Is Ron Paul in bed with Barack Obama?
19 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:44 pm » by Abdul14
No way will Ron Paul get the GOP nomination but he very well might run third party. That would make him a traitor-enabler, working to ensure that Obama completes his goal of destroying America.
What does Paul get out of this – a cabinet position? Secretary of the Treasury? There’s nothing a Chicago politician like Obama won’t do to get re-elected.
What does Paul get out of this – a cabinet position? Secretary of the Treasury? There’s nothing a Chicago politician like Obama won’t do to get re-elected.
When you buy halal products, you are financing inhumaely slaughter and torture of animals
Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:13 pm » by Jet17
He is in it to win.
there is already a libertarian candidate, which is the platform he would run under.
Independent? not likely.
there is already a libertarian candidate, which is the platform he would run under.
Independent? not likely.
*View my post history under former usernames: JetXVII, Epicfailure, Slamgunshark*
DJ Jesus died for your Spins!
Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:30 pm » by Abdul14
Could Ron Paul Wind Up Running as an Independent in 2012?
Last week Ron Paul refused to rule out running as a third party candidate if he loses the Republican nomination.
That opens the door for Ron Paul to run as an independent in what could the most the biggest, most consequential third party candidacy in American history. Yes, one that is even bigger than Ross Perot’s candidacy was in the 90s.
According to a Gallup poll taken in May, 52% Americans say a third major political party is needed. Only 40% say the two current parties do an adequate job of representing the American people.
In the same vein, a CNN poll in September found that 54 percent of people have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party and 48 percent feel the same way about the Democrats.
Republicans are legitimately worried that the 74-year-old Texas Congressman with superstar appeal among young, conservative leaning Libertarians will run as a third party candidate in 2012.
Like, Ross Perot in 1992, Paul has enough appeal to siphon off significant votes from the Republican presidential candidate in key states. Perot got 19 percent of the vote and next year, in what is sure to be a close election, Paul is a good bet to cost the GOP at least five percent of the vote, enough to re-elect President Obama.
A new group called Americans Elect may provide Paul with the perfect vehicle for his third party candidacy. The group’s mission is to get a third viable, Independent presidential ticket, chosen by an Internet convention on the ballot in all 50 states. According to their website, Americans Elect has collected almost 2 million signatures.
Since his 2008 presidential campaign, Paul’s popularity has been largely driven by a community of committed Internet supporters. This accounts for his famous ‘money bombs’ – periodic fundraising drives on the Internet. The most recent money bomb brought in $2.5 million for the Paul campaign.
It would be relatively easy for Paul to mobilize his supporters in cyberspace for the Americans Elect online convention. Maybe he wouldn’t even have to mobilize them and they would just do it on their own.
The Electoral College system makes it extremely difficult for third party candidates to win states in the general election. However, on a state-by-state basis third party candidates have had real impact.
John Anderson, the former Illinois Republican Congressman, ran for president as an independent in the 1980 election. Anderson was defeated in the GOP primary that year by the more conservative Ronald Reagan. Appealing to both moderate Republicans and liberals disappointed in incumbent President Jimmy Carter, Anderson was able to win 5.7 million votes, 6.6% of the popular vote. Anderson captured enough votes to cost Reagan the state of Minnesota. Carter carried 46.5% of the vote in the North Star State that year. Reagan won 42.6% and Anderson took 8.5%. Reagan trounced Carter by carrying every state in the union except Minnesota, West Virginia and Georgia, Carter’s home state.
Paul would not be the only Texan to mount a credible Third Party presidential campaign. Perot ran an unconventional, populist campaign for President and won 18.9% of the popular vote – just under 20 million votes total. Some conservative political analysts maintain to this day that George H.W. Bush would have been re-elected if not for Perot. They point to the fact that Perot’s shares of the popular vote in several key states -- Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- was greater than Clinton’s margin of victory in those states.
That means if Perot had not been in the race, Bush might have carried enough of those swing states to win. Perot ran again in 1996 and still managed to net 8.4% of the vote.
In many Democratic precincts, Ralph Nader will always be remembered as the man who cost Al Gore the state of Florida in the 2000 presidential election. They say that Nader siphoned off enough votes from Gore put the Sunshine State in George W. Bush’s column. If Nader hadn’t been on the ballot in Florida, Gore probably would have won Florida and the Presidency. How different would the world look today if that had happened?
That history of third party candidates fits Paul’s movement perfectly. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - we are living in the age of Ron Paul.
Just as Elizabeth Warren recently claimed to have created the “intellectual foundation” for the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Texas Congressman created the intellectual foundation for the Tea Party movement. His insistence on cutting federal spending, lowering taxes and shrinking the power of government is the Tea Party agenda and his talking points have shaped much of the GOP debates.
While recent CNN polling has him in third place in both Iowa and New Hampshire, no political strategists – Republicans or Democrats -- believe Paul can overtake Mitt Romney or Herman Cain. He will make the rest of the GOP contest more interesting and perhaps even more honest. But at this point the odds are strongly against Paul winning the GOP race.
And with widespread discontent with establishment politics the real question is why wouldn’t Paul – who is not running for re-election to Congress -- continue his campaign as an Independent, third party candidate for president? Remember that Paul ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988.
Rep. Paul was asked that question when he stopped by the set of Special Report with Bret Baier in Fox’s Washington DC studio for a great new segment called “Center Seat.” It marked Paul’s 71st appearance on Fox News since January. He refused to rule out the possibility. He stressed that he plans to win the Republican nomination. The most he said is that as of this moment he has “no intention” of launching a third party run.\
That was a classic non-denial. As we say in the TV news business... stay tuned.
foxnews
Last week Ron Paul refused to rule out running as a third party candidate if he loses the Republican nomination.
That opens the door for Ron Paul to run as an independent in what could the most the biggest, most consequential third party candidacy in American history. Yes, one that is even bigger than Ross Perot’s candidacy was in the 90s.
According to a Gallup poll taken in May, 52% Americans say a third major political party is needed. Only 40% say the two current parties do an adequate job of representing the American people.
In the same vein, a CNN poll in September found that 54 percent of people have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party and 48 percent feel the same way about the Democrats.
Republicans are legitimately worried that the 74-year-old Texas Congressman with superstar appeal among young, conservative leaning Libertarians will run as a third party candidate in 2012.
Like, Ross Perot in 1992, Paul has enough appeal to siphon off significant votes from the Republican presidential candidate in key states. Perot got 19 percent of the vote and next year, in what is sure to be a close election, Paul is a good bet to cost the GOP at least five percent of the vote, enough to re-elect President Obama.
A new group called Americans Elect may provide Paul with the perfect vehicle for his third party candidacy. The group’s mission is to get a third viable, Independent presidential ticket, chosen by an Internet convention on the ballot in all 50 states. According to their website, Americans Elect has collected almost 2 million signatures.
Since his 2008 presidential campaign, Paul’s popularity has been largely driven by a community of committed Internet supporters. This accounts for his famous ‘money bombs’ – periodic fundraising drives on the Internet. The most recent money bomb brought in $2.5 million for the Paul campaign.
It would be relatively easy for Paul to mobilize his supporters in cyberspace for the Americans Elect online convention. Maybe he wouldn’t even have to mobilize them and they would just do it on their own.
The Electoral College system makes it extremely difficult for third party candidates to win states in the general election. However, on a state-by-state basis third party candidates have had real impact.
John Anderson, the former Illinois Republican Congressman, ran for president as an independent in the 1980 election. Anderson was defeated in the GOP primary that year by the more conservative Ronald Reagan. Appealing to both moderate Republicans and liberals disappointed in incumbent President Jimmy Carter, Anderson was able to win 5.7 million votes, 6.6% of the popular vote. Anderson captured enough votes to cost Reagan the state of Minnesota. Carter carried 46.5% of the vote in the North Star State that year. Reagan won 42.6% and Anderson took 8.5%. Reagan trounced Carter by carrying every state in the union except Minnesota, West Virginia and Georgia, Carter’s home state.
Paul would not be the only Texan to mount a credible Third Party presidential campaign. Perot ran an unconventional, populist campaign for President and won 18.9% of the popular vote – just under 20 million votes total. Some conservative political analysts maintain to this day that George H.W. Bush would have been re-elected if not for Perot. They point to the fact that Perot’s shares of the popular vote in several key states -- Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- was greater than Clinton’s margin of victory in those states.
That means if Perot had not been in the race, Bush might have carried enough of those swing states to win. Perot ran again in 1996 and still managed to net 8.4% of the vote.
In many Democratic precincts, Ralph Nader will always be remembered as the man who cost Al Gore the state of Florida in the 2000 presidential election. They say that Nader siphoned off enough votes from Gore put the Sunshine State in George W. Bush’s column. If Nader hadn’t been on the ballot in Florida, Gore probably would have won Florida and the Presidency. How different would the world look today if that had happened?
That history of third party candidates fits Paul’s movement perfectly. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - we are living in the age of Ron Paul.
Just as Elizabeth Warren recently claimed to have created the “intellectual foundation” for the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Texas Congressman created the intellectual foundation for the Tea Party movement. His insistence on cutting federal spending, lowering taxes and shrinking the power of government is the Tea Party agenda and his talking points have shaped much of the GOP debates.
While recent CNN polling has him in third place in both Iowa and New Hampshire, no political strategists – Republicans or Democrats -- believe Paul can overtake Mitt Romney or Herman Cain. He will make the rest of the GOP contest more interesting and perhaps even more honest. But at this point the odds are strongly against Paul winning the GOP race.
And with widespread discontent with establishment politics the real question is why wouldn’t Paul – who is not running for re-election to Congress -- continue his campaign as an Independent, third party candidate for president? Remember that Paul ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988.
Rep. Paul was asked that question when he stopped by the set of Special Report with Bret Baier in Fox’s Washington DC studio for a great new segment called “Center Seat.” It marked Paul’s 71st appearance on Fox News since January. He refused to rule out the possibility. He stressed that he plans to win the Republican nomination. The most he said is that as of this moment he has “no intention” of launching a third party run.\
That was a classic non-denial. As we say in the TV news business... stay tuned.
foxnews
When you buy halal products, you are financing inhumaely slaughter and torture of animals
Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:35 pm » by Rydher
Well, if you want to jump down the rabbit hole there is the Americans Elect Party, http://www.disclose.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=65313. To help you make the first leap there is this today....
Pelosi: Ron Paul is 'a gentleman'
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received some warm personal praise from an unexpected quarter, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., described him as "a gentleman," although she seemed to reserve the right to attack him if he wins the Republican nomination.
"I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul," Pelosi said today on CNN, when asked to comment on her long-time fellow representative. "He acts upon his convictions and he's a nice fellow in the Congress of the United States. He's a gentleman."
Rather than discuss his potential as a president, she said that "when we get to the nomination, when they have somebody, we can talk about that."
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/pelosi-ron-paul-gentleman/301321
Edit: I didn't see you mentioned Americas Elect. Posted while you did. Sorry.
Pelosi: Ron Paul is 'a gentleman'
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received some warm personal praise from an unexpected quarter, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., described him as "a gentleman," although she seemed to reserve the right to attack him if he wins the Republican nomination.
"I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul," Pelosi said today on CNN, when asked to comment on her long-time fellow representative. "He acts upon his convictions and he's a nice fellow in the Congress of the United States. He's a gentleman."
Rather than discuss his potential as a president, she said that "when we get to the nomination, when they have somebody, we can talk about that."
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/pelosi-ron-paul-gentleman/301321
Edit: I didn't see you mentioned Americas Elect. Posted while you did. Sorry.
Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:49 pm » by Jet17
The MSM, keeps pushing this:
"will he run as a third party"
like he already lost the race. they are trying to force people to believe he doesn't stand a chance by having articles like this.
stupidly (in essence) the mainstream followers that require an "independent party" in order for them to vote, are being blinded by the "platforms" that are available, to them it's about voting in a party instead of voting for a candidate.
so this is all double sided, but more in fact, for oppressing Pauls decision to run as a Republican.
Where are the articles asking about Gingrich running as a third party? or Romney / Santorum?
There is none, but we see these with "Paul" all the time, when Paul being a "TRUE Republican" is exactly where he needs to be.
Perhaps all of these "fake republicans" should run under a third party called the "TRASH party"
because that is where they belong, in a trash can with Oscar the Grouch!
"will he run as a third party"
like he already lost the race. they are trying to force people to believe he doesn't stand a chance by having articles like this.
stupidly (in essence) the mainstream followers that require an "independent party" in order for them to vote, are being blinded by the "platforms" that are available, to them it's about voting in a party instead of voting for a candidate.
so this is all double sided, but more in fact, for oppressing Pauls decision to run as a Republican.
Where are the articles asking about Gingrich running as a third party? or Romney / Santorum?
There is none, but we see these with "Paul" all the time, when Paul being a "TRUE Republican" is exactly where he needs to be.
Perhaps all of these "fake republicans" should run under a third party called the "TRASH party"
because that is where they belong, in a trash can with Oscar the Grouch!
*View my post history under former usernames: JetXVII, Epicfailure, Slamgunshark*
DJ Jesus died for your Spins!
- Opalserpent
-
- Posts: 691
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:47 am
Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:53 pm » by Opalserpent
Why bother trying to put Paul Down? You zionists are shocking. So what if your country men won't control american congress anymore, you don't need americas help do you?
Where do you live Abdul and ryhder? I'm Australian so I do have to worry about america since
they control us and use us bad. What are you worried about? the election will probably be fixed again either way.
Where do you live Abdul and ryhder? I'm Australian so I do have to worry about america since
they control us and use us bad. What are you worried about? the election will probably be fixed again either way.
Live by the Terror, Die by the Terror.
Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:11 pm » by Jet17
Abdul is actually 1 of 4 people, he is an israeli paid mis-information agent I am guessing.
his other screen names are "proto, zinzana, and ironlikealion."
guessing from his post content, it's all about anti-muslim related material, or pro-israel content, or "screw anyone American that won't give Israel money" content.... it's quite obvious and apparent that is what he is here for.
Rydher, he is a Glenn Beck follower, and believes what Glenn says alot, Rydher, is a flip flopper / context cutter, claiming to be a follower of the constitution, but yet tries (terribly) to expose people or events that promote constitutionality. (Ron Paul, People dancing at the Jefferson memorial, supports Santorum a man that wants Christian Sharia in place of the constitution....etc...etc....)
I don't think he is paid, but he is definitely ill informed, and tries arguing his ill informed points over and over and over again.
They put Paul down, because they are haters, and arm chair quarter-backs, who haven't done anything with their lives to help the world in terms of individual progression, getting out and staying active in world events or promoting enrichment of personal liberties..
Abdul only stands for the progression of Israeli gains, while segregating himself from all other religions / creeds, which means he is a bigot for his country only, only has Israeli interest at heart, so putting Paul down, because he would rather "trade" instead of give money to Israel for no reason, is detrimental to his country because they wouldn't be SHIT if it wasn't for America's protection and tax-payer given support.
who would support a closed minded one religion purposed driven patsy like Abdul?
Perhaps another closed minded Religion purposed Patsy, that supports Israel.
his other screen names are "proto, zinzana, and ironlikealion."
guessing from his post content, it's all about anti-muslim related material, or pro-israel content, or "screw anyone American that won't give Israel money" content.... it's quite obvious and apparent that is what he is here for.
Rydher, he is a Glenn Beck follower, and believes what Glenn says alot, Rydher, is a flip flopper / context cutter, claiming to be a follower of the constitution, but yet tries (terribly) to expose people or events that promote constitutionality. (Ron Paul, People dancing at the Jefferson memorial, supports Santorum a man that wants Christian Sharia in place of the constitution....etc...etc....)
I don't think he is paid, but he is definitely ill informed, and tries arguing his ill informed points over and over and over again.
They put Paul down, because they are haters, and arm chair quarter-backs, who haven't done anything with their lives to help the world in terms of individual progression, getting out and staying active in world events or promoting enrichment of personal liberties..
Abdul only stands for the progression of Israeli gains, while segregating himself from all other religions / creeds, which means he is a bigot for his country only, only has Israeli interest at heart, so putting Paul down, because he would rather "trade" instead of give money to Israel for no reason, is detrimental to his country because they wouldn't be SHIT if it wasn't for America's protection and tax-payer given support.
who would support a closed minded one religion purposed driven patsy like Abdul?
Perhaps another closed minded Religion purposed Patsy, that supports Israel.
*View my post history under former usernames: JetXVII, Epicfailure, Slamgunshark*
DJ Jesus died for your Spins!
Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:14 am » by Noentry
jet17 wrote:Abdul is actually 1 of 4 people, he is an israeli paid mis-information agent I am guessing.
his other screen names are "proto, zinzana, and ironlikealion."
guessing from his post content, it's all about anti-muslim related material, or pro-israel content, or "screw anyone American that won't give Israel money" content.... it's quite obvious and apparent that is what he is here for.
Rydher, he is a Glenn Beck follower, and believes what Glenn says alot, Rydher, is a flip flopper / context cutter, claiming to be a follower of the constitution, but yet tries (terribly) to expose people or events that promote constitutionality. (Ron Paul, People dancing at the Jefferson memorial, supports Santorum a man that wants Christian Sharia in place of the constitution....etc...etc....)
I don't think he is paid, but he is definitely ill informed, and tries arguing his ill informed points over and over and over again.
They put Paul down, because they are haters, and arm chair quarter-backs, who haven't done anything with their lives to help the world in terms of individual progression, getting out and staying active in world events or promoting enrichment of personal liberties..
Abdul only stands for the progression of Israeli gains, while segregating himself from all other religions / creeds, which means he is a bigot for his country only, only has Israeli interest at heart, so putting Paul down, because he would rather "trade" instead of give money to Israel for no reason, is detrimental to his country because they wouldn't be SHIT if it wasn't for America's protection and tax-payer given support.
who would support a closed minded one religion purposed driven patsy like Abdul?
Perhaps another closed minded Religion purposed Patsy, that supports Israel.
abdul14 wrote:how bout you moozlaims get the fuck out of occupied mecca to begin with
and while your fucking at it please remove yourselfs from occupied egypt and turkey and all the rest of the places that you invaded including Judea
rydher wrote:ironlikealion wrote:Indeed ,hehe , the circle is complete ,nice one rydher.
Thanks my fellow Mossad counterpart. Too bad our brother-in-arms of MI6, Chronicnerd isn't here to relish in this victory on DTV that will change the world! When the CIA, Mossad, and MI6 get together to stop the long reach of the DTV forum from spreading truth, there is nothing we can't accomplish.
I am aware it's often a thankless task persuading someone on a forum that they are mistaken. They are often, in the true sense of the word, bigots!
19 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- Ron Paul Vs. Barack Obama 2012
by truthseekerx » Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:59 pm - 1 Replies
- 180 Views
- Last post by hiddenhand
Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:52 pm
- Ron Paul Vs. Barack Obama 2012
-
- To Barack Hussein Obama,
1 ... 4, 5, 6by fatrock386 » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:08 pm - 50 Replies
- 654 Views
- Last post by darkplanet
Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:39 pm
- To Barack Hussein Obama,
-
- Barack Obama is Different — and Other Lies
by boondox681 » Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:46 pm - 1 Replies
- 172 Views
- Last post by illuminated
Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:00 pm
- Barack Obama is Different — and Other Lies
-
- America Under Barack Obama - nat hentoff
by illuminated » Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:06 am - 0 Replies
- 162 Views
- Last post by illuminated
Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:06 am
- America Under Barack Obama - nat hentoff
-
- Muammar Khadafi on Barack Obama
1, 2by pindz » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:07 am - 11 Replies
- 595 Views
- Last post by edgarrothstein
Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:21 am
- Muammar Khadafi on Barack Obama