If you want Ron Paul to run for 3rd party then you are unfaithful and coward!
I'm so tired of this crap! FU you stupid SOBs!
I have given so much to Ron Paul, but I also have hope that he will win the white house... even if it means going iNDY, which I think is, by far, the best option.
You want me to put up or shut up, well then here (this is besides the over 300 cold calls and 200 houses I've canvassed, plus more crap--this doesn't count the $100 for the MLK money bomb, the $51 for the Anniversary money bomb, the 250 for the danged blimp, the 250 for something else I don't even remember now, plus 100 here and another 100 there, plus about 75 for my meetup collection baskets!):
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=crowe&fname=justin&search=Search
Donor Contribution Address
Justin Crowe
Soldier
Nevada Army National Guard
Updated
Q4/2007
Ron Paul
$752
2572 HEYBOURNE RD
Minden NV
Here's my wife:
$201
Donor Contribution Address
Army Spouse
Army Spouse
Donor Contribution Address
Retired, Veteran
US Army Veteran, WWII
Updated
Q4/2007
Ron Paul
$1,776
2572 HEYBOURNE RD
Minden NV
Here's my father in law:
Donor Contribution Address
Veteran
Veteran Army National Guard
Updated
Q4/2007
Ron Paul
$201
1401 DOWNS DR
Minden NV
My dad's doesn't show up, even though he gave 100.
it's obvious that Ron Paul will win 90% of the remaining states. And then there will clearly be a brokered convention and Ron Paul will win.
What is insane and stupid to think is that Ron Paul has ANY chance in hell of succeeding as an iNDEPENDENT candidate. People that believe that are trolls and are giving up and have never and will never really support Paul, and they are stupid and offer no evidence.
Whereas, just look at the abundance of evidence that he can win the GOP Nomination...
And besides, sticking with and "changing" the GOP is way more important that getting Ron Paul in the Whitehouse. And also, having Ron Paul is way more important than mounting an independent bid for president--because the independent bid isn't certain.
You say you want proof that Ron Paul will win the Republican Nomination, well fine, you idiot troll satanic person that says you will support Ron Paul as an independent and give thousands more, get signatures, and canvass until your feet fall off and phone explodes (you obvious non-supporter of Ron Paul). Well, here's your evidence...
Just go back and find all the posts that say:
"Why RP will win in IOWA"
"Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents"
"New Hampshire: 92% stupid"
"Why Ron Paul will WIN in Nevada"
"Why Ron Paul will win in Montans"
"Don't give up hope! RON PAUL WILL GET 1ST IN NORTH DAKOTA"
"Arabs will give Ron Paul 2nd place or better in Michigan"
"Ron Paul will win Alaska"
and if you still doubt the cause after all that evidence, just look what's up now:
"Ron Paul to get 1st place in Washington...Guaranteed...For Reals this time!!!!!"
**********
Paul has said repeatedly that he will not run 3rd party. Why would he lie to us like that?
No he hasn't!
He is absolutely right--and honest--to say that he "has no
intention of going iNDEPENDENT or Third Party" because, right now (at least before today's results), his only intention is to win the Republican nomination. He 100% fully intends (or intended) to wholeheartedly run and try his best to win as a Republican while he is running as such, and he says so. He has NEVER, EVER said "I will not run iNDY". He has never, ever said "I will never run iNDY". But IF it becomes clear he cannot win the nomination, then he can go independent.
I would be very, very, very sad if he didn't go iNDY. He could win it, especially against Hillary (and she seems like the chosen one (it's all about the superdelegates).
Actually, I will say this... If it appears that the GOP will be utterly, hopelessly lost, as in completely abandoning constitutional and conservative ideals like protection of civil liberties, small, limited government, national sovereignty, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, then maybe Ron Paul and his 10% base that exists now should all sign up under the banner of a new coalition, maybe it could be a party, maybe call it the Conservative Party. That way we go into the contest for the General election with some orginization--and if it catches on maybe it could beat down the Republican Party that so many conservatives are fed up with. Also, any Ron Paul Republicans could join the Conservative Party (or whatever it is) and could run for Congress and state seats under its banner in the upcoming election, especially if they don't make it in their primaries.
We could create "the Conservative party" with our email, fundraising, and canvassing lists--and, of course, with our delegate lists. Although I still don't know if that would be better than iNDY. The reason I say that is because we might alienate the Libertarians and Constitution party folks, whereas we wouldn't if we went iNDY--but they are only like 4% of the voting public if that. "Conservative Party" (or another name possibly) would get us the Buchananites and many others I'm sure.
We WILL win iNDY.
Ron Paul said that he will continue to run as long as he continues to get support: canvassing and financing. He's not stupid. He will be able to see when continuing to run Republican will be a futile waste. Then if he has the support he mentioned, he will have to keep going. Key points:
1. A brokered convention is not going to happen.
2. Canvassing is done for in half the states as of now, unless he goes iNDY. If he goes iNDY, on the other hand, we would have
8 months to canvass and get 200,000 plus precinct captains.
3. ...:
my dad said he'd donate another 500 to Paul (IF he announces 3rd party) (he donated 200 on Dec. 16th--but that was when it seemed like he REALLY could maybe, possibly win the Nom. I would donate 500 the day he declares (even though it will hurt financially), whereas I can't afford to give anymore (I gave just over a 1,100 in Q4 to the cause--so shut up) for his Republican run; and gramps would probably wager another 1776.00
The 2nd and 3rd tier, broader-base of supporters aren't (many or most of them) going to donate MORE--if they already have once--because TO THEM it is obvious or at least nearly certain that he's not going to get the Nom from the Republican party (I'm not saying I believe that--but they DO). However, they would be very willing and enthusiastic about supporting him in an iNDEPENDENT run.
**********
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/poll-an-independent-president/
July 20, 2007, 5:08 pm
Poll: An Independent President
By
Megan Thee
In a New York Times/CBS News Poll taken last week
, half of Americans said a president who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat could govern effectively.
And with 6 in 10 Republican primary voters and almost 4 in 10 Democratic primary voters saying they are not satisfied with their party’s current slate of candidates for the presidential nomination, the political environment could be ripe for an independent candidate to break into the race.
[THAT'S HALF]
Michael Bloomberg, a newly minted independent who says he’s not intent on making a run for the White House even though he just switched affiliations, is largely unknown by most Americans. Six in 10 registered voters said they haven’t heard enough about him yet to have an opinion; 9 percent view him favorably; 9 percent unfavorably; and 18 percent said they are undecided.
The current poll suggests that Americans are significantly more optimistic about the chances of a third-party president meeting with success, than they were in 1995 before the Bill Clinton-Bob Dole-Ross Perot contest. In the summer of 1995, just 30 percent of Americans said an independent president could govern effectively and 61 percent said such a president would encounter serious problems dealing with Congress.
Forty-four percent of those polled recently said such a president would have trouble dealing with Congress.
Independents and Republicans are significantly more supportive of a third-party president than are Democrats. Similarly, younger Americans are more open to the idea of an independent president — as respondent age increases, the incidence of those saying an independent could govern effectively decreases.
**********
Yeah--we couldn't get on the ballots WITH SEVEN MONTHS TO DO SO?! Whatever. What a bunch of crap. How the F did Perot do it? We have way more grassroots than he did. And DON'T SAY, "With his billions." He spent 65 million--look on wikipedia. What cost $65000000 in 1990 would cost $107,402,877.98 in 2007. source:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
You know what's really "never gonna happen"? The Republican nomination. So for people that want ONE THING and one thing only--Ron Paul to be in the whitehouse--an iNDY run must be discussed. For all you that care more about "changing the GOP", fine--you can continue to argue your point that that would be better than a Ron Paul win in the General.
An independent run is virtually impossible.
The ballot access battle is ridiculously difficult and would never happen
if Ron Paul tried to go independent.
With the sheer numbers of grassroots supporters already keyed in
the feasibility of undercutting the MSM stranglehold in the general election exists.
The organization does not cease to exist - who wants to abandon hope?
Not while we are still organized - that would be nuts.
Let us keep this thing together - no matter what.
The biggest part of making a third-party run is already in place.
The only realistic choice is to go with the Libertarian Party.
I won't vote for anyone but Ron Paul, no matter what happens.
But all this is still premature - let's wait for the results.
It is only a few hours until all the rest of the cards are on the table.
**********
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287190,00.html
FOX News Poll: Third Party President Good for Country
Thursday, June 28, 2007
By Dana Blanton
NEW YORK — Nearly half of Americans think it would be good for the country if an independent candidate won the 2008 presidential election, according to the latest FOX News Poll. And despite acknowledging the improbability of the candidate winning, a majority says they would consider voting for an independent for president.
Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from June 26 to June 27. The poll has a 3-point error margin.
More than twice as many voters think it would be good for the country if an independent candidate were to win the White House in 2008 than think it would be bad (45 percent good, 19 percent bad). In addition, there is rare partisan agreement on the issue as 42 percent of Democrats and 44 percent of Republicans think electing an independent candidate would be good for the country, as do 56 percent of self-described independents.
•
Click here to view full results of the poll. (pdf)
Furthermore, a 67 percent majority says they would consider casting their ballot for an independent — including more than 6 in 10 Democrats and Republicans.
Even so, most people believe independent candidates have little chance of success: 31 percent of voters think a qualified independent has a reasonable chance of winning a presidential election, while a 63 percent majority thinks it’s unlikely.
(Story continues below)
Advertise Here
Advertisements
Related"It appears that many voters believe a vote for a candidate who has little chance of winning still is not a wasted vote," said Opinion Dynamics Vice President Lawrence Shiman. "A substantial percentage of both parties are willing to consider supporting independent candidacies regardless of the candidate’s chances of winning."
Given the amount of attention to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s party affiliation switch from Republican to independent, and the subsequent speculation about him entering the 2008 race, the poll asked people how they would vote in a 3-way race.
The recent media coverage fails to move the numbers much from earlier in the month. Bloomberg’s 7 percent support is unchanged, and obviously puts him far behind the major party front-runners Democrat Hillary Clinton (39 percent) and Republican Rudy Giuliani (37 percent).
Paris Better Known Than Romney, Thompson
Among the presidential hopefuls, Giuliani is not only one of the best known, but he also continues to be viewed the most positively, receiving a 54 percent favorable rating. Most voters are also familiar with Republican candidate John McCain — 47 percent have a favorable opinion of him and only 5 percent don’t know him.
Republicans Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are much less well known than the other Republican and Democratic candidates. In fact, more people say they have "never heard of" Thompson, Romney and Bloomberg, than Paris Hilton — only 7 percent of Americans were unable to express an opinion of her.
Today, even though one in five Americans (22 percent) say they have never heard of Romney, that represents a noticeable improvement from earlier this year when 43 percent didn’t know him (Jan. 30-31, 2007). However, as many voters have an unfavorable opinion of Romney (26 percent) as have a favorable opinion (25 percent). His favorable rating is 39 percent among Republicans.
Thompson’s name recognition is also picking up — 32 percent say they have never heard of him today, down from 53 percent in March. His favorable rating is 30 percent overall and 46 percent among Republicans, with 16 percent of all voters holding an unfavorable view.
For Bloomberg, 20 percent have never heard of him, an improvement from 35 percent last month (15-16 May 2007). Bloomberg’s current favorable rating is 23 percent, with 24 percent holding an unfavorable view. Attitudes toward Bloomberg are similar among Democrats (25 percent favorable) and Republicans (22 percent favorable).
The Democratic contenders are well known to voters, as majorities are able to offer an opinion on each of them. About half of Americans have a favorable view of John Edwards (49 percent), Clinton (46 percent) and Barack Obama (46 percent). Al Gore’s favorable rating is 48 percent.
For a political comparison, President Bush’s current favorable rating is 37 percent and virtually all Americans express an opinion.
For a popular culture comparison, 7 percent of Americans say they have a favorable opinion of Paris Hilton (73 percent unfavorable) and 7 percent have never heard of her.
Standings in the Primaries
In the race for the Republican nomination, Giuliani retains the leader spot at 29 percent followed by McCain at 17 percent, Thompson at 15 percent, Romney at 8 percent and Newt Gingrich at 8 percent. Giuliani is up 7 points from earlier this month, though still 10 percentage points down from 39 percent in February.
Among Democrats, Clinton strengthens her front-runner status with the support of 42 percent (up 6 points), followed by Obama at 19 percent (down 4 points), Gore at 14 percent and Edwards at 10 percent.
When Gore is taken out of the mix, Clinton’s standing improves to 47 percent, Obama 21 percent and Edwards 13 percent.
Where People Are Learning About The Candidates
Television clearly is the most popular place to get information about the presidential candidates, but there are certainly many other options these days. The poll finds that 88 percent of voters are getting information about the candidates from television coverage, 69 percent from newspapers and 51 percent radio coverage.
Internet news sites are a source for 38 percent of Americans, which is distinguished from these specific online sources: 11 percent say they use blogs, 7 percent YouTube and 4 percent use MySpace to learn about the candidates.
About twice as many Americans think Conservative radio talk shows (38 percent) have more influence on politics these days than Liberal Internet blogs (17 percent).
Finally, 53 percent of voters today think it is too early for the 2008 presidential candidates to be campaigning — up from 47 percent who thought so four months ago (February 13-14).
**********
