PDA

View Full Version : $100 to pick the next Ron Paul Republican in 2012




Elwar
02-28-2008, 12:44 PM
Ok, don't hate me for suggesting that Ron Paul won't be the president in 2012, I'm still doing everything I can to get Ron Paul elected here in Texas.

But on the off chance that Ron Paul does not win...we should band together now instead of waiting 4 years to get behind the Ron Paul Republican of 2012.

I propose this:

100,000 people donate $100 to a PAC to elect a Ron Paul Republican in 2012. Each person who donates the $100 will get a vote for whomever is to be the candidate that we all support. The $10 million raised by the PAC will be the cash backing to be used for various grassroots efforts (such as the many many chipins we've had).

From the time we reach 100k (it may take weeks, months or a couple of years) until the end of the primaries we work toward the goal of getting that candidate elected. We can buy up ad space years in advance on the cheap, we can prepare super high quality campaign videos, we can set up precinct captains all across the country and get them set up and prepared.

Yes, 100k people is a lot. But the more people the better.

There are a lot of potential candidates out there (look at the many threads of who should be Dr. Paul's VP). There could be pre-campaigning to win over the support of the 100k people. Maybe the 2nd place finisher could take the VP slot.

A head start for 2012 would be a great benefit. What do ya'll say?

theantirobot
02-28-2008, 12:54 PM
not bad, but the way I see it the internet will be orders of magnitude more powerful and organized in four years. Money just won't be necessary to run a political campaign. Think about it like this:
The internet is a mainstream source of information
It will become a source of mainstream information


Think of it as a switch from radio to television, then a switch from tv to the Internet.

Which application is going to cause that switch.??? I have an idea.

Dark_Horse_Rider
02-28-2008, 01:02 PM
not bad, but the way I see it the internet will be orders of magnitude more powerful and organized in four years. Money just won't be necessary to run a political campaign. Think about it like this:
The internet is a mainstream source of information
It will become a source of mainstream information


Think of it as a switch from radio to television, then a switch from tv to the Internet.

Which application is going to cause that switch.??? I have an idea.

interesting

Elwar
02-28-2008, 01:03 PM
not bad, but the way I see it the internet will be orders of magnitude more powerful and organized in four years. Money just won't be necessary to run a political campaign. Think about it like this:
The internet is a mainstream source of information
It will become a source of mainstream information


Think of it as a switch from radio to television, then a switch from tv to the Internet.

Which application is going to cause that switch.??? I have an idea.

I agree, I think the Internet will be more prevalent in our livingrooms, but there are always going to be old people and sheep who will stick to the TV as their source of all that is true in this world. I don't think there will be enough of a technological change for enough people in the next 4 years to make a difference.

AJ Antimony
02-28-2008, 02:11 PM
Um, how about let's show Ron Paul some respect and get him elected this year before we start looking into the future.

malkusm
02-28-2008, 02:20 PM
Um, how about let's show Ron Paul some respect and get him elected this year before we start looking into the future.

Who says we can't do both?

Kilrain
02-28-2008, 02:25 PM
Well, I'll still be hoping for a Ron Paul presidency, at least until November 2008. But regardless of if he wins or not, I fully expect to visit the Ron Paul Memorial in D.C. sometime in my lifetime. I'm 32 right now. Just get rid of the Lincoln Memorial (why honor the guy who helped enslave an entire country?) and put up a monument celebrating a true champion of Liberty.

jacobin
02-28-2008, 05:26 PM
I propose this:

100,000 people donate $100 to a PAC to elect a Ron Paul Republican in 2012. Each person who donates the $100 will get a vote for whomever is to be the candidate that we all support. The $10 million raised by the PAC will be the cash backing to be used for various grassroots efforts (such as the many many chipins we've had).
This is a great idea and we've discussed a similar one with certain groups before. I'd love talk more about this -- except I'm very very ill at the moment. This sort of long term thinking with the power of scale is what we need.

Obama raised $50M this month.

Flash
02-28-2008, 05:28 PM
Is Mark Sanford a Ron Paul-like guy?

nate895
02-28-2008, 05:43 PM
I have already suggested an idea similar to this, except for we would hold a meeting in November (you do have to pay to get in) and people who want to run for President would seek our support, and we'd decide who would get to have our support.

See my Plan D (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=107756) thread. Read both the OP and post 14.

kigol
02-28-2008, 05:44 PM
good luck

ionlyknowy
02-28-2008, 06:21 PM
not bad, but the way I see it the internet will be orders of magnitude more powerful and organized in four years. Money just won't be necessary to run a political campaign. Think about it like this:
The internet is a mainstream source of information
It will become a source of mainstream information


Think of it as a switch from radio to television, then a switch from tv to the Internet.

Which application is going to cause that switch.??? I have an idea.

I disagree, the internet will def. be more powerful, but it wont be the primary source of news until the baby boomer generation dies.

These people, although there are exceptions, did not grow up with the internet, they are set in their ways. Most of the people in this generation that I know only check email or pay a bill or two online.

Once the younger generation (us) gets to the point where we have kids in college, then I suspect that the internet will be unstoppable.

Think of all of the Iowa's and South Carolina's in America. Farmers, country folk, etc. Many of these people dont even have highspeed internet yet. The major cities obviously will have highspeed, but if you live out in rural America, then it is not profitable for companies to extend their network to these customers.

Phone lines are already in place, there is probably low demand in rural areas for internet, so many depend on dial up AOL type connections. People dont spend a lot of time online if it is slow to load pages. They just get on for what they HAVE to do then get off for the most part. Kids are a different story. They have all the time in the world. Adults have jobs, kids, bills, car trouble, marital problems, health problems etc.

piotr1
02-28-2008, 06:33 PM
2012 is the end of the world. Didn't you know? ;)

AtomiC
02-28-2008, 07:30 PM
I think this is a great idea.

Liberté
02-28-2008, 11:07 PM
not bad, but the way I see it the internet will be orders of magnitude more powerful and organized in four years. Money just won't be necessary to run a political campaign. Think about it like this:
The internet is a mainstream source of information
It will become a source of mainstream information


Think of it as a switch from radio to television, then a switch from tv to the Internet.

Which application is going to cause that switch.??? I have an idea.

Perhaps in a decade that will be true, when internet and tv are one, which will probably not be 2012. I think the candidate will need a large amount of cash, even more than a moderate candidate because of MSM bias (they have to buy all their air time for the first few primaries.)

The other major problem I foresee is we could end up voting for a very principled candidate, that is a good man, but a horrible politican. We need BOTH to win, and being handsome/attractive is also a plus.

The Pac idea is a good idea, but why not just donate to an existing Pac like the Republican Liberty Caucus????

nate895
02-28-2008, 11:55 PM
Perhaps in a decade that will be true, when internet and tv are one, which will probably not be 2012. I think the candidate will need a large amount of cash, even more than a moderate candidate because of MSM bias (they have to buy all their air time for the first few primaries.)

The other major problem I foresee is we could end up voting for a very principled candidate, that is a good man, but a horrible politican. We need BOTH to win, and being handsome/attractive is also a plus.

The Pac idea is a good idea, but why not just donate to an existing Pac like the Republican Liberty Caucus????

The PAC is a bad idea because you cannot give it to the campaign, and there are really specific rules on how you can spend the money. I say we hold a convention, like CPAC, in November to choose our candidate, and we start saving $20 next month until the 2012 candidate is chosen, and then we dump in $20 per month since March in December (so, $180) and get 100,000 to do this.

Liberté
02-29-2008, 12:06 AM
The PAC is a bad idea because you cannot give it to the campaign, and there are really specific rules on how you can spend the money. I say we hold a convention, like CPAC, in November to choose our candidate, and we start saving $20 next month until the 2012 candidate is chosen, and then we dump in $20 per month since March in December (so, $180) and get 100,000 to do this.

an LCPAC convention... good idea.

defe07
02-29-2008, 01:26 AM
Are we talking about getting libertarian-minded candidates for President? Maybe a libertarian Republican and a libertarian Democrat? It would be interesting. ;)

Pauls' Revere
02-29-2008, 03:55 AM
Why should my vote be worth $100?
Elect a candidate based on our principles regardless of $$ and then donate.
What about those that can't afford $100?

Elwar
02-29-2008, 09:51 AM
Why should my vote be worth $100?
Elect a candidate based on our principles regardless of $$ and then donate.
What about those that can't afford $100?

I figured $100 because there would need to be a threshold to keep some neo con candidate from stuffing the ballot box.

Its also the amount that tens of thousands were willing to donate to ron Paul on various moneybombs

As it would take a while to get 100k people, most dedicated people should be able to save a hundred bucks over months or years

nate895
02-29-2008, 06:09 PM
I figured $100 because there would need to be a threshold to keep some neo con candidate from stuffing the ballot box.

Its also the amount that tens of thousands were willing to donate to ron Paul on various moneybombs

As it would take a while to get 100k people, most dedicated people should be able to save a hundred bucks over months or years

I say we solve this by having things that candidates must believe before consideration, and have some proof of belief in them, this could also help since there are disparities within the movement itself, like abortion, for example. I am not sure about others, but it will be impossible for me to vote for someone who will not actively try to make abortion an issue left to the states, and I'm sure there are other issues that we would have to deal with.