Plan B since we might be needing it soon

[progressiveforpaul]

Here again: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/08/plan-b-since-it-looks-like-we-might.html

[LibertyEagle]

No way.
No how.

I do not think you are understanding Ron Paul and the message of liberty.

[PaulConventionWV]

//

[Gumba of Liberty]

Plan B since we might be needing it soon

That's what she said

[Travlyr]

I do hold out hope for Ron Paul getting the nomination but the outreach to progressives is slow.

Have you read, "The Revolution: A Manifesto, "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity", "End The Fed", or "Liberty Defined" - by Ron Paul?

To what outreach are you referring?

[Unelected]

Plan B since we might be needing it soon

That's what she said

Hahaha

[Sola_Fide]

ProgressiveforPaul,

I like what you are doing but please realize what you are promoting when you say this:


Appoint Michael Dukakis to build a real interstate high speed rail system supplemented by well funded state and local public transportation systems. Let him work out a trust busting and jobs replacing *agreement with the Boeing, Lockheed, etc. to build a new generation of larger, faster, more fuel efficient commercial airplanes. Put the FCC under his wings and make affordable universal high speed internet a reality. Pay for all of this by raising the gasoline tax to a dollar a gallon with discounts of a penny for each percent of renewable fuels and by selling the Interstate highway system to states and private companies. universal high speed internet a reality. Pay for all of this by raising the gasoline tax to a dollar a gallon with discounts of a penny for each percent of renewable fuels and by selling the Interstate highway system to states and private companies. by raising the gasoline tax to a dollar a gallon with discounts of a penny for each percent of renewable fuels and by selling the Interstate highway system to states and private companies.

^^^
When you say this, YOU ARE PROMOTING WAR, which earlier in the article you say you are against.

Please read this short article by Hans Sennholz. He explains in very simple terms how government control of business leads to nationalism, which leads to war:

https://mises.org/daily/3908/Omnipotent-Government

So by supporting government control and direction of business, you are unwittingly promoting the road to war. The free market is the only sure way to lasting peace.

Here is the Tube if you want to listen to it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXfEr2UMo4Q

[progressiveforpaul]

I understand his views. don't agree with his economics but knowing that he is going to lose the primaries unless he steps up the engagement with progressives I have decided to start thinking about him running on a coalition ticket against Obama and the GOP nominee. You are welcome to share your picks for a coalition cabinet.
No way.
No how.

I do not think you are understanding Ron Paul and the message of liberty.

[Sola_Fide]

I understand his views.don't agree with his economics but knowing that he is going to lose the primaries unless he steps up the engagement with progressives I have decided to start thinking about him running on a coalition ticket against Obama and the GOP nominee. You are welcome to share your picks for a coalition cabinet.

Please read the article I posted. Your position on economics is the reason we have wars! Please understand this Progressiveforpaul!

[progressiveforpaul]

I thought you had read my other posts. In case you forgot, I am calling for massive cuts in military spending. I just think we need to employ those workers who will be displaced by cancelled or reduced military contracts. I am sure you think those jobs can be replaced through the so called free market and that's fine. This could be done through tax credits rather than government contracts if that makes you feel more at ease. I am not debating economics. I'm saying we need to start thinking about what to do if Ron Paul loses the primaries. I welcome your input.

ProgressiveforPaul,

I like what you are doing but please realize what you are promoting when you say this:



^^^
When you say this, YOU ARE PROMOTING WAR, which earlier in the article you say you are against.

Please read this short article by Hans Sennholz. He explains in very simple terms how government control of business leads to nationalism, which leads to war:

https://mises.org/daily/3908/Omnipotent-Government

So by supporting government control and direction of business, you are unwittingly promoting the road to war. The free market is the only sure way to lasting peace.

Here is the Tube if you want to listen to it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXfEr2UMo4Q

[Sola_Fide]

I thought you had read my other posts. In case you forgot, I am calling for massive cuts in military spending. I just think we need to employ those workers who will be displaced by cancelled or reduced military contracts. I am sure you think those jobs can be replaced through the so called free market and that's fine. This could be done through tax credits rather than government contracts if that makes you feel more at ease. I am not debating economics. I'm saying we need to start thinking about what to do if Ron Paul loses the primaries. I welcome your input.

You have to debate economics, because as Sennholz and Mises point out, economic nationalism leads to war!

Your very theory of economic intervention is the seed for war! This is fundamental.


http://mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/B115.jpg

[nobody's_hero]

When I try to sell Ron Paul to progressives, I only talk about the war issue, and civil liberties.

The way I see it, the left needs to pick Ron Paul for the GOP nomination in states that have open primaries (or register republican), so they can hedge their bets for getting someone in office who will stop these damn wars.

I don't talk about economics (much, especially if I sense that there's more to risk than to gain in the conversation by bringing up the topic), because it's one of those "You'll have to see it to believe it" things. Once people see how the economy operates without nearly so much government intrusion as we have now, the open-minded ones will come around.

Just being here at Ron Paul Forums shows that the OP is at least open-minded.

I don't think we should try to sell Ron Paul as being 'liberal' in order to win over those on the left, but rather, he's the only Republican in this race that makes sense; says what he means, and means what he says.

[Tarzan]

I thought you had read my other posts. In case you forgot, I am calling for massive cuts in military spending. I just think we need to employ those workers who will be displaced by cancelled or reduced military contracts. I am sure you think those jobs can be replaced through the so called free market and that's fine. This could be done through tax credits rather than government contracts if that makes you feel more at ease. I am not debating economics. I'm saying we need to start thinking about what to do if Ron Paul loses the primaries. I welcome your input.

I have to chime in with aquabuddaha... you ARE debating economics! You want to have the government continue to make the decisions on where to spend the money they steal from us but spend it on programs YOU support. Call them tax credits or whatever you like... a pile of dung by any other name smells the same. Your arguments are ALL about economics and you need to wake up and see that reality.

If 'progressives' have some desire to spend their money on 'green energy' or other such efforts having an economy more like the one envisioned by RP will put your money back in YOUR hands so you can make those decisions. But stop trying to FORCE it on the rest of us!

I, at least, want government OUT of my life... not just more of the same but a slightly different agenda leading us down a different road to ruin... different path, same destination.

Progressive SHOULD support Ron Paul so they have the freedom to use their own money to support their own desires. See nobody's_hero's post. Then, use your money to create a Green Energy company... come up with a better mouse trap. Sell the thing (product, service or technology) and create the green economy you envision through the open market... not at the point of a gun. Can't do it yourself? Get your green buddies together and pool your resources... including the money the government would stop stealing from you under a Ron Paul presidency. That's how you make an economy that works in the long term.

As far as Plan B... wow, are you totally off base!
We need to stop dicking around with this type of thinking and understand, clearly and once and for all... we have GOT to win the Republican nomination and then the presidency. This is 'all in' and 'go for broke' because time is running out! Stop hoping for pipe dreams and put all your efforts into achieving this goal.

[pcosmar]

The answer to socialism is more socialism.
The answer to high taxes is higher taxes
and the answer to out of control spending is more spending.

You have no clue.

[libertyjam]

Wait, that blog in the OP is a joke right?

[Sola_Fide]

I appreciate ProgressiveforPaul and other progressives too, but it puzzles me to no end how they cannot see that an extremely limited, decentralized government with sound money is the only real way to avoid war.


We have this warfare mentality in America precisely because of our bloated government and philosophy of interventionism.


I like when Ron says that his philosophy can be summed up by saying he is against interventionism. He understands that interventionism at home naturally leads to interventionism abroad. Progressives must come to terms with this.

[AGRP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIMqwJI2uI&feature=player_embedded


NOTHING is permeating into the OP's brain which leads me to believe that he is a troll.

[TCE]

OP, I understand where you're coming from. Dr. Paul's standing in the Primary race doesn't look good right now, and you're thinking about the worst case scenario: him losing the primary and what we can do. That isn't a horrible thing at all, in fact, far from it. However, in reality, realize Dr. Paul is going all-in for the GOP nomination, and beyond that, he isn't doing anything. If he loses the nomination, then he's done. We can argue the merits of that strategy, but that will be the reality.

As far as your comments regarding strategy: For a GOP Primary, there will be very, very few progressives voting at all. I would say less than 1% of progressives will vote in a GOP Primary. It doesn't make sense to pander to them while pissing off the Conservative voters, which are a nice percentage of GOP Primary voters. It's strategy. In a General Election scenario, pandering to everyone is the best strategy, but right now we are in primary mode.

[progressiveforpaul]

TCE, I appreciate your response as I am talking about strategy. I am not thinking so much of a worst case scenario as I am a most likely scenario. I realize that Dr. Paul is going all in on the GOP primary as I have thought until recently was the best strategy. In fact, until recently, i was planning on voting for Obama if Dr. Paul he went third party but given the most recent insanity in Washington (I'm sure we agree its insane for different reasons as well as similar ones.) along with the very real prospect you mention concerning a less than 1% progressive show leads me to the realization that Ron Paul will not get the nomination. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but unless he takes the risk of going all in for getting progressives on board in the primaries, he will finish third.

If he does well in Iowa and almost as well in NH and SC, the neo-cons and the cultural conservatives will make sure there are only three in the race for Super Tuesday. If Paul manages to come in second in close to half of those primaries, the neo-con and the cultural conservative will agree on who gets to finish the race before the other gets invited to be VP.

A big turn out of progressives is his only shot in the primaries and to believe otherwise is non sense. It is probably just as nonsensical to think that anyone other than Ron Paul himself can bring progressives on board. If he loses the primary, I am sure he will breath a sigh of relief and not want to do a third party ticket but I also know he was very reluctant to enter the primaries in the first place so if progressives who are getting more and more disillusioned come to him and ask him to be VP he might just take it because the country is falling apart. In other words, he needs to be persuaded now to let progressives in (and he ain't budging them without an economic deal like I have described elsewhere), or libertarians get to play second fiddle in the race to save our nation. Do the deal now and he gets a cabinet more to his liking. Do it later and he gets one more like I described.

To shift the metaphor slightly, he gets to the dance only by asking for a date. I know the fantasy feels good to believe that a pristine libertarian platform gets him into the White House. If the shoe were on the other foot, I would probably have the same fantasy. He will listen to his supporters and if they tell him to win, he will do the deal necessary to win. I know many here are like me in that they are not into deal making. We like principled candidates. However, this deal is not a deal against principles. It's a deal in line with the spirit of his transition plan and the letter of its budgetary requirements. It is his only chance of winning if his supporters are persuaded not to let the immediate and the perfect be the enemies of the good.


OP, I understand where you're coming from. Dr. Paul's standing in the Primary race doesn't look good right now, and you're thinking about the worst case scenario: him losing the primary and what we can do. That isn't a horrible thing at all, in fact, far from it. However, in reality, realize Dr. Paul is going all-in for the GOP nomination, and beyond that, he isn't doing anything. If he loses the nomination, then he's done. We can argue the merits of that strategy, but that will be the reality.

As far as your comments regarding strategy: For a GOP Primary, there will be very, very few progressives voting at all. I would say less than 1% of progressives will vote in a GOP Primary. It doesn't make sense to pander to them while pissing off the Conservative voters, which are a nice percentage of GOP Primary voters. It's strategy. In a General Election scenario, pandering to everyone is the best strategy, but right now we are in primary mode.

[LibertyEagle]

progressiveforpaul,

One thing I know for sure about Ron Paul after so many years of supporting him and reading his work, is that he will never, ever, change his principles to "win" an election. Nor will he pander. You must come to grips with that.

We are out of time. This is it. Right here. Right now. You must know in your heart that he is the only one running who knows how to put America back on her feet, or you wouldn't be here. It's up to you to convince your progressive brethren of that too.

[progressiveforpaul]

AB, I wish I had time to address all the nonsense here but let's just deal with a couple of straw men assumptions. Progressivism does not aim at income equality but rather equal opportunity. Progressives have generally advocated for a mixed economy with regulated capitalism and reasonable labor laws. Income equality has skyrocketed in the days sense the Reagan revolution. The so called free market, which really never has nor ever will exist, will not bring perfect peace. If you have been following my argument carefully you will notice that I am advocating a smaller federal government through substantial reductions in military spending. Let's leave messianism to the Messiah rather than Mises. Kucinich ain't going to start a war by promoting fair trade. Let's focus on how to win an election. It will not get won by telling progressive, "Come, let's do everything my way."

ProgressiveforPaul,

I like what you are doing but please realize what you are promoting when you say this:



^^^
When you say this, YOU ARE PROMOTING WAR, which earlier in the article you say you are against.

Please read this short article by Hans Sennholz. He explains in very simple terms how government control of business leads to nationalism, which leads to war:

https://mises.org/daily/3908/Omnipotent-Government

So by supporting government control and direction of business, you are unwittingly promoting the road to war. The free market is the only sure way to lasting peace.

Here is the Tube if you want to listen to it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXfEr2UMo4Q

[ord33]

AB, I wish I had time to address all the nonsense here but let's just deal with a couple of straw men assumptions. Progressivism does not aim at income equality but rather equal opportunity. Progressives have generally advocated for a mixed economy with regulated capitalism and reasonable labor laws. Income equality has skyrocketed in the days sense the Reagan revolution. The so called free market, which really never has nor ever will exist, will not bring perfect peace. If you have been following my argument carefully you will notice that I am advocating a smaller federal government through substantial reductions in military spending. Let's leave messianism to the Messiah rather than Mises. Kucinich ain't going to start a war by promoting fair trade. Let's focus on how to win an election. It will not get won by telling progressive, "Come, let's do everything my way."

How do you suppose we don't have equal opportunity already? My dad came from a family of poor farmers that didn't have indoor plumbing or electricity until he was 17 years old (or in the late 1950's). He barely graduated high school and ended up working hard from place to place until he had a spark of an idea, started up his own company (with practically nothing) and has become very successful monetarily and as a good father figure/influence. What "equal opportunity" are you referring to? The capability of earning a decent wage, of being treated as human beings? What is it that our country doesn't give "equal opportunity"? Sure, there are people that work hard or that have pretty good ideas that don't "strike it rich" - but that is just the way it is. There is a huge percentage of rags to riches stories in the United States. What "unequal opportunity" am I missing that the Progressives like yourself are striving so hard to remove from our country?

[progressiveforpaul]

I have no idea how your father could have succeeded at a time when the tax system was so progressive with a top marginal rate of 91%. Opportunities are often limited by race, gender (both much less thanks to government intervention) and social economic status (much more because of growing income inequality). Like the James Miles quote btw.


How do you suppose we don't have equal opportunity already? My dad came from a family of poor farmers that didn't have indoor plumbing or electricity until he was 17 years old (or in the late 1950's). He barely graduated high school and ended up working hard from place to place until he had a spark of an idea, started up his own company (with practically nothing) and has become very successful monetarily and as a good father figure/influence. What "equal opportunity" are you referring to? The capability of earning a decent wage, of being treated as human beings? What is it that our country doesn't give "equal opportunity"? Sure, there are people that work hard or that have pretty good ideas that don't "strike it rich" - but that is just the way it is. There is a huge percentage of rags to riches stories in the United States. What "unequal opportunity" am I missing that the Progressives like yourself are striving so hard to remove from our country?

[erowe1]

How's this for a coalition?

Ron Paul does the running for president part, and you do the voting for him part.

[pcosmar]

I have no idea

That much is apparent.

I have started over from scratch a couple times.
On getting out of the Army with no assets and going to work.
Screwed up and went to jail.
Got out and went to work, Bought a home. Left that and was running from the law.
Went to work,,,,
Even starting from a position as an "illegal". It can be done.
I worked, saved and now own a 20 acre farm.

And before you start on "cause I'm White" , I have worked for Black and Hispanic business owners. Who started with nothing and built a business.

A free market and a lot less government interference would only improve this.
It is the Government interference that is making it more and more difficult.

[erowe1]

That much is apparent.

I have started over from scratch a couple times.
On getting out of the Army with no assets and going to work.
Screwed up and went to jail.
Got out and went to work, Bought a home. Left that and was running from the law.
Went to work,,,,
Even starting from a position as an "illegal". It can be done.
I worked, saved and now own a 20 acre farm.

And before you start on "cause I'm White" , I have worked for Black and Hispanic business owners. Who started with nothing and built a business.

A free market and a lot less government interference would only improve this.
It is the Government interference that is making it more and more difficult.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again.

[YumYum]

Plan "A" is sarcasm, so we need a Plan "B"? Like others have said, Ron doesn't compromise and his cabinet would probably look like a family reunion (which it should, he should only have people that he can trust in his cabinet), so the only way Ron Paul is going to win this thing is that between now and elections conditions get really, really bad. And they will.

[progressiveforpaul]

It's not a winning strategy.


How's this for a coalition?

Ron Paul does the running for president part, and you do the voting for him part.

[progressiveforpaul]

Read other parts of my blog. Aqua Buddha will tell you I am very serious.

Plan "A" is sarcasm, so we need a Plan "B"? Like others have said, Ron doesn't compromise and his cabinet would probably look like a family reunion (which it should, he should only have people that he can trust in his cabinet), so the only way Ron Paul is going to win this thing is that between now and elections conditions get really, really bad. And they will.

[YumYum]

Read other parts of my blog. Aqua Buddha will tell you I am very serious.

You really think Ron would get anything done if he let all these snakes you mentioned into his cabinet? (I liked Kucinich until he sold out on Obamacare) Didn't Lincoln come up with the bright idea to have his enemies in his cabinet so he would "know what my enemies are thinking"? We see where that got him.

All those people that you mentioned work for the Powers; they wouldn't listen to Ron Paul.

edit: I meant the "majority" work for the Powers, not the Judge and Rand

[Watch]

You need to look up S.B. Fuller progressiveforpaul

[progressiveforpaul]

The members of the cabinet I suggested were basically for the purpose of provoking conversation. I do think that he ought to name his cabinet in advance and if he wants to win, he will put at least 2 or 3 in key economic posts. The main thing you have got to realize is the Powers are not going to allow a libertarian or a progressive in the white house but a Libertarian and Progressive coalition would be a force that the Powers could not beat back. In order for it to be a true coalition, there has to be creative compromises or, even better, a new synthesis on economic policy. I know that is not a thrilling idea for either group but the alternative is a another 4 years of the Powers running the show.
You really think Ron would get anything done if he let all these snakes you mentioned into his cabinet? (I liked Kucinich until he sold out on Obamacare) Didn't Lincoln come up with the bright idea to have his enemies in his cabinet so he would "know what my enemies are thinking"? We see where that got him.

All those people that you mentioned work for the Powers; they wouldn't listen to Ron Paul.

edit: I meant the "majority" work for the Powers, not the Judge and Rand

[TCE]

You seem to be under the illusion that progressives are this gigantic force by way of numbers and they can determine elections. Even the Democrats know they aren't. There are more libertarians in the world than progressives. The only way Democrats win elections is by pandering to the Independents and Moderate Democrats, they know their base is so small that it encompasses only people who will vote for them anyway. The GOP base is basically their entire electorate. To win a GOP Primary, fire up your base. To win a Democratic Primary, gather Independents. You are working under the opposite hypothesis.

If Ron panders to Progressives, he loses any standard GOP voter who might have voted for him. You don't give up a huge chunk of potential voters in Conservatives to gain a fraction of a percent in Progressives.

[pcosmar]

It was "progressives" that gave us WWI, Gun Control, Eugenic Sterilization, Income Tax and Social security, Welfare and just about every other detrimental program in this country.

Perhaps instead of attempting to justify your position,, you should reconsider it.

[aravoth]

I understand his views. don't agree with his economics but knowing that he is going to lose the primaries unless he steps up the engagement with progressives I have decided to start thinking about him running on a coalition ticket against Obama and the GOP nominee.

progressive democrats don't vote in republican primaries dude.

[progressiveforpaul]

Thanks for the reference.
You need to look up S.B. Fuller progressiveforpaul

[progressiveforpaul]

We have a disagreement the number of GOP voters who are not committed already to Paul who are also open to being wooed verses the number of disenchanted progressives. Here is my estimate of the breakdown of the American electorate:
Consistent Libertarians 35%
Labor Democrats 15%
GreenPeace Democrats 15%
Cultural conservatives: 20%
Neocons: 5%
Confused: 10%

Libertarians constitute a plurality but not a majority. They cannot win a national election without a coalition partner. They have to decide if they will remain partners with the neo-cons and the cultural conservatives or join with the green peace labor folks. Either way winning requires compromise. In this case the compromise will be on matters of economic policy. i am not asking that RP pander to progressives but rather negotiate a deal we both case live with. he has made a very good start with his transition plan. A minor change with zero budgetary consequences is all he needs to make a deal that gets us on board in numbers that get him nominated and elected.


You seem to be under the illusion that progressives are this gigantic force by way of numbers and they can determine elections. Even the Democrats know they aren't. There are more libertarians in the world than progressives. The only way Democrats win elections is by pandering to the Independents and Moderate Democrats, they know their base is so small that it encompasses only people who will vote for them anyway. The GOP base is basically their entire electorate. To win a GOP Primary, fire up your base. To win a Democratic Primary, gather Independents. You are working under the opposite hypothesis.

If Ron panders to Progressives, he loses any standard GOP voter who might have voted for him. You don't give up a huge chunk of potential voters in Conservatives to gain a fraction of a percent in Progressives.

[progressiveforpaul]

No duh...that's why I am trying to teach you how to get them to do what they would otherwise never do. You do want to win the election, don't you?

progressive democrats don't vote in republican primaries dude.

[LibertyEagle]

Listen very closely, progressiveforpaul.

Congressman Paul will not EVER sacrifice his principles to get elected. He is not going to become Marxist-lite or Socialist-Lite, no matter how much you wish he would be. I realize it is strange to run into someone in politics who actually has principles, but you have. You are not going to change this man. EVER. So, the only question is whether you want to go from here and convince your progressive buddies why Paul is preferable to Obama, for not only their own well-being but for the country, or just batten down the hatches and pray that our country will survive Obama or another Bushkin for 4 more years.

[erowe1]

progressive democrats don't vote in republican primaries dude.

Where did you get that idea? I don't think it's correct. Have you been listening to the Collins or something?

[ProIndividual]

I just wish lefties would read more on economics...problem then solved.

We don't believe in the 'free market fairytale'...we read and realized Chomsky was a linguist who knows nothing about actual economics lol.

We come to these positions after years of self education. It takes a lot of reading to REALLY have a grasp on economics. It's a nerdy subject, and requires lots of time in analysis of graphs and statistics. But please, do not assume we are ignorant...free market capitalists like me who were radically left in our youth got to this place in our philosophies by READING, not a lack thereof.

The problem with lefties, and most mainstream righties, is they THINK they know what they're talking about, but in reality only a few nerds who have bothered to explore the subject in detail know what and how things work. I've watched Krugman, Reich, Warren, et cetera, (all on the left) go on and on for hours in videos and blogs on fallacy after fallacy, and not realize it. Krugman has a Nobel Prize in Economics...exactly why I don't respect that prize anymore. The idea anyone who isn't a free market adherent has any credibility today is sickening. Our predictions have been more accurate for decades, our analysis has been second-to-none, and our predications continue to be accurate as the stock market crashes again today.

If we tripled our money supply, and the DOW is priced in dollars, then shouldn't the stock market be at 18,000 JUST TO account for that inflation? We can't hold 12,000. When the market "hit bottom" it was at about 6,000.

6,000 * 3 = 18,000

So in real value accounted for inflation (money supply, not price inflation which trickles in slowly, and REGRESSIVELY, over a period of about 18 monthes to three years) the stock market has fallen to 4,000 from it's "bottom" of 6,000.

4,000 * 3 = 12,000

Look at the VOLUME of trading versus the rise in the numbers...it's clear we have a market worth LESS at 12,000 than it was at 6,000.

As this society crumbles, shortages appear due to government interventions in the markets, people will have to wake up. If the stockj market crashes, as we believe it will, Ron will have undeniable economic truth on his side...unless the audience are willfully ignorant. To paraphrase Einstein, 'human stupity is infinite'...but we won't lose because we aren't right about economics...we'll lose because the stupid and fickle mob is wrong (as always).

The answer is educate yourself, then your friends and family as we all have done (or are attempting anyway). I know this takes time and is boring...but this nation will not exist in 10 years (or less) if we do not bother.

Al Gore is full of shit on global warming...the real "inconvenient truth" for the world (and especially the left world) is economics.

Please don't think we do not welcome you...we appreciate you being here and helping in any way you can. I voted for Dennis Kucinich myself (I grew up in his district), and wouldn't mind him running with Ron, as they both have said publicly they'd like to do...but that's in the general WHEN Ron wins the Republican nomination. I believe this would split the far left vote for generations to come (having come from the left myself originally). But realize this...

...the left and right are illusions, a false dichotomy, an either/or fallacy, a black and white fallacy, and in psychology this is known as psychopathic thinking. There are only two extremes and two classes, not two wings and 3 classes. There are collectivists (who think rights are up for votes, and the collective trumps the individual's rights where THEY deem it "okay"), and there are individualists (who think rights aren't up for a vote by the lynch mob, and those rights ALWAYS trump the collective's petty whims in any consistant and ethical moral theory). There is no lower class, middle class, and upper class...there is only the oligarchs and the ruled.

The illusion of left/right is there to make you THINK you have a choice. You don't. Not as long as we choose who they want us to in the early going when we still have a "choice" (the primaries).

If a cow is loaded into a shoot at a slaughterhouse, and he cannot go backwards, but can go left or right into the slaughter room, does this cow have choice? Of course not. We are cattle to the oligarchs, and they give us the illusion of choice as they lead us to slaughter.

Ever notice the same families are always running things? True the Paul family has just recently gained a foothold of power intergenerationally, but this is a recent occurance, and not one the establishment appreciates. But all the other families...Kennedys, Bushs, Clintons, the list goes on and on. Alaska has a Senator whose dad was a Congressman, when Ted Kennedy died they gave serious thought to putting his niece in "his seat". We have a clear system of nepotism and oligarchy. Elections have become only a game (and tool) of the super rich....who all are in bed with the government! The business-in-bed-with-the-State lock out competition in the markets through legislation (regulations lefties foolishly believe is designed to make people safer, keep the air clean, etc.), and the politicians lock out competition in the political economy (by setting things up against third parties, getting the media to downplay or ignore candidates not working in their interests, etc.). Put the two monopolist groups together...

...and you have oligarchy.


Take the time to read about economics...it's the most important thing you can do.

I used to think "if we don't have free food, clothes, housing, education, healthcare, etc., how can we say that we have equal rights to these things?" Then I woke up.

The fact is, in a utopian sense I'd love to see a world so wealthy this is possible...and maybe one day we will. But economics is the possible, what can actually be done in reality. Once I studied economics I realized, we can't give people free food, housing, clothes, education, and healthcare...it's impossible, there isn't enough money to do it. Then I realized how immoral it was to force people to fund things they are against, therefore tax is theft. With a consistant moral theory, and an economic understanding, I came to the conclusion over a period of years that my whole leftist view of the world was rooted in ignorance and jealousy (not to mention being spoiled; and I grew up in a horrible ghetto! Americans are spoiled though, our poverty is lush luxury to 1/3 of the world, and 100 years ago as well.).

Sit down with the U.S. budget. Take all the money we bring in (not what we spend, but our actual revenue), and try and do the math...this is where I started my journey. I thought "this can't be that difficult, we have trillions of dollars in revenue a year...I'll just figure it out so I can tell these right-wing crazies how it can be done if they stfu and listen".

What I found was that I couldn't even feed the people...let alone house them. Then I started to compromise, and prioritize. Perhaps feeding and housing was impossible as a "right", but maybe I could clothe them. Nope, another economic fail. What about healthcare? After pouring over the longterm outlooks of other countries, and realizing that those with successful welfare States were ALL getting free military help from US or another country, I then knew that without that free military (which is highly expensive), these countries couldn't afford their welfare States either. So what if I got rid of the wars, and only had defense? It saved plenty of money, but it still wasn't close to enough to sustain anything. As competition dwindles (like in any socialized system), the price rises and quality of service/product falls...this is as predictable as gravity. So, nope, I couldn't end the wars as a cure-alll either. Even when I pulled all the troops out of everywhere, closed all the bases overseas...still not enough. And if think we could just spend more on education to make it better, I'd suggest you look at dollars spent over the last 30 years accounted for inflation, and compare "value added", or the change in achievement levels. You'll find the government monopoly basically has flat achievement, but skyrocketing spending. Again, quality falls, the price increases.

And then I woke up. I knew for sure, there was no possible way to fund the utopia I thought was possible for most of my life. Not only that, but if I tried to increase funding (taxes) I'd collapse the economy altogether! I knew for sure then, I had been wrong for too long. It would be nice if we could do all these things...but Larry O'Donnell (the dumb libtard on MSNBC's Last Word) is wrong. This isn't about prioritizing...it's about the cold hard reality of economics. And taking money against people's wills is theft, whether I do it or the government does it (tax). So not only are these things impossible, they are immoral.

Any philosophy rooted in ideals is useless. What people should learn first is economics...and from that foundation of "what is possible", you can then develop a code of ethics (moral theory), and from that a philosophy.

The problem today is the "left" and the "right" all develop a philosophy first, then sort of, maybe if they aren't too busy, explore economics. They have a faux moral theory based on fallacies that are flatly untrue. It does not make people more moral when you legislate it so and jail them when they act otherwise. It does not make the economy able to afford programs just because you pass a law to say it's so. From this we derive the nonsense morality that "drugs shouldn't be legal, that's immoral", when in fact it's immoral to coerce adults who do not directly and measurably harm others (jail is especially immoral for this end), only themselves. We also derive the faux morality that "healthcare is a right", when in fact it's impossible economically, and in fact it's far more immoral to take people's money from them on the penalty of violence or incarceration. It is this misunderstanding of economics that leads to flawed ethics, and therefore utopian philosophy with no ability to become reality.

Both the "left" and the "right" suffer under bad economic undertsanding, and therefore have perverted moral theories, and thereby seek utopias that are neither possible nor ethical.



I hope you take this post as a reason to pour yourself into economics...and do so skeptically. I fully encourage you to find the arguments against your beliefs, then the counter arguments to those arguments, and the counter arguments to those, and so on...I am supremely confident that in doing so, you will not be able to deny the truth in what we are saying. In fact, if you do this for a few years, and still have some reservations, it's perfectly okay to post on this forum, or many others, and get arguments you yourself never thought of in defense of free markets.

Thank you for your valuable time and help with the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.

[erowe1]

I just wish lefties would read more on economics...problem then solved.

I thought that reading too much on economics was what got them so messed up in the first place.

[reillym]

It was "progressives" that gave us WWI, Gun Control, Eugenic Sterilization, Income Tax and Social security, Welfare and just about every other detrimental program in this country.

Perhaps instead of attempting to justify your position,, you should reconsider it.

Yep, millions of people were sterilized by those damn liberals.

I don't see any conservatives getting rid of the income tax or fighting against war. Weird, it's almost as if they were the same thing and not the simplistic, childish good guy/bad guy you think it is.

[Sola_Fide]

Yep, millions of people were sterilized by those damn liberals.

I don't see any conservatives getting rid of the income tax or fighting against war. Weird, it's almost as if they were the same thing and not the simplistic, childish good guy/bad guy you think it is.

You don't see enough conservatives fighting against war and the income tax because they have become progressives. Big difference.

Also, sterilization, eugenics, abortion, environmentalism, etc. are all outgrowths of progressivism and are aggression. Pcosmar is right.

[Watch]

I thought that reading too much on economics was what got them so messed up in the first place.

If you are referring to living lefties as opposed to long dead ones, it is because they read Keynes and thought "problem solved!"

[pcosmar]

Yep, millions of people were sterilized by those damn liberals.

I don't see any conservatives getting rid of the income tax or fighting against war.

Actually several thousands were sterilized, as far as is known and documented. The full extent is unknown.


And I don't see very many Conservatives in Washington. I am supporting a Constitutionalist.

[progressiveforpaul]

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!

g:

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


Listen very closely, progressiveforpaul.

Congressman Paul will not EVER sacrifice his principles to get elected. He is not going to become Marxist-lite or Socialist-Lite, no matter how much you wish he would be. I realize it is strange to run into someone in politics who actually has principles, but you have. You are not going to change this man. EVER. So, the only question is whether you want to go from here and convince your progressive buddies why Paul is preferable to Obama, for not only their own well-being but for the country, or just batten down the hatches and pray that our country will survive Obama or another Bushkin for 4 more years.

[TCE]

The President has so much power from decades of Congress ceding its power that I'm sure Ron would be able to do virtually anything in the way of dismantling unconstitutional programs and Congress would sit idly by. Bring every troop home? Sure, the Congress won't stop him. Refuse to pay the Fed their $1.6 Trillion in interest? Sure. Order the Department of Justice to end all drug raids and let states pass their own drug laws? Yep. The list goes on and on.

Your ending points, though, are points I believe Ron has made himself, so I can't see why Progressives would be mad about him ending the wars and using the money to shore up entitlements while Obama wants to continue on this charade that all of the money will be there for all of us when we retire.

[erowe1]

If you are referring to living lefties as opposed to long dead ones, it is because they read Keynes and thought "problem solved!"

Keynes, or Krugman, or their college Econ. textbooks, or lots of others.

If you want to study economics, whether you just pick any book or author at random, or pick one based on who is most highly esteemed in the guild, you're more likely to get a neo-keynesian than anything else I think.

[ProIndividual]

I thought that reading too much on economics was what got them so messed up in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean. Lack of facts cause error, not informed decisions. However, any irrational boob can read the relevant facts and ignore them...maybe that's what you meant.

Certainly reading never hurt anyone...I read some of the ugliest books in history for the educational value. I'm not running out commiting atrocities because of it. This logic, that reading is bad, leads to censoreship (and has historically). There are no dangerous ideas, only dangerous individuals. Harm is a crime, not thought.


Keynes, or Krugman, or their college Econ. textbooks, or lots of others.

If you want to study economics, whether you just pick any book or author at random, or pick one based on who is most highly esteemed in the guild, you're more likely to get a neo-keynesian than anything else I think.

I read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital...am I then to blame reading these books if I do Marxist things? No. I'm an individual moron who didn't think critically, and therefore ignored any evidence to the contrary and bought into groupthink and hubris. The problem wasn't reading too much, it's that they didn't read enough apparently. The problem wasn't overeducation, it was undereducation. The problem wasn't thinking too much, it was not thinking enough (critical thinking involves critique).

So, I disagree totally. Most college graduates in economics accept what they hear for two reasons: they're stupid and just want the degree, and/or they are intellectually lazy and just want the degree. They are there to get a piece of worthless paper that allows them to make more money...it's not about education to begin with. That's why I dropped out of college. I've learned far more from libraries for FREE than I ever did while I wasted my time numbing my brain in a lecture in some college. Social norms are BS, and educational degrees, diplomas, and certifications are the most BS social norms there are. It's a piece of worthless paper that has little or nothing to do with your level of education or intelligence.

"Drop out of school before your mind rots from exposure to our
mediocre educational system. Forget about the Senior Prom and
go to the library and educate yourself if you've got any guts.
Some of you like pep rallies and plastic robots who tell you what
to read. Forget I mentioned it... Rise for the flag salute." --- Frank Zappa (musician, composer, philosopher)

[erowe1]

I'm not sure what you mean. Lack of facts cause error, not informed decisions.

Now you bring up facts. Earlier you only mentioned reading about economics.



So, I disagree totally. Most college graduates in economics accept what they hear for two reasons: they're stupid and just want the degree, and/or they are intellectually lazy and just want the degree.

I have no idea what the reason is. But I know what it isn't. And it isn't that they have read too little about economics.

[jmdrake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIMqwJI2uI&feature=player_embedded


NOTHING is permeating into the OP's brain which leads me to believe that he is a troll.

+rep for a great video!

[jmdrake]

progressiveforpaul,

One thing I know for sure about Ron Paul after so many years of supporting him and reading his work, is that he will never, ever, change his principles to "win" an election. Nor will he pander. You must come to grips with that.

We are out of time. This is it. Right here. Right now. You must know in your heart that he is the only one running who knows how to put America back on her feet, or you wouldn't be here. It's up to you to convince your progressive brethren of that too.

Yah. And if Ron Paul did change his principles it would so piss off 90% of us that there would be no movement left. If Ron Paul doesn't win the primary I'd support a principled 3rd party run...which wouldn't win...but I'd support it. Beyond that there's always 2016 and Rand. Ron sticking to his principled guns means Rand would have a good shot in 2016.

[jmdrake]

When I try to sell Ron Paul to progressives, I only talk about the war issue, and civil liberties.

The way I see it, the left needs to pick Ron Paul for the GOP nomination in states that have open primaries (or register republican), so they can hedge their bets for getting someone in office who will stop these damn wars.

I don't talk about economics (much, especially if I sense that there's more to risk than to gain in the conversation by bringing up the topic), because it's one of those "You'll have to see it to believe it" things. Once people see how the economy operates without nearly so much government intrusion as we have now, the open-minded ones will come around.

Just being here at Ron Paul Forums shows that the OP is at least open-minded.

I don't think we should try to sell Ron Paul as being 'liberal' in order to win over those on the left, but rather, he's the only Republican in this race that makes sense; says what he means, and means what he says.

^Thread winner.

[progressiveforpaul]

I never try to sell Ron Paul as a liberal. He is a consistent libertarian who wants to move politics in his direction even if it means pumping extra money into social security in order to keep people alive. What I'm advocating is in no way for the purpose of trying to get Paul to change his principles. I am advocating keeping the numerical terms of the budget exactly as he has proposed in his transition, not deviating a single dime. I am just saying that if he would be willing to allow that money which he has reserved for social security move to the states on the basis of population and allow them to use it as they see fit. I would also be willing for his opt out provision to come to a vote before that change is made. If he has the votes we'll stick with him and let him have it his way. If not he has only to promise that the money so designated to fund the opt out be reallocated for unconditional use by the states. I have in the pass advocated for the money being used for funding the building of green infrastructure. I no longer advocate that because as I have learned from my time here, libertarians on principle do not believe in federal funding of infrastructure. I still believe that would be good use of the money but i have been willing to compromise to accommodate libertarian principles. What I want to know from any and everyone willing to engage the specifics of this proposal is does it in anyway violate Ron Paul's constitutional and libertarian principles and would you be willing to say to Ron Paul, "This is a deal we can all live with and it will obviously bring many more progressives on board."? Just one more caveat... Plan B. deviates slightly from this only because it is plan B., a contingent context in which we progressives have more leverage. If you do not understand my position from within the context of plan A., read my latest post: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/08/crashing-party-and-likely-policy-course.html


When I try to sell Ron Paul to progressives, I only talk about the war issue, and civil liberties.

The way I see it, the left needs to pick Ron Paul for the GOP nomination in states that have open primaries (or register republican), so they can hedge their bets for getting someone in office who will stop these damn wars.

I don't talk about economics (much, especially if I sense that there's more to risk than to gain in the conversation by bringing up the topic), because it's one of those "You'll have to see it to believe it" things. Once people see how the economy operates without nearly so much government intrusion as we have now, the open-minded ones will come around.

Just being here at Ron Paul Forums shows that the OP is at least open-minded.

I don't think we should try to sell Ron Paul as being 'liberal' in order to win over those on the left, but rather, he's the only Republican in this race that makes sense; says what he means, and means what he says.

[erowe1]

I never try to sell Ron Paul as a liberal. He is a consistent libertarian who wants to move politics in his direction even if it means pumping extra money into social security in order to keep people alive. What I'm advocating is in no way for the purpose of trying to get Paul to change his principles. I am advocating keeping the numerical terms of the budget exactly as he has proposed in his transition, not deviating a single dime. I am just saying that if he would be willing to allow that money which he has reserved for social security move to the states on the basis of population and allow them to use it as they see fit. I would also be willing for his opt out provision to come to a vote before that change is made. If he has the votes we'll stick with him and let him have it his way. If not he has only to promise that the money so designated to fund the opt out be reallocated for unconditional use by the states. I have in the pass advocated for the money being used for funding the building of green infrastructure. I no longer advocate that because as I have learned from my time here, libertarians on principle do not believe in federal funding of infrastructure. I still believe that would be good use of the money but i have been willing to compromise to accommodate libertarian principles. What I want to know from any and everyone willing to engage the specifics of this proposal is does it in anyway violate Ron Paul's constitutional and libertarian principles and would you be willing to say to Ron Paul, "This is a deal we can all live with and it will obviously bring many more progressives on board."? Just one more caveat... Plan B. deviates slightly from this only because it is plan B., a contingent context in which we progressives have more leverage. If you do not understand my position from within the context of plan A., read my latest post: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/08/crashing-party-and-likely-policy-course.html

I'm still confused about what you're up to. You must know that nobody here has any say over what RP does. Are you basically just playing fantasy politics or something?

[YumYum]

I'm still confused about what you're up to. You must know that nobody here has any say over what RP does. Are you basically just playing fantasy politics or something?

No, he is creating a hypothetical scenario, and asking everyone if it is feasible, just like every Libertarian does.

[erowe1]

No, he is creating a hypothetical scenario, and asking everyone if it is feasible, just like every Libertarian does.

I've got no problem with that if so. It's just that it sometimes looks like all these posts are intended as genuine negotiations with the campaign itself in the real world.

I mean, the topic of how we as grassroots people (or some of us anyway) can reach those on the left more effectively is really worth discussing IMHO. But advice for Ron Paul himself doesn't fit in those discussions.

[progressiveforpaul]

Exactly...thanks.

No, he is creating a hypothetical scenario, and asking everyone if it is feasible, just like every Libertarian does.

[progressiveforpaul]

What I hope to achieve is a statement of coalition to present to Dr. Paul in the form of a letter with signatures from others who agree with it.

I've got no problem with that if so. It's just that it sometimes looks like all these posts are intended as genuine negotiations with the campaign itself in the real world.

I mean, the topic of how we as grassroots people (or some of us anyway) can reach those on the left more effectively is really worth discussing IMHO. But advice for Ron Paul himself doesn't fit in those discussions.

[erowe1]

How many signatures?

[tangent4ronpaul]

It's called a rubber - wear one.... that way you will not need emergency birth control!

[Revolution9]

What I hope to achieve is a statement of coalition to present to Dr. Paul in the form of a letter with signatures from others who agree with it.

OK. Write down RP's platform and get some sigs from progressives on it. Then we have a coalition.
Rev9

[progressiveforpaul]

And a neocon government led by our first mormon president.

OK. Write down RP's platform and get some sigs from progressives on it. Then we have a coalition.
Rev9

[Revolution9]

And a neocon government led by our first mormon president.

Oh. I see we have a fear, uncertainty and doubt monger here. Maybe go peddle your snakeoil to the Romney camp. Your chance of getting him to flip flop are exponentially greater.

Rev9

[erowe1]

And a neocon government led by our first mormon president.

So, in order to prevent Romney from winning, you think you need to get a bunch of signatures on some policy statement like you've been proposing. How many signatures do we need to get to accomplish that?

[musicmax]

>> Obama, despite his fumbles, still has respect in the international community. Joe Biden might also be considered for this post.

Looks like you picked the wrong week to start sniffing glue.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

OK. Write down RP's platform and get some sigs from progressives on it. Then we have a coalition.
Rev9

Brilliant

Someone that can see through b.s. like this and offer an excellent way around it is very valuable indeed

[ProIndividual]

erowe...so your answer to economic ignorance is groupthink? We shouldn't read Keynesians, Post Keynesians, and New Keynesians? I mean you make no sense.

They read one side in college and accepted it to get a degree. They are intellectually lazy, stupid, or some combination.

We should NOT only read Austrians...if we only read Austrians we'll suffer the same fate in groupthink the Keynesians did...PERIOD.

So, once again, reading too much isn't the issue. Why the all the anti-intellectualism?

Read more, it can't hurt you. Thinking critically is the failure of reading one side and never questioning it. Blame that, not what they read.

And don't imply economics isn't based around facts either. Want me to link you to charts to prove economic theories? It's pretty wierd you'd suggest facts and economics aren't related. I'm pretty sure you're making an erroneous argument. Reading is not bad, no matter what you read...it's just words. It's up to you to think critically...and most people cannot/will not do that. That's why democracy fails and is "tyranny of the majority"; the majority is a mob, and the mob is fickle and stupid (and often violent).

[showpan]

progressiveforpaul,

Picking Kucinich would mean a sure win. The Democrats are more than split in our favor.
What did Obama say to him on that plane ride before he voted for Obamacare?
The rest of that cabinet is ridiculous. Obama has no business in any position. We need to get rid of all the globalist neocons.
If Ron Paul fails to get the nomination, he will have to run 3rd party.
If Romney gets elected, this country in it's present form will not make it to another election. The Republicans will kill unemployment and throw this country into a revolt as it defaults again. This might even happen before the upcoming election. This could turn out to be the plan all along since we know that the neocons are on both sides of the aisle.
If it looks like Ron Paul is going to win, would Obama wag the blue dog pull a Bush out of his hat?
This also might even happen before the upcoming election no matter who gets the nomination, it all depends on who the NWO is going to support. So far, it looks like Romney is their man since Obama is taking a beating in their media outlets.

[erowe1]

erowe...so your answer to economic ignorance is groupthink? We shouldn't read Keynesians, Post Keynesians, and New Keynesians? I mean you make no sense.

No, I don't advocate not reading them.

But I think it's important that we know that the differences between those who advocate central management and those who don't are ultimately ethical ones, not simply different levels of knowledge about economics. And, if anything, it's often those who know the most who fall into the trap of believing that they know what's good for me better than I myself do.

You see this kind of thing on here all the time where people imagine that the difference between people who are right about these things and people who are wrong is an intellectual difference (e.g. "voters are stupid," etc.), when that's not what it is. I'd rather fill Congress with people selected off the people at Walmart website rather than Ivy League faculty any day.