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.

 

Does Romney increase Ron Pual's chances??

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
So, considering the new strategy that Romney is using to help his campaign which begs to question if this Republican Nominee has any idea what actually is going on in the US, does this help the Cause of Ron Paul or someone else (Gary Johnson??) running against the two party system??

If Ron Paul threw his hat back into the ring utilizing the tools he has used, does he now have chance?? Dont come back with "he already decided he is not running". This is a discussion on whether he now would have legit chance getting back into the race and go against both Romney and Obama now that Romney has tried a drastic ploy to get elected.
edit on 19-9-2012 by hoochymama because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hoochymama
 

Paul can't start up a new party now, he's missed the filing deadlines in at least 40 states. Do you think he could kick Gary Johnson off the top spot in his party? I think that would be tricky. Paul is reasonably honorable, so he won't hook up with a party he doesn't mostly agree with, so which party should he try to move in on?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
For me at this point its more about principle than anything else.

Pauls out of the race, but I believe in the ideals he expounded, so my vote will be a write in, I won't condone the rule of either of the clowns running in the two major parties.

I refuse to play their game, maybe Gary Johnson could get enough votes to show the people mandate of a third party having a chance, but in the end he wont.

Whats needed is the 70% of eligible people who don't vote got off their asses and cared about the system, maybe, just maybe we could get a 3rd party win.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Ok, instead of starting up a different party, start up the machine again. The vote can still be made. But, maybe if he takes the left over money and starts a huge money bomb right now he could really have a chance. No matter his party affiliation.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by hoochymama
 

Dear hoochymama,

How would you feel if Paul started a new party now, aiming at the 2014 Congressional elections, then the 2016 Presidential? He could certainly get it off to a strong start. It would be something like the Tea Party did in making a huge impression in the 2010 elections. True, they're not an official party, but Paul's wouldn't have to be either.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by hoochymama
 


Let it go, Paul has a 0% chance, and that is being generous.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Let it die.

Ive made my peace with it. You should too.

We all know he was cheated by corrupt officials.

Its past that now. Its time to make sure the message isnt lost- and refuse to continue voting like morons.

Take party away from it cause the party cares about nobody but their own bottom ends.

We are just their cattle.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Understood. Than how about Gary Johnson?? My original post was Ron Paul or someone else but I think this is a good time for someone to step up to try a last minute push as the events that have unfolded within the last 2weeks for both candidates could really lead someone taking advantage of the situation.

But, Ron Paul running in 2016?? I dont think that will happen. He almost didnt run this time if it wasn't for a huge influx of support.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hoochymama
 


If you want to vote on principle, not on what is best for the next 4 years, Gary would be your vote. If you want to stop the train wreck we are heading for, vote Romney. Obama just successfully fought to preserve the NDAA which allows him to indefinitely detain US citizens. He must be stopped.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Heres what would happen if Ron decided to go independent.

He would instantly poll into the presidential debates (threshold 15% but Ron Paul has polled up to 21% against Romney/Obama, nationally) but that doesn't mean the presidential debate commission wouldn't just up the threshold to keep him out, after all, the commission is essentially a joint partnership between the two major parties to keep themselves in power.

He wouldn't be able to win the general election but he would definitely pull many surprises in many states with voters who are just FED up with their choices. That also doesn't mean the electoral college state electors wouldn't vote for him if given the chance. There are already positioned state electors who have voiced their concerns about the two party system and have showed support for Ron Paul. For the state electors to really throw their votes toward integrity over blind party loyalty, there would have to be a major grassroots effort to show that the country does indeed want Ron Paul (which isn't really a problem).

Rest assured, if Ron Paul goes third party, the two major parties would throw everything at him, even the steering wheel. The establishment has already shown their hatred for Ron Paul's version of change and has shown their hand at exactly what dirty lengths they will go to stop him.

That being said, there are campaigns to get Ron Paul's name on the ballot and/or write-in ballot in many states.

Maybe I'll compile the information later and post it up here on ATS for those who do want to vote for Ron Paul.

If you want to send a msg to the establishment, Gary Johnson seems to be the preferred choice since the Libertarian Party is working pretty hard this election.
edit on 19-9-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by hoochymama
 


If you want to vote on principle, not on what is best for the next 4 years, Gary would be your vote. If you want to stop the train wreck we are heading for, vote Romney. Obama just successfully fought to preserve the NDAA which allows him to indefinitely detain US citizens. He must be stopped.


Why would you say this when I know YOU KNOW that Romney has publicly stated that he does support the NDAA?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by hoochymama
 


If you want to vote on principle, not on what is best for the next 4 years, Gary would be your vote. If you want to stop the train wreck we are heading for, vote Romney. Obama just successfully fought to preserve the NDAA which allows him to indefinitely detain US citizens. He must be stopped.


Why would you say this when I know YOU KNOW that Romney has publicly stated that he does support the NDAA?


Can you show me a quote where Romney specifically states he supports indefinite detention of US citizens? The NDAA was needed. The ONE clause that is objectionable was SPECIFICALLY asked for by Obama, and wording that could have made it alright was told to be taken out by the Obama administration.

I support the NDAA, I do not support the ONE part Obama himself demanded. Show me Romney supports indefinite detention.

ETA: I will save you the trouble and supply the only quote you can come up with that I know exists, and the difference.

I do believe that it’s appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al-Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues, but you don’t have a right to join a group that has challenged America and has threatened killing Americans, has killed Americans and has declared war against America. That’s treason. And in this country, we have a right to take those people and put them in jail.


I agree with what Romney says. What Romney says he wants and what the NDAA does are not the same thing. Romney talks about Jail, which is charges, trial, jury, that is not the NDAA. Obama does not want jail, trial, jury. He wants indefinite detention without charges. What the NDAA granted before Obama got his hands on it was decent.

I do wish Romney had stated no, based on the context he provided I agree with his statements, while I disagree with what the NDAA actually does. Romney has been pretty candid on things thus far, his future actions on NDAA will bear further watching. With Obama we KNOW we have a president fighting tooth and nail for it.
edit on 20-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
As far as I know Romney has said nothing about disagreeing with Obama's stance on detaining American citizens. And the fact he intends to drastically increase the military spending budget would suggest that he would do a lot more than just that.

How do people not see through all of this? They are practically the same person. Right down to their lack of experience. Obama junior Senator who should not have ran for president so soon and a governor of Massachusetts who lacks the qualifications to hold most of the positions he does.

They both are just stooges and controlled by their handlers.
edit on 20-9-2012 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by PatriotGames2
 


So then you can not cite a source for Romney saying he wants indefinite detention of US citizens without charges. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I also cannot site a source of Romney claiming he does not want or does not agree with the indefinite detention of US citizens. But I mean, he's had like what, 9 years to educate us all on his political policies... He's just waiting for the debates to unleash his plan though, right? You're welcome.
edit on 20-9-2012 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1

log in

join