What Can I Do?

Go here: www.ronpaul2008.com

Welcome aboard the Ron Paul Train for Change!

As for me, I email info to a local talk radio show host who is also a libertarian and he reads the info over the air. Plus I call in to his show regularly(2-3 times a week) and we often discuss Ron Paul and his campaign. I called in this morning and we must have talked for 10-15 minutes.

Obviously, I write about Ron Paul on this board and I do so elsewhere on the Internet - on boards and commenting on blogs.

Also, I sent in a financial contribution when Ron Paul's campaign go started and another one is on the way.

 

Also, James, decide what issues Paul supports that are most important for you and write a letter to your local newspaper about each of these issues. Chances are some will be published.

If you have some free time on a weekend, volunteer to put out campaign signs and such.


Paul's a Republican, so he won't get my primary vote. If you are convinced he is the right man for America, though, you should work to make sure that I am the exception.

 

Paul is not Keyes

==Considering the condition of modern America and the modern Republican Party it will take a literal miracle for Ron Paul to get the GOP nomination. That is why I see no reason to give his campaign any money or to spend money buying bumper stickers or pins. I did with Alan Keyes in '00 and I left his sticker on my car until the day he withdrew from the race. But Paul is not Keyes and I think his chances are less than Keyes. Keep in mind Keyes made it to the finals in '00. I predict Paul will be out of the race, or at least out of the picture, within one year. I don't like that but, all things considered, that is very likely what is going to happen.

 

His is ideas about economics are terrible. He is "gold bug."

Second, doesn't matter who is nominated, the Democrats will win.

Third, if he stirs the pot he will get blown away like LBJ did away with JFK.

 

James asked what could he do. He didn't ask about Ron Paul's chances at winning the GOP nomination - which are way better than Alan Keyes' chances ever were.

James didn't ask for an economics comment from someone who is anti-sound money.


As the saying goes, "If you think you can, you are right. If you think you can't, you are right."

 

I do like that saying and know several areas where it's a perfect fit.

 

The best way to help is for you to do anything in your power to see that Ron Paul gets the nomination. Take a group of friends, organize, and talk to people.

If and when it becomes apparant that the republican party is going to nominate one of the three top contenders now, the best thing you can do is to convince as many people as you can that a third party that holds are values can win. Destroy the myth that says the republicans are less evil than democrats so if you vote for a third party, you are aiding and abetting a democrat.

That notion is this side of heresey. How can a Christian vote for abortionist A over abortionist B, especially when the republican candidate flip flops on the issue and is not even honest about how he feels.

The best thing to do is convince people we dont have to stoop to the low standard of picking between two corrupt parties that daily rob the American people to feed their constant need for power.

If the republicans will nominate Ron Paul or someone like him, that is a different story. I dont see that happening.

 

I agree that you should do anything you can to try to get him the nomination.

Even if he doesn't get it, if you make a big enough splash, other candidates will stand up and take notice.

 

100% agree with your first statement.

The second, it is not enough for the other candidates to take notice. The only thing that we should notice about McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards is they are being thrown out of power and replaced with someone who has a heart for the American people. If that takes a third party (or better yet, two new parties), the so be it.

 

Until the law is changed to require a majority to win, it will still come down to the two parties. The only difference being is that a third party can bleed off enough votes to give the election to the greater of two evils.

When Clinton beat Dole by something like 43% to 41%, it was the third party votes that made the difference. Most of the third party votes favored Dole over Clinton, but didn't really like Dole. Clinton got it. (I also think this is part of the reason that Clinton was not as liberal as he wanted to be. He wanted to be admired, and didn't want to do anything to destroy that.)

In the last two elections, even though the third parties got about 1% of the vote total, I think they made the election swing in favor of Bush. (Who, while I dislike how liberal he is, is much better than Gore or Kerry.)

I don't think the EC needs to be abolished, but I do think the all-or-nothing idea of the EC does. Nebraska and Maine can split their EC votes by district. If a majority were required to get an EC vote, then third party candidates would be viable without skewing an election in favor of the greater of two evils.

No run-off elections are required, if you use Australian balloting.

Would I vote for Bush again? In a heartbeat! I don't think our nation would survive four years of Gore or Kerry, and I have my doubts about whether it will survive the likes of Obama if he is elected. (I think Hillary goes by the polls enough that she would not be as dangerous as she wants to be, although if she gets her healthcare program passed, we're done for as a prosperous and healthy nation.)

I think McCain would be disastrous. If Romney's stance is true (he has publicly repented of his former pro-abortion stance), his other policies would not destroy us. Giuliani may as well be a democrat, albeit not as bad as Kerry, Gore, or Kennedy. I think that Ron Paul's moral stance is outstanding, but his other policies leave a lot to be desired, and his economic ideas would be disastrous, if enacted. I think Thompson would do OK, and would govern well.

Out of all the republican candidates, I think that Thompson is the only one who could beat Obama.

Doesn't mean that I don't think that James shouldn't get behind Ron Paul. If he gets the nomination, great. If not, if he makes a sizable showing, it sends a message.

 

You have a very well written post and some very valid points. What would be required to break the two party system and rid this nation of the lock on power would be a different mindset amongst the people. You are exactly right. As it stands now, a third party stands no chance. The American people are going to have to raise their standards beyond the low level of the two party system.

It would take a candidate who could bring out enough anger in voters against the present corruption to get people to the polls who never vote, those who have never registered, all the independents, and disenchanted republicans and democrats.

I guess where we differ is that I would never vote for Bush or a Bush like candidate again. I did twice, and never again. That would include Romney, McCain, or Giuliani. Now, if the republicans want to nominate Paul or a Paul type candidate, or maybe Thompson, then I would vote for them. Otherwise, no way.

 

I agree with you pretty much. Will wonders never cease.
But, I don't think Fred Thompson will pan out.

 

I am working to get Ron Paul the GOP nomination as he is the only current candidate in either major party for whom I would vote in November 2008.

The only other possible candidate that I would consider in either major party for November 2008 would be Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

If Ron Paul does not win the GOP nomination, then maybe he could win the Unity08 nomination or maybe Senator Hagel could win the Unity08 nomination.

I don't thnk that the average, non-politically active American is going to be enthusiastic about any candidate that the two major parties nominate. If Unity08 picks a quality candidate then the 2008 election could be very, very interesting - especially if our troops are still bogged down in Bush's folly in Iraq and the situation there has not measurably improved.

 

Okay, let me guess. You watched Fox News.:laugh:

 

I could never vote for McCain or Giuliani against Hillary, as I think they are as bad (or worse) than Hillary. Against Obama, I would probably have to vote against him and vote for McCain.

I never thought I would say that Hillary would be better than anyone, but I would have to say she would be better than Obama or Giuliani, and not far behind McCain. I think she would be better than Edwards, as well.

The most positive things I see about the potential for a Hillary win would be that a) she does like her polls and b) she would have a lot of opposition in Congress.

If we want to see the power of the two-party system broken, we need to change things at the state level, not the federal level. The Feds don't set the standards for the Electoral College, the states do.

If the EC is changed from the all-or-nothing that most states have, and required a majority instead of a plurality, then people would not have to fear electing Obama by voting for Paul. They could vote for Paul, and if he didn't win, then their second place choice would get their vote. The way it stands now, if your choices in order of preference were Paul, Thompson, Obama (we'll limit it to three choices for the demo), then a vote for Paul or Thompson would be a vote for Obama. He would win, based on a plurality of the votes, because neither of the other two would pull many liberal votes.

But, in the above scenario, as long as Obama only got a plurality, then the votes of the lower vote-getter of the other two would switch to the greater.

It would send a message, but would not elect someone who has ideas as evil as Obama does.

Edited to add: Personally, I'm throwing my support into the Alaska Secessionist Party.

 

I think Rudy is the only viable candidate that can pull lots of Democrat votes. Many, many Democrats need only a little help in avoiding another Clinton debacle in the White house, and Rudy has the charisma to carry it.

 

Giuliani pretty much destroyed his chances of winning the GOP nomination in the debate by supporting government funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The Democrats will have their own primaries to be concerned with. They won't be voting in the GOP primaries for Giuliani.

 

But, would a Giuliani presidency be better than a Hillary presidency?

 

I don't differentiate between two Big Brother/Nanny State candidates.