Ron Paul: "We know none of the four will be elected." WTF?

Knightskye said:
Whole lot of confidence he has.

http://am830.net/audio/KLAA-Oxman-20080923-RepRonPaul.mp3

Around 11 minutes into the interview.
Click to expand...

No offense but the third party candidates have virtually zero name recognition amongst the general population.

Voting for them is NOT a waste, we want good numbers and to get third parties into debates. But seriously none of them but Nader are known to anyone...

Voting for baldwin and happy to do it, but I don't have any illusions.
 
Knightskye said:
So you knew Ron Paul wouldn't be elected in 2008?
Click to expand...
Ron Paul was not a third-party candidate.

Actually this brings up a good point, which is that one of the main reasons RP ran as a Republican was because he knew the deck was stacked against third parties.
 
What, you guys actually think they will?

I thought the whole point of this was to get more people aware. Less votes for the two main candidates now will show that America doesn't like this two party system. Like we said about the revolution, it won't be an overnight thing. It'll take time, and this is just a step upward.
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
I'd vote for McCain over Baldwin. Baldwin supporters are quite annoying. Voting against him alone kind of vents some of my frustrations against his naive supporters of protectionism
Click to expand...

+1

If I'm going to be fucked, I'd rather it be done by a gaggle of unenthusiastic old people rather than a bunch of raving lunatics
 
Last edited:
obsolescence said:
Jesus, you're delusional if you think any of the third party candidates have even an iota of chance.
Click to expand...

There are many delusional people here. They actually believed for the longest time there was some super secret plan, and many believe that Dr Paul won NH.........sure there were some irregularities but Dr Paul did NOT win, McCain support was everywhere in talking with the PEOPLE, looking at the signs yea Paul won, but signs don't vote.
 
FrankRep said:
Which policies of Chuck Baldwin are protectionist?

I'm not insulting you. Just asking an honest question.
Click to expand...

http://baldwin08.com/Issue-Jobs.cfm
Chuck Baldwin supports a tariff policy that will protect American jobs.

The Constitution Party supports reimposing tariffs on all foreign imports
Click to expand...

The Constitution Party also feels that we should place embargoes on countries that are the source of "illegal drugs" that enter our country.

Bob Barr was pulling like 7% right?

Depressing.
Click to expand...

Chuck Baldwin was p... oh wait...

angelatc said:
Baldwin was in the race before Barr.
Click to expand...

That has to do with when their nominating conventions were scheduled. So... irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Knightskye said:
So you knew Ron Paul wouldn't be elected in 2008?
Click to expand...

I think many of us us knew, those of us who have been involved with past elections, and fought hard to get Ron elected regardless. What made us hopeful is that he was running in a major party, the Republican Party, and we saw potential to be able to change the party from within. The deck is stacked very high against third party candidates and Ron knows this. I'm kind of surprised that he said it, but he's always been open and honest during interviews so I'm not upset about it.
 
deist malarkey

Young_Apprentice said:
those crazy deists and their bible-thumping ways...
Click to expand...

the notion that the founding fathers were all a bunch of deists is a fallacy promoted by forces that would undermine the Constitution. if you don't believe that, I challenge you to search for real proof that they were deists. good luck.

lynn
 
A deist is someone who believes there is an all powerful creator who created this existence with a natural law behind it. This is opposed to the belief that things move based on some law of good or evil. Deists, by nature, rejected the Bible because it was not logical and they were looking for something more philosophically sound.

Not all of the nation's founders were Deist, or Christian, or Atheist. To claim such is quite a stretch. Deism, however, was very popular with them and had a lot to do with the philosophy of their new government.

A self evident right to say what you want comes from this idea; since the only way to keep you from saying what you want with your own voice is to use force or coercion, the creator must have intended for you to be able to use it how you see fit. Most of the "rights" in the "Bill of Rights" are based on this type of premise.
 
tonesforjonesbones said:
Ron Paul should have endorsed the one who had the best chance to make a dent in MCCAIN...damn! That was BOB BARR. Now NO difference will be made whatsoever. Incredable. Tones
Click to expand...

you just like trolling.....................it is pretty evident Barr has only been in it for one thing, his ego.
 
Oh kiss my deriere with your trolling thing!!! Bob Barr was polling 6 - 7% nationally.. Palin did take some wind out of his sails...but that whole mess with C4L completely DEFLATED any chance Barr had of getting 15% to get in the debates. I WAS a Barr supporter, but due to the LP not being able to pull together for their candidate, even though he might not be the BEST Libertarian representative, AND this C4L fiasco...i threw my hands up and decided to vote for Palin because

1. I like her
2. She is a practicing Christian
3. She limited government spending in Alaska
4. She supported Pat Buchanan, who is a great paleoconservative
5. She cleaned up alaskan government and even went against her own party "good ole boy" system to do it
6. She was involved with the Alaskan Independent Party who wanted secession (a very libertarian idea) and is ALSO an affiliate of the CONSTITUTION PARTY
7. She likes and agrees with Ron Paul
8. She might have an inth of a chance to influence policy
9. She isn't completely corrupted by the political machine yet

I'm not telling anyone else to do anything..this is MY gut feeling. I support the liberty movement, but I have chosen to just stand on my own and do what I can right now, whether it is pass out pocket constitutions and Russo's Freedom to Fascism, or whatever. I find that this forum repells freedom and liberty...because you get ostricised if you don't get in lockstep with C4L. Practice what you preach people. TONES
 
tonesforjonesbones said:
Oh kiss my deriere with your trolling thing!!! Bob Barr was polling 6 - 7% nationally.. Palin did take some wind out of his sails...but that whole mess with C4L completely DEFLATED any chance Barr had of getting 15% to get in the debates. I WAS a Barr supporter, but due to the LP not being able to pull together for their candidate, even though he might not be the BEST Libertarian representative, AND this C4L fiasco...i threw my hands up and decided to vote for Palin because

1. I like her
2. She is a practicing Christian
3. She limited government spending in Alaska
4. She supported Pat Buchanan, who is a great paleoconservative
5. She cleaned up alaskan government and even went against her own party "good ole boy" system to do it
6. She was involved with the Alaskan Independent Party who wanted secession (a very libertarian idea) and is ALSO an affiliate of the CONSTITUTION PARTY
7. She likes and agrees with Ron Paul
8. She might have an inth of a chance to influence policy
9. She isn't completely corrupted by the political machine yet

I'm not telling anyone else to do anything..this is MY gut feeling. I support the liberty movement, but I have chosen to just stand on my own and do what I can right now, whether it is pass out pocket constitutions and Russo's Freedom to Fascism, or whatever. I find that this forum repells freedom and liberty...because you get ostricised if you don't get in lockstep with C4L. Practice what you preach people. TONES
Click to expand...

Not at all I don't think Ron Paul is perfect or some saint, in fact I'd have preferred that he not say who he is voting for at all, people need to choose on THEIR OWN which you have done and while I disagree with your choice and would let it be known if you continue to spout it, everyone must decide for themselves.

Paul obviously had some reasons for not endorsing Barr early on in the game, choices that you can not understand, nor want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The IRS Isn’t Going Away, and This is How We Know
2
Replies
38
Views
273
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
The Menace of Tariffs
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
Madison320
M
PAF
Here We Go Again: US Department of Health and Human Services Funds and Fast-tracks Experimental Bird Flu Shots
Replies
3
Views
52
acptulsa
acptulsa
Brian4Liberty
Why We’ll Never Know What Really Happened in Butler, PA
Replies
16
Views
1K
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Refugee. Dissident. Enemy of the State. Would ICE Have Crucified Jesus?
Replies
6
Views
35
familydog
F
Back
Top