Who Should Be President Paul's Vice President?

As others have stated, I think Judge Napolitano would be a great pick. His love for, and expert knowledge of, our Constitution gives him the win in my book. Plus, the man just has common sense.

Originally posted by Stryde
As others have stated, I think Judge Napolitano would be a great pick. His love for, and expert knowledge of, our Constitution gives him the win in my book. Plus, the man just has common sense.

whould the good judge leave his show to be VP????

reply to post by ker2010

SAVE IT PAL! Post proof of your claims or just ignore RP threads, because quite frankly his supporters are tired of hearing the same rhetoric over and over thats not based on one ounce of fact!

I already have several times, but if you want proof of his use of special interest groups that fund his campaign, I would suggest you look here.

If you think that Ron Paul works for you, then I am afraid that nothing I can say will change your mind. It's just another case of hero worship. Sadly it's hero worship of an internet meme.

His ideas on Abortion will lead to MORE government intervention, (something that he is supposedly against) his views on education are disastrous for our economy and our country and will only lead to a further divide between the rich and poor, his religious zealotry is something that should frighten any reasonable voter away from him, and finally his pro white supremacy advocacy is something that should not be ignored by the voting public.

Altogether he is completely unelectable as president. While I agree with some of his positions, the above is more than enough reason to not vote for this man.

Of course many uninformed voters would vote for him based solely on his internet meme status, but people who actually research candidates like myself will avoid this man and vote for someone else.

To bring this back to the point of the OP, he could have literally ANYONE as his running mate, it won't make a difference, because he is not going to get the nod to begin with, but if he were to run, I would probably put him with Dennis Kucinich, as their ideology would be the most compatible.

Although I doubt that Kucinich would even want to be associated with Ron Paul given his close ties with white supremacist groups and his totalitarian views on abortion, or his insane education policy.

Hell, we don't even know for certain if this man was even born in the US, no one has seen his birth certificate, how come all the secrecy surrounding this document? Is he Canadian? God only knows, no Republican candidate so far has bothered to release their birth certificate. For all we know they all could be illegal aliens. Where is the birther uproar?

reply to post by HauntWok


Ok Mr. Wizard all knowing, then who pray tell is your choice? And no scapegoating by saying you refuse to participate in a flawed and rigged system.

reply to post by haarvik

Ok Mr. Wizard all knowing, then who pray tell is your choice? And no scapegoating by saying you refuse to participate in a flawed and rigged system.

So far, I think that Virgil Goode, is a strong candidate for my vote. I only hope that he starts getting the endorsements to run an effective campaign. Of course that may change if a better independent comes along.

In my opinion the only way we are ever going to get out from under the thumbs of these two political parties is to start voting in real independent candidates.

reply to post by HauntWok


That's all well and good, however that is not going to be the case for quite some time. I would venture to say we will have a violent revolution before that happens. For those of us in reality land, the best candidate we can choose out of the viable ones is Ron Paul. I'm not saying he is the best available, just the best available that has a prayer of getting to be POTUS.

reply to post by haarvik

I would venture to say we will have a violent revolution before that happens.

There's only a minuscule minority in this country that want a violent revolution. They are people that hate the American way of life, they hate freedom, and they only wish to turn this country into a fascist theocracy. These are the only people that want a violent revolution, because that's the only way they can get their way. They can't get the people that would turn this country into a fascist theocracy elected in any large numbers so their first solution is always the violent revolution, usually they parade out the declaration of independence as if it were their own personal licence to kill their fellow countrymen.

The only other people that want a violent revolution are just psychopaths who think that killing their fellow countrymen is a good idea. They are truly losers to the nth degree and have no other purpose in life than to be statistics on police blotters.

For those of us in reality land, the best candidate we can choose out of the viable ones is Ron Paul. I'm not saying he is the best available, just the best available that has a prayer of getting to be POTUS.

Thankfully for this country he really doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Saucerwench

 

Statistically, incumbent presidents get re elected. The RNC knows this, and is just showing the bottom of the barrel of their ranks in order to make a show of this election cycle. They will end up gaining more seats in the House and the Senate as people are WAY more pissed at congress than they are at this president.

Simply not true.

Of the 43 presidents of the United States, 27 have served more than one term in office. There have been 19 presidents who were elected to more than one term in office. The other 8 served out the term of a president who died in office and were re-elected for a second term. Only 1 vice-president served the role as president due to resignation. This president, Gerald Ford, continues to be the only president in United States history to never have been elected as President or Vice-President. Only one president served more than two terms, Franklin D Roosevelt, who served three full terms and was elected for a fourth but died in office before finishing that term.

Read more: wiki.answers.com...


So yes, it's true that a majority of presidents (barely, it's almost split) have served more than one term in office. But only 19 of the presidents have served more than 1 term because they were elected. That makes 1-term presidents a majority in the context you are using.

Originally posted by HauntWok
his pro white supremacy advocacy is something that should not be ignored by the voting public

Someone approaches Paul and asks for a picture and an autograph. The good doctor is amiable enough to agree to both. So this guy turns out to be the Stormfront forum owner. How in the world do you draw a conclusion from this that Paul is a "pro white-supremacy advocate"? Association by autograph? That is not even a stretch, it is pure fiction.

Please stop trying to subvert democracy and the will of the people. It is arrogant, nefarious and transparent.

Jesse Ventura, no doubt about it.

I would also like Lou Dobbs or Michael Moore.

How about two independent tickets... Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura... Lou Dobbs and Michael Moore.

War on the middle class? Let's have either one of these teams fight back!

How about Spike Lee for prez and Moore as V.P. That would rock, too.

reply to post by WP4YT

Of the 43 presidents of the United States, 27 have served more than one term in office.

Let me stop you right there, and show you that out of 43 presidents, more than half have served more than one term in office. SO. Statistically incumbent presidents are more likely to be re elected.

Don't start in on the fuzzy math that doesn't prove your point.

Since the end of World War II three incumbent presidents were turned out of office–Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush. A fourth, George W. Bush survived a very close call–notable because, historically, incumbent presidents are either defeated or they are reelected by comfortable margins as opposed to a squeaker as was the case with Bush in 2004.

race42012.com...

reply to post by SteveR


He received money directly from Stormfront, and accepted it and kept it. If that isn't advocacy enough, he had his picture taken with the owner. As a presidential candidate, one must be careful who one cavorts with. (remember Jerimiah Wright, and Bill Ayers, were both hot topic problems for Obama.)

So, it's a valid point I made. He obviously advocates a white supremacist stance.