Running mate?

[kylejack]

Ron Paul isnt for a national sales tax....

As a matter of fact, he is. He stated on C-SPAN that he will vote for Fair Tax if it comes to a vote in Congress.

 

[BuddyRey]

Ron Paul isnt for a national sales tax....

Thank GOD!!!

 

[lucky]

He did state he was for a national sales tax but to abolish the income tax and reduce the government at the same time in an article I read awhile back.

 

[johngr]

His choice for running mate is the most important of his entire campaign. Above all, he must pick someone unpredictable enough as insurance against getting Kennedyed. But he (or she) must also be stable enough to appeal to and draw from people who would otherwise vote for Hitlery. I say Karen Kwiatkowski.

 

[Minuteman2008]

Wouldn't it be sort of obvious to pick one of the other Republican candidates with somewhat similar ideology? Someone people are familiar with?

The most likely would be Tancredo or Hunter.

Of course, I think deep down everybody knows he's not getting the nomination, and that's why responses like Mike Gravel seem okay.

Shouldn't the real question be: is he going to run as a third pary choice, and THEN, who would he pick?

Because it's far different if he runs as a third party candidate rather than a Republican. If a Republican, Hunter or Tancredo.
If third party, then maybe some of the names already mentioned would be a possibility.

 

[SAVEamerica]

I'd like to see Ron Paul and Bill Richardson run together.

 

[BuddyRey]

Universal Healthcare is socialism.

Just my two cents of course, but it occurs to me that the idea of universal healthcare is too innately egalitarian and endemic to a decent democratic system to be immediately painted with the broad brush of socialism. The people who wouldn't benefit from such a system call it a socialist ideal because they know the word "socialism" scares the livin' daylights out of everybody, but the fact is that the U.S. is the only developed Western nation without SOME form of guaranteed healthcare.

 

[johngr]

Tancredo or Hunter.

Warmongers.

 

[johngr]

Just my two cents of course, but it occurs to me that the idea of universal healthcare is too innately egalitarian and endemic to a decent democratic system to be immediately painted with the broad brush of socialism. The people who wouldn't benefit from such a system call it a socialist ideal because they know the word "socialism" scares the livin' daylights out of everybody, but the fact is that the U.S. is the only developed Western nation without SOME form of guaranteed healthcare.

You're backing the wrong horse.

 

[BuddyRey]

You're backing the wrong horse.

Would you elaborate on that some? I'm just curious as to why everyone seems so averse to this idea.

 

[lucky]

Huh?

Just my two cents of course, but it occurs to me that the idea of universal healthcare is too innately egalitarian and endemic to a decent democratic system to be immediately painted with the broad brush of socialism. The people who wouldn't benefit from such a system call it a socialist ideal because they know the word "socialism" scares the livin' daylights out of everybody, but the fact is that the U.S. is the only developed Western nation without SOME form of guaranteed healthcare.

There is a reason we do not. I have been up to Canada and seen Europes healthcare to know I prefer what I have now. It is very expensive and the increase in taxes would be HUGE. Canada can afford it more as they have no need to have a huge Military to support and do not send out a billions of wasteful tax payer dollars to foreign governments.If any troops want to invade Canada then the USA will step in. This means we subsidize Canadas health care. Also we give a huge amount of subsidies to corparations that amounts to billions of corporate welfare.

Europe is alos the same. We subsidize their things because our military means they can divert a part of their revenue to healthcare. We spent a lot of our hard earned taxpayer dollars to insure Europe is safe. We also send many billions to European countries for various things.

To even have a chance of Universal healthcare we need to reign in our Government a lot more. Socialism is very expensive and the bureaucracy is even more so.
I think also that there are other ways to insure that more if not all can get healthcare that does Not include the US government getting involved.

 

[DjLoTi]

Great point Lucky. You really hit it home on that one

 

[lucky]

Lol

Great point Lucky. You really hit it home on that one

Thanks. I can cite more reasons but wanted to be short and to the point. Night all I have to get up and drive many miles.

 

[Minuteman2008]

Warmongers.

This is what is bizarre about this site. Someone even mentioned pairing up Bill Richardson with Ron Paul! That is even more crazy than MIke Gravel!

I get the feeling the only reason Paul gets attention here is because he appeals to the anti-war left.

NOBODY talks about his conservative positions on immigration, gun control, and abortion. Just war. But to get the Republican nomination, he had better appeal to more than the anti-war crowd.

If he were running as an independent that would be different, of course.

 

[asvusa]

Poll

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/surveypopup/politics/11214914/de tail.html?p=politics

another poll for ron paul

go for it!!!

please repost all over the place if you can.

 

[DjLoTi]

Someone even mentioned pairing up Bill Richardson with Ron Paul! That is even more crazy than MIke Gravel!

NOBODY talks about his conservative positions on immigration, gun control, and abortion. Just war. But to get the Republican nomination, he had better appeal to more than the anti-war crowd.

It's more then just anti-war. It's anti-freedom.

We have 18 months to educate the American people.

It's going to be fun.

 

[BuddyRey]

This is what is bizarre about this site. Someone even mentioned pairing up Bill Richardson with Ron Paul! That is even more crazy than MIke Gravel!

I get the feeling the only reason Paul gets attention here is because he appeals to the anti-war left.

NOBODY talks about his conservative positions on immigration, gun control, and abortion. Just war. But to get the Republican nomination, he had better appeal to more than the anti-war crowd.

If he were running as an independent that would be different, of course.

Oddly enough, as a member of the anti-war Left, part of the reason I've grown so disillusioned with the Democratic party is due to their nanny-state position on guns, as well as their utterly disgraceful lack of action to curb illegal immigration. Ron Paul is, quite literally, the best of both worlds wrapped up into the same package.

 

[Minuteman2008]

Oddly enough, as a member of the anti-war Left, part of the reason I've grown so disillusioned with the Democratic party is due to their nanny-state position on guns, as well as their utterly disgraceful lack of action to curb illegal immigration. Ron Paul is, quite literally, the best of both worlds wrapped up into the same package.

Messages like this give me hope for his chances. While I might have traditionally voted Republican and you Democrat, we can both agree that on the big issues Ron Paul is right.

 

[PennCustom4RP]

Walter Williams would be a phenomenal choice.

Ok, since no one else wants to mention it, I'll be the bad guy.
The same people who won't vote for Obama, because hes a black man, won't vote for RP if Walter Williams is on the ticket.
Same goes for those who won't vote for Hillary because shes a woman, Karen Kwiatkowski would be that issue.
Either issue could hurt RP, regardless on how much anyone may think things have changed in America, racism and chauvinism still exists and there is no point in alienating potential voters.
Also I think any other candidate that did not get the nomination would be a bad choice, as the people did not want them for the nominee for President the 1st time around, so slipping them in the back door would put some off. It cant be someone whose own political agenda/aspirations upset the 'apple cart'. Basically the running mate has to be a RP clone, as closely as possible.
It will be someone relatively unknown, neutral, an agency head, like Sheurer or the like.
just my 02
Mik

 

[kylejack]

Ok, since no one else wants to mention it, I'll be the bad guy.
The same people who won't vote for Obama, because hes a black man, won't vote for RP if Walter Williams is on the ticket.
Same goes for those who won't vote for Hillary because shes a woman, Karen Kwiatkowski would be that issue.
Either issue could hurt RP, regardless on how much anyone may think things have changed in America, there is no point in alienating potential voters.

just my 02
Mik

Having a brilliant economist like Walter Williams on the bottom of the ticket will draw more people than it will alienate. We're seeking the votes and interest of people who want freedom for all mankind.

Besides, this entire discussion is academic. I'll be hated for saying this but I believe it to be true: Ron Paul is not likely to get the Republican nomination. My most realistic hopes for this campaign are for it to spread the message of liberty and limited government.