If Ron Paul decided to run as a third party candidate...

who do you think he would hurt more? The Dems with his anti-war message? or the GOP because of his solidly right wing voting record and stands on such issues as choice?

Just curious.

because his real main issue, and it would come out in the campaign, is abolishing our government.

he has nixed it

is an idiot.

Any libral who supports him is an idiot!

What doesn't work about Paul is his appallingly right-wing voting record.

After 6-8 years of the Bush administration, I'm just not interested in another goddamned Republican. and I wasn't interested in the one we have now either.

Especially considering how the Dem. candidates who said they'd still have troops in Iraq in 2013 are by and large considered anti-Iraq war. We can only hope that Ron Paul runs third party, taking lots of votes away from the Repub. candidate or even better, wins the GOP nomination, throwing the party base into disarray.

Most of the batshit crazy neighbors who voted for Bush are now singing the praises of Ron Paul. Most likely because they didn't get a piece of the american pie Bush was offering during elections, and then diverted to his warmongering family friends. Now of course, they look to yet another wahckjob in hopes of being tossed a few crumbs.

Never, NEVER learn these morons. :eyes:

of the ones running on the Republican Ticket

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but I'm afraid you might be right.

Pulling out of the United Nations isn't a liberal ideal by any means.

by a few major powers, South America, Africa and the Middle East don't even have a permanent seat on the security council is it any wonder why Colonial Powers are always interfering with the countries of those regions. Sorry but I lost all faith in the UN when they did not stand up for Iraq even though Iraq opened their country up to the UN inspectors. It was basically like they where in cahoots with Bush. And being an isolationist for a few years might not be a bad thing if it means cutting that military budget by more than 50% I'm all for it. America have a lot of internal problems that need to be fixed, we need to pull our troops out of most of these countries, we need to get out of other countries affairs and fix our own house. I would be down for helping other countries out that are in need and REQUEST our assistance but we can't afford to station tens of thousands of soldiers in all those countries all over the world, imposing our will on people, that's 20th Century thinking and the world has changed.

suggesting that Bloomberg may run if it's between Hillary and Rudy as nominees--total subway series. Yikes. Either he or Paul would hurt the Pubbies more, I bet--their field is just so pathetic.

Well, folks might learn something about the constitution. After all, he is the only candidate who appears to have actually read the thing.

nomination, and then failing that, seekng a third-party bid?

There may be.

If there is not and he manages somehow to run as an independent third party candidate, he may draw half or less what Perot got in 92.

Some independents will likely give Paul a good look, but I don't believe it will take much for our Democratic candidates to isolate him as a far-right UN-bashing government-dissolving kook.

Iraq is his hallpass for right now but it's not a diploma.

D-minus for the Paul campaign, IMO.