For the Ron Paul Supporters

davekc · Jan 18, 2012

Just a hypothetical question since there are some on the forum that are strong supporters of Ron Paul.

If he was to drop out of the race, who would you support?
One of the remaining republicans, Obama, maybe a third party candidate, or flat refuse to vote and stay home?
Just a curiosity question that I haven't seen asked as of yet.

Turtle · Jan 18, 2012

Certainly not Obama, or Mitt or Newt. Santorum is a no, as is Perry. Possibly a third party candidate, depending on who it is. I have a rather long history of voting third party in presidential races. Probably, though, I'd just write in Paul. It would be the best way to have my voice heard.

davekc · Jan 18, 2012

There is probably several third party candidates that I have probably never heard of. The only one that comes to mind is Gary Johnson.

RLENT · Jan 18, 2012

davekc said:
Just a hypothetical question since there are some on the forum that are strong supporters of Ron Paul.

If he was to drop out of the race, who would you support?

Hard question to answer right at the moment - much can happen between now and the point where any one prospective candidate secures the requisite number of delagates.

Any of my answers below are subject to change based on future events ...

davekc said:
One of the remaining republicans,

No - never - not with any that are presently in the race .... and I think it's doubtful at this point that anyone would enter on the Republican side due to various issues (ballot access primarily) that could mount a credible campaign (assuming that they were even right philosophically, to begin with)

Barring a radical change in direction and philosophy, the current, modern GOP needs to have a wooden stake driven straight thru it's heart, and then buried in the political graveyard of corrupt, failed political movements.

Of course, so does the Democratic Party ....

davekc said:
Obama,

Possibility <spit> ... but not because I agree with him philosophically ..... it's just that, among other things, he may be the lesser of two evils .....

davekc said:
maybe a third party candidate,

..... another possibility .... depends on who is running ....

davekc said:
or flat refuse to vote and stay home?

..... also a possibility .... as is writing in Dr. Paul ...

davekc said:
Just a curiosity question that I haven't seen asked as of yet.

Some times, in business in a free market system, things get to the point that the only viable solution is the use of "creative destruction" .... and then salvaging whatever remains .....

Such may be true in political systems as well.

layoutshooter · Jan 18, 2012

The only real chance to have your voices heard is a third party. It is too late in the cycle now. Write in's will be scattered all over the place and are just ignored.

That third party would need an extremely strong ticket and platform. Don't see it happening.

RLENT · Jan 18, 2012

layoutshooter said:
The only real chance to have your voices heard is a third party. .... That third party would need an extremely strong ticket and platform.

Your comments raise the question of what would a such a 3rd party have to look like, in terms of it's policy positions or platform planks, for you to support it ?

IOW, what are the issues for you ?

(and no, it's not meant to be a trick question

- I'm asking because I'm actually, genuinely interested

)

davekc · Jan 18, 2012

I think a third party might not be bad. At least they would likely be more objective without a party agenda.
Might be the only way to get Congress to actually function.

cableguymn · Jan 18, 2012

Third? I'd be happy with a second party.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

RLENT · Jan 18, 2012

davekc said:
I think a third party might not be bad. At least they would likely be more objective without a party agenda.
Might be the only way to get Congress to actually function.

The other alternative is no parties at all

....

The use of labels (Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative, and so on) has brought us what amounts to war between two diametrically-opposed factions ..... when what really matters in terms of the body politic are specific issues .....

The fact is, it is a false choice that there can only be two sides to any issue .... there are as many potential sides to an issue as there are people viewing it .... .... or that the two predominant sides that currently exist are somehow monolithic ....

RLENT · Jan 18, 2012

cableguymn said:
Third? I'd be happy with a second party.

Well said ....

AMonger · Jan 18, 2012

Ron Paul or not at all.

Ron Paul not bring elected means the end of the country, no exaggeration. The only question is, will it be a painfully protracted destruction? A quicker end, as long as it doesn't involve violence or being conquered by furreners, would be preferable.

Voting for Obama might bring that about, being as he's obviously working for someone/something other than America and the American Way. So I guess I'd have to look for the candidate who'd destroy the country quickest but the least painfully.

Toward that end, they'd have to be stupid but Bachmann is out and Perry will be soon...They shouldn't be a neocon warmonger that would get a lot of American boys-- and girls--killed in stupid wars...

I wouldn't want to see conservatism discredited, being as we'd be fighting over the new society, and conservative/libertarianism is the only way to go there... Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the race. The other Republicans are neocons, but most Americans are now so stupid, they don't see the difference. So I wouldn't want it to be one of them.

And again, not Obama.

Ok, bottom line: if it's not Dr. Paul, we're screwed.

2012: Ron Paul or not at all. America's last chance.

Ragman · Jan 18, 2012

RLENT said:
The other alternative is no parties at all ....

LDB · Jan 18, 2012

I will vote for the candidate with the best chance of defeating Obama, whoever that may be. That is the only possible chance for saving the nation. That most likely means holding my nose and choking down the spit and voting for whoever the republican candidate is as painful as that may be. Doing anything else is voting for Obama and that must not happen. If a miracle occurs and it is obvious to anyone a better independent candidate can and will win that's great and they get the vote. Absent obvious and irrefutable evidence to that effect it's vote against Obama in the only way that can potentially defeat him.

davekc · Jan 18, 2012

LDB said:
I will vote for the candidate with the best chance of defeating Obama, whoever that may be. That is the only possible chance for saving the nation. That most likely means holding my nose and choking down the spit and voting for whoever the republican candidate is as painful as that may be. Doing anything else is voting for Obama and that must not happen. If a miracle occurs and it is obvious to anyone a better independent candidate can and will win that's great and they get the vote. Absent obvious and irrefutable evidence to that effect it's vote against Obama in the only way that can potentially defeat him.

I think that will be the position of many. Whether it is enough to knock Obama out remains to be seen. Looks like a 50/50 thing based on current polls.

RLENT · Jan 18, 2012

Ragman said:

It appears that the message of the image is that it would be problematic having no parties ....

I reject that premise - because what the parties have given us, by and large, is a constraint of dialog - not an expansion and diversity of it.

In this respect, the current primary race is an anomaly - it is so, only due to the fact that Dr. Paul is the race.

The more voices the better.

Ragman · Jan 18, 2012

RLENT said:
It appears that the message of the image is that it would be problematic having no parties ....

I reject that premise - because what the parties have given us, by and large, is a constraint of dialog - not an expansion and diversity of it.

In this respect, the current primary race is an anomaly - it is so, only due to the fact that Dr. Paul is the race.

The more voices the better.

Exactly my point.

layoutshooter · Jan 18, 2012

RLENT said:
Your comments raise the question of what would a such a 3rd party have to look like, in terms of it's policy positions or platform planks, for you to support it ?

IOW, what are the issues for you ?

(and no, it's not meant to be a trick question - I'm asking because I'm actually, genuinely interested )

I do not take it as a "trick question.

It would not be TOO different than was Mr. Paul talks about. A return of power to the States and the people. I am not opposed to a "leaner" military and foreign policy, as long as it is done in such a was as to insure stability.

The problems we have now have been in the making for decades. They cannot be fixed in one 4 year or even 2 4 year terms. My approach would be the same as my approach to expediting, slow and steady. Always heading towards the delivery but keeping enough flexibility to insure that I can handle problems that crop up.

Same with domestic policy. You cannot fix this mess in 10 years.

The other problem with a third party is they MUST start from the bottom up. Without the support of congress, nothing will get done.

That is why I want "leaders". I recognize that many of the challenges that face us today are tough, exciting, but though.

Many are issues that are 100% correct on BOTH side of an issue. It will take REAL leadership, exciting leadership, to insure that individual rights under the Constitution are protected AND the challenges are met.

Finally, that party will have to realize that they are SERVANTS, no rulers. That the best chance of rising to the challenges comes from letting the People find the answers, not government.