RON Paul 2016 vs. Romney (Wead)

[sailingaway]

It wouldn't be persuasive for me either. I'd still support him. I just think it would be baggage.

I edited my response ^^

 

[NoOneButPaul]

If Romney wins I think it's a great idea.

If Romney loses it's a miserable idea.

 

[KingNothing]

Then you should vote for him. Fiscal conservatism isn't my only hot button and Gary's record is absent or wishy washy on what makes a candidate a 'liberty candidate' rather than just a fiscal conservative to me. Corporatism being part of that. Also, from your posts, I think you fall more into the 'pragmatic' camp than the 'idealistic' camp here, and I am more in the latter.

I don't think it's about pragmatism vs idealism. It's just a numbers game. We can't expect everyone to be Ron Paul, and we can't expect someone with Ron Paul's positions, style, resume, and life-experiences to win every election. I realize this may seem like I'm endorsing "pragmatism" but I'm not. To me, pragmatism implies something like what the LP did by pushing Barr, or what Liberty-leaning Republicans did when they opted for Romney and not Paul. At some point, we have to say "Ok, we have one guy in this specific race. He isn't perfect, but his rhetoric is in line with Paul's in almost every instance and his record is wonderful. He's good enough in this specific race." If we can't at least do that, we're going to have a lot of trouble becoming a significant force in the American political landscape.

People who like Gary should vote for him. Saying people who don't like him should and it is somehow a count for Ron is what I find counterintuitive.

I just disagree with the assessment that Gary Johnson is somehow unworthy of our support, given that he's the only Liberty candidate running in the election now. Especially for the reason you stated --- corporatism. Really? You think he's a corporatist? Is there anything in his record that even remotely supports that assertion?

I do feel that in order to place a no confidence vote you do actually have to go to the polls and vote on something, so people don't spin it as contentment or laziness, though. But you could write in Ron Paul or even just leave that office blank, and it would be a vote of no confidence in the others.

The best way to influence the Republican party is to cost them a swing state by giving votes to either the Libertarian or Constitutional parties. That would force them to, at the very least, pay lip-service to Liberty-minded people in those particular states. Far more importantly, it would provide more ammo for changing the narrative that we're a non-important fringe element. Thanks to Paul, that narrative has already begun to change, and significantly so.

 

[sailingaway]

Vote as you please, but people who don't want to vote as you please should not have to continuously justify their own vote.

People who want to vote for Gary will, but it is an individual, not group collective choice for 'who is worthy of our support.'. I want to vote for Ron Paul, and intend to.

On corporatism, what was in my mind at the time was his approval of NAFTA which gives primary benefits of trade to the well connected and cuts out individuals and small businesses, or even less well connected larger businesses. But I am not saying it is worse than Obama or Romney, given GJ is a fiscal conservative, it is just that a cost benefit analysis allows that sort of thing. But I wrote my post at a time when a bunch of GJ posters were in here trying to argue everyone should switch their support to their candidate, very insistently, as a sort of forum wide basis, and that has died down. I have no problem with people voting as they want to in November.

 

[RickyJ]

Yet another hint that Ron may run in 2016. That is 3 hints now, one from Ron himself!

No one knows what the future holds but God, but we do know that if Ron Paul keeps himself healthy and this nation is around and having elections in 2016 that I do believe there is a chance, however small, of Ron Paul running in 2016. I'll take whatever I can get! I just pray this country can last four more years!

 

[DeMintConservative]

I think this may actually happen. I don't see Rand Paul running in 2016 regardless of who wins this year, so Ron Paul primarying Romney a la Buchanan makes lot of sense. A 1992 redux.

 

[KingNothing]

I think this may actually happen. I don't see Rand Paul running in 2016 regardless of who wins this year, so Ron Paul primarying Romney a la Buchanan makes lot of sense. A 1992 redux.

If Obama wins, why on earth wouldn't Rand run in 2016? He'd basically have his father's entire machine as a starting point, and all of the experience of his father's two presidential runs fresh in his mind. On top of that, he'll have racked up a record in the Senate more impressive than every other Senator in modern history.

 

[WilliamShrugged]

I would probably support Ron in 2016 but i think that he will be worst off. In 07 when Paul ran, his ability to process and communicate in interviews and debates was better than this election. I believe its his age. How many times i watched him in a debate or interview and knew what he was trying to say or should be saying. Yet you could tell Ron's brain is scrambling to make the point. The man will be 81 years old! He is healthy and will most likely live for quite some time, but his ability to communicate isn't getting any better.

 

[hrdman2luv]

Post Paul: What now? (Doug Wead)

Wead presents some interesting options and scenarios:



It's not a scenario I ever considered, but it would make sense. Ron's the only Republican that would dare challenge Romney in a primary and he's the only one with nothing to lose. I understand now why the RNC was pulling out all the stops.

Also, can writing someone in really invalidate your entire ballot?

When/If Ron Paul decides to run for President at the age of 81, let me know then.

 

[RickyJ]

I would probably support Ron in 2016 but i think that he will be worst off. In 07 when Paul ran, his ability to process and communicate in interviews and debates was better than this election. I believe its his age. How many times i watched him in a debate or interview and knew what he was trying to say or should be saying. Yet you could tell Ron's brain is scrambling to make the point. The man will be 81 years old! He is healthy and will most likely live for quite some time, but his ability to communicate isn't getting any better.

Well, he needs to start taking Niacin, it can improve memory, as well as lower cholesterol.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Boy, if the man who vetoed more pieces of legislation during his time in office than all other governors in America combined because those pieces of legislation contained things that "government should not do" is not good enough for us, no one but Paul will ever be good enough for us.

Gary isn't perfect, but if he were the Republican nominee for president, I would happily vote for him. I can't imagine that we'd ever do much better than #GoGaryJohnson. He's certainly "satisfactory" to me if Ron isn't in the race.

I was leaning towards voting GJ but your post has made up my mind...

 

[FindLiberty]

2016? I say, NO. Ron's got 36 months to finish grooming... someone YOUNGER.

Please, do it for the love of Liberty!

Maybe even Rand Paul could be rescued, repaired and improved upon by then...

I also suggest a thorough pre-cooking to temper and withstand the heat of the election year!

RP can help the win by doing interview shows, coach, advise and push/pull to make it happen before 2016.

I'd vote for Ron Paul, but IMHO, he'll just be too old to attract and win enough votes in 2016.

 

[sailingaway]

From my point of view, I don't think it makes sense to discuss Ron in 2016 except to say it may or may not happen. The fact is, if there is someone who, with age taken into account, is perceived as better, people won't be badgering Ron to run. If they don't badger Ron to run, I doubt he will. When has he ever? But if, even with age taken into account, Ron is still perceived as the best choice, pressure will happen.

But that is years from now.

 

[jkob]

As much as I want Ron to be president, I think him running again for a 4th time at age 81 would marginalize the movement and make it seem like too much of a cult of personality. We need somebody younger like Rand or Amash.

Beating Romney for renomination in 2016 would be borderline impossible so lets hope he doesn't win in 2012.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

If Romney wins this election, then there is no hope for any of us.
It will be proof that elections are a complete fraud.

 

[WesSeid]

Ron already didn't attack Romney THIS year "to protect the Paul name" or whatever the reason was. Why would anyone think he'd attack Romney in 2016.

Ron should have went after Romney. He didn't.

 

[coffeewithgames]

I'm writing in Ron Paul. I think there have been a ton of threads on this topic already and people have pretty much gone through the options and benefits for them of their votes.

And if Ron runs in 2016 I will support him, but I would want some campaign changes.

There were campaign changes from 2008, to 2012. Jesse Benton was simply a media guy in 2008, and not higher up then. You need to have a candidate that wants to win.

 

[QuickZ06]

I'm voting GJ.

Maybe Romney is slightly better than Obama on some issues, but I will not vote for either and don't think it makes a whole lot of difference who wins.

I'd be in for Ron primarying Romney 2016. I'm also in for Rand 2016.

Nope he is exactly the same if not worse. Every president continues to be worse than its predecessor. The NWO/Shadow Government is propping these guys up and are slowly slipping us into more tyranny.

 

[Ivash]

So Ron told Mitt that if he wins and does not work to address the things that Ron cares deeply about, Ron will Primary him in 2016. In response to that threat, Mitt's team did everything they could to change the nomination and delegate rules to limit Ron's ability to challenge Mitt next cycle.

That is... unlikely, to say the least. The rules were changed because most people (even in the RNC) simply don't see the point of delegates anymore. The system is going to change so that the eventual nominee has to win the popular vote or get damn close to winning it.

Frankly I'm surprised they weren't changed earlier.

 

[Ivash]

If Romney wins this election, then there is no hope for any of us.
It will be proof that elections are a complete fraud.

I don't understand how anyone could see the polls or the economic situation and think that Romney doesn't have chance.