PDA

View Full Version : Another 2012 election question/concern



christagious
10-29-2009, 11:07 PM
Okay, in the off chance that we actually do get a liberty candidate in office, what then? I'm willing to bet that Reagan would have been more of a Ron Paul caliber guy if not for other factors. I bet that when he got in office he was basically told by Bush and the other guys in charge that "this is how it's going to be or else". So he went with that, and that's how it's been ever since. Who's to say that wouldn't happen if we got one our guys in, if they even let one of our guys in in the first place? Let's say we win 2012; what happens then if the establishment is like "look, you're not doing things according to that constitution thing of yours, it's our way or the JFK way". Would getting somebody like Ron Paul, or RP himself, in office change anything? Or would they be forced to be just another puppet, or even "taken out"?

It could be the conspiracy side in me saying all of this, but nonetheless, I'm concerned about this.
dr. hfn
10-30-2009, 01:16 AM
we'll burn that bridge when...
christagious
10-30-2009, 09:16 AM
we'll burn that bridge when...

I'm even worried at attempts to take his life during the campaign. I almost think that an assassination or even attempt would be really close to being what is necessary for some major violence to ensue. I could see many people taking up arms in that situation.
TCE
10-30-2009, 09:36 AM
I'm even worried at attempts to take his life during the campaign. I almost think that an assassination or even attempt would be really close to being what is necessary for some major violence to ensue. I could see many people taking up arms in that situation.

One Senator does not matter to the powers that be in this world. Five Senators becomes concerning, and ten is definitely a problem for the status quo. Let's even say that Schiff, Rand, Kokosh, and R.J. win. It won't happen, but that is a best case scenario. We will have three seats in the House and two in the Senate. Even with that, nothing will get done that we want unless we pander to the two major parties. I wouldn't worry, at least not until 2012 or beyond.
Elwar
10-30-2009, 09:51 AM
From what I saw on some documentary on Reagan, he went in with the attitude of supporting Goldwater type of liberty. But then the establishment/media basically told him that he could either have a difficult 4 years of media attacks. Or 8 years of getting some of his stuff through as long as he went with what they wanted.

Thus, he starts out early with huge tax cuts and then shifts gears to huge military spending in a Cold War against Russia (sounds similar to Bush II as well).

The key is that our candidate has a track record of saying "No", despite the political consequences...not saying "No" and reaping benefits from it.

Ron Paul would be fine with going down as "the worst president in history" according to the media as long as he had the good concience when he left office that he did not disobey the Constitution.
Gary Johnson has been deemed "stubborn" as far as vetoing everything that came across his desk that he didn't want to pass.
I'm sure Peter Schiff would be just fine with being in it only 4 years so that he could get back to his life.
And Rand would most likely follow in his father's footsteps as far as putting principles first.

It's all about whether the candidate is willing to take political suicide over the easy street.

Guess which road Obama chose:
http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/f/0/0/8/PicImg_Obamas_Host_Stevie_e770.JPG?