Should RP run as an independent?

Should RP run as an independent?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 34.3%

  • No

    Votes: 23 65.7%
  • Total voters
    35
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unless you are filthy rich, running as an independent is a stupid thing for any serious candidate to do. According to Pat Buchanan's figures it would take $200 million to even compete. Plus, the two main parties have stacked the deck to the point that it is almost impossible to get a third party candidate onto a state ballot. If you do manage to get on the ballot, the two main parties then use an old Church of Scientology tactic of bombarding you with lawsuits, usually to contest the names on the petitions that were used to get you on the ballot. A candidate needs $200 million because aside from doing all the usual campaign stuff they also need an army of trial lawyers in every state to get past the legal guantlet the republicans and democrats will set up.
 
I think the mainstream status quo candidates would love to see RP run as an independent, so they have someone to blame things on when they lose.

Republican loss of the presidency is inevitable in 2008, given the failures of the Bush administration, and the party's dedication in clinging to his failed policies. I think the Republicans will lose more seats in the House and Senate as well. The only candidate with a remote possibility of winning a general election is McCain, and he is going to look like a tired old man when on stage next to Obama.
 
I am curious, so I must ask:
Before we started getting results from the primary races, Ron Paul's supporters were big on "look at how he's done in the straw polls! He'll do a lot better in the primaries than he's polling because pollsters aren't accurately counting Ron Paul supporters!" Then the primaries come, and Ron Paul does very very poorly*. How many more states does Paul need to get hammered in before you decide he doesn't have the grassroots support to win? He's polling at 5% nationally for the Republican primary, so he might have some luck as the Libertarian candidate, but even then it'd just be a bid to score the party federal funding and to try to keep playing his message on the national stage.

*About as poorly as the polls indicated; in NH, pretty much everything except the Clinton/Obama split was predicted accurately, and there is a possibility that Obama's dominance in the polls is what killed his turnout. McCain did better than expected, and they suspect he picked up a lot of Independents who would have otherwise voted for Obama.
 
Ron Paul has done about as well as Giuliani has at this point, and Giuliani is still considered a viable candidate.

Ron Paul's candidacy is as much (or more) about the message as it is actually winning. Even if Ron Paul loses (which I agree will happen), his message of limited government, low taxes, trade with all, limited foreign entaglements, and protection of civil liberties is one that needs to be heard, and that most Republicans seem to have forgotten.
 
be better for him to run for congress or run for Governor of Texas rather than independent. Texas could use a good governor right now instead the sellout they have.
 
Lesser of two evils?

One oft-repeated sentiment is that third party candidate will steal republican votes and indirectly elect the liberal democrat. Lesser of two evils.

Well, a critical supreme court case (Heller) is about to be decided, involving the second amendment. And what do we observe? The republican "lesser of two evils" administration is striving mightily to convince us that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the gun-grabbing democrats and themselves. Save for purely semantic doubltalk...:mad::barf:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/01/government_file.php
 
rhgunguy,
So I am left to assume that you are a Democrat by this statement.
Click to expand...
The only way you can assume that is to ignore my next statement. Good job on taking things out of context.

Both of my statements:
Also, there are many Paul supporters who would never vote Republican, except for Paul. Then there are some of us who have voted Republican in the past, but have given up on voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Click to expand...
 
with any other candidate you get more of the same, the same Nanny State, the same un constitutional laws and regulations, the same advances toward global government, the same attacks against individual liberties, the same arrogance, the same hypocrisy, the same social programs, the same back-breaking taxes, the same jack-booted federal police tactics, the same IRS, the same
lobbyists, and the same corrupt Washington politics.
Click to expand...

Actually, when it comes to personal ethics and reducing the size of government Ron Paul's record is pretty bad. Paul submitted 60 pages of pork barrel earmark requests last year, all the while denouncing earmarks. That's unethical as hell if you ask me. John McCain didn't submit a single such request.

Ron Paul talks a good line, but that's about it. He's very much a "do as I say, not as I do" type.

We certainly do not need more of his low-minded type in Washington.

With any luck he'll retire from politics.
 
Yes he should run. I have no doubt he'll feel much more comfortable with that fringe, and then we can finally return him to the obscurity he deserves.
 
I think RP is great, but I hope he doesn't run if he doesn't get the Republican nod.

He said that he wouldn't, I'd like him to keep his word.
 
If RP can't get the Republican nomination what makes you think he has a snowballs chance in Hell of winning on a third party ticket? Not gonna happen and anybody that votes for him on a third party ticket is giving a vote to the dems. So which had you rather do, stand up for your misguided principals or vote for a less than desirable Republican to keep a dem out of the White House? The choice is yours.
 
So which had you rather do, stand up for your misguided principals or vote for a less than desirable Republican to keep a dem out of the White House? The choice is yours.
Click to expand...

Whether you consider them misguided or not, my principles are my own, and I cast my vote however I please, thank you very much.

If your guy loses because of my vote for the independent guy, then it's not my fault your guy lost. It's completely your guy's fault, for failing to convince me to vote for him.

Also, you assume that everyone who votes third party would have voted for your guy if the spoiler candidate wasn't on the ballot. That's a big assumption. Truth be told, when I look at how the last "less than desirable Republican" has racked up the national charge card bill and mangled the Constitution since he got elected, I'm not convinced that a Democrat could have done any worse.

But hey, as long as they don't touch your guns, right?
 
"low-minded", "Mad Doctor".. chl, thunderhawk: Here is a reality check: his call, and Dr. Ron Paul personally, are backed by very bright people, Nobel Prize winner in economics among them. Would you also call Milton Friedman low-minded? You may, as you'd be in your rights and protected by the First. Yet it wouldn't change the fact that he is what he is and you are what you are.
 
I'm not convinced that a Democrat could have done any worse.
Click to expand...

Thats the problem. By the time you are convinved (and believe me, if you and others keep to this strategy you WILL be convinced) til will be far too late to do anything about it.

And guns will be the least of anyone's worries.
 
You may, as you'd be in your rights and protected by the First. Yet it wouldn't change the fact that he is what he is and you are what you are
Click to expand...

:D Another foaming-at-the mouth Ron Paul cultist completely unable to stand an objective, adult discussion of Paul's record.

The usual hissy snit when their man crush on Ron Paul is challenged :D
 
you must be confused and mistaking me for someone. Never been to a cult, don't care for imposing my opinion on anybody, and, while we are at it, never been to a RP rally.

If you read my message you'd see that I only commented on your name calling traits - traits that you continue to exhibit, and that probably get you in a lot of trouble in real life.

Just in case you didn't realize it - "you are who you are" is an accurate statement, not an insult. You must've taken it as an insult - but hey, it might be, you know yourself better.
 
The "Paulite" and "Paulestinian" talk will stop, as will all other discussion about any of the candidates that involves terms like "cult", "man crush", and "hissy fit", rather than policies and election issues.

Understood?

End of thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top