Breaking: Ron Paul on Jay Leno- Unofficial Announcement of Running in 2016 + No 2012 3rd Party Run

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 



You're the fn man! Thanks for the number and information.




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
2016?

It is going to be too late by then.

The time is now. It is very critical now, because by 2016, I guarantee that this country is going to be further traumatized by what is to come, with our nation left in the hands of the govt, Mittens or Obama.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
In 2016 Ron Paul will be in his EIGHTIES. No 80+ year old can take the rigors of office.
(that's not 'age-ism .. that's just reality. Even 40 year olds have a hard time with it let alone 80+ )


That's another concern, but more so, what I have mentioned above. It's going to be too late. Four more years is just enough time to implement more irreversible damage to our civil liberties, and federal reserve. Good luck everyone.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantumPhysicist
 


At first I thought it said

Breaking: Ron Paul AND Jay Leno- Unofficial Announcement of Running in 2016 + No 2012 3rd Party Run,

That would be an unusual ticket with lots of comedic material at the expense of everything that's gone wrong..



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman

Originally posted by FlyersFan
In 2016 Ron Paul will be in his EIGHTIES. No 80+ year old can take the rigors of office.
(that's not 'age-ism .. that's just reality. Even 40 year olds have a hard time with it let alone 80+ )


That's another concern, but more so, what I have mentioned above. It's going to be too late. Four more years is just enough time to implement more irreversible damage to our civil liberties, and federal reserve. Good luck everyone.


Best of luck to you but Paul isn't running in '16.




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 





Ron Paul milked his followers for money then employed all of his family to run his campaign....he paid them gigantic salaries instead of spending money on more ads and active campaigning ........... real honorable.


I tend to think this is only partially true. I think Ron Paul really was in it to win it, but I don't think his campaign staff was. I found it very odd that with just days before the California primary Jesse Benton would put out a statement saying that Ron Paul 2012 would no longer be actively campaigning in California, Texas, and other states that had yet to hold primaries, and would instead focus their energy on collecting delegates at state conventions. It seemed like a huge blunder, one that Benton had to publicly backtrack from, especially since it seemed possible for Paul to do well in those two states that had a lot of delegates up for the taking. But then came Rand Paul's endorsement of Mittens and this statement from Jack Hunter on Ron Paul's official campaign website.



If you can get through the above nine and half minute rant from that pompous, sniveling twit Jack Hunter, then I applaud you. Personally it makes me sick, not only does he compare Paul to Pat fu**ing Robertson, but he basically says that Ron Paul was not in the race to win the nomination, but to spread a message, and change the ideology of the Republican Party. And frankly, that's bullsh**t, his supporters didn't donate their time and money to influence policy, they shed their blood sweat and tears to get the nomination. Period.

Going further down the rabbit hole leads to more questions about the Ron Paul campaign, and whether it was compromised from within. Perhaps the most frightening revelations come from Justin Raimondo at AntiWar.com.
Who is Trygve Olson

Then there's this questionable campaign staffer, Doug Wead

So with great sadness, I find myself believing more and more that Adam Kokesh is on to something. I don't want to believe but I find it hard not to. While I still refuse to believe that Ron Paul was in on the scam, I do believe he was used to further others careers, including Jesse Benton and Rand Paul. A while back Adam interviewed an ex staffer who had noted that while Paul was a great thinker, he was a lousy manager, which is perhaps why at one point in time some questionable newsletters went out with Ron Paul's name printed on them. It is often the case that very bright men and women tend to be socially retarded, and have a hard time interacting with people in everyday affairs. Such may be the case with Paul, which would make it very easy for the turncoats from within to steer the good doctor off a cliff.

edit on 5-9-2012 by DirtyD because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2012 by DirtyD because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2012 by DirtyD because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2012 by DirtyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bacci0909

But good job giving in to the mainstream media refrain



Good job in not reading your own link that you felt the need to try and slam me with it...lol some people...



Sixty percent of those who plan to vote for Romney have a favorable opinion of Paul, compared to 32 percent of likely Obama voters.


Wow 2 to 1 ratio and more Dems would vote for him...does that make sense to you?



However, just 9 percent of Romney voters think Paul should run as an independent versus 39 percent of Obama voters who feel that way.


Why would 39% of Dems want him to run? They want to split the Republican party so their guy (the one they will vote for) wins.


Just over 80 percent of Republican and Democratic voters support their party’s candidate. Paul picks up 11 percent of GOP voters and 5 percent of Democrats. Among unaffiliated voters, it’s Romney 37 percent, Obama 31 percent, Paul 23 percent!


This is suggesting that Ron Paul would draw 7% of independants and ALL would vote for Obama if Paul doesn't run...that is stupid...

But then it also suggests that Paul would get 6% more republicans than Dems...so in effect hurting the republican base.....

Lets take this one more step.....since they suggest that Obama will get ALL independant voters 7% and 5% of his own base that gives him 12% more votes if Paul doesn't run...Romney gains 11%, but they say he will win by 6%, SO this means that Romney will win either way since he will win by 5% or 6% ether way.....

LOL



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Although I disagree with a lot of Ron Paul's positions, he's clearly the only one on the Republican side that had any integrity, and the only one that I'm really convinced would do anything positive. I find it ironic that the entire Republican goal is simply to get someone that could beat Obama, yet so few took Ron Paul seriously. I really he think that he was the only one that had any chance, as he would have gotten all of the votes of the morons that would have voted republican anyway, and he is the only one that could have gotten any of the more liberal votes. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to hope that Obama actually does something worthwhile in his second term. It's so depressing that people are still willing to accept a choice between bad and worse and leave it at that.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join