Karsten
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,498
I have no doubt Ron would have been running independent already if it wasn't for Rand.
BAD NEWS: Ron Paul 3rd Party Rumors Confirmed to be FALSE - Wead
- Thread starter Tiso0770
- Start date
I have no doubt Ron would have been running independent already if it wasn't for Rand.
Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
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/category-ia.-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.
Last edited:
Galileo Galilei
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,992
If Ron threw the election to Obama, then Romney would be removed as an obstacle in 2016.
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,726
F
FlatIron
Guest
why do you want him to run third party so badly? he needs to take a break from all this campaigning
susano
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,359
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
good point. Hopefully we'll get clear marching orders then.
Ron didn't do much campaigning. GJ might want to do actual campaigning more. Ron Paul is still in the House.
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.
we're only talking about a few months.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
The Dude abides, man.
Peace&Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,337
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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,337
He's already said it is not his party. Let the babies cry.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,042
Similar threads
