Can Ron Paul win as a third party candidate?

As I wrote previously... Good luck with that.

 

http://wi.rlc.org/2011/12/ron-paul-or-bust-an-ultimatum-to-all-republicans/

This is now the Republican’s ultimatum. Choose wisely.

 

Ron Paul or bust. Spread the word.
Great link, my friend.

 

There you have it. We all know this instinctively..the GOP establishment doesn't seem to. Could this be their problem?

 

Ron Paul couldn't win if he was the ONLY candidate!

 

...says a leach on America. Know your role.

 

Thanks but we don't need the input of the English into our political affairs.
You tried that before in the 18th century and it was wholly rejected.

 

King George III couldn't beat a bunch of "Farmers with Pitchforks."

How does this qualify a Britt to opinion-ate in American matters?

Kindly, do like George III, and ****.

Happy Belated 4th of July.

 

I ask for facts, you give me a PARTIAL voting record. I'm not now and never have said his voting record was bad. Its not bad, its not in any way impressive. The Democrats will dissect it and highlight everything bad, true or not.
Paul entered politics due to what he perceived to be a monetary crisis, and I agree with him that there was/is a monetary crisis. That was his reason to become political. 35 years later, ITS worse! How will that success story play to the unwashed masses? NOT WELL.
He ran for the Senate once. Lost to Phil Gramm in the primary.
The only major bills he has sponsored have been "TERM LIMITS" bills. And I'm 1000% FOR term limits. Paul has been 100% UNSUCCESSFUL at getting any term limit legislation passed in 35 years. I very much wish he had been successful, but he has not been so.

Head to head, the lying Democrats will shred him.

Is he a good man that would be a better president than the incompetent lying b.o.? Yes. Is he electable? NO!

 

I take that as your concession of the point. You can get mad at him or me or whatever. Ball up your fists, stamp your feet, and scream about it if it makes you feel better, but that won't change reality.
Paul will be the Republican nominee or else Obama will get 4 more years.

 

Reads like childish behavior to me. I can't speak for you, but I am a man.

Good luck

 

I can't address that, as I'm not an expert on anyone's thought process but my own. All I can do is lay out the facts. Most of Paul's base won't support anyone else, even if that means 4 more years of Obama. Without the Paul supporters, the Republicans *WILL* lose.
So setting all the emotional window-dressing aside, that's the only choice Republicans have this cycle. Paul or Obama. It's up to them to decide which way they want to go.

Now having said that, I would remind *EVERYONE* that this thread isn't about other posters, but rather the topic at hand and the arguments. I would recommend refraining from making anything here personal, as that tends to risk wandering off the rails into personal attacks, flame-wars, and violations. None of us want that.
So if anyone feels frustrated, I recommend taking a step back and cooling down for a bit.

 

It's too bad that a lot of those that do not support Paul would rather waste their time trying to change the minds of us that do support him rather than facing reality.

 

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have never once made anything personal, or referred to another member in an inappropriate manner.

But your point is taken. It fruitless to discuss the issue further.

 

They gotta do what they gotta do *shrug*.
Of course, it's an obvious waste of time. Paul supporters simply cannot be talked into supporting someone like Romney or Gingrich. As much as they malign the 'Pauliacs' for their stubbornness, you'd think they'd have come to that realization by now.
Paul supporters simply don't care who wins this election if it's not someone who thinks like them. They have what they are convinced to be a higher purpose. They can't be threatened, cajoled, or convinced. They are resolute on this course of action.
The Paul detractors and establishment folks don't get it, but they don't have to. All they need to know is that their only choice is Paul or Obama.

 

If Paul supporters really don't care WHO wins the election if its not Paul,,,,,,,,,Then they ARE exactly the same as every sleazy politician that cares ONLY for their own agenda and does not care a bit about what is best for the nation. And b.o. LOSING, is what is best for the nation, no matter who beats him.

If Paul is not the Republican candidate, and Paulists ARE true Americans, then they should swallow the loss and rally behind whoever has the best chance of beating b.o.

This, "I'm taking my ball and going home attitude." Is not what politics is all about. And it is an immature attitude. When we don't get all that we want, we make the best of what we get. We don't pee our pants and throw a tantrum.

 

If YOU care so much about who wins the election than back Ron Paul since otherwise you're going to lose. It's called a two way street. Put your money where your mouth is. Walk the walk. Whatever you want to call it.

You're not going to put the burden on us every election to vote for your guy "or else." Now you vote for our guy "or else."

What you accuse us of doing is what you're doing. Attack Ron Paul relentlessly, as well as his supporters, and then whine about it when we don't come out to help you beat Obama. We voted for McCain. That's the last favor you people are going to get. Romney isn't even a well disguised liberal. He's Obama 2.0 period. Tell your story walking.

 

You just said satan beating Obama is better for the nation. You just said hitler beating obama is better for the nation. You just said Stalin, Saddam, Ahmadinejad beating Obama is better for the nation. Not only is your logic completely flawed you just now lost all credibility.

 

I have no idea why you're telling me this. You don't like it? Duly noted. It's still reality, so what are you gonna do about it?

 

Continue to condemn Paul supporters for the childish buffoons they are.

 

You voted for the other fool. Good job. Who here still blames him?

 

This from ABC News. Not a source I'd normally use. Gallup shows the same results.

"Dec 26, 2011 1:47pm
Gingrich Narrowly Tops Romney in Latest Gallup Poll


Newt Gingrich’s lead over rival Mitt Romney narrowed to three percentage points in Gallup’s latest national Republican tracking poll.

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, the former speaker garners 26 percent of the vote, compared with 23 percent for Romney. That has narrowed sharply from the 15-point lead Gingrich enjoyed in early December.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul trailed behind the two, with 12 percent of the vote. "
And Paul LOST a point from the last poll.


If you ever popped your head out of lala land and exposed yourself to reality you'd realize that Paul. Has NO chance. If he had a real chance, I'd vote for him. If he had the best chance I'd campaign for him. BUT, the FACT that Paul has NO chance, is the only thing I have against him.

Iowa is 1 state, the ONE where Paul polls well. There are 50 states, they might not explain that to you in lala land.

 

All well and good, but you still face the same choice regardless. Your next President is either going to be Paul or Obama. Which do you prefer?

 

You state a thoroughly misguided opinion like it was a fact. Its not.

Anyone that can manage an unemotional analysis of the Paul history, KNOWS, he is unelectable as president.

He has a 35 year history of 'trying,' without a single meaningful accomplished result.

 

Actually he has made it very clear that his past attempts were not given his full effort. He claimed that they were merely a means to spread his message and that he actually received more support than he anticipated. This is the only time he is really giving it his all and it shows in his poll numbers.