Stare her down back and let her know that her candidate wants to spend more money leveling the Middle East with bombs and imprisoning the American population than any welfare bull**** FFS.

Looks like may be the GOP as a whole
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...aBrH_blog.html

And liking Ron Paul but not Gary Johnson just shows a clear lack of understanding of libertarianism, and makes me question your reasoning in the first place.

he's polling much better though so I don't think it's too much to worry about


http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpo...x_stronger.php

i just got a phone survey call for the first time this election cycle, got to answer with "Ron Paul" "yes limited government is important" "no i'm not religious" "yes i'm a registered voter"

hrmm can't remember the 5th question.

Oh!


I do not think he would act the same as Obama or neocons. His 30+ year voting record in congress is all in line with his ideals.

Nov 5, 2007: $4.2 million
Dec 16, 2007: $6.0–$6.6 million

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneybomb

The reason they were bigger is because we're only in September. More people pay attention, and therefore more donations, as you get closer to the primaries. RP should get similar moneybombs this election, just wait till Nov and Dec =)

I'm speaking in general terms when I say that all the support Ron Paul can get is good, no matter what the reason.

I'm going to participate in EVERY ****ING MONEY BOMB from here on out. I've participated in 3 straight! I don't care if I have to suck dick for fiat.

Very good point. I didn't vote for Obama but can understand those who did who were anti-Bush. I hope more people start to realize how Obama is continuing in Bush's footsteps.

Just make sure you adjust for inflation. BJs have to be worth at least $100 bucks now.

I can't decide if I'd rather have Paul/Schiff or Paul/Johnson. Paul/Paul is also intriguing.

ooooh Peter Schiff, didn't think of that.


Paul Paul would indeed be sick, but I'd kinda like to see Rand stay in the Senate.

where does schiff lie in terms of foreign policy? i only ever hear him talk about the economy

samesies

paul is so old that its important he pick a libertarian and not someone for political reasons....if you know what i mean.

I was really hoping Gary Johnson would take off more. I had a fantasy about seeing two libertarians ganging up on the necons in the GOP debates.

I do, and I agree, but I think he's pretty healthy. Doesn't he bike like several miles daily or semi-daily?

This is not something I am comfortable posting or even reading or thinking about, but I'd be more worried about insiders assassinating him.

Here's a conn debate he was in if you have some time to kill. I saw it a few months back and don't remember his specifics on foreign policy. I don't think if the Iran nuclear weapon came up in this debate. I think he's similar to Rand Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_M6kSZrYCs

The VP discussion is kind of boring and not really useful at this early stage.

Ferimon5 for VP!


Getting more exciting?

I don't think you necessarily know what candidate, if any, she supports. Unless your inference was that all possible candidates support bombing the middle east.

I'm not so certain RP has such an easy chance winning the general if he runs a pure super-economically-conservative ticket. I know history shows that choice of VP can matter from a small amount to not at all, but I'd hate lack of overall support to sink his ship, and that's what I see GJ on his ticket doing - narrowing his support instead of widening it. That's why I'm against a Paul/Johnson ticket, not because I dislike GJ.

Great, gj, really, nicely done. Way to align RP with the most hated group of people in America: the non-religious. We're hated even more than Arabs/muslims!!

As solid as his voting record may be, I think getting into the oval office can really change a person. I would be slightly more persuaded if his record was for voting in the Senate, where his vote actually matters a bit more, but still not very much.

I would absolutely love to be proven wrong, but alas, I doubt I'll get that chance this election cycle. *sadboots*

Us Obama supporters had similar worries back in '08.

Thing is, the beauty of modern politics is that I can make this assumption and be correct. With every. ****ing. Candidate. That isn't libertarian (or green party or w/e, then touche I guess)

And I'd be rather surprised if your girlfriend is all for welfare and whatnot and isn't voting Democrat.

If I'm wrong here, why not enlighten me? Who's the candidate? And why haven't I heard of him?

And Ron Paul not having a like-minded VP would just be... beyond ******ation. He wouldn't do that. And it would be a terrible decision all-around.

Right, meant "all other possible candidates" obviously

I don't agree at all. A libertarian already bridges the gap between repubs and democrats. This whole business of picking a VP to widen support doesn't make much as much sense for Paul. If he picks someone like Demint or his son, he would broaden support with Repubs, but that would be worthless b/c he would have already won the GOP nomination. He could pick someone like Kucinich to broaden his support to Dems, but he is too idealogically different.

Only thing that makes sense is to widen his support geographically by picking a VP from the northeast or midwest. Or to pick a woman, or someone non-white.

I just think a libertarian pick like Napolitano or Johnson is the safest play. Also have to consider his age, and that he would the VP to be someone who could run for prez after RP's term(s).

Low Key, I'm intestered to hear your VP picks that would widen RP's support.

I haven't given it much though, as, again, I don't think he'll ever get that far.