If Ron accepted role as VP on ticket with Romney would you vote Republican?

You guys are really on top of who posts and how long they have been here. Way to be vigilant. I lost my Password, and I had to create a new account, because for the life of me I can’t get the system to send me a new password. Moving on.

I don’t think I asked you to support Romney. I believe I commented on Paul being on the ticket. (which is what this whole thread was about) A much better ticket would be Paul/Romney as I pointed out. I then went into historical context and tried to explain differing opinions within the system we have to work with as way to promote differing opinions within an administration.

Your statement is exactly what will keep Ron Paul from getting the nomination. You sound spiteful and vindictive. Plus, I don’t think you have been paying attention. The Republican establishment really doesn’t care if they win the presidency. They want a majority in the Senate and they want to pick up some more seats in the house. They can deal with an Obama administration that is doing exactly what they want. You think the republican establishment didn’t want the NDAA? You think the establishment doesn’t want a war with Iran, which is where it seems we are heading? The Republicans bemoan Obamacare, but are pretty confident it will be overturned by the Supreme Court this summer. The Keystone pipeline is a non-issue, it would have created 20,000 jobs for a year or two and then those people would be unemployed. If it had gone through the Republicans wouldn’t have been able to attack the administration about it; it not going through was better for them. They figure they can control a Democratic president like they did in the 90’s with a majority in the House and Senate. You can keep saying they won’t get the presidency without you, but they really don’t care.

You can choose to believe me or not, but I want Ron Paul to be president; I don’t think we have 4 years. However, if you attack people for not toeing the line you are no better than the Republican establishment who expects the exact same thing.

sorry accidental post

Changed 180 after 9/11? What are you talking about? Do you mean the Republican Eisenhower who deposed the leaders in Iran and installed the Shah? Or the Republican Eisenhower who gave us the Eisenhower Doctrine? Or the republican Eisenhower who planned the Bay of Pigs fiasco? Or the Republican Nixon who supported the same Health Care Plan Obama is now instituting? Or Reagan’s “peace through strength” which led to a huge military and an ever expanding presence through the world culminating in a philosophy of “peace through war.” Or Reagan’s less government ideals which led to one of the greatest increases in government spending and government expansion since the new deal? Or George H.W. bush who invaded Iraq to defend Kuwait? Or the same bush saying, no new taxes and then raising taxes? Or the Republican house and senate who balanced the budget by stealing from Social security, in the 90’s?

The GOP isn’t Austrian nor ever was Austrian, they are Keynesian as was said by Nixon, “We are all Keynesian now.”

I don’t know what GOP you were looking at but it was never this ideal you seem to make it out to be.

I welcome you and appreciate your perspective.

Truly, welcome. I've never had the opportunity to talk at length with a genuine Romney supporter & I welcome the opportunity. You've made quite a few different arguments, and I'm afraid I agree with none of them. Let's go down the list:

1. The Constitutional Convention, far from producing a positive outcome, amounted to a coup d'etat against the much preferable Articles of Confederation, which it replaced. The Constitution was the framework for a strong federal government with the power to levy taxes at a national level -- a huge step backward from freedom. Your references to the three-fifths compromise as representing a proof of the wonderfulness of compromise makes no sense in this context. The Constitution was indeed a compromise -- between monarchists and limited-government statists. The radical pro-freedom advocates, like Jefferson, Paine, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams did not attend the Constitutional Convention, and they did not approve the result thereof. Nor do I. The Constitution sold out liberty; and like any compromise between nutrition and poison, produced an unpalatable result. Only the inclusion of a Bill of Rights persuaded the States to adopt the thing, and the insufficiency of that addition has been conclusively demonstrated over the years, climaxing in the Bush and Obama administrations.

2. Accepting a VP slot in a Romney Administration would indeed be a sell-out by Dr. Paul, if he endorsed Romney's candidacy. To the extent that Romney can be said to have any principles at all, they are inimical to liberty, to peace, to fiscal responsibility, and to sound money. Dr. Paul, you may have noticed, values those principles. The chances that he will ever, under any circumstances, endorse Mitt Romney, can be counted on the fingers of your left ear.

3. The Vice President is 90% decorative and powerless, and that office confers no greater opportunity to educate voters than Paul already has, just by being who he is. The idea that Paul should or would sell out for such a paltry prize shows you understand nothing about the man. And the idea that Paul supporters should or would vote for Romney if Paul were his running mate shows that you understand nothing about his supporters. We are not a cult of personality. Like Dr. Paul, we are guided by principles. Mitt Romney is not an option for us, period.

4. Your mathematical model is flawed both in practical and moral terms. The Presidency and Vice-Presidency are miles apart in power. Count Romney and Obama as -100 each. Count Biden -5, for his much lesser influence. And Paul +5, although his influence would likely be even LESS than Biden's, since his principles are not shared by either Romney or by Congress. So you have a choice of -105 or -95 voting for either Obama or Romney, but with the CERTAINTY that the new President will continue war crimes, economic irresponsibility, and the destruction of liberty. Voting for a very-slightly "lesser evil" simply isn't worth doing.

5. Your idea that the growth of tyrannical government has so much "momentum" that we need to support one more tyrant is simply silly. The growing popularity of Ron Paul is proof that tyranny has reached its limit, and resistance against it is building fast. The time to kick it on its ass is RIGHT NOW.

6. The unspoken assumption behind your entire post is that Romney has a better chance of winning the Presidency than Ron Paul. Such is not the case. Romney is simply a rich white-guy clone of Obama, both of them paid-off by Goldman Sachs, and as such he has NO chance of winning. Dr. Paul, on the other hand, is right on all the issues where both Romney and Obama fail: on ending the wars, ending the empire, ending the Fed, cutting back government power and spending, and restoring civil liberties. And ending the bailouts and monetary policies that have absolutely crippled the economy. The latest polls show he has a better chance of winning against Obama than Romney does. Believe it.

So tell me, why do you really like Romney?