Ron Paul - 3rd Party Can Win If We Wake Up

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

This is an old clip, but still is an important message.

Edited August 29, 2012 by ArmyVeteran37214

[Guest ThePunisher]

Romney/Ryan can win if the people will wake up. If they don't wake up, the commie will get 4 more years, and everyone is going to feel the pain getting worse, and see their freedoms vanish.

[Mykltn]

Yes, cause we all remember how well the whole 3rd party thing worked out for us during the Clinton/Bush/Pero election. A conservitive 3rd party vote equals an Obama 2nd term.

[E4 No More]

Yes, cause we all remember how well the whole 3rd party thing worked out for us during the Clinton/Bush/Pero election. A conservitive 3rd party vote equals an Obama 2nd term.

Ding, ding, ding!!!! EXACTLY!!!

Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me!

[RobertNashville]

Your focus is certainly clear...it's almost a religious fervor; but no, a third-party can't win.

A third-party can spoil and hand the election to the worst candidate but that's the only thing in modern history that a third-party has actually accomplished.

More to the point, we don't need a third-party candidate this election cycle as there is nothing wrong with the choice we have to unseat the communist currently in office.

[styx]

Your focus is certainly clear...it's almost a religious fervor; but no, a third-party can't win.

A third-party can spoil and hand the election to the worst candidate but that's the only thing in modern history that a third-party has actually accomplished.

More to the point, we don't need a third-party candidate this election cycle as there is nothing wrong with the choice we have to unseat the communist currently in office.

Agree

[BryanP]

Yes, cause we all remember how well the whole 3rd party thing worked out for us during the Clinton/Bush/Pero election. A conservitive 3rd party vote equals an Obama 2nd term.

Conversely, that same sort of thing got you President Bush instead of President Gore in 2000. I'm betting the RNC sends Ralph Nader a fruit basket every year.

Edited August 31, 2012 by BryanP

[kieefer]

???

Has the old man switched parties again?

I had to check the date, thought it might have been a vid from 1988.

[BPE]

"Ron Paul - - 3rd Party Can Win If We Wake Up"

Sounds like you're dreaming.

[Guest ThePunisher]

"Ron Paul - - 3rd Party Can Win If We Wake Up"

Sounds like you're dreaming.

Sounds like a drunken hangover.

[MikePapa1]

Ron Paul could never be elected President. He is, in my view, the wrong face to put on the libertarian movement. His pursuit of a 3rd party run would be a disaster for libertarians, Republicans and the nation. Anyone advocating this should seriously rethink their views.

[RobertNashville]

Would anyone like to see some videos from credible sources that says anything close to the possibility of a successful third-party? There seems to be no end of videos from people who would benefit from a third-party; namely third-party candidates and hangers-on but nothing from anyone without a stake in a successful third-party.

Why do you suppose that is?

Could it be that it's because, outside of those who DO have a stake in it, no one does believe a third-party can be successful today? Could it be that even those who put out all these videos don't even believe their own rhetoric?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A polite society would cut him some slack. If you don't like the damned video, or the message, don't bother

reading it.

I'm not taking sides on this one, but

it does seem a trend for Internet gurus

to hound and ridicule one's position

when all they have to do is just not

post their damned rude comments.

Make no mistake, I'm voting for Romney

and I may or may not agree with some

of the comments, but damn that's rude.

If you don't like his videos, leave his ass alone.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stillstanding669]

I think that each of us needs to assess whether our votes are equaling our desires over the 4 years the winners represent. The need for a third party is when we are constantly seeing the swings from left to right, and nothing is being done about the issues that are tearing our United States Of America apart from within. Whether it is the Tea Party, or another party started from the grass roots of our America, it will never be successful at winning until a lot of the normal folks get up and get involved at all levels.

I do agree that this year is not the time to divide the Republican Party. However, I do also think that this party will be the one that is divided to form a new third party in the future. Especially if they do not cut the debt and out of control spending after this election. Etc...

[RobertNashville]

A polite society would cut him some slack. If you don't like the damned video, or the message, don't bother reading it.

I'm not taking sides on this one, but it does seem a trend for Internet gurus to hound and ridicule one's position when all they have to do is just not post their damned rude comments.

Make no mistake, I'm voting for Romney and I may or may not agree with some of the comments, but damn that's rude.

If you don't like his videos, leave his ass alone.

Maybe I misunderstand but are you suggesting that when someone posts something, especially a political position, that another disagrees with, the one who disagrees should just shut up?

Is it impolite to challenge someone's political position?

If a position on something cannot be challenged, what is the point of having a forum?

Should we all be able to post a position on anything and expect only those who agree with us to post in our threads?

Is there no responsibility to be placed on an OP?

Is only one side of an issue expected to show restraint while the other creates new threads day after day which all say essentially the same thing (albeit with different videos)?

[RobertNashville]

I think that each of us needs to assess whether our votes are equaling our desires over the 4 years the winners represent. The need for a third party is when we are constantly seeing the swings from left to right, and nothing is being done about the issues that are tearing our United States Of America apart from within. Whether it is the Tea Party, or another party started from the grass roots of our America, it will never be successful at winning until a lot of the normal folks get up and get involved at all levels.

I do agree that this year is not the time to divide the Republican Party. However, I do also think that this party will be the one that is divided to form a new third party in the future. Especially if they do not cut the debt and out of control spending after this election. Etc...

Frankly, I believe that anyone who blames the party or the two-party system is just looking, unconsciously perhaps but still looking for an excuse...for a scapegoat.

The problem is not a party nor how many parties...the problem is "US".

Few bother to even register to vote.

Fewer still bother to actually go and vote even if we've registered.

Of those who do register and actually do vote, there is likely a significant percentage that shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are incompetent, uneducated, and uninformed who are likely paying noting into the system but getting benefits, perhaps their entire support given to them BY the system that the rest of us support.

There is NO party, no number of parties and no party platform that can fix that

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Didn't say that at all.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RobertNashville]

Didn't say that at all.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then I clearly misunderstood.

[stillstanding669]

The number of parties is the problem! If there were more competent choices, and the parties knew that there would be better competition, then there might just be a penalty great enough for them to do what the American people want. Now with two parties they wait 4 or 8 years after a lose at the polls to see how bad the other party was with their time in office, and get a freebie win as is the case this time around. The Dems have messed up so much that the Reps have really no competition to get the House, Senate, and White House if those among us that care do vote.

A third or fourth party would make that only other choice go away! It could be 12 or longer years before they win again. Might make a change in who wins and why they can hold on to power!

[gun sane]

Leave a wake up call for a few months after the election and see how Romney's doing. There's plenty of time to sound the alarm for 2016.

[RobertNashville]

The number of parties is the problem! If there were more competent choices, and the parties knew that there would be better competition, then there might just be a penalty great enough for them to do what the American people want. Now with two parties they wait 4 or 8 years after a lose at the polls to see how bad the other party was with their time in office, and get a freebie win as is the case this time around. The Dems have messed up so much that the Reps have really no competition to get the House, Senate, and White House if those among us that care do vote.

A third or fourth party would make that only other choice go away! It could be 12 or longer years before they win again. Might make a change in who wins and why they can hold on to power!

That's an interesting opinion but I don't agree.

For one, we've already got multiple parties other than Republicans and Democrats; if your theory worked wouldn't we already be at the point you say multiple parties would bring us to? What logic suggests that bringing more parties would change the outcome?

We had a plethora of choices in the Republican party this cycle; all but one was rejected and by a large margin...the fact that some don't like the choice (and in some cases, vehemently don't like the choice) that was made doesn't change that fact the the vast majority does like the chosen candidate.

Competent choices are available when competent people run....competent people get elected when an informed, involved, electorate who value liberty and freedom, vote for them. The number of parties is not going to change that.

There are two, significant political philosophies in this country.

One is the liberal or progressive philosophy which in general, believes that government is the solution to every problem...that bigger government and more government control is the answer which naturally leads to socialism/communism. It sees the great unwashed masses are incapable of making correct choices for themselves and cannot be trusted with true freedom.

The other philosophy is the conservative; which believes that government is usually the problem and rarely the solution. It values freedom and liberty more than security and embraces free-market capitalism...it understands that even if people make "bad choices", those choices are still theirs to make.

I suggest that people naturally, even if unconsciously, gravitate toward one or the other philosophy (or are brainwashed toward one or the other) and as such, two parties the generally represent those two general philosophies are all we really need. That the "elite" in each party has mucked up the system is a problem but it's a problem that can be solved without destroying the two parties and without creating more parties (more parties that over time would likely fall into the same problems we currently see in the two main parties).

I really don't know if there is time to change things before the great experiment fails but I am pretty sure that we don't have time to waste trying to reinvent the wheel with new parties.