Source Close to Ron Says it's Possible he Could Still be Swayed to Run 3rd Party.......

[wgadget]

If he does run 3rd party will he be on the ballot of all 50 states?

I think so, if he was going Libertarian. I think it's a done deal.

 

[eleganz]

I think so, if he was going Libertarian. I think it's a done deal.

Would Ron need to go through another Libertarian convention? there has to be a rule for these type of things...I wonder what they are. I contacted a friend of mine who is close to GJ...hopefully I'll get a response back soon.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Would Ron need to go through another Libertarian convention? there has to be a rule for these type of things...I wonder what they are. I contacted a friend of mine who is close to GJ...hopefully I'll get a response back soon.

Not if GJ stepped down. Since Johnson is the nominee, he can select someone to replace him.

 

[fr33]

Not if GJ stepped down. Since Johnson is the nominee, he can select someone to replace him.

People talk about sore loser laws that would hurt Ron at the top of the ticket. I don't know about any specifics though.

 

[eleganz]

Not if GJ stepped down. Since Johnson is the nominee, he can select someone to replace him.

figured as much.

back to my question earlier..does anybody know the credibility of ronpaulrocks1 of dailypaul? that is all we need to settle this 'rumor' once and for all.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

bad image link n/m

 

[ShaneEnochs]

People talk about sore loser laws that would hurt Ron at the top of the ticket. I don't know about any specifics though.

Sore loser laws don't apply to presidential races.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

figured as much.

back to my question earlier..does anybody know the credibility of ronpaulrocks1 of dailypaul? that is all we need to settle this 'rumor' once and for all.

name is familiar - I believe he's been involved in one of the radio/music projects and helped organize events but could be mistaken

-t

 

[idiom]

If a bunch of states defected on the GOP...

It would have looked bad before the RNC events, but now it would look like real leadership.


But besides all that... there is a strong chance of a global economic meltdown before the election. If that happens RP could win without being on 50 states.

But you have to be in it to win it.

 

[Harry96]

About 99% of voters still vote exclusively for major party candidates in the general election. Taking over Congress requires an enormous amount of funding and infrastructure, which a third party strategy cannot give, at least unless we changed the voting laws...but that would require taking over Congress first, so it's a chicken/egg problem. Winning a Presidential election in an awesome third party upset would be monumental, but even if it happened - something of a longshot - we'd still need to replace Congress quickly before the two-party system inherent to plurality voting restabilized...an extreme longshot, especially with the Senate's staggered six-year terms.

Therefore, taking over the GOP has a great deal to offer us: After we take over the state parties, we can take over the RNC, and then we'll be in charge of the rules. There's a reason the RNC is trying to emotionally manipulate us to leave the party: They're scared we'll take over, which will leave them not only without a political outlet, but without their own personal positions of power as well. From there, we'll have a national infrastructure to actually take over Congress with liberty candidates...something we can't do all by ourselves with a third party strategy. Putting all our hopes into the same third party strategy and educational strategy that has failed for over 40 years (counting only the LP at that) is nothing short of continuing down the path of destruction we've been on for decades.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't vote for third parties in general elections: By all means, do. I'm going to, and I'd also love it for Ron Paul to take the fight to the debate stage this year...but I'm not quitting the GOP either, because doing so would put way too big of a smile on the RNC's face.

Don't be so quick to assume that taking over the GOP, assuming it could be done, would work.

From Joel Skousen, in his Aug. 24 World Affairs Brief, discussing the GOP's treatment of Ron:

"Hopefully, this will end the movement's false hope that you can take over or reform the Republican party. Even if we did, the media and key politicians would suddenly claim the Republican Party was 'captured by extremists' and move to form a new party which they would instantly grant majority status. That's what they did in Israel when they formed Kadima.

"And even if it were possible to finally expose the conspiracy which controls both parties, they would reform and create new parties with new names and fresh faces, but controlled by the same people. That's what they did in Italy in 1994 when all the major parties were exposed for corruption. Fighting secret combinations of power in government is extremely difficult once they have gained control of a majority in Congress, the courts, and the media, not to mention the secret organs of enforcement in the police state."

 

[Karsten]

Sore loser laws don't apply to presidential races.

Really? People in the Ron Paul community have been talking about them for the last 5 years, but I've NEVER heard specifics.

 

[Karsten]

Not if GJ stepped down. Since Johnson is the nominee, he can select someone to replace him.

It doesn't screw things up with the states? Changing the name, reprinting ballots. I mean for instance, Akin had a deadline to drop out so they didn't have to reprint the ballots.

 

[anaconda]

Let Ron retire. He's been through enough bullshit and stress. I really think some people in here may dig up his corpse after he dies and draft him for another presidential run in 2016. Seriously. Let it go, Indiana.

I think Ron would thoroughly enjoy campaigning among enthusiasts for 9 weeks or so.

 

[anaconda]

About 99% of voters still vote exclusively for major party candidates in the general election. Taking over Congress requires an enormous amount of funding and infrastructure, which a third party strategy cannot give, at least unless we changed the voting laws...but that would require taking over Congress first, so it's a chicken/egg problem. Winning a Presidential election in an awesome third party upset would be monumental, but even if it happened - something of a longshot - we'd still need to replace Congress quickly before the two-party system inherent to plurality voting restabilized...an extreme longshot, especially with the Senate's staggered six-year terms.

Therefore, taking over the GOP has a great deal to offer us: After we take over the state parties, we can take over the RNC, and then we'll be in charge of the rules. There's a reason the RNC is trying to emotionally manipulate us to leave the party: They're scared we'll take over, which will leave them not only without a political outlet, but without their own personal positions of power as well. From there, we'll have a national infrastructure to actually take over Congress with liberty candidates...something we can't do all by ourselves with a third party strategy. Putting all our hopes into the same third party strategy and educational strategy that has failed for over 40 years (counting only the LP at that) is nothing short of continuing down the path of destruction we've been on for decades.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't vote for third parties in general elections: By all means, do. I'm going to, and I'd also love it for Ron Paul to take the fight to the debate stage this year...but I'm not quitting the GOP either, because doing so would put way too big of a smile on the RNC's face.

No one need tell their county Republican group whom they voted for.

 

[king_nothing_]

Don't be so quick to assume that taking over the GOP, assuming it could be done, would work.

From Joel Skousen, in his Aug. 24 World Affairs Brief, discussing the GOP's treatment of Ron:

"Hopefully, this will end the movement's false hope that you can take over or reform the Republican party. Even if we did, the media and key politicians would suddenly claim the Republican Party was 'captured by extremists' and move to form a new party which they would instantly grant majority status. That's what they did in Israel when they formed Kadima.

"And even if it were possible to finally expose the conspiracy which controls both parties, they would reform and create new parties with new names and fresh faces, but controlled by the same people. That's what they did in Italy in 1994 when all the major parties were exposed for corruption. Fighting secret combinations of power in government is extremely difficult once they have gained control of a majority in Congress, the courts, and the media, not to mention the secret organs of enforcement in the police state."

This sounds about right to me. Those people aren't going to just say "welp, you beat us, I guess we just have to lay down and accept it." They will find somewhere else to carry on if they're unable to in the Republican Party. That's why the primary focus must be intellectual and educational, not political. Once we win the intellectual battle, the political battles will take care of themselves. The way to win is with intellectual conversion combined with plain old attrition.

 

[tttppp]

We know that Ron Paul polls at least 15% as a third party candidate in the General Election, so he gets in the debates.

We know that Ron Paul will not win the General Election, unless the following happens....

In the debates, Ron Paul's mere presence ties Romney and Obama into knots. Why? All Ron Paul has to do is say "President Obama and Governor Romney both agree on the wars. They both agree on NDAA. They both agree on assassinating American citizens. They both agree on the erosion of civil liberties. They both agree on big government. They both are not offering sincere cuts". Romney and Obama will have to defend themselves against Paul while at the same time desperately trying to show the country how different they are from each other.

And through it all, Ron Paul's honesty and sincerity will shine through like a silver dollar in a bucket of crap. And the country will hopefully finally realize that there are very little differences between both major parties.

That's why they would do anything to keep Paul out of the debates. If he was in the debates, that would ruin Obama's and Romney's slogan "the other guy sucks more, so vote for me". Ron Paul would actually make the debates interesting.

 

[anaconda]

Let's take a moment to consider this from another point of view....is it possible that the LP has already approached RP with some form of offer? If for no other reason than to get matching funds and qualify for 50 states for 2016 (does it take 5% of the popular vote??)?

 

[TomtheTinker]

Its a tough call...Im pretty sure the Paul camp(to the extent there is a Paul camp) has decided to take the long strategy working within the R party..

Granted a third party run would make a huge splash..I dont see the guys who run the campaign having what it takes to stand up on that sort of stage...just my opinion

with that said if Dr Paul said he was going for it. It would be go time.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Maybe ron felt really pissed off at romney.. for treating him, his supporters and his delegates so poorly. I bet he got really mad when the TSA harassed him, carol, and his aides.

"sorry dr paul, we gotta frisk you and grope your wife cause King Romney is nearby" it is like Romney or the GOP made one last attempt to screw around with Ron.

 

[anaconda]

Does anyone know any specifics about the 15% polling requirement for the debates? Does it have to be a rolling average over some protracted time period? Are the polling organizations prequalified? Etc.?