Question for Ron Paul Supporters

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I've been vigilant about watching all the Candidates whenever possible on any news forum. Mr. Paul has been on a great deal lately, so I've seen a lot of him.

On three recent occasions when asked, he would not rule out a third party run if he is not nominated. That troubles me and is what my question is about.

As a third party candidate it seems obvious to me that he would split the Conservative vote and guarantee an Obama win. Would you as Paul supporters approve of him doing that, knowing that it means Obama would win?

Obama will certainly end up with 48+% of the vote and the math simply does not work out for anyone but him to win if a third person pulls even a few percent of the vote. I doubt Mr. Paul will do that, but then he seems to not want to rule that out. I is so certain that Obama would win that it would almost make Paul and Obama supporter.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Didn't you get the memo?

No one but Paul.




There is really no simpler way to say it.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I would approve of that, but I would hope it doesn't have to come to that, because I'd really like to see Ron Paul get the GOP nomination. Why would I approve of him running 3rd party if it came down to it? Well, as it stands, without Paul it would be Romney or Gingrich vs. Obama. They are all essentially the same person anyway. With any of those three candidates, nothing would change and we would continue on with the status quo.
edit on 6-12-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
If Ron Paul ran as an independent I can guarantee he will have a Ross Perot-like influence and as stated by the OP, be an in-direct supporter of Obama. I do not see older people talking about Ron Paul, so he would likely take away younger votes, but it would be enough for Obama to win. Sounds like an obvious statement, but I remember Ross Perot like it was yesterday, every old person I talked to loved him, perhaps if old people actually listened to Ron Paul they would like him more, but the way he speaks, as educated as he is he is not very eloquent.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
You give obama WAAAYYYY to much credit


Ron Paul will be President !



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I think RP has supporters across the board - and if We're lucky, He'll "steal" votes from the Janus party (left face: Democrats; right face: Republicans).

I wouldn't worry about "splitting" any party. I would rejoice splitting away from Janus.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
You forget one thing: He is splitting the democrat vote as well. There are a lot of liberals out there displeased with Obama, and are on the same page with Dr. Paul with regard to our presence in the middle east, legalization of marijuana, etc.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Oh noes! A split in the "conservative" vote! Obama gets a second term! Oh NOES!!

So what? Every last one of them is an authoritarian tyrant. There is no discernible difference between Obama, Newt or Mitt.

Sure, the specifics of their authoritarianism may take different shapes but theyre all authoritarians.

There's one libertarian up there.

That's our only real choice: authoritarian or libertarian. Republican or Democrat is just a label. Both are authoritarian.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Didn't you get the memo?

No one but Paul.




There is really no simpler way to say it.


So if Paul runs third party guaranteeing a win for Obama, you support that? You want Obama to win?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
If Ron Paul ran as an independent I can guarantee he will have a Ross Perot-like influence and as stated by the OP, be an in-direct supporter of Obama. I do not see older people talking about Ron Paul, so he would likely take away younger votes, but it would be enough for Obama to win. Sounds like an obvious statement, but I remember Ross Perot like it was yesterday, every old person I talked to loved him, perhaps if old people actually listened to Ron Paul they would like him more, but the way he speaks, as educated as he is he is not very eloquent.


It almost doesn't matter. If we get Obama again, or some liberal in a conservative jacket like Romney, all hell is going to break loose in this country. If he wins, the establishment is going to go guano loco and that won't be good, either.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You forget one thing: He is splitting the democrat vote as well. There are a lot of liberals out there displeased with Obama, and are on the same page with Dr. Paul with regard to our presence in the middle east, legalization of marijuana, etc.


I don't agree. If he is taking 1% of the Democratic vote that would be it. Independents like me decide these elections. With Obama's Minority support I can't see him ending up with less than 45% at the outside. A third party person would only need take say 5 or 6% to guarantee and Obama win.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I think RP has supporters across the board - and if We're lucky, He'll "steal" votes from the Janus party (left face: Democrats; right face: Republicans).

I wouldn't worry about "splitting" any party. I would rejoice splitting away from Janus.


If you are wrong how do you feel about four more years of Obama? My question actually was to find out if Paul supporters would support him running third party if they knew it guaranteed an Obama win.

Folks,
You are so locked in Groupie mode, I don't think you are really responding to my question.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



well, Blaine, that certainly has been the case, in the past, however, this time might just be different....in fact is IS very different, because "We the People" woke up.....we are mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more....I think a third party candidate is the ONLY answer, or we're just moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic.....Obama lied....his supporters were used and tossed aside...they are angry....3rd party time is NOW!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
As a Republican and a RP supporter, I realize that Obama is going to win anyway if we allow the current "front-runners" to become the Republican nominee!

If people are allowed a third-party choice, I believe many Republicans and even disenfranchised Democrats would jump at the chance to no longer vote for the lesser of two evils.

Not to mention the fact that the Obamacare mandate is a big issue to many voters. Both Newt and Romney have either supported or implemented the same Heritage Foundation-style healthcare model!

Change will only come from a third-party....unless RP can pull of the Republican nomination, but we all know tptb will not let that happen!



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
the reason we've been getting such crappy leaders in our government lately is because of this type of question.

think about it. you're assuming ron paul has no chance of winning, when he would have a very good chance if everyone like you stopped assuming he didn't have a chance. most everyone i talk to about politics says "i like ron paul's ideals, but i don't think he can win, so i'm not going to vote for him". and i respond with "you fool!"

people don't vote for who they want anymore, they vote for who they think can win. this is largely due to manipulation by the media, but the solution still stands:

vote for who you think is THE BEST option, and stop trying to scheme.
edit on 6-12-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 


On the Forum on the Huckabee Program the other night he was all over the place. He used to be a good speaker, but these days he does not seem to be able to finish sentences or give complete responses. Left me wondering if there is an underlying health issue.

His broken answers on serious questions were quite odd.

I do agree that his support seems to be among the young and I can't help but wonder if it has a lot to do with his stance on drugs. His problem with older more wise folks I think has a lot to do with his views on foreign affairs and isolationist attitude. Seems quite similar to me to the madness in the Great Depression and the Protectionist attitudes then.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Oh noes! A split in the "conservative" vote! Obama gets a second term! Oh NOES!!

So what? Every last one of them is an authoritarian tyrant. There is no discernible difference between Obama, Newt or Mitt.

Sure, the specifics of their authoritarianism may take different shapes but theyre all authoritarians.

There's one libertarian up there.

That's our only real choice: authoritarian or libertarian. Republican or Democrat is just a label. Both are authoritarian.


Agreed 100%. That is the meat of it. I don't see any real substantial difference between Gingrich, Romney and Obama. It's time to start voting FOR someone instead of just voting AGAINST someone. If Americans decide they want a big government tyrant (Establishment Republican/Obama) over someone who actually maintains American principles of individual freedom and small central government then Americans will get what they asked for. More of the same, along with less freedom, a spiralling currency, and a continually diminishing standard of living.
I haven't ruled out Huntsman, but since the likelihood of him gaining ground is diminishing, I'll go ahead and say it:
Ron Paul or no one.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Didn't you get the memo?

No one but Paul.




There is really no simpler way to say it.


So if Paul runs third party guaranteeing a win for Obama, you support that? You want Obama to win?


Is it really appropriate to assume Obama is going to win so we should all give up?

Sounds kind of like the fear-mongers that say we're all controlled by TPTB anyways so its pointless to even breathe.

I don't think you really 'get it' yet. Look at the progress that this movement has made in four years. Ron Paul started his message from a seed in 07, exposed the military industrial complex and federal reserve to what is now open conversation throughout the nation, before 07, we would be labeled conspiracy theorists for even attempting to bring these subjects up. Now in 2011 Ron Paul exposed college loans, social security, and a handful of other topics that people can freely start addressing as real threats to the prosperity to our nation.

People who wouldn't have even cared about politics years ago are now politically active and are even committed to see progress through. If not with Ron Paul then somebody else. Its not the person, its the message and even Ron will tell you that exact same thing.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
As a third party candidate it seems obvious to me that he would split the Conservative vote and guarantee an Obama win.

Possibly, but not necessarily. Dr. Paul seems to appeal to more than just conservatives. Some of my more progressive friends appreciate him for him libertarian philosophies and the freedoms that come from a small government. Conversely, many right wing conservatives (as differentiated from social conservatives) do not like Dr. Paul for his "isolationist" views and anti-war stance.

I would bet it would turn into more of a three-party race, not sure who might have the advantage.

That said, I hope he receives the Republican nomination.
edit on 12/6/11 by AnonymousCitizen because: typo



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Razimus
 


On the Forum on the Huckabee Program the other night he was all over the place. He used to be a good speaker, but these days he does not seem to be able to finish sentences or give complete responses. Left me wondering if there is an underlying health issue.

His broken answers on serious questions were quite odd.

I do agree that his support seems to be among the young and I can't help but wonder if it has a lot to do with his stance on drugs. His problem with older more wise folks I think has a lot to do with his views on foreign affairs and isolationist attitude. Seems quite similar to me to the madness in the Great Depression and the Protectionist attitudes then.


I'll agree to disagree but I think Paul has the only sane foreign policy opinions out of all the candidates. A cursery look at recent history shows that aggression against US interests comes as blowback for things we did in the past. Not trying to "blame America first". Screw'em. But our actions did end up hurting us more in the long run. Just facing objective reality there.

He does support maintaining diplomacy and commerce with other nations while maintaining a strong military for defensive purposes. The fact that he gets the most support of military personnel than any other candidate is telling me something.
I wouldn't be so quick to call others groupies or naive just because they have differing opinions. Obama=Romney=Gingrich. I will not vote for any of these 3. If Paul is on the ballot, he gets my vote. period.
edit on 6-12-2011 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join