An open letter: 10 ways for Ron Paul to get many more progressives on board

[progressiveforpaul]

Dear Dr. Paul,
While progressives are skeptical of your economic agenda, we find ourselves in agreement with much of what you are advocating, especially restoring American respect and strength in the world through immediately drawing down our overseas military commitments and cutting wasteful, counterproductive and unnecessary military and security spending. We are disappointed with President Obama and are looking to send him and future presidential candidates a message. Challenging him in the 2012 Democratic primary would yield disastrous results. Your candidacy, however, offers us another option. We appreciate your willingness to work with progressives like Senator Sanders and Representatives Frank, Kucinich, and McKinney. For this you have earned our respect and deserve our thanks. We believe that you can and should do more to reach out to disenfranchised progressives. You can help your cause by appealing more to progressives. We acknowledge that you have been doing this consistently; we just want you to amp it up. Your greatest appeal is in your reluctant but pragmatic and humanitarian willingness to allow for current or greater levels of spending on domestic programs and projects if progressives are willing to have a net cut in overall spending. The net cut will come primarily from reductions in military spending and ending overseas commitments. We believe that you can maintain your ideals and your integrity and still get more progressives on board by clarifying the details of your grand compromise and doing the following:

1.) Specify the amount of cuts in defense and other empire building and maintenance you want to make over the next 10 years.

2.) Specify the amount of net cuts and the level of the total budgets over the next 4 years. In other words, tell us how much we progressives can expect to spend on domestic programs and projects in each of the first 4 years of your presidency and how much has to be cut from the overall budgets of each year from 2013 to 2016.

3.) Tell us what excise taxes you want congress to put on legalized drugs like marijuana, heroine and cocaine and how much revenue you would expect to raise from these taxes over the next 10 years. Rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol products would be very appealing.

4.) Let us know what other tax revenues you would add. Upping the Trump ante on tariffs on Chinese products in exchange for reductions in domestic spending and income taxes might be doable, especially if you implement number five on this list. A comprehensive plan to base tariff rates on the country of origin's human and civil rights, and labor, environmental and consumer protection policies would be wildly popular with Americans across the political spectrum, especially if you add democracy fees to the purchase of US treasury notes and up the tariffs more for countries who refuse to float their currencies on the open market.

5.) Propose a progressive consumption tax to take the place of the income tax.

6.) Lower the rate of payroll taxes while raising the cap in a revenue neutral way.

7.) Tell us you are willing for states to devise their own health insurance plans and that you will not interfere with states wanting to create single payer and public option systems and to compact with other states in doing so.

8.) Promise to appoint progressives to at least 40% of your domestic cabinet. Naming them in advance of the primaries would work well for progressives. Naming all of your cabinet in advance of the general election would work well with independents, progressives, libertarians, conservatives and all who like to know what they are getting before they get it.

9.) Endorse progressive Democrats, Greens and independents in 2012 House and Senate races against non-libertarian and neo-con Republicans. Urge progressives to vote for you and other libertarian candidates in the 2012 GOP primaries and caucuses.

10.) Promise to pardon all non-violent drug offenders within the first 100 days of your presidency.

Admittedly, this sort of outreach risks sending short-sighted libertarians into the arms of Gary Johnson. It is an unconventional and bold strategy but you have proven yourself to be the type of person who is willing to do the right thing for your country even if it drives the status quo oligarchs crazy. Radical problems require radical solutions. For such a time as this, we need you, Ron Paul, to step forward in a bold, decisive, clear and engaging way.

Yours Truly,

Progressives for Real Change

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Brett85]

"Your greatest appeal is in your reluctant but pragmatic and humanitarian willingness to allow for current or greater levels of spending on domestic programs and projects if progressives are willing to have a net cut in overall spending."

I sure hope that isn't the case.

[Cdn_for_liberty]

not sure if serious? especially point 4.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron is not going to change his message. On whatever points Progressives and Ron agree that is as far as you will get, likewise, with Conservatives. Paul is a libertarian -- realize our positions while logically sound and consistent reach across the completely idiotic (Left-Right - Lib/Prog - Conservative - etc.) spectrum as neither are consistent or logical in their positions. Libertarians do not compromise our positions -- we work with those who agree with us.

1) 10 Years? I suppose that is ok, but Congress appropriates spending per year, and I hate yearly plans as they have no basis in reality as reality is ever changing. I think Ron has all ready come out for 50% reduction in his first year.

2) No qualms here. Expect to not like what you see however.

3) Ron will never raise taxes ever. No new taxes. No raising of existing taxes. Period. Besides, excise taxes are the purview of the individual States, not the Federal Government. Ron and any libertarian does not want to have any excise taxes period.

4) Ron is against all Tariffs and is for Free-Trade. He will never vote/approve of a tariff.

5) Ron wants no tax to replace the Income Tax. Besides, to get rid of the Income tax we have to repeal the 16th Amendment. This will take a lot of time, and there isn't enough support in the House or Senate to get this done. Moot point for now.

6) Ron will sign off on across the board tax cuts and tax abolishments (Getting rid of Capital Gains, Income, FICA, etc.).

7) Yes, Ron is a believer in Federalism. He will not interfere in State affairs.

8) I hope not. Ron would probably appoint a few consistent Progressives in certain positions where it aligns with libertarians -- like Glenn Greenwald on Civil Liberties / Johnathan Turley Civil Liberties, etc.

9) I can live with this.

10) I hope he would do far more than just that.

I think Progressives should be content with voting for Ron based on the myriad positions that libertarians and Progressives agree on:

Repealing Patriot Act / MCA
Ending all the Wars
Bring all the troops home from overseas
Cut the Military Budget (a lot)
Ending the War on Drugs
Legalizing Gambling/Poker
Gutting the FBI/CIA and doing away with them (We need a lot of support in 2012 and 2014 to get this one done)
Ending all subsidies
Ending the Fed / Auditing Fed
Getting us out of the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and enacting unilateral Free-Trade (Like what the EU has for instance between member-States, and like what the States in the US have between each other)

So is War and Civil Liberties more important for you or Socialism? If the former, vote for Ron Paul. If the latter, then I doubt you will.

[torchbearer]

when you put tarriffs on imports that is just an indirect sales tax, which usually hurts the poor more than wealthy.
raising the price of rice hurts those with smaller incomes. i don't see how progressives could support tarrifs.

[Vessol]

I hate to say it, but we should worry about the Republican primaries. If Ron actually through the primary, I am 100% sure we will win the general election.

[low preference guy]

not sure if serious? especially point 4.

i laughed out loud when i read one.

[freshjiva]

PFP,

I really like where your head is. I know you only mean well and are an honest progressive that wants real change from the current corporatist government, but I must admit to you that Ron Paul will never endorse many of the suggestions you raise.

What he will do, however, is take the positions he already advocates that progressives already agree with, like ending the wars, Corporate subsidies, etc. and use those to appeal to the Left.

However, we need to win the GOP primary first, so appealing to progressives is the last thing on his (and our) minds right now, unless of course there is a possibility of convincing someone of switching party membership to Republican so they can support RP in the primary.

[sailingaway]

The problem is Congress. He can't get a budget through on his own.

[sailingaway]

PFP,

I really like where your head is. I know you only mean well and are an honest progressive that wants real change from the current corporatist government, but I must admit to you that Ron Paul will never endorse many of the suggestions you raise.

What he will do, however, is take the positions he already advocates that progressives already agree with, like ending the wars, Corporate subsidies, etc. and use those to appeal to the Left.

However, we need to win the GOP primary first, so appealing to progressives is the last thing on his (and our) minds right now, unless of course there is a possibility of convincing someone of switching party membership to Republican so they can support RP in the primary.

I disagree with the last point because I think the progressives are like us in activism and more likely IF they felt it important, to actually change registration and vote in a primary. But Ron won't promise what he can't deliver. I agree he should detail what HIS view of his transition plan is better so people can envision it, given that during his term, he wouldn't be able to get beyond that and would take our support in electing like minded people and badgering reps who aren't like minded to even get that through.

[Vessol]

I disagree with the last point because I think the progressives are like us in activism and more likely IF they felt it important, to actually change registration and vote in a primary. But Ron won't promise what he can't deliver. I agree he should detail what HIS view of his transition plan is better so people can envision it, given that during his term, he wouldn't be able to get beyond that and would take our support in electing like minded people and badgering reps who aren't like minded to even get that through.

A few activists might change party registrations, but most are deeply partisan and I'd argue that they have a low amount of numbers. Nothing to waste our time on.

[Ninja Homer]

Ask not what Ron Paul can do for you, but what you can do for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been saying the same things and fighting for the same things for more than 30 years. That's why we like him. He isn't going to change his views now just to cater to progressives. And you shouldn't want him to! You already have a president that told you everything you wanted to hear, and he obviously isn't following through on it, so why would you want another? With Ron Paul, you take what you like about his views, weigh it against what you don't like, and act accordingly knowing damn well that he's going to follow through on everything he says to the best of his ability.

[KurtBoyer25L]

A few activists might change party registrations, but most are deeply partisan and I'd argue that they have a low amount of numbers. Nothing to waste our time on.

But we're not talking about ordinary democrats. We're talking about everyone who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, plus independents who are social liberals. Many are very disillusioned with the two party duopoly. Ron represents a way out and a short-term plan very similar to what Kucinich or Gravel might offer.

Also, changing party registration is not a big deal when you can do it at the polls on the same day & then switch back as soon as you want to.

[Matt Collins]

Right now the only people we care about are likely Republican primary voters!


If we get the nomination then we can consider how to attract people from the left. But that's a losing strategy during the primary.

[fisharmor]

Awesome, looks like we've got our own regular top-10 list on the board now!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?283649-10-ways-Ron-Paul-libertarians-can-better-communicate-with-progressives&p=3163234#post3163234

Look, I don't know how to get this across to progressives, but since you're here, perhaps you can tell us if this doesn't make sense.

When you centralize power, that power attracts the power-hungry.
The power-hungry are not capable of serving the public interest any more than is necessary to retain power.
Because the goal of a centralized system immediately becomes retention of power, centralized systems do more public harm than public good.
The quickest way to centralize power is through taxes and tariffs.
Ergo, taxes and tariffs are to be avoided.

So please, PFP, let us know what about this doesn't make sense, or what plank of what I've just written you reject. And then we will know where to concentrate as we eviscerate you with facts.

[progressiveforpaul]

When jobs are lost and wages decreased because American businesses go looking for cheap labor and low standards, consumers (who are the same workers without jobs) are hurt as well. Initially when tariffs are lowered to allow American businesses to abandon American workers for Chinese slaves, American consumers benefit but over the long run, they run out of money and start borrowing at usurious rates and we all know where that leads. I say start with a 50% tariff. If the Chinese float their currency on the open market reduce it to 40%. If they also raise labor standards to a level comparable to ours, reduce it to 30%. If they also enforce strict environmental standards, knock it down to 20%. If they also allow for religious freedom, freedom of speech, free and fair elections with more than one party, knock it down to 10%. If they also get rid of all tariffs on our products, reduce it to 0%. Until they do all of the above, use the funds we collect to pay down our debt, to build high speed rail, new power grids and new energy sources., etc. Such a policy would put people to work and lift them out of poverty and increase their purchasing power and ability to save and invest. Right now we don't have free trade (if that oxymoron could ever make sense); we have very costly trade that benefits a few people who have lots of money to invest overseas.

when you put tarriffs on imports that is just an indirect sales tax, which usually hurts the poor more than wealthy.
raising the price of rice hurts those with smaller incomes. i don't see how progressives could support tarrifs.

[progressiveforpaul]

can't find what you are talking about...maybe you could paste it here.

Awesome, looks like we've got our own regular top-10 list on the board now!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?283649-10-ways-Ron-Paul-libertarians-can-better-communicate-with-progressives&p=3163234#post3163234

Look, I don't know how to get this across to progressives, but since you're here, perhaps you can tell us if this doesn't make sense.

When you centralize power, that power attracts the power-hungry.
The power-hungry are not capable of serving the public interest any more than is necessary to retain power.
Because the goal of a centralized system immediately becomes retention of power, centralized systems do more public harm than public good.
The quickest way to centralize power is through taxes and tariffs.
Ergo, taxes and tariffs are to be avoided.

So please, PFP, let us know what about this doesn't make sense, or what plank of what I've just written you reject. And then we will know where to concentrate as we eviscerate you with facts.

[progressiveforpaul]

Ron Paul will not get the nomination without a massive influx of progressive voters.

Right now the only people we care about are likely Republican primary voters!


If we get the nomination then we can consider how to attract people from the left. But that's a losing strategy during the primary.

[progressiveforpaul]

Amen Kurt!

But we're not talking about ordinary democrats. We're talking about everyone who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, plus independents who are social liberals. Many are very disillusioned with the two party duopoly. Ron represents a way out and a short-term plan very similar to what Kucinich or Gravel might offer.

Also, changing party registration is not a big deal when you can do it at the polls on the same day & then switch back as soon as you want to.

[progressiveforpaul]

i am not telling him he has to change his views. He has a realistic streak in him that knows that you can't get the whole libertarian agenda in one term. he is smart enough to know he has to tolerate progressives getting something out of the deal to cut overall spending. At a minimum a freeze on current levels of domestic spending with allowance for population increases and inflation.

Ask not what Ron Paul can do for you, but what you can do for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been saying the same things and fighting for the same things for more than 30 years. That's why we like him. He isn't going to change his views now just to cater to progressives. And you shouldn't want him to! You already have a president that told you everything you wanted to hear, and he obviously isn't following through on it, so why would you want another? With Ron Paul, you take what you like about his views, weigh it against what you don't like, and act accordingly knowing damn well that he's going to follow through on everything he says to the best of his ability.

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul will not get the nomination without a massive influx of progressive voters.
Incorrect. Witness KY 2010.

[progressiveforpaul]

You are exactly right. Progressives need a motivation if they are going to change parties. Ron Paul needs to give us the details of his transitional plan. His first term ought to exclude cuts from domestic spending except as progressives want to rearrange how the money is spent. I think he can get at least 700 billion a year in defense, security, war and empire spending each year. That's at least 2.8 trillion over 4 years. Let us progressives have 800 billion during that 4 years along with the current domestic spending levels. By 2016 the economy will be roaring and unemployment will be diving on its way to 3-4%. The net increase in jobs adds another 500 billion to pay the debt down further. You guys will claim credit because you cut spending by 2 trillion and increased revenue by half a trillion thus reducing our debt by 2.5 trillion over what it is projected to be. We will claim credit because we invest 800 billion into a new green economy. We go our separate ways at the polls in 2016 and see what the rest of America thinks. I think you take this deal, you guys win in 2016 and then you go hacking away at social programs and other domestic spending and we win in 2020. By that time, neo cons are history. Cultural conservatives form their own third party and we have a new America. Who knows you guys might be right and we progressives disappear along with the neo cons in in 2020. What is not to like about this strategy? Are libertarians scared to succeed? Do you think any thing changes if we do not form this temporary coalition? Really...that's the bottom line. Ron Paul needs progressives to win the primary and then to win the general election. Without us he gets maybe 10% of the delegates in the GOP primaries. With enough progressives in Iowa, New Hampshire and SC jumping ship to vote for him, we have real revolution in American politics. And all it costs is you pinching your nose for 4 years while President Paul says, "I do not like this, but a deal is a deal." I think he makes that deal and we are spared from a Romney or Obama corporate drift toward fascism.

I disagree with the last point because I think the progressives are like us in activism and more likely IF they felt it important, to actually change registration and vote in a primary. But Ron won't promise what he can't deliver. I agree he should detail what HIS view of his transition plan is better so people can envision it, given that during his term, he wouldn't be able to get beyond that and would take our support in electing like minded people and badgering reps who aren't like minded to even get that through.

[progressiveforpaul]

KY was a small state without an incumbent. That strategy cannot be duplicated nationally.

Incorrect. Witness KY 2010.

[Pillowpants]

Ask not what Ron Paul can do for you, but what you can do for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been saying the same things and fighting for the same things for more than 30 years. That's why we like him. He isn't going to change his views now just to cater to progressives. And you shouldn't want him to! You already have a president that told you everything you wanted to hear, and he obviously isn't following through on it, so why would you want another? With Ron Paul, you take what you like about his views, weigh it against what you don't like, and act accordingly knowing damn well that he's going to follow through on everything he says to the best of his ability.

Fuckin a! This.

[JohnGalt1225]

Right now the only people we care about are likely Republican primary voters!


If we get the nomination then we can consider how to attract people from the left. But that's a losing strategy during the primary.

I don't necessarily agree. There's not going to be a contested Democrat primary so a lot of progressives/left leaning independents who can't stand the corporatist/war state we're in who may be intrigued by the idea of voting for Ron Paul in the primary.

[fisharmor]

can't find what you are talking about...maybe you could paste it here.
Maybe you could read what you quoted.

Stop listening to yourself talk and address the following line of reasoning between the asterisks.

************************************************** **
When you centralize power, that power attracts the power-hungry.
The power-hungry are not capable of serving the public interest any more than is necessary to retain power.
Because the goal of a centralized system immediately becomes retention of power, centralized systems do more public harm than public good.
The quickest way to centralize power is through taxes and tariffs.
Ergo, taxes and tariffs are to be avoided.
************************************************** **

You guys need to recognize that we're the ones with the superior bargaining position.
The most progressive of the progressives didn't stop the wars, he expanded them.
The most progressive of the progressives didn't stop the torture.
The most progressive of the progressives continued the bailouts.
The most progressive of the progressives continued the spying, secret renditions, PATRIOT act, and controlled demolition of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Our positions do not overlap. The difference is that ours is genuine. If we reach out to progressives, it's to give you the things you want that your leaders fail to provide.
I happen to think what you're being offered is plenty. Stop asking more of us. We will not agree to be taxed for the privilege of giving you what you can't get from your anointed ones.

[progressiveforpaul]

I don't necessarily agree. There's not going to be a contested Democrat primary so a lot of progressives/left leaning independents who can't stand the corporatist/war state we're in who may be intrigued by the idea of voting for Ron Paul in the primary.
I am intrigued to the point of planning to vote for him. I also am working hard to bring progressives on board. If Ron Paul can be as specific as possible about clarifying his transitional plan or as i like to call it his grand compromise (maybe we should call it a grand transitional compromise), i think he can get a lot of progressives headed his way quickly.

[ChaosControl]

Tell us you are willing for states to devise their own health insurance plans and that you will not interfere with states wanting to create single payer and public option systems and to compact with other states in doing so.

This is the proper way to go about things. Handle it at the states, or even more preferably at the county level. If they want single payer, fine. If they want total free market, fine. Each individual area can have as they desire. Economic systems work best on small local scales, they become corrupt and twisted on national scales. It doesn't matter if it is socialism or capitalism, both become corrupted on a large centralized level.

We should be able to be allies and both work towards decentralization, then we all can choose at the local level to fight for what we want. It is much easier to change things locally than federally and if we cannot change them, we can always move a county or a state over to somewhere more receptive to our desires.

So if there is to be more domestic spending, that should be a state thing. The federal government needs to get out of economic matters entirely.

[progressiveforpaul]

Maybe you could read what you quoted.

Stop listening to yourself talk and address the following line of reasoning between the asterisks.

************************************************** **
When you centralize power, that power attracts the power-hungry.
The power-hungry are not capable of serving the public interest any more than is necessary to retain power.
Because the goal of a centralized system immediately becomes retention of power, centralized systems do more public harm than public good.
The quickest way to centralize power is through taxes and tariffs.
Ergo, taxes and tariffs are to be avoided.
************************************************** **
Centralized power is generally corrupting. Decentralizing power involves redistributing wealth. This gets done all the time...it is the very nature of economics. the best way to do it is through a combination of private sector competition and truly democratic public sector investment. If you don't have revenue to do this wealth and the power it creates and sustains will continue to be centralized and corrupt.

You guys need to recognize that we're the ones with the superior bargaining position.
The most progressive of the progressives didn't stop the wars, he expanded them.
The most progressive of the progressives didn't stop the torture.
The most progressive of the progressives continued the bailouts.
The most progressive of the progressives continued the spying, secret renditions, PATRIOT act, and controlled demolition of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Our positions do not overlap. The difference is that ours is genuine. If we reach out to progressives, it's to give you the things you want that your leaders fail to provide.
I happen to think what you're being offered is plenty. Stop asking more of us. We will not agree to be taxed for the privilege of giving you what you can't get from your anointed ones.

Centralized power is generally corrupting. Decentralizing power involves redistributing wealth. This gets done all the time...it is the very nature of economics. the best way to do it is through a combination of private sector competition and truly democratic public sector investment. If you don't have revenue to do this wealth and the power it creates and sustains will continue to be centralized and corrupt.

you do have a strong negotiating position but so do we progressives. if progressives are told we are gutting social security, medicare medicaid and the rest of the domestic budget along with the MIC, you are not going to get enough of us on board for Ron paul to win the primary, much less the election.

[progressiveforpaul]

This is the proper way to go about things. Handle it at the states, or even more preferably at the county level. If they want single payer, fine. If they want total free market, fine. Each individual area can have as they desire. Economic systems work best on small local scales, they become corrupt and twisted on national scales. It doesn't matter if it is socialism or capitalism, both become corrupted on a large centralized level.

We should be able to be allies and both work towards decentralization, then we all can choose at the local level to fight for what we want. It is much easier to change things locally than federally and if we cannot change them, we can always move a county or a state over to somewhere more receptive to our desires.

So if there is to be more domestic spending, that should be a state thing. The federal government needs to get out of economic matters entirely.

I am with you on localism. The problem is the local and state governments are all broke with few exceptions. The federal government has to have a redistributive role if local government is to have a fighting chance. Moreover, moving from one county or state to another is not an easy task and it weakens family connections (a main reason for cultural conservatives to be economic progressives). I would be willing to have the shift in funds be predicated on reduction in the size of the federal government but you have to create a mechanism to make sure the states and localities get the revenue they need. If we progressives unconditionally give up federal redistribution, the state and local governments most likely to not raise revenues of their own are the very ones who are most dependent upon federal funding. Let state governments create the funding plan first and then we can let go of the federal sources of funding.

[erowe1]

if progressives are told we are gutting social security, medicare medicaid and the rest of the domestic budget along with the MIC, you are not going to get enough of us on board for Ron paul to win the primary, much less the election.

OK. Well then your mind's made up. There's nothing Ron Paul, being what he is, can do to win you over. If you ever change your mind and decide that the annoyance of being free and responsible for you own life is a small enough price to pay for a president who isn't as bellicose as Obama, please consider voting for RP. If not, that's up to you.

[Seraphim]

Fixed.

Democracy sucks.



Centralized power is generally corrupting. Decentralizing power involves redistributing wealth. This gets done all the time...it is the very nature of economics. the best way to do it is through a combination of private sector competition and truly VOLUNTARY public sector investment. If you don't have revenue to do this wealth and the power it creates and sustains will continue to be centralized and corrupt.

you do have a strong negotiating position but so do we progressives. if progressives are told we are gutting social security, medicare medicaid and the rest of the domestic budget along with the MIC, you are not going to get enough of us on board for Ron paul to win the primary, much less the election.

[Seraphim]

The only reason why local and State Govt are broke are because of these so called redistributive measures you delusionally believe can serve the general public.

Yep, let's treat cancer with cigarettes.



I am with you on localism. the problem is the local and state governments are all broke with few exceptions. The federal government has to have a redistributive role if local government is to have fighting chance. Moreover, moving from one county or state to another is not an easy task and it weakens family connections (a main reason for cultural conservatives to be economic progressives). I would be willing to have the shift in funds be predicated on reduction in the size of the federal government but you have to create a mechanism to make sure the states and localities get the revenue they need. If we progressives unconditionally give up federal redistribution, the state and local governments most likely to not raise revenues of their own are the very ones who are most dependent upon federal funding. Let state governments create the funding plan first and then we can let go of the federal sources of funding.

[ChaosControl]

I am with you on localism. the problem is the local and state governments are all broke with few exceptions. The federal government has to have a redistributive role if local government is to have fighting chance. Moreover, moving from one county or state to another is not an easy task and it weakens family connections (a main reason for cultural conservatives to be economic progressives). I would be willing to have the shift in funds be predicated on reduction in the size of the federal government but you have to create a mechanism to make sure the states and localities get the revenue they need. If we progressives unconditionally give up federal redistribution, the state and local governments most likely to not raise revenues of their own are the very ones who are most dependent upon federal funding. Let state governments create the funding plan first and then we can let go of the federal sources of funding.

The federal government is also broke. If people were not taxed federally, they could be taxed more locally to pay for more locally run services to make up for the end of federal services. And yes moving isn't always easy, but it is easier to move from county to county than from the US to wherever. If I desire either a more free market or a more controlled market, I'd have to move to another nation, that is hardly desirable.

I think states could also implement plans to help people move. So if a poor family was in an area that didn't have services, there could be towns that had such and offered funding to the person to move there to get the help they need. Many areas will have very minimal services, and many will have very expansive services, which is really the entire point, people can have what they most prefer then.

I actually would support more economic equality, but I hate the state and centralization. I would be fully on board to do some kind of county-wide health care system where everyone is covered where the fees for such are given voluntary as opposed to some state mandating taxes.

[progressiveforpaul]

OK. Well then your mind's made up. There's nothing Ron Paul, being what he is, can do to win you over. If you ever change your mind and decide that the annoyance of being free and responsible for you own life is a small enough price to pay for a president who isn't as bellicose as Obama, please consider voting for RP. If not, that's up to you.
My mind is made up. I'm voting for Ron Paul. Ron Paul has won me over for 2012. He needs to win alot more like me if he is to win the primary and the election so that your dream of parasitic liberals like myself getting off our lazy asses and working can be realized. He has already made a commitment to funding domestic programs in exchange for a net cut in total spending. Watch the whole of this video. it's less than 3 minutes. Toward the end you will hear it. I hope it does not turn you against him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx9a4hNeIRo&NR=1

[progressiveforpaul]

The federal government is also broke. If people were not taxed federally, they could be taxed more locally to pay for more locally run services to make up for the end of federal services. And yes moving isn't always easy, but it is easier to move from county to county than from the US to wherever. If I desire either a more free market or a more controlled market, I'd have to move to another nation, that is hardly desirable.

I think states could also implement plans to help people move. So if a poor family was in an area that didn't have services, there could be towns that had such and offered funding to the person to move there to get the help they need. Many areas will have very minimal services, and many will have very expansive services, which is really the entire point, people can have what they most prefer then.

I actually would support more economic equality, but I hate the state and centralization. I would be fully on board to do some kind of county-wide health care system where everyone is covered where the fees for such are given voluntary as opposed to some state mandating taxes.

You know your problem CC is that you are entirely too reasonable.

[LatinsforPaul]

He needs to win alot more like me if he is to win the primary and the election

On the positive note for Progressives for Paul is:

Ron Paul: More Progressive Than Obama? (http://counterpunch.com/davis04282011.html)

and

A Progressive for Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ko7jwg3x94&feature=player_embedded)


On the negative side of Progressives for Paul you have these comments...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/29/971321/-Is-Ron-Paul-more-Progressive-than-Obama#

[progressiveforpaul]

Great to see this ...first 2 that is.

On the positive note for Progressives for Paul is:

Ron Paul: More Progressive Than Obama? (http://counterpunch.com/davis04282011.html)

and

A Progressive for Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ko7jwg3x94&feature=player_embedded)


On the negative side of Progressives for Paul you have these comments...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/29/971321/-Is-Ron-Paul-more-Progressive-than-Obama#

[osan]

While progressives are skeptical of your economic agenda

Because they have not even the first clues about economics, save their masturbatory fantasies originating on planet Bizarro.

w
e find ourselves in agreement with much of what you are advocating,

Not nearly enough.


especially restoring American respect and strength in the world through immediately drawing down our overseas military commitments and cutting wasteful, counterproductive and unnecessary military and security spending.

But not wasteful "social programs". Typical progressive hypocrisy.


We are disappointed with President Obama and are looking to send him and future presidential candidates a message. Challenging him in the 2012 Democratic primary would yield disastrous results.

This is the sort of ball-less POV I would expect. You don't like Obama's performance but will not face him head on based on a principled stance, so you attempt the back-door approach so you can blame Paul if perchance your machinations blow up in your faces. Clever, but despicable.


We believe that you can and should do more to reach out to disenfranchised progressives.

He should reach out and bitch-slap you to China, where you all belong.


You can help your cause by appealing more to progressives... by clarifying the details of your grand compromise and doing the following:

1.) Specify the amount of cuts in defense and other empire building and maintenance you want to make over the next 10 years.

If he is going to be honest, and it appears that thus far he has a good score for it, he would also have to tell you how much welfare and other social programs would be butchered. Bet you would be screaming bloody murder.


2.) Specify the amount of net cuts and the level of the total budgets over the next 4 years. In other words, tell us how much we progressives can expect to spend on domestic programs and projects in each of the first 4 years of your presidency and how much has to be cut from the overall budgets of each year from 2013 to 2016.

Oh I see... spend on rancid social programs, but cut everything else. Got it.


3.) Tell us what excise taxes you want congress to put on legalized drugs like marijuana, heroine and cocaine and how much revenue you would expect to raise from these taxes over the next 10 years. Rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol products would be very appealing.


Why tax it? What's the moral basis for such taxation? Why should you be enriched by the legitimate choices of others? How about we tax you for breathing? I am pretty certain whatever nonsensical phony argument you would use to justify taxing Johnny Q. for smoking a joint could be used to similarly justify taxing you for breathing, since sensibility, truth, and reason are apparently not required bases for making such decisions in your world.


4.) Let us know what other tax revenues you would add.

More progressive mental vomit - taxation being the grand solution to the woes of the downtrodden. Thus far your letter will be tugging at Mr. Paul's heart strings, I am sure.


Upping the Trump ante on tariffs on Chinese products in exchange for reductions in domestic spending and income taxes might be doable, especially if you implement number five on this list. A comprehensive plan to base tariff rates on the country of origin's human and civil rights, and labor, environmental and consumer protection policies would be wildly popular with Americans across the political spectrum, especially if you add democracy fees to the purchase of US treasury notes and up the tariffs more for countries who refuse to float their currencies on the open market.

Finally SOMETHING you say makes some remote sense, though I'm willing to bet this is purely accidental.


5.) Propose a progressive consumption tax to take the place of the income tax.

There's that world "progressive" again... so tax those who work hard, smartly, and bring good things tot he world more than those who merely punch a clock or collect a welfare check. That makes all good sense - it will really motivate people to excel.


6.) Lower the rate of payroll taxes while raising the cap in a revenue neutral way.

Meaningless statement without a precise account of how it would be done. Why not just demand they "defy gravity"?


7.) Tell us you are willing for states to devise their own health insurance plans and that you will not interfere with states wanting to create single payer and public option systems and to compact with other states in doing so.

This is unconstitutional and immoral in its very fabric. This is socialistic bullshit wherein the earned monies of some will be stolen to subsidize healthcare for the rest. I'm sure Ron will be all over that.


8.) Promise to appoint progressives to at least 40% of your domestic cabinet.

You're fucking insane. Get to a psychiatrist immediately. You need it more than you know.


Naming them in advance of the primaries would work well for progressives.

I am sure it would. The question here is, who gives a shit what progressives want? They are psychotic and should go to live in the peoples' paradise of China.


9.) Endorse progressive Democrats, Greens and independents in 2012 House and Senate races against non-libertarian and neo-con Republicans. Urge progressives to vote for you and other libertarian candidates in the 2012 GOP primaries and caucuses.

Urge them... but they will never vote for you, and in so urging, alienate those with their brains not in their asses, thereby causing the conservative side to self destruct. Yes, I am sure he will do this.


10.) Promise to pardon all non-violent drug offenders within the first 100 days of your presidency.

Another sensible remark. Wow.


Admittedly, this sort of outreach risks sending short-sighted libertarians into the arms of Gary Johnson.

"short-sighted"? By whose standard? More likely this sort of "outreach" would cause smart people to question Ron's sanity. Progressives are the sworn enemies of freedom, all lies to the contrary notwithstanding. I would not given them the time of day. I would, however, provide them all with one-way tickets to China in exchange for the promise never to return to the USA.


It is an unconventional and bold strategy but you have proven yourself to be the type of person who is willing to do the right thing for your country even if it drives the status quo oligarchs crazy.

You seek to drive yourselves crazy? Jesus, you poor stupid bastards really do need medical attention.


Radical problems require radical solutions.

Because you say so. Righty-0.

What a load of tripe.

[osan]

Ron is not going to change his message.

Agreed. Let us hope we are right.


4) Ron... is for Free-Trade.

Unless I misunderstand his position, you are wrong. He is for FREE MARKETS, which are not the same as that thing upon which they have painted "Free Trade".

[osan]

when you put tarriffs on imports that is just an indirect sales tax, which usually hurts the poor more than wealthy.
raising the price of rice hurts those with smaller incomes. i don't see how progressives could support tarrifs.

The truth of your assertion is partly predicated on context. China, for example, runs a state-legitimized and a violently state-enforced slave labor market of such proportions that they wield enormous global market power. Because it is artificially contrived and maintained for the sake of providing a long-standing arbitrage opportunity, it distorts the market most grotesquely, thereby hurting everyone. China will not loosen its tyrannical grip on their slaves unless given no choice.

Tariffing the living shit our of their products such that they lose the artificially enforced advantage would, IMO, be the only sensible thing to do. Tariff them until they cry uncle, on their knees promising you anything. Tariff them until they lose so much money and market share that they loose their stranglehold on their slaves. Tariff them until they are forced to compete based on not just labor cost but quality and innovation. Make them cry uncle or cut them out of the largest consumer market on the planet. Make their system of slave labor hurt so much they will go running from it. There is no other way. Certainly, a nicely reasoned talking-to will not do the trick. They need to have their faces slapped hard enough to dash the taste out of their mouths. I would make it plain to China that if you want to continue doing business with the USA, they must toe a line of real free markets. Otherwise, they can go pound salt.

[ChaosControl]

Y'all are pretty much just dismissing instead of trying to come up with a win-win solution...

[White Bear Lake]

You are exactly right. Progressives need a motivation if they are going to change parties. Ron Paul needs to give us the details of his transitional plan.

Progressives should change parties if they like libertarianism, the only consistent philosophical position being presented today, and want to vote for Paul. Paul should not change to an inconsistant philosophy to attract "progressives" or else all of us here will ditch him.


His first term ought to exclude cuts from domestic spending except as progressives want to rearrange how the money is spent. I think he can get at least 700 billion a year in defense, security, war and empire spending each year.

Domestic spending is just as bad as foreign spending. Both involve the government confiscating property from individuals and redistributing it as they see fit. There's really no difference between the two and that's why progressives and neocons are inconsistant and contradict themselves. You can't be for one type of spending and not for the other. Either you're for government redistribution or you're not. And don't give me any BS about "smart government" - government is inherently evil and there is no "smart" way to redistribute stolen property. While it is easier to slash foreign spending right away, we need to begin to phase out domestic spending quickly as well.



That's at least 2.8 trillion over 4 years. Let us progressives have 800 billion during that 4 years along with the current domestic spending levels. By 2016 the economy will be roaring and unemployment will be diving on its way to 3-4%.

No it won't. Unless goverment gets out of the way, stops inflating the currency, and allows for the market to correct itself, unemployment will stay high. Sure cutting the budget 2 trillion will help, but it will help 1.6 trillion less than cutting the budget 800 billion.



The net increase in jobs adds another 500 billion to pay the debt down further.

There will be no net increase in jobs. We will not have any until we let the economy correct itself and get back to equillibrium.



You guys will claim credit because you cut spending by 2 trillion and increased revenue by half a trillion thus reducing our debt by 2.5 trillion over what it is projected to be.

We don't want to increase revenue to the government. We want to lower the government's revenue as much as possible because as state earlier, government is nothing more than an inherantly evil use of force to redistribute stolen property.


We will claim credit because we invest 800 billion into a new green economy. We go our separate ways at the polls in 2016 and see what the rest of America thinks. I think you take this deal, you guys win in 2016 and then you go hacking away at social programs and other domestic spending and we win in 2020. By that time, neo cons are history.

If we are eventually going to split up, why should we get together in the first place?

BTW, government can't "invest" anything. Because all government "investment" is simply spending money that would have been spent by some other party even if the govenment hadn't interfered, it is really just another form of consumption. Government only misallocates resources and puts them places that people don't really need them. If we really needed a "green industry," trust me, there would be a profit opportunity there and money would flow there through the free market. The fact that you need government coercion to help a market only tells you that that market really isn't needed. Real investment can only come from private individuals in a free market through savings.


Cultural conservatives form their own third party and we have a new America. Who knows you guys might be right and we progressives disappear along with the neo cons in in 2020. What is not to like about this strategy? Are libertarians scared to succeed?

It won't suceed because it is nothing more than some inconsistant mix of centralized pwer and decentralized power. We need true libertarianism, not some water down mix-mash of authoritarianism with some individualism sprinkled here and there.


Do you think any thing changes if we do not form this temporary coalition?

Things will only change if more people become liberty lovers, not if liberty lovers water down there principles for temporary "gain".


Really...that's the bottom line. Ron Paul needs progressives to win the primary and then to win the general election. Without us he gets maybe 10% of the delegates in the GOP primaries. With enough progressives in Iowa, New Hampshire and SC jumping ship to vote for him, we have real revolution in American politics. And all it costs is you pinching your nose for 4 years while President Paul says, "I do not like this, but a deal is a deal." I think he makes that deal and we are spared from a Romney or Obama corporate drift toward fascism.

Progressives are free to vote for us as much as you guys want but don't expect us to compromise our principles. "Progressive" ideals like single payer healthcare and "green investments" lead to corpratism just as fast as the neo-con military industrial complex.

[LatinsforPaul]

You are exactly right. Progressives need a motivation if they are going to change parties. Ron Paul needs to give us the details of his transitional plan.

My Plan for a Freedom President How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html)

by Ron Paul



Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help — churches and private charities.

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO's of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright — thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president's requests.

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.

Domestically, the president can use his authority to set policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer's clams are not true. Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state lines.

A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with the current administration's policy of not prosecuting marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state's primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas.

In fact, none of the measures I have discussed so far involves repealing any written law. They can be accomplished simply by a president exercising his legitimate authority to set priorities for the executive branch. And another important step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive orders issued by his predecessors.

Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton's adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution's division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.

Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties. One test to determine if a vacant job needs to be filled is the “essential employees test.” Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government orders all “non-essential” federal personal to stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day purposes, the country can probably survive if that position is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day!

A president could also enhance the liberties and security of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those who are being spied on have committed a crime. Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security. He should also order the Transportation Security Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting toddlers on the no-fly list. The way to keep Americans safe is to focus on real threats and ensure that someone whose own father warns U.S. officials he's a potential terrorist is not allowed to board a Christmas Eve flight to Detroit with a one-way ticket.

Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots. Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes.

While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years, he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist president's budget should do the following:

Reduce overall federal spending
Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states
Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care
If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it's irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America's freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

Unconstitutional government spending, after all, is doubly an evil: it not only means picking the taxpayer's pocket, it also means subverting the system of limited and divided government that the Founders created. Just look at how federal spending has corrupted American education.

Eliminating federal involvement in K—12 education should be among a constitutionalist president's top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush's No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem.

In the years since No Child Left Behind was passed, I don't think I have talked to any parent or teacher who is happy with the law. Therefore, a constitutionalist president looking for ways to improve the lives of children should demand that Congress cut the federal education bureaucracy as a down payment on eventually returning 100 percent of the education dollar to parents.

Traditionally, the battle to reduce the federal role in education has been the toughest one faced by limited-government advocates, as supporters of centralized education have managed to paint constitutionalists as “anti-education.” But who is really anti-education? Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level? When the debate is framed this way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win. When you think about it, the argument that the federal government needs to control education is incredibly insulting to the American people, for it implies that the people are too stupid or uncaring to educate their children properly. Contrary to those who believe that only the federal government can ensure children's education, I predict a renaissance in education when parents are put back in charge.

The classroom is not the only place the federal government does not belong. We also need to reverse the nationalization of local police. Federal grants have encouraged the militarization of law enforcement, which has led to great damage to civil liberties. Like education, law enforcement is inherently a local function, and ending programs such as the Byrne Grants is essential not just to reducing federal spending but also to restoring Americans' rights.

Obviously, a president concerned with restoring constitutional government and fiscal responsibility would need to address the unstable entitlement situation, possibly the one area of government activity even more difficult to address than education. Yet it is simply unfair to continue to force young people to participate in a compulsory retirement program when they could do a much better job of preparing for their own retirements. What is more, the government cannot afford the long-term expenses of entitlements, even if we were to reduce all other unconstitutional foreign and domestic programs.

As I mentioned in the introduction to this article, it would be wrong simply to cut these programs and throw those who are dependent on them “into the streets.” After all, the current recipients of these programs have come to rely on them, and many are in a situation where they cannot provide for themselves without government assistance. The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net that has been yanked away from them should trouble all of us. However, the simple fact is that if the government does not stop spending money on welfare and warfare, America may soon face an economic crisis that could lead to people being thrown into the street.

Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government's obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement.

Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare state. I understand those concerns, which is why a transition plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt, eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and setting a firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the entitlement programs.

A final area that should be front and center in a constitutionalist's agenda is monetary policy. The Founders obviously did not intend for the president to have much influence over the nation's money — in fact, they never intended any part of the federal government to operate monetary policy as it defined now. However, today a president could play an important role in restoring stability to monetary policy and the value of the dollar. To start, by fighting for serious reductions in spending, a constitutionalist administration would remove one of the major justifications for the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies, the need to monetize government debt.

There are additional steps a pro-freedom president should pursue in his first term to restore sound monetary policy. He should ask Congress to pass two pieces of legislation I have introduced in the 110th Congress. The first is the Audit the Fed bill, which would allow the American people to learn just how the Federal Reserve has been conducting monetary policy. The other is the Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver. This would introduce competition in currency and put a check on the Federal Reserve by ensuring that people have alternatives to government-produced fiat money.

All of these measures will take a lot of work — a lot more than any one person, even the president of the United States, can accomplish by himself. In order to restore the country to the kind of government the Founders meant for us to have, a constitutionalist president would need the support of an active liberty movement. Freedom activists must be ready to pressure wavering legislators to stand up to the special interests and stay the course toward freedom. Thus, when the day comes when someone who shares our beliefs sits in the Oval Office, groups like Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty will still have a vital role to play. No matter how many pro-freedom politicians we elect to office, the only way to guarantee constitutional government is through an educated and activist public devoted to the ideals of the liberty.

For that reason, the work of Young Americans for Liberty in introducing young people to the freedom philosophy and getting them involved in the freedom movement is vital to the future of our country. I thank all the members and supporters of YAL for their dedication to changing the political debate in this country, so that in the not-too-distant future we actually will have a president and a Congress debating the best ways to shrink the welfare-warfare state and restore the republic.

[fisharmor]

Y'all are pretty much just dismissing instead of trying to come up with a win-win solution...

Actually I asked PFP to review a philosophical point that I think most of us agree on here, and point out where he disagrees or came to a different conclusion.
I'm still waiting, and I'm going to keep waiting... because as I also already insinuated, he hasn't yet rejected the fundamental belief of progressivism, which is that the sound of one's own voice is preferable to that of others.

Truth is an external phenomenon.

[jmdrake]

Y'all are pretty much just dismissing instead of trying to come up with a win-win solution...

Here's the win-win solution. Disillusioned progressives should go ahead and vote Ron Paul in the primary without strings attached. Obama's going to ruin unopposed, so there's no reason to vote in the democratic primaries unless you just really care about the party nominee for your house and/o senate race. If Ron Paul wins the nomination, for the first time there will be a serious debate on ending the wars. Asking Ron Paul to support a progressive consumption tax is a non starter. In fact I like that less than the income tax.

[erowe1]

Y'all are pretty much just dismissing instead of trying to come up with a win-win solution...

1) What jmdrake said.

2) We're really not in any position to negotiate on RP's behalf. We can give liberals reasons for why we think supporting RP is a good idea for them, but we can't offer to change what he is in exchange for their support.

3) For any sizable amount of support from Democrat crossover votes in the primary to be worth anything to Ron Paul's electoral chances, the process of winning those votes has to happen behind the scenes, and it can't be something that involves overt posturing on RP's part. He has to maintain credible deniability of any idea that he's the Republican candidate the Democrats most want us to nominate. I'm happy to see liberals who support him on their own, and do think that they have the potential to make the difference in his winning a handful of RNC delegates through the effect they can have on the primaries in certain Democrat-heavy congressional districts. But those who want to be involved in that should go into it with the understanding that they won't have the help of the official campaign.

[IDefendThePlatform]

The truth of your assertion is partly predicated on context. China, for example, runs a state-legitimized and a violently state-enforced slave labor market of such proportions that they wield enormous global market power. Because it is artificially contrived and maintained for the sake of providing a long-standing arbitrage opportunity, it distorts the market most grotesquely, thereby hurting everyone. China will not loosen its tyrannical grip on their slaves unless given no choice.

Tariffing the living shit our of their products such that they lose the artificially enforced advantage would, IMO, be the only sensible thing to do. Tariff them until they cry uncle, on their knees promising you anything. Tariff them until they lose so much money and market share that they loose their stranglehold on their slaves. Tariff them until they are forced to compete based on not just labor cost but quality and innovation. Make them cry uncle or cut them out of the largest consumer market on the planet. Make their system of slave labor hurt so much they will go running from it. There is no other way. Certainly, a nicely reasoned talking-to will not do the trick. They need to have their faces slapped hard enough to dash the taste out of their mouths. I would make it plain to China that if you want to continue doing business with the USA, they must toe a line of real free markets. Otherwise, they can go pound salt.

I disagree. If people in the USA disapprove of China's labor practices, then they can make their own decisions on whether or not to buy their products, not through government forced tariffs.

Its like Ron says, We need to spread our goodness around the world through ideas and example, not by force.



Edit: Sorry for the thread-jack. I welcome all progressives who want to vote for Ron Paul because they agree with him on enough issues. Thank you

[KurtBoyer25L]

He should reach out and bitch-slap you to China, where you all belong.

Finally SOMETHING you say makes some remote sense, though I'm willing to bet this is purely accidental.


This is really hateful and insulting. Someone from another camp comes to us in support/friendship and you make fun of them in such classless fashion? I wish I had the right to apologize for you, but I don't. I do hope the moderators notice.

[ds21089]

Tariffing the living shit our of their products such that they lose the artificially enforced advantage would, IMO, be the only sensible thing to do. Tariff them until they cry uncle, on their knees promising you anything. Tariff them until they lose so much money and market share that they loose their stranglehold on their slaves. Tariff them until they are forced to compete based on not just labor cost but quality and innovation. Make them cry uncle or cut them out of the largest consumer market on the planet. Make their system of slave labor hurt so much they will go running from it. There is no other way. Certainly, a nicely reasoned talking-to will not do the trick. They need to have their faces slapped hard enough to dash the taste out of their mouths. I would make it plain to China that if you want to continue doing business with the USA, they must toe a line of real free markets. Otherwise, they can go pound salt.

That's one way to create an enemy with a huge superpower whose economy is surpassing ours. Not to mention the population. $$ for weapons + billion people = something i'd rather not go against.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Right now the only people we care about are likely Republican primary voters!


If we get the nomination then we can consider how to attract people from the left. But that's a losing strategy during the primary.


In my mind, any disillusioned citizen who listens with an open mind becomes a "likely GOP primary voter," since their next opportunity to vote for Ron Paul is in the GOP primary. You may be applying the old unwritten rules of politics to a new phenomenon that defies them.

I'm going to Iowa to push the "Republican for a Day" movement among independents and social liberals. We'll see what happens. It can't hurt, and it feels more hopeful than praying for Palin/Huckabee/Romney voters to grow working brains.

[KurtBoyer25L]

1) For any sizable amount of support from Democrat crossover votes in the primary to be worth anything to Ron Paul's electoral chances, the process of winning those votes has to happen behind the scenes, and it can't be something that involves overt posturing on RP's part. He has to maintain credible deniability of any idea that he's the Republican candidate the Democrats most want us to nominate. I'm happy to see liberals who support him on their own, and do think that they have the potential to make the difference in his winning a handful of RNC delegates through the effect they can have on the primaries in certain Democrat-heavy congressional districts. But those who want to be involved in that should go into it with the understanding that they won't have the help of the official campaign.

I completely agree. But in an open-source grassroots campaign, I'm not sure the gap between "official" and unofficial is really that significant. We're all just RP supporters trying to reason with whoever we can & get more people on board. I don't need Ron to make special statements to placate liberals; I think there is plenty of ammo for reasonable persuasion already.

[osan]

Y'all are pretty much just dismissing instead of trying to come up with a win-win solution...

Wrong. Progressivism is pretty much the antithesis of liberty. They believe in large, oppressive, thieving government by force. The two philosophies are fundamentally incompatible. Trying to find a win-win between them is like trying to teach a pig to sing. One cannot have his cake and eat it as well. 100 years of one rank socialist failure after another should have demonstrated to even the least intelligent among us that things cannot be both ways. There is no freedom under a progressive ideology. There is only the violent mob of individuals calling themselves "the state" and all the rest who have the choice of toeing the mob's line of shit or suffering tremendous harms. There are no counter examples that you might name because these sorts of governance cannot operate any other way. Violence, theft, and buggery of the people are what these governments are all about. It is the fabric from which they are cut.

[osan]

That's one way to create an enemy with a huge superpower whose economy is surpassing ours. Not to mention the population. $$ for weapons + billion people = something i'd rather not go against.

Then the only alternative is to hoist the white flag. I'm not thrilled with that option. The Chinese government are a bunch of oppressive, thieving, slave mongering bastards. I would cut all economic ties with them.

[osan]

This is really hateful and insulting. Someone from another camp comes to us in support/friendship and you make fun of them in such classless fashion? I wish I had the right to apologize for you, but I don't. I do hope the moderators notice.

Grow up. There is no hate in what I wrote. There was unvarnished truth. Progressivism is evil. It may be well intended, but intentions are irrelevant. Reaching out to me with more of the same delusional nonsense doesn't help be one bit. Is that person willing to listen to reason? Chances are slim because over the past 30 years of discussing these same issues with them, never once has a so-called "progressive" been willing or able to grasp just how bankrupt their ideas are - how utterly disconnected from reality, and how utter disproven. There is virtually nothing they believe that makes any sense, save their demand to let the ***** suck each other. I'm all for such freedom, but beyond that we are pretty well on diametrically opposite ends of the belief spectrum.

I don't care how good one's intentions are. If they are harming me, I am not going to get all friendly. I am going to smack the crap out of them. You want to get into bed with the likes of them, by all means do so. I wish you the best luck. If you can get them to come around to reason, you will be the first and you should write a book and make millions on it, and I mean that sincerely. There's the old saying: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. After having given such people innumerable opportunities to come to reason I have come to the realization that reason is not one of their goals. All they care about is having their way, well intended or otherwise and no matter what anyone else thinks. They are a waste of time. I will alter this view when the evidence dictates I do so. Until then, I have far better things to do than waste my time in blind alleys.

[KurtBoyer25L]

My mind is made up. I'm voting for Ron Paul. Ron Paul has won me over for 2012. He needs to win alot more like me if he is to win the primary and the election so that your dream of parasitic liberals like myself getting off our lazy asses and working can be realized. He has already made a commitment to funding domestic programs in exchange for a net cut in total spending. Watch the whole of this video. it's less than 3 minutes. Toward the end you will hear it. I hope it does not turn you against him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx9a4hNeIRo&NR=1

Haha, I like.

Sorry for not responding to your PM yet. I'm still working on LiberalsforRonPaul.com and will be in touch.

Two points about domestic/entitlement/humanitarian spending:

1) Even if RP doesn't technically increase domestic spending, he will ensure that the money to fund Social Security, Medicaid and unemployment benefits is kept safe and not spent overseas. He has already proposed legislation to make it illegal for the congress or President to snag Social Security funds for any other purpose. He is also likely to divert much of the current funding for bank/corporate welfare to actual welfare for poor people.

2) The federal money given to those in need might stay about the same, but the dollars themselves will be worth more. Balancing the budget and restoring sound currency means relief from inflation. It doesn't put more paper in the pockets of the needy, but it does put more value in their pockets.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Grow up. There is no hate in what I wrote. There was unvarnished truth. Progressivism is evil. It may be well intended, but intentions are irrelevant. Reaching out to me with more of the same delusional nonsense doesn't help be one bit. Is that person willing to listen to reason? Chances are slim because over the past 30 years of discussing these same issues with them, never once has a so-called "progressive" been willing or able to grasp just how bankrupt their ideas are - how utterly disconnected from reality, and how utter disproven. There is virtually nothing they believe that makes any sense, save their demand to let the ***** suck each other. I'm all for such freedom, but beyond that we are pretty well on diametrically opposite ends of the belief spectrum.

I don't care how good one's intentions are. If they are harming me, I am not going to get all friendly. I am going to smack the crap out of them. You want to get into bed with the likes of them, by all means do so. I wish you the best luck. If you can get them to come around to reason, you will be the first and you should write a book and make millions on it, and I mean that sincerely. There's the old saying: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. After having given such people innumerable opportunities to come to reason I have come to the realization that reason is not one of their goals. All they care about is having their way, well intended or otherwise and no matter what anyone else thinks. They are a waste of time. I will alter this view when the evidence dictates I do so. Until then, I have far better things to do than waste my time in blind alleys.

Damn. I didn't realize I was being such a little kid. I guess I should grow up and go smack the crap out of some Chinese *****.

[erowe1]

I completely agree. But in an open-source grassroots campaign, I'm not sure the gap between "official" and unofficial is really that significant. We're all just RP supporters trying to reason with whoever we can & get more people on board. I don't need Ron to make special statements to placate liberals; I think there is plenty of ammo for reasonable persuasion already.

I think it's something the grassroots have to be careful about as well. I know that some efforts to win crossover votes will happen. We couldn't stop people from doing that if we wanted to. I hope they help him win, and I think they can. But it's the sort of thing that a forum like this should not allow to appear to be a major part of what the grassroots are doing. People who want to contribute to those efforts need to find ways to organize and spread their views that are less public than this.

If some union leader, or prominent Democrat pastor of a black church in Detroit, or Cindy Shehan, or anyone like that wants to go public in asking other Democrats to join them in voting for Ron Paul, that on its own could be a good thing. But if, after something like that happened, it became known that their endorsements came about through a concerted effort in wooing them by longstanding Republican Ron Paul supporters, it could end up just buttressing the oft-repeated claim that Ron Paul's supporters, and Ron Paul by extension, are bad for the party.

[osan]

I disagree. If people in the USA disapprove of China's labor practices, then they can make their own decisions on whether or not to buy their products, not through government forced tariffs.

Wrong. Take a good look at what stocks the shelves in most stores these days. For example, the other day I was looking for a toaster oven because the one we have will likely burn our house down if we do not replace it soon. I went to several large stores including <gasp> Walmart. I looked at between 50 and perhaps 75 different examples and every last one was made in China. I could list product line after product line where this is the case, so your assertion that we have choice is demonstrably false for many markets. Yes, people could just stop buying altogether, but how will that help the economy? It won't. And if Americans stopped buying, say, toaster ovens in-toto, do you really think China gives a shit? Europe will buy them, and South America and so on. Because China is the sole provider to so many markets, they wield huge market power and can withstand any protest US buyers might put up. And why should Americans, or anyone else, be forced to choose between buying something made in China or not buying at all? That is no solution.


Its like Ron says, We need to spread our goodness around the world through ideas and example, not by force.

Simplistic bullshit as stated. Yes, spread the notions by example, but as Teddy R. said, speak softly and carry a big stick. We have to have realistic means of convincing China to play nicely or we are just screwing ourselves. By all means hold ourselves up to the world as an example of how to run an economy. Start with real free markets and dispensing with this rigged-market bullshit. But even a real free market cannot thrive in the presence of an evil trading partner. Business is an ultimately pragmatic affair and if one of the players is cheating by providing subsidized slave labor, those pragmatic business people are going to run to them out of sheer necessity once the first player in a given sector has taken the bait. There is no possible way you can compete with $0.60/hr wages when you have to pay your own people $10/hr to do the same job. It is not even remotely possible, all else equal.

Free markets work ONLY when the markets of ALL trading partners are free. The moment a single player distorts the markets as wildly as has China, you are in very serious trouble. There is no way around this because the sort of artificial advantage they maintain forces the businesses from other nations to make use of their poisoned fruits. Even if the people do not want to buy from them, between China being a sold provider in many cases and the crash in the US standard of living, they are often presented with a highly unpalatable set of choices. That is not a hallmark of a free market.

The purpose of tariffing the hell out of Chinese imports is to offset their artificial advantage. Were the Chinese labor market free, people would by now be making several dollars per hour, already diminishing the labor cost advantage through the natural and organic tenency of stabilization through the factors of supply and demand.. Another decade and they would be perhaps within 15 or 20 percent of US rates and at that point I would call their labor market organically intact in those terms. At those rates, chances are better than even that many American manufacturers would return to the USA because it would no longer make sense to ship raw materials 6K miles west and then back in the form of finished product... at least assuming the asshole environmentalists were swept out of the way so that companies would actually be ABLE to resume operations here. Retaining Chinese manufacture for the Asian markets would perhaps make good sense, but might not for US/Europe/South America, and so forth.


I welcome all progressives who want to vote for Ron Paul because they agree with him on enough issues. Thank you

That has yet to be demonstrated. The OP listed a litany of ridiculous suggestions that, AFAIK, Ron Paul would not be so stupid as to oblige with. I would ask them this: you've been screwed up the ass by your political opponents such as neocons. You have been equally screwed in the ass by your own people such as Clinton and Obama. Given this truth, what do you have to lose by voting for Ron Paul? The worst that happens is four more years of getting screwed up the butt. We've been taking it for well over 100 years, so what's another four on even the slimmest chance that Ron may in fact prove even just marginally better than the klowns that have been paraded before us, especially since the Reagan era kicked off the age of the Klown Prezidents? Seriously, what in hell do you have to lose? As far as I can see, nothing because we are very close to the bottom of the barrel at this point - up to our eyes in debt, broke, morally bankrupt, oppressed, a likely catastrophic monetary failure in the works... we teeter and the status quo is not going to pull us back from the edge. The worst that will happen is Ron will hasten the fall. Big frigging deal. But what if it doesn't happen? What if his ideas prove correct and, with a willing Congress (another monumental challenge we all face), we begin a real recovery and not this phony nonsense Obama tries to sell us? We have precious little to lose at this point by giving the man a chance. If he fucks it up worse, we can vote him out in '16.

I am fond of reminding people of the old definition of insanity: doing the same things over and over, expecting different results. That is what we have been doing for more decades than I have been alive, and things get worse and worse. Call me crazy, but this fits the definition to a 'T'. How's about we all go completely nuts and try something really different, like electing Ron Paul? At least have the guts to give him a try.

[BarryDonegan]

I think for a presidential candidate to outline how much excise tax revenue he expects to bring in with his new tax on legalized heroin might not be the best rhetorical strategy to win votes. HAHAHA

[showpan]

Two points about domestic/entitlement/humanitarian spending:

1) Even if RP doesn't technically increase domestic spending, he will ensure that the money to fund Social Security, Medicaid and unemployment benefits is kept safe and not spent overseas. He has already proposed legislation to make it illegal for the congress or President to snag Social Security funds for any other purpose. He is also likely to divert much of the current funding for bank/corporate welfare to actual welfare for poor people.

2) The federal money given to those in need might stay about the same, but the dollars themselves will be worth more. Balancing the budget and restoring sound currency means relief from inflation. It doesn't put more paper in the pockets of the needy, but it does put more value in their pockets.[/QUOTE]

If you listen closely to what Ron has to say, this is correct. The Democrat spin on cutting entitlement programs has been embellished to make it sound as if he is going to give SS and Medicare the ax, he didn't say it. He stated that they were in trouble and would soon be bankrupt because of the neocon policies. He also stated that he would basically follow what the PEOPLE desired. If they wanted to opt out, they could. If they wanted medicare, then so be it. He prefers to let the people provide for themselves since the government is robbing them blind. This should be made much clearer for those who don't understand this.

Another point about a post that was made on behalf of green energy. There is little market for solar energy because companies like Chevron buy patents and half of solar manufacturing in order to keep the prices high and stifle research for an efficient economical product. The technology is actually there now, the implementation has been blocked by energy companies who wish to block it.

[osan]

Damn. I didn't realize I was being such a little kid. I guess I should grow up and go smack the crap out of some Chinese *****.

How about addressing the points instead of responding with this nonsense? If you disagree with my opinions, then refute them. What you offered added nothing of value to this discourse. You chose to interpret my words as "hate". Jesus... give me a break, please. And arm, a leg, even a collarbone. I am pointing out that so-called progressivism is antithetical to liberty. If you disagree, please demonstrate how I am mistaken.

If progressives want something better than the hand puppets to which we have been treated since the reign of Reagan, they might wish to try something new, which would require a suspension of their delusional belief systems long enough to drop a vote for Ron and see whether there is anyone actually worth voting for or that they are indeed all the same. For pity's sake, people went on and on about how the great black Obama was the answer to all our woes. They got their shot not only by putting him in office, but by holding firm majorities in both houses. Yet for two full years Obama and his back-pocket Congress inexplicably screwed all of us into the ground up to our collective eyeballs so much so that even democrats and progressives are stopping just short of asking for his pea-brained head on a platter. HELLO.

We've had decades of ever increased progressivism. It has failed. Utterly. Profoundly. Embarrassingly. Dangerously. Time to buy a clue and try something else, would you not say? Demanding Ron take up the progressive agenda is utter, barking madness. What manner of rank and raving insanity would lead any progressive to think that a man with his head screwed on as well as Ron's appears to me to be would so much as waste his time laughing at such recommendations? We have run ourselves face first into a brick wall over and over. At this point it seems the best course of action would be to start by no longer doing this. Give the face some time to heal, then walk AROUND the wall so we can finally get on with more constructive and profitable endeavors.

[KurtBoyer25L]

How about addressing the points instead of responding with this nonsense? If you disagree with my opinions, then refute them. What you offered added nothing of value to this discourse. You chose to interpret my words as "hate". Jesus... give me a break, please. And arm, a leg, even a collarbone. I am pointing out that so-called progressivism is antithetical to liberty. If you disagree, please demonstrate how I am mistaken.

If progressives want something better than the hand puppets to which we have been treated since the reign of Reagan, they might wish to try something new, which would require a suspension of their delusional belief systems long enough to drop a vote for Ron and see whether there is anyone actually worth voting for or that they are indeed all the same. For pity's sake, people went on and on about how the great black Obama was the answer to all our woes. They got their shot not only by putting him in office, but by holding firm majorities in both houses. Yet for two full years Obama and his back-pocket Congress inexplicably screwed all of us into the ground up to our collective eyeballs so much so that even democrats and progressives are stopping just short of asking for his pea-brained head on a platter. HELLO.

We've had decades of ever increased progressivism. It has failed. Utterly. Profoundly. Embarrassingly. Dangerously. Time to buy a clue and try something else, would you not say? Demanding Ron take up the progressive agenda is utter, barking madness. What manner of rank and raving insanity would lead any progressive to think that a man with his head screwed on as well as Ron's appears to me to be would so much as waste his time laughing at such recommendations? We have run ourselves face first into a brick wall over and over. At this point it seems the best course of action would be to start by no longer doing this. Give the face some time to heal, then walk AROUND the wall so we can finally get on with more constructive and profitable endeavors.

You need to understand that I'm not arguing with your intellectual points but your manners. You come on basically telling PFP that he's stupid, and that you want to kick his stupid (and evil) ass all the way to China, or whatever. Bad form. Saying "think like me or get out of my country, you evil retard" is NOT a suitable or grownup means of argument. It hurts our movement to be so unkind and disrespectful to someone who wishes to help. PFP is voting for Ron Paul. He wants to help us win. Let's save the Archie Bunker stuff for people who will never vote for our guy and who want us to lose.

[progressiveforpaul]

You need to understand that I'm not arguing with your intellectual points but your manners. You come on basically telling PFP that he's stupid, and that you want to kick his stupid (and evil) ass all the way to China, or whatever. Bad form. Saying "think like me or get out of my country, you evil retard" is NOT a suitable or grownup means of argument. It hurts our movement to be so unkind and disrespectful to someone who wishes to help. PFP is voting for Ron Paul. He wants to help us win. Let's save the Archie Bunker stuff for people who will never vote for our guy and who want us to lose.

Kurt,
i think he was only trying to compete with the comments to my posts on the daily kos.

[Matt Collins]

In my mind, any disillusioned citizen who listens with an open mind becomes a "likely GOP primary voter," That's because you don't have any political experience apparently.



You may be applying the old unwritten rules of politics to a new phenomenon that defies them. No, winning elections is a science which means it's math. Just like the fundamental rules of economics don't just magically disappear when a new product is brought to market, the fundamental rules of campaigning don't change just because one has an out-of-the-box candidate.


I'm going to Iowa to push the "Republican for a Day" movement among independents and social liberals. We'll see what happens. It can't hurt, and it feels more hopeful than praying for Palin/Huckabee/Romney voters to grow working brains.Yeah, it's wasting time. Your efforts could be much more effective working on getting Republicans to vote for him.

[Matt Collins]

KY was a small state without an incumbent. That strategy cannot be duplicated nationally.

I don't necessarily agree. There's not going to be a contested Democrat primary so a lot of progressives/left leaning independents who can't stand the corporatist/war state we're in who may be intrigued by the idea of voting for Ron Paul in the primary.
Yall fail to understand inertia.

Any business 101 class knows that it's much easier to retain existing customers than to acquire new ones. It's cheaper and more efficient to do so.

Likewise, any political science major from the local community college knows that it's easier to get people within your own party to vote for your guy in a primary than it is to get outsiders to overcome the threshold of actually changing party registration and voting in another primary they wouldn't have normally voted in (especially in closed primary states).

Why take 3 steps to victory when we could just take 1 step instead? :confused:

[progressiveforpaul]

Yall fail to understand inertia.

Any business 101 class knows that it's much easier to retain existing customers than to acquire new ones. It's cheaper and more efficient to do so.

Likewise, any political science major from the local community college knows that it's easier to get people within your own party to vote for your guy in a primary than it is to get outsiders to overcome the threshold of actually changing party registration and voting in another primary they wouldn't have normally voted in (especially in closed primary states).

Why take 3 steps to victory when we could just take 1 step instead? :confused:

Matt, You, no doubt, are a politically savy guy and what you are saying makes sense under ordinary circumstances. We face huge debt and big choices that are rushing in at us. i think that most Americans across the political spectrum are totally distrustful of the two parties and the conventional candidates. many of us on the left were hopeful that Obama would make real changes when he got in office. You are right that every republican voter needs to be pursued but there is a rare opportunity in this election that also needs to be pursued: a real peace candidate and a growing number of disenchanted progressives who have nobody to vote for in the Democratic primary. I cannot remember in my life time a situation like this. I never thought i would ever vote in a Republican primary for a candidate whom i want to be president. And here is the realism that you do not seem to get: Ron Paul does not stand a chance of being nominated much less elected without a huge surge of progressives shifting his way. Tell me the scenario in which Paul gets the nomination without progressives. You mention Rand in KY. This is a different situation. Let's imagine for a second that progressives stay put and RP finishes 1st or 2nd in the Iowa caucus. Within minutes the Palins and Romeys and Huckabees will be on the phone with each other (their operatives actually) and they will make a deal to put a corporatist and a cultural populist ticket together and let everyone else drop out of the race with whatever political bribes they need to get that accomplished. And then huge sums of money that dwarf what Obama did last time will pour in overnight. In less than a week ads will go up all over NH and SC running on every network 5 to 10 times an hour making a demon from the pits of hell out of Ron Paul. Unbeleivable pressure will be mounted on the media to discredit Ron Paul. What sympathy he garners will be insignificant compared to the fear that these money monsters will engender everywhere. Now if you can't see that scenario as happening i question whether you have actually ever voted. I agree that inertia is ruthless but fear is unfathomable. His election is a long shot under my strategy but it is down right impossible under yours.

[osan]

You need to understand that I'm not arguing with your intellectual points but your manners.

You misread my words/tone. Easily done, given the limitations of the medium. I was not being ill mannered and NOWHERE did I say he was stupid. Merely typically delusional. The fail that the progressive worldview engenders has been demonstrated apodictically more times in my own experience than I could count on all my fingers, toes, and body hairs. The logic is almost a standard, is unbreakable, and demonstrates how utterly disconnected the ideology is from reality. The OP posted a litany of mostly ridiculous demands/suggestions and I called him on them on a point by point basis. I admit I got a little out there when I questioned the basis of the first point where I considered some sense to be showing, but that was not in the spirit of disrespect. It was based on 30 years of listening to the same broken record from their ilk and observing the goat-stubborn intransigence of such people. They simply refuse to accept reason, preferring to hang on to their wholly stilted notions of what is right no matter how forcefully or artfully their beliefs are demonstrated as unsound. After a while one gets sick of the SOS being spewed. So despite my perfectly reasonable basis for making my expression of doubt, I will apologize in the event the OP took offense.

Unlike so-called "progressives", I have listened to their positions with an open mind. I have seen that in some cases their formal arguments are cogent. But thus far, they have universally failed reason by way of the psychotic assumptions they employ as the basis for those otherwise formally valid arguments. Their failures lay almost entirely in the ridiculous assumptions they bring to the table. They refuse to let go of those idiotic beliefs, and so I must dismiss then as maliciously disingenuous, lacking the intellectual capacity to understand how they have gone off the rails, or are a bunch of kooks. Don't know which it is - don't much care. Experience has shown that up to this point they cannot be reasoned with, so I don't waste my time. If a given individual is willing to be shown just how it is that their basis for belief is stoned, I am happy to discuss the issues intelligently. I will not, however, waste time on those people who have no interest or capacity for truthful, capable reason.


You come on basically telling PFP that he's stupid,

You may want to go back and read a bit more carefully. I rarely indulge myself in ad hominem attacks, and only if I am having a particularly bad day and should otherwise be holding my tongue. Being human, I fuck up at times.


and that you want to kick his stupid (and evil) ass all the way to China, or whatever.

Not HIS. I was referring to the group in general. And as far as I am concerned, such malice/stupidity should be addressed with some force because it stands as a threat to my liberty and I don't cotton to that. Believe what nonsense you wish, but keep it to yourself. Put your hand in my pocket and you stand to lose it. I do not suffer robbery quietly. If others do, well then good for them if it makes them happy.


Saying "think like me or get out of my country, you evil retard"

Talk about bad form - you make incorrect use of quotes, directly implying that I wrote those words, which I believe I did not, nor did I imply them in any measure. I did, however, ask why all those people have not moved to China if progressivism is so virtuous and wonderful? China is far and away closer to their ideal than is the USA. I will tell you why: because at the bottom of it, the typical progressive knows just how horrible a place China really is in political terms and would not move there in a thousand years of Sundays. And therein lies another objection I hold for progressives - they tend to be rank hypocrites in the sense that they want their cake and eat it too. They want all the bright shiny bits of their ideal without any of the dark and evil reality that is part and parcel of the philosophy's very fabric. They want to believe that you can have at no cost this bunnies and light society where everyone is taken care of for free and we are all happy workers in the fields, hoeing and digging and shoveling shit all day, reading Mao's little red book on our 10 minute lunch break in lieu of eating. They believe it will all be doable without the gulags and reeducation camps and the 10 minute drumhead trials and swift executions. They believe in what can never be and in my experience universally, blindly, hatefully, and graspingly refuse to consider reality beyond their ill conceived fantasy world.


PFP is voting for Ron Paul. He wants to help us win.

Great. Note that Ron has made no announcements regarding his adoption of so much as a single progressive agenda element. Given this and the vote for, what was the point of the OP?

PS: if he is voting to Ron, his status as a "progressive" would seem to be in some question at this point.

[erowe1]

Yeah, it's wasting time. Your efforts could be much more effective working on getting Republicans to vote for him.

The thing is, Matt, we have people in the grassroots who want to reach out to liberals, and who are more comfortable doing that, and who will be more enthusiastic in doing that, than they would be doing things that would help win over traditional likely GOP voters. These folks are more likely to have families and circles of friends who are Democrats than a lot of the rest of us. They're more likely to be involved in liberal action groups of various kinds. And, in many cases, they are people who we don't really want anywhere near a likely Republican voter, because they'll only reinforce that voter's perception of RP as not a true conservative. If these folks want to reach out to liberals, I say we encourage them to do that. Rather than say that it shouldn't be done, we should say that it should be done in an intelligent way.

[osan]

Centralized power is generally corrupting.

A popular misconception. Power, centralized or otherwise, corrupts nothing. It is like saying electricity corrupts. Power is utterly neutral in character in this respect. All power does is enable that which wields it. PEOPLE are corrupt. People are honest. People are this or that because they choose to be.


Decentralizing power involves redistributing wealth.

Please describe in detail how this is to. I am not sure I understand this properly.



This gets done all the time...it is the very nature of economics.

In an organically sound economy, the shifts in wealth are never affected through force and violence, but through commerce and competition. The two are not the same.



the best way to do it is through a combination of private sector competition and truly democratic public sector investment.

Large statement. Please demonstrate how this is so, particularly that last part.


If you don't have revenue to do this wealth and the power it creates and sustains will continue to be centralized and corrupt.

Assuming I am reading you 5x5, this is utterly incorrect. The concentrations of power as they exist today came about PRECISELY because of governmental interference in the markets. That interference protected the stakes of the big players way back when and preserve them to this day. Removing all this regulatory bullshit and allowing organically sound free markets to be what they are is the best way to solve the problems we face.


you do have a strong negotiating position but so do we progressives. if progressives are told we are gutting social security, medicare medicaid and the rest of the domestic budget along with the MIC, you are not going to get enough of us on board for Ron paul to win the primary, much less the election.

More leftist tripe, pardon me. Nobody is talking about gutting anything. I would, however, phase all these programs out over the coming 30 years. I would remove all corporate protection schemes and let the players slug it out in the free markets. I would maintain a regulatory presence against collusion and other such wealth- and liberty-destroying activities and I would give those attempting to engage in such criminal acts very long stints of turning large rocks into small ones.

[progressiveforpaul]

Y'all are pretty much just dismissing instead of trying to come up with a win-win solution...
I think there are some win-win solutions. It is hard to get there when ideological pride and political tribalism have such a huge grip on us. It is a bit easier if we imagine that we could both get more of what we want working with each other than with the corporatists of our two parties. Even if we are convinced that in the end there is only one way to skin a cat, we ought to know that we are not getting to that destination instantaneously. If we just relax for a moment and allow for the possibility that the other might just have a thought or an idea that we have not considered and that might actually not harm our goals but get us closer to them, we might find our way forward. I have mentioned several ideas and certainly they need to be fleshed out. for example, the idea of a progressive consumption tax as advocated by Robert Frank. such an idea gets rid of the income tax and appeals to the libertarian idea of voluntarism (an idea I am dubious of) while it maintains the principle of progressivism, to whom much is given is much expected (actually that was Jesus' idea long before we progressives existed).

[KurtBoyer25L]

Great. Note that Ron has made no announcements regarding his adoption of so much as a single progressive agenda element. Given this and the vote for, what was the point of the OP?

PS: if he is voting to Ron, his status as a "progressive" would seem to be in some question at this point.

This might sound weird, but in a way you're giving liberalism too much credit. Pop-progressive ideology is not a consistent, sound moral code or political blueprint the way that libertarianism is. This isn't meant as a subjective insult but an objective observation; liberals often willingly define themselves as hardcore pragmatists. For instance, it's a direct contradiction of principle to be anti-war and pro-heavy/involuntary taxation, or pro-civil liberties and anti-local education, or pro-central economic planning and anti-enforcement of immigration laws. Many in the art community (the biggest den of collectivists-statists) reject classical philosophy, so they don't feel a need to think soundly. To be blunt, most trendy liberals just read Critique of Pure Reason at age 18 and their brains subsequently fell out.

Therefore, the left-wing side of any issue is not necessarily in opposition to the libertarian's directly, or at all. It's not always two football teams driving for opposing goalposts. I'm not arguing that Ron came around to being a progressive or that he ever would! I'm saying that in many instances his agenda is the same as the far left's agenda. They won't always agree on basic principle, especially since one side doesn't always lead from principle. But it doesn't make you a liberal to agree with them, on war, or drugs, or civil rights, or torture. Ron does not need to adopt new positions to appeal to progressives, he already appeals to them with his established positions.

(I wasn't quoting you w/ "evil retard" but just paraphrasing and extrapolating to make a clearer point. I apologize for any misleading grammar. Thank you for taking such a long time responding, I read it all and agree with much of what you say. However, I still feel strongly that we don't ever help our cause by talking down to people.)

[KurtBoyer25L]

That's because you don't have any political experience apparently.

I really don't get your condescension. I could sit and talk about my political street cred, but it's not relevant. This is an unprecedented campaign. There has never been a candidate or a movement quite like this one. Besides, I know kids who helped Obama get elected who were in 8th grade during the 2004 cycle. A lack of experience obviously didn't hurt them too badly. Nor did Obama's focus on activating & Dem-registering college students turn out to be a waste of time.


No, winning elections is a science which means it's math. Just like the fundamental rules of economics don't just magically disappear when a new product is brought to market, the fundamental rules of campaigning don't change just because one has an out-of-the-box candidate.

The analogy fails because most of the population is actively involved in the economy. Most of the population have not been politically motivated enough to vote in primaries. There is tremendous untapped potential there. Why is "Ron Paul Cured My Apathy" a popular slogan? Are the people who wear those T-shirts all converted Bush activists & hardcore primary voters from before Ron came along in 2007? If so, why don't they wear "Ron Paul Shaved My Bush" or something?

Also, don't confuse traditionally successful tactics with fundamental rules. The only fundamental rule here is that the winner will get more votes than the second place candidate.


Yeah, it's wasting time. Your efforts could be much more effective working on getting Republicans to vote for him.

Why can't I do both? So I have this project to sway independents and casual liberals. It doesn't mean I have to sit in Starbucks for a year. I will still donate as much money as I can to the general campaign. I will gladly go door-to-door. I'll be volunteering to help C4L in Iowa & NH in any way they ask. I am organizing a RP meetup at my house for campaigning in my county in MO, and it will be littered with Republicans. But I suppose you'd rather I have 20 Republicans and 20 empty chairs than 20 Republicans and 20 independent social liberals? Sometimes, you can add without subtracting, which I believe is taught in Math 101.


Yall fail to understand inertia.

Any business 101 class knows that it's much easier to retain existing customers than to acquire new ones. It's cheaper and more efficient to do so.

Likewise, any political science major from the local community college knows that it's easier to get people within your own party to vote for your guy in a primary than it is to get outsiders to overcome the threshold of actually changing party registration and voting in another primary they wouldn't have normally voted in (especially in closed primary states).

Why take 3 steps to victory when we could just take 1 step instead?

You're using an Argument from Authority. Aren't a lot of Economics 101 teachers Keynesians? Didn't a lot of political professors write libertarianism off completely a long time ago? Why should we listen to only traditional opinions now?

I disagree that day-of registering/voting for non-GOP folks involves "3 steps." I see two steps -- registering & voting, available in the same place, same day. And what if Paul and Romney end up a dead heat in polls of former GOP primary voters? You're saying if we got 5% of all non-GOP college kids to take 1-3 hours out of a year and vote for Ron, it won't help? What about the libertarians in YAL, are they 100% registered Republicans, even the ones who were < 18 in 2008? If not, why involve them?

There is no reason not to lay a groundwork for attracting non-Republicans well before the general election gets here, if we can do so in a way that does not hurt or subtract from the GOP-campaigning effort. By the logic you're using, we should wait until we score the tying TD before we think about finding a kicker & practicing the extra point for the win.

[KurtBoyer25L]

The thing is, Matt, we have people in the grassroots who want to reach out to liberals, and who are more comfortable doing that, and who will be more enthusiastic in doing that, than they would be doing things that would help win over traditional likely GOP voters. These folks are more likely to have families and circles of friends who are Democrats than a lot of the rest of us. They're more likely to be involved in liberal action groups of various kinds. And, in many cases, they are people who we don't really want anywhere near a likely Republican voter, because they'll only reinforce that voter's perception of RP as not a true conservative. If these folks want to reach out to liberals, I say we encourage them to do that. Rather than say that it shouldn't be done, we should say that it should be done in an intelligent way.

I come from a Republican family but I've gotten to know a lot of liberals in my life as a musician. I consider libertarians like myself to be outside the liberal/conservative dichotomy, but I know how to present myself to both sides. I don't talk about drugs to churchy conservatives, and I don't bring up abortion to liberal hippies. I do talk to the hippies about the Fed because the devaluation of currency hits poor people the hardest.

[Matt Collins]

Matt, You, no doubt, are a politically savy guy and what you are saying makes sense under ordinary circumstances.Electoral math (political science) doesn't change just because you have an unique candidate. The laws of physics don't change just because you are flying an airplane instead of a helicopter.




I never thought i would ever vote in a Republican primary for a candidate whom i want to be president. The fact that you are even posting on this forum means that you are very unique and different from others. Your (our) passion is not replicated amongst the masses.



And here is the realism that you do not seem to get: Ron Paul does not stand a chance of being nominated much less elected without a huge surge of progressives shifting his way. Incorrect.





Tell me the scenario in which Paul gets the nomination without progressives.Real simple, appeal to the conservative base of the party just like Rand did.



What sympathy he garners will be insignificant compared to the fear that these money monsters will engender everywhere. Now if you can't see that scenario as happening i question whether you have actually ever voted. I agree that inertia is ruthless but fear is unfathomable. His election is a long shot under my strategy but it is down right impossible under yours.What math do you have to back up your claim?

[Matt Collins]

The thing is, Matt, we have people in the grassroots who want to reach out to liberals, and who are more comfortable doing that, and who will be more enthusiastic in doing that, than they would be doing things that would help win over traditional likely GOP voters. These folks are more likely to have families and circles of friends who are Democrats than a lot of the rest of us. They're more likely to be involved in liberal action groups of various kinds. And, in many cases, they are people who we don't really want anywhere near a likely Republican voter, because they'll only reinforce that voter's perception of RP as not a true conservative. If these folks want to reach out to liberals, I say we encourage them to do that. Rather than say that it shouldn't be done, we should say that it should be done in an intelligent way.If they want to spin their wheels, pound sand, walk the treadmil, etc, then that is what they want to do. I want to win the election.

[Matt Collins]

I really don't get your condescension. I could sit and talk about my political street cred, but it's not relevant. This is an unprecedented campaign. Political science doesn't change just because we have an unique candidate.




The analogy fails because most of the population is actively involved in the economy. Most of the population have not been politically motivated enough to vote in primaries. There is tremendous untapped potential there. Why is "Ron Paul Cured My Apathy" a popular slogan? Are the people who wear those T-shirts all converted Bush activists & hardcore primary voters from before Ron came along in 2007? If so, why don't they wear "Ron Paul Shaved My Bush" or something?

Also, don't confuse traditionally successful tactics with fundamental rules. The only fundamental rule here is that the winner will get more votes than the second place candidate. You're still not understanding this and I'm honestly getting tired of talking to a brick wall. :rolleyes: :(




Why can't I do both? You can do whatever you want. But if you want Ron to win a Republican primary, then you will have to focus on Republicans.



So I have this project to sway independents and casual liberals. It doesn't mean I have to sit in Starbucks for a year. I will still donate as much money as I can to the general campaign. I will gladly go door-to-door. I'll be volunteering to help C4L in Iowa & NH in any way they ask. I am organizing a RP meetup at my house for campaigning in my county in MO, and it will be littered with Republicans. But I suppose you'd rather I have 20 Republicans and 20 empty chairs than 20 Republicans and 20 independent social liberals? Sometimes, you can add without subtracting, which I believe is taught in Math 101. Inertia. Getting large amounts of liberals to vote in a Republican primary is harder than getting large amounts of Republicans to vote for a Republican candidate. I don't want to sound like Palin, but it IS common sense.



You're using an Argument from Authority. Aren't a lot of Economics 101 teachers Keynesians? Didn't a lot of political professors write libertarianism off completely a long time ago? Why should we listen to only traditional opinions now? Because they are proven and they work. We tried "unconventional" back in 2008 and look where it got us electorally.

Maybe we should use tried and true methods this time around, eh?

I mean it worked for Rand.



There is no reason not to lay a groundwork for attracting non-Republicans well before the general election gets here, if we can do so in a way that does not hurt or subtract from the GOP-campaigning effort. By the logic you're using, we should wait until we score the tying TD before we think about finding a kicker & practicing the extra point for the win.During the Republican primary, the only people that matter are Republican primary voters. It's just that simple.

[erowe1]

If they want to spin their wheels, pound sand, walk the treadmil, etc, then that is what they want to do. I want to win the election.

John McCain beat Bush in the Michigan primary in 2000 because of Democrat crossover votes. Hillary undoubtedly won a lot of delegates against Obama in 2008 because of Republican crossover votes. I don't think that it's spinning wheels for certain people to work on getting crossover votes for RP, especially for people who are better positioned to do that than they are to canvass traditional Republicans, and especially in certain Democrat-heavy districts.

[VegasPatriot]

I really don't get your condescension. I could sit and talk about my political street cred, but it's not relevant. This is an unprecedented campaign. There has never been a candidate or a movement quite like this one. Besides, I know kids who helped Obama get elected who were in 8th grade during the 2004 cycle. A lack of experience obviously didn't hurt them too badly. Nor did Obama's focus on activating & Dem-registering college students turn out to be a waste of time.



The analogy fails because most of the population is actively involved in the economy. Most of the population have not been politically motivated enough to vote in primaries. There is tremendous untapped potential there. Why is "Ron Paul Cured My Apathy" a popular slogan? Are the people who wear those T-shirts all converted Bush activists & hardcore primary voters from before Ron came along in 2007? If so, why don't they wear "Ron Paul Shaved My Bush" or something?

Also, don't confuse traditionally successful tactics with fundamental rules. The only fundamental rule here is that the winner will get more votes than the second place candidate.



Why can't I do both? So I have this project to sway independents and casual liberals. It doesn't mean I have to sit in Starbucks for a year. I will still donate as much money as I can to the general campaign. I will gladly go door-to-door. I'll be volunteering to help C4L in Iowa & NH in any way they ask. I am organizing a RP meetup at my house for campaigning in my county in MO, and it will be littered with Republicans. But I suppose you'd rather I have 20 Republicans and 20 empty chairs than 20 Republicans and 20 independent social liberals? Sometimes, you can add without subtracting, which I believe is taught in Math 101.



You're using an Argument from Authority. Aren't a lot of Economics 101 teachers Keynesians? Didn't a lot of political professors write libertarianism off completely a long time ago? Why should we listen to only traditional opinions now?

I disagree that day-of registering/voting for non-GOP folks involves "3 steps." I see two steps -- registering & voting, available in the same place, same day. And what if Paul and Romney end up a dead heat in polls of former GOP primary voters? You're saying if we got 5% of all non-GOP college kids to take 1-3 hours out of a year and vote for Ron, it won't help? What about the libertarians in YAL, are they 100% registered Republicans, even the ones who were < 18 in 2008? If not, why involve them?

There is no reason not to lay a groundwork for attracting non-Republicans well before the general election gets here, if we can do so in a way that does not hurt or subtract from the GOP-campaigning effort. By the logic you're using, we should wait until we score the tying TD before we think about finding a kicker & practicing the extra point for the win.

+ rep Points well made… all of which will be ignored by Matt.


If they want to spin their wheels, pound sand, walk the treadmil, etc, then that is what they want to do. I want to win the election.

You apparently consider yourself “The Legend” so it would be nice if you started acting like one on this subject. You obviously have a total logic fail with your ‘anything other than specifically targeting registered republicans is a waste of time’ shtick.

Do you fail to realize many RP supporters can multitask? You suggest we invest all efforts in targeting existing republicans only (that is the strategy to use only after the deadline to register republican). You must realize one could talk until they are blue in the face, and a significant percentage of republicans will never support RP as a delegate. So instead of wasting all our efforts on some people we will never convince… instead tap into a vast resource of potential RP republicans by encouraging non republicans to become Ron Paul Republicans up until the deadline to register republican (then go all out targeting republicans). It happened in a BIG way here in Nevada in 2008, I seen and was a part of it. We can do both. By limiting our resources now to “beating a dead horse” is the waste of time.

You obviously don’t and won’t agree with me on this and that’s fine… we can agree to disagree. But I get sick of seeing you insult people by telling them their ideas are a waste of time. You are being counterproductive. If you want to be the “Legend” you think you are… stop discouraging enthusiastic supporters just because they have a different strategy.

[smokemonsc]

Everyone has their opinion - here's mine :)

I will form coalitions with those who share a belief of mine if the goal is to realize that belief. I will not compromise my principles. Two different things.

[Matt Collins]

John McCain beat Bush in the Michigan primary in 2000 because of Democrat crossover votes. Can you please cite the numbers? :confused:


Hillary undoubtedly won a lot of delegates against Obama in 2008 because of Republican crossover votes. :confused::confused: What are you talking about? Cite your source PLEASE.

[Matt Collins]

Do you fail to realize many RP supporters can multitask?
Resources, including time, is finite. That means you must use it most effectively.



You suggest we invest all efforts in targeting existing republicans only (that is the strategy to use only after the deadline to register republican). You must realize one could talk until they are blue in the face, and a significant percentage of republicans will never support RP as a delegate. So instead of wasting all our efforts on some people we will never convince… instead tap into a vast resource of potential RP republicans by encouraging non republicans to become Ron Paul Republicans up until the deadline to register republican (then go all out targeting republicans). It happened in a BIG way here in Nevada in 2008, I seen and was a part of it. We can do both. By limiting our resources now to “beating a dead horse” is the waste of time. Again, it is easier to convince Republican primary voters to support Ron Paul than to get non-Republicans to vote in a Republican primary for Ron Paul.

[Brian4Liberty]

John McCain beat Bush in the Michigan primary in 2000 because of Democrat crossover votes. Hillary undoubtedly won a lot of delegates against Obama in 2008 because of Republican crossover votes. I don't think that it's spinning wheels for certain people to work on getting crossover votes for RP, especially for people who are better positioned to do that than they are to canvass traditional Republicans, and especially in certain Democrat-heavy districts.

Yeah, it might work in an Open Primary State, as a Primary strategy. California is not open for Presidential Primaries, and most people will not change Parties just for one vote. As for the General election, the majority of Progressives will vote for the Democrat or Third Party before voting for a Republican.

-----

Our best chance to gain votes are with Independents.

Feel free to attempt to convert Progressives. Don't expect a lot of pay off for the effort.

[erowe1]

Can you please cite the numbers? :confused:

:confused::confused: What are you talking about? Cite your source PLEASE.

Given how your tone in this thread has been that of someone who fancies himself an expert on the subject, I shouldn't really have to do your research for you. But here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/23/us/2000-campaign-overview-mccain-rebounds-michigan-buoyed-big-crossover-vote-wins.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/politics/03crossover.html

I don't know how many states this affected in 2008. But speaking from the perspective of someone who was on the ground here in Indiana, which Hillary won very narrowly, I am pretty positive that Republican crossover votes in Hillary's favor made up far more than the difference she beat Obama by. The Republican contest had been long over by the time of our state's primary, and I spoke to many hardcore Republicans who were voting for Hillary in "Operation Chaos." I thought it was stupid, and ended up helping Obama win Indiana in the general election. But it definitely happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Democratic_primary,_2008

[erowe1]

Yeah, it might work in an Open Primary State, as a Primary strategy. California is not open for Presidential Primaries, and most people will not change Parties just for one vote. As for the General election, the majority of Progressives will vote for the Democrat or Third Party before voting for a Republican.

-----

Our best chance to gain votes are with Independents.

Feel free to attempt to convert Progressives. Don't expect a lot of pay off for the effort.

There are a lot of open primary states. And, if I understand this (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/09/local/la-me-election-props-20100609) correctly, California is now one of them.

I agree that crossover votes can't be the main goal of the campaign. But where liberals want to help us by getting their friends to do that, we shouldn't turn them down. Yes, you're right, the effectiveness of it will depend on geography. The places where it will be most effective will be in open primary states, especially ones that award RNC delegates by congressional district, and it will be in those congressional districts that are most Dem. heavy that it will make the most difference.

[Brian4Liberty]

California is a modified open primary, where Parties can decide if their ballot will be "open". During Presidential primaries, they opt for "closed". Believe me, this was difficult to get across during the 08 primary.

[erowe1]

California is a modified open primary, where Parties can decide if their ballot will be "open". During Presidential primaries, they opt for "closed". Believe me, this was difficult to get across during the 08 primary.

But didn't that change with that 2010 ballot initiative?

California is definitely a state where crossover votes could make a difference if it is open. I'm pretty sure that they award 3 delegates to the winner of each congressional district. Some cd's are so overwhelmingly Dem (especially Pelosi's), that if just 3% of Dems crossed over and voted for RP there, it would make up the equivalent of 12% of the votes in the GOP primary. I could easily see that happening (if it's an open primary at least), and if certain properly placed grassroots people were working on it, it could take less total resources to pull off than winning other more Republican-heavy districts. There are some places where the rules of thumb about low hanging fruit are going to be different than what they usually are, and the value of delegates from those places shouldn't be discounted.

[libertybrewcity]

I say we should stick to a realistic strategy of GOTV for Christians and Republicans in Iowa that are very much in tune with RP's homeschooling, local education, pro-life, pro-family message. And Republicans everywhere for that matter.

[Matt Collins]

Given how your tone in this thread has been that of someone who fancies himself an expert on the subject, I shouldn't really have to do your research for you. But here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/23/us/2000-campaign-overview-mccain-rebounds-michigan-buoyed-big-crossover-vote-wins.htmlI think that was an exceptionally rare situation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/politics/03crossover.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/politics/03crossover.html)That was nothing more than propaganda there.


I don't know how many states this affected in 2008. But speaking from the perspective of someone who was on the ground here in Indiana, which Hillary won very narrowly, I am pretty positive that Republican crossover votes in Hillary's favor made up far more than the difference she beat Obama by. The Republican contest had been long over by the time of our state's primary, and I spoke to many hardcore Republicans who were voting for Hillary in "Operation Chaos." I thought it was stupid, and ended up helping Obama win Indiana in the general election. But it definitely happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Democratic_primary,_2008Ok, yes, if the main action of the other side's primaries is over, then yes it can happen. That part makes perfect sense. Republicans want a piece of the action, and specifically want to affect the other side, and the Democrat primaries tend to often be contested right up until the convention.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0TCtu0bBtQ&feature=channel_video_title


SOURCE:


http://ronpaultrainer.blogspot.com/2011/04/introduction-to-campaigning-for-ron.html

Campaigning for Ron Paul 2012


So, do you want to be involved to some degree in the upcoming Ron Paul campaign?
If so, here are the basics that you need to learn and don't skip the 6 Essential Rules
of campaigning at the bottom of this note.



1. This campaign will not be won on facebook, gasp!
You will need to get involved with your local Republican party, another gasp!
After all, you will be campaigning first for the Republican nomination. Hence,
you will need to convince actual blue haired old ladies, who only watch Fox News,
that they should vote for the Champion of the Constitution. Yes, it can be done.



2. Find or start your local Meetup group for Ron Paul.
Go explore here: http://www.meetup.com/
(Careful, there might be several groups--some defunct.)



Events

I won't bore you too much in this note, but there are 3 major events you need to plan for.
They involve traveling to Iowa and maybe even New Hampshire. While you probably won't
be able to vote for Dr. Paul at these events. The friends you will meet and the lessons you
will learn about campaigning will change your life. If you plan now, you can ask off work
and adjust your schedule. Don't worry about food and lodging--there will be so many
projects for funding all of that.



Make plans now to attend the Iowa Straw Poll this coming August 13th.

August 13, 2011 - Ames, IA
Ames Straw Poll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_Straw_Poll



Later your help will be put into practice during the Iowa Caucus in January? of 2012 or
in New Hampshire. If you are serious about this, just plan now to spend Christmas in
Iowa or New Hampshire.



Okay, here's the important part. The key to being a good campaigner for a political
candidate involves cultivating a basic understanding of marketing and sales. By the way,
it is possible to keep your moral integrity through this process--but it is a tricky, no doubt.
You should never lie and misrepresent the truth--but this doesn't mean you bury your head
in the sand and not learn how TO SELL.



Canvassing is the process by which you interact with an individual, qualify that they are
a likely voter and persuade them to support the candidate you are representing.
The overarching principle to learn is to never show your cards before they show
you their cards. You need to know how to best approach each individual you speak with.



Here are 6 rules to guide you when selling your candidate:


Don't make your issue their issue.
Don't get into debates.
Don't go down rabbit holes.
Don't be afraid to say, "I don't know."
Don't trash-talk other candidates.
When you make a sale, stop selling.



I could write a couple paragraphs on each of these points, but I'll leave it at this for now...
And, wow, number 4 is profound! I'm considering adding a final step of "asking for a
commitment." If you've sold someone on your idea or candidate, you need to involve them
in an action that they can take to fulfill their verbal commitment.
This list was inspired by a video about campaigning for Ron Paul found here:

http://youtu.be/Ib1EEFzRqW4

That's all for tonight.

Aaron
Contact him here: patriotpodium@gmail.com

[progressiveforpaul]

All of this is good, sound, practical advise but it still does not change the reality that Ron Paul will not get the GOP nomination without a significant number of progressives voting for him in the primaries. Ron Paul's campaign will have to reach out to likely Republican voters and to progressives as well. Neglect either group and he loses.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0TCtu0bBtQ&feature=channel_video_title


SOURCE:


http://ronpaultrainer.blogspot.com/2011/04/introduction-to-campaigning-for-ron.html

Campaigning for Ron Paul 2012


So, do you want to be involved to some degree in the upcoming Ron Paul campaign?
If so, here are the basics that you need to learn and don't skip the 6 Essential Rules
of campaigning at the bottom of this note.



1. This campaign will not be won on facebook, gasp!
You will need to get involved with your local Republican party, another gasp!
After all, you will be campaigning first for the Republican nomination. Hence,
you will need to convince actual blue haired old ladies, who only watch Fox News,
that they should vote for the Champion of the Constitution. Yes, it can be done.



2. Find or start your local Meetup group for Ron Paul.
Go explore here: http://www.meetup.com/
(Careful, there might be several groups--some defunct.)



Events

I won't bore you too much in this note, but there are 3 major events you need to plan for.
They involve traveling to Iowa and maybe even New Hampshire. While you probably won't
be able to vote for Dr. Paul at these events. The friends you will meet and the lessons you
will learn about campaigning will change your life. If you plan now, you can ask off work
and adjust your schedule. Don't worry about food and lodging--there will be so many
projects for funding all of that.



Make plans now to attend the Iowa Straw Poll this coming August 13th.

August 13, 2011 - Ames, IA
Ames Straw Poll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_Straw_Poll



Later your help will be put into practice during the Iowa Caucus in January? of 2012 or
in New Hampshire. If you are serious about this, just plan now to spend Christmas in
Iowa or New Hampshire.



Okay, here's the important part. The key to being a good campaigner for a political
candidate involves cultivating a basic understanding of marketing and sales. By the way,
it is possible to keep your moral integrity through this process--but it is a tricky, no doubt.
You should never lie and misrepresent the truth--but this doesn't mean you bury your head
in the sand and not learn how TO SELL.



Canvassing is the process by which you interact with an individual, qualify that they are
a likely voter and persuade them to support the candidate you are representing.
The overarching principle to learn is to never show your cards before they show
you their cards. You need to know how to best approach each individual you speak with.



Here are 6 rules to guide you when selling your candidate:


Don't make your issue their issue.
Don't get into debates.
Don't go down rabbit holes.
Don't be afraid to say, "I don't know."
Don't trash-talk other candidates.
When you make a sale, stop selling.



I could write a couple paragraphs on each of these points, but I'll leave it at this for now...
And, wow, number 4 is profound! I'm considering adding a final step of "asking for a
commitment." If you've sold someone on your idea or candidate, you need to involve them
in an action that they can take to fulfill their verbal commitment.
This list was inspired by a video about campaigning for Ron Paul found here:

http://youtu.be/Ib1EEFzRqW4

That's all for tonight.

Aaron
Contact him here: patriotpodium@gmail.com

[Matt Collins]

All of this is good, sound, practical advise but it still does not change the reality that Ron Paul will not get the GOP nomination without a significant number of progressives voting for him in the primaries. Ron Paul's campaign will have to reach out to likely Republican voters and to progressives as well.You are not grasping the concept here. Campaigning IS winning over the likely Republican voters so that they do vote for us.

[sailingaway]

You are not grasping the concept here. Campaigning IS winning over the likely Republican voters so that they do vote for us.

Matt, you are speaking to a progressive who has been won over in this thread. With me you are speaking to a long time GOP who used to never vote in primaries because I thought all politicians were basically junk, anyhow. "Likely primary voters" will be targetted, but Ron Paul is unusual in that he appeals to broader swaths of the electorate, so much so, that we NEED some to register GOP or he won't win the primary. Some in the 'likely primary voter' pool can be swayed our way, but a significant segment are set against him. Those set against him in the 'likely primary voter pool' are less likely to change their minds than those outside the GOP who like him are to change their registrations --- IF they think it will actually do some good.

[progressiveforpaul]

Well said and correct.

Matt, you are speaking to a progressive who has been won over in this thread. With me you are speaking to a long time GOP who used to never vote in primaries because I thought all politicians were basically junk, anyhow. "Likely primary voters" will be targetted, but Ron Paul is unusual in that he appeals to broader swaths of the electorate, so much so, that we NEED some to register GOP or he won't win the primary. Some in the 'likely primary voter' pool can be swayed our way, but a significant segment are set against him. Those set against him in the 'likely primary voter pool' are less likely to change their minds than those outside the GOP who like him are to change their registrations --- IF they think it will actually do some good.