Would you vote for a Romney/Paul ticket?

[cajuncocoa]

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.

You're making too much sense...this needs to stop.

 

[parocks]

Seriously??

In comparison to Ron/Sarah and Sarah/Rand, absolutely. Sarah already did the #2, and Sarah would likely want someone with more experience and doesn't need the base that Rand might bring that Ron wouldn't. I do like the Sarah/Ron ticket. Ron could help her with specifics. Sarah Palin would've beaten Romney this year if she ran. She would've gotten every Santorum supporter and a lot more.

 

[Revolution9]

Ask yourself this question. Do you want Condoleeza and Romney at the helm? There is much to be taken into account when considering corner cases in any algorithm. Being pragmatic by nature and profession as well as understanding composition, space and volume by inherent talent I suggest there is much more to this equation than a simple stomp your foot 'no' reaction. From a software algorithm perspective a simple boolean will not address the complexity of the applications inputs in regards to a binary true or false output.

Rev9

 

[CaptUSA]

While there are a few exceptions, the breakdown in this poll is pretty revealing. Most of the old-timers with high post counts would vote for Ron Paul as VP, while the newer folks with lower post counts say no.

I'm not sure why this is - just an observation.

It may be that the folks that have been around for a long time realize that we have been trying to win more influence in the GOP and this would help. Whereas the newer folks don't want to have anything to do with the GOP. Could this be?

 

[TheGrinch]

While there are a few exceptions, the breakdown in this poll is pretty revealing. Most of the old-timers with high post counts would vote for Ron Paul as VP, while the newer folks with lower post counts say no.

I'm not sure why this is - just an observation.

It may be that the folks that have been around for a long time realize that we have been trying to win more influence in the GOP and this would help. Whereas the newer folks don't want to have anything to do with the GOP. Could this be?

I would say it's relatively accurate that there are more new posters who are here for ideological reasons, but appear to have little interest in being taken seriously politically.

That said, I certainly don't think this is a balck-andwhite issue, but for me, one of those bridges I'll cross if we get there. Just like Ron doesn't like to speak in absolutes about fluid situations, neither should we...

 

[PolicyReader]

Can't trust Romney to do what he says he will do. Can't trust Romney to back things, even things that he starts out actually backing. Can't vote for a Romney/-- ticket even if the name filling in that blank is Paul. I've been willing to bend my usual stand on use of political buzz and actually employ the term "Obamney" for a reason, those two candidates do not provide any realistic guarantee of substantive difference. In a choice between Romney and Obama I choose none of the above and no VP selection can overcome the sheer (and proven) dishonesty of either of those men as a primary candidate.
Didn't vote for Obama or Romney back in '08 won't vote for either of them in '12, I don't vote for candidates who represent policies and stances (such as being completely untrustworthy or reliable not to mention profoundly warmongering etc etc.) which I don't support (and in fact strongly oppose).

While there are a few exceptions, the breakdown in this poll is pretty revealing. Most of the old-timers with high post counts would vote for Ron Paul as VP, while the newer folks with lower post counts say no.

I'm not sure why this is - just an observation.

It may be that the folks that have been around for a long time realize that we have been trying to win more influence in the GOP and this would help. Whereas the newer folks don't want to have anything to do with the GOP. Could this be?

I think you've likely got a point when it comes to general trends, as for me I've been around for quite a few years when it comes to politics, and supporting Ron at least since last GOP primary and I've gotta say the longer I spend at this the less inclined I am to 'play politics' (aka compromise) when it comes to voting or supporting a candidate (outside of delegate candidates when establishing a coalition deal within the delegate process, but even there I won't really compromise on a single candidate who doesn't meet muster, I'm just willing to support one of those if it also means I'm getting a good one in. For higher offices where there is only one slot open to be claimed I've just gotta say "no sale").

This year has deepened the above sense because it's been made more and more glaringly clear how many folks in the GOP (I'm mostly talking those who hold actual party positions here) are only willing to entertain the idea of "compromise" when it means "support our guy cuz we get to choose". They may not (from state to state for example) agree on who "their guy" is but there's a pretty strong streak of not wanting it to be open to any substantive debate or discussion. I understand and support being diplomatic when dealing with local voters and even local party members, but that does not include determining/altering my vote to curry favor or gain influence. I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul that one of the major things wrong with politics (and be extension the nation at present) is the "go along to get along" attitude. Diplomacy with all parties, alliance with none (to paraphrase a quote).
Or put another way, work in coalition with anyone on things upon which you agree, but always vote with your conscience.

2c
Reader

 

[romancito]

Someone, quick, get out the crystal ball and tell us how it all ends.....

It ends with Ron Paul as Vice President sitting in front of a fireplace at the White House telling the Romney kids and family many stories about life during the Vietnam era, the 50' and the 60' and making jokes about delivery room bloopers.

 

[romancito]

I don't think I've read something more absurd on these forums.

Absurdness and intuition are in, science and facts are out, but only in small quarters - the larger quarters are living in the past.

 

[twomp]

I would say it's relatively accurate that there are more new posters who are here for ideological reasons, but appear to have little interest in being taken seriously politically.

Just because you registered here before me doesn't mean I take politics any less serious then you did. The money I donate is just as good as the money you donate and my vote counts just the same as your vote.

IN case you didn't notice, this election cycle, Ron Paul has garnered a lot more interest from us former Democrats and Independents. That could be a reason why the "new posters" are less excited about a Romney/Paul ticket. Like or not, we are a part of this rEVOLution as well.

 

[jolynna]

While there are a few exceptions, the breakdown in this poll is pretty revealing. Most of the old-timers with high post counts would vote for Ron Paul as VP, while the newer folks with lower post counts say no.

I'm not sure why this is - just an observation.

It may be that the folks that have been around for a long time realize that we have been trying to win more influence in the GOP and this would help. Whereas the newer folks don't want to have anything to do with the GOP. Could this be?

Ummm...I've had plenty to do with the GOP.

I AM registered GOP and have been for decades. I've donated money, planted signs, raised funds, served on committees, bought tables at dinners, made phone calls, knocked on doors for decades. MY FATHER AND STEPMOTHER HAVE SERVED IN ELECTED POSITIONS. I AM part of the system.

But, after I heard Ron Paul speak, I see the results of what I accomplished AS A REPUBLICAN...in a different light.

Now, I am being asked to go BACK and be O.K. with what I WAS O.K. with BEFORE???????????!!!

Because I was UNINFORMED and WENT ALONG WITH WHAT I WAS TOLD TO DO and believed all the press and hype about how there were "weapons of mass destruction" and that Iraq was partially responsible for 911 and that for the sake of human rights Saddam had to go...I not ONLY DIDN'T OBJECT when thousands of "our own" and a million Iraqis WERE SLAUGHTERED for NO GOOD REASON, I voted for Bush again. THEN I voted for McCain, who would have been as bad as, if NOT WORSE THAN, Obama.


I want to help UNDO some of what I helped set in motion. Not promote MORE of it. I am SO, SO sorry, I didn't learn more, read more, know more or question more SOONER. I WON'T, not for anyone, encourage a single vote for war without cause OR taking away our freedoms. If Ron Paul means what he has said, he won't either.

In my opinion.

 

[AJ Antimony]

So you would believe his promise? I mean Romney is known for keeping his word right? Oh maybe if pinky swore? Sorry I don't believe a damn thing that comes out his mouth NO MATTER who his VP is. This is the man that supports NDAA. He said that on national television but IF he promised to make government smaller, everything is just dandy.

You may believe him but he won't fool me.

Maybe you missed the part where this entire thread is theoretical anyway. Why are you asking me if I'd believe his promise? He didn't make a promise! I clearly stated that the odds of any of this bullshit thread happening is basically 0%.

The point I'm trying to make is, IF Ron was offered the VP spot and accepted, wouldn't that have to mean Romney made some policy promises to Paul in order to accept? ACTUAL promises? He wouldn't be making the promises to me, he'd be making them to Dr. Perfect-Bullshit-Detector Ron Paul.

 

[romancito]

Sarah Palin / Ron Paul.

Palin / Ron Paul would work. From the effects of the lawsuit you get dozens and maybe up to a hundred abstentions. Romney doesn't get 1144. Sarah Palin could be nominated by Alaska, Arizona, Nebraska, New Mexico, California and Oregon. She gets 1167 and wins. Then Ron Paul get nominated by Nevada Maine Minnesota Iowa and Texas. He gets 1197 and Obama and Michelle check in at their local hospital for severe nausea and erratic heart beats.

 

[Carlybee]

I AM registered GOP and have been for decades. I've donated money, planted signs, raised funds, served on committees, bought tables at dinners, made phone calls, knocked on doors for decades. MY FATHER AND STEPMOTHER HAVE SERVED IN ELECTED POSITIONS. I AM part of the system.

But, after I heard Ron Paul speak, I see the results of what I accomplished AS A REPUBLICAN...in a different light.

Now, I am being asked to go BACK and be O.K. with what I WAS O.K. with BEFORE?

Because I was UNINFORMED and WENT ALONG WITH WHAT I WAS TOLD TO DO and believed all the press and hype about how there were "weapons of mass destruction" and that Iraq was partially responsible for 911 and that for the sake of human rights Saddam had to go...I not ONLY DIDN'T OBJECT when thousands of "our own" and a million Iraqis WERE SLAUGHTERED for NO GOOD REASON, I voted for Bush again. THEN I voted for McCain, who would have been as bad as, if NOT WORSE THAN, Obama.

I am happy recruiting and working with and for YOUNG tea party people and libertarian-leaning GOP. But, quite frankly, I will , vote for, endorse or in any way promote ANY moderate (Romney/McCain/Bush) GOP. I'll be polite to their face.

I want to help UNDO some of what I helped set in motion. Not promote MORE of it. Everybody with decency inside them SHOULD FIGHT with all of their hearts and souls to preserve our freedoms and to NEVER, EVER be part of exterminating human beings without cause. Not silently and politely going along with it to be "team players". I am SO, SO sorry, I didn't learn more, read more, know more or question more SOONER.

In my opinion.

Well said

 

[PolicyReader]

To lighten the mood here a touch

^This... and in light of this can I propose a second poll asking "would you vote for a Obama/Paul ticket?" Granted it's an even slimmer chance that Obama will ask than Romney, which is one of their few notable differences , but it's effectively the same question outside of that.

 

[Carlybee]

Palin / Ron Paul would work. From the effects of the lawsuit you get dozens and maybe up to a hundred abstentions. Romney doesn't get 1144. Sarah Palin could be nominated by Alaska, Arizona, Nebraska, New Mexico, California and Oregon. She gets 1167 and wins. Then Ron Paul get nominated by Nevada Maine Minnesota Iowa and Texas. He gets 1197 and Obama and Michelle check in at their local hospital for severe nausea and erratic heart beats.

Ron Paul would never serve on a ticket with Sarah Palin. That would be like Einstein serving as second banana to one of the muppets. Apologies to the muppets.

 

[sailingaway]

I want to help UNDO some of what I helped set in motion. Not promote MORE of it. Everybody with decency inside them SHOULD FIGHT with all of their hearts and souls to preserve our freedoms and to NEVER, EVER be part of exterminating human beings without cause. Not silently and politely going along with it to be "team players". I am SO, SO sorry, I didn't learn more, read more, know more or question more SOONER.

In my opinion.

You and me, both.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

I want Ron controversial, and see no why HE couldn't have a special deal like Cheney did, only instead of policy power, he gets independence in media.

At least, since the whole thing is a fantasy, that is mine. And Ron could campaign on his own, I see no reason I should sit through a Romney speech.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Ron Paul would never serve on a ticket with Sarah Palin. That would be like Einstein serving as second banana to one of the muppets. Apologies to the muppets.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I want Ron controversial, and see no why HE couldn't have a special deal like Cheney did, only instead of policy power, he gets independence in media.

At least, since the whole thing is a fantasy, that is mine. And Ron could campaign on his own, I see no reason I should sit through a Romney speech.

Cheney didn't "have" a special deal...he gave Georgie the special deal. He let little George be President, while he pulled the strings from the undisclosed bunker.

 

[sailingaway]

To lighten the mood here a touch

^This... and in light of this can I propose a second poll asking "would you vote for a Obama/Paul ticket?" Granted it's an even slimmer chance that Obama will ask than Romney, which is one of their few notable differences , but it's effectively the same question outside of that.

I already answered that earlier in the thread.