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.

 

How to beat Obama in 2012 and how to lose

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I've noticed that a large number of people I talk to are basing their vote on one thing, the chances of the candidate beating Obama. Most of these people are currently deciding between Romney and Gingrich, thinking that Paul can't do it. Showing them polls that say Paul could, doesn't do anything because they only watch the MSM. This also means they also don't understand the Left/Right paradigm and trying to explain it would their ears instantly turn off.

The problem is, nominating Romney or Gingrich would result in a loss against Obama. Not because the candidates are less popular, but because there would then be a viable 3rd party candidate. Ron Paul supports are Ron Paul supporters, period. If he loses and runs 3rd party, he takes those votes with him. It no longer is a heads up match against Obama.

Anyone but Ron Paul will cause 4 more years of Obama. I don't care if you disagree with Ron Paul, if he's not nominated, then Obama wins. I understand how this could make people who don't support Ron Paul hate him, but it's the truth, deal with it. Once you truly understand this, ask your self: Would I rather have Ron Paul or Obama. In the end, those are you're only two choices.




posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
If Ron Paul were to run third party he would be the third party's biggest candidate to threaten the 2 party system.

There is no doubt Ron Paul would pull enough votes from both sides as a third party candidate but he would obviously pull more from the right.

People can't disprove that and the same applies to if he were to be a republican nominee, there is no other third party candidate that can touch Ron Paul's support and that is the reason he COULD beat Obama.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I beleive you are absolutely correct.

I also beleive anyone other than Paul would be obama 2.0


edit on 12-12-2011 by sicksonezer0 because: forgot to capitalize Paul and decapitalize obama.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
At this point I would vote for a yellow dog over Obama. Seriously, it is a long way to the election. We could easily have someone other than Gingrich, Romney or Paul. Another outcome could be (unlikely but could be) that a third party candidate takes enough states that and no candidate gets 270 electoral votes. That would throw the election into the House of Representatives. In that case, each state gets one vote and Obama loses because there are more Red states than Blue states.

My most awful fear is that Obama wins a highly disputed, fraud filled election. That would lead to bloodshed and all kinds of really bad things.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Paul, Romney, and Gingrich all lose to Obama as the Republican candidate. A third party run by Paul would be most welcome.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I fail to see why Paul would win as a 3rd party, but not as a Republican. That makes little, to....well... No sense whatsoever



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by cbvh27
I fail to see why Paul would win as a 3rd party, but not as a Republican. That makes little, to....well... No sense whatsoever


At ATS a lot of nonsensical things are considered gospel.
Oh well what you do? Not much. There are things you can't fix.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by cbvh27
 


in theory, you are absolutely correct.

I don't think Paul could win as 3rd party (not 2012 but if he were a little younger and ran 3rd party in 2012 after missing the gop nomination then ran again in 2016, it would be a sure thing) but he could definitely win as a Republican.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by cbvh27
 



The problem is, nominating Romney or Gingrich would result in a loss against Obama. Not because the candidates are less popular, but because there would then be a viable 3rd party candidate. Ron Paul supports are Ron Paul supporters, period. If he loses and runs 3rd party, he takes those votes with him. It no longer is a heads up match against Obama.


Even if he doesn't run on a 3rd party ticket, he still takes those votes with him. Ron Paul supporters will NOT vote for Romney or Gingrich in any universe. Those guys are more of the same. Even if they did beat Obama what difference would it make? They are just more of the establishment and nothing changes.

If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, I will write him in. My vote isn't going anywhere else. If Ron Paul suffers some crazy tragedy between now and election time, I will write in my own name. My vote is not going to any established party puppet from either side.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by cbvh27
 


What’s the difference between the MSM saying only Romney or Gingrich can get elected and you saying if Ron Paul isn’t elected then we have four more years of Obama? Both are an attempt to coerce people into voting a certain way!

If Ron Paul gets defeated in the primary and goes 3rd party then he is a turd in my book. He chose to run Republican. If he loses he should gracefully concede defeat and move on. He will be knowingly taking votes from the Republican nominee if he changes parties (because no liberal will ever vote libertarian) and he will usher in an Obama second term; he has to know that. If he does it anyway then he is not looking out for the best interest of the country IMO because he can’t win 3rd party….won’t happen!



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
It doesn't have to be coercion. Yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter so it sounds like coercion. But I could be Gingrich supporter and it's still true. I'd be more upset about it if I was a Gingrich supporter. And i'm not saying it isn't a dick move. All i'm saying is that's the move he will make, and the effect would be more Obama. No coercion, just stating the facts.

And yes, as the mod said. Even if paul isn't on the ticket, none of us would vote for any of the other candidates. Voting for one of them is like knowingly doing evil.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Btw my parents have been democrats their entire life, they are both teachers. They are now both libertarian and Ron Paul supporters and I sat down and talked to them and they researched him. When they go out to the coffee shop people are shocked they support him because they are "democrats". Not anymore, they have even gotten to where they think this 2 party system got us into this whole mess



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


" If Ron Paul gets defeated in the primary and goes 3rd party then he is a turd in my book. "


If you KNEW Anything about the Right Honorable Dr. Ron Paul , then you would not have made the above Misguided Quote about him . He has Stated NUMEROUS Times, that he Will Not Run as a 3RD Party Presidential Candidate if he does not receive the Republican Nomination . Being a MAN of his WORD , there is NO REASON Not to BELIEVE Him ..................

edit on 12-12-2011 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


The important thing to remember here is that Ron Paul doesn't run to tickle his fancy. He runs because people want him to, so as long as people are supporting him and wish he would run, he will it. That is a true statesman, he is a representative of the people. So if by any chance he didn't win the GOP nomination and the people wanted him to go third party, he would.

This is the reason why Ron Paul has stated repeatedly he doesn't INTEND to run third party, he has no wishes to do it because his republican campaign is doing fine. He never said, I swear or promise to never run third party, he is doing what is in the best interest of his supporters, the movement, and the message of liberty.

Saying that he is a turd if he runs third party after not receiving the gop nomination just shows your ignorance. Just like your past posts of ignorance regarding foreign policy, the constitution and Iran (yup I remember).



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The fact it says oathkeepers, plus his pic, plus his comments in this and many other threads makes me think psyop. Either trying to discredit oathkeepers or cause people to think his views are the oathkeepers opinions



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
If you have fair elections then Obama can be defeated, but if the elections are interferred with by outside organizations, to offer people the right to vote who are illegal then we may end up with the same President.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Third party candidates rarely win any election due simply to the difficulty they have even getting on the ticket. A lot of places make it close to impossible for anyone to run as a third party. Each state is different, but none of them make it easy.


Following the primaries, independent candidates and nominees of third parties must gain access to the general election ballot. For independents and third party nominees, the laws are more severe than for candidates running as Democrats or Republicans. Independent presidential candidates and third party nominees need approximately 750,000 valid signatures in order to get on the general election ballots of all states. For Democrats and Republicans, access is automatic. In 1924, third party presidential candidates needed only 75,000 signatures to get on the ballot of all states. The population of the United States since doubled, but ballot access laws are many times more diffficult. Change began during the 1930s when major party politicians were eager to discourage labor from starting its own party.

The laws were again made more restrictive during the period 1948-1953 when fear and hatred of the Communist Party were very strong. Ballot access laws were tightened further during 1969-1975 after George Wallace's 1968 third party showing of 13% shocked Democratic and Republican Party politicians. In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court stated for the first time that overly strict ballot access laws violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, in 1971, the Court made it plain that they were only willing to declare such laws unconstitutional if the laws were so diffficult that virtually no one could ever use them. The Court has ruled that ballot access laws can require candidates to obtain the signatures of 5 % of the number of registered voters. Five percent of the number of registered voters in the U.S. at this time is approximately 7,500,000. Since petition gathering costs about $1.00 per signature, the Court's ruling means that it is constitutionally permissible for states to erect ballot access hurdles costing candidates over $7,000,000 to comply.

Source

As far as write-in votes, I wouldn't count on them actually being counted. At least not in California.

Or in Michigan unless the candidate files a Decleration of Intent:

A write-in vote cast for a precinct delegate candidate who has not filed a Declaration of Intent does not count. Similarly, a write-in vote cast for a precinct delegate candidate who filed a Declaration of Intent does not count unless the write-in vote was cast under the political party column identified on the Declaration of Intent.

From page 2, first bullet point.

Point being, I wouldn't get my hopes up for a third-party or write-in candidate until the ballot access laws in every state get an overhaul. That's not to say that a third-party candidate couldn't win the presidential elections, but it would be hard as heck for them to even get on the ballot let alone win given how little the media wants to pay attention to any third-party unless forced. The masses will vote for the name they remember like they always do and no one remembers the name of a third-party candidate who didn't get any coverage by the media.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by cbvh27
 


I agree, I have been watching them all. Romney and Gingrich will make sure Washington will be "Business as Usual," with wide open pockets and votes up for grabs to whoever pay the piper.

Ron Paul will clean house on the nest of Vipers, and set criminal heads to roll. Ron will repeal the Patriot Act, and Obamascare, and will bring all troops home where they belong. Ron will banish the Federal Reserve and all of it's Central Banking Cartel buddies, and give the assets to the United States Treasury, the rightful owners of America's treasure. Ron Paul is a Free America's only real hope.

And remember, you will see him ignored by the corporate owned media, and many people will say he hasn't a chance to win. You will see people in this forum damn him, and say he is the anti-Christ, and who knows what else. Read his record, that is where the truth is about Ron.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by cbvh27
 

Obama wins if Paul runs as a 3rd Party Candidate....but will he???
Romney can beat Obama if it is a 2 horse race (Gingrich will lose).



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


As much as I want Paul to be President,

It doesn't matter if Paul doesn't win the nomination and goes 3rd party and loses to Obama, as long as he gets the platform to spread the message, once the seed has been planted, it won't stop growing.

and then....

2016, we will elect Rand Paul, he has the ultimate electability in the GOP, even Hannity likes him lol. Well Hannity would like Ron if he wasn't so stern on his foreign policy.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join