What are you going to do when Ron Paul drops out?

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Just curious and pursing a hypothetical thought here: what are you going to do when Ron Paul drops out of the race?

I don't think he's dropping out soon and I think he might have more resources than most to carry on for a while. But I doubt he'll go much further than South Carolina for a couple of reasons. First, I believe Romney just might roll through it with fractured leads that nobody will believe gives him anything less than the nomination. He will be a lukewarm candidate at best for just about everyone but he will be the candidate.

Ron Paul -- God love him -- is 78 years old and he's worried about the political future of his son, in my view. I just don't think he's long for this Republican fight and that the votes for him don't represent a true love for Ron Paul's principles as much as it reflects a desire and ticked off attitude about the economy and just folks that just want somebody other than Obama there.

Now, I'm not going there with Ron Paul on the issues. I'm just saying what if...he drops out? What if he decides the Republican nomination isn't for him and he instead goes for an independent track in a run for president? What if he just cashes it in and endorses Romney or the eventual Republican nominee (who else would it be?), like all good Republicans should?

What do you do then?

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Look to the Constitution Party, which I believe will run a candidate in the November election if, and only if Ron Paul drops out.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Who do you think that might be in not Dr. Paul?

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

Ron Paul's strategy, I believe, is to not necessarily win the nomination, but to amass delegates that force a change on the platform during the convention, perhaps to broker the convention. The GOP is going to torn asunder, mark my words.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Ron Paul's strategy, I believe, is to not necessarily win the nomination, but to amass delegates that force a change on the platform during the convention, perhaps to broker the convention. The GOP is going to torn asunder, mark my words.

I've considered that. But the more fractured it remains the more it favors Romney overall. Really interesting run this time.

[NickHi, I'm new.]

I'm doing everything in my power to make certain Ron Paul has a great showing in my state of Nevada.

Dr Paul has actual plans to decrease abortion by allowing states to ban it if they choose once they get Rowe v Wade back to the state levels where it belongs.

Also allowing State's rights supremacy with the Defense of Marriage act. (Romney is in dreamland if he thinks he will get a national Marriage law)

I am calling in every day to Conservative radio shows to educate people on liberty.

I will stop the cause when Dr Paul is in the white house.

Mittens is not my president. I also don't want a billion dollars of anti-mormon literature spread around the USA



The short answer is I will not give up and I don't even think in those terms.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

The fact that you believe Ron will not go far beyond SC just shows that you do not follow the campaign closely. Ron is expecting to do well in Nevada, South Dakota, and many other states. You can expect him to be around until Super Tuesday at the very least.

I also believe that the chances of Ron running third party are very close to zero. The only reason he has not ruled it out completely, is he knows that as soon as he does he loses all leverage with the party - in other words, instead of subtly undermining him they will blatantly and openly do so. Currently, even when a GOP official has come out openly opposed to Paul (like the governor of Iowa did) he has made soothing gestures within 24 hours. I believe this is ONLY because they know that if they cross the line, Paul would then run third party, and if that happens the GOP is sunk and they know it. So he is forcing the party insiders to somewhat play nice for now.

When and if Ron Paul drops out, I will be looking to the Constitution Party most likely, I will be interested to see who, if anyone, that Ron Paul endorses. Last time he endorsed the man that I intended to vote for anyway - Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.

There is a chance that I would vote for Romney...I do not feel he is evil, just incredibly lacking in understanding, particularly about the Constitution.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Mitt Romney probably also lacks awareness of his responsibility as a Latter-day Saint to the Constitution and its preservation.

I have seen no indication of who the Constitution Party might run for President. m My first guess would be Darrel Castle, who was the VP candidate in 2008.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

The fact that you believe Ron will not go far beyond SC just shows that you do not follow the campaign closely.

Well, that's not very fair. Maybe I just don't read the same pundits you do.

Ron is expecting to do well in Nevada, South Dakota, and many other states. You can expect him to be around until Super Tuesday at the very least.

Ok, I'll take your word on that. But still the end result is the same. I'm not reading anyone anywhere who gives him a chance at this and I've read some speculation that he's not really in it to win anyway, some of that speculation right here. So the questions still stand about what his supporters HERE do when he drops out.

I also believe that the chances of Ron running third party are very close to zero. The only reason he has not ruled it out completely, is he knows that as soon as he does he loses all leverage with the party - in other words, instead of subtly undermining him they will blatantly and openly do so. Currently, even when a GOP official has come out openly opposed to Paul (like the governor of Iowa did) he has made soothing gestures within 24 hours. I believe this is ONLY because they know that if they cross the line, Paul would then run third party, and if that happens the GOP is sunk and they know it. So he is forcing the party insiders to somewhat play nice for now.

Interesting.

When and if Ron Paul drops out, I will be looking to the Constitution Party most likely, I will be interested to see who, if anyone, that Ron Paul endorses. Last time he endorsed the man that I intended to vote for anyway - Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.

There is a chance that I would vote for Romney...I do not feel he is evil, just incredibly lacking in understanding, particularly about the Constitution.

Would you say that your view is fairly representative? If it does come down to Romney versus Obama where would the majority of Paul supporters go?

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

J I just don't think he's long for this Republican fight and that the votes for him don't represent a true love for Ron Paul's principles as much as it reflects a desire and ticked off attitude about the economy and just folks that just want somebody other than Obama there.

You obviously don't know Ron Paul's followers to say something as trite as that.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

CBS Reporter Blatantly Excludes Ron Paul From Coverage

Despite the fact Paul is surging and Romney sliding, gap now only 15 points
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
January 9, 2012

Despite the fact that Ron Paul is polling in second place in New Hampshire, and rapidly closing the gap on Mitt Romney, according to the latest polls, one CBS reporter did her best to convince viewers that Paul does not even exist.

It’s a familiar picture for Paul supporters who have had to watch over and over as mainstream media talking heads and pundits have consistently either laughed off the Texas Congressman’s chances for GOP nominee or simply excluded Paul from their coverage altogether.

However, within the past few weeks, the networks were forced to begin taking Paul seriously as he began consistently polling in first and second ahead of the Iowa caucuses, eventually finishing third in what was essentially a three way tie.

Going into New Hampshire and ahead of two debates this weekend, Paul was polling in strong second, as he has been for some time. However, That did not stop CBS political correspondent Jan Crawford from showing graphics and talking about recent polling, without even mentioning Paul’s numbers or even that he was involved in the race at all.

Crawford even used a graphic referencing a Suffolk University Poll of New Hampshire voters, omitting Paul’s numbers, even though he came second, and was the only candidate other than Mitt Romney to poll in double figures.

Watch the video: embedded in original article: http://www.infowars.com/cbs-reporter-bl ... -coverage/

The video went viral over the weekend, with Paul supporters bombarding CBS with complaints.
“Your lack of integrity as a journalist is no longer in question, it is fact.” wrote on critic on Crawford’s Facebook page.

“Blatant manipulation of data to fabricate a news story instead of doing your job to report it disgusts me. Thank you, Jan Crawford, You make me feel like a better person,” the commenter added.
“Where is your on air apology? Are you going to own up to your blatant misrepresentation of the facts?” wrote another Paul supporter.

“You call yourself a ‘political correspondent’?? Shame on you,” commented another.
In reality, Paul is actually rapidly closing the gap on Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. the latest Suffolk University/7NEWS tracking poll, released on Sunday, shows that Ron Paul has surged 6 percentage points since last week to 20 percent, while Romney has dropped 8 points since last Wednesday and now stands at 35 percent.

That means the gap between the two is now down to 15 points. John Huntsman is the only other candidate in double figures, at 11 percent. As many highlighted last week, Rick Santorum does not have the resources to compete beyond Iowa and resides in a lowly fifth place in New Hampshire.

Romney is likely to see his numbers drop even further following a lack luster performance in two debates on Saturday and Sunday. The Suffolk University/7News poll, conducted before the debates took place, puts the number of undecided voters at 15 percent.
——————————————————————
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
Similar/Related Articles

New Polls Place Ron Paul A Strong Second In New Hampshire
Romney Sinking, Ron Paul Surging In New Hampshire

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

You obviously don't know Ron Paul's followers to say something as trite as that.

What's so trite about that?

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

More inforwars.com propoganda

Take a look at the various polls posted here -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/beh ... _blog.html

The major media polls show Romney and Paul both "slipping" as support shifts amongst the various contenders.

I agree that Paul gets shafted in the media (and in questions at the debates too).

The trend I've seen for a while is that Paul has some very rabid followers who try to tweak every poll out there. Iowa, if you recall, came in a couple of percentage points lower for Paul than all the polls suggested. Some blamed that on Santorum's surge others blamed that on passionate Paul followers antics.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

More inforwars.com propoganda

Take a look at the various polls posted here -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/beh ... _blog.html

The major media polls show Romney and Paul both "slipping" as support shifts amongst the various contenders.

I agree that Paul gets shafted in the media (and in questions at the debates too).

The trend I've seen for a while is that Paul has some very rabid followers who try to tweak every poll out there. Iowa, if you recall, came in a couple of percentage points lower for Paul than all the polls suggested. Some blamed that on Santorum's surge others blamed that on passionate Paul followers antics.

I think it is very deceptive on your part to misquote me above. Is that your MO? It says alot about who you are.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you. Did you not get that article from Infowars.com?

If there's a bias there is would be from infowars.com, not you (unless, of course, you are infowars.com, which I don't think is the case). Regardless, I apologize if you took offense at my terming infowars.com as "propaganda". I do believe there is a slant there.

[Spencecaptain of 1,000]

Ron Paul is 76 years old. I don't see how people are always painting him as older than he really is....

Anyways as for him dropping out? Ron Paul didn't drop out until the convention in 2008, what would make this go-around any different?

And his supporters only support him because they oppose Obama? Uh.....

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

You asked me if I was representative of a Paul supporter - I don't know, but there is a large segment of Paul's support that has pledged "No One But Paul" - in other words, if the GOP selects another nominee, they will vote third party or stay home, or write in Paul's name.

For me at least, this is not from a desire for another term of Obama, far from it. However, I have poured time and money into a candidate only to have the media deem him unelectable, and for the GOP party establishment doing everything in their power to undermine his candidacy. To anyone who has followed the race during the last six months (and granted, most people don't start paying much attention until Iowa Caucuses) the message from the media has been clear: Ron Paul has no chance of being the nominee. What is interesting is the point was rarely if ever raised for the many candidates who were polling behind Paul, and one has to wonder how much of an effect the constant reinforcement of the "unelectable" message has had on Ron Paul's fundraising, polling support, or people having an interest in investigating his positions.

His treatment by the GOP establishment has been no better, with many influential Republicans chiming in on the "no chance to be nominated" message. This has caused a "blowback" effect among Ron Paul supporters to NOT support the eventual nominee if it is not Paul. Would you feel any loyalty to the party when at every turn they undermined your candidate whom you admired, and likely even financially supported?

As far as eventually supporting Mitt - I think Mitt is probably a decent guy and hold out some hope that if he can be educated about the Constitution that he might try and follow it. When and if he gets the nomination it will be interesting to me to see if he "runs to the center" as expected to win or if he sticks with his newfound conservative principles. If he runs to the center, I can only assume he is just another POS politician that will do and say whatever he thinks is necessary to win. If that happens, it would take a "burning bush" experience to get my support.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Ron Paul is 76 years old. I don't see how people are always painting him as older than he really is....

Sorry. I thought I had read somewhere he was 78. My mistake.

Anyways as for him dropping out? Ron Paul didn't drop out until the convention in 2008, what would make this go-around any different?
And his supporters only support him because they oppose Obama? Uh.....

I suppose there are a ton of reasons that those who follow Ron Paul are as passionate as they are about the man. I'm just wondering what they all do if he drops out again.

Another question: if he does go to the convention, as you said he did last time, does he in fact have any clout? What did it gain him last time? And what is hoped to be gained this time?

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Well, that's not very fair. Maybe I just don't read the same pundits you do.

sorry I meant you do not follow the Paul campaign as closely as I do. I didn;t mean to imply that you were not watching the race in general.

There is one thing you have to "get" about Ron Paul that is a bit jarring if you are used to other politicians.

Most politicians can be telling you that they have taken "hundreds of thousands" of another candidates supporters on one day, and then giving a concession speech and bowing out two days later.
Or they can be saying they are going back to Texas to "re-assess" their campaign, and cancel South Carolina appearances, and then the next day come out and say you will be staying in until at least South Carolina (which most pundits were surprised by.)

The Paul campaign is pretty up front about their strategy and about their expectations. You will not hear a "we are doing great!" speech one night and a concession speech the next day.

Ron Paul and his campaign have said for weeks (to supporters) that they feel this is a Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul campaign. For various reasons they feel that every other candidate is either too flawed or too broke or too disorganized to compete for the long haul. (I personally see Perry and Gingrich lasting a while due to having the funds to continue). Even though Perry came in to the race practically as the Anointed One - he blew it. If he doesn;t win or at least do a very strong second in South Carolina - he is done.

Gingrich? 4th in Iowa, probably 4th or 5th in New Hampshire, and not looking to win any early states...how long can he keep spending money without some wins to encourage contributions? Yes, he is looking better in Florida and South Carolina - will it be good enough?

Santorum? He has gotten a few million coming from his strong Iowa finish, can he build an actual organization that can be effective quickly enough?

Huntsman? He certainly has access to plenty of his own money. He has gone all in in N.H. and I think he needs at least a 2nd place finish to get any momentum going forward.

At any rate, most of the pundits acknowledge that Paul will be around for a long while. I don;t know what pundits you listen to, but I have heard no one saying they expect Paul to drop out before Super Tuesday.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Ron Paul and his campaign have said for weeks (to supporters) that they feel this is a Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul campaign.

Looking at the early results, they seem to be saying the same thing again tonight!

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you. Did you not get that article from Infowars.com?

If there's a bias there is would be from infowars.com, not you (unless, of course, you are infowars.com, which I don't think is the case). Regardless, I apologize if you took offense at my terming infowars.com as "propaganda". I do believe there is a slant there.

I don't care what slant you believe is there or anywhere, it is wrong to change my post and present it as what I said.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

I don't care what slant you believe is there or anywhere, it is wrong to change my post and present it as what I said.

Your post was an article from infowars.com and I didn't feel it necessary to post it in a quote. Infowars.com, for better or for worse, has an agenda and thus it is technically propaganda. What's the big deal?

[Spencecaptain of 1,000]

Ron Paul is 76 years old. I don't see how people are always painting him as older than he really is....

Sorry. I thought I had read somewhere he was 78. My mistake.

Anyways as for him dropping out? Ron Paul didn't drop out until the convention in 2008, what would make this go-around any different?
And his supporters only support him because they oppose Obama? Uh.....

I suppose there are a ton of reasons that those who follow Ron Paul are as passionate as they are about the man. I'm just wondering what they all do if he drops out again.

Another question: if he does go to the convention, as you said he did last time, does he in fact have any clout? What did it gain him last time? And what is hoped to be gained this time?

Who cares if he drops our or goes to the convention? It's about principle.

I'm not going to react if he loses. I'll be overjoyed if he wins.

I don't understand your question on what am I going to do if he doesn't win the nomination? Go on with Life? The president shouldn't have that much sway anyways. It's less about Ron winning and more about trying to save America. I see hope for America (It won't be called America then) in about 20-30 years. But until then, the older generation can wallow in the mess that they created for us.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

I don't care what slant you believe is there or anywhere, it is wrong to change my post and present it as what I said.

Your post was an article from infowars.com and I didn't feel it necessary to post it in a quote. Infowars.com, for better or for worse, has an agenda and thus it is technically propaganda. What's the big deal?

You are lying about what I really quoted......instead of proving its progaganda you just name-call like Obiwan, no evidence just name-calling. How far do you think you would advance in academia with such trite moves as this?

This is where you lose your credibility.......where's the proof, all I hear is name-calling from you. Start showing me the lies and deception on infowars. I am not beholden to anybody, I don't put my trust in the arm of flesh......but infowars fleshes out it arguments with sufficient evidence. Let's see yours.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

I don't care what slant you believe is there or anywhere, it is wrong to change my post and present it as what I said.

I didn't change your post. I just called it as I see it. Deal with it. You copy and pasted an entire article. It doesn't represent an original thought on your part. Infowars.com is full of all kinds of distort information that represents a very slanted point of view. If you want to associate yourself with that that is your business but you need to deal with the consequences of the company you keep. Not my problem.

You are lying about what I really quoted......instead of proving its progaganda you just name-call like Obiwan, no evidence just name-calling. How far do you think you would advance in academia with such trite moves as this?

Academia? What's that got to do with the price of eggs? I deal with the real world, not a world of theories, abstract thought, conspiracies, fairy dust, etc. Do you actually have an opinion or are you just Alex Jones' robot?

This is where you lose your credibility.......where's the proof, all I hear is name-calling from you. Start showing me the lies and deception on infowars. I am not beholden to anybody, I don't put my trust in the arm of flesh......but infowars fleshes out it arguments with sufficient evidence. Let's see yours.

Credibility? We're just people talking on the Internet. I'm not running for anything. I don't care to prove a thing one way or the other about infowars.com. If I want to see what they have to say, I'll go there. But I don't care to read their garbage here. And that's all it is to me. Deal with it. The credibility issue here is yours.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Ron Paul is 76 years old. I don't see how people are always painting him as older than he really is....

Sorry. I thought I had read somewhere he was 78. My mistake.

Anyways as for him dropping out? Ron Paul didn't drop out until the convention in 2008, what would make this go-around any different?
And his supporters only support him because they oppose Obama? Uh.....

I suppose there are a ton of reasons that those who follow Ron Paul are as passionate as they are about the man. I'm just wondering what they all do if he drops out again.

Another question: if he does go to the convention, as you said he did last time, does he in fact have any clout? What did it gain him last time? And what is hoped to be gained this time?

Who cares if he drops our or goes to the convention? It's about principle.

I'm not going to react if he loses. I'll be overjoyed if he wins.

I don't understand your question on what am I going to do if he doesn't win the nomination? Go on with Life? The president shouldn't have that much sway anyways. It's less about Ron winning and more about trying to save America. I see hope for America (It won't be called America then) in about 20-30 years. But until then, the older generation can wallow in the mess that they created for us.

I take a bit of exception to this as I am part of the older generation that you say "can wallow in the mess that they created for us." That is more of the sticking people into groups that Ron Paul argues against. Instead of doing it on racial basis you are lumping a group of people together by age and blaming them for the bad situation. I have spent 25+ years fighting against the bad situation, trying to change the situation in the right direction. Ron Paul also is one of those older Americans who you put the blame on, despite the fact that he has probably done more in the fight to set this country on a correct course than just about anyone living.

I felt the same way when I was in my twenties, though. I looked at anyone over 30 as the cause of all the problems, and felt they had really handed my generation a much less free country than they had been handed (true, but the entire generation was not to blame). So I guess what goes around comes around. And it is nice that your attitude seems to be we should just "wallow in it" until the Savior comes and puts everything right. Hmm, that's a real promising attitude. I wonder what state the country would be in right now if my generation, those of us that have fought to at least slow down the decline, had just sat on our hands waiting for the Savior to come fix everything. Makes me wonder if the Lord delays his coming, what the next generation will have to say about yours, and if you will be able to say that you did anything to give them a better country.

[Spencecaptain of 1,000]

My statements weren't meant to say the second coming would solve everything. I don't live my life for that day, because I don't know when that day is and it has been a common mistake of many in the past.

I'm just saying in 20-30 years, you old folks will be dead a gone so we can rebuild something better . And I don't see America surviving very much longer, that is why I said it wouldn't exist in 20-30 years.

But you were right I was collectivist. I should have said anyone who doesn't support the cause of liberty can wallow in the mess they created. Generally those people are older in nature as vetted by the poll numbers of how many of those 'older' people voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. Where 50%+ of the younger people did vote for Ron Paul.

And it was my way of jabbing the older people, because frankly. I'm mad. You guys had it all and squandered it down to nearly nothing in only 100 years time.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Jab away and be mad all you want. I went thru the same feelings as I woke up. I started waking up 30 years ago, and have continued to try to educate myself and do what I can to fight the establishment. But the bottom line is I am one man, and one that most of my fellow LDS don't particularly want to listen to. If 1% of the people in this country donated to Ron Paul what I have over the last two elections, Ron Paul would have more money than Obama projects that he will have for the election. I've run for office, written letters to congress, and done what I know how to promote the cause of liberty and expose the works of darkness.

The fact of the matter is I was educated in public school, meaning that I have had to self-educate on about everything that matters. Again, I have gone through the entire "blame the last generation for throwing away a good thing"...the fact is it has been going on for well over a hundred years, the people were hoodwinked into many bad deals and essentially trusted government too much...to some degree they bear responsibility, to some degree I do and when the next generation kicks you in the teeth you will have to admit you didn't do all you could and therefore you bear some responsibility.

I assume you are in your 20s, and it sure is easy to get up the righteous indignation against those terrible old folks for the mess they leave us...get back with me after 25-30 years of effort and donations to good candidates when you were also trying to raise a family, educate them in correct principles and pay for missions, college etc. Life goes on. It would be great to be able to fight the good fight 24/7 but life does get in the way for those of us not born to wealthy families. So be sure you are willing to be judged by your own measure.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

I found the last two posts between Spence and Original Intent very interesting. I am 44 years old and got my first wake up call when I was 21 years old and our Gov. Meecham was impeached by a lynch mob. From then on I have been active in trying to "save" my Country. Both Spence and OI are correct.

As a young adult I was so frustrated with people who would stop their ears at hearing the message of liberties being taken away...this is what I got as a response.... Most of my family thought I was ....... crazy and would roll their eyes. My ward members shunned me. The Legislators who I testified to were and incredulous. As I read President Benson's messages on freedom I came to realize that this apathy for ture freedom always fell on deaf ears and I realized that there were a few of us who really cared and one day....they would all feel the heat of their choices. Most of those family members now ask me about what is going....lol. Ward members don't run away as fast and in fact, many are actually on the same team.

I'm glad Spence is mad...thanks for joining the ranks we need you! However, yoke the strength of those who have gone before you, by looking and embracing those who are your friends in the cause of liberty. As a young adult, I found great allies, especially in the older generations than myself and learned much from them, I still am.

Spence, my son's are 25 and 21 and both have been awake about what has been going on since they wre in their young teens. Now as they are Young Adults, they still find themselves alone in the cause of liberty among their own peer-group. My younger son is way more out-spoken than my older and he has gotten hammered by those who are his "friends.' So, realize that those who have apathy run in all ages, races, gender and religions. It really is the process of the wheat and the tares.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

Oh, as for the orignal question of what I am going to do when/if Ron Paul drop s out or runs as an independent?...Well, its not about replacing a moderate/liberal with another moderate/liberal. For me it is about having the right to cast my vote for the person who closely reflects my personal standards. Therefore, if there is a Constitutional Candidate who will run, I will most likely support that person if Ron Paul is not running as an Independent, which I hope he does. Joseph Smith ran as President so that there was a Constitutional alternative...that is what Ron Paul is for me. He is my modern-day Captain Moroni