Stop the Romney/Paul Speculation . . .

You assume there would be balance . . .


The balance comes from US, not from Paul. Romney is a political creature. He's exactly what Milton Friedman was talking about when he said the key to elections isn't electing the right people, but making politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things. WE are the muscle. THAT is what Ron Paul's delegate strategy is all about. It's about handing the future to US and winning that way - whether Ron Paul wins the election or not.


 
I doubt Ron Paul would ever be Romney's VP. And I doubt even more than many Ron Paul supporters would vote for that ticket. I definitely wouldn't.

You are probably right but I think if Ron is not the nominee we need to get him in the highest position possible.
 
I doubt Ron Paul would ever be Romney's VP. And I doubt even more than many Ron Paul supporters would vote for that ticket. I definitely wouldn't.

Enough Paul supporters would vote Romney/Paul make a meaningful difference in the national election in this scenario. And enough independents would too. Obama would get mopped with regards to the economic argument. And Paul would have the largest platform to push liberty than Liberty has had in over a century. People would be foolish not to support this.
 
The balance comes from US, not from Paul. Romney is a political creature. He's exactly what Milton Friedman was talking about when he said the key to elections isn't electing the right people, but making politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things. WE are the muscle. THAT is what Ron Paul's delegate strategy is all about. It's about handing the future to US and winning that way - whether Ron Paul wins the election or not.

Romney: "I would support the NDAA, and I do believe it's appropriate."

Good luck getting balance with a man like that.
 
I simply don't believe Douglas on this one for the most part. He is saying what they want him to say, but actions speak much louder than words. They may not be a ticket of Paul/Romney or Romney/Paul, but there is definitely a truce. If you don't see it, you are beyond blind.
 
I simply don't believe Douglas on this one for the most part. He is saying what they want him to say, but actions speak much louder than words. They may not be a ticket of Paul/Romney or Romney/Paul, but there is definitely a truce. If you don't see it, you are beyond blind.

Mutual effort to establish a process of elimination of weaker strands. This was spoken of a while back, and it was the original plan as we did discover.
 
Here is a post by a Tea Party Facebook page owner:

Is there anyone out there who still doesn't think Ron Paul is working to get Romney nominated so his son, Rand, could be on the ticket as VP?
In the debate, Paul was Romney's hand puppet. Paul was Romney's attack dog. Whenever Romney ordered Paul immediately attacked.
Romney/RAND Paul 2012 is the plan.
 
Yes because they elected president/vice-president differently back then.

Jefferson and Adams did not agree on much but that didn't stop them from serving together. Adams supported the Alien and sedition acts (A soft version of NDAA) but Adams and Jefferson respected each other. Its somewhat like Romney and Paul. though it might be a slap in the face to Adams to compare him to Romney. Point of the story is that Jefferson understood politics. I actually think Rand is more likely than Ron to be VP but lets keep talking about it because it puts the idea in people's mind that Ron Paul is a Leader either as VP or President.
 
Ron and mitt most certainly HAVE made a deal and neither
Campaign will admit to it. But the deal is not about a ticket. It's about thinning the herd. Mitt and ron both want gingrich and santo gone. This strategy happens in politics all the time.just go watch that miniseries the kennedys on netflix
 
Ron and mitt most certainly HAVE made a deal and neither
Campaign will admit to it. But the deal is not about a ticket. It's about thinning the herd. Mitt and ron both want gingrich and santo gone. This strategy happens in politics all the time.just go watch that miniseries the kennedys on netflix

Precisely.

It's all about the process of elimination under a mutual effort between competing oppositions.
 
This is a blatant media tactic, in order to sway Ron Paul's soft support, and make people question Ron himself.

Ron wouldn't even support Reagan after various things he had done.

What makes people think he'll throw his support someone worst than Reagan, who supports the NDAA provisions of all things?

I don't see how, when Ron Paul has not been attacking Romney, nor has he put out any damaging ads yet. He slices through Gingrich and Santorum though.
 
Mutual effort to establish a process of elimination of weaker strands. This was spoken of a while back, and it was the original plan as we did discover.

True, but some people here act like it is meant for them to go 1 v 1. Which neither campaign is aiming for necessarily (especially Paul because that is too much money and organization go go up against 1 v 1). However, people are either saying it is meant to do that 1v1 or it doesn't exist at all. It isn't true. Sometimes though, it is in the best interests for many reasons not to start a sh*t war with certain candidates. From the campaigns I worked with (especially in primaries or non-partisan races) it happens all the time. People need to stop acting offended by the idea.
 
Back
Top