Paul Not Given Role at Republican Convention

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

lol, no. But that is what ATS was saying.

Even LESS reason to believe it!

reply to post by longlostbrother

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Paul Not Given Role at Republican Convention

This is a good reason for him to run on a third party ticket

Paul - Kucinich 2012

reply to post by cavrac


Paul said he wouldn't run third party. He'd be breaking his own word and violating exactly what makes him so good as a candidate. Naww... He didn't run for his Texas seat again and this was it for him. A last moment to speak would have been nice.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by cavrac

 

Paul said he wouldn't run third party.

I was not aware of that. I really do not follow this stuff as closely as a lot of other people.

I will be voting for him in any case, I will be writing his name in, so that I can have a clear conscience.

Paul/Kucinich is about the biggest delusion of them all.

Aside from a few things they are diametrically opposed on almost everything.

That's like saying Ayn Rand/Karl Marx

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Paul/Kucinich is about the biggest delusion of them all.

Aside from a few things they are diametrically opposed on almost everything.

That's like saying Ayn Rand/Karl Marx

I think that is true regarding their economic policies, but the important thing that they do have in common "in my opinion" is that they are both honest and honorable men.

I would rather vote for an honest person that I do not agree with 100 percent, than a candidate that will say anything to get elected, and once in office pull a 180

reply to post by cavrac


What's the point of having a team of two honest mean that completely disagree with each other?

You think Paul is gonna suddenly start being pro-government welfare? Or that Kucinich will suddenly be anti-regulation?

Seems both illogical, improbable and silly.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by cavrac

 

What's the point of having a team of two honest mean that completely disagree with each other?

You think Paul is gonna suddenly start being pro-government welfare? Or that Kucinich will suddenly be anti-regulation?

Seems both illogical, improbable and silly.

It is not my opinion that they completely disagree with each other, they are friends and often vote the same way on issues, like the Patriot Act and Wars, and other issues that are important to me.

reply to post by cavrac


Kucinich got his name by fighting against corporations and deregulation. Ron Paul is completely against all corporate regulation and is against anti-trust legislation.

He also used to be against state funding of elementary school education. You think Kucinich would support that?

They agree on a few issues, mostly due to the absurd crappiness of Bush era policies,

Kucinich wants to end the FED, but because he thinks there should be MORE government regulation of banks and industry. Paul wants to end the Fed because he thinks there should be LESS government interference.

If you look past the soundbites they disagree on almost everything... even if they like each other personally... I mean Paul and Romney were all buddy buddy as well... Doesn't mean they'd be a good team, at all.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by cavrac

 

Kucinich got his name by fighting against corporations and deregulation. Ron Paul is completely against all corporate regulation and is against anti-trust legislation.

He also used to be against state funding of elementary school education. You think Kucinich would support that?

They agree on a few issues, mostly due to the absurd crappiness of Bush era policies,

Kucinich wants to end the FED, but because he thinks there should be MORE government regulation of banks and industry. Paul wants to end the Fed because he thinks there should be LESS government interference.

If you look past the soundbites they disagree on almost everything... even if they like each other personally... I mean Paul and Romney were all buddy buddy as well... Doesn't mean they'd be a good team, at all.

edit on 7-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

I think it may be more than a few issues that they agree on, and those are the ones that are most important to me, like ending the Fed.

I would not say Paul and Romney were all buddy buddy, I would say that they were polite to each other and treated each other with respect. They were not bashing each other like Romney and Gingrich were for example, Romney probably did not see Paul as a threat, so he did not attack him, and Paul did not really viciously attack the other candidates, he did point out their voting records and contradictions, and he did not have as much advertising money.


I think a Paul - Kucinich ticket would be something very different, I think it would help unite the country more, and to be quite honest anyone would do a better job than Obama or Romney,

Do people not even attempt to do research anymore? First off there was already a thread about this yesterday. Second no one has said that Ron Paul was not speaking. What was announced was the seven of the high profile speakers that will be at the convention. Guess what? Romney's name wasn't on this list either. So is he not going to speak at the convention either?

Ron Paul NOT given role at Republican Convention

reply to post by cavrac


Considering that most on the right have ruthlessly bashed Kucinich, I doubt they'd react well to him as a VP choice. 

As for Paul and Romney being friendly:

www.mediaite.com...
www.nytimes.com...

Etc
Etc

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I was just quoting the title of the article.

Ron Paul betrayed everyone in the liberty movement.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

reply to post by cavrac

 

Considering that most on the right have ruthlessly bashed Kucinich, I doubt they'd react well to him as a VP choice. 

As for Paul and Romney being friendly:

www.mediaite.com...
www.nytimes.com...

Etc
Etc

Most on the Right have ruthlessly bashed Ron Paul too, so it would have to be on a third party ticket, I am not saying they would win, but it would be nice to have them as a choice to vote for, without having to wright it in.

Based on your links, I guess you can say they are friends, and they probably became friends for the reasons I mentioned, but if Ron Paul were to endorse Romney, I would lose all respect for him, I do not care what his son has done, that has nothing to do with Ron.

Originally posted by geekon
Ron Paul betrayed everyone in the liberty movement.

do you care to elaborate a little, I am not aware of this happening

Originally posted by cavrac

Originally posted by longlostbrother

reply to post by cavrac

 

Considering that most on the right have ruthlessly bashed Kucinich, I doubt they'd react well to him as a VP choice. 

As for Paul and Romney being friendly:

www.mediaite.com...
www.nytimes.com...

Etc
Etc

Most on the Right have ruthlessly bashed Ron Paul too, so it would have to be on a third party ticket, I am not saying they would win, but it would be nice to have them as a choice to vote for, without having to wright it in.

Based on your links, I guess you can say they are friends, and they probably became friends for the reasons I mentioned, but if Ron Paul were to endorse Romney, I would lose all respect for him, I do not care what his son has done, that has nothing to do with Ron.

I'd say you might prepare yourself to lose all respect for RP. He might endorse someone in a third party, but sure, that's exactly why Romney doesn't wanna stick him up on the stage at his fete.

I think that you should ask yourself what you believe, re: the role of government, as really I find it really hard to understand how anyone can really support both Paul and Kucinich. They may share a few goals, but they get their very different ways. They are on opposite extremes of be political scale.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
I think that you should ask yourself what you believe, re: the role of government, as really I find it really hard to understand how anyone can really support both Paul and Kucinich. They may share a few goals, but they get their very different ways. They are on opposite extremes of be political scale.

I think our dialog is starting to go in circles, so why don't we just agree to disagree. I did not want to derail your thread from the original topic.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Where? May I ask where you have been hiding good sir?

I believe we have similar interests in vetting Ron Paul for all he is worth? Nothing, except to a bunch of loyal misguided supporters!

While it is true that the whole list of RNC speakers has not been announced, it is worth noting that Sarah Palin did not get a prime time speaking role. And I predict that Ron Paul will be tossed out as well.

Why are all you supporters begging the RNC to LET Ron Paul speak there? Talk about ironic! After all, wasn't he "winning" a month ago?

The libertarian news organization Reason.com confirms Rand Paul will be there. I doubt that'll please many Ron Paul supporters as he officially already endorsed Romney while Ron has not. I agree that because Ron Paul has not endorsed Romney, Romney will snub him. Same way with Sarah Palin, who has not endorsed Romney!

reason.com...