It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Originally posted by TXTriker
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Blaine91555
I don't know if you can call me a Ron Paul supporter (yet), but I definitely would support him as a Libertarian or Independent, even if it meant he would lose.
I just have to ask - if you would support him as third party why not support him as a republican. Its obvious (to me anyway) that he is only running as a republican to be able to get air time (little as it has been).
The power of party identification. Same reason a Chevy guy would never buy a Ford. Stupid, assinine, prideful party identification.
Originally posted by TXTriker
I just have to ask - if you would support him as third party why not support him as a republican.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I've been vigilant about watching all the Candidates whenever possible on any news forum. Mr. Paul has been on a great deal lately, so I've seen a lot of him.
On three recent occasions when asked, he would not rule out a third party run if he is not nominated. That troubles me and is what my question is about.
As a third party candidate it seems obvious to me that he would split the Conservative vote and guarantee an Obama win. Would you as Paul supporters approve of him doing that, knowing that it means Obama would win?
Obama will certainly end up with 48+% of the vote and the math simply does not work out for anyone but him to win if a third person pulls even a few percent of the vote. I doubt Mr. Paul will do that, but then he seems to not want to rule that out. I is so certain that Obama would win that it would almost make Paul and Obama supporter.
So if Paul runs third party guaranteeing a win for Obama, you support that? You want Obama to win?
I'm just being realistic here. We've seen this before with Ross Perot. It worked out as I fear this one would.
Folks, You are so locked in Groupie mode, I don't think you are really responding to my question.
On the Forum on the Huckabee Program the other night he was all over the place. He used to be a good speaker, but these days he does not seem to be able to finish sentences or give complete responses. Left me wondering if there is an underlying health issue.
I've personally not decided anything yet. Too early for that. I'd like to think I would vote according to what is best for the entire country, rather than risk Obama again. I know for a fact he is dangerous, negative and the most divisive President in my memory. To me getting rid of him is the most important thing facing us as voters.
Gingrich has become interesting to me and his history if you look beyond his personal transgressions is a pretty good record. I think he would right a lot of the bad that has been done by the last two Presidents.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I completely respect that. It is an interesting dilemma though. Is it wiser to go for the lesser of evils or vote our hearts. I lean towards using my vote towards what I think is best for all of us.
If he did do that, it would no doubt be an interesting campaign. Thanks for your honest reply.
Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
New York Times
November 7, 2012
POLL WORKERS CORRECT VOTER FRAUD
Barack Obama will continue to lead our country along the path of recovery. Yesterday's election was mired with controversy as the initial results showed that Ron Paul actually won the election. The situation was quickly rectified and the fraudulent votes for Dr. Paul were quickly identified and invalidated.
One of the election officials has stated, "It was weird. All these people 'claiming' to be Ron Paul supporters and...get this...actually casting one or more votes for this guy! Can you believe their audacity? Somehow these fraudsters managed to outnumber legitimate voters."
Another worker was quoted as saying, "It's not fair that Ron Paul just waltz in here and steal the election...just because he has a few more insurgents working for him than the other candidates."
The same situation occurred in polls across the country, in all 58 states, and in many cites, including Denver, Dallas, New York, Chicago, and even Honolulu -- the birthplace of Barack Obama. Obviously this was some sort of campaign to disrupt the fair election process this country has enjoyed for decades, if not years. In Mr. Gingrich's speech last night, he congratulated Mr. Obama on his victory and pledged to "work across party lines" to restore the faith of the American subj...er...citizens."
Wow, saw this article in next year's paper! Four more years!
Washington Times
November 7, 2012
ELECTION SPURS RECORD GUN AND AMMUNITION SALES
Gun shop shelves across the United States are empty today after a furious buying spree sparked by what the mainstream media is describing as right-wing fear. (Continued on page 5)
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Originally posted by eLPresidente
Didn't you get the memo?
No one but Paul.
There is really no simpler way to say it.
So if Paul runs third party guaranteeing a win for Obama, you support that? You want Obama to win?
So if Paul runs third party guaranteeing a win for Obama, you support that? You want Obama to win?
Obama scares me like no other President in my lifetime.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
Didn't you get the memo?
No one but Paul.
There is really no simpler way to say it.