Write In Vote for Ron Paul 2008

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
How many would it take to do this?
Ours is NOT just a 2 party system, we do have options.
A write-in vote is a lot less easy to tamper with!

votewritein.blogspot.com...

Message of strong national defense and strictly following the Constitution resonates with American servicemen and women
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to opensecrets.org, the top three contributors to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign are from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force respectively. www.ronpaul2008.com...
“No matter how you measure it, Dr. Paul has the support of our nation’s brave servicemen and women,” said Kent Snyder, Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman. “His message of a strong national defense, and only going to war with a declaration of war – as mandated by the Constitution – resonates with those who risk their lives to defend that Constitution.”
No branch of the military appears among the “top contributors” to GOP frontrunner John McCain’s campaign.
Additionally, Ron Paul’s military contributions are greater than those of all other current candidates – John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama –combined.



Use write-in vote for viable candidate

March 27, 2008

Wake up, America! If you are disgusted with the offerings for president, our country's founding fathers have given us the greatest privilege afforded a people: the power to choose — your write-in vote.

If you want to vote for Clinton, McCain or Obama, fine, but if you feel that another also-ran would do a better job, research that former candidate and vote for him/her. Don't write in Mickey Mouse, Goofy or none of the above; vote for a viable candidate.

Take back the power. A government that is "of the people, by the people and for the people." What a revolutionary idea! Don't let the political machine win again. We are not sheep!

— Donna Heintz, Salem



[edit on 28-3-2008 by RedmoonMWC]




posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Interesting.
I wonder how many will actually do it?
I'm reading through the site that you mentioned..

[edit on 29-3-2008 by spacedoubt]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I'm in!

The Revolution lives on!



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I like Ron Paul but I can't do it.

It's a waste of a vote.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
IMHO a vote for any of the top 3 contenders at present is a waste of a vote; this country needs more people who are willing to research the candidates and think about who will be best for the country as a whole rather than just them.
We have been stuck in a system that encourages us Not to think for ourselves, just take the info disseminated by the media and don't look beyond that.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
 


What reasons do you have to say that voting for any of those candidates is a waste? I have my reasons for liking/disliking each, but you don't think any of them are going to be helpful?

Why?



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I think that the media impacts the public’s mind on a large scale; I feel the media (or possibly their owners) pick all of our candidates for us. I don’t believe the coverage has been fair. I feel that the media was designed to manipulate us from the beginning. *

In my opinion, Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton are actually sabotaging each other and the Democratic Party. This is actually ok with me but not good for our choices in the election.

John Sidney McCain III, is the status quo and it is my belief that this is the candidate that our media (and possibly al Qaeda* also) actually wants to win, because he would do nothing effective to stop the Illegal Immigrants and would in all probability escalate the "war on terrorism" which I believe is un-winnable because, when you declare war on terrorism you, in effect, declare war on the world as there are terrorist all over the world and our actions worldwide are making more daily.

Ronald Ernest Paul, Personally I like everything I have seen or heard about him, I can not say that about any of the other candidates, although there are things I like about each of them. As He has said he will not run on a 3rd party ticket (this would loose him his seat in Congress, and we need him there if not in the oval office) the only way to get him elected is with a write in vote, which is the last thing anyone would expect.

* (a discussion for another thread)



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
I think that the media impacts the public’s mind on a large scale; I feel the media (or possibly their owners) pick all of our candidates for us. I don’t believe the coverage has been fair. I feel that the media was designed to manipulate us from the beginning. *


I did an indepth analysis of what you are talking about with the media. Check out the link in my signature.


Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
In my opinion, Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton are actually sabotaging each other and the Democratic Party. This is actually ok with me but not good for our choices in the election.


As bad as it is getting, it's just election politics. At least it hasn't gotten as bad as the Bush/Kerry election of '04 yet.

And consider this:

Most people who are willing to vote Ron Paul are liberals, not conservatives. That means if Ron Paul runs, or people write his name in, it is mostly going to hurt the Democrats.


Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
John Sidney McCain III, is the status quo and it is my belief that this is the candidate that our media (and possibly al Qaeda* also) actually wants to win, because he would do nothing effective to stop the Illegal Immigrants and would in all probability escalate the "war on terrorism" which I believe is un-winnable because, when you declare war on terrorism you, in effect, declare war on the world as there are terrorist all over the world and our actions worldwide are making more daily.


I don't agree. I think McCain is saying what he thinks he needs to say to win. Anyone who saw McCain back in his "Nah, I won't be running for President anytime soon" days, remembers him being fairly anti-Bush and anti-war. He would go on the Daily Show, and though he wouldn't say it, he'd basically just kind of laugh and not answer Jon Stewarts questions about how dumb Bush and the war are.

I honestly believe if it wasn't political suicide, he'd pull the troops out.


Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
Ronald Ernest Paul, Personally I like everything I have seen or heard about him, I can not say that about any of the other candidates, although there are things I like about each of them. As He has said he will not run on a 3rd party ticket (this would loose him his seat in Congress, and we need him there if not in the oval office) the only way to get him elected is with a write in vote, which is the last thing anyone would expect.


If he doesn't run, he won't be elected. He couldn't even get enough votes to make it close in the primaries. There is just no chance, unless no one shows up but Ron Paul fans.

Once I realized Ron Paul had no chance, I started looking elsewhere. I think you should also, simply because one of those three will win, and you even if you don't like any of them, you should choose the lesser of all the evils.




[edit on 29-3-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
As I have said I tend to vote for the one I feel will be the best for the country, like everyone should.
I don't believe anyone should vote for the lesser of the two or three evils, that is what is expected.
It is almost like the media, or whoever, is saying you can only choose from these approved choices.
It takes a little extra work to research the candidates and to write in a vote but if enough people did it, it would have an effect. Maybe not enough of an effect to actually change the election but hopefully enough to get some peoples attention and make them realize there are more than two parties.
Personally I think most people are too lazy or apathetic to do the research, which is how and why we always end up with the same people in office year after year. A lot of people going in and voting a straight party ticket because they don't want (or maybe don't know how) to think for themselves anymore.
Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, but it’s worth a try.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
As I have said I tend to vote for the one I feel will be the best for the country, like everyone should.
I don't believe anyone should vote for the lesser of the two or three evils, that is what is expected.


I hear ya, but it's really what we are working with under the current system.

Ron Paul cannot, and will not, win this upcoming election. It just isn't possible. So if you want to vote for him, that is certainly fine and it's your right; however, if you feel that one of the other candidates is better than the rest, it may suit you better to vote for him/her.


Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
It is almost like the media, or whoever, is saying you can only choose from these approved choices.
It takes a little extra work to research the candidates and to write in a vote but if enough people did it, it would have an effect. Maybe not enough of an effect to actually change the election but hopefully enough to get some peoples attention and make them realize there are more than two parties.


The media is useless. They report nonsense on a daily basis. They mudsling all the candidates. None of them do any good investigative journalism anymore.


Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
Personally I think most people are too lazy or apathetic to do the research, which is how and why we always end up with the same people in office year after year. A lot of people going in and voting a straight party ticket because they don't want (or maybe don't know how) to think for themselves anymore.
Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, but it’s worth a try.


It's not just you. It is pretty much a fact that most people are ignorant, especially in this country.

The only way to get change is to fight for it. Often, to get the masses attention, it has to get so bad that people just can't take it anymore.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


But.. Isn't that exactly why Ron Paul doesn't have a chance? Because people are thinking he doesn't have a chance and thus won't vote for him?

Isn't that what the media seemed to want?

-Will



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Basilis
 


I don't think so. I just don't think he's got the votes to pull it off. Ron Paul supporters are very adamant about voting for him, and he still got destroyed in the first few primaries. That dishearted the rest, and I can't blame them.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Some interesting points, particularly about how the media "pick" the candidates.

Here in the UK we heard pretty much NOTHING about Ron Paul, simply because our news/political shows were getting their info from the MSM in the US - so if it hadn't been for alternative news sites and ATS I wouldn't ever have heard of him.

The other problem is one of ennui in regard to the elections - and this goes for nearly any "western" country.
Nothing ever changes, so people don't bother to vote.

Only be exercising our democratic right to vote can we bring about change - the trouble is, postal ballots have been shown to be massively flawed.

So, how about a personal "voter ID" - a number unique to you that you could use on a secure website or by secure postal ballot, with votes being collected and counted by an outside party, sponsored by an international agency of known impartiality.
The swiss come to mind...



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


It's really quite amazing how much the media chooses our candidates. My girlfriend said, "But don't they just report on who's in the lead? They don't really choose the candidates, we do, and then they report on them more."

I disagreed with her. I had never heard of Romney, Huckabee, or Obama before this race. Romney and Huckabee did pretty well, but they were also reported on a ton compared to the remaining condidates. Even wacky Giuliani got more press than Paul and others.

On the democrats side, ONLY Obama and Hillary were really reported on. Coincidentally, really only Obama and Hillary got voted for.

The media, regardless of how much each candidate has to spend campaigning, should be reporting on each candidate for a fair amount of time.

Anyway, how's things in the UK?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Well, any coverage at the moment is pretty much about mccain or hillary - it's almost as though they've decided that she is going to be the candidate.

I wonder if the BBC knows something the rest of us don't



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
That's my plan for now. But in all sincerity he probably has about as much chance as Kucinich for president. However remote, that is exactly what I will do.





top topics
 
4

log in

join