Decision Time: How to Proceed

[Article V]

It seems here on out Ron Paul only has only a few options, the choice of which will determine the ultimate viability of his candidacy along with his future ability to shape the federal government and our cultural discussion on freedom, constitutional governance, just war, sound money, etc.

Ron Paul could either:


a) Keep on keeping on in the GOP nomination process. In other words, continue with the same strategy he's been using, hoping for a sudden major shift in the nomination process or a contested convention where he has surprisingly amassed 1144 delegates to clinch the nomination. Or, perhaps, radically shift his own campaign strategy so that a sudden major shift in the GOP nomination process is somehow more likely to occur in his favor.

b) Run third-party or support a third-party.

c) Make a deal to secure a place for the Liberty movement in the next GOP administration so that libertarian ideas are part of the regular American discussion and part of the elite roundtable discussions in the executive branch, thereby drastically increasing the likelihood that some libertarian ideas will either be enacted or will help balance the discussion so that the more radical authoritarian ideas aren't normalized but are polarized through contrast.


I could be wrong, but I don't see option A working and the natural phenomenon of subsequent decision-making (an economic truism) causes the momentum to continually push Ron Paul down rather than prop him up or at the very least keep his candidacy stable [not because he has any less support (he might actually have more) but because voters are trying to maximize their voice in government and so most only seriously consider those candidates they perceive as viable (and that perception of viability is determined through the consideration of the choices of previous decision-makers who are, in this case, previous voters in other states)].

Likewise, as much as I would love him to do so (and I really, really, really would like this), I don't see Ron Paul running third party or endorsing a third-party candidate. I know he hasn't fully ruled it out because he doesn't speak in absolutes, but his personal passion for it simply isn't there (at least at this moment); and you can't win an election without personal passion, especially not as a third-party candidate.

Finally, there's the Romney equation to consider:



Even though they disagree greatly, Romney and Paul like each other, respect each other, and at least consider each other's opinions (even if they later reject them). Romney is lacking a passionate grassroots base and, in the states where he's losing, is consistently losing by a only a few percentage points; but those small losses perpetuate the meme of his weakness as a front-runner, whereas his wins help push Santorum/Gingrich down, if not out.

Just as Newt is angling for Santorum to make a deal with Newt as part of a Santorum administration (either as VP or elsewhere), Ron Paul could make a deal with Romney to help move support to Romney and thereby push Romney over the edge in all the states where he's losing by small margins. In doing so, Ron Paul would secure the influence of libertarians in the GOP party for a long time to come because (even if Romney loses the general election) Ron Paul would be able to shape the American discussion, shape the GOP party platform, and shape the 3 branches of federal government because he'd have a distinguished seat at the Executive's table, the Senatorial table, the press table, and the roundtable where judicial nominations are considered (or if Romney loses the general, Ron Paul would still retain influence in the press and the GOP party platform as their most recent VP nominee, much like Palin has done). And, beyond that, Ron Paul would retain a perpetual chance to become President since he'd be only one Romney breath away from executive decision-making.


From my perspective, this last option is now Ron Paul's best option--not that it's my preferred option. But I believe this option is our best hope at seriously changing America in the near future because it keeps libertarian philosophy in the mainstream discussion. And, even when Ron Paul's libertarian ideas are rejected by the Romney administration (which of course many of them would be), their mere discussion would undoubtedly influence Romney's administration (simply through the natural workings of small group decision-making) so that authoritarian alternatives would be more accurately balanced rather than normalized in their extreme.

Considering all of the above, what do you all think Ron Paul should do next?

[tbone717]

Personally, I believe "burning the house down" to be the most foolish of options. We have put far too much work in increasing the libertarian wing of the GOP to walk away from all that work. And honestly, if Paul were to go that route it would be a slap in the face to all the Republicans that have supported him in this process and have been working their butts off to put libertarian people in office at the local and state level. We are a minority in the party and a minority of the general electorate. Walking away from it all, would merely relegate us to obscurity.

[Butchie]

Can I ask where you guys keep getting this mentality that Ron can "shape the discussion" in the GOP? If he doesn't win this it's end of story, I don't care what BS bone they throw at you saying "oh yeah, we'll look into the Fed - we'll rethink the Patriot Act" etc, it is all a lie, they will say whatever you want to hear to get your vote, you have to be completely naive to ever think any of them will follow through with it once in office.

I don't think I've ever thrown the troll or conspiracy word around once on this board (or any board for that matter) but I am starting to think there are alot of establishment GOP people coming on these boards trying plant this ugly seed that we need to get behind the republican nominee somehow.

[tbone717]

Can I ask where you guys keep getting this mentality that Ron can "shape the discussion" in the GOP? If he doesn't win this it's end of story, I don't care what BS bone they throw at you saying "oh yeah, we'll look into the Fed - we'll rethink the Patriot Act" etc, it is all a lie, they will say whatever you want to hear to get your vote, you have to be completely naive to ever think any of them will follow through with it once in office.

I don't think I've ever thrown the troll or conspiracy word around once on this board (or any board for that matter) but I am starting to think there are alot of establishment GOP people coming on these boards trying plant this ugly seed that we need to get behind the republican nominee somehow.

The simple answer is because we are increasing our numbers in Congress. The Audit the Fed bill is very close to being passed, we just need a few more people and it can pass the House. With an increase in libertarian-leaning Republicans in the Senate (which there are many running who have a realistic shot of winning) we can get the bill through the Senate as well.

[Article V]

Can I ask where you guys keep getting this mentality that Ron can "shape the discussion" in the GOP? If he doesn't win this it's end of story, I don't care what BS bone they throw at you saying "oh yeah, we'll look into the Fed - we'll rethink the Patriot Act" etc, it is all a lie, they will say whatever you want to hear to get your vote, you have to be completely naive to ever think any of them will follow through with it once in office.
Sure, I can tell you exactly where I get that mentality.

First, it's important to note that I'm not talking about some pseudo-influence such as a prime-time speech at the convention. A speech's influence is fast-fading.

To be truly influential, exposure and message repetition are key (and these are the two things Ron Paul is quickly losing and would most certainly lose entirely if he isn't part of the next government). As a VP or Secretary of State or Secretary of the Treasure, Ron Paul would have regular international exposure and a real seat at the decision table of the administration. Even when Ron Paul's ideas are disregarded, the mere mention of them at the table would cause the discussion to shift and be more balanced and would cause everyone in the room to get smarter, simply because they're forced out of their groupthink comfort zone. Much like how Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Tim Geithner get regular press and regularly shape the cultural discussion as well as their own administration, even when Obama et al. disagree with them.

I believe I touched on some of this thinking in my OP, but hopefully this additional explanation helps clarify it further. If you need still more clarification, I would urge you to read the economics book The Wisdom of Crowds and the business book Where Good Ideas Come From to learn about how a sole dissenting voice in a room always, even when dismissed, reshapes the group's discussion and the overall outcomes of the group's decisions (whether that group is the Presidential Cabinet, the Senate, the Press Room, the American populace, or the world).

[tbone717]

It is a shame that the moderators of this site would prefer to have threads bashing Christians, calling the voters idiots, and unsubstantiated accusations of fraud on the front page, and then bury a thread that is a serious discussion of the direction this movement takes to HT.

Honestly, this site is becoming a joke.

[sailingaway]

Long ago I looked into the libertarian party because someone told me they thought I would like it, but the web pages of the candidates I could find seemed all about drugs, which seemed pretty fringe to me. I didn't disagree, I just didn't CARE that much in my list of top issues, and it seemed weird.

I didn't look at the libertarian party again until the 2008 election, because I liked Ron Paul. I saw Ruwart, whom I liked, and Nolan (now dead, unfortunately) whom I liked, and heard of Browne, who sounded pretty good on a lot of things... but instead of Ruwart, they elected BOB BARR. Now people act as if Gary Johnson is a sure thing. That may be fine for some people here, but I'm not the slightest bit interested in either of them, and not very interested in a Party where they are the face. Maybe it is because a bunch left to support Ron and I may not be seeing the 'real character' of what they would be, but they seem to be just a different group making the same political compromises to me.

In any event, I want Ron to win. I will defer to him on what he does if he doesn't, but if he doesn't, I don't know that the media and party would let Rand win, either. We were able to overwhelm a state race, but clearly a national race is harder. It is easy to say Rand would have done better with some, but he would have done worse with some, too, and against other 'more traditional' GOP type social conservatives, he still wouldn't have gotten the anti gay vote - that would have needed committment to a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The party ALWAYS runs a bunch of conservatives of various stripes to split the conservative vote, then makes the party vote coalesce early on by having all but one party establishment type drop out.

For my immediate gratification I would like to see Ron run third party. But it would kill all his work in the party, and I don't expect to see it. So I'll follow his lead, but I think this campaign, like the last one, builds an organization that benefits all our candidates going forward, whether we stay in the GOP, or start a new party.

[Article V]

Okay, seriously, how is this a "Hot Topic"?

Is this not a main topic of discussion in all media everywhere? And is it not already a topic being discussed within the Ron Paul campaign?

[Article V]

It is a shame that the moderators of this site would prefer to have threads bashing Christians, calling the voters idiots, and unsubstantiated accusations of fraud on the front page, and then bury a thread that is a serious discussion of the direction this movement takes to HT.

Honestly, this site is becoming a joke.Agree. +Rep.

The wrongful movement of threads into Hot Topics not only makes our movement collectively dumber because it encourages groupthink, but it also reduces the tools in our grassroots arsenal because it discourages the contribution of new information. After all, why do I continually spend 30+ minutes of my time thinking through and writing out my OPs if no one gets to see them because of some authoritarian moderator? There's really little point in contributing to the conversation if you know your time is being wasted because of the wrongful actions of one moderator rather than genuinely considered and accepted/rejected through the collective wisdom of the grassroots.

Whoever moved this thread seriously needs to start reading more books on economics, market-based decisions, decentralized structures, creative entrepreneurship, psychology, and sociology. Instead, it seems they're probably spending their time in a narrow-world where they get information that all points in one direction (probably the kind of person who has a Google alert shaping how they spend their time and gather info rather than the sort of intellectual pioneer who consistently gets out of their comfort zone and seeks new perspectives).

[sailingaway]

Okay, seriously, how is this a "Hot Topic"?

Is this not a main topic of discussion in all media everywhere? And is it not already a topic being discussed within the Ron Paul campaign?

It doesn't further the goal of getting Ron elected as GOP nominee which is the purpose of that forum. It might as well have been called 'should we throw Ron over and do something else'

[sailingaway]

It is a shame that the moderators of this site would prefer to have threads bashing Christians, calling the voters idiots, and unsubstantiated accusations of fraud on the front page, and then bury a thread that is a serious discussion of the direction this movement takes to HT.

Honestly, this site is becoming a joke.

We also edit those kind of posts. A single post that is shut down by other posters won't get a whole thread moved, though, an OP that undermines the purpose of a forum will, at least when I'm making the decision.

There are a number of posters here who seem to be trying to herd Ron Paul supporters in their specific direction NOT following Ron, and that doesn't belong in his subforum.

[tbone717]

We also edit those kind of posts. A single post that is shut down by other posters won't get a whole thread moved, though, an OP that undermines the purpose of a forum will, at least when I'm making the decision.

Well I did see you moved the "do you believe what a pastor said..." thread. It was frankly embarrassing to see the hatred towards people of faith displayed in that thread. And the entire OP was based on here say and started by someone with less than 50 posts.

[sailingaway]

Well I did see you moved the "do you believe what a pastor said..." thread. It was frankly embarrassing to see the hatred towards people of faith displayed in that thread. And the entire OP was based on here say and started by someone with less than 50 posts.

My understanding is that it says a pastor said something which would lose them their tax exempt status under IRS law, due to pastors wielding so much influence with people of faith. It was directed at a specific action which the person had heard about from someone attending the caucus. If it has since turned into a 'hate Christians' thread, I will have to move it. It frankly was boring, so I didn't go back to it after reading it the first time.

[tbone717]

My understanding is that it says a pastor said something which would lose them their tax exempt status under IRS law, due to pastors wielding so much influence with people of faith. It was directed at a specific action which the person had heard about from someone attending the caucus. If it has since turned into a 'hate Christians' thread, I will have to move it. It frankly was boring, so I didn't go back to it after reading it the first time.

It was unsubstantiated. Basically a friend of mine told me that a pastor said this. And we get six pages on it.

[Article V]

It doesn't further the goal of getting Ron elected as GOP nominee which is the purpose of that forum. It might as well have been called 'should we throw Ron over and do something else'That is the most ridiculous answer anyone could give.

1) The Forum is called Ron Paul 2012 Grassroots Central. Discussing how the grassroots feel Ron Paul might have the most influence in 2012 and beyond is clearly part of that forum. In other words, the forum is about Ron Paul and the grassroots movement; it's not about Ron Paul MUST be the nominee and, even when it looks like he has less than 2% chance of securing the nomination, we will not even consider or discuss any other method for our candidate to gain influence in 2012 and beyond.

2) Who says it doesn't further the goal of getting Ron elected as GOP nominee? Surely if people read the thread, they may decide: "No, we need to keep on or run third-party so that Ron Paul DOES win outright, rather than win as a VP." And through that resolute re-commitment to Ron Paul as the GOP nominee, the grassroots is re-energized because they're voluntarily "renewing their vows" to Ron Paul and his delegate strategy. (Just like a husband and wife renew their vows to excite passion and love in their relationship with one another, this thread could very well excite the passion to renew the grassroots who are indisputably tiring at the moment. And it would do so through a powerful form of self-actualization rather than the less-powerful "rah-rah" method).

3) Last I checked, if Ron Paul were the VP nominee, then the GOP ticket would say Romney-Paul 2012...and obviously any national campaign that says Paul 2012 should be part of a forum that is dedicated to Paul 2012!

For crying out loud, could we all get our heads out of our asses and allow for open discussion?!

[tbone717]

Article, you make excellent points. There comes a time where we cross the line between dedicated supporters fighting for the nomination, and delusional cult members who are so out of touch with reality that it isn't funny. Paul will not win the nomination outright - that is clear. Right now those that feel he can still win the nomination are holding onto the slim chance that a) there will be a brokered convention AND b) that Paul will be able to have 1144 of his supporters in delegate slots at the RNC. Without those two occurring, someone else will win the nomination.

As we sit here today, what is more likely to occur: Paul winning the nomination at the convention or Paul having influence over the platform and/or ticket? I don't see why it is not profitable to discuss something that has a far greater chance of occurring and merely limit the front page to something that has a extremely low chance of occuring.

[Eagles' Wings]

Long ago I looked into the libertarian party because someone told me they thought I would like it, but the web pages of the candidates I could find seemed all about drugs, which seemed pretty fringe to me. I didn't disagree, I just didn't CARE that much in my list of top issues, and it seemed weird.

I didn't look at the libertarian party again until the 2008 election, because I liked Ron Paul. I saw Ruwart, whom I liked, and Nolan (now dead, unfortunately) whom I liked, and heard of Browne, who sounded pretty good on a lot of things... but instead of Ruwart, they elected BOB BARR. Now people act as if Gary Johnson is a sure thing. That may be fine for some people here, but I'm not the slightest bit interested in either of them, and not very interested in a Party where they are the face. Maybe it is because a bunch left to support Ron and I may not be seeing the 'real character' of what they would be, but they seem to be just a different group making the same political compromises to me.

In any event, I want Ron to win. I will defer to him on what he does if he doesn't, but if he doesn't, I don't know that the media and party would let Rand win, either. We were able to overwhelm a state race, but clearly a national race is harder. It is easy to say Rand would have done better with some, but he would have done worse with some, too, and against other 'more traditional' GOP type social conservatives, he still wouldn't have gotten the anti gay vote - that would have needed committment to a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The party ALWAYS runs a bunch of conservatives of various stripes to split the conservative vote, then makes the party vote coalesce early on by having all but one party establishment type drop out.

For my immediate gratification I would like to see Ron run third party. But it would kill all his work in the party, and I don't expect to see it. So I'll follow his lead, but I think this campaign, like the last one, builds an organization that benefits all our candidates going forward, whether we stay in the GOP, or start a new party.
Since the Constitution Party is already established, with Ron getting continuing support from Chuck Baldwin, who was the 2008 CP candidate, is there any way this could be an option for Ron? I imagine there are several platform items that would not go over well with Libertarians.

I agree that all decisions must be left to Ron. He is a man of vision and faith and he will not let us down, no matter what.

[Article V]

I don't see why it is not profitable to discuss something that has a far greater chance of occurring and merely limit the front page to something that has a extremely low chance of occurring.Because apparently some mod feels the grassroots should not realistically discuss how to make Ron Paul 2012 most effective now and in the future, and instead believes this thread belongs ostracized in a secure location next to such profound questions as "Is Satan more powerful than God?" :rolleyes:

Give me a break.

[tbone717]

Since the Constitution Party is already established, with Ron getting continuing support from Chuck Baldwin, who was the 2008 CP candidate, is there any way this could be an option for Ron? I imagine there are several platform items that would not go over well with Libertarians.

I agree that all decisions must be left to Ron. He is a man of vision and faith and he will not let us down, no matter what.

I had a brief flirtation with the CP several years ago. They have no money, little organization and do not have 50 state ballot access. It barely qualifies as a third party and is a borderline minor party.

[phill4paul]

If you want Mitt Romney as president then I suggest THIS site: https://www.mittromney.com/donate/fight-for-america&SC=INTPRAD001?cct_info=1%257c25219%257c7946991837% 257c118258654%257c5280434494%257cb%257c21183369814 %257c
Otherwise, in my opinion, you can go pound sand.

[tbone717]

If you want Mitt Romney as president then I suggest THIS site: https://www.mittromney.com/donate/fight-for-america&SC=INTPRAD001?cct_info=1%257c25219%257c7946991837% 257c118258654%257c5280434494%257cb%257c21183369814 %257c
Otherwise, in my opinion, you can go pound sand.

Who is saying they want Romney for President? We are simply looking at the reality of the situation. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending that Paul is going to win the nomination is not being realistic. The chances of Paul winning the nomination are extremely slim, so then if he doesn't what do you do? Do you pick up your toys and go home crying or do you continue to fight on and continue to advance this movement?

[Eagles' Wings]

I had a brief flirtation with the CP several years ago. They have no money, little organization and do not have 50 state ballot access. It barely qualifies as a third party and is a borderline minor party.

The CP says if Ron would run as CP, he could simply be written in.

[Eagles' Wings]

If millions of RP supporters will be writing him in anyway, why not write him in under the CP? Take a look at their platform. On Liberty, Economy, Personal Property Rights.

[tbone717]

The CP says if Ron would run as CP, he could simply be written in.

Most states have requirements for write in candidates to submit some paperwork with their intentions. It really is a moot point though, a third party run is pointless. He would be outspent by a factor of 10 or more. He may not even get into the debates, so what is the point. Additionally, it undoes so much of the work that has been and is being done at the local and state level.

[tbone717]

If millions of RP supporters will be writing him in anyway, why not write him in under the CP? Take a look at their platform. On Liberty, Economy, Personal Property Rights.

Because the CP will have a candidate on the ballot. Check your state laws - more than likely write in votes are not tabulated individually unless there is a declared write in campaign. The reason being is because in every election there are tons of votes cast for Santa Claus and Mickey Mouse. It is just not worth the manpower to tabulate all the nonsense write in votes, so the states need to be aware if there is a legitimate write in campaign in place. Most states have a deadline for campaign's to submit the necessary paperwork.

[Eagles' Wings]

Most states have requirements for write in candidates to submit some paperwork with their intentions. It really is a moot point though, a third party run is pointless. He would be outspent by a factor of 10 or more. He may not even get into the debates, so what is the point. Additionally, it undoes so much of the work that has been and is being done at the local and state level.
Agree that the work and effort has been tremendous. Our local leader is relentless. I went in to do a little phone work and it is hard to describe the dedication of the people working for Ron Paul. AND, an idea for all - buy lunch, snacks, coffee, do a little clean up and help a bit to make the day of these hard working campaign people.

Thanks, tbone, for your thoughts about third party. I just want Ron to win, somehow. We all do!

[tbone717]

Let's be realistic here. There are six possible scenarios that can occur. I'll rank them in order of least likely to most likely (based upon my opinion, current data and observations).

1) Paul wins the nomination outright by winning primaries, caucuses and accumulating 1144 or more delegates prior to the convention
2) Paul wins the nomination at a brokered/open convention by accumulating 1144 of his supporters as delegates
3) Paul runs as a third party (LP, CP, Independent) candidate
4) Paul does not win the nomination and endorses a third party candidate.
5) Paul does not win the nomination, makes no endorsement and essentially sits out for the general election.
6) Paul does not win the nomination, but has influence over the ticket, cabinet and/or VP selection.

For the most part, this forum spends all its time discussing the 3 least likely scenarios and virtually ignores discussion of the more likely scenarios. If the grassroots is not properly equipped to handle scenarios 4,5 and 6 then we could very well be left scratching our heads when and if those situations do arise.

[Johnnybags]

Lets face it, its Obama for four more years because no matter what ticket the RINO's put together, its a loser. I'd like Ron as a third party or more preferably RAND. At least I'd have some hope. Republican nomination is toast.

[tbone717]

Lets face it, its Obama for four more years because no matter what ticket the RINO's put together, its a loser. I'd like Ron as a third party or more preferably RAND. At least I'd have some hope. Republican nomination is toast.

That really isn't a foregone conclusion at this point. Polling shows it could go either way regardless of the GOP nominee. While it is tough to unseat an incumbent POTUS, Obama is not riding a wave of popularity. And with the shift in electoral votes it is harder for a Dem to win this year than it was in 2008.

All that taken into consideration it is important to consider what is more beneficial for the libertarian movement: 4 years of Obama or 4 years of a GOP president? While I agree that there is little difference between Obama and Romney, one can argue that an Obama with no worries of reelection will be even more dangerous to this country than he already is. Does that benefit us or does it make it even more difficult for libertarian candidates down the road?

[Voluntary Man]

Remain positive (not blissing out, but taking positive action!).

Secure more local victories in areas where Ron is performing indisputably well (so well that the vote can't be stolen).

If the GOP doesn't make more than token concessions (not sure how this would go, since i wouldn't believe anything the neocon machine said, not even promises published and signed in blood), burn the mutha down!

[Bryan]

I appreciate the OPs thought out message, but concern that the RPGC forum might not be the best fit for it. This isn't anything new, we had the same issues in 2008, over and over, so we created a dedicated sub-forum for such discussion- perhaps it is time to take it out of moth balls- here it is:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?93-Alternatives-to-Official-Campaign

[Butchie]

Sure, I can tell you exactly where I get that mentality.

First, it's important to note that I'm not talking about some pseudo-influence such as a prime-time speech at the convention. A speech's influence is fast-fading.

To be truly influential, exposure and message repetition are key (and these are the two things Ron Paul is quickly losing and would most certainly lose entirely if he isn't part of the next government). As a VP or Secretary of State or Secretary of the Treasure, Ron Paul would have regular international exposure and a real seat at the decision table of the administration. Even when Ron Paul's ideas are disregarded, the mere mention of them at the table would cause the discussion to shift and be more balanced and would cause everyone in the room to get smarter, simply because they're forced out of their groupthink comfort zone. Much like how Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Tim Geithner get regular press and regularly shape the cultural discussion as well as their own administration, even when Obama et al. disagree with them.

I believe I touched on some of this thinking in my OP, but hopefully this additional explanation helps clarify it further. If you need still more clarification, I would urge you to read the economics book The Wisdom of Crowds and the business book Where Good Ideas Come From to learn about how a sole dissenting voice in a room always, even when dismissed, reshapes the group's discussion and the overall outcomes of the group's decisions (whether that group is the Presidential Cabinet, the Senate, the Press Room, the American populace, or the world).

You think Joe Biden reshapes any disucssions? He only gets on TV when he says something stupid. As for Hilary she was already a "celebrity" before her cabinet position. If you see how the press ignores Ron now what makes you think they can't do the same thing just because he gets thrown some token cabinet position? For Pete's sake he can be up on a stage in front of a national audience with only 4 other guys and they will constantly keep the camera off of him and give him very little speaking time.

You do what you want, but all I'd say is this: Remember my post, remember what I said, IF Ron doens't win and IF he get's offered and accepts VP or what have you under someone like Romney or Santorum and they win the White House, come back here in 4yrs and let's see what you have to say then. Ron will be tucked away in a corner and when Romney/Santy crash, and they will, Ron and this movement will come crashing down with them, if I'm wrong I will gladly give you a big apology, if I'm right you will have to live with the knowledge that you knew better and the GOP played you anyway.

[VanBummel]

The way I see it, if Ron isn't elected this year the country's going to be in an even bigger mess by 2016 than it is in now. If Obama is POTUS going into 2016, people will blame democrats and be open to a Republican, so we might be able to push someone decent like Rand. If Mittens/Santa/LardAss is in charge, people will blame republicans, elect a democrat, and no liberty candidate will have a chance*.

* I am assuming all liberty candidates are currently running Republican or 3rd party, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

[tbone717]

I am assuming all liberty candidates are currently running Republican or 3rd party, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

They are, though I would say that the ones running LP or CP are honestly only worth a protest vote at best. The LP and the CP are both great examples of how NOT to run a third party organization. The CP HQ is here in PA and they cannot even manage to get a seat in the state legislature, so how could they possibly be effective competing for a House or Senate seat in other states?

40 years of the LP and they have NEVER won a single congressional seat, and have only won 12 state legislature seats. That is tens of thousands of electoral loses. I toss their candidates votes only as a means of protesting the GOP nominee for a seat, but there is no time in the foreseeable future that I can see myself donating to their candidates or volunteering for them.

[jmdrake]

Poll is badly worded. Option 1 should say "Keep doing what were doing and racking up as many delegates as possible and see what shakes out at the convention." Hoping that America "wakes up" has nothing to do with it. (And I agree that badly worded troll thread deserved to be moved). Racking up momentum is the way to make either option 2 or 3 viable. The "burning down the house" option never goes away even if Ron Paul is time barred from getting on ballots as a 3rd party candidate because he could always wholeheartedly get behind Gary Johnson.

That said, while I still voted for option 1, I can't help but post....


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

[Lethalmiko]

I think tbone717 and Article V are making a lot of sense. I have also observed the strange movements of threads. There was one thread I joined that was originally in Grassroots central but got moved after I posted a number of supposedly "negative" comments.

Dissenting views that seem to be critical of RP and the campaign or appear to be "negative" (even if they are just stating facts) are generally not tolerated which is a shame because sometimes, the person in the role of Devil's advocate may actually help you have a more intelligent discussion and campaign strategy. The usual excuse is that it will supposedly discourage the grassroots and harm RP's candidacy which I think is absolute nonsense because if the supporters of RP are such emotional weaklings who get moved by a little dissenting opinion, they should not have become supporters in the first place. He doesn't need such kind of fickle supporters.

As for visitors to this forum who may read "negative" comments, I doubt that voters will base their vote on comments in a heated debate on this forum. Probably 90% of people voting in the GOP primary will never visit this site. They are more likely to visit the official campaign website.

IMHO, I think that it would be more useful for the moderators to be a little more tolerant of "contrarian" views within reason. My biggest disappointment is that too many people are given free reign on this forum to insult and viciously attack people deemed to be "trolls", even if objectively they are not. These hate-mongers apparently get off with a slap on the wrist which is why they continue unabated.

Every thread that gets heated up is filled with hateful personal attacks that add no value to the discussion. I would humbly recommend that people who engage in vicious personal attacks should be permanently banned to improve the quality of this forum as it is full of people far worse than "trolls".

[tbone717]

As for visitors to this forum who may read "negative" comments, I doubt that voters will base their vote on comments in a heated debate on this forum. Probably 90% of people voting in the GOP primary will never visit this site. They are more likely to visit the official campaign website.

You would think that the owners of the site would be more concerned with the large number of conspiracy threads, unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, bashing of average voters (I had to call someone out yesterday for calling the voters of AL "idiots") rather than some thoughtful conversation about the future direction of this movement. But no they would rather feed the delusional among us.


IMHO, I think that it would be more useful for the moderators to be a little more tolerant of "contrarian" views within reason.

Personally, I think the reasoned analytic views of the situation are far more concerned with the future progress of this movement, and the long term growth of it. The cheerleader views that blanket the front page, are more focused on the short term. Just look how many people on RPF are ready to "burn the house down" if Paul doesn't get the nomination. That view is short sighted, where the view others take is based on a much more long term strategy.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Had did this thread end up in 2008?

I say we continue on in the GOP. You think the media blackout is bad now? You would hear nothing of RP on the MSM if he ran 3rd party.

[floridasun1983]

It is a sorry state of affairs when a so called "liberty" forum displays censorship and authoritarianism that would make the federal government proud. The simple fact is that many members here, and indeed moderators, are no different than the other groups they like to denigrate constantly, and have no more idea what liberty is than Rick Santorum does. Differing opinions are not welcome here, that is made perfectly clear. Instead we all have to take part in the chant of the day, we have to pledge total allegiance to the campaign, we have to publically state that losing is winning, and hold on to fantasy as though it were reality. Otherwise you're a troll, a Santorum plant, and just for good measure, probably a Mason. Even more alarming is the sheer number of people who cannot accept that the campaign bears any responsibility for any loss, and immediately conjure up massive conspiracies to explain it all away. Which is more likely, that Ron's total unwillingness to conduct traditional, tried and true retail politics is to blame for poor performance, or that there is a nationwide, mass conspiracy using super sophisticated technique, and of which there is not a single witness that has come forward or a shred of proof displayed? But don’t be daunted by that, they have an explanation for that too…the MSM is in cahoots with the conspirators! This kind of unsubstantiated insanity where we invent bogeymen rather than look in the mirror is what makes our movement distasteful to the general populace.

[tbone717]

It is a sorry state of affairs when a so called "liberty" forum displays censorship and authoritarianism that would make the federal government proud. The simple fact is that many members here, and indeed moderators, are no different than the other groups they like to denigrate constantly, and have no more idea what liberty is than Rick Santorum does. Differing opinions are not welcome here, that is made perfectly clear. Instead we all have to take part in the chant of the day, we have to pledge total allegiance to the campaign, we have to publically state that losing is winning, and hold on to fantasy as though it were reality. Otherwise you're a troll, a Santorum plant, and just for good measure, probably a Mason. Even more alarming is the sheer number of people who cannot accept that the campaign bears any responsibility for any loss, and immediately conjure up massive conspiracies to explain it all away. Which is more likely, that Ron's total unwillingness to conduct traditional, tried and true retail politics is to blame for poor performance, or that there is a nationwide, mass conspiracy using super sophisticated technique, and of which there is not a single witness that has come forward or a shred of proof displayed? But don’t be daunted by that, they have an explanation for that too…the MSM is in cahoots with the conspirators! This kind of unsubstantiated insanity where we invent bogeymen rather than look in the mirror is what makes our movement distasteful to the general populace.

You make a very excellent point. I think one of the biggest failures of this site is that far too many on here fail to provide critical analysis of the campaign and candidate, so that we can learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. Either they are afraid to do so, ignorant of the facts, or they are so blindly enamored with Ron Paul that they fail to see any fault in him. There is a thread on the main page of the site right now called "100 things I learned from the 2012 primaries" and the large majority of posts there are blaming everyone and everything else but the campaign and candidate.

The voters are stupid, the voters are bloodthirsty neo-cons, the media is out to get us, the election is rigged. All of that stuff is defeatist, and fails to address the real things that we should have learned from this election season. Which leads me to believe one thing, that the majority of the people here have learned NOTHING at all about how to be more effective in their grassroots efforts. Hell, there are probably still some people that think we could have won this whole thing in a landslide if we only had a blimp.