247 votes

Josh Tolley: Ron Paul is Going to Win – Mar 12 2012

I'm shaking after listening to this!!

http://youtu.be/IU2AvSwzuok

http://ronpaulflix.com/20...

Comment viewing options

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

I agree, but your facts are wrong.

The LP made all ballots in 1980, 1992, 1996 and 2000. (though in 2000, the AZ ticket was different) That's Ed Clark, Andre Marrou and Harry Brown.

Then there was Perot 1992 (indep) and 1996 (Reform) and Pat Buchannan in 2000 (Reform).

Before that John Anderson 1980 (indep) made all 51 ballots.

Prior, unfortunately I don't see ballot access records, but George Wallace 1968, Strom Thurmond 1948, Robert LaFollette 1924, and Teddy Roosevelt 1912 all received Electoral votes as 3rd party candidates. (some significant but not winnable votes. Roosevelt is the only one to come in second both in popular vote and Electoral vote as a 3rd party candidate.) I would suspect Roosevelt had all ballot access, and perhaps LaFollette and Wallace as well. (I think Thurmond was merely in a regional party)

The point is that it is possible, even in the era of TV.

But the debates now pose a serious obstacle.

Anderson suffered greatly by being in only one debate.

Perot almost wasn't allowed in the second time.

No one has been allowed in since, and likely never will be. Thus any such 3rd party / independent talk has to have a strategy to win WITHOUT getting into the debates. Otherwise, the voters don't even think you exist. There are sadly just too many stupid people out there.

Teddy Bear

Teddy Roosevelt came in 2nd as a 3rd Party candidate.

Sure, there were not 50 states then... But I imagine that he was on all of the states at that time.

Considering Ron Paul is tenfold better than TR, I like his chances.

He was also however, already a former President.

He initially served as a Republican, lost to Taft then tried to run again, decided to split off from the GOP and ran as a Progressive and got second. (he smashed Taft in the EC 88-8)

Taft is thus the only incumbent in history to come in 3rd in his re-election bid.

I didn't know that, that's

I didn't know that, that's great. Was it anywhere near as corrupt then as it is now? It was really just about 10% turn away from the Constitution ( depending on what percentage you would assign to the civil war .I assigned 10% ) into the turn away from the Constitution wasn't it? ( with now being about 90% )

No federal reserve when Teddy was pres. Hmm

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine Godfather of the American Revolution)

Although Teddy is not today considered a friend to our positions

in many respects his goals were correct. It was his solutions that were messed up.

He opposed the monopolies and money trusts of the day. (he was a staunch opponent of the bankers trying to implement the FED)

He believed Liberty was the highest "greater good" and that it was under attack by the corruption and collusion between business and government at the time. (the revolving door has been with us for a long long time)

The problem was that his solutions were to nationalize everything.

I never could figure out how he could be so dense.

Perhaps the corruption was so bad, it seemed there was no other option.

Thankfully, he didn't win. But in hindsight, I wish his goals would have seen more credence with the GOP of the time and they had blocked the FED.

spoiler

... slur will not work this go around. The GOP are seriously shaking in their shoes at the thought of a third-party or even worse ( Better ) no-party Ron Paul candidacy. They will cry and wail and moan "spoiler" but it won't hold up to even the most cursory of investigation. The GOP have backed themselves into a "political corner" with only one way out:

NOMINATE DR. RON PAUL

Ron Paul Wins the Election of Committed Voters

This is excellent insight on Josh's part. What people do not appreciate is Ron Paul supporters (including me), will not vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. He is the only candidate addressing the fundamental issues facing this country - the Deficit, the Fed and Militarism. Once you understand this intellectually it makes no sense to vote for anyone else.

As Ron Paul has said, ideas are powerful and delegates who understand and support Ron Paul's ideas will have much more influence than most people realize. Josh really drove these points home. Excellent commentary.

Ron Miller

And I have said here before ....

and it was deleted by a mod ...

If Paul does not get the nomination ...

And if he or Rand does not get the VP ...

And if the election fraud continues (which it has) ...

And if Americans Elect gets on at least 45 ballots ...

And sore loser laws do not prevent him from running in a large number of the states ...

And he is nominated by a huge margin in the online convention ...

Paul will run in the general.

I like your simple logic!

Swift and to the point! Easy to read. Easy for anyone to understand. Very encouraging! You said it all in just a few sentences!=)

Americans Elect will not choose Paul.

Even if the online convention chooses Paul, the people who own AE will pick someone else.

They've practically said as much.

They've specifically said they will change the nominee if they don't agree with the choice.

Well then ...

I guess that means Paul won't be running third party.

I think the Libertarians would have to break party rules to nominate Paul and I don't think they will do that.

That leaves the Green Party and the Constitution Party as having ballot access in most of the states and I think you can count out the Green Party. I am not familiar with the Constitution Party rules and regs.

Having said all that ...

I have a sneaky suspicion that American's Elect will allow Paul to be nominated as long as he picks a Democratic running mate. I am skeptical that Paul would do that, but he may have someone in mind.

Paul has until the latest, while following LP rules, May

5th to decide.

That is when the LP picks its candidate.

(the earlier the better)

If the LP nominee agreed to step aside for Paul and there was some way it could be finagled, Paul could have until June 3 to decide since the 4th is the first deadline for getting LP Electors on the ballot. (they could skip that State, Colorado, but it wouldn't be smart to start missing states because you didn't make up your mind)

There is also the possibility that the LP nominee could run as a surrogate in those states he was late on, and the People would have be told to vote for them if they want their States EC votes to go to Ron Paul. But that won't go over well in many ways.

Yes, the Greens are out of the question.

And practically the Constitution Party is as well. They've lost their California affiliate and they have very limited access. Besides, their religious baggage makes them more suitable to Santorum than Paul.

Paul might lose support choosing the CP once people read the CP platform and principles and get to know it.

Speaking of California, the American Independent Party, the former affiliate of the CP and other parties is going it alone and trying to nationalize. I don't know if they'd be a good match for Paul though. They were the vehicle for George Wallace in 1968. That wouldn't sit well for sure with the newsletter issue. They are technically the 3rd largest party in America by registration.

That leaves an independent run, or maybe the Reform Party. But that party has a bad label now and is essentially defunct.

There are some minor party labels floating around that are offshoots of the LP, but I don't think they merit serious consideration at this point, unless Paul was just going to use them as an established vehicle and "hi-jack" them into a new larger party. (instantly the 3rd largest for sure though) Those groups are VERY small, like less than 1000 members or even less than a hundred - nationwide.

I don't know

They have stated that they will always welcome Ron Paul

They could change their rules if they wanted to

It isn't a question of the LP changing its rules, it is a matter

of not being able to change the name on the ballot per various state laws.

Isn't there a sore loser rule ...

to prevent a candidate from switching parties at the last minute?

RHINO!!

You know better than that.

What, you getting kicks out of asking me questions you already know the answers to?

You've been here long enough man...

O.K. Sorry about that. I should have used the right words.

The requirement that a candidate has to be a "sustainable member" for the past 12 months in order to be on the Libertarian ticket disqualifies Paul from running on the ticket if I am reading it correctly.

That is what I meant to say.

A rule change at the convention is possible and could be a way around this clause, but I don't think the delegates at the convention would go for that given what some of the delegation thinks about Paul.

As far as I know that requirement only applies to the LNC, not

candidates, but I could be mistaken.

Johnson doesn't meet that test and I don't see any fuss about him.

Edit: And I agree with your assessment about delegates and Paul. While he would eventually get the nod if he wanted it, it would not be unanimous. I suspect some would at least vote NOTA if that is their only option. Some people even if they support Paul will vote NOTA if there isn't a choice, because they are sticklers for choice.

Sorry, we've covered that in many threads over several months

here on DP already.

Please do a search on DP for "sore loser law" or some such.

No offense, but it's detailed and I really don't want to rehash it all.

In short, no.

Ignores the past and present

Ron Paul has stated enough times to fill a book that he has absolutely no intention of running 3rd party. That's the end of the story.

But entering the realm of fantasy, I think independent would be better. He should demand the nominations of the Libertarian and Constitution Parties as well as any others that he can get, he's already set up to win the americanselect.org effort (which is a good cause that isn't receiving a fraction of the attention it deserves) if he'd just make it official.

We already know his socially liberal/fiscally conservative positions put him a position to gain support from people across the spectrum.

If you want to convince Dr. Paul to do this, the most important thing to note is that the hypothetical is irrelevant now, unlike a "regular" third party candidate, he has received a lot of media attention. He has been allowed to debate many times. If he could swing enough support from enough groups they'll have to let him on the stage to debate the Republican and Democratic nominees like Ross Perot did in '92. And honestly if Ron Paul does even as well as Perot did he could seriously change the politics in America. Currently both parties are rampaging towards perpetual war, destruction of individual rights, welfare state, and bankruptcy. Between the two, the only variations are in how quickly they achieve their goals. Ron Paul is the most popular and successful opposition to this in America. There is no one who is in a better position to stand up for fiscal responsibility and individual rights.

...

he said "i have no intentions (why would i, it's looking good etc...)"

he didn't say "i won't". and he knew why.

to say he may would harm his current approach, and ron paul does not do things by halves. that's all, and it's all good.

imho.

GERMANY for LIBERTY !

#1 - A similar situation played out in 1980.

John Anderson bolted the GOP after doing well initially, but failing to win primaries.

He went independent and was polling 26%. But he didn't have a convention to attract media attention. (Paul WOULD have this) and a few gafs here and there and his polling dropped to 15%.

He got into the debates (as Perot did, when the League of Women Voters ran it) because he had 15% support. Carter refused to debate him. So he debated Reagan alone. He looked good, but he wasn't stellar.

He was not invited back to any more debates, and his numbers continued to plummet.

He eventually got 7% of the vote, and not as a spoiler. (Reagan won in a landslide)

One thing Anderson had going for him that Paul doesn't is Anderson made friends in the media. He was very progressive and more Romney like than conservative. (the media hated the "conservatives" rising in the GOP)

#2 - Perot got in the debates the first time because as I mentioned, the LWV ran the debates back then. Since they let in Anderson with 15%, they agreed to let Perot in on that same criteria. But by 1996, the LWV had given up control over the debates to the Bi-Partisan Commission on Presidential Debates. (this was done to keep it to ONLY two parties) They initially wouldn't let Perot in because he was polling near 9%. But he successfully argued that since he got 19% of the actual votes in the last election, that should trump any poll.

No one has been allowed or even gotten close to being allowed in the debates since. (Barr was polling 7% in early June 2008, but quickly faded as his campaign failed to defeat the 3rd party media blackout, and essentially really campaign at all)

#3 - Paul in a hypothetical 3 way race with Obama and Rommey was polling 18%. That's good, but not good enough. I'd like to see how he fares in a Santorum - Obama and Ginrich - Obama 3 way race.

Regardless he'll need hundreds of millions of dollars to circumvent a media blackout AND a debate exclusion. I promise you, they will NOT let Paul in the debates under any circumstances. They will lie, cheat, steal, change the rules, maybe even kill someone to prevent it. You can take that call to Vegas and get rich if someone will take the bet.

everytime i heard RP

he was ambiguous

like an enigma

... wrapped in a mystery

mystery 1 |ˈmist(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. -teries)
1 something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain : the mysteries of outer space | hoping that the inquest would solve the mystery. See note at riddle .
• the condition or quality of being secret, strange, or difficult to explain : much of her past is shrouded in mystery.
• a person or thing whose identity or nature is puzzling or unknown : “He's a bit of a mystery,” said Nina | [as adj. ] a mystery guest.
2 a novel, play, or movie dealing with a puzzling crime, esp. a murder.
3 ( mysteries) the secret rites of Greek and Roman pagan religion, or of any ancient or tribal religion, to which only initiates are admitted.
• the practices, skills, or lore peculiar to a particular trade or activity and regarded as baffling to those without specialized knowledge : the mysteries of analytical psychology.
• the Christian Eucharist.
4 chiefly Christian Theology a religious belief based on divine revelation, esp. one regarded as beyond human understanding : the mystery of Christ.
• an incident in the life of Jesus or of a saint as a focus of devotion in the Roman Catholic Church, esp. each of those commemorated during recitation of successive decades of the rosary.
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [mystic presence, hidden religious symbolism] ): from Old French mistere or Latin mysterium, from Greek mustērion; related to mystic .

"God Endorses Ron Paul" videos

There is ANOTHER Josh Tolley hammer of freedom out there:

"God Endorses Ron Paul - You Should Too" Josh Tolley, Parts 1 and 2
http://www.dailypaul.com/220731/josh-tolley-god-endorses-ron...

Also... If you are a small business/medium business who loves freedom, contact The Josh Tolley Show ASAP!! I seen on the site they are going to do some event with small to medium businesses. Since he is primarily a business person, this might be great opportunity.

not really news all that, but....

what i'm worried about since months is that the tampa convention process or result can still be rigged by the gop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rplrNr8I8s

is that so?

also, the establishment doesn't care who wins, as long as it's not ron paul. and they can't do anything about him running 3d party except counting the votes which they will.

GERMANY for LIBERTY !

Why the Ted Nugent music?

He supports Romney - the Anti-gun governer of MA.

Nugent is just another hypocrite entertainer who should keep his mouth shut about politics.

I thought hw was all about independence.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Hey..google chickenhawks hall of shame..

...read how Nugent got out of serving in the military. I guarantee you will never think of him as a great American or speaker of independence again! L.O.L. and eeewww! You'll see!

I agree 100% • nugent is how

I agree 100% • nugent is how real traitors sound. They "sound" as though they're patriots. They sound so believable you find yourself saying, "Yeah! Right! Me too"! And then they show who they really are. In this case this sleazeball supports a traitor like romney. Not Paul who is the real deal, but romney, the appointed scumbag by the other scumbags. And that's what makes so called "conservative" guys like this even bigger traitors than the jacksons and other leftists who never claim to be for smaller Constitutional government.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine Godfather of the American Revolution)

Josh ROCKS!

The man is a genius!!

Let's be clear about the fact that even IF Ron Paul doesn't win, even if Ron Paul doesn't run third party, the genius behind this man's commentary is that he is exposing things through the cover of an endorsement!

1- He does know how the election system works and while it matters TO that system, this hopes allows empowerment in the hearts of the listeners to actually look at the system (brilliant).

2- It offers the candidate that he is pulling for a breath of fresh air in the media which is telling everyone Ron Paul is done. This clip tells people to fight to the end. That has to be ticking people off in the system.

3- Josh sends a shot across the bow of the MSM saying that there is now someone on the side of truth that can stand toe to toe with them...AND WIN...without having to be all crazy, tin hat, sky is always falling, we are dead already.

Bottom line is Josh knows EXACTLY how this system works, what the odds really are.

When 10 million people listen to this though and they all feel ripped off by the system because Paul should have won, then they know the system was the culprit!

The man is brilliant in his strategy and the problem is the people are so used to shallow hosts it is taking a minute to grasp how deep this guy is.

Josh Tolley 2016! Until then, call your stations and get him EVERYWHERE!!

He is just as good on other topics.