Ron Paul Will Win the Presidency For Republicans

[Squid]

Recycle

Just more media mental masturbation.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

@ "NIU Student's for Liberty" Paul et all, is way better than a second Obama term. So... Yeah... Cool story "BRO"

I would argue that it's no different. Again, libertarian ideas are not going to be spread when Romney & the establishment ignore what little Paul will be privileged to say or request. Did Romney listen to Paul regarding TARP and the FED? Did Romney listen to Paul regarding Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and every other Pentagon fuckup in the Middle East? Did Romney listen to Paul regarding NDAA?

If you answered "No" to all of the above, what makes you think anything would be different if Romney were president? He is using Paul to garner votes, nothing more.

 

[rockerrockstar]

I don't see this happening. I think people that vote for Romney are too different from the people that would vote for Paul the political ideals are too different for common ground. Romney would need to make some major changes to get Ron Paul to be VP.

 

[ProBlue33]

A hard fought brokered convention that handed Ron Paul the VP slot, if he accepted would split the Ron Paul base, even as it has on these boards.
However some in the end might decide it would be worth it to send Obama packing.
Romney couldn't fire Ron Paul as VP, it would be almost like a duel presidency.
Ron Paul would be the most out spoken and interviewed VP in history, Romney would have to be prepared to have constant internal opposition for 4 solid years.
He would be taking a huge risk just to win.

As for Ron Paul, faced with the choice of what he could do for America as VP verses as a retired congressman, as a true American statesman I could see him accepting this with many conditions placed on Romney.
It's interesting to see this floated so much. Romney is not stupid he knows he can't win with Rick or Newt on the ticket he would only pull in the GOP voters.
Lost would be all Ron Paul supporters, Blue Republicans, and some independents you just can't beat Obama with that scenario.

 

[BIG_J]

@NIUSTUDENTS4LIBERTY ... You can't deny that a Paul VP would be Hugely Beneficial to the liberty movement. To say otherwise is lying to yourself.

WE all want Paul to prevail on principal. We all believe that if we had the people in front of us with open minds we would win hands down.

The problem is that we have half - listeing crazies that have to drive jonnie to soccer pracitce, and maybe the marrige is going to hell, and maybe there are single moms or dads...

it's just not a perfect scenario.

If we had the VP...we could change the world. Literally, change the world.

I want a Paul presidency, I have been dreaming of it since 2007.

I want it so much it makes my heart Cry.

We all do.

But a VP slot, on a ticket we could have influence on...why do we want to pass that up? The guy is 76, retiring... We could change the world, change everythign. don't throw that away...

Agreed on the Mental Masturbation, but, I think we can all agree it would be Awesome.

I want to stick to my complete ideals and Paul's 20+ years, but, if this got us 50% of the way towards freedom...then Paul Won. We Won. The story will be about how we changed the world.

That's the story I want.
o

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

@NIUSTUDENTS4LIBERTY ... You can't deny that a Paul VP would be Hugely Beneficial to the liberty movement. To say otherwise is lying to yourself.

WE all want Paul to prevail on principal. We all believe that if we had the people in front of us with open minds we would win hands down.

The problem is that we have half - listeing crazies that have to drive jonnie to soccer pracitce, and maybe the marrige is going to hell, and maybe there are single moms or dads...

it's just not a perfect scenario.

If we had the VP...we could change the world. Literally, change the world.

I want a Paul presidency, I have been dreaming of it since 2007.

I want it so much it makes my heart Cry.

We all do.

But a VP slot, on a ticket we could have influence on...why do we want to pass that up? The guy is 76, retiring... We could change the world, change everythign. don't throw that away...

Agreed on the Mental Masturbation, but, I think we can all agree it would be Awesome.

I want to stick to my complete ideals and Paul's 20+ years, but, if this got us 50% of the way towards freedom...then Paul Won. We Won. The story will be about how we changed the world.

That's the story I want.
o

Now for what would actually happen...

Libertarianism would forever be linked with Mitt Romney and would die a pathetic, deserved death.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Now for what would actually happen...

Libertarianism would forever be linked with Mitt Romney and would die a pathetic, deserved death.

This.

 

[brendan.orourke]

Wouldn't vote unless Paul had the reigns.

You're an absolute idiot then.

 

[trey4sports]

we don't need name-calling. We're all split on the idea and I think it will stay that way. It is important for me to again remind you that there is no chance in hell Ron is offered the VP slot.

Rand is a much better fit in most every way. He'd "stay on message" which Ron wouldn't do, he's younger, and more articulate, and he has higher net favorability than just about anyone in the GOP.

Ron also has a very principled past which would be under constant attack. His opposition to civil rights act, his support for ending the drug war, and other such issues that can't help but can really hurt a political ticket.

 

[bluesc]

Ron also has a very principled past which would be under constant attack. His opposition to civil rights act, his support for ending the drug war, and other such issues that can't help but can really hurt a political ticket.

While I agree with your overall point, Rand would be attacked for these things too.

Rand had a history of remaining pure up until about halfway through his campaign. There are a lot of comments and positions that will be used against him just as they would be against Ron.

Ron's past wouldn't be an issue when you take into consideration the past of others on the GOP shortlist. Only different is that Ron's past is already well known and he is still viewed the most favorably among independents, even more favorably than Obama.

 

[trey4sports]

While I agree with your overall point, Rand would be attacked for these things too.

Rand had a history of remaining pure up until about halfway through his campaign. There are a lot of comments and positions that will be used against him just as they would be against Ron.

Ron's past wouldn't be an issue when you take into consideration the past of others on the GOP shortlist. Only different is that Ron's past is already well known and he is still viewed the most favorably among independents, even more favorably than Obama.

I would disagree with the bolded parts, well, the second for sure.

as far as Rand's history, he was a victim of the "gotcha" moment on Maddow, as well as the Iran-bomb issue Trey hit him on, and I'm sure there are other points like that from his pre-senate days, but he also caved under the pressure and backtracked on these issues. Which is exactly what Ron WOULDN'T do, and exactly why Ron would never be picked for the VP role.

As far as the second point, i don't think Ron's "past" was nearly as vetted during the primary as it would be in a general election with the Obama machine at work. You'd hear things ranging like racist, anti-semitic and neo-confederate. The problem is that Ron would take the bait and get bogged down in these esoteric discussions which can only really hurt him. My guess is that his indy numbers would probably dip somewhat. Maybe not though, i don't have a high opinion of average voters.

 

[jmdrake]

If Romney picked Ron Paul for a running mate and declared war with Iran to be off the table and declared a moratorium on sanctions against Iran to allow for a period of serious diplomacy and promised to immediately nullify NDAA through executive order and work for repeal of it and promised to pull the troops home from Afghanistan and promised to demand a full audit of the fed and promised through executive order to grant all airports full reprieve from the TSA and to remove all full body scanners and promise to re-write the TSA law and to promise through executive order to end warrantless wiretapping and to promise to push for a bill for that effect and.....(what am I leaving out folks?) then I would consider yes consider.......I just can't bring myself to even say it.

 

[bluesc]

I would disagree with the bolded parts, well, the second for sure.

as far as Rand's history, he was a victim of the "gotcha" moment on Maddow, as well as the Iran-bomb issue Trey hit him on, and I'm sure there are other points like that from his pre-senate days, but he also caved under the pressure and backtracked on these issues. Which is exactly what Ron WOULDN'T do, and exactly why Ron would never be picked for the VP role.

As far as the second point, i don't think Ron's "past" was nearly as vetted during the primary as it would be in a general election with the Obama machine at work. You'd hear things ranging like racist, anti-semitic and neo-confederate. The problem is that Ron would take the bait and get bogged down in these esoteric discussions which can only really hurt him. My guess is that his indy numbers would probably dip somewhat. Maybe not though, i don't have a high opinion of average voters.

I never said Ron would be be picked for VP. He won't be.

I just disagree that Ron would suddenly have a huge dip in his indy favorable numbers. They would still far exceed Romney's and would likely remain close to Obama's. Remember the indy turnout in Iowa at the height of the "racist" attacks.

I think the bulk of the attacks from the Obama camp will be based on the Republican rhetoric on economics and budgetary issues. "Republicans don't care about the poor", etc. While most VP candidates will be forced to defend the conservative ideas, even if they don't agree with them, they wouldn't have appealing social or foreign policy ideas to balance it out.

The majority of the people are economically conservative and socially liberal. Most of those people are independents. Ron appeals to them in a way that even Rand can't.

Even though the GOP would never take the risk of picking him due to the fact that he would be a loose cannon, he would still be a good VP pick. He would bring an army of volunteers, the young, and an independent base like no one else could.

 

[The Goat]

I trust Paul enough that if he took the VP slot I would vote for it.

Come on, if you don't trust Paul enough at this point you need to leave.

 

[ctiger2]

Romney/Paul probably would win. I wouldn't vote for it though.

It wouldn't win and I wouldn't vote for it either.

Paul/Romney on the other hand...

 

[gb13]

Paul is never going to do that. Ever. He knows how much support he would lose.

 

[rpwasright]

A Romney/Paul (Ron anyway) ticket would never happen. I think Paul has to much integrity for that. But even if it didn't they still wouldn't win. I will never vote for Romney or Santorum or Gingtrich who the VP is matters nothing to me and I would wager most of Paul's supporters would say likewise. And I know no indy's will vote for him as Romney and Obama might as well be mirror (at least politically) images of each other and they will just vote for the scumbag thats already in power. Thats why only Paul stands a chance to win this for the GOP. He is the only one that can make a clear contrast to Obama that will draw not only indy's that voted for him in 08 but even some disenfranchised libs that would never vote for a Republican not named Paul. The GOP would rather have Obama as Paul because that exactly what they are doing when they vote or hype any of the others.

 

[TruthAtLast]

i think it is clear that the Republican -- or better put... Big Government -- establishment, would rather lose to Obama than to have Paul as a VP or give any legitimacy to the Freedom Movement. I think people are GREATLY confused about who we are fighting. This isn't a Republican vs Democrat battle or Red vs Blue or even Liberal vs Conservative. Haven't we learned by now that BOTH parties are two sides to the same coin? They both want to spend. They both are philosophically statist and believe in the power of the Collective rather than the individual.

Believe me. The Big Government Republican establishment and the powerful special interests that support BOTH parties would be MORE THAN HAPPY to lose and let the country continue on its PLANNED and MANAGED decline even if it meant they don't win the White House. They DON'T CARE! As long as it isn't Paul they win either way!

The entire premise that a team of Romney/Paul is needed to win the White House assumes that they care more about winning than they do about maintaining the status quo of Big Government. Yes, there is a very real chance that we can still have a brokered convention but I'll take this a step further. EVEN IF we somehow pull off the Hail Mary pass to get Ron Paul the nomination I would submit that the Republican Establishment will not back Paul anyway. Do you think all of the rest of the Republican field will somehow endorse Paul? Not a chance! I'll say it again, they don't want Paul even if it means they LOSE!

Ron Paul will never step a foot in the oval office unless the Freedom Revolution puts him there. Make no mistake about it, we are alone in this quest for Freedom and that is exactly the way it should be. Otherwise the "compromises" that are required to just "win" tears at the heart of everything we stand for.

DO NOT get me wrong. I'm with Ron Paul to the end and will write in his name if I have to because I'd rather fight and vote for something I believe in than just vote for who someone tells me can win. But my biggest concern is when people put so much hope and emphasis on the nomination. In 2008 there was a big let down after the primaries because people saw it as Presidency or bust. We have learned that it is REALLY HARD to win Presidential elections. I can only imagine the effect we'd have if the entire grassroots put this much effort around 40-50 liberty Congressional seats not only to get our people in, but more importantly to get certain people OUT of office.

Our time will come. Revolutions take time. Just think about how much we've grown in just 4-5 years. We have more liberty candidates running in local, state, and national levels than ever before. In many states we've doubled, tripled, or more our popular votes and our delegate strategy is getting much more fine-tuned. We will keep steadfast in our commitment to Paul but even if we don't win, DO NOT give up. The game isn't about compromising to get on a Romney/Paul ticket. We want to change America.

We might be running under the Republican banner but we are essentially our OWN party. You all know this to be true when we have to fight our own party more than the liberals. How many documented issues have their been at caucuses and county meetings over the years in an attempt to silence us?

We are fighting two parties that have hundreds of years of infrastructure and we are catching up...... FAST! What we are building is reaching maturity and I honestly think that Rand Paul or some other true liberty candidate will benefit the most from what the Ron Paul Revolution started. Sadly, some of our greatest heroes and patriots never live long enough to see the full culmination of their vision. I hope that isn't true with Ron Paul but even if it is... we need to step back and marvel for a moment about what the Movement has done. WHOLE GENERATIONS are now being brought up to think about and understand personal liberty, monetary policy, and foreign policy. These will be the voters of the future. We ARE winning even if these "beauty content" polls don't show it yet.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

No slingballs.
I agree with that.

Then you don't know who owns Romney.

 

[69360]

The personality cult in this thread is getting Kim Jong Illish.