# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  GOP Strategist: Ron Paul Will Be on GOP Ticket

## Paulite



----------


## robertwerden

Spread this video

----------


## robertwerden

plus rep

----------


## RickyJ

They don't know Ron Paul. If he is on the ticket he will lead it. Yeah he might choose Romney as a VP, but he won't be his VP.

----------


## GopBlackList

So basically Ron Paul is going to be Romeny's VP

----------


## rp2012win

2:38 of pure winning

----------


## RickyJ

> So basically Ron Paul is going to be Romeny's VP


No he won't.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Both of em seem to be forgetting that delegates are only bound in most circumstances on the first pledge, and then there are some still bound on the 2nd, but not many, and then I don't think any bound on the third, so we may have a plurality of Paul delegates originally bound to the other three, but when become unbound give Paul the nomination. Likely-hood of this happening? No one can say, but it certainly is theoretically possible, and the chances go up even more when our movement realizes this and vigorously goes after ALL the delegate positions no matter what. 

Who the $#@! cares what anyone else says about 'unfair' or 'cheating', it's the damn rules they set up themselves. Let's beat them at their own game, a game which primarily benefits the establishment due to apathy and lethargy and downright confusing ruleset at times that screens out most challenging the establishment. We are unique. We know what we have to do -- will we do it is the question.

----------


## The Gold Standard

It depends where he is on the ticket to determine if I will vote for the ticket.

----------


## Blankstare

> 2:38 of pure winning


YESSIR!

----------


## realtonygoodwin

Paul's negatives are just as high. I think Santorum actually has the best favoribility ratings of the 3.

----------


## JK/SEA

Ron a VP?...my silver is on a 'no way'. May as well lock Ron in a closet.

----------


## jointhefightforfreedom

> Spread this video


pefect timing for this idea ! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-you-won-t-win!

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Paul's negatives are just as high. I think Santorum actually has the best favoribility ratings of the 3.


You must be thinking of the GOP Primary electorate. Ron has by far the best favorables in a General.

----------


## daviddee

...

----------


## bluesc

> You must be thinking of the GOP Primary electorate. Ron has by far the best favorables in a General.


And carries the independents. I'll bet Ron's favorable numbers with independents only looks something like 66/26/8

Romney wouldn't care about Ron's bad favorable numbers with Republicans. Romney will carry the Republican vote.

Newt and Santorum do not carry the independent vote like Paul does. Not even close.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

Ahhh, I must be thinking of the primary voters.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> And carries the independents. I'll bet Ron's favorable numbers with independents only looks something like 66/26/8
> 
> Romney wouldn't care about Ron's bad favorable numbers with Republicans. Romney will carry the Republican vote.
> 
> Newt and Santorum do not carry the independent vote like Paul does. Not even close.


My point wasn't that Romney pick Paul as I would never vote for such a ticket and I suspect a majority of Paul supporters, but the fact that if the GOP wants to win the General their only choice is Paul. Further, that I doubt Romney is going to have 900 delegates. The way it is shaping up now on the first ballot it's looking something like 650 x 3 with Paul around 450. Who knows what percentages of Paul delegates will become unbound after the first ballot, but we need to make sure we get every single delegate position no matter what. It's becoming almost certain of a brokered convention, and if we can't win then, then we had no shot to begin with. That is what we are working towards.

----------


## daviddee

...

----------


## Maximus

I would vote for a Romney/Paul ticket... then again, I live in California, so it doesn't matter.

----------


## bluesc

> My point wasn't that Romney pick Paul as I would never vote for such a ticket and I suspect a majority of Paul supporters, but the fact that if the GOP wants to win the General their only choice is Paul. Further, that I doubt Romney is going to have 900 delegates. The way it is shaping up now on the first ballot it's looking something like 650 x 3 with Paul around 450. Who knows what percentages of Paul delegates will become unbound after the first ballot, but we need to make sure we get every single delegate position no matter what. It's becoming almost certain of a brokered convention, and if we can't win then, then we had no shot to begin with. That is what we are working towards.


Yeah, I was just giving my general thoughts and expanded on your comments. I know how you feel about the idea .

Someone will have to make a deal with Paul in a brokered convention unless we get delegates to be released on 2nd round. Hopefully the campaign has a way of making it happen in big closed primary states.

----------


## sailingaway

> Paul's negatives are just as high. I think Santorum actually has the best favoribility ratings of the 3.


no, Ron's negatives were high with GOP when he was attacked all over in December.  They've gone up.  Santorum hasn't been vetted, really, since his moment in the sun was so brief, but he will be.

----------


## bluesc

> I think it is a little pre-mature to assume Romney will have the highest delegate count at the convention.
> 
> Super Tuesday is going to have a lot of surprises.
> 
> My worst nightmare is Santorum...


It doesn't matter who has the most if they don't have the majority needed. What will matter is that our people stand as delegates for other candidates, etc. for the 2nd round of voting when they are released and become unbound.

If a deal is made, it is most likely to be made with Romney.

----------


## Ssd

A deal would in essence be a joint presidency with Paul as VP (for official purposes) but obviously Paul should get bases removed from Germany, etc. and Afghan war should end. He should also get complete control of the Fed agenda. He should also be able to unofficially veto Romney's decisions just like Romney can veto his. Obviously, Paul could just quit if Romney isn't getting along which Romney wouldn't want as its bad press. So, essentially, its a Paul presidency with Romney as the figurehead. 

To tell the truth, I'd vote for this ticket. Its basically better than anything ever so we might as well just vote for it. Romney will become a Paulite in no time anyways.

----------


## ByeByeBernanke

I don't see this happening at all...how the hell is Paul gonna go around campaigning with Romney while they both have 2 fundamentally different messages? No way this could happen.

----------


## daviddee

...

----------


## daviddee

...

----------


## ByeByeBernanke

Lol and what would Romney do? His whole campaign is more war and more Fed.

----------


## Feelgood

I could not vote for a Romney/Paul ticket. 

NOBP

----------


## affa

> I find it comical that people run to praise one type of shill...  and vilify other shills.


However, in this case what the pundit is saying is clearly a possibility.  Plus it's stated as opinion, not 'fact', as on other programs.

Pundits are allowed to speak, and allowed to have opinions. We'll never escape that, as long as television exists.  But having varied opinions is not, and never has been, the problem.  Rather, it's when they limit opinions (by never airing them), parrot opinions as fact (giving them the air of 'common sense'), or marginalize opinions (by treating the messenger like an idiot) that the problem arises.

I despise the media, but don't mind one hour out of the day being pro-Paul.

----------


## squarepusher

Judge for VP

----------


## american.swan

People need to understand something.  VP is far better than a cabinet post where he gets easily replaced due to infighting. VP is a position that forces him to be there for FOUR YEARS.  What good is Paul in the cabinet if he's replaced after 6 months for disagreements?

THIS VIDEO shows!!! Why we have to have 2000 delegates in Tampa!!

----------


## anaconda

The judge's guest is saying that Romney would pick Paul for VP because Newt & Frothy have too high of negatives. But I think Romney can easily pick someone else for VP like Christie or somebody. And give Newt a place in the administration for Newt's delegates. I don't trust this guy because he's such a Paul fan that I don't think he's objective.

----------


## ProBlue33

This is not the best scenario for sure, but if it goes to a third round of voting at a brokered convention, and fight club works, we could see Paul win.
This is very unlikley, however I present these 2 choices.

1) Paul on principle refuses, and retires from public life, Romney somehow wins the general meaning Rand has no chance in 2016.
2) Paul accepts, becomes VP, paving the way for his son in 2020.
And who knows Mitt could die of a heart attack from the stress, moving Paul up to President.

Who has more power to get their message out, a retired congressman, or the VP of the United States?
I think the answer is obvious, I suspect many that post to this forum would hold their noses and vote for a Romney/Paul ticket.

----------


## Xenophage

> This is not the best scenario for sure, but if it goes to a third round of voting at a brokered convention, and fight club works, we could see Paul win.
> This is very unlikley, however I present these 2 choices.
> 
> 1) Paul on principle refuses, and retires from public life, Romney somehow wins the general meaning Rand has no chance in 2016.
> 2) Paul accepts, becomes VP, paving the way for his son in 2020.
> And who knows Mitt could die of a heart attack from the stress, moving Paul up to President.
> 
> Who has more power to get their message out, a retired congressman, or the VP of the United States?
> I think the answer is obvious, I suspect many that post to this forum would hold their noses and vote for a Romney/Paul ticket.


The far more likely scenario, in my estimation, is that Romney loses the general election to Obama, and Rand runs in 2016.

I'm willing to bet on THAT scenario.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Yes, and if you read my post I stated Romney could end up without the highest delegate total...   Making Dr Pauls additional delegates meaningless.
> 
> If Santorum goes in with the higher total, he negotiates with Newt.   Done deal.


I think you may have forgotten that Santorum and Gingrich don't have an even shot at delegates, having missed as many ballots as they have. The chances of Santorum + Gingrich delegates adding up to a majority is slim to none. Santorum has no shot at something like 700 delegates and Gingrich is out of the running for about 560 or so, this is of a total of 2288 delegates - a huge percentage of the total.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I could not vote for a Romney/Paul ticket. 
> 
> NOBP


I think you speak for a lot for Paul-supporters, NO COMPROMISES.

I don't know why people can't see this is just an attempt to see how Paul's base reacts to him being given a subsidiary position, they already KNOW that they need Paul & his supporters to beat Obama but we must stand firm on NOBP & they'll come around 

Here's more on this - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...3rd-party-card

----------


## FreedomProsperityPeace

Pfffffft. Romney would choose Marco Rubio. That would pull in the Latino votes and some of the conservatives/TP who don't like him.

I highly doubt Dr. Paul would accept the VP spot anyway. He'd just be forced to quit as a matter of conscience when Romney starts pulling his garbage (starting wars, raising taxes, signing unbalanced budgets, not doing anything about the Fed, etc.).

----------


## cindy25

> A deal would in essence be a joint presidency with Paul as VP (for official purposes) but obviously Paul should get bases removed from Germany, etc. and Afghan war should end. He should also get complete control of the Fed agenda. He should also be able to unofficially veto Romney's decisions just like Romney can veto his. Obviously, Paul could just quit if Romney isn't getting along which Romney wouldn't want as its bad press. So, essentially, its a Paul presidency with Romney as the figurehead. 
> 
> To tell the truth, I'd vote for this ticket. Its basically better than anything ever so we might as well just vote for it. Romney will become a Paulite in no time anyways.


something like Ron being Romney's Chaney?

----------


## cindy25

> Pfffffft. Romney would choose Marco Rubio. That would pull in the Latino votes and some of the conservatives/TP who don't like him.
> 
> I highly doubt Dr. Paul would accept the VP spot anyway. He'd just be forced to quit as a matter of conscience when Romney starts pulling his garbage (starting wars, raising taxes, signing unbalanced budgets, not doing anything about the Fed, etc.).


why would he need to quit? VP is a constitutional office; he didn't quit congress when they passed the patriot act. it would be a huge embarrassment for Romney to have an opposition VP, but it happens all the time in other countries, and all the time in states with separately elected Lt gov.

----------


## gerryb

Media stayin' consistent at least... and getting the story backwards

----------


## Paulistinian

I think Sed is right... Romney/Paul would be a very strong Vice Presidency like the Cheney years.

----------


## eleganz

lol...no one but paul...for president.

----------


## cindy25

> I think you speak for a lot for Paul-supporters, NO COMPROMISES.
> 
> I don't know why people can't see this is just an attempt to see how Paul's base reacts to him being given a subsidiary position, they already KNOW that they need Paul & his supporters to beat Obama but we must stand firm on NOBP & they'll come around 
> 
> Here's more on this - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...3rd-party-card


no compromise is foolish; suppose Romney offered the presidency in exchange for being VP?  we would tell him no?

----------


## gerryb

> Pfffffft. Romney would choose Marco Rubio. That would pull in the Latino votes and some of the conservatives/TP who don't like him.
> 
> I highly doubt Dr. Paul would accept the VP spot anyway. He'd just be forced to quit as a matter of conscience when Romney starts pulling his garbage (starting wars, raising taxes, signing unbalanced budgets, not doing anything about the Fed, etc.).


Has Ron Paul quite when the President has done all those things in the past?

Why would he start quitting over them as VP?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Here is my bold prediction:

If Ron Paul is on the GOP ticket as VP, 99% of Ron Paul voters will vote for Romney/Paul.

----------


## NinjaPirate

> Both of em seem to be forgetting that delegates are only bound in most circumstances on the first pledge, and then there are some still bound on the 2nd, but not many, and then I don't think any bound on the third...


Florida's delegates are bound until the 4th round of voting.  After the fourth round of voting, Florida's (Romney's) delegates are then released.

----------


## bluesc

> Here is my bold prediction:
> 
> If Ron Paul is on the GOP ticket as VP, 99% of Ron Paul voters will vote for Romney/Paul.


You're correct.

----------


## FreedomProsperityPeace

> why would he need to quit? VP is a constitutional office; he didn't quit congress when they passed the patriot act. it would be a huge embarrassment for Romney to have an opposition VP, but it happens all the time in other countries, and all the time in states with separately elected Lt gov.





> Has Ron Paul quite when the President has done all those things in the past?
> 
> Why would he start quitting over them as VP?


The VP is the president's "partner". He supports him and his platform and his programs. He bears part of the responsibility for the results. What's he going to say when Romney starts doing things he has been railing against for years? As a congressman, he can get away with pointing the finger at other members of Congress, but it's a little bit harder to do that when you're the number 2 guy in the administration.

----------


## Paulistinian

Adams/Jefferson

----------


## affa

> Here is my bold prediction:
> 
> If Ron Paul is on the GOP ticket as VP, 99% of Ron Paul voters will vote for Romney/Paul.


Whoot, I get to be part of the 1% for a day.
I want no part of voting for Romney as prez.  Period.  The wars will continue.

PS - I don't think you speak for 99 percent of us, so I don't think you should.  Especially when it basically tells the establishment that we'll take second.   President Paul.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Whoot, I get to be part of the 1% for a day.
> I want no part of voting for Romney as prez.  Period.  The wars will continue.
> 
> PS - I don't think you speak for 99 percent of us, so I don't think you should.  Especially when it basically tells the establishment that we'll take second.   President Paul.


I think you're all talk

----------


## parocks

> This is not the best scenario for sure, but if it goes to a third round of voting at a brokered convention, and fight club works, we could see Paul win.
> This is very unlikley, however I present these 2 choices.
> 
> 1) Paul on principle refuses, and retires from public life, Romney somehow wins the general meaning Rand has no chance in 2016.
> 2) Paul accepts, becomes VP, paving the way for his son in 2020.
> And who knows Mitt could die of a heart attack from the stress, moving Paul up to President.
> 
> Who has more power to get their message out, a retired congressman, or the VP of the United States?
> I think the answer is obvious, I suspect many that post to this forum would hold their noses and vote for a Romney/Paul ticket.


What do you think Ron Paul would want us to do in that scenario.  Would Ron Paul want us to vote for him, even if he was just the VP?

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

I actually wouldn't support this.

----------


## dillo

what happens if its a brokered convention and nobody agrees to anything?

----------


## BigByrd47119

I'd rather see him as Chairman of the Federal Reserve than VP.

Granted, I'd vote for a Romney/Paul ticket, but not a ticket that had Gingrich or Santorum in it in any position. Ron can be beneficial to the cause of liberty in any one of the three positions being discussed...why does it matter so much if he were POTUS? It's not about the man (I love you Dr. Paul!), its about the movement.

----------


## LibertyProsperity_56

I would never vote for the Romney/Paul ticket. If that happens, I'd rather be doing something else than waiting in line to cast my vote. Don't give up yet--the primaries/caucuses are far from over!

----------


## anaconda

> The far more likely scenario, in my estimation, is that Romney loses the general election to Obama, and Rand runs in 2016.
> 
> I'm willing to bet on THAT scenario.


Yup. I do wonder how Rand will fund a national campaign, however.

----------


## anaconda

> Pfffffft. Romney would choose Marco Rubio. That would pull in the Latino votes and some of the conservatives/TP who don't like him.
> 
> I highly doubt Dr. Paul would accept the VP spot anyway. He'd just be forced to quit as a matter of conscience when Romney starts pulling his garbage (starting wars, raising taxes, signing unbalanced budgets, not doing anything about the Fed, etc.).


There is no strategic reason I can imagine that would make Ron want to be VP.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> no compromise is foolish; suppose Romney offered the presidency in exchange for being VP?  we would tell him no?


Unless you wish to have Ron Paul assassinated, then yes tell him $#@! NO. No Establishment VP = Ron lives. Establishment VP = Ron dies. You have to have someone like Ron as the VP to keep them from assassinating him. They can get away with taking one out without being too suspicious, but BOTH and replacing with status quo shill? Good luck with that one. I would revolt ... march on State house in arms to get those $#@!s to interpose / seceede. That would be THE straw.

----------


## eleganz

> what happens if its a brokered convention and nobody agrees to anything?


good, brokered convention = unbound delegates = better for us.  May or may not be 1144 for Ron but ah well 

This is why we all gotta work our asses off to get Ron as many delegates as possible.

----------


## RickyJ

> what happens if its a brokered convention and nobody agrees to anything?



I don't know. They have to do something. Maybe a duel.

----------


## devil21

I think a majority of Paul supporters would vote for a Romney/Paul ticket.  The purist in me says it won't happen but the realist says it would.

Fwiw, I don't see anybody offering Paul a VP slot.  Pres would like to survive his first term.  We do have some nuts in this movement, admit it or not.

----------


## dillo

> I think a majority of Paul supporters would vote for a Romney/Paul ticket.  The purist in me says it won't happen but the realist says it would.
> 
> Fwiw, I don't see anybody offering Paul a VP slot.  Pres would like to survive his first term.  We do have some nuts in this movement, admit it or not.


I wouldnt say nuts, however there are some that might go against the average grain

----------


## RickyJ

> Here is my bold prediction:
> 
> If Ron Paul is on the GOP ticket as VP, 99% of Ron Paul voters will vote for Romney/Paul.


That is a bold prediction. You might be right too, but I would never vote for a ticket like that. I don't think Ron Paul would ever accept such an offer so I doubt we will ever find out if you are correct or not.

----------


## RickyJ

> I think a majority of Paul supporters would vote for a Romney/Paul ticket.  The purist in me says it won't happen but the realist says it would.
> 
> Fwiw, I don't see anybody offering Paul a VP slot.  Pres would like to survive his first term.  We do have some nuts in this movement, admit it or not.


All the Ron Paul supporters I have ever met are some of the best people I have ever met anywhere! 

I have yet to meet a Ron Paul supporter that is a nut in person. Now on this forum, maybe, but not in person.

----------


## devil21

> All the Ron Paul supporters I have ever met are some of the best people I have ever met anywhere! 
> 
> I have yet to meet a Ron Paul supporter that is a nut in person. Now on this forum, maybe, but not in person.


You're meeting the ones that go mingle with other people.  That's the worst poll sample ever.  I don't doubt your experiences but there are definitely other parts of this movement that aren't so friendly and social.  I will leave it at that.

----------


## freneticentropy

Why would Paul want to be VP?  So he can run for president in 2020?  VPs have no power unless the president gives it to them.  Once the coronation ceremony is over and Romney is crowned King, you think he's going to let Paul have a say in anything important?  

Romney may offer because he wants Paul votes, but Paul won't accept.   And even if he did, I wouldn't vote for that ticket.   A few will, but not many.  Most will probably stay home.  Some will vote Libertarian (as will I).  Some will probably go Obama.

----------


## BigByrd47119

> You're meeting the ones that go mingle with other people.  That's the worst poll sample ever.  I don't doubt your experiences but there are definitely other parts of this movement that aren't so friendly and social.  I will leave it at that.


Just look at who is backing Romney! Ron Paul is the only candidate with some less than savory followers

----------


## TheTexan

I trust Paul's judgement on this matter.  I don't think he would accept VP, but if he does I'll back him up on it.

----------


## cindy25

> The VP is the president's "partner". He supports him and his platform and his programs. He bears part of the responsibility for the results. What's he going to say when Romney starts doing things he has been railing against for years? As a congressman, he can get away with pointing the finger at other members of Congress, but it's a little bit harder to do that when you're the number 2 guy in the administration.


the VP is president of the senate. 

but that said, Romney has no positions of his own. he just wants to be president, probably because it was his father's goal. much like Bush 43, and Al Gore. Romney , for all we know, might secretly want a Paul foreign policy.  

or it could end like Cory Aquino and Doy Laurel (she promised to be a figurehead president, with Laurel in charge , and she stabbed him in back on day two)

----------


## parocks

> Why would Paul want to be VP?  So he can run for president in 2020?  VPs have no power unless the president gives it to them.  Once the coronation ceremony is over and Romney is crowned King, you think he's going to let Paul have a say in anything important?  
> 
> Romney may offer because he wants Paul votes, but Paul won't accept.   And even if he did, I wouldn't vote for that ticket.   A few will, but not many.  Most will probably stay home.  Some will vote Libertarian (as will I).  Some will probably go Obama.


Depends on what Ron Paul wants us to do if he's the VP pick.   Some think Ron Paul might recommend we go 3rd party, or vote for Obama, or stay home, but I'm guessing that if Ron Paul was the VP pick, he'd want us to vote for him.

----------


## cindy25

> That is a bold prediction. You might be right too, but I would never vote for a ticket like that. I don't think Ron Paul would ever accept such an offer so I doubt we will ever find out if you are correct or not.


would you vote for Paul/Romney?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Depends on what Ron Paul wants us to do if he's the VP pick.   Some think Ron Paul might recommend we go 3rd party, or vote for Obama, or stay home, but I'm guessing that if Ron Paul was the VP pick, he'd want us to vote for him.


Yes^^^.  I mean, the whole scenario is not likely, but this convention looks like it will be craziness.  So who knows.  I just think in the unlikely scenario that Ron would ever choose to run with an establishment candidate, most of us would vote for it.  But I don't think Ron would ever do it.  But who knows?

----------


## anaconda

> I would vote for a Romney/Paul ticket... then again, I live in California, so it doesn't matter.


Reagan took California twice.

----------


## juvanya

> I find it comical that people run to praise one type of shill...  and vilify other shills.
> 
> A shill is a shill.
> 
> The Judge is stacking the deck with pro-Paul people.
> 
> If we want fake opinion/news then we might as well warm up Pravda.
> 
> Just because a shill says what you want to hear does not mean it is ok.


I agree with this actually. This guy might be right, but he might also be a Paul supporter.

----------


## speciallyblend

> They don't know Ron Paul. If he is on the ticket he will lead it. Yeah he might choose Romney as a VP, but he won't be his VP.


he was being nice, bottom line it will be Paul/Romney or Paul/_______ insert paul's choice. If Ron Paul is the vp to romney. I will demand every penny back and vote 3rd party!  Ron Paul as vp is not acceptable period!!! I will not support a status quo prez candidate!

----------


## RickyJ

> would you vote for Paul/Romney?


If that was the only way to get Ron Paul in the White House and Romney agreed to at least most of Ron Paul's positions then I guess I would.

----------


## dillo

> the VP is president of the senate. 
> 
> but that said, Romney has no positions of his own. he just wants to be president, probably because it was his father's goal. much like Bush 43, and Al Gore. Romney , for all we know, might secretly want a Paul foreign policy.  
> 
> or it could end like Cory Aquino and Doy Laurel (she promised to be a figurehead president, with Laurel in charge , and she stabbed him in back on day two)


They don't have to be, look at Andrew Jacksons VP, he wanted to kill him

----------


## speciallyblend

> Yes^^^.  I mean, the whole scenario is not likely, but this convention looks like it will be craziness.  So who knows.  I just think in the unlikely scenario that Ron would ever choose to run with an establishment candidate, most of us would vote for it.  But I don't think Ron would ever do it.  But who knows?


i wouldn't ,the only way i would vote for ron paul as a vp is if he counted how much money i donated to ron paul and sent it back to me. Then only then would i consider voting for ron paul as a vp choice so romney better have around 16 million to send back to ron paul supporters !

----------


## S.Shorland

Somebody is going to get the blame for the crash and as VP,Paul would share the blame without being able to start to repair your country.

----------


## 40oz

Please follow Ron Paul's lead. He votes NO when he doesn't believe in something. NOBP.

----------


## Just Flossin'

> I don't see this happening at all...how the hell is Paul gonna go around campaigning with Romney while they both have 2 fundamentally different messages? No way this could happen.


I think strategically, perhaps on an unspoken level, both campaigns see use for each other in the future and such is why they have been extra statesmanly towards each other.  Romney refuses to touch Paul and Paul delicately calls Romney a flip-flopper but that's about it.

It would be spun as "building a coalition."  They might have different views on nearly everything but Paul will at least get one of his biggest issues - FED, foreign aid, foreign policy.  It'll be interesting.

----------


## wgadget

I think the takeaway us that in the general RON PAUL is the most likely to attract indies and Dems, which is why Ron would be the choice. I wonder how Rubio rates with indies?

----------


## splanky

I've been supporting & following RP since 1988 and there's no way in the world he'll take a VP slot to any of these candidates. It may be offered to him, but I doubt it.

----------


## goldpants

Ron Paul as vp, isn't bad but for now I will still envision a ticket Paul/Napolitano or Paul/Fortuno(not sure if they have any relationship but this guy seems to be getting things done in PR, perhaps a deal could be made to help hand PR to RP).

----------


## bluesc

> I thunk the takeaway us that in the general RON PAUL is the most likely to attract indies and Dems, which is why Ron would be the choice. I wonder how Rubio rates with indies?


Rubio would carry FL, energize the Tea Party and some party elders. Would bring a significant wealthy Hispanic fundraising base.

Paul would carry IA, NH and NM, would bring an army of young, energetic volunteers, would make other battleground states competitive through his independent support and would have the party elders shaking in their wheelchairs.

Of course, Paul would be a huge risk for Romney too, since Paul isn't going to tone down his message to meet Romney's moderate language on the campaign trail. Rubio would be a safe bet in that regard.

In any case, you're more likely to see Bob McDonnell than Paul.

----------


## J-Reg

> I trust Paul's judgement on this matter.  I don't think he would accept VP, but if he does I'll back him up on it.


 THANK YOU!!! ABSOLUTELY! We all need to trust the Good Doctor.

----------


## r3volutionpaul91

basically the media is now wanting us to assume ron will even accept being romney VP as if romney has the general won right now or something, im not falling for that, i'll rather not vote at all if it comes down to romney/paul vs obama, which isnt going to happen anyway because paul wouldnt accept being VP because that would almost completely destroy rand's chances in 2016, and that's if this country even makes it to 2016, what im saying is, no one but paul, im not voting for romney or obama

----------


## trey4sports

Sorry Jack, but Ron would NEVER be VP to any of those guys. 

In that situation the best thing we could ask for would be that Ron push them to nominate a new candidate, Rand Paul.

----------


## trey4sports

> Ron Paul as vp, isn't bad but for now I will still envision a ticket Paul/Napolitano or Paul/Fortuno(not sure if they have any relationship but this guy seems to be getting things done in PR, perhaps a deal could be made to help hand PR to RP).



Fortuno already endorsed Romney.

----------


## trey4sports

Double Post.

----------


## Liberty74

> Ron Paul as vp, isn't bad but for now I will still envision a ticket Paul/Napolitano or Paul/Fortuno(not sure if they have any relationship but this guy seems to be getting things done in PR, perhaps a deal could be made to help hand PR to RP).


I support a Paul/Napolitano run whether it's on the Republican ticket or Indy.

----------


## newbitech

If Romney were smart, he'd take a back seat to Ron Paul and let the man, the idea, and the message have their moment to see what we can do.  Movements like these are extremely rare and we are lucky to see it twice as a nation.  Romney could get behind Paul and secure his future legacy and then learn from Ron Paul for the next 8 years.  Then Romney could take up the GOP mantle with Rand as his VP.  That would be a political powerhouse that wouldn't be stopped, and it would be good.

----------


## noxnoctum

I couldn't get behind a Romney/Paul ticket.  VPs have basically no real power. A Paul/Romney ticket... maybe. I'd have to think long and hard about it though.

----------


## Join The Paul Side

> I would vote for a Romney/Paul ticket... then again, I live in California, so it doesn't matter.


I would too if Ron could use his VP role to influence congress. As in writing and proposing legislation. And having a Dick Cheney effect over Mitt Romney. I mean let's be honest, was Bush really running the show or was Dick?

----------


## noxnoctum

What makes you think that would be the case with Paul as VP though? They'd just stonewall him.

Might be worth it though to see the vice president criticizing every move the federal government makes on national TV though lol.

----------


## trey4sports

> What makes you think that would be the case with Paul as VP though? They'd just stonewall him.
> 
> Might be worth it though to see the vice president criticizing every move the federal government makes on national TV though lol.


Exactly! Ron would never accept nor would he be offered that position. If anything Rand would be offered the position and might possibly accept.

----------


## klamath

I would vote for a VP Paul.

----------


## 69360

I don't think I could vote for Romney/Paul with Romney's current positions.

But here's the compromise between their positions it would take for me to vote for Romney/Paul. 

Pull all troops out of Afghanistan starting day 1
No wars without congressional declaration of war
Open full diplomatic relations with Iran and Cuba and end sanctions
Full public audit of the Fed
Repeal patriot act/NDAA by EO

If Romney would do all that to win the whitehouse I think I could hold my nose and vote him in. I do think that platform and Romney/Paul would take the whitehouse.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> I support a Paul/Napolitano run whether it's on the Republican ticket or Indy.


Napolitano (Andrew not Janet lol) would better be served as a Supreme Court Justice or Attorney General. The VP doesn't have that much power.

----------


## r3volutionpaul91

why are we even having this BS Romney/paul ticket discussion anyway? we all know if that were to happen romney wouldnt let paul do a damn thing, he is a flip flopper you know...

----------


## goldpants

> Fortuno already endorsed Romney.


Damn, that is a bummer. I prefer Napolitano anyhow, he is a certified patriot and ally.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> why are we even having this BS Romney/paul ticket discussion anyway? we all know if that were to happen romney wouldnt let paul do a damn thing, he is a flip flopper you know...


I agree.

Paul is a man. He is THE man.

Stand your ground, Dr. No.

----------


## Join The Paul Side

> What makes you think that would be the case with Paul as VP though? They'd just stonewall him.


I agree. Which is why I said I might vote for a Romney/Paul ticket with those stipulations. But normally in my lifetime VP is the guy they put on the ticket and then tuck away in the closet after the election. See Joe Biden. 

But if we all knew that Ron would have mind control over Mitt like Cheney did on Bush, then this ticket would make sense to me.

----------


## rp08orbust

> I couldn't get behind a Romney/Paul ticket.  VPs have basically no real power. A Paul/Romney ticket... maybe. I'd have to think long and hard about it though.


Vice presidents break ties in the Senate a lot more often than you might think.

----------


## trey4sports

you guys are forgetting one really important thing, 



Ron would never, ever, ever be Romney's VP



Romney would never PICK Ron to begin with and Ron would never ACCEPT

----------


## trey4sports

> Damn, that is a bummer. I prefer Napolitano anyhow, he is a certified patriot and ally.


The Judge actually has said he isn't interested in the VP position but would be interested in the Supreme Court. Who knows if he still feels that way but he has said it before.

----------


## Yieu

It seems like a VP spot would be a good way to keep him quiet and lessen his influence, to me.  I don't like the sound of that.

----------


## 69360

> why are we even having this BS Romney/paul ticket discussion anyway? we all know if that were to happen romney wouldnt let paul do a damn thing, he is a flip flopper you know...


Because, like it or not Romney and Paul are on good terms both on both personal and campaign levels. 

A Romney/Paul (either Ron or Rand) ticket is possible and would probably beat Obama.

----------


## No Free Beer

I disagree with this statement.

1. I can't imagine Dr. Paul accepting.
2. It could hurt Rand's position for 2016.

Strategically it would be a smart move for Romney because it could sway some RP voters to vote for him. Furthermore, it would keep Ron at bay, meaning...as VP he could shut Ron out and not worry about him. If Romney were to assign him into any cabinet position, Paul would have actual power. As VP, he wouldn't. Just read up on FDR and Truman. FDR never invited Truman to ANY meetings, so he pretty much shut him out of the equation.

As for me and my .2 on this possibly situation, I would STILL NOT vote for Romney. I don't care if Paul would be on the ticket. I would not fall for this game.

----------


## RyanRSheets

> They don't know Ron Paul. If he is on the ticket he will lead it. Yeah he might choose Romney as a VP, but he won't be his VP.


I seriously doubt either scenario.  If he has any choice at all in the matter, he won't have a rubber stamp directly under him or even in his cabinet.  I think it would also be completely inappropriate to put Ron Paul in such a dangerous position.  He would be the only person standing in the way of another establishment presidency.

----------


## wgadget

I'd vote for it. If VP is such a nothing proposition, why are the neocon talking heads already pushing Rubio? Why are people saying Santorum/Gingrich are vying for VP? 

There must be SOMETHING to it.

A Paul nomination for even VP would give the libertarian branch credibility.

----------


## ProBlue33

Well we know at least even soft Ron Paul supporters wouldn't be switching to Obama, I think that there could be some changed minds, even amongst the stubborn posting here. I mean if a hardcore Ron Paul supporter living in a swing/purple state may just want to pull the trigger at the end to stop Obama.
They will either not vote at all OR vote for Romney/Paul.

Have people noticed how Paul and Romney have sort of a semi-truce during the debates ?

----------


## milo10

The more I think about it, the more I would accept it.   I do think a VP like Ron Paul would be unprecedented in American history, or at least back to the early days of the Republic.

Do any of the historians here know of a similar instance in American history where the vice-President was so different from the President?  And the issue of course is not just that he is so different, but that Ron will be extremely outspoken.

----------


## Darthbrooklyn

All of you guys thinking that Romney would never pick Ron for VP need to reconsider.. While we disagree w Romney on most stances, he is not stupid.. He knows that hes not going anywhere without Pauls support and ability to bring indys and dems to his ticket. 

That being said, Romney would not stuff Paul into the background.. Sure Obama did it to Biden, but Biden is a moron..  Remember GWB, Dick Cheney was basically the president and ran the show.. And I think that Romney would certainly want Pauls opinion on a lot of matters. Remember Paul having the presidents ear would be the next best thing over an outright win for Paul.

----------


## TC95

Ron Paul as VP isn't good enough.  He won't have veto power and can't overturn executive orders.  He better be first on that ticket if the GOP wants MY vote.

No one but Paul.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> As for me and my .2 on this ...


Inflation??

----------


## Todd

NOBP.................for VP?

----------


## brendan.orourke

I'd gladly vote Romney/Paul. If it's the best we can do, I'm going to be realistic. Anyone who wouldn't doesn't really care about the cause for liberty, b/c that would advance the cause!

----------


## nasaal

> I'd vote for it. If VP is such a nothing proposition, why are the neocon talking heads already pushing Rubio? Why are people saying Santorum/Gingrich are vying for VP? 
> 
> There must be SOMETHING to it.
> 
> A Paul nomination for even VP would give the libertarian branch credibility.


There is nothing to it power wise.  It is a gimmick to attack blocks of voters.  Sometimes VPs are involved.  Many times they are just faces.  They are stuck into an office to do occasional speaking events and nothing else.  In the case of RP, it would be the nothing else.  I would not vote for them.  It would do nthing for the cause of liberty in the long run.  I could see it happening which is what bothers me.

----------


## Revolution9

> Paul's negatives are just as high. I think Santorum actually has the best favoribility ratings of the 3.


Bwahahahaha! I know over a thousand people and not one of them I could ever imagine voting for this clown Santorum. Rock the Santorum sweater vest..Gimme a frikkin' break.

Rev9

----------


## TheGrinch

> Vice presidents break ties in the Senate a lot more often than you might think.


And how often is a vote that goes to a tie be one that Dr. Paul would support? I guess it would have effect in him saying "no" with a bigger voice, but that's about it. But if they have a majority or "bipartisan" support, they can still get it through easily.

Here's the reality though:

1) Dr. Paul will not accept a VP position from any of these candidates. With his record of preaching agianst and voting "no" to virtually every bill that oversteps the government's bounds, it would be quite hypocritical and out of character to comprimise now, and potentially go down with everything we're fighting against.

2) This is not a Cheney/Bush situation. Cheney was not only permitted to do whatever he wanted by Buch and the corrupt powerful interests, the administration also frequently ignored Congress, UN or whoever tried to stand in their way. Obviuosly Dr. Paul is bound to ideals and the constitution, which would greatly limit him to the actual powers of a VP with checks and balances.

3) He knows jsut as well as we do that this is just a ploy for our votes, not actual change.

----------


## ghent

I seriously question the logic/sanity of anyone claiming to be a Paul supporter that wouldn't vote for him as VP...Get over yourselves.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I seriously question the logic/sanity of anyone claiming to be a Paul supporter that wouldn't vote for him as VP...Get over yourselves.


Read my post above. It's not about us or Dr. Paul. It's about the movement of spreading the message of liberty, and stop them from getting taken away with big governement run amuck (not to mention wars and the economy).... It's clear that this comprimise would stand in direct contrast to those ideals, and would be very unlikely to accomplish anything substantial.

Not saying I would or wouldn't vote for him with no other viable alternatives and him on the ticket, but this isn't just about Dr. Paul, never has been. It's about fighting for liberty.

It ain't gonna happen, IMO...

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

Maybe they would allow him to oppose all of Romney's policies while they both campaign against Obama on the same ticket?

I can't see him accepting unless they did this--which I realize they would never do.  But can you imagine if they did?  It would be like a libertarian 3rd party campaign within the republican campaign.

Ron could travel around and be Romney's court prophet like in the bible when Nebuchadnezzar would call Daniel in to interpret his dreams.  It would be great.  Romney would recount his dreams to print money and invade the world and Ron would paint an ominous wrath of God picture about what will happen if Romney doesn't change his ways.

Those are about the only conditions under which I'd vote for a Mittler/Ron Paul ticket and hopefully they're the only conditions under which Ron would accept the offer.

----------


## trey4sports

ok lets be rational. 
1. Vp is a figurehead really, but wed have a huge audience to hear our message.

2. Can you imagine a biden paul debate, holy $#@!!

3. Romney knows paul is a loose cannon and would never pick him.

4. Ron knows they are far off politically so hed never accept vp. 
5. Rand is a real possibility and we should be debating the merits of a rand vp selection. There is no reason for romney to choose ron over rand.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> ok lets be rational. 
> 1. Vp is a figurehead really, but wed have a huge audience to hear our message.
> 
> 2. Can you imagine a biden paul debate, holy $#@!!
> 
> 3. Romney knows paul is a loose cannon and would never pick him.
> 
> 4. Ron knows they are far off politically so hed never accept vp. 
> 5. Rand is a real possibility and we should be debating the merits of a rand vp selection. There is no reason for romney to choose ron over rand.


That's true and I ain't voting for Romney/Rand.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

Maybe if I was a national delegate and it was my only choice.  But then I'd still vote and promote 3rd party in the general.

----------


## jscoppe

Just a thought:

In the earliest days of our Republic, the 2nd place finisher in the Presidential election became the VP. So there is precedent for the VP disagreeing with the President. Perhaps Paul as VP, if it ever happened, would be the first situation in a long time that the VP would actually speak out against what the President is doing. What's so wrong with having a dissenting voice to keep you grounded?

That said, the VP's main duty is to take over if the President were to be incapacitated, so anyone voting for a President should want the VP nominee to be as close as humanly possible to the Presidential candidate in policy.

----------


## ProBlue33

The only way this is even in the realm of possibilities is if this goes multiple rounds in a brokered convention, and by then the Grinch will be out, which would leave a three way delegate fight.
Mitt maybe isn't so great but he isn't stupid. Mitt will know he can't win with a Romney/Santorum ticket he would lose ALL Ron Paul supporters, the independents would be gone too.
And  he could kiss the Blue Republicans goodbye too.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Just a thought:
> 
> In the earliest days of our Republic, the 2nd place finisher in the Presidential election became the VP. So there is precedent for the VP disagreeing with the President. Perhaps Paul as VP, if it ever happened, would be the first situation in a long time that the VP *would actually speak out against what the President is doing. What's so wrong with having a dissenting voice to keep you grounded?*
> 
> That said, the VP's main duty is to take over if the President were to be incapacitated, so anyone voting for a President should want the VP nominee to be as close as humanly possible to the Presidential candidate in policy.


The early days of our republic were very different from the political and media circus we have now. 

There is nothing wrong with having a check-and-balance at VP, but it is suicide in a general election as the Obama rhetoric machine kicks into full gear and the Romney/Paul campaign can't even agree on the messages they're pushing, unless one of them compromised their positions, but that too would only weaken the credibility of the message.

Yet another reason why a Paul/Romney ticket is jsut not a good idea, or one that's at all in our interest of spreading our message if he goes down with Romeny's ship, either before or after the campaign, would hurt us.

----------


## cjm

> Romney may offer because he wants Paul votes, but Paul won't accept.   And even if he did, I wouldn't vote for that ticket.   A few will, but not many.  Most will probably stay home.  Some will vote Libertarian (as will I).  Some will probably go Obama.


I don't see any Paul supporters going to Obama.  If Romney=Obama, then the mainstream vote is essentially Obama/Biden vs Obama/Paul.  I can see the staying home, write-in, and the third party choices, but I really don't see a Paul supporter voting for Obama/Biden.




> There is no strategic reason I can imagine that would make Ron want to be VP.


If Ron gets an offer to be the VP slot on the ticket, it means he didn't get the nomination.  If he doesn't get the nomination, he can take the message back to Texas and watch the rest of the election from there or continue spreading the message while a VP candidate.  I'm not saying he'd take the slot under just anyone, but I'm sure spreading the message would be a consideration.  A Paul VP candidate also makes the message mainstream enough to be considered seriously by those who have thought of it as fringe to this point.  This is a good setup for future elections.  

Ron Paul as an elected VP will mean that *ALL* tie-breaking votes in the Senate go the right way.  There may not be many of those, but how many tie-breakers in the House does he decide now?  It also means that Ron Paul would be one heartbeat away from the oval office for four years.  And if Ron Paul ever took the VP offer, I'm sure it was because worthwhile concessions were worked out between he and the nominee.

I'm working to get Ron the GOP nomination.  But if that doesn't happen, I'll take a little something over nothing.  I admire the principled stand of the NOBP folks.  I've taken that stand myself by voting LP at the national level since 1992.  But don't mistake cooperation for compromise.  If Ron accepts such a position, it's because he believes it will be a significant gain for liberty.  I'm pretty jaded with all things political, but I trust Ron Paul and I will stay with him if he goes this route.




> There is nothing wrong with having a check-and-balance at VP, but it is suicide in a general election as the Obama rhetoric machine kicks into full gear and the Romney/Paul campaign can't even agree on the messages they're pushing, unless one of them compromised their positions, but that too would only weaken the credibility of the message.


Ron was able to semi-endorse Nader and the other also-rans last time not because he agreed with all of their positions, but because he agreed with them where it mattered.  Ron wouldn't take the VP offer unless that were also the case with Romney.  If they agree on what they consider to be the core message of the ticket, it will sell.

With regard to Romney/Ron, I see that as trading a congressman for a VP.  I'd take that.  With regard to Romney/Rand, we're trading a sitting Senator for a VP.  I don't think I would vote for that, but never say never.

Ok, time to get back to the current campaign and make the VP question moot.  Ron Paul 2012!!!

----------


## wgadget

> If Romney were smart, he'd take a back seat to Ron Paul and let the man, the idea, and the message have their moment to see what we can do.  Movements like these are extremely rare and we are lucky to see it twice as a nation.  Romney could get behind Paul and secure his future legacy and then learn from Ron Paul for the next 8 years.  Then Romney could take up the GOP mantle with Rand as his VP.  That would be a political powerhouse that wouldn't be stopped, and it would be good.


I like the way you think.  But is Romney smart?  Hmmm.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Ron was able to semi-endorse Nader and the other also-rans last time not because he agreed with all of their positions, but because he agreed with them where it mattered.  Ron wouldn't take the VP offer unless that were also the case with Romney.  If they agree on what they consider to be the core message of the ticket, it will sell.
> 
> With regard to Romney/Ron, I see that as trading a congressman for a VP.  I'd take that.  With regard to Romney/Rand, we're trading a sitting Senator for a VP.  I don't think I would vote for that, but never say never.
> 
> Ok, time to get back to the current campaign and make the VP question moot.  Ron Paul 2012!!!


You really think him endorsing Nador is the same as getting on baord with Romney?

Paul and Nader were able to put aside their differences because they both stood against similar important issues like liberty (NDAA< Patroit Act, etc.), foreign policy, and both agaisnt the corrupt two-party system. They had common goals was why they became bed-fellows.

Romney on the other hand, even in his rhetoric is in stark contrast to Paul on every single one of his important ideals. 

So yes. if Paul accepted the VP slot, I'd have a hard time not trusting his judgement, but I just don't think there's anyway it's going to happen, unless he has clear indication that he can help the liberty movement more than he hurts it by "cooperating" with the establishment that only want to undermine his small-government ideals (extremely unlikely IMO).

----------


## No Free Beer

I cannot believe how many people on here are falling for this scheme. 

Romney would be just using all of you for the votes and would shut out Paul of any and every importance within the White House. 

I am so disappointed with what I am seeing...

What happened to "No One But Paul"?

----------


## 69360

> I cannot believe how many people on here are falling for this scheme. 
> 
> Romney would be just using all of you for the votes and would shut out Paul of any and every importance within the White House. 
> 
> I am so disappointed with what I am seeing...
> 
> What happened to "No One But Paul"?


Not everyone is on board with that. I'd vote for Johnson or Roemer if they were on the ballot and Paul wasn't. 

If Romney was willing to compromise in policy, I might listen. He'd have to be willing to pull out of Afghanistan immediately, no more undeclared wars, open relations/end sanctions on Iran and Cuba and full transparent audit of the fed before I'd consider voting for him.

----------


## F3d

Hello People! VP is a rather insignificant position.

----------


## Sarge

843 hard core committed delegates for Ron Paul and none of the rest are likely to go anywhere. 

I will not vote for Romney in any shape, form, manner with Ron VP or not. Remember the promises the Huck people made and then didn't keep last campaign. ie you help us win and then we will help you win the next state balony. 

Remember the Maine. I can't believe Ron didn't head straight there from MN. He could have had two days to get more people to caucus there. I am not happy about that at all.

----------


## Paulistinian

"My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." -John Adams

Having said that, imagine Dr. No as Vice President No with a divided Senate.  They would never pass anything!  Imagine if Dr. Paul ran a Cheney-Vice Presidency and voted on everything instead of just during tie-breakers.  I can see the benefit to a Paul Vice Presidency even thou many of you here can not.

----------


## cjm

> Hello People! VP is a rather insignificant position.


Relative to the office of president, yes.  Relative to a private citizen, not so much.

----------


## opinionatedfool

> They don't know Ron Paul. If he is on the ticket he will lead it. Yeah he might choose Romney as a VP, but he won't be his VP.


If it comes down to being Romney's VP, I would much rather have that then no Ron Paul at all. The bad thing about Romney is he flip flops. The good thing about Romney is he flip flops. It depends what side you are on. If Ron Paul was VP, it may not be very hard for him to convince Romney to change his mind on a few things. Romney has already been parroting him on a few things.

----------


## opinionatedfool

> Relative to the office of president, yes.  Relative to a private citizen, not so much.


That depends. Cheney did a heck of a lot as VP.

----------


## opinionatedfool

> 843 hard core committed delegates for Ron Paul and none of the rest are likely to go anywhere.


I think this is what everyone wants, however I could see Santorum and Grinch joining forces and getting enough to win.

----------


## ProBlue33

Ron Paul would not be sidelined as VP as others have, and Romney would have to know that and be prepared to accept that fact.

The VP can't be fired because he is elected. 
He could do pretty much whatever he wanted, he would be a rogue VP.
Not so much power as a strong voice that media would lap up as it would cause drama within that adminstration.

----------


## TheGrinch

> "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." -John Adams
> 
> Having said that, imagine Dr. No as Vice President No with a divided Senate.  They would never pass anything!  Imagine if Dr. Paul ran a Cheney-Vice Presidency and voted on everything instead of just during tie-breakers.  I can see the benefit to a Paul Vice Presidency even thou many of you here can not.


If someone else compares Dr. Paul's role to what Cheney did as vice president, I think I'm going to lose it!! 

I'm not sure if Cheney "voting on everything" is factual or not, but just because Cheney abused his power and pissed on the constitution, does not mean that we should be hoping for Dr. Paul to accomplish his goals by doing the same. It would be the height of hypocrisy for him to assume these same unrelegated powers he's trying to roll back from the federal government.

According to my understanding of the constitution, the VP is only supposed to vote to break a tie, so I don't give a damn what Cheney did. Dr. Paul is better than that.

There's cooperating and playing the game and then there's selling out, and we ain't no sell-outs. The message is more important than the power of office.

----------


## gerryb

So, only vote for VP?

Problem solved.  Everybody wins.

----------


## Sarge

As long as there are at least 843 Ron Delegates that will not budge, none of the others can get enough delegates to win. 1445 needed to win. So a Newt team up Rick will not make it. Newt and Rick also are not on some of the state ballots like VA.

----------


## cjm

> You really think him endorsing Nador is the same as getting on baord with Romney?


Ron pretty much says what he believes.  If he says that they agree enough on issues that they can be on the same ticket (either Paul/Romney or Romney/Paul), that's good enough for me.

----------


## matt0611

I'd prefer a Romney / Paul ticket a million times over an Obama / Biden ticket

I'd support it and vote for that ticker. It might be all we can get. Its better than nothing.

Its much better than going third party, having Obama win again, and then Ron going to retire back to Texas.

----------


## gerryb

> As long as there are at least 843 Ron Delegates that will not budge, none of the others can get enough delegates to win. 1445 needed to win. So a Newt team up Rick will not make it. Newt and Rick also are not on some of the state ballots like VA.


But they can still get the delegates in VA.

Preference poll does not = delegates.  It just ='s first round vote.

----------


## TheTexan

> As long as there are at least 843 Ron Delegates that will not budge, none of the others can get enough delegates to win. 1445 needed to win. So a Newt team up Rick will not make it. Newt and Rick also are not on some of the state ballots like VA.


Where are you getting 1445?  Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Re...nal_Convention) says 1144

----------


## 3kgt

> If it comes down to being Romney's VP, I would much rather have that then no Ron Paul at all. The bad thing about Romney is he flip flops. The good thing about Romney is he flip flops. It depends what side you are on. If Ron Paul was VP, it may not be very hard for him to convince Romney to change his mind on a few things. Romney has already been parroting him on a few things.


I would agree but I just can't trust anything he, or any of the others says. Only pandering to us for votes...
No one but Paul. IMO a Paul/Paul ticket would be crazy awesome just not practical.

----------


## TC95

> I cannot believe how many people on here are falling for this scheme. 
> 
> *Romney would be just using all of you for the votes and would shut out Paul of any and every importance within the White House. 
> *
> I am so disappointed with what I am seeing...
> 
> What happened to "No One But Paul"?


Exactly.  I'm not falling for it.  NOBP.

----------


## doctorfunk

Short of RP winning the nomination, a VP role is the next best outcome.  I would vote for him as VP and I would guess a large number of RP supporters would as well.  It would be great for the movement, and legitimize many of his stances.  Mitt changes his mind already, he would be the most open to making decisions in line with RP.  And remember not all of RPs supporters are with him on every single issue.  The NOBP meme is counterproductive.

----------


## trey4sports

we should be debating the merits of Rand being VP because Romney wont pick Ron as VP.

----------


## Maltheus

> What happened to "No One But Paul"?


You're seeing the end result of it. By placing the man above his principles, people start compromising those principles, just to get their man into a token position. I'm not "No One But Paul," I'm "Nothing But Liberty".

Also, no main stream Republican would make this offer to Paul for the opposite of the reason why Obama made the offer to Biden.

----------


## affa

a couple thoughts:


Ron as VP would be ridiculed by the media mercilessly, much like Quayle and Biden were.  

The Establishment has been floating this idea for months to get us to warm to Romney as prez.  

Romney in 2012 means Rand couldn't run till at least 2020, but by then, we'd likely get a Dem, so more likely, 2024 or 2028.

Many hard core supporters care about ending the wars.  If Ron is not Commander in Chief, he can not 'just bring them home'.  We could very well invade Iran and watch WWIII unfold if Ron was 'only' VP.

Romney is such an excellent flip flopper, a complete blank slate that everyone can pin their hopes to, that even some hear seem to believe he's 'coming closer to Ron Paul's views'.  C'mon. 

I'm not here to see Ron Paul get to be the deciding vote here or there.

Any promises made to Ron, or the electorate, can be broken after inauguration.  Obviously.

this thread makes babies cry.

It's going to get ugly at a brokered convention.  They know we've been planning on this being a possibility for 4 years, and now the Establishment also seems to be working towards it (4 way race).  They have a plan too.   We just need to be better at implementing ours.

----------


## devil21

Just throwing out some random thoughts on this issue.  My mind is not made up but it's an intriguing topic at least.

Remember that Ron has already committed to retiring from Congress.  People are actively campaigning for the TX14 seat.  If we lose this election, Ron returns to private life and we lose one of the biggest defenders of liberty from being in the public eye.  No Bernanke grilling sessions, no floor speeches, etc.  Yeah I know it's not about the man but he is the best messenger we've had.  Thinking about it like that, a VP slot at least lets this messenger stay in the public eye for another 4 years and then he can bow out with class after the first term and maybe Rand could slide into the VP spot and work toward a 2020 campaign?  Rand is good but he's not Ron and like it or not, Ron is the messenger that gains so much credibility because he's a purist and has such a squeaky clean background.  I could see it working if the GOP decides it wants to keep some sort of relevence in future elections.

----------


## Revolution9

> If Romney were smart, he'd take a back seat to Ron Paul and let the man, the idea, and the message have their moment to see what we can do.  Movements like these are extremely rare and we are lucky to see it twice as a nation.  Romney could get behind Paul and secure his future legacy and then learn from Ron Paul for the next 8 years.  Then Romney could take up the GOP mantle with Rand as his VP.  That would be a political powerhouse that wouldn't be stopped, and it would be good.


This is what should happen given the on the ground facts that it will be Ron and Mitt at the convention vying for top spot. Ron assures victory against Obama with Romney mopping up the other non RP contingent, the repugs whine they can't have their old ways but accept the new paradigm because it can take out Obama and then Romney gets to hotdog it for eight years to learn the ropes from a man that his father would have admired, if I am to judge from his 1972 interview where he called out the MIC..almost unheard of at that time. So I would presume Romney has some legacy from his father on the calling propaganda what it is and recognizing the reason for subterfuge. So after hotdogging it learning from Ron, the economy rip roaring with more jobs than workers, Ron steps down after two terms to giant accolades. Romney, now fully versed in the principles and philosophy that will allow him as you or I to make a proper decision even about hypotheticals so liberty is not violated and the Constitution obeyed as law of the land, will step into the mantle. Rand will be the VP and then 8 years later the POTUS. In the meantime the dems will try to retool but every bogeyman gambit they usually pull out of their lower fundament will fail miserably due to dick on a stick to latch it onto.  

Rev9

----------


## cjm

> You're seeing the end result of it. By placing the man above his principles, people start compromising those principles, just to get their man into a token position.


So if Ron decided to take a VP offer, your assumption is that he's acting against his own principles.  I don't see any precedent in his record to support that assumption.  I'm not saying the NOBPers or Nothing But Liberty-ers should automatically jump on board.  But if it happens, just ask yourself why would Ron do that?  Try to understand why a guy who's been promoting liberty for 30 years would suddenly sell out.  If your conclusion is that he sold out, vote accordingly.  But if you're serious about promoting liberty, keep an open mind.  I won't follow him blindly, but given his track record, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on any decisions he makes.

----------


## newbitech

> I like the way you think.  But is Romney smart?  Hmmm.


more importantly, does he want to pass on a legacy to his sons that consists of more than just financial assets.  He has a chance to go down in the history of the world as being the man that transformed America FOR REAL.

Is he that smart?  Maybe not, but I am sure his motives go beyond riches because he has that already.

----------


## newbitech

> This is what should happen given the on the ground facts that it will be Ron and Mitt at the convention vying for top spot. Ron assures victory against Obama with Romney mopping up the other non RP contingent, the repugs whine they can't have their old ways but accept the new paradigm because it can take out Obama and then Romney gets to hotdog it for eight years to learn the ropes from a man that his father would have admired, if I am to judge from his 1972 interview where he called out the MIC..almost unheard of at that time. So I would presume Romney has some legacy from his father on the calling propaganda what it is and recognizing the reason for subterfuge. So after hotdogging it learning from Ron, the economy rip roaring with more jobs than workers, Ron steps down after two terms to giant accolades. Romney, now fully versed in the principles and philosophy that will allow him as you or I to make a proper decision even about hypotheticals so liberty is not violated and the Constitution obeyed as law of the land, will step into the mantle. Rand will be the VP and then 8 years later the POTUS. In the meantime the dems will try to retool but every bogeyman gambit they usually pull out of their lower fundament will fail miserably due to dick on a stick to latch it onto.  
> 
> Rev9


that's exactly what I am talking about.  Romney can lose the gimmick appeal that he has and go for something real and tangible.  He wouldn't be playing second fiddle because he will pretty much guarantee himself the presidency after 8 years of Ron Paul with Rand Paul on his ticket.  Hell I could even see Rand Paul running as VP with one of Romney's sons as VP thus continuing the legacy.

Romney would be 72 after 8 years of Ron Paul.  Hell I could even see Ron Paul willingly be a one term president and pass the torch to Mitt/Rand earlier where Romney will be just 68.  That is if health becomes an issue for either of them.

----------


## KramerDSP

The only thing that stops me from completing shutting Romney out is the fact that his father was ostracized for foreign policy beliefs after saying he was "brainwashed" into supporting the Vietnam war. My guess is Romney has a Bush 43 thing going on where he silently vowed to avenge what they did to his father, and does not dare look weak on foreign policy.

----------


## nasaal

> that's exactly what I am talking about.  Romney can lose the gimmick appeal that he has and go for something real and tangible.  He wouldn't be playing second fiddle because he will pretty much guarantee himself the presidency after 8 years of Ron Paul with Rand Paul on his ticket.  Hell I could even see Rand Paul running as VP with one of Romney's sons as VP thus continuing the legacy.
> 
> Romney would be 72 after 8 years of Ron Paul.  Hell I could even see Ron Paul willingly be a one term president and pass the torch to Mitt/Rand earlier where Romney will be just 68.  That is if health becomes an issue for either of them.


I don't see that as a good thing though.  Presidents have the power.  Romney is not someone I want to see with power any more than Obama.

----------


## shrugged0106

so is this another reason why the Judge was canceled on Fox biz?

----------


## Sarge

> Where are you getting 1445?  Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Re...nal_Convention) says 1144


Thank you for the catch. I was wrong.  Sorry to all for my error. 

At any rate, Newt and Rick are not on the ballot in VA and Rick not on the ballot in DC last I heard. If Ron can take ME and VA it is a new ball game. 

A big question is who will get TX and CA this time?

----------


## Mister Grieves

> that's exactly what I am talking about.  Romney can lose the gimmick appeal that he has and go for something real and tangible.  He wouldn't be playing second fiddle because he will pretty much guarantee himself the presidency after 8 years of Ron Paul with Rand Paul on his ticket.  Hell I could even see Rand Paul running as VP with one of Romney's sons as VP thus continuing the legacy.
> 
> Romney would be 72 after 8 years of Ron Paul.  Hell I could even see Ron Paul willingly be a one term president and pass the torch to Mitt/Rand earlier where Romney will be just 68.  That is if health becomes an issue for either of them.


 Wow. You're setting yourself up for some soul crushing heartache, I assure you.

----------


## Maltheus

> So if Ron decided to take a VP offer, your assumption is that he's acting against his own principles.  I don't see any precedent in his record to support that assumption.  I'm not saying the NOBPers or Nothing But Liberty-ers should automatically jump on board.  But if it happens, just ask yourself why would Ron do that?  Try to understand why a guy who's been promoting liberty for 30 years would suddenly sell out.  If your conclusion is that he sold out, vote accordingly.  But if you're serious about promoting liberty, keep an open mind.  I won't follow him blindly, but given his track record, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on any decisions he makes.


I can't imagine Ron doing that. It's only some of his newer supporters that are calling for it. But yes. If he did take a VP offer, then I'd consider him a sell out. VPs have no real power in this country and libertarianism would (wrongly) be associated with all the horrible things that Mitt would do.

----------


## newbitech

> I don't see that as a good thing though.  Presidents have the power.  Romney is not someone I want to see with power any more than Obama.


I think 8 years of Ron Paul at the helm will change your mind about the power of the office.

----------


## newbitech

> Wow. You're setting yourself up for some soul crushing heartache, I assure you.


Not really.

----------


## TheCaliforniaLife

Let me give some fresh perspective on the issue of Ron being the VP choice for Romney. I believe it could happen. When it comes down to the convention, the delegates could be split up in a way where neither Mitt, Ron, Rick or Newt have enough delegates to become the nominee. Given Ron Paul's recent national growth, I can see a lot of good things happening in the future. This thing could very well be a hard fought convention battle. Newt wants to be the nominee or VP. If Mitt won't give that to him, Newt will not concede his delegate/vote support. I don't believe Mitt will want Newt on his ballot since Newt is not a good balance to his ticket and Newts positive view score nationally isn't great. The same thing will happen with Rick. However, I don't think Rick will be a good VP; nor will Mitt want Rick as a VP. The only logical choice is Ron Paul. If he can get Ron Paul's support, he can get the delegates needed to become to nominee. It might even come down between Newt and Rick teaming up to use their delegates to suppress Mitt. Rick and Newt are a lot alike. A Mitt and Ron coalition will be needed. When it comes down to Mitt being a flip flop, I think Mitts issue is that he is a populist. He votes for what the people want. If his constituents want a individual mandate, he will support it. His convictions are rested in business economics. Given that, it won't be that difficult to get many concessions from Mitt to support our agenda.

The reality is that Ron Paul has independent support.

----------


## Smitty

Dr Paul would never accept being the veep for a President who had his campaign funded by Goldman Sachs.

He's not going to spend his life extolling principals, then throw them all away for the opportunity to be the vice president of some warmongering, bankster loving stuffed shirt.

Some of you people need to get a clue.

----------


## camp_steveo

Romney will be begging to be Paul's VP.  Aint gonna happen.

----------


## trey4sports

this is getting downright silly. Sci-fi level silly.

Romney wouldn't ever pick Ron as VP. I highly doubt Ron would accept. I'm less sure of ron accepting, but there isn't a doubt in my mind that Mitt wouldn't dare pick Ron. Rand, however, is a different story.

----------


## TheTexan

> this is getting downright silly. Sci-fi level silly.


I take offense to that statement.  Battlestar Galactica is an entirely plausible scenario, whereas Ron accepting VP is not

----------


## shelskov

Just so everyone knows, VP is a really inconsequential position within our government. It is usually where the top of the ticket candidate puts someone he really doesn't like, someone he doesn't want to have to deal with but who he needs to garner suppport that he couldn't otherwise get. If the VP pick helps succeed, then they get the job, but no real say in how the administration runs. Putting Ron Paul there would not be the best thing for the movement, as there is really no power there except the power the Pres decides to delegate to him. So if it were to be Pres Romney with VP Paul, then Romney would only delegate to Paul things that he doesn't care about. I guarantee he wouldn't give RP any power over anything to do with monetary policy, since that would screw Romney and his friends over if Paul could reform it the way Paul wants to. 

Moral of the story: I think this is fantasy, but if it were to play out, RP being the VP would not be helpful to our cause in any real sense, other than some PR stories. It won't bring about the changes we all want.

----------


## complikate

Romney/Paul? Ain't happening anywhere on my ballot. Dr. Paul would have to compromise his longstanding principles to accept such an offer and if he did that he would lose my hard won respect and my vote. I don't believe he would even consider the offer  ...

NOBP

----------


## tennman

Paul might say to Romney, "Hey junior, I don't have as long as you. You be my VP and will both be on the ticket. Then when I've cleaned this mess up in 4 years you can take over as long as you promise not to muck it up."

However, if he did take the VP spot, at least he'd have an audience with the President and win some of the battles. It'd be a great start and he WOULD have influence over THE PRESIDENT. That's one way to look at it.

----------


## trojansc82

Some of you guys are really living in LALA land. You wouldn't vote for Ron Paul as VP or want him there?

Do you mean to tell me that a person who is a FORMER Congressman is going to have more of an impact on national politics than the Vice President? He could easily persuade Romney to scale back our foreign alliances and military bases, as well as shutting down the Federal Reserve. 

Let's be real here for a moment. Ron Paul as a VP would be much better than him not being on the ticket at all. Back in 2007 and '08 there wasn't a shot in hell of him getting close to being nominated for VP, let alone the Presidency. We should be happy to have some opportunity to spread the message of freedom and if the opportunity for VP comes up, he needs to take it. 

I want him to be President just as much as anyone else on here, but we need to think in real terms. If we have an opportunity to get in to the White House as VP, we need to take it.

----------


## PreDeadMan

sorry i wont vote for romney for president even with ron paul in the VP spot it's paul as president or NOBODY.... no compromising!

----------


## Narmical

> Fortuno already endorsed Romney.


You have to be kidding me. I though that guy was cool.

----------


## TheCaliforniaLife

> Some of you guys are really living in LALA land. You wouldn't vote for Ron Paul as VP or want him there?
> 
> Do you mean to tell me that a person who is a FORMER Congressman is going to have more of an impact on national politics than the Vice President? He could easily persuade Romney to scale back our foreign alliances and military bases, as well as shutting down the Federal Reserve. 
> 
> Let's be real here for a moment. Ron Paul as a VP would be much better than him not being on the ticket at all. Back in 2007 and '08 there wasn't a shot in hell of him getting close to being nominated for VP, let alone the Presidency. We should be happy to have some opportunity to spread the message of freedom and if the opportunity for VP comes up, he needs to take it. 
> 
> I want him to be President just as much as anyone else on here, but we need to think in real terms. If we have an opportunity to get in to the White House as VP, we need to take it.


I agree. Politics is a dirty game. Sometimes we have to touch things we don't want to. Considering Romney is, in my opinion, a populist, he will go whatever way the people want him to go. To take the nomination, he could concede and endorse Ron Pauls economic policy (Trillion Dollar program) and work to severely limit the power of the fed. The reality is that Mitt might not be able to garner the nomination by himself if the election ends up in a brokered convention. Would you rather Mitt get a coalition going with Newt or Ron Paul?

----------


## TIMB0B

> You're seeing the end result of it. By placing the man above his principles, people start compromising those principles, just to get their man into a token position.


I'm confused.  Wouldn't you say he is above his principles by being a politician to begin with?  And in a political party, no less, that isn't aligned with his positions.  He's a congressman in a corrupt government already, but as the VP of it, he'd compromise all his positions?

----------


## Indy Vidual

> 


Nice

----------


## firemoth

A chance to get our man into *any* position of power would be better than nothing at all.

----------


## fj45lvr

what a joke....do you really think paul would be on a ticket with another guy that he fundamentally disagrees with and then go campaign for such idiocy??  Not a chance in HeLL

----------


## ProBlue33

It would be worth it to have the Biden VS Paul debate, that would be an epic no holds barr fight.

Even you NOBP people would like to see it, admit it.

----------


## Louis Vouid

> Both of em seem to be forgetting that delegates are only bound in most circumstances on the first pledge, and then there are some still bound on the 2nd, but not many, and then I don't think any bound on the third, so we may have a plurality of Paul delegates originally bound to the other three, but when become unbound give Paul the nomination. Likely-hood of this happening? No one can say, but it certainly is theoretically possible, and the chances go up even more when our movement realizes this and vigorously goes after ALL the delegate positions no matter what. 
> 
> Who the $#@! cares what anyone else says about 'unfair' or 'cheating', it's the damn rules they set up themselves. Let's beat them at their own game, a game which primarily benefits the establishment due to apathy and lethargy and downright confusing ruleset at times that screens out most challenging the establishment. We are unique. We know what we have to do -- will we do it is the question.


I can't count (even with a super computer) how many times I heard or read "Brokered conventions is the way we will win!" in 2008. Yes...I know it is EXTREMELY rare! But this time it will happen!

Do you not realize how bad that is to place your hope on that?

It is like being behind on your mortgage and taking your last $100 and placing it on a roulette number and planning on letting it ride in the hopes that it will hit 4 times in a row, all on the same number.

No matter what you want to think, after Super Tuesday, everyone will drop out except the front runner and Ron Paul. So it will be JUST like 2008 and there will be no brokered convention.






> sorry i wont vote for romney for president even with ron paul in the VP spot it's paul as president or NOBODY.... no compromising!


Wow...that is the LAST thing the Ron Paul camp wants to hear. You want to be all or nothing, which is a TERRIBLE (and just plain stupid) approach for long term gains.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I can't count (even with a super computer) how many times I heard or read "Brokered conventions is the way we will win!" in 2008. Yes...I know it is EXTREMELY rare! But this time it will happen!
> 
> Do you not realize how bad that is to place your hope on that?


No, we don't have to rely on brokered-convention necessarily, we just need to get the word out there that GOP can't beat Obama without Paul - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...3rd-party-card




> Wow...that is the LAST thing the Ron Paul camp wants to hear. You want to be all or nothing, which is a TERRIBLE (and just plain stupid) approach for long term gains.


What is "stupid" is to waste 4 fricking years of hardwork on a "stupid" useless VP-position.

Firstly, Paul NEVER accept that sh!t, he even refused to endorse McCain last time because he obviously had very different policies & you expect him to stand side-by-side with one of the biggest flip-flopping politicians around? That's stupid!

This BS is going to fracture the liberty movement & that's what they want & people like you fawning over a useless position are playing right into their hands, pal! NOTHING WILL CHANGE if Paul doesn't win!

*"My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived"
- John Adams on vice-presidency*

----------


## j3nn

I would not vote for Ron Paul as a VP to Romney or any of the other GOP candidates. They do not believe in individual liberty, they do not respect the Constitution, and I don't think the VP position is a position of power. Biden who? Ron Paul as VP would only silence him and his policies, he'd be forgotten by the media and the public within weeks. It wouldn't put him in a greater position of power, it would actually weaken him. As a civilian, he can still march on; as a VP he would be confined to his duty.

No one but Paul. It's not that we're saying "all or nothing," it's that a VP position virtually is nothing, but it's worse because it comes with a compromise to our principles. I will not settle for less than liberty. I will not support the continuation of an elite ruling class that wants to control our lives. Ron Paul as VP is a step backwards, we'd gain nothing and lose a lot more.

----------

