Ron Paul/Michael Bloomberg Ticket
I am writing this forum topic out of curiousity. What do people think about a Ron Paul/Michael Bloomberg ticket? Michael Bloomberg does have a lot of money and might be a helpful advisor on financial issues. I am not saying that Ron Paul and Michael Bloomberg have the same stances on the issues, but neither do most Republicans and Democrats. Bloomberg is a member of the CFR which means we may be able to infect the CFR internally. Michael Bloomberg is the exact opposite on social and domestic issues but so are most of the democrats. Bloomberg is also Jewish, which might combat those who call Ron Paul supporters neo-nazis. I know Bloomberg has switched back and forth from democrat, to republican, to independent, but monetarily he might be able to get Ron Paul's message out. I know this ticket probably would never happen, and I don't even like the prospect, but out of curiousity what do you think?
I got this idea because I have been seeing a lot of Ron Paul lately on the Bloomberg channel, on television. Being almost the exact opposite of Ron Paul is what makes me rethink what we should look for in a Vice President. Should the VP have almost the exact same political views, or would it be better to set partisan behind? This is coming from a "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" theory.
way off!
I think Paul would pick Kucinich (who is ready) before he picks Bloomberg.
1. CFR , like the ZOG, NWO can't be swayed or infiltrated, GROW UP.
2. Being Jewish doesn't help anybody, especially if he doesn't have a strong non-interventionist foreign policy, forget his gun grab
3. Bloomberg doesn't seem to be doing much lately at all, but if Bloomberg actually wanted to spend his money somewhere, he might as well give up, endorse Paul, and when he wins (much more likely than Mike himself), he can get himself a pat on the back.
I got nothing against Bloomberg, if Paul doesn't make it I'll vote for him or Green Party just to spoil the election (I won't vote Libertarian Party because they can't get their heads out of their asses right now)
Only MARK SANFORD makes sense for VP
Mark Sanford is a two time elected governor of South Carolina and is a libertarian republican.
If you take South Carolina, you have the South.
Also you bring into the fray an experienced leader (governor)
He'll make an excellent presidential candidate after Ron Paul.
I think Lou Dobbs could be a
I think Lou Dobbs could be a good vp choice for Paul because of his high name recognition and the fact that they agree on more than they disagree on. For example, they both agree on opposing any moves towards a North American Union, they both strongly oppose illegal immigration, they both oppose the Iraq war, they are both big fans of the constitution, etc.
what?....
"infect the CFR internally"? More like, the CFR would infect RP's administration internally. No way Dr. Paul would pick a globalist as a running mate, as these are the very people who threaten our sovereignty. He might as well pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate (although I do admit my knowledge of Bloomberg is limited).
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Ron Paul
agreed
no better way to say it.
NO!!!
and NO!! I fail to see how so many Ron Paul supporters suggest ridiculous running mates.
Napolitano!
I like Judge Napolitano.
The Doctor + Judge ticket would be appealing to cover all aspects of government.
Ron Paul is already an expert on economy, so I don't think he needs any help in that area.
Napolitano is not only well known, but he is also very funny and has great charisma. That is something Ron Paul could use to his advantage, because as much as I love Dr. Paul, he is a bit dry. :)
Also, Ron Paul is good friends with Napolitano and the Judge has shown great support for Ron's campaign.
bloomberg is the worst
As a New Yorker, I can tell you Bloomberg is the worst. He's an incredible elitist, with one set of rules for him, and another for the common masses who he believes need him to run thier lives for them. He is a complete totalitarian nanny-state authoritarian who forces his personal will on the people at every chance. Not to mention he is a complete socialist, and practically drips with contempt for the average person everytime he speaks. He lies constantly, and panders worse than HIllary. He represents everything that Ron Paul is fighting against. 100%.
Too bad. He certainly has a lot of money. But he's not into using his wealth to help people. He's into using it to advance his ego and power.
Remember that a vice president always has the best shot to be president after the 4 or 8 years are up. Bloomberg should not be placed in ANY position to ever be president. As a Ron Paul presidency would be a wildly successful one for the country, this would place Bloomberg 1st in line to be president himself. And he would undo everything Ron Paul had done in a heartbeart.
Ron Paul needs a southerner (mark sanford) or an african american (walter williams) with very similar views. These are the best choices out there right now. Bush is extremely unpopoular, so as republicans they have to represent a rejection of bush on both foreign and domestic issues, which they both do.
The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt
Bloomberg is corrupt. Ron
Bloomberg is corrupt. Ron Paul is honest.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Hell no!!
I have first hand experience with this nanny state, do gooder, anti-gun, fine and tax hiking RHINO. He's the reason I became a libertarian and involved in politics in the first place!!!!
Bloomberg is a nanny-state lover...
Republican/Democrat/Undeclared, whatever, he's a staunch opponent of guns, he raised property taxes, he's "greener" than any of the people running except maybe Kucinich. He believes in France-style, complete single payer, cradle to grave Healthcare and everything even pharmacies and alternative medicines should be ran by Big Brother.
And like he's done in NYC believes that protesters deserve to get the smack down by police.
He's a few hairs shorter than Ralph Nader.
These people are completely incompatible, it's not that I don't have respect for the guy, I really do, but no way in heaven or hell can he be RP's running mate.
I think the man to get is Trump...
He has the ambition and the charisma...and he could carry on the mantle after Ron Paul's 8 years! Bloomberg is in bed with many of the people who control the media.
Mike
Ron Paul is my HERO!!!
"Fire Team for Freedom" on RonPaulRadio.com
Mondays and Wednesdays 10pm EST
or visit mikeandjake.com
Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom"
visit www.mikeandjake.com
Am I
on DailyPaul or DailyInsane. You've got to be kidding about this blog
are you ?
"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "
Open mind
I wanted to see how open minded people were. They obviously are not. It would be great to have everyone in American think like Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters but its never going to work. If this country is going to make a smooth transition to a new political way of thinking, we are going to have to think outside the box. There is still going to be a democratic congress and there is still going to be corruption no matter whose president. You don't want to isolate yourself from your political enemies, like George Bush did, because it never works out. I wasn't serious about going as far as Mike Bloomberg, but I am serious about picking someone who might not agree with Ron Paul on all the issues. Whats the point of having a president if he can't work with congress?
I'd like to see not only Ron Paul
elected as our next president, but also the current Congress replaced by people who follow the documents left to this country by our founders.
Namely the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the documents that let us know what the founders were thinking when they created this great country. And they would be the Federalist papers.
I trust Ron Paul to make the correct decision as to who his VP should be. He's managed to survive in Washington as "Dr. No" for ten terms now, I think he would know best who would serve this country well as his VP.
My two cents is definitely not on Bloomberg. But on another Constitutionalist like the good doctor, whoever that may be. I don't think there are too many around, however I'm quite sure Ron Paul knows who the real ones are.
Can't People Be Open Minded
I knew that no one was going to go for a Ron Paul/Mike Bloomberg ticket. I just wanted to point out that if Ron Paul gets past the primaries or runs as an independent he might not pick who you think as a VP prospect on his ticket. What happens if you don't agree with his choice? Will you abandon Ron Paul because of his VP? Would you all of a sudden lose faith in Ron Paul because in your opinion the VP doesn't measure up?
"...infect the CFR internally"
lol.
good luck with that.
ANTI-gun Bloomberg is a treasonous monster.
ANTI-gun Bloomberg is a treasonous monster.
Ron Paul 2008, Join or Die!
DONT TREAD ON ME
AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN - WASHINGTON'S CRUISERS
Ron Paul / Rand Paul ...The Taxpayers' Best Friends!
RESTORE AMERICA NOW
AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN - Washington's Cruisers
http://www3.villanova.edu/centennial/js1g.htm
Leave Us Alone and Bring the Troops Home
Paul - Bloomberg ticket?
Surely you jest.
Ron Paul has suggested Mark Sanford as a possibilty
Here is a brief bio of Mark Sanford Gov of South Carolina
In 1994, Sanford entered the Republican primary for the Charleston-based 1st Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. The seat had come open after four-term incumbent Arthur Ravenel gave it up to make an unsuccessful run for governor. Despite having never run for office before, he finished second in a crowded primary behind Van Hipp, Jr, a former George H. W. Bush Administration official. Sanford defeated Hipp in the runoff, and breezed to victory in November. He was reelected twice, both times facing only minor-party opposition.
While in Congress, Sanford was a staunch conservative (he garnered a lifetime rating of 92 from the American Conservative Union), but displayed an occasional independent streak. He often would be one of two members of Congress, along with Ron Paul, voting against bills that otherwise got unanimous support. He opposed pork barrel projects even when they benefited his own district; in 1997 he voted against a defense appropriations bill that included funds for Charleston's harbor. Seeing himself as a "citizen-legislator," he did not run for reelection in 2000, in keeping with a promise to serve only three terms in the House.[2]
During his tenure in Congress, Sanford was listed in the official House roll as "R-Charleston," even though he still lived on Sullivan's Island.
Mark Sanford was always my favorite
I saw an interview of Ron Paul where he mentioned about term limits, that some of his ideological pals in congress had self imposed term limits and were no longer there to add votes. Clearly Sanford was one in specific he was referring to. But, spending time as a governor has given him valuable leadership experience that they are always saying is good to have in the white house. If we don't see a Mark Sanford in the white house in 09, then I would love to see him try for the senate in the next few years.
CFR connection, guns etc.
First of all, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals an absolute right to own a gun. Any sensible person would agree that limitations are permissable. But I do believe that citizens have the right to own a reasonable firearm for self-defense. Only a few cities do not allow citizens to own handguns and I expect this will be overturned, as it should be, very soon. However, I do NOT equate gun rights with liberty. They may be part of the package but in no way are they equal. Indeed, gun control advocates would argue that the effect of an armed citizenry is to curtail personal freedoms. The real question about guns is whether or not any limitations on ownership really provide any sort of benefit to society.
As for the CFR, I think over the years they have provided a valuable service to the national discourse. Unfortunately, as I am sure Ron Paul would agree, their ideas have not been tested against the US Constituion. The League of Nations and UN are good examples of this. But again don't equate belonging to the CFR with any individual's personal political beliefs.
As for the MSM, well, you need to get over it. It is what it is. People here in NH don't know anything about RP because they simply don't care about politics.
h-daddy
You might also read
The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin . Ron Paul has a comment on the back "A superb analysis deserving serious attention from all Americans.......a journey through time and mind.
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
The Shadows of Power
.
...is the title of a book you might want to get. It details how the CFR has steered U.S. policy and politics since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have the CFR to thank for our globalist agenda: our membership in the U.N., NATO, NAFDA, CAFDA, the WTO, and the very likely North American Union (now, in its infancy, is called the SPP), These are all entangling alliances - the kind that George Washington warned against.
The CFR is an elite, manipulative group - far from any oversight or voter approval. They do what they please, and nobody can stop them. They are dug in; they are comprised of around 4,000 of the most influential people in politics, the media and industry.
It is interesting to note that the following candidates are CFR members: Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Thompson, Edwards, Tancredo,,, just about everyone except Ron Paul. (Nobody seems to know for sure about Huckabee, but since he is pro-war, this follows the CFR agenda.)
I can't think of any good thing the CFR has done for the citizens of the Republic. It is very similar to the FED, started by the same group of people of influence (John D. Rockefeller was a giant in the establishment of both organizations).
When George Stephanopolous uttered, "That's not gonna happen" to Ron Paul in a memorable TV interview, he might as well have said, "I'm CFR and you're not. We're running this show."
.
This sensible person objects
The question is NOT whether gun control provides benefits to society. The question is where does the government get the authority to touch my guns at all.
The Federal government lacks Constitutional authority to regulate my ownership of ANY kind of weapon except, perhaps, a weapon of mass destruction that creates an imminent threat to national security - like an a-bomb. Otherwise, it is entirely a matter for the States. And if the Second amendment is applied to the States, which it should be, the States will also be denied the authority to regulate my gun ownership. Please cite any Constitutional authority to regulate gun ownership that I have missed.
Gun ownership isn't just about self-defense (although your Bloomberg doesn't even recognize THAT). It is about the people being equipped to defend the Republic against foreign threats AND against our own government should it begin to deny us our liberty. And pepper spray is not going to get the job done.
George Washington called the armed citizen our "liberty teeth". And the one sure way to distinguish a man from a slave is that men own guns and slaves don't. So guns DO equal liberty.
RP's platform derives from two principles: the rule of law starting with adherence to the Constitution, and Liberty. Gun control of any kind is inconsistent with both of these principles and RP has been crystal clear about this issue for decades.
Peace
I agree except that
limitations on gun ownership are a fact of life. Every state has imposed limitations. So if NYC has gun laws, constitutional or not, they are a fact of life. Do the citizens of NYC have a right to impose these limitations? According to the Constitution, and I think RP would agree, they do. The Federal Gov, however, does not. So, I see Bloomberg, and any other mayor of any city with strict gun control, as doing the will of the people.
h-daddy
Self-Defense is a Natural Right
If you examine the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the language of the amendment says it all. The second part of the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that every person born in the world has a natural right to defend himself. We are born with it. We are not "granted" the right to keep and bear arms by the government. The language that the amendment is written with clearly states that this natural right that men are born with to keep and bear arms shall not by any means be taken away by government. You, sir, are born with the right to defend yourself. If you lived in the time before firearms, you would have the right to defend yourself with a sword, knife, or any other weapon. Since the invention of the gun, that is the new means by which men can protect themselves. Without the ability to defend yourself, your family, and others with the arms of today, because the government has deprived you of that right, then you are less able to defend yourself against criminals whether they be civilian, government, or foreign invaders. Any society that has their right to defend themselves stripped by the government is in grave danger of having all other rights violated.
Look throughout history and you will see that the biggest killer of human beings throughout history is not war or religion but governments. A common element to genocide is that the victims are disarmed prior to it. Please do not let your emotion rationalize away your ability to stand strong as a man and defend to the death your family even if your attacker is a rogue government.
It's great that you can
quote part of the 2nd amendment. But you don't seem to have a clue what it means. It certainly isn't about self-defense. Do some research and then think about the thousands of laws that restrict gun ownership. I don't advocate strict gun control BUT I don't pretend that it is always an infringement of my rights or that it is inherently unconstitutional.
h-daddy
It's great that you can
quote part of the 2nd amendment. But you don't seem to have a clue what it means. It certainly isn't about self-defense. Do some research and then think about the thousands of laws that restrict gun ownership. I don't advocate strict gun control BUT I don't pretend that it is always an infringement of my rights or that it is inherently unconstitutional.
h-daddy
the thousands of laws that
the thousands of laws that restrict gun ownership only serve to
make criminals out of otherwise peaceful, law abiding citizens.
The Pennsylvania Constitution states it even more clearly...
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
On Bloomberg, no thanks.
My vote goes to Jacob Hornberger.