It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats will vote for Ron Paul incase Obama loses, at least it wont be President Perry or Romney

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
If have been seeing this trend with liberals as of late, and I think it is a great strategy.

Ron Paul is the only anti war candidate and that is nearly 25% of the liberal vote. More and more articles like this are popping up every week.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

If Obama does lose and the Democrats voted for Ron Paul in the State Primary elections, then Ron Paul wins and the Liberal anti war vote wins.
It is more likely that Democrats will vote in the Primaries for Ron Paul and then vote in the General Election for Obama, but I think that the anti-war vote will be split between Obama and Ron Paul.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Honestly can we even trust any kind of president anymore? Ron Paul seems like he stands really for the people but i can kind of smell a snake.. I simply do not trust any president as there all under control of "they" whoever that is.. I think world problems lie beneath the actors who stand in front of cameras with a script.. They want us to hate the presidents anyways, that's the genius of it.. Were all sitting here talking about presidents when in fact the presidents have nothing to do with anything.. Were all distracted in every way we turn our head. We need to not vote period, and get to the root of this B.S. and stop beating around the bush..



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
What is said is true!
I am a democrat and I WILL be voting for Ron Paul in 2012. As will some of my family and friends wo are generally democrats.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I have always voted for the democrats in elections not because I like them but because I see them as the lesser of two evil's.
But since my state has an open primary I will be voting for Ron Paul in it.
If he wins the Republican Nomination I will vote for him in the election if he doesn't win I will either not vote in this election or do a write in for him.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELahrairah
I have always voted for the democrats in elections not because I like them but because I see them as the lesser of two evil's.
But since my state has an open primary I will be voting for Ron Paul in it.
If he wins the Republican Nomination I will vote for him in the election if he doesn't win I will either not vote in this election or do a write in for him.


Why would you vote for any party when you have the view of "voting for the lesser of two evils"?? You recognize they're both evil yet you still vote for one? Thats the problem with society we settle and we settle.. If we keep running the cycle like guinea pigs then we will never be free..



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenOhhTwo
 


Um I did say I might sit this election out.
What I did in the past does not necessarily determine what I will do in the present or the future for that matter.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenOhhTwo
 

Because if you don't vote then the balance could tip worse in your favour. If you're not happy you still need to vote but find another way to change the system.

Maybe work towards your own candidacy?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


Good place to put this OP. Political madness. Because I doubt democrats would vote for no wars, reduced government interference, reducing the budget and spending........

But I can see the strategy in this.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Economically I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, but socially we're polar opposites.

What do you mean 'in case Obama loses'...in case he loses what? The election or the primaries? It's nearly impossible for him to lose the primaries and if he loses the election then...how would Ron Paul win?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I thought you had to be a Republican to vote in the Republican primary? xD



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenOhhTwo
 


RP has been pretty much dead-ass consistent his entire career, has never changed his tone, and has been right about loads of things. He pretty much openly talks about the NWO and powers that be, and the fact that the MSM and TPTB are throwing all their old tricks at him, and more, to discredit him, suggests he is doing something right. But don't listen to me, go with your gut. Go to his website ronpaul2012.com or ronpaul.com and research the issues. Please do not listen to the media on this election, there is too much bias and too much importance to listen to krauthammerlol or david gergen (bohemian grover). If you want objectivity you need to scan through both conservative and liberal online media objectively, take everything with a grain of salt, and peruse alternative media like infowars.com and drudgereport.com daily if possible to find out things the MSM may have missed or ignored.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by smarterthanyou
 


Depends on the state. In a closed primary state you must vote in the party you are registered in. Open primary states you walk in and say whether you want a Dem or Rep ballot.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Ron Paul is a Republican. Republicans are for the wealthy (so are Democrats for that matter) so voting for Ron Paul is a vote for the corporate oligarchy.

Ron Paul doesn't care about the middle class, he just has everyone buffaloed into thinking he's some sort of savior. You don't spend 30 years in government and not be a total sellout to the elite.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I get slammed every time I bring this up.

Ron Paul can't win the REPUBLICAN nomination, because his support does not come from Republicans.

Democrats lining up to vote for Ron Paul are in for a surprise in many states primaries where you actually have to be registered as a Republican to vote in their primary.

Keep proving my point!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenOhhTwo
 
And if all the people who actually want change just sit out, there will always be exactly the kind of people you DON'T want making the choices doing exactly that.

Or the government will effectively just start appointing who they want more directly instead of playing with media manipulation, disenfranchisement, and electoral fraud.

Seriously, I'm curious...what exactly IS the strategy of people who espouse this idea of "don't sanction to the system, don't participate"? I never see it going beyond this being mentioned, but no other action to get this enacted on a wide scale, no grassroots to wake people up to this being the only valid option to fix things (although I don't see how on earth it can).

In all practical applications, it looks more like conceding defeat and just letting them do whatever they want?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
Ron Paul is a Republican. Republicans are for the wealthy (so are Democrats for that matter) so voting for Ron Paul is a vote for the corporate oligarchy.

Ron Paul doesn't care about the middle class, he just has everyone buffaloed into thinking he's some sort of savior. You don't spend 30 years in government and not be a total sellout to the elite.

Instead of just bloviating, let's analyze that.

Can you tell me how exactly Paul has supported the system, or how he could have better represented his district, or the people of the US in general? What votes/introduced legislation of his do you take issue with?

What specific actions has he taken to include himself with the status quo of government?

When I review his actual record, I see a history of not abusing taxpayer dollars, wanting to shrink government, wanting to end wars, restore choice to the states and people...what, specifically, do you see?

I'd like something beyond your vague assertions that seem to fly in the face of his on-the-books record.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 
Carseller, I hear you say things like this all the time - but will not slam you for it.

What I *DON'T* hear, and I may just be missing it, is you saying the same thing about Cain, formerly Pawlenty, Santorum, or in some cases Bachmann, as the majority of these have consistently polled under Paul and Bachmann has on some cases. The ONLY two republicans consistently ahead of Paul with *registered* and former/likely primary voters have been Romney and now Perry (and a few as-yet unannounced).

Paul's support with these republican has also increased many times over since the last election, and is still on a steady increase.

Can you either please explain, in light of these *facts*, what on earth your point is, or at least please stop regurgitating it? If Paul's support as documented amongst actual republicans is somehow not from republicans, then can you please go after Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, and the like who poll either comparably or LESS well on a consistent basis? It's getting tired, friend.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

Seriously, I'm curious...what exactly IS the strategy of people who espouse this idea of "don't sanction to the system, don't participate"? I never see it going beyond this being mentioned, but no other action to get this enacted on a wide scale, no grassroots to wake people up to this being the only valid option to fix things (although I don't see how on earth it can).

In all practical applications, it looks more like conceding defeat and just letting them do whatever they want?



Pretty simple really. If you're going to vote vote for who you honestly believe represents your interests best. Whether it's major party, minor party or you're just writing in yourself.

So what if there's no way in hell your candidate would win? At least you didnt whore yourself out to the system by settling for the raw raping it's going to give you.

As far as some "grassroots" movement goes it's always on. Always has been. Right now for instance me telling you to stop whoring yourself out and throwing away your vote to a devil you admit you dont like is the attempted growth of an idea.

What do you want? Do you want a million people to start smashing windows and burning cars in the name of some cause you agree with?

The fact that the internet has been essentially overrun by libertarian minded individuals is a "grassroots" change. The fact that people like Ron Paul can overwhelming win "young republican" straw polls is evidence of a "grassroots" change. The fact that these geriatric security/safety tryant types are dying off and not having their slots filled by anyone is evidence of "grassroots" change.

What do you want? You want some mob to do it for you overnight? You want to comfortably play both sides blaming others perceived inaction for the tyranny around you while you vote for the "lesser evil" cycle after cycle?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Praetorius

Seriously, I'm curious...what exactly IS the strategy of people who espouse this idea of "don't sanction to the system, don't participate"? I never see it going beyond this being mentioned, but no other action to get this enacted on a wide scale, no grassroots to wake people up to this being the only valid option to fix things (although I don't see how on earth it can).

In all practical applications, it looks more like conceding defeat and just letting them do whatever they want?



Pretty simple really. If you're going to vote vote for who you honestly believe represents your interests best. Whether it's major party, minor party or you're just writing in yourself.

So what if there's no way in hell your candidate would win? At least you didnt whore yourself out to the system by settling for the raw raping it's going to give you.

As far as some "grassroots" movement goes it's always on. Always has been. Right now for instance me telling you to stop whoring yourself out and throwing away your vote to a devil you admit you dont like is the attempted growth of an idea.

What do you want? Do you want a million people to start smashing windows and burning cars in the name of some cause you agree with?

The fact that the internet has been essentially overrun by libertarian minded individuals is a "grassroots" change. The fact that people like Ron Paul can overwhelming win "young republican" straw polls is evidence of a "grassroots" change. The fact that these geriatric security/safety tryant types are dying off and not having their slots filled by anyone is evidence of "grassroots" change.

What do you want? You want some mob to do it for you overnight? You want to comfortably play both sides blaming others perceived inaction for the tyranny around you while you vote for the "lesser evil" cycle after cycle?


That may be true, but still, I can see how people can view the voting process as an exercise in futility. Even if you refuse to vote for a major party, your votes will mean nothing because you still have fools that believe in the Democrats and the Republicans as legitimate servants of the public,

You can cast your vote for a non establishment candidate, the more people that do that the better, but if you vote for anyone running on either dem/gop ticket, you are just giving a vote of confidence to TPTB to continue on with the pillage.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

Pretty simple really. If you're going to vote vote for who you honestly believe represents your interests best. Whether it's major party, minor party or you're just writing in yourself.


Apologies for not being clear in my thoughts here - I'm a Ron Paul supporter and honestly believe he represents me, so I am supporting him this time around. I will vote for him in the primaries, and abstain in the general election if he is not an option unless I can find someone else I can actually *support*, instead of just voting against someone.

Yes, there are grassroot movements for Paul (and perhaps a few other candidates?) - my statements were aimed at those who appear to be saying to just not participate at all as they believe the entire system is a sham and none of the candidates are worth supporting as they're just part of the game, regardless of what they claim (I don't see Paul falling under this category, personally). Yet I don't see these people actively organizing a national movement to get ALL people to do so, meaning if they just opt-out and let the old guard voters have their way, nothing changes for the better as the candidates who at least claim and represent themselves as actually trying to change the system are left with even less support against the 'establishment' candidates.

Still not sure if I'm explaining it well, but in short, unless these people can actively go after all these legacy voters and convince them of the same, then simply opting out merely because you feel the system is corrupt just allows the system to continue with even less checks, whereas they could be supporting someone who isn't just a 'lesser of evils'...regardless of their perceived chance to win.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join