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

[LibertasPraesidium]

As of now the only thing I am sure that will not happen is the thing I would like most to happen. Ron Paul helping a group of people form the peaceful dissolution of our current government via Continental Congress. Ireland did much of the same thing. File charges with a new "government body" and watch the grassroots of America explode at the chance to have a fresh start with most of the greedy, corrupt asinine people out of power.

That is a pipe dream I am well aware but at this point, we all know the truth, or at least enough of it to realize we are not in power without the assistance of more people...

As far as a third party run, I doubt it, and even if the "Source" from DP is false generating a common goal to keep Ron either in the race or into the debates,(probably not going to happen) Or telling him to endorse Gary Johnson. (more likely) It shows Ron, what we the people want. If you remember Doug talking about the future of the movement he seemed very happy to not know, but excited at the prospect of following with the liberty movement.

WE are the liberty movement and if we want Ron to know that we will support him no matter what he does, it shows the admiration and respect a good number of us have developed for the man over the years. Though I will say that if we succeed and he does run, There is a great amount of work to be done. Gary Johnson will still run, and may not be able to get the majority of the LP to agree to move around the P and VP spots for that party. But it could serve as a 4 year development to get the CP, LP and Liberty movement behind one candidate that we will start vetting in a few weeks or months or even a year or so.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

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.

That is exactly what I was thinking about!

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.

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.

+rep

but you forgot to push that neither candidate has a plan to fix the deficit/debt and both have plans to dig us further in the hole. Ron is the only one that does.

I don't know why people assume Ron wouldn't take matching funds. Ron has a pragmatic streak that people are overlooking.

Look at his stance on earmarks. He works to allocate earmark money to his district, since it's going to be spent anyway. Then he votes against the overall spending bills.

Well, the matching funds come from money already taken by government too. It's either going to be spent on spreading the libertarian message, or on some far less noble government venture.

So why not do it?

I think he would and - what is it? 38M buys a lot of airtime.

Dammit. I feel like I'm going to be massively dissapointed. But....

Almost every single one of us agree on one thing: There will never, ever, ever be another Ron Paul in human history. The way things are set up now, it's just not going to happen. To me, I say "Ron, go out with a BANG and destroy Obama and Romney in the general election debates". I guarantee you that the first debate will be watched by tens of millions of people, half of whom will be watching solely to see what this Ron Paul guy is all about. And he's become a master at the debates now. His message is best suited for the American people, not solely a Republican audience or solely a Democratic audience. Even though he almost certainly does not win, the ramifications will be felt for years. If Obama wins and does terrible in the next four years, the Democrats will say "Oh eff me, Paul was right after all". Same goes for the Republicans. And the Independents? They're going to LOVVVVVVE him. And the people that hate politicians? They're going to make an exception for Ron Paul, who is the politician for people who hate politicians. And they will vote this time, because they have a real choice.

We NEED to make this happen!

None of this makes any sense to me. Wouldn't Ron already know that we would be backing him? And why would he wait to announce it on Leno? I think the op just wants us to apply pressure, hoping that it will get Ron to run. If Ron is wanting to pass the torch and retire... all this will do is make him feel like he's letting us down. I just don't think Ron is into playing games.

He would miss the first debate. It's on the 3rd, Leno is on the 4th.

He may be tired, but we are just asking him to stay in the game for 7 more weeks. Do 3 debates, put some TV ads out there. He doesn't even need to make another campaign stop past that.

And look at everything we would gain. It's worth 7 more weeks!

-t

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Why would they punch down at a lowly third party candidate? That's the beauty of it. If they start attacking him, they legitimize him in the eyes of the sheep.

That would be true, at first, but once he polls at 15% he's a target, and he'll do better than that once it gets moving.

 

[wgadget]

Well, I hope he goes for it, because it would make my new R(omney)OFLMAO(bama) bumper sticker all the more meaningful.

 

[No1butPaul]

Why would they punch down at a lowly third party candidate? That's the beauty of it. If they start attacking him, they legitimize him in the eyes of the sheep.

not only that, remember the tribute they did for him? They boxed themselves in.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

None of this makes any sense to me. Wouldn't Ron already know that we would be backing him? And why would he wait to announce it on Leno? I think the op just wants us to apply pressure, hoping that it will get Ron to run. If Ron is wanting to pass the torch and retire... all this will do is make him feel like he's letting us down. I just don't think Ron is into playing games.

That's why there should be no pressure on Ron. But, if he is willing, I support him.

 

[wgadget]

Isn't he on Leno on SEPTEMBER 4th? And the first debate is in October?

 

[opal]

Would I support a third party run by Dr Paul? HELL YES! <---pretend that font is like 12 times that size

 

[economics102]

Why would they punch down at a lowly third party candidate? That's the beauty of it. If they start attacking him, they legitimize him in the eyes of the sheep.

Yep. Plus, what kind of negative PR is Romney going to run? If Romney were to start running ads on, say, the racist newsletters bit, it's going to come off the way the swiftboat veterans for truth ads did. Yes, they were effective at moving the minority of voters that the Republicans needed, but it came at the expense of offending just about everyone else.

yeah, bottom line, if Ron Paul could actually get in the debates with this strategy, I think he needs to do it. This would be the ultimate culmination of what he's fought for his whole life, to get a direct line to the mainstream American voting populace who haven't heard his message. He has a chance to do that now.

There is an "escape velocity" for a political movement. When the liberty movement reaches a certain size, they will not be able to just sweep us under the rug the way they sweep Ralph Nader under the rug. Eventually, we become such a political force that the parties will, instead of trying to crush our third party by crushing it, they will try to woo us back into their tents by appealing to our ideas. That's when we know we're on our way.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Would I support a third party run by Dr Paul?
HELL YES!

Kinda fixed it for ya

 

[TrishW]

In the following states there are Sore-Loser Laws (which means if a candidate was on the ballot for a primary in that state, then they can't run under another party or as an independent)
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
North Carolina
South Carolina
Missouri
Oregon
Washington

 

[Mini-Me]

Sorry, but Ron Paul used the Republican Party to get this far. Most of us understood that. There is nothing left. Some "no name" politician isn't going to change things the way Dr Paul could have. It is time for the real revolution to start. It doesn't include the Republican or Democratic parties. They are one and the same. It requires that people start thinking for themselves now. The alternative is that we continue down the path of destruction.

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.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Is the inside source a billionaire?

You sly dog, you figured it out.

 

[affa]

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.

Yup yup. We're getting the blame no matter what. All those hear that keep talking about 'inroads with the GOP' sound like battered wives to me. They despise us, they cheat us, they beat us, and they laugh in our faces on national television while doing it all.

The second Romney loses they'll aim their sights at us and try to scapegoat us. I'd far prefer RP made a third party run and sealed the deal with style.

 

[wgadget]

We've already discussed the sore loser laws.

 

[KramerDSP]

Isn't he on Leno on SEPTEMBER 4th? And the first debate is in October?

Which gives him 29 days after Leno to prepare.

 

[TrishW]

We've already discussed the sore loser laws.

OK? Is it in this thread? Does the law not matter?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

@Mini-Me,

It's not about party, remember, Just Amash, etc.. will support Ron's message. Just elect democrats and republicans that are Amercia First, Constitutionalist congressmen and senators.

 

[KramerDSP]

yeah, bottom line, if Ron Paul could actually get in the debates with this strategy, I think he needs to do it. This would be the ultimate culmination of what he's fought for his whole life, to get a direct line to the mainstream American voting populace who haven't heard his message. He has a chance to do that now.

There is an "escape velocity" for a political movement. When the liberty movement reaches a certain size, they will not be able to just sweep us under the rug the way they sweep Ralph Nader under the rug. Eventually, we become such a political force that the parties will, instead of trying to crush our third party by crushing it, they will try to woo us back into their tents by appealing to our ideas. That's when we know we're on our way.

Preach on!

 

[Mini-Me]

The second Romney loses they'll aim their sights at us and try to scapegoat us. I'd far prefer RP made a third party run and sealed the deal with style.

I'd love for him to go out with a bang as well. Oh man, I need to post another Harry Potter video now:

@Mini-Me,

It's not about party, remember, Just Amash, etc.. will support Ron's message. Just elect democrats and republicans that are Amercia First, Constitutionalist congressmen and senators.

I think you misunderstand me: I'm not a "party first" kind of guy, and I have no love for the GOP brand. My point is that there are 435 Congressional seats and 100 Senatorial seats. If we really want to turn the country around instead of just delay the inevitable, we're ultimately going to need at least 218 of the former and 51 of the latter (probably more like 290 of the former and 67 of the latter), yet we're killing ourselves trying to fund even a small handful of liberty candidates at once. To actually take over Congress, we'll need to magnify our resources somehow, which is what activists taking over the GOP (first state parties, then the RNC) will provide in spades. By disenfranchising the currently neocon GOP leadership, we'll also be demonstrating that they're losers and we're winners, so the "social proof" of it all will mean more people will be comfortable joining us.