# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Another source has come out saying Ron Paul tinkering with 3rd party run.

## eleganz

If you want to doubt and be negative, go do that to yourself in the mirror because it doesn't do anything here. 

I support Ron Paul, I AM RON PAUL.


https://www.facebook.com/events/343258709094797/




> 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:
> 
> Free Conference Call
> Sunday 7pm ALASKA time
> Conference dial-in number: (559) 726-1200
> Participant access code: 811476


As for the credibility of this person who is calling the conference, he isn't a nobody.  He is friends with major grassroots players I know from Alaska.


in the meantime:




> Now here is what YOU need to do, exhaust every avenue of communication to show Ron Paul and Gary Johnson that there is a DEMAND of the grassroots for them to join forces and get into the national debates, that we pledge to support and work tirelessly to get them to the debates and change the national political dialogue for decades to come:
> 
> CALL GARY AND ASK HIM TO REITERATE TO RON HE WILL STEP ASIDE IF RON WANTS TO RUN LIBERTARIAN:
> 
> Gary Johnson Contact Info: (801) 303-7922
> email: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/contact
> 
> CALL RON AT BOTH OFFICES AND TELL HIM TO RUN AS THE LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE. MAKE SURE YOU SAY YOU ARE REPUBLICAN, IF IN FACT YOU ARE, AND TELL HIM WE WILL SUPPORT HIM, DONATE, WORK, AND DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO HELP. HE NEEDS TO BE IN THE DEBATES AND HE IS THE ONLY PERSON THAT WOULD HAVE A SHOT AT BEING INCLUDED.
> 
> ...

----------


## sailingaway

7 pm Alaska time... Sunday

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I might be out of the loop here on this, but do we know that the guy that started this FB page knows Ron personally?  Or did he get it 2nd hand?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> 7 pm Alaska time... Sunday


Wow, is that 1 hour behind CA?

N/M yes, that would be 11pm eastern

----------


## WhistlinDave

Hell yea!

----------


## eleganz

> Wow, is that 1 hour behind CA?
> 
> N/M yes, that would be 11pm eastern


yea, 8pm Pacific.  11pm Eastern

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Wow, is that 1 hour behind CA?
> 
> N/M yes, that would be 11pm eastern


Yes, Alaska time is one hour behind PST.  Due to the dog sleds I think.  They always need a little extra time.

----------


## FriedChicken

10pm central

----------


## ClydeCoulter

So, WHO'S hosting the conference call and what's his connection to Ron Paul?

----------


## angelatc

If this happens, and Benton needs the grassroots to come together to make this happen....well, good luck with that.

----------


## CPUd

And why conference call?  why not live chat, or something else reflective of this decade?

----------


## Lovecraftian4Paul

Bump for more info. Who is this person?

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

AWESOME!

-t

----------


## RickyJ

> If this happens, and Benton needs the grassroots to come together to make this happen....well, good luck with that.


Only for a third party run by Ron Paul could I support him regardless of his campaign chairman or manager. I support Ron Paul 100%.

----------


## hammy

I hope Ron's intent is to destroy the GOP. I can only hope.

----------


## Brett85

There are sore loser laws in place that make it impossible for Ron to run as an independent candidate.  It doesn't matter if he wants to run as a 3rd party candidate or not; he can't legally do it.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999



----------


## RickyJ

> I hope Ron's intent is to destroy the GOP. I can only hope.


I hope his intent is to wake people up! Time is limited, WW3 is planned and after that, there will be no talk about 2016, or 2020, or any other year, America will be finished.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> So, WHO'S hosting the conference call and what's his connection to Ron Paul?





> Bump for more info. Who is this person?


HELLO?

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Looks like the FB event is by Evan Alaska. I'm guessing Alaska isn't his last name...

http://www.facebook.com/evanalaska

----------


## sailingaway

> And why conference call?  why not live chat, or something else reflective of this decade?


I always suspect it is to get phone numbers.... but I sometimes join anyhow.  This guy I think I've seen around as a Ron Paul supporter, at least the facebook page, I dont know if it is his call or if he is just quoting what is up at DP though.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I always suspect it is to get phone numbers.... but I sometimes join anyhow.  This guy I think I've seen around as a Ron Paul supporter, at least the facebook page, I dont know if it is his call or if he is just quoting what is up at DP though.


Well, I joined the event, so I guess they have my page, and tomorrow will have my phone number, cause.....you know

----------


## FriedChicken

I'm thinking that the conference call is being held through freeconferencecall.com (or whatever) ... if that is the case than I don't think there is any possible way for the host to collect numbers.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Until I see more, I'll just leave this here...(much as I'd like it to be true)

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> Well, I joined the event, so I guess they have my page, and tomorrow will have my phone number, cause.....you know


Same here. 

Sigh…I probably shouldn't be holding my breath, but I am. One last chance Dr. Paul…PLEASE!!!!!!!

----------


## KramerDSP

Call me skeptical about this source. I want a third party run solely to get Ron in the debates. I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying this one. It feels like the hook to an impending Nigeria 411 style-scam.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Well…I know there is a setting that hides your number if you call from a cell phone. I'm not sure if the conference call thing can get around the blocked number…but its just an idea…

----------


## eleganz

Everybody needs to chill out.

As for the credibility of this person who is calling the conference, although I don't know him personally, he isn't a nobody. He is friends with major grassroots players I know from Alaska and that speaks volumes for me because I know the Alaska crew worked their asses off and know what they're doing.

Conference calls are used for universal convenience and has been used by grassroots all over the nation and other campaigns.  Live chats tend not to support as many attendees and lags.

We're here to support Ron Paul, not force him to do something he doesn't want to do.

----------


## orenbus

just call using google voice, or doesn't that conference service have a web interface? this way you can stay anonymous. i'll try to make it but if i can't someone please report back here whatever happens.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> We're here to support Ron Paul, not force him to do something he doesn't want to do.


Reluctant "leaders", (the best kind), often must be forced to take the mantle of responsibility.

Like it or not, Ron has millions of people looking to him for direction.

It would be a shame to end it all like Forrest Gump's run.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Reluctant "leaders", (the best kind), often must be forced to take the mantle of responsibility.
> 
> Like it or not, Ron has millions of people looking to him for direction.
> 
> *It would be a shame to end it all like Forrest Gump's run.*


ROFL

----------


## dskalkowski

I will support, Ron.

But I am not getting my hopes up with a potential third-party run. I honestly believe he just wants to relax. He's done above and beyond what he had to.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Looks like the FB event is by Evan Alaska. I'm guessing Alaska isn't his last name...
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/evanalaska


He lives in Alaska

I know and can vouch for Evan.  He's the person that headed up the team that put together the DVD for Iowa last time.  He's a good guy and very much on our side.

I was trying to track down the call in number and find out what service uses it.  Haven't found it yet and probably won't as I'm getting tons of hits for conference calls and none for the service.  My concern was the maximum number of participants that can be on that call.  We're inviting the whole frickin' grassroots!

One thing I did find out is that Google voice blocks this number:

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...dated-fcc.html

so if you want to be on the call you will either have to have an unlimited calling plan or pay LD rates.

-t

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I will support, Ron.
> 
> But I am not getting my hopes up with a potential third-party run. I honestly believe he just wants to relax. He's done above and beyond what he had to.


Nobody is arguing with that.  But, if he will, we are asking him to, there's not another one of him in the forseable future.

edit: been over 200 years since the last one (TJ)

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Reluctant "leaders", (the best kind), often must be forced to take the mantle of responsibility.
> 
> Like it or not, Ron has millions of people looking to him for direction.
> 
> It would be a shame to end it all like Forrest Gump's run.


And it must be said that people only get what they ask for. That's worth something. Technically, they have been asking for the shaft the entire time they have been receiving it through the years. So why not ask for something else. I'm sure that if enough folks wanted Paul to go 3rd party he would. It's not like we cannot fund it.

----------


## CUnknown

They will anyway, but no one should say that the GOP does not deserve a 3rd party run by Ron at this point.  They have treated him and us so badly, it's shocking.  They have gone out of their way to belittle and repress us.

----------


## Miss Annie

I hope he sees how cheated he was,..... and how many votes he was likely robbed by the fraud.  I hope he sees how many people woke up and what a good chance he had at winning the nomination IN SPITE of the media blackout!  I hope he sees that his supporters truly believe in him, his integrity, honesty, and devotion to the constitution.  I hope he sees the passion that he stirs in people when they do wake up.  I hope he sees that it is truly possible for him to win the office.... because I truly believe it is possible.  I hope he sees how pissed off people are because their right to a vote was robbed from them.  I hope he sees how angry people are at the 2 party system.  I hope he is hearing the cries that I am hearing for a 3rd party.  I hope he runs!

----------


## Carlybee

Run Ron Run!

----------


## jkob

Believe it when I see it but I'm on board if he does.

----------


## millercards

Anyone see the boost in numbers at RPF during the RNC?

The people are waiting for something to get excited for.

I went pretty dormant after Kansas voted, but I'm sure I speak for many when I say I'll be all in again if he runs.

Run Ron Run!

----------


## eleganz

i'd like to see us max out the conference call, are all of you guys serious about a third party run?  set the date and get on the call!  11pm for Eastern timers.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> i'd like to see us max out the conference call, *are all of you guys serious about a third party run?*  set the date and get on the call!  11pm for Eastern timers.


You didn't really ask that, right?  That was /sarcasm or /jk

----------


## eleganz

> You didn't really ask that, right?  That was /sarcasm


honestly...I doubt a lot of the so called passion of many who call themselves grassroots supporters.  but thats just me.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> honestly...I doubt a lot of the so called passion of many who call themselves grassroots supporters.  but thats just me.


Ah, ignore the trolls, I haven't seen any RP supporters that would say "nah, let's skip this one".

----------


## Sentinelrv

If this happens, I think all the money bomb organizers from the primary season should get together and figure out what to do. That would be me, Dusman, Orenbus, Nathanielyao and a bunch of others. We'd all need to work together to fast track this to get Ron the money he needs to launch his run.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> If this happens, I think all the money bomb organizers from the primary season should get together and figure out what to do. That would be me, Dusman, Orenbus, Nathanielyao and a bunch of others. We'd all need to work together to fast track this to get Ron the money he needs to launch his run.


There's also the $31m (matching funds or whatever, sailingaway talked about it) that he would get.

----------


## eleganz

> If this happens, I think all the money bomb organizers from the primary season should get together and figure out what to do. That would be me, Dusman, Orenbus, Nathanielyao and a bunch of others. We'd all need to work together to fast track this to get Ron the money he needs to launch his run.



YESSSSSSS

----------


## Sentinelrv

> There's also the $31m (matching funds or whatever, sailingaway talked about it) that he would get.


Remember also though that everything has been reset. People would be able to give everything they have again ($2,500). Since we only have 2 months, *it would have to be one huge Mega Money Bomb*, no spreading out funds like we did in the primary season. Give it all at once!

----------


## The Gold Standard

If he were to do this I bet we could have a $15-20 million money bomb. Add that to the matching funds and he could flood the airwaves with truth telling.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

I've been against this from the start... but my god it would be amazing if he did it. Id support him every step of the way.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I've been against this from the start... but my god it would be amazing if he did it. Id support him every step of the way.


In the opinion of this chair, the "Ayes" have it

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

I hope he does. He's got nothing to lose, and the RNC robbed the nomination from him.

----------


## No1butPaul

can we please attack r$ this time?

----------


## Sentinelrv

> If this happens, I think all the money bomb organizers from the primary season should get together and figure out what to do. That would be me, Dusman, Orenbus, Nathanielyao and a bunch of others. We'd all need to work together to fast track this to get Ron the money he needs to launch his run.


I have just contacted many of the money bomb organizers through email. We need to be ready before he announces, not after. Time is just too short to waste. If it happens, we need to be ready.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> I have just contacted many of the money bomb organizers through email. We need to be ready before he announces, not after. Time is just too short to waste. If it happens, we need to be ready.


Great thinking. Be on standby, ready at the push of button. I hope he does annouce.

----------


## TheTexan

This would be glorious.  GLORIOUS.

----------


## economics102

Part of why I was against this originally is because it would be a total 180 from the strategy we've focused on over the past four years of trying to gain influence in the party.

In America's political system, the two big parties have to work to assimilate and placate the smaller factions they want in their tent. The two parties compete for those factions.

The GOP hasn't done that. Neither have the Democrats. But our ideology overlaps much more with the "conservative base" the GOP does court. So when we move in our own direction, the GOP is hurt more than the Democrats, and the GOP is already not in a good position because a lot of Americans are plain fed up with them. So the GOP is the party that really NEEDS to assimilate us to survive.

I don't think the dream of overthrowing the two-party duopoly is realistic. But what I'm thinking now is, the Republican Party has tempted fate, it has practically dared us to turn our backs on them.

If we can achieve credit for costing Romney the election (or at least being one of the major factors in that outcome), it will, politically, force the GOP to usher us back into the party tent, this time with a much louder voice.

ESPECIALLY if we craft our message not as extreme libertarian, but as "believable conservatism." If our chief complaint is basically, "we're libertarians, if the GOP was actually conservative we would coalesce with them since that's a good compromise, but since they aren't even conservative and are instead just as liberal/authoritarian as the Democrats, we part ways."

But the key is, it needs to be painfully obvious that we dealt a major body blow to the GOP come November. The people we're trying to get the attention of are not the GOP's leaders, who would rather lose an election than risk giving voice to our message, but rather the party regulars who at a certain point will start pressuring the establishment leaders when they can't understand how the pros of ostracizing us outweigh the cons of losing such a valuable constituency. That's why the establishment will focus their efforts on making sure our role in the outcome is not widely understood. We have to make sure EVERYBODY knows that the GOP's failure to embrace Ron Paul was an insurmountable handicap to Romney in the general election.

I also question Rand Paul's strategy of trying to reverse the GOP's co-opting of the Tea Party. The "liberty movement" is a brand that we control far more handily than the more amorphous Tea Party. Let the Tea Party do it's thing. We may not be as large a movement as the Tea Party, but if we can remain what we are, we'll be one of the only political movements in modern history to successfully resist being co-opted by insincere sheep herders (politicians).

----------


## Karsten

> This would be glorious.  GLORIOUS.


The ayes have it

----------


## idiom

A new money bomb would be for the General. It would open up new sources plus reset everybodies donation counters.

----------


## libertariantexas

If Dr. Paul runs third party, I'll vote for him.

But I think this is about as likely as the sun rising in the West tomorrow.

The election is 2 months away.  

There is no time to be cobbling together some sort of "third party" run.  If he was going to do that, he would have needed to start months ago.

----------


## libertariantexas

If Dr. Paul runs third party, I'll vote for him.

But I think this is about as likely as the sun rising in the West tomorrow.

The election is 2 months away.  

There is no time to be cobbling together some sort of "third party" run.  If he was going to do that, he would have needed to start months ago.

----------


## libertariantexas

If Dr. Paul runs third party, I'll vote for him.

But I think this is about as likely as the sun rising in the West tomorrow.

The election is 2 months away.  

There is no time to be cobbling together some sort of "third party" run.  If he was going to do that, he would have needed to start months ago.

----------


## Liberty74

I thought everyone said we must fight within the Republican Party long term because Ron Paul said so??? Well, he never said that people so snap out of it! What Paul has said many times was that he thought the best route to take "his message" to the people would be the Republican Party, hence be more receptive to the movement.

What happened? We were easily rejected by the "Republican" voters, establishment, Fox News, pretty much all the so called Right talk radio, etc. Ron Paul received very little Republican support. We were crushed in those closed primaries. What support did he receive? INDEPENDENTS came out to vote for him in those open primaries/caucuses!!! The writing is on the wall. 

Did anyone see that Examiner article talking about how Ron Paul has washed his hands of Keynesian. That both parties including the GOP support such failed economic policies and that there was no real difference between the two major parties. And that - wait for it - the Republican party is not his party. 

Maybe the cheating, corruption, stealing, etc. during the Republican primary with the end result of what happened to our delegates got under Paul's skin?

Maybe Paul realizes now that he was wrong on his strategy of going the Republican primary route especially considering we were rejected, blacked out, etc.? Don't give me this "what about Rand's future?" blah blah blah.

Maybe Paul now knows that there isn't a difference between the two parties? Remember, he said he could endorse the Republican  nominee IF they were able to come his way and convince him so. Has that happened? NO!!!

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> The election is 2 months away.  
> 
> There is no time to be cobbling together some sort of "third party" run.  If he was going to do that, he would have needed to start months ago.


For him to run third party, he would have to have to join an existing campaign due to ballot access...  unless that's what he wants us to do - form a new third party and get a ton of signatures - still I think it's too late for that.

So, we join an existing campaign, probably the LP, that has already "cobbled together" a third party run and you pump existing staffers and a war chest from his republican run into it and your golden!




> *Maybe Paul realizes now that he was wrong on his strategy of going the Republican primary route* especially considering we were rejected, blacked out, etc.? Don't give me this "what about Rand's future?" blah blah blah.


Maybe Paul's plan was something like:

Run as a republican so he is guaranteed to get into debates.
Hold out till the end so he remains in the news.
If he wins the nomination, go forward to the general.

If not! - Fallback on deal made with GJ and the LP months ago and run third party.
In this case, planning for a third party run would have been going on for months as a contingency.

There was never one strategy or plan, but lots and lots of contingency plans.  The campaign mentioned this from time to time to the media.  I would be floored if there had not been a run third party plan on the shelves for months.

-t

----------


## CPUd

That examiner article was based on the recent Bloomberg interview, and was taken up a notch from its original substance.  He never said anything about washing his hands.  When he said the GOP wasn't his party, he meant it in the sense that he doesn't take ownership of it.

Is it possible for RP to make a 3rd-party run without jeopardizing the leadership positions people have taken this year in their local/state GOPs?  If not, RP won't run.  If so, there may be a slight possibility for a 3rd-party run.    But even then, he's only gonna do it so people will have a real alternative to vote for.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> That examiner article was based on the recent Bloomberg interview, and was taken up a notch from its original substance.  He never said anything about washing his hands.  When he said the GOP wasn't his party, he meant it in the sense that he doesn't take ownership of it.
> 
> Is it possible for RP to make a 3rd-party run without jeopardizing the leadership positions people have taken this year in their local/state GOPs?  If not, RP won't run.  If so, there may be a slight possibility for a 3rd-party run.    But even then, *he's only gonna do it so people will have a real alternative to vote for.*


Presumably he's also going to do it so he can get on TV, put more ads out, get interviewed and get on that debate stage 4 more times to get his message out and grow the liberty movement.

-t

----------


## 69360

A guy who knows a guy who is my cousins nephews sisters godmothers coworker is bff's with Ron Paul and he's going to run 3rd party. 

It's over and it's really time to fall back to earth and accept it, it was a good run in the GOP. 3rd party is not happening, Rand wouldn't have endorsed Romney if it was. Ron isn't going to wreck what looks like a bright future in the GOP for his son. I mean come on already, can't you just hear the interviews "Congressman Paul, your son has endorsed Mitt Romney..."

----------


## RickyJ

> A guy who knows a guy who is my cousins nephews sisters godmothers coworker is bff's with Ron Paul and he's going to run 3rd party. 
> 
> It's over and it's really time to fall back to earth and accept it, it was a good run in the GOP. 3rd party is not happening, Rand wouldn't have endorsed Romney if it was. Ron isn't going to wreck what looks like a bright future in the GOP for his son. I mean come on already, can't you just hear the interviews "Congressman Paul, your son has endorsed Mitt Romney..."


Ron Paul said  the GOP is not his party and that parties are irrelevant a few days ago. Ron did not even stay to hear his son speak at the convention, do you wonder why? If a close source that has been verified says Ron is considering running third party then I believe it. And no, it is not over until it is over, and right now, it is not over!

----------


## kathy88

Not sure how I feel about it. Of course we all want it. Will it happen? Dunno. But one thing that has changed drastically since the RNC is that it has become painfully clear the GOP doesn't care for us, or want us around. Now that was the case last time, but this time they went to extraordinary lengths to censor us, down to breaking and rewriting rules. Perhaps Ron had no idea just HOW blatantly dirty they are until the convention shenanigans. He played along all primary season, telling reporters no third run, Rand endorsing, urging grassroots to be respectful and LOOK what it got us? And with no lube! I bet Ron is as pissed as we are.

----------


## agaiziunas

> I always suspect it is to get phone numbers.... but I sometimes join anyhow.  This guy I think I've seen around as a Ron Paul supporter, at least the facebook page, I dont know if it is his call or if he is just quoting what is up at DP though.


FreeConferenceCall.com does send a CDR (Call Detail Report) following the call, with all telephone numbers listed.  However, standard caller-id blocking works because it is a PTSN (private telephone switched network) and the CDR will simply show "Anonymous".

I believe *67 will block your caller ID but would check with your telephone carrier to make sure that feature is available, if you want to join but protect your telephone number.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> A guy who knows a guy who is my cousins nephews sisters godmothers coworker is bff's with Ron Paul and he's going to run 3rd party. 
> 
> It's over and it's really time to fall back to earth and accept it, [...]

----------


## S.Shorland

How about getting David Stockman and Paul Craig Roberts on board?

----------


## singe22

I hope he runs i got a $1000 ready for the money bomb

----------


## wgadget

And the way King Romney is trying to get Gary Johnson off of important swing states' ballots is telling as well. He may be trying to cover all his bases, just in case RON PAUL decides to go Libertarian wit GJ.

Please, God.

----------


## angelatc

> If Dr. Paul runs third party, I'll vote for him.
> 
> But I think this is about as likely as the sun rising in the West tomorrow.
> 
> The election is 2 months away.  
> 
> There is no time to be cobbling together some sort of "third party" run.  If he was going to do that, he would have needed to start months ago.


I agree.  I predict he's just announcing his official affiliation with the Campaign For Liberty.

----------


## RPaul2win

He won't run 3rd party. From what I understand he can't get on the ballots at this time.  The media would just tear into him even more saying he is going to get Obama elected again and so on.  

He can however run as Gary Johnson's VP!!!  I know this is unlikely but I think would be a good marketing move for the liberty movement.

----------


## No1butPaul

> And the way King Romney is trying to get Gary Johnson off of important swing states' ballots is telling as well. He may be trying to cover all his bases, just in case RON PAUL decides to go Libertarian wit GJ.
> 
> Please, God.


Could R$ be more insecure?  I was thinking last night, all those rule changes for Romney so he doesn't have a problem getting challenged in 2016 if he is elected ... are they all anticipating in advance that people are going to despise him more?  Their tactics do not portray confidence in his abilities as president.

----------


## Badger Paul

I hate to throw water on the fire but I think a third party run at this stage of the game would be a disaster and I doubt it will happen for very practical reasons.

Paul won't be able to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

The money isn't there to campaign full tilt until November.

It's doubtful RP would expend a lot of energy in such a campaign at his age.

Who would run such a campaign? Not the current management because they wish to have a future in GOP politics.

Most important, Rand would not allow it because such a bid would kill his career.

So I think this all wishful thinking by people who are misinterpreting things Dr. Paul says (or RP saying what these people want to hear and not let them down) to them or making them up entirely.

Besides, how would Gary Johnson, who is on the ballot in all 50 states, feel if Paul decided to mount some sort of half-assed independent bid? Not to good I would imagine. Now you may not care but politics in many cases is about relationships and all the goodwill Paul has gathered to himself these past five years could be squandered if many libertarians feel RP is being selfish and not passing the torch. Is such a campaign worth even more divisiveness? It would also open up the charge, made by many, that Paul's campaigns are basically nothing more than money making machines for his family, a charge which would get more credibility if he were to run.

RP may well be pissed at what happened in Tampa and has expressed his displeasure with the GOP but he needs to let it go and Johnson or Goode go the final mile like a good relay runner does as I'm sure Paul knows well.

----------


## Carlybee

I think if it's possible, anything and everything should be done to make it a reality. It is becoming more and more apparent the liberty movement is being co-opted. When people like Ann Coulter sit in on discussions with Rand and Peter Thiel,I can come to no other conclusion.

----------


## Smitty

I'm not going to get my hopes up,..but if Ron Paul is on a ballot, I will vote for him.

I'm quite sure that millions of other people will also.

----------


## 69360

Co-opted or the party is coming around?

I'd vote for RP if he did it, but the chances of a snowstorm in hades are greater.

----------


## Carlybee

> Co-opted or the party is coming around?
> 
> I'd vote for RP if he did it, but the chances of a snowstorm in hades are greater.


The party coming around? Sure just like they did with the Tea Party.  We are talking about the Borg.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

What would be the point? He wouldn't even have ballot access in a majority of states. It'd be an incredibly haphazard and poorly-organized ordeal if he were to suddenly announce a third-party run.

----------


## Carlybee

It may be a fantasy, but if it's true that he is considering it based on what kind of support he would get, then any true patriot should at least pledge that support. (We will know soon enough if this is a real scenario or not).  Ultimately this whole thread is speculation, but as long as we are speculating, let's speculate on the side of REAL liberty, not some watered down version that some are trying to push.  At least (if this ends up being the case) those of us who do not wish to compromise our principles would have a real place to put our votes in November if nothing else but to make a statement and keep that puke Romney from winning.  If Romney wins, there will be 8 years of him.  If Obama wins then at least there is a chance that "some" liberty people might have a shot in Congress in 2014.  JMHO.

----------


## 69360

> The party coming around? Sure just like they did with the Tea Party.  We are talking about the Borg.


1 in 10 delegates is a significant faction. Grow that a bit more and they don't have a choice in the matter.

----------


## tuggy24g

Is anyone listening to conference call?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Is anyone listening to conference call?


I think there are quite a few that will be on the conference call, at 11:00pm ET, 7:00pm Alaska time.  See OP for details.

----------


## No1butPaul

> If this happens, I think all the money bomb organizers from the primary season should get together and figure out what to do. That would be me, Dusman, Orenbus, Nathanielyao and a bunch of others. We'd all need to work together to fast track this to get Ron the money he needs to launch his run.


It would be great if they could set up a *Money Bomb Pledge*  in advance on Facebook or something, BEFORE the fact.  That could really help.

----------


## Drex

If this happens I will be campaigning hard!

----------


## 69360

> It would be great if they could set up a *Money Bomb Pledge*  in advance on Facebook or something, BEFORE the fact.  That could really help.


Why? You might as well burn hundred dollar bills at this point. Ron will not win the presidency. Romney is going to lose, he has zero chance of winning the electoral college. Running 3rd party ties the Paul name to the blame for that loss like Perot or Nader was blamed and sets things back another 8-16 years.

I'd vote for 3rd party run of course, but it makes no political sense at all.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Why? You might as well burn hundred dollar bills at this point. Ron will not win the presidency. Romney is going to lose, he has zero chance of winning the electoral college. Running 3rd party ties the Paul name to the blame for that loss like Perot or Nader was blamed and sets things back another 8-16 years.
> 
> I'd vote for 3rd party run of course, but it makes no political sense at all.


First, a pledge is just a pledge (it's nothing at all like burning $).  Second, I just don't agree with this.  Does anyone seriously think the RNC would let Rand have the nomination in 2016 if Romney loses?  Look at the money behind Romney ... they will not back Rand Paul.  If Romney wins, after 8 years, then Ryan runs.  Personally, I don't want to take any chance Romney could win.  His heavy-handed tactics at the convention terrify me to think he could be in charge as president with the NDAA provisions as they exist....dark, dark days for America.

----------


## 69360

> First, a pledge is just a pledge (it's nothing at all like burning $).  Second, I just don't agree with this.  Does anyone seriously think the RNC would let Rand have the nomination in 2016 if Romney loses?  Look at the money behind Romney ... they will not back Rand Paul.  If Romney wins, after 8 years, then Ryan runs.  Personally, I don't want to take any chance Romney could win.  His heavy-handed tactics at the convention terrify me to think he could be in charge as president with the NDAA provisions as they exist....dark, dark days for America.


Romney has zero chance in the electoral college. He is losing. I'd bet everything to my name on that. 

Rand is on equal footing right now for '16. If/when Obama starts an unpopular war and the euro/dollar fails, Rand is looking like a winner.

----------


## Carlybee

> Romney has zero chance in the electoral college. He is losing. I'd bet everything to my name on that. 
> 
> Rand is on equal footing right now for '16. If/when Obama starts an unpopular war and the euro/dollar fails, Rand is looking like a winner.


 But this thread isn't about Rand.  It's about a potential Ron Paul independent run and some of you persist in coming in here and trying to squash all talk of it.  We have conceded that it is speculative at best.  Why are you trying so hard to stop any discussion of it?  This IS the RON Paul forum.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Romney has zero chance in the electoral college. He is losing. I'd bet everything to my name on that. 
> 
> Rand is on equal footing right now for '16. If/when Obama starts an unpopular war and the euro/dollar fails, Rand is looking like a winner.


See, I think the problem is we are debating under completely different assumptions.  My assumption is that Ron Paul could WIN THE ELECTION if he runs third-party.

EDIT:  I gave up on the GOP, but I will NEVER give up on RON PAUL. *NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER*

Changing subject back to: * MONEY BOMB PLEDGE* ... let's have the money bomb people set this up on Facebook.

Add:  "If/when Obama starts an unpopular war" ... we're supposed to just wait for that to happen?  OMG  Ron Paul already told us if this happens our boys AND girls are going to be drafted.  His record on predictions is pretty good I would say.

----------


## 69360

> But this thread isn't about Rand.  It's about a potential Ron Paul independent run and some of you persist in coming in here and trying to squash all talk of it.  We have conceded that it is speculative at best.  Why are you trying so hard to stop any discussion of it?  This IS the RON Paul forum.


I'd vote for it. I know it has no chance of winning, none. It makes no political sense at all and would set everything gained back a generation with the scapegoating. But I'd still vote for. 




> See, I think the problem is we are debating under completely different assumptions.  My assumption is that Ron Paul could WIN THE ELECTION if he runs third-party.
> 
> EDIT:  I gave up on the GOP, but I will NEVER give up on RON PAUL. *NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER*
> 
> Changing subject back to: * MONEY BOMB PLEDGE* ... let's have the money bomb people set this up on Facebook.


I know there is no chance of winning 3rd party. As the GOP nominee it was possible. I'd vote for RP 3rd party, but think it's political suicide.

----------


## No1butPaul

> but think it's political suicide.


I don't think you get the urgency of the matter.

ADD - If Romney wins (which I understand you think he has no chance, but that is just your opinion), Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Bros. and Karl Rove will be in charge of this country.  Do you think there is any way whatsoever they would let We the People take it back?  They will change the laws of the country like they did the rules of the convention to make sure that doesn't happen.

Do you agree they are all evil men?  If not, what's the point of my even replying.

----------


## 69360

> I don't think you get the urgency of the matter.


people say that every election. $#@! is hitting the fan in the next 4 years. better to let it stick to Obama. Romney was never meant to win.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'd vote for it. I know it has no chance of winning, none. It makes no political sense at all and would set everything gained back a generation with the scapegoating. But I'd still vote for.


We are going to get scapegoated anyway.  If Romney loses, they will say it's because the Ron Paul people abstained, or wrote in RP or voted for GJ.  They already have a built in scapegoat and you can bet they will use it because they are not going to concede that they were unable to sell Romney as a viable candidate.

----------


## No1butPaul

> people say that every election. $#@! is hitting the fan in the next 4 years. better to let it stick to Obama. Romney was never meant to win.


Yeah, you're right.  Everything is fine ... everything is normal.

*MONEYBOMB PLEDGE!!!*

----------


## TheGrinch

> I'm not going to get my hopes up,..but if Ron Paul is on a ballot, I will vote for him.
> 
> I'm quite sure that millions of other people will also.


This is the correct answer, and I don't think any genuine supporter of Dr. Paul's feels any differently.

But it is 100% Ron's choice, and I hope that people don't start bugging him too much to do it if he doesn't want to.

It was Ron's calculated decision that we could make more headway by running in the republican party (and make no mistake, we have. A third-party run like we're talking about now, wouldn't have had nearly the head of steam without the great exposure to build our numbers with some who might have never heard of him otherwise).

Now it just might with the momentum we've built, and if these sources are true, then it sounds like Ron is pondering the same thing.... But he's smart and experienced enough with this to be able to make a good call on his own if he thinks it's worth it or not. 

No doubt we will all be behind him 100% if he does, but please, I hope folks don't press this issue if he doesn't, even if it's just because he wants to enjoy his well-deserved retirement.

----------


## ctiger2

> Romney was never meant to win.


Mormon prophecy says he IS supposed to win. Which is it gonna be?

----------


## No1butPaul

> Mormon prophecy says he IS supposed to win. Which is it gonna be?


  Not to mention, over a billion dollars behind him?  If that was the case, talk about burning money!!!

----------


## Carlybee

> But it is 100% Ron's choice, and I hope that people don't start bugging him too much to do it if he doesn't want to.
>  .


Agreed but remember the topic of this thread is that there is an insider source implying that Dr.Paul himself is tinkering with the idea.  So if true, then apparently he is interested in exploring that rather than riding off into the sunset.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Mormon prophecy says he IS supposed to win. Which is it gonna be?


Mormonism is a dynamic religion.  Things like prophesy's and teachings are added on the fly to adapt to current conditions.  Much as Congress views the Constitution or the RNC views convention rules...

-t

----------


## sailingaway

> Not to mention, over a billion dollars behind him?  If that was the case, talk about burning money!!!


the people banking backing him just print it. Remember?

Also, this thread is moving towards bashing a faith a number of people here believe in, so let's stop that part.

----------


## bbwarfield

is someone going to record this conference call and post it? 

also.... im all for 3rd party Ron run.... think hell win? no.... think hell get 15% and a spot in the debates? try my best!

----------


## eleganz



----------


## wgadget

> I don't think you get the urgency of the matter.
> 
> ADD -* If Romney wins (which I understand you think he has no chance, but that is just your opinion), Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Bros. and Karl Rove will be in charge of this country. * Do you think there is any way whatsoever they would let We the People take it back?  They will change the laws of the country like they did the rules of the convention to make sure that doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree they are all evil men?  If not, what's the point of my even replying.


AND his Lawyership, the inestimable Mr. Ginsberg.

----------


## kathy88

Some of my fellow Pennsylvanians disappoint me

----------


## wgadget

> What would be the point? He wouldn't even have ballot access in a majority of states. It'd be an incredibly haphazard and poorly-organized ordeal if he were to suddenly announce a third-party run.


We're talking LIBERTARIAN, which is on the ballot in all 50 states.  Gary Johnson has said he'd step aside.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Agreed but remember the topic of this thread is that there is an insider source implying that Dr.Paul himself is tinkering with the idea.  So if true, then apparently he is interested in exploring that rather than riding off into the sunset.


If Ron is indeed tinkering with the idea, then I'm all for us letting him know that we stand with him 100% if he thinks this is a route worth pursuing, and will help more than hurt the credibility of our message.

But I don't want for him to just to do this because we want him to... It was different before, that something had to be done to get the liberty message out there, but there could be plenty more repercussions for going ahead third-party after putting folks in place in the republican party.

I just hope that he'll remain mindful of whether this will result in a net gain or loss for liberty, and that's where I'm not really comfortable with people pushing it too hard, while perhaps not considering the big picture. He made a calculated move to go with the republican party, and now we all need to do the same, to decide if we need to throw a hail-mary, or if there are still better ways to move the ball down the field.

----------


## sailingaway

> If Ron is indeed tinkering with the idea, then I'm all for us letting him know that we stand with him 100% if he thinks this is a route worth pursuing, and will help more than hurt the credibility of our message.
> 
> But I don't want for him to just to do this because we want him to... It was different before, that something had to be done to get the liberty message out there, but there could be plenty more repercussions for going ahead third-party after putting folks in place in the republican party.
> 
> I just hope that he'll remain mindful of whether this will result in a net gain or loss for liberty, and that's where I'm not really comfortable with people pushing it too hard, while perhaps not considering the big picture. He made a calculated move to go with the republican party, and now we all need to do the same, to decide if we need to throw a hail-mary, or if there are still better ways to move the ball down the field.


I honestly think it should be in conjunction with a competent lawsuit for fraud and racketeering, naming the states and the RNC and alleging the ballot access laws in total are collusion which for a national, presidential race, disenfranchises individuals who are not interested in the two main parties.  Since there are more independents than Republicans right now, I think there is pretty good reason to think a LOT of people feel their interests aren't served by the two main parties yet with ballot and debate access laws, and taxpayer funding of the two major parties, those barriers disenfranchise them.  This would also drive home the fraud the RNC perpetrated, and show why it isn't 'sour grapes' for a guy who HAD enough states to be placed into nomination might run when they just changed the rules after the fact to make it not enough.

I'm all for it, in any event.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> He made a calculated move to go with the republican party, and now we all need to do the same, to decide *if we need to throw a hail-mary,* or if there are still better ways to move the ball down the field.


Put me in the "fishing with dynamite" faction...

-t

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> I honestly think it should be in conjunction with a competent lawsuit for fraud and racketeering, naming the states and the RNC and alleging the ballot access laws in total are collusion which for a national, presidential race, disenfranchises individuals who are not interested in the two main parties.  Since there are more independents than Republicans right now, I think there is pretty good reason to think a LOT of people feel their interests aren't served by the two main parties yet with ballot and debate access laws, and taxpayer funding of the two major parties, those barriers disenfranchise them.  This would also drive home the fraud the RNC perpetrated, and show why it isn't 'sour grapes' for a guy who HAD enough states to be placed into nomination might run when they just changed the rules after the fact to make it not enough.
> 
> I'm all for it, in any event.


Wonderfully said!

+rep

-t

----------


## wgadget

> I honestly think it should be in conjunction with a competent lawsuit for fraud and racketeering, naming the states and the RNC and alleging the ballot access laws in total are collusion which for a national, presidential race, disenfranchises individuals who are not interested in the two main parties.  Since there are more independents than Republicans right now, I think there is pretty good reason to think a LOT of people feel their interests aren't served by the two main parties yet with ballot and debate access laws, and taxpayer funding of the two major parties, those barriers disenfranchise them.  This would also drive home the fraud the RNC perpetrated, and show why it isn't 'sour grapes' for a guy who HAD enough states to be placed into nomination might run when they just changed the rules after the fact to make it not enough.
> 
> I'm all for it, in any event.


Good post, sailing.

As usual, the mantra for understanding the Powers That Be is: FOLLOW THE MONEY.

And Ron's fight is, at its core, with the entire MONEY SYSTEM.

----------


## sailingaway

> We're talking LIBERTARIAN, which is on the ballot in all 50 states.  Gary Johnson has said he'd step aside.


Or independent and do write in where we can't get on, and maybe just not worry about a couple if there is an issue. We'd be going for the debates, since Ron was polled twice last year against O and MR and both times got above 15% --- once 18% and once 21 or 22%.  While that may be different now that people are settling into the blue/red divide, no one else polled against the two majors has gotten over 15% at any point.

----------


## wgadget

From what I understand, it's too late to run as an Independent. And the status of write-ins is questionable...I looked it up on Wiki, and there are "citations needed" and a whole lot of confusing information.

----------


## eleganz

Would it work if GJ's VP resigned and Ron took VP and then GJ stepped aside for the VP to take the lead and GJ taking VP?

Or would the LP have to nominate a new VP?

----------


## wgadget

> Why? You might as well burn hundred dollar bills at this point. Ron will not win the presidency. Romney is going to lose, he has zero chance of winning the electoral college. Running 3rd party ties the Paul name to the blame for that loss like Perot or Nader was blamed and sets things back another 8-16 years.
> 
> I'd vote for 3rd party run of course, *but it makes no political sense at all.*


Frankly, looking back at the last year or so, running with the GOP made little political sense.

----------


## opal

<-- refuses to use facebook - cannot be a part of a pledge there

----------


## Carlybee

My concern about him running Libertarian is frankly I doubt he would.  There is a fundamental difference in the LP's stance on abortion and his stance that he put forward during the campaign.  Yes I know he is against the government having a say over it but the LP's stance is more ambivalent.  (please let's not trash this thread with a debate on abortion...just a consideration).

----------


## No1butPaul

> the people banking backing him just print it. Remember?
> 
> Also, this thread is moving towards bashing a faith a number of people here believe in, so let's stop that part.


That's true, but I haven't discussed R$'s faith at all so don't know why you make that statement in response to my comment about burning money (which was in response to an earlier statement saying having a moneybomb pledge was burning $, and makes no sense!) Did I confuse you with that run-on?

----------


## fr33

> My concern about him running Libertarian is frankly I doubt he would.  There is a fundamental difference in the LP's stance on abortion and his stance that he put forward during the campaign.  Yes I know he is against the government having a say over it but the LP's stance is more ambivalent.  (please let's not trash this thread with a debate on abortion...just a consideration).


Well he was openly pro-life when he ran on the Libertarian ticket in the past. The party's platform was not though.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> That's true, but I haven't discussed R$'s faith at all so don't know why you make that statement in response to my comment about burning money (which was in response to an earlier statement saying having a moneybomb pledge was burning $, and makes no sense!) Did I confuse you with that run-on?


She was probably referring to my post.

-t

----------


## trey4sports

if Ron runs 3rd party i believe that would signify that there is a schism between he and Rand.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> if Ron runs 3rd party i believe that would signify that there is a schism between he and Rand.


No - As Rand stated - just a difference in tactics.

-t

----------


## wgadget

> My concern about him running Libertarian is frankly I doubt he would.  There is a fundamental difference in the LP's stance on abortion and his stance that he put forward during the campaign.  Yes I know he is against the government having a say over it but the LP's stance is more ambivalent.  (please let's not trash this thread with a debate on abortion...just a consideration).


Well, he was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988, although he remained a Republican, so...

----------


## TheGrinch

> if Ron runs 3rd party i believe that would signify that there is a schism between he and Rand.


Or just as easily the appearance of schism that each one is "their own man".  

Having your cake and eating it too (which I always thought was a really weird saying. Why would you have cake and not be able to eat it?)

----------


## wgadget

> Well he was openly pro-life when he ran on the Libertarian ticket in the past. The party's platform was not though.


Yeah, really no different from Romney agreeing with auditing the Fed and asking Congress to declare war (which are in HIS party's platform). He most certainly will not abide by either.

----------


## sailingaway

> From what I understand, it's too late to run as an Independent. And the status of write-ins is questionable...I looked it up on Wiki, and there are "citations needed" and a whole lot of confusing information.


It depends on your goal. If your goal isn't to 'make all the ballots' but to get in debates, I am not sure it is.  It would at least need to be looked at differently.

----------


## trey4sports

> Or just as easily the appearance of schism that each one is "their own man".  
> 
> Having your cake and eating it too (*which I always thought was a really weird saying. Why would you have cake and not be able to eat it?*)



me 2. If you're gonna get some cake you damn well had better be able to eat it.

Anyway, I think Ron running will hold Rand back a bit in '16 but frankly im starting to think that Ron is not pleased with the direction that Rand is taking the movement.

----------


## eleganz

Due to high interest, the conference call max occupancy went from 300 to 1000, so the call in number and code has changed.

Changes are in the OP.

----------


## sailingaway

> That's true, but I haven't discussed R$'s faith at all so don't know why you make that statement in response to my comment about burning money (which was in response to an earlier statement saying having a moneybomb pledge was burning $, and makes no sense!) Did I confuse you with that run-on?


No, my first line was in response to you, my second line was in response to a couple of other posters.

----------


## wgadget

Speaking of Rand...Has anyone heard ANYONE on the neocon radio shows discussing his speech? I know I haven't...It's all RUBIO and CHRISTIE.

Bleh. 

I don't even hear them talking about Clint Eastwood's speech.

----------


## No1butPaul

Is it 7:00pm in Alaska yet?

----------


## eleganz

> Is it 7:00pm in Alaska yet?


it will be 8pm your time, and also my time. PACIFIC

----------


## No1butPaul

> it will be 8pm your time, and also my time. PACIFIC


  Thanks.  I'm just kind of anxiously awaiting!

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Due to high interest, the conference call max occupancy went from 300 to 1000, so the call in number and code has changed.
> 
> Changes are in the OP.


UGH! - now that it's in an unknown number of places all over facebook... and there is a project post here to spread the original info.  Is the project page link modified?  If so, it should mostly be OK without having to put in a lot of time correcting things...

-t

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

OK - URL is good... we will loose sone that jotted down the original info, but most should follow...

Evan Alaska
UPDATE: I had to get a larger conference room -- the limit for the original number was 96 people but over 300 have signed up- now I can accomodate up to 1,000 people.

THE NUMBER HAS CHANGED as of mid-day today.

I spoke with Dr. Paul yesterday 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:

NOTE the Free Conference Call number and access code has been changed to a new one as of today:

Conference dial-in number: (559) 726-1200

Participant access code: 811476

This is confirmed! - Dr. Paul is thinking about it!  It's not a pipe dream!

-t

----------


## Anti Federalist

////

----------


## No1butPaul



----------


## eleganz

> UGH! - now that it's in an unknown number of places all over facebook... and there is a project post here to spread the original info.  Is the project page link modified?  If so, it should mostly be OK without having to put in a lot of time correcting things...
> 
> -t


the original fb event page was modified already.

----------


## sailingaway

Great.  Remember that 'the other side' in many forms will be on, as well.

----------


## kathy88

> Thanks.  I'm just kind of anxiously awaiting!


I better take a nap for 11 EST. last time I was on a training call with the campaign I fell asleep with the phone.

----------


## No1butPaul

> the original fb event page was modified already.


Just to be clear, is this the correct access info?

Conference dial-in number: (559) 726-1200

Participant access code: 811476

----------


## AuH20

I hope this is a pure leverage move to blackmail the GOP because (a) he doesn't have the necessary war chest (400 million minimum) and will be blacked out (b) any run would automatically surrender the election to Barack Obama and the blowback would set back the liberty movement 10 to 20 years. If he had real money that could bypass the media, I'd say go for it, but this is just not smart. If you're going to do it, you have do it under the reasoning that you're going to win, instead of some half-assed vengeance stunt.

----------


## No1butPaul

IF Ron Paul runs ... please God, somebody convince him to get the best security there is.

----------


## wgadget

How would Romney "save" the liberty movement?

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> I hope this is a pure leverage move to blackmail the GOP because (a) he doesn't have the necessary war chest (400 mill min.) and will be blacked out (b) any run would automatically surrender the election to Barack Obama and the blowback would set back the liberty movement 10 to 20 years. If he had real money that could bypass the media, I'd say go for it, but this is just not smart. If you're going to do it, you have do it under the understanding that you're going to win, instead of some half-assed vengeance stunt.


OH BS! - please stop being a Debbie downer!

We have everything to gain by his running!

-t

----------


## The Gold Standard

> How would Romney "save" the liberty movement?


Apparently Romney is the face of the Liberty Movement these days. We are just trying to take it back.

----------


## AuH20

> OH BS! - please stop being a Debbie downer!
> 
> We have everything to gain by his running!
> 
> -t


I'm the voice of reason. This is suicide bomber stuff. Nothing to gain. No money = self-mutilation. If you can't raise at least 400 million, you have no business running. Where is Dr.Paul going to get this kind of money?

----------


## wgadget

AuH20 speaks for the Powers That Be.

----------


## eleganz

I hope everybody isn't just simply expecting Ron Paul to announce he is running.

I am personally expecting to do a lot of work to make this happen.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm the voice of reason. This is suicide bomber stuff. Nothing to gain. No money = self-mutilation. If you can't raise at least 400 million, you have no business running. Where is Dr.Paul going to get this kind of money?


Those who want him to run want him in the debates.  He was polled twice over the last year against Romney and Obama and both times got over the 15% threshold to get into the debates (although new polls would be needed since they need to be current.)

----------


## No1butPaul

> How would Romney "save" the liberty movement?


THAT is what would set back our movement!

----------


## AuH20

> AuH20 speaks for the Powers That Be.


That's why I'm probably on every domestic enemy list tabulated by the feds. I've been banned here once for threatening bodily harm on one Lamar Alexander. You have no idea what you're talking about and frankly you're out of your depth. I am far more politically wise than the Jim Jones gang in here.

----------


## sailingaway

> That's why I'm probably every on domestic enemy list tabulated by the feds. I've been banned here once for threatening bodily harm on one Lamar Alexander. You have no idea what you're talking about. But for one, I am far more politically wise than the Jim Jones gang in here.


What is politically wise to one person is selling out too far for another.  The continuum is represented here, and name calling isn't appropriate.

----------


## wgadget

> That's why I'm probably every on domestic enemy list tabulated by the feds. I've been banned here once for threatening bodily harm on one Lamar Alexander. You have no idea what you're talking about. But for one, I am far more politically wise than the Jim Jones gang in here.


If going Libertarian is "suicide," what is waiting until 2016 and playing with the corrupt GOP called?

----------


## wgadget

> That's why I'm probably every on domestic enemy list tabulated by the feds. I've been banned here once for threatening bodily harm on one Lamar Alexander. You have no idea what you're talking about. But for one, I am far more politically wise than the Jim Jones gang in here.


If going Libertarian now is "suicide," what is waiting until 2016 and playing with the corrupt GOP called?

----------


## No1butPaul

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul wouldn't even consider running unless we got some new backers ... say from the likes of Sarah Palin whom Rove & the RNC dissed too.  He's always defending Apple as an example of a successful organization that didn't get there through gov't help, and with his defense of internet freedom, I would hope they would support a run.  I really don't understand why they didn't support him w/dough in the primaries.




> While his rival candidates barely can restrain themselves from attacking China and lamenting the outsourcing of American jobs to China, the Texas congressman basically told everybody to just relax and stop worrying about those jobs.
> 
> His answer came after former Sen. Rick Santorum offered his response to how the government should react to Apple employing 500,000 people in China, far more than it has in the United States. CNN's John King, the debate moderator, turned to Paul.
> 
> "Apple's a great company," Paul began. "The way you asked the question, it infers that because there's a bunch of workers overseas, it hasn't benefited a lot of people here. The consumers obviously have been benefited by a good company well run." He added, "A lot of people worry about us buying and money going overseas. But if you send money to China... they don't put the dollars in a shoe box. They have to spend those dollars. Unfortunately, they're buying our debt and perpetuating our consumerism here and our debt here. But immediately, there's a benefit to us because those dollars come back."
> 
> He said American consumers benefit from lower costs. "Let's say the computer cost $100 instead of $1,000. Well, the person's just saved $900. That helps the economy. That $900 stays in that person's pocket."  He concluded, "We shouldn't be frightened about trade or sending money on."


More fun to watch (again):

----------


## amonasro

> That's why I'm probably on every domestic enemy list tabulated by the feds. I've been banned here once for threatening bodily harm on one Lamar Alexander. You have no idea what you're talking about and frankly you're out of your depth. I am far more politically wise than the Jim Jones gang in here.


How is bragging and admitting guilt politically wise?

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Great.  Remember that 'the other side' in many forms will be on, as well.


I seriously doubt this will be an issue.  The call will in most likelihood be one sided with everyone muted.  Some conference systems allow a lot of control like press 1 if you want to ask a question.  Freeconferencecall.com isn't one of them.  If he un-muted, some people using VoIP would set up feedback loops or on speaker would set up feedback loops and the call would have to be reset and everyone would have to call back in.  Also, everyone will try to speak at once and it becomes total fail.  The only way around this is if you can ask to speak via a keypress and only you get un-muted  or if there has been a prior call for people that want to talk or ask questions and they are told - OK - your turn... the opposition has also messed up audio on these calls deliberately in an effort to sabotage our communications.

I have some experience in this area...

-t

----------


## TheGrinch

> I'm the voice of reason. This is suicide bomber stuff. Nothing to gain. No money = self-mutilation. If you can't raise at least 400 million, you have no business running. Where is Dr.Paul going to get this kind of money?


You don't need so much money when you have dedicated grassroots, but you do need media attention, and make no mistake they will have to pay attention, especially if it gets him into the debates (which I think just getting in the debates would be another huge victory for liberty).

I've already changed my mind about treading carefully here, because it has been proven time and time again that even if you receive negative attention, it will often actually help to bring the true issues to light. I'm certainly not advocating violence, but it is also documented that there are more favorable stories on certain issues after a few get out of hand at a protest than there are for peaceful protests that are easily ignored. Again, not advocating violence in the least, but a similar concept can be applied here. Why do you think the media went from smearing Dr. Paul to just ignoring him completely? Because you can't smear dirt on someone that doesn't have dirt, and it will backfire as it gets people talking.

And seriously, we can handle the blowback BS rhetoric the establishment is already ready to use against us anyway if Romney loses... Also, can use the same narrative that Cavuto did, that Ron might have as many if not more of Obama's young previous voters.

----------


## sailingaway

> I seriously doubt this will be an issue.  The call will in most likelihood be one sided with everyone muted.  Some conference systems allow a lot of control like press 1 if you want to ask a question.  Freeconferencecall.com isn't one of them.  If he un-muted, some people using VoIP would set up feedback loops or on speaker would set up feedback loops and the call would have to be reset and everyone would have to call back in.  Also, everyone will try to speak at once and it becomes total fail.  The only way around this is if you can ask to speak via a keypress and only you get un-muted  or if there has been a prior call for people that want to talk or ask questions and they are tolk - OK - your turn... the opposition has also messed up audio on these calls deliberately in an effort to sabotage our communications.
> 
> I have some experience in this area...
> 
> -t


that's good to know. still they will be listening. I don't know that there is anything to be done about that, but it is something to keep in mind.

----------


## wgadget

Any significance of the conference call being done from Alaska? (Palin)

----------


## AuH20

> What is politically wise to one person is selling out too far for another.  The continuum is represented here, and name calling isn't appropriate.


I don't think anyone is selling out. I won't be voting for Romney. Ron Paul lost and it's time to move on. Unless he came up with a serious amount of funding, in which he could broadcast his unique message and possibly garner in upward of 30% of the popular vote, I don't think such an endeavor would be productive. Now if he somehow procured the backing of a few very wealthy donors, than I'd support him. But if this is going to be the typical, low profile third party run, it's just not worth it. It comes off really petty.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Any significance of the conference call being done from Alaska? (Palin)


Mike Wallace just heard rumor out of MN that RP is considering VP for Gary.??

edit Company just arrived, I'll be on conference call 11:00pm EDT.

----------


## AuH20

> How is bragging and admitting guilt politically wise?


My name isn't on a ticket. I'm being frank here, when I'm being cast as some informant.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't think anyone is selling out. I won't be voting for Romney. Ron Paul lost and it's time to move on. Unless he came up with a serious amount of funding, in which he could broadcast his unique message and possibly garner in upward of 30% of the popular vote, I don't think such an endeavor would be productive. Now if he somehow procured the backing of a few very wealthy donors, than I'd support him. But if this is going to be the typical, low profile third party run, it's just not worth it. It comes off really petty.


after what happened at RNC I don't think so, given Ron had enough states file to put him into nomination, only to have them change the rules on the spot to require more, and given they blatantly cheated him out of delegates or he would have had the 8 states for the HIGHER requirement as well.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Mike Wallace just heard rumor out of MN that RP is considering VP for Gary.??
> 
> edit Company just arrived, I'll be on conference call 11:00pm EDT.


Unless the Steelers wideout has gotten into reporting breaking rumors, Mike Wallace died several months ago.

----------


## AuH20

I honestly hope Ron Paul is just floating this rumor out there to scare the RNC to change the rules back. It would be genius.

----------


## sailingaway

> Mike Wallace just heard rumor out of MN that RP is considering VP for Gary.??
> 
> edit Company just arrived, I'll be on conference call 11:00pm EDT.


If you mean Ron would BE vp I'm against it unless the idea is GJ bows out and lets Ron to the fore. It is RON I want in the debates.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Any significance of the conference call being done from Alaska? (Palin)


  duh, I didn't even think of that!  From Daily Paul:




> Bix Weir: If Palin Supports Ron Paul 3rd Party Candidate Game Over For Gop
> Submitted by Apple on Sat, 09/01/2012 - 17:27
> 
> It no longer matters if you like or dislike Sarah Palin, the fact of the matter is that she has the power to destroy any chance the Republicans have of winning the Presidency if she chooses to run or if she supports Ron Paul as a 3rd party candidate.
> 
> The GOP leadership knows this and they are in serious trouble. *If they alienate both Ron Paul and Sarah Palin it is GAME OVER.* 
> 
> THIS statement by Palin 
> 
> ...


Submitted by Apple

----------


## AuH20

Palin and Paul would be devastating.

----------


## UpperDecker

> If you mean Ron would BE vp I'm against it unless the idea is GJ bows out and lets Ron to the fore. It is RON I want in the debates.


Why would you be against it?  I understand that you want Paul to be top billing and in the main debates, but he could be a Cheney-like VP with a lot of power.  I will take him in any form possible at this point.

----------


## wgadget

Maybe it was Chris Wallace?

Dang, he looks an awful lot like his dad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wallace

----------


## No1butPaul

> Palin and Paul would be devastating.


  I can't tell you how many times I've said that ... a WINNER.  But if he has to run on the L ticket, can't see how it's possible.

----------


## wgadget

Well, there's always the Johnson/Paul ticket, ENDORSED by Sarah Palin.

----------


## RP Supporter

Johnson/Paul would be awful. I don't really mind Gary, but enthusiasm for the ticket would be all Paul. He needs to be the headliner, otherwise I think you'd see a lot of people who love Paul but are usually loyal republicans would vote Romney, just because they don't bother to see who plays second fiddle.

----------


## AuH20

> I can't tell you how many times I've said that ... a WINNER.  But if he has to run on the L ticket, can't see how it's possible.


Paul/Palin could crack 30% nationally. And could hypothetically raise sizable funds.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> Well, there's always the Johnson/Paul ticket, ENDORSED by Sarah Palin.


This really needs to be a 'Coalition Party' or a Prosperity Party with all secondary parties and popular candidates, coming together to challenge the duopoly of oligarchs and Fascists.

----------


## wgadget

> Johnson/Paul would be awful. I don't really mind Gary, but enthusiasm for the ticket would be all Paul. He needs to be the headliner, otherwise I think you'd see a lot of people who love Paul but are usually loyal republicans would vote Romney, just because they don't bother to see who plays second fiddle.


If Ron Paul were anywhere on ANY ticket, the freedom-loving public would know about it, imo.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Well, there's always the Johnson/Paul ticket, ENDORSED by Sarah Palin.


Big problem, I think, with Sarah Palin endorsing a GJ/RP ticket is GJ is pro-choice I believe.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Paul/Palin could crack 30% nationally. And could hypothetically raise sizable funds.


Can you even IMAGINE the energy behind this????

----------


## AuH20

> Can you even IMAGINE the energy behind this????


How would Romney and Ryan triangulate attacks against Paul/Palin??? They would be handcuffed.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Paul/Palin could crack 30% nationally. And could hypothetically raise sizable funds.


  Because of sore loser laws, I wonder if Palin/Paul is a possibility ... could she get access to all 50 states?  I have no clue how those things work.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Well, there's always the Johnson/Paul ticket, ENDORSED by Sarah Palin.


Except that Palin already endorsed Romney-Ryan.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2917493/posts

----------


## wgadget

Meh. Lesser of two evils tripe, imo.

----------


## sailingaway

> Why would you be against it?  I understand that you want Paul to be top billing and in the main debates, but he could be a Cheney-like VP with a lot of power.  I will take him in any form possible at this point.


Except what is the likelihood of winning?  the MAIN goal would be to get into the debates, with winning a 'you never know' possibility.  And RON PAUL based on polling against O and MR to date, would get into the debates.  Gary, based on polling to date, would not.

The POINT of Ron running would be to have him, with his credibility from his record, debating O and MR, imho.

----------


## UpperDecker

> Except what is the likelihood of winning?  the MAIN goal would be to get into the debates, with winning a 'you never know' possibility.  And RON PAUL based on polling against O and MR to date, would get into the debates.  Gary, based on polling to date, would not.
> 
> The POINT of Ron running would be to have him, with his credibility from his record, debating O and MR, imho.


Like I said, I completely understand where you are coming from on this.  For me, i think it would be worth it having Paul coach Johnson for the debates and it would also be hilarious to watch Ron dismantle Biden.  But like I said, I feel that Paul would have the power just with the VP title.  It would hopefully be like having Paul in the debates in Johnson's body.

----------


## wgadget

> Big problem, I think, with Sarah Palin endorsing a GJ/RP ticket is GJ is pro-choice I believe.


In the scheme of things, abortion is the least of our worries. "It's the economy, stupid."

----------


## No1butPaul

> Except that Palin already endorsed Romney-Ryan.
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2917493/posts


  If she was on the ticket though, she could walk that back.

----------


## sailingaway

> Because of sore loser laws, I wonder if Palin/Paul is a possibility ... could she get access to all 50 states?  I have no clue how those things work.


I think we are over focused on getting on all 50 states.  If we have to run a write in campaign in a few, or miss one or two, I don't see that as a big problem, particularly if we don't think they are states where we would win electoral votes, in any event.  The issue is getting into the DEBATES, and both time Ron was polled against O and MR last year, he broke 15%.  (It would need more current polls, though.)   But here is a study of the ballot access / sore loser issue someone looked at in 2007: http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01...al-candidates/

----------


## idiom

In a three way contest you wouldn't need access to all 50 states.

RP could put California and Texas into play which basically blows any electoral college map out of the water immediately.

You have to think in electoral college terms.

----------


## eleganz

if anybody remembers, i need the polls that show ron over 15% when polled with obama and romney

----------


## eleganz

> In a three way contest you wouldn't need access to all 50 states.
> 
> RP could put California and Texas into play which basically blows any electoral college map out of the water immediately.
> 
> You have to think in electoral college terms.


please elaborate!!!  i really want to hear this

----------


## wgadget

> Except that Palin already endorsed Romney-Ryan.
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2917493/posts


And I believe this "endorsement" was made BEFORE Romney killed the grassroots in a power-grab at the RNC.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

There would have to be some Democratic support for such a ticket.

You have the blue dog Joe Manchin, Ben Nelson, types. I guess the Kucinich, Nader types would be on board.

And as I mentioned earlier, big money is needed. Thiel would give. Possibly Perot? The Koch brothers? 

Adelson and Soros would be pissed, and probably dump a lot into their vested interests.

I have warned about third party runs in the past, but if there was actually a legitimate shot at this I would work my butt off for it.

----------


## sailingaway

> There would have to be some Democratic support for such a ticket.
> 
> You have the blue dog Joe Manchin, Ben Nelson, types. I guess the Kucinich, Nader types would be on board.
> 
> And as I mentioned earlier, big money is needed. Thiel would give. Possibly Perot? The Koch brothers? 
> 
> Adelson and Soros would be pissed, and probably dump a lot into their vested interests.
> 
> I have warned about third party runs in the past, but if there was actually a legitimate shot at this I would work my butt off for it.


He'd be more likely to get support from the progressives than the blue dogs. 'traditional - centrist bipartisanship' isn't Ron, he'd go with those principled on the left who care about NDAA and Patriot Act etc.  Unfortunately few in national office seem to care much.  Nader should. Ron COULD if he WOULD, get matching funds, up to $250 for each of his donors (it would match the amount they donated up to $250 if I read that right.) He refused to take matching funds in 2008, but in 1989 said that while he wasn't quite there yet, he might be able to be convinced that due to taxpayer funding of the major parties and ballot access and debate bias, that matching funds might be ok if you weren't running for a major party.

----------


## wgadget

Ron Paul doesn't want to do it, but...

When my daughter was young, she used to say "I can't want to," when she was asked to do something she didn't want to do. This, to me, is Ron Paul's current predicament.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/06/ro...-reason-video/

----------


## eleganz

> There would have to be some Democratic support for such a ticket.
> 
> You have the blue dog Joe Manchin, Ben Nelson, types. I guess the Kucinich, Nader types would be on board.
> 
> And as I mentioned earlier, big money is needed. Thiel would give. Possibly Perot? The Koch brothers? 
> 
> Adelson and Soros would be pissed, and probably dump a lot into their vested interests.
> 
> I have warned about third party runs in the past, but if there was actually a legitimate shot at this I would work my butt off for it.


My opinion doesn't mean much but I personally believe there is a legitimate shot at this.

Everybody should be on the call tonight to hear why.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Can somebody record the conference call and put it on youtube as unlisted so only we can see it?

----------


## wgadget

Ron Paul: The Most Dangerous Man in the Republican Party  (FROM THE ARCHIVES, well worth the read at this juncture, imo)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...05qP_blog.html

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul: The Most Dangerous Man in the Republican Party  (FROM THE ARCHIVES, well worth the read at this juncture, imo)
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...05qP_blog.html


definitely.

----------


## erowe1

> My opinion doesn't mean much but I personally believe there is a legitimate shot at this.
> 
> Everybody should be on the call tonight to hear why.


I'm washing my hair tonight. Can you get just back on here and tell us the great news when you get it?

----------


## sailingaway

> if anybody remembers, i need the polls that show ron over 15% when polled with obama and romney


Here's the lower of the two, where he only got 18%: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...izable-support

I'll find the other.

The point is, I don't think he EVER got LOWER than 15%.

----------


## sailingaway

didn't see this before, it says Ron would take 17 - 18%

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/28/in...l-would-pull-1

I was wrong, there is ONE that had Ron below 15%, Rasmussen naturally, since it's house effect skews against first time voters:  http://www.christianpost.com/news/ro...ay-race-74682/

----------


## sailingaway

This has Ron getting 21% if he goes third party: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...iF6O_blog.html

----------


## eleganz

> This has Ron getting 21% if he goes third party: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...iF6O_blog.html


18-21% is a great number to start off with, if we include the amount of press that would cover a third party announcement, that would bump him up a few points and that isn't even considering where he would be after the first debate.

WOW.

----------


## trey4sports

> I think we are over focused on getting on all 50 states.  *If we have to run a write in campaign in a few, or miss one or two, I don't see that as a big problem, particularly if we don't think they are states where we would win electoral votes, in any event.*  The issue is getting into the DEBATES, and both time Ron was polled against O and MR last year, he broke 15%.  (It would need more current polls, though.)   But here is a study of the ballot access / sore loser issue someone looked at in 2007: http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01...al-candidates/



That would then be the ammunition the pollsters need to leave us off polls and the ammunition the two-party system needs to keep us from getting in the debates.

----------


## S.Shorland

Two of Reagan's top economists,David Stockman and paul Craig Roberts are Paul fans and off shoring was Perot's warning cry.Maybe Paul Craig Roberts could pay Mr Perot a visit if necessary as he talks about off shoring as the real problem right now.They were the leading lights of the previous golden boom and could be big news backing Paul/Johnson among Republicans?

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Two of Reagan's top economists,David Stockman and paul Craig Roberts are Paul fans and off shoring was Perot's warning cry.Maybe Paul Craig Roberts could pay Mr Perot a visit if necessary as he talks about off shoring as the real problem right now.They were the leading lights of the previous golden boom and could be big news backing Paul/Johnson among Republicans?


Could you elaborate?  Why is off shoring good?

-t

----------


## opal

Several pages ago there was a post I  wanted to quote but this thread goes so fast, I forgot what post it was.. basically someone said one of the reasons they thought RP running 3rd ticket or indie was a bad idea is that if Mitt looses.. this group would be blamed..  
two things here


IF Mitt looses?   Really?  someone still thinks after the crap pulled at the RNC that this fella has a chance in winning?

And about RPers getting blamed... so what?  No matter what happens in this election - guess what group is the scapegoat here?  I do believe we're used to it

----------


## wgadget

> Could you elaborate?  Why is off shoring good?
> 
> -t


He said offshoring is the real problem right now.

----------


## wgadget

> Several pages ago there was a post I  wanted to quote but this thread goes so fast, I forgot what post it was.. basically someone said one of the reasons they thought RP running 3rd ticket or indie was a bad idea is that if Mitt looses.. this group would be blamed..  
> two things here
> 
> 
> IF Mitt looses?   Really?  someone still thinks after the crap pulled at the RNC that this fella has a chance in winning?
> 
> And about RPers getting blamed... so what?  No matter what happens in this election - guess what group is the scapegoat here?  I do believe we're used to it


Contrarily, after seeing how the Romney Syndicate operates, what chance would he have of NOT winning?

----------


## eleganz

If Ron throws a press conference to announce and gives the reasons why he is running third with examples of our movement getting shafted...I can see how many people wouldn't blame him for doing what hes doing.

I honestly think MOST Romney voters would slowly jump ship as Ron's numbers rise in the polls, Republican voters don't even like the guy.  They see a real conservative, they'll probably vote for him and that guy is Ron.

If Ron doesn't run...we may never have a third party opportunity ever again until one of the two party drops off the face of the earth.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Two of Reagan's top economists,David Stockman and paul Craig Roberts are Paul fans and off shoring was Perot's warning cry.Maybe Paul Craig Roberts could pay Mr Perot a visit if necessary as he talks about off shoring as the real problem right now.They were the leading lights of the previous golden boom and could be big news backing Paul/Johnson among Republicans?


Count that out: http://thewashingtonfancy.com/2012/0...99s-home/9788#

(its a satire site, lol)

----------


## idiom

Also, the current meme in the left wing news is that Romney was upstaged by libertarian Clint Eastwood.

Just sayin.

----------


## trey4sports

Regardless of ron getting in debates, gaining momentum or what ever, Ron Paul actively campaigning for The White House would mean Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations just went down the drain.

----------


## trey4sports

> Also, the current meme in the left wing news is that Romney was upstaged by libertarian Clint Eastwood.
> 
> Just sayin.


Paul/Eastwood '12?












jk

----------


## wgadget

> Also, the current meme in the left wing news is that Romney was upstaged by libertarian Clint Eastwood.
> 
> Just sayin.


Are they calling Eastwood a libertarian, and if so, is it in a derisive manner?

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Regardless of ron getting in debates, gaining momentum or what ever, Ron Paul actively campaigning for The White House would mean Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations just went down the drain.


Republicans would be in a dilemma.

----------


## erowe1

> Could you elaborate?  Why is off shoring good?
> 
> -t


Isn't it a way to get cheap labor? That sounds pretty good to me.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

If Ron is running under a third party that is not libertarian... Gary and Ron can team up against Obama and Romney. That would be badass.

If Ron is running under a third party that is not libertarian... Judge Napolitano would be VP. The Judge would eviscerate Paul Ryan and Biden at a VP debate. 

No way in hell we can win, but I think of Ron's last chance to address the country on a national level. To address republicans, democrats, third party and independents at the debates. 

If not libertarian, what would Ron Paul's 3rd party called? lol.

I think it is worth the money and time spent if Ron can use the debates to bring a few thousand or hundreds of thousands of people on our side for 2016. 

Johnson/Paul or Paul/Johnson or Paul/Napolitano would be awesome ticket.

----------


## wgadget

The lol party?

----------


## d991

Although many would love to see Dr. Paul run 3rd party, at this point there are only 2 logical reasons I can see why he would do so:
1)  Get back at the RNC for the way they treated him and his delegates at the convention
2)  Dr. Paul *truly* believes that the political/economic situation in America is so dire that he must do even more than he has done to address the issue

First, I don't think that Dr. Paul would run as a third party out of spite or revenge, because he has already refused to endorse Romney and he must have expected at least this much resistance by the powers that be.  So that eliminates reason #1.

As for point #2, it is evident in his speeches, campaign rhetoric, books, etc. that Dr. Paul believes America is truly on the wrong course.  But what would have changed between mid-summer and now that would make him change his mind to run 3rd party?  If he really believes that America does not have 4 more years to try to turn things around, then he would have gone 3rd party a long time ago rather than this plan to "take over" the Republican party.  I just don't see what could have changed last week that would make Dr. Paul change his strategy.  I would love to have seen Dr. Paul become president but barring a miracle, with all the power in the hands of the Democrats and Republicans it is very likely that it will be Obama or Romney, and a 3rd party run would just be a wake-up campaign for Americans.  And that's assuming he gets in the debates, which he won't, so the message won't really get played out much more than it did during the Republican primaries where at least the media had some interest in printing his talking points.


So as much as I would love to see a 3rd party run from a "stick it to the Republican bigwigs" standpoint, it doesn't make sense at all for Dr. Paul to run.

----------


## dancjm

If he could only get into the debates, that would be all we need. 

If he could have the chance to debate Obama, millions would turn instantly.

----------


## No1butPaul

Maybe the Paul/Eastwood message is getting popular (this was just posted a few hours ago).

From California candidate John Dennis (running against Nancy Pelosi)

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm the voice of reason. This is suicide bomber stuff. Nothing to gain. No money = self-mutilation. If you can't raise at least 400 million, you have no business running. Where is Dr.Paul going to get this kind of money?


We'll let Ron Paul be the judge of that if he decides to run.  You nor we have any way of knowing what his resources above and beyond his grassroots supporters are.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

Getting 15-20% as third party would be a HUGE bump for future third parties. The libertarians usually get what? 1-5% in the generals. The movement is no longer about Ron or the GOP or Rand... It is about breaking the 2 party paradigm that got this country trapped in a strangle hold. The country is being strangled by a boa constrictor and an anaconda at the same time.

I'll put in another 20.12 for the cause.

Debates will be worth it if he can get in...

Also, how can we prevent the polls from being rigged? He needs 15% eh? The establishment can pick polls and ignore polls.

----------


## No1butPaul

Wonder if anyone saw this little tidbit on the FB page:



> Patrick Henry
> Just rec this:
> Fili Kyre
> From: Richard Gilbert (Attorney with Attorneys for Ron Paul)
> 
> I negotiated for 3 weeks with Gary Johnson's attorney. In the end GJ was not willing to offer Dr Paul the top of the ticket. GJ wanted Dr Paul to run as VP. At that point I ended the negotiations.

----------


## michael6186

So even if we were able to get Paul to run third party and somehow poll above the 15% threshold in several national polls...will the people that run the debates even care? Neither Obama or Romney have any incentive to allow a third party into the debates. Call me a pessimist, but I see us getting burned again...

----------


## idiom

> Are they calling Eastwood a libertarian, and if so, is it in a derisive manner?


Its more a WTF were the Republicans thinking? Every attack on Obama he made was a backhanded attack on Romney as well.

----------


## eleganz

> So even if we were able to get Paul to run third party and somehow poll above the 15% threshold in several national polls...will the people that run the debates even care? Neither Obama or Romney have any incentive to allow a third party into the debates. Call me a pessimist, but I see us getting burned again...


so the question is do you give up right here and right now or do you keep going and expose every con they throw at us?

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

I hope we will leave Ron alone after November =P... He should enjoy working on his garden, riding his bike on his property, and play with his grand kids till the end of days.

----------


## 69360

> So even if we were able to get Paul to run third party and somehow poll above the 15% threshold in several national polls...will the people that run the debates even care? Neither Obama or Romney have any incentive to allow a third party into the debates. Call me a pessimist, but I see us getting burned again...


They would simply raise the goalposts and make it 25%

He's not going to do it anyway, it's just wild internet speculation.

----------


## wgadget

You guys..Go watch the old 1989 video of Ron Paul that sailingaway posted. It's him talking about what he learned from his 1988 Libertarian run. 

It seemed that the takeaway was that his goal was to increase the overall viability of third parties.  He sounded very hopeful at the time. Maybe NOW is his time.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> If Ron is running under a third party that is not libertarian... Gary and Ron can team up against Obama and Romney. That would be badass.
> 
> If Ron is running under a third party that is not libertarian... Judge Napolitano would be VP. The Judge would eviscerate Paul Ryan and Biden at a VP debate. 
> 
> No way in hell We can win!!!!, but I think of Ron's last chance to address the country on a national level. To address republicans, democrats, third party and independents at the debates. 
> 
> If not libertarian, what would Ron Paul's 3rd party called? lol.
> 
> I think it is worth the money and time spent if Ron can use the debates to bring a few thousand or hundreds of thousands of people on our side for 2016. 
> ...


Fixed that for you!

But some interesting thoughts!




> Although many would love to see Dr. Paul run 3rd party, at this point there [REDIRECT]are[/REDIRECT] is only [REDIRECT]2[/REDIRECT] 1 logical reasons I can see why he would do so:
> 
> 2)  Dr. Paul *truly* believes that the political/economic situation in America is so dire that he must do even more than he has done to address the issue
> 
> First, I don't think that Dr. Paul would run as a third party out of spite or revenge, because he has already refused to endorse Romney and he must have expected at least this much resistance by the powers that be.  So that eliminates reason #1.
> 
> As for point #2, it is evident in his speeches, campaign rhetoric, books, etc. that Dr. Paul believes America is truly on the wrong course.  But what would have changed between mid-summer and now that would make him change his mind to run 3rd party?  If he really believes that America does not have 4 more years to try to turn things around, then he would have gone 3rd party a long time ago rather than this plan to "take over" the Republican party.  I just don't see what could have changed last week that would make Dr. Paul change his strategy.  I would love to have seen Dr. Paul become president but barring a miracle, with all the power in the hands of the Democrats and Republicans it is very likely that it will be Obama or Romney, and a 3rd party run would just be a wake-up campaign for Americans.  And that's assuming he gets in the debates, which he won't, so the message won't really get played out much more than it did during the Republican primaries where at least the media had some interest in printing his talking points.
> 
> 
> So as much as I would love to see a 3rd party run from a "stick it to the Republican bigwigs" standpoint, it doesn't make sense at all for Dr. Paul to run.


+1




> If Ron throws a press conference to announce and gives the reasons why he is running third with examples of our movement getting shafted...I can see how many people wouldn't blame him for doing what hes doing.
> 
> I honestly think MOST Romney voters would slowly jump ship as Ron's numbers rise in the polls, Republican voters don't even like the guy.  They see a real conservative, they'll probably vote for him and that guy is Ron.
> 
> If Ron doesn't run...we may never have a third party opportunity ever again until one of the two party drops off the face of the earth.


P1: Oh come on!
P2: Right On!!!!
P3: I agree with you.

-t

----------


## wgadget

> Wonder if anyone saw this little tidbit on the FB page:


What does Richard Gilbert have to do with Ron Paul negotiating with GJ?

----------


## eleganz

> They would simply raise the goalposts and make it 25%
> 
> He's not going to do it anyway, it's just wild internet speculation.


yea we could've said the same thing about him running in the GOP and the same crap happened.  Guess what? we did it anyway.

go be negative to yourself in the mirror.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Came back for a moment to see if trolling was going on.  Not disappointed.

----------


## sailingaway

> Wonder if anyone saw this little tidbit on the FB page:


so we run him independent.

----------


## sailingaway

> So even if we were able to get Paul to run third party and somehow poll above the 15% threshold in several national polls...will the people that run the debates even care? Neither Obama or Romney have any incentive to allow a third party into the debates. Call me a pessimist, but I see us getting burned again...


Even if that happened it would just open more eyes to BOTH of the parties, since the chairs of the debate committee are ex party chairs.

Maybe a law suit for fraud in conjunction would help.

----------


## davegod75

Haven't read every page so this might have come up already, but does any think Ron may run simply to make Romney loose and get Rand the chance to run in 2016 vs 2020?

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

Like Ron said. The reason he is doing this is because of self-interest and not as a sacrifice.

He doesn't want to see his family's lives, children's lives, grand children's lives, great grand children's lives, great great grand children's lives be destroyed either by war or crushing debt.

----------


## idiom

> Haven't read every page so this might have come up already, but does any think Ron may run simply to make Romney loose and get Rand the chance to run in 2016 vs 2020?


An interesting take. Most pundits argue that we need the GOP to reward us with a Rand run. I don't think anybody buys that any-more.

So lets clear the decks of any potential Romney has.

----------


## sailingaway

> Haven't read every page so this might have come up already, but does any think Ron may run simply to make Romney loose and get Rand the chance to run in 2016 vs 2020?


I can't imagine anyone who knows Ron thinking that.

Some HERE might think it, but it isn't Ron's style.

----------


## zeloc

Can we stop all this speculation about what his reason for running might or might not be, how it affects the Republican party, whether he gets into the debates, etc. Our job is to support Ron Paul and this stuff is not our concern. Have confidence.

I will be on the conference call but I'm a bit confused as to how things will work, I'm guessing it will be one-way with Ron Paul speaking? Because they can't have a conference call with hundreds of participants, no one would be able to hear each other.

----------


## eleganz

We were afraid of Mitt Romney's political A-bomb?  

WE WERE THE A BOMB ALL ALONG.  RON PAUL RUNNING THIRD PARTY MAKES ROMNEY NON-EXISTANT.

----------


## eleganz

> Can we stop all this speculation about what his reason for running might or might not be, how it affects the Republican party, whether he gets into the debates, etc. Our job is to support Ron Paul and this stuff is not our concern. Have confidence.
> 
> I will be on the conference call but I'm a bit confused as to how things will work, I'm guessing it will be one-way with Ron Paul speaking? Because they can't have a conference call with hundreds of participants, no one would be able to hear each other.


Nobody said Ron Paul was going to speak.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Nobody said Ron Paul was going to speak.


LOL ... they'd have to make room for more than 1,000, eh?

----------


## zeloc

I don't care who's speaking, maybe I didn't write it properly, what I meant was whether it would be one-way, as I don't see how a conference call is going to work with so many people.

----------


## trey4sports

Yo i'm ready to start chanting again!

----------


## No1butPaul

Me too!!!!!

*PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL*

----------


## No1butPaul

> I don't care who's speaking, maybe I didn't write it properly, what I meant was whether it would be one-way, as I don't see how a conference call is going to work with so many people.


  The last one I was on that was big, was one way, but you can press a certain number to get into the que to say something or ask a question.  Don't know if it will be like that this time though.

----------


## CPUd

> Nobody said Ron Paul was going to speak.


Let him speak!

----------


## idiom

> Me too!!!!!
> 
> *PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL, PRESIDENT PAUL*


Okay... now everyone in the office is looking at me awkwardly...

----------


## zeloc

> The last one I was on that was big, was one way, but you can press a certain number to get into the que to say something or ask a question.  Don't know if it will be like that this time though.


Ah, I see, that makes sense.

I wonder if we should use the chat room here for simultaneous discussion? I'm afraid it will get chaotic with so many ppl though.

----------


## kathy88

1000 people will log in and someone will ask us all to mute our phones, and they will do the talking. Impossible to handle otherwise. Can you imagine 1000 of us all trying to speak at once. WTF? LOL.

----------


## orenbus

Ron Paul Flix guy says he just got off the phone with Doug Wead, and said that there is "zero percent chance" of Ron Paul running third party/independent, video link here:

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/09/ron-p...ed-aug-2-2012/

edit: youtube

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> Ron Paul Flix guy says he just got off the phone with Doug Wead, and said that there is "zero percent chance" of Ron Paul running third party/independent, video link here:
> 
> http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/09/ron-p...ed-aug-2-2012/


bummer.

----------


## kathy88

> Ron Paul Flix guy says he just got off the phone with Doug Wead, and said that there is "zero percent chance" of Ron Paul running third party/independent, video link here:
> 
> http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/09/ron-p...ed-aug-2-2012/


Buzzkill.

----------


## KramerDSP

> If he could only get into the debates, that would be all we need. 
> 
> *If he could have the chance to debate Obama, millions would turn instantly.*


Absolutely. He would *OBLITERATE* Obama and Romney on the never-ending wars, invasion of personal liberties, TSA, ObamaneyCare (the only doctor there), the war on drugs, the second amendment, the Fed, and so much more that it would be a mercy killing. Obama would have to sound hawkish and defend the wars and other policies, and would probably create a few contradictory statements from the 2008 and earlier Obama that would turn off the left. Meanwhile, Romney would be screwed because Paul is to the right of him on economic policy, so if he agrees with Paul then he's weakened by his own base moving to Paul, but if he bashes Paul as being too far to the right, he weakens his base again by tilting back to being the Massachusetts Moderate that most of the GOP base never really liked in the first place. 

When Romney and Obama retort in return, blasting his "isolationism" or domestic/economic policies, he laughingly educates the country on his true positions and the fact that their policies are what is causing this in the first place. Plus, when they gang up on him, they make him even more sympathetic to the viewing audience, who becomes confused that Obama and Romney are tag teaming. The cognitive dissonance that currently envelops the people into a red team versus blue team mentality basically evaporates, and the emperor is revealed to have no clothes. 

I mean, 40 million people and a global audience around the world will be hearing things like this answer on the economy from 2008 at 4:20 (I did not time codeit because the entire video is awesome):




Romney and Obama and the masters they serve will then have no choice but to engage in a tag team smear of epic proportions, as the country is bombarded with hateful ads that make Ron Paul look like the love child of David Duke meets Charles Manson meets Hitler. But this probably has the opposite effect and gets the majority of Americans to start thinking: "Wait, the Democrats hate him, and the Republicans hate him? He must be doing something right! You go, Ron Paul! Kick their assesss!!!". And when they finally learn of all his positions unfiltered as they look him up, I suspect they will be very, very pissed off that they really had a distorted perspective of who the man was and what his political beliefs were.

Just by appearing in the debates against Obama and Romney, Ron Paul does all of that, and in the process, likely becomes the most popular and revered politician in the country by far. Ron Paul Mania eclipses TruedeauMania. Remember that in June of 1992, Ross Perot "led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton)" before briefly dropping out of the race". 

At this stage of his life, Ron Paul is just as famous as Ross Perot, albeit with a fraction of Ross Perot's money. If he makes it onto the debates, it's a virtual cinch that he destroys Obama and Romney as frauds, reawakens millions and millions more Americans, and becomes a worldwide sensation whose ideas take off like wildfire around all reaches of the planet. He'll easily be at 40% in the polls after the debate until the entire establishment declares war on him with the biggest PR smear ever perpetuated, which I think backfires.

There are only two things holding up the above scenario: Ron Paul's willingness to do it (it would be so much easier if Gary Johnson would graciously step aside or serve as VP in that ticket), and what will be done to ensure he is not allowed in the General Election Debates with Obama and Romney. If they let him in the debates, it's OVAH. I cannot fathom how much the course of human history changes for the better if only Ronald Ernest Paul is allowed to debate Barack Hussein Obama and Williard "Mitt" Romney. 

Now, consider the electoral college implications:




> Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President if no candidate for President receives a majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes).
> 
> In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc - its members have a single vote collectively (and the District of Columbia does not receive a vote). A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Theoretically, the 26 least populous states could vote in bloc and elect the President. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a President.
> 
> The House of Representatives has chosen the President only twice: once under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (in 1801) and once under the Twelfth Amendment (in 1825).


Like someone else wrote, Ron Paul probably wins both Texas and California. Then when nobody has the sufficient number of Electoral College votes, it goes to the House of Representatives, who almost certainly end up electing a President Romney or re-electing President Obama. Say hello to the next American Revolution as the country once and for all realizes that we the people really don't have a say in the matter.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> Ron Paul Flix guy says he just got off the phone with Doug Wead, and said that there is "zero *point nine* percent chance" of Ron Paul running third party/independent, video link here:
> 
> http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/09/ron-p...ed-aug-2-2012/


fixed it =p.

----------


## KramerDSP



----------


## rp08orbust

> Ron Paul Flix guy says he just got off the phone with Doug Wead, and said that there is "zero percent chance" of Ron Paul running third party/independent, video link here:
> 
> http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/09/ron-p...ed-aug-2-2012/


I'm sure there was zero chance that Ron Paul would run third party a week ago, but that was before Mitt Romney showed his true authoritarian colors at the RNC.  It's conceivable that Ron Paul has been changing his mind within the last week, and if he has been, it's even more conceivable that he hasn't been telling Doug Wead all about it.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

And in 1989, Ron Paul said he'd never campaign again...

----------


## eleganz

> I'm sure there was zero chance that Ron Paul would run third party a week ago, but that was before Mitt Romney showed his true authoritarian colors.  It's conceivable that Ron Paul has been changing his mind within the last week, and if he has been, it's even more conceivable that he hasn't been telling Doug Wead all about it.


^^^yup 

and based my own own knowledge, I'll still be on the conference call.  


And just so you all know..Doug Wead is NOT Ron Paul.

----------


## rb3b3

Oh man, come on Ron, please give the millions of your supporters one last hoorah!!!!! It's only a couple of months!!! I want to have someone to root for even if it's an underdog!!!! I registered republican and voted for the  first time in my life this year in the ny primary because of you!!!! I would love to vote for you in November instead of writing you in and having them throw it out !! Well they will throw it out either way but I really just want to see you on the debate stage giving it to both Romney and Obama!! Can't stand either of them and someone needs to call both of those shtheads out!! Plzzzzzzzzz do it for everything you stand for my man!!!!

----------


## eleganz

> Oh man, come on Ron, please give the millions of your supporters one last hoorah!!!!! It's only a couple of months!!! I want to have someone to root for even if it's an underdog!!!! I registered republican and voted for the  first time in my life this year in the ny primary because of you!!!! I would love to vote for you in November instead of writing you in and having them throw it out !! Well they will throw it out either way but I really just want to see you on the debate stage giving it to both Romney and Obama!! Can't stand either of them and someone needs to call both of those shtheads out!! Plzzzzzzzzz do it for everything you stand for my man!!!!


please write him an email to his campaign and congressional office in the link here:
https://www.facebook.com/events/403667433026666/

all contact info is there.

----------


## orenbus

> ^^^yup 
> 
> and based my own own knowledge, I'll still be on the conference call.  
> 
> 
> And just so you all know..Doug Wead is NOT Ron Paul.


I'll still be on the call too, just had to post that even though it is a buzzkill cause it's going to be grassroots news anyway, already on the front page of DP.

----------


## 1stAmendguy

> I'm sure there was zero chance that Ron Paul would run third party a week ago, but that was before Mitt Romney showed his true authoritarian colors at the RNC.  It's conceivable that Ron Paul has been changing his mind within the last week, and if he has been, it's even more conceivable that he hasn't been telling Doug Wead all about it.


*THIS*

----------


## Tod

In that video from 1989, Ron Paul also said he wouldn't run again.  That was before he ran again.  Twice more.

----------


## wgadget

Er...Maybe a Ron Paul hologram in the debates?

----------


## zeloc

Whoever organized the conference calls thinks there's a chance he will run. I will be on the call.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

If Doug Wead said no, that means yes, lol!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Ron Paul Flix guy says he just got off the phone with Doug Wead, and said that there is "zero percent chance" of Ron Paul running third party/independent, video link here:
> 
> http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/09/ron-p...ed-aug-2-2012/
> 
> edit: youtube


I hate when people refer to liberty as a cause.

----------


## sailingaway

> *THIS*


and BEFORE the RNC Doug would want to tamp down any rumors so RNC would play fair. Which they didn't.

----------


## Carlybee

All we can do is see what happens. I got an email from our local liberty group meetup about it so people are anxious to find out.

----------


## eleganz

about 45 minutes until the conference call.

----------


## Fredom101

Just curious, could anyone in the liberty movement possibly be AGAINST Ron running Indy or 3rd party at this point? I was never against it, but now that it's official that we won't be taking over the GOP, what's the downside here?

----------


## AuH20

> Just curious, could anyone in the liberty movement possibly be AGAINST Ron running Indy or 3rd party at this point? I was never against it, but now that it's official that we won't be taking over the GOP, what's the downside here?


Go read my earlier posts. It explains in great detail why it's a bad idea, if he intends to run on kid's allowance money and bake sale funds.

----------


## orenbus

People talking about the conference call, Jesse Benton, etc. on Blog Talk radio, they going to tune into the conference call, you can call in to discuss before hand:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radions...ost-kerry-corn

----------


## sailingaway

> Go read my earlier posts. It explains in great detail why it's a bad idea, if he intends to run on kid's allowance money and bake sale funds.


Well, he'd have a fair chunk of matching funds, if he would file for it.

----------


## sailingaway

> People talking about the conference call, Jesse Benton, etc. on Blog Talk radio, they going to tune into the conference call, you can call in to discuss before hand:
> 
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radions...ost-kerry-corn


You're saying Benton is going to tune in for the conference call, or the  station is?

----------


## sailingaway



----------


## orenbus

> You're saying Benton is going to tune in for the conference call, or the  station is?


The station is, they are getting calls right now getting people opinions of Ron Paul independent run, the stuff that happened in Florida from people that were in Florida, and people's thoughts on how to move forward.

----------


## KramerDSP

Can someone do the play-by-play?

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Playing music right now.

Apparently there are 330 participants in this conference!!!

----------


## eleganz

i hope you all are ready to work for this.

----------


## stefank

A poem

----------


## zeloc

> 475 participants

----------


## affa

RUN RON RUN

----------


## awake

Reading a poem...

“It Couldn't Be Done

Somebody said that it couldn't be done,
But he with a chuckle replied
That "maybe it couldn't," but he would be one
Who wouldn't say so till he'd tried.
So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried he hid it.
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn't be done, and he did it. 

Somebody scoffed: "Oh, you'll never do that;
At least no one ever has done it";
But he took off his coat and he took off his hat,
And the first thing we knew he'd begun it.
With a lift of his chin and a bit of a grin,
Without any doubting or quiddit,
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn't be done, and he did it. 

There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done,
There are thousands to prophesy failure;
There are thousands to point out to you, one by one,
The dangers that wait to assail you.
But just buckle in with a bit of a grin,
Just take off your coat and go to it;
Just start to sing as you tackle the thing
That "cannot be done," and you'll do it.”

----------


## Fredom101

toobz or it ditnt happen

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Talking about the 2008 convention now.

----------


## orenbus

> A poem


Reminded me of Charlie's uncle singing in that movie

----------


## awake

Talking about the cheating and rigging...

----------


## orenbus

He's talking about the cheating in the delegate convention in Alaska.

----------


## KramerDSP

Why can't he just get to it? Feels like a Neil Cavuto episode all over again.

----------


## zeloc

Can we get to the point? I wish there was a chat room or something that this moderator is listening to.

----------


## nicklthomas

826 in the conferance

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Basically what we all know so far. The GOP doesn't follow their own rules…

----------


## awake

Talking about the Alaska delegate battle against the GOP rigging...

----------


## nicklthomas

Sure this isn't a scam? Getting paid by minute.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul supporters worked together to get the 6 states...

----------


## zeloc

The guy is well-meaning but I wish he'd get to the point.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Ron Paul is no longer a Republican as of Friday?????

----------


## 1stAmendguy

> Ron Paul is no longer a Republican as of Friday?????


I heard that as well.

----------


## KramerDSP

Reading the original statement from Evan Alaska, he writes:




> I spoke with Dr. Paul yesterday 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.


Call me crazy, but in that statement, it's not clear about who is continuing the fight, who is running on the third party ticket, or what can happen. The only that is clear is what Ron Paul told him has to happen for whatever it is to happen. I think this is going to be a cattle call to get onboard the Gary Johnson freight train and has nothing to do with Ron Paul have ever given this guy an inkling that Ron Paul would run as a third party candidate. I hope I am wrong.

----------


## orenbus

He says he got Ron Paul's number in 2008 so that's how he got it since he's been active in delegate process since back then.

----------


## stefank

explaining how he got Ron's Phone number, called him Carol answered, and gave it to Ron.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul is no longer a Republican as of Friday?????


No, he just had an interview where he said 'it's not MY party' seeming to mean he wasn't the one that chose it's policy. It is the Bloomberg interview, you can watch it yourself.

----------


## sailingaway

> explaining how he got Ron's Phone number.


when I was lurking in the 2007/2008 campaign, it was listed, and he was as likely as not to pick it up, himself....

----------


## KramerDSP

> Ron Paul is no longer a Republican as of Friday?????


Not true as far as I know. Franchi's misleading distortion of Ron Paul's interview on Bloomberg is what I think these folks are picking up on. I'm further convinced that this call is to get people on the GJ bandwagon using a hook. Better not be a bait and switch.

----------


## awake

"Carol answered..."...Ron! Ron!"

----------


## nicklthomas

> Reading the original statement from Evan Alaska, he writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Call me crazy, but in that statement, it's not clear about who is continuing the fight, who is running on the third party ticket, or what can happen. The only that is clear is what Ron Paul told him has to happen for whatever it is to happen. I think this is going to be a cattle call to get onboard the Gary Johnson freight train and has nothing to do with Ron Paul have ever given this guy an inkling that Ron Paul would run as a third party candidate. I hope I am wrong.


Same here! Its sounding bogus!

----------


## orenbus

He called and Carol picked up, and handed the phone to Ron Paul. 

And he asked would he be willing to run:

"He has not ruled that out"

"But he's thinking that he won't"

The caller talked to him a while asking him what would convince him to run. 

He said his main concern was the money, ballot access, etc.

----------


## awake

"He has not ruled it out...and he is not thinking he will"

----------


## stefank

he has not ruled it out, but not thinking he will, didnt give him a straight answer on how to convince him, and concerned about money

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

He called Dr. Paul, Carol answered who got Ron. Said he has not ruled out a run, but is not thinking it.

----------


## awake

LP

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Concerned about money, power, and ballot access.

----------


## awake

LP in 50 states

----------


## KramerDSP

Ron never speaks in absolutes. Damn it! LOL

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

LP still has a willingness to consider Dr. Paul. VP candidate needs to bow out.

----------


## awake

Johnson Paul ticket

----------


## sailingaway

he doesn't need it in 50 states, he just needs to get into the debates.

----------


## stefank

We have to convince the Libertarian party to get Ron on the ballet

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

We HAVE to lobby Dr. Paul.

----------


## awake

"We have to lobby Dr. Paul.."

----------


## sailingaway

> Johnson Paul ticket


would have to be Paul / Johnson.

----------


## orenbus

He's proposing we lobby Ron Paul to express he would be willing to run on the LP ticket by contacting the offices and signing the petition.

----------


## 1stAmendguy

I want Paul/Johnson NOT Johnson/Paul.

----------


## awake

Phone bombing, petitions...

----------


## sailingaway

> He's proposing we lobby Ron Paul to express he would be willing to run on the LP ticket.


As PRESIDENT or VP because I'm not interested in working on Ron to go backwards, personally.

----------


## stefank

wont give us his personal number.....

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

I too want a Paul/Johnson ticket.

----------


## sailingaway

> I want Paul/Johnson NOT Johnson/Paul.


this

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Ron Paul's DC number:
202-225-2831 9 am-6 pm Mo-Fr

----------


## wgadget

He hasn't ruled it out and doesn't think he will RULE IT OUT or RUN THIRD PARTY?

----------


## awake

It is Paul/ Johnson...my mistake...

----------


## orenbus

> As PRESIDENT or VP because I'm not interested in working on Ron to go backwards, personally.


I missed that part when he was talking, they are opening up the line to q&a or open call in a second, I'm sure someone will ask the question.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Dr. Paul also concerned about hurting what we've done in the Republican Party.

----------


## 1stAmendguy

Ron said he was afraid of losing progress in the GOP.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> He hasn't ruled it out and doesn't think he will RULE IT OUT or RUN THIRD PARTY?


Doesn't think he will run, so we HAVE to lobby him.

----------


## wgadget

> Dr. Paul also concerned about hurting what we've done in the Republican Party.


NOW THAT'S JUST SILLY.

----------


## awake

All fronts lobby blitz of Rons offices and e mail...

----------


## stefank

he will post all the phone numbers and addresses on the conference call descriptions

----------


## orenbus

the guy said dub dub dub, i didn't think ppl actually say that anymore.

----------


## VanBummel

Gary Johnson is okay, and I don't know anything about his VP, but they would both be heroes in my book if they would both step down for a Paul/Johnson LP ticket.

----------


## nicklthomas

> Ron said he was afraid of losing progress in the GOP.


Im afraid of this also. Friends like Tom Davis, Jim Demint, Rand Paul just feel Libertarian Party would be useless!

----------


## awake

He wants to see a million people call...

----------


## zeloc

Is there a website/forum to discuss this particular topic? There needs to be a home base, there are more than 800 persons on this call and we need to be well-organized. Hopefully someone will clarify the ticket, it sounds like he is proposing that Ron Paul can only be in the vice-president slot due to the rules of the Libertarian party.

----------


## stefank

spread the phone numbers and addresses to everyone you know

----------


## fr33

SO this is about begging  Ron to run 3rd party. It was billed as "he wants to". He doesn't want to. Stop the madness.

----------


## CPUd

Would this not disenfranchise the Libertarians who voted to nominate GJ and Gray?

----------


## wgadget

The Libertarian Party could make some vast headway, just like Ron dreamed of back in 1989.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Oh god…opening the phone lines wasn't a good idea….LOL

----------


## stefank

800 people talking at once

----------


## zeloc

Too many people, not the fault of any individual person.

----------


## sailingaway

Someone posted the rules and it looked like if they both resigned they'd have to pick a new one and could pick Ron, then pick Gary for VP.  I really see no reason to go with VP.  The benefits are worth it only if Ron is in the Presidential debates.  But Ron could run independent, it doesn't have to be with the LP at all.  50 state ballot access isn't as important as getting in the debates, and only Ron has had those polling numbers.

----------


## awake

Opened the calls and it was chaotic...one person actually said "you should be ashamed of yourself..."

----------


## zeloc

We need a chat room.

----------


## eleganz

omg why are people asking about romney's illegal funds...

----------


## ProBlue33

People are worried about the progress they made in the GOP in 2012 being degraded, did these people even see the RNC, they wiped it out in one foul swoop, screw them.

Paul / Johnson needs to happen, US politics needs a new history lesson, screw your own people, and get the horns.
Maybe then they will learn to respect this faction.

----------


## orenbus

how can you check how many people are on the call?

----------


## fr33

You people need to realize Ron doesn't want to do it.

----------


## awake

This is a Phone bomb, fax bomb, email bomb...telegram bomb all directed to Ron Paul.

----------


## zeloc

Yikes, this Q&A method is not useful.

When someone calls in, it announces how many ppl are on the call.

----------


## CPUd

I guess if they bug him too bad, he will make a video asking them to stop.

----------


## awake

Ron Paul thinks he has 2 million people at best behind him....

----------


## Badger Paul

I think the only way this idea gets off the ground is if Mr. Gray says publicly (with Gov. Johnson's and the LNC's assent of of course) that he is willing to step aside and publicly ask Paul to consider joining the ticket. Anything else would look like he was trying to muscle his way onto the ticket.

I find it amazing RP simply cannot give a definite yes or no answer to any question. By not saying he absolutely rules out any such non-major party bid he encourages sincere people like this fellow in Alaska who are not willing to see the campaign come to an end say "so you're saying there's still a chance right?" Sometimes he brings his own problems on himself.

Of course Rand has probably gotten wind of this by now (news never stays hidden around here) and I guarantee you he's going to make sure RP doesn't announce anything newsworthy on Leno this Tuesday.

----------


## 1stAmendguy

So Gary Johnson said he would have Ron Paul as his VP, not step aside to allow Paul the lead.

----------


## stefank

A caller says he will be meeting Gary Johnson this wednesday and will ask him in person about it, and ask his campaign staff tomorrow.

----------


## wgadget

Just think if all those college kids registered to vote...!

----------


## sailingaway

> I think the only way this idea gets off the ground is if Mr. Gray says publicly (with Gov. Johnson's and the LNC's assent of of course) that he is willing to step aside and publicly ask Paul to consider joining the ticket. Anything else would look like he was trying to muscle his way onto the ticket.
> 
> I find it amazing RP simply cannot give a definite yes or no answer to any question. By not saying he absolutely rules out any such non-major party bid he encourages sincere people like this fellow in Alaska who are not willing to see the campaign come to an end say "so you're saying there's still a chance right?" Sometimes he brings his own problems on himself.
> 
> Of course Rand has probably gotten wind of this by now (news never stays hidden around here) and I guarantee you he's going to make sure RP doesn't announce anything newsworthy on Leno this Tuesday.


LOL! Rand is going to make sure Ron doesn't do something?

That's a trick Romney would sure like to have.

----------


## trey4sports

> You people need to realize Ron doesn't want to do it.



I don't think there has been one presidential election that Ron has ever _wanted_ to run in.

----------


## stefank

"It's like momma bear protecting her cubs"

----------


## Badger Paul

_"LOL! Rand is going to make sure Ron doesn't do something? That's a trick Romney would sure like to have. "_

He does and his name is Rand Paul.

----------


## sailingaway

> So Gary Johnson said he would have Ron Paul as his VP, not step aside to allow Paul the lead.


So let's look at independent. LP doesn't bring to the table anything big enough to make it worth Ron not being the one in the presidential debate. Ron COULD have matching funds if he will, already has polled high enough to be in the debates if future polls are similar to past ones, and brings more people and funding. VP is a nonstarter, I wouldn't even suggest it, in fact I would suggest to Ron going independent that VP is just not worth it.

----------


## awake

"Ron Paul ceased to be a Republican..." Caller says she never read that anywhere..

----------


## sailingaway

> _"LOL! Rand is going to make sure Ron doesn't do something? That's a trick Romney would sure like to have. "_
> 
> He does and his name is Rand Paul.


Really? Where do you see that?  That Rand could 'make' Ron do anything?

----------


## zeloc

The problem here is organization. There are 800 persons here with good ideas and we are listening to one person at a time. There almost needs to be a message board on this topic with various threads to discuss different things.

----------


## nicklthomas

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-...inst-democracy - They are trying to strip Gary Johnson's name off the ballots now, because of him not having delegates and to think all the people that voted for him would just be like all right. It's too late lol the ballots for the most part have already been printed. This is insane!

----------


## wgadget

Rand is only being used. Just my opinion.

----------


## trey4sports

im in baby!

----------


## PreDeadMan

How fitting would it be that Ron Paul first ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian in that party and he could do it again in 2012 lol. Come on people the mere fact that Ron Paul could possibly be in the debates with OBAMA.... i mean the thoughts are just so damn exciting!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> The problem here is organization. There are 800 persons here with good ideas and we are listening to one person at a time. There almost needs to be a message board on this topic with various threads to discuss different things.


Someone needs to call and plug in RPF! 

Or RevBox if I'm allowed to mention that site here

----------


## CPUd

> Rand us only being used. Just my opinion.


Or, could be the other way around...

----------


## 1stAmendguy

> So Gary Johnson said he would have Ron Paul as his VP, not step aside to allow Paul the lead.


According to a caller this is what Gary Johnson told him.

----------


## Indy Vidual

So the _call in_ wasn't really what was originally stated?
Maybe it's time to focus on other races, but *could the email, phone bomb work?*

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

A Constitution Party run would be pointless. They do not have enough ballot access to get 270 electoral votes, which is one of the requirements to get into the debates.

----------


## 1stAmendguy

> A Constitution Party run would be pointless. They do not have enough ballot access to get 270 electoral votes, which is one of the requirements to get into the debates.


They wouldn't accommodate him.

----------


## 1stAmendguy

Wow get this current caller off now.

----------


## trey4sports

valid point though.

----------


## zeloc

Stealth mode. Don't say publicly you support him if you are an elected official, there are plenty of us who aren't in the public spotlight and can support him. If Ron Paul agrees to run then stealth mode drops away. If this guy is really concerned about his own candidacy he shouldn't have announced his name on a public phone call.

----------


## sailingaway

> Stealth mode. Don't say publicly you support him if you are an elected official, there are plenty of us who aren't in the public spotlight and can support him. If Ron Paul agrees to run then stealth mode drops away.


well, inside the GOP elected officials it would be tough, even our state GOP people would have to stay in GOP mode during the election.  But all those who voted them there could work for Ron.

----------


## trey4sports

Rand would be in a very difficult position if Ron runs...

----------


## wgadget

Rand put himself there.

----------


## sailingaway

> Rand put himself there.


....

----------


## awake

Contact bomb now Ron and Gary...

----------


## orenbus

> Rand put himself there.


This ^

----------


## Jonathan Stickland

..

----------


## sailingaway

people who have positions in the GOP have to fulfill their positions, just like a guy selling big macs can't refuse someone he just doesn't like. It is the job he took on.  But all the rest don't have that issue.

----------


## orenbus

Caller asking if he saw Ron Paul Flix video.

He says I had not heard Ron Paul say himself what Doug Wead was quoted as saying.

----------


## zeloc

Good question, I was wondering about this facebook event myself.

----------


## orenbus

> Well I already regret saying anything at all. I never said this was a bad idea, just pointing out there will be a lot of conseqences to a action like this and it may in fact hurt people like myself who have been sucessful in the GOP. Attacked by the last 3 callers now, lmao!


If your the guy I think who you are, grow a backbone!

just kiddin

----------


## sailingaway

> Caller asking if he saw Ron Paul Flix video.
> 
> He says I had not heard Ron Paul say himself what Doug Wead was quoted as saying.


Doug said Ron wouldn't possibly get 5 states, too, and he got 6.  Doug projects what he believes but it isn't always accurate.

Now, Ron MAY easily say no, but he has to be the one to say it, not Doug.

----------


## Jonathan Stickland

..

----------


## trey4sports

> Well I already regret saying anything at all. I never said this was a bad idea, just pointing out there will be a lot of conseqences to a action like this and it may in fact hurt people like myself who have been sucessful in the GOP. Attacked by the last 3 callers now, lmao!



hey im right there with ya. We need to figure out the pros and con's before we jump in head first.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

to me, the GOP will always make rules to keep liberty movement and its candidates in small numbers... u saw how they just make crap along the way to screw delegates/supporters.

romney is smart. he set himself up during 2008 for 2012 by changing the rules so mormon states come up faster earlier. now he set himself up for 2016 by changing more rules.

----------


## sailingaway

> hey im right there with ya. We need to figure out the pros and con's before we jump in head first.


Well, that's one reason VP wouldn't be worth it, but the main reason is it removes the reason most would work for it.

----------


## orenbus

> If people truly question whether I have a backbone or not after everything I have done for the Liberty movement then we are farther behind as a movement than I thought we were.


I said just kiddin, sheesh.

----------


## No1butPaul

No former Democrats being represented - there are a lot of us. We are not going to stay in the republican party, most of us never even joined!  I registered, but a lot of people just refused (Ron was very aware of that), but they WILL vote for Ron Paul, especially while are troops are still in Afghanistan and since that issue was brought to the forefront by Eastwood, expect to hear more about it.

Add - I'm not going to call because he's giving out people's phone numbers!  I don't like that.

----------


## zeloc

You've done a great job, I just would never have publicly announced any support for Ron Paul being in the public spotlight.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

so nothing really big was announced huh. =|

----------


## wgadget

Romney is ruthless. He's already trying to get the Libertarians off the ballots in the key battleground states.

----------


## wgadget

> so nothing really big was announced huh. =|


Leno.

----------


## No1butPaul

Bloomberg interview - he said "it's not my party" when they asked him about "his party."

----------


## trey4sports

I think the question is really..... would having ron in the national debates be worth the prospect of potentially flushing any future we had with the GOP down the drain?

----------


## sailingaway

> so nothing really big was announced huh. =|


Just that unlike what Wead said, Ron hasn't ruled it out, he just isn't thinking he will for practical reasons.  We'd have to address those.

----------


## eleganz

> so nothing really big was announced huh. =|


the guy who created the event never said there was a big announcement.

too many people buy into the internet hype.

----------


## No1butPaul

...

----------


## orenbus

"I think we should communicate (LP) that they should accept Ron Paul in any way on the Libertarian ticket"

He's talking about loser laws and how it maybe harder to get Ron Paul in President spot as opposed to Vice President position. To have Paul/Johnson ticket the VP would have to step out and Johnson would step down and RP would come in as President. 

It sounds to me he wants to lobby both Paul/Johnson and Johnson/Paul, either way sounds like he would be happy with. The caller makes a point that Paul at the top of the ticket would carry more weight then the other way around. 

His main point is although not impossible would be more challenging because of Libertarian rules that would need to be either changed or certain people would need to decide to step down/out, etc. but not impossible.

----------


## sailingaway

> Romney is ruthless. He's already trying to get the Libertarians off the ballots in the key battleground states.


He did the same to Ron and others, that is why only he and Ron were on in Virginia, remember?  People check signatures, that is why you are supposed to collect so many more than required.

----------


## trey4sports

Could this be a grand plan hatched by Ron and Rand? 

Allowing Rand to distance himself from Ron and appear as a party player and still yet allow Ron to run indy/3rd party while minimizing the risk of alienating the liberty movement within the GOP?


I doubt it, but it is interesting to ponder.

----------


## zeloc

Hahaha, if someone is considering running they better figure out social media.

----------


## sailingaway

> "I think we should communicate (LP) that they should accept Ron Paul in any way on the Libertarian ticket"
> 
> He's talking about loser laws and how it maybe harder to get Ron Paul in President spot as opposed to Vice President position. To have Paul/Johnson ticket the VP would have to step out and Johnson would step down and RP would come in as President. 
> 
> It sounds to me he wants to lobby both Paul/Johnson and Johnson/Paul, either way sounds like he would be happy with. The caller makes a point that Paul at the top of the ticket would carry more weight then the other way around. 
> 
> His main point is although not impossible would be more challenging because of Libertarian rules that would need to be either changed or certain people would need to decide to step down/out, etc. but not impossible.


Almost nowhere do sore loser laws even pretend to apply to presidential races: http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01...al-candidates/

I would only work on this saying 'but only as president, not VP'.

Johnson wouldn't even poll well enough to make the debates.  Ron already has polled that well multiple times and would only have to continue to do so.

----------


## wgadget

> I think the question is really..... would having ron in the national debates be worth the prospect of potentially flushing any future we had with the GOP down the drain?


I'm gonna give an unqualified ABSOLUTELY.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> If people truly question whether I have a backbone or not after everything I have done for the Liberty movement then we are farther behind as a movement than I thought we were.


I'm not sure I support the Ron running as VP.  There would be damage to R candidates that support him without recourse.
BUT, If Ron were running as Pres and Gary as VP, then Ron would be in the debates, and that would give R candidates ammo. 
IMHO.

----------


## orenbus

*6 if anyone has a question

----------


## No1butPaul

Bloomberg interview - he said "it's not my party" when they asked him about "his party."  

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/ron-p...hCKVxx6VA.html

She asked - as you reflect, are you unhappy with your party?  Ron said, Well (he starts everything with well, doesn't he?), it's not _my_ party, I don't like politics at all.

----------


## zeloc

> I think the question is really..... would having ron in the national debates be worth the prospect of potentially flushing any future we had with the GOP down the drain?


What future with the GOP? We continue to get stealth people in office in the Republican party while pursuing Ron Paul as a third party/independent.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

i wonder who would be a co-guest at jay leno show... last time it was joe rogan and ron paul eh?

----------


## 1stAmendguy

Paul/Johnson if this happens we can have Black THIS Out Part 2 October 19th, the one year anniversary right before the election. Have Ron make a 15 minute live speech on major networks like Ross Perot. I can speculate and dream some more.

----------


## Sentinelrv

I've been listening to the call. Everything seems legit to me and I like the guy. Some people are jumping the gun and calling him a Johnson supporter trying to get Paul as the VP. This doesn't seem to be true to me based on what I've heard so far. He's stated that he's not an expert on how the Libertarian Party would handle the transition, whether both people would have to step down or only one. He said the best thing to do is lobby Ron Paul's office and the Libertarian Party to show them support for this potential ticket and that if anything comes out of it, they could sort out the details themselves.

----------


## eleganz

i don't know about you guys but for me...


its on like donkey kong!

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm not sure I support the Ron running as VP.  There would be damage to R candidates that support him without recourse.
> BUT, If Ron were running as Pres and Gary as VP, then Ron would be in the debates, and that would give R candidates ammo. 
> IMHO.


Yeah.  I don't support pushing Ron into it as VP, only as president.

----------


## jFico89

I would only support a RP/GJ ticket.  I don't think it would be that helpful to have RP as the VP.

----------


## sailingaway

> I've been listening to the call. Everything seems legit to me and I like the guy. Some people are jumping the gun and calling him a Johnson supporter trying to get Paul as the VP. This doesn't seem to be true to me based on what I've heard so far. He's stated that he's not an expert on how the Libertarian Party would handle the transition, whether both people would have to step down or only one. He said the best thing to do is lobby Ron Paul's office and the Libertarian Party to show them support for this potential ticket and that if anything comes out of it, they could sort out the details themselves.


I think WE need to show we aren't indifferent to the order, that Ron in the presidential debates is the POINT of the exercise.

----------


## Sentinelrv

> Paul/Johnson if this happens we can have Black THIS Out Part 2 October 19th, the one year anniversary right before the election. Have Ron make a 15 minute live speech on major networks like Ross Perot. I can speculate and dream some more.


I believe October 19th would be too late to be effective. As much as I'd love to do Black This Out 2.0, I believe it needs to be done by the end of September in order to make the biggest impact. I've emailed several of the money bomb organizers that worked with me during the primary season to discuss this, but haven't received a response yet from anyone. Orenbus, you were one of those that I emailed. Did you receive it?

----------


## No1butPaul

Vice President Paul?  It's not worthy of him, yet we need him.  I'm feeling very ambivalent at the moment.

----------


## zeloc

Can someone post the link to the petition? Is there a website that has all the important links and info, I don't see it on the Alaskans for Ron Paul page.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Can someone post the link to the petition? Is there a website that has all the important links and info, I don't see it on the Alaskans for Ron Paul page.


http://www.ronpaul2012.net/

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Can someone post the link to the petition? Is there a website that has all the important links and info, I don't see it on the Alaskans for Ron Paul page.


Evan said he would post it on the event page after the call.

edit: there will be another conference call on thurs.

----------


## wgadget

A small step down for Gary Johnson, a giant leap for the Libertarian Party.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> A small step down for Gary Johnson, a giant leap for the Libertarian Party.


^^^ THIS ^^^^

----------


## 1stAmendguy

> I believe October 19th would be too late to be effective. As much as I'd love to do Black This Out 2.0, I believe it needs to be done by the end of September in order to make the biggest impact. I've emailed several of the money bomb organizers that worked with me during the primary season to discuss this, but haven't received a response yet from anyone. Orenbus, you were one of those that I emailed. Did you receive it?


We can still call it Black THIS Out 2.0. The theme is still oh so relevant nearly a year later. End of September.

----------


## Sentinelrv

> I think THEY would sort it out with GJ as Pres or that being the offer and Ron not accepting and I think WE need to show we aren't indifferent to the order, that Ron in the presidential debates is the POINT of the exercise.


Yes, if Ron isn't in the debates, there is no point to this in my opinion.

----------


## No1butPaul

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press  (3 mins.)

We will soon have a Ruling that may offer a Re-vote with all delegates voting their conscience. That would be devastating to Romney 

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

@tweetAmiracle Dr Paul knows he has a standing VP offer from GJ

----------


## 1stAmendguy

> A small step down for Gary Johnson, a giant leap for the Libertarian Party.


One small step for Gary Johnson, one giant leap for liberty!

----------


## zeloc

> Yes, if Ron isn't in the debates, there is no point to this in my opinion.


I think we are all in agreement on this.

----------


## orenbus

> I think THEY would sort it out with GJ as Pres or that being the offer and Ron not accepting and I think WE need to show we aren't indifferent to the order, that Ron in the presidential debates is the POINT of the exercise.


I kind of agree with what SA is saying for me to make it worth doing certain things like volunteering would almost require that RP be top of the ticket. For me the main goal (although of course winning would be nice) would be to get him in the presidential debate so that he can have an impact on millions like he did on me back in 2007 in the SC Fox debate when he gave me that aha! moment with Rudy Guilliani that made me decide right there I was a Ron Paul supporter.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Yes, if Ron isn't in the debates, there is no point to this in my opinion.


It only makes sense if Ron Paul is Pres and Gary VP.  That would also give some cover for R candidates that support Paul since Ron will talk sense in the midst of nonsense in the debates.

----------


## Carlybee

> A small step down for Gary Johnson, a giant leap for the Libertarian Party.



Would definitely add some viability and major funding to the party. Not to mention the added side benefit of watching the neocons squirm.

----------


## Sentinelrv

> We can still call it Black THIS Out 2.0. The theme is still oh so relevant nearly a year later. End of September.


Sure, I just meant that we couldn't do it on Oct 19th. I am ready for Black This Out 2 and think it was our most exciting theme of the campaign. See my avatar!

----------


## No1butPaul

Good possibility GJ could embarrass the movement in a debate, huh?

----------


## sailingaway

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> @tweetAmiracle Dr Paul knows he has a standing VP offer from GJ


but we don't want VP, that wouldn't be worth it. I can see what GJ would get out of it, but Ron wouldn't get anything out of it, nor would we, that I can see.  Whereas the other way GJ would get higher name recognition with a run on a higher level of fundraising, though as VP might get in VP debates where as he otherwise WON'T realistically get in ANY etc.  Ron being on as Pres raises GJ too, and he is young enough to run another time.

----------


## orenbus

> I believe October 19th would be too late to be effective. As much as I'd love to do Black This Out 2.0, I believe it needs to be done by the end of September in order to make the biggest impact. I've emailed several of the money bomb organizers that worked with me during the primary season to discuss this, but haven't received a response yet from anyone. Orenbus, you were one of those that I emailed. Did you receive it?


Yea I wanted to wait to hear this conference call tonight before responding.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> I kind of agree with what SA is saying for me to make it worth doing certain things like volunteering would almost require that RP be top of the ticket. For me the main goal (although of course winning would be nice) would be to get him in the presidential debate so that he can have an impact on millions like he did on me back in 2007 in the SC Fox debate when he gave me that aha! moment with Rudy Guilliani that made me decide right there I was a Ron Paul supporter.


a debate with obama and romney can potentially bring thousands, maybe millions onto our side... that would give us tremendous power for 2016. It is a gamble of course. If it doesnt work, have desired impact, or just get downright blacked out... it could hurt.

----------


## PursuePeace

> *I kind of agree with what SA is saying* for me to make it worth doing certain things like volunteering would almost require that RP be top of the ticket.* For me the main goal (although of course winning would be nice) would be to get him in the presidential debate so that he can have an impact on millions* like he did on me back in 2007 in the SC Fox debate when he gave me that aha! moment with Rudy Guilliani that made me decide right there I was a Ron Paul supporter.


Definitely.

----------


## zeloc

next caller please

----------


## nicklthomas

> Yes, if Ron isn't in the debates, there is no point to this in my opinion.


 I'm with this! I actually don't agree with doing this in all honesty! Who can pay for the all the lawyers and by God let Dr Paul have his time away from politics!

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm with this! I actually don't agree with doing this in all honesty! Who can pay for the all the lawyers and by God let Dr Paul have his time away from politics!


Ron could get matching funds if he would apply for them, for starters.

----------


## PursuePeace

> a debate with obama and romney can potentially bring thousands, maybe millions onto our side... that would give us tremendous power for 2016. It is a gamble of course. If it doesnt work, have desired impact, or just get downright blacked out... it could hurt.


I think it would have the desired impact. 

Attachment 1578

----------


## No1butPaul

Caller's right - it _is_ an emergency.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think it would have the desired impact. 
> 
> Attachment 1578




Or as Ron said to the delegates about RNC, "Speak softly, but speak the truth."

----------


## Indy Vidual

eleganz is correct:




> the guy who created the event never said there was a big announcement.
> 
> too many people buy into the internet hype.


"I want to share what he said to me and let you know what needs to be done to make this happen."
^^^
I expected more, but made a mistake, sorry.

----------


## awake

Pissed off Libertarian on the line... Says were hijacking the LP party immorally...

Democracy is the act of tossing out all the votes of all those who disagree with you.

----------


## eleganz

> Pissed off Libertarian on the line...
> 
> Democracy is the act of tossing out all the votes of all those who disagree with you.


yea he was pretty pissed but what he doesn't realize is that without ron paul gj would never be close to the national debate...i'd rather have my donations going to the msg to go national rather than run a race where im getting less than 5%

----------


## wongster41

> Pissed off Libertarian on the line...
> 
> Democracy is the act of tossing out all the votes of all those who disagree with you.


The guy was pissed, and a little confused IMO.  The host handled himself well.

----------


## orenbus

Caller says if one Libertarian is disenfranchised by their vote being overriden through having someone come in and push their candidate out, then what is being proposed is wrong. The host of the call says that's not what is being proposed that they have a choice and we are asking them to make the decision to step down or step aside, etc.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> I think the question is really..... would having ron in the national debates be worth the prospect of potentially flushing any future we had with the GOP down the drain?


Absolutely.

----------


## The Magic Hoof

What did the guy say that RP told him in a conversation? The thing he wanted to share with us. Just now viewing this thread.

----------


## Indy Vidual

I'm a Libertarian and I support RP/GJ 2012!

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What did the guy say that RP told him in a conversation? The thing he wanted to share with us. Just now viewing this thread.


He is recording the call.  You read the thread or listen to it later.  The call is still ongoing.  You can call in and ask for more into.

----------


## awake

"Partyjacking"...the act of taking over a party against its will...

----------


## orenbus

> What did the guy say that RP told him in a conversation? The thing he wanted to share with us. Just now viewing this thread.


The guy I think recorded the call, hopefully will be online so you can hear directly from him what was said.

----------


## Revolution9

> Sure, I just meant that we couldn't do it on Oct 19th. I am ready for Black This Out 2 and think it was our most exciting theme of the campaign. See my avatar!


Yes. Brilliant metaphor with the blacked out eyes of the people supporting him.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Good possibility GJ could embarrass the movement in a debate, huh?


Odds are better than 51 to 49.

Rev9

----------


## No1butPaul

http://peopleagainstndaa.com/

----------


## sailingaway

Further on my point that Ron is the one who would bring the polling and the funding, apparently there was just a Rasmussen poll which included GJ with Obama and Romney.  GJ got 1%.  http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S....shtml?cat=504  Admittedly, Ron also polls worst with Rasmussen who only did one poll on him, but Ron got 13% against Romney and Obama, in May, when the outcome of the primary was clear, and a good portion of Ron's support were afraid he'd sold out (now, I hope, resolved otherwise).  In other polls Ron got 18% and 21%.

If this does go forward, it makes absolutely no sense to not have Ron at the top of the ticket where he could get them into the debates -- assuming the system is at all unrigged.

----------


## orenbus

Does anyone have a link to the speech GJ mentioned RP recently?

----------


## parocks

> We HAVE to lobby Dr. Paul.


No you don't.  

Has Gary Johnson offered him the VP spot?

If you have to lobby anyone, it's Gary Johnson.  Gary Johnson has to make the offer.  What's the point of bugging Ron Paul about this?

----------


## stefank

> No you don't.  
> 
> Has Gary Johnson offered him the VP spot?
> 
> If you have to lobby anyone, it's Gary Johnson.  Gary Johnson has to make the offer.  What's the point of bugging Ron Paul about this?


I dont think Gary Johnson picked his vp

----------


## Indy Vidual

Yes, get Ron in the debates if at all possible!




> Further on my point that Ron is the one who would bring the polling and the funding, apparently there was just a Rasmussen poll which included GJ with Obama and Romney.  GJ got 1%.  http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S....shtml?cat=504  Admittedly, Ron also polls worst with Rasmussen who only did one poll on him, but Ron got 13% against Romney and Obama, in May, when the outcome of the primary was clear.  In other polls Ron got 18% and 21%.
> 
> If this does go forward, it makes absolutely no sense to not have Ron at the top of the ticket where he could get them into the debates -- assuming the system is at all unrigged.


unrigged?
Have you looked at your current avatar lately? 

The polls sound great.
Get Ron to Run!

----------


## No1butPaul

> Does anyone have a link to the speech GJ mentioned RP recently?

----------


## sailingaway

> No you don't.  
> 
> Has Gary Johnson offered him the VP spot?
> 
> If you have to lobby anyone, it's Gary Johnson.  Gary Johnson has to make the offer.  What's the point of bugging Ron Paul about this?


So that he says yes if GJ offers him the PRESIDENTIAL slot. I wouldn't want him to take the vp slot.

----------


## fr33

> No you don't.  
> 
> Has Gary Johnson offered him the VP spot?
> 
> If you have to lobby anyone, it's Gary Johnson.  Gary Johnson has to make the offer.  What's the point of bugging Ron Paul about this?


It's ridiculous. The insider claim is false and all this is  about is a bunch of Paul supporters flooding Ron's office with something he doesn't want to do. They told us they had an insider that knew Ron wants to run independent. But sending a few thousand or million emails to an unwilling party is what they are truly about.

----------


## carterm

daily paul is saying 0 chance of this happening?

----------


## parocks

> I too want a Paul/Johnson ticket.


I am shocked that so many here have expressed a preference for a Paul / Johnson ticket over a Johnson / Paul ticket.  So many sticking their neck out on that one.

by the way, you bug gary johnson, the libertarian party, not ron paul.  And in terms of Pres or VP, you take what you can get.  It goes without saying that Ron Paul would be the favored candidate over Gary Johnson on ronpaulforums.com .

----------


## sailingaway

> It's ridiculous. The insider claim is false and all this is  about is a bunch of Paul supporters flooding Ron's office with something he doesn't want to do. They told us they had an insider that knew Ron wants to run independent. But sending a few thousand or million emails to an unwilling party is what they are truly about.


the news is that he says he hasn't ruled it out, and one of the reasons he is thinking against it is his perception that he wouldn't have enough support, that is where the lobbying comes in. An email saying 'I would support your run if you were Pres nominee, to get you into the presidential debates, but can understand why VP wouldn't be worth it' isn't harassment.

----------


## wgadget

Yes Gary has picked a VP, but he has reportedly said he'd make room for Ron as VP.

----------


## sailingaway

> I am shocked that so many here have expressed a preference for a Paul / Johnson ticket over a Johnson / Paul ticket.  So many sticking their neck out on that one.
> 
> by the way, you bug gary johnson, the libertarian party, not ron paul.  And in terms of Pres or VP, you take what you can get.  It goes without saying that Ron Paul would be the favored candidate over Gary Johnson on ronpaulforums.com .


I'd rather have Ron independent or not run at all than VP so if Gary doesn't want to be VP with higher profile from more funding Ron would bring in, and the likelihood of being in at least VP debate -- instead of no debate at all -- and young enough to run again, despite the fact that GJ just got 1% in a Rasmussen poll against Obama and Romney, then that is fine. GJ doesn't have to do anything. But as VP I just don't see the benefit being worth it for Ron to run, particularly in second place to someone polling so far below him.

If they get into the debates, Ron is who will get them in, and the pollsters only mention the presidential candidate's name.

----------


## The Magic Hoof

I'm guessing the chances of GJ voluntarily stepping aside for RP is slim to none.

----------


## wgadget

GJ would be foolish not to readjust to put Ron at the top. Just my opinion.

----------


## eleganz

> GJ would be foolish not to readjust to put Ron at the top. Just my opinion.


foolish or selfish.

but as far as we know, it might be solely up to GJ, it might be a joint agreement, or the head of LP or the voting body of the delegates..who knows...

----------


## wgadget

> I'm guessing the chances of GJ voluntarily stepping aside for RP is slim to none.


I think the key may be to lobby GJ and RP simultaneously.

----------


## stefank

Somebody on the line earlier said he would be asking Gary Johnson in person Wednesday about it, and would ask his campaign tomorrow.

----------


## parocks

> I think the only way this idea gets off the ground is if Mr. Gray says publicly (with Gov. Johnson's and the LNC's assent of of course) that he is willing to step aside and publicly ask Paul to consider joining the ticket. Anything else would look like he was trying to muscle his way onto the ticket.
> 
> I find it amazing RP simply cannot give a definite yes or no answer to any question. By not saying he absolutely rules out any such non-major party bid he encourages sincere people like this fellow in Alaska who are not willing to see the campaign come to an end say "so you're saying there's still a chance right?" Sometimes he brings his own problems on himself.
> 
> Of course Rand has probably gotten wind of this by now (news never stays hidden around here) and I guarantee you he's going to make sure RP doesn't announce anything newsworthy on Leno this Tuesday.


Sounds like the last 3 months.  Ron Paul Campaign sends out an email with not enough delegates to win.  Everyone attacks Benton instead of realizing what it means.  I'm there too, explaining what a Black Swan event was and how it could effect things.

Ron isn't going to cut off his options.  So don't expect him to.  A Johnson / Paul ticket on the LP is more feasible than Ron Paul as an I.  I can see the first one, not the 2nd.  Unless some Mark Cuban type steps up into the VP spot with Ron Paul.  The money just isn't there otherwise.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

So where is this money bomb? Even if he does not run 3rd party, we can use the money from it to help other liberty candidates.

----------


## No1butPaul

Well, between this and the lawsuit it all is starting to seem like grasping at straws.  I don't mean to sound defeatist, but I don't think it's out of line to express some skepticism.  Right now I'm thinking about vote for Johnson = -1 for Romney, but vote for Obama = -2 for Romney (for the swing state voters).

----------


## Bronies-4-Paul

I'll give all my disposable money, available time and vote at a Paul/Johnson ticket.

----------


## Badger Paul

_"Ron isn't going to cut off his options"_

So again, this is an option right?

I hope his secretaries enjoy all the phone calls.

----------


## eleganz

> Well, between this and the lawsuit it all is starting to seem like grasping at straws.  I don't mean to sound defeatist, but I don't think it's out of line to express some skepticism.  Right now I'm thinking about vote for Johnson = -1 for Romney, but vote for Obama = -2 for Romney (for the swing state voters).


its about the national debate.  i honestly think we'd all be letting ourselves down if we let those two turds argue between each other like they have something of value to say.  we can run ron this last time to open the minds of the nation and make them question why ron wasn't elected instead of the 2 idiots and why the third parties are always screwed.  it takes a lot for somebody to awaken from the slumber.

----------


## sailingaway

> Sounds like the last 3 months.  Ron Paul Campaign sends out an email with not enough delegates to win.  Everyone attacks Benton instead of realizing what it means.  I'm there too, explaining what a Black Swan event was and how it could effect things.
> 
> Ron isn't going to cut off his options.  So don't expect him to.  A Johnson / Paul ticket on the LP is more feasible than Ron Paul as an I.  I can see the first one, not the 2nd.  Unless some Mark Cuban type steps up into the VP spot with Ron Paul.  The money just isn't there otherwise.


Johnson got 1% in Rasmussen http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S....shtml?cat=504  You need 15 % to be in debates.  Ron has multiple times exceeded that.  Ron being Pres on the ticket gives GJ, who is young enough to run again, a solid chance of being in at least the VP debate, otherwise he has no chance at all.  Ron would bring everything and what he would get as VP isn't worth it.  The presidential debate would be the reason to do it.

GJ has no NEED to do it, but gets a benefit if he makes Ron the Presidential nominee.  Ron can run independent or not run, but VP doesn't seem worth it at all.

I will call and email to encourage him to run as President to be in the presidential debate, but I will say I can see why he wouldn't think VP was worth it.

Then he does what he does.  I'll support him, not badger him.

----------


## PursuePeace

> its about the national debate.  i honestly think we'd all be letting ourselves down if we let those two turds argue between each other like they have something of value to say.  we can run ron this last time to open the minds of the nation and make them question why ron wasn't elected instead of the 2 idiots and why the third parties are always screwed.  it takes a lot for somebody to awaken from the slumber.


Absolutely agree.

----------


## orenbus

> I'd rather have Ron independent or not run at all than VP so if Gary doesn't want to be VP with higher profile from more funding Ron would bring in, and the likelihood of being in at least VP debate -- instead of no debate at all -- and young enough to run again, despite the fact that GJ just got 1% in a Rasmussen poll against Obama and Romney, then that is fine. GJ doesn't have to do anything. But as VP I just don't see the benefit being worth it for Ron to run, particularly in second place to someone polling so far below him.
> 
> If they get into the debates, Ron is who will get them in, and the pollsters only mention the presidential candidate's name.


Agreed.

edit: except for that last point, a VP's name can be mentioned but usually only in a negative light such as Palin or in this case:

----------


## parocks

> I think the question is really..... would having ron in the national debates be worth the prospect of potentially flushing any future we had with the GOP down the drain?


How would that "flushing" work?  It hurts Ron Paul's future in the Republican Party.  It might hurt Rand Paul's future in the Republican Party.  But it doesn't hurt Liberty's future.  Ron Paul goes up there as VP with Gary, or up there as P with Mark Cuban, and gets a lot of votes, both parties are going to try to get those votes.  We'll continue to try to win state committee seats and get our people in there as GOP State Chair.  And we pick Liberty Candidates and the State GOP we control spends to benefit the candidates we like.  This is almost entirely dependent on who shows up at the GOP meetings.  I'm not sure what effect Ron Paul doing this will have on attendence at GOP meetings where votes for committee take place.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> its about the national debate.  i honestly think we'd all be letting ourselves down if we let those two turds argue between each other like they have something of value to say.  we can run ron this last time to open the minds of the nation and make them question why ron wasn't elected instead of the 2 idiots and why the third parties are always screwed.  it takes a lot for somebody to awaken from the slumber.


Yep. It is well worth it. It is not about winning anymore for 2012. It is more about using this oppurtunity to open the minds of potentially millions who will help us in 2016. 

Do the rest of you guys honestly think that Rand Paul or any current liberty loving statesmen can win in 2016 if we don't grow in leaps? For all we know, GOP will put on the same circus show in 2016 and screw us again just because we didnt have "enough" support. 

From what I read, support for the movement grown by 2-4x in many states when compared between 2008 and 2012. Ron Paul was getting 2nd and 3rd place out of 5 or 6 candidates like Iowa and New Hamshire. If 2-4x growth can be achieved again for 2016, we'd be rolling good. I think the debates will be required to improve chances in 2016... especially for Rand.

----------


## RickyJ

Evan Cuttler (sp?) seems to think it is definitely possible to sway Ron Paul to decide to run third party. We got nothing to lose so I will be making those calls.

----------


## mport1

> I'm guessing the chances of GJ voluntarily stepping aside for RP is slim to none.


Maybe not. He probably realizes by now that his campaign is going nowhere and may want to save himself the embarrassment of a 1% showing.

----------


## parocks

> Johnson got 1% in Rasmussen http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S....shtml?cat=504  You need 15 % to be in debates.  Ron has multiple times exceeded that.  Ron being Pres on the ticket gives GJ, who is young enough to run again, a solid chance of being in at least the VP debate, otherwise he has no chance at all.  Ron would bring everything and what he would get as VP isn't worth it.  The presidential debate would be the reason to do it.
> 
> GJ has no NEED to do it, but gets a benefit if he makes Ron the Presidential nominee.  Ron can run independent or not run, but VP doesn't seem worth it at all.
> 
> I will call and email to encourage him to run as President to be in the presidential debate, but I will say I can see why he wouldn't think VP was worth it.
> 
> Then he does what he does.  I'll support him, not badger him.


Not being on the ballot is a real problem.  People who support Ron Paul would support him as Pres or VP.  Unless Ron Paul is at the top of an Indie ticket with a Mark Cuban who would spend a lot of his own money, somehow getting his name on ballots.

Think about this:  if Ron Paul is not on the ballot in a state, the pollsters will not ask about Ron Paul.  That will effect his polling numbers.  If Gary Johnson is on the ballot, they would (or could) ask about him.  If Ron Paul is the VP, Ron Paul supporters will know to pick Gary Johnson when they're called by pollsters.

----------


## parocks

> Maybe not. He probably realizes by now that his campaign is going nowhere and may want to save himself the embarrassment of a 1% showing.


Gary Johnson probably will do better than any other Libertarian.

----------


## parocks

I've never seen anyone mention this, but Rand Paul is up for reelection in 2016.  That has a large bearing on running in 2016.




> Yep. It is well worth it. It is not about winning anymore for 2012. It is more about using this oppurtunity to open the minds of potentially millions who will help us in 2016. 
> 
> Do the rest of you guys honestly think that Rand Paul or any current liberty loving statesmen can win in 2016 if we don't grow in leaps? For all we know, GOP will put on the same circus show in 2016 and screw us again just because we didnt have "enough" support. 
> 
> From what I read, support for the movement grown by 2-4x in many states when compared between 2008 and 2012. Ron Paul was getting 2nd and 3rd place out of 5 or 6 candidates like Iowa and New Hamshire. If 2-4x growth can be achieved again for 2016, we'd be rolling good. I think the debates will be required to improve chances in 2016... especially for Rand.

----------


## ProBlue33

I am for any ticket that screws Romney because of his ruthless fixing and rigging this election cycle. 
There is an old saying from the bible "you reap what you sow", known today as "what goes around comes around".

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> I am for any ticket that screws Romney because of his ruthless fixing and rigging this election cycle. 
> There is an old saying from the bible "you reap what you sow", known today as "what goes around comes around".


Yeah. It is not like Ron will speak ill about Romney or even Obamacare/Romneycare.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> Gary Johnson probably will do better than any other Libertarian.


Hope so

----------


## LibertyEagle

He's not running.  Give it up.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ed-to-be-FALSE

----------


## Indy Vidual

> I am for any ticket that screws Romney because of his ruthless fixing and rigging this election cycle. 
> There is an old saying from the bible "you reap what you sow", known today as "what goes around comes around".


Vote for LP or Obama.

----------


## Indy Vidual

Time for something more productive:
*BAD NEWS: Ron Paul 3rd Party Rumors Confirmed to be FALSE*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search....archid=6845634

----------


## parocks

> its about the national debate.  i honestly think we'd all be letting ourselves down if we let those two turds argue between each other like they have something of value to say.  we can run ron this last time to open the minds of the nation and make them question why ron wasn't elected instead of the 2 idiots and why the third parties are always screwed.  it takes a lot for somebody to awaken from the slumber.


I don't think that Ron Paul would run as an Indie just to get in debates.  Look at what Doug Wead said about hitting Romney hard before Michigan.  They decided not to because they didn't want the blowback by Romney, in part because of Ron Paul's "name" and also Rand's viability.

They understand that hitting the Republican is something that rank and file Republicans don't like.  Will the rank and file Republicans that Rand needs respond well to Ron running as an I, in order to get into debates, but not being on the ballot?  I would think no.  Ron Paul taking the VP slot seems like something more reasonable, more expected.  I expect that Gary would like to hustle a little more than Ron would at this point.  Ron, I expect, would like to rest.  VP might be just his speed at this point.  GJ has been planning this campaign.  He has the staff he wants, the plans, etc.  That seems all very reasonable to me.  Bug GJ to give Ron the VP slot.  Unless you have Mark Cuban.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

The most % wise the LP has gotten in a presidential election is 1% in 1980. That's about all I expect from GJ without Ron Paul on the ticket.

----------


## parocks

> Hope so


The all-time Libertarian record is 1%.

----------


## AmericasLastHope

> He's not running.  Give it up.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ed-to-be-FALSE


Doug Wead said he's not running.  I'll believe it when I hear it from Dr. Paul himself.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> He's not running.  Give it up.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ed-to-be-FALSE


Again, a mistitled post there.  He didn't just get off the phone with Paul, it was Wead.  But..........

----------


## wgadget

Well, it also takes the "too old to be President" meme off the table. 

Good point.

----------


## parocks

> The most % wise the LP has gotten in a presidential election is 1% in 1980. That's about all I expect from GJ without Ron Paul on the ticket.


GJ does actually have a resume.  And we're pissed at Romney.  And we're likely to vote for GJ (not all, but many).  So, Ron Paul gets 15%, and GJ gets 1%?  The ratio of Ron Paul to GJ is less than 15:1.  2 term Governor, pretty solid.  Not many 3rd parties on the ballot.  College students don't like Obama as much this time.  These factors could get GJ over 1%.

----------


## parocks

> Vote for LP or Obama.


I ain't voting for someone who is a terrible President, or someone I know will be a terrible President.  GJ might not be a terrible President.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Like sailingaway has been saying,
Ron Paul has to be the one debating Obama and Romney AND has to be on the polling with Obama and Romney to even get a large enough poll to get into the debate.

----------


## opal

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press  (3 mins.)
> 
> We will soon have a Ruling that may offer a Re-vote with all delegates voting their conscience. That would be devastating to Romney 
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> @tweetAmiracle Dr Paul knows he has a standing VP offer from GJ


wait.. WHAT?   hold the show.. where did this come from (besides the top of page 46 in the thread)

----------


## wgadget

> Like sailingaway has been saying,
> Ron Paul has to be the one debating Obama and Romney AND has to be on the polling with Obama and Romney to even get a large enough poll to into the debate.


Well, then, that makes it a no brainer for GJ--unless he doesn't see the value of the debates/polling numbers.

----------


## No1butPaul

> I am for any ticket that screws Romney because of his ruthless fixing and rigging this election cycle. 
> There is an old saying from the bible "you reap what you sow", known today as "what goes around comes around".


I share this feeling, but on the other hand, it just doesn't feel like it would be fair of us to lobby RP to take a VP slot to a guy probably 99% of the country even knows.

----------


## tuggy24g

> wait.. WHAT?   hold the show.. where did this come from (besides the top of page 46 in the thread)


Asking my self the same question

----------


## tuggy24g

> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press  (3 mins.)
> 
> We will soon have a Ruling that may offer a Re-vote with all delegates voting their conscience. That would be devastating to Romney 
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> @tweetAmiracle Dr Paul knows he has a standing VP offer from GJ


I want answers!

----------


## No1butPaul

> wait.. WHAT?   hold the show.. where did this come from (besides the top of page 46 in the thread)


Richard Gilberts twitter (Lawyers for Ron Paul) ... he was apparently on the call and very upset about this.

https://twitter.com/USA_Free_Press

He floated this a couple days ago (or maybe it was yesterday since I kind of lost track of time since the convention):


USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

We can bring a case to write in Dr Paul in all 50 States as President without seeking to disenfranchise the voters of the Libertrian Party

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

So Libertarians only got 1% max? lol. That is worse that I thought. I thought they get 1-5%.

I remember in a video conference, gary says he expects to get "up to 15%" in the general elections.

----------


## parocks

> Like sailingaway has been saying,
> Ron Paul has to be the one debating Obama and Romney AND has to be on the polling with Obama and Romney to even get a large enough poll to get into the debate.


if he isn't on the ballot, they won't ask about him in a poll.

----------


## parocks

> So Libertarians only got 1% max? lol. That is worse that I thought. I thought they get 1-5%.
> 
> I remember in a video conference, gary says he expects to get "up to 15%" in the general elections.


gj has a solid resume.  often the LP ran unknowns. Governor outranks US Rep

----------


## parocks

> Richard Gilberts twitter (Lawyers for Ron Paul) ... he was apparently on the call and very upset about this.
> 
> https://twitter.com/USA_Free_Press
> 
> He floated this a couple days ago (or maybe it was yesterday since I kind of lost track of time since the convention):
> 
> 
> USA_Patriot_Press USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
> 
> We can bring a case to write in Dr Paul in all 50 States as President without seeking to disenfranchise the voters of the Libertrian Party


Who cares what the libertarians think, ron paul won't run a write-in campaign.  some states don't count writeins.  RP as GJ's VP is reasonable.

----------


## parocks

> I share this feeling, but on the other hand, it just doesn't feel like it would be fair of us to lobby RP to take a VP slot to a guy probably 99% of the country even knows.


They're on the ballot.  GJ was a 2 term Governor.

If it wouldn't be fair to lobby RP to take VP, then it definitely wouldn't be fair to lobby RP to run as an I without being on the ballot.  Being the VP candidate is just easier work.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I can't see myself asking Ron to run for VP.  Let him retire.  If he could run for President 3rd party, I could see it.  
Ron needs to debate Obama and Romney.  Ron could get the poll numbers to do it.  Otherwise, I don't see the point.

----------


## parocks

> I can't see myself asking Ron to run for VP.  Let him retire.  If he could run for President 3rd party, I could see it.  
> Ron needs to debate Obama and Romney.  Ron could get the poll numbers to do it.  Otherwise, I don't see the point.


If Ron is not on the ballot, pollsters won't ask about Ron.  If you can't vote for him, it doesn't matter if you would vote for him.  Ron Paul gets a 0% in those
states he's not on the ballot.

I don't think anybody except Gary Johnson should be asking Ron Paul to be VP.  Leave Ron Paul alone.  No one, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Grassroots, has the stomach for this fight.  Doug Wead mentioned how Ron Paul pulled back from attacking Romney due to the possible consequences.  If he was worried about consequences then, it's likely he still is.  And grassroots just isn't mighty, not anywhere near what it would have to be.  It also pulls back from a fight, more interested in
getting beat up and whining than doing the beating up.  That was Romney, and they won.

What all of you who are most interested in the Presidential race should do is grab a GJ sign on Tuesday and stand on that street corner and yell like it's Ron Paul and it's 2007.

Ron Paul knows we'll support whatever he does, whether it's I or LP.  We don't have to tell him.  But he also knows that we're not mighty enough, so it doesn't matter.

I

----------


## mport1

> Gary Johnson probably will do better than any other Libertarian.


You are probably right, but that's the same thing they said about Bob Barr...

----------


## sailingaway

> Not being on the ballot is a real problem.  People who support Ron Paul would support him as Pres or VP.  Unless Ron Paul is at the top of an Indie ticket with a Mark Cuban who would spend a lot of his own money, somehow getting his name on ballots.
> 
> Think about this:  if Ron Paul is not on the ballot in a state, the pollsters will not ask about Ron Paul.  That will effect his polling numbers.  If Gary Johnson is on the ballot, they would (or could) ask about him.  If Ron Paul is the VP, Ron Paul supporters will know to pick Gary Johnson when they're called by pollsters.


I don't see any benefit to Ron being VP. If it were LP or nothing, and GJ didn't see his own way to wanting Ron as Pres this go round, to raise his own profile for a future run, I'd say Ron should just not do it.  It would be way beneath where he is for Ron to go BACK to VP role, and the only reason for Ron to do it is the presidential debates.  With Gary in the polling question against Romney and Obama, Gary gets 1% and nowhere near the debates, VP OR president. With Ron being polled, he multiple times has polled above 15%, only ONCE below it, at 13%, at the time when his support was most questioned right after Rand endorsed.  Ron would most likely poll enough to get them in the debates, barring a miracle, it looks like Gary would not.

Also, Ron can get matching funds which alone would dwarf what Gary could raise, if he will file for them, which means a higher profile run for the party and for Gary.

So LP can do the necessary things to get Ron on or not as president.  I see no value and it not being worth it for Ron to go as VP. It would be insulting, frankly, given how much he would be bringing to the table.

And the polls Ron needs to do well in are NATIONAL polls, not state polls.  And pollsters would ask that or wouldn't regardless of if he were off some ballots.  Gary doing well in a STATE won't get him near the debates.  And I wouldn't support a ticket with Ron as VP, I don't even think he should do it, and Gary in the presidential debate does nothing for me.

----------


## sailingaway

> If Ron is not on the ballot, pollsters won't ask about Ron.  If you can't vote for him, it doesn't matter if you would vote for him.  Ron Paul gets a 0% in those
> states he's not on the ballot.
> 
> I don't think anybody except Gary Johnson should be asking Ron Paul to be VP.  Leave Ron Paul alone.  No one, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Grassroots, has the stomach for this fight.  Doug Wead mentioned how Ron Paul pulled back from attacking Romney due to the possible consequences.  If he was worried about consequences then, it's likely he still is.  And grassroots just isn't mighty, not anywhere near what it would have to be.  It also pulls back from a fight, more interested in
> getting beat up and whining than doing the beating up.  That was Romney, and they won.
> 
> What all of you who are most interested in the Presidential race should do is grab a GJ sign on Tuesday and stand on that street corner and yell like it's Ron Paul and it's 2007.
> 
> Ron Paul knows we'll support whatever he does, whether it's I or LP.  We don't have to tell him.  But he also knows that we're not mighty enough, so it doesn't matter.
> ...


Doug didn't say RON pulled back from attacking but that after Romney was seen as winning, the CAMPAIGN did. Ron rarely attacks, and does similarly to all.  'Fake' to Santorum was the one point that was different, but that was because a guy who voted for NCLB and was the whip for the Bush administration spending plans was trying to run as a fiscal conservative.  

This would be a different race.  I wouldn't badger Ron about it, but I'd let him know I'd support it, but only as Presidential candidate, the campaign would have to be about HIM.

And again, the polls are national polls, not state polls, and Ron would be on some ballots and running write in in other places.  If he takes matching funds and has somethin like $15 million to start with, some polls SHOULD ask about them. If they don't, it is because pollsters don't like to ask about him, same as Gary, but based on polling to date, Ron would, and Gary would not, poll high enough to get in debates.

----------


## sailingaway

> Time for something more productive:
> *BAD NEWS: Ron Paul 3rd Party Rumors Confirmed to be FALSE*
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search....archid=6845634


But that was Wead, before RNC, giving his opinion. Not Ron himself, after RNC saying he still hadn't ruled it out, which was what was said on the call.

I don't think it is likely he will run, but I'd support it, if he were running as president.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Ron isn't going to run.  He told us that multiple times.

----------


## sailingaway

> Who cares what the libertarians think, ron paul won't run a write-in campaign.  some states don't count writeins.  RP as GJ's VP is reasonable.


Only those already supporting GJ think Ron should bother running as VP, and per Rasmussen, they only poll as 1%.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron isn't going to run.  He told us that multiple times.


He never told us that in those terms.  And apparently he told a credible grass roots activist personally, AFTER RNC that he hadn't ruled it out, but what he saw as barriers, so he wasn't thinking he likely would.

----------


## opal

file under fantasy please

Wouldn't a State of the Union address by Ron Paul be just wet yer pants awesome?

/end threadjack

----------


## NY-Dano

> He never told us that in those terms.  And apparently he told a credible grass roots activist personally, AFTER RNC that he hadn't ruled it out, but what he saw as barriers, so he wasn't thinking he likely would.


So basically, nothing has changed. Ron has consistently refused to rule it out, but he also offered hypothetical scenarios such as the world economy crashing down, the bottom coming out of the dollar, etc. when explaining why he'd run.

Idk why everyone is so worked up about this. I suppose it may be all the GJ people. Barring some major event, I think the best plan is leaving Ron to some well deserved rest and focusing on local races.

Btw, I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone mentioned that Romney is sure to still have the anti-Paul PR campaign in play?

----------


## rp08orbust

> So basically, nothing has changed. Ron has consistently refused to rule it out, but he also offered hypothetical scenarios such as the world economy crashing down, the bottom coming out of the dollar, etc. when explaining why he'd run.


Or the RNC and Mitt Romney screwing his delegates harder than he ever imagined possible.

----------


## zeloc

> So basically, nothing has changed. Ron has consistently refused to rule it out, but he also offered hypothetical scenarios such as the world economy crashing down, the bottom coming out of the dollar, etc. when explaining why he'd run.
> 
> Idk why everyone is so worked up about this. I suppose it may be all the GJ people. Barring some major event, I think the best plan is leaving Ron to some well deserved rest and focusing on local races.
> 
> Btw, I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone mentioned that Romney is sure to still have the anti-Paul PR campaign in play?


Do we really care about an anti-Paul PR campaign? This is part and parcel of running in a presidential election. But the bigger issue is that it will be a 3-way race and not 2. This changes everything. Suddenly Obama and Romney cannot focus on each other, and besides that they are similar on many issues. 

It does not make sense for RP to take a VP slot, especially not after he has been campaigning for president. That would be a desperation move. I would like RP to run for President because he has a good shot at winning it. Voter turnout in the general election is very low, Ron Paul has the most enthusiastic supporters, and he is a clear contrast from Obama and Romney. He did very well in the early Republican primary states. I found out that several of my friends actually support Ron Paul but were not into politics and I couldn't get them to the primaries or caucus. But if RP is on the general election he is getting their vote. RP also appeals to Democrats and independents.

----------


## NY-Dano

> Or the RNC and Mitt Romney screwing his delegates harder than he ever imagined possible.


For some reason RP doesn't strike me as spiteful. There is more for Ron to gain, in advancing Liberty, by not running.

----------


## erowe1

> Ron isn't going to run.  He told us that multiple times.


Unless he tells us he's not going to run, using the exact words we demand in the exact order we demand, then that means he's still a candidate.

----------


## Carlybee

> But that was Wead, before RNC, giving his opinion. Not Ron himself, after RNC saying he still hadn't ruled it out, which was what was said on the call.
> 
> I don't think it is likely he will run, but I'd support it, if he were running as president.


I agree, although I think the Libertarian Party people will get up in arms if we try to oust their candidate down to VP, just from a few things I've read here and there online.  Not necessarily those who supported RP and are now supporting GJ, but the ones who have been working for the GJ grassroots all along.  I would expect some hostility.

That being said, I am going to avoid absolutes until we hear something more tangible.  I think it is interesting we haven't really heard anything from Ron since he left the RNC, so that could very well be an indication he is mulling it all over. (or it could just means he's trying to stay out of the limelight and enjoy some time with his family)

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Unless he tells us he's not going to run, using the exact words we demand in the exact order we demand, then that means he's still a candidate.


Kind of like how Ron Paul was still in the race, even after saying he wasn't, because he didn't say it after doing the secret sign.

----------


## erowe1

> Kind of like how Ron Paul was still in the race, even after saying he wasn't, because he didn't say it after doing the secret sign.


He used the word "expect." And if you paid close attention, some people here, every time they refered to that statement, they used the word "expect," like it was a key word, meaning essentially "don't take any of this seriously."

----------


## zeloc

> For some reason RP doesn't strike me as spiteful. There is more for Ron to gain, in advancing Liberty, by not running.


There is nothing to gain in not running.

----------


## sailingaway

> So basically, nothing has changed. Ron has consistently refused to rule it out, but he also offered hypothetical scenarios such as the world economy crashing down, the bottom coming out of the dollar, etc. when explaining why he'd run.
> 
> Idk why everyone is so worked up about this. I suppose it may be all the GJ people. Barring some major event, I think the best plan is leaving Ron to some well deserved rest and focusing on local races.
> 
> Btw, I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone mentioned that Romney is sure to still have the anti-Paul PR campaign in play?


I don't think most people think that was anything more than a reason the campaign threw out to justify what it did sort of 'Romney was going to win so it wasn't worth putting Ron through that'.  I don't see how Romney would be worse that Bush and Rove whom he already went up against in Texas.  Nationwide, of course, but Ron really is pure, and if they raise the issues, many will look into them, and discover that.

It may or may not happen, I think it is still pretty unlikely, but it sounds like Ron hasn't ruled it out even yet, which surprised me.  I assume because the RNC was such blatant cheating and the rule changing when Ron HAD enough states to be placed into nomination was enough to make anyone angry.

----------


## zeloc

> I agree, although I think the Libertarian Party people will get up in arms if we try to oust their candidate down to VP, just from a few things I've read here and there online.  Not necessarily those who supported RP and are now supporting GJ, but the ones who have been working for the GJ grassroots all along.  I would expect some hostility.
> 
> That being said, I am going to avoid absolutes until we hear something more tangible.  I think it is interesting we haven't really heard anything from Ron since he left the RNC, so that could very well be an indication he is mulling it all over. (or it could just means he's trying to stay out of the limelight and enjoy some time with his family)


I don't think we should try to "oust" anyone, if the VP on the Libertarian ticket decides to step down and Gary Johnson decides to accept the VP slot, then all is well, but if either of them don't, then no one should remove them against their will. As much as I'd like to see Ron Paul run, it should be done the right way or not at all.

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree, although I think the Libertarian Party people will get up in arms if we try to oust their candidate down to VP, just from a few things I've read here and there online.  Not necessarily those who supported RP and are now supporting GJ, but the ones who have been working for the GJ grassroots all along.  I would expect some hostility.
> 
> That being said, I am going to avoid absolutes until we hear something more tangible.  I think it is interesting we haven't really heard anything from Ron since he left the RNC, so that could very well be an indication he is mulling it all over. (or it could just means he's trying to stay out of the limelight and enjoy some time with his family)


we wouldn't oust their candidate. They would have to decide if Ron's running as president offered enough benefits that THEY want it. It would be their decision. I am just against Ron doing it at all as VP, and can see big benefits to the LP with running Ron as president. But it is their decision to make if they want to, now they know Gary Johnson is polling at 1%.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't think we should try to "oust" anyone, if the VP on the Libertarian ticket decides to step down and Gary Johnson decides to accept the VP slot, then all is well, but if either of them don't, then no one should remove them against their will. As much as I'd like to see Ron Paul run, it should be done the right way or not at all.


Of course, and I can't imagine Ron taking it if it weren't offered by them, nor COULD he, if you think about it.

----------


## sailingaway

> For some reason RP doesn't strike me as spiteful. There is more for Ron to gain, in advancing Liberty, by not running.


Showing the RNC they can't get away with cheating, so not to try it in future years, isn't 'spite'. When do people change behavior if they get away with it?

But I'm not thinking this is likely. However, one of the points made on the call last night was that ONE of the points Ron raised was not thinking he had enough support.  On THAT front, grass roots has a role to show he would have support. The rest is up to Ron, who can always run independent with as many ballots as he can get and write ins in most of the rest, or to the LP IF and ONLY IF, they see enough benefits to Ron running LP to offer Ron the top slot.

So it is still unlikely, but I had thought Ron had ruled it out, and was surprised to learn he hadn't, after RNC.  At this point in 2008 he HAD ruled it out.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Of course, and I can't imagine Ron taking it if it weren't offered by them.


Perhaps even if Gary and the party agreed, I think a poll of the LP voters (not us, but the ones that voted earlier) should be taken and let them have a voice.

----------


## NY-Dano

> Do we really care about an anti-Paul PR campaign?


That's the kind of talk you hear from people who believe they have nothing to lose. Ultimately, I believe this is one of the big divides in the Liberty Movement right now. There are those who believe we have nothing to lose because, 'its all coming crashing down anyhow, so who cares?' And then there are those of us who believe that the system will keep on going on as it always has, with a very gradual decline into economic stagnation and tyranny. Under this second scenario the best approach is to play politics, as much as we all may hate it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That's the kind of talk you hear from people who believe they have nothing to lose. Ultimately, I believe this is one of the big divides in the Liberty Movement right now. There are those who believe we have nothing to lose because, 'its all coming crashing down anyhow, so who cares?' And then there are those of us who believe that the system will keep on going on as it always has, with a very gradual decline into economic stagnation and tyranny. Under this second scenario the best approach is to play politics, as much as we all may hate it.


My issue with those who accept that repatriating the GOP is the way to go is that they premise it upon the schematics of the election process in general. Not much speak from them relevant to the goings on in the world. Many of which are not placed properly into perspective with what the GOP has been spewing over the last 8 years or so.

I never cared for the old cough it up and follow me speak. There needs to be more substance (relevant substance) from those working within the establishment platform.

----------


## sailingaway

With what the RNC did with the rules, no one will ever be nominated who is not approved by establishment. They pick the delegates, they can change the rules at any time if there is something that happens to give a candidate they don't like an edge that they haven't thought of to block in advance.

I don't think we are interested in establishment approved candidates.

I'm not saying give up on the GOP, I think we should redouble efforts.  However, I can certainly see where showing what competition could do might be a good thing, both at the polls and in the courts, because I still think we have a heck of a disenfranchisement suit we could bring.

----------


## wgadget

FREE MARKET PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS! 

All we need is MORE CHOICES.

----------


## zeloc

> That's the kind of talk you hear from people who believe they have nothing to lose. Ultimately, I believe this is one of the big divides in the Liberty Movement right now. There are those who believe we have nothing to lose because, 'its all coming crashing down anyhow, so who cares?' And then there are those of us who believe that the system will keep on going on as it always has, with a very gradual decline into economic stagnation and tyranny. Under this second scenario the best approach is to play politics, as much as we all may hate it.


You have my position totally wrong. It's not because I'm thinking 'its all coming crashing down anyhow, so who cares?', but rather my incredible optimism that Ron Paul is an excellent candidate with excellent positions and strong grassroots supporters that we will prevail over any anti-Paul PR campaign (if he were to run).

----------


## CPUd

Check what we have now:
http://www.dailypaul.com/253601/we-h...om-evan-cutler




> I was contacted by two County Organizers for Ron Paul in Florida this morning. They say they have a Billionaire who will pledge a vast portion of his fortune to help any Presidential Candidate who will sign a campaign pledge stating what they will do in office, and promising to report progress and take responsibility for success or failure in the first year.


I thought it was a joke at first, but sadly, not.

----------


## zeloc

I was interested in Ron Paul running as a third party but after the Jay Leno show I am not. He is clearly not serious about changing this country, if he was then he would have pursued the third-party idea. We have seen his meekness throughout the campaign and I have lost confidence. It's time to focus on other candidates. Throughout the campaign his objective was to spread his message of liberty, I don't think he was ever serious about being president and it was reflected in many ways; people are not interested in voting for someone who is wishy-washy.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Check what we have now:
> http://www.dailypaul.com/253601/we-h...om-evan-cutler
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was a joke at first, but sadly, not.


I posted my "Letter to LP Members" to that topic and sent it to the contact link they gave for Gary Johnson.

----------


## sailingaway

> I was interested in Ron Paul running as a third party but after the Jay Leno show I am not. He is clearly not serious about changing this country, if he was then he would have pursued the third-party idea. We have seen his meekness throughout the campaign and I have lost confidence. It's time to focus on other candidates. Throughout the campaign his objective was to spread his message of liberty, I don't think he was ever serious about being president and it was reflected in many ways; people are not interested in voting for someone who is wishy-washy.


I disagree that he is wishy washy.  What he isn't is someone whose ego says it has to be him -- even when it really does, imho.  But it is his choice.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> *I disagree that he is wishy washy.*  What he isn't is someone whose ego says it has to be him -- even when it really does, imho.  But it is his choice.


I am totally with that ! ^^^

edit: He's not pushy, he knows that people get the government they want, he won't force you to vote and, unlike some, won't trick you out of your vote.

----------


## phoenixrising

> I seriously doubt this will be an issue.  The call will in most likelihood be one sided with everyone muted.  Some conference systems allow a lot of control like press 1 if you want to ask a question.  Freeconferencecall.com isn't one of them.  If he un-muted, some people using VoIP would set up feedback loops or on speaker would set up feedback loops and the call would have to be reset and everyone would have to call back in.  Also, everyone will try to speak at once and it becomes total fail.  The only way around this is if you can ask to speak via a keypress and only you get un-muted  or if there has been a prior call for people that want to talk or ask questions and they are told - OK - your turn... the opposition has also messed up audio on these calls deliberately in an effort to sabotage our communications.
> 
> I have some experience in this area...
> 
> -t


the call was done very professionally. evan spoke & then let those wanting to comment queue up ..& each had the floor 1-by-1

guyz...evan is the real deal. there is nothing haokey about this regarding collecting #'s etc...

evan cutler is also the one in 2008 who headed the national DVD project...over 4000 DVD's were created & mailed to the delegates in advance of the convention.

all he is attempting to do now is get enough momentum behind RP to get him to run with GJ! judge gray has already been spoken w/& would be willing to step down IF RP is willing to step up...yet RP isn't convinced enough people want him in there.

RP CAN run as VP...there is no "loser law" in effect in this regard. it only comes into play IF he runs for the same position...which he is NOT 

look..all we're attempting to do is get the petition numbers up there for now...to get RP to think about going w/GJ!  yet it will only work if EVERYONE promotes the link....& he's not convinced --yet.
http://weneedpaul.com/

for the millions following RP now...we need a hell of a lot more signatures...yet not enough are aware of it!

btw: voting for GJ this go round makes a huge statement to the crappy GOP right now...& isn't it time for a 3rd party????? if ever before the time IS NOW!!! the numbers will make a statement in & of itself...even if GJ doesn't get in!

& a wasted vote? look at the 2 IDENTICAL choices--it doesn't matter!

----------


## sailingaway

> the call was done very professionally. evan spoke & then let those wanting to comment queue up ..& each had the floor 1-by-1
> 
> guyz...evan is the real deal. there is nothing haokey about this regarding collecting #'s etc...
> 
> evan cutler is also the one in 2008 who headed the national DVD project...over 4000 DVD's were created & mailed to the delegates in advance of the convention.
> 
> all he is attempting to do now is get enough momentum behind RP to get him to run with GJ! judge gray has already been spoken w/& would be willing to step down IF RP is willing to step up...yet RP isn't convinced enough people want him in there.
> 
> RP CAN run as VP...there is no "loser law" in effect in this regard. it only comes into play IF he runs for the same position...which he is NOT 
> ...


I just don't see any point in Ron taking a demotion to run as VP to someone who polls so much lower that the ticket won't get in the debates.  The POINT of doing it from my personal point of view was that Ron at the top of the ticket likely would get them in the debates (based on prior polls). Then Ron would debate Obama and Romney and THAT would be worth the price of admission, so to speak.

----------


## Sentinelrv

> I just don't see any point in Ron taking a demotion to run as VP to someone who polls so much lower that the ticket won't get in the debates.  The POINT of doing it from my personal point of view was that Ron at the top of the ticket likely would get them in the debates (based on prior polls). Then Ron would debate Obama and Romney and THAT would be worth the price of admission, so to speak.


I'm with Sailing on this one. There is no point in doing this if Ron can't get into the debates to challenge Romney and Obama. That is the only reason I'm interested in this. I know 3rd party isn't going to win so do the sore loser laws really matter? This is all about getting exposure and changing people's minds, letting them know there are other options. With Gary Johnson at the top of the ticket, we don't get that exposure. Gary could really benefit from being Ron's VP, but not the other way around.

----------


## fr33

> the call was done very professionally. evan spoke & then let those wanting to comment queue up ..& each had the floor 1-by-1
> 
> guyz...evan is the real deal. there is nothing haokey about this regarding collecting #'s etc...
> 
> evan cutler is also the one in 2008 who headed the national DVD project...over 4000 DVD's were created & mailed to the delegates in advance of the convention.
> 
> all he is attempting to do now is get enough momentum behind RP to get him to run with GJ! judge gray has already been spoken w/& would be willing to step down IF RP is willing to step up...yet RP isn't convinced enough people want him in there.
> 
> RP CAN run as VP...there is no "loser law" in effect in this regard. it only comes into play IF he runs for the same position...which he is NOT 
> ...


It's not going to happen. Join reality. Ron gave you his reasons.

----------


## CPUd

Was it ever discovered who was behind the 'Secret Billionaire' rumor in 2008?

----------


## RickyJ

> It's not going to happen. Join reality. Ron gave you his reasons.


Probably won't, but why do you feel the need to say it won't?

----------


## fr33

> Probably won't, but why do you feel the need to say it won't?


Because people need to realize what we are up against. Because it's a fact we cannot win the presidency yet and we need to start thinking about how we can in the future. Wishing for Ron Paul to win is wasted time and efforts.

----------

