Ron Paul becomes Ralph Nader
xmacro
Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 3,402
Well, Ron Paul won't say he won't run for election if he doesn't get the nomination, and in that vein, some pollsters have been inquiring what would happen. Current polls are showing Ron Paul may get 20% of the vote, siphoned off from an unnamed Republican nominee, which means Obama would win by a double digit margin
I can't imagine the hate he would get if he pulled a Nader like that, especially if the election is close.
I can't imagine the hate he would get if he pulled a Nader like that, especially if the election is close.
Comments
Right now he's doing pretty well in a lot of polls so I think it's a bit premature for this rederick.
Nader?? He wasn't the only one! What about Ross Perot? Or are you guys too young to remember him?
- John Adams
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
-George Washington
Depends on your definition of success. If the intent was just to fvck up an otherwise straightforward election, then one has to wonder if, in fact, they were unsuccessful.
I Like your thinking..... what a bunch of yahoos to try and run for president, other countries are sitting back laughing saying look at those dumb asses!