What would be a good name for it? My vote would probably be the Freedom Party. Freedom from the IRS, freedom from the Fed, freedom from US troops overseas, freedom from wasted money on foreign wars, but probably most importantly, freedom from corruption.

If he did, how would it differ from the Libertarian Party, or The Constitution Party or Green Party?

What about just running as an independent?

And arguably, he already has started his own party, it just needs a good name and formal declaration of such.

That little rally in response to the RNC not inviting him might as well be remembered as the Freedom National Convention. FNC.

There's names close to The Freedom Party, like Freedom Party International....

[edit on 6-9-2008 by TrueAmerican]

He should call it the Country for Change Party. Why not steal from the reps and the dems.

Any patriotic person who really desires to put Americans and America first should start their own party. If the man is one of his word and can prove he is not like the others, millions of true Americans will follow. When I say true Americans I am talking about Americans that know and realize that neither party is doing their job.

If he does whos going to support him? Most of his "self proclaimed" supporters turn out to be pro-bush, pro-war gun trodding voters who only use his name as some impartiality badge in anycase.

Sure you'll get some true supporters who will go different from the GOP and the Democrats but they will be but a small minority. If he does though, good on him, the nation needs political diversity, there shouldnt be just a rightwing and left wing to go for.

Yes, Ron Paul should start his own party, but he should not be the candidate. He dosen't have the appeal. He is a nice guy and good hearted but comes across too weak.

He should not throw in with the Libertarians, they have a proven track record of being hamstrung. They are so bound by their ideology that they seem incapable of functioning in the real world. When that libertarian ran for governor in MA she could have been elected, because of her abolish the insane taxes position, but she could not stop reciting the same slogan over and over when she got her chance to appear in a public debate.
She came across like a mooney on thorizine.



[edit on 6-9-2008 by Cyberbian]

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
If he does whos going to support him? Most of his "self proclaimed" supporters turn out to be pro-bush, pro-war gun trodding voters who only use his name as some impartiality badge in anycase.

Well, I know of at least 12,000 in MN who would hardly be Bush supporters, because they would have instead been at the RNC. I think every last one of them would beg to differ with you on that opinion. 12,001: me.

LOL........Alright....

Guess we will just have to use eminent domain and give the government a taste of their own medicine..

before I even clicked on this thread, I thought of the name "freedom party" . good call OP. I think there are more than a few people on ATS who would get down for the cause. But I don't see why he couldn't run as the initial canidate seeing as he may have the most recognizable name at first.

Freedom Party has a wonderful ring to it



Hopefully we could select a mascot fitting of the cause, perhaps an eagle or a dove.


We already have the fat dumb greedy elephant and the lazy predictible jackass...not much to get excited about there

Freedom or Liberty party sounds ok I guess.

But, I think I'd vote for the "Democratic-Republican party". Since the democrats and republicans are really just federalists, I think bringing Jefferson's party back would be very fitting.

Ron Paul is his own party. There are no dissenters, no opposition, no other thoughts other than from him. He is a wanna be dictator trying to wrap himself in the constitution.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Fromabove]

Originally posted by Fromabove
Ron Paul is his own party. There are no dissenters, no opposition, no other thoughts other than from him. He is a wanna be dictator trying to wrap himself in the constitution.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Fromabove]

Please, what a bunch of crap. He is the only person who recognizes the individual needs and the minority. He is the only person that asks - is this even a job of the government while all the others agree that everything is a function of the government and then they just argue about who is the one in charge and how to carry it out.

I guess this is why I don't post on the political threads to much around here. There certainly isn't any denial of ignorance.

Wow, so if the rumors are true, and all the 3rd parties drop their candidates and endorse Ron Paul, then all the more reason to start a new uniting party. And the Freedom Party to me would be a befitting name for such a party.

Let Freedom Reign.

But whoa, how are they going to get all this together in time? That's a lot to do!

Ron should join the pre existing Libertarian Party . He certainly has no business being in the Republican party where is political views are not welcome . In other parts of the world come election time he wouldn't have been selected to run again . It doesn't really matter either way if Paul ever entered the main stream many of his anti establishment supporters would turn on him because he would be perceived as a part of the establishment .

Originally posted by xpert11
Ron should join the pre existing Libertarian Party .

Again? I think his run in 88 and just being in the party in general did not give him near the exposure that he has now. I'd be surprised if he rejoined.

And actually, I doubt he could unify the other parties, because there are just too many core differences between them- which is why there are so many other parties to begin with, and not just one third, big party (other than the Reps/Dems).

He certainly has no business being in the Republican party where is political views are not welcome .

He actually has more business being in the republican party than any of the other Rep candidates. Because he represents the core, traditional republican values better than any of them. It is the current GOP that has changed its stance on issues, rather than a Ron Paul who has changed republican values and traditions.

In other parts of the world come election time he wouldn't have been selected to run again . It doesn't really matter either way if Paul ever entered the main stream many of his anti establishment supporters would turn on him because he would be perceived as a part of the establishment .

Not sure I completely understand that comment, xpert. As long as RP stands for what he does, and intends to make the changes he knows we need, I can't see any supporters turning on him period- establishment or not. It is an issue of values, platform, and intent- not a popularity contest. At least- it would be nice if it wasn't.