Question for Paul supporters

[Paulie]

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

It's about time someone recognized that we're needed.

The things we have in common aren't going to get implemented. All 3 of the others have records of growing government.

I can't support them.

As far as the question in the OP. I would only vote for Romney if he gave us some liberty minded people placements in the cabinet. I need Ron as Treasury Sec, I need Andrew Napolitano as AG, I need Peter Schiff as the next Fed Chairman, And Michael Sheurer as Sec, of Defense.

Give me those and you got my vote. You can have whatever else you want.

I think I could be persuaded with that lineup, but how to get it in BLOOD before the election? Any reneges and God only knows how I'd react.

Yeah that's the conundrum. How can we be sure we'd get it?

The Paul campaign has some kind of plan on this, they know they're not going to win. They're getting these delegates to cut some deals, and Romney's camp seems to be playing along. You can't ignore how off limits they both are to each other during this campaign.

Paul's people are smart. I know Doug Wead isn't going to let this get away.

 

[Montrovant]

So you will cast a vote to ensure the re-election of somebody with strong Marxist/socialist beliefs, who says we can spend the country into prosperity, and has already brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. You can point to no Republican, however liberal, who condones that. You would help hasten the destruction of the America that we know, but at least you would be principled.

At some point, Americans have to consider the consequences of what we do however well intentioned we are.

What about the consequences of continually voting 'lesser of two evils'? Doesn't that maintain the status quo, leaving us with only two legitimate possibilities for most major federal offices?

If we had more choices than just D or R, lesser of two evils wouldn't even be an argument....but as long as people continue to vote that way, we won't have more choices. Is that not a consequence Americans should consider?

I look at the lesser of two evils like whether you will allow the doctor to take off your leg or would rather die of the gangrene that necessitates its removal. Will you take the medication that might kill you or take your chances with the disease that almost certainly will?

We can SEE the consequences of the past 3+ years, and we can reasonably assume that the consequences will be far more severe with a Barack Obama who is not worried about re-election. As incompetent as President George W. Bush was on several different fronts, does anybody with any intellectual honesty think we would be in as bad a shape as we are if he or John McCain had been president the past 3+ years? (John McCain was absolutely at the bottom of my list of preferred candidates on the GOP side in 2008 too.) Or even if a Hillary Clinton had been elected President?

We gain nothing by re-electing a bad President even if we have to hold our nose to vote for a marginally better one. Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.

Even assuming you are correct that Obama is so much worse than those others would have been, voting for a third party candidate is NOT throwing the country under the bus, nor must it be 'just to make a statement'.

You are placing the blame of all the people who vote for Obama on the backs of those who vote for their preferred, third-party candidate. The problem SHOULD be that so many people will vote for Obama, but somehow you have changed it to people who are NOT voting for him. Just think about it for a second; you are saying by NOT voting for Obama, these people are electing him. What kind of fucked up system is that?

It also doesn't have to be just a statement, voting third party may be a person's way of attempting to effect change. As long as people continue voting in D's or R's, we aren't going to have much in the way of political choice. The more people who vote third party, the better chance that we might get more legitimate candidates from outside the two parties. I'm sure that whichever party wins the presidential election, members of the 'other side' will use the same argument in 2016; you need to vote for the lesser of two evils! It's an endless cycle unless enough people reject it.

 

[GuyPinestra]

It's about time someone recognized that we're needed.

The things we have in common aren't going to get implemented. All 3 of the others have records of growing government.

I can't support them.

As far as the question in the OP. I would only vote for Romney if he gave us some liberty minded people placements in the cabinet. I need Ron as Treasury Sec, I need Andrew Napolitano as AG, I need Peter Schiff as the next Fed Chairman, And Michael Sheurer as Sec, of Defense.

Give me those and you got my vote. You can have whatever else you want.

I think I could be persuaded with that lineup, but how to get it in BLOOD before the election? Any reneges and God only knows how I'd react.

Yeah that's the conundrum. How can we be sure we'd get it?

The Paul campaign has some kind of plan on this, they know they're not going to win. They're getting these delegates to cut some deals, and Romney's camp seems to be playing along. You can't ignore how off limits they both are to each other during this campaign.

Paul's people are smart. I know Doug Wead isn't going to let this get away.

If this thing goes brokered I think Ron will have enough delegates to pull it off. I'm just guessing by what I've seen and heard but RP supporters are at EVERY level of the state GOP, and will probably be about 60% or more of the national delegates.

 

[Paulie]

Ron Paul supporters are tired of getting kicked in the teeth every time they play the 'lesser of 2 evils' game. Maybe it's time the rest of the GOP woke up to the FACT that unless the nominee is Paul, we get 4 more for Obummer.

We want this big government sellout to END, and we're not willing to wait ANY LONGER.

So it's your way or you'll throw the country under the bus? As an American who loves my country very much, I have a really difficult time accepting that. And I don't think you're doing ANY favors for your candidate.

Maybe you haven't been paying much attention the last 25 years, but both parties have been steering this country to the left.

We're just not stupid enough to fall for it anymore. We don't see it as Obama vs. Romney or whoever, we see it as us vs. BOTH of them.

I don't trust the establishment anymore. I don't trust Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, etc. They have records of growing government. I won't vote for any more candidates that will grow government. It's big enough.

 

[konradv]

Ron Paul supporters are tired of getting kicked in the teeth every time they play the 'lesser of 2 evils' game. Maybe it's time the rest of the GOP woke up to the FACT that unless the nominee is Paul, we get 4 more for Obummer.

We want this big government sellout to END, and we're not willing to wait ANY LONGER.

The problem is thinking a particular person is going to change anything. It's not the people, it's the system. Particularly the system by which we fund campaigns. Want to save money? IMO, we need public financing of elections. Some will say that's just more of our money out of our pockets, but I believe we save money in the long run, if our representitives don't have a lot expensive promises to keep. The person doesn't mean much. 8 years max and they'll be gone, but if the system hasn't changed, neither will anything else.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Ron Paul supporters are tired of getting kicked in the teeth every time they play the 'lesser of 2 evils' game. Maybe it's time the rest of the GOP woke up to the FACT that unless the nominee is Paul, we get 4 more for Obummer.

We want this big government sellout to END, and we're not willing to wait ANY LONGER.

So it's your way or you'll throw the country under the bus? As an American who loves my country very much, I have a really difficult time accepting that. And I don't think you're doing ANY favors for your candidate.

Isn't that the EXACT same thing you're saying to us?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you will cast a vote to ensure the re-election of somebody with strong Marxist/socialist beliefs, who says we can spend the country into prosperity, and has already brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. You can point to no Republican, however liberal, who condones that. You would help hasten the destruction of the America that we know, but at least you would be principled.

At some point, Americans have to consider the consequences of what we do however well intentioned we are.

What about the consequences of continually voting 'lesser of two evils'? Doesn't that maintain the status quo, leaving us with only two legitimate possibilities for most major federal offices?

If we had more choices than just D or R, lesser of two evils wouldn't even be an argument....but as long as people continue to vote that way, we won't have more choices. Is that not a consequence Americans should consider?

I look at the lesser of two evils like whether you will allow the doctor to take off your leg or would rather die of the gangrene that necessitates its removal. Will you take the medication that might kill you or take your chances with the disease that almost certainly will?

We can SEE the consequences of the past 3+ years, and we can reasonably assume that the consequences will be far more severe with a Barack Obama who is not worried about re-election. As incompetent as President George W. Bush was on several different fronts, does anybody with any intellectual honesty think we would be in as bad a shape as we are if he or John McCain had been president the past 3+ years? (John McCain was absolutely at the bottom of my list of preferred candidates on the GOP side in 2008 too.) Or even if a Hillary Clinton had been elected President?

We gain nothing by re-electing a bad President even if we have to hold our nose to vote for a marginally better one. Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.

You really do talk down to people. The old "what if" scenario is pretty lame in this context. We have no idea what a Hilary or McCain would have done IF. It's a fallacy argument. To be intellectually honest about it.

We gain nothing by re-electing a "marginally better" one either. To that effect, I don't even see any marginal differences and worst of all none of the other three GOP candidates can be....wait for it.....wait for it...........trusted to do what they say they will do. They are habitual liars. No thanks. At least Obama is mainly honest about his intentions to destroy the country, he actually believes his fallacious ideas. That says more than being a flat out liar.

Bottom line, fox. I read another of your threads and I think you're a very intelligent person. That doesn't mean you can try to intellectually back Paul supporters into a corner by trying to appeal to something they absolutely do not want. The GOP threw us away and kicked us around at every turn. NOW they want our support. Yeah, we're the kooks. You guys are the liars. You will not have my support in the GE if it isn't Paul. End of story. I don't think you'll have many Paul supporters at all, in fact. Of course, I can not speak for others....

 

[Paulie]

I think I could be persuaded with that lineup, but how to get it in BLOOD before the election? Any reneges and God only knows how I'd react.

Yeah that's the conundrum. How can we be sure we'd get it?

The Paul campaign has some kind of plan on this, they know they're not going to win. They're getting these delegates to cut some deals, and Romney's camp seems to be playing along. You can't ignore how off limits they both are to each other during this campaign.

Paul's people are smart. I know Doug Wead isn't going to let this get away.

If this thing goes brokered I think Ron will have enough delegates to pull it off. I'm just guessing by what I've seen and heard but RP supporters are at EVERY level of the state GOP, and will probably be about 60% or more of the national delegates.

The problem is that most of the proportional states have a 50% threshold, and if Gingrich and Santorum drop, or any combination of 2 of them, the chances are that the other guy left besides Ron will get more than 50% of the vote in most states and he would take all the delegates.

If the establishment knows that our only chance would be a brokered convention, chances are they do what they can to keep it from happening. All they have to do is keep the field split for a while and then drop 2 of them and most of their delegates will go to the guy they leave in.

 

[Immanuel]

Ron Paul supporters are tired of getting kicked in the teeth every time they play the 'lesser of 2 evils' game. Maybe it's time the rest of the GOP woke up to the FACT that unless the nominee is Paul, we get 4 more for Obummer.

We want this big government sellout to END, and we're not willing to wait ANY LONGER.

So it's your way or you'll throw the country under the bus? As an American who loves my country very much, I have a really difficult time accepting that. And I don't think you're doing ANY favors for your candidate.

Maybe you haven't been paying much attention the last 25 years, but both parties have been steering this country to the left.

We're just not stupid enough to fall for it anymore. We don't see it as Obama vs. Romney or whoever, we see it as us vs. BOTH of them.

I don't trust the establishment anymore. I don't trust Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, etc. They have records of growing government. I won't vote for any more candidates that will grow government. It's big enough.

So, you are not planning on voting again? Is that our only option?

I know exactly how you feel.

Immie

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ron Paul supporters are tired of getting kicked in the teeth every time they play the 'lesser of 2 evils' game. Maybe it's time the rest of the GOP woke up to the FACT that unless the nominee is Paul, we get 4 more for Obummer.

We want this big government sellout to END, and we're not willing to wait ANY LONGER.

The problem is thinking a particular person is going to change anything. It's not the people, it's the system. Particularly the system by which we fund campaigns. Want to save money? IMO, we need public financing of elections. Some will say that's just more of our money out of our pockets, but I believe we save money in the long run, if our representitives don't have a lot expensive promises to keep. The person doesn't mean much. 8 years max and they'll be gone, but if the system hasn't changed, neither will anything else.

Hey, bud. Still chanting that campaign reform stuff, heh?

END THE WARS. That's better than we've had in years.

 

[uscitizen]

Ron Paul has been running for president since 1992.

Do we want a president that is so dense he cannot get the message in 20 years of failure?

The USA does not want Ron Paul as president.

 

[Paulie]

So it's your way or you'll throw the country under the bus? As an American who loves my country very much, I have a really difficult time accepting that. And I don't think you're doing ANY favors for your candidate.

Maybe you haven't been paying much attention the last 25 years, but both parties have been steering this country to the left.

We're just not stupid enough to fall for it anymore. We don't see it as Obama vs. Romney or whoever, we see it as us vs. BOTH of them.

I don't trust the establishment anymore. I don't trust Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, etc. They have records of growing government. I won't vote for any more candidates that will grow government. It's big enough.

So, you are not planning on voting again? Is that our only option?

I know exactly how you feel.

Immie

I vote all the time. I vote local, state, and federal. There's nothing wrong with sitting out a presidential election if you don't like anyone on the ballot.

I'm a registered republican because there are still a lot of good conservatives that run in other elections and I want to be able to vote for them in primaries.

 

[Montrovant]

Ron Paul supporters are tired of getting kicked in the teeth every time they play the 'lesser of 2 evils' game. Maybe it's time the rest of the GOP woke up to the FACT that unless the nominee is Paul, we get 4 more for Obummer.

We want this big government sellout to END, and we're not willing to wait ANY LONGER.

The problem is thinking a particular person is going to change anything. It's not the people, it's the system. Particularly the system by which we fund campaigns. Want to save money? IMO, we need public financing of elections. Some will say that's just more of our money out of our pockets, but I believe we save money in the long run, if our representitives don't have a lot expensive promises to keep. The person doesn't mean much. 8 years max and they'll be gone, but if the system hasn't changed, neither will anything else.

You've got a very valid point here. People seem to put too much import into the presidential election, as though any of the candidates is likely to make drastic changes in the way the government runs. However, I can see hoping that electing someone who you actually believe will TRY to change things is effective. Such a person might be able to effect SOME changes, and perhaps more importantly, might be able to shake up the status quo a bit which could lead to more changes down the road. It might cause the leaders of the two main parties to look at changing the way they work, or it might cause voters to question whether they are best served continuing to vote the same type of people into office.

In the case of Ron Paul, it would allow me to be more accepting of him as president, knowing he couldn't immediately implement all the changes he has talked about. He wouldn't be elected and the next day get rid of income tax, close all our foreign military bases, etc. So, while he would in large part be held in check by the rest of the government, he might actually be able to spark some real, gradual change.

 

[Paulie]

so, while he would in large part be held in check by the rest of the government, he might actually be able to spark some real, gradual change.

exactly.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ron Paul has been running for president since 1992.

Do we want a president that is so dense he cannot get the message in 20 years of failure?

The USA does not want Ron Paul as president.

If you're gonna be condescending and rude, the least you could do is be accurate. He ran for president on the lib ticket in 88. Thanks for being a dick and showing you're dumb though.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Ron Paul has been running for president since 1992.

Do we want a president that is so dense he cannot get the message in 20 years of failure?

The USA does not want Ron Paul as president.

Negged for inaccuracy...

 

[Crackerjack]

... that is really REALLY scary and reinforces the opinion of a lot of us that passionate Ron Paul supporters are at best naive, at worst really strange.

Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.

So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.



Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's been the story for a long time.

"If we insult them enough, they might get peer pressured into smoking the crack."

 

[Foxfyre]

... that is really REALLY scary and reinforces the opinion of a lot of us that passionate Ron Paul supporters are at best naive, at worst really strange.

Throwing the country under the bus just to make a statemenjt is neither wise nor patriotic.

So we're naïve, unwise and unpatriotic.



Yeah, keep insulting us until we realize how dumb we are and switch our vote to your candidate. Brilliant strategy!

Yep except that I don't have a candidate. And you can neg rep me until the cows come home and accuse me of all sorts of things but I won't change my mind that the welfare of country comes ahead of anybody's ideology, partisanship, or candidate.

 

[uscitizen]

Ron Paul has been running for president since 1992.

Do we want a president that is so dense he cannot get the message in 20 years of failure?

The USA does not want Ron Paul as president.

Negged for inaccuracy...

My mistake he has been running since 82 as you said.

That makes him even denser.

I voted for Ross btw.