PDA

View Full Version : POWER = Ron Paul Should Go Ahead and Nader This Election




nuklbone
01-16-2008, 12:25 PM
I hate weakness. At this point, I think Ron Paul's greatest source of power is that if he really wanted to, he could completely torpedo the Republican party in the general election. If Ron Paul runs as an idependent, it will almost guarantee a Democratic win. I think the media would recognize that power and the impact that such a move would have. Maybe then they would shine more light on the Ron Paul campaign.

hueylong
01-16-2008, 12:26 PM
Patience, grasshopper.

VoluntaryMan
01-16-2008, 12:30 PM
I hate weakness. At this point, I think Ron Paul's greatest source of power is that if he really wanted to, he could completely torpedo the Republican party in the general election. If Ron Paul runs as an idependent, it will almost guarantee a Democratic win. I think the media would recognize that power and the impact that such a move would have. Maybe then they would shine more light on the Ron Paul campaign.

Bloomberg is already planning his own torpedo.

UtahApocalypse
01-16-2008, 12:31 PM
A few things.... i know for myself and many others that Ron Paul will get our vote even if we must write it in. He would probably be the most write-in's in history if it has to be that way. Secondly, With out Ron Paul as the GOP nominee the Democrats will win, wont matter who else runs or anything..

JimInNY
01-16-2008, 12:31 PM
I think he should allude to the fact that he can do this when the other candidates and the debate mods treat him with disrespect.

"I'm not electable as a Republican? You mean I should drop out and run as an independent? Maybe I should consider that..."

zakkubin
01-16-2008, 12:35 PM
I think as long as the Democrats do not nominate Hillary they will beat ANY republican except Ron Paul. Pro War vs Anti War... done deal.

I know what your saying... but Ron does not want to do that because he instantly loses credibility as a true republican/Candidate.

I do agree his unique position makes him VERY powerful. I would highly encourage a little behind closed doors talk at the GOP HQ. Let them know he will run as 3rd party putting the nail in any hope of a GOP win. It's certainly something Paul would never do... but politically it's genius. He can essentially hi jack the party. If they play fair let him in the debates give some more support then he might just call it quits if he loses... Heck he might even endorse someone. :)

Unfortunately a 3rd party run WOULD have some complications. I believe in many states you cannot be on the ballot if you ran on one of the other major parties ticket.

dirknb@hotmail.com
01-16-2008, 12:35 PM
A few things.... i know for myself and many others that Ron Paul will get our vote even if we must write it in. He would probably be the most write-in's in history if it has to be that way. Secondly, With out Ron Paul as the GOP nominee the Democrats will win, wont matter who else runs or anything..

And it wouldn't really matter who wins.

Ogren
01-16-2008, 12:36 PM
Why would he have to do that ? The republican party has already screwed there chances for the general election. There the unelectable ones not ron.

MrCobaltBlue
01-16-2008, 12:37 PM
"One ping only."

WilliamC
01-16-2008, 12:39 PM
I hate weakness. At this point, I think Ron Paul's greatest source of power is that if he really wanted to, he could completely torpedo the Republican party in the general election. If Ron Paul runs as an idependent, it will almost guarantee a Democratic win. I think the media would recognize that power and the impact that such a move would have. Maybe then they would shine more light on the Ron Paul campaign.

Why do you think that in almost every interview he gets asked about this?

The establishment Republicans know, and they are afraid. Very afraid.

It's our job to make them more afraid.

So afraid they will capitulate and nominate Ron Paul at the Convention!

Grandson of Liberty
01-16-2008, 12:40 PM
"One ping only."

Love it. :)

newbitech
01-16-2008, 12:43 PM
I would rather see Dr. Paul hit the other GOP candidates specifically. SCOLD them on their policy proposals. SCOLD them on their pandering. SCOLD them on their lack of adherence to constitutional principles. SCOLD them on their utter lack of professionalism and disgusting display of trashy politics during the debates while our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, girlfriends, boyfriends and OUR troops are risking their lives and dying.

SCOLD them Dr. Paul. Rip their hearts out and put it in the open for the world to see.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-16-2008, 12:48 PM
Why do you think that in almost every interview he gets asked about this?

The establishment Republicans know, and they are afraid. Very afraid.

It's our job to make them more afraid.

So afraid they will capitulate and nominate Ron Paul at the Convention!

Yes, they're afraid, but they're asking so they can use his denials as ammo against him if he does. We do everything we can to win it this way, before we consider how else to do it.

acptulsa
01-16-2008, 12:53 PM
Ron Paul cannot say that he will while he is still competing for the votes of the traditional Republicans, who are notoriously "team players" (to the point of giving up their liberties for the team, to the point of holding their noses and voting for Nixon for the team, etc.).

Our first duty is to try to win this nomination and win the G.O.P. back for the people. Our second duty is not to wait for the official anouncement, but to begin doing what needs to be done to get his name on the ballot as an independent in each of our states now.

OrbitalGun
01-16-2008, 12:54 PM
I would rather see Dr. Paul hit the other GOP candidates specifically. SCOLD them on their policy proposals. SCOLD them on their pandering. SCOLD them on their lack of adherence to constitutional principles. SCOLD them on their utter lack of professionalism and disgusting display of trashy politics during the debates while our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, girlfriends, boyfriends and OUR troops are risking their lives and dying.

SCOLD them Dr. Paul. Rip their hearts out and put it in the open for the world to see.
+911 I love the smell of RWN3D neocons in the morning!

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
01-16-2008, 01:00 PM
Let us not forget that we are exactly in the middle of the pack right now. We should not discount Thompson or Nosferatu or even Hunter at this point but we have come a hell of a long way and now we need to focus on knocking the Huckster out of his #3 spot. If we stat acting like a front runner than we will be a front runner and nipping at the heels of the top three right now means we can win this thing. Let's focus on taking the Republican party back before we think about destroying it!

CopperheadNC
01-16-2008, 01:03 PM
I would hate to see us lose our one, true Representative in Congress if he doesn't win the nomination. Pretty sure that he wouldn't be able to run for Congress as a Republican and for the Presidency as an Independent at the same time.

I am actually really torn on this though, as the thought of an Independent run is really exciting as well.

MN Patriot
01-16-2008, 01:08 PM
Why do you think that in almost every interview he gets asked about this?

The establishment Republicans know, and they are afraid. Very afraid.

It's our job to make them more afraid.

So afraid they will capitulate and nominate Ron Paul at the Convention!

But the timeline won't allow that.

The Libertarian Party national convention is in May, so they can nominate a presidential candidate and achieve ballot access in all states over the summer. The Republican convention is in September, too late for Ron to declare himself as an independent or third party candidate.

If Ron doesn't get enough delegates in February for the nomination, then he needs to join the LP, get all his supporters to join with him and stay with his campaign. Then the LP needs to run a congressional candidate for all districts, US House, Senate, governors, etc, etc. That way the ballots are saturated with LP candidates, and each candidate can campaign as a Ron Paul libertarian.

Imagine the attention that would get!

margomaps
01-16-2008, 01:09 PM
I would hate to see us lose our one, true Representative in Congress if he doesn't win the nomination. Pretty sure that he wouldn't be able to run for Congress as a Republican and for the Presidency as an Independent at the same time.

Whether or not he could do so, "torpedoing" the Republican party would make it very difficult for him to get reelected even in his own district. If in fact Ron "leeched" enough votes from the Republican party while running as an independent, to cause Hillary to win the White House...well, that would be big news. People in his congressional district would certainly know about it, and I don't think they'd be very happy with him at all.

acptulsa
01-16-2008, 01:11 PM
I am actually really torn on this though, as the thought of an Independent run is really exciting as well.

Been there, done that. Without the kind of attention we've almost magically gotten so far (in national debates, by God!!), an independent run is like going to the prom with your cousin.

RevolutionSD
01-16-2008, 01:12 PM
I hate weakness. At this point, I think Ron Paul's greatest source of power is that if he really wanted to, he could completely torpedo the Republican party in the general election. If Ron Paul runs as an idependent, it will almost guarantee a Democratic win. I think the media would recognize that power and the impact that such a move would have. Maybe then they would shine more light on the Ron Paul campaign.

I agree but let's see what happens in Nevada, and even if it came to this he would be a bigger force than Nader.

MN Patriot
01-16-2008, 01:13 PM
I would hate to see us lose our one, true Representative in Congress if he doesn't win the nomination. Pretty sure that he wouldn't be able to run for Congress as a Republican and for the Presidency as an Independent at the same time.

I am actually really torn on this though, as the thought of an Independent run is really exciting as well.

One major valid criticism of Ron is not being able to achieve anything as a congressman. When he is the only one voting no, of course he can't "achieve" anything. So what can he do if he goes back to Congress? Keep voting no by himself?

Ron has created his legacy as a true conservative/libertarian. Now he needs to move forward with the revolution and run as a Libertarian after it is obvious that he can't get the Republican nomination. Then help build the revolution, so that in 2, 4, 6 years we can take our republic back.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-16-2008, 01:19 PM
The model you are looking for is Perot in 1992, who got roughly 20 million votes and could have WON the race had he not dropped out, gotten back in, etc.

mconder
01-16-2008, 01:22 PM
Maybe this is why the MSN seemed to bent on getting an answer from him about a third party run...?

mconder
01-16-2008, 01:23 PM
The model you are looking for is Perot in 1992, who got roughly 20 million votes and could have WON the race had he not dropped out, gotten back in, etc.

Supposedly he and his family received threats.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-16-2008, 01:25 PM
Supposedly he and his family received threats.

He was a nutcase. Read Ed Rollins' book. It deals with the Perot race.

MN Patriot
01-16-2008, 01:25 PM
The model you are looking for is Perot in 1992, who got roughly 20 million votes and could have WON the race had he not dropped out, gotten back in, etc.

Perot didn't stand for anything, except for the meaningless word "change". But he did have a grassrots that knew how to navigate the political landscape.

fmontez
01-16-2008, 01:29 PM
Dr. Paul wouldn't run 3rd Party... I am very curious to see which Republican candidate ends up winning his support... Dr. Paul loves freedom too much to put a Marxist into office, which is what you get with Clinton or Obama.

newbitech
01-16-2008, 01:29 PM
One major valid criticism of Ron is not being able to achieve anything as a congressman. When he is the only one voting no, of course he can't "achieve" anything. So what can he do if he goes back to Congress? Keep voting no by himself?

Ron has created his legacy as a true conservative/libertarian. Now he needs to move forward with the revolution and run as a Libertarian after it is obvious that he can't get the Republican nomination. Then help build the revolution, so that in 2, 4, 6 years we can take our republic back.

its valid criticism if you consider passing laws like the Patriot Act, turning over the people's power to a private banking cartel and not auditing it, and funding an illegitimate war achievements.

Your point however, is well received. Our leaders have been guilty of VUI (voting under the influence of crack) and we the people as a collective seem to enjoy that. If red-staters and party-firsters want to continue to mortgage the future of this country for the sake of elect-ability and to save face, then they deserve to get their "values" shoved down their collective throats.

As far as Dr. Pauls Congressional district. These people probably know him better than anyone else. I am sure they will be pissed, but then if they have a strong party in the district, and they are that partisan as to divorce themselves from the man who is doing the most to change the entire country, well, let them vote for someone else.

Those repubs who would get behind the likes of Rudy McRomneHuckson deserve to see their "grand ol party" destroyed, even if it means we go through another 4 years fighting socialism.

I would much rather spend 4 years fighting a socialist agenda then that of a dictatorship or tyranny. Especially now that I know the truth is out their and spreading like wild fire.

JMann
01-16-2008, 01:34 PM
Bloomberg is already planning his own torpedo.

The Bloom is a Democrat and would probably damage the Democrats more than the Republicans.

JMann
01-16-2008, 01:42 PM
Whether or not he could do so, "torpedoing" the Republican party would make it very difficult for him to get reelected even in his own district. If in fact Ron "leeched" enough votes from the Republican party while running as an independent, to cause Hillary to win the White House...well, that would be big news. People in his congressional district would certainly know about it, and I don't think they'd be very happy with him at all.

Keeping Ron Paul in Congress is not much of a priority. His power there is very limited and I've never been a fan of politicians trying to run for two different positions at the same time. That view doesn't change even with Paul. If he isn't the president we should get behind a senatorial campaign in Texas. John Cornyn is a first term Republican Senator that could be vulnerable and his term is up in 2008. I doubt Paul has any interest in this but I can't imagine he would want to just remain in the house.

VoluntaryMan
01-16-2008, 01:47 PM
The Bloom is a Democrat and would probably damage the Democrats more than the Republicans.

Bloomberg was a "Republican" (RINO), and is now unaffiliated.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-16-2008, 01:51 PM
One major valid criticism of Ron is not being able to achieve anything as a congressman. When he is the only one voting no, of course he can't "achieve" anything.

I think he achieved something. He showed that he could vote no when required, and that he could continue to get elected while voting no on bills he felt were unconstitutional.

I think he achieved something by being a dissenting voice, especially when there may have been no dissenting voices otherwise.

JMann
01-16-2008, 01:54 PM
Bloomberg was a "Republican" (RINO), and is now unaffiliated.

He was a Democrat before changing to Republican to run for Mayor and governed as a Democrat from the beginning. The media likes to tell you he is a Republican but he was a Dem for far more years and has never done a thing that would make you think he is a Republican.

From Wikipedia..

Michael Rubens Bloomberg (born 14 February 1942) is an American businessman, philanderer, and the Mayor of New York City. He gained his wealth as the founder of financial news and data company Bloomberg L.P.. Although a lifelong Democrat, he ran on the Republican ballot and was elected mayor in 2001, then reelected to a second term in 2005.

RollOn2day
01-16-2008, 02:10 PM
Bloomberg is already planning his own torpedo.

If Bloomberg is a torpedo then Ron Paul is the A-Bomb.

There is no one else out there, nor has there ever been, who could make a serious run as an independent.

And for everyone who thinks that a run as an independent is for the purpose of sinking the GOP, I will remind you that Ross Perot had 20% of the votes....and none of the credibility or experience of Ron Paul.

Forget sinking the GOP...this is about getting Ron Paul in the White House.

Original_Intent
01-16-2008, 02:22 PM
If Bloomberg is a torpedo then Ron Paul is the A-Bomb.

There is no one else out there, nor has there ever been, who could make a serious run as an independent.

And for everyone who thinks that a run as an independent is for the purpose of sinking the GOP, I will remind you that Ross Perot had 20% of the votes....and none of the credibility or experience of Ron Paul.

Forget sinking the GOP...this is about getting Ron Paul in the White House.

That's how I feel. We should not focus on being a Nader. We should focus on forcing the neocons to be Nader.

MikeStanart
01-16-2008, 02:31 PM
A 3rd Party Run Will:

*Make enemies of every Non-Paul Republican.
* Paul will be blamed for Clinton / Obama's victory as President.
* This will unify the pro-war message.


Think of the BLOWBACK people! If we go 3rd party, this will RUIN our chances for 2012 as Ron Paul Republicans.

Imagine all the people who will be FED UP with Hillary / Obama if they do in fact get elected (God Save Us)


My point is; A 3rd party Run is not wise.

We need to put EVERYTHING we have into the GOP Nomination; If we fail...we'll be back in 4 years to tell everyone "I told you so" and win an overwhelming vote like Reagan did!

JahWarrior
01-16-2008, 02:37 PM
I posted this on another blog that I frequent, but it fits here as well.

Well, something has got to change. The Republican party has treated Ron Paul, a TRUE Conservative, like a red headed step child. Ron Paul has brought a LOT of new people into the Republican party. If what I have seen thus far, is how the Republican party wants to treat one of its most principled members, then the Republican party is no longer of any use. I for one, will NOT reward the R's with my vote, because when they shit on Paul, they shit on all of his supporters. They know they can't win a general election without the Paul supporters on board, but they don't seem to care. Furthermore, the mainstream R's are every bit as socialist as the D's, they just pander to a different group of government contractors. The Republican party is not united, because they have shit on the fiscal conservatives and small government conservatives. AKA, the BASE. If they want to try and replace their base with a bunch of Evangelicals hell bent on turning the Constitution into the next book of the New Testament, while spending in a fashion that would make the Dem's blush, then may they get what they deserve.

The rest of us Liberty lovers are screwed either way.

TNforPaul45
01-16-2008, 02:37 PM
I completely disagree. If we throw everything we have at the GOP nomination, what little we have compared to the vast purchasing power of Romney and the "mainstream GOP candidates", then we'll be throwing what little we have left, away. It's time to focus on third party, and it's time to get out there and become THE third party candidate before Bloomberg gets out there and wins THAT mantle before we do.



A 3rd Party Run Will:

*Make enemies of every Non-Paul Republican.
* Paul will be blamed for Clinton / Obama's victory as President.
* This will unify the pro-war message.


Think of the BLOWBACK people! If we go 3rd party, this will RUIN our chances for 2012 as Ron Paul Republicans.

Imagine all the people who will be FED UP with Hillary / Obama if they do in fact get elected (God Save Us)


My point is; A 3rd party Run is not wise.

We need to put EVERYTHING we have into the GOP Nomination; If we fail...we'll be back in 4 years to tell everyone "I told you so" and win an overwhelming vote like Reagan did!

acptulsa
01-16-2008, 02:39 PM
Dr. Paul wouldn't run 3rd Party... I am very curious to see which Republican candidate ends up winning his support... Dr. Paul loves freedom too much to put a Marxist into office, which is what you get with Clinton or Obama.

Remember, Dr. Paul has run as a third party Libertarian before. I think Dr. Paul would sooner see a Marxist in than a New World Order fascist--but maybe that's just because I would. Anyway, Bloomberg could be kind enough to split the Democratic vote, making it a four way free-for-all that (depending on how lame the Demopublican and Republicrat candidates are) Dr. Paul could easily win.

MikeStanart
01-16-2008, 02:39 PM
I'm not saying we vote for another Republican people!

For me; it's either Ron Paul or bust;

I just think in the long-run a 3rd party run will hurt this movement more than anything

acptulsa
01-16-2008, 02:42 PM
I just think in the long-run a 3rd party run will hurt this movement more than anything

Do you happen to know who the last third party president was? Guy named Abraham Lincoln.

JMann
01-16-2008, 02:46 PM
Do you happen to know who the last third party president was? Guy named Abraham Lincoln.

And what a disaster he was.

amy31416
01-16-2008, 02:50 PM
Why would he have to do that ? The republican party has already screwed there chances for the general election. There the unelectable ones not ron.

That, sir, is an excellent point. Pretty much a trained chimp could run for the Democrats and beat any Republican (except Ron Paul.)

We're tired of the poorly trained chimp we have in office now!

Quirkydude
01-16-2008, 02:59 PM
Been there, done that. Without the kind of attention we've almost magically gotten so far (in national debates, by God!!), an independent run is like going to the prom with your cousin.


Maybe...but have you seen my cousin??? :D

joe77
01-16-2008, 03:00 PM
I hate weakness. At this point, I think Ron Paul's greatest source of power is that if he really wanted to, he could completely torpedo the Republican party in the general election. If Ron Paul runs as an idependent, it will almost guarantee a Democratic win. I think the media would recognize that power and the impact that such a move would have. Maybe then they would shine more light on the Ron Paul campaign.

...

JS4Pat
01-16-2008, 03:02 PM
If Ron Paul runs as an idependent, it will almost guarantee a Democratic win.
I'm not so sure about that.

The anti-war and pro-drug legalization crowd is a substantial chunk of that Democratic vote.

If Ron Paul was really committed to running 3rd party and willing to put in the type of effort required - I believe this is an election that could change our political landscape forever.

Two Pro-War candidates running for president who are not even addressing the debt and currency issue. And then an honest "third party" statesman like Dr. Paul?

Think about it...

JS4Pat
01-16-2008, 03:07 PM
A 3rd Party Run Will:

*Make enemies of every Non-Paul Republican.
* Paul will be blamed for Clinton / Obama's victory as President.
* This will unify the pro-war message.


Think of the BLOWBACK people! If we go 3rd party, this will RUIN our chances for 2012 as Ron Paul Republicans.

Who gives a shit?

There might not be a 2012 if we don't do something NOW!

The GOP is DEAD once our faction leaves.

JS4Pat
01-16-2008, 03:08 PM
I posted this on another blog that I frequent, but it fits here as well.

Well, something has got to change. The Republican party has treated Ron Paul, a TRUE Conservative, like a red headed step child. Ron Paul has brought a LOT of new people into the Republican party. If what I have seen thus far, is how the Republican party wants to treat one of its most principled members, then the Republican party is no longer of any use. I for one, will NOT reward the R's with my vote, because when they shit on Paul, they shit on all of his supporters. They know they can't win a general election without the Paul supporters on board, but they don't seem to care. Furthermore, the mainstream R's are every bit as socialist as the D's, they just pander to a different group of government contractors. The Republican party is not united, because they have shit on the fiscal conservatives and small government conservatives. AKA, the BASE. If they want to try and replace their base with a bunch of Evangelicals hell bent on turning the Constitution into the next book of the New Testament, while spending in a fashion that would make the Dem's blush, then may they get what they deserve.

The rest of us Liberty lovers are screwed either way.

AMEN!

itsnobody
01-16-2008, 03:09 PM
to early to make calls like these

wait 2 weeks from now

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-16-2008, 03:10 PM
It amazes me that people are worried about "pissing off" the GOP. Who cares!!!! You've got to be kidding me! The GOP has run this country into the ground with their wars and out of control spending.

Is your loyalty to Ron and the Constitution, or to the dying GOP???

acroso
01-16-2008, 03:12 PM
Paul MUST run third party if he can muster it. NUKE THE GOP TO HELL.

Paul has merged the Libertarians with the Constitution Party. We need to get up to 10% national support so that in 2012 we can golpe de estado the election with fundraising that dwarfs this time around. but we need to continue to build the movement!

MikeStanart
01-16-2008, 03:12 PM
It amazes me that people are worried about "pissing off" the GOP. Who cares!!!! You've got to be kidding me! The GOP has run this country into the ground with their wars and out of control spending.

Is your loyalty to Ron and the Constitution, or to the dying GOP???

Yeah, I guess you'd rather Ron run third party; and have the rest of the Conservatives blame Paul for giving the election to the Democrats.

Quirkydude
01-16-2008, 03:12 PM
It amazes me that people are worried about "pissing off" the GOP. Who cares!!!! You've got to be kidding me! The GOP has run this country into the ground with their wars and out of control spending.

Is your loyalty to Ron and the Constitution, or to the dying GOP???


I couldn't agree more. The way the party, candidates and media have treated Dr. Paul, I couldn't care less if their feelings are hurt. I think he should call them all out individually during a debate and then go 3rd party.

homah
01-16-2008, 03:13 PM
Yeah, I guess you'd rather Ron run third party; and have the rest of the Conservatives blame Paul for giving the election to the Democrats.

Sounds good to me.

MikeStanart
01-16-2008, 03:14 PM
Sounds good to me.

You guys are short-sighted.

FreeTraveler
01-16-2008, 03:14 PM
Been there, done that. Without the kind of attention we've almost magically gotten so far (in national debates, by God!!), an independent run is like going to the prom with your cousin.

Yeah, except with the independent run, at least you get screwed. :D

homah
01-16-2008, 03:15 PM
You guys are short-sighted.

Maybe, but anyone who would "blame" Ron Paul running 3rd party for the Democrats winning is an idiot, and I don't really give a damn what they think.

RollOn2day
01-16-2008, 03:16 PM
Who gives a shit?


Now that's the kind of attitude I can get behind! Folks I don't give one rats ass about the Republican party!...or the Democratic Party!

I'm energized because of one person....Ron Paul.

Acting like this is some kind of set up for a 2012 newly revitalized and retooled Republican Party with all the "I told you so" factions is an attempt to save a dead party. I want no part of it.

For me, this is NOT a movement to save the Republican Party from itself. It is the new kid on the block. A new way...a better way and it is flipping the finger at both the Republicans AND the Democrats.

We either get this man elected President THIS year or we can crawl right back into the holes we came out of.

JahWarrior
01-16-2008, 03:17 PM
Yeah, I guess you'd rather Ron run third party; and have the rest of the Conservatives blame Paul for giving the election to the Democrats.

If they are so conservative, why do they support these socialist Republicans? Because they have an "R" next to their name?

acptulsa
01-16-2008, 03:18 PM
COME ON BLOOMBERG! With both him and Ron Paul stealing votes from the Dems, they won't stand a chance either--especially if they nominate that other dynasty candidate, Clinton.

Clinton and Romney (or Huckabee or the warhawk or whichever) vs Bloomberg and Paul. Now that's what I call a revolution in the making!

JS4Pat
01-16-2008, 03:18 PM
Yeah, I guess you'd rather Ron run third party; and have the rest of the Conservatives blame Paul for giving the election to the Democrats.

You have got to be kidding...

That sounds like a sheeple comment.

A person running for office can not GIVE the election to another candidate!

Votes belong to the people (or at least they are supposed to).

You run for office and you earn votes.

Period!

MikeStanart
01-16-2008, 03:19 PM
If you guys really think Paul is going to run 3rd party..... which means his one and only shot is This Year....

THEN WHY ARE YOU ON THIS BOARD TROLLING? You have work to do!

I see people with 1000+ posts who have only been here for a month (Maytheronbewithyou)
And all I see is Negative remarks and things that are COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

If you honestly think Paul is going to win this Election by having his supporters attack his other suppoerters....You're going to have a rude awakening.

MN Patriot
01-16-2008, 03:19 PM
A 3rd Party Run Will:

*Make enemies of every Non-Paul Republican.
* Paul will be blamed for Clinton / Obama's victory as President.
* This will unify the pro-war message.


Think of the BLOWBACK people! If we go 3rd party, this will RUIN our chances for 2012 as Ron Paul Republicans.

Imagine all the people who will be FED UP with Hillary / Obama if they do in fact get elected (God Save Us)


My point is; A 3rd party Run is not wise.

We need to put EVERYTHING we have into the GOP Nomination; If we fail...we'll be back in 4 years to tell everyone "I told you so" and win an overwhelming vote like Reagan did!

People who call themselves Republicans need to reconsider who their loyalty is to. Is it to the principles of freedom and limited government, or is it to a political party? The Republican Party is clearly not dedicated to freedom and limited government anymore. Even though talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Jason Lewis, etc, talk on and on and on about how the Republican Party has strayed from "true" conservatism, none of them are willing to support the only true conservative, Ron Paul.

Ron NEEDS to run as a third party candidate, FORCE every American to decide what they want: socialism, corporate fascism, or freedom. Of course a third party run is not wise if your true loyalty is to the Republican Party, not to freedom.

acptulsa
01-16-2008, 03:20 PM
Remember, to get a third party on the ballot in most states requires one fat petition! Be ready in case Nevada fails us!

Quirkydude
01-16-2008, 03:22 PM
Ron NEEDS to run as a third party candidate, FORCE every American to decide what they want: socialism, corporate fascism, or freedom. Of course a third party run is not wise if your true loyalty is to the Republican Party, not to freedom.[/QUOTE]


Agreed...I am an independent. I am loyal to the candidate and his ideas. The day I vote for a "party" is the day I lose my individuality...and that ain't happening soon.

MikeStanart
01-16-2008, 03:22 PM
People who call themselves Republicans need to reconsider who their loyalty is to. Is it to the principles of freedom and limited government, or is it to a political party? The Republican Party is clearly not dedicated to freedom and limited government anymore. Even though talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Jason Lewis, etc, talk on and on and on about how the Republican Party has strayed from "true" conservatism, none of them are willing to support the only true conservative, Ron Paul.

Ron NEEDS to run as a third party candidate, FORCE every American to decide what they want: socialism, corporate fascism, or freedom. Of course a third party run is not wise if your true loyalty is to the Republican Party, not to freedom.

I can't even believe you're trying to imply that my allegiance is to the GOP; instead of these ideas.

RollOn2day
01-16-2008, 03:22 PM
You know I am starting to notice that the ideology behind the two parties is not unlike....dare I say...racist thinking.

Why do you judge a person by their party?(skin)

Why is ANY Republican better than ANY Democrat in someones eyes? (racist)

Ron doesn't represent the views of todays Republicans any more than he represents the views of Democrats. He could just as easily be running for the Democrat nomination being as out of step as he is within his own party.

So tell me, if he were running as a Democrat....would you still vote for him? or would your views tend to view him as the enemy then?

MikeStanart
01-16-2008, 03:23 PM
I don't know about you guys; but I'm going to go and actually do something productive; instead of trolling.

Quirkydude
01-16-2008, 03:24 PM
You know I am starting to notice that the ideology behind the two parties is not unlike....dare I say...racist thinking.

Why do you judge a person by their party?(skin)

Why is ANY Republican better than ANY Democrat in someones eyes? (racist)

Ron doesn't represent the views of todays Republicans any more than he represents the views of Democrats. He could just as easily be running for the Democrat nomination being as out of step as he is within his own party.

So tell me, if he were running as a Democrat....would you still vote for him? or would your views tend to view him as the enemy then?


He would have my vote.

MN Patriot
01-16-2008, 03:26 PM
If you guys really think Paul is going to run 3rd party..... which means his one and only shot is This Year....

THEN WHY ARE YOU ON THIS BOARD TROLLING? You have work to do!

I see people with 1000+ posts who have only been here for a month (Maytheronbewithyou)
And all I see is Negative remarks and things that are COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

If you honestly think Paul is going to win this Election by having his supporters attack his other suppoerters....You're going to have a rude awakening.

Ron is 72 years old. Do you expect him to live forever? He needs to get the fires of revolution started that will continue burning until we take our country back. If he fails to get the nomination and runs for his old seat again, then the revolution will fizzle out. I'm not sticking around to try to reform the Republican Party. No matter what happens to the country I can take care of myself, life will go on.

But if Ron continues as a Libertarian and can get his supporters to campaign for him and run for office with him, then THAT will be worth supporting. Let the Republican Party lose elections, and force them to choose between fascism or freedom.

homah
01-16-2008, 03:27 PM
I don't know about you guys; but I'm going to go and actually do something productive; instead of trolling.

Trolling = disagreeing with MikeStanart?

mikeInAZ
01-16-2008, 03:30 PM
and mine

Derek Johnson
01-16-2008, 03:31 PM
Have you knocked on your neighbor's door or barnstormed the local nursing home?

Will you?

MN Patriot
01-16-2008, 03:35 PM
I can't even believe you're trying to imply that my allegiance is to the GOP; instead of these ideas.

Believe it. I notice quite a few people trying to discourage the idea of Ron running as a Libertarian. Why? Because he will "take away votes" from Republicans? I suspect they are loyal Republicans here who don't want to see their dear party lose elections to Democrats.

I've voted for Libertarians for years, even though I knew they would never win. If Ron gets the nominaton, great, I will support and vote for him. But I doubt that will happen, so all his supporters need to anticipate then next option: third party. Even if it means "taking votes away" from Republicans.

JimInNY
01-16-2008, 03:40 PM
COME ON BLOOMBERG! With both him and Ron Paul stealing votes from the Dems, they won't stand a chance either--especially if they nominate that other dynasty candidate, Clinton.

Clinton and Romney (or Huckabee or the warhawk or whichever) vs Bloomberg and Paul. Now that's what I call a revolution in the making!

How about Paul vs Romney vs Bloomberg vs Clinton, a 4 way race?

I wonder how that would shake out?

RollOn2day
01-16-2008, 03:51 PM
How about Paul vs Romney vs Bloomberg vs Clinton, a 4 way race?

I wonder how that would shake out?

Very interesting thought indeed.

Lisa S
01-16-2008, 03:55 PM
I just wonder if they really want Hiliary to win anyway.

JMann
01-16-2008, 04:16 PM
Ron is 72 years old. Do you expect him to live forever? He needs to get the fires of revolution started that will continue burning until we take our country back. If he fails to get the nomination and runs for his old seat again, then the revolution will fizzle out. I'm not sticking around to try to reform the Republican Party. No matter what happens to the country I can take care of myself, life will go on.

But if Ron continues as a Libertarian and can get his supporters to campaign for him and run for office with him, then THAT will be worth supporting. Let the Republican Party lose elections, and force them to choose between fascism or freedom.

If you think the Republican Party is hopeless you clearly know absolutely nothing about the Libertarian Party. Paul's only choice is to run as an Independent if he goes outside of the Republican. Just take a look at the pictures of candidates the LP put on their site. At times you may have people running for Governor wearing t-shirt and a scruffy beard. Most of the LP candidates look like someone you would never let hold your baby much less kiss the baby.

My dislike of the LP has nothing to do with Ron Paul taking away votes from Republicans. Can you see any candidate running on an open boarders platform and getting more than 1% of the vote. I think not. The radicals in that party are a disgrace to the country.

JimInNY
01-16-2008, 04:19 PM
Very interesting thought indeed.

It occurred to me, reading all of the debate on this thread, that a 4 way race might be interesting, and a possibility.

Any political science gurus wanna comment on the possible outcomes of something like this?

Sandy
01-16-2008, 04:39 PM
If they are so conservative, why do they support these socialist Republicans? Because they have an "R" next to their name?

Exactly, and for those of you who don't realize that Rep CFR members and affiliates are not conservative, start thinking with your noggen. Their would be NO Church of England scenario under Huck, it's a facade and is being used to pander for votes!! Hitler did the same thing! The CFR wants the Const gone and have a NAU, Huck would help make that happen just like so called conservative Bush has.

Bush hasn't done anything conservative except for things like veto that child health care bill, but they have to do something to make it seem like they are conservative to fool as many Reps as possible. They've fooled them into thinking pre-emptive war is conservative. It's a big fat joke, and both parties have run us into the ground with the war, etc. They are both responsible, if anyone hasn't noticed the Dem majority hasn't changed a darn thing!

So to say the Rep party has given themselves a bad rep, the Dem party has just as much, but the rhetoric is to demonize the Rep party, when they both worship beelzebub.

fmontez
01-16-2008, 04:41 PM
Do you happen to know who the last third party president was? Guy named Abraham Lincoln.

President Lincoln was not a third party president, he simply didn't win the first couple votes at the Republican Convention.. good grief charlie brown!

justinc.1089
01-16-2008, 04:48 PM
Bloomberg would be stupid to run third party. Its just hype for publicity, its not happening.

freelance
01-16-2008, 05:21 PM
COME ON BLOOMBERG! With both him and Ron Paul stealing votes from the Dems, they won't stand a chance either--especially if they nominate that other dynasty candidate, Clinton.

Clinton and Romney (or Huckabee or the warhawk or whichever) vs Bloomberg and Paul. Now that's what I call a revolution in the making!

Personally, I think this could be SOME FUN!

MikeStanart
01-16-2008, 05:31 PM
Believe it. I notice quite a few people trying to discourage the idea of Ron running as a Libertarian. Why? Because he will "take away votes" from Republicans? I suspect they are loyal Republicans here who don't want to see their dear party lose elections to Democrats.

I've voted for Libertarians for years, even though I knew they would never win. If Ron gets the nominaton, great, I will support and vote for him. But I doubt that will happen, so all his supporters need to anticipate then next option: third party. Even if it means "taking votes away" from Republicans.

I want to make something clear. I will NOT be voting for any other person Besides PAUL.

I am merely trying to get you guys to understand the Blowback of a 3rd party run.

It will alienate any potential voters in the future elections if; God Forbid, we lose this election. We cannot allow the rest of the ignorant Republians to blame Paul on a Democrat loss if he runs 3rd Party.

Remember Folks; even Reagan had to run twice; and he won with an over-whelming percentage his 2nd try.

stewie3128
01-16-2008, 05:42 PM
I hate weakness. At this point, I think Ron Paul's greatest source of power is that if he really wanted to, he could completely torpedo the Republican party in the general election. If Ron Paul runs as an idependent, it will almost guarantee a Democratic win. I think the media would recognize that power and the impact that such a move would have. Maybe then they would shine more light on the Ron Paul campaign.

If he brings on some professional campaign management talent, he could rip this party apart during the primary and at the convention. Expose the Theocons and Neocons for what they really are, and put a spotlight on the fact that more than 2/3 of this party are rotten to the core. (The other third is the vestigial libertarian wing.)

There are tremors presaging an earthquake going on right now, and we can make it happen. The GOP needs to be brought to the ground, the same way that Newt brought Congress to the ground, in order to rediscover their roots.

We thought it would happen after they lost the midterm elections - but no. They've only gotten MORE corrupt and MORE anti-constitutional and MORE hostile to civil liberties and individualism.

The best thing that can happen is the Evangelicals bolting and going 3rd party. The GOP would crash and bleed out, and may not ever recover. A new party with new principles will have to fill its void, and personally, I can't wait. :D

MN Patriot
01-16-2008, 06:06 PM
I want to make something clear. I will NOT be voting for any other person Besides PAUL.

I am merely trying to get you guys to understand the Blowback of a 3rd party run.

It will alienate any potential voters in the future elections if; God Forbid, we lose this election. We cannot allow the rest of the ignorant Republians to blame Paul on a Democrat loss if he runs 3rd Party.

Remember Folks; even Reagan had to run twice; and he won with an over-whelming percentage his 2nd try.

I don't expect Ron to run again in 2012. He will be 76 years old. Reagan was 70 the first time he took office. Do you really think people will vote for someone who will be 80 by the time he leaves office?

Republicans have resented Libertarians for years now, since they blame us for losing close elections when a Libertarian takes enough votes away. Suppose Ron doesn't run as a Libertarian, the LP is ignored by the MSM like usual, all the Libertarians get their usual 2% or less of the vote, and the Democrats STILL win. Then what has been accomplished? We will have a Hillary vs Romney ( or whoever wins the nominations) campaign, with the same old campaign rhetoric from both sides. There would be no discussion of honest money, ending the IRS, ending corporate fascism. The CFR and Establishment would win.

We should work on ATTRACTING people, not not alienating them with a third party run. Tell them up front that we represent the ideas of freedom and limited government, the Republicans are frauds when they talk about those things but do the opposite. We might even attract a few Democrats since the Democrat Party is owned by big corporations, too.

I think the message is too important to let it die because we are worried about pissing off Republicans.

trout007
01-16-2008, 06:16 PM
MrColbaltBlue

"Yes Captain"

MN Patriot
01-16-2008, 06:19 PM
If you think the Republican Party is hopeless you clearly know absolutely nothing about the Libertarian Party. Paul's only choice is to run as an Independent if he goes outside of the Republican. Just take a look at the pictures of candidates the LP put on their site. At times you may have people running for Governor wearing t-shirt and a scruffy beard. Most of the LP candidates look like someone you would never let hold your baby much less kiss the baby.

My dislike of the LP has nothing to do with Ron Paul taking away votes from Republicans. Can you see any candidate running on an open boarders platform and getting more than 1% of the vote. I think not. The radicals in that party are a disgrace to the country.

I agree about the nuts in the LP, I ran for congress for the LP 10 years ago. You would have felt comfortable having me hold your baby :) The goofballs are an embarrassment. One LP candidate a few years ago was dressed like a renaissance man, showing off his individuality, I guess.

The LP platform needs to be changed to be more realistic, but still recognize the principles of freedom; if enough level headed Ron Paul supporters joined, it could be done. Most LP candidates are serious, but neophytes to politics. I probably still am to a certain degree, but know a lot more than back then.

The LP is still unknown to most people, and if the candidates were respectable, and ran smart campaigns, they could shine more light on the important issues. How else do we get people to wake up about the fraudulent Federal Reserve System, and some of these other issues that are ignored by the Establishment?

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-16-2008, 06:33 PM
I want to make something clear. I will NOT be voting for any other person Besides PAUL.

I am merely trying to get you guys to understand the Blowback of a 3rd party run.

It will alienate any potential voters in the future elections if; God Forbid, we lose this election. We cannot allow the rest of the ignorant Republians to blame Paul on a Democrat loss if he runs 3rd Party.

The only "blowback" is the blowback the GOP will experience for mocking and mistreating Dr Paul.

The GOP is a dying party, and if we take Ron's highly energized and motivated and young followers away from the party, it will suffer a humiliating defeat and will come begging us to come back next election, at which point we hold all the cards.

F*ck the GOP.

1000-points-of-fright
01-16-2008, 06:42 PM
Here's the problem with RP making an Independent run. I don't think he can win. And if he doesn't win, the Republicans will lose but they can blame it on RP being a spoiler.

However, if it comes down to a straight GOP vs Dems fight, the GOP will be pulverized and the only reason will be because they suck. A complete lambasting by the Dems will make the GOP disintegrate or possibly take a hard look at themselves and maybe make some changes for the better.

As long as they can blame their loss on a spoiler, nothing will change in the GOP.

cheese
01-16-2008, 06:51 PM
Paul doesnt even need to run... the big government republicans have torpedoed themselves

acptulsa
01-17-2008, 08:56 AM
President Lincoln was not a third party president, he simply didn't win the first couple votes at the Republican Convention.. good grief charlie brown!

If Lincoln wasn't a third party candidate, name me a Republican who got elected president before him. By 1860 the Constitution had been in effect for, what, 73 years? Check and see what parties had put men in the office over that time.

If a party putting its man in office for the first time in the 73 year history of a nation isn't a win by an independent party, what is it?

nuklbone
01-29-2008, 10:04 PM
bump