Will Paul voters fall in line?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So, in stead, you will support Obama...

No. Try to follow along.

A write in vote for Paul is essentially a vote for Obama. You may twist it anyway you like but that will be the end result.

Then maybe the Republicans shouldn't have nominated an unelectable candidate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Principle are great...they really are. Voting for people that don't have a chance at this juncture in our history is suicide.

Why not keep fighting to change the two-party system?

That's exactly what we're up to. And it won't happen by falling in line behind shills like Romney.

So you'll vote for Paul, get Obama and then what? Were right back where we started 4 years ago. Only this time the reins of reelection won't be on Obama.

Your logic is severely flawed.

So you'll vote for Romney, hypothetically get Romney, and then what? We're in the same place we'd be with Obama. Pointless.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Exceedingly unlikely. Even if he tried. The movement isn't about him.

I expect that Ron Paul will appear on no ballots this fall and that we'll see somewhere between 1 and 1.5 percent of the vote going to someone other than Romney or Obama, in keeping with the past two cycles. So either 1) the movement stays home (in which case it would seem it is about Ron Paul), 2) there isn't much of a "movement" to speak of, or 3) Paul voters will be absorbed into the two parties, preferentially--one would assume--the Republican party.

If the movement stays home it doesn't necessarily mean that it's all about Ron Paul. It simply means that there was no logical candidate to carry the mantle of the movement into November.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

THIS^^^ The direct link to the people.

This is why the real agenda of the Paul movement is so much more important. Gaining control of the party infrastructure is vital.

You need to moderate your goals. Taking control of the GOP will never happen. Gaining major influence however is completely possible and the smart approach. Paul had a chance to really push his platform when the tea party rose but he chose to remain on the sideline. Which really makes me wonder what his real motives are.

What do you mean he chose to remain on the sideline?

 

[The T]

It's the opposite actually. Supporting Romney would betray everything we've worked for.

So, in stead, you will support obama? Perhaps some will, others will stay home, but the vast majority will support Romney.
Go ahead. Be steadfast and stick to your principles. It will get you nothing and may just land you in a place you'd rather not be.
Ron Paul throwing his support behind the GOP nominee and asking his supporters to do the same, is the only way he will have any influence in a Romney administration.

Ron Paul is going to have NO influence in a hypothetical Romney administration regardless of what he does.

Nor will the Congress IF it remains as is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Some here seem to think the bulk of Ron Paul supporters will fall for some kind of lesser-of-two-weevils nonsense and begrudgingly support Romney. I think you're wrong:
Eric Wen: Can The Romney Campaign Co-opt The Ron Paul Movement? Fat Chance | The New Republic

I'm a Paul supporter, I nominated him here in Illinois - but I'm not going to waste my vote on Mickey Mouse if it comes down to Romney or Obama.

I want that tyrannical pseudo-socialist, pseudo-fascist Obamafuck out of office...

Romney is a twisted ****, but he's way less twisted than Obama. Obama is doing everything in his power to create an authoritarian fascist USA. I don't think Romney has the balls to pull big government bullshit - Romney would be nothing more than a placeholder, then finally in 4 years we may get another libertarian or Tea Party candidate to back as libertarians...

I suppose my point is that I'm not going to waste my vote. I'm voting AGAINST Obama....

Any smart individual would not waste their vote to get that tyrannical **** out of office.

Obama is the opposite of everything we Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters stand for.

So is Mitt Romney.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The larger question is the survival of this Republic and getting the current wrecking crew out of power.

Yeah. Bring back Bush! He worked out so well last time.


(******* idiots).

Good thing Obama continued all of his policies.

 

[The T]

The larger question is the survival of this Republic and getting the current wrecking crew out of power.

Yeah. Bring back Bush! He worked out so well last time.


(******* idiots).

Good thing Obama continued all of his policies.

Concur...and Bushs' policies weren't so sound either. Failed to find Veto Pen on domestic spending.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hard core Pauliites won't support anyone but Paul. At least until someone else comes along that supports drug use.

If that were true we'd all go vote for Gary Johnson.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul can't "deliver his flock" to Romney. He could play politics and endorse Romney today and it wouldn't make a statistically significant difference in November.

Well, yeah. We're talking about Ron Paul here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah. Bring back Bush! He worked out so well last time.


(******* idiots).

Good thing Obama continued all of his policies.

Concur...and Bushs' policies weren't so sound either. Failed to find Veto Pen on domestic spending.

Well I was being sarcastic. Bush's policies were horrible, I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to mock Republicans for supporting Bush when Obama has continued all of his policies, and expanded many of them.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The larger question is the survival of this Republic and getting the current wrecking crew out of power.

Yeah. Bring back Bush! He worked out so well last time.


(******* idiots).

Good thing Obama continued all of his policies.

I suppose if Romney can run a corporation and make money doing it - he can run a Nation...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Good thing Obama continued all of his policies.

Concur...and Bushs' policies weren't so sound either. Failed to find Veto Pen on domestic spending.

Well I was being sarcastic. Bush's policies were horrible, I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to mock Republicans for supporting Bush when Obama has continued all of his policies, and expanded many of them.

Like the Patriot Act??

 

[The T]

Yeah. Bring back Bush! He worked out so well last time.


(******* idiots).

Good thing Obama continued all of his policies.

I suppose if Romney can run a corporation and make money doing it - he can run a Nation...

Sure he can...He's run a State as well...he's way more qualifed than Obama ever hopes to be.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah. Bring back Bush! He worked out so well last time.


(******* idiots).

Good thing Obama continued all of his policies.

I suppose if Romney can run a corporation and make money doing it - he can run a Nation...

Why would you think that? Corporations and governments are not the same thing. Mitt should stay in the private sector where he can do some real good for the country, instead of entering politics where his record is abysmal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Concur...and Bushs' policies weren't so sound either. Failed to find Veto Pen on domestic spending.

Well I was being sarcastic. Bush's policies were horrible, I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to mock Republicans for supporting Bush when Obama has continued all of his policies, and expanded many of them.

Like the Patriot Act??

That's one example.

 

[The T]

Good thing Obama continued all of his policies.

I suppose if Romney can run a corporation and make money doing it - he can run a Nation...

Why would you think that? Corporations and governments are not the same thing. Mitt should stay in the private sector where he can do some real good for the country, instead of entering politics where his record is abysmal.

What? As opposed to...?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I suppose if Romney can run a corporation and make money doing it - he can run a Nation...

Why would you think that? Corporations and governments are not the same thing. Mitt should stay in the private sector where he can do some real good for the country, instead of entering politics where his record is abysmal.

What? As opposed to...?

I'm not sure what you're asking. What opposed to what? Romney's record opposed to Obama's?

 

[The T]

Why would you think that? Corporations and governments are not the same thing. Mitt should stay in the private sector where he can do some real good for the country, instead of entering politics where his record is abysmal.

What? As opposed to...?

I'm not sure what you're asking. What opposed to what? Romney's record opposed to Obama's?

WHY should Romeny stay in the private sector and NOT run for office when the government has regulated private business into submission?

Is he NOT a citizen from that sector that can best address the damage Government has done?

Your logic is rather convoluted...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What? As opposed to...?

I'm not sure what you're asking. What opposed to what? Romney's record opposed to Obama's?

WHY should Romeny stay in the private sector and NOT run for office when the government has regulated private business into submission?

Is he NOT a citizen from that sector that can best address the damage Government has done?

Your logic is rather convoluted...

Using that logic nobody should stay in the private sector. Regardless, his record in Mass. indicates that no, he can't best address the damage that government has done, because he doesn't fundamentally believe in limited government. He should stay in the private sector because that's what he's good at, whereas governing is not something he's good at.