PDA

View Full Version : OK , I know its Blaspheme, but..



Cinci4RP
12-10-2007, 06:48 AM
If the GOP pushes the Good Dr. out, say after supertuesday and he is not going to be the Republican nominee, and on the ohter side Billary takes Edwards, ..

I think Paul/Obama is a winning 3rd party ticket.

Discuss.
Chester Copperpot
12-10-2007, 06:51 AM
no... NO CFR CANDIDATES...
Goldwater Conservative
12-10-2007, 06:54 AM
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but the last thing I want is an establishment candidate as Paul's VP. First in the line of succession and all that.
philistineau
12-10-2007, 06:55 AM
After only 13 posts you want us to discuss what happens if Ron Paul loses?

I've got something for you to "discuss" - if you want to look for alternatives just when this movement is getting some steam up, you are asking the wrong forum to comment.

This kind of defeatist talk is exactly the kind of discussion that invalidates Ron Paul's candidacy.
SpicyItalian739
12-10-2007, 06:56 AM
Wasn't George H. W. Bush as Reagan's VP how we got from true conservatism to the neo-cons we have today?
me3
12-10-2007, 06:59 AM
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but the last thing I want is an establishment candidate as Paul's VP. First in the line of succession and all that.
Ditto.
phree
12-10-2007, 07:04 AM
I have to believe a VP has already been chosen.
Cinci4RP
12-10-2007, 07:10 AM
After only 13 posts you want us to discuss what happens if Ron Paul loses?

I've got something for you to "discuss" - if you want to look for alternatives just when this movement is getting some steam up, you are asking the wrong forum to comment.

This kind of defeatist talk is exactly the kind of discussion that invalidates Ron Paul's candidacy.

Just because someone posts only 13 times does not mean they have not been reading here every day the last 2 months.

I am NOT conceding or being defeatist, I am in Ohio and there are a lot of Obama people I have been trying to convert and ALL of them say if Billary vs. Paul they go Paul. I really understand the whole crossing party thing and the succession talk, and yes Obama is a statist, but...

Is it not the goal to get Ron's address as 1600 Penn Ave on 1-20-09?

Sorry, I am gonna go back to my Iowa letters now. Nobody respond and this can get swept down into the forum graveyard
FreeTraveler
12-10-2007, 07:11 AM
If the GOP pushes the Good Dr. out, say after supertuesday and he is not going to be the Republican nominee, and on the ohter side Billary takes Edwards, ..

I think Paul/Obama is a winning 3rd party ticket.

Discuss.

Disgusting is more like it.
Minuteman
12-10-2007, 07:12 AM
Ron Paul's officials turned down the LP party nomination. So, really no point putting energy into a 3rd party running ticket.
1town
12-10-2007, 07:17 AM
If Obama is your second choice to Ron Paul, then there is something seriously wrong with you.
philistineau
12-10-2007, 07:22 AM
As soon as the Democrat nominee is chosen, the rest will fall in behind to provide their full support. There is no way Obama would run third party, as it would almost guarantee a republican victory.

If Ron Paul runs as a third party, he would need to run as president as his principles would not allow him to support someone who would go against that which he stands for. The same could be said for his VP position - he would select someone who is true to his (our) beliefs.

Which leaves us with the position that if he runs as a third party, it will be on his terms. He has already said that he isn't considering that right now, even though he is repeatedly asked about it.
philistineau
12-10-2007, 07:27 AM
If Obama is your second choice to Ron Paul, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Ron Paul supporters come from all parties. I, for one, see nothing wrong with Obama as a second choice after Ron Paul. If Ron doesn't make it, I will be supporting Edwards (or Biden for as long as he lasts). I'd rather them waste money on health care as opposed to a war in Iraq or Iran.
quickmike
12-10-2007, 07:45 AM
Wasn't George H. W. Bush as Reagan's VP how we got from true conservatism to the neo-cons we have today?

My dad worked for the Reagan camp in 1979 and he said they woudlnt give Reagan the nomination unless he took H W Bush as his running mate. The establishment really wanted Bush and didnt want Reagan. It was all set up that way.
GHoeberX
12-10-2007, 07:51 AM
If Obama is your second choice to Ron Paul, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

That's a bit harsh perhaps, but I'd take Dennis Kucinich any day over Obama.
alien
12-10-2007, 07:54 AM
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but the last thing I want is an establishment candidate as Paul's VP. First in the line of succession and all that.

Ya, all they would have to do then is have some "unplanned" catastrophe and Obama is in and they have total control again. No way.:eek:
quickmike
12-10-2007, 07:54 AM
That's a bit harsh perhaps, but I'd take Dennis Kucinich any day over Obama.

I would take Gravel over Kucinich myself. I know, it might not look good, but Kucinich is more of a socialist than Gravel.

Actually, neither one would ge that good of a move.

Nevermind me. LOL
LynnB
12-10-2007, 09:01 AM
My dad worked for the Reagan camp in 1979 and he said they woudlnt give Reagan the nomination unless he took H W Bush as his running mate. The establishment really wanted Bush and didnt want Reagan. It was all set up that way.

You said the magic words---"It was all set up..."

I didn't wake up to the fact that we are being force-fed our candidates until Bill Clinton won the dem nomination for no apparent reason. The voters only seem to get the choices that 'THEY' want, basically, the lesser of any two evils.. the ones that will tow the party line-
I am fairly certain that Dr. Paul knows who he would propose for a running mate, and I will support him no matter what.