Ron Paul and Ross Perot

G

G-Cym

Moderator
Do you think there might be a parallel between Ron Paul and Ross Perot? Granted they don't have the same political views, but Ron Paul seems to have quite an underground following. I wonder if he will continue to run as an independent once he fails to get the Republican nomination. And if he does run as an independent, how much of the percentage do you think he will gather? Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote in 92. It stands to reason that if Perot had not run, that 20% would have gone elsewhere. Where? Who knows. It may have made Clinton's win more defined, or it could have tipped us in favor of Bush Sr.

I wonder if the same might occur with Ron Paul.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think another President Clinton is the worst possible outcome. Hands down, no questions asked. Rudy and McCain may not be great, but Clinton is terrible. I for one hope that when the time comes to decide, we don't split our conservative vote and let Clinton win by default.
 
There is really no comparison. But since we're probably dealing with a 90% soundbyte audience, the thread title alone will be enough to convince most people.

I said it in a different thread, but Rudy scares me 10x more than Hillary ever could.
 
Last edited:
The only parallel: they're both from Texas.

Perot never had the "underground following" (referred to as "grassroots support" when talking about any candidate in history other than Paul) that Ron Paul has - he just had billions of dollars and the willingness to spend it on 30 minute TV commercials.

They don't have the same political views, for the most part.

Perot ran as a third party candidate. Ron Paul is not doing that, and has stated that he will not do that.
 
Upon reflection, the only damage/help that RP can give to the next election centers on if he speaks at the convention. And if he speaks, what will the crux of his topic actually highlight. Will he help any centrist movement, or will he look like a loose cannon flying in from the wings.

I don't see a problem with a good honest debate on planks. We should welcome a clean discussion of conservation (strict constructionist) ideals and a very real examination of centrist self-aligning. No one is going to get everything, and these looney, self-righteous "God is my co-pilot" invectives are beginning to bore me.

I have made a nice tin-foil hat so I can get through the entire proceding.

A debate should be like we conduct them here. There is no problem with a polar stance. Just say, I politely disagree.
 
Perot never had the "underground following" (referred to as "grassroots support" when talking about any candidate in history other than Paul) that Ron Paul has - he just had billions of dollars and the willingness to spend it on 30 minute TV commercials.
Click to expand...

And yet Perot got farther in terms of votes than Paul ever will.

You're right. Their only similarity is that they are from Texas. Well, sort of. Paul was born in PA and move to texas later in life.
 
The more I hear from the other candidates the less I can stomach the idea of voting for them - I can't bring myself to vote for Rudy G. or Mitt R. and even Thompson leaves me luke warm, like a limp handshake. I would rather see Hillary than Rudy or Mitt as at least then the enemy of my freedom is clearly defined, and lord knows I would never vote for her.

Frankly, both parties and their major players are all beholden to the special interests - and both are complicit in building an ever bigger and more powerful federal government.

What is really needed is a new party the really does champion individual liberty and freedom. Yes, their are third parties out there, but they are so marginalized from the mainstream. I feel like we have the choice between Pepsi and Coke. Where is a good cup of honest plain black coffee when you need it, bitter and real, not sweetened with a ton of sugar or artificial sweetener. I'll vote for Paul in the primary and maybe as a write-in candidate in the general election.
 
A man who votes for Ron Paul in the primary is a harmless fool. A man who votes for Ron Paul in the general election is a dangerous fool.
 
If you are worried about divided votes electing Hillary, then there are 2 options. We join you in voting for the regular "lesser" of 2 evils, or you join us in voting for someone who at least consults the constitution when deciding the job of government.
I am done with option #1.
Please join us in the pursuit of liberty.
 
A man who votes for Ron Paul in the primary is a harmless fool. A man who votes for Ron Paul in the general election is a dangerous fool.
Click to expand...

How about if the man lives in New York or California or Illinois, where his electoral votes will go to the Dem no matter what he does?
 
With a real candidate as nominee, the Republicans at least have a shot, in that Hillary probably can't stand close scrutiny. However, regardless of who the DemocRAT candidate is, Ron won't get the Republican nomination.
 
As much as I find RP a problem that sooner or later will be dealt with, he has a perfect right to toss his hat in the ring. Sometimes candidates like Mr. Paul alert the big tent about an issue that should be included as a plank. More power in that area.

However, Mr. Paul should also look at the history of Ross Perot's run. Mr. Perot had lots more money and certainly more "face time" during his entire bid.

Although, time changes perceptions. There are issues now that I'm warming up to as an older man that I would have simply discarded in my youth. Perhaps Mr. Paul has an idea.
 
Exactly, xd9fan.

I would add, they vote that way because in election after election conservatives fall for

(a) the boogie-man argument;
(b) the who-else-ya-gonna-vote-for argument;
(c) the this-is-the-most-important-election-in-history-and-you-must-vote-R argument (a perennial NRA favorite);
(d) the lesser-of-two-evils argument; or
(e) the any-vote-for-[fill in name of principled candidate]-is-a-vote-for-Satan argument.

There may well be other variations, but one constant is this: we can't bring ourselves to vote according to our principles. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why we get the current Republican leadership.
 
Why do supporters of neo-conservative candidates bring up threads about Ron Paul running as a third party candidate, when he has said multiple times that he has no intention of doing that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top