That should be enough to attract you nuts..... Obviously Ron Paul has zero chance of becoming President yet many of you would still write him in, basically voting for four more years of Obama but a question has arisen..... Ron Paul and Romney are chummy friends during the debates. They don't attack each other. It's been hinted that a deal has been brokered between the two. Romney gets the nomination and his VP is Ron Paul. An alternative is Rand Paul as VP. When news of that broke Rand Paul said he would gladly accept such a nomination. Neither side goes out of their way to deny that something is going on between the two camps. So given that...... Do you vote for Romney-Ron Paul? Do you vote for Romney-Rand Paul? Do you still write in Ron Paul? Do you decide to vote for someone else? I would not vote for Romney-Ron Paul. Not going to happen. Now I would vote for Romney-Rand Paul. His foreign policy ideas aren't stupid and dangerous like his fathers. Romney pulling either Paul would help him tremendously. For one thing it prevents daddy Paul from going rogue. Second it possibly makes a lot of Ron Paul fans decide that VP is as close as Ron Paul can get so they will go for it. Third, in case it's the son a lot of Ron Paul fans decide that Rand Paul will be running for POTUS one day so getting him into the VP will help. Fourth it puts the Ron Paul fans on the spot: Vote Romney-Paul or basically hand the country to Obama-Biden for four more years. What say you?
I thought this was going to be about: Ron Paul bests President Obama in a head-to-head matchup by 43 to 41 percent, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday.
Did you even bother to read the article? "As we said, this is the only head-to-head matchup to this point that shows Paul beating Obama. The RealClearPolitics rolling average of such polls still has Paul behind by a little over seven points." "In the RealClearPolitics poll average of the four GOP contenders, Paul remains in fourth, as the choice of 12 percent of Republican voters. He’s not outperforming that figure in any big March 6 Super Tuesday states, either. In Ohio, he’s at 10.7 percent. In Georgia, he’s at 8.8 percent. He’s doing a bit better in Tennessee, at 15 percent in a recent Vanderbilt University poll, but that’s still good for only third place." The man won't get the nomination barring some miracle.
What's so dangerous about Ron Paul's foreign policy? "Let's stop wasting money we don't have in order to screw around in foreign countries who don't appreciate it for no apparent purpose other than to piss off terrorists we're already flushing the American way of life down the shitter because of." That's dangerous? Seems to Skin that any foreign policy except Ron Paul's is what put this country in danger.
I wholeheartedly agree. Ron or Rand getting on the ticket with Romney will be the only thing that gets me on board. Anything less and it might as well be 4 more years of Tater Head.
For me, that would be a definite "Maybe, we'll see." The problem is that vice-presidents do very little in the American political structure. How much influence would even Ron Paul have on Romney's policies? If I actually thought that Romney named him as VP because he wanted him as a close advisor, then I might go for it. Might. But I would still have to be convinced, because to me, Romney looks pretty much like a repeat of W. The Republican party is apparently taking notice of the "Ron Paul phenomenon" that just won't die, and realizing that the Religious Right is not the only non-liberal component of the American political scene. That in itself is a good thing. And the libertarians, unlike the Religious Right, are not committed Republicans. It would be better to say that they would like to be Republicans, if the Republicans actually stood for the small-government values they sometimes pay lip-service to, but are very much prone to voting third-party, or not voting, or even voting Democrat (oh the horror!), rather than vote for the in-your-bedroom let's-see-what-new-wars-we-can-start neo-cons the Religious Right favors. So the thinking might be that it would be hard to lose the Religious Right, because they aren't about to vote Democrat and not even all that likely to just sit the election out (to many Evangelicals, voting is a spiritual duty), but they could gain a group of libertarians who wouldn't be voting Republican otherwise. While I am glad the Republicans have finally noticed that there is a non-negligible segment of the American population that wants less government, I wish the Democrats would do the same thing. The Democrats have some good values that, mixed with some serious libertarianism, might actually produce something worthwhile. But the Democrats seem to be continuing to pretend that libertarians don't exist. To the average Democrat voter, the only alternative to Democrats is a neo-fascist who wants to turn America into a theocracy. So they continue to use that boogey-man to scare people into voting for the "government regulation is the solution for all your problems" policies of the left. In any case, we have yet to see whether Romney will do anything more than look at Ron Paul in passing. Personally, I'll come back to this question in September, after seeing if the Republicans actually take Ron Paul into account at their convention. I remain highly skeptical.
I would consider Romney-Paul (either) for a good long time and then vote Gary Johnson. I'd vote for Romney-Rand Paul if Romney promised to only serve one term.
No. It's Ron Paul or nothing. And it's not a vote for Obama. I'm voting for Ron Paul, not Barack Obama. I don't recognize political parties like many of you sheeple. I only recognize individuals. I'm so sick of this "oh you gotta vote for x or you'll basically just be voting for y." No. I'm voting for z, and if you don't like it, I really don't give a flying fuck. Besides, Ron Paul would never agree to run with Romney. Romney is Obama in white skin. Is it really going to take until the total economic collapse and full scale revolution to get you fucking zombies to stop putting up with this lesser of two evils bullshit.
I wholeheartedly agree. A vote for Paul is NOT a wasted vote, especially not if there are enough people to feel the same way and are sick of this corrupt two-party system that has systematically destroyed this country! Fuck the Republicans, and fuck the Democrats. Both are equally evil in my eyes. Paul is the only candidate who makes perfect sense.
A vote for Paul is a wasted vote in the same way that sitting out 2008 (not voting for McCain) helped Obama get elected and helped Clinton get elected when people voted for jughead in 1992 over GHW Bush. Marginally better is still better, folks. Sure. Work NOW to get your favorite the nomiination but in November, vote for the best possible candidate that has any chance of actually getting elected or you really are helping someone else, especially if you live in a swing state. Because it's a sure bet that the hardcore on both sides are going to vote for their favorites just to make sure the other guy isn't going to have a chance.
Does anybody else follow the various media outlets in their state on Facebook? For all that I hear about Ron Paul's campaign being fueled by social media, around here, it seems like most supporters' idea of advocating for him is the online equivalent to running into a room, yelling "RON PAUL!" and running out. Seriously -- the supporters of the other candidates will be debating, and the Ron Paul supporters just jump in periodically to post "RON PAUL!" and nothing else.
That is such utter horseshit! No vote is a wasted vote, and I am certainly NOT going to be voting for an asshat like Romney. That also doesn't mean my vote counts towards Obama, either. I will not vote for either of those shitstains of humanity. Someone has to break the cycle of the two-party system. It may not happen now, but another four years of this bullshit will certainly cause Americans to want to overthrow this corrupt government once and for all.
IOW: "Be faithful to the two-party system everyone, no matter how bad it gets." Sorry. Been there, done that. I used to reason the same way. Bush 43 cured me of it.
So what if Ron Paul isn't the VP but comes out and says flat out: "To my supporters I thank you but now is not the time to write my name on the ballot. President Obama is such a danger to the country that I ask you to support America by removing him from office by voting for Mitt Romney. Like I will be doing on election day 2012."
Well, you go ahead and do whatever the hell the party tells you to do. That's what they count on. If I'm gonna vote however, I'm voting my choice, not someone else's choice.
How convenient his integrity has led him and Romney to tag team during the debates like they are working together behind the scenes to ensure Romney wins the nomination.
Not IOW at all. I said work to get your candidate out there and nominated. But I carried it a step further and said you have to realize when your cause is, at least temporarily, a lost one. But if you and BD want to vote for a candidate with no chance (if that's still the case in November) then go right ahead. That's your right and privilege. It won't make things even marginally better. As I said, it will make it even more likely that a candidate you have absolutely nothing in common with is elected. As for 43, I agree. He wasn't my perfect candidate and he was even less so at the end of 8 years. He was still better than the choices I faced on election days, so I went with what I had. But I wasn't going to split support and wind up with someone even less acceptable at that point in the process. The time for getting another candidate out there is not November 4th. It's now. If things don't work out for an alternative, then you're stuck with less than optimum, but still better than the opposition. And I can't believe I'm having this basic discussion in how American government works (or, rather, works imperfectly) with you.
I don't see that a lot. I see his name mentioned a lot, as in "Ron Paul has consistently said x...." in debates. Have you yourself seen this, or is it some kind of "reporting"?
Paul and integrity? I've never put those two in the same sentence. Anyone that claims to be one thing but has run so successfully for public office as something else for so long? I'm just not feeling it.
Oh sweet Jesus, you are so naive when it comes to this. Why the hell would Ron Paul want to run with Romney? They've got SO terribly much in common. It would be like Ross Perot accepting an invite to run with Bill Clinton in '92. Unless Paul is going to pull a Johnson and knock Romney "out of the picture" to become president himself, I don't see what possible incentive he'd have to run as Vice President, especially when his speeches and arguments make so much more sense than his boss's points of view.
Don't have too. Seen it with my own eyes. They make lovely partners on the debate stage. And it's been reported outside of Limbaugh's show.
What are you talking about. He's one of the only REAL conservatives in Congress. Anyone who doesn't consult the Constitution before voting on something is NOT a conservative. You have the same problem the rest of America has. Republican=Conservative. No. These days it equals 90% Neo-con, 5% Conservative and 5% liberal.
It's kinda hard for the media to ignore Limbaugh's screeching. Of course it looks like they are tag-teaming. When you've got the other guy as Rick Santorum, how can it not be an attack from both sides. Santorum is a Vatican Theocrat. Paul is going to take him on the Constitutional angle, and Romney's gonna feed off that from the Moderate GOP angle. DUH! My God, you and I are very little alike. But if we were on that stage with Santorum, we'd be ripping him too. And as for Gingrich... why bother?
Paul teaming up with Romney? The pattern here is that all the "2nd in the polls" candidates have been the anti-Romney. From Cain, to Perry, to Gingirch, and now Santorum. Eventually, when they get to this spot they naturally have the spotlight on them and Santorum's big government votes and social "conservative" remarks make him an easy target. He's a liability. Unfortunately, he's also a crybaby. He got creamed during the last debate. When you're running as Mr. Anti-Establishment, the last thing you want to say was "I took one for the team, but trust me, I'm going to be really small-government minded this time." What Paul is trying to do is get these anti-Romney-but-even-worse candidates out of the way so he can be the anti-Romney. Unfortunately, the previous idiots in that position turned out to be the same old same old shit and have been creating a malaise about the GOP nomination in general thus far. That Rush Limbaugh changes his stance daily and tip-toes around the god-awful big intrusive government front-runners after practically being Mr. Tea Party during 2010 elections finally forced me to turn off neo-conservative radio for awhile. Frustrated enough about the thought of Romney or Santorum getting their ass kicked against Obama.
