Ron Paul might ensure victory for Hillary

[johngr]

I thought I was following your logic but this last post has me puzzled. What are you suggesting? Are we susposed to turn anti Clinton Democrats away from RP?

No, I couldn't in good conscience suggest that. But he will need a majority of the primary vote in enough states to be assured the nomination and I don't think that's likely.

Suppose you had put 10000 to win on Dr. Paul when the odds were 200 to 1. Those 2 million dollars would allow you to retire. Of course, you would do everything you can to get him elected. But would you not give a thought to how you would plan for your retirement if somehow he doesn't make it?

Part of me thinks sometimes that being involved in politics and voting (I wasn't involved for many years -- very cynical about the dirty business) is a waste of time. While we finally have a worthy candidate, they have Diebold and other dirty tricks.

I'm just saying, what do we as a movement do if Dr. Paul doesn't win. One thing I would do is live so that I did not have to pay taxes and boycott -- to the extent practical -- the Federal Reserve.

If enough of us did that...

 

[Wendi]

It is worthy to look ahead, but not at the expense of any chance to win. There's no sense in dwelling on the fact that support for Ron Paul might pull folks' out of the democratic party and allow her to get the nomination for them. If those folks don't come out of the democratic party and support Ron Paul in the primaries, we could end up with Hillary on the ballot against Guliani. I'd rather stake everything on the possibility of giving her some decent opposition than keeping her off in the first place. What do we do as a movement if RP doesn't win in '08? We pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off and carry on. Bottom line? The Ron Paul campaign is one battle in a much larger war of ideals. If you're in it just for Ron Paul - great. We're glad to have you. Just ignore the rest of this post. If you're in it for the movement, the ideals... then you know. Losing the battle doesn't mean the war is over. We will keep fighting, and someday... we will win.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Uh, hillary will suck, but its not like its worth giving up on Ron Paul to vote for a "lesser" of two evils JUSt to stop hillary, when they will be only slightly worse. Go balls deep, or not at all. Ron paul or bust, motherfuckers. If he loses, we are fucked whether its hillary, giuliani, or even Obama. Besides, your logic might seem sound to you but its not really based in reality at all, and is just speculation.

 

[BillyDkid]

Frankly, as much as I detest Hillary, I would take ten Hillarys over one Ghouliani. But it's all a moot point. Ron Paul has to win and we have to make it happen. There is no other choice.

 

[mdh]

But he will need a majority of the primary vote in enough states to be assured the nomination and I don't think that's likely.

Blah blah, pathetic worthless defeatist attitude, blah blah. gb2/hannity/.

Seriously, if you don't think we can win but will vote for Dr. Paul anyway, go do so quietly. Don't spread your bullcrap here. This is a place for winners, not people who concede defeat before the battle is fought.

So, winners, let's ignore this dork and get back to work. Losers need not apply.

 

[Wendi]

Hey, take it easy on him. There are probably a lot of people who *want* to win but are sooooooo used to losing... they need some motivation, encouragement, helping hand

Lift our allies up... don't squash them down. Yes, winning is the only option. That's why we need *everyone* in this deal!

 

[RP4ME]

i think RP is their worst nightmare....hahah
Clinton said Huckabee would be tough to beat? Pick teh biggest loser...they are scared of Paul - if he is competeing against Hillary - he WILL get the airtime and people WILL know his paltform unlike now - and he will win. Its the Nomination that we need to worry most about!

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It is worthy to look ahead, but not at the expense of any chance to win. There's no sense in dwelling on the fact that support for Ron Paul might pull folks' out of the democratic party and allow her to get the nomination for them. If those folks don't come out of the democratic party and support Ron Paul in the primaries, we could end up with Hillary on the ballot against Guliani. I'd rather stake everything on the possibility of giving her some decent opposition than keeping her off in the first place. What do we do as a movement if RP doesn't win in '08? We pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off and carry on. Bottom line? The Ron Paul campaign is one battle in a much larger war of ideals. If you're in it just for Ron Paul - great. We're glad to have you. Just ignore the rest of this post. If you're in it for the movement, the ideals... then you know. Losing the battle doesn't mean the war is over. We will keep fighting, and someday... we will win.

I wouldn't be in it if not for Ron Paul... I'd probably be doing my own thing right now

 

[DahuiHeeNalu]

This post makes no sense.

 

[johngr]

Blah blah, pathetic worthless defeatist attitude, blah blah. gb2/hannity/.

Seriously, if you don't think we can win but will vote for Dr. Paul anyway, go do so quietly. Don't spread your bullcrap here. This is a place for winners, not people who concede defeat before the battle is fought.

So, winners, let's ignore this dork and get back to work. Losers need not apply.

You attacked me when I did not attack you associating me with someone I have nothing to do with. You said nothing in response to the points I raised. In other words, you have adopted the tactics of the other side. I plan for winning the nomination (after that the election wins itself) and losing it. Win or lose, judging by your response, I don't expect to see you around after the election.

 

[Tina]

By sucking away the anti-war democrats from closed-primary states (which New York conveniently switched to). The best he'll get from the primaries is a plurality. Then all they have to do is have the 2 runners-up cut a backroom deal and -- viola, instant President Hillary.

This post is word salad. Makes no sense.

 

[Corydoras]

1. Backroom deal ain't gonna happen. A presidential election is too big for a stab in the back like the Dems pulled on Lieberman, and Lieberman won anyway.

2. Let Ron Paul decide what to do if he doesn't win the primary. For example, he might choose to pull a Kucinich, by which I mean going around the country getting enough delegates to have some influence on the party. Or he might not. It's up to him.

3. As for what you yourself are going to do, and as for what liberty-loving people are going to do... there was a movement before the campaign and there will be one in the future whether or not there is a President Paul. He didn't appear out of nowhere backed by nobody.

 

[johngr]

But what could we accomplish if we did something useful like boycotting the federal reserve and setting up alternative economic systems instead of staying involved in the dirty business of politics and voting (assuming Dr. Paul doesn't win. If he does win, he's still going to need our help.) I liked better in some ways when liberty lovers were by and large fully disgusted with politics and eschewed it.

 

[Starks]

Which anti-war Democrats? Obama and Edwards also talk about the troops might not be home by 2013. Kucinich and Gravel are not viable.

As a former Democrat, that is a gross misstatement. The candidates are alienating their anti-war base, not the other way around.

 

[erowe1]

I wasn't clear enough. Ron Paul's support comes in part from people who would otherwise vote in the Democratic primary and work to make sure that Hillary doesn't get nominated.

If you think Hillary will not get the nomination, you're mistaken. She will.

One of the real anti-war Dems might have won.

You mean Gravel or Kucinich? You're joking right?

But you're still not being clear enough. What kind of back room deal were you talking about in your first post?