BAD NEWS: Ron Paul 3rd Party Rumors Confirmed to be FALSE - Wead

[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/2007/0...t-generally-apply-to-presidential-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.