Ron Paul in '12. 3rd times a charm?

[P F Tinmore]

The only thing keeping Ron Paul down is that he has not sold himself off to bigcorp like the most of the rest of them have. That is the only way to get positive face time in the corporate media.

 

[Nosmo King]

I gotta admit I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore had my state in his hip pocket and really did not need my vote. I thought that if Nader could win the required 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party could get the federal campaign funding.

I wonder if Paul could generate 5% with a Tea Party run?

 

[VaYank5150]

I gotta admit I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore had my state in his hip pocket and really did not need my vote. I thought that if Nader could win the required 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party could get the federal campaign funding.

I wonder if Paul could generate 5% with a Tea Party run?

No. The Tea Partiers won't support Paul. He is advocating for the elimination of MediCare.

 

[konradv]

The only thing keeping Ron Paul down is that he has not sold himself off to bigcorp like the most of the rest of them have. That is the only way to get positive face time in the corporate media.

Then anyone that likes him should be pushing for public financing of elections. That's the only way we're going to get our representitives to quit selling us out for campaign contributions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I gotta admit I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore had my state in his hip pocket and really did not need my vote. I thought that if Nader could win the required 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party could get the federal campaign funding.

I wonder if Paul could generate 5% with a Tea Party run?

I had always voted Republican but Bush cured me of that. I voted for McKinney in disregard of all the slime dumped on her by the corporate media.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I gotta admit I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore had my state in his hip pocket and really did not need my vote. I thought that if Nader could win the required 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party could get the federal campaign funding.

I wonder if Paul could generate 5% with a Tea Party run?

Nader was trying to make the environment his platform [if I recall]. That's a bit singular, and is not as cut and dry as the debt.

Paul won't get the 5% for the TP, b/c they seem to be refusing to be an actual party. Maybe he gets it for the Reform Party.

I sincerely hope so. More of the same ol' same ol' will just end in us getting the same ol'.

Seriously, if it's Romney or Huckabee, the GOP is run by the terminally insane.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul would make an excellent executive officer of the United States.

I'm not sure how much publicity he likes considering how much he was marginalized and attacked by the mainstream media and the establishment parties the last time around.

Yet, he was brilliant in the debates and I would suggest everybody to go onto YouTube and take a look. He made the moderators and the other candidates look like fools when they went on the offensive against him.

My concern about the election in general is the use of electronic voting machines. I think such a system is far to vulnerable to fraud than a de-centralized paper ballot counting system. If you look back into the Nevada Caucus and the New Hampshire primary there was a lot of suspicious activity going on.

The Republican party overtly tried to thwart Ron Paul from getting the nomination. They'd rather stick to the Neo-Con fascist platform

So, everyone is in agreement? Paul adding himself to the mix does nothing more than help to dilute an already weak field of potential 2012 POTUS candidates. I have NO idea how Hannity kept a straight face last night when he stated that "this has got to to be the strongest GOP field in his lifetime".....

Weak candidates vs weak prez the prez will win everytime because he has the advantage of the incumbent.

Don't hear me wrong, if Paul doesn't win the rep nominee (which he won't) I couldn't care less which of the corporate owned candidates from either status quo party wins.

 

[Nosmo King]

I gotta admit I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore had my state in his hip pocket and really did not need my vote. I thought that if Nader could win the required 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party could get the federal campaign funding.

I wonder if Paul could generate 5% with a Tea Party run?

No. The Tea Partiers won't support Paul. He is advocating for the elimination of MediCare.

"I don't want the government to mess around with my Medicare!"

 

[Two Thumbs]

I gotta admit I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore had my state in his hip pocket and really did not need my vote. I thought that if Nader could win the required 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party could get the federal campaign funding.

I wonder if Paul could generate 5% with a Tea Party run?

No. The Tea Partiers won't support Paul. He is advocating for the elimination of MediCare.

"I don't want the government to mess around with my Medicare!"

He also wants to abolish the Fed bank.

That's a TP wet dream

 

[Nosmo King]

I gotta admit I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore had my state in his hip pocket and really did not need my vote. I thought that if Nader could win the required 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party could get the federal campaign funding.

I wonder if Paul could generate 5% with a Tea Party run?

Nader was trying to make the environment his platform [if I recall]. That's a bit singular, and is not as cut and dry as the debt.

Paul won't get the 5% for the TP, b/c they seem to be refusing to be an actual party. Maybe he gets it for the Reform Party.

I sincerely hope so. More of the same ol' same ol' will just end in us getting the same ol'.

Seriously, if it's Romney or Huckabee, the GOP is run by the terminally insane.

Well you KNOW it's either Romney or Huckabee. That's the way the GOP operates. They always nominate as if it's an Oscar to an aging star that never won one. Look at McCain, Dole, Bush I, Nixon and on and on.

The Democrats meet someone and, if they like him, he's the nominee! Look at Carter and Dukais and Obama. They weren't factors in the previous election.

Republicans must LOVE their candidate. They must KNOW their candidate. They aren't going to pass off the nomination to a Johnny Comelately.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ron Paul would make an excellent executive officer of the United States.

I'm not sure how much publicity he likes considering how much he was marginalized and attacked by the mainstream media and the establishment parties the last time around.

Yet, he was brilliant in the debates and I would suggest everybody to go onto YouTube and take a look. He made the moderators and the other candidates look like fools when they went on the offensive against him.

My concern about the election in general is the use of electronic voting machines. I think such a system is far to vulnerable to fraud than a de-centralized paper ballot counting system. If you look back into the Nevada Caucus and the New Hampshire primary there was a lot of suspicious activity going on.

The Republican party overtly tried to thwart Ron Paul from getting the nomination. They'd rather stick to the Neo-Con fascist platform

So, everyone is in agreement? Paul adding himself to the mix does nothing more than help to dilute an already weak field of potential 2012 POTUS candidates. I have NO idea how Hannity kept a straight face last night when he stated that "this has got to to be the strongest GOP field in his lifetime".....

Weak candidates vs weak prez the prez will win everytime because he has the advantage of the incumbent.

Don't hear me wrong, if Paul doesn't win the rep nominee (which he won't) I couldn't care less which of the corporate owned candidates from either status quo party wins.

There was no substantive difference between McCain and Obama so I voted third party.

 

[VaYank5150]

No. The Tea Partiers won't support Paul. He is advocating for the elimination of MediCare.

"I don't want the government to mess around with my Medicare!"

He also wants to abolish the Fed bank.

That's a TP wet dream

IF there was a way he could 110% guarantee me that he would follow through with his desire to close all of our overseas bases and stop playing "world police", I would vote for him in a heart beat. However, since we do not elect a King or dictator, I know this would never happen.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No. The Tea Partiers won't support Paul. He is advocating for the elimination of MediCare.

"I don't want the government to mess around with my Medicare!"

He also wants to abolish the Fed bank.

That's a TP wet dream

Anyone talking about the economy without mentioning the Fed is not serious.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So, everyone is in agreement? Paul adding himself to the mix does nothing more than help to dilute an already weak field of potential 2012 POTUS candidates. I have NO idea how Hannity kept a straight face last night when he stated that "this has got to to be the strongest GOP field in his lifetime".....

Weak candidates vs weak prez the prez will win everytime because he has the advantage of the incumbent.

Don't hear me wrong, if Paul doesn't win the rep nominee (which he won't) I couldn't care less which of the corporate owned candidates from either status quo party wins.

There was no substantive difference between McCain and Obama so I voted third party.

I wrote in Ron Paul, I'll admit this is pretty idiotic but I was pretty lost as to what to do. Obviously wasn't going to vote for either corporate owned candidate, and I think Barr is just a republican angry at the party for not making him famous enough.

I'm still not sure if I'll vote or not in the presidential elections. Maybe write in "None of the above."

 

[Cal]

Ron Paul winning the Republican primary is about as likely as Dennis Kucinich ever winning the Democratic primary..

Both guys (of which I have tremendous respect for.. for being so un-like the rest, and being willing to stand their ground, no matter what the status quo says to do).. will never be a major party's choice for President.. and that's the reason - they aren't party shills.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Weak candidates vs weak prez the prez will win everytime because he has the advantage of the incumbent.

Don't hear me wrong, if Paul doesn't win the rep nominee (which he won't) I couldn't care less which of the corporate owned candidates from either status quo party wins.

There was no substantive difference between McCain and Obama so I voted third party.

I wrote in Ron Paul, I'll admit this is pretty idiotic but I was pretty lost as to what to do. Obviously wasn't going to vote for either corporate owned candidate, and I think Barr is just a republican angry at the party for not making him famous enough.

I'm still not sure if I'll vote or not in the presidential elections. Maybe write in "None of the above."

It is little known but Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Cynthia McKinney voted with each other more than with their own party. Paul and Kucinich were out so I voted for McKinney.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Ron Paul opposes the War on Drugs.

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“[...] the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.”

War on Drugs

Isn't that something liberals want? An end to the war on drugs?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ron Paul opposes the War on Drugs.

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“[...] the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.”

War on Drugs

Isn't that something liberals want? An end to the war on drugs?

It was what they wanted, then Obama talked about how great it was to keep marijuana illegal so now that's their stance as well.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I gotta admit I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore had my state in his hip pocket and really did not need my vote. I thought that if Nader could win the required 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party could get the federal campaign funding.

I wonder if Paul could generate 5% with a Tea Party run?

Nader was trying to make the environment his platform [if I recall]. That's a bit singular, and is not as cut and dry as the debt.

Paul won't get the 5% for the TP, b/c they seem to be refusing to be an actual party. Maybe he gets it for the Reform Party.

I sincerely hope so. More of the same ol' same ol' will just end in us getting the same ol'.

Seriously, if it's Romney or Huckabee, the GOP is run by the terminally insane.

Well you KNOW it's either Romney or Huckabee. That's the way the GOP operates. They always nominate as if it's an Oscar to an aging star that never won one. Look at McCain, Dole, Bush I, Nixon and on and on.

The Democrats meet someone and, if they like him, he's the nominee! Look at Carter and Dukais and Obama. They weren't factors in the previous election.

Republicans must LOVE their candidate. They must KNOW their candidate. They aren't going to pass off the nomination to a Johnny Comelately.

come now

Aside from Carter you have gone with the best looking man each time. Toss in charisma, you can count Smiling Jimmy.

fyi; You also admitted you vote feelings w/o knowledge while reps vote knowledge to get the feeling.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Paul has a good chance of MORE success than usual this election cycle. He might actually win some states. Looking at the other candidates I probably wouldn't vote for any of them. Realistically though I think it's going to be Romney or Pawlenty and in that case I think they'll lose the general election, because they have no ideological foundation.

I'll be voting in the Republican primaries this year, and I'm not voting for a "pro-war candidate". The Republicans need someone that can ACTUALLY hit Obama on the budget and deficit without Obama coming back with "well Boosh did... so why can't I?"

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will chew Obama up and spit him out on foreign policy if Obama tried that same crap on them. The solution to high oil prices, a dying dollar, and a climbing deficit is not raising the debt ceiling, spending more, raising taxes, cutting drilling permits, and starting more foreing interventionalist wars. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THIS!