Hubby just said...

[KurtA]

If he is offered such a position, and we are not in a position to win, I hope he has the political acumen to take the position and move the liberty movement a giant step forward.

What? And help Romney win?

A better strategy, I think, would be to let the Republicans take it in the teeth for their obstinate stupidity. Four more years of Obama, and then, instead of having to challenge a Republican incumbent, Rand Paul can step up with a blank slate and a TON of support.

 

[muh_roads]

50-75% of the current supporters wouldn't accept it.

 

[cindy25]

99% of Ron's supporters would accept Paul/Romney ; 100% would accept Paul/Lee or Paul/Labrador

 

[WilliamShrugged]

if ron did that i would lose so much respect for him.

 

[ericthethe]

a Romney/Paul or Paul/Romney team would be unstoppable against the Obama machine.

Just reporting in.

(He voted for Ron Paul in the primary here last time, is big into gun rights, but leans slightly neocon.)

Who cares?

 

[Marky]

Romney is indeed a flip flopper, but he would never flip flop on the side of liberty. Going against the Fed, the war machine, and the police state would be biting the hand that feeds him. He is an establishment puppet and a full fledged agent of the NWO. The only thing that will make him “flip flop” against those powerful special interests would be some kind of spiritual awakening, after which he would become useless to the people who’ve “made” him.

I would honestly rather have George W. Bush or Barack Obama in the White House than Romney. Mitt is even more of a warmonger, and represents the ultimate 21st century corporatist politician….No real principals…total puppet. Just listen to him when he speaks about anything to do with the State of Israel. He pretty much flat out said the US should follow Israel and support anything they do (and keep funneling in that aid), because they know best. He’s stated that Palestinians have no right to exist in so many words. I’m not saying that the US president should even be involved in the affairs of Middle Eastern war and/or peace. But, what I am saying is his fanatical rhetoric is something you would never hear from George W. Bush, and illustrates who he works for.

He is the opposite of Ron Paul, and any talk of a Paul/Romney ticket makes me cringe.

 

[Jordan]

I'll vote for any ticket on which the Paul name appears. It's good for getting his message out for another 4 years in a very powerful and public position several hundred steps above "former congressman and failed presidential candidate."

 

[noxnoctum]

I would never vote for a Romney/Paul ticket. Never. Vice presidents are powerless.

 

[tremendoustie]

I also understand its powerful leverage. But when it comes down to pulling the lever privately...4 more of Obama is pretty damn shitty.

So is four years of mitt. You think they're different? Jokes on you for believing the MSM spin. They agree on all major issues.

 

[Phyxrgon]

i don't think that is a good idea at all... mittens is no different than obozo, so why even consider him on the ticket with ron paul-- particular when odumba would destroy romney as-is since his popularity is tanking? logic died here, methinks.

 

[The Free Hornet]

What if they made an agreement where Romney would be pres. and Ron Vice,but only if Romney publicly agreed to follow through on some of the things Paul wants.

If Ron could get Romney to follow through on 5 ideas of Pauls.What would they be?

1. End the Fed
2. Close down most foreign bases
3. Stop foreign Aid
4. close down the 5 departments Ron wants
5. End the drug War

If Romney publicly agreed to those things id be willing to take that chance with Paul as vice,but only if there was no way Paul could win.

half a loaf is better than none


also i speculate that romney might offer the vp slot with the intent of Ron turning it down

they will pander to the Paul base with a Paul ticket or other means - more than just words

 

[cindy25]

half a loaf is better than none


also i speculate that romney might offer the vp slot with the intent of Ron turning it down

they will pander to the Paul base with a Paul ticket or other means - more than just words

JFK offered the VP to LBJ expecting a turn down ; it enraged Bobby as Symington of MO was promised the VP

 

[libertybrewcity]

VP has no power? Tell that to Dick Cheney

yea, Ron probably wouldn't interpret the Constitution the way Cheney did.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I'll vote for any ticket on which the Paul name appears. It's good for getting his message out for another 4 years in a very powerful and public position several hundred steps above "former congressman and failed presidential candidate."

Do you think it'd help if it were "failed Congressman & a useless showpony of a failed VP"?

If he isn't the nominee then we mustn't vote GOP & show them our strength in numbers & that we're NOT a bunch of compromisers who will sacrifice liberty for political expedience & our numbers will continue to grow & if we don't vote GOP then they lose & another 4 years of Obama could mean people running away from totalitarian-state & fair number of them will join liberty too as many already have over the last couple of years - we MUSTN'T do what Washington always does & what has brought this country to its knees......sacrificing the long-term goals by doing what's expedient in the short-term - NO COMPROMISES

 

[affa]

People on here are starting to behave like cult members. Ron is not the leader of a personality cult. If Romney is willing to make policy concessions, why in the world wouldn't Ron agree to run on a ticket with him?

There would be no reason for Romney to follow through. Heck, Presidents are well known for not making good on publicly made promises -- why would anyone trust Romney to follow through on backroom concessions to Ron Paul? C'mon.

Also - calling us 'cultists' because we don't agree with you is just gross.

In response to other points being made:

Cheney was an exception, because GWB was a weak president. Most VPs are a media punching bag. Ron Paul would be presented that way. They already try to do this.

Paul/Romney - doesn't even make sense. But I do not ever want someone I don't trust 2nd in line.

While it is true that the man is not the message, and that the movement will continue, anyone who thinks the movement will retain its current strength without Ron Paul is sadly, mistaken. One of the key things Ron Paul has isn't just his will to speak truth to power, but a 30 year track record of doing so. That track record is incredibly important to many of us.

My entire life, I've watched terrible president after terrible president get elected. And each time, all I hear is 'well, in 4 years, we'll have to fix it'. No. The 'in 4 years' excuse is destroying this country. We need to fix it this year. Now.

Or else we'll forever be waiting 4 more years.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

i don't think that is a good idea at all... mittens is no different than obozo, so why even consider him on the ticket with ron paul-- particular when odumba would destroy romney as-is since his popularity is tanking? logic died here, methinks.

+1

Too many Romney-trolls, methinks!

 

[abruzz0]

If Ron doesn't get the nomination, the GOP can go eff themselves and crumble into political oblivion. Who gives a shit at that point

And don't give me this Rand '16 business. Half this board bitches about him enough as it is.

 

[affa]

I get and respect both of those houses of thought, but I don't get the irrational child like NOBP with minimal intellectual backing. Don't vote to "stick it to someone", vote in a way that merges everything, namely what's best for the country and the movement.

minimal intellectual backing? Please. My vote goes only to Paul because it's the only man I'd ever vote for. Why in the world would I vote for Romney? I'm not trying to advance Ron Paul's career to VP, i'm trying to end wars, end debt, end the fed, and restore our civil liberties... none of which would occur under a Romney presidency no matter who the VP is.

You say this isn't about a man, it's about a movement... and you are absolutely correct. And the movement requires we end these wars. now. it requires we audit/end the fed. now. it requires we reestablish our civil liberties. now.

getting Ron Paul in as VP accomplishes none of this. It delays the movement, it sidelines it. You know what Romney/Paul will get us? Certainly not Rand in 2016. More likely? Either Obama gets another term, or Romney/Not Paul in 2016, followed by a Dem in 2020. The liberty movement will be crushed.

Telling the world you'd vote for Romney/Paul is the equivalent of telling the establishment 'meh, you don't need to give us Paul as prez, because ultimately, we'll be voting for Romney'. They no longer need to listen to you.

I'm not okay with that. I never will be. I realize you guys think you're on the high ground, willing to compromise for the cause of liberty, but I don't think you're on the high ground. I think you don't realize that you're enabling the establishment to do exactly what they do every four years, because you hold on hope that maybe, just maybe, they'll magically change. They won't.

They will give just enough to convince you to vote for their man, and then in a year or so you'll realize they were lying to you and all you got was a lousy t-shirt.

 

[hard@work]

We know Mitt's team is here working to figure us out. I'm sure that's a fun job. And very educational. But let's just be frank? There is only one way to garner our support. And that is a honest and rigid shift in platforms.

The war issue is the primary issue. The state's rights issue is a strong second.

I cannot see the war issue being satisfied. I do not see how Romney can handle the neocons by flipping here. I don't see how he can gain our trust flipping here either. Fool me once and all that.

Good luck with it all Mittens. No one but Paul.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

minimal intellectual backing? Please. My vote goes only to Paul because it's the only man I'd ever vote for. Why in the world would I vote for Romney? I'm not trying to advance Ron Paul's career to VP, i'm trying to end wars, end debt, end the fed, and restore our civil liberties... none of which would occur under a Romney presidency no matter who the VP is.

You say this isn't about a man, it's about a movement... and you are absolutely correct. And the movement requires we end these wars. now. it requires we audit/end the fed. now. it requires we reestablish our civil liberties. now.

getting Ron Paul in as VP accomplishes none of this. It delays the movement, it sidelines it. You know what Romney/Paul will get us? Certainly not Rand in 2016. More likely? Either Obama gets another term, or Romney/Not Paul in 2016, followed by a Dem in 2020. The liberty movement will be crushed.

Telling the world you'd vote for Romney/Paul is the equivalent of telling the establishment 'meh, you don't need to give us Paul as prez, because ultimately, we'll be voting for Romney'. They no longer need to listen to you.

I'm not okay with that. I never will be. I realize you guys think you're on the high ground, willing to compromise for the cause of liberty, but I don't think you're on the high ground. I think you don't realize that you're enabling the establishment to do exactly what they do every four years, because you hold on hope that maybe, just maybe, they'll magically change. They won't.

They will give just enough to convince you to vote for their man, and then in a year or so you'll realize they were lying to you and all you got was a lousy t-shirt.

+1

We know Mitt's team is here working to figure us out.

That's for sure He doesn't mind buying votes of those numbnuts that believe him & hope that he'll keep his word

I think it's time mods consider banning Romney-bots, otherwise this going to destroy liberty-movement into which we've invest so efforts into over last few years May be give'em a warning & if they keep trolling in favor of Romney then just ban them