safe fallback if we suffer a major foreign attack that incapacitates the President, because we'll know Ron will retaliate for our safety while not over-reacting and causing more danger to befall us.

soulcyon
03-07-2012, 02:21 PM
Romney is on all sides of every issue, you can't really pin him as opposite of RP's stances. I've heard him talk well about RP, as well as agree with RP about the wars in Afghanistan etc. I'm still writing in Ron Paul, although I don't dislike the Rand Paul VP option.

Butchie
03-07-2012, 02:22 PM
It's not so much about influence as it is perceived credibility. As VP you know Ron would milk that seat to the max in order to get the message out.

Then again, VP is President of the Senate, and can cast tie-breaking votes.

Credibility? To be forever linked with Romney's disaster of a Presidency? I'm not saying "no" to this because I'm one of these religious Paul fanatics who says "NOBP" I'm saying no because I don't believe many of you are thinking this out, Ron would have zero power, VP almost never get on TV except when they do something stupid, and if the Pres they serve under crashes, they crash with them, and there goes Ron's legacy. As for him becoming Pres after Romney - is that a joke? Ron would be 85yrs old by that time, 76 was pushing it as it is.

TheGrinch
03-07-2012, 02:22 PM
I want to scream whenever someone says it could have the influence of Cheney.... The only reason Cheney had so much power is because Bush and big interests backed him to piss all over the constitution.

With Dr. Paul or Rand obeying the limitations of office through the constitution, along with a president and interests behind the secnes that oppose him messing with their gravy train, it would be little more than a token role, with the detriment of tying ourselves to an administration that if/when they fail by not listening to Ron. We'd go down with their ship, the liberty movement would be dead, and the Democrats would take back the white house (if you can even get past the campaigning part with diametrically opposed messages, going up against the Obama rhetoric machine).. It's political suicide.

Allowing them to co-opt our movement with just a few concessions, well, it's just not gonna happen, and there are so many reasons why Romney won't offer it and it's even less likely Ron will or Rand will take it.

DerailingDaTrain
03-07-2012, 02:23 PM
Romney is on all sides of every issue, you can't really pin him as opposite of RP's stances. I've heard him talk well about RP, as well as agree with RP about the wars in Afghanistan etc. I'm still writing in Ron Paul, although I don't dislike the Rand Paul VP option.

He has consistently stated that RP is wrong on foreign policy, the Fed, and many other issues. He only flip flops on domestic issues.

anewvoice
03-07-2012, 02:26 PM
It is standing US policy to not negotiate with terrorists so I don't see how a deal could be made with Sanromnich.

polomertz
03-07-2012, 02:28 PM
Of course I would love Ron to be VP no matter who is president. HOWEVER, I would not vote for that ticket - something about lipstick on a pig....

cdc482
03-07-2012, 02:31 PM
Good points BUT and this is a mega-huge but Ron Paul is no Dick Cheney or George Bush. If Ron gets the spot it will be ONLY to appease us. No way will Ron have any more influence than he does now.

Kapatugo
03-07-2012, 02:34 PM
Presidency is Priority Number 1 but if AFTER the Convention we fail to gain the GOP Nomination then VP is an Option.

harikaried
03-07-2012, 02:36 PM
Of course I would love Ron to be VP no matter who is president. HOWEVER, I would not vote for that ticket - something about lipstick on a pig....Same. Pushing a not-Paul/Paul ticket to the White House in 2012 means no Paul presidency until 2020 earliest. A non-Paul/Paul ticket that we make lose could help push the message of Liberty in the mean time until 2016.

alucard13mmfmj
03-07-2012, 02:41 PM
At least we can say that the movement got us a VP seat. Something to kinda show for it.

You guys realize that Ron is most likely going to retire from Congress after this term? I'd be glad to have Ron as VP. He can stay in government for another 4 years, even if it might not be a very powerful position. I would think of VP as semi-retirement. Ron can watch out for us as VP and maybe be that little whisper in Romney's ear. Ron could be buddies with Romney and slowly try to influence him. It is not too much work. If I was Ron, I'd take the VP position and all the salary I earn as VP.. I could put it in a pro-liberty pac for pro-liberty candidates who might be running for congress or senate, who might need money/support.

alucard13mmfmj
03-07-2012, 02:42 PM
Also... maybe ROn can announce his VP to try to gain traction that way??? Or is that illegal and/or frown upon?

Brent H
03-07-2012, 02:43 PM
Ron Paul hasn't been offered a VP slot, so quit trying to take a bone that hasn't even been thrown our way.

tttppp
03-07-2012, 02:45 PM
Having Ron one breath away from becoming Commander in Chief is as close as any liberty-lover can ask us to get in 2012 if Ron does not win the GOP nomination.

In a future where life & health are uncertain and where America is likely to be involved in 4 theatres of war while suffering massive inflation, massive bankruptcies, and massive riots, it's very possible that a lone nutcase may target the President. Having Ron Paul as our VP would do a lot to quell my fears in such a dangerous scenario.

And, besides that, Ron as VP would be the best way to market and spread the liberty message, because the man would be able to command national media attention whenever he spoke for 4 years, which is something no other liberty candidate would be able to do during that time or has been able to do in the past.

The VP slot is only worth anything if Romney allows Ron Paul to do something. If Romney wants Ron Paul solely to get votes, Ron Paul will hurt his image because nothing will get done and the perception will be that he is partly to blame.

cajuncocoa
03-07-2012, 02:46 PM
Honest answer: I'd be OK with it, so long as the front runner doesn't require RP to alter his message.

That said, I'd have a hard time believing that any one of the other 3 GOP candidates would want a running mate who is diametrically opposed to many of the front runner's stances (esp. FP) and is saying so in his speeches.

JellyRev
03-07-2012, 02:55 PM
As VP he would likely lose face with pure liberty supporters, but as VP he will get large amounts of new information, and could launch huge investigations routing out the nasty parts of the govt. And if something were to happen to romney.

wgadget
03-07-2012, 03:06 PM
If any of the corrupt three want to win the general they will need to attract indies. Just sayin.

Matthew Zak
03-07-2012, 03:08 PM
Let me tell you why Ron as Romney's VP would destroy the movement, as well as Ron Paul's legacy.

Let's say Joe Schmo doesn't trust Romney. But he doesn't know that much about Paul. Paul becomes Romney's VP. Automatically, RP is associated with Team Romney before Joe Schmo even knows anything about Ron Paul. Let's say the remaining Ron Paul supporters pull Joe Aside and tell him, "Ron Paul is the REAL DEAL, he would NEVER.... ummm... well, besides teaming up with Romney, he would NEVER--" Joe Schmo stops listening.

That's why. There's no reason to think beyond that. That is reason enough for me.

Ron Paul is special because he has integrity. Teaming up with Romney would just make Ron Paul a 76 year old VP to Mit Romney.

Butchie
03-07-2012, 03:09 PM
As VP he would likely lose face with pure liberty supporters, but as VP he will get large amounts of new information, and could launch huge investigations routing out the nasty parts of the govt. And if something were to happen to romney.

I will never cease to be amazed at this fantasy land some of you live in, he will be shoved in a corner, the movement and the Paul's will be forever stained with Romney's name, end of story. All this would be is a ploy to get your support behind Romney, you guys claim to be so "hip" to the political manipulation yet it's clear you'll fall for it like anyone else.

parocks
03-07-2012, 03:09 PM
this is a compromise. We don't compromise.

It appears that what we do is LOSE.

Matthew Zak
03-07-2012, 03:11 PM
I would demand that my account at RPF be deleted, I would cover my ROn Paul bumper stickers with paint, I would delete my youtube videos, and I would never trust him, or his son Rand.

That's what Ron Paul would be accomplishing with me, if he joined Romney's cabinet.

I don't believe for even a second that it was ever considered anyway.

If you think it is even possible you don't "get" Ron Paul.

And if I'm wrong, then I never got him myself. And I'm done.

Butchie
03-07-2012, 03:13 PM
I would demand that my account at RPF be deleted, I would cover my ROn Paul bumper stickers with paint, I would delete my youtube videos, and I would never trust him, or his son Rand.

That's what Ron Paul would be accomplishing with me, if he joined Romney's cabinet.

I don't believe for even a second that it was ever considered anyway.

If you think it is even possible you don't "get" Ron Paul.

And if I'm wrong, then I never got him myself. And I'm done.

Exactly how I feel!

heavenlyboy34
03-07-2012, 03:14 PM
It's not so much about influence as it is perceived credibility. As VP you know Ron would milk that seat to the max in order to get the message out.

Then again, VP is President of the Senate, and can cast tie-breaking votes.
Only in certain instances. The Senate has a President Pro Tempore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate) . /nitpick

heavenlyboy34
03-07-2012, 03:17 PM
Let me tell you why Ron as Romney's VP would destroy the movement, as well as Ron Paul's legacy.

Let's say Joe Schmo doesn't trust Romney. But he doesn't know that much about Paul. Paul becomes Romney's VP. Automatically, RP is associated with Team Romney before Joe Schmo even knows anything about Ron Paul. Let's say the remaining Ron Paul supporters pull Joe Aside and tell him, "Ron Paul is the REAL DEAL, he would NEVER.... ummm... well, besides teaming up with Romney, he would NEVER--" Joe Schmo stops listening.

That's why. There's no reason to think beyond that. That is reason enough for me.

Ron Paul is special because he has integrity. Teaming up with Romney would just make Ron Paul a 76 year old VP to Mit Romney.
This kind of thing is why the VP should be an elected position, as it was meant to be originally.

alucard13mmfmj
03-07-2012, 03:19 PM
After his term in Congress, he might retire... then what? :o

jolynna
03-07-2012, 03:20 PM
Accepting a VP spot is an endorsement of the POTUS.

Ron Paul cannot endorse anyone for POTUS, who in advance of being elected, says he will NOT uphold the oath of office or the constitution.

No.

xFiFtyOnE
03-07-2012, 03:21 PM
Leave Rand in the senate until he can run for President. I would vote for Ron as VP however. He is going to be retiring anyways. VP would be a good position for him to stay in the spotlight.

Travlyr
03-07-2012, 03:25 PM
After his term in Congress, he might retire... then what? :o

National radio show? I don't listen to radio now, but I'd listen to Dr. Ron Paul on the radio every day.

John F Kennedy III
03-07-2012, 03:26 PM
It would dishearten, co-opt, and disintigrate the Liberty movement. It would take years to reassemble the pieces.

Do you really think that would happen?

DerailingDaTrain
03-07-2012, 03:39 PM
Do you really think that would happen?

If Ron or Rand was VP to someone as horrible as Romney I can see that happening. They'd feel betrayed, sold out, whatever you want to call it and give up basically.

Liberty74
03-07-2012, 03:48 PM
I am not against Rand or Ron taking the VP spot. I personally still think Ron and Romney might have some sort of deal going on despite the denials. I have yet to figure it out. Neither have attacked each other directly in 20 debates - very odd. Ron did release a video attacking Romney as a "flip flopper" which also included attacks on Newt and Frothy. Ron attacking Frothy as being a fake was kinda like the VP guy being the attack dog for the guy at the top of the ticket - practice if you will?

I would vote for a Romney/Paul ticket. Would I be happy? Probably not but it would be a step in the right direction.

Article V
03-07-2012, 03:56 PM
Pushing a not-Paul/Paul ticket to the White House in 2012 means no Paul presidency until 2020 earliest.
The VP slot is only worth anything if Romney allows Ron Paul to do something.Bull. Daniel Webster turned down the VP slot twice after twice losing his party's nomination, and twice his would-be running mate died in office. Had Daniel Webster accepted the VP slot on either occasion, he'd be one of our Presidents.

Ron Paul at home in Texas is worth nothing. Ron Paul one breath from the Presidency is worth a lot!

Butchie
03-07-2012, 04:01 PM
Bull. Daniel Webster turned down the VP slot twice after twice losing his party's nomination, and twice his would-be running mate died in office. Had Daniel Webster accepted the VP slot on either occasion, he'd be one of our Presidents.

Ron Paul at home in Texas is worth nothing. Ron Paul one breath from the Presidency is worth a lot!

So between Ron and Romney you think Romney's going to die first? My god, when is the last time a Presidend died in office? Kennedy? That's your whole strategy, have Ron sell out all his principles in the hopes that Romney will die?

Marky
03-07-2012, 04:09 PM
Do you people honestly think Mitt’s administration is going to allow Ron to continue to rail against the Fed, the police state, and the war machine when these are the things that Mitt is in full support of???? When was the last time we had a VP publicly criticizing the President? When Mitt pushes for a new war or a new bailout, is Ron just supposed to sit in the background biting his tongue? C’mom people…be real. Taking a VP slot would be total sell-out move and would reap no benefits.

RPit
03-07-2012, 04:09 PM
Those talking about a VP spot must be high...

Just imagine this:
The scene is a Vice Presidential Debate
Ron/Rand are asked to defend Romney's positions

Its not gonna happen folks. Both Obama and Biden will be attacking Romney.. Romney doesn't need a third person on stage saying things against Romney or 'i don't agree with Romney on this'...

Danan
03-07-2012, 04:22 PM
Those talking about a VP spot must be high...

Just imagine this:
The scene is a Vice Presidential Debate
Ron/Rand are asked to defend Romney's positions

Its not gonna happen folks. Both Obama and Biden will be attacking Romney.. Romney doesn't need a third person on stage saying things against Romney or 'i don't agree with Romney on this'...

Yeah, Ron would be a disaster for Romney. His running mate would basically be a tougher opponent than Obama. No way Mitt would be so stupid and no way Ron would do that either, imho.

tbone717
03-07-2012, 04:29 PM
If Ron or Rand was VP to someone as horrible as Romney I can see that happening. They'd feel betrayed, sold out, whatever you want to call it and give up basically.

I see what you are saying, but you know it is a tough call. For everyone that the movement would lose, we could potentially gain more.

NoOneButPaul
03-07-2012, 04:30 PM
My only motivation to vote for Ron as VP is that I would assume some Paulbot would be crazy enough to blow Romney's head off...

Article V
03-07-2012, 04:31 PM
So between Ron and Romney you think Romney's going to die first? My god, when is the last time a Presidend died in office? Kennedy?Good point. We're statistically overdue. Odds have never been higher.
That's your whole strategy, have Ron sell out all his principles in the hopes that Romney will die?No, that's not my whole strategy. It's a fifth reserve parachute option. And I don't believe it would be selling out Ron's principles to accept the request to serve his country as their second-in-command. I'm not asking Ron to go around like Biden, promoting whatever the President wants; I more expect Ron to be like Thomas Jefferson, speaking his mind freely and promoting the President's agenda only where he agrees.

notsure
03-07-2012, 04:34 PM
For those against Ron or Rand taking a VP spot, I have this sincere question/observation/challenge.

I keep reading here that the liberty movement has to build from the ground up - that we can't just hop in the White House right off. Why in the world then, if a President Paul is not possible, would we oppose a VP Rand Paul?

When Reagan was forced into choosing Bush Sr. as his VP when he din't want to, what came of that? President Bush.

Why would we want to give up that potential? We'd have a liberty-minded person in waiting for the presidency! And, as an added bonus, he'd have the ear of a President who genuinely likes his father.

Remember that for better or worse, Cheney shaped Bush's decesion making. Mostly for worse since Bush seemed to start out as a physical conservative and noninterventionist. Rand (and Ron) could help shape Romney and then have an experienced Rand with the almost default backing of the Republican party!

Just like in chess, you don't quit if you can't capture the king in the first few moves, we've got to be wise about the future.

I love Ron Paul and what he stands for and that's why I'll take a massive inroad like this instead of nothing. Flame away, but I'm just being honest and, I belive, logical.

Your thoughts?

Honestly, and logically none of the Republican candidates would pick either Paul for VP. It's MSM talking points stringing us along with this idea and convincing on the fence Paul supporters to back the proposed front-runner.
Paul has a better chance at becoming Obamas' VP then he does any of the Republican contenders.

Xenophage
03-07-2012, 04:36 PM
It would dishearten, co-opt, and disintigrate the Liberty movement. It would take years to reassemble the pieces.

This ^^

This is a consequence of the sell-out. It's the worst possible outcome you could achieve in ANY strategy, and Ron or Rand accepting a VP slot with Romney GUARANTEES the above scenario.

So, OP, no you are NOT being logical. This is not the way to move the revolution forward.

notsure
03-07-2012, 04:37 PM
The only future this movement has in the Republican party, if business continues as usual, is to be absorbed and transformed. Just like they're trying to do with the tea party and just like they've done with the evangelicals in the past.

notsure
03-07-2012, 04:39 PM
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/180736_150611501660374_100001345745703_273333_1246 957_n.jpg

jolynna
03-07-2012, 04:45 PM
I see what you are saying, but you know it is a tough call. For everyone that the movement would lose, we could potentially gain more.

Give the seal of approval to a trasher of the "oath of offfice" and the "constitution" and what "movement"?

I do not think Ron Paul wants to be responsible for leading a SINGLE person into voting for MORE oath or constitution breaking. It doesn't matter if there are other candidates that are worse, an abetter of a murderer-of-only-one is JUST as bad as a serial murderer abetter. Both result in an abetter with blood on his or her hands.

notsure
03-07-2012, 04:54 PM
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.

- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

69360
03-07-2012, 04:59 PM
Didn't read the thread, don't care to. If Romney picks one of the Pauls as VP I will vote for him.

gerryb
03-07-2012, 05:01 PM
this is a compromise. We don't compromise.

Do you pay income taxes?
Get a license?
Register your guns?

You've compromised.

Butchie
03-07-2012, 05:02 PM
Good point. We're statistically overdue. Odds have never been higher. No, that's not my whole strategy. It's a fifth reserve parachute option. And I don't believe it would be selling out Ron's principles to accept the request to serve his country as their second-in-command. I'm not asking Ron to go around like Biden, promoting whatever the President wants; I more expect Ron to be like Thomas Jefferson, speaking his mind freely and promoting the President's agenda only where he agrees.

And you really think that's how it will be huh? So tell me, after Romney's Presidency is a complete disaster where does that leave Ron? Where does that leave Rand's chances? I'd rather Obama 4 more years, Rand in 2016. Look, I get where you are coming from, I just wish you would think the reality of it through a little harder.

jolynna
03-07-2012, 05:14 PM
Better to be one of the "losers" that did NOT contribute to the corruption than "lend your good name" so that the wrongdoer can have a platform from which to perform his actions.

The Free Hornet
03-07-2012, 05:33 PM
And you really think that's how it will be huh? So tell me, after Romney's Presidency is a complete disaster where does that leave Ron? Where does that leave Rand's chances? I'd rather Obama 4 more years, Rand in 2016. Look, I get where you are coming from, I just wish you would think the reality of it through a little harder.

In another thread, you agree with Jack Cafferty that Ron Paul should drop out, "I appreciate Jack's reporting and still do, he's only stating the truth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365769-Those-Against-VP-Spot/page4).". Either you advocate Ron Paul dropping out RIGHT NOW or you are very shitty at expressing yourself. Above it is clear you think the focus should be on Rand Paul in 2016.

I hope Rand turns out to be a good politician, but it is 50:50. I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. You think TPTB are OK with Rand Paul and that Hannity will endorse him and now it will be OK to be a "libertarian" Republican or "Constitutional Conservative"? Do you think we are going to fool them with a sheep in wolf's clothing? [I fear the opposite may be the case.]

This isn't randpaulforums.com. At last be clear in each post of yours who you support. It isn't Ron Paul.

jolynna
03-07-2012, 06:03 PM
The media blacked Ron Paul out. Don't think some political/corporate interests were NOT behind that. They were.

There is massive fraud going on at the polls. Not a doubt in my mind about that. I have first-hand knowledge of some GOP shenanigans in advance of my state's primary. Even Carol Paul says Ron was cheated: Election fraud confirmed, "Votes being stolen" http://shar.es/gi7EE

But, despite the cheating and corruption -- so many are panting to have our candidate, the one with integrity, become part of the system. Even IF he has to lend his good name to "get" votes for a man who advocates, in ADVANCE of the election, breaking the oath of office and trashing the constitution.

No. No. And no.

In my opinion.

moonbat
03-07-2012, 06:05 PM
I would demand that my account at RPF be deleted, I would cover my ROn Paul bumper stickers with paint, I would delete my youtube videos, and I would never trust him, or his son Rand.

That's what Ron Paul would be accomplishing with me, if he joined Romney's cabinet.

I don't believe for even a second that it was ever considered anyway.

If you think it is even possible you don't "get" Ron Paul.

And if I'm wrong, then I never got him myself. And I'm done.

Yet another VP thread...:rolleyes: This is exactly how I feel.

Butchie
03-07-2012, 06:05 PM
In another thread, you agree with Jack Cafferty that Ron Paul should drop out, "I appreciate Jack's reporting and still do, he's only stating the truth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365769-Those-Against-VP-Spot/page4).". Either you advocate Ron Paul dropping out RIGHT NOW or you are very shitty at expressing yourself. Above it is clear you think the focus should be on Rand Paul in 2016.

I hope Rand turns out to be a good politician, but it is 50:50. I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. You think TPTB are OK with Rand Paul and that Hannity will endorse him and now it will be OK to be a "libertarian" Republican or "Constitutional Conservative"? Do you think we are going to fool them with a sheep in wolf's clothing? [I fear the opposite may be the case.]

This isn't randpaulforums.com. At last be clear in each post of yours who you support. It isn't Ron Paul.

I haven't stated an opinion on that one way or another. I'd say based on Ron's poor performance Jack was right to say "Ron will not win the Repbulican nomination". If you want to know, do I think he should drop out - at this point, yes I do, just take a moneybomb for example, average they bring in 1Mill, we have about 5 good people right now we are trying to run for Congress/Senate seats, that would be 200K for their campaigns, wouldn't it be better to start getting some people in the House/Senate than to continue on down this "stealth delegate" road? If I'm wrong, show where I'm wrong.

As to your last comment, I'd be willing to bet I've donated more money and gotten more votes for Ron than most of you on here who love to go around calling yourselves the "true" Ron Paul supporters. I've found what "true" means is you lick Ron's boots even if he's driving us off a cliff, you hoot and holler at rally's, but then when it comes to donating or getting votes you sit home and spam interent polls and pat yourself on the back that you accomplished something.

ZanZibar
03-07-2012, 06:08 PM
If Rand can't help his own father win Kentucky, then I seriously doubt anyone will consider him for a VP spot in 2012. Uhh... KY is (probably) too late to matter meaning the delegate is usually set by the time it comes around.

mello
03-07-2012, 06:19 PM
The reason why I don't care for the VP slot idea is that if Romney ends up winning with Ron or Rand as VP, he will by default run for the second term as well. Romney will not win because Paul supporters hate him as much as Obama. When he does lose, we will only have to wait 4 years instead of 8 for Rand to run for President.

bunklocoempire
03-07-2012, 06:24 PM
*snip*



Your thoughts?

I believe in competition.

I believe the brand that works best actually sells best.

I refuse to ruin the brand further by watering it down yet again. Especially tying it in any way to Dr. Ron Paul.

If I ruin the brand folks will just go reaching for the another product again driving them farther away.

Can't do it, won't do it.

NOBPP

(President Paul)

robert9712000
03-07-2012, 06:29 PM
this is a compromise. We don't compromise.

Compromise insinuates Ron would have to sacrifice what he believes to come to a mutual agreement.Being Vice president isn't a compromise, its a choice, of which if the options are that there's no way Ron can be President and it where to come down to going home and retiring or become Vice and use what ever authority you have to further the Libertarian agenda then i'd consider it.

As what someone else said.The only reason i'd be hesitant is because it might be better to let the republicans lose and push for Rand in 4 years,but if Romney/Paul actually won Paul could have a influence now.I think he'd be in Romney's business alot as vice.

Then maybe after 4 years Ron would retire and per agreement Rand would be Vice for the second term to set him up for a bid the next election cycle.

Mind you this is all conjecture,until i know all the facts of how this primary ends up its premature to speculate with absolutes.

Aratus
03-07-2012, 06:40 PM
For those against Ron or Rand taking a VP spot, I have this sincere question/observation/challenge.

I keep reading here that the liberty movement has to build from the ground up - that we can't just hop in the White House right off. Why in the world then, if a President Paul is not possible, would we oppose a VP Rand Paul?

When Reagan was forced into choosing Bush Sr. as his VP when he din't want to, what came of that? President Bush.

Why would we want to give up that potential? We'd have a liberty-minded person in waiting for the presidency! And, as an added bonus, he'd have the ear of a President who genuinely likes his father.

Remember that for better or worse, Cheney shaped Bush's decesion making. Mostly for worse since Bush seemed to start out as a physical conservative and noninterventionist. Rand (and Ron) could help shape Romney and then have an experienced Rand with the almost default backing of the Republican party!

Just like in chess, you don't quit if you can't capture the king in the first few moves, we've got to be wise about the future.

I love Ron Paul and what he stands for and that's why I'll take a massive inroad like this instead of nothing. Flame away, but I'm just being honest and, I belive, logical.

Your thoughts?


this is a compromise. We don't compromise.

this question is going to be asked again by this june and july

The Gold Standard
03-07-2012, 06:45 PM
What the fuck kind of speeches would Ron give as Romney's running mate? Crack down on Iran? Bomb Syria? Manage the economy? Bail out the banks? Indefinitely detain and assassinate citizens with no trial to keep us safe? Deficits don't matter? These are Romney's platform planks. Is he going to go out and support them? Or attack the top of his own ticket.

Liberty74
03-07-2012, 06:53 PM
So many fools. This talk of Rand in 2016 is so far out it's ridiculous. And to base who becomes President in 2012 is dependent on Rand winning in 2016 is laughable.

Listen, Rand can stand on his very own two feet. He does it well. I am proud to have Rand in the Senate from my home state of the Big Blue Wildcats. But no one can predict the future unless you are part of the black ops program that deals with time travel - yes it does exist. As everyone knows, the Republican nomination in 6 months went from Trump to Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Newt then to Santorum. Things change faster than you can blink and to base 2012 on 2016 is again, foolish.

We simply get plugging away at the Liberty movement - limited government at the federal level, phasing out the IRS and auditing the FED, stop policing the world, ending foreign aid, bringing home all the troops/ending wars, austrian economics, protecting the Constitution, saying no the police state, and on and on. Pick your topics. Educate yourself on those issues. Spread your knowledge. Keep planting the seeds. One day the sheep will wake up if it's not too late like Greece and the rest of Europe.

Read Ron's books - Liberty and The Revolution.

Let what happens in 2016 wait until then.

69360
03-07-2012, 06:54 PM
What the fuck kind of speeches would Ron give as Romney's running mate? Crack down on Iran? Bomb Syria? Manage the economy? Bail out the banks? Indefinitely detain and assassinate citizens with no trial to keep us safe? Deficits don't matter? These are Romney's platform planks. Is he going to go out and support them? Or attack the top of his own ticket.

Those are Romney's positions for the primary where you have to pander to neocons to win. They won't be his in the general. He'll move to center for wider appeal.

The Gold Standard
03-07-2012, 07:01 PM
Those are Romney's positions for the primary where you have to pander to neocons to win. They won't be his in the general. He'll move to center for wider appeal.

Those are positions he has never wavered in. He will flip flop on abortion and gay marriage and things like that, but his big spending, big war, big government positions have never changed.

jolynna
03-07-2012, 07:07 PM
Compromise insinuates Ron would have to sacrifice what he believes to come to a mutual agreement.Being Vice president isn't a compromise, its a choice, of which if the options are that there's no way Ron can be President and it where to come down to going home and retiring or become Vice and use what ever authority you have to further the Libertarian agenda then i'd consider it.


I beg to differ.

When you become the Vice President, you are endorsing and allowing YOUR GOOD NAME and REPUTATION to be a reason for a vote cast for the POTUS candidate as well.

When that candidate, in advance, advocates TRASHING the OATH OF OFFICE and the CONSTITUTION, your endorsement ABETS the candidates wrongdoings. Every single vote cast because your NAME IS PART OF THE BALLOT is your responsibility.

Does it matter that a candidate is a liar--all candidates do it--right? Is compromise such a big deal--when the compromises include compromising lives, liberties and justice for all?

I am going to quote a small part of a book that changed me as a person. It changed the way I think about everything:

Why, for month after month and year after year, did millions of intelligent human beings--guarded by a relatively few Nazi soldiers--willing load their families into tens of thousands of cattle cars to be transported by rail to one of the many death camps scattered across Europe? How can a condemned group of people headed for a gas chamber be compelled to act in a docile manner?


There answer is breathtakingly simple.
And it is a method still being used
by some elected leaders to achieve
various goals today.
How do you kill eleven million
people?
Lie to them.

http://www.amazon.com/How-You-Kill-Million-People/dp/0849948355/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331168216&sr=8-1

Choosing a leader of integrity, one with a history of truth-telling, (not one that can be found on hundreds of videos fibbing in different directions) MATTERS. A LOT. Ron Paul cannot let his good name to be used to boost a KNOWN IN ADVANCE liar and KNOWN IN ADVANCE trasher of human rights, liberty and his oath of office into the world's TOP POSITION. (It doesn't matter that the other candidates are worse. Ron Paul, cannot in good conscience, give Romney ANY hint of "seal of approval".)

In my opinion.

jolynna
03-07-2012, 07:08 PM
Those are positions he has never wavered in. He will flip flop on abortion and gay marriage and things like that, but his big spending, big war, big government positions have never changed.

No, he has NEVER wavered on those issues. He is a to-the-bone, core, die-hard, neo-con.

imo

GeorgiaAvenger
03-07-2012, 07:19 PM
I'll I always go with the best possible option, so yes to this option.

ZanZibar
03-07-2012, 07:31 PM
Let what happens in 2016 wait until then.That's a very "head-in-the-sand" thing to say.

Doug Wead has said countless times that becoming President is like building a shopping mall. He was hired to get Bush I elected the DAY after Reagan's re-election Campaign ended.

If we can't get Ron elected in 2012, then we need to start laying the groundwork for Rand in 2016!!!

cindy25
03-07-2012, 07:32 PM
Ron as VP makes no sense; after 8 years he would be 84.

but Rand would have a purpose; if Romney loses (as I expect) he would be the front runner for 2016. Rand would have the support of the Romney faction in the 2016 primaries.
being on the ticket would be his only chance of winning the nomination. if Romney wins, a second term is likely, and Rand is Bush 41 in 2020.

is Rand ideal-no; but is Rand the best we have in 2016-yes.

cabinet positions serve no political purpose,for either Ron or Rand

roversaurus
03-07-2012, 07:33 PM
Let's just make sure we have delegates... and we better make damn sure Ron doesn't just get a lame speaking platform at the convention. We need to make deals and get something TANGIBLE form this. Either a VP slot of a person of our choice or make a deal with our enemies for the pledge of their delegates.

Agreed. A speaking slot is a 25? million dollar turd. I'd rather he not go if that's all he gets. Not going would speak louder and be heard by more people. BUT, VP is worth it. Particularly because we are talking about RON PAUL as VP. Wouldn't it be nice to have a principled, honest man at the highest level of government?

When the next bank bailout comes along... sure Romney will support it ... but what will VP Ron Paul do and say? Do you think he could get some media attention by going AGAINST his President? And ... there is nothing Romney could do about. THAT is why Ron Paul would be a good VP ... Rand? I'm not certain he has the moral character to stand up like that.

Ron as VP would be huge ... That's why the only way he would get the nod is if WE forced Romney to give it to him.

jolynna
03-07-2012, 07:56 PM
I'll I always go with the best possible option, so yes to this option.

By advocating that Ron Paul encourage people to vote for Romney by adding his "good name" to the ballot, you ignore that Mitt Romney is a liar. And that Romney has, prior to being elected, trashed the Oath of Office and the Constitution.

Mitt Romney on the issues: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?318200-Attention-Media-and-GOP-quot-No-one-but-Paul-quot-POLL-ADDED&p=4253524&viewfull=1#post4253524

Jesus told parables...please think about this one. It is a true story:

In a German town, railroad tracks ran behind the church. An eyewitness stated:

Week after week the whistle would blow. We dreaded the sounds of those wheels because we knew that we would hear the cries of the Jews en route to a death camp. Their screams tormented us.

We knew the train was coming and when we heard the whistle blow we began singing hymns. By the time the train came past our church, we were singing at the top of our voices. If we heard the screams we sang more loudly and soon we heard them no more.

Years have passed and no one talks about it now, but I still hear that train whistle in my sleep.

Is lying to get elected acceptable? Even if the candidates intention is to get elected in order to do good works?

Is there really any power in one's intentions anyway?

Have you ever noticed how we judge the "bad guys" by their actions and the "good guys" by their intentions?

Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?

Would TRUTH be a starting point for telling the difference? What is our nation's course? Do you believe that one can determine a probable destination by examining the direction in which one is traveling? If so, where are we headed?


Can you hear the whistle and the wheels as the train comes down the track?

HOW LOUDLY ARE YOU SINGING?

From: http://www.amazon.com/How-You-Kill-Million-People/dp/0849948355/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331168216&sr=8-1 (I wish I could write with Andrew's power. This book has made me rethink every temptation I've ever had to fib.)

The only way we have to know a person who aspires to lead us is to listen to what he says and watch what he does. I give Romney credit for being open about his worst intentions. But, knowing those intentions in advance, Ron Paul cannot, in any way, endorse Mitt Romney.

In my opinion.

Okie RP fan
03-07-2012, 08:12 PM
Gosh, this is such a hard decision to me.

If it means some sort of liberty minded concessions on Romney's part, then I could possibly support it, but it'd be hard.

We are at a scary point right now in this country. I'd be willing to take anything to salvage a little something before it's too late.

clint4liberty
03-07-2012, 08:23 PM
Hope about Ron Paul receiving a major cabinet position and Rand Paul getting the VP slot. I think this is a reasonable and viable option. Ron Paul looks like he is going to receive between 2 to 3 million this time around versus 1.2 million.

alucard13mmfmj
03-07-2012, 08:26 PM
Agreed. A speaking slot is a 25? million dollar turd. I'd rather he not go if that's all he gets. Not going would speak louder and be heard by more people. BUT, VP is worth it. Particularly because we are talking about RON PAUL as VP. Wouldn't it be nice to have a principled, honest man at the highest level of government?

When the next bank bailout comes along... sure Romney will support it ... but what will VP Ron Paul do and say? Do you think he could get some media attention by going AGAINST his President? And ... there is nothing Romney could do about. THAT is why Ron Paul would be a good VP ... Rand? I'm not certain he has the moral character to stand up like that.

Ron as VP would be huge ... That's why the only way he would get the nod is if WE forced Romney to give it to him.

I dont think Ron would get the VP position and I dont think people will like Ron being VP under some other GOP assclown (as evident thus far). People wont vote for such a ticket, especially hardcore supporters and NOBP. The best thing we can do is Ron Paul picks someone to be VP at the convention with our delegate powers. That way... Ron won't look like a sell-out and we can have someone who might be liberty friendly as VP. Also, Ron can endorse the VP, but not the Presidential nominee lol. This is in the event we don't make it.

Marky
03-07-2012, 09:23 PM
A vote for Romney is a vote for more wars, more debt, and more bailouts, with or without one of the Pauls.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-07-2012, 09:25 PM
A vote for Romney is a vote for more wars, more debt, and more bailouts, with or without one of the Pauls.Much better than Obama

pawlpawl
03-07-2012, 09:29 PM
Personally, I'm in this for one thing. A Ron Paul presidency.


Being VP would do little to nothing, it's a spot they would offer if they knew it was they're only realistic chance of getting our youth vote. Then if RP took the spot, he'd be hushed into the back and Romney would run his show.

Personally, I don't care for that idea. Im a Ron Paul for President supporter from Day 1 to Inauguration day.

DerailingDaTrain
03-07-2012, 09:33 PM
Much better than Obama

This country is headed in the same direction if Romney or Obama is POTUS and that direction is down.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-07-2012, 09:37 PM
This country is headed in the same direction if Romney or Obama is POTUS and that direction is down.Yeah, and Obama is much faster.

Even RP could not turn the country around.

DerailingDaTrain
03-07-2012, 10:02 PM
Yeah, and Obama is much faster.
Even RP could not turn the country around.

Why are you here then?

J_White
03-07-2012, 10:03 PM
I would be ok with Dr.Paul taking a VP slot or some such thing with the power to do something.
if he can get the promise to have a full Fed audit and try to abolish it in the 4 yrs, i would be ok.
without the Fed, the govt wont be able to spend that much, it is one core part of the problem.

but i doubt it would come to that. how much longer will Santorum remain and keep fighting Romney ?
but then he has been surprisingly strong till now so who knows.

as VP Ron Paul would get more credibility and Libertarian ideas would enter the mainstream,
for the general public, think in 5 yrs, would u rather remember Ron Paul as an "also ran" in the Presidential race, or a VP ? which seems more credible.
but i also know he wont compromise on his views.

as for Rand, lets leave him out of this mess that the GOP is making for itself.
if they think Romney or Santorum or even Romney/Santorum can win against Obama, keep dreaming !!
they are not getting the independent vote.

GeorgiaAvenger
03-07-2012, 10:04 PM
Why are you here then?

Because he could slow the destruction down substantially, but we would need multiple administrations to undo the damage.

J_White
03-07-2012, 10:06 PM
u didnt mean worse, when u said better, did u ?
a typical goldman Sachs multi millionaire candidate like Romney is better than Obama ?
the guy who promises more wars and the world's strongest military (i thought we already were the strongest) - means more profit for the MIC, is better than Obama ?
the guy who would favor bailouts and sign the NDAA, is better than Obama ?


Much better than Obama

jcarcinogen
03-07-2012, 10:07 PM
If Ron Paul isn't the nominee, let the GOP run against Obama WITHOUT any Paul influence. They will lose. So, RP as a VP or even as a third P just gives them a scapegoat in Paul when they lose. By NOT being a VP or running against them, Paul's message remains pure without the 'unpure' bullshit that they will spew at him if they get a chance.

PhineasFinn
03-07-2012, 10:33 PM
Whereas there has been specualtion that both Romney and Paul are close friends, I still have a hard time believing that Romney would even consider Paul as a VP candidate. The only possible reason Romney would offer the part to Paul is because he BADLY wants the youth vote. First, if Paul won't even accept Secret Service protection because he considers it a waste of our tax dollars, what makes anyone think he would partner with a Neoconservative like Romney? Yes, Paul might be VP but unlike Cheney, Paul wouldn't abuse his power as a VP like Cheney did. Cheney was an audacious VP who declared his office seperate from the Executive Branch...

Romney may salivate at the idea of having us, The Ron Paul Movement, vote for him over Obama. However, IF Paul accepted the position, the movement would be divided and splinter. Ron Paul will not settle for Vice President.

As an incumbent president facing a shattered party like the GOP in this upcoming election, Obama won't have to do much to win again. I read somewhere recently the perfect description of the GOP: "While Santorum, Romney and Gingrich are rearranging the chairs on the Titanic that is the GOP, Paul is the only one yelling that the entire ship is sinking."

It is likely that Romney will get the nomination. It is also likely that Santorum and Gingrich will either be tapped to be involved in a Romney admninistration or get a job on Fox News. Regardless, it is very true that if the GOP does not nominate Paul for the presidency, the GOP will not acheive the Executive Branch for the next 50 years. That's my educated guess.

jolynna
03-07-2012, 10:37 PM
Yeah, and Obama is much faster.

Even RP could not turn the country around.

Better to be remembered as the voice of reason and integrity THAN to have had an association with the ex-wall-street ceo POTUS, that the public would hold responsible for any financial "difficulty" ahead.

Especially if Romney drags the U.S. into a war with Iran. Even without an Iranian war, Romney's proposed military budget is 61 percent higher than Barack Obama’s. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/recalculating-romneys-four-percent-gimmick/ Although, should Romney BE elected, war with Iran is a DONE DEAL.

Can't leave out the increased domestic military policing: Romney:“As president, I will empower all relevant military, intelligence, and homeland security agencies with the appropriate legal authority...to dismantle terrorist groups and prevent terrorist attacks on our homeland and on targets abroad.” http://www.mittromney.com/sites/defa...itePaper_0.pdf

The taint to Ron Paul would be irrevocable. He can't, in any way, endorse a liar who blatantly advocates trashing the Oath of Office and the Constitution.

imo

jolynna
03-07-2012, 11:03 PM
Should Ron Paul, with an endorsement, encourage votes for Romney, Ron Paul would hold some responsibility for whatever disastrous results come about should Romney get elected.

Consider that Romney wants to increase military spending 61% over what Obama projects spending--although our nation's military is larger than the 18 next largest armies COMBINED.

We also have a rapidly aging population. Which means something has got to give. With Romney's priority being "American Exceptionalism" and military strength...it's not looking good for grandma and grandpa--the Romneycare "death panels" will be unable to keep up. http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/02/mitt-romneys-romneycare-death-panels-and-less-freedom-for-all/

As I've said over and over, it would be better to be remembered as the voice of reason people SHOULD have listened to, than to be associated with ANY of this mess.

imo

j3nn
03-07-2012, 11:16 PM
I'd never forgive Ron Paul for selling out. I'd never forgive myself for voting for someone like Romney again in my life when I know better now.

I don't believe Ron Paul would accept such a position; he's not like Hillary. I just have a hard time seeing him endorse Romney. But I don't know him personally and stranger things have happened...

I couldn't do it. It saddens me to even consider. I just hope he will run third party even if it's a long shot. If we want him to win, we have to chip in because as far as I know, he doesn't take dirty donations. So it's up to us to donate and spread the word and vote.

jwhitmore
03-07-2012, 11:19 PM
How much influence does Joe Biden have as VP? Also, I can't support it because they are nothing alike, Romney is a warmonger who likes the Fed and thinks they're doing a great job. I guess what I'm saying is that no matter who is VP if the POTUS isn't Ron then we are ****** even if it is Rand.


But that is because of Joe Biden, not because of the position. A good VP can get much more out of it. Al Gore did quite a lot as VP. Cheney obviously, and George H.W. Bush did as well. Just because Obama and GHWB chose weak men as their VPs does not mean the position itself is a bad thing.

muh_roads
03-07-2012, 11:21 PM
Paul wants a position of influence. VP doesn't do jack shit. I can't see this happening.

Rand Paul is possible. I wouldn't get excited over it though. It probably wouldn't work for me. I'd rather have Obama win than wait until 2020 to run a liberty candidate again.

j3nn
03-07-2012, 11:23 PM
By the way, if something happens to the VP, then what? Who takes Ron Paul's hypothetical place? I believe Ron Paul is a vibrant, healthy 76 yr. old, but... I don't underestimate his opposition. And there are many.

Czolgosz
03-07-2012, 11:25 PM
When I vote for a GOP asshat that vote is used to show support for the shit they're shoveling. Apologies for language use to our more sensitive friends, but no, I will not show *any* support for a neocon.

There's no hard and fast rule on when you negotiate or compromise, in this case I will not.

RickyJ
03-07-2012, 11:31 PM
Bush had no morals so it was no problem for him to be Reagan's VP. His good friend's son did try to kill Reagan.

Ron has morals and would never be one of the three stooges' VP. It is not going to happen and shouldn't happen.

Crystallas
03-07-2012, 11:41 PM
I don't want to see Ron or any other Liberty Candidate associated with the trainwreck named Romney. I would NOT vote for Romney, Frothy, or Newt if they had Ron or Rand as their VP. No way, no how.

VictorB
03-07-2012, 11:42 PM
Some of you need to get over yourselves. Ron Paul as VP is a great thing, even with Romney as P. This means that liberty is wining. Who would have ever thought 10 years ago that someone like Ron Paul would become the GOP VP? It's VP in 2012 and the door will open up for more liberty candidates.

Here's a story that happened the other day: My friend is a pretty stout Obama supporter. He told me 2 days ago..."you know, if Romney wins and picks Ron Paul as his VP...I'm gonna vote for Romney/Paul." I had to pick my jaw up from the floor. The tide is shifting.

There will be nationally televised VP debates...the whole country will hear Paul destroy Biden.

One final note: It is not selling out! We can't expect to go into Washington and change things over night. This year has proved it. People need slow change. Think about it...4 years of Paul in the news is a great thing.

wgadget
03-07-2012, 11:47 PM
Hubby likes Santo but said that in his opinion a Romney/Paul ticket would cream Obama.

RickyJ
03-07-2012, 11:48 PM
Hubby likes Santo but said that in his opinion a Romney/Paul ticket would cream Obama.

Huh? Seriously, you might need to get a divorce.

nasaal
03-08-2012, 12:34 AM
Hubby likes Santo but said that in his opinion a Romney/Paul ticket would cream Obama.
Impossible for them to win. Paul is in almost absolute opposition. For him to have any credibility on that stage he would need to blast Romney on most of his talking points. If he does that, then Romney loses before it begins. They can't win.

azxd
03-08-2012, 12:42 AM
RP as VP just means less press if TPTB decide to put a bullet in him for voicing his, in defiance of the POTUS, but correct, principles.

If he accepts a VP slot, I'm voting for Obama and the continued collapse, and considering the whole thing to be another afront to liberty.

Chainspell
03-08-2012, 12:50 AM
I'm just gonna vote rate down anyone who keeps bringing this up, and everytime i see your name im going to -rep you until your reputation becomes red.

shame on you.

parocks
03-08-2012, 01:27 AM
Paul wants a position of influence. VP doesn't do jack shit. I can't see this happening.

Rand Paul is possible. I wouldn't get excited over it though. It probably wouldn't work for me. I'd rather have Obama win than wait until 2020 to run a liberty candidate again.

If Rand Paul becomes the VP, it increases the likelihood he becomes President substantially.

Running over and over again and losing doesn't seem like a great plan to me.

parocks
03-08-2012, 01:33 AM
Some of you need to get over yourselves. Ron Paul as VP is a great thing, even with Romney as P. This means that liberty is wining. Who would have ever thought 10 years ago that someone like Ron Paul would become the GOP VP? It's VP in 2012 and the door will open up for more liberty candidates.

Here's a story that happened the other day: My friend is a pretty stout Obama supporter. He told me 2 days ago..."you know, if Romney wins and picks Ron Paul as his VP...I'm gonna vote for Romney/Paul." I had to pick my jaw up from the floor. The tide is shifting.

There will be nationally televised VP debates...the whole country will hear Paul destroy Biden.

One final note: It is not selling out! We can't expect to go into Washington and change things over night. This year has proved it. People need slow change. Think about it...4 years of Paul in the news is a great thing.

Yes, VP is a prestigious position. It would be great if Ron Paul was VP. And he's great health insurance for the President.

However, I would think that Romney would take Rand. Because Romney has problems with Conservatives, more conservatives dislike Ron than Rand. Rand could get Romney both Paul supporters and Conservatives. Romney doesn't lack "experience", so Rand's lack of experience wouldn't be as much of a problem.

If we get what we want - right now, I think that's an open convention with as many delegates as possible, we very easily could see other candidates in there. Someone like Palin. If Palin is in there, we could see a Sarah Palin / Ron Paul ticket.

Lishy
03-08-2012, 01:33 AM
If Ron or Rand become VP, that means if the president is assassinated, then the Paul takes over.

I'm not saying anything with malicious intent or endorsing any idea of any sort. Just saying, and pointing out that rule.

(Lol, hope the secret service don't get the wrong idea and take this as a plot to kill the president. Though I would like to see him in jail and pay for his crimes instead! :rolleyes:)

Marky
03-08-2012, 05:25 AM
A vote for Romney is a vote for more wars, more debt, and more bailouts, with or without one of the Pauls. He has stated he wants to expand military spending and that he will follow Israel wherever they lead him.

How sad it would be to see Ron or Rand stand behind someone as disgusting as Mitt while he implements a new war or new bailout. Mitt is a militant NWO lackey. None of you pro-VP people have addressed this question…What happens when Mitt starts a new unjust war or pushes for a new bailout or new totalitarian legislation (like SOPA or NDAA which he supports)? Do the Pauls sit by and bite their tongues?

Paul Or Nothing II
03-08-2012, 05:37 AM
It would dishearten, co-opt, and disintigrate the Liberty movement. It would take years to reassemble the pieces.


this is a compromise. We don't compromise.


Let me tell you why Ron as Romney's VP would destroy the movement, as well as Ron Paul's legacy.

Let's say Joe Schmo doesn't trust Romney. But he doesn't know that much about Paul. Paul becomes Romney's VP. Automatically, RP is associated with Team Romney before Joe Schmo even knows anything about Ron Paul. Let's say the remaining Ron Paul supporters pull Joe Aside and tell him, "Ron Paul is the REAL DEAL, he would NEVER.... ummm... well, besides teaming up with Romney, he would NEVER--" Joe Schmo stops listening.

That's why. There's no reason to think beyond that. That is reason enough for me.

Ron Paul is special because he has integrity. Teaming up with Romney would just make Ron Paul a 76 year old VP to Mit Romney.


I will never cease to be amazed at this fantasy land some of you live in, he will be shoved in a corner, the movement and the Paul's will be forever stained with Romney's name, end of story. All this would be is a ploy to get your support behind Romney, you guys claim to be so "hip" to the political manipulation yet it's clear you'll fall for it like anyone else.

+++++++++++++++++++++++1

Couldn't have said it better

Travlyr
03-08-2012, 05:47 AM
For those against Ron or Rand taking a VP spot, I have this sincere question/observation/challenge.

I keep reading here that the liberty movement has to build from the ground up - that we can't just hop in the White House right off. Why in the world then, if a President Paul is not possible, would we oppose a VP Rand Paul?

When Reagan was forced into choosing Bush Sr. as his VP when he din't want to, what came of that? President Bush.

Why would we want to give up that potential? We'd have a liberty-minded person in waiting for the presidency! And, as an added bonus, he'd have the ear of a President who genuinely likes his father.

Remember that for better or worse, Cheney shaped Bush's decesion making. Mostly for worse since Bush seemed to start out as a physical conservative and noninterventionist. Rand (and Ron) could help shape Romney and then have an experienced Rand with the almost default backing of the Republican party!

Just like in chess, you don't quit if you can't capture the king in the first few moves, we've got to be wise about the future.

I love Ron Paul and what he stands for and that's why I'll take a massive inroad like this instead of nothing. Flame away, but I'm just being honest and, I belive, logical.

Your thoughts?
I don't oppose VP Rand Paul. I oppose the Republican/Democratic platform of fiat money spending, empire building, police state oppression, excessive regulations, foreign wars for profit, government surveillance including drones, media lying Barbie & Ken dolls, high unemployment, banker bailouts, world governments. I oppose Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Bush, Clinton, & Obama. If Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, then Rand would likely make a good VP.

One Last Battle!
03-08-2012, 06:38 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++1

Couldn't have said it better

Kinda misses the point, though.

Ron is not the direct objective, he's the means to reaching it quickly. At this point, its clear that barring incredible takeover of delegates in open states and a whole bunch of stealth delegates in closed states (which, I guarantee you, would result in a third party candidate declaring in outrage of us basically taking over the nomination), we aren't likely to win. That hardly means we've lost and the world has ended; the world as a whole and the USA especially are moving towards the ideals of liberty in terms of views, so we could probably wait eight-twelveish years for libertarian candidates being a good half of them in GOP nominations. We're going to also continue building infrastructure from the bottom up, trying to elect decent congressmen and senators where possible. However, Ron's last chance at pulling off anything besides "GOP also-ran" is getting a slot as Romney's VP, and that would be more than enough to influence public opinion through debates with Biden. Even Rand would probably be sufficient (though not quite as good honestly). Plus, a VP hardly has to quietly accept everything his running mate says. He can just as easily oppose a lot of it and loudly announce that fact (think LBJ and Kennedy for the sheer difference in views that worked out in the VPs favour). Ron is retiring after this anyway (and rightly so, this can't be good on him at all even being as healthy as he is), so its not like he'll have any better chances after this.

Or we can yell, get mad, and do nothing for a while as everything goes to hell because we're incapable of accepting that our ideas are what count, not "purity".

qh4dotcom
03-08-2012, 06:39 AM
I don't think it will happen but if it does, here are the benefits

Debate with Biden.

Millions get raised for liberty.

Millions more hear the liberty message.

Endorsements from VP would make it easier for liberty candidates to get elected. Remember Palin's endorsement of Rand Paul? and she didn't even get elected VP.

The media would not be able to ignore him.

Don't forget Ron Paul is retiring from Congress....do you really want him to retire? Or do you want him to continue? Retired politicians get little or no media coverage.

tbone717
03-08-2012, 06:58 AM
Endorsements from VP would make it easier for liberty candidates to get elected. Remember Palin's endorsement of Rand Paul? and she didn't even get elected VP.

This is a huge benefit. If you look at this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365683-List-of-Liberty-minded-Candidates-for-US-Congress) you will see that there are a ton of libertarian-leaning candidates running for the House and Senate (over 60 names on the list and throughout the thread). With the current make up of the house, if 121 of them are Libertarian Republicans (which is a realistic number to reach in the next 4 years or so) we could be looking at one of our guys as Speaker. And we only need around 26 or so of our guys in the Senate to take over leadership (assuming a GOP majority).

Theoretically in 4 years or so Libertarian Republicans could hold all the leadership positions in Congress.

Travlyr
03-08-2012, 07:08 AM
This is a huge benefit. If you look at this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?365683-List-of-Liberty-minded-Candidates-for-US-Congress) you will see that there are a ton of libertarian-leaning candidates running for the House and Senate (over 60 names on the list and throughout the thread). With the current make up of the house, if 121 of them are Libertarian Republicans (which is a realistic number to reach in the next 4 years or so) we could be looking at one of our guys as Speaker. And we only need around 26 or so of our guys in the Senate to take over leadership (assuming a GOP majority).

Theoretically in 4 years or so Libertarian Republicans could hold all the leadership positions in Congress.
Maybe they could do another "Contract With America"

tbone717
03-08-2012, 07:12 AM
Maybe they could do another "Contract With America"

Possibly, but not really needed. Republicans already control the House, they did not when the House leadership did the "Contract With America".

Travlyr
03-08-2012, 07:20 AM
Possibly, but not really needed. Republicans already control the House, they did not when the House leadership did the "Contract With America".
Since the Republicans already control the house, if they were worth supporting, shouldn't we already be auditing the Fed? Audit of the bank is an adult thing to do.

tbone717
03-08-2012, 07:28 AM
Since the Republicans already control the house, if they were worth supporting, shouldn't we already be auditing the Fed? Audit of the bank is an adult thing to do.

I think a Fed Audit bill will pass next session. In 4 years Paul's bill went from zero cosponsors to over 200, so we are getting there. Incidentally, I am not suggesting we support all Republicans, just the libertarian minded ones. You can see the other thread I referenced earlier for the list of candidates.

Paul Or Nothing II
03-08-2012, 08:39 AM
Kinda misses the point, though.

Ron is not the direct objective, he's the means to reaching it quickly. At this point, its clear that barring incredible takeover of delegates in open states and a whole bunch of stealth delegates in closed states (which, I guarantee you, would result in a third party candidate declaring in outrage of us basically taking over the nomination), we aren't likely to win. That hardly means we've lost and the world has ended; the world as a whole and the USA especially are moving towards the ideals of liberty in terms of views, so we could probably wait eight-twelveish years for libertarian candidates being a good half of them in GOP nominations. We're going to also continue building infrastructure from the bottom up, trying to elect decent congressmen and senators where possible. However, Ron's last chance at pulling off anything besides "GOP also-ran" is getting a slot as Romney's VP, and that would be more than enough to influence public opinion through debates with Biden. Even Rand would probably be sufficient (though not quite as good honestly). Plus, a VP hardly has to quietly accept everything his running mate says. He can just as easily oppose a lot of it and loudly announce that fact (think LBJ and Kennedy for the sheer difference in views that worked out in the VPs favour). Ron is retiring after this anyway (and rightly so, this can't be good on him at all even being as healthy as he is), so its not like he'll have any better chances after this.

Or we can yell, get mad, and do nothing for a while as everything goes to hell because we're incapable of accepting that our ideas are what count, not "purity".

Becoming Romney's VP will be biggest blot on Ron's spotless political life, he'd be remembered as President Bombney's VP, who compromised just to get a useless position

Besides, it'll destroy the liberty-movement because it's about NOT voting for the "lesser evil" & voting only on principle, voting Romney doesn't go with that & most of the people that jumped on-board because Ron Paul is "different" will forever lose hope in political action thinking that "all are the same & they're all power-hungry"

And how much Ron rambles is irrelevant, he'd have no power & GOP will ignore the liberty-movement thereafter as they'd know that liberty-supporters are a bunch of compromisers, just throw them a useless bone & they'll keep quiet; nothing new, that's how politics has been working for a long time, they throw a little bone & that particular thinks "it's a start" & that's where it ends

On the other hand, if liberty-supporters ensure a GOP loss, if Paul isn't the nominee then political class will realize that liberty-supporters aren't compromisers & it's only a small % of voters that decide elections because majority of the people vote for the same party almost every election so liberty-supporters can be that small % that changes elections & liberty-supporters have more bargaining-power, all the while GOP is being taken over bottom up by liberty-supporters

VBRonPaulFan
03-08-2012, 08:53 AM
^ well said. the goal is to win, or go home and tell yourself at least you gave it your all. compromise is NOT an option, and to be in the Romney admin, he'd have to compromise and stand by a President who would undoubtedly be constantly making decisions Paul would disagree with.

ZanZibar
03-08-2012, 09:03 AM
Running over and over again and losing doesn't seem like a great plan to me.Who said anything about losing? Just because electoral victory is achieved doesn't mean we are losing. In fact, I'd say we are winning by building the movement, etc.

Republicanguy
03-08-2012, 09:17 AM
For anyone who thought W Bush was a non-interventionist, you are very wrong. In January 2001, nine days after the celebrations and George dancing with that man who happened to be gayhttp://assets.flavorwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ny11302161339.jpeg, it was that month that the plans for Oil and Iraq were discussed and kept secret. Only the minutes of the meetings were recorded.

I read this from The Last Oil Shock - Imminent Extinction of Petroleum man written by a BBC member David Strahan - Author, writer and producer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1127937.stm

Old article from the BBC on the Inauguration.

"One protester set fire to a small American flag." - Reminds me of one of Ron's classic videos from June 1999 where he voted against an Amendment against the destruction of the flag. He said you cannot legislate patrotism. Which when I thought about it, he is right to a certain degree.

I had typed away to my (member of parliament)representative a couple of years ago suggesting that the national flag of England be legislated as a symbol, a way of strengthining it. He didn't think that was necessary. But his party being Labour, and I am socialist leaning, his party deplores the nation-state which I disagree with. He said that the extremist Right had claimed the flag. How can anybody claim a flag. What rubbish! English people fail their own state, a non-existant one.

Butchie
03-08-2012, 10:23 AM
Some of you need to get over yourselves. Ron Paul as VP is a great thing, even with Romney as P. This means that liberty is wining. Who would have ever thought 10 years ago that someone like Ron Paul would become the GOP VP? It's VP in 2012 and the door will open up for more liberty candidates.

Here's a story that happened the other day: My friend is a pretty stout Obama supporter. He told me 2 days ago..."you know, if Romney wins and picks Ron Paul as his VP...I'm gonna vote for Romney/Paul." I had to pick my jaw up from the floor. The tide is shifting.

There will be nationally televised VP debates...the whole country will hear Paul destroy Biden.

One final note: It is not selling out! We can't expect to go into Washington and change things over night. This year has proved it. People need slow change. Think about it...4 years of Paul in the news is a great thing.

And you need to get in touch with reality. I don't know what alternate universe you guys are livng in where the VP has such "great influence" over anything. How can you be so blind to not see this would all be some token little position thrown Ron's way to get guillable people like you to vote for Romney. "Paul in the news", my god, yeah, cuz VP's get in the news all the time right? More like Romney will be a disaster and Paul will be forever linked with it, end of Liberty movement.

As for those debates, yeah, that will work out real well, Romneys' going to go around beating the war drums, and Ron's going to go and bash his own running mate?

JK/SEA
03-08-2012, 10:46 AM
Here's a list of vice Presidents. How many on this list went on to make a difference? i have to say, after looking at this list, i can honestly say 'maybe' a few had any impact on this country's destination. Having Ron or Rand as a V.P. would kill the Liberty movement, and status quo would be achieved...yay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States

GeorgiaAvenger
03-08-2012, 03:30 PM
There is NOTHING TO LOSE.

Marky
03-08-2012, 06:46 PM
No one has answered my question yet…So I’ll post it again...


A vote for Romney is a vote for more wars, more debt, and more bailouts, with or without one of the Pauls. He has stated he wants to expand military spending and that he will follow Israel wherever they lead him.

How sad it would be to see Ron or Rand stand behind someone as disgusting as Mitt while he implements a new war or new bailout. Mitt is a militant NWO lackey. None of you pro-VP people have addressed this question…What happens when Mitt starts a new unjust war or pushes for a new bailout or new totalitarian legislation (like SOPA or NDAA which he supports)? Do the Pauls sit by and bite their tongues?

Marky
03-09-2012, 08:30 PM
^Guess none of the pro-VP people can answer that one...

Feeding the Abscess
03-09-2012, 08:50 PM
Fall in line, mundanes!

Grow the liberty movement by endorsing anti-liberty ideas and candidates!


There is NOTHING TO LOSE.

Yeah, only if you see principle as nothing. Aligning libertarianism with a thug like Romney would be the death of libertarianism as a serious philosophy for generations.

John F Kennedy III
03-09-2012, 08:54 PM
Fall in line, mundanes!

Grow the liberty movement by endorsing anti-liberty ideas and candidates!



Yeah, only if you see principle as nothing. Aligning libertarianism with a thug like Romney would be the death of libertarianism as a serious philosophy for generations.

I agree.

Galileo Galilei
03-09-2012, 08:59 PM
this is a compromise. We don't compromise.

So what are Paul's delegates supposed to do in Tampa then?

Feeding the Abscess
03-09-2012, 09:06 PM
So what are Paul's delegates supposed to do in Tampa then?

Vote for Ron, and if the party refuses to hear their voice, get louder.

WilliamShrugged
03-09-2012, 09:06 PM
There is NOTHING TO LOSE.

my vote and Ron's books in line for fire wood when SHTF.

Galileo Galilei
03-09-2012, 09:19 PM
Vote for Ron, and if the party refuses to hear their voice, get louder.

Brilliant, get louder, act like a nutjob on national TV.

RiseAgainst
03-09-2012, 09:24 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?357898-Would-you-support-a-Cheney-Paul-ticket

None of you "Pro-VP"ers are serious about winning, otherwise you'd endorse a Cheney/Paul ticket.

economics102
03-09-2012, 09:41 PM
Romney is on all sides of every issue, you can't really pin him as opposite of RP's stances. I've heard him talk well about RP, as well as agree with RP about the wars in Afghanistan etc. I'm still writing in Ron Paul, although I don't dislike the Rand Paul VP option.

Romney strikes me as a sane, reasonable, educated person who knows what's right but cares more about achieving political success for himself than about having the "right" positions on anything.

Being sane and reasonable (this is an assumption, mind you), it is actually more likely Romney agrees with a lot of Paul's positions than disagrees.

pcosmar
03-09-2012, 09:48 PM
There is NOTHING TO LOSE.

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16
http://www.ki4u.com/webpal/d_resources/list.htm

pcosmar
03-09-2012, 09:50 PM
Romney strikes me as a sane, reasonable,

Being sane and reasonable (this is an assumption, mind you),

I do not share your assumptions.

Galileo Galilei
03-09-2012, 10:28 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?357898-Would-you-support-a-Cheney-Paul-ticket

None of you "Pro-VP"ers are serious about winning, otherwise you'd endorse a Cheney/Paul ticket.

Given Cheney's life expectancy, this might be a good idea. Cheney could pull a WHH.