0 votes

He first ran as a Libertarian, then Republican. Democrat next?

Just wondering what would happen if Ron got into the Democratic side and ran for president, how would the world react (world = media, supporters, non-supporters et.c)?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He's no Republicrat -

Reads as if some are still confused as to the nature of Dr. Paul's old-school conservative GOP vs. the Neo-cons (or NEW-school GOP).

HUGE difference.

Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica

I think the most telling

I think the most telling quote from what he says, was from the 2008 debates. Where they were asking him how he intends to win the Republican Party. He responds along the lines of

"I am trying to win the Presidency of the United States, not the Presidency of the Republican party."

Carry that banner proudly Dr. Paul.

Ron should run as a

Ron should run as a Republican in the primaries. When the corporate media and donors defeat him by getting Huckabee, Romney or Palin as their figurehead, Ron should drop out and become the Libertarian Party's nominee. I guarantee if Ron asked for the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, they would give it to him in a heartbeat.

That won't work

Many states, my state of Missouri included, have what are called "sore loser" laws.

Basically, if you lose in a primary, you cannot run for that same office in that election year.

Obviously not all states have that law. Alaska is a perfect example with what happened with Lisa Murkowski.

She would not have been allowed to do that in Missouri.

same in PA with "sore loser"

same in PA with "sore loser" laws.

Not to mention how many hoops you have to jump through to be a party other then Dem or Repub. The game is rigged to protect the interests of the establishment. Sooooo infiltrate the establishment, then adopt laws through legislature to allow competition of other parties at the same ease as R and D.

Why not.

They're all the same anyway.

Odd Posting

Democrats are the party of thieves. They want socialism, welfare and warfare (when a Democrat goes to war). So no. Odd post.

wow-zah! and the Republicans aren't???

*

Republicans are no better

Break out of the left/right paradigm. Both parties are equally responsible for the destruction of the Republic.

Ron being a Dem would make no

Ron being a Dem would make no sense at all. They actually want bigger, more intrusive government. This shouldn't have to be explained.

So do Republicans, what's the difference?

Ron being a Republican makes no sense either.

yup...agreed.

*

yes you are right.. but it

yes you are right.. but it was the neocons dems who infiltrated the Republican party. You have to understand the the very old republican party was a very good party.

The ORIGINAL Republican party...

Like many of our "elected" Republicans, was the party of Senator Goldwater and Thomas Jefferson.

After decades many of them are back to that basis.

The rest of them are still the same "Progressive" era neocon New Deal Democrat fascists.

You're right on about this whole notion.

The Democratic party is so bad, so corrupt it was STARTED originally by Progressive era Statists - They infiltrated that party from the bottom up over 120 years ago & in the Progressive era they took over every state house. Solution Zero: Tax & Spend through the use of force to promote Democracy "worldwide". Violent people need to be trained how to behave through the threat of violence, in every country. Their "New Deal" Republicans agreed, aka Democrats.

http://reason.com/archives/2007/09/28/hitler-mussolini-roose...

Ron Paul would pretty much be silenced from getting to the FLOOR of the Democratic debates.

While he'd be in the Republican debates easily, and from there would have a lot more support (and exposure from third parties)

How old?

Abe Lincoln old or Strom Thurman old?

I would say Eisenhower old.

I would say Eisenhower old.

That was a good era for Rs

It only took 15 or so more years before most Ds became Rs and most Rs became Ds. Democrats were big time racists and Republicans weren't. So the racist Ds became Rs and the non-racist Rs became Ds. We could be seeing the beginnings of another name swap. They've done it 3 or 4 times that I know of.

Indeed they did just that...

But it was the Democratic Party of Mr Rockefeller, Aldrich et. all who began the whole affair.

They infiltrated the other side non-stop for decades. The non-racist "Rs" who became "Ds" then went on to promote such wonderful things as the Federal Communications Commission and get it enacted as law. It was enough to cause the uprising of Democrats to create a new "Center" Blue party who doesn't agree with Federal Statist takeovers by the neoliberals.

They've always been at it since that time.

And some of those really racist WHIGs in the GOP finally went 3rd party, they became that way after seeing Israel and the rest get away with so much crap they no longer wished to vote for the New Dealers.

when I see posts like this I

when I see posts like this I scratch my head and think to myself... dang there some that still just don't get it.

Don't be too hard on the poster.

We are all looking for an angle to maximize our chances.

Personally, I think it will be hard to nab the Republican nomination, and I favor 3rd party.

thats great.. the problems

thats great.. the problems you have is NO national exposer.. No debates.. the only way you can get around this is to buy infomercial time and run a 2 hour add round the clock for about 5 or 6 months.

We need to take the republican party back. How we do that is to be delegates this next presidential election cycle. I would love to know exactly how many people on the daily paul actually took the time to become delegates? I would be willing to bet very few.

And another thing Sierrahpbt,

You can't demonize people for not becoming delegates.

I have not become a delegate, because I can't, period.

I have bills, 2 kids in college, a job that requires me to be there almost 24/7 on call. Most years, I lose my vacation time, because I can't take the time off or my customer's accounts will suffer.

We all do what we can, and if we can't step up to bat, we buy the player a new bat.

So, for you to argue, that not becoming a delegate is a crime, that is a false argument.

If we are not delegates, does that mean, that we don't have an opinion? Obviously not.

Well Sir, you may be right,

but I don't see it that way.

After 4 years, and thousands of MSM interviews, I believe that there is no way the MSM won't report on a Ron Paul 3rd party run.

The public is only now becoming aware of the false left/right paradigm that has crippled the liberty movement in this country. So, for Dr. Paul to run as a Republican, could actually hurt his chances, in the eyes of the common man. The people are fed up with the status quo, and I think they realize that the status quo is the two party/same coin system.

If Ron Paul went "all-in" and declared a 3rd party run, then this would attract many dis-enfranchised voters, who are looking for real change.

This is my opinion, but as always, I will go along with the remnant, but more importantly, I will do whatever Ron Paul asks me to do.

I was a delegate candidate

and Sierra demonizes us still.

You know what Sandra,

I'm not falling for it.

I put you and SimpleSam in the same category.

At least Sierra, is a person of conviction.

Unfortunately

trolling seems to be his conviction. I don't think his constant name calling to all that disagree with him is winning him credibility or you an award in character assessment.

http://dailypaul.com/node/154336

No!

You and SimpleSam are the trolls, in my opinion.

You always try to find some chink in Dr. Paul's armor and exploit it to divide the movement, but we will not be fooled.

Sierra, from everything I have ever seen in the last three years, has done everything he could to help the Ron Paul movement, in what he believed to be right. I may not always agree with him, but I respect him/her immensely.

I can not say the same thing about you or simplesam. You two should be expelled from our midst, in my opinion, but that is only my opinion.

Maybe, I am too harsh, but I don't care if I blemish my name in the quest for liberty. Either you are hot for Ron Paul, or he will spit you out of his mouth.

This is the Daily Paul, you had better decide which side of the fence you are on. And if your sitting ON the fence, you will get electrocuted.

What are you talking about?

Link to these episodes, please.

Dr. Paul Needs The Tea Party

Dr. Paul needs run as a Republican and get the support of the Tea Party. They may have some far right views but with Dr. Paul as a national leader the mass majority will support his Libertarian views. The only problem with this is I believe Newt Gingrich may plan to run in 2012 and he may get the Tea Party vote.

awwww shucks! Newt will get the TeaParty?

seriously?!