He's said he won't do it, but there is always the possibility of a Paul third party campaign, probably as a Libertarian again or something. If he does make a 3rd Party run who would he hurt the most? Please give reasons for your choice

Who does Ron Paul hurt more as a 3rd Party Candidate

Himself...unaffiliated voters...any third party you care to dream of...

He'll suck up the votes from both the Buchananites on the Right, and the moonbats on the Left....from the articles that Led was posting he's now spouting the worst rhetoric from both sides.

Dems...

His Republican base are people who probably haven't voted in 20 years.. totally disillusioned with the center-right (because they're extremists, or feel that registering to vote would invite gov't forces to put them in torture dungeons for fun.. or they have no permanent address(homeless)).

Meanwhile he inspires rabid anti-war leftists with his 'straight-talk' on the war. Especially if Clinton gets the nomination, a good chunk of the leftist base will be looking for a bonified anti-war candidate.

I say let him run...

Why wouldn't the leftist moonbats vote Green? I understand the agreement with regards to Iraq, but do you think they'd be able to hold the gag reflex and pull the lever for a guy who opposes the vast majority of their domestic ideas?

If nothing else he pisses off the "approved candidates" by rejecting both their self serving mantra. I recognize he won't win, however I respect him. He does not pander to candidates who support "freedom" when it suites them. His unconditional support for free speech for all by itself was more than enough to discredit him. Do lefties really want free speech? Lobbyists? Paid and processed RINOs like McCain.?
He also committed the heresy of speaking out against globalization or the "big box store effect" I'm surprised he's still alive.

www.jibjab.com . . .


by the way, that video is hilarious yet it breaks my heart because it's the fucking truth.

I understand the agreement with regards to Iraq, but do you think they'd be able to hold the gag reflex and pull the lever for a guy who opposes the vast majority of their domestic ideas?

You would certainly think so. I went by one of the local moonbat love-in fests and saw a surprising number of Paulbots there. Plus many of the moonbats that post over at DU are pro-gun (at least for themselves) so I think there is a definate moonbat constituency there.

He said he wouldn't run as a third party candidate, but now he probably will. This goes to prove his word means nothing. I think he will hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, because no self respecting conservative would vote for this cunt. He is garnering no support from conservatives 4.1% currently in national polls. His ideals or ideas reach only the fringe of the Republican mainstream and I think he will have little or no effect.

lilyliveredfrogs wrote:

He said he wouldn't run as a third party candidate, but now he probably will. This goes to prove his word means nothing. I think he will hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, because no self respecting conservative would vote for this cunt. He is garnering no support from conservatives 4.1% currently in national polls. His ideals or ideas reach only the fringe of the Republican mainstream and I think he will have little or no effect.

why is that? He wants to REVERT to the way the constitution was meant to be interpreted, not how how so called "conservatives" "think" it should be interpreted. Some people dislike him because he does not disown fringe groups who like him for his appeal to free speech. Yet, how does that hurt anyone? if you are a lunatic, let the public ignore you by their own will. If there is meaning to your rant, so be it. I am not a hypocrite, let all groups have their soap box as long as they do not preach violence.

geebart wrote:

why is that? He wants to REVERT to the way the constitution was meant to be interpreted, not how how so called "conservatives" "think" it should be interpreted.

I didn't know Paul knew Jefferson? lol

geebart wrote:

Some people dislike him because he does not disown fringe groups who like him for his appeal to free speech. Yet, how does that hurt anyone?

He is in the fringe group, the fucking leader of it.

geebart wrote:

if you are a lunatic, let the public ignore you by their own will. If there is meaning to your rant, so be it. I am not a hypocrite, let all groups have their soap box as long as they do not preach violence.

I didn't call you a hypocrite, I reserved that for Paul if he runs third party.

There should be more than 2 parties. Too much bipartisanship with only two parties.

In fact there should be half a dozen parties plus strong independents

He said he wouldn't run as a third party candidate, but now he probably will. This goes to prove his word means nothing. I think he will hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, because no self respecting conservative would vote for this cunt. He is garnering no support from conservatives 4.1% currently in national polls. His ideals or ideas reach only the fringe of the Republican mainstream and I think he will have little or no effect.

Disagree with your claim that a third party run would mean his word means nothing. He said before that he wasn't really considering a 3rd Party run because of the extra hurdles, it wasn't out of any sense of party loyalty. He never promised that he wasn't going to run 3rd Party. I understand that he's now a bit of a distance from most modern conservatives on foreign policy, but his domestic policy seems pretty conservative to me.

Gilbertandgeorge wrote:

There should be more than 2 parties. Too much bipartisanship with only two parties.

In fact there should be half a dozen parties plus strong independents

I have mixed feelings on that. By the way, any party can run, we have a "green party" somewhere. if anything I think the powers of president should be split into 2 or 3 different offices. It's too much for one man, leads to "frontman syndrome"

I've seen him say he had no plans of doing it, and maybe he won't do it in the end. But he never totally ruled it out. When Tim Russert pressured him to say a definite yes or no he hemmed and hawed.

Gringodiablo wrote:

He said he wouldn't run as a third party candidate, but now he probably will. This goes to prove his word means nothing. I think he will hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, because no self respecting conservative would vote for this cunt. He is garnering no support from conservatives 4.1% currently in national polls. His ideals or ideas reach only the fringe of the Republican mainstream and I think he will have little or no effect.

Disagree with your claim that a third party run would mean his word means nothing. He said before that he wasn't really considering a 3rd Party run because of the extra hurdles, it wasn't out of any sense of party loyalty. He never promised that he wasn't going to run 3rd Party. I understand that he's now a bit of a distance from most modern conservatives on foreign policy, but his domestic policy seems pretty conservative to me.

Ya don't say! Of course he has zero party loyalty... he's a total opportunist. The 'R' next to his name is for fundraising/mainstream cred reasons only. Sticks to his principles, indeed...

These fucknuts like Paul always draw more from Republicans for the simple fact that Republicans are more likely to be able to find a polling station and actually vote.

Demofarts talk a good game, but can rarely be roused from watching whatever the latest popular "I Love Niggers" show on HBO.

He compounds the insult by further embarrassing the shit out of his cultist followers.

Did you listen to the clip above. He vassaled back and forth from yes to no.

paul probably hurts republicans the most. a lot of his young supporters won't show up on voting day. any leftist that votes for paul is a total fucking idiot that doesn't understand libertarianism. and any conservative that doesn't vote for him doesn't know what conservatism means.

it's too bad. the only candidate talking about reeling in runaway government growth is ridiculed by the party of goldwater and reagan. the modern republican party is DEAD. and jorge bush senior and junior killed it.

Ya don't say! Of course he has zero party loyalty... he's a total opportunist. The 'R' next to his name is for fundraising/mainstream cred reasons only. Sticks to his principles, indeed...

There is a difference between party loyalty and sticking to ones principles.

I think he splits the kook vote between both parties, so it doesn't matter. The same 3% that support him now will support him as a turd party candidate.

I don't think he'll run as a turd party candidate. Here in his hometown he is running a lot of radio and TV ads, not to promote his candidacy for president, but to be reelected to Congress. Raun is not only going to not be elected president, he's gonna be fired by the voters in his own district.

The Ron Paul supporters are undeterred by your insults.



Ron Paul supporter

In New Hampshire Ron Paul attracted a lot of independents and Democrats. Some Republicans. And Rock is right about the Leftists who vote for Paul: they aren't paying attention to the rest of his platform. But, then again so many on the Left are dumb as dirt.

A poll for Paul...