Question for Paul supporters

[Avatar4321]

If Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich wins the nomination and chooses Rand Paul as their VP choice. Would you support the nominee despite it not being Ron Paul?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. What is Rand going to do as VP? Nothing. It's not about the cult of personality, as some people try to assert, but about getting our ideas put into effect. Rand as VP is not going to influence Mitt Romney to do anything substantial about the Federal Reserve, he's not going to get Mitt to change our foreign policy, and he's not going to get Mitt to cut any real spending. There'd be no point. I also think it would be bad for Rand because it would then tie Rand to Mitt's policies.

 

[kwc57]

If Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich wins the nomination and chooses Rand Paul as their VP choice. Would you support the nominee despite it not being Ron Paul?

Yes. I've had to hold my nose on most elections, state and national.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No. What is Rand going to do as VP? Nothing. It's not about the cult of personality, as some people try to assert, but about getting our ideas put into effect. Rand as VP is not going to influence Mitt Romney to do anything substantial about the Federal Reserve, he's not going to get Mitt to change our foreign policy, and he's not going to get Mitt to cut any real spending. There'd be no point. I also think it would be bad for Rand because it would then tie Rand to Mitt's policies.

Seems you concluded Mitt is going to win the nomination and the presidency.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. What is Rand going to do as VP? Nothing. It's not about the cult of personality, as some people try to assert, but about getting our ideas put into effect. Rand as VP is not going to influence Mitt Romney to do anything substantial about the Federal Reserve, he's not going to get Mitt to change our foreign policy, and he's not going to get Mitt to cut any real spending. There'd be no point. I also think it would be bad for Rand because it would then tie Rand to Mitt's policies.

Seems you concluded Mitt is going to win the nomination and the presidency.

I've concluded that Mitt is most likely to win the nomination, and I've concluded that Obama is most likely to win re-election regardless of who his opponent is. The purpose of this thread is speculation, however. So yes I chose Romney as my example, but you can substitute him for Gingrich or Santorum and what I said still remains true. If any of them win the Presidency, which I don't see happening, and Rand is their running mate then he won't be able to change their position on any important issues. So why would I vote for them?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No. What is Rand going to do as VP? Nothing. It's not about the cult of personality, as some people try to assert, but about getting our ideas put into effect. Rand as VP is not going to influence Mitt Romney to do anything substantial about the Federal Reserve, he's not going to get Mitt to change our foreign policy, and he's not going to get Mitt to cut any real spending. There'd be no point. I also think it would be bad for Rand because it would then tie Rand to Mitt's policies.

Seems you concluded Mitt is going to win the nomination and the presidency.

I've concluded that Mitt is most likely to win the nomination, and I've concluded that Obama is most likely to win re-election regardless of who his opponent is. The purpose of this thread is speculation, however. So yes I chose Romney as my example, but you can substitute him for Gingrich or Santorum and what I said still remains true. If any of them win the Presidency, which I don't see happening, and Rand is their running mate then he won't be able to change their position on any important issues. So why would I vote for them?

By what measure have you made your conclusions?

 

[Rocko]

Paul supports have more in common with anyone of the republican candidates than Obama. You guys are needed.

 

[Immanuel]

No. What is Rand going to do as VP? Nothing. It's not about the cult of personality, as some people try to assert, but about getting our ideas put into effect. Rand as VP is not going to influence Mitt Romney to do anything substantial about the Federal Reserve, he's not going to get Mitt to change our foreign policy, and he's not going to get Mitt to cut any real spending. There'd be no point. I also think it would be bad for Rand because it would then tie Rand to Mitt's policies.

Are you saying you would vote for President Obama instead?

That is an honest question. I am not a Paul supporter nor do I intend on voting for either of the major parties again this year. I just don't see any reason to support either party any more.

Immie

 

[Big Black Dog]

I'm willing to bet a dozen donuts that Ron Paul is not going to get the nod for the GOP candidate and no person in his right mind would choose him for the VP slot. Hope you don't buy stocks if you believe this strongly in Ron Paul.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Seems you concluded Mitt is going to win the nomination and the presidency.

I've concluded that Mitt is most likely to win the nomination, and I've concluded that Obama is most likely to win re-election regardless of who his opponent is. The purpose of this thread is speculation, however. So yes I chose Romney as my example, but you can substitute him for Gingrich or Santorum and what I said still remains true. If any of them win the Presidency, which I don't see happening, and Rand is their running mate then he won't be able to change their position on any important issues. So why would I vote for them?

By what measure have you made your conclusions?

The polling, and the reaction of the Republican establishment against the surges of Santorum and Gingrich. Though I have no illusions that their reaction would be any different under a Paul surge.

 

[Full-Auto]

If Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich wins the nomination and chooses Rand Paul as their VP choice. Would you support the nominee despite it not being Ron Paul?

No. The Only way the GOP can gain my vote is if they hold the line on spending.


I have a better chance at being hit by lighting in an underground cave.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. What is Rand going to do as VP? Nothing. It's not about the cult of personality, as some people try to assert, but about getting our ideas put into effect. Rand as VP is not going to influence Mitt Romney to do anything substantial about the Federal Reserve, he's not going to get Mitt to change our foreign policy, and he's not going to get Mitt to cut any real spending. There'd be no point. I also think it would be bad for Rand because it would then tie Rand to Mitt's policies.

Are you saying you would vote for President Obama instead?

That is an honest question. I am not a Paul supporter nor do I intend on voting for either of the major parties again this year. I just don't see any reason to support either party any more.

Immie

No, I have no intention of voting for Obama over any of the Republicans. I see them as being the same and I can't support any of them. I suspect that Gary Johnson is a lock for the Libertarian Party nomination, but I won't vote for him either. I'll have to see who the Constitution Party candidate is before I make any final decision, but it may turn out that I have nobody to vote for for President.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm willing to bet a dozen donuts that Ron Paul is not going to get the nod for the GOP candidate and no person in his right mind would choose him for the VP slot. Hope you don't buy stocks if you believe this strongly in Ron Paul.

We generally buy gold , but the speculation is for Rand Paul as VP not Ron Paul.

 

[Oddball]

If Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich wins the nomination and chooses Rand Paul as their VP choice. Would you support the nominee despite it not being Ron Paul?

Nope....The veep has next to no power, other than to act as assassination insurance....I'll vote LP again.

If that GOP ticket happens to win twice and Rand is the nominee in 2020, then we can talk.

 

[Rocko]

If Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich wins the nomination and chooses Rand Paul as their VP choice. Would you support the nominee despite it not being Ron Paul?

No. The Only way the GOP can gain my vote is if they hold the line on spending.


I have a better chance at being hit by lighting in an underground cave.

I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?

 

[Oddball]

If Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich wins the nomination and chooses Rand Paul as their VP choice. Would you support the nominee despite it not being Ron Paul?

No. The Only way the GOP can gain my vote is if they hold the line on spending.


I have a better chance at being hit by lighting in an underground cave.

I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?

Because you end up with fucking evil anyways.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I've concluded that Mitt is most likely to win the nomination, and I've concluded that Obama is most likely to win re-election regardless of who his opponent is. The purpose of this thread is speculation, however. So yes I chose Romney as my example, but you can substitute him for Gingrich or Santorum and what I said still remains true. If any of them win the Presidency, which I don't see happening, and Rand is their running mate then he won't be able to change their position on any important issues. So why would I vote for them?

By what measure have you made your conclusions?

The polling, and the reaction of the Republican establishment against the surges of Santorum and Gingrich. Though I have no illusions that their reaction would be any different under a Paul surge.

I wouldn't take what the polls tell you to the bank. Nor would I trust in what the so-called "establishment" reactions.

 

[Immanuel]

No. The Only way the GOP can gain my vote is if they hold the line on spending.


I have a better chance at being hit by lighting in an underground cave.

I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?

Because you end up with fucking evil anyways.

And how do you know that Obama would outspend Romney over the next four years? Because Romney said he will cut spending in all these debates they have been having?

Immie

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

By what measure have you made your conclusions?

The polling, and the reaction of the Republican establishment against the surges of Santorum and Gingrich. Though I have no illusions that their reaction would be any different under a Paul surge.

I wouldn't take what the polls tell you to the bank. Nor would I trust in what the so-called "establishment" reactions.

We all know that polls fluctuate, but the one constant has been Mitt Romney as the frontrunner. There may be a day when the current establishment loses its power and influence, but it most certainly hasn't happened yet. They don't want Santorum or Gingrich, and they're going to do what they have to do to tank them in the primary.

 

[Rocko]

I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?

Because you end up with fucking evil anyways.

And how do you know that Obama would outspend Romney over the next four years? Because Romney said he will cut spending in all these debates they have been having?

Immie

For one thing Obama won't have to worry about getting re-elected.

Ultimately I trust Romney's views are certainly more in line with free market capitalism and liberty in general, than Obama.