Paul to hold rival event during GOP convention »
Posted by: ybdogsct 2 months, 2 weeks ago130 Comments Report this Story
Ron Paul is planning a daylong rally in Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota on Sept. 2, the second day of the GOP convention. This could draw attention from the presumed nominee John McCain, who will be accepting his party's nomination at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul for its four-day event.
Read Full Story at hosted.ap.org
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 130
-
-
0%
memestryker2 months, 2 weeks ago
I saw something in the Washington Post a while back where Dr. Paul stated that, unless the money warranted it, he would not. I don't think the money is there, and there is the not-so-trivial matter of getting on state ballots.
He'd have to go as an independent to do that--look at the problems the libertarians have just getting on the ballot in the states and they've been around for years.
Reply -
0%
santa02 months, 2 weeks ago
no. he won't. it'd be interesting though to see how he polls against bob Barr. Hes more libertarian than Barr is.
the republican party is a joke. it made me mad when they kept me from going to see my own president speak because i wasnt a registered republican. But now even an honest republican can't get in to his convention... he has 24 delegates... show him, your party, and his constituents a little respect and invite him to talk at your convention.
what a PR machine they are. afraid to give voice to establishd members of their own party.
it is something remarkable though that a party that runs so solely on percieved public perception can have a president who is so unpopular. they are even bad at PR.
Reply -
0%
ecotourusa2 months, 2 weeks ago
thank you ybdogsct for submitting a Ron Pual related story. (they are rare...and I applaud you!)
I am a Ron Paul supporter. I will vote for Ron Paul or no one at all.
one of my favorite ron paul sites:
If you live close enough, I encourage you to attend this event. it will be quite remarkable in history of america.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 2 weeks ago
McCain's promise to "veto every beer" can be found here:
http://humor.propeller.com/story/2008/06/11/joh...
Reply -
0%
Justice4All2 months, 2 weeks ago
Ron Paul is a true conservative. When he demanded accountability for the money we give israel he lost the special interest vote and probably any chance of ever winning another election.
Reply -
0%
Goppy2 months, 2 weeks ago
eco ... Nixie was kind enough to submit a story bout Ron Paul's wife here...
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/11/...
Reply
-
0%
DropkickaLib2 months, 2 weeks ago
He's more likely to ask his followers to drink some Kool Aid while they wait on a UFO to arrive.
Reply
-
-
0%
smithichie2 months, 2 weeks ago
Uh oh, somebody better inform general Rush and his Operation Chaos. They were looking forward to commotion and disunity at the Dem Convention in Denver and forgot to think about their own Convention problems on the horizon. Paul will whip his Paulians into such a frenzy they are bound to show up at the convention and cause some problems. Promises to be must see TV.
Will Paul run as a 3rd party? I doubt it, his argument, as I understand, is that McCain and most Republicans along with him have become a 3rd party. But who knows, anything is possible this crazy election cycle, either way it's going to be fun to watch.
Reply-
0%
splitrch2 months, 2 weeks ago
What the country needs is a viable 3rd party which embraces disaffected Democrats and Republicans. I think allot of us put country before party. I would support a centrist party that doesn't promote quasi-religious notions designed to divide us and doesn't reward big business because of donations for favors rendered. I'm a life-long Democrat but I would support such a movement.
Reply-
0%
smithichie2 months, 2 weeks ago
I think a 3rd party will never have the chance to take root long enough to survive. It's remotely possible a President could be elected as a 3rd party, but what sort of cooperation do you think they would get from Congress? It would be one of the few times you would see Dems and Reps working together, doing everything in their power to prevent such a Presidency from being successful. The two parties are too entrenched for either to be removed, IMO.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
TheRealizer2 months, 2 weeks ago
I too am a life long democrat, but I changed party affiliation to vote for Paul in the primary. I would very much love to see a viable third party emerge from this chaos. A party that would represent the endangered middle (working) class in this country.
If the voters in the nation would quit voting for incumbents and put new people in congress each election cycle, we could end the bought and paid for congress!!
Reply-
-
0%
memestryker2 months, 2 weeks ago
TR, I did something very similar. Both parties have been hi-jacked by extremists, and we can only vote in one party's primary in my state.
Reply -
0%
Justice4All2 months, 2 weeks ago
I was a lifelong Republican. At least until 2003. But I would vote for Paul on any ticket.
Reply
-
-
purposeComment removed: User banned.16 Replies
-
0%
cowboygrandpa2 months, 2 weeks ago
I think the Republicans and I use that term only as an identifier. -For I see few true Republicans Like Teddy Roosevelt or even Ike these days.- Know they are in serious trouble and that is why McCain is the one running. They call him a RINO yet he wants to follow Bushes agenda. Hmmmmmm? Does anybody see a smoke screen.
Ron Paul has some good ideas fiscally and with regard to the constitution. He is better than either of the two we have runninfg so far. But then I think Kucinch would be a better candidate as well.
Could you see a Kucinich /Paul or Paul / Kucinch ticket?
Reply-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin2 months, 2 weeks ago
watch clips of Paul in the SC debates, he just says it like it is, without regard to political 'decorum' or wiggle room or whatever the word is that is escaping me.
When asked if he would pull out of Iraq, Obama has said by March 31, 17 months, and the dreaded 'I don't want to say because it's a fluid situation and things may change'.
When asked if he would pull out of Iraq, Paul said one word: 'Immediately' before explaining why
when asked about US foreign policy, Paul had the stones to say the 'blasphemous' phrase 'we need to examine our foreign policy and see how it effects us here at home.' [Gasp!] 'what is it that motivates these enemies of ours to attack us? It's because we've been meddling in their affairs for 60 years. [The Horror!] The taking of hostages in Iran was a direct effect of our installing the Shah in 1953' The CIA calls it 'blowback'[witch!witch! burn him!]
and Rudy and the rest tried to burn him, but just looked like idiots
a GREAT performance by Paul
Reply-
0%
Mdiar2 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
-
0%
BB642 months, 2 weeks ago
As a life member of the GOP, I don't like Paul or McCain. That being said, Paul is a whack job who will never get close to the White House. I see a lot of people fawning over him but he's never going to be able to mount much of a challenge. I do agree with a few of his ideas but again, I personally think he belongs in a rubber room. I've witnessed some of his rants close up and I really think he should simply go away.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
NeoCon2 months, 2 weeks ago
Paul has some good idea's but he is to isolationist in his views. He would do more harm to America than good. No matter how much he wants to be, Ron Paul will never be Barry Goldwater.
Reply-
0%
wtagg2 months, 2 weeks ago
Which is ironic in that he is the closest thing to Goldwater in the entire republican organization. The republican party, and those that are supported by it and those that currently support it, are not conservative. Right now we have the choices of:
Tax and Spend
Don't Tax and Spend
Neither one is good for our country. Ironically, it was the Clinton admin and the 94 congress that did put us on the right road. It is a shame that effort has been so needlessly wasted.
Reply -
0%
scott42612 months, 2 weeks ago
I fervently disagree with that assessment.
We have three branches of government. Regardless of who is elected this fall, the Democrats will increase in number in the House and in the Senate. I am a Barack Obama supporter, but IMO a Ron Paul presidency would be a big drive for states rights. With the Democrats in such large number, some of his initiatives will be pushed though and others will not. His appointments to the Supreme Court will likely be more reasoned and more moderate, more in the mold of a, say, Sandra Day O'Connor than an Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.
One thing I know for sure would happen: Under a Paul presidency the war would end. The bleeding from the outsourcing of American jobs would finally be addressed, as it would with Obama.
And that would be great for America and for the world.
Reply-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin2 months, 2 weeks ago
'', some of his initiatives will be pushed though and others will not. ''
Thanks for making that point. No president gets a blank check the way Bush did after 9/11 and gets to pass whatever he wants.
That was a very unfortunate confluence of circumstances
People fear Paul's more 'radical' ideas, but he would be held in check to a certain degree
Paul won't get to do whatever he wants if he got elected. I don't believe he will, but I agree with his economic and foreign policy ideas, and those issues, plus health care, are the biggies
I disagree with him on abortion, but the GOP, the 'right to life' party had control for a long time, and abortion is still legal, so that's not a worry I think
Reply
-
0%
joeblowe2 months, 2 weeks ago
Unless something very remarkable happens, it appears we are doomed for at least another 4 years. Barry is ALMOST a Marxist, and John is so confused it's hard to say for sure where he stands. But in either case, I don't think we are going to see much of a return to the type of federal government the Constitution SAYS we have. And I don't think we are going to see much improvement in the national budget problems. There are two things that need to happen IMMEDIATELY to get us started on the path back to solvency and sanity: 1) GET OUT OF IRAQ and stop pouring billions of dollars into the desert sands and 2) take immediate and useful steps to drill more domestic oil/shale/coal, put up more nuclear power plants, and invest in more research to make non-petroleum based energy sources useable and economical. In other words, a USEFUL energy policy.
Reply-
0%
joeblowe2 months, 2 weeks ago
I'm getting sick and tired of the freaking idiot tree huggers who care more about some bunch of wild animals in Alaska than they care about their fellow citizens. Ditto for the Gulf, the shelf, the shale. There ARE well established methods for recovering the oil WITHOUT severe impact to the local environment. And let's see now, HOW many deadly nuclear accidents have there been in all the nuclear plant operation years so far? ONE! And that was in Russia. (Three Mile island didn't kill anyone, far as I know) Nuclear plants are SAFER by far than practically ANY other power generating technology. They are designed that way. And stop crying about the waste output. That is a solvable problem. All that is needed is for people to give up their irrational fears and DO IT!
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct2 months, 2 weeks ago
JOEBLOWE:
"I'm tired of the freaking idiot tree huggers who care more about some bunch of wild animals in Alaska than they care about their fellow citizens."
Why do you think drilling in ANWR would eliminate the U.S. dependency on foreign fuels?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm
A Dept of Interior study projected that ANWR could produce 1.4 million barrels of oil per day, which would increase U.S. production by ~25%.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil...
However, that is still INSUFFICIENT to wean the U.S. from 10.1 million barrels per day which the U.S. must import from other countries, including the 5.6 million barrels per day we import from OPEC.
Even if we started drilling in ANWR today, we wouldn't see a drop of that oil for 10-20 years, which is how long it'd take for the infrastructure to be built. By then, increasing demand from China and India would offset the increase in supply.
Reply -
-
