Romney/Paul ticket

[PunaGabecaptain of 100]

Ok lets say Romney wins the nomination and picks Ron Paul as his running mate then do you think you folks could get along?

[markbaskercaptain of 100]

That would be a match made in the celestial kingdom.

[LateOutOfBedcaptain of 100]

Ok lets say Romney wins the nomination and picks Ron Paul as his running mate then do you think you folks could get along?

I'd vote that ticket and would sleep well at night knowing I did.

-- Geoff

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Even though in one debate Mitt Romney acknowledged that among the GOP candidates Ron Paul in the "expert" on the Constitution, I personally think Paul's knowledge of and dedication to constitutional principles would be wasted on Romney. Romney seems to me to be too knowledgeable and talented to be bound down by the chains of the Constitution, especially the original Constitution.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Ok lets say Romney wins the nomination and picks Ron Paul as his running mate then do you think you folks could get along?

But Romney is evil remember? No, it would not make me happy. It would cause Romney to lose.

[AGStackercaptain of 100]

This is the only way Romney can win. If Romney doesn't include Ron it's over. Romney is too much like Obama to get ANY democratic votes and any independents.

Can't believe Romney, once a Stake President, openly supported abortion.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Ok lets say Romney wins the nomination and picks Ron Paul as his running mate then do you think you folks could get along?

But Romney is evil remember? No, it would not make me happy. It would cause Romney to lose.

Probably one of the most uneducatedd things I have seen anyone post here, Juliette.

Most of the other candidates supporters are of the "anyone that can beat Obama" mindset. They may trash Romney now, but if he is the nominee, most of them will fall in line and support Mitt.

Ron Paul supporters are not in this "to beat Obama". They are in this to support a certain set of principles, and if Ron Paul is not the nominee, most will either stay home, vote third party, or worst case possibly even vote for Obama. (I would be supporting the Constitution Party myself.)

The only way Mitt gets a decent chunk of these supporters is to either put Paul on the ticket or promise him a significant cabinet post such as Sec'y of the Treasury. There are some hardcore Paul supporters who that would not even be enough. But I bet it would pull in at least 50% to 75% of them.

You say it would cause Romney to lose, and I am afraid that was either a shot from the hip comment without much thought behind it, or it shows you to be completely blind to political reality. I challenge you to name one other candidate that would bring more votes with him than Ron Paul. Not Santorum or Gingrich, as I stated, most of their supporters are mostly focused on replacing Obama, they will come to Romney just as Romney's supporters will get behind Satnoprum or Gingrich if they win. The only one that brings Independents and even some Democrats to the GOP side is Ron Paul. If you think that taking someone like Chris Christie or Bobby Jindal would bring more votes - again most of the people that would support them would be voting for Romney anyway.

Sarah Palin - it's a possibility that she would raise the excitement level some. She has quite a dedicated following that would surely do a lot of legwork to GOTV in the general. She and Mitt would also make like the perfect photogenic "First Couple" (Sorry Ann!) So despite the fact that she doesn;t bring much in regards to legitimate qualifications to the ticket, Palin might be one possibility of a better choice due to "cult of personality" credentials. Probably a win win win for Romney would be to put Palin on as his Veep and promise Paul Treasury. That would likely be an unbeatable ticket. Assuming that Palin or Paul would accept.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

It is quite apparent to me that the PTB / LDGs are doing their best to ensure that neither Paul nor Romney get the nomination.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Ok lets say Romney wins the nomination and picks Ron Paul as his running mate then do you think you folks could get along?

But Romney is evil remember? No, it would not make me happy. It would cause Romney to lose.

Probably one of the most uneducatedd things I have seen anyone post here, Juliette.

Most of the other candidates supporters are of the "anyone that can beat Obama" mindset. They may trash Romney now, but if he is the nominee, most of them will fall in line and support Mitt.

Ron Paul supporters are not in this "to beat Obama". They are in this to support a certain set of principles, and if Ron Paul is not the nominee, most will either stay home, vote third party, or worst case possibly even vote for Obama. (I would be supporting the Constitution Party myself.)

Looking at your post, it was hard not to laugh at the way you spelled " Uneducatedd". There is an edit button where you can fix mistakes like that, especially in the context it was written, fixing it would have made your point seem a little more believeable.




The only way Mitt gets a decent chunk of these supporters is to either put Paul on the ticket or promise him a significant cabinet post such as Sec'y of the Treasury. There are some hardcore Paul supporters who that would not even be enough. But I bet it would pull in at least 50% to 75% of them.

You say it would cause Romney to lose, and I am afraid that was either a shot from the hip comment without much thought behind it, or it shows you to be completely blind to political reality. I challenge you to name one other candidate that would bring more votes with him than Ron Paul. Not Santorum or Gingrich, as I stated, most of their supporters are mostly focused on replacing Obama, they will come to Romney just as Romney's supporters will get behind Satnoprum or Gingrich if they win. The only one that brings Independents and even some Democrats to the GOP side is Ron Paul. If you think that taking someone like Chris Christie or Bobby Jindal would bring more votes - again most of the people that would support them would be voting for Romney anyway.

Sarah Palin - it's a possibility that she would raise the excitement level some. She has quite a dedicated following that would surely do a lot of legwork to GOTV in the general. She and Mitt would also make like the perfect photogenic "First Couple" (Sorry Ann!) So despite the fact that she doesn;t bring much in regards to legitimate qualifications to the ticket, Palin might be one possibility of a better choice due to "cult of personality" credentials. Probably a win win win for Romney would be to put Palin on as his Veep and promise Paul Treasury. That would likely be an unbeatable ticket. Assuming that Palin or Paul would accept.

I have always read your posts and enjoyed learning from them. I didn't think you would stoop to being so hateful.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

I laugh at the way you wrote "Educatedd". There is an edit button for fixing mistakes like that. Considering the context its in, you don't appear to be very educated yourself.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

I laugh at the way you wrote "Educatedd". There is an edit button for fixing mistakes like that. Considering the context its in, you don't appear to be very educated yourself.

Attacking a typo? C'mon. Use some reason.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

I laugh at the way you wrote "Educatedd". There is an edit button for fixing mistakes like that. Considering the context its in, you don't appear to be very educated yourself.

Attacking a typo? C'mon. Use some reason.

Attacking me? Get a life..

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

I laugh at the way you wrote "Educatedd". There is an edit button for fixing mistakes like that. Considering the context its in, you don't appear to be very educated yourself.

Attacking a typo? C'mon. Use some reason.

Attacking me? Get a life..

Wow, impressive use of logic. I am humbled by it.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Why are you ganging up on me? If you want to discuss the issue, do it. I don't think anybody needs your help in putting me down.
I sincerely doubt you have the ability to be humble.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Sorry Juliette, I didn't mean to be hateful.

Let me clarify. I think you are obviously very intelligent, as I feel Bob is and in fact I feel most who post here, whether I agree with them or not, are much above average intelligence.

What I meant was, on this matter you clearly are not thinking clearly or you are uneducated.

When choosing a VP for their ticket a nominee has to ask him/herself primarily two things - is this someone I could work with? and how much to they expand my base of supporters?

Most people think that in order to accomplish the first item, the person would want to get someone who is almost a close of them.

But the fact is, a nominee wants a running mate that is as unlike him/her as possible but that they can still work with per item 1.

This was why I said that your comment that Ron Paul would cause Romney to lose if he were on the ticket was an uneducated(d) one. And not that I said the comment was uneducated...you may call it splitting hairs, but I was literally saying "that was a stupid thing to say" - doesn;t mean you are stupid, because I truly don't believe that's the case. In fact I have been particularly careful not to cross you as you are one of few that I think could intellectually take me to the woodshed. I still think you are wrong about a good many things, as I undoubtedly am. There probably isn't anyone on this board whose intellect and research ability I respect more than Jason's, but I think he and others are foolish and wrong in certain areas. And Jason has corrected my thinking about a great many things for which I am grateful.

And I can almost guarantee that you FEEL this is just a face-saving exercise on my part. I assure you that is not the case. I'll stand by my position that what you said was an uneducated(d) comment.

One thing I don't care for is being involved in a discussion and then claiming people are ganging up on you. We should keep the discussion on topic. Sure, my typo above was humorously ironic...pointing that out was fair enough, but it certainly didn't mean that your argument was any more correct...and I think that others that said that trying to make hay out of a typo does nto strengthen your argument - it's simply funnyyou did.

So to be clear - no disparagement was intended towards your intelligence. I don't know you, but you certainly seem to me to be very intelligent.
But even intelligent people say stupid things. Another example of something that you said that I felt was stupid was when you said you were aware of Romney's positions on TARP and NDAA and that "you didn't care about those things". All that tells me is that you don;t care about some of the fundamental things that are destroying this country, and again it seems like an "uneducated(d)" thing to say.

Nothing would give me more pleasure than to sit down for several years with intelligent people like you and have a discussion about why such things are not only important but critical. I am sure in your mind that makes me just another Ron Paul crazy who is making mountains out of molehills and wears a tin foil hat. It would sure be nice to compare notes on what we have studied and how we have arrived at our different conclusions, and the years and years of different experiences that have brought me to where I am and you to where you are. I'd love to similarly have brain-sharing with many many others on this site. But the fact of the matter is such an exercise would require a lifetime of reading each others "suggested reading lists" and sharing personal experiences. And unfortunately it appears that such activities will need to be postponed until the other side of the veil.

I am sure that we ALL will be saying "OH! Now I understand why you felt that way!" to many many people with whom we strongly disagreed.
And I am sure that all of us, myself included, will be saying "Now that I understand, I see you were right and I was wrong!" or at the least "Wow, I completely misunderstood what you were trying to tell me!"

Let's seek the truth together. I'll even say that I accept you as an intellectual superior (and mean it) but with the caveat that intellect does not equal knowledge. And in that regard I am sure that we BOTH have much that we can teach each other.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Reader's Digest version of the above - that's an apology in the classical sense of the word. As in Socrates "The Apology".

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Sorry Juliette, I didn't mean to be hateful.

Let me clarify. I think you are obviously very intelligent, as I feel Bob is and in fact I feel most who post here, whether I agree with them or not, are much above average intelligence.

What I meant was, on this matter you clearly are not thinking clearly or you are uneducated.

When choosing a VP for their ticket a nominee has to ask him/herself primarily two things - is this someone I could work with? and how much to they expand my base of supporters?

Most people think that in order to accomplish the first item, the person would want to get someone who is almost a close of them.

But the fact is, a nominee wants a running mate that is as unlike him/her as possible but that they can still work with per item 1.

This was why I said that your comment that Ron Paul would cause Romney to lose if he were on the ticket was an uneducated(d) one. And not that I said the comment was uneducated...you may call it splitting hairs, but I was literally saying "that was a stupid thing to say" - doesn;t mean you are stupid, because I truly don't believe that's the case. In fact I have been particularly careful not to cross you as you are one of few that I think could intellectually take me to the woodshed. I still think you are wrong about a good many things, as I undoubtedly am. There probably isn't anyone on this board whose intellect and research ability I respect more than Jason's, but I think he and others are foolish and wrong in certain areas. And Jason has corrected my thinking about a great many things for which I am grateful.

And I can almost guarantee that you FEEL this is just a face-saving exercise on my part. I assure you that is not the case. I'll stand by my position that what you said was an uneducated(d) comment.

One thing I don't care for is being involved in a discussion and then claiming people are ganging up on you. We should keep the discussion on topic. Sure, my typo above was humorously ironic...pointing that out was fair enough, but it certainly didn't mean that your argument was any more correct...and I think that others that said that trying to make hay out of a typo does nto strengthen your argument - it's simply funnyyou did.

So to be clear - no disparagement was intended towards your intelligence. I don't know you, but you certainly seem to me to be very intelligent.
But even intelligent people say stupid things. Another example of something that you said that I felt was stupid was when you said you were aware of Romney's positions on TARP and NDAA and that "you didn't care about those things". All that tells me is that you don;t care about some of the fundamental things that are destroying this country, and again it seems like an "uneducated(d)" thing to say.

Nothing would give me more pleasure than to sit down for several years with intelligent people like you and have a discussion about why such things are not only important but critical. I am sure in your mind that makes me just another Ron Paul crazy who is making mountains out of molehills and wears a tin foil hat. It would sure be nice to compare notes on what we have studied and how we have arrived at our different conclusions, and the years and years of different experiences that have brought me to where I am and you to where you are. I'd love to similarly have brain-sharing with many many others on this site. But the fact of the matter is such an exercise would require a lifetime of reading each others "suggested reading lists" and sharing personal experiences. And unfortunately it appears that such activities will need to be postponed until the other side of the veil.

I am sure that we ALL will be saying "OH! Now I understand why you felt that way!" to many many people with whom we strongly disagreed.
And I am sure that all of us, myself included, will be saying "Now that I understand, I see you were right and I was wrong!" or at the least "Wow, I completely misunderstood what you were trying to tell me!"

Let's seek the truth together. I'll even say that I accept you as an intellectual superior (and mean it) but with the caveat that intellect does not equal knowledge. And in that regard I am sure that we BOTH have much that we can teach each other.

Thank-you for the response. ( I guess). I have never read such a confusing response. I actually did a search on passive aggressive behavior after reading it. You are in a sense saying I'm not un-educated, but my response was? Then you go on to say, " Another stupid thing you said was". Huh? Heres what I learned about your response:

AMBIGUITY - He is master of mixed messages and sitting on fences. When he tells you something, you may still walk away wondering if he actually said yes or no.
FOSTERING CHAOS - The p/a man prefers to leave the puzzle incomplete, the job undone.
People displaying passive aggressive behavior carry a lot of repressed anger, now projected on the people around them. It appears as sarcastic comments, derisive opinions and blaming other people for their own shortcomings
How can you manage this behavior? It appears as manipulation, describing things differently according to the recipient, backstabbing and in general not owning the problematic behavior.
These passive-aggressive people, Dr. Benjamin said, "are full of unacknowledged contradiction, of angry kindness, compliant defiance, covert assertiveness.
When dealing with a passive-agressive person, one can feel frustrated, offended, guilty or confused. While not intended, you may leave the encounter thinking you did something wrong, but aren't quite sure what it was.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

I do have some passive aggressive traits/behaviors for sure. I'd also say, "physician, heal thyself."

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

So you are a Physician? Then you understand what I am saying. I just don't understand your reasoning?

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

So you are a Physician? Then you understand what I am saying. I just don't understand your reasoning?

I am not a physician, but in a sense we all are, and we only have arms long enough to operate on ourselves...that's not passive aggression, that's just food for thought.

As far as not understanding my reasoning - that's rather broad, if you want to point out specifics, I'll so my best to clarify, and do it clearly.

[liberty_bellecaptain of 100]

Nope, I would not be happy. Why...without a Paul for President and Romney for President.....

1. Great! We had only 4 more years of Obama, but now we have to put with 4 years of Romney with another possible 4 years of the same. That translates into 12 years of outright Constitutional Defiance Disorder..even if Paul was on the ticket somewhere...(yes, I know CDD has been going on for a long time)

2. Well, there is no #2....#1 is enough to make me

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

So you are a Physician? Then you understand what I am saying. I just don't understand your reasoning?

I am not a physician, but in a sense we all are, and we only have arms long enough to operate on ourselves...that's not passive aggression, that's just food for thought.

As far as not understanding my reasoning - that's rather broad, if you want to point out specifics, I'll so my best to clarify, and do it clearly.

As Roseanne Roseannadanna would say, " Nevermind".

[jonholb55captain of 100]

In response to a Romney/Paul ticket, I could handle that. Mitt Romney could use his expertise to help turn the economy around. Congressman Ron Paul could use his expertise to reduce the out-of-control national debt. What is really funny is that so-called "conservative talk-show hosts are claiming that a conspiracy exists between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney will defend each other from attack and attack Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum like a tag-team in a wrestling match. If they are successful, you will have for the Republicans a Mitt Romney/Ron Paul ticket. But wait! Here is the latest news alert!!!. Newt Gingrich announced earlier today that he is dropping out of the Republican primary in Michigan. Will the conservative vote now coalese around Rick Santorum denying Mitt Romney a victory in Michigan? Are Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in an alliance now to stop Mitt Romney? Stay tune to Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, other "conservative" talk-show hosts and Fox News Cable about the latest "conspiracy theory" boys and girls!!!

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Joel Skousen, editor of the weekly World Affairs Brief, included the following in his 24 February issue. Joel applies the term PTB (Powers That Be) to "A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations and countries [and] is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world." as stated by President Ezra Taft Benson in the October 1988 General Conference, and warned about by Nephi ben Lehi and Moroni, among others, in the Book of Mormon.


"Rick Santorum was pummeled by both Romney and Ron Paul in Wednesday’s Republican debate. Anyone who watched couldn’t help but see that Santorum’s reputation as the “most conservative” was clearly false. Even the Washington Post couldn’t help but notice:


"“Rick Santorum’s front-runner status in the GOP presidential race is predicated on the idea that he is the consistent conservative alternative in the field. And that image had some serious holes poked in it at Wednesday’s debate in Arizona.


"“Mitt Romney and Ron Paul tag-teamed the former Pennsylvania senator much of the night, calling into question his conservatism on issues ranging from earmarks and fiscal policy to his endorsements and even what is often considered Santorum’s most solidly conservative credential — social issues. Romney was fortunate to have an ally from the outset in Paul, who at several points in the debate went after Santorum and largely continued a pattern of helping Romney


"Paul landed the best critiques. “‘I find it really fascinating that, when people are running for office, they’re really fiscally conservative,’ Paul said. ‘When they’re in office, they do something different.’ Later in the debate, Paul doubled down, hitting Santorum hard for voting in favor of spending bills that included funding for Planned Parenthood.


“‘If you voted for Planned Parenthood like the senator has, you voted for birth control pills,’ Paul said. ‘And you literally, because funds are fungible, you literally vote for abortions because Planned Parenthood gets the money.’ This attack seemed to get more traction than any other, and Santorum’s explanation that the Planned Parenthood funding was part of a larger bill that he had to vote up or down on drew some groans from the audience — twice.”


"“Romney landed a pretty strong attack on an oldie-but-goodie piece of opposition research: Santorum’s support in 2004 of his moderate [actually, liberal and JFK conspiracy connected] Pennsylvania Senate colleague, Arlen Specter.” Santorum got another boo from the audience when Mitt Romney pointed out that he voted for Title X ---Public Law 91-572 or “Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs.”


"There’s a lot of talk about a Romney-Paul deal in the future, as it becomes obvious to both that the PTB are teaming up against them and supporting pocket insiders Gingrich and Santorum. Michelle Lopata wrote, “Rush Limbaugh predicted a ‘meeting of the minds’ between Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Ron Paul back in January but kept it to himself. Now that there is considerable speculation it might be a reality, he says he regrets his silence.

“Limbaugh noted during his radio show on Thursday that he wrote his friends an email last month speculating that Romney and Paul may have struck an alliance to set up either the Texas congressman or his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, for the vice-presidential slot if the former Massachusetts governor became the GOP presidential nominee.


“Limbaugh said that, in debate after debate, it was clear that the two candidates never ‘rip into each other.’ Paul attacks everyone who happens to be the front-runner but never seems to go after Romney — and Romney never goes after Paul.”


"I too have noticed this phenomenon and thus hold it open as a possibility. But I still think the PTB are going to lean on Romney really hard to take on Jeb Bush or some other controlled politician as Vice President. If Romney resists and makes a deal with Paul, it surely would involve backing off on some of Romney’s neocon foreign policy positions, and that would ensure that the PTB pull out all the stops to defeat a Romney-Paul team."


This should be of interest, if not significant, to members of theLDS Church for a couple of reasons:

First, It has been obvious for at least as far back as the 2008 presidential election that the PTB do not want a person in the White House whom they cannot control. Neither Mitt Romney nor Ron Paul would go along with the PTB plans to eventually incorporate the United States into the planned North American Union or the New World Order under a single global government.

Second, a president/vice-president team of Romney and either Ron Paul of Rand Paul would be most interesting because Mitt Romney's political persuasions differ considerably from those of both TX Representative Ron Paul and his son PA Senator Rand Paul. Without digging into the deeper details, I'll simiply note that Ron Paul has always stood in unwavering support of the principles of the US Constitution, much to the chagrin and aggravation of many of his colleagues in the US Congress. Mitt Romney, in spite of his membership in the the LDS Church and hence his responsibility to understand, uphold, and abide by the Constitution's principles, has demonstrated unawareness of and/or disdain for those principles. LDS voters should hope that if Mitt Romney wins the White House that he will be strongly influenced by either Ron Paul or Rand Paul as VP to abide by the principles of the US Constitution, "in the tradition of the Founding Fathers", as Ezra Taft Benson used to put it.

[sbsioncaptain of 1,000]

Romney would probably love it, it might make him look "conservative" instead of neo-con, however if RP would accept such, that would prove to me, he is just a puppet like all the rest, maybe he is?

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Rand Paul is Senator from Kentucky, not Pennsylvania as noted in the article.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

Romney would probably love it, it might make him look "conservative" instead of neo-con, however if RP would accept such, that would prove to me, he is just a puppet like all the rest, maybe he is?

I guess that would depend on why he would accept the VP. Maybe he could accomplish some good for the constitution while there..... but then what influence does the VP really have?

[sbsioncaptain of 1,000]

after the president "leaves" office, he's next in line?

[DrJonescaptain of 1,000]

Romney would probably love it, it might make him look "conservative" instead of neo-con, however if RP would accept such, that would prove to me, he is just a puppet like all the rest, maybe he is?

I guess that would depend on why he would accept the VP. Maybe he could accomplish some good for the constitution while there..... but then what influence does the VP really have?

Ask Dick Cheney that question!
Come to think of it -- what a welcome change, from Cheney to Ron Paul as Vice President!

Hey, maybe BYU would even invite Ron Paul and give him an honorary PhD!

[jonholb55captain of 100]

I have read some of the comments from my fellow LDS Conservatives. One of the contributors to the discussion stated that the Neo-Cons would like to see Jeb Bush as the VP choice. This would be a disaster!!. Both Bush 41 and Bush 43 have proven themselves to be stooges of the "New World Order". Larry, Moe, and Curly Joe, and sometimes Shemp, were funny as "The Three Stooges" with their slapstick comedy. George H. W., George W. and Jeb are three stooges that would mean the shredding of the Constitution, which would not be funny. George H. W. Bush has already endorsed Mitt Romney. He (Mitt Romney) may be put under a lot of pressure by the Neo-Cons to accept Jeb Bush as his VP. Ronald Reagan was forced by the Neo-Cons in 1980 to put George H. W. Bush on the ticket. This proved to be a disaster as the Neo-Cons seized control of the Republican Party and the United States in 1988. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. No to Jeb Bush. Yes to Ron Paul. Let's say "no" to the New World Order and "yes" to the Constitution per the original intent. My simple advice to Mitt Romney is to remember what The Church of Jesus Christ has said about the divine destiny of the United States and the Constitution. Please remember that whoever occupies this Land of America must worship the God of this Land, who Jesus Christ or be swept off the Land.
Thank-You