So What BS Is Going To "Suppress" Ron Paul in NH today?

fife

quick questions. in the 80s, there was a person named Ross perot who decided to run for president as a 3rd party. yes he did have a lot of money but my question to Ron Paul supporters is why does he not run as an 3rd party.

Ron is not a part of the rep. party anymore. they have shifted away from him.

fife

cincybearcat wrote:

Well, if Jon Hunstman finishes second to Mitt it's not because of any anit-Paul campaign, it's because some republicans have recently removed their heads from their asses.

correct! Jon huntsman would be my choice for president

ledvedderman

fife wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Well, if Jon Hunstman finishes second to Mitt it's not because of any anit-Paul campaign, it's because some republicans have recently removed their heads from their asses.

correct! Jon huntsman would be my choice for president

The President is going to get my vote, but I would be absolutely thrilled if Huntsman made some waves. I really hope that he keeps a name for himself and runs in 2016. He would be a great choice.

he still stands

fife wrote:

quick questions. in the 80s, there was a person named Ross perot who decided to run for president as a 3rd party. yes he did have a lot of money but my question to Ron Paul supporters is why does he not run as an 3rd party.

Ron is not a part of the rep. party anymore. they have shifted away from him.

it was 1992, not the 80s. Yeah, Perot had billions of dollars and resources aplenty.

Paul could have gotten the Libertarian nomination but decided to go for a Republican nomination which is really the only way to get elected president, unfortunately. However, this time around the Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson) will be on the ballot in all 50 states, so maybe he should have gone the Libertarian route.

I was talking to my Dad about Ron Paul and was explaining the economic policy and the benefits of fiscal conservatism and he basically made it sound like I was being an anarchist. "Don't people have to uphold contracts? Won't corporations just become even bigger and more corrupt?" The media has gotten to his head apparently, as those sound like talking points he heard somewhere.

Jeanwah

fife wrote:

quick questions. in the 80s, there was a person named Ross perot who decided to run for president as a 3rd party. yes he did have a lot of money but my question to Ron Paul supporters is why does he not run as an 3rd party.

Ron is not a part of the rep. party anymore. they have shifted away from him.

He did that 4 years ago.

VINNY GOOMBA

fife wrote:

quick questions. in the 80s, there was a person named Ross perot who decided to run for president as a 3rd party. yes he did have a lot of money but my question to Ron Paul supporters is why does he not run as an 3rd party.

Ron is not a part of the rep. party anymore. they have shifted away from him.

Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988.

mikepegg44

he still stands wrote:

fife wrote:

quick questions. in the 80s, there was a person named Ross perot who decided to run for president as a 3rd party. yes he did have a lot of money but my question to Ron Paul supporters is why does he not run as an 3rd party.

Ron is not a part of the rep. party anymore. they have shifted away from him.

it was 1992, not the 80s. Yeah, Perot had billions of dollars and resources aplenty.

Paul could have gotten the Libertarian nomination but decided to go for a Republican nomination which is really the only way to get elected president, unfortunately. However, this time around the Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson) will be on the ballot in all 50 states, so maybe he should have gone the Libertarian route.

I was talking to my Dad about Ron Paul and was explaining the economic policy and the benefits of fiscal conservatism and he basically made it sound like I was being an anarchist. "Don't people have to uphold contracts? Won't corporations just become even bigger and more corrupt?" The media has gotten to his head apparently, as those sound like talking points he heard somewhere.

apparently free market means Bartertown to some people.
I don't blame people anymore for being skeptical of the system...they are just trying to find the monster and kill it...I just wish that the corporations who are responsible for the damaging of the free market reputation weren't also heavily involved in making sure that a free market never occurs...

fife

he still stands wrote:

fife wrote:

quick questions. in the 80s, there was a person named Ross perot who decided to run for president as a 3rd party. yes he did have a lot of money but my question to Ron Paul supporters is why does he not run as an 3rd party.

Ron is not a part of the rep. party anymore. they have shifted away from him.

it was 1992, not the 80s. Yeah, Perot had billions of dollars and resources aplenty.

Paul could have gotten the Libertarian nomination but decided to go for a Republican nomination which is really the only way to get elected president, unfortunately. However, this time around the Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson) will be on the ballot in all 50 states, so maybe he should have gone the Libertarian route.

I was talking to my Dad about Ron Paul and was explaining the economic policy and the benefits of fiscal conservatism and he basically made it sound like I was being an anarchist. "Don't people have to uphold contracts? Won't corporations just become even bigger and more corrupt?" The media has gotten to his head apparently, as those sound like talking points he heard somewhere.

sorry your right, it was 92. my mistake. I know i might get crap for this but if i am Ron Paul i must know that i would not get the nomination for president from the R. if i really want to fix the government (which btw, i don't think can happen) than i would leave all options open. everytime i hear the media ask him if he would consider running as an Independent he always say no which for me doesn't make sense.

as for the things that people believe about Ron Paul i agree sometimes people don't know but that can be said about many politicians

fife

Jeanwah wrote:

fife wrote:

quick questions. in the 80s, there was a person named Ross perot who decided to run for president as a 3rd party. yes he did have a lot of money but my question to Ron Paul supporters is why does he not run as an 3rd party.

Ron is not a part of the rep. party anymore. they have shifted away from him.

He did that 4 years ago.

really cause i don't remember that. i could be wrong.

Jeanwah

fife wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

fife wrote:

quick questions. in the 80s, there was a person named Ross perot who decided to run for president as a 3rd party. yes he did have a lot of money but my question to Ron Paul supporters is why does he not run as an 3rd party.

Ron is not a part of the rep. party anymore. they have shifted away from him.

He did that 4 years ago.

really cause i don't remember that. i could be wrong.

He and Kucinich were the media's black sheep which is why I think he ran on the Rep. ticket. The media pretty much picks the winner regardless how much individual research some people do, because too many people rely on the media to do their homework for them about candidates because they're too lazy. I think Paul was smart running on the Rep. ticket because he knows that the media will not favor a 3rd party candidate, no way. It gives him a slightly better chance.

DriftingByTheStorm

unsung wrote:

They stopped a BS interview yesterday, it was awesome.

She was telling him about an Obama voter that wanted to shake his hand at an event and then vote for him but she wasn't able to get to him (due to the crushing media crowd) and now she won't vote for him. Dr Paul says to her that it's her fault not his, then Jesse Benton ended the interview due to the "garbage question".

I loved seeing them stand up to it.

Saying "Fuck You" and still being tactful about it.


Warms my heart.
Bless this whole campaign.
I think being forced to see exchanges *like* this one in the media is the best part of Ron Paul's run. In truth, he would probably make a lousy president (i mean, his policies are suicidal to the establishment), but speaking truth to power constantly through the election process jars a lot of cognitive dissonance out of the heads of the not-so-well informed. At least, I'm hoping it does.

I know my SUPER-liberal friend who thought Ron Paul was some sort of Racist Nut Bag Looney Tune Fringe Scum Wacko in 2008 is now telling me he has been "reading and watching a lot about 'your guy' and i think you may be right about him". He then proceeded to wax ecstatic about how right-on most of Ron Paul's messages are. I was like, "wow, is this happeneing?"

DriftingByTheStorm

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

unsung wrote:

They stopped a BS interview yesterday, it was awesome.

Saying "Fuck You" and still being tactful about it.

Wow.
Way to not maintain a bias as a "journalist". Way to show your true colors.
Dana Bash confirms she is just trying to keep Ron down.

"... because still nobody thinks, even if he does well here in New Hampshire, that he will ultimately be the nominee."

Hmm.

Reminds me of this piece of brilliant establishment cronyism: Stephanopolous tells Ron Paul, "thats not gonna happen". [shit eating grin]

:x

UpSideDown

Didn't Santorum win Iowa?

Err......MSNBC making a big deal about how Romney has won two in a row now and essentially has the nomination locked up..........I'm confused

polaris_x

UpSideDown wrote:

Didn't Santorum win Iowa?

Err......MSNBC making a big deal about how Romney has won two in a row now and essentially has the nomination locked up..........I'm confused

romney won by 8 votes ... but the results are being disputed ...