Watch Ron Paul On Jay Leno: 'No 3rd Party Run'

Full clip from Tuesday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno.  No Romney endorsement, no third party run, choosing instead to rest up for 2016, or so he says.

Short highlights clips are below.  A good write-up is here...

---

Highlights:

Paul on possible third-party run.

---

Paul explains his snub by the RNC.

Comments

[DailyBail]

Ron Paul didn't officially endorse a candidate tonight, but the GOP shenanigans regarding his delegates should have been a topic of conversation, but wasn't. In several states, Republican officials brazenly enacted ex post facto rule changes governing delegate selection, including in Maine and Massachusetts. While it's clear that Romney won the nomination outright, the GOP establishment has been determined to disenfranchise as many Paul delegates as possible so as to try to marginalize the Liberty Movement, which is attempting, likely in vain, to seize control of a Republican Party whose members are starkly at odds with the libertarian vision.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/14120/ron-paul-on-jay-leno-rules-out-third-party-run-as-liberty-movement-hits-the-tonight-show

[DailyBail]

I am convinced the efforts put forward by party insiders to quiet grassroots activism will ultimately be its downfall. While Paul routinely spoke to overflow capacity crowds of four, six, and eight thousand supporters, Romney had embarrassing turnouts where he had to reposition cameras in empty stadiums to create the illusion he had support.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brad-linzy/ron-paul-revolution-republican-convention-mitt-romney_b_1843390.html?just_reloaded=1

[DailyBail]

It Is Time For The Ron Paul Revolution To Move Beyond Politics

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1007-it-is-time-for-the-ron-paul-revolution-to-move-beyond-politics

[DailyBail]

SOURCE: PAUL 'REPUBLICAN NO MORE'

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/03/Ron-Paul-Not-Ruling-Out-Third-Party-Run-Ahead-Of-Tonight-Show-Announcement

[DailyBail]

Bullets Planted In Luggage Of Ron Paul Delegate At 2012 RNC

http://www.dailypaul.com/252578/rp-staffer-claims-ammo-planted-in-baggage

[DailyBail]

Michael Steele: "What the RNC did to Ron Paul was the height of rudeness and stupidity."

http://xrepublic.tv/node/161

[DailyBail]

Jim Rogers - None of the candidates have clue except Ron Paul

http://xrepublic.tv/node/163

[Cheyenne]

Intrade has Romney at 41.7% right now (and Obama at 58.3%).

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743475

Imo, that makes Romney the biggest overlay in recent memory. I think a lot of talking heads are gonna be shocked by the stomping Romney puts on Barack. For the legion of closeted brownshirts who'll make damn sure they get out to the polls in a few weeks, not so much...

Everyone but the most anal ivory tower types knows the economy is a disaster right now. The real source of the problem, of course, is criminal bankers. But white guys in suits don't make convincing scapegoats for the Rah-Rahs who watch cartoon news shows and cast votes. My .02...

[DailyBail]

I agree.

Check out this analysis:

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says

A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner.”

[chunga]

(Cool note here...I've got the Alexa toolbar working and Daily Bail now ranks #86,302. Traffic has risen a smooth 380%...in the last three months! Not too shabby)

Anyway, I just finished reading a book that I found fascinating. Dmitry Orlov's "Reinventing Collapse". The guy is an engineer by trade who immigrated to the US from the (then) SU at age 12 in 1974. He compares and contrasts the two "super-powers" as he observed in his travels between the two countries pre and post Soviet economic collapse.

I am a party agnostic myself (and certainly no Communist) so I tried to pick out if Orlov had a particular bent between Communism and Capitalism in his book. My take is that his opinion is that they are equally flawed, yet of course have very significant differences. He attributes the official collapse of the SU in 1991 to the price of oil being extremely low, not "Star Wars" or the US outsmarting them in any way.

He goes on to reason that Russia rebounded fairly well because of several unintended consequences. One - they still have lots of oil to consume and export. We have basically none. Two - practically all housing in the US is privately owned. You don't make enough money to pay...you get foreclosed and have no shelter. (Orlov also concludes US "toxic-assets" are not only toxic but *illegal* CDOS). In the SU, practically all housing was furnished by the central planners (including utilities) so not many were forced to live under bridges or freeze to death when their economy collapsed. Again, not an act of brilliance, but another unintended consequence.

A very interesting read and this bit about Ron Paul staying/leaving the Republican party made me think of the quote below. For the record, since my state is a closed primary state, I had to change my affiliation from [I] to [R] to vote for Paul in the primary. I have to change back to [I] now because of the incredible amount of garbage in the mailbox and the non-stop RNC phone calls.

Quote -

"People in the United States have a broadly similar attitude toward politics with people of the Soviet Union. In the U.S., this is often referred to as "voter apathy", but it might be more accurately described as non-voter indifference. The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. "

"The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike."

I suppose it is possible that one of the candidates might actually get many more votes than the other, but since "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes" that matters it will appear to go "down to the wire" with one winning by a very narrow margin. The result being no mandate and "gridlock" where none of the voters are happy with anything.

Further, while "both" parties may describe themselves as having a "big tent", any candidate (Ron Paul) who doesn't tacitly agree to do the bidding of the big donors is going nowhere. And...these big donors play "both" sides of the aisle.

If you like reading like I do, practically all the time, I highly recommend "Reinventing Collapse". He writes in a style that makes such an "unthinkable" topic of the US economy collapsing actually very funny. Remember, it was "unthinkable" to the SU also and they never saw it coming. The US didn't see it coming either, at the time we were developing/building the B2 stealth bomber at over $2 billion a pop, figuring the SU was not collapsing, but rather was about to attack us at any moment.

[Grace]

Ron Paul seems nice but his statements show what he really is: a self-centered rich Republican. He bailed when things got too tough. The bullies won with Ron Paul. He alone could have turned the country around and whipped the Republicans into shape but he passed the torch to his son, who is clueless. The elder Republicans are going to eviscerate the younger Republicans once they get back to full strength.

[Cheyenne]

DB--

That's an interesting link. According to the study, the swing states below will go Romney's way. I've sorted these states based on Obama's 2008 popular vote percentages and included the electoral votes at stake in each:

Obama McCain Votes

Pennsylvania 54.7 44.3 21
New Hampshire 54.3 44.8 4
Minnesota 54.2 44.0 10
Colorado 53.5 44.9 9
Virginia 52.7 46.4 13
Ohio 51.2 47.2 20
Florida 50.9 48.4 27
North Carolina 49.9 49.5 15

Based on the above states going Romney's way, the study forecasts that "Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs." Obama's projected deficit is thus 52 electoral votes. For Obama to win, he'd have to defy the study's projections (in order of Obama-leaning states) in Pennsylvania (21 votes), New Hampshire (4), Minnesota (10), Colorado (9) AND Virginia (13).

I don't see that happening. And judging by the debacle going on in Charlotte right now, neither does the DNC.