PDA

View Full Version : What are the odds...



1tulip
01-04-2012, 05:25 PM
... that Ron Paul will go 3rd party. If he did it, it would make Obama's re-election certain.

My guess is that he won't. His son is too much a part of the Republican Party and I think a 3rd party run would hurt Rand.

BonMallari
01-04-2012, 05:31 PM
... that Ron Paul will go 3rd party. If he did it, it would make Obama's re-election certain.

My guess is that he won't. His son is too much a part of the Republican Party and I think a 3rd party run would hurt Rand.

Rand is trying to make a name for himself in the R party, he ran as a Tea Party favorite, his dad will only make a third party run if he finishes second in the delegate count...it takes money and infrastructure to run a national campaign, and he cant hope that the military donors will bankroll him...we know Wall St wont...my guess is he wont do it

Franco
01-04-2012, 08:43 PM
RP has already stated that he won't run as a third party. Unlike like the other big government spending, bigger government candidates, you can take RP's word to the bank!

JDogger
01-04-2012, 08:49 PM
It is being reported here that Gary Johnson has left the R's and will be seeking the Libertarian nomination. Is a third party viable, or just a spoiler? JD

BonMallari
01-04-2012, 09:02 PM
RP has already stated that he won't run as a third party. Unlike like the other big government spending, bigger government candidates, you can take RP's word to the bank!

PLEASE (insert vomit emoticon)....because when/if he does run, you will spin it as "being the will of his supporters,and he is obligated to run.." I learned the hard way, when you put someone on a pedestal in the political world (John Ensign), it sets up for big disappointment...

BonMallari
01-04-2012, 09:11 PM
It is being reported here that Gary Johnson has left the R's and will be seeking the Libertarian nomination. Is a third party viable, or just a spoiler? JD

IMO a third party wont be viable until that third party captures a few Senate or House seats...just because the Tea Party called themselves a group,their candidates still ran under the R umbrella...

I wish they were viable, but the D's and R's will never allow them to get a foothold because they know if they (third party) were to get a couple of seats in Congress that things might actually get done and real bipartisanship would actually occur

M&K's Retrievers
01-04-2012, 09:16 PM
RP has already stated that he won't run as a third party. Unlike like the other big government spending, bigger government candidates, you can take RP's word to the bank!

In a recent interview with Blowhard Hannity, RP refused to say that he wouldn't run a TP candidacy. He did say he had no TP plans and that it would be highly unlikely but would not rule it out.

How much is that worth at the bank, Franco? :confused:

Franco
01-04-2012, 09:59 PM
RP knows his best shot is to run within the GOP. He also knows he would lose much of his support as a third party candidate. That's one reason why he has so many troops on the ground, his street team because he is running as a Repub.

If he doesn't win the nomination, I doubt he would support any GOP candidates. He can't support the status quo when he's running on reforming the system. And, I don't blame him!

You can take it to the bank.

BonMallari
01-04-2012, 10:20 PM
RP knows his best shot is to run within the GOP. He also knows he would lose much of his support as a third party candidate. That's one reason why he has so many troops on the ground, his street team because he is running as a Repub.

If he doesn't win the nomination, I doubt he would support any GOP candidates. He can't support the status quo when he's running on reforming the system. And, I don't blame him!

You can take it to the bank.

sounds hypocritical to me..use the Party to further an agenda, but not support the Party when it decides to go in a different direction, kinda explains why he doesnt get the full support of the Party or that there is no RP Coalition

Even I could vote for Him if the Party decided he was the nominee...

So Will you support the R nominee if it isnt Ron Paul..

JDogger
01-04-2012, 10:31 PM
IMO a third party wont be viable until that third party captures a few Senate or House seats...just because the Tea Party called themselves a group,their candidates still ran under the R umbrella...

I wish they were viable, but the D's and R's will never allow them to get a foothold because they know if they (third party) were to get a couple of seats in Congress that things might actually get done and real bipartisanship would actually occur

Tell it to Joe L. and B. Sanders. We may just see the camels nose.

Of course it doesn't mean anything would really get done.

Camels aside, ten months to go and one could only hope regards, :( JD

PS for my fren' RK... try to not find this dark and sullen...OK :)

Franco
01-04-2012, 10:35 PM
sounds hypocritical to me..use the Party to further an agenda, but not support the Party when it decides to go in a different direction, kinda explains why he doesnt get the full support of the Party or that there is no RP Coalition

Even I could vote for Him if the Party decided he was the nominee...

So Will you support the R nominee if it isnt Ron Paul..

I think it would be hypocritical of RP to support a candidate that represents the same old failed policies. RP is the only candidate that is willing to address the real issues and that has made him the outsider.

Sometimes I think I could support Romney and sometimes not. If Romney does the same thing that Capital Bain Partners(of which he is a senior partner) does to companies, gut and strip them of thier assets. Meaning it Romney were to gut the size of the Federal Government, real in over a trillion a year in spending, I could support him. I am leary of his being a Wall St insider. Wall St and their greed is one major reason we are in the situation we are in today. I just don't trust them and see them more as profiteers than Americans. The Fed Reserve won't be addressed and they will continue to serve Wall ST over the American tax payer. I just don;t see Romney or any other GOP candidate as a real reformer.

RP stands for Capitalism and Free Trade. The others perfer government protection, false trade and internationalism. I want a President that stands for America!

Capitalism and Free Trade is at the core of the Libertarian Party and has shaped the GOP debates. I just don't think they understand what C and FT really is.

BonMallari
01-04-2012, 10:54 PM
I think it would be hypocritical of RP to support a candidate that represents the same old failed policies. RP is the only candidate that is willing to address the real issues and that has made him the outsider.

Sometimes I think I could support Romney and sometimes not. If Romney does the same thing that Capital Bain Partners(of which he is a senior partner) does to companies, gut and strip them of thier assets. Meaning it Romney were to gut the size of the Federal Government, real in over a trillion a year in spending, I could support him. I am leary of his being a Wall St insider. Wall St and their greed is one major reason we are in the situation we are in today. I just don't trust them and see them more as profiteers than Americans. The Fed Reserve won't be addressed and they will continue to serve Wall ST over the American tax payer. I just don;t see Romney or any other GOP candidate as a real reformer.

RP stands for Capitalism and Free Trade. The others perfer government protection, false trade and internationalism. I want a President that stands for America!

Capitalism and Free Trade is at the core of the Libertarian Party and has shaped the GOP debates. I just don't think they understand what C and FT really is.

dont you think all the candidates stand for America , just because they dont fit your same ideolouge doesn't make them any less patriotic or any less American, its a global economy,its not going to change back to an isolationist one in our lifetime

as for Bain Capital, even you realize that sometimes a corporations greatest asset is its parts, and that sometimes the reason that businesses fail is that as the expand they try and be something that they were never built to do, need look no further than the Time/AOL merger or the Compaq/HP merger...if you bought a struggling company wouldn't you dump all the deadweight too

Franco
01-04-2012, 11:00 PM
dont you think all the candidates stand for America , just because they dont fit your same ideolouge doesn't make them any less patriotic or any less American, its a global economy,its not going to change back to an isolationist one in our lifetime

as for Bain Capital, even you realize that sometimes a corporations greatest asset is its parts, and that sometimes the reason that businesses fail is that as the expand they try and be something that they were never built to do, need look no further than the Time/AOL merger or the Compaq/HP merger...if you bought a struggling company wouldn't you dump all the deadweight too

I am all for survival of the fittest in the business world. Problem is the really big businesses/industries have such strong lobbies that the fittest get eaten by those with the most influence in government!

And, when their business plan doesn't work, they go to their legislatures that they have in their pocket for protection. We don't have Capitalism nor Free Markets.

Franco
01-04-2012, 11:18 PM
In 1996 the Repubs authored the Telecom Deregulation Act of 1996, signed in to law by Clinton.

It was mostly about businesses in communications. We were told that cell phone bill would go down and services would improve.

In broadcast, it lifted ownership limits on broadcast properties. BTW, those properties are suppose to be owned by citizens and not multinationals.

Comapnies raised capital and bought over 91% of broadcast properties within 2 years. Jobs were consolidated and thousands were laid off. Instead of 400 medium size business, we now has six major comapnies and the only small broadcasters were in small unrated markets. All the major and medium market properties where bought at 12 to 20times cash flow. Unheard of amounts.

In 2000, the economy started to tank. The six major companies consolidated into four, laying off more employees. The major broadcasters were able to get tax exemptions and a host of other concessions from thier legislatures in order to attempt to survive.

It didn't work, all within 5 years defaulted on their loans. Yet those four companies still exsist!

Had we had a Free Market and real Capitalism, crap like this would have never happened. The government should have never gotten involved in the first place in helping them prop up thier greedy and failed business plans!

Same for GM.

Had GM been allowed to fail, investors in the private sector would have bought it in parts and we would still be building cars and trucks. Instead, we the tax payer still own 40 billion in GM stock that we can't unload. Plus, we have a government bailed buisness that is run mostly by the UAW. Show me where the Capitalism and Free Trade exsist? Yet, Obama is running on, "I saved the domestic auto industry". If GM ever really does get on thier feet, the UAW is going to want more consessions and tax payers may never get their money back.

Same for other industries. We need the governemnt out and for the private sector to take over. Because the government shouldn't be in business nor do they know how to run a business.

Industry Lobby needs to be tared and feathered and run out of DC!

BonMallari
01-04-2012, 11:35 PM
I agree with you that GM should have never been bailed out...but it got stuck with horrible union comittments, they were damned either way, also agree that govt gets into businesses that they shouldn't be in either like the airline industry

Franco
01-04-2012, 11:40 PM
I agree with you that GM should have never been bailed out...but it got stuck with horrible union comittments, they were damned either way, also agree that govt gets into businesses that they shouldn't be in either like the airline industry

Just think if our government had never entered into the mortgage business. Or if our government would not have kept interest rates artificilly low creating the perfect storm for the real estate collapse.

Hew
01-05-2012, 12:39 AM
RP is the only candidate that is willing to address the real issues and that has made him the outsider.
LOL. The "outsider" with 24 years as an inside-the-beltway, do-nothing Congressman.

M&K's Retrievers
01-05-2012, 12:48 AM
Just think if our government had never entered into the mortgage business. Or if our government would not have kept interest rates artificilly low creating the perfect storm for the real estate collapse.

Which members of the GOP were responsible for these?