PDA

View Full Version : Want to see why Ron Paul doesn't want to run third party or independent?




noxagol
12-11-2007, 07:11 AM
Here is why Ron Paul has said he does not want to run third party or independent. I was looking up stuff for my possible state run and this is the requirement in my state district for a representative to be on the ballot:

Democrats, Republicans, and Green party candidates only need 1% or 500 signatures to get on the ballot. New parties need 5%, and Independents need 3,623-5,795.

Is this biased enough for you to keep the two party system enforced?

Johnnybags
12-11-2007, 07:22 AM
bipartisan ticket. Unity 08 will fail with any other candidate. You need grassroots to get the ballot access done and Paul has it. You need the ability to raise funds, Paul has it. " Do not intend is a Larry Craig phrase which means simply that. However, circumstances can change and be forced on you. He simply cannot dissappear if the Repubs pick one of these other clowns.

Andrew-Austin
12-11-2007, 07:28 AM
He can get that amount of signatures anyways...

kylejack
12-11-2007, 07:38 AM
That's one of the better situations. Ballot access will be near impossible in some states. Oklahoma is horrible. To pull off 50 state access, I think he'd have to go with the LP, and even they only have 30something states right now.

Midnight77
12-11-2007, 07:40 AM
We could get the signatures for him if needed.

noxagol
12-11-2007, 07:45 AM
He can get that amount of signatures anyways...

That is what is required for a state representative, I am sure it is higher for presidential candidates....

allyinoh
12-11-2007, 07:49 AM
How about he doesn't want to be known as the guy who let the Democrats win? I mean, I could care less, but if he ran as a 3rd party, he would steal the majority of votes from the Republican and ensure the Democrat would win.

Hancock1776
12-11-2007, 08:08 AM
I don't know what good all this fidgeting about a third party run does for us, when we're working for -- and expecting -- victories in New Hampshire, Iowa and California at least.

This campaign shows no signs of stopping. Ron doesn't want to run third party. In the unlikely event he *isn't* the GOP nominee, let's find something else to do. Lord knows RP supporters have founded a plethora of PACs. We can use those to push the freedom agenda apart from a presidential campaign.

We're building a pro-freedom power center here, people, let's not screw it up.

kylejack
12-11-2007, 08:16 AM
I don't know what good all this fidgeting about a third party run does for us, when we're working for -- and expecting -- victories in New Hampshire, Iowa and California at least.

This campaign shows no signs of stopping. Ron doesn't want to run third party. In the unlikely event he *isn't* the GOP nominee, let's find something else to do. Lord knows RP supporters have founded a plethora of PACs. We can use those to push the freedom agenda apart from a presidential campaign.

We're building a pro-freedom power center here, people, let's not screw it up.
I don't think this type of language is helpful. Hope for a cakewalk and plan for a grueling deathmarch.

xd9fan
12-11-2007, 09:34 AM
3rd party or whatever........its all immaterial
Its a revolution........

sharedvoice
12-11-2007, 09:38 AM
The GOP knows it is in their best interest to nominate Congressman Ron Paul to go up against the DNC machine this General Election. Otherwise, it would mean desaster to the Republican Party, and to our country if we get a Democrat like Hillary or Obama in the White House.