Ron Paul would have been America's first libertarian President if the powerful alliance of state and corporations (especially corporate media) hadn't done everything they could to sabotage and marginalize him. That's ok though...try as they might, they can no longer sweep these powerful ideas back under the rug now that they're out and gaining almost viral popularity.
At this point, they can only try to forestall the inevitable. A free and voluntary society is coming. The only thing we can't predict with much certitude is whether we will transition painlessly and peaceably, in time to save the economy, or whether the reform will come after a series of painful lessons learned at the cruel hands of dictators, central planners, and kleptocrats.
Ron Paul Cuts Campaign: Could a Libertarian Ever Win?
SodaHead News
2012/05/15 18:46:25
|
|
|||||
|
310 votes
|
|
51% | |||
|
294 votes
|
|
49% | |||
In a carefully worded statement sent out by Ron Paul's campaign chairman on Tuesday morning, the GOP candidate announced that he's... Well, he's not exactly dropping out of the race, but he is conceding defeat. Jesse Benton wrote, "Unfortunately, barring something very unforeseen, our delegate total will not be strong enough to win the nomination. However, our delegates can still make a major impact at the National Convention and beyond."
For many, Mitt Romney has been the winner for some time. While Paul had enormous public support and the potential to significantly impact voting, he hadn't been faring too well in caucuses and primaries, and only had 104 delegates to Romney's 966. But Benton says things could have played out differently if other candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich had stayed it. As for Paul's new direction, his team is "doing everything in our power to work with out supporters." And for the record, he says it's "unlikely" he'll back Romney. Could someone like Ron Paul, just shy of a third party, ever hope to win?
For many, Mitt Romney has been the winner for some time. While Paul had enormous public support and the potential to significantly impact voting, he hadn't been faring too well in caucuses and primaries, and only had 104 delegates to Romney's 966. But Benton says things could have played out differently if other candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich had stayed it. As for Paul's new direction, his team is "doing everything in our power to work with out supporters." And for the record, he says it's "unlikely" he'll back Romney. Could someone like Ron Paul, just shy of a third party, ever hope to win?
Read More: http://www.sodahead.com/survey/featured/2012-elect...
And it is that disconnect, along with the awakening of We The People, that makes a libertarian President a strong possibility. People no longer trust the usual (D) or (R) politicians anymore.
Never trust a government that doesn't trust you to exercise your rights: whether it be the right to keep & bear arms; the right to peaceably assemble, protest, or speak out; or the right to belong to a certain church (the gov't is not supposed to choose which churches are 'cults' or 'extremist', as an excuse or pretext to assault them with tanks, gas, & guns).
As we have seen from Romney (who will likely get my vote unless he strays any further far right, socially) a candidate in the two major parties has too many bosses and too many vocal groups threatening to pull support ... They have to try to be all things to all people, and get watered down. A viable third party might help with that, as they could have more freedom to speak their mind. He, or a future candidate, might have been better off running as a thord party though, rather than within one of the two majors as they would be more appealing in the end, but its tough to get through the primaries where extremist views are typically rewarded because of the vocal minorities on either side.
Everyone seems to think this, but the only reason they can't win is because people that think like that won't vote for them.
That seems to describe you, doesn't it?
I've met the guy, and I can't name a presently prominent politician on either side of the specious "left/right" axis to whom the job of Chief Executive of the republic could be better entrusted.
I don't pray "in Jesus' name," if that's what you're implying, but I appreciate the concern.
Anyway, I met Buzz Aldrin once, and I can't name a presently prominent astronaut on either side of the stratosphere to whom the job of Signing His Own Book could be better entrusted. So I believe we have some common ground, in that we have a tendency to trust people we meet.
Why? Because it was untrue, or because it was perfectly sensible?
Are you old enough to remember how fast the Boot-On-Your-Neck Party incumbents slammed together the USA PATRIOT Act in the wake of those kamikaze-from-Allah attacks?
If they hadn't been cooking those component violations of the Bill of Rights for years (heck, decades), how had they made 'em magically appear out of thin air when the great "crisis" gave them the golden opportunity to enact them into law?
I do believe that Ron Paul is the man best suited 4 the job of presidency!
Timothy
:o)
Who else could keep both sets of books straight for us?
The Etch-a-Sketch is despised by genuine Republicans in Texas, and those who go to the polls in their state's primary elections won't even include a significant number of the idiots and crooks who support the Massachusetts Milksop.
They'll just stay home in droves because they've really got nothing and nobody to vote for.
2008 paul finished 3rd behind mccain and huckabee with less then 5% of the vote.
"none. just as in 2008
2008 paul finished 3rd behind mccain and huckabee with less then 5% of the vote."
Which reflects poorly on the voters, not Ron Paul.