i know a ton of people who supported ron paul in 08 and i dont know anyone at all who did this. if you endorsed the issues ron paul advocated there is no way you would have thrown your support behind romney. out of curiousity, what made you go from supporting ron paul to mitt romney - im genuinely curious b/c those two share less in common w/ each other than paul and obama.
i would love it too. imo, paul would give the republicans the best chance to win. the republicans who dont like pauls hippie ways will just stay home, paul probably win the independent vote and i think he would even cut into obamas support from the far left. in paul you have a candidate who stands to obamas left on civil liberties, war, corporatism and drugs. you would also get the most respectful debates - here are two people who i think would actually talk issues w/out mud-slinging or accusing others of being un-patriotic or socialists.
It wasn't a "Mitt Romney was good" by the Paulites I talked to, it was "Mitt Romney is less bad than McCain, because McCain will definitely drag us into more foreign wars" - which is I think, pretty reasonable. And like I said, this was only after it was clear McCain was going to win, but Romney was sort of putting up a last stand, and obviously Paul was basically out. As for your question, I think I've answered it before, but first I support Huntsman, but will probably vote for Romney as I doubt Huntsman will still be campaigning by the time Minnesota has its primary. I basically left libertarianism and Paul in general, initially because I met way, way too many Paul fans IRL who subscribed to some bat**** stuff. It's one thing to say the Federal Reserve is bad ( I'd currently argue it's somewhat crazy, but I understand the thinking). It's another thing to say the Federal Reserve is a Jewish plot to make America slaves of Israel. And that was just the tip of it - fluoridation is mind control, homeopathy is great, Bush blew up the WTC. I remember some guy on the internet writing some article after the New Hampshire primary where he talked about how Paul could still win - which involved Bush declaring martial law, Ron Paul being thrown in jail, and what basically amounted to civil war. I went to the 2008 Texas GOP convention as a delegate, and met a lot of Paul supporters. I left disgusted with them. The racist newsletters didn't help, especially since back then I got in arguments with other Paulites about them. Not about whether they were relevant, but what Paul should do about them. I argued that if Paul was actually serious, and wanted to win, he needed to crush these letters, get them out of the way and remove them as a threat - otherwise, if he ever became a truly serious candidate, the other candidates would immediately. Everyone else responded with basically "But Paul's not a racist, because he's a libertarian. So it'll be fine, and he should ignore them!" Except in much angrier words. tl;dr while at the time I thought he had good to great ideas, I became convinced that he was a terrible vehicle for that movement, and that I wasn't interested in playing with his crazy supporters. And now, I've moved from being a libertarian to a sort of moderate conservatism, I definitely don't like those ideas anymore.
You probably know this already, but this will never ever happen, under any circumstances. He is supported by a steady and firm 10% of GOP primary voters but over 50% regularly say they would not support him. That means he has a -40 favorability rating. Among candidates that actually make it to the debate stage that is probably an unprecedentedly bad number. I don't know why you Paulites don't lobby him to stop running in races he could never ever seriously compete in. It's not like he's changing the debate. It's not like he's changing anyone's mind. His numbers haven't budged over two presidential elections. He might as well be handing out pamphlets on a street corner. If he ran third party he could be competitive or at least affect the debate.
I like Paul and he can write a great book but he is not electable. He is dull in real life and has no balls to stand up against the greatest threat the world has ever faced - Islamic Terrorism. Lets face it, we're toast.
How would running as a third party help him? He won't get access to debates (his primary medium of communication). Consequently he would lose a lot of media attention as well. He'd be instantly written off. By being in the primary debates, he injects himself into the discussion. Third parties have zero chance of success with the way the rules are written. Election laws don't help them. They don't get access to debates and media attention is focused entirely on the two parties. He'd be an idiot to run independently. Unless you are Ross Perot and have the money to finance a proper campaign, it doesn't work. And even now I doubt he could do it since many states have implemented more restrictive laws on third parties and the committee on presidential debates won't allow third parties into the debates.
I thought if a third-party candidate polled as high as 15% in national polls they would be allowed into the debates. Wasn't that the case with Perot? And Anderson? Has it changed? And, if so, why would Perot kind of money even matter?
That wasn't the rule in the 90s. Perot wasn't even polling at 10% before the debates in 1992. (He was only around 7%) Ross Perot got in the debates because both Clinton and Bush agreed to it at the time. There's no way in hell two candidates ever agree to allow a third party again. Perot money mattered a ton. He essentially sued multiple states to get on the ballot during 1992. And got injunctions filed that temporarily added him to those states. In response many states were forced to clarify their rules and some made them more restrictive. Also, in 1992, 15% is an impossible number for a third party. Perot got his fame after the debates, not before. Ron Paul's support would be much smaller if he didn't have the primary debates as a platform.
ron paul has never said that and i dont know anyone personally who says that either. that is ridiculous. does ron paul say this? for the record though, i would prefer they take the fluoride out of our drinking water - my dentist does too. as well as lots and lots of other people. the city of austin actually recently decided to lower the level of flouride in water and lots of other cities are doing the same. does ron paul say this? im a ron paul supporter and im not into homeopathy. does ron paul say this? actually he does not. however, lots of his supporters, including myself, do not believe the official story regarding 9/11, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone who says "bush blew up the WTC" - at best he was a cheerleader/puppet. you let the nonsensical rantings of "some guy on the internet" dictate your beliefs? you should be more strong-minded than that. those racist newsletters have been discredited over and over and over again. not even rashmon tries to go there anymore. this has been discussed ad nauseam so i wont repeat myself, but you can read up here and get back w/ me. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=140569&highlight=paul+racist http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=185283&highlight=paul+racist http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=200522&highlight=paul+racist and i forget...which party had the former KKK guy in their ranks for like half a century again?
no its not. even by glynchs incredibly low standards that post was total garbage. we have had this discussion several times and he always runs away when i prove how wrong he is. see for yourself... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=200010&highlight=koch+paul http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=209645&highlight=koch+paul furthermore, it is republican/democratic policies of the last 30 years which have benefited the 1% over the rest of us...not libertarians or ron paul.
@jo: Paul has never said anything of the things, but a crapton of his supporters, both IRL and online that I've met have - okay, maybe they take out the Jew part but "Federal Reserve is a tool of THEM" is something I know a lot of them rant about. The guy on the Internet is but one example out of many. And yes, just like I hold the fact that Bachmann's supported by religious whackos against her, I'll hold the fact that Paul's supported by conspiracy theorists and complete racists like Stormfront against him. Remember when Paul's supporters went nuts against that New Hampshire counting official after the primary and ranted about her being a shill for the elite forces attempting to stop him? I do. Second, I'm not referring to the letters in and of themselves - though all you do from looking over your thread is discredit the concept that Paul actually wrote them, which is completely irrelevant since they were still under his name. I'm referring to the reaction of Paul supporters to them. Some Paul supporters, including myself at the time, felt that he wasn't doing enough about them, and that if he didn't actually crush the threat, then well, there was no point to his campaigning. The reaction of most Paulites, including as far as I can tell from your threads, was "Paul isn't a racist so he'll be fine" or to actually play the "Black best friend" card, which you actually did in that thread regarding Mr. Linder.
haha, you've gotta be kidding me. Paul is the one guy, over obama or anyone else, who would literally SOLVE Islamic Terrorism. Under him with his policies, we simply would not get attacked by them. You do realize why those psychos have an agenda against us? No it is not because we are free and righteous christians. If that were the case, then look back to Regan era where they went to the white house(the same crazy muhajadeen), sat down with regan, shake hands, and he called them to have character like the 'founding fathers'. They were very much our partners. There was no talk of attacking america or that we need to take over, their 'religion' was the same, but we didn't occupy land that they had a problem with and were helping them so that shows it is all about politics and not religion although they use a religious voice to whatever the hell they do be it in war or eating some damn food, so you have to differentiate that.
Ron Paul is 76 years old. Who is going to be his VP nominee? Paul has been around politics since I was in high school. He's had 30+ years to do, you know, politics. Yet here he sits with the same group of core believers that make up his national constituency: wacko libertarians, Austrian purists, and dopers. He has accomplished little in his legislative career and even when he does say something that makes sense, it is quickly overshadowed by ridiculousness. He spent a decade or more playing patty-cake with the fringe racist groups and consorting with people like Lew Rockwell who hate, of all people, Abraham Lincoln. I will grant that Paul is honest, if misguided. However, a Paul presidency (even a Paul nomination) and all the nutters it would bring into the limelight/government would be a disaster. Unfortunately, you can also make that argument for every one of the Repub candidates, so heck, maybe I would favor Paul as the nominee. That way, maybe we could drive a stake into this Libertarian crap for good.
The biggest issue facing the country is the economy and unemployment by a long shot and you narrow your choice down to two people who could not differ more on these issues?
Yea, they have entirely different approaches, but the hope is these are the guys who are not going to bow down to a system and be bought out by big companies like most politicians. WEll, that is what we thought about obama at least, but he did not deliver. Given that his first term and he couldn't get anything done with the way things were set up, some people are bitter but hopeful he has more leverage to execute his plan the 2nd time around. As for paul, he is for too much dergulation, but he will fight openly,honesty and even the compromise he gest will be more reasonable with others involved, but it will take out any of the lobbyist etc. In this, it won't be a quick fix, but it will change the face of the game. As much as I like and appreciate paul, he is not electable in the big picture Huntsman is the way to go
I prefer Ron Paul if not Obama will get my vote again. I will strongly suggest you to start contributing to your candidate of choice and start encouraging more people to vote. HMmmmm if I was running a corporation why hire more staff if I already can make profit with a skeletal crew. And I would strictly hire part time workers to avoid providing health insurance. But I guess I'll blame Obama for that right?
