ROn Paul Might Run 3rd Party

[Bo's Pelini]

I spoke with Dr. Paul this afternoon about continuing the fight by running on a third party ticket. I want to share what he said to me and let you know what needs to be done to make this happen. It can happen, but it's going to take some work. If you are willing to support this effort, please share this event and call in:


Mitt Romney won't stand a chance at being president if RP runs 3rd party

http://www.dailypaul.com/252900/upda...sident+2012%29

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Guru

I would rather be stuck with Romney than let Obama worsen our economy even further.

Well then, you're buying into there being differences.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

You're insane.

Are these the same polls that showed Ron Paul would capture the Republican nomination? What about all the talk about Ron Paul capturing so many delegates that a brokered convention would eventually turn to Ron Paul?

The idiocy of the Ron Paul fanboys never ends.

You are dealing with cult members, reasoning is pointless~

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

His son isn't even 50 yet, I think. He's young, and has 30 years of being a part of the Republican Party ahead of him.

Stay favorable in the party's eyes, and who knows. Maybe you get to be a department secretary, and ten years later that's how people identify you, a total image makeover, and you've become viable again.

You never know. The Paul family knows this. No way Ron jeopardizes Rand's future by pissing all over the GOP and giftwrapping the election for Obama.

You are naive and wrong. The only way Rand has a chance is to sell out.

[Guru]

Originally Posted by billay

Romney at some point supported each and every step Obama took in regards to the economy.

TARP,Bailouts, Healthcare reform, etc.

OK. so lets leave the guy in power that has further driven the country into the shitter economically. I would rather vote for a businessman and hope for the best than vote more of the same.

maybe nothing will change. I'll take my chances though.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

You are dealing with cult members, reasoning is pointless~

Says the red neck that barely ever posts a reasoned post but relies nearly exclusively on the logical fallacy of ad hominem, personal attacks and snark.
All while claiming this is how he treats others in real life. I presume that means to those he disagrees with.

[BucEyedPea]

Geezaz, there's been no announcement by Paul yet and look at all the handwringing and gnashing of teeth. All over a man who isn't relevant.

[Guru]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well then, you're buying into there being differences.

Nothing in the universe would make me vote for Obama. voting third party is an even worse wasted vote. Of course, living in Kansas I can vote Mickey Mouse and have no affect on the vote at all thanks to the electoral college.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You are naive and wrong. The only way Rand has a chance is to sell out.

I'd say he's right. The Paul position doesn't play right now. It might if we continue down are current path though.

Now isn't the time and I'd bet Paul isn't that stupid.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

If he's not relevant why are you posting in this thread?

Ron Paul is not a relevant candidate because he has no chance to win. Zero. Zip. None. The Paul supporters like to speak with a lot bluster, but deep down they know this. You know this, even if you refuse to admit it.

(Now I will concede that Billay may not know this, but Billay's grip on reality is tenuous at best. He doesn't even know the difference between an anonymous Internet forum and real life.)

Even though Paul is not a relevant candidate for the reasons I just stated, it doesn't take a large percentage of the voters to swing a close election one way or the other. Even though they make up a tiny percentage of the voting population, there are enough Paul supporters out there that they could swing a close election over to Obama. That makes this a relevant topic.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by Guru

OK. so lets leave the guy in power that has further driven the country into the shitter economically. I would rather vote for a businessman and hope for the best than vote more of the same.

maybe nothing will change. I'll take my chances though.

I won't and i'll tell you why.

Romney has already demonstrated he supports the same failed policies. If Mitt Romney wins all the fiscal conservatism talk goes down the drain. He already said he wouldn't cut a trillion dollars the first year. The Washington Post did a study of his plan and concludes it doesn't cut anything.

If Romney wins the grassroots wing of the party which has held politicians accountable dies. That means the establishment that helped lead America off the cliff regains total control.

I don't think it's a good idea supporting someone who thinks we should engaged in 5 wars and will meddle around with Russia possibly causing a very messy situation.

Lastly: Republicans will have a majority in the house. Obama won't be able to get anything passed on his agenda without Republicans.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Guru

OK. so lets leave the guy in power that has further driven the country into the shitter economically. I would rather vote for a businessman and hope for the best than vote more of the same.

maybe nothing will change. I'll take my chances though.

If more Republicans gain seats having a divided govt IS the lesser of two evils. That's what we had under Clinton. Granted Clinton wasn't as bad. But should Obama continue to by pass the legislature then I say impeach him as he should be.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by billay

I won't and i'll tell you why.

Romney has already demonstrated he supports the same failed policies. If Mitt Romney wins all the fiscal conservatism talk goes down the drain. He already said he wouldn't cut a trillion dollars the first year. The Washington Post did a study of his plan and concludes it doesn't cut anything.

If Romney wins the grassroots wing of the party which has held politicians accountable dies. That means the establishment that helped lead America off the cliff regains total control.

Lastly I don't think it's a good idea supporting someone who thinks we should engaged in 5 wars and will meddle around with Russia possibly causing a very messy situation.

That's right he says he has no plans to make cuts. Plus he has all the same advisors of Bush. How'd that turn out. It's ego with this pro Romney folks...they can stand the idea of a two term Democrat. Even though there's still going to be an attack on Iran. This latter issue is what Paul could exploit to the hilt.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Ron Paul is not a relevant candidate because he has no chance to win. Zero. Zip. None. The Paul supporters like to speak with a lot bluster, but deep down they know this. You know this, even if you refuse to admit it.

(Now I will concede that Billay may not know this, but Billay's grip on reality is tenuous at best. He doesn't even know the difference between an anonymous Internet forum and real life.)

Even though Paul is not a relevant candidate for the reasons I just stated, it doesn't take a large percentage of the voters to swing a close election one way or the other. Even though they make up a tiny percentage of the voting population, there are enough Paul supporters out there that they could swing a close election over to Obama. That makes this a relevant topic.

You already told me this. It still makes Paul relevant.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Ron Paul is not a relevant candidate because he has no chance to win. Zero. Zip. None. The Paul supporters like to speak with a lot bluster, but deep down they know this. You know this, even if you refuse to admit it.

(Now I will concede that Billay may not know this, but Billay's grip on reality is tenuous at best. He doesn't even know the difference between an anonymous Internet forum and real life.)

Even though Paul is not a relevant candidate for the reasons I just stated, it doesn't take a large percentage of the voters to swing a close election one way or the other. Even though they make up a tiny percentage of the voting population, there are enough Paul supporters out there that they could swing a close election over to Obama. That makes this a relevant topic.

Youre about of much of a brainiac as Terri Schiavo. Keep in mind your the same guy who screamed about Romneycare being different than Obamacare only to be proven wrong countless times.

If Ron Paul is so irrelevant thing please tell us why he has the ability to swing a whole general election?

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You already told me this.

That guy is always wrong but thinks if he keeps repeating himself it makes what he says true.