Would you vote for a Romney/Paul ticket?

[KEEF]

Would you sit shotgun in a Bugatti Veyron, with your drunk friend driving, when he has a history of car wrecks at high speeds?

No?

Then why would you want to sit shotgun, in regards to the presidency?

Doesn't mean you have to drive shot gun with your mouth shut and your window rolled up... as VP you do get to sit in on cabinet meetings, and you do get a larger speaking platform rather than the one you would recieve being retired (which I would respect Dr. Paul still if he did) and preach to the already converted choir by sending out letters and robo-call voice overs telling us to listen to the latest message that CFL President John Tate has for us.

In all honesty, I would really have to think that one out. Regardless though, I still see Romney having zero chance of beating Obama and so the Faux and other MSM talking heads would just spin that defeat as being a result of low turn out and us Ron Paul Republicans not turning out to vote for Romney if Paul was not on the ticket.

But if Ron Paul was on the ballot and Romney still loses, at least we won't get blaimed for an Obama win, we'll be a little bit more palletable to the older GOP resulting in our movement living on and continually growing. This will then lead us ready, locked, and loaded for 2016.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Doesn't mean you have to drive shot gun with your mouth shut and your window rolled up... as VP you do get to sit in on cabinet meetings, and you do get a larger speaking platform rather than the one you would recieve being retired (which I would respect Dr. Paul still if he did) and preach to the already converted choir by sending out letters and robo-call voice overs telling us to listen to the latest message that CFL President John Tate has for us.

In all honesty, I would really have to think that one out. Regardless though, I still see Romney having zero chance of beating Obama and so the Faux and other MSM talking heads would just spin that defeat as being a result of low turn out and us Ron Paul Republicans not turning out to vote for Romney if Paul was not on the ticket.

But if Ron Paul was on the ballot and Romney still loses, at least we won't get blaimed for an Obama win, we'll be a little bit more palletable to the older GOP resulting in our movement living on and continually growing. This will then lead us ready, locked, and loaded for 2016.

They would ignore RP.

and he would be held partially responsible for Romney's BS.

They would use him, and exploit him.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

They would ignore RP.

and he would be held partially responsible for Romney's BS.

They would use him, and exploit him.

Like they did in congress, but we have the video evidence of what he said, and that convinced us to follow because of his record.

 

[kahless]

Ron's term in congress is ending and the media will have no need to cover him or our cause. Ron as VP would be a chance to continue to get the message out and transform the national dialog. But people would rather just piss that chance all away to be the 1-2%, amazing.

If it is not Ron, you know who is going to have a national dialog, some Neocon VP like Rubio. Rubio's message will lead the nation for the next decade because of Ron Paul supporters delusions of opting out of the process will transform the nation.

 

[Hitman83]

I will admit that I voted yes, but I can explain myself. The conditions are the Paul is Ron, not Rand, and Romney actually has to pick Ron as a VP, which will never happen ever (just like me voting for Romney). So basically, I voted in a poll question that posed a paradox for a paradox answer.

I voted yes in much the same way. Romney will not select Ron. If Romney DOES select Ron, Ron will have to have certain conditions met on a platform basis, which Romney will be extremely unlikely to meet. This scenario is very far from reality, in my opinion anyway, that a yes or no vote doesn't really mean anything. My guess is a Rubio, Christy, Ryan, or a female. Maybe he'll pitch to Rand Paul, and maybe Rand will go with less of a fight than his father, but I still think it's unlikely.

Which makes for a better ship: the Serenity, Battlestar Galactica, or USS Enterprise? It's a fantasy question. All answers mean nothing.

 

[EBounding]

"Would you vote for a Romney/Paul ticket?"

Yes. I love living in the land of make-believe.

 

[jolynna]

Ron's term in congress is ending and the media will have no need to cover him or our cause. Ron as VP would be a chance to continue to get the message out and transform the national dialog. But people would rather just piss that chance all away to be the 1-2%, amazing.

If it is not Ron, you know who is going to have a national dialog, some Neocon VP like Rubio. Rubio's message will lead the nation for the next decade because of Ron Paul supporters delusions of opting out of the process will transform the nation.

If Ron Paul doesn't corrupt himself by promoting someone who will lead us into war and a police state, he will "stay his own man"...beholden to nobody who can talk about "blowback" and ending the fed. He will ALWAYS be RESPECTED.

Of course he'll continue to draw crowds, write books and be a "talking head" and "expert".

As a "representative" of Romney, Ron Paul goes under Romney's thumb. I want Ron be to remain controversial and a rebel. Not become Romney's toady.

I don't WANT Ron Paul to ever be a guy O'Reilly would feature as an honored guest.

In my opinion.

 

[jkob]

No. Have no illusions about Mitt Romney, he is a neocon to his core. Accepting the VP would only marginalize our movement.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

If Ron Paul doesn't corrupt himself by promoting someone who will lead us into war and a police state, he will "stay his own man"...beholden to nobody who can talk about "blowback" and ending the fed. He will ALWAYS be RESPECTED.

Of course he'll continue to draw crowds, write books and be a "talking head" and "expert".

As a "representative" of Romney, Ron Paul goes under Romney's thumb. I want Ron be to remain controversial and a rebel. Not become Romney's toady.

I don't WANT Ron Paul to ever be a guy O'Reilly would feature as an honored guest.

In my opinion.

VP's don't have to tow the Prez line. I believe there were differences in the Pres and VP in our history. Perhaps that would be good. Converstation and all.

edit: I'm with that/this: "I don't WANT Ron Paul to ever be a guy O'Reilly would feature as an honored guest."

 

[Aratus]

odds are he's about to ask paul ryan
to be his veep, even though rand was
in the running. we might see this soon.

 

[kahless]

If Ron Paul doesn't corrupt himself by promoting someone who will lead us into war and a police state, he will "stay his own man"...beholden to nobody who can talk about "blowback" and ending the fed. He will ALWAYS be RESPECTED.

Of course he'll continue to draw crowds, write books and be a "talking head" and "expert".

As a "representative" of Romney, Ron Paul goes under Romney's thumb. I want Ron be to remain controversial and a rebel. Not become Romney's toady.

I don't WANT Ron Paul to ever be a guy O'Reilly would feature as an honored guest.

In my opinion.

If Ron will not go on national talk shows then he will not convert the masses to his message and the movement will not expand beyond its small base.

No. Have no illusions about Mitt Romney, he is a neocon to his core. Accepting the VP would only marginalize our movement.

A movement that lost the Presidency and whose figure head will be leaving office soon. You really think the media will continue to cover him after he is out of office? You cannot get anymore marginalized than that. Accepting the VP position puts his message back in the national dialog.

A movement that does not have a national figure in the media and in office is not going to expand it's base.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

if ron accepted it, id vote with my nose pinched. but THIS would make sure ron is in the whitehouse in some form. id vote for it. mitt should think about it seriously if he wants to win.

 

[coffeewithchess]

Nope. Reason?
Al Gore. Dick Cheney. Joe Biden.

 

[Carlybee]

Romney is not going to offer. Romney hasn't even offered him a speaking slot. According to Ron Paul he hasn't been offered anything. Zero, zilch, nada. Glad so many are willing to compromise their values based on nothing.

 

[Paulistinian]

I'm with the people who say VP RP is better than retired Ron living in obscurity.

 

[priest_of_syrinx]

Something tells me Romney would have to be quite cautious of assassination if Paul was VP.

I mean... You guys know how libertarians can be...

At any rate, I wouldn't vote for it.

 

[Jimi]

I voted NO ... but would rather see a "Hell No" option.
Romney would not, will not, offer the VP position to Ron Paul. But if by some small slim chance he might, it would make me think twice about Ron Paul altogether.
I'm not worried at all though. It's not going to happen.

 

[Eric39]

I will without shame say I would vote for Romney/Paul. I know the position doesnt have any official power, but it comes with a microphone. I think he would serve as a brilliant contrast to whoever is president.

Not to mention, he's a heartbeat away from being president.

I think this is one of those things where we need to come to our senses. As much as we don't want anything to do with Obamney, this would be a great opportunity for our message even if we need to stand next to stupid.

 

[AJ Antimony]

Some people in this thread seem to have answered the poll with the bizarre assumption that 'if Romney picks Ron Paul as his VP, then Ron must have sold out,' as if that's the only possible explanation.

Why does Ron Paul have to sell out in order to be the VP in this entirely hypothetical scenario? This entire thread is one big 'what if?' question and yet some people here answer it so matter-of-factly. Why can't Romney pick Ron because he wants to win? Why can't Romney make some serious policy changes that would impress Ron?

We all know Romney will never pick Ron anyway, thus we all know the thread poll is moot anyway.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

never.