Ron Paul hasn’t announced a decision yet whether he is going to run for President in 2012. If he runs, who should he choose as his running mate?
You can select up to 5 answers below.
If Ron Paul runs for President in 2012, who should be his running mate?
- Chuck Baldwin (9%, 259 Votes)
- Michael Bloomberg (6%, 152 Votes)
- Pat Buchanan (7%, 187 Votes)
- Jim DeMint (7%, 194 Votes)
- Lou Dobbs (6%, 173 Votes)
- Mike Huckabee (12%, 339 Votes)
- Gary Johnson (4%, 106 Votes)
- Dennis Kucinich (18%, 503 Votes)
- John McCain (1%, 40 Votes)
- Sarah Palin (11%, 300 Votes)
- Rand Paul (12%, 338 Votes)
- Mitt Romney (11%, 288 Votes)
- Wayne Allyn Root (6%, 164 Votes)
- Mark Sanford (2%, 65 Votes)
- Jesse Ventura (21%, 569 Votes)
- Other (specify below) (7%, 204 Votes)
- Peter Schiff (29%, 795 Votes)
Total Voters: 2,739
Loading ...Check out the new Ron Paul 2012 Overview
Processing your request, Please wait....
What about Bruce Fein?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
wsdefcgvhbjk
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul Ryan from Wisc. He would be detrimental to a Ron Paul election. I believe these two would make a wonderful team for all Americans. Well by all I do mean the ones who still love our country, service men, and believe the constitution is all the government we need.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’d let Ron Paul decide who would be his running mate. He knows what needs to be done. And who can work with him to do it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I dont care what you believe but the second you bring it up in political conversation it disqualifies you.
I want you to follow the rule of law….not lobby for jesus or buddah….I consider them special interest groups.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When we are on your blog, we’ll remember your rules.
Thx 4 Theheadsup
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
oh is it your blog?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Did you lose another memo?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
must have missed that memo….I thought we were all fighting for our civil liberties this includes freedom of speech….even if its speech that otherwise goes against imaginary sky friends and cool-aid drinking creationists.we need a strict constitutionalist in the house and all im saying if they use religion as a defining character element then they shouldnt be considrered. Ron may be religious but hes not using it to sell himself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmmmm….
You say ‘all fighting for our civil liberties’ as a means of inclusion, then you follow it by trashing most of posters here.
Division, it’s a funny game.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just deal with real issues,,,religion should be kept to yourself it has no bearing on what is trying to be accomplished,in fact it is detremental to the cause.And Im sure Ron realizes this fact and will select someone with the common sense to stick to the real issues.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So, No God in public life?
Getagrip Mr. Valley, we’ll speak in the terms that we choose, as will you.
It’s a public forum here. Not a Dan Valley forum.
God Bless
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dan: When you are asked about your faith should you deny it? I believe Peter did that 3 times! Well, I’m sure that a real leader will not mind expressing his views on religion although I don’t think that whether a person believes in creation or that our descendants are primates makes any difference in a person’s ability to govern, do you? If Ron Paul said he believed in creation would it make him a Kool-aid drinking wacko? I think not!!!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If he is a creationist …. i didnt know until now, so as Ive said hes not using it to sell himself. Hes promising to follow the constitution and thats all I care about.
As a side note these people have the exact same idea as creaionists..do you think they are wacko?
THE RAELIAN RELIGION
The Raelian Religion is an international non-profit organization with 60,000 members spread in 85 countries around the globe.
Welcome! You may browse public areas of our site.
THE RAELIAN PHILOSOPHY:
Life on Earth is not the result of random evolution. It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by an advanced race of people who made human beings literally “in their image”. Traces of this epic masterpiece can be found not only in the Bible, but in the ancient texts of many cultures – as can their symbol of infinity, the oldest symbol known on Earth. The word “Elohim” (found in Genesis) is plural and in Hebrew does not mean “God” in singular but “Those who come from the sky”.
Leaving us to progress alone, the Elohim maintained contact through PROPHETS such as Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, etc., deliberately chosen and educated by them to deliver the Message appropriate for each Age. Jesus, whose father was an Elohim, was given the task of spreading these messages throughout the world in preparation for this crucial time in which we are now privileged to live – the predicted AGE OF REVELATION. Now thanks to our scientific understanding, we have a chance to comprehend our origins and the true nature of these “Gods”, who created us and who love us as their children. In 1973, French journalist “RAหL” was contacted by the Elohim, who asked him to make their final message known worldwide and to prepare an EMBASSY where they can officially land among us, bringing with them all the Prophets as announced by every religion. This information can be found in the book entitled: “Intelligent Design – Message from the Designers” written by Rael.
LET’S PREPARE TO WELCOME THEM!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Raelians say that their religion is ‘a beautiful combination of spirituality, sensuality, and science’.
[laugh track]
That ancient religion, circa 1974.
[laugh track]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Vorhilon (founder of the Raelians) claimed to have received a revelation that flies in the face of all past revelations. He says that the four-foot tall aliens that picked him up in 1973 told him that there is no God, no eternal life other than cloning, and no responsibility other than pursuing physical desires.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is at the end of all of their newsletters:
“Ethics” is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism, through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and new technologies.
There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history, it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.
On the contrary, let us embrace Science and the new technologies unfettered, for it is these which will liberate mankind from the myth of god, and free us from our age old fears, from disease, death and the sweat of labour.
– Rael
———-
Now which part was ‘exactly like creationism’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hey VR…its all nonsense and disfunction…why cant we believe in what we can do and what science shows us…this so called intelligent design cannot be put thru rigor it relies on a blind belief not science.Take responsibility for yourself and look to how you can improve the human experiment that is rapidly coming to a close.Actually, Western society is so constructed as to concentrate the greatest power in the worst possible hands. See,
practically anything has military applications. So really the most important knowledge is now Top Secret classified.
The first thing that would impress a visitor from outer space would be the tremendous, inexplicable gap between potential
and performance. It’s amazing when you consider what the human organism could do in terms of its potential, and what it
actually does. No species that isn’t fundamentally flawed could be so stupid this consistently. Let us consider the human
organism as an artifact. Comparative evolution will show us what is wrong with it and how far it has to go.
You have the first airplanes… now, take one look at that artifact and you see that everything is wrong with it. They were
incredibly dangerous, they had a very short range, and to be anything more than a curiosity it has a very long way to go…
So now up here’s your present planes and rockets and so forth… and all the steps in between… well now take an artifact -
see, we can see that this artifact is in a rudimentary stage and that it has a very long way to go, we could see that back
then. We don’t have to see all this development to know that if this is going to do anything at all it’s got to make a number
of forward steps. Now take an artifact like the bow I’ll put it up here – what’s wrong with it? Very little. It’s gone about as far
as you can go on the principle of a projectile propelled by an elastic spring – you can use rubber bands, it’s the same
principle. The artifact is subject to a basic limitation: the stronger the bow, the more energy required to draw it. It can’t go
very much further. Now of course modern bows have appeared and there are a lot of hobbyists who hunt with bows. They
kill bears and I think even lions, and undoubtedly these bows, modern bows, are much better than anything that people
had five hundred years ago. But they’re not all that much better. They’re not basically different or basically much better.
Now take another artifact down here, the flintlock rifle or pistol. Take one look at that artifact and ask yourself what is
wrong with it. Just about everything. They didn’t even have the firepower of the bow; they took much longer to load and
prepare them. They misfired very frequently; rain and wind would render the weapon quite useless – if rain gets in the pan
it won’t ignite. Black powder is dangerous, very much more volatile than smokeless powder. It’s very dangerous to
transport and use, static electricity will set it off; if you shuffled across the floor and picked up a canister of black powder
that would be a very dangerous thing to do – it’d blowup… So it has a very long way to go.
Up here to modern automatic weapons, another factor comes in and that’s the factor of money. Money and profit
becomes very important because as soon as an article goes into mass production they don’t want to know about a better
article. And they particularly don’t want to know about one that is basically different, because the most expensive thing a
manufacturer can do is to junk his dies. He’s got his dies set up to manufacture the very inefficient internal combustion
engine, he doesn’t want to shift to a turbine. So he will suppress inventions. Very useful inventions are now suppressed…
And we can also see living creatures as artifacts. When you take an artifact like the weasel, well what’s wrong with it?
Well, not much. It’s limited, but in terms of its structure and goals it functions well enough; it has reached the limit of its
development. And you look at the human artifact: what’s wrong with it? Just about everything, it’s right down here with the
flintlock… It’s got a long way to go.
First the question as to what distinguishes the human animal from other animals is one of the very frequent questions, and
Korzybski, who started the idea of general semantics, the meaning of meaning, had I think the best answer: it’s language.
But language must not be confused with communication. You see animals communicate and they talk, but they don’t
write. They can’t make knowledge available to members of their species outside their communication range. Everything
they learn they have to learn during their lifetime. Now a wise old rat will know a great deal about poisons and traps, but
he can’t write a treatise which other rats could read, he can’t pass that knowledge on to rats over here or to future
generations of rats… very fortunate… for us. Now to get back to the human artifact; one of the things that distinguishes
man is language, that animals talk but they don’t write. They’ve got no way of writing something down so that it can be
available through space and time. Actually, we know that some people don’t write, but the whole of human language they
can pass on orally, which animals cannot. Language is essentially a symbolic system where something represents
something else. You can’t draw a map, it doesn’t mean anything to an animal; you can’t get an animal to read a map, but
illiterate, so-called illiterate people can.
Well, let’s consider the human artifact and what is wrong with it. Consider a creature that can live on the seacoast,
watching ships come in, day after day, year after year, and still believe the Earth is flat because the Church says so. They
knew the Earth was round. They believed it was flat. Or an artifact that can use cannonballs for 500 years before the idea
of a cannonball that explodes on contact blossoms in this barren soil. I could go on and on.
So why has the human artifact stayed back with the flintlock? Well, I’m advancing a theory that we were not biologically
designed to remain in our present stage any more than a tadpole is designed to remain a tadpole. The human is in a state
of neotony – that’s a biologic word we’ve already heard from Dr. Lotsch used to describe an organism fixated at what
would normally be a larval or transitional phase. Now ordinarily a salamander starts his life cycle in the water with gills;
later the gills atrophy and drop off and the animal develops lungs and comes up to land: then they go back and spend the
rest of their lives in the water and they have to come up to breathe. Just why they do that I don’t know.
However, there are certain salamanders who never lose their gills and they never leave the water. Now they’d be
considered in a state of neotony. The Xolotl salamander, found in Mexico, is an example. And scientists, moved by the
plight of this beautiful creature gave him an injection of hormones, whereupon he shed his gills and left the water after
ages of neotony. Whether this was any advantage to him is another question. It does seem advantageous if
you’re gonna spend much of your time in the water to have gills, but evolution is a one-way street. Once you lose your
gills you can never get them back. I think it’s a little too much to hope we could be jolted out of neotony by a single
injection. But by whatever means the change takes place, if it does take place, the change will be irreversible. The Xolotl,
of course, once he sheds his gills can never reclaim them. This law of evolution… I don’t know any reason for it but it
seems to be a law – the whales must have been on land at one time: they lost their gills and they never got them back.
Now when we consider these evolutionary steps, one has a feeling that the creature is tricked in a way into making them.
Now here is a fish that has survived droughts because he has developed feet or rudimentary lungs. As far as the fish is
concerned, the feet are simply a means of getting from one water source to another or of going down into the mud and
waiting out the drought. But once he leaves his gills behind he has made an involuntary step – I won’t say forward exactly -
but a step. Looking for water he has found air. And perhaps a forward step for the human race will be made in the same
way.
The astronaut is not looking for Space, he’s looking for more Time to do exactly the same things. He’s equating Space
with Time and the Space program is simply an attempt to transport all our insoluble problems, our impasses, and take
them somewhere else where exactly the same thing is bound to occur. However like the walking fish, looking for more
Time he may find space instead, and then find that there is no way back. Now such an evolutionary step would involve
changes literally inconceivable from our present point of view.
The first step towards Space exploration was to examine the human artifact with biologic alterations in mind that would
render our human artifact more suitable for Space conditions and Space travel. Now we are like water creatures looking
up from here at the earth and the air and wondering how we can survive in that alien medium. Fish didn’t have the
capacity to do that: we do. The water we live in is Time. That alien medium we glimpse beyond Time is Space. And that is
where we are going… Read all the science fiction books and stories one could find and the assumption, the basic assumption, that there is no real change involved in Space travel, same dreary people playing out
the same tired old roles. Take that dead act into Space. Now here they are light years from Planet Earth watching cricket
and baseball on a vision screen…. can you imagine taking their stupid pastimes light years into Space. It’s like the fish
said, ‘Well, I’m gonna just shove this aquarium up onto the land and there I’ve got everything I need…’ (laughter)… you
need entirely too much.
“Well, to begin with there is the question, of weight, the human organism weighs about 170 pounds and that is a decided
disadvantage. But also this breathing- eating-excreting-dreaming human organism must have its entire environment, its
awkward life process encapsulated and transported with it… into Space.
I am speaking not in moral, but in biologic terms.
So I’m starting here with a basic assumption which of course many of you will, cannot accept: that our destiny – again I’m
talking about our biologic destiny – is in Space, and that our failure to achieve this is the basic flaw in the human artifact.
That’s why it’s back here, down here with the flintlock instead of being somewhere up here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Did you just post a prayer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
dont believe everything you think
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Take the two strongest supporters of the Constitution from both parties and form the coalition of independent voters and recover america from the Banksters , the military and the israelis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Stephen Colbert
1. Vice Presidents don’t do much
2. Gives him time to do the show
3. We need more charismatic leadership
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ventura is as educated on and incorruptible by the NWO as Paul himself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
judge nap or rockwell leave peter,rand paul and the rest for senate seats or other jobs ron paul & judge nap would make me glow for the rest of my life no matter what the economy or world was like. all you people out stay focussed dont slack stay alive and go wake up some sheep cause there all on prozac & american idol waiting for the fema camp directions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chuck Hagel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
WHo put this list together???
Sarah Palin ??? Whats more is that people actually selected her.
This woman is as dumb as a stump and her slutty airhostess look is getting old.
People Sarah palin ???? WTF????
And please no religious wing-nuts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
wow
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bill Mays? Noooo but of course Peter Schiff
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have been a Ron Paul supporter for yeas and voted for him in the 2008 Republican primary. But, I must say, as a lifelong Catholic, I am offended by the slur alleging that the Catholic Church sold indulgences to sinners. Disobedient, dissident Catholic clergy may have illicitly engaged in such actions at one time, but such an act is regarded as simony — the selling of a sacred object — and is considered to be a serious sin. While some individual Catholic clergy (individuals) may have engaged in such acts, the Catholic CHURCH (as a body) did not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Tetzel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is an ‘indulgence’?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
Yes they were widely sold.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a horrible list to pick from… Rand Paul for sure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter Schiff
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Michael Badnarik
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter Schiff! And Rick Santelli as Treasury Secretary!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter Schiff
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Michele Bachmann
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alex Jones
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cynthia McKinney
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Regarding Ventura, a Truther would be a liability to the ticket.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ventura has a huge ego and is an amoral celebrity. Liability is right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kucinich and Ventura. We need some honest ball busters waiting in the wings. If they can get us votes for the win, all the better. Schiff would be low on my list.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gary Johnson!!! He leads by example. This guy has executive branch experience and knows how to veto a bill! I would trust him in the line of succession (god forbid!).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tom McClintock, recent freshman R congressman from CA. Good guy, needs more exposure. Can step into Dr. Paul’s shoes. Been fighting the socialists on the left coast.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thomas Sowell
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How about Walter Williams instead? Sowell is a respected scholar but I believe he is a neo-con.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alan Keyes…a committed Christian and Constitutional scholar. For insightful and extremely well-written essays, see his blog, “Loyal to Liberty,” at http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/. See especially his latest essay, “Congress Should Apologize Alright- for Imposing Slavery ON US” at http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/06/congress-should-apologize-alright-for.html.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I picked “Other” and nominate John Stossel. He’s a major celebrity and die-hard libertarian. He’d rip apart any other VP candidate during the VP debates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe the rising star of the right is Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, I cannot believe he is not even mentioned on this poll.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gary Johnson. Who can be a Ron Paul supporter and seriously think that Mike Huckabee or some of these other people that they’ve voted for would be a good fit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bah – I meant Judge Andrew Napolitano… was just reading a report on “Sherriff Joe” and then tried to write about the Judge and got the two mixed up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Honorable Judge Joe Napolitano first and foremost. I’d crawl through broken glass to vote a Paul/Napolitano ticket.
I would offer up Michelle Bachmann as well but I don’t really know enough about her, have just seen some clips of speeches she’s made in the House that pretty much lay out the fact she’s more than ready to leave the Republican Party. However, her straight talk would be lambasted as “extreme fear-mongering rhetoric” by the left, even though we know it’s the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jessie Ventura, Chuck Baldwin, or Peter Schiff
I’d also would like to see Michael Badnarik as his running mate.
Don’t get me wrong, Dennis Kucinich and Rand Paul would be good too. But Dennis has a hard time remembering what the 2nd Amendment means. And as for Rand, We’d need a constitutionalist in the Senate if he runs and wins the Kentucky seat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul/Parker ticket is the modern day equivelant of Thomas Jefferson/Martin Luther King Jr.
If you think I’m exaggerating or don’t know who Ms. Parker is, take a look at this
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Was a powerful speech.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Star Parker! She’d be like a Sarah Palin, only she actually has conservative values and believes in liberty and small government. And what a speaker…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
… and extremely pleasant on the eyes, as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Judge Andrew Napolitano is my number one VP choice, mainly because I am really hoping Peter Schiff will run for the Senate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David Walker would make an excellent running mate for Ron Paul. Together,they would straighten this mess out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Baldwin, Schiff or Judge Andrew Napolitano would be great choices. Root might be reasonable, too. I don’t think Dr. Rand Paul would have enough public exposure by 2012 to make a solid run for VP.
I don’t see how anyone could vote for Rep. Kucinich on this. Sure, he’s done some good stuff, but the man is a socialist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I refuse to vote because SHELLY ROCHE isn’t on the list. SHELLY! SHELLY! SHELLY! SHELLY!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PETER SCHIFF!!!
Ron Paul and Peter Schiff…..would be off the CHAIN!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Schiff – Magnificent Mind, with the personality of cardboard.
Make him Secretary of the Treasury.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
no way dude. Peter Schiff is the most interesting person….since Capitalism.
WTF you talking ab….bro?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
chill bro
talkinbout Secretary of The Treasury …. with no FED.
cool?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul / Paul 2012 ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would love to pick the most constitutional running mate for Ron Paul’s ticket. However not every American thinks in those terms, if we want to get something done, if we want to get Ron Paul into that damned presidency, we gotta get someone the dumb American people will want we libertarians and constitutionalists have to concede if we want to be seen and heard. I think a nice blue dog democrat,with good political power and a decent love for America would be Denis Kucinich.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Who should be Ron Paul’s running mate? Who can we trust? The most constitutional candidate we can find. Consider Georgia Rep Honorable Lynn Westmoreland for starters. What about Michele Bachmann?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Michael Badnarik!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When the rubber meets the road I like Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rep. Jeff Flake
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lew Rockwell
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter Schiff
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pat, Gary, Wayne, or Chuck
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Senator Jim Inhofe (Root and Baldwin are good too)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0