I think your only shot is Romney for Pres and Rand for VP ... first Rand would have to be thoroughly vetted and somehow untainted by his dad.

Edit: Just to be clear, by "your" I mean libertarians and Guapo, and not Republicans. Republicans have a decent chance with Romney and several other potential VPs.

Guapo wrote:Hey, if you'd rather have Romney, that's your prerogative. But don't resort to insults and Danivon tactics (ignoring the question over a semantic issue). I don't read everything or watch everything, but I'm under the impression that Republicans are looking for an alternative--presumptively a conservative. I was simply making a mathematical and ideological point.

The mathematics don't hold up. Paul doesn't represent 20% of the Republican Party. If that is so, where is his 20% national polling in the GOP? He did well in Iowa, but that was third. In NH, you have mostly libertarian Republicans voting for him, along with bored Democrats and Independents (like they were going to vote for Obama over whoever?).

There is no way Ron Paul would even get 40% in an actual election. I know you don't believe that. I know I can't change your mind.

Was there not even one moment during last night's debate when Paul made you wince? I think he would be utterly discredited in a general election. Again, I agree with many of his positions. I could even be a Ron Paul supporter but for his foreign policy extremism (there is no Dennis Kucinich wing of the GOP) and his refusal to take full responsibility for those newsletters. If we had someone in charge of only domestic policy, I could easily vote for him. He's right when he says the Fed should be audited. He's right to say we have a right to demand accountability from them. He's wrong when he says going back to a gold standard would improve the economy.

Of the current crop of candidates, nobody can beat Romney, unless they align behind Paul. If his foreign policy scares you too much, so be it. I find it hilarious, but oh well.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Paul believes America can walk off the world stage and that there will be no negative impact on us. I think that is as wrong as it could be.

Paul says we are prepping for a war with Iran. I would argue that Obama won't go to war with Iran even if Iran developed technology allowing a Star Trek-like transportation of troops "beaming" from Iran to the US and back, attacking Americans, then beaming back. Obama won't do anything more than beg for our drone. He won't go to war unless someone launches nuclear weapons on us. We've had so many casus belli against Iran, but we steadfastly refuse to do anything.

Rand doesn't have the baggage. Rand is more personable. Rand frames things more positively. Rand is 1000% more electable than Ron is.

I don't think Rand will be the VP nominee, but Ron running as a third party candidate would kill Rand's future. That's the second reason why Ron is staying in the party. The first is to influence the convention.

You can vote for Gary Johnson if you want. He's the only current candidate with less of a chance of winning a general election than Ron Paul.

The first is to influence the convention.

I keep hearing this. I think this is just fearful GOPers who recognize hwo critical getting Paul's supporters on board will be, and trying to figure out a reason, any reason, that Paul would endorse Romney and try to bring his supporters on board. What makes anyone think that Ron Paul will endorse Romney (which would be required for Paul to "get something"?) And what could the GOP offer Ron Paul? A speaking slot? He wouldn't do it unless he could write the speech, and they would never let him write it. In fact, remember in 2008, when he didn't get a speaking slot, he held his own rally right next door to the convention. How embarrassing would it be for the GOP if he did this again? Platform? The platform doesn't mean jack. Rand? Since when have you seen Paul compromise for the sake of political expediency? The GOP establishment is going to work to stop Rand from touching the presidency no matter what Ron does anyway. Ron "playing ball" won't change that.

The most important point, though, is that there is no way Ron Paul is going to END HIS CAREER by endorsing someone who stands against every principle he has stood for over the last 30 years. If he did, his supporters would just shake their heads in disgust, not vote for Romney. What a horrible footnote and sad footnote to his career that would be. You're dreaming if you think Paul is going to endorse Romney. Party is secondary to principle for him. He is all about the liberty movement, and Romney/Obama are the enemies of that movement.

And if I were Ron Paul, I would RELISH the opportunity to stick my finger in the eye of the GOP establishment that has screwed him over, year after year. From funding primary challengers, to denying him committee chairmanships which he has earned based on seniority (he should be chair of the banking and financial services FULL committee.) Not that this is likely his primary motivation mind you. It's just a little sugar on top. :)

Though I agree with you that there is no way Rand would take the VP slot (and Romney knows it so he wouldn't offer it...but Romney would LOVE to have Rand on his ticket.) And adding Rand to the ticket wouldn't bring in Paul supporters anyway...who could stomach seeing Rand publicly support a Romney administration's policies? Rand has already said that if his father were elected, he would remain in the Senate rather than join a Paul administration anyway. So I doubt he would then accept a position in someone else's.

If Ron IS thinking about Rand's career (which he probably isn't...he is all about the liberty movement...not the political career of an individual), he would probably be thinking that another four years of Obama would strengthen the liberty movement and give Rand a real shot in 2016.

My take...Ron Paul thinks he has a shot of winning and is working toward that. To him, it doesn't matter whether Romney or Obama wins as they are just two peas in the pod. He wants to show the GOP (and the American public) how much support his views have, and dare them to marginalize him at the convention. Imagine Ron Paul getting a 200-300 delegates and STILL being denied a speaking slot! I don't think he will run third party (not out of loyalty to the GOP of to protect Rand, but just because of the impossibility of winning an independent run.) The most likely outcome is that Ron Paul will endorse Gary Johnson, which would be a death blow to the Romney this election cycle (and a boon to the libertarian party, which would get a good look from millions of people)

Paul says we are prepping for a war with Iran. I would argue that Obama won't go to war with Iran even if Iran developed technology allowing a Star Trek-like transportation of troops "beaming" from Iran to the US and back, attacking Americans, then beaming back. Obama won't do anything more than beg for our drone. He won't go to war unless someone launches nuclear weapons on us. We've had so many casus belli against Iran, but we steadfastly refuse to do anything.

LOL..yeah Obama is such a peacenik hahahaha! Are you for real? Or maybe I missed when Libya lobbed nuclear weapons at the US?

Yes steve, we get it. You're so scared of all the boogeymen out there you're willing to mortgage your children (and everyone else's) into certain debt slavery. EVERY other country in the world doesn't have bases in 900 countries and they all seem to get along just fine without turning the wealth of the nation into bombs and tanks. The US already spends $.42 of every dollar of military spending in the world. I'm thinking that the US might be fine if it spent, say, 10% of world military spending (which would still be more than China.) Your fear (and the resulting empire) is bankrupting us, and as Ron Paul is showing, more and more people are waking up to it.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-candida ... 1q380.html

From the article

Asked whether he [Ron Paul] believed he would have the leverage to make Republicans more willing to accommodate his supporters and positions, he said: ''I don't know how they're going to handle it. Because we're very precise on what we would like, and I can't imagine all of a sudden one of the other candidates changing their position on their desire to go to war constantly.

...

So even as the campaign had a ''path to victory'' that it was committed to pursuing aggressively, said Jesse Benton, Mr Paul's national campaign chairman, it did not expect to compromise if it was a runner-up.

''If there were any negotiations after another candidate secured the nomination, our first rule and guiding principle is that we would refuse to allow our movement and our ideas to be co-opted,'' Mr Benton said.

Fox panelists say there is no way the GOP can win without Paul supporters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P4TwYmQ ... e=youtu.be

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... showdowns/

Romney vs Obama: 48%-47%
Paul vs Obama: 46%-48%
Santorum vs Obama: 45%-51%
Gingrich vs Obama: 43%-53%

Clearly, Ron Paul is competitive with Obama. He is statistically tied with Obama and Romney.

However, if Ron were to run as an independent:

http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/ ... eat-obama/

Obama 42 - Romney 37 - Paul 17

Now, I did say that I don't think that Paul will run as an independent. However

Obama 43 - Romney 41 - Johnson 9

First off, that's a huge number for a libertarian. And that number will move up with a (likely) Ron Paul endorsement...likely at Romney's expense (based on the results of the previous poll.). I could even see myself voting for Johnson (not as good as Paul on some important issues, better than Paul in some less important issues, and voting for a third party makes it a little more attractive as well.)



It's Obama or Paul...take your pick.

Jim DeMint disagrees with Doctor Fate

“I don’t agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy and his disengagement around the world, but we’re going to end up where he is because we don’t have any money,” DeMint said. “So the Republican Party needs to become the big tent of Americans who really want freedom, prosperity, opportunity and that’s just synonymous with a more limited government.”

emphasis added. So you'd prefer to keep pissing off the rest of the world until we're broke--1989 Soviet style? No. That's not crazy.

NB: Government Officials from both Russia and China have stated that if we attack Iran, they will step in to defend it. But ]don't let that affect you.

Russia and China have stated that if we attack Iran, they will step in to defend it

BS.
You have a source for this other than Alex Jones or some other conspiracist?

You know, Dr. Fate could have written those very same words ...

Are you talking about my DeMint quote? If so,

Guapo wrote:Are you talking about my DeMint quote? If so,

Actually, I agree with DeMint. You just don't understand what he's saying. He's not saying we have to go with Uncle Ron's foreign policy. He is saying we have to go with his economics--big cuts--OR we will be forced into Uncle Ron's foreign policy.

There is a big difference.

Your links for Russia and China threatening war are not exactly official government threats.

Ha! Please don't put words in my mouth. Re-read what I wrote. In fact, you'll find that it's ironic to your "correction" of how I'm reading DeMint. But I'll get back to that later.

DeMint is saying that Conservatives need to be more accepting of Libertarians--to the point of a realignment within the party. In an interview I watched (not online, so I don't have a link, but this interview will do), DeMint included Libertarian foreign policy. But how much more explicit does one have to be? The Ingraham interview is enough. DeMint clearly states that an alliance with libertarians is preferable to the moderates and liberals in the party. If there is a new alignment as he is proposing, then foreign policy must be on the table, as must Dr. Paul. You have to remember that 'accepting' and 'agreement' are not synonymous in this context. The thing about Libertarians, though. We won't be a pet.

Going back to the irony: What do conservatives most commonly attribute the fall of the Soviet regime? Spending them into oblivion: how? Proxy wars and endless military expansion (including afghanistan). But yet these same conservatives think that the US is immune to the same economic forces. All I'm saying is that these wars are costing us ridiculous amounts of money, and there is no return on investment--save a few contractors. Worse, it could very well provide blowback at a time we simply cannot afford it. To categorically dismiss all serious adjustments to foreign policy (not just budgetary), is not to be in agreement with DeMint as accepting of libertarianism within the Republican Party.

DeMint agrees with me. While he didn't outright say it, Ron Paul is preferable to Mitt Romney. But he did outright say that libertarianism is preferable to moderates and liberals within the party.

Finally, I never said the words 'official' or 'threat', but they were both government officials.

Guapo wrote:DeMint is saying that Conservatives need to be more accepting of Libertarians--to the point of a realignment within the party. In an interview I watched (not online, so I don't have a link, but this interview will do), DeMint included Libertarian foreign policy. But how much more explicit does one have to be? The Ingraham interview is enough. DeMint clearly states that an alliance with libertarians is preferable to the moderates and liberals in the party. If there is a new alignment as he is proposing, then foreign policy must be on the table, as must Dr. Paul. You have to remember that 'accepting' and 'agreement' are not synonymous in this context. The thing about Libertarians, though. We won't be a pet.

He says he doesn't agree with him on defense and foreign affairs. That's about at the 4 minute mark.

Look, I would go about halfway with him concerning foreign policy, but his isolationism goes way too far. I think we ought to take troops out of Korea. I think we ought to do a lot of things differently. I would have us out of Afghanistan. I would not have gone into Iraq. But, Paul would have us build Fortress America. It will not work. It cannot work. We don't live in a time when it takes months to get from Asia to the US.

Going back to the irony: What do conservatives most commonly attribute the fall of the Soviet regime? Spending them into oblivion: how? Proxy wars and endless military expansion (including afghanistan). But yet these same conservatives think that the US is immune to the same economic forces.

Meh. Not immune, but we don't have the same form of economic system--yet.

In any event, I'm not one of those who want these endless wars. I'm not opposed to killing scientists working on giving Iran the bomb, but that's another story.

All I'm saying is that these wars are costing us ridiculous amounts of money, and there is no return on investment--save a few contractors. Worse, it could very well provide blowback at a time we simply cannot afford it. To categorically dismiss all serious adjustments to foreign policy (not just budgetary), is not to be in agreement with DeMint as accepting of libertarianism within the Republican Party.

To accept all of Paul's positions would guarantee Obama four more years. DeMint isn't proposing changing GOP to mean "Gimme Only Paul." He is saying Republicans need to move to a more libertarian position, which is its more natural place. Republicans are not, traditionally, the party of big government. Over the last several decades, we have been shifted to the left by Democrats (in order to "compete," GOP candidates have promised almost as much government largesse as Democrats). We should not have let that happen and DeMint is right that it needs to be corrected.

DeMint agrees with me. While he didn't outright say it, Ron Paul is preferable to Mitt Romney. But he did outright say that libertarianism is preferable to moderates and liberals within the party.

Uh-huh. Four years ago, who did DeMint endorse?

Watch what happens if Romney wins in SC. It will take DeMint 2 minutes to endorse him.

Finally, I never said the words 'official' or 'threat', but they were both government officials. I find it fascinating that so many people think that Russia and China would sit by if we attacked Iran. I have a degree in Political Science, but I thought that was elementary geopolitics

.

First of all, as I've said several times, we won't attack.

Second, if we did, we would not "invade."

Third, if we did, China and Russia would be upset. They would not respond militarily.

Doctor Fate wrote:Look, I would go about halfway with him concerning foreign policy, but his isolationism goes way too far. I think we ought to take troops out of Korea. I think we ought to do a lot of things differently. I would have us out of Afghanistan. I would not have gone into Iraq. But, Paul would have us build Fortress America. It will not work. It cannot work. We don't live in a time when it takes months to get from Asia to the US.

Halfway? Really? I doubt that. Halfway would be farther than Gary Johnson. As I said, I'd vote for Gary Johnson. But how far towards Ron's foreign policy would you go? How many nations out of the 90 or so do we remove troops and bases from?

And quit with the "isolationist" nonsense. He's not an isolationist. By that standard, every other country in the world is isolationist. Free trade is not isolationism.

Doctor Fate wrote:In any event, I'm not one of those who want these endless wars. I'm not opposed to killing scientists working on giving Iran the bomb, but that's another story.

Maybe not, but all the other candidates up there are, and that's what you're voting for. So what difference does it make? If I vote for someone to kill you, I'm not innocent.

Doctor Fate wrote:To accept all of Paul's positions would guarantee Obama four more years. .

That's in direct contradiction to what DeMint said. DeMint specifically said that if the Libertarians vote third party, Obama wins. He's right. Unless you're saying it's a lost cause either way.

And we won't vote for your party unless you make major changes. The only candidates I see as acceptable to most libertarians are:

1. Ron Paul, 2. Gary Johnson, and 3. Rand Paul

Take your pick: do you beg Gary Johnson to come back as a fusion candidate? Or do you elevate Rand Paul? Veep will not do.

Gary Johnson?

Not gonna happen.

You will be voting 3rd party. Good for you.

and 4 more years of Obama. Then maybe you'll look to the new wineskins .