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

[ShaneEnochs]

gj picked a vp a while ago.

Oh, I wasn't aware. Who is it?

 

[The Goat]

One thing I can think of though. Ron was very dedicated to his delegates, some even got into super delegate positions for 2016 if I remember correctly. Those rules give the RNC the power to unseat those superdelegates I bet. IMO that would be a big deal to Ron.

 

[wgadget]

A million times this. I would love and support a third party run by Paul as much as any one else here, but as far as I know, it hasn't even been confirmed that there's necessarily any "special announcement" at all, let alone a
huge bomb like this.

Meh. We're tough and have been through it before.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Ron should retire and then write a tell-all memoir with juicy details like Barry Goldwater did. Just expose the swamp. Drop dime on all the criminals.

I'll write the title:

Ron Paul: If the CIA Did 9-11, Here's How It Happened

With thanks to OJ.

 

[nobody's_hero]

That ticket could only win if it got some Republican and Democrat support as well.

It would also need some funding from millionaires and billionaires.

Someone call Ross Perot, he's getting old and maybe he'll want payback against the two party establishment before he dies.

But my motto is, "aim low and avoid disappointment." So yes, we should wait and see what Ron has to say. And Ron Paul is like Clint Eastwood, you can't really tell him what to say or do.

 

[liberty2897]

It just doesn't make sense and it would undo everything he and his supporters have worked hard to do for the better part of the last four years. If he runs third party and his supporters follow him, that will likely alienate them from the party and burn any and all bridges and inroads made within the Republican Party.

I'm not a politician in any way. As an outsider I don't see how making "bridges and inroads with the Republican Party" matters at this point. Political types need to understand that many, if not most of us, HATE the Republican party. We only supported Ron because he is the only honest guy left (with visibility anyway). I think the GOP and the Democrats are burning along with the empire. Nothing can save them or us unless we change course soon.

I'm not religious, but consider this

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

 

[Mini-Me]

How would anyone in the GOP know that we voted Libertarian in 2012? And even if they knew, how would it change anything?

They wouldn't be able to prove it, but Fox News will make sure the Republican base blames Paul for Romney's loss instead of blaming Romney for it. The reactionary blowhards will rage and scapegoat all they want regardless though, and at least the base will know we made good on our promise: NOBP. They cannot win the Presidency without us ever again, and we will not support a neoconservative puppet. I'm pretty confident Romney is going to lose regardless, but I wouldn't mind the chance to guarantee it.

 

[No1butPaul]

Meh. We're tough and have been through it before.

Many, many times. My mother always said, if you're going to wish, wish BIG. It's too difficult for me to come to the realization of how screwed we are otherwise.

 

[trey4sports]

It would be nice if for no other reason than spite towards the Romney campaign. I would do it just to so i could be assured that Mitt would go down in flames.

 

[TheTexan]

They wouldn't be able to prove it, but Fox News will make sure the Republican base blames Paul for Romney's loss instead of blaming Romney for it.

I hope they do. They clearly don't respect us, so if they fear us, that would be an improvement.

 

[CPUd]

Doing it out of spite is not a good reason. Doing it to make a statement is.

If they're gonna blame us anyway, might as well take some credit and use it to bring more people over. Keep in mind a lot of the rank-and-file go along to get along because they feel powerless to affect change any other way. The statement would serve to chip away at that apathy.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul would NEVER take matching funds. We all know this, right?

In 2008 he refused to, but in 1989 he told a group of Libertarians he was debriefing from his run the year before that while he still came down on the side of being against it, it might not take to much to convince him it is ok to take matching funds if you are not running for a major party because of the taxpayer funding of the major parties, their conventions, their security, their primaries and because of the disparate barriers with ballot access and debates. He said he wasn't quite there yet but he didn't really feel strongly about it for minor parties.

 

[No1butPaul]

I hope they do. They clearly don't respect us, so if they fear us, that would be an improvement.

What's the saying, when we fear gov't it's tyranny, and when the gov't fears us it's liberty. We need them to fear us for liberty!

 

[sailingaway]

Doing it out of spite is not a good reason. Doing it to make a statement is.

If they're gonna blame us anyway, might as well take some credit and use it to bring more people over. Keep in mind a lot of the rank-and-file go along to get along because they feel powerless to affect change any other way. The statement would serve to chip away at that apathy.

from their rules they want to make this the last year it is POSSIBLE to have a grass roots campaign. In which case, maybe Ron should make the most of it.

I still think it is really unlikely, but I would absolutely support him.

 

[KramerDSP]

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.

 

[angelatc]

Meh. We're tough and have been through it before.

LOL - about 4 years ago, I think. We're persistent, through and through!

 

[KramerDSP]

And I wanted to add that I believe Ron Paul's legacy will be the statesman that showed the country that the emperor is wearing no clothes and that both parties are two different wings of the same vulture. Even though he most likely would not win, he would destroy the two-party paradigm as we know it by his mere presence in the General Election Debates.

 

[Mini-Me]

I hope they do. They clearly don't respect us, so if they fear us, that would be an improvement.

Definitely. I've seen more than enough bullies gloating about what happened at the convention, and about Ron Paul being a "sore loser" who had to "whine" away from the convention due to his unpopularity, to make me want to lay down the law.

 

[AuH20]

If he had a Perot size war chest, then maybe. But without serious money, any third party bid would be an exercise in futility. He'd be summarily blacked out and most importantly, any 3rd party run would create hell for us going forward. The cons massively outweigh the pros. And I think Ron understands this. This isn't his first rodeo.

 

[stefank]

Oh, I wasn't aware. Who is it?

Gary Johnson doesn't pick is VP, the party votes for him and I believe it was some pro pot judge