Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would Romney pick Rand Paul? Rand Paul doesn't have what Romney lacks. Romney needs someone with the foreign policy experience he doesn't have and I would suggest that person, whoever they are, come from a Santorum/Gingrich won state...but not Lindsey Graham.
Will Rand run as Romney's VP? I think not. I hope not.
Will I vote for a Romney/Rand ticket? No.
Will I at least vote for Romney with Ron Paul as VP? Still NO.
Why? Because a VP is an ineffective, useless position. A VP only comes into the picture if the President is no more. Back in 2008, something happening to McCain because of old age and Palin becoming the President was not a farfetched idea, and was a very scary one. (A grapefruit has a bigger IQ than her.) Romney is in excellent health, so he is well set to tyrannize us for at least 4 years and so a VP in his administration would be just a paper tiger. Not only would Rand not be able to do anything to shrink the government, he would also lose the respect of the Paul supporters who voted for him. Not being able to do anything in a Romney administration won't be Rand's fault, but running as his VP would certainly be.
There is ONLY one person I would vote for as President, and that's Ron Paul. No compromises. Screw the party. Principles come first.
The bigger question is - How many such stupid threads will the Paul haters start on a daily basis? Our decisions don't change from one day to the next. We are not Mitt Romney, you know? We don't flip-flop and we don't compromise.
Why would Romney pick Rand Paul? Rand Paul doesn't have what Romney lacks. Romney needs someone with the foreign policy experience he doesn't have and I would suggest that person, whoever they are, come from a Santorum/Gingrich won state...but not Lindsey Graham.
You're right. And way too many people ignore this.
Nominees with little to no foreign policy experience tab running mates with experience in Congress, particularly those who served on or chaired committees such as Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, or in Presidential Administrations. Obama, GW Bush, Clinton, Reagan -- they all did so.
If he can find someone who combines the above with staunch conservatism and being from a large swing state (Ohio, Florida and Virginia top the list) he'll have his number two. This is why Portman and Demint top my list of most likely running mates. All this talk of Rubio and Jindal and Christie and so forth simply ignores Romney's most pressing needs, and the fact that he's not the gambler that John McCain is.
There is ONLY one person I would vote for as President, and that's Ron Paul. No compromises. Screw the party. Principles come first.
We don't flip-flop .
Just curious: What if Ron Paul does not win the nomination, decides not to run third
party and endorses the libertarian candidate e.g. Gary Johnson
Hypothetical of course would/could you vote Libertarian?
Just curious: What if Ron Paul does not win the nomination, decides not to run third
party and endorses the libertarian candidate e.g. Gary Johnson
Hypothetical of course would/could you vote Libertarian?
Well, Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate in 2008.
You're right. And way too many people ignore this.
Nominees with little to no foreign policy experience tab running mates with experience in Congress, particularly those who served on or chaired committees such as Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, or in Presidential Administrations. Obama, GW Bush, Clinton, Reagan -- they all did so.
And, Bush Sr picked Dan Quayle because.....
and, he did win.
Just a simple question. I'm not trying to make any points, but I'm just curious as to the attitude of Ron Paul supporters. Rand Paul already stated that he would be 'honored' to run as VP nominee with Romney. I think Rand Paul as VP makes a lot of sense. He would bring in tea party voters, and would add the Southern balance that Romney so desperately needs. And he would bring in at least some Ron Paul supporters, whose numbers are not insignificant as proven by the primaries.
Well, Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate in 2008.
No one really seemed to notice, though ...
I wouldn't vote Constitution Party, for the obvious "religious base" difference
with that of the Libertarian Party, but I do respect the reason they state they
won't endorse Paul now:
"By supporting Ron Paul, we would be asking our supporters to vote in the Republican Primaries
and “declare” themselves as Republicans, or in some states, they would have to register Republican,
thereby asking people to betray their political convictions
for the sake of expediency.
The Constitution Party is NOT about building other parties"
I've always felt kind of like a traitor voting in the Repub primaries for Paul
as a Libertarian, so I know what they mean.
And, Bush Sr picked Dan Quayle because.....
and, he did win.
What does the VP pick of a Vice President, former CIA Director, and former envoy to China have to do with the VP picks of nominees who do not have foreign policy experience?
Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
would/could you vote Libertarian?
