Those Against VP Spot

[Butchie]

Good point. We're statistically overdue. Odds have never been higher. No, that's not my whole strategy. It's a fifth reserve parachute option. And I don't believe it would be selling out Ron's principles to accept the request to serve his country as their second-in-command. I'm not asking Ron to go around like Biden, promoting whatever the President wants; I more expect Ron to be like Thomas Jefferson, speaking his mind freely and promoting the President's agenda only where he agrees.

And you really think that's how it will be huh? So tell me, after Romney's Presidency is a complete disaster where does that leave Ron? Where does that leave Rand's chances? I'd rather Obama 4 more years, Rand in 2016. Look, I get where you are coming from, I just wish you would think the reality of it through a little harder.

 

[jolynna]

Better to be one of the "losers" that did NOT contribute to the corruption than "lend your good name" so that the wrongdoer can have a platform from which to perform his actions.

 

[The Free Hornet]

And you really think that's how it will be huh? So tell me, after Romney's Presidency is a complete disaster where does that leave Ron? Where does that leave Rand's chances? I'd rather Obama 4 more years, Rand in 2016. Look, I get where you are coming from, I just wish you would think the reality of it through a little harder.

In another thread, you agree with Jack Cafferty that Ron Paul should drop out, "I appreciate Jack's reporting and still do, he's only stating the truth.". Either you advocate Ron Paul dropping out RIGHT NOW or you are very shitty at expressing yourself. Above it is clear you think the focus should be on Rand Paul in 2016.

I hope Rand turns out to be a good politician, but it is 50:50. I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. You think TPTB are OK with Rand Paul and that Hannity will endorse him and now it will be OK to be a "libertarian" Republican or "Constitutional Conservative"? Do you think we are going to fool them with a sheep in wolf's clothing? [I fear the opposite may be the case.]

This isn't randpaulforums.com. At last be clear in each post of yours who you support. It isn't Ron Paul.

 

[jolynna]

The media blacked Ron Paul out. Don't think some political/corporate interests were NOT behind that. They were.

There is massive fraud going on at the polls. Not a doubt in my mind about that. I have first-hand knowledge of some GOP shenanigans in advance of my state's primary. Even Carol Paul says Ron was cheated: Election fraud confirmed, "Votes being stolen" http://shar.es/gi7EE

But, despite the cheating and corruption -- so many are panting to have our candidate, the one with integrity, become part of the system. Even IF he has to lend his good name to "get" votes for a man who advocates, in ADVANCE of the election, breaking the oath of office and trashing the constitution.

No. No. And no.

In my opinion.

 

[moonbat]

I would demand that my account at RPF be deleted, I would cover my ROn Paul bumper stickers with paint, I would delete my youtube videos, and I would never trust him, or his son Rand.

That's what Ron Paul would be accomplishing with me, if he joined Romney's cabinet.

I don't believe for even a second that it was ever considered anyway.

If you think it is even possible you don't "get" Ron Paul.

And if I'm wrong, then I never got him myself. And I'm done.

Yet another VP thread... This is exactly how I feel.

 

[Butchie]

In another thread, you agree with Jack Cafferty that Ron Paul should drop out, "I appreciate Jack's reporting and still do, he's only stating the truth.". Either you advocate Ron Paul dropping out RIGHT NOW or you are very shitty at expressing yourself. Above it is clear you think the focus should be on Rand Paul in 2016.

I hope Rand turns out to be a good politician, but it is 50:50. I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. You think TPTB are OK with Rand Paul and that Hannity will endorse him and now it will be OK to be a "libertarian" Republican or "Constitutional Conservative"? Do you think we are going to fool them with a sheep in wolf's clothing? [I fear the opposite may be the case.]

This isn't randpaulforums.com. At last be clear in each post of yours who you support. It isn't Ron Paul.

I haven't stated an opinion on that one way or another. I'd say based on Ron's poor performance Jack was right to say "Ron will not win the Repbulican nomination". If you want to know, do I think he should drop out - at this point, yes I do, just take a moneybomb for example, average they bring in 1Mill, we have about 5 good people right now we are trying to run for Congress/Senate seats, that would be 200K for their campaigns, wouldn't it be better to start getting some people in the House/Senate than to continue on down this "stealth delegate" road? If I'm wrong, show where I'm wrong.

As to your last comment, I'd be willing to bet I've donated more money and gotten more votes for Ron than most of you on here who love to go around calling yourselves the "true" Ron Paul supporters. I've found what "true" means is you lick Ron's boots even if he's driving us off a cliff, you hoot and holler at rally's, but then when it comes to donating or getting votes you sit home and spam interent polls and pat yourself on the back that you accomplished something.

 

[ZanZibar]

If Rand can't help his own father win Kentucky, then I seriously doubt anyone will consider him for a VP spot in 2012.

Uhh... KY is (probably) too late to matter meaning the delegate is usually set by the time it comes around.

 

[mello]

The reason why I don't care for the VP slot idea is that if Romney ends up winning with Ron or Rand as VP, he will by default run for the second term as well. Romney will not win because Paul supporters hate him as much as Obama. When he does lose, we will only have to wait 4 years instead of 8 for Rand to run for President.

 

[bunklocoempire]

*snip*

Your thoughts?

I believe in competition.

I believe the brand that works best actually sells best.

I refuse to ruin the brand further by watering it down yet again. Especially tying it in any way to Dr. Ron Paul.

If I ruin the brand folks will just go reaching for the another product again driving them farther away.

Can't do it, won't do it.

NOBPP

(President Paul)

 

[robert9712000]

this is a compromise. We don't compromise.

Compromise insinuates Ron would have to sacrifice what he believes to come to a mutual agreement.Being Vice president isn't a compromise, its a choice, of which if the options are that there's no way Ron can be President and it where to come down to going home and retiring or become Vice and use what ever authority you have to further the Libertarian agenda then i'd consider it.

As what someone else said.The only reason i'd be hesitant is because it might be better to let the republicans lose and push for Rand in 4 years,but if Romney/Paul actually won Paul could have a influence now.I think he'd be in Romney's business alot as vice.

Then maybe after 4 years Ron would retire and per agreement Rand would be Vice for the second term to set him up for a bid the next election cycle.

Mind you this is all conjecture,until i know all the facts of how this primary ends up its premature to speculate with absolutes.

 

[Aratus]

For those against Ron or Rand taking a VP spot, I have this sincere question/observation/challenge.

I keep reading here that the liberty movement has to build from the ground up - that we can't just hop in the White House right off. Why in the world then, if a President Paul is not possible, would we oppose a VP Rand Paul?

When Reagan was forced into choosing Bush Sr. as his VP when he din't want to, what came of that? President Bush.

Why would we want to give up that potential? We'd have a liberty-minded person in waiting for the presidency! And, as an added bonus, he'd have the ear of a President who genuinely likes his father.

Remember that for better or worse, Cheney shaped Bush's decesion making. Mostly for worse since Bush seemed to start out as a physical conservative and noninterventionist. Rand (and Ron) could help shape Romney and then have an experienced Rand with the almost default backing of the Republican party!

Just like in chess, you don't quit if you can't capture the king in the first few moves, we've got to be wise about the future.

I love Ron Paul and what he stands for and that's why I'll take a massive inroad like this instead of nothing. Flame away, but I'm just being honest and, I belive, logical.

Your thoughts?

this is a compromise. We don't compromise.

this question is going to be asked again by this june and july

 

[The Gold Standard]

What the fuck kind of speeches would Ron give as Romney's running mate? Crack down on Iran? Bomb Syria? Manage the economy? Bail out the banks? Indefinitely detain and assassinate citizens with no trial to keep us safe? Deficits don't matter? These are Romney's platform planks. Is he going to go out and support them? Or attack the top of his own ticket.

 

[Liberty74]

So many fools. This talk of Rand in 2016 is so far out it's ridiculous. And to base who becomes President in 2012 is dependent on Rand winning in 2016 is laughable.

Listen, Rand can stand on his very own two feet. He does it well. I am proud to have Rand in the Senate from my home state of the Big Blue Wildcats. But no one can predict the future unless you are part of the black ops program that deals with time travel - yes it does exist. As everyone knows, the Republican nomination in 6 months went from Trump to Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Newt then to Santorum. Things change faster than you can blink and to base 2012 on 2016 is again, foolish.

We simply get plugging away at the Liberty movement - limited government at the federal level, phasing out the IRS and auditing the FED, stop policing the world, ending foreign aid, bringing home all the troops/ending wars, austrian economics, protecting the Constitution, saying no the police state, and on and on. Pick your topics. Educate yourself on those issues. Spread your knowledge. Keep planting the seeds. One day the sheep will wake up if it's not too late like Greece and the rest of Europe.

Read Ron's books - Liberty and The Revolution.

Let what happens in 2016 wait until then.

 

[69360]

What the fuck kind of speeches would Ron give as Romney's running mate? Crack down on Iran? Bomb Syria? Manage the economy? Bail out the banks? Indefinitely detain and assassinate citizens with no trial to keep us safe? Deficits don't matter? These are Romney's platform planks. Is he going to go out and support them? Or attack the top of his own ticket.

Those are Romney's positions for the primary where you have to pander to neocons to win. They won't be his in the general. He'll move to center for wider appeal.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Those are Romney's positions for the primary where you have to pander to neocons to win. They won't be his in the general. He'll move to center for wider appeal.

Those are positions he has never wavered in. He will flip flop on abortion and gay marriage and things like that, but his big spending, big war, big government positions have never changed.

 

[jolynna]

Compromise insinuates Ron would have to sacrifice what he believes to come to a mutual agreement.Being Vice president isn't a compromise, its a choice, of which if the options are that there's no way Ron can be President and it where to come down to going home and retiring or become Vice and use what ever authority you have to further the Libertarian agenda then i'd consider it.

I beg to differ.

When you become the Vice President, you are endorsing and allowing YOUR GOOD NAME and REPUTATION to be a reason for a vote cast for the POTUS candidate as well.

When that candidate, in advance, advocates TRASHING the OATH OF OFFICE and the CONSTITUTION, your endorsement ABETS the candidates wrongdoings. Every single vote cast because your NAME IS PART OF THE BALLOT is your responsibility.

Does it matter that a candidate is a liar--all candidates do it--right? Is compromise such a big deal--when the compromises include compromising lives, liberties and justice for all?

I am going to quote a small part of a book that changed me as a person. It changed the way I think about everything:

Why, for month after month and year after year, did millions of intelligent human beings--guarded by a relatively few Nazi soldiers--willing load their families into tens of thousands of cattle cars to be transported by rail to one of the many death camps scattered across Europe? How can a condemned group of people headed for a gas chamber be compelled to act in a docile manner?

There answer is breathtakingly simple.
And it is a method still being used
by some elected leaders to achieve
various goals today.
How do you kill eleven million
people?
Lie to them.

http://www.amazon.com/How-You-Kill-...8355/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331168216&sr=8-1​

Choosing a leader of integrity, one with a history of truth-telling, (not one that can be found on hundreds of videos fibbing in different directions) MATTERS. A LOT. Ron Paul cannot let his good name to be used to boost a KNOWN IN ADVANCE liar and KNOWN IN ADVANCE trasher of human rights, liberty and his oath of office into the world's TOP POSITION. (It doesn't matter that the other candidates are worse. Ron Paul, cannot in good conscience, give Romney ANY hint of "seal of approval".)

In my opinion.

 

[jolynna]

Those are positions he has never wavered in. He will flip flop on abortion and gay marriage and things like that, but his big spending, big war, big government positions have never changed.

No, he has NEVER wavered on those issues. He is a to-the-bone, core, die-hard, neo-con.

imo

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I'll I always go with the best possible option, so yes to this option.

 

[ZanZibar]

Let what happens in 2016 wait until then.

That's a very "head-in-the-sand" thing to say.

Doug Wead has said countless times that becoming President is like building a shopping mall. He was hired to get Bush I elected the DAY after Reagan's re-election Campaign ended.

If we can't get Ron elected in 2012, then we need to start laying the groundwork for Rand in 2016!!!

 

[cindy25]

Ron as VP makes no sense; after 8 years he would be 84.

but Rand would have a purpose; if Romney loses (as I expect) he would be the front runner for 2016. Rand would have the support of the Romney faction in the 2016 primaries.
being on the ticket would be his only chance of winning the nomination. if Romney wins, a second term is likely, and Rand is Bush 41 in 2020.

is Rand ideal-no; but is Rand the best we have in 2016-yes.

cabinet positions serve no political purpose,for either Ron or Rand