Fox panel: GOP cannot win without Ron Paul's saying-so

[Lucille]

+rep MsDoodahs.

 

[cavalier973]

If someone brings up the "Paul/3rd Party" question, just ask them why the GOP nominee would also be running 3rd party?

 

[Voluntary Man]

Our Party can't/won't win without our candidate as the nominee.

www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.ph...Possible-Candidate-EVER&p=4082294#post4082294

 

[CJLauderdale4]

I intend to vote for Ron. As a delegate. But I'll not waste my vote with a write-in in the general if he doesn't get the nom. A write-in is no better than staying home and will likely not even get counted. Johnson is mostly as good and the LP has a more welcoming infrastructure to work with. Making them viable is easier than convincing the cons.

I don't think you'll need to write him in. Ron Paul us currently in first as the most tracked candidate by Americans Elect who will put someone on the ballot in all 50 states as an alternative.

 

[RonPaulMyPresident]

Yes its Paul or no one for my family and I.

Obama promised Hope and Change but it turns out he was worse than Bush.

Those other GOP candidates are warmongers and want to start new wars thats going to cost another trillion dollars that we'll have to pay for.

Ron Paul is the only one who can bring the real hope and change we were looking for.

The stupid GOP doesn't understand that most of America are sick of wars and the declining economy.

 

[Gary4Liberty]

Free markets only work for Free People

 

[Travlyr]

There is absolutely no reason for 99% of the people to vote for anybody but Ron Paul for president. 99% of the people are losing money every day due to the hidden inflation tax.

The people in charge want you to vote for the other guy because they do not want the bank that prints your money to be audited. Do not want!

 

[rb3b3]

I registered to vote 2 weeks ago to vote for Ron Paul. I never once voted in 18 years and for me it's no one but Paul!! I've stayed home for the last 18 years, I'll do the same this year too!!! But I think Paul will win!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm converting everyone I talk to!! I converted two more today!! Both of which were newt supporters! Nobp 2012

 

[archangel689]

I agree this creates animosity. I think we need to see what's up. I would take Ron's lead and decide when the time came. But I have to say it would take something pretty good to be better than the satisfaction of voting for Ron -- whether he's the nominee on the ballot or not.

Did Nelson Rockefeller give a crap about animosity when he tried to place all "extremist" Birchers in the same category as the KKK and Nazi's? George Romney supported Rockefeller. Why shouldn't we hold Nelson's behavior against them to this day. The neo-cons are the despoilers, they are the ones who hijacked the republican party, not us. They don't belong in the republican party, send them back to the democrats. No one but paul.

 

[RDM]

I refuse to go to the voting booth as a "bleeding heart liberal" feeling sorry for voters who don't research candidates. So I have to fall into place and vote for what's wrong? I don't think so. NOBP

 

[PatriotOne]

Stickin it to the GOP is just a perk to me if they don't nominate RP. The real reason I won't vote for anyone but Paul is it is just a vote for the bankers and big government and I refuse to aid and abet those terrorists. Though you can bet it will give me pleasure when Obama wins and the GOP goes down in flames again in 2012. Either way it's a win for the bankers so we might as well hold the GOP hostage in anticipation of the 2016 run. Maybe they will be a bit nicer to us eh?

 

[EBounding]

We must not act so brazen just yet. I had a number of Republicans ask me about that at a party function last Saturday, only to follow it up with, "and that's why I'd rather Obama win then you guys." Digging in, only encourages the other side to do so as well. But of course, when asked outright, I couldn't very well deny that I'd likely follow Johnson into the LP. It is what it is.

I completely agree with this. It doesn't help us to say we're going to hold the GOP nomination "hostage". That's not going to make people consider Paul, it just makes us look petty and crazy.

I just tell people, "I'm supporting Paul, but I could support Romney if he sincerely adopts some of Paul's policies". You don't have to mean it.

 

[Voluntary Man]

Stickin it to the GOP is just a perk to me if they don't nominate RP. The real reason I won't vote for anyone but Paul is it is just a vote for the bankers and big government and I refuse to aid and abet those terrorists. Though you can bet it will give me pleasure when Obama wins and the GOP goes down in flames again in 2012. Either way it's a win for the bankers so we might as well hold the GOP hostage in anticipation of the 2016 run. Maybe they will be a bit nicer to us eh?

I actually have a theory about how to use this movement to openly take back the GOP •and• take over the DNC. Don't recall if I've expressed it here before, though.

www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.ph...Possible-Candidate-EVER&p=4082294#post4082294

 

[ams5995]

I agree this creates animosity. I think we need to see what's up. I would take Ron's lead and decide when the time came. But I have to say it would take something pretty good to be better than the satisfaction of voting for Ron -- whether he's the nominee on the ballot or not.

War creates animosity. Restriction of freedom creates animosity. We are for peace, they are for war. We want freedom, do they? They create animosity, not us. They don't listen or come up with valid arguments against principles. They are like stubborn children who know they're wrong but are going to persist on being right due to pride. They are arrogant, pride, spiteful, hateful.

 

[Captain Shays]

I agree this creates animosity. I think we need to see what's up. I would take Ron's lead and decide when the time came. But I have to say it would take something pretty good to be better than the satisfaction of voting for Ron -- whether he's the nominee on the ballot or not.

I wonder if constantly ignoring our candidate/hero or if they do mention him they arrogantly laugh or say something disgusting like "he's crazy" or "he's dangerous" or "he's too old" or "he's unelectable" or any number of rude things creates animosity? I wonder if when they call us "Paulbots" and "potheads" and rowdy kids" and anarchists" and "Obama lovers" creates animosity?

The truth is the truth. They cannot win without us. So why again should we agree to support their candidate that they are trying to shove down our throats while doing that to the candidate that we not only agree with on the deepest principles that inspires us and excites us and educates us?

 

[Captain Shays]

How could I possibly agree to support one of their candidates Obama, Gingrich, Romney or Santorum when we will get deeper in debt, more wars and less liberty? What is it that they would like to hear me say? That I don't care about my freedom anymore? That I love unnecessary wars now as much as they do? That debt into the next three generations of my children is fine since I won't be alive to see them enslaved while they are working to pay it off?

That undeclared unjust war under the Gingrich administration is better than an undeclared unjust war under an Obama administration?
That massive accumulative debt under Romney is more desirable than massive accumulative debt under Obama?

That it's better to have Santorum robbing me of my freedom and Obama to do it?

 

[nobody's_hero]

I agree with this too, if 4 more of Obama is what it takes to "reboot" the party and get those old dinosaurs to wake up so be it, they laugh at us I'll be laughing when their party crumbles if they refuse Ron.

I had hoped so as well, but . . .

There's no guarantee that they'll become supporters of the Constitution/small government. It's more likely they'll say, "If we just behave more like big-government liberals, we can win over some of those votes." That seems to have been the logic behind McCain in 08, and it will be the logic behind Romney in 2012.