Jeremy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 12,580
The movement isn't dependent on one man. And he's only done if he doesn't win.
Hubby just said...
- Thread starter wgadget
- Start date
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
I'm wondering how much of a procedural holdout the president of the senate can wield if they want? What if a VP Paul decided to occupy that role on a daily basis?
Jeremy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 12,580
Well even if he has no power, he would still be a thorn through the things he says.
For example, imagine if Mitt Romney signed the NDAA instead of Obama. Ron would start criticizing Mitt, which would be in the news and it would be a disaster for Mitt. But that's why Mitt wouldn't make Ron VP. I could see him trying to do it with Rand though. But I hope not.
Last edited:
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
uhh...Ron would never be on a Romney ticket nor would he be asked to. Rand Paul, however, is a prime candidate for VP.
S
Schiff_FTW
Guest
It wouldn't matter what Ron Paul would or wouldn't do; he would be inextricably linked to the Romney administration. We are not dealing with a well-informed public that would differentiate between the two. We are dealing with people who think Iraq was behind 9/11 and "the free market" caused the financial crash.
braane
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,198
Clearly Ron and Mitt get along. Mitt seems to have very little conviction and with that a VP could be very influential to him in the white house, especially one who Mitt likes.The political winds are blowing our way. We need to capitalize on it. We need Ron in the white house in 2013, even if it is in a position that is mostly powerless.
So I would be slightly disappointed if Ron didn't accept. Although, with the way the GOP has treated us... I would be slightly happy at the same time.
So I would be slightly disappointed if Ron didn't accept. Although, with the way the GOP has treated us... I would be slightly happy at the same time.
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
he can't "make him" do anything.
It would be a huge compromise for Mitt. IF, he did pick Rand he would be ceding that he couldn't do anything that would piss us off too much because Rand would be our leverage.
Jeremy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 12,580
So you're saying if Biden started telling the media that Obama is a bad president no one would care? If Biden did that, Obama would be finished.
xFiFtyOnE
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2011
- Messages
- 554
Ron said he likes Mitt. They have became somewhat friends since the last election. Obviously they differ on ALOT of things but that doesn't mean they can't be civil.
Heck no. We need to nip this stuff in the bud. I wouldn't even accept it if Paul led the ticket.
From my understanding, George H. Bush was widely opposed because of his insider connections, and even CFR etc. Reagan was considered the outsider, and didn't have those connections to the same extent. But with the same political "logic," Reagan chose Bush as his running mate, stunning his anti-Establishment voters. The administration was then filled with insiders and CFR types again, exactly like previous presidencies. And we all saw how that turned out - wildly expanding spending, debt and government.
I know a lot of us have the "political realities" of compromise drilled into our heads at government-funded colleges, and by the media, to force us at every turn to compromise and sell out. But this would just lead to politics as usual, our movement/reputation's integrity would be tarnished, and government would continue to grow.
The truth is we MUST forge a new path. We cannot repeat history and expect a different result.
From my understanding, George H. Bush was widely opposed because of his insider connections, and even CFR etc. Reagan was considered the outsider, and didn't have those connections to the same extent. But with the same political "logic," Reagan chose Bush as his running mate, stunning his anti-Establishment voters. The administration was then filled with insiders and CFR types again, exactly like previous presidencies. And we all saw how that turned out - wildly expanding spending, debt and government.
I know a lot of us have the "political realities" of compromise drilled into our heads at government-funded colleges, and by the media, to force us at every turn to compromise and sell out. But this would just lead to politics as usual, our movement/reputation's integrity would be tarnished, and government would continue to grow.
The truth is we MUST forge a new path. We cannot repeat history and expect a different result.
newbitech
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 8,847
thanks for doing my dirty work =)
I think all this talk is moot. The real people in charge (Goldman Sachs) will never allow Dr. Paul any where near the White House. Why should they care about helping Mitt Romney become president when they already have their man Obama. Obama vs. Romney = win for Goldman Sachs.
Jeremy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 12,580
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
WHAT!
You wouldn't vote for Ron if he picked a bad VP for strategic purposes?
irrelevant, he won't pick Romney. he has said he wants a VP who agrees with him.
Rev9
S
Schiff_FTW
Guest
That would be a huge win for the establishment, that's for sure.
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
On that note, could the president of the senate kept NDAA from even coming up for a vote? Or let infinite numbers of amendment proposals be added/debated?
Jeremy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 12,580
And Mitt won't pick Ron.
Right, and nothing prevents us from further action in the GOP if Ron runs Third or Indy.
Newsflash, he won't. His views are antithetical to ours. There probably won't be a brokered convention, but if there is he'll cut a deal with Santorum or Gingrich.
Similar threads
