Ron Paul WILL Run For President in 2012 - Report from Florida Liberty Summit

Controlled opposition. Not to say that he's in on the game, but until we get our electronic voting systems source code verified to be fraud-free by an independent company representing the people, this is all for show, and a waste of energy by good-meaning people who would support him. We need to focus on the electronic voting systems NOW, and have them looked into BEFORE the 2012 election.

Watch:



[edit on 16-8-2010 by unityemissions]

This is bad, very bad. Why? Because Ron Paul will take votes away from the Republican candidate and that means Obama will win by default.

Get ready to watch Obama's 2nd coronation.

He has my vote. without a doubt. I really never vote, usually because both runners are,well just retarted for lack of a better term. But Ron Paul, is logical thinker and I agree with a lot he says. SO if he goes for it, I'll be voting for me. WHO GOT THE BUMPER STICKERs!?

[edit on 16-8-2010 by DrakeDarc]

If this is true I will be elated. He will have to win the Republican nomination to have a shot at winning. That being said I think his running mate will be of crucial importance.

Kucinich - No way. He voted for the Obamacare. He actualy thought it did not go far enough.

Some I would like to think about as running mates...Schiff, Goldwater, Jr., Dobbs, Napolitano, Stossel, Cuccinelli.

How about Nuggent, I know Iam dreaming. But won't that be fun.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Jimmy
some excellent questions that DO
need addressing ASAP.

But I do know he is already started getting
funding from GOP backing. So that's a tip-off.

Well the first question I almost always ask of a candidate whom has run for an office previously and lost is quite simple: "What have you learned from last time, and what changes has that prompted in this run?"

I think that's one of the most important questions here because of how badly Representative Paul did in 2008. It's true that the Libertarian movement in the United States has grown considerably since President Obama came into office, but I do think that Paul will have to be proactive if he wants to get the votes he'd need.

The Ron Paul "Rlovetion" with all of their demonstrations and grassroots PR did get the campaign into the public eye very well, but it didn't translate to votes.

From what I've seen so far, Paul is starting to make the same mistakes as last time (throwing in with the GOP in what will be a cutthroat primary season) and it could hurt him exactly the same way it did last time.

I don't agree with Paul on much economically, but I do believe that he has the strongest chance to break the two-party monopoly on American politics, which is something I wholeheartedly support.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Well the first question I almost always ask of a candidate whom has run for an office previously and lost is quite simple: "What have you learned from last time, and what changes has that prompted in this run?"
it could hurt him exactly the same way it did last time.

well I think it is not so much what HE has changed
but that WE as a population have changed and
millions more have woken up. The last time he ran,
the population as a whole wasn't READY FOR HIM.
Now I believe they are.

So what's really changed ???

The voters !!!

Ron Paul for president... now that's an idea that makes the powerful elite running america currently shake in their boots

reply to post by indigothefish


Hahahah totally agree. Maybe this time they will actually let him speak and let him on the news channels for interviews unlike last "Election"

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Well the first question I almost always ask of a candidate whom has run for an office previously and lost is quite simple: "What have you learned from last time, and what changes has that prompted in this run?"
it could hurt him exactly the same way it did last time.

well I think it is not so much what HE has changed
but that WE as a population have changed and
millions more have woken up. The last time he ran,
the population as a whole wasn't READY FOR HIM.
Now I believe they are.

So what's really changed ???

The voters !!!

Well I do think that Representative Paul will do far better in the primary season this time around but I still don't think that means he should simply run his 2008 campaign over again.

I feel that if he truly does want to win, because the Republican Party will do all in their power to make sure that does not happen, he will have to engage the citizens more massively. He'll have to take out lots of campaign ads, appear on talk shows and do everything else that the other candidates are doing without going too negative and staying true to his message.

The last part is going to be the most important. The Religious Right will not like him if he takes a libertarian stance on social issues, but he will have to remain true to it if he wants to win I believe.

Paul can raise boatloads of money, but he'll also have to spend it in wiser and more targeted ways this time around.

If Ron Paul ran for president, then I think he definitely will have a better chance of winning this time. He has gotten more media coverage lately, and more people know who he is. Hopefully, we will get some good candidates to run up against Obama in 2012. I don't think Obama stands a chance getting re-elected, unless Sarah Palin runs against Obama 1012, then we are all doomed.

reply to post by ambient moon


yeah i think so too

i think those that paid attention to the health care reform bill, and witnessed that ron paul was the ONLY person to who tried to lead an audit on it will definitely know who actually stands for the same philosophies and true american values ( which would be Ron Paul )

i think people should realize by now that there is a difference between coming out of no where like obama and making all these promises and saying just what needs to be said to get elected..

vs. the Ron Paul method, which is actually having a history of standing up for certain beleifs and american values, even when they don't agree with the majority of congress

not trying to be a political troll with any of that, just a thought

Per se Ron Paul did win the majority of Republican Party Presidential Primary votes and delegates, do not forget that they are not promised to anyone. The party could choose to say no to Paul even if he did win and give it to who they think should lead.

When Ron Paul runs he will face the largest hurdles in American electoral history. The media has learned their lesson from keeping him out of debates but that does not mean they will not give it their best to portray him as Anti-American, Drug addict, too old, too liberal, too conservative, a radical, a terrorist or insert >here

Originally posted by VAPatriot
Kucinich - No way. He voted for the Obamacare. He actualy thought it did not go far enough.

To be fair to Kucinich, he was threatened to vote for it, even though he was stark against it. Mainly for the same reasons Paul was against it. It forces civilians to pay for private insurance. Both thought it was a liberty issue, but Dennis was 'coerced'. I an angry he caved in, but a lot of democrats were threatened.

It's not documented, of course, but it is under speculation.

Dennis' plane ride with Obama 'changes his mind' to vote for obamacare

www.newsrealblog.com...

stupid link feature is screwing with me

[edit on 8/16/2010 by Arcane Demesne]

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by VAPatriot
Kucinich - No way. He voted for the Obamacare. He actualy thought it did not go far enough.

To be fair to Kucinich, he was threatened to vote for it, even though he was stark against it. Mainly for the same reasons Paul was against it. It forces civilians to pay for private insurance. Both thought it was a liberty issue, but Dennis was 'coerced'. I an angry he caved in, but a lot of democrats were threatened.

It's not documented, of course, but it is under speculation.

Dennis' plane ride with Obama 'changes his mind' to vote for obamacare

www.newsrealblog.com...

stupid link feature is screwing with me

[edit on 8/16/2010 by Arcane Demesne]

It has to be noted here that Representative Kucinich is not at all a Libertarian, he is in fact much closer to a mainline European Socialist on many of his stances than the majority of American politicians. Paring him with Representative Paul on any ticket would be like mixing oil and water, and muddle the entire issue.

Here's a rundown of his stances on key issues, I don't think conservatives will like him at all:
Political Positions of Dennis Kucinich

Now myself, being a socialist, I love Kucinich, and would very much like to see him be president of the United States! His pet issue of repealing the death penalty is one of my pet causes too. However, I do not believe many of the people whom like Paul would ever support him.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

Jimmy makes a good point. You all need to look closer to Kucinich's record. He is not what alot of people think he is. Here are two examples.

Gun ownership
Kucinich is graded "F" by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. He also received a 100% lifetime rating from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He has introduced legislation that would ban handguns.

Immigration
In 2001, Kucinich was a co-sponsor of H.R. 500, which would have given legal status to all those living in the U.S. for at least five years.


He and Ron Paul share some views but differ wildly on others. He would hurt Ron Paul as a running mate. Pauls running mate needs to be young and fairly mopderate to have a chance. IMO

I would really like Ron Paul to be president, I mean damn, cant I get in ONE guy that I voted for once in a while?

The best part of all of this would be when 'bama and Paul duke it out on national Television. I cant wait to see him tear into Obama, THAT, would be enough for me, even if Paul doesnt win.

FOR ONCE- LET THE GOOD GUY WIN!

If this happens, we will truly, for once, get to see how voters respond to
Brains vs Glamour. Obama wont last 20 seconds in a debate against this man.

A big part of me just wants to see Obama get smashed into pieces on a live debate against someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

This next election wont be so easy for Obama, for the simple fact that he will no longer be running against Bush(afterall, he didnt beat McCain, He beat GW) and thats not very hard to do.

PAUL!!!!! FTW!

Originally posted by Misoir
Then he will have to face off with Obama on the national stage. He will have no media outlet on his side, very few corporate donors, a massive commercial onslaught, being painted as everything under the rainbow, being outspent probably 500 to 1. Just to name a few.

And the most important he will have to convince the American people that he is not a radical and he is the one who is there to protect and defend them. He will have a tough sell seeing as how Americans support the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, Israel and Interventionism.

How soon we forget! Obama also opposed the War on Drugs, War on Iraq, and Pariot Act. Americans elected Obama because we don't want this crap.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by theWCH]

Looking forward to Ron Paul winning every online, and nonscientific poll there is, and still ending up getting less than 1% of the vote on election day....just like 2008.

Looks like the Ron Paul Fantasy Tour is getting ready to roll once again!

Ron Paul is older than John McCain, who many thought was too old when he ran in 2008. Ron Paul will be 77 years old on election day 2012. Some things are better with age, but when you are kooky to begin with, it doesn't get any better.

reply to post by Carseller4


And you are one of the false conservatives i was talking about in my post. But yes, polls really shouldn't be trusted as an indicator of popularity.

I think it's great that Ron Paul has decided to run. The only downside to third party candidates(assuming he is still libertarian), is that they never have enough votes to actually become president. There really is no third party in america. There is Republican, there is Democrat, and there is the Third party who merely is taking away votes of the people who would have voted for either the republican or democrat.

If somebody was going to vote democrat, but decided to vote third party, they in fact are giving their vote to the republicans, since their vote would not have went to the democrat, thus helping the republican. Our whole election process is messed up. Don't even get me started on the electoral college. Which is 100 years obsolete.