[Doug Wead] Shocker: Ron Paul and rule 40, the new Romney nightmare

[Plague-of-Locutus]

VP is useless.

This is debatable. His job would be defined by The President. Pretty much whatever he can wiggle away from Romney. It leaves a HUGE area of unknown. In this time of economic uncertainty we could see the more traditional roles of VP and even Dick Cheney's singular mastermind like role take a backseat to domestic issues. Parts of Restore America Now could be implemented such as removing unnecessary governmental departments. VP could oversee some of that stuff if tapped.

The VP role changes with each administration. To say its a completely useless position is asinine.

 

[Wooden Indian]

The reasons for you guys saying you'd vote for a Romney/Paul ticket would be valid reasons...
However, the media would refuse to cover anything liberty related that Paul had to say (as they have all along), and y'all seem to be confused as to what "power" a VP actually has.

This would be like King Romney brushing his crumbs from the table, Dr. Paul hungrily scooping them up, and you all cheering it on.

I'm not getting angry like RnR is... but, it makes me a little sad. You guys and girls have done some great things for the movement... don't let it go to spoil for table crumbs.

 

[sailingaway]

The reasons for you guys saying you'd vote for a Romney/Paul ticket would be valid reasons...
However, the media would refuse to cover anything liberty related that Paul had to say (as they have all along), and y'all seem to be confused as to what "power" a VP actually has.

This would be like King Romney brushing his crumbs from the table, Dr. Paul hungrily scooping them up, and you all cheering it on.

I'm not getting angry like RnR is... but, it makes me a little sad. You guys and girls have done some great things for the movement... don't let it go to spoil for table crumbs.

I honestly don't know why you keep beating this horse. Do you seriously think that is going to be the ticket? I don't. The nomination is to get the automatic 'nominee' speaking slot without editing, under his own power, not as a concession. Which is why I'd rather nominate him for president, which I believe has the same governing rules.

 

[Wooden Indian]

I honestly don't know why you keep beating this horse. Do you seriously think that is going to be the ticket? I don't.

With all due respect, I could ask you the same thing. Afeter all... I'm not the one that started this "voting for Romney" discussion. I was merely voicing my objection to such a terrible idea.
Obviously, you are certainly free to do as you wish. I only wanted to share my voice with our community.

I'll quiet my dissention as you wish. I understand that this is a privately owned board and you are the mod. Thanks for your time.

 

[sailingaway]

With all due respect, I could ask you the same thing. Afeter all... I'm not the one that started this "voting for Romney" discussion. I was merely voicing my objection to such a terrible idea. Obviously, you are certainly free to do as you wish.
I only wanted to share my voice with our community.

I'll quiet my dissention if you wish. I understand that this is a privately owned board and you are the mod.

People were talking about nominating Ron for VP. I couldn't imagine why we wouldn't nominate him for President instead, UNLESS they were saying they actually thought Romney delegates would support Ron as VP so that it made a difference. Since that isn't going to happen, I say nominate him for president. Then voting 'for Romney' never arises. My 'vote for Ron Paul' if he was forced on the ticket regardless of Romney's preference was always stated to be such a slim chance I'd throw it away to try to nominate him as President instead. You guys just took it and ran with it because you want everyone to vote for a particular candidate in the general. No one else read that happening as a liklihood.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Not what happened, sailingaway. It seems whenever someone challenges you on exerting your opinion and then hiding behind it as a moderator, you like to flip it and say we spun it or pushed it or something. Again, I would hope, or would have at least thought you would vote for SOME liberty candidate in the general after you lectured a number of us about not making a coalition, but apparently that's not the case. I would say be careful with words as a moderator, particularly one of THE only liberty forum we have, when you say things like "I will vote for Mitt Romney if Ron is on the ticket."

You joined this forum a little late, but in 2008 90% of the people here would have never supported that. I've already received messages in my inbox from individuals agreeing with me, saying they don't like how the forum is turning and the direction it's going, but don't dare speak because they too will be crucified for their opinions.

Pretty sad it's come to that. Know that just because I speak out shamelessly and blatantly doesn't mean I'm the only one concerned. The prevailing attitude here has pushed other liberty lovers into silence. And that's a shame. Others don't want to deal with the heat or be accused of terrible things. I haven't cared since 2008 and I still don't care.

And you're isolating the people you claim to support. I received messages from some delegates....so just be careful. What you see isn't always what's going on.

Anyway....

I'm going to hold you accountable for what's said. Other's might not, but I will. Count on that. Not an adversarial thing, but I just won't let liberty be compromised so easily.

People were talking about nominating Ron for VP. I couldn't imagine why we wouldn't nominate him for President instead, UNLESS they were saying they actually thought Romney delegates would support Ron as VP so that it made a difference. Since that isn't going to happen, I say nominate him for president. Then voting 'for Romney' never arises. My 'vote for Ron Paul' if he was forced on the ticket regardless of Romney's preference was always stated to be such a slim chance I'd throw it away to try to nominate him as President instead. You guys just took it and ran with it because you want everyone to vote for a particular candidate in the general. No one else read that happening as a liklihood.

 

[sailingaway]

kindly post the link to the post where I said that differently than I described it in the quote in your post. As to the rest, I don't find you credible.

By the way, I was around, just not here, in 2008.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Are there really that many people here so easily swayed to support tyranny just because of a VP nomination?

This is so disheartening I can hardly believe it. Please tell me, how does Ron as VP stop Romney from violating my rights, engaging in unconstitutional wars, and perhaps even going so far to sign into law legislation that could shut down this forum.

Don't worry. I doubt many Paul supporters would vote for Romney, regardless of who is V.P. was. I seriously don't see Romney as doing this, anyway.

 

[jay_dub]

kindly post the link to the post where I said that differently than I described it in the quote in your post. As to the rest, I don't find you credible.

By the way, I was around, just not here, in 2008.

I *think* the brouhaha was over post #15. People will see what they want to see in something, I guess.

 

[Matthew Zak]

If Ron Paul endorsed Romney, or accepted a VP slot with him, I would toss anything I own that is Ron Paul related, I would delete my 20 Ron Paul videos I've made, I would forget about ever involving myself in politics again, and I would go absolutely 100% anarchist in philosophy and practice.

On the other hand if Ron accepted some other arbitrary position in Romney's cabinet, where he could work independently and actually make a difference in growing our cause, I would be reluctantly ok with it.

 

[dante]

I would vote for Romney without question if Ron were the VP. Paul in the VP spot gives great credence to the liberty platform. It also probably is the best check on Romney's power - because there is no silencing Ron. And he will be loud and clear about when he disagrees with Romney and why.

 

[KingNothing]

I would vote for Romney without question if Ron were the VP. Paul in the VP spot gives great credence to the liberty platform. It also probably is the best check on Romney's power - because there is no silencing Ron. And he will be loud and clear about when he disagrees with Romney and why.

Agreed completely. And plus, it would add inter-party drama to the mix. Who doesn't love drama?

 

[sailingaway]

I *think* the brouhaha was over post #15. People will see what they want to see in something, I guess.

just to be clear, THIS was post 15:

If either Romney or Obama is going to win, I would vote for Ron Paul, even as VP, as better, more like replacing his House seat so he has a bigger profile. I have faith in Ron. Even if he ends up resigning, the potential of that action itself could be a better check than any other we would have, and an 'excuse' for Romney acting better if he really wants to and is just placating neocons himself (one theory floating out there). If Ron resigned, as a resigned VP he would continue, FOREVER, to have a higher profile.

I'd vote for it. I'd want us to nominate him from the floor though, so it is shown at least that nomination was won on his own strength.

But I want his speech as nomination for President. He has the states, we just need to get the Louisiana circumstances out there so it is clearly a scandal if Romney's credentials committee doesn't seat them.

 

[The Free Hornet]

This is debatable. His job would be defined by The President. Pretty much whatever he can wiggle away from Romney. It leaves a HUGE area of unknown. In this time of economic uncertainty we could see the more traditional roles of VP and even Dick Cheney's singular mastermind like role take a backseat to domestic issues. Parts of Restore America Now could be implemented such as removing unnecessary governmental departments. VP could oversee some of that stuff if tapped.

The VP role changes with each administration. To say its a completely useless position is asinine.

I mostly agree but the position is defined by the Constitution not the President (although clearly the Prez can grant more authority to the VP). It is the Constitutional nature of the position - one heart beat away and all - that makes it an interesting option on the off chance Ron does not get the nomination for President.

 

[affa]

..and the new members come out of the woodwork to support the Romney campaign takeover.

While I don't condone the 'sailingaway' moderation debate/campaign, I completely agree with Rockandrollsoul's overall message.

You can not support liberty and vote for Romney at the same time. It's impossible. It's a compromise that will defeat us in the end, a vote for tyranny and war and debt and pandering.

And I also agree with something else with Rockandrollsoul's quoted message above -- TPTB have had 4 years to plan to infiltrate, undermine, distract, diffuse, confuse, and seize control of this movement. Look how fast the 'Tea Party' was destroyed... now, we're generally pretty good at identifying the obvious trolls, etc, but obviously TPTB want to capitalize on our energy. They will, and have been, angling for our votes for quite some time. And if they can't have our votes, they want to destroy the movement - if they can do both at the same time, all the better.

And that's exactly what a RP vice presidential nod will do to this movement. It's a monkey's paw - a tiny gift from TPTB that is inherently meaningless yet will splinter and destroy us.

If you question this, simply read this or any other thread semi-related to the subject and watch as we define our sides.

Romney will never have my vote. Ever.

 

[Liberty74]

I would vote for Romney without question if Ron were the VP. Paul in the VP spot gives great credence to the liberty platform. It also probably is the best check on Romney's power - because there is no silencing Ron. And he will be loud and clear about when he disagrees with Romney and why.

Ron disagrees on every issue with Romney per Ron's own words, hence he will not be the VP.

 

[Wooden Indian]

While I don't condone the 'sailingaway' moderation debate/campaign, I completely agree with Rockandrollsoul's overall message.

You can not support liberty and vote for Romney at the same time. It's impossible. It's a compromise that will defeat us in the end, a vote for tyranny and war and debt and pandering.

And I also agree with something else with Rockandrollsoul's quoted message above -- TPTB have had 4 years to plan to infiltrate, undermine, distract, diffuse, confuse, and seize control of this movement. Look how fast the 'Tea Party' was destroyed... now, we're generally pretty good at identifying the obvious trolls, etc, but obviously TPTB want to capitalize on our energy. They will, and have been, angling for our votes for quite some time. And if they can't have our votes, they want to destroy the movement - if they can do both at the same time, all the better.

And that's exactly what a RP vice presidential nod will do to this movement. It's a monkey's paw - a tiny gift from TPTB that is inherently meaningless yet will splinter and destroy us.

If you question this, simply read this or any other thread semi-related to the subject and watch as we define our sides.

Romney will never have my vote. Ever.

SILENCE, dissident one!

 

[Narmical]

A moderator is supposed to ensure that topics, stay on-topic. Those posts weren't related to the topic at hand and in the wrong forum, so she put them in the right one... That's what a moderator is supposed to do to ensure that topics don't derail into something that the readers didn't click on the topic to read.

And seriously, the way some here get so butt-hurt over the wya the owners and mods choose to moderate their own forum has become pretty absurd. It's not up to you what flies and what doesn't fly with them, nor should it be. This is private property with very specific goals to advance.

Private property that fully relies on the contribution of us "normal" users.

People get offended when they see there contribution get messed with, especially when it seem to disappear!

 

[Kurt Evans]

--

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Welcome to the club. It's not just me. I've seen it slowly turn that way since Mid 2008....and it's slowly become a microcosm of our corrupt federal government. Moderators friends with other moderators that protect eachother and the privileged members they like at the expense of others.

I've had numerous contributions "messed with" by the moderator, and I've never been able to get a response to any request for an explanation. Wanting to obey the rules and not understanding them is really frustrating.