Question for Ron Paul Supporters, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 06:46 AM by Semicollegiate

reply to post by Blaine91555

It doesn't matter which main steam candidate wins. Other than Dr.Ron Paul, the system of influence will decide the general course.

edit on 7-12-2011 by Semicollegiate because: grammar

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 08:10 AM by macaronicaesar

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?

It doesn't work that way. He supports Ron Paul. Newt, Mitt and Obama are the same. He wants Ron Paul to win, any of the other candidate and America loses. They're all corporate hacks.

Stop listening to the main stream media who use these scare tactics to influence your thought process.

To answer your question. I would support Ron Paul, although I am Canadian and can't vote, the idea of handing the election over to Obama would be any worse than these other frauds winning is funny.

Wake up.

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 08:16 AM by macaronicaesar

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.

It's apparent to me that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. With ideas like he's an isolationist, which is entirely false. What could me isolating than going around the world inflicting sanctions on everyone who is different.

I stand with Ron Paul, he is the furthest thing from an isolationist, if he's an isolationist, what does that make all the war hungry, sanction driven, egotistical maniacs?

You're either with us or against us. Those weren't Dr Paul's words. What could be a bigger sign of isolationism?

edit on 7-12-2011 by macaronicaesar because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 08:19 AM by Semicollegiate

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 agree. A large percentage of Dr. Paul's voters went to Obama after the 2008 primaries.

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 08:25 AM by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Blaine91555
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.

I will vote for Ron Paul regardless of whether he is on the ballot or not. I voted for the lesser of two evils in 2008 when I supported Obama. I still think Obama was a better choice than McCain, but obviously we were going to lose either way.

This time around, I refuse to vote for the lesser of the evils, and I refuse to vote for someone my conscience doesn't support.

If Ron Paul is on the Republican ticket, he has my vote. If he is on a 3rd party ticket, he has my vote. If he isn't on any ticket, I will write him in.

In 2008, my wife wrote in SpongeBob. She made the better choice obviously, and she can say in good conscience that she voted her heart. I will vote for the person I feel will make the best president, regardless of what the nominees are. I'm not falling into that lesser of two evils crap any more.

So, in conclusion, no other GOP candidate will have my support regardless. No other GOP candidate will energize the voters and get the turnout to beat Obama. Whether or not Ron Paul runs on a 3rd party ticket or not is moot. No other GOP candidate will get my vote either way.

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 08:26 AM by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

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 agree. A large percentage of Dr. Paul's voters went to Obama after the 2008 primaries.

Exactly!!

I was one of those. I was a luke-warm Ron Paul supporter last time, I didn't want to "waste" my vote on a 3rd party candidate, so I ended up voting for Obama. McCain/Palin seemed far too dangerous to vote for, and I still think Obama was a better choice than McCain, but I should have stuck with RP.

This time around, it is RP or nobody.

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 08:49 AM by macaronicaesar

It newt wins the Republican nomination it is proof to me the whole process is predetermined. Media control the outcome and make it seem like there's a real choice. With all the baggage Newt has, Obama will win in a landslide, to me, that's what TPTB want, 4 more years, and giving newt the nomination gives them exactly that.

Ron Paul is second by many accounts in Iowa, still the talk is Newt, Mitt. Why? No one in control wants Ron Paul elected, he's the game changer.

I can't believe in this day and age people still buy into the party rhetoric and tow the line. The fact that a scum bag like newt who received 1.6million dollars from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leads this election by most accounts is very troubling. How is the guy in bed with those largely responsible for creating the mess the US now faces expected to fix this mess.

A Newt win is an Obama win, and even if it isn't, the American people still lose. You are faced with the illusion of choice, these 2 are the same, in fact, all mainstream 2 party candidates are the same. Nothing ever changes and you're willing to go down that road again?

Ron Paul won't be around forever, this could be your last chance. Get it right.

edit on 7-12-2011 by macaronicaesar because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 09:11 AM by derst1988

reply to post by Blaine91555

I fully get it. The problem is that Obama is a special case here. He is the most divisive in my memory spanning from JFK to now and perhaps is by far the worst evil facing us. On top of his war mongering he is pushing the European Model even as Europe is on the precipice. He simply does not care about the people he serves. He is an Elitist who is a Deity in his own mind.

The big difference between your logic, and that of the posters who adamantly support Ron (Im one) is evident in your statement here.

You say Obama is the worst yet. Id find it surprising to find any Ron Paul supporter who doesnt agree. However, I would like to believe that most Paul supporters understand that presidents have been getting more and more corrupt. Given that particular pattern, it is only logical to assume that the corruption comes from the system's propensity for corruption. So in essence, it makes zero difference if Obama is in the office, or if another puppet is brought in. Either Obama will do more corrupt things or the puppets will start, It really does not make a difference, in the end.

When we listen to Paul, and the ideas he has about government, it can be determined that he isn't one of the status quo's puppets. So I think you should ask yourself not whether the goal is to get Obama out, but rather, Who else but Paul has even a desire (based upon his words AND history) to end the corruption?

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 09:23 AM by derst1988

I didn't want to "waste" my vote on a 3rd party candidate, so I ended up voting for Obama. McCain/Palin seemed far too dangerous to vote for, and I still think Obama was a better choice than McCain, but I should have stuck with RP.

reply to post by getreadyalready

I am not an Obama supporter, nor did I vote at all in the last election. I would concur with your statement about Obama being better than McCain would've. McCain just authored a bill that tried to pass in senate, that contained the verbiage to indefinitely hold American Citizens without charge or trial... Imagine what he could have done as president!

I will be voting for Paul or no one, unless Paul steps out of the race and Huntsman makes a miraculous return to relevance.

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 10:35 AM by The_Zomar

Us Paul supporters pledge allegiance to ideas and principles, not a party.

Me and my friends will be voting for Ron Paul despite who wins the nomination. If the GOP had a brain they wouldn't even have to THINK about whom to choose. Paul has the best chance to beat Obama!

I would rather have Obama in office for another 4 years than to have Mitt Romney or Gingrich in office. Not sure if we would see any difference other than an acceleration of Obama's agenda.

So, once again, me and everyone I know will be voting for Ron Paul regardless of who wins the nomination. I just hope the GOP realize this. It's their election to lose.

reply posted on 7-12-2011 @ 10:38 AM by getreadyalready

reply to post by The_Zomar

I would rather have Obama in office for another 4 years than to have Mitt Romney or Gingrich in office. Not sure if we would see any difference other than an acceleration of Obama's agenda.

Sure, an accelerated version of Obama's agenda, plus more foreign aggression and war. It would only get worse.

Ron Paul is the ONLY choice.

reply posted on 15-12-2011 @ 06:10 PM by WalterRatlos

Originally posted by Blaine91555
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.

Of course, he would not rule that out, but it's too early to be concerned. At this point in time he must keep all options open for him. If he wins the primaries, he just might also win the Presidency (big might in my opinion). Splitting the votes of the Republicans or conservatives in a two party system is always an almost sure recipe for defeat of the party in question. If you want to be very optimistic, he could still make it and beat both the Republican candidate and Obama. Highly unlikely, but nothing is impossible, right? I think when that time comes after he fails to secure the primaries, he will have to weigh what is more important to him: to make sure Obama looses or to try for the almost impossible against all odds? Is there a precedence for this? Has anybody ever run as an independent and beat both Republicans and Democrats? Time will tell, but as I already said at this point of time he definitely must keep all options open.