sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
quit the attacks. argue logic, please.
PAUL / JOHNSON 2012
- Thread starter ProBlue33
- Start date
quit the attacks. argue logic, please.
Last edited:
PhineasFinn
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2011
- Messages
- 65
Here's what we have learned from the 2012 election process: There are 2 factions in the GOP. 1) The Bush Republicans & 2) The Paul Republicans.
The Paul faction will definitely outlast the Bush faction based on their ability to garner the youth vote. Neoconservative ideology has become an old-guard belief system.
The Paul faction will definitely outlast the Bush faction based on their ability to garner the youth vote. Neoconservative ideology has become an old-guard belief system.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
I was Republican. I just thought elections were like taking out the trash, something that had to be done, not anything to get worked up about. I didn't vote in primaries before 2008.
satchelmcqueen
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 7,381
ill vote for that ticket
ProBlue33
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,130
Yes I think we all know in the end he didn't actually have the numbers to pull off a win, however a little fairness and respect was demanded, so now a Paul/Johnson ticket guarantee's a Romney loss and rightfully and deservedly so, clearing the way for Rand Paul in 2016, if some how Obama loses, this movement at the federal level is screwed for at least a decade or more, there isn't the time to play nice as you say, or are you that naive after watching the 2012 election cycle.
In fact I really find that whole post very suspect in nature.
Last edited:
Galileo Galilei
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,992
Ron Paul did exactly the same thing Rand is doing when he first got into congress. Ron endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1976 and then again in 1980. So by your definition, you are calling Ron Paul a sellout. In fact, Ron wanted to give people a fair chance when he was new. So does Rand, he is giving Romney a fair chance.
It is sort of like giving a person a fair trial even when you know they are guilty.
That's similar to what I've said. Ron doesn't need to head or be VP on the ticket. All that has to happen is to announce that if Gary Johnson wins he'll make Ron Paul the Secretary of Awesome or whatever.
We all know Ron Paul wouldn't last long being, say, the Chairman of The Fed because he'd just shut it down, eliminate his position, and then be home by lunch.
Maybe some before the convention. Now... not so much.
The RNC must not care if they lose this election since I don't know how they think they can win by ticking off Liberty AND Tea Party people who helped destroy the Democrats during the 2010 election.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
Nonsense. Reagan was the conservative choice and he talked a good game. Ron trusted him. Ron DIDN'T endorse Ford after Reagan lost in 1976, because Reagan was his guy -- he mentioned that on Cavuto last week.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
He'd have to win first.
The entire attraction of Ron running again is the debates because Ron polled high enough as hypothetical third party to get into them, over the last year. Johnson this last week polled 1% in Rasmussen, and is unlikely to get near the debates, so any 'after he wins' appointment isn't going to be too exciting.
but it is the LP's position. I think people were talking about it because Gary had said he'd step aside at one point, or was quoted to have said that, and more recently apparently he said he'd take Ron as VP, which is just as against the rules as Presidential nominee, but doesn't give benefits enough to make it worth it.
But LP has candidates and can stick with them, certainly.
Last edited:
I don't see how it is possible to even have Ron Paul run as an independent, he won't be on the ballot in 8 states, based on sore loser laws. He can't run under the LP that I am aware of because Johnson already won the nomination. We have a lot of work to do but Ron running 3rd party is not going to happen folks, sorry.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
sore loser laws aren't really an issue: http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/0...t-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/
however, there are other ballot date requirements many of which have passed. But he could get matching funds if he applied for them, and run to get into the debates, with write in campaigns in most places where he can't get on the ballot. But I agree, the LP thing was the best fit, and it offers the LP getting into the debates, likely, and a lot more funding, and a lot more support. But they do already have a candidate and if they don't want to jump through hoops to change it, that is entirely their choice.
I would love it if Ron Paul ran as a 3rd party but the structure has to be right or it is a losing battle. I also agree with the fact that many states have already closed the time line to register as a write in. the LP would have been the best result and I agree that really isn't probable at this time for Ron Paul to be able to run on the LP ticket. We made leaps and bounds this election through the delegate process, we just need to keep taking over at the local level and we will have a chance to make some real changes.
Similar threads
