It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Conference Call: Dr. Paul is Willing, Seeking Indications of His Support for Third Party Run.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by eLPresidente

Maybe I have this wrong but I thought he would have had to announce his 3rd party candidacy a while ago.

I think you are correct... however. All political parties have the freedom to choose their candidates in whatever method they choose. They can draw straws if they wish. It is purely up to the individual party. We are familiar with the Democrat and Republican process because it is shoved in our face every 4 years...not all parties use that method nor are they required by law to do so. might be possible if a party...say...the Constitutionalists...wanted to adopt him as candidate "if" their current candidate willingly stepped down, maybe it's possible.

The Libertarian ticket is set and I happen to like Gary Johnson's position and the Libertarian 2012 platform. I think the most logical thing at this point in the game is for Ron Paul to endorse Johnson. The Libertarian party is the ONLY other party on the ballot in all 50 states...something the Romney campaign is trying to destroy. None of the other 3rd parties have made it on ALL ballots...sad but true.
edit on 4-9-2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by antar

After 2008 someone said, I think it might have been Dr. Paul himself, that alot of Paul Republicans voted for Obama, because they were looking for change.

In 1992, Ross Perot, and his message, were demeaned as cute, simplistic, atristocratic and just plain not possible by the MSM. But they were giving him attention. I think Mr. Perot got less conversation about him on the political shows in '96, like he had his chance and everyone knew he couldn't do it.

Like John Stewart said, Dr. Paul doesn't get any mention at all.

The MSM must have learned from the Perot campaign in '92 that any attention at all can give votes to a third party. Like that line " I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right".

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
This is just getting sad. I had respect for rp, even though I disagree with a lot of his stances. But now he's just pandering. Reminds me of all of gore's challenges when he lost. There comes a point where you have to say "its over. We tried, I'm proud of the effort and accomplishments, but its over. "

If he had been given a fair deal during the process I would agree with you.

He has much more support than you think.

I was talking to another delegate last night about this. He could run as the VP on the Libertarian ticket and Johnson could just resign after the election. He's on all 50 ballots,

He spent all day yesterday putting up signs for GOP candidates, and didn't talk to one person who was for Romney, not one.
edit on 4-9-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by eLPresidente

Post removed, and I apologize for confusing the two posters.
edit on 4-9-2012 by MsAphrodite because: My bad

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by MysticPearl
While Ron might not be great with computers and not understand the amount of support he has, he damn well should have someone working for him who is good with computers and can make it clear to him how much support he does have.

It would be inexcusable to not have someone on your staff responsible for tracking online support and relaying that message directly to him.

I love Ron Paul as much as anyone, but parts of his campaign have had less than desired affects and to not be aware of your online support at this stage in the game is embarrassing.

Plus, won't he have problems getting on ballots in a number of states as a third party candidate?

He no doubt has many people on staff who run and monitor polls. No doubt his polls tell him he does not have wide spread support. I think the guy is just trying to be nice and not completely crush his supporters hopes. And online opinion has proven to have little impact unless it is followed by support off line, that has not happened for Paul.

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:00 PM

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by eLPresidente

Given your response in this thread:

I would have to say that I suspect you are not a real Ron Paul supporter and just trying to take GOP votes so that Obama has a chance in this election. Beware my friends.

are you serious?

You're referring to "elPresidente" but the response you link to is by "thepresident"

Two different people my friend. Careful there

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by Jeremiah65

I have been wondering this myself however I have to ask myself why he has not done so already, he does want obama out of office and he will not back romney/ryan ticket, so what is happening in both the Libertarian and Green parties that is unconstitutional or just plain wrong that he will not support them? I did read both parties platforms and even though there were some things I would guess about I do not know for certain.

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:47 PM
I'm not trying to sound defeatist, but would the "powers" even let Ron Paul debate on the big stage as a 3rd party nominee? In my opinion, they would break rules to stop him, but who would be able to stop the "powers" from breaking a rule?

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 02:05 PM
This is good news. I doubt he would win but as has been said it would help continue to spread the message. I have sat out this campaign even though I campaigned for him in 2008 as I knew the GOP would screw him just as they did in 2008 only worse. The media will continue to screw him and I doubt he will get in the debates they will find some way to exclude him despite him qualifying under the current rules as they have done in the past. however this needs to happen. We will have to burn up the internet and get an under current moving in the country despite the MSM BS.

There is a way to get TV commercials on cheap nation wide and that needs to happen I have been saying this for 5 years and nobody listens. That is where we have failed in the past. The vast majority still get their political info on 1-5 minutes TV spots and we are not even on that main playing field. If he decides to run 3rd party I may initiate the TV commercial thing myself as my way of spreading the message but would need support from the grass roots.

I am not sure how I feel about him getting on the Johnson Ticket as I am skeptical of Johnson and Ron Paul being a VP means very little to most people. I would prefer him to run Independent but will let him decide what he thinks is bets on that. We would have to make this the "Vote of Your Life" campaign to all the apathetic's who normally would not vote this election.

Interesting to see what develops...

edit on 4-9-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by capone1

Originally the League of Women Voters were strongly involved int eh National Debates however they did back out eventually and this was what they had to say on the matter:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

You can read more about how the debates began and how the media soon came to become part of the major changes (and the bias) which continue on today as evidenced by the past GOP Primaries and National Nomination process.

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 02:14 PM
reply to post by hawkiye

Wow what a promising post.

As mentioned earlier in this and other threads one of the biggest questions would be how far would the current establishment go to keep Dr. Paul from speaking at the National debates? Could or would they change the rules to keep him from entering the debates or would they simply change the questions and supply the pat answers for both romoney and osabama in an attempt to placate the undecided voters?

I for one would love to see questions/answers that truly address the current standing (Shock and awe style) and state of the Nation as well as direction rather than more of the "We will create jobs and improve peoples paychecks while paying down the debt and solving all the worlds problems through a tightened security force here in America to keep people safe".

My Dad used to have a word for this kind of nonsense "LaLaLand" Yet this seems to be working! Maybe it is the fluoride??? The Chemtrails??? The mind psygenetics in the food???

edit on 4-9-2012 by antar because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:46 PM
Why can't I get any info on the Leno "announcement" ??? It should have been taped already, yet no word on twitter from the people who attended the taping? Are they all that loyal that they'd respect wishes to not spoil whatever the news is? I'd figure somebody would have leaked it by now

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Domo1
Its too late for him to run 3rd party.

well actually the green party has the ability to run as third party,
and if ron paul was on THAT ticket,
he would have a really good chance,


posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:29 PM
I caucused for Paul. My son was a delegate for Paul. If Paul runs 3rd Party, I won't vote for him. I've voted LP or 3rd party in all but 1 election (Clinton '96). I am voting Romney, period. If Paul runs, he'll lose any respect I had for him.

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
I caucused for Paul. My son was a delegate for Paul. If Paul runs 3rd Party, I won't vote for him. I've voted LP or 3rd party in all but 1 election (Clinton '96). I am voting Romney, period. If Paul runs, he'll lose any respect I had for him.

I do not understand your position at all. If you were not supporting RP for what he stood for...then why were you? ...Romney doesn't stand for anything that Ron did so...why cop an attitude if Ron feels compelled to continue to keep the Constitution and Liberty movement have me extremely confused. If he endorses Gary Johnson, that is a good thing. If Jim Gray steps aside and lets Ron have the Libertarian VP candidacy...that's a freaking awesome thing! How can you support the guy then and not now? Are you just trapped in the Republican thing or what?

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:02 PM
Yes, Ron Paul go! Just go to third party, I don't care! Just do it, I will vote

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:04 PM

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
I caucused for Paul. My son was a delegate for Paul. If Paul runs 3rd Party, I won't vote for him. I've voted LP or 3rd party in all but 1 election (Clinton '96). I am voting Romney, period. If Paul runs, he'll lose any respect I had for him.


posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by MrSpad

I generally agree with you but not on this one, it was mass media blackout and people feeling the need to be on the 'winning' ticket that got people like yourself thinking he did/does not have the support. Really, the whole fiasco at the RNC and before should tell you he just may have more support than they were willing to accept.

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Domo1
Its too late for him to run 3rd party.

its not about winning a third party run as much as it is about getting into the national debate and opening the eyes of millions of americans to the two party scam.

are we, ATS members really just going to sit here like morons and let two turds argue each other about 'who built what'?

or are we going to talk about real issues like the fed, imperialism, and civil liberties?

Ron Paul polls nationally 18-21% between Robamney, thats enough to get him into the national debates with the threshold being 15%, thats unless they change the rules and move the threshold like the RNC did with nominations.

They would just gloss over him as usual, and have a select 1 or 2 direct questions for him:

ABC would ask him about his white-supremacist newsletter thing from 20years ago and never ask him another question. Stephanopoulos

FOX would ask him questions about the Fed and then the good Dr would lose everyone in a too-intelligent rant about bubbles, liquidity, Keynesian v. Austrian Economics. Kavuto
Then they'd ask him questions on why he likes Iran and wants to be their friend when they burn babies and eat them for snacks and should be wiped of the face of the earth. Hannity.

MSNBC would accuse him of being wholly evil by asking why he hates poor people so much as revealed with his disdain for the welfare system. Then they'll give him 10 seconds to answer, cut him off, and switch over to their guy and get all tingly and frothy at the mouth. And give him 5 minutes to stumble through is normally inane ah, uhm you see, uhm Chris, er, k, as I said before, ah you know.... Chris Matthews.

There's no fair shake for anyone outside of the love bubble of the elite on national coverage, be it the major networks, or the associated press.

Now a one-on-one debate Ron vs either, that would be something to behold because they would be forced to ask both pretty much the same questions. Then it'd be the battle of truthful, intelligent, and witty dialogue vs old, canned rhetoric and ers, ahs, uhms.

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by crawdad1914

What a beautiful avie you are sporting there... very powerful and intense in a good way. You can defend my Liberty any time if that is you...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in