• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul: 'I Don't Fully Endorse' Mitt Romney

lpast

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
4,633
Location
Fla
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mitt just cant seem to find unconditional love from anywhere.


In an interview with the New York Times, Ron Paul detailed his conversations with Republican National Convention organizers, who he says offered him a speaking slot under conditions he couldn't meet.


According to Paul, convention planners offered the Texas congressman the chance to speak under two conditions: that he gave a speech pre-approved by Romney's campaign, and that he give a "full-fledged" endorsement of Mitt Romney.
“It wouldn’t be my speech," Paul said. "That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president."


Ron Paul: 'I Don't Fully Endorse' Mitt Romney
 
Mitt just cant seem to find unconditional love from anywhere.


In an interview with the New York Times, Ron Paul detailed his conversations with Republican National Convention organizers, who he says offered him a speaking slot under conditions he couldn't meet.


According to Paul, convention planners offered the Texas congressman the chance to speak under two conditions: that he gave a speech pre-approved by Romney's campaign, and that he give a "full-fledged" endorsement of Mitt Romney.
“It wouldn’t be my speech," Paul said. "That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president."


Ron Paul: 'I Don't Fully Endorse' Mitt Romney

Gotta' respect the guy. Good for him.
 
While I rarely agree with the man outside of foreign policy, I gotta hang with Maggie on this one. Good for him.
 
As far as I can tell, Romney represents no change in money printing, military buildups and world policeman-ship. So, how could Mr. Paul whole-heartedly support him (or anyone else for that matter).

I somewhat agree with Mr. Paul on many things although not to the extremes he espouses. There is no relationship between Mr. Paul and Republican party philosophies. Maybe they could agree on tax cuts but Mr. Paul would cut everyone's taxes while Mr. Romney will favor the upper classes more so than the peasantry.

I can assure you that no matter which one we elect, the spending spree will continue, only some beneficiaries will change.
 
Romney and company tried to pressure him and tell him he had to say what they wanted and he had to fully endorse romney...he wouldnt give in to their demands and I give him credit for that...
 
Are you guys saying you really didn't see this coming?
 
Are you guys saying you really didn't see this coming?
They *had* to offer him a speaking role because he does have a plurality of at least 5 states. However, I expected him to speak but at a crazy hour like 12pm - during lunch.
 
I don't see why he would. They are ideologically different. Romney assumes the role of a Neoconservative from time to time (and at others a moderate and sometimes whatever the electorate would like) and Paul is more of a Libertarian
 
I'm not sure why Paul was offered a chance to speak either. He certainly isn't a conservative or a Republican. Unless they thought he would get on board to disparage Obama.

I guess Paul is still living in his own reality. One that will certainly not further his political career.
 
While I rarely agree with the man outside of foreign policy, I gotta hang with Maggie on this one. Good for him.


Everyone I know can't stand Ron Paul's foreign policy, but they love his fiscal policy.
 
Everyone I know can't stand Ron Paul's foreign policy, but they love his fiscal policy.

I cannot stand his fiscal policy but I support much of his foreign policy.
 
Everyone I know can't stand Ron Paul's foreign policy, but they love his fiscal policy.

I like both. We could stand to be a bit more isolationist, as our butting into the business of other nations around the world, paints a big target on our backs. We have no business trying to influence the internal affairs of others.
 
I do not like it that Ron Paul made these remarks.

Whether he likes it or not ... Romney WILL be nominated. I see this as very childish ... and very much akin to Uncle Joe's appearance at the convention.

Looks like Paul is trying to get another "15 minutes". They gave him a speaking spot but he had to 'rain (is that the word I really want to use?) on the parade'.

If this isn't a prime example of "sour grapes" ... then nothing is.

Everyone knows Paul's politics. This idiotic display makes me very happy that he is yet another 'also ran wannabe loser'.

A L
 
I do not like it that Ron Paul made these remarks.

Whether he likes it or not ... Romney WILL be nominated. I see this as very childish ... and very much akin to Uncle Joe's appearance at the convention.

Looks like Paul is trying to get another "15 minutes". They gave him a speaking spot but he had to 'rain (is that the word I really want to use?) on the parade'.

If this isn't a prime example of "sour grapes" ... then nothing is.

Everyone knows Paul's politics. This idiotic display makes me very happy that he is yet another 'also ran wannabe loser'.

A L

Personally Id love to see Gary Johnson speak there, I'd be willing to bet he could say a few things most repulicans and libertaians agree on.
 
Personally Id love to see Gary Johnson speak there, I'd be willing to bet he could say a few things most repulicans and libertaians agree on.

For some reason Gary Johnson wasn't invited to speak at the Republican convention. I'm not sure, but it might be because he's running against the Republican candidate in the general election.

The Republicans do want the Libertarian vote. Can they find another well known Libertarian to speak at the GOP convention who will satisfy the Libertarians who are on the fence?
 
I thought this was a very interesting, completely non-partisan article. I put it here for your viewing pleasure. Please don't shoot thhe messenger. You have to read the whole, short thing or you'll miss the punch-line.

Carroll County News: Blog: Belling the Cat
 
For some reason Gary Johnson wasn't invited to speak at the Republican convention. I'm not sure, but it might be because he's running against the Republican candidate in the general election.

The Republicans do want the Libertarian vote. Can they find another well known Libertarian to speak at the GOP convention who will satisfy the Libertarians who are on the fence?

I knew that. Its just quite frankly I hate picking between going to hell in a handbasket the Republicans want, and going tohell in a shopping cart the Democrates want. I would prefer not go to hell period.:(
 
I knew that. Its just quite frankly I hate picking between going to hell in a handbasket the Republicans want, and going tohell in a shopping cart the Democrates want. I would prefer not go to hell period.:(

I've said this before, the only way "third parties" stand a chance is if they change their state voting laws so that they use a runoff election system.
 
I think the only thing that 'should' change to make things fair without providing a charitable handicap is revamping ballot access laws. It has always seemed odd to me that in most states a partisan commission controls what the standards are for ballot access which creates artificially high requirements that are often insurmountable for a third party. If this were not the case, and it was a relatively simple matter to gain ballot access than the Green, Libertarian, Constitution etc parties would be able to spend the lion-share of their money on limited television ad space, creating a volunteer network, staffing requirements, election materials, etc. In other words things they can't really think of paying for right now. But I don't support a run-off system, that seems like a handicap designed to give a leg up instead of evening the playing field. Whoever wins, should be the winner.

PS: I should mention to be clear I do not support Ron Paul and oppose a significant amount of his policies especially with regard to foreign and monetary policy, and not an insignificant amount of fiscal policy. But I still think that it should be much easier for people like Johnson to engage in the race.
 
I do not like it that Ron Paul made these remarks.

Whether he likes it or not ... Romney WILL be nominated. I see this as very childish ... and very much akin to Uncle Joe's appearance at the convention.

Looks like Paul is trying to get another "15 minutes". They gave him a speaking spot but he had to 'rain (is that the word I really want to use?) on the parade'.

If this isn't a prime example of "sour grapes" ... then nothing is.

Everyone knows Paul's politics. This idiotic display makes me very happy that he is yet another 'also ran wannabe loser'.

A L


Umm NO..I have to stick up for Paul on this one...Romney and company tried to PRESSURE him...into saying exactly what they wanted at the convention and demanding he fully endorse romney...and ron paul told them to go piss up a rope that any speech would be his...not theirs and that he felt it would undue what hes tried to do for the last 30 yrs....I will never fault a man for standing by his convictions even If I totally disagree with him.
 
I think the only thing that 'should' change to make things fair without providing a charitable handicap is revamping ballot access laws. It has always seemed odd to me that in most states a partisan commission controls what the standards are for ballot access which creates artificially high requirements that are often insurmountable for a third party. If this were not the case, and it was a relatively simple matter to gain ballot access than the Green, Libertarian, Constitution etc parties would be able to spend the lion-share of their money on limited television ad space, creating a volunteer network, staffing requirements, election materials, etc. In other words things they can't really think of paying for right now. But I don't support a run-off system, that seems like a handicap designed to give a leg up instead of evening the playing field. Whoever wins, should be the winner.

PS: I should mention to be clear I do not support Ron Paul and oppose a significant amount of his policies especially with regard to foreign and monetary policy, and not an insignificant amount of fiscal policy. But I still think that it should be much easier for people like Johnson to engage in the race.

I would be rid of tax pay funded and supported primaries. I dont care how the parties select their canidates so long as they use their own money and facilities. There should only be one election per year unless its a special type election. All you should have to do toget on the ballot should be to pay a reasonable fee. Put up or shut up as it were.
 
I would be rid of tax pay funded and supported primaries. I dont care how the parties select their canidates so long as they use their own money and facilities. There should only be one election per year unless its a special type election. All you should have to do toget on the ballot should be to pay a reasonable fee. Put up or shut up as it were.

I more or less agree, but I should note that primary politics and mechanisms as I understand it are not really related to issues of 3rd party ballot access which vary in reasonableness from state to state.
 
I like both. We could stand to be a bit more isolationist, as our butting into the business of other nations around the world, paints a big target on our backs. We have no business trying to influence the internal affairs of others.

We. Don't. Live. In. A. Vacuum.
 
I more or less agree, but I should note that primary politics and mechanisms as I understand it are not really related to issues of 3rd party ballot access which vary in reasonableness from state to state.
One of the reasons there should just be a fee to get on ballot. Nothing else to qualify.
 
Back
Top Bottom