Since the PTB want to ask Paul questions like, "will you support the republican nominee?" And other such questions assuming he won't win, let's just go on the assumption that the candidate who should win the nomination does and now needs a running mate. Now if he doesn't get the republican nomination should he pick a democrat like Gravel and run as a third party candidate? That way a republican and democrat who have become disenfranchised with their parties will be fighting the PTB together.
Not Gravel. Ron's either going to choose an economist, a military man (I have an idea of someone he might approach) or a statesman. He's not going to choose another fringe candidate. It's going to be someone with integrity.
You just admitted that Ron Paul is a fringe candidate. I figured that he would pick someone well known who could really mobilize his supporters, someone like Alex Jones or Michael Moore.
Because when he fails to get the nomination, he's going to quit pretending to be a Republican. Then, he will run as an Independent in an attempt to take votes away from the Republican nominee and hand the Presidency to Hillary and Bill Clinton with a pretty little bow on top.
Quit pretending to be a Republican. Let me guess, you call the last 30 years of public service pretending also?
What Will is saying, is that when Paul was one of only 4 Republican Congressmen to endorse Reagan, he was faking it. If Reagan thought Paul was Republican, who cares what Will Spencer thinks? I mean, this is the same Will Spencer who likes to quote military strategy on this forum, strategy from a Second Reich General who conducted the Armenian genocide.
Mark Sanford is a really popular choice among RP supporters. Many believe his small government Republican ideas would be very in line with Paul's goals for his presidency.
Read up about Sanford and pork spending in SC. He's a freaking legend for being tough. His wikipedia page is a good start. Sanford was also a member of the Liberty Caucus and frequently voted no with Dr. Paul when he was in Congress. A real rising star in the Republican party.
I agree with Will's assessment. He won't get the nomination, so he will run as a Libertarian or Independent, which means he will pull a Ross Perot and suck away conservative votes and we will once again end up with a Clinton in office. Bill Clinton never won a majority vote in either election and Ross Perot didn't attract many liberal votes. Ron Paul's message isn't getting out. He is still at the bottom of the polls, but then again, that's where John Kerry started out. I've watched all of the Ron Paul videos. I don't see where he wants to do anything other than dismantling the country.
He wants to dismantle the government to give you more control of your safety, your money, your life. He's giving you direct democracy. You will decide what is right and wrong for you.
Ron Paul is not going to run 3rd party. He's answered that question dozens of times. He may not be reflected in the polls (although there has been a steady increase), but his fund raising and grassroots support keeps growing and growing. Seriously, the campaign is starting to burn hotter and hotter. If you have any questions about his positions, I'm fairly familiar with them and would be happy to try to answer or provide clarification. What he doesn't want to do is dismantle the country. He wants to dismantle big government that is driving us to bankruptcy and a dollar collapse. Personal responsibility. Scary prospect for some people.
What I think, Ron Paul isn't going to make any difference or tremendous changes once he is in the office (Whether he will be in the office, is another issue). He is simply cashing the emotions generated by the 'truth' movement. The surprising aspect is, majority of RP supporters are the one who believes in truth movement and conspiracy theory. If you believe that Ron Paul is going to reform the America and hand you over the direct democracy and pull out troops from Iraq at once and do anything of that sort, I believe you are mistaken. If he doesn't get elected this time, it will the best for him, since the situation is kinda messed up. If he gets elected you will notice the big change in stance soon after (Theres always some excuses). The corporate lobby is too strong to let it's hold go. and it is true for any democracy.
Ron Paul is a politican, has been for 10 years. We need a NON politican in office who isn't blinded by the bullshit. Ron Paul will NOT be getting my vote.
Excatly, hes using the fuel to the fire of "I'm different", "I'll make a change", ya right, we've heard this all before.
Evidence? There are tens of thousands of RP donators, never mind supporters who haven't donated any money. And you're saying the majority of them are truthers? Let's see some numbers, not some blind speculation. Ron Paul: -Does not want direct democracy, but does want more power transferred to state and local government. -Does not want immediate withdrawal. Watch the Leno interview, he clarifies his stance on this matter quite clearly. He has been saying the same stuff for 30+ years, and voting consistently in Congress in line with his views, opinions, and promises. Evidence says the exact opposite will happen, and he'll stick to his guns. It's true because you make it true. Vote for the guys who aren't corporate shills, and the power ends. Every single time you cast a vote for a candidate who is largely influenced by special interests and lobbyists, you propagate the problem.
How much do you think a president can get done? No President can change the system without a Congress and Senate behind him. I'm all for throwing the bums out, but you would have to throw out an awful lot of bums to change the system.
Are you saying its less sensible than continually voting for all of those "bums", AND a "bum" for a president? Gotta start somewhere with change, why not at the top? If nothing else, his pretty little veto stamp would slow down a LOT of legislative slop.