# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  BAD NEWS: Ron Paul 3rd Party Rumors Confirmed to be FALSE - Wead

## Tiso0770

Said he got off the phone with Doug Wead....

----------


## Indy Vidual

+1,000,000
_It's time, it's our turn._

----------


## twomp

Good for Dr.Paul, he's 77 years old. It's time he got a little R&R

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

Umm…no. He said he got off the phone with Doug Wead. Ron Paul hasn't ruled anything completely out. He doesn't speak in absolutes.

----------


## FrankRep

Ron Paul already said he wasn't going to run third party.

----------


## trey4sports

OP needs to be edited. Dude talked to Doug Wead, not Ron Paul.

----------


## low preference guy

> Ron Paul already said he wasn't going to run third party.


[citation needed]

----------


## cstarace

Jesus Christ, will you guys let it go? It isn't happening. Some of you are no better than the sheep we're trying so hard to wake from their slumber. LET IT GO. We lost. Stop following the man around like he's the only thing this movement has going for it. Figure out your own way to contribute to liberty.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Umm…no. He said he got off the phone with Doug Wead. Ron Paul hasn't ruled anything completely out. He doesn't speak in absolutes.


Don't you just get peeved at those who are so absolute? I do.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> Jesus Christ, will you guys let it go? It isn't happening. Some of you are no better than the sheep we're trying so hard to wake from their slumber. LET IT GO. We lost. Stop following the man around like he's the only thing this movement has going for it. Figure out your own way to contribute to liberty.


Ron Paul Sheeple

----------


## American Idol

How did a guy named "Israel" with an Australian-ish accent become the spokesman for Ron Paul? lawlz

----------


## Victor Grey

> Jesus Christ, will you guys let it go? It isn't happening. Some of you are no better than the sheep we're trying so hard to wake from their slumber. LET IT GO. We lost. Stop following the man around like he's the only thing this movement has going for it. Figure out your own way to contribute to liberty.


x2

----------


## American Idol

Guys, Israel hath spoken. It's over.

----------


## affa

> Jesus Christ, will you guys let it go? It isn't happening. Some of you are no better than the sheep we're trying so hard to wake from their slumber. LET IT GO. We lost. Stop following the man around like he's the only thing this movement has going for it. Figure out your own way to contribute to liberty.


wait... because some of us think Ron Paul going 3rd party would be amazing, though we completely understand it's very unlikely, somehow makes us sheep?

go climb a tree.

ps - the OP didn't even watch his own linked vid.

----------


## RickyJ

Ah, who the heck is this joker?

Ron Paul finished he says? 

I got news for you dude, you are finished!

----------


## Indy Vidual

> How did a guy named "Israel" with an Australian-ish accent become the spokesman for Ron Paul? lawlz


We had so much *momentum*. Do you think we can get support for the emails and phone calls fired up again?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Ron has handed the batten to Rand, we need to run with it.

----------


## anaconda

Two words: Jay Leno.

----------


## Sentinelrv

I'm ignoring this and going along with Evan's suggestion on the teleconference. He talked to Dr. Paul himself and was told that he hasn't ruled it out. That means it's up to us to convince him that he will have our support. If he decides against it, then nothing will be lost except some of our time. I will not let this go by wondering what could have happened.

----------


## coffeewithgames

> Two words: Jay Leno.


Two words: Book announcement?

----------


## Karsten

> Ron has handed the batten to Rand, we need to run with it.


I have no doubt Ron would have been running independent already if it wasn't for Rand.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Ah, who the heck is this joker?
> 
> Ron Paul finished he says? 
> 
> I got news for you dude, you are finished!


He's been very active for Paul. I don't agree with him on some things but nobody does, I guess. Agree with him on the abiotic oil though.
http://www.israelanderson.com/files/...a.-videos.html

You'll find many from the '07-'08 era doing damage control so expect it. It's relevant to progress in scope so let it be and mind yourselves sounds about right. Synergy can exist even in opposition. Something Israel neglects to mention.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I have no doubt Ron would have been running independent already if it wasn't for Rand.


If Ron threw the election to Obama, then Romney would be removed as an obstacle in 2016.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ron has handed the batten to Rand, we need to run with it.


How's he carry it?

----------


## FlatIron

why do you want him to run third party so badly? he needs to take a break from all this campaigning

----------


## susano

A Paul/Johnson ticket would be the only anti war, anti empire ticket and I would love to see it. I don't believe it will happen, though. The LP was booted off the Oklahoma ballot, weren't they? How could they run if not on all 50? Also, somebody actually _serious_ about running (3rd party), with the election so close, would have made the decision months ago.

----------


## Tiso0770

Sorry guy for the name screw up, I had to keep the volume low so's the wife could sleep. but on another note, if Ron wants to relax and enjoy his retirement i say let him...he earned it.

Then again, maybe he wants everyone to think he quit and at the last moment declare a run on 3rd party. but i'll survive with gary johnson. anything but Obama and Romney.

----------


## FrankRep

> I have no doubt Ron would have been running independent already if it wasn't for Rand.

----------


## RickyJ

> why do you want him to run third party so badly? he needs to take a break from all this campaigning


We all need breaks. Ron Paul is in good shape and has handled this campaign better than Newt and people half his age. With his bike riding twice daily, not doing it regularly while campaigning actually has been a break for him. Oh, in case you didn't notice, he is in better shape than his son Rand.

----------


## parocks

> Two words: Jay Leno.


good point.  Hopefully we'll get clear marching orders then.

----------


## parocks

> We all need breaks. Ron Paul is in good shape and has handled this campaign better than Newt and people half his age. With his bike riding twice daily, not doing it regularly while campaigning actually has been a break for him. Oh, in case you didn't notice, he is in better shape than his son Rand.


Ron didn't do much campaigning.  GJ might want to do actual campaigning more.  Ron Paul is still in the House.

----------


## parocks

> A Paul/Johnson ticket would be the only anti war, anti empire ticket and I would love to see it. I don't believe it will happen, though. The LP was booted off the Oklahoma ballot, weren't they? How could they run if not on all 50? Also, somebody actually _serious_ about running (3rd party), with the election so close, would have made the decision months ago.


The Johnson ticket is fine.   People should rally around it.  People should keep asking Gary to ask Ron Paul to be VP.  Gary has a resume as good as or better than Romney's. Both successful businessment, but Gary started from 0 (pretty much), and Romney started by having a dad who was a famous politician who ran for President and the head of American Motors.  Gary was a 2 term Governor.  Mitt was a 1 term Governor.  Mitt also has Olympics.  Basically the same.  In 2008, I didn't know who Mitt was, and I did Gary.

Nothing wrong with RP taking the VP slot with Gary.  I think Gary has the thirst for battle more than RP does right at this moment.  I'm not suggesting though that RP should do anything different from what he's doing.  We'll learn something from the Jay Leno.

----------


## affa

> why do you want him to run third party so badly? he needs to take a break from all this campaigning


we're only talking about a few months.

----------


## Weston White

> Jesus Christ, will you guys let it go? It isn't happening. Some of you are no better than the sheep we're trying so hard to wake from their slumber. LET IT GO. We lost. Stop following the man around like he's the only thing this movement has going for it. Figure out your own way to contribute to liberty.


The Dude abides, man.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

Once again:

1) Ron doesn't want the movement to be scapegoated for the Romney loss. If he runs third party, we WILL be blamed.

2) Ron wants Rand to get a clean shot to run in 2016. If he runs third party, Rand's shot will be ruined.

3) Like it or not, Paul has indicated he wasn't running third party all year. Put the three points together, and it means he won't be running in 2012.

4) Ron has a better shot at running third party in 2016, which could work in parallel with Rand running in the Republican primaries. Yes, he'll be 81, but won't need to run in a full out capacity the way he had to in the GOP races. And he would likely withdraw if/when it was clear Rand was winning the GOP race (was the presumptive nominee by spring) and was not being cheated out of it.

----------


## Bman

> we're only talking about a few months.


Yup.  No reason not to see it through.  I ask no more then he puts his name on a ticket and shows up for some debates.  His name would get the percentage needed to bring a 3rd party to the games.

----------


## Bman

> Once again:
> 
> 1) Ron doesn't want the movement to be scapegoated for the Romney loss. If he runs third party, we WILL be blamed.


He's already said it is not his party.  Let the babies cry.




> 2) Ron wants Rand to get a clean shot to run in 2016. If he runs third party, Rand's shot will be ruined.


Rand's shot is already ruined if Ron doesn't take a baseball bat to the establishments knees like he could with a third party run.  Not a damn thing most of us care about will recieve any attention in this upcoming round if Ron is not present.  Which leads to either Rand being called a nut in 2016 if he brings things up, or more likely he just doesn't bring them up and completely loses any grass roots support which was very loyal to Ron.




> 3) Like it or not, Paul has indicated he wasn't running third party all year. Put the three points together, and it means he won't be running in 2012.


True, but he just got a big F U from the Republican establishment.  He can slump his shoulders and walk away or he can fight back.  I'd far prefer he doesn't walk away.




> 4) Ron has a better shot at running third party in 2016, which could work in parallel with Rand running in the Republican primaries. Yes, he'll be 81, but won't need to run in a full out capacity the way he had to in the GOP races. And he would likely withdraw if/when it was clear Rand was winning the GOP race (was the presumptive nominee by spring) and was not being cheated out of it.


It's asking a lot of Ron to stay in 2 more months and I know it is.  I'm not about to ask him to make a run 4 years from now.  That means he needs to stay active for 4 years.  I do want him to retire.  I just want Ron to leave with a bang not a poof.

----------


## idiom

> A Paul/Johnson ticket would be the only anti war, anti empire ticket and I would love to see it. I don't believe it will happen, though. The LP was booted off the Oklahoma ballot, weren't they? How could they run if not on all 50? Also, somebody actually _serious_ about running (3rd party), with the election so close, would have made the decision months ago.


You don't need 50 states, you just need enough to get your 270 electoral votes. Republicans might as well not be on the ballot and California and Democrats don't bother with Texas. You just need enough states to get half the votes.

Its not a national popular vote.

----------


## idiom

> A Paul/Johnson ticket would be the only anti war, anti empire ticket and I would love to see it. I don't believe it will happen, though. The LP was booted off the Oklahoma ballot, weren't they? How could they run if not on all 50? Also, somebody actually _serious_ about running (3rd party), with the election so close, would have made the decision months ago.


You don't need 50 states, you just need enough to get your 270 electoral votes. Republicans might as well not be on the ballot and California and Democrats don't bother with Texas. You just need enough states to get half the votes.

Its not a national popular vote.

----------


## orenbus

> The Dude abides, man.

----------


## orenbus

//

----------


## CPUd

If a 3rd party takes enough electoral votes to keep the other 2 from getting 270, the election will go to Mitt in the House.

----------


## orenbus

//

----------


## Liberty74

> If Ron threw the election to Obama, then Romney would be removed as an obstacle in 2016.


If Obama get re-elected, America is over and so is our movement. Capeesh!

----------


## Liberty74

> Ron has handed the batten to Rand, we need to run with it.


Did he really? I personally don't like the idea that Rand gets the batten automatically simply because his name ends in "Paul." 

If Rand Paul turns out to be more like his dad, the Republican establishment will do to Rand as done to Ron.

If Rand Paul turns out to be more like a big govt spending neocon, I hope many on RPF would not support him.

Listen, the GOP is a dying party demographically at the national level. Pat Buchanan breaks it down for you. It is going to be practically impossible for an "R" to win the Presidency in the near future.

So if it's Rand or whomever taking the batten, they must go Indy. It's where the people are heading as they buck both parties. In order to win, one must be able to see the future and strategize around reality.

----------


## Origanalist

> If Obama get re-elected, America is over and so is our movement. Capeesh!


How do you figure that? What benefits does a Romney presidency bring? I don't see much difference except Obama only gets another 4 years.

----------


## Revolution9

> Don't you just get peeved at those who are so absolute? I do.


Absolutely.

Rev9

----------


## rprprs

> How's he carry it?


Easy.  He's got _board_ shoulders.

----------


## erowe1

> If Obama get re-elected, America is over and so is our movement. Capeesh!


Why do you think that?

----------


## kathy88

> If Obama get re-elected, America is over and so is our movement. Capeesh!


Seriously? So the alternative is what? Vote Romney?

----------


## erowe1

> In 2008, I didn't know who Mitt was, and I did Gary.


How is that possible?

----------


## specsaregood

> I have no doubt Ron would have been running independent already if it wasn't for Rand.


I have no doubt that the world would be free from violence, poverty and disease already if it wasn't for Rand.

----------


## hrdman2luv

Rand Paul will not get the GOP nomination EVER.  He's not some *secret trojan horse* for the Liberty movement. Not to mention, that if Romney wins, (even if he's as bad as Obama) he will still be the GOP's nominee in 2016.  If Romney loses, the Jeb Bush, Christie, Ryan or Rubio will be the GOP's nominee.

The RNC's rules just solidified any grassroots movement will NEVER infiltrate the RNC's agenda EVER AGAIN.

It's time we all looked towards the Libertarian party to progress this movement. We don't have to fight the libertarian leadership. They've invited us for Christ sake.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> Jesus Christ, will you guys let it go? It isn't happening. Some of you are no better than the sheep we're trying so hard to wake from their slumber. LET IT GO. We lost. Stop following the man around like he's the only thing this movement has going for it. Figure out your own way to contribute to liberty.


I agree. People are clamoring and I feel "pushing" Dr. Paul too much. Let the man make his decisions. I personally hope and pray that he truly decides to take it easy for a while. He needs a break, he's 77 for Pete's sake. 

It's time we move on and put our focus and efforts into other candidates. That is what he would want us to do. 

Too many people are trying to stay too close to him. It's time to let go.

----------


## erowe1

> The RNC's rules just solidified any grassroots movement will NEVER infiltrate the RNC's agenda EVER AGAIN.


Really? Something happened last week that changed our prospects permanently?

There was some way a liberty candidate could have gotten the nomination before, but now, because they changed the rules, which happens all the time, and will happen again and again ad infinitum, those hopes have been irrevocably dashed?

That's like saying that because a baseball team got robbed of one win, they might as well never try playing again.

----------


## bbwarfield

> That's like saying that because a baseball team got robbed of one win, they might as well never try playing again.


Its like that baseball team being robbed one win then saying they have to give up all there players and start from scratch and no players who havent played for the winning team can join there team. No.... they locked out the ability for us to have a voice.... not just one time. Next cycle we CANT run a delegate based or caucus based campaign. all rules are stacked for party picks and theyve closed the few small ways into the party..... we cant change the rules back cause we cant change the rules without them inviting us back in.... wich I dont think will ever happen.

----------


## presence

> Really? Something happened last week that changed our prospects permanently?


The change happened 99 years ago (income tax).  And was made permanent 79 years ago (end gold standard).

The baseball team no longer has balls.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

I wish the rumor were let to snowball... Ron go on Leno and say, "I have offers from all kinds of groups and incredible support to run 3rd party from across the country. People from all different affiliations, Tea Party, Constitutionalists, true Conservatives, Independents, Libertarians, and Blue Dog Democrats too! I am considering it since the very few Republican party Inner circle dictators with all the concentrated power, have turn the GOP into the Soviet Politburo."

 Wishful thinking, but I would love to see Ron $#@! with the "10 fat men"... watch them sweat, especially those pigs; Sununu, Gingrich, and Rove.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> Really? Something happened last week that changed our prospects permanently?
> 
> There was some way a liberty candidate could have gotten the nomination before, but now, because they changed the rules, which happens all the time, and will happen again and again ad infinitum, those hopes have been irrevocably dashed?
> 
> That's like saying that because a baseball team got robbed of one win, they might as well never try playing again.


The leadership of the RNC, along with the presupmtive nominee will be hand picking the delegates. Those delegates will be ones that won't try to make waves, or change the RNC or the nominee.  

Ron Paul stated "You can't change government from the outside in. It has to come from within"........... If you can't get inside, you can't change anything.

Baseball isn't politics. Not a good comparison.

----------


## FrankRep

When you think about it, If there was a time to run third party. That would be it. 

Just sayin'

----------


## rprprs

> Rand Paul will not get the GOP nomination EVER.  He's not some *secret trojan horse* for the Liberty movement. Not to mention, that if Romney wins, (even if he's as bad as Obama) he will still be the GOP's nominee in 2016.  If Romney loses, the Jeb Bush, Christie, Ryan or Rubio will be the GOP's nominee.
> 
> The RNC's rules just solidified any grassroots movement will NEVER infiltrate the RNC's agenda EVER AGAIN.
> 
> It's time we all looked towards the Libertarian party to progress this movement. We don't have to fight the libertarian leadership. They've invited us for Christ sake.


I'm not quite prepared to follow you to your conclusion just yet, but you are 100 percent correct about Rand's chances of ever being the GOP nominee.
In the process of making a decision as to how best to proceed from here, the prospect of Rand as the GOP nominee needs to be removed from the equation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Rand Paul will not get the GOP nomination EVER.  He's not some *secret trojan horse* for the Liberty movement. Not to mention, that if Romney wins, (even if he's as bad as Obama) he will still be the GOP's nominee in 2016.  If Romney loses, the Jeb Bush, Christie, Ryan or Rubio will be the GOP's nominee.


Rand will get the nomination if we make it happen.  I don't see Romney being a nominee again ever.  Christie, Rubio, etc. are real threats...you're right about that.






> The RNC's rules just solidified any grassroots movement will NEVER infiltrate the RNC's agenda EVER AGAIN.
> 
> It's time we all looked towards the Libertarian party to progress this movement. We don't have to fight the libertarian leadership. They've invited us for Christ sake.


The LP at the national level is worthless. It makes much more sense strategically to work within the GOP.

----------


## thatpeculiarcat

> Jesus Christ, will you guys let it go? It isn't happening. Some of you are no better than the sheep we're trying so hard to wake from their slumber. LET IT GO. We lost. Stop following the man around like he's the only thing this movement has going for it. Figure out your own way to contribute to liberty.


+rep

----------


## hrdman2luv

> Rand will get the nomination if we make it happen.  I don't see Romney being a nominee again ever.  Christie, Rubio, etc. are real threats...you're right about that.


We can't make it happen. The RNC has already solidified any chances of that happening by their rules change along with their money and influence with the media.







> The LP at the national level is worthless. It makes much more sense strategically to work within the GOP.


Work with the GOP?  The only way to work WITH the GOP, is to support their agenda. And if you support their agenda, then you're no better off than them. Which is why I can't support them.

----------


## erowe1

> We can't make it happen. The RNC has already solidified any chances of that happening by their rules change along with their money and influence with the media.


Explain this. How does the rule change have any permanent effect?

----------


## angelatc

> It's time we all looked towards the Libertarian party to progress this movement. We don't have to fight the libertarian leadership. They've invited us for Christ sake.


The only way for the LP to become viable is if they become a party in a similiar manner that the GOP did.  Not only did they have a boatload of money, they had a popular former president who jumped on board and brought a lot of sitting elected officials with him.  

And thanks to that effort, the Democrats won that election, so the gratification wasn't immediate in any sense of the word.

I am not an unreasonable person, but I do try to be pragmatic.  If you can get 25 sitting elected federal politicians to switch to the LP, even if they caucus with the GOP, I'll join and get active in the GOP.

That's less than 10% of the House.  It's not an unreasonable goal.

----------


## asurfaholic

Ref to thread title: how is this bad news? Sheesh the man is older than some folks in the rest home that i visit, and you guys want to watch him lose another election by hyping up a 3rd party run? 

I seriously hope he sits back and takes it easy. Provide regular updates for anyone who wants to listen. If theres anything id suggest, he should get his own tv or radio show. I can only imagine how popular it would be.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> Explain this. How does the rule change have any permanent effect?


Because the national delegates will now be chosen by the RNC leadership and the presumptive nominee. 



> The only way for the LP to become viable is if they become a party in a similiar manner that the GOP did.  Not only did they have a boatload of money, they had a popular former president who jumped on board and brought a lot of sitting elected officials with him.


More members (to the LP) means more money. More money means more advertising. More advertising means more money and so on and so on.  

Right now, all TRUE conservatives and disenfrachized democrats have a good reason to look for a 3rd party to support. The republican party is now the old "whig" party. Which fell to the republican party because of many of the same things the republican party are now guilty of. Lies, deceit, big government pro-war etc etc etc





> And thanks to that effort, the Democrats won that election, so the gratification wasn't immediate in any sense of the word.


The establishment always wins.  I don't see any difference between the republicans and democrats anymore.  At least not the leadership of the parties.  Only a handfull of politicians from either party go against the leaderships agenda. So when you say the democrats won, I don't see a difference.

----------


## ProBlue33

It seems without Ron Paul, the movement breaks up.
1)Group that thinks working with Rand Paul and the GOP is worth it long term.
2)Group that see's the GOP/RNC as hopeless now, move to third party.

Ron Paul could keep the group together with a Paul / Johnson ticket at least until the 2012 election was over then back to square 1 again.

----------


## liveandletlive

nail in the coffin, thank goodness cuz some folks need to move the hell on

----------


## hrdman2luv

I just posted this on my facebook




> Republican Party, you did this to yourself, you managed to alienate such a huge percentage of the populace that you can't beat a guy who has alienated an almost equal percentage of the populace. 
> 
> You just couldn't leave social issues alone. You just couldn't end the wars. You just couldn't actually prove to be fiscally responsible, or even understand the Fed's effect on the economy. 
> 
> Don't blame us when you don't get elected.. blame yourselves.


It's from the Libertarian Party.

----------


## FriedChicken

People think that if Ron runs third that it will throw the election to Obama ... I'm beginning to think the opposite. Ron would take a huge chunk of youth and independents from Obama.

----------


## angelatc

> The establishment always wins.  I don't see any difference between the republicans and democrats anymore.  At least not the leadership of the parties.  Only a handfull of politicians from either party go against the leaderships agenda. So when you say the democrats won, I don't see a difference.


Oh stop with the "both parties are the same" drama.  That's not what I was saying. 

I mean  simply that they won the general election, and the party we now know as the GOP lost, and took the Whigs down too.  It took another few years for the Whig party to completely dissolve.  

The new party was entirely a reactionary move, and the sudden momentum is what carried them to power.  Plodding along, educating people,  like the LP has done for umpteen years hasn't yielded any results. 

Here's exactly what I want to happen with the LP.  You want the Republicans to jump ship and join the LP, destroying the GOP in the wake.  I'm fine with that.  But I have no interest in picking members off one at a time.  Mathematically, it's a losing formula.

Like I said, get me 25 members of the Congress to join, and I'll start working with you.  Otherwise, I have no more faith in the leadership of the LP than I do the RNC.  Bad leadership comes in many different forms.

Until then, it's a pipe dream.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Did he really? I personally don't like the idea that Rand gets the batten automatically simply because his name ends in "Paul." 
> 
> If Rand Paul turns out to be more like his dad, the Republican establishment will do to Rand as done to Ron.
> 
> If Rand Paul turns out to be more like a big govt spending neocon, I hope many on RPF would not support him.
> 
> Listen, the GOP is a dying party demographically at the national level. Pat Buchanan breaks it down for you. It is going to be practically impossible for an "R" to win the Presidency in the near future.
> 
> So if it's Rand or whomever taking the batten, they must go Indy. It's where the people are heading as they buck both parties. In order to win, one must be able to see the future and strategize around reality.


The Kennedy's handed off the battan as well.

----------


## specsaregood

> I am not an unreasonable person, but I do try to be pragmatic.  If you can get 25 sitting elected federal politicians to switch to the LP, even if they caucus with the GOP, I'll join and get active in the GOP.


So, basically convince 25 elected officials to voluntarily give up their job come the next election?  

Also, I dont get that.  If we get 25 officials to leave the GOP, it will convince you to join and get active in the GOP?  What sense does that make?

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

People who think he's going to run 3rd party at this point are idiots. Seriously, he has said time and time again he won't do it and it would be extremely impractical anyway because he wouldn't be able to make it on the ballot in most states at this point.

----------


## angelatc

> So, basically convince 25 elected officials to voluntarily give up their job come the next election?  
> 
> Also, I dont get that.  If we get 25 officials to leave the GOP, it will convince you to join and get active in the GOP?  What sense does that make?


I am telling you that if the LP can attract a candidate dynamic enough to convince sitting politicians to join the movement, then I'll jump on board.  But until that happens, it's a lost cause.

----------


## specsaregood

> I am telling you that if the LP can attract a candidate dynamic enough to convince sitting politicians to join the movement, then I'll jump on board.  But until that happens, it's a lost cause.


Off the top of my head, I think Palin might be able to pull that off.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> Off the top of my head, I think Palin might be able to pull that off.


I doubt she would do it. But then again, I wouldn't be too surprized.   Maybe, she needs a little coaxing. She's made a point about the way the delegates were cheated. But hasn't denounce the RNC for doing it.

----------


## Fredom101

> Ron has handed the batten to Rand, we need to run with it.


So we should vote for Romney then?

----------


## erowe1

> Because the national delegates will now be chosen by the RNC leadership and the presumptive nominee.


OK. But what about in 2016?

If rule changes were permanent, there would be no such thing as rule changes.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> OK. But what about in 2016?
> 
> If rule changes were permanent, there would be no such thing as rule changes.


How do you supposed we're going to get anyone in the RNC leadership that will change the rules back when the new rules were designed to keep those oppose to the RNC's agenda from getting into that leadership position?

----------


## erowe1

> How do you supposed we're going to get anyone in the RNC leadership that will change the rules back when the new rules were designed to keep those oppose to the RNC's agenda from getting into that leadership position?


From the ground up. If a fraction of the people who donated to Ron Paul's campaign became precinct chairs, they'd be able to do that.

Besides, even if we don't change the rules, the rules are still going to change. They always do. I don't see why we need to pretend that all of a sudden for the first time in history there was a rule change that will last forever.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> How do you supposed we're going to get anyone in the RNC leadership that will change the rules back when the new rules were designed to keep those oppose to the RNC's agenda from getting into that leadership position?


We had some in the Rules Committee.  We need more.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> How do you figure that? What benefits does a Romney presidency bring? I don't see much difference except Obama only gets another 4 years.


Is that what you said in 2004?  "Hey, Bush is better because it's only four more years."

----------


## hrdman2luv

> Is that what you said in 2004?  "Hey, Bush is better because it's only four more years."


Personally, I believe that the president has little control over the economy. And the things that's happened under Obama, would've happened under McCain, Jeb Bush or almost all the other 08 GOP candidates.

----------


## sailingaway

> We had some in the Rules Committee.  We need more.


except now they can decide who delegates are and stop that.  I'm not against the GOP strategy, I think we move forward there. But I think if Ron does run when he didn't in 2008, it shows RNC the dangers of overreach, and maybe they change the rules back.  Because I think Ron's run will get more sympathy after what was done at RNC than it would have without that. My understanding is the 6 states that filed to nominate Ron after his delegates were struck included Gingrich and Santorum delegates.  What RNC did makes third parties basically the ONLY way to elect a grass roots candidate.

However, it isn't likely and the clock is ticking. The most likely would be the LP with Ron as President and if they simply don't want to, I don't know if Ron would do the more uphill independent route.

----------


## specsaregood

> I doubt she would do it. But then again, I wouldn't be too surprized.   Maybe, she needs a little coaxing. She's made a point about the way the delegates were cheated. But hasn't denounce the RNC for doing it.


Yeah, I'm not saying she would do it; but she has enough of a pull with a select group that she might be one of the few that could pull it off.

----------


## Carlybee

I would not support a ticket with Sarah Palin. Not even for Ron Paul. And that's saying a lot. She is not a liberty person. She is part of the co-opted tea party.

----------


## wgadget

> Yeah, I'm not saying she would do it; but she has enough of a pull with a select group that she might be one of the few that could pull it off.


Who is "she"?

----------


## specsaregood

> Who is "she"?


Palin.  She have enough charm where she could in theory get enough people to go 3rd party.

----------


## affa

> If Obama get re-elected, America is over and so is our movement. Capeesh!


Turn off Fox, dude.   Or, at least, go to the Mitt Romney Forums.    Romney is the same establishment tool Obama is.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Thought so.

----------


## sailingaway

> Thought so.


It very likely isn't happening, but this is a grass roots activist saying Doug Wead said a week before RNC that there was no chance.  The conference call last night was a different grass roots activist saying Ron said AFTER RNC that he hadn't ruled it out but didn't see a practical path for it, more or less, and listing the barriers he saw.

But nowhere did Ron affirmatively come to others and say he wanted to, all on his own.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> except now they can decide who delegates are and stop that.  I'm not against the GOP strategy, I think we move forward there. But I think if Ron does run when he didn't in 2008, it shows RNC the dangers of overreach, and maybe they change the rules back.  Because I think Ron's run will get more sympathy after what was done at RNC than it would have without that. My understanding is the 6 states that filed to nominate Ron after his delegates were struck included Gingrich and Santorum delegates.  *What RNC did makes third parties basically the ONLY way to elect a grass roots candidate.
> *
> However, it isn't likely and the clock is ticking. The most likely would be the LP with Ron as President and if they simply don't want to, I don't know if Ron would do the more uphill independent route.


That is untrue.

There are all kinds of elections to win that have nothing to do with the presidency.  We need to stop thinking that the end all and be all is that one position.

----------


## sailingaway

> That is untrue.
> 
> There are all kinds of elections to win that have nothing to do with the presidency.  We need to stop thinking that the end all and be all is that one position.


You are right at lower levels, and nowhere was I suggesting we stop making gains in the GOP. However, at the presidential level, these rules stop anyone they don't want, if the rules aren't changed, and they can veto anyone who gets into place who might change the rules.

----------


## Paulistinian

A Mitt Romney/GOP loss in 2012 is exactly what our movement needs.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> I would not support a ticket with Sarah Palin. Not even for Ron Paul. And that's saying a lot. She is not a liberty person. She is part of the co-opted tea party.


LOL, anyone that endorses McCain can't be for Liberty.

Has she endorsed Romney?

----------


## CPUd

> LOL, anyone that endorses McCain can't be for Liberty.
> 
> Has she endorsed Romney?


Not much more than saying he made a good choice on the VP pick.

There were quite a few McCain staffers undermining her in 2008.  Probably some of those same people working for Mitt now.

----------


## hrdman2luv

I just found it




> Congratulations to Mitt Romney on his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. President Obama has declared that this election is about “two fundamentally different visions” for America. Goodness, he’s got that right. Our country cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama’s fundamentally flawed vision. *We must now look to this new team, the Romney/Ryan ticket, to provide an alternate vision of an America* that is fiscally responsible, strong, and prosperous – an America that understands and is proud of her exceptional place in the world and will respect those who fight to secure that exceptionalism, which includes keeping our promises to our veterans.


That pretty much is an endorsement.

----------


## sailingaway

> I just found it
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much is an endorsement.


actually 'we must look to them for a better alternative' doesn't say she thinks there is much hope they can deliver, if you are picking it apart.  She's not my candidate, but I think she tries to stay independent. Moreover, there are rumors Romney cost her her interviews at RNC and that her Fox contract is in jeapardy.  I dont read these articles, but I see the headlines.

----------


## hrdman2luv

She always seems to me, like she's hiding something.

----------


## FrankRep

> She always seems to me, like she's hiding something.


Hiding what?

----------


## hrdman2luv

> Hiding what?


I don't know.  If I did know, I wouldn't have that feeling.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> How do you supposed we're going to get anyone in the RNC leadership that will change the rules back when the new rules were designed to keep those oppose to the RNC's agenda from getting into that leadership position?


Lawsuit.  Breach of contract (breaking the rules of order everyone agreed to in order to pass the rule changes when "nays" were at least as loud as the "ayes" and the result was pre-scripted on the teleprompter).  I think there should be some criminal kidnapping charges in there too, or maybe false imprisonment.... For the bus that "got lost" with Blackwell on it.

These rule changes were enacted fraudulently and I believe there is a legitimate tort here.  All party members agree to abide by the rules, and just because some people are in leadership positions that doesn't give them the right to break that agreement.  It's breach of contract.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> Lawsuit.  Breach of contract (breaking the rules of order everyone agreed to in order to pass the rule changes when "nays" were at least as loud as the "ayes" and the result was pre-scripted on the teleprompter).  I think there should be some criminal kidnapping charges in there too, or maybe false imprisonment.... For the bus that "got lost" with Blackwell on it.
> 
> These rule changes were enacted fraudulently and I believe there is a legitimate tort here.  All party members agree to abide by the rules, and just because some people are in leadership positions that doesn't give them the right to break that agreement.  It's breach of contract.


The bus driver would squeel like a pig if the threat of a lawsuit was pending.  I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers to take on that case.

As far that the "ayes' having it.  Beohner says "In the *opinion* of the chair".Key word, Opinion.

----------


## qh4dotcom

I don't understand what is this freaking obsession with Dr. Paul running 3rd party....any liberty-minded candidate on the presidential ballot is fine with me. If you want liberty, why does it have to be only Dr. Paul who has to run?

----------


## eleganz

> I don't understand what is this freaking obsession with Dr. Paul running 3rd party....any liberty-minded candidate on the presidential ballot is fine with me. If you want liberty, why does it have to be only Dr. Paul who has to run?


because he has the name recognition to poll into the national debates.  of course, if you don't care to get our message into the national debates and give rombomney a huge speedbump then you can run a typical liberty candidate for president.  and he will disappear into thin air just like gary johnson will if he doesn't offer his spot to ron paul.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> because he has the name recognition to poll into the national debates.  of course, if you don't care to get our message into the national debates and give rombomney a huge speedbump then you can run a typical liberty candidate for president.  and he will disappear into thin air just like gary johnson will if he doesn't offer his spot to ron paul.


After all the lying, cheating, vote fraud, rule changes and debate marginalization the Republicans made Ron Paul go through....do you really think the Republicans AND Democrats are going to let RP participate in a presidential national debate?

----------


## Ender

> I don't know.  If I did know, I wouldn't have that feeling.


Her brain, perhaps.

----------


## RickyJ

> I don't understand what is this freaking obsession with Dr. Paul running 3rd party....any liberty-minded candidate on the presidential ballot is fine with me. If you want liberty, why does it have to be only Dr. Paul who has to run?


Gary Johnson is not fine with me. He is pro-choice, I won't  vote for a candidate that is pro-choice.

----------


## hammy

> Gary Johnson is not fine with me. He is pro-choice, I won't  vote for a candidate that is pro-choice.


I am *extremely* pro-life, however, (unless I'm wrong?) his policy is essentially the same as Ron Paul's: leave it up to the states.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> Ron Paul Sheeple


An oxymoron?

----------


## 1stAmendguy

> After all the lying, cheating, vote fraud, rule changes and debate marginalization the Republicans made Ron Paul go through....do you really think the Republicans AND Democrats are going to let RP participate in a presidential national debate?


If they shut him out of the debates polling that high it will get a lot of regular American's attention.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> That is untrue.
> 
> There are all kinds of elections to win that have nothing to do with the presidency.  We need to stop thinking that the end all and be all is that one position.


A good argument can be made that Congress is more important than the President. And we have candidates still running for Congress...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

For some strange reason, this independent run rumor is starting to remind me of the secret billionaire rumor. The effects seem similar.

----------


## Veteran Citizen

> For some strange reason, this independent run rumor is starting to remind me of the secret billionaire rumor. The effects seem similar.


It's time to pack it in and start working for the congressional candidates and the Libertarian Party.  Dr Paul can't run third party.  The deadlines for getting on the ticket are long gone for many states, and most of the rest have "sore loser" laws that won't allow you to be on the ticket of another party or as an independent after a run in the primary.

----------


## AdamT

> It's time to pack it in and start working for the congressional candidates and the Libertarian Party.  Dr Paul can't run third party.  The deadlines for getting on the ticket are long gone for many states, and most of the rest have "sore loser" laws that won't allow you to be on the ticket of another party or as an independent after a run in the primary.


Yep. Need help here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...te-district-24

----------


## erowe1

> For some strange reason, this independent run rumor is starting to remind me of the secret billionaire rumor. The effects seem similar.


Don't forget the "It's all about the delegates!" rumor.

That one worked in 2008, and again in 2012.

----------


## sailingaway

> A good argument can be made that Congress is more important than the President. And we have candidates still running for Congress...


but your list doesn't even count in civil liberties, and without that I don't consider someone a liberty candidate, just a fiscal conservative.  I'm not saying my definition is right for everyone, I am only pointing out that one person's liberty candidate might not be another person's liberty candidate.  For me, I don't see much chance in Ron running unless the LP were to offer him the Presidential spot which initially I had the impression was being considered, now I don't know that it is.  That would be the easiest way forward with benefits to LP from being in debates and more funding and higher profile, as well as to us from getting Ron, likely, in the Presidential debates or at least highlighting the disenfranchisement of the people.  However, the reason I focus on it is I don't see his like coming up any time soon, and so whatever we can get out of his run, which I consider to have been cut off by the campaign and early endorsement, is a big focus of mine.  The other candidates would not have galvanized me as Ron did, and I think the same would be true of a lot of other people out there whom I would really like to have hear Ron in the Presidential debates.

That is simply my personal opinion, and people have different opinions here, obviously.

I just don't know that the pieces will come together in time if the LP isn't pushing for it too.

----------


## sailingaway

> It's time to pack it in and start working for the congressional candidates and the Libertarian Party.  Dr Paul can't run third party.  The deadlines for getting on the ticket are long gone for many states, and most of the rest have "sore loser" laws that won't allow you to be on the ticket of another party or as an independent after a run in the primary.


sore loser isn't much of an issue: http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01...al-candidates/  However, the deadlines may be if they impact getting in the debates. The debates, not winning on ballots, would be the goal imho.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> but your list doesn't even count in civil liberties, and without that I don't consider someone a liberty candidate, just a fiscal conservative.  I'm not saying my definition is right for everyone, I am only pointing out that one person's liberty candidate might not be another person's liberty candidate. ...


Civil liberties do count. We have deducted stars from candidates who have voted against them (and always welcome input on candidates). Yes, a fiscally conservative candidate is easier to find, but we surely look for candidates who honor civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Don't forget the "It's all about the delegates!" rumor.
> 
> That one worked in 2008, and again in 2012.


I'm not sure what you are talking about.  We came darn close to pulling it off, you know.  At least getting him nominated.  That's pretty amazing, considering we didn't win the popular vote anywhere, did we?

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not sure what you are talking about.  We came darn close to pulling it off, you know.  At least getting him nominated.  That's pretty amazing, considering we didn't win the popular vote anywhere, did we?


But that was with delegates that we won according to the rules in the primaries, caucuses, and state conventions. Not with getting delegates bound to other candidates to vote for Ron Paul under the pretense that those primaries, caucuses, and conventions were really just "beauty contests."

----------


## affa

> Civil liberties do count. We have deducted stars from candidates who have voted against them (and always welcome input on candidates). Yes, a fiscally conservative candidate is easier to find, but we surely look for candidates who honor civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.


I'm sorry, but I'm not ever voting or supporting some political candidate because some organization ranked them with 'stars' for liberty.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but... it's just a difficult issue.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I'm sorry, but I'm not ever voting or supporting some political candidate because some organization ranked them with 'stars' for liberty.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but... it's just a difficult issue.


Of course. The often stated, and always implied caveat is that each voter needs to do some research before they vote, and especially before they donate time or money.

It may not be perfect, but it is our chance to make our own recommendations. Unfortunately, for many decades, and even now, people vote exactly how the mainstream media tells them to. Local papers printed their voter guides, and people voted directly from that. It has been a reality. Now it may be more internet based, but the same thing applies. There is a reason so many "Voter Guides" show up in the mail right before elections: it works. We need our version.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm not sure what you are talking about.  We came darn close to pulling it off, you know.  At least getting him nominated.  That's pretty amazing, considering we didn't win the popular vote anywhere, did we?



Actually given the events at the RNC all we really proved was that we had an equal chance of also getting Santa Claus nominated from the floor.

----------

