If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Beatweek Magazine)   Ballot evidence suggests Ron Paul planning to run as third party candidate   (beatweek.com) divider line 86
    More: Interesting, Ron Paul, best evidence rules, Mitt Romney, Ballot evidence  
•       •       •

1911 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Aug 2012 at 1:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-17 02:04:12 PM

xynix: Pretty sure Romney is already sunk but if Ron gets into the mix he's baked.


www.wallpapersweb.com
 
2012-08-17 02:06:36 PM

propasaurus: PC LOAD LETTER: Aarontology: PC LOAD LETTER: Aarontology: The Libertarians already have a nominee: Gary Johnson

Yet his name was not at all mentioned in the article, just more RON PAUL nonsense.

The article's author is against RP.

Yeah, but he's still talking about RON PAUL as if he's going to be the Libertarian nominee. He isn't.

I agree. I think the author doesn't know what Libertarians are.

Neither do most libertarians.

You know why RON PAUL won't run as an independent?
BECAUSE HE'S A FARKIN' REPUBLICAN.


Yeah, I used to hang out with a very libertarian crowd when I was younger. They are not at all like what the neo-confederates who call themselves "libertarians" are now like.

They were about the belief that people would form communities to help each other without government (which I believe is pretty naive to believe). The were left-libertarians semi anarchists. The ones now are laze-fair mixed with the belief state governments should not be limited in any way.
 
2012-08-17 02:08:30 PM

pdee: He would be a better choice than Tweedle-D or Tweedle-R.

  [malvasiabianca.org image 330x186]


Ron Paul is a Republican!!
 
2012-08-17 02:14:38 PM
♫Don't stop believin... Hold on to that dreeeeeeeeam♫
 
2012-08-17 02:19:10 PM

FishyFred: Marcus Aurelius: At least Mitt will have someone to blame the loss on.

Fair enough. I don't feel bad about giving Ralph Nader a share of the blame for 2000. Not a large share, but definitely one of the many things that had to go wrong (and did).


I give Ralph Nader (and his followers) 50% of the blame. The other 50% goes to the system that allows someone to win with a plurality rather than a majority, or even when they DON'T have EITHER.
 
2012-08-17 02:22:04 PM
I would personally love this because it would put my Paultard friends at an impasse. They've been pretty quiet lately and my guess is they've rescinded to voting for Romney. If RON PAUL runs as an independent, basically guaranteeing an Obama victory, it would put their convictions to the test.

Will they go ahead and vote RON PAUL and give Obama a second term, or will they abandon the guy they've been swearing all along was going to fix the country with a wave of his dick?
 
2012-08-17 02:22:06 PM
Even if he doesn't run, I'm going to write him in on the ballot.
 
2012-08-17 02:29:58 PM

Corvus: The ones now are laze-fair mixed with the belief state governments should not be limited in any way.


The laze-fair was scheduled to arrive in my town, but they couldn't be bothered.
 
2012-08-17 02:31:39 PM
So the Libertarian Party, running Gary Johnson for president, is challenging Romney's ballot eligibility.

What does that have to do with RON PAUL, (some guy)? Could it be just the the author knows that the Paulites and anti-Paulites will give him more hits because he used RON PAUL in the article than Gary Johnson fans would?

For a more journalistic take, consider the case in Michigan where the GOP-led SoS office is trying to keep Gary Johnson off the ballot over a more slight technicality than what disqualifies Romney in WA. This is just a fair-play counter-attack by the Libertarian Party to show that they aren't as useless as the GOP wants them to be. (Not that they're super powerful, but they are the largest non-duopoly party)

RON PAUL is just on this guy's blog to drive traffic because he's too lazy to actually investigate a story and make it interesting.
 
2012-08-17 02:33:24 PM

iawai: So the Libertarian Party, running Gary Johnson for president, is challenging Romney's ballot eligibility.

What does that have to do with RON PAUL, (some guy)? Could it be just the the author knows that the Paulites and anti-Paulites will give him more hits because he used RON PAUL in the article than Gary Johnson fans would?

For a more journalistic take, consider the case in Michigan where the GOP-led SoS office is trying to keep Gary Johnson off the ballot over a more slight technicality than what disqualifies Romney in WA. This is just a fair-play counter-attack by the Libertarian Party to show that they aren't as useless as the GOP wants them to be. (Not that they're super powerful, but they are the largest non-duopoly party)

RON PAUL is just on this guy's blog to drive traffic because he's too lazy to actually investigate a story and make it interesting.


It doesn't. It's either some Paultard writing the article or someone so clueless they don't know who Gary Johnson is or both.
 
2012-08-17 02:36:18 PM

Zerochance: I would personally love this because it would put my Paultard friends at an impasse. They've been pretty quiet lately and my guess is they've rescinded to voting for Romney. If RON PAUL runs as an independent, basically guaranteeing an Obama victory, it would put their convictions to the test.

Will they go ahead and vote RON PAUL and give Obama a second term, or will they abandon the guy they've been swearing all along was going to fix the country with a wave of his dick?


Being somewhat connected to many Paul supporters, I don't think that the potential Romney voters are much more numerous than the potential Obama supporters.

The larger group are those that don't care about either of those guys and will vote their conscience, whether writing in Paul, staying home, or showing support for the LP.

Obama's gonna win no matter if Paul runs independent or not. The GOP doesn't have enough cross-over appeal, and they blew trying to get some by blowing out Paul in the early primaries. Romney's just not a winner, and it's not Paul's fault, nor his supporter's fault.
 
2012-08-17 02:36:24 PM
What difference would it make. Romney's not going to win. It might actually be a good time to get a 3rd party candidate with appeal to the less crazy segment of the right to run. Maybe he puts up some respectable numbers. I don't like Ron Paul, his screwy stances on women's rights, evolution and foreign policy, all disturb the hell out of me, but I like him a lot better than anything the republicans have had to offer in a long time.
 
2012-08-17 02:38:37 PM

Bacontastesgood: FloydA: it could have effects on whether or not the GOP qualifies as a majority party in 2014.

Didn't that almost happen in Colo, thanks to that weird guy who tried to tank the race and throw it to the third party? Whatever happened with that? I assume they had to scramble around to fix it.


It was close, but if I recall correctly, Dan Maes did end up getting more than 10% of the vote.
 
2012-08-17 02:58:31 PM

FloydA: but because of some of the rules we have here, it could have effects on whether or not the GOP qualifies as a majority party in 2014.


Yes, that would be a very amusing outcome.
 
2012-08-17 03:04:28 PM

iawai: Being somewhat connected to many Paul supporters, I don't think that the potential Romney voters are much more numerous than the potential Obama supporters.

The larger group are those that don't care about either of those guys and will vote their conscience, whether writing in Paul, staying home, or showing support for the LP.

Obama's gonna win no matter if Paul runs independent or not. The GOP doesn't have enough cross-over appeal, and they blew trying to get some by blowing out Paul in the early primaries. Romney's just not a winner, and it's not Paul's fault, nor his supporter's fault.


What kind of Paul supporters are you hanging out with? Because I do know quite a few myself, and I can lump them into two groups: compulsively contrarian, neo-anarchist malcontents, or young republicans who voted for Bush but conveniently switched party affiliations out of embarrassment.
 
2012-08-17 04:01:12 PM

Zerochance: iawai: Being somewhat connected to many Paul supporters, I don't think that the potential Romney voters are much more numerous than the potential Obama supporters.

The larger group are those that don't care about either of those guys and will vote their conscience, whether writing in Paul, staying home, or showing support for the LP.

Obama's gonna win no matter if Paul runs independent or not. The GOP doesn't have enough cross-over appeal, and they blew trying to get some by blowing out Paul in the early primaries. Romney's just not a winner, and it's not Paul's fault, nor his supporter's fault.

What kind of Paul supporters are you hanging out with? Because I do know quite a few myself, and I can lump them into two groups: compulsively contrarian, neo-anarchist malcontents, or young republicans who voted for Bush but conveniently switched party affiliations out of embarrassment.


I'll bet $100 that you are exaggerating the number of Paul supporters you know and the breakdown you described of their demographic makeup.

I'm not a Paul supporter, but I'm in many ways closer to him than others. The gold standard stuff is one of a few issues that he has dead wrong.

In any case, the ones I know will likely know more about your preferred policy than you do. You're just picking out the obnoxious ones and deciding that they're all like that. I'll bed by "know" you mean you read the obnoxious bloviating of Internet Libertarians, who are the worst sort of people.
 
2012-08-17 04:51:52 PM

Cyberluddite: Bontesla: Quasar: This would hurt both candidates. How much and in what distribution, I'm not sure.

I can't imagine that it's true. People who are voting for President Obama aren't going to vote for RON PAUL. They're completely different.

The Rmoney vote is more of an Not-Obama vote. They'd vote for anyone who might be able to beat Obama. I think it would hurt Rmoney.

As things stand I assume I'll vote for Obama (I'm sure as hell not voting for Mittens), but if RON PAUL happens to wind up on the ballot I might consider voting for him just for the lulz (not that I'm a fan, though I certainly don't dislike the crazy old dude and I enjoy listening to his rants). Of course, I live in California--a state that Fartbongo will undoubtedly win by double-digits no matter how I vote--so my vote is a throwaway. If I lived in a swing state, I'd definitely vote for Obama.


This was actually my logic in 2000. If I lived in a swing state, I would have voted for Gore. But, like you, I live in California, so my vote was worthless, and I knew Lieberman was a douchebag even back then. Lieberman's and Gore's anti-free speech leanings were what sealed it. I voted for the Libertarian (Harry Browne, I think).
 
2012-08-17 05:35:16 PM
If the law says that the Republican party has not qualified to be on the 2012 ballot, then the law will be ignored.
 
2012-08-17 05:37:05 PM

Geotpf: Lieberman's and Gore's anti-free speech leanings were what sealed it.


At least Al Gore no longer has Tipper "PMRC" Gore hanging around anymore. I didn't vote for Bush but the thought of having Tipper as first lady sure did give me pause.
 
2012-08-17 05:38:13 PM
[execute_the_specific_action.jpg]
 
2012-08-17 05:49:09 PM
i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-17 06:04:03 PM

Marcus Aurelius: At least Mitt will have someone to blame the loss on.


Can we avoid the endless recounts this year for god's sake?
 
2012-08-17 06:09:49 PM

xynix: Pretty sure Romney is already sunk but if Ron gets into the mix he's baked.


Any third-party candidate who will draw conservative voters, really. Paul would probably do the most damage, but Gary Johnson could also cost Romney a couple key states, and that McDonnell fellow may well cost him Virginia. Either way, it probably won't matter since Obama still seems to have the upper hand, but a meaningful third-party candidate could effectively end this thing.
 
2012-08-17 06:15:40 PM
I wish this would happen, but Ron Paul has made it pretty clear that he will do no such thing.
 
2012-08-17 06:22:21 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Paul would probably do the most damage, but Gary Johnson could also cost Romney a couple key states, and that McDonnell fellow may well cost him Virginia.


Do Ohio, Virginia, and Florida really have libertarian streaks that would prop up Johnson at the expense of Romney? I don't know about that.

I don't see how McDonnell hurts him (other than his extreme anti-abortion position, but I think people who are already aware of that had already made up their minds to vote for Obama).
 
2012-08-17 07:15:11 PM
Yes, because when I think of cutting-edge political journalism, I think of Beatweek. Me personally, I'd love it if he ran, but it's highly doubtful. I think a lot of it will depend on how he's treated in Tampa.
 
2012-08-17 09:59:38 PM
Maybe the GOP needs this to happen. They need to suffer another Obama term to learn that they need to pick better people to run.
 
2012-08-17 10:13:35 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: FishyFred: Marcus Aurelius: At least Mitt will have someone to blame the loss on.

Fair enough. I don't feel bad about giving Ralph Nader a share of the blame for 2000. Not a large share, but definitely one of the many things that had to go wrong (and did).

I give Ralph Nader (and his followers) 50% of the blame. The other 50% goes to the system that allows someone to win with a plurality rather than a majority, or even when they DON'T have EITHER.


Actually, even the Third Party with the lowest vote count in Florida 2000 out of the several such Parties that fielded candidates on the ballot, namely, the Socialist Workers Party, got more votes than Bush "won" Florida by. If those nearly 600 Socialist Workers had voted for Gore instead, Bush would never have been President.

The only vote entry that got less than the margin by which Bush "won" Florida was write-ins!
 
2012-08-17 10:19:29 PM
The basis of this childishly written blog post is that the GOP may not qualify for the presidential ballot in WA because they apparently failed to get a candidate on the ballot for Senate in 2010.

The problem with that is that they did. Dino Rossi (R) won 47.6% of the vote.
 
2012-08-17 10:45:04 PM
Yeah, this story is about as dumb as Pat Robertson. And to not even mention Gary Johnson shows he has a biased agenda.

But what would stop Ron Paul from asking Johnson to be his Vice?
A Republican/Libertarian ticket!

(In my best Cheech Marin voice...) Sounds good to me. 

img707.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-17 11:01:32 PM
The slim to nothing chance this nutbag has of winning might actually get me off my ass to vote for him.
 
2012-08-17 11:37:32 PM

janzee: xynix: Pretty sure Romney is already sunk but if Ron gets into the mix he's baked.

[www.wallpapersweb.com image 411x315]


Hot. Brown. Buttery.
 
2012-08-18 12:44:02 AM
So the old "Perot caused Clinton to won" talking point is still going strong? I voted for Perot the first time and I have pretty much always voted dem since 1976.

And screw Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and Mitt Romney together or one by one, I don't care.
 
2012-08-18 07:41:13 AM

FishyFred: There's a difference between followers who just can't let it go and Ron Paul actually making a sincere effort to get on the ballot.

But putting him on the ballot in Washington will accomplish nothing. Put him on the ballot in some swing states and then you'll hear some serious wailing and gnashing of teeth.


This is about Ron Paul running in the swing states. Try reading the article again.
 
2012-08-18 09:22:27 PM
Story from a more reliable source.

The legal case Romney being on the ballot seems really bad.

Not that it matters, Washington State is generally considered safe for Obama. If Romney wins there, it will be a landslide both in the popular vote and in the electoral college.
 
2012-08-20 08:49:53 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 36 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report