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.

 

Ok, The RNC Was Clearly a SHAM, What's Next for Liberty?

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
A Johnson/Paul ticket sounds nice, but it can't happen. Gary already has a VP candidate and Ron would have had to have dropped the Republican party quite some time ago to have been considered. Remember, his son is still a Republican and still has plans for remaining as such. I don't much care for Rand myself, I felt his endorsement of Romney while his father was still "in the running" was poor form. Perhaps he was backed into a corner and told "if you plan on making this a career you will conform"...hard to say. I personally think no politician should be a "career" politician, but that is just my opinion.

All that crapola being said...I AM a Libertarian so I will be voting for Gary Johnson. Ron's position was "close enough" that I would have voted for him had he got the nomination...but he didn't...




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 



Interesting, I guess I'll take your word for it on the VP thing since I'm not familiar with the rules on that. I do think that *if* it were possible for him to run as Johnsons VP that Ron would consider it if his supporters were unified on it. With that said, I guess Gary Johnson would not be able to retract whoever he has picked as his VP choice?

I also wonder if most of the liberty movement would vote for Johnson if Ron Paul endorsed him. I just don't see him endorsing any other candidate!
edit on 31-8-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 


I truly am embarrassed to be a human being...

You guys are so hopelessly dependent upon this system that you absolutely CLING to have someone to vote for. Its like you can't even conceive creating a new paradigm or a new way of doing things.

ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES and WORK for something for once. Absolutely PATHETIC.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Wookiep
 


This IS where I am disappointed. Gary Johnson and Ron Paul have very-very similar positions. Ron SHOULD endorse him...but...thanks to good ole boy politics, cronyism and "rascalism"...if Ron were to do that, it would be a rough ride for his son. I am sure this is why Ron has not endorsed anyone. To endorse Johnson would be hurtful to his son's career and to endorse Romney would be against his ideals.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Serenity777
reply to post by Wookiep
 


I truly am embarrassed to be a human being...

You guys are so hopelessly dependent upon this system that you absolutely CLING to have someone to vote for. Its like you can't even conceive creating a new paradigm or a new way of doing things.

ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES and WORK for something for once. Absolutely PATHETIC.


Thank You, this is so true.

We can change things, we can create an alternative political world and a hearty new debate
to accompany it.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Serenity777
 


The option to create a whole new party has been discussed thoroughly, but it's not as if this is something that a movement can just "create" out of thin air one day. It quite literally would take a revolution to do this, and that very well may happen.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


True, and I agree. However, Ron has pointed out on several occasions that his son is his own person, I don't think Ron panders to him as much as people think he does.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by Consequence
 


Yeah, well I'd say pretty much all of the politicians currently in the Republican party don't belong there. None of them represent what the party should be...
edit on 31-8-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)


Hmm.. sounds to me that it's not the party for you, then.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by Serenity777
 


The option to create a whole new party has been discussed thoroughly, but it's not as if this is something that a movement can just "create" out of thin air one day. It quite literally would take a revolution to do this, and that very well may happen.


Erm no, creating a party is quite easy. It's your democratic right. No need for revolution.
edit on 31-8-2012 by Consequence because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Consequence

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by Serenity777
 


The option to create a whole new party has been discussed thoroughly, but it's not as if this is something that a movement can just "create" out of thin air one day. It quite literally would take a revolution to do this, and that very well may happen.


Erm no, creating a party is quite easy. It's your democratic right. No need for revolution.
edit on 31-8-2012 by Consequence because: (no reason given)


So you're saying our curent system wouldn't bring it down in a New York minute? The problem is, the entire government is controlled by corruption. First, the corruption needs to be exposed and taken care of before any new party could even stand a chance, hence revolution.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
So you're saying our curent system wouldn't bring it down in a New York minute? The problem is, the entire government is controlled by corruption. First, the corruption needs to be exposed and taken care of before any new party could even stand a chance, hence revolution.


If enough of the population do not like the two biggest parties, then they will (or should) vote for another party. Corruption or not.
edit on 1-9-2012 by Consequence because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join