As a Paul Supporter

As a Ron Paul supporter, I have to say, if Romney does win the nomination, I wouldn't support him per say, but I would hope he won. If I vote I would vote third party. The best I can hope for is that the vote goes to the House or whatever.

Let's be honest here, while I believe Romney is not that much different from Obama, he's the only GOP candidate besides Paul that wouldn't get us into a war with Iran. That's becoming clear. Based on Obama's average foreign policy, I believe he will do something stupid like support a rebellion, which will turn into a massive mistake. At least Romney would stay out of that area altogether. Iran is too important in terms of oil to attack it. Let it gets it's stupid nuke, and let's see what they do with it. I believe Israel will attack and destroy the nuke. America doesn't need to get involved, we are hated in the Middle East as it is.

Finally, I believe Romney will reach across the aisle and offer Paul a VP position, or maybe Secretary of the Treasury. Better than that loser Geithner. Think of how interesting that would be. Romney would have no trouble winning the election. Other then that maybe a Rubio pick would guarantee him victory.


Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-08-2012 04:41 PM

 

Is that why Romney wants "multiple warships" off Iran?

 

As much as I like Dr. Paul, I've come to know that he isn't fit for the Presidency of the United States. He isn't modern enough. Having said that though, what's left, Romney and Obama, it matters very little at this point. What positive changes Paul would implement will never see the light of day, and Washington will resume on, business as usual.

 

You could always move to Missouri.
The mob "Paul " rule of destroying the public faith in votes continues...if you cant win..

LIE..cheat... WHINE and steal the delegates.
Say there is FRAUD at every election..

Smoke some more dope..he will never HOLD public office at this rate again.

 

Ron Paul for president. u mad?

 

You know that you may be voting for a Supreme Court Justice with this presidential election. Why that wouldn't be important to you is pretty sad. Voting for a third party is really throwing away your vote.

The Supreme Court has far more say in how this country is run than any presidential administration will ever have.

 

If Romney is such a strong candidate he wont need the Paul/3rd party support anyway. So dont worry about who we vote for. If he cant win with out us, well then it sounds like hes undetectable, and you are wasted your vote on him.

 

Philosophical question:
1. Do I vote for the lesser of two evils?
2. Do I vote for a third party candidate whose ideology is most inline with mine?

At the age of 43, I can assure you that you are an ass if you vote for a third party candidate. As I stated in a prior post, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were never president even though I voted for them at various times. A third party vote is a wasted vote and the responsible people need to look at neutralizing irresponsible votes (i.e. those on the government dole) as opposed to a theoretical ideology that will never come unless society collapses. My guess is that you are not prepared or ready for that.

 

I always thought you were supposed to vote for the person you agreed with the most, or the person whom you thought would fix America the most.

 

Yes you vote for the person that best represents your political beliefs. Its your vote, your voice. Voting against somone, or for the lesser of two evils, or worst of all, based on party, is what trashing this country. I personally refuse to play that game.

 

I'm democrat in some leans, and republican in others, but I vote independent. I think that's how it should be. People are too caught up in their biases though.

 

Actually a third party vote is not wasted. It is a vote for the progressive/big government types. We saw this when 2/3 of the country voted for conservative ideals and yet Clinton got a second term with only 33% of the votes. The country is so divided, that even a few thousand thirty party votes throw the election the way none of the two groups want. If Mr Paul had the nomination, I would have voted for him. Even though I don't agree with everyhting he wants. Mr Romney is NOT my first choice, either. However, the Obama administration has almost destroyed this country. Please reconsider handing him a blank check of a second term. We have seen that he is already making deals that will further put the US in jeopardy.

 

Ahh.. The innocent review of politics.Sooo...
If you cant get what you want..you might JUST FIND..you get what you NEED.

If the perfect guy isn't there.. DO NOT GIVE THE MOST WRONG PERSON THE ELECTION.

We now know Obama's agenda..his record..and his economy.

F stands for failure..no matter how charismatic the dude is and how hype and cool he seemed to be.
IMAGE ONLY WORKS ONCE.

Remember your 1st Date ?

 

Paul supporters don't care about destroying public faith in votes because they themselves have no faith in votes. And the reason they have no faith in votes is because voters keep electing psychopaths like Mitt Romney.

 

the difference between paul supporters and the supporters of other candidates is that paul supporters think

 

"However, the Obama administration has almost destroyed this country. Please reconsider handing him a blank check of a second term. We have seen that he is already making deals that will further put the US in jeopardy." ColoradoGirl

I think we are on the same page. I will be voting for Romney and I gave up the thought of a third party candidate about 10 years ago. Perhaps more important is removing one party from complete control (i.e. DDD or RRR, Senate, Congress, President). Even if Romney is voted as president, part of me hopes that the Senate is still Democratic as I don't believe that the "fiscal responsibility" rhetoric espoused by the Republicans is true.

 

As I was drinking the other day, has anyone really given thought to WHAT IF Ron Paul was elected? For clarification, I think the guy is great and one a few "thinkers" in the USA. However, let's assume that the Congress and the Senate remain identical in 2012. Do you really think that Ron Paul would be able to convince Harry Reid or John Boehner into his logical way of thinking? What about the majority of the Senate or Congress? If you feel sorry for clown-boy Obama crying about how Congress doesn't pass his useless drivel, Ron Paul wouldn't cry like a two year old. However, he would be stymied at every level.

 

Inaction to many Ron Paul supporters is better than a plethora of improper actions.

 

So be it. Bring on the collapse of the USA. (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you do and (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you don't. Inaction has its consequences.

 

that there are more Paul supporters than there are.

The man has 26 delegates.

He was NEVER in the race. Not in 2012 or 2008 or 1988 or the 1984 Senate race. His ONLY strong support comes from the youngest voters that make up a small percentage of the voting public and Paul has never got higher than 38% of his strongest support group.

Early on, I thought a 3rd party run by Paul would HAND the election to obama. but after reading the rantings by many Paul supporters, I believe a 3rd party run by Paul would take away obama votes. TOO many Paul supporters have said they will vote for obama if Paul is not the Republican nominee. THAT is completely illogical.

 

Since Paul NEVER got even one of his important issues PASSED into law in 12 terms in the House, over 700 bills sponsored, not one important issue passed, the obvious answer is that he would get NOTHING done no matter who controls Congress.

 

I'm quite certain if you were put into his position you would have had the same record. Voicing a thought process that seeks to excel limited Government, fiscal responsibility, individualism and State's Rights isn't a voice Big Corporate Sponsors wish to endorse at all... and looking at the other candidates we have Corporations & Unions pooling in thousands to millions to support candidates. Is it because their message is better and Constitutional? Of course not. He is in room stuck with hundreds of other Congressman seeking to grease their palms as much as possible... they're running for a Political Office to whore themselves out to the highest bidder, not serve the people and uphold the Constitution. What is truly frightening are people such as yourself giving Ron Paul negative feedback based upon circumstances he couldn't manage to break nor anyone else was able. It was himself and a few others versus hundreds of other Congressmen... and the financial backing of the Corporations, Organizations and Unions who are able to drown out information through their millions to billions of collective dollars to bring us to the financial situation we have today. Don't dis Ron Paul for something that couldn't be changed with what little Power he had... Don't make it out as if he was President of the United States of America previously. One Voice versus hundreds & their financial backing of millions.

 

Your excuse is completely LAME. True leaders accomplish what they set out to do. Paul set out to keep getting reelected to the House. That's called a career politician. Paul IS and always has been a career politician with delusions of grandeur.

Maybe someday an ACTUAL LEADER will take up some of Paul's speeches and make them HAPPEN. All Paul did was to keep sponsoring the same bills over and over for 12 terms. One of those bills was for term limits and if you cannot see both the humor and contradiction in that, you are hopelessly lost.

What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results???????? whackadoo, whackadoo, whackadoo,,,,,

 

Imagine anyone else leaving their job for 3 year and getting away with it..

ONLY PAUL gets the free pass..

 

you guys seem to be debating Ron Paul without actually having done any research about the guy...go search him on youtube, listen as he describes problems in detail, and proposes reasonable solutions, while getting scoffed at and ostracized by the politically-oriented media.

one thing you have to realize is that Ron Paul stands for an idea, the most well known idea that is involved with things like the 'american dream' and the 'constitution', if you've ever heard of them. he runs to spread the idea (personal and economic freedom), and to change the face of politics that is running the country. he knows he'll never win, but acknowledging that fact, and acting like a loser will not serve his cause. he has already had an impact, as he basically decided which of the republican primary candidates was the lesser of the evils, and attacked all of the other ones in ads, and on debates. santorum and gingrich, in a way, owe their failures to ron paul, just as giuliani once did.

the big picture is always a little larger than it looks