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.

 

Santorum campaign suggests Mitt Romney may have done deal to make Ron Paul his running mate

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176


Quite frankly i think you guys are about to get played.

It makes sense though. Ron Paul can't endorse Mitt Romney because Romney doesn't share the same principles....but Paul's son can, and Ron Paul will endorse his son....but even if he didn't endorse his own son...it wouldn't matter anyway....because it will be perceived that way regardless.

Romney and Paul are supposedly friends...and Ron paul simply doesn't go after Romney like he does the other candidates. I noticed it before in earlier debates, but it was really apparent last night and I commented about this on the thread covering the debate as it ended.

What do you guys think? Does this sound plausible or am i over thinking this?

(edited numerous times)
edit on 23-2-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



I believe you've been played.

The media narrative is currently all about the Romney/Paul 'bromance' and you're sinking your teeth into the whole juicy story.

Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are not 'friends' but they are friendly to each other. Big difference.

Just because Mitt Romney extended his vacation home to Paul when his campaign jet broke down, doesn't mean they're friends. It just means Mitt is a nice guy for being considerate.

Ron Paul turned down the offer, because they're not friends.

The media keeps trying to make you believe there is a Romney/Paul alliance because Ron Paul backed up Romney's case of 'firing' people? No Ron Paul was backing up the free market and a business owner's right to fire an employee.




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by phishfriar47
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Which is exactly why it would need to be Paul/Romeny not Romney/Paul

Win-Win for everyone involved...even down to Rand IMO


I disagree, Mitt Romney is running to be PRESIDENT not VEEP or some obscure position.

This is the moment Mitt has been waiting for, its either President or nothing.

Ron Paul wants to be president for his supporters and for the liberty movement to progress rapidly under a presidency vs not.


If it is a brokered convention, Ron Paul could very well come out on top. Whether the GOP will let him take the nomination is a different story.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAnswerTo1984
 


I can't stand Santorum. He is a know it all and thinks he is better than others. He is snide and rude.

However, Santorum might be a SOB but he works darn hard on his campaign. It's been well noted that the man exceeds other candidates in so far as his work ethics. He wants the job. He works hard to get the job.

The other candidates feel threatened by him because he is a bulldog and the American people are eating it up right now.

It makes perfect sense to kick the bulldog when he isn't looking every chance you get because you know that once he sinks his teeth in you it's over.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


I know people don't want to hear this, but I think Ron should really step back and think about this. This ticket would be a guranteed win in November. There is no way that with Romney's money and Paul's support that it's going to lose to Obama. With that said, we have to put Romney in the white house. That sucks. But it's also a guranteed VP spot for Ron Paul and the man can do so much more with a guranteed VP spot than a 3rd party run that will more than likely do nothing but hand Obama a second term.

This shouldn't be seen as selling out. It's not as long as Paul is able to do what he wants to do as VP. This should be seen as the guranteed spot that it is. Imagine what Paul could do as VP... I think people really need to think about this before screaming sell out.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Flint2011
 


Santorum is a moron. Even if he had a chance to win the nomination (which he doesn't) Obama would wipe the floor with him. But as I mentioned in the OP I do think that this was probably an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" moment.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAnswerTo1984
 


I agree totally. He is a huge moron. But he is gaining sway far more than he should have. It makes sense to stick it to him on a full front every chance they can get to slow his momentum.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by trust_no_one
 


I think he hasn't attacked Romney because attacks actually wouldn't hurt Romney, it would be wasted money. People already don't like him, they already know why he is a poor choice.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Santorum is showing us what a pathological paranoid he is, if he can't see two people (Romney and Paul) being respectfully cordial to one another without envisioning them as conspiring against him. Romney and Paul are polar opposites on most issues so no way would they consider being on the same ticket. This is just Santorum's attempt at sowing FUD among his supporters.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I didn't read all the comments, since I just dealt with this issue on numerous threads on another site...so, if this has already been posted, I apologize.

Here's an interview with Doug Wead, explaining the FICTIONAL Romney/Paul alliance:




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAnswerTo1984
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


I know people don't want to hear this, but I think Ron should really step back and think about this. This ticket would be a guranteed win in November. There is no way that with Romney's money and Paul's support that it's going to lose to Obama. With that said, we have to put Romney in the white house. That sucks. But it's also a guranteed VP spot for Ron Paul and the man can do so much more with a guranteed VP spot than a 3rd party run that will more than likely do nothing but hand Obama a second term.

This shouldn't be seen as selling out. It's not as long as Paul is able to do what he wants to do as VP. This should be seen as the guranteed spot that it is. Imagine what Paul could do as VP... I think people really need to think about this before screaming sell out.



I disagree.

You don't want the Ron Paul Revolution tainted by a Romney administration. We all know he is going to sell out the people the second he sits on his cushy chair in the oval office.

I'm not saying Ron Paul WOULDN'T agree to any deals because I'm not him but I personally don't want it to happen, it isn't worth it and it isn't what we're all fighting for, not in the least.

Being apart of a B.S. administration (whether Ron or Rand) almost guarantees no Rand Paul in 2016.


edit on 23-2-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Habit4ming
I didn't read all the comments, since I just dealt with this issue on numerous threads on another site...so, if this has already been posted, I apologize.

Here's an interview with Doug Wead, explaining the FICTIONAL Romney/Paul alliance:






Good post, it reinforces what I was saying earlier about this Romney/Paul bullShlop



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Habit4ming
I didn't read all the comments, since I just dealt with this issue on numerous threads on another site...so, if this has already been posted, I apologize.

Here's an interview with Doug Wead, explaining the FICTIONAL Romney/Paul alliance:






Good post, it reinforces what I was saying earlier about this Romney/Paul bullShlop


Ron Paul doesn't attack Romney in the debates. Explain, each one of them is trying to win the nomination. Very strange....



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Habit4ming
I didn't read all the comments, since I just dealt with this issue on numerous threads on another site...so, if this has already been posted, I apologize.

Here's an interview with Doug Wead, explaining the FICTIONAL Romney/Paul alliance:






Good post, it reinforces what I was saying earlier about this Romney/Paul bullShlop


Ron Paul doesn't attack Romney in the debates. Explain, each one of them is trying to win the nomination. Very strange....



Ron Paul doesn't hit Romney?

You've never seen this ad?




The REALITY is Ron Paul is trying to separate himself from the other 2 anti-Romney candidates. Ron Paul is fighting for the Tea Party / anti-Romney vote.

He doesn't NEED to attack Romney because it would be a WASTE of time.



I'd recommend you to stop trying to make something of what isn't there.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Habit4ming
I didn't read all the comments, since I just dealt with this issue on numerous threads on another site...so, if this has already been posted, I apologize.

Here's an interview with Doug Wead, explaining the FICTIONAL Romney/Paul alliance:






Good post, it reinforces what I was saying earlier about this Romney/Paul bullShlop


Ron Paul doesn't attack Romney in the debates. Explain, each one of them is trying to win the nomination. Very strange....



Ron Paul doesn't hit Romney?

You've never seen this ad?




The REALITY is Ron Paul is trying to separate himself from the other 2 anti-Romney candidates. Ron Paul is fighting for the Tea Party / anti-Romney vote.

He doesn't NEED to attack Romney because it would be a WASTE of time.



I'd recommend you to stop trying to make something of what isn't there.




I don't believe that "brokered campaign" spoken of between Santorum and
Romney in Minnesota. Give evidence.

Paul had two hours Tuesday evening to call Romney on his beliefs
and promises and zippo. How strange...it can't be fear, what is it?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
It won't be Ron Paul as VP.

It's going to be Rand Paul (VP) as Mitt Romney's running mate.


I have to disagree with you here David. Rand Paul only came into office as senator for Kentucky at the beginning of 2011, if he decides to take a vice presidential spot it will be premature, he will be called out for his relatively short term representing Kentucky. Rand Paul would be safer to wait it out till 2016, and I think this is what he probably will do.

As for Ron Paul making a deal with Romney? I posted a thread about this, it is one of the more realistic scenarios I can see in this race.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


The short Senate stint, and lack of experience didn't hurt Obama.

People want to vote for a Paul, the Republicans want Paul to not syphon off their votes, but the establishment needs Romney at the helm. They absolutely cannot win without Paul's help, but they also cannot let Paul into the Whitehouse. Rand is younger, ambitious, and easier to manipulate. Getting his foot in the door to the Whitehouse at this early stage would be too much temptation to turn down and he would surely accept the appointment.

I've never been a fan of Rand Paul, something just doesn't sit well with me, and I don't believe he is representative of his father, but I believe this plan David laid out is pretty much flawless! I won't be voting for a Romney/Rand ticket, but I think many would and it might give the Republicans a legitimate shot in November, and nothing short of Ron Paul will give them an equal shot.

I'm afraid this sounds extremely plausible, and it scares the hell out of me.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Such a thing will never happen at this point, and there are even good explanations for what is happening right now.

First off, Ron Paul has been campaigning in hopes of winning the nomination for the Presidency, it's too late now for Paul to decide that he's going to go and betray his voters by going for VP. Remember, this is the kind of guy that won't rule out a third party run just because he can't literally see the future.

As for his not attacking Romney directly all the time? Well, why would he need too right now? Santorum and Newt are already tearing Romney to shreds, and Paul is the only candidate right now who has to actually rely on donations from his supporters, and not from a very wealthy person, or two, or a whole bank. Letting the two anti-Romneys, who Paul could in all likely hood destroy in a 1 on 1 confrontation with ease, attack Romney while Paul conserves his campaign's war chest is a good and valid strategy.

Plus there's another thing that has to be taken into consideration, and it's that the man has out right denied that any such alliance has taken place. Now, tell me, how often has Paul lied about his stance on the issues, or even his plans? Let me tell you, Never.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


Your logic makes no sense to me, please elaborate.

I think your religious (Santorum) beliefs in life/contraception/abortion is blinding you from understanding the facts of other issues.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkinin
Such a thing will never happen at this point, and there are even good explanations for what is happening right now.

First off, Ron Paul has been campaigning in hopes of winning the nomination for the Presidency, it's too late now for Paul to decide that he's going to go and betray his voters by going for VP. Remember, this is the kind of guy that won't rule out a third party run just because he can't literally see the future.

As for his not attacking Romney directly all the time? Well, why would he need too right now? Santorum and Newt are already tearing Romney to shreds, and Paul is the only candidate right now who has to actually rely on donations from his supporters, and not from a very wealthy person, or two, or a whole bank. Letting the two anti-Romneys, who Paul could in all likely hood destroy in a 1 on 1 confrontation with ease, attack Romney while Paul conserves his campaign's war chest is a good and valid strategy.

Plus there's another thing that has to be taken into consideration, and it's that the man has out right denied that any such alliance has taken place. Now, tell me, how often has Paul lied about his stance on the issues, or even his plans? Let me tell you, Never.


Who can figure it but they're friends, they're aligned. Ron Paul has not attacked Romney once in twenty debates. ???



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Santorum: Wants to outlaw blowjobs and doesn't believe in the constitution (aka freedom from religion).

Romney: Bought sock puppet who made a living of firing people.

Paul: Wants to fix political and financial corruption by making participants sign a "voluntary pledge"


Obama's definitely not great, but he's a friggin' superstar compared to those clowns



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join