The question of Leftists

[Mr. Perfidy]

Does anyone else find, in mixed political company, that the discussion turns into you (the ron paul supporter) and the leftist arguing against the neo-con? I think that most of Dr. Paul's platform is actually most easily marketed to Leftists and Democrats, who fundamentally oppose things like state surveillance, morality laws, and warfare. In mixed dynamics, it is always me and the leftists against the regular ol GOP people. This contradicts, however, most organised campaigning, which focuses on the flag-waving tea-party sort of crowd's language and prejudice. I find on the street, however, that the congressman's ideas do not play to such a crowd, and resonate more with the Jon Stewart, generally-anti-abuse-of-power people.

[heavenlyboy34]

Naturally. The philosophy of liberty comes primarily from the radical "left" of the classical period. To this day liberty remains a very radical idea which we're struggling to persuade Boobus to understand and accept. It's only by a series of coincidences and practicality that libertarians find themselves aligning with the GOP when engaging in electoral politics.

[Cabal]

I actually find that far-leftists are far and away more disapproving of RP than are neo-cons.

[Mr. Perfidy]

yeah I don't really mean "far leftists" just like, kids that grew up on Rage Against the Machine and in the 90s were against racism and emergent GOP christian evangelism.

[TheGrinch]

I actually find that far-leftists are far and away more disapproving of RP than are neo-cons.
This. Alot of liberals seem to recognize some of the same issues we do, namely a corrupt system, but follow this demonstrably false-premise that big-gvoernment is still good if you just regulate it more, when that only exacerbates the problem.

Though what's a bit more disturbing to me is how pro-mid-east-invervention some are now, just because it's their guy doing it quieter... In other words, it was only when Bush was in charge that it was okay for them to criticize going to war on a "whim' with no evidence and assault our liberties here. They don't seem to have a problem with it however, if their savior Barry does the same.

[Cabal]

Well neo-cons are far right, so if a comparison is to be made, it seems far-left is the reasonable one.

[heavenlyboy34]

I actually find that far-leftists are far and away more disapproving of RP than are neo-cons. Good point. The far-left adopt so much statism that they aren't really that different from the far fascist right. Sometimes they do it purposefully, sometimes out of a practical need in order to implement their statist ideals. You'll find totalitarianism if you go far enough either way.

[TheGrinch]

I think alot of it goes down to partisanship, that both sdies adopt an "us vs. them" attitude (which is also somewhat prevalent here, BTW, but more founded), where they assume that it's only the other party that's the problem, and that their side is completely benevolent, if not thinking both are, just misguided for the one they oppose.

That's perhaps the biggest challenge to get people past blind partisanship rallying around "their guy" when it's really just the establishment's guy (though the corrupt interests are giving us ammo all the time to show how corrupt and bought-off both sides of the aisle are).

[Okie RP fan]

I am actually offended to think that Ron Paul is anything close to being leftist. I think it needs to be worded differently. Liberals only agree on the anti-war and drug premises. Which, is funny, because conservatives were the ones who were against nation building and policing the world.

My experiences suggest that neocons are "friendlier" and only disagree when it comes to foreign policy and some social issues. My experiences with progressives is usually worse than with neocons, because progressives are full fledged nanny state supporters. They dislike libertarians just as much as conservatives.

[Mr. Perfidy]

liberals also think that the govt should not legislate sexual behavior or marriage rights, and that the police beating people is generally bad. Neo-cons rush to blame the victims of police brutality, whereas liberals tend to see the state in that respect as an abusive agent of special corporate interests...

Friendlier? LOL yo we live in different worlds. Neo-cons talk happily about dead muslims and collateral damage where I live.

[jbuttell]

...who fundamentally oppose things like state surveillance, morality laws, and warfare.

I wish that were the case, but your typical self-described liberals are perfectly content with state surveillance (unless complaining about the opposition party), are fine with dictating morality (so long as its void of relation to religion) and are supportive of "good" wars, generally ones that the opposing party is against.

These "liberals" are the neocons. The neocons are just contemporary liberals with a different jersey color. I've seen this idea manifest so many times on here. There are statists and lovers of individual liberty and i find no specific identifiable group, liberal or conservative, that presently represents the true freedom envisioned by the founders.

[febo]

Does anyone else find, in mixed political company, that the discussion turns into you (the ron paul supporter) and the leftist arguing against the neo-con? I think that most of Dr. Paul's platform is actually most easily marketed to Leftists and Democrats, who fundamentally oppose things like state surveillance, morality laws, and warfare. In mixed dynamics, it is always me and the leftists against the regular ol GOP people. This contradicts, however, most organised campaigning, which focuses on the flag-waving tea-party sort of crowd's language and prejudice. I find on the street, however, that the congressman's ideas do not play to such a crowd, and resonate more with the Jon Stewart, generally-anti-abuse-of-power people.

I completely agree and I study the sayings of "top" leftists all the time - its fascinating to see the schizophrenia - some unfortunates are so entrenched in left-right thinking they can't process RP and just tune him out. They often do this by picking on something they disagree with RP on. Usually it will be something trivial (factually or philosophically) but they will use this as sufficient excuse to blank RP despite the fact they plainly agree with him on war,peace,empire,state power,civil rights,corporatism - ie the vital issues of today.
Some are starting to crack, others need to be called out and literally instructed where they are going wrong. Are they seriously considering voting for the president who makes jokes about preditor drones?

[Mr. Perfidy]

precisely...

I am saying that the sentiment that defined the original republican spirit of american independence is not at home in any one camp, but rather, is a vaguely defined and amorphous collection of instinctive responses to abuse of power.

And again, I am not talking about arm-band wearing public union activists- I am talking about 30 somethings who like jon stewart and grew up equating GOP with Dubya.

[TheGrinch]

I am actually offended to think that Ron Paul is anything close to being leftist. I think it needs to be worded differently. Liberals only agree on the anti-war and drug premises. Which, is funny, because conservatives were the ones who were against nation building and policing the world.

My experiences suggest that neocons are "friendlier" and only disagree when it comes to foreign policy and some social issues. My experiences with progressives is usually worse than with neocons, because progressives are full fledged nanny state supporters. They dislike libertarians just as much as conservatives.
Leftists at their core believe in the same personal liberties we do, and are less different than you'd think. There's a reason they're the umbrella party for minority rights, womens rights, enviornmental rights, etc., it's just we part ways where they want the government to legislate and protect them, while we don't believe in collectivism nor the government's ability to do so. We simply want the same unalienable rights for all, with no regard to collective groups, only individuals. Similar ideals, opposing methods of achieving them.

I still believe that the fault of both parties is this: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", and sums it up quite well why hardcore ideologues are unwilling or unable to see alternative viewpoints and solutions...

[heavenlyboy34]

I am actually offended to think that Ron Paul is anything close to being leftist. I think it needs to be worded differently. Liberals only agree on the anti-war and drug premises. Which, is funny, because conservatives were the ones who were against nation building and policing the world.

My experiences suggest that neocons are "friendlier" and only disagree when it comes to foreign policy and some social issues. My experiences with progressives is usually worse than with neocons, because progressives are full fledged nanny state supporters. They dislike libertarians just as much as conservatives.
Don't be offended. The problem is that "liberal" has long been hijacked by socialists and quasi-fascists and various partisan statists. The flavor of conservatism you're describing is relatively new in history. Very much an American phenomenon and a result of odd factionalizations over the years. The good thing about it is that this sort of "conservative" impulse can be persuaded by classical liberal and libertarian arguments when presented in the right way.

[heavenlyboy34]

Leftists at their core believe in the same personal liberties we do, and are less different than you'd think. There's a reason they're the umbrella party for minority rights, womens rights, enviornmental rights, etc., it's just we part ways where they want the government to legislate and protect them, while we don't believe in collectivism nor the government's ability to do so. We simply want the same unalienable rights for all, with no regard to collective groups, only individuals. Similar ideals, opposing methods of achieving them.

I still believe that the fault of both parties is this: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", and sums it up quite well why hardcore ideologues are unwilling or unable to see alternative viewpoints and solutions...This^^

[febo]

I am saying that the sentiment that defined the original republican spirit of american independence is not at home in any one camp, but rather, is a vaguely defined and amorphous collection of instinctive responses to abuse of power.

I don't find RP's philosophy to be vague - it simply shows that the left-right debate is spurious/irrelevant right now. The left-right narrative may even have been imposed in order to divert from the real scam. (Ironically it's leftist Chris Hedges who has so clearly exposed this - ironic because he's currently blanking RP).


I am talking about 30 somethings who like jon stewart and grew up equating GOP with Dubya.

Yes, we are talking huge numbers...

[Mr. Perfidy]

Ron Paul is not vague- I am saying the thing that makes people recoil at videos of cops beating women- that is vague. It is instinctive responses, not a developed political philosophy- nevertheless, it is an emotional feeling that liberty need be defended from tyranny, that the state is abusive and coercive and uses violence, etc. And yep- huge numbers. That covers most people who graduated from public schools since 1988 or so.

[Bossobass]

In life I've found that people are people.

I've also realized early on that TV dictates what people talk about around the water cooler; what dress so & so wore at the Oscars, what team is in the play-offs, what the updates are on the latest sensational murder trial, the weather, electronic gadgets, cars, etc.

I've been purposely monitoring NPR, PBS, BBC and the 4 major networks' local affiliate news programs. It has gotten to the point where Ron Paul's name is never even mentioned. It follows that neither is his name mentioned around the water cooler.

This forum blames the campaign, sheeple, RP supporters, youth's failure to vote and some have finally begun to address the electronic vote flipping and blatant ballot tampering (a good thing), but...

The guy is not even mentioned once in a 15 minute "report" on the GOP race.

In contrast to this travesty, diractly after the GOP reporting, they switch to the election in EGYPT, where they mention EVERY CANDIDATE.

With the excitement RP generates and the truly astounding attendance at his speeches, the press reporting those details like they've incessantly blathered on about Santorum/Romney, or Romney/Gingrich, or Romney/Cain, or "there are now 3 top contenders; Perry, Romney and Bachmann" would have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.

It really is that simple.

The same folks who bad-talk RP would be singing his praises without us having to 'win' arguments, debates or conversions.

Bosso

[Okie RP fan]

Don't be offended. The problem is that "liberal" has long been hijacked by socialists and quasi-fascists and various partisan statists. The flavor of conservatism you're describing is relatively new in history. Very much an American phenomenon and a result of odd factionalizations over the years. The good thing about it is that this sort of "conservative" impulse can be persuaded by classical liberal and libertarian arguments when presented in the right way.

I understand the civil liberties bit...

And I will be offended when being compared to modern American liberals. Many of whom are self described communists and socialists.

Obama supporters are blind sheep following their messiah. They are as clueless as the typical Republican. Personally all I encounter with neocons is the foreign policy issue. With "liberals," I find issues with monetary, (some social, such as climate change and evolution) and general economic policies Paul advocates.

[gb13]

Well neo-cons are far right, so if a comparison is to be made, it seems far-left is the reasonable one.

Agreed. Either one would be a nightmare scenario, but if the choice were between the two, I'd take the ideal of the far-leftists. Although, ultimately, in either situation the end-result would probably be a bullet in my brain.;)

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

"If we were in the days of the revolution, Conservatives today would be the Liberals, and the Liberals would be the Tories."

-Ronald Reagan, 1975

Hmmm?

[Jingles]

It depends on the issue and the people I'm talking with.

They both don't really favor personal liberty nor do they both favor economic liberty. In broad terms the right and left both want to use the force of the state to push their morals/views on others. As a libertarian I don't wish to use the force of the state to force morals/views on anyone. Liberals want to force people to "accept" things. Conservatives want to use force to make people more "moral". They don't oppose the state, violence, and force, but wish to use it for different ends is all.

[heavenlyboy34]

Hmmm?
Some truth to that.

[sailingaway]

They are better on that point, but people tend to end up voting their pocket book, and our pocket book ideology isn't leftist.

[sailingaway]

Agreed. Either one would be a nightmare scenario, but if the choice were between the two, I'd take the ideal of the far-leftists. Although, ultimately, in either situation the end-result would probably be a bullet in my brain.;)

It doesn't work that way. It goes from fascism/tyranny/communism (the statist control side) to the anarchist side. I'm neither, but left and right don't really work. As said above, if they want to force their way on others, it had better be in strictly limited areas.

[truthspeaker]

The argument I hear from liberals is "he's pro-life".

Just remind them that it is the lives of soldiers we are fighting for and the shift our nation has been doing against their liberties.

Remind them that a vote for Ron Paul is also a vote in favor of saving the economy. (He did predict the housing bubble and is against corporate bailouts).

[Hyperion]

I actually find that far-leftists are far and away more disapproving of RP than are neo-cons.

This.

[Hyperion]

liberals also think that the govt should not legislate sexual behavior or marriage rights, and that the police beating people is generally bad. Neo-cons rush to blame the victims of police brutality, whereas liberals tend to see the state in that respect as an abusive agent of special corporate interests...

Friendlier? LOL yo we live in different worlds. Neo-cons talk happily about dead muslims and collateral damage where I live.

Uhh, liberals are just a different side of the statist coin. I hardly call the advocacy of state funding of abortion, sex education, mandating their state sponsored definition of marriage as getting the government out of the equation.

[heavenlyboy34]

Uhh, liberals are just a different side of the statist coin. I hardly call the advocacy of state funding of abortion, sex education, mandating their state sponsored definition of marriage as getting the government out of the equation.
+a bunch. Unfortunate that certain statists stole the word liberal and bastardized it beyond repair. Mises would be sad and disappoint. :(

[Massachusetts]

I'm not sure a lot of you guys understand what the average liberal/left winger is like. What has been described is how extremists view the world. I live in Massachusetts, the most liberal state in America. They are not how you have been describing them at all...I don't know how they are where you come from, but it seems very far off to me.

[TheGrinch]

In life I've found that people are people.

I've also realized early on that TV dictates what people talk about around the water cooler; what dress so & so wore at the Oscars, what team is in the play-offs, what the updates are on the latest sensational murder trial, the weather, electronic gadgets, cars, etc.

I've been purposely monitoring NPR, PBS, BBC and the 4 major networks' local affiliate news programs. It has gotten to the point where Ron Paul's name is never even mentioned. It follows that neither is his name mentioned around the water cooler.

This forum blames the campaign, sheeple, RP supporters, youth's failure to vote and some have finally begun to address the electronic vote flipping and blatant ballot tampering (a good thing), but...

The guy is not even mentioned once in a 15 minute "report" on the GOP race.

In contrast to this travesty, diractly after the GOP reporting, they switch to the election in EGYPT, where they mention EVERY CANDIDATE.

With the excitement RP generates and the truly astounding attendance at his speeches, the press reporting those details like they've incessantly blathered on about Santorum/Romney, or Romney/Gingrich, or Romney/Cain, or "there are now 3 top contenders; Perry, Romney and Bachmann" would have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.

It really is that simple.

The same folks who bad-talk RP would be singing his praises without us having to 'win' arguments, debates or conversions.

Bosso
+rep

The media has acutally succeeded somewhat in deflecting the balme away from them, and causing a few in this movement to look to eachother for blame. I mean, it has to be something, but too many look to "soft" supporters, campaign strategies, while neglecting the true reason we're not able to have the reach we should.

I mean, think about it. If a liberal is opposed to or (even on the fence about) Dr. Paul, then when the media reports "racist newsletters", they buy it hook-line-and-sinker, because it fits into the narrative they have about the GOP, and successfully lumps Dr. Paul in with some of the GOP and governement's policies that could easily be construed as racist.

Then you add in the people who pay even less attention, and they're not even very aware of Dr. Paul and his message from the mainstream media, and so they almost have to take our word for it that there's as many of us as there seems to be. For many, it really does matter that the media puts them into the public sphere, because most are trusting that if a candidate were viable, he'd get coverage. As we've seen that's certainly not the case, no conspiracy theory about it.

If the media and GOP chose to, they could paint Dr. Paul as a guy who can unite folks from all parties with common ideals, and draw the always-valuable swing votes; But it's as if in this race, they want to pretend that the all-important "independent" bloc that is for Dr. Paul and can win an election, simply does not exist according to their coverage. It's just a vocal minority, and not a growing movement, as far as they're concerned. Nothing to see here...

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure a lot of you guys understand what the average liberal/left winger is like. What has been described is how extremists view the world. I live in Massachusetts, the most liberal state in America. They are not how you have been describing them at all...I don't know how they are where you come from, but it seems very far off to me.

I'm from California and have to agree with you.

[Massachusetts]

I'm from California and have to agree with you.

California is also an extremely liberal state. I have never been there and cannot speak on the people there, but I assume it is more of the same.

[Butchie]

This. Alot of liberals seem to recognize some of the same issues we do, namely a corrupt system, but follow this demonstrably false-premise that big-gvoernment is still good if you just regulate it more, when that only exacerbates the problem.

Though what's a bit more disturbing to me is how pro-mid-east-invervention some are now, just because it's their guy doing it quieter... In other words, it was only when Bush was in charge that it was okay for them to criticize going to war on a "whim' with no evidence and assault our liberties here. They don't seem to have a problem with it however, if their savior Barry does the same.

I love that second paragraph, sums it up nice, I never liked liberals much but I did atleast respect the fact that they spoke out against the wars, but as is typical (well, with conservatives as well) the most important principle of all seems to be "hate the other guy no matter what and stand by your guy no matter what."

[The Free Hornet]

Does anyone else find, in mixed political company, that the discussion turns into you (the ron paul supporter) and the leftist arguing against the neo-con?

No. Although the left-right divsion is artificial, arbitrary, and oddly applied (e.g., neocons are NOT far-right if your far right is pure capitalism or libertarian/anarchy variants), nobody would confuse me as a leftist. Their defense of government quickly makes them the leftist/statists. And I will use leftist/communist/pinko/bleeding-heart-liberal terminology as that is what your typical mixed company will claim to abhor (in my circles). There are so many issues you can use to tie them down as the progressives they are: welfare state (social security, medicare), government regulation (FDA, EPA), interference in our lives (DEA, BATF), deficit spending, monetary inflation, and huge government with overseas tendrils.

Neocons are jellyfish without the poison. They resort to comments like

a) he can't win, Romney will be the nominee
b) without the welfare state the underclass will rise up and take over

Very few have any sort of intellectual chops. Many claim to have things you can identify as libertarian tenancies but with zero understanding of how to achieve freedom. Their defense of liberty is summarized as "yes, but". There is always an excuse why they need their precious nanny state. They are weak and pathetic - the very opposite of hardlined and principled.

The neocon is the leftist and it our job to let them know it! Again, I only say "leftist" because that is what they dislike.

[flynn]

Live in Canada, we have no short supply of statists left wing government know best types here.

In my experience, it is pretty easy to argue with leftists here. All you really need to do is to poke holes in their argument. Ironically, the right wing, conservatives are pretty hardcore, they are fixed in their religious believes and would not hesitate to impose their values onto your personal lives. Both are digging their own grave. Both thinks they are superior than thou. in the u.s, Republicans are just democrats lite at this point.

[Sola_Fide]

It's not Left vs. Right
It's the State vs. YOU

[Icymudpuppy]

It's not Left vs. Right
It's the State vs. YOU

We know this, but I don't find many people on the left OR the right that understand this. They completely don't realize that each new law passed seemingly benevolently by one party is used tyrannically by the other party when they get in. Nothing is ever repealed, and the grip just gets tighter.

I fear the only way to escape tyranny is to become nomadic. Seastead, or space-stead like in firefly. Only pioneers living at the edges of civilization ever experience freedom.

Ohh how I wish she were right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wntX-a3jSY

[cajuncocoa]

I'm sorry to have to break this to y'all, but I (and a couple other RPF members) belonged to a now-defunct Left-leaning progressive board where it was known that we were/are Ron Paul supporters. It was no easier to try to discuss issues with those people than it is to try to discuss issues with right-wing neocons (in fact, the Leftists persistently accused us RP supporters of being neocons ... the "logic" behind that thinking being, if you're not a liberal/progressive/Democrat, you're automatically a neocon...what else is there? :rolleyes:)

Long story short, these Leftists were every bit as clueless (and SIGNIFICANTLY MUCH RUDER) than any neocon I've ever met.

[Stallheim]

I wonder if there is a general trend by region. I live in Pennsylvania, it is much easier to find common cause and easily identify common enemies with my non republican friends and family than with the average republican. It seems that most libertarians have already shaken off their last republican trappings and are full blown champions of liberty during the Bush administration, but the democrats are still democrats and many are quite lost and reasonable to talk to. I find may who are still republicans are so very stubborn, and desperate that this is the last chance to save the country and we just have to hold our nose and vote for the party pick because another term of Obama will destroy this great nation. But it sounds like this is not the case in other parts of the country maybe. Just a quick note, I spend a lot of time in Scandinavia and it is very similar among young people there too, as a libertarian it is really easy to talk about all sorts of freedom related topics, and the strategy of what to break the ice with makes a big difference. On a few occasions I have given a little sample of silver coins towards the close of a conversion effort, years later this seems to have tipped the scale to the market liberty side: nothing like an actual bit of skin in the game! Perhaps I just get frustrated with tenaciously bull headed self-righteousness. For me it is easier to tread carefully around liberal inconsistency and share common cause about injustice. I would love to find out more about regional differences with common labels like conservative, liberal, democrat, libertarian etc.

[Highstreet]

Does anyone else find, in mixed political company, that the discussion turns into you (the ron paul supporter) and the leftist arguing against the neo-con? I think that most of Dr. Paul's platform is actually most easily marketed to Leftists and Democrats, who fundamentally oppose things like state surveillance, morality laws, and warfare. In mixed dynamics, it is always me and the leftists against the regular ol GOP people. This contradicts, however, most organised campaigning, which focuses on the flag-waving tea-party sort of crowd's language and prejudice. I find on the street, however, that the congressman's ideas do not play to such a crowd, and resonate more with the Jon Stewart, generally-anti-abuse-of-power people.

Agreed. I get a lot of traction with my liberal friends as well.

I find that I am simply destroying Media lies and distortion with my conservative friends/family.

[Mr. Perfidy]

precisely; as the cali and mass. people have said, the "liberals" so many of you are talking about are the extremist, ideological ones- in those cases I would direct your attention to http://www.feastofhateandfear.com/archives/unabomber.html this link, Ted Kacizynski on the "the psychology of modern leftism." Say what you will of the man; he is right on target there in that part.

I am not talking about these people though- I am talking about regular registered Democrats whose identification with the Democratic Party is simply a statement of solidarity with the working poor and with minority groups. When people say, "I am a Republican," it often just means, "I like to pretend that I am in the ruling class," and when they say, "I am a Democrat," it often sounds suspiciously like, "I like the little guy." I am NOT TALKING about Democratic Party policy, or voting records, or philosophy, because, MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW SHIT. They just identify with a group that promises them the right emotional associations and ego affirmations. In this respect, most democrats, the regular voter types, not the activists and public union people, ARE WITH US IN SPIRIT.

THEY HATE WAR.

THEY WANT TO LEGALIZE DRUGS.

THEY HATE RENDITION AND WIRETAPPING AND THE POLICE STATE

THEY HATE CORPORATE MEDDLING IN GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Why is this so disquieting to so many of you?

[TheGrinch]

nm

[Adam West]

I'm 53, and am at a good age to relate my experiences. When I was young, I was looking for the Peace Corps and was a "tried and true" Democrat. Then I began to run businesses and slowly became more aware of Government interference and their suffocating measures. I still "run" businesses and have not changed my mind.

I spent 3 and a half months in China recently and bought a lot of product. Why? Because no one got in my way. A total different experience than business in the West.

[Echoes]

Most americans are retarded and dont know squat about philosophy, private property and capitalism.

Left and Right=Red Sox Vs. Yankees. Pick a side and start hollering for your team. No principles, no core, no morals. I just want my team to win.

That's all both parties are. Two sides of the same evil, statist coin.

[heavenlyboy34]

Most americans are retarded and dont know squat about philosophy, private property and capitalism.

Left and Right=Red Sox Vs. Yankees. Pick a side and start hollering for your team. No principles, no core, no morals. I just want my team to win.

That's all both parties are. Two sides of the same evil, statist coin.
FTW! :cool:

[Mr. Perfidy]

ok so what about this then excludes Leftists from the Ron Paul message? Most of us here understand that the Left vs Right paradigm is false and dead and belongs already to the scrap heap of history. Why then would we only pursue those registered with the GOP as a means of gaining RP support?

Any Occupy people on here? How many people at the Occupations were Ron Paul supporters? A whole lot, in Philly anyway. Most of the young people didn't even want to talk in terms of Left and Right, and had totally internalized that the State was a criminal enemy of the People. But, their fashion, manner, personal associations, lifestyles and drugs/music of choice came from LEFT WING traditions. They grew toward adulthood with che guevara posters in their dorms, and that to them meant, "I support the lower classes and do not think that they should eat shit their whole life because of their birth rank."

I am saying that words like DEMOCRACY or LIBERAL, as they are only words and not real things, have different meaning to everyone who uses them. To a lot of people, the language of the left has nothing whatsoever to do with State intrusion and everything to do with support of regular people.

[Echoes]

ok so what about this then excludes Leftists from the Ron Paul message? Most of us here understand that the Left vs Right paradigm is false and dead and belongs already to the scrap heap of history. Why then would we only pursue those registered with the GOP as a means of gaining RP support?

Any Occupy people on here? How many people at the Occupations were Ron Paul supporters? A whole lot, in Philly anyway. Most of the young people didn't even want to talk in terms of Left and Right, and had totally internalized that the State was a criminal enemy of the People. But, their fashion, manner, personal associations, lifestyles and drugs/music of choice came from LEFT WING traditions. They grew toward adulthood with che guevara posters in their dorms, and that to them meant, "I support the lower classes and do not think that they should eat shit their whole life because of their birth rank."

I am saying that words like DEMOCRACY or LIBERAL, as they are only words and not real things, have different meaning to everyone who uses them. To a lot of people, the language of the left has nothing whatsoever to do with State intrusion and everything to do with support of regular people.

I agree, and why i fully support an independent run. A coalition of democrats, independents and fiscal conservatives could work well. It's a win-win, even if we loose the election Ron'll be in there injecting real topics and spreading the Idea to the masses.

The message is bigger then the person and we need as many ppl on our side when SHTF. And if i hear another person babble about Ron ruining Rands future and blah, blah...fuck 2016 and fuck the GOP. The time is now, gather ye flowers !

[HigherVision]

Really it depends on the individual, whether they're coming from a left or right background. Whether they're able to think critically and be honest with themselves determines whether they'll be able to recognize the truth. I know one thing, there's a lot of hate and vitriol towards us that comes from both sides and I find it disturbing.

One thing I think needs to end immediately though is factionalism among libertarians ourselves. There's only a few issues that seperate us: abortion, immigration - I think that's it. We have to be willing to compromise on these issues if we're going to build a large enough coalition to get the majority votes in elections.

[Mr. Perfidy]

separates us from whom?

[febo]

Why is this so disquieting to so many of you?

Welcome to the RP forums! There are a lot of deeply entrenched anti-leftist posters here. In my opinion they are either trolls or deficient in their understanding. Ignore them.

[Adam West]

Really it depends on the individual, whether they're coming from a left or right background. Whether they're able to think critically and be honest with themselves determines whether they'll be able to recognize the truth. I know one thing, there's a lot of hate and vitriol towards us that comes from both sides and I find it disturbing.

One thing I think needs to end immediately though is factionalism among libertarians ourselves. There's only a few issues that seperate us: abortion, immigration - I think that's it. We have to be willing to compromise on these issues if we're going to build a large enough coalition to get the majority votes in elections.

Let's get real.

There is no way to force women to have children if they don't want to. Why everybody goes on about this is beyond me. And about immigration, it is simply a situation of supply and demand.

It is in the interest of politicians to excaserbate these issues. That's how they get elected.

[Mr. Perfidy]

I hate the anti-mexican republican crowd. They always fall back on "they are exploiting america," as if any public employee is not more guilty of this.

Let's move beyond the theory though, since a lot of us are in agreement that the american left is generally receptive to the Dr's messages.

What can we do to target leftist sympathizers and bring them in?

[febo]

What can we do to target leftist sympathizers and bring them in?

Go for the "leaders". And expose the leftist media for its disgusting repression of the message of peace and liberty.
PS you seen this?
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

[Mr. Perfidy]

I was thinking that too- addressing the leadership. But, I fear that the leadership will often fall squarely in the dogmatic extremist statist camp.

I was thinking, for example, of the resurgent SDS as it reappeared on my campus in 2007. My friends and I attended a meeting, hoping to inject some Paulian anarchism as a plausible and marketable direction for their activism. We found however that the "leader" was a nitwit wannabe radical with no understanding of anything, and the "adviser" was some sad old man who used Crimestop to shoot down any discussion that we brought to the table. Leader idiot was clearly enamored with Adviser idiot's glorious tales of 60s activism, to the point of humiliating himself before the students who turned out the meeting. There was no SDS on campus after like 2 meetings, because everyone that showed up was turned off by that dynamic- the general consensus in the room was, "who is that old dumbass, and why does this tool up front love him so much?"

A lot of the kids that showed up to consider participation, however, did become Ron Paul people.

[Lishy]

The only answer to this thread is to check up on Revleft and see what they think :rolleyes:

[Butchie]

I hate the anti-mexican republican crowd. They always fall back on "they are exploiting america," as if any public employee is not more guilty of this.

Let's move beyond the theory though, since a lot of us are in agreement that the american left is generally receptive to the Dr's messages.

What can we do to target leftist sympathizers and bring them in?

Why is it because you want to enforce our immigration laws that instantly makes you "anti-Mexican", I want illegals deported whether they are Mexican, Russian, Korean, whatever, it's about keeping our sovereignty, stop trying to make everything about race.

[Gray Fullbuster]

My only problem is the single issue voters on abortion who slam Dr.Paul RELENTLESSLY.

There are A LOT and they are pretty much human trash imho and are always liberals to the fullest. They don't even focus he's the only one with the chance to win to appeal MOST of the other liberal rhetoric, such as an increase in LGBT rights, cannabis legalization, ending of the wars (not a liberal positition just an anti-war one which everyone should love.)

Seriously, the only 2 sane voting options this time around are Dr.Paul or if he's too far right for you, Green Party.

[Intoxiklown]

Honestly, I have really don't run across a lot of "militant" leftists. Neo-cons, however.....


But yeah, a lot of the democrats on forums I frequent are actually MUCH easier to talk to then the neo-cons. Pretty much the only beef I ever see from the democrats is Paul wanting to cut government, and I mean really cut it. But that is expected, since the bulk of the democrat platform is big government designed for social services. I know quite a few democrats at a Fox blog I like to go to (Yes, I'm a glutton for insanity) who have openly said many times they enjoy debate with Ron Paul supporters. Until we get on economics...LOL....then they ignore me.

Of course, one main reason they like us there, is the neo-conservatives come at us like rabid damn yard dogs, and completely ignore the democrats.

And no, I have never seen one single friendly neo-con. That is one demographic that is completely vile with their "super patriotism". The argue against fact with opinion, and labels. Did you guys know I am a "Muslim lover Commie, who worships Hitler and hates the Jews and America"?

LULZ!

[Mr. Perfidy]

My parents are neo-cons. I went home for something last year and was talking about this or that rothbardian kind of economic stance, and my mom said all disappointed,

"when did my son become a communist?"!!!! LOL

And Butchie, comeon man- being anti-illegal immigration is a perfectly rational and constitutional stance. But, that is not to say that the people who get all emotional over it and yell the loudest just hate mexicans. Don't even front, you are not fooling us. It isn't even typically a real feeling anyway, just a knee-jerk tribalist fear response to imagined aggression.

Example- I have a friend in the movement, got him a 2nd job delivering pizzas at a place I used to work. The whole kitchen is illegal. He used to come home and say how awesome they all were and how he is jealous of mexicans because of their family networks and cultural support nets and resource/service cooperatives. There was one guy that we called Smile Mask, because he had a huge face and was always so happy looking.

So like 6 months after he leaves this place, he's trying to schmooze into the older moustachio'd mortgage holder straights JBS kinda crowd, and he's on his anti-illegal immigrant horse, talking about DEPORTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and talking about them like they are some kind of terrible plague. He literally did not make the connection that he was talking about REAL PEOPLE, the SAME PEOPLE that he was glad to call friends not a few months back.

Its a conceptual, ego-illusory thing that takes root in the warped psyches of moderns, typically whites, whose own culture is just totally vitiated, electronic, centrally-commanded madison avenue-pentagon axis garbage. it is a psychological condition, not a political stance.

[libertyfanatic]

I find liberals much more open to Dr. Paul's ideas than any neocons.

[Mr. Perfidy]

I tell them,

"None of the social safety nets you want to see for the poor or disabled or whatever will go anywhere for a few generations- you know, I know, EVERYONE knows, that the ruling class is GUILTY OF TREASON and all kinds of other capital crimes. A Ron Paul presidency opens the door to prosecuting them. Then we can seize their illegitimate wealth, and fund those programs until their damage is negated, and future generations can enter the free market on an even playing field."

[Schiff_FTW]

In my experience leftists tend to be a lot more intellectually dishonest than neocons. They absolutely despise Paul because his very presence on the national stage highlights their hypocrisy on defining issues such as war, civil liberties, and corporatism. On these fundamentals Paul represents what many on the left profess to support, while in actuality they do not. So since they can't argue with him on the issues (since at heart they know he is right and they are sellouts), leftists almost always resort to nonsense name-calling/hit piece talking points that they think makes them look smart.

[libertyfanatic]

In my experience leftists tend to be a lot more intellectually dishonest than neocons. They absolutely despise Paul because his very presence on the national stage highlights their hypocrisy on defining issues such as war, civil liberties, and corporatism. On these fundamentals Paul represents what many on the left profess to support, while in actuality they do not. So since they can't argue with him on the issues (since at heart they know he is right and they are sellouts), leftists almost always resort to nonsense name-calling/hit piece talking points that they think makes them look smart.I guess it depends on how far left they are. The moderate liberals I know all respect Dr. Paul.

[Schiff_FTW]

I guess it depends on how far left they are. The moderate liberals I know all respect Dr. Paul.

You're luckier than me then. For example I recently had an email conversation with a 'friend' who goes to one of the nation's top law schools (supposedly demonstrating his intelligence) that went something like this:

"Two separate provisions have passed under the Obama administration that allows for (1) targeted assassinations and (2) indefinite detention, of U.S. citizens, with zero due process."

His reply: a link to some stupid NYTimes article claiming (no doubt falsely) that Ron Paul double charged the government for some airline tickets in the 90s. :rolleyes:

The leftist playbook: "When you can't defend fascism under Democrats, change the topic."

[libertyfanatic]

You're luckier than me then. For example I recently had an email conversation with a 'friend' who goes to one of the nation's top law schools (supposedly demonstrating his intelligence) that went something like this:

"Two separate provisions have passed under the Obama administration that allows for (1) targeted assassinations and (2) indefinite detention, of U.S. citizens, with zero due process."

His reply: a link to some stupid NYTimes article claiming (no doubt falsely) that Ron Paul double charged the government for some airline tickets in the 90s. :rolleyes:

The leftist playbook: "When you can't defend fascism under Democrats, change the topic."Thats pretty pathetic on his part lol.

[Mr. Perfidy]

yeah it might work in an email, but if a person tried that shit in person, I would shame him without mercy until he was forced to confess that he was ducking the topic at hand.

[LibertyEagle]

Most americans are retarded and dont know squat about philosophy, private property and capitalism.

Left and Right=Red Sox Vs. Yankees. Pick a side and start hollering for your team. No principles, no core, no morals. I just want my team to win.

That's all both parties are. Two sides of the same evil, statist coin.

Left and right are not political parties. They denote different ideologies. The left wants a large centralized government. Those on the right do not. That means we have leftists in both the Republican and Democratic Parties.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

[LibertyEagle]

I find liberals much more open to Dr. Paul's ideas than any neocons.

Don't forget that neo-conservatives came from the Trotskyite wing of the Democratic Party.