Will voting for Paul be a sacrifice to make a point? Or Can he Win?

All political ideologies aside (please), if you are supporting a republican candidate in the primaries, OR you are planning on voting for someone other than the current POTUS, is it worth supporting and voting for Ron Paul with the foreknowledge of the odds he faces?

Or can he actually pull this off?? Could the resolve of the American People actually over power TPTB?

Remember Ross Perot? He split the vote running 3rd Party, thereby leaving the incumbent in place.

I know many people have a lot of faith in Ron Paul. Maybe I am being too "historically realistic."

My question is this: is support for Paul now, in the primaries, futile?

Further, if (by remote chance) he wins the primaries, or runs 3rd Party, is voting for him a sacrifice to be heard / to send a message? In other words, "It's either Ron Paul or it stays the same."

Is it worth it, knowing he may not win?

Or, do we retreat to our robotic routines, vote for the lesser of two evils and hope for the best?

Just curious to hear others' perspectives to this regard.

Thanks in advance.

(And God help us all).

Ron Paul should actually [color=violet]WIN by 84% of the votes, and here is WHY:

84 percent of people DISAPPROVE with the job our IDIOT politicians are doing. All of the IDIOT candidates running for President for 2012 (minus Ron Paul) are either IN that group of IDIOTS, or are CARBON-COPIES of the IDIOTS who have this 84% disapproval rating.

So, if We The People of America have more than ONE SINGLE brain cell in our heads, then [color=violet]Ron Paul should win this 2012 election with 84% of the vote.

Otherwise we have some PITIFULLY STUPID people in this country who must LOVE seeing our country go DOWN THE DRAIN and nose-diving straight into HELL at full speed.

reply to post by capod2t


If it’s a RP vote during this primary race -

If it’s a RP vote if/when he runs third party -

I've never based my vote on "the guy who will win" Kinda self defeating isn't it?..If nobody votes for the third partycandidates of course they will never win".

What do you possibly gain by picking the"winning guy?" brownie points? gold stars?


What sick satisfaction is there to "my guy won!" and how long does it last????????????
exasperated doublefacepalm..... Some people should just stay home...

"throwing my vote away? Not in the least. The more support third party candidates get the more people notice them and the more media support they get.

Unfortunately, Obama will eat Ron Paul for lunch in the final debates. Just my opinion. No political science degree or anything. ha ha

reply to post by Gridrebel
I disagree. As I see it, it just comes down to what you want.

Obama's style without much substance.

Paul is substance without much style.

Take your pick.

He can win it only if we help by inspecting vote results and ragging non-stop on the media and their figureheads to start. It's going to be an uphill fight to get him elected over the will of the corrupt. Inaction will only result ion more of the same.

reply to post by capod2t
It is absolutely always worth it to support what you believe in and reject what you don't, especially when the alternatives are very much the same. Unless I have Johnson as an option or somebody makes some big changes to surprise me, I will not be voting unless I have Paul to support.

And yes, with a fair shake, he can pull it off. He's currently the only non-Romney with financial legs, and according to this analysis, he's also the only republican-led ticket with a realistic chance of beating Obama in light of the other third-party national challenges (Libertarians with Johnson and various others). I'll leave it up to the experts to review and dispute that.

reply to post by seabag

If it’s a RP vote during this primary race - If it’s a RP vote if/when he runs third party -

I understand your thinking.

reply to post by 46ACE

I've never based my vote on "the guy who will win" Kinda self defeating isn't it?..If nobody votes for the third partycandidates of course they will never win".

That's kind of the point of this thread. Paul as a 3rd Party candidate will split the votes against Obama, i.e. the Perot Effect.

My point is, I may not be willing to vote symbolically for Paul, knowing that I won't be assisting in voting OUT Obama.

There...I said it.

Ron Paul lost my vote and probably most of the senior citizens because of his stance on our involvement in WW2. What he said pissed a lot of people off. Before that I thought he might be just a little zany but that is not the case. He wants to go back to being isolationist and that will not work in a global economy. John not forget his stance on Iran which myself and anyone else that has had any experience in the Middle East knows will not work.

I have always voted for who I thought was the best person at the time regardless of party for in while I thought that person when Ron Paul until he kept talking. He doesn't have a chance at winning and that's just the hard truth.

reply to post by capod2t


Any other candidate aside from Paul is just a change of scenery. What is going on is going to continue and we will still be in wars. A Paul vote is a change of systems I'm voting for the person who represents what I want be it Paul or Johnson or some future candidate regardless "if they can win". But just to entertain it I think this is going to be an ideology and economics in which Paul is the perfect candidate to debate Obama. People need not worry about his speech ability because his voting record speaks for him. There are no flip flop,bailout,war support so he doesn't have to explain that to the democratic base. More time for him to speak economics and the constitution while Obama has some explaining to do. But that's my take.

I've said this many times and it just doesn't seem to penetrate.

You should vote for the candidate that best represents your views, regardless of party, gender, race, etc. To do otherwise is a betrayal of the self. If this actually was the environment, we would have a broader, more diverse, and more rich political landscape than we have now.

I support Ron Paul ONLY because he is quite close to my personal beliefs on good governance and global affairs.

There are few member posts I despise, but this is certainly one of them! Because…
capod2t The more people who think as you do, the less democracy we will have. Also the less democracy we will deserve to have. I very much hope Adolf Hitler reincarnate, verses Stalin reincarnate, comes round to execute you because one of those people (please, please, take your “choice” wisely) one of them was “the lesser of two evils”!

I know nothing about you except: By spreading sheepish attitudes like yours, you can only increase (not decrease) your own chances, that (if there is indeed any just God, or system of reincarnation) that you will be reincarnated somewhere in Iraq-Afghanistan or North Korea!

Here’s Why…
You are simply spreading a political disease, which (quite literally more than any other single phenomenon) is responsible for destroying Western democracy (i.e. from the voter, ground upwards).
It’s this very non-intelligent, quite primitive, yet somehow (undoubtedly in part, because of our own mass media, perversive influence) that: “The only votes that aren’t “wasted” are those votes for the complete filth that wins” (and they are complete filth, not least because everybody thought just like you.

The second strain of this disease on our democracy goes…
“Your vote is not wasted, if you vote for someone who did not win, but ONLY if you vote was joined with lots of other votes, if your looser, has less votes than other looses, then even though it makes no practical difference whatsoever, you are more of looser”
I.e. “You are more a looser for following your convictions, and the less you follow your convictions, the more you matter, and therefore the more practically patriotic you are.”

GET REAL… Think… Think…

Who advances Western Democracy the Most?
1. The voter who becomes the 110th thousandth to secure a winning candidate, a victory they had anyway
2. The person who voted for somebody that did not represent their beliefs, but who did vote for someone 110 thousand votes sort of victory.
3. The person who voted for Ron Paul –the constitution, and therefore set a president which next time, would encourage others to do the same (he has a son called Rand Paul, who will be his successor)
4. Or the person who was the first, and only person, to vote for someone nobody else voted for.

I have to tell you, but the is if you want to know the people who (in our current voting system) least waste their vote, you need to read the above list from point 4 backwards.
Otherwise you are simply contributing to a problem. Therefore it would indeed be better if (no matter how hypothetically) the nation could swap you for someone in e.g. North Korea –a person probably only suffering in North Korea because they did-do actually stand by their convictions.

I cannot deny that its useless voting for someone who only gets one vote, but nor can one deny they are a lot more useful in sponsoring the diversity, competition, and therefore (entire) (real) point of democracy (as defined by “choice” being the ultimate objective) than someone to become the millionth voter, to make a winning candidate, a winning candidate.

There are lots of other problems with American democracy: Voting machines, party donations in exchange for favours, and of course lobbyists persistently destroying any well intended Congress legislation.
But we could (hypothetically) get rid of all these problems, and if there were enough voters thinking like you “i.e. that they must vote for a winner” then we would still end up living in much the same failed democracy, -i.e. failing to represent either the electorate, or sheeple like you, to almost exactly the same degree.

I trust you can easily see, that the above, is actually quite a true interpretation of electoral reality?
People who think like sheep are No.1 enemy of our countries democracy. This is the same for all Western democracies, any time, any place. I’m sure the last people to vote against Hitler (before he abolished elections) may have thought their vote was wasted, but the reality is, the only thing lacking in the German people, is that we could have done with a few more people who “wasted” there vote like that.

Another thing I hate most about your non-fighting, weak & sheepish attitude, is that it is popular –as well as a danger to democracy. Also the way it gives power to CNN –the mainstream media more than any other view. This because: it’s the “black sheep” electorate who are the real patriots, as they alone are the reason people like Ron Paul get any coverage at all, as it would be the case with any other non-corrupt, media industrial arms complex, favoured candidate, only any “side” of the political spectrum.

reply to post by Liberal1984


Wow! Feel better?

That was a lot more than I bargained for. Sorry that you wasted your time in your hate-filled dissertation. I read it, but it mostly fell on deaf ears. Here's why: you can continue to hold a holy attitude about remaining true to yourself with regard to your voting practices, but the fact of the matter is your vote is as useless as mine in this day and age.

Our political process boils down to two choices - like it or not. Until I see some actual promise that this pathetic situation actually changes, I'll continue to use my vote as wisely as I can.

Pardon, but I just noticed you're in the UK. What dog do you have in this fight? Are you American?

I was in search of civil, open dialogue, But you're just another reminder that this is the wrong place to look for it.

I hope you will learn to deal with your anger issues in more healthy manners.

Bless Your Heart