PDA

View Full Version : I finally understand




skgai
04-22-2012, 11:10 PM
I finally understand Ron Paul's 2012 campaign strategy. In essence its working. They're racking up delegates in the caucus states and winning over Republican State committee's and rules all over the country. The stage is set for 2016. Now all of this is fantastic if Rand is running. Here's hoping. Nonetheless controlling these Republican State Party's will pay huge dividends immediately. So I must say that I was wrong. This strategy is working. HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, we could have won or at least attained more delegates in the primary states. I think that was a mistake to not hit those hard.

I live in Iowa and I know if we had won there we probably would have come closer in New Hampshire and definitely been boosted in South Carolina, but really I still think we would have been overshadowed everywhere else because of the media. Now let me say, the campaign really, really tried in Iowa. Santorum just came out of nowhere and took it. He really is Paul's bane. Stealing his new votes left and right. What would this race have been without him?

I look forward to these upcoming primaries and caucuses. I think with Santorum finally out we can pick up some delegates with 10-25% popular vote totals. The problem was we scared everyone to death when we led in the Iowa polls just weeks before the vote. If only we had peaked at voting time.

This isn't a blanket praise of the campaign thought. His message still has to be clearer. He has to get his message through to senior citizens and women. He will have to change his message to suit them. Not the "message," but the focus. He must focus on why social security and medicare won't be there for them in the future and skip past monetary policy because they are entrenched in it. He must focus on freedom in medical care. These people want their local nurse practitioner and don't won't doctors from Washington telling them what Medicare will cover. They're willing to listen on foreign policy he just has to reinforce that with defense. Our troops here at home provide more protection than overseas.

I rambled a bit there, but I just want him to be PRESIDENT!!!! I know we all do and its frustrating to see him beating Obama in the polls and yet Romney is the Republican candidate. I've often wondered whether the Founders should have included in the Constitution the mandatory requirement that all citizens be educated in the Constitution, its reasoning's and influences at the time of writing. I truly think that in a society that hasn't had war at home in over 60 years that you can't have freedom if you don't teach your kids about it in the first place! Otherwise apathy grows and festers.

Noblegeorge
04-22-2012, 11:14 PM
I finally understand Ron Paul's 2012 campaign strategy. In essence its working. They're racking up delegates in the caucus states and winning over Republican State committee's and rules all over the country. The stage is set for 2016. Now all of this is fantastic if Rand is running. Here's hoping. Nonetheless controlling these Republican State Party's will pay huge dividends immediately. So I must say that I was wrong. This strategy is working. HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, we could have won or at least attained more delegates in the primary states. I think that was a mistake to not hit those hard.

I live in Iowa and I know if we had won there we probably would have come closer in New Hampshire and definitely been boosted in South Carolina, but really I still think we would have been overshadowed everywhere else because of the media. Now let me say, the campaign really, really tried in Iowa. Santorum just came out of nowhere and took it. He really is Paul's bane. Stealing his new votes left and right. What would this race have been without him?

I look forward to these upcoming primaries and caucuses. I think with Santorum finally out we can pick up some delegates with 10-25% popular vote totals. The problem was we scared everyone to death when we led in the Iowa polls just weeks before the vote. If only we had peaked at voting time.

This isn't a blanket praise of the campaign thought. His message still has to be clearer. He has to get his message through to senior citizens and women. He will have to change his message to suit them. Not the "message," but the focus. He must focus on why social security and medicare won't be there for them in the future and skip past monetary policy because they are entrenched in it. He must focus on freedom in medical care. These people want their local nurse practitioner and don't won't doctors from Washington telling them what Medicare will cover. They're willing to listen on foreign policy he just has to reinforce that with defense. Our troops here at home provide more protection than overseas.

I rambled a bit there, but I just want him to be PRESIDENT!!!! I know we all do and its frustrating to see him beating Obama in the polls and yet Romney is the Republican candidate. I've often wondered whether the Founders should have included in the Constitution the mandatory requirement that all citizens be educated in the Constitution, its reasoning's and influences at the time of writing. I truly think that in a society that hasn't had war at home in over 60 years that you can't have freedom if you don't teach your kids about it in the first place! Otherwise apathy grows and festers.

Thats an excellent point. Heres hoping that all gets changed!

Agorism
04-22-2012, 11:17 PM
Ya well even if he doesn't win, getting a few states would be a big accomplishment in terms of preparing the Rand Paul candidacy in 2016 if that occurs.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-22-2012, 11:28 PM
We need a way to teach people the difference between Collectivism, and Individualism. I honestly see that as the largest issue for us to overcome.

WIwarrior
04-22-2012, 11:32 PM
Ya well even if he doesn't win, getting a few states would be a big accomplishment in terms of preparing the Rand Paul candidacy in 2016 if that occurs.

IF Ron does not win the GOP nomination he should run as an Independent just for the fact of pushing the ideas of liberty, freedom, and the constitution. I get worried when so many of us are overly expectant of a Rand Paul presidential run in 2016. Look at all the barriers we have had with Ron running for POTUS and I have no doubt it would be just as hard for Rand. Also if you believe that we are on the verge of an economic catastrophe as I do then 2016 doesn't really mean much. I hope this doesn't come off as harsh just a different way at looking at things I guess.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-22-2012, 11:34 PM
IF Ron does not win the GOP nomination he should run as an Independent just for the fact of pushing the ideas of liberty, freedom, and the constitution. I get worried when so many of us are overly expectant of a Rand Paul presidential run in 2016. Look at all the barriers we have had with Ron running for POTUS and I have no doubt it would be just as hard for Rand. Also if you believe that we are on the verge of an economic catastrophe as I do then 2016 doesn't really mean much. I hope this doesn't come off as harsh just a different way at looking at things I guess.

I'm a firm believer in the new trending phrase . . .

Ron Paul - or - Lock & Load

Titus
04-22-2012, 11:36 PM
The founders at the time of the constitution only allowed some people to vote. Usually, this was white male landowners. A literacy test was tried in the 1960s. Unfortunately, the racist application of that test effectively ruined any future attempt to do that.

Tiso0770
04-22-2012, 11:37 PM
I agree, it really shows how many TRUE Americans that's left....For God sake!!!, It's about restoring the Constitution and pressing the reset button. Ron Paul is 1 in a million for sure.

digitaldean
04-22-2012, 11:41 PM
Sorry but I could give an F about 2016 and Rand. If the Paul people wanted to win they really need to make new commercials stating Paul is the only one that can beat Obama. And they need to stop making 10 versions of the "he will cut 1 trillion from the budget year one" junk. Less is more Ron and right now people want to vote for someone that they think he can win and has backers (show crowds/polls).

jdcole
04-23-2012, 12:02 AM
We need a way to teach people the difference between Collectivism, and Individualism. I honestly see that as the largest issue for us to overcome.

TRUTH. This. Right up there ^ . Collectivism breeds an "Us vs. Them" mentality. Instead of voting for somebody because of their views/stances/beliefs and record/actions in office, people vote for somebody because of the letter next to their name - hence why the "anybody but Obama" crowd will vote for any half-retarded piece of shit just because he has an -R next to his name.

The Northbreather
04-23-2012, 12:04 AM
I finally understand Ron Paul's 2012 campaign strategy. In essence its working. They're racking up delegates in the caucus states and winning over Republican State committee's and rules all over the country. The stage is set for 2016. Now all of this is fantastic if Rand is running. Here's hoping. Nonetheless controlling these Republican State Party's will pay huge dividends immediately. So I must say that I was wrong. This strategy is working. HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, we could have won or at least attained more delegates in the primary states. I think that was a mistake to not hit those hard.

What the hell? DR RON PAUL 2012!!!!

skgai
04-23-2012, 12:06 AM
The founders at the time of the constitution only allowed some people to vote. Usually, this was white male landowners. A literacy test was tried in the 1960s. Unfortunately, the racist application of that test effectively ruined any future attempt to do that.

I understand this point. However, this was one of the Founder's biggest mistakes. Charles Pickney of South Carolina saw that this county was something new. A new American nation that didn't have to act like all the others. Now he wasn't in favor of voting for all citizens, but he did see that changes were coming. The Founders needed to realize this, that citizens would eventually get voting rights. How could they? I don't know. That being said they left us with the ability to change the Constitution at will and the moment we gave all citizen voting rights we should have added an understanding of the Constitution as a prerequisite. I understand that limits freedom, but I'm not asking for a pledge to the Constitution, but an understanding. We need education as to what was actually written and intended. People can still make up their own minds.

skgai
04-23-2012, 12:08 AM
TRUTH. This. Right up there ^ . Collectivism breeds an "Us vs. Them" mentality. Instead of voting for somebody because of their views/stances/beliefs and record/actions in office, people vote for somebody because of the letter next to their name - hence why the "anybody but Obama" crowd will vote for any half-retarded piece of shit just because he has an -R next to his name.

Whoa, this is a big misconception. These people aren't voting because there is an R in front of somebody's name. They're voting for the "R" because of what it represents. The "R" represents a ton of things that it will never actually deliver on, but people don't get that. That's how we must attack it. It's not the "R," but the misconception behind it.

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-23-2012, 12:13 AM
Whoa, this is a big misconception. These people aren't voting because there is an R in front of somebody's name. They're voting for the "R" because of what it represents. The "R" represents a ton of things that it will never actually deliver on, but people don't get that. That's how we must attack it. It's not the "R," but the misconception behind it.

Honestly, I must entirely disagree. People think Mitt Romney is a Republican, because "Any Republican is better than Obama." Remember? How does someone be a Republican, but not act according to those views? People don't research. They become part of the 2 mobs we witness on a daily vicious circle, bashing each other. They resent the opposing party, and spew vitriol, or hate on a consistent basis in compliance with that. They already evolved this country into a mob rule, and it's the people's apathy which allows it to continue.

thoughtomator
04-23-2012, 12:15 AM
The strategy is simple - deny Romney the delegates needed for a first-ballot nomination, at which point it's Paul's game to lose.

Algorres
04-23-2012, 12:15 AM
We don't have four more years to wait. At the rate Washington is eroding the constitution this could be our last free election.

nobody's_hero
04-23-2012, 03:35 AM
I hope Rand is planning to run as a Democrat, then.

Because after the rules changes and bull-shit the GOP is going to pull between now and 2016 to keep newcomers from just walking in and becoming a delegate, there's not going to be a 'delegate strategy' in the future.

Now or never. "Do or die."

LibertyEagle
04-23-2012, 03:50 AM
We need a way to teach people the difference between Collectivism, and Individualism. I honestly see that as the largest issue for us to overcome.

They would need more than a vocabulary building lesson. If you want to go this route, then they need to understand why individualism is something they want.

LibertyEagle
04-23-2012, 03:56 AM
The founders at the time of the constitution only allowed some people to vote. Usually, this was white male landowners. A literacy test was tried in the 1960s. Unfortunately, the racist application of that test effectively ruined any future attempt to do that.

I think it is a great idea to only allow those to vote who are not sucking at the government teat in any way. Otherwise, the suckers will just vote themselves a bigger share of everyone else's hard-earned money.

MozoVote
04-23-2012, 05:47 AM
I hope Rand is planning to run as a Democrat, then.

Because after the rules changes and bull-shit the GOP is going to pull between now and 2016 to keep newcomers from just walking in and becoming a delegate, there's not going to be a 'delegate strategy' in the future.

Now or never. "Do or die."
The party will become an irrelevant anachronism, if it becomes too exclusionary. GOP chapters would be folding left and right like the Elks and Moose lodges. Some kind of Internet-only based party would take its place.

A big problem with political parties is that one of their original reasons for being is undermined. 40 years ago you needed a network of people to call, pass out voter cards, etc. Today anybody under 50 has access to the Internet. They can go to the GOP's website and note who the preferred candidates are. Every election cycle there is a new generation of voters who see no need to be called or pestered.

Bastiat's The Law
04-23-2012, 05:51 AM
We need a way to teach people the difference between Collectivism, and Individualism. I honestly see that as the largest issue for us to overcome.
I have a video concerning that.

opinionatedfool
04-23-2012, 06:04 AM
Ron Paul 2012!

wgadget
04-23-2012, 06:30 AM
I'm a firm believer in the new trending phrase . . .

Ron Paul - or - Lock & Load

I like it; therefore, I will tweet it. :D


*Variation of I think, therefore, I Tweet.

sailingaway
04-23-2012, 07:03 AM
Um, it isn't like Ron didn't WANT to win Iowa....

sailingaway
04-23-2012, 07:07 AM
I like it; therefore, I will tweet it. :D


*Variation of I think, therefore, I Tweet.

I wouldn't. That sounds kind of like a threat. HERE we know it is a joke, repeated on twitter, it may look differently.

sailingaway
04-23-2012, 07:08 AM
The party will become an irrelevant anachronism, if it becomes too exclusionary. GOP chapters would be folding left and right like the Elks and Moose lodges. Some kind of Internet-only based party would take its place.

A big problem with political parties is that one of their original reasons for being is undermined. 40 years ago you needed a network of people to call, pass out voter cards, etc. Today anybody under 50 has access to the Internet. They can go to the GOP's website and note who the preferred candidates are. Every election cycle there is a new generation of voters who see no need to be called or pestered.

It couldn't be internet voting. It would have to be paper ballots.

angelatc
04-23-2012, 07:12 AM
We need a way to teach people the difference between Collectivism, and Individualism. I honestly see that as the largest issue for us to overcome.

That won't ever win you elections. You're under the impression that people want to be individualists, which isn't true for the electorate at large. We need to educate our base about how to win elections. Everything else is moot.

angelatc
04-23-2012, 07:16 AM
A big problem with political parties is that one of their original reasons for being is undermined. 40 years ago you needed a network of people to call, pass out voter cards, etc. Today anybody under 50 has access to the Internet. They can go to the GOP's website and note who the preferred candidates are. Every election cycle there is a new generation of voters who see no need to be called or pestered.

While that might be true in the future, right now TV and radio still reach more voters than all other mediums combined. And not everybody pays close attention to politics. Yes, people can go look up voting records, but even those can be twisted and distorted. Just look at what the ACU does, if you have any doubts.

People are inclined to believe that Obama is a damned dirty Muslim because Uncle Harry forwarded an email to them than they are to go out and look up any more information about it.

Just because people have the power to educate themselves doesn't mean they will.

gerryb
04-23-2012, 02:20 PM
I hope Rand is planning to run as a Democrat, then.

Because after the rules changes and bull-shit the GOP is going to pull between now and 2016 to keep newcomers from just walking in and becoming a delegate, there's not going to be a 'delegate strategy' in the future.

Now or never. "Do or die."

What makes you think we won't dominate no matter what the rules are?

What rule can "they" possibly make that will keep us out?

jbauer
04-23-2012, 03:32 PM
Isn't that the whole point of becoming active now? So we can change the rules or at a minimum make sure the rules are fair?


I hope Rand is planning to run as a Democrat, then.

Because after the rules changes and bull-shit the GOP is going to pull between now and 2016 to keep newcomers from just walking in and becoming a delegate, there's not going to be a 'delegate strategy' in the future.

Now or never. "Do or die."

NoOneButPaul
04-23-2012, 03:47 PM
I finally understand Ron Paul's 2012 campaign strategy. In essence its working. They're racking up delegates in the caucus states and winning over Republican State committee's and rules all over the country. The stage is set for 2016. Now all of this is fantastic if Rand is running. Here's hoping. Nonetheless controlling these Republican State Party's will pay huge dividends immediately. So I must say that I was wrong. This strategy is working. HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, we could have won or at least attained more delegates in the primary states. I think that was a mistake to not hit those hard.

I live in Iowa and I know if we had won there we probably would have come closer in New Hampshire and definitely been boosted in South Carolina, but really I still think we would have been overshadowed everywhere else because of the media. Now let me say, the campaign really, really tried in Iowa. Santorum just came out of nowhere and took it. He really is Paul's bane. Stealing his new votes left and right. What would this race have been without him?

I look forward to these upcoming primaries and caucuses. I think with Santorum finally out we can pick up some delegates with 10-25% popular vote totals. The problem was we scared everyone to death when we led in the Iowa polls just weeks before the vote. If only we had peaked at voting time.

This isn't a blanket praise of the campaign thought. His message still has to be clearer. He has to get his message through to senior citizens and women. He will have to change his message to suit them. Not the "message," but the focus. He must focus on why social security and medicare won't be there for them in the future and skip past monetary policy because they are entrenched in it. He must focus on freedom in medical care. These people want their local nurse practitioner and don't won't doctors from Washington telling them what Medicare will cover. They're willing to listen on foreign policy he just has to reinforce that with defense. Our troops here at home provide more protection than overseas.

I rambled a bit there, but I just want him to be PRESIDENT!!!! I know we all do and its frustrating to see him beating Obama in the polls and yet Romney is the Republican candidate. I've often wondered whether the Founders should have included in the Constitution the mandatory requirement that all citizens be educated in the Constitution, its reasoning's and influences at the time of writing. I truly think that in a society that hasn't had war at home in over 60 years that you can't have freedom if you don't teach your kids about it in the first place! Otherwise apathy grows and festers.

Personally I still think it was a brilliant strategy so long as you had no expectation of winning.

I still believe Ron had nearly 0 expectation of winning and that's why they chose the route they did. After the 3rd in Iowa I think it was solidified.

We're going to finish outright 2nd in this primary race, no matter what happens, and that fact, considering EVERYTHING we're up against is just about the most encouraging sign ever.

And... this is far from over... who knows what we could end up with....and who knows what Texas will do!!!!

JK/SEA
04-23-2012, 03:52 PM
I'm not a big fan of MANDATORY for ANYTHING , especially forcing people to reading and comprehending the Constitution. I am however a big fan of letting the chips fall where they may providing those chips aren't a stacked deck.

tremendoustie
04-23-2012, 03:57 PM
I'm a firm believer in the new trending phrase . . .

Ron Paul - or - Lock & Load

How about, Ron Paul - or - education, electoral focus on all levels, jury nullification, peaceful, wisely chosen, well executed civil disobedience, agorism, strong issue advocacy, peaceful state nullification/independence, political migration (e.g. to NH), etc.

We have so many options, to effect change. Violence would only make things worse, imo.

JK/SEA
04-23-2012, 04:49 PM
How about, Ron Paul - or - education, electoral focus on all levels, jury nullification, peaceful, wisely chosen, well executed civil disobedience, agorism, strong issue advocacy, peaceful state nullification/independence, political migration (e.g. to NH), etc.

We have so many options, to effect change. Violence would only make things worse, imo.

so, what do you think of self defense from a violent enemy?

bocelli
04-23-2012, 05:53 PM
I will cry if he doesn't get the Presidency. Because I'll be ashamed of the people. The only man that even deserves to be President is him. 40 years of his service and what do people give him back in return: "we don't want you".. Pisses me off. Then again its about the message- but still this man is irreplaceable too!

I agree with you 100%. It will be very unlikely, and almost impossible, to find another person with the level of intelligence, commitment, idealism, and decency that RP has. And try as hard as I can, I cannot fully understand how people can't see this. As a "Latin American macho", I will hide my tears, but it will be close call!

Philosophy_of_Politics
04-23-2012, 06:06 PM
How about, Ron Paul - or - education, electoral focus on all levels, jury nullification, peaceful, wisely chosen, well executed civil disobedience, agorism, strong issue advocacy, peaceful state nullification/independence, political migration (e.g. to NH), etc.

We have so many options, to effect change. Violence would only make things worse, imo.

Unlike many, I'm not as keen on the "stand idly by."

Vanilluxe
04-23-2012, 06:39 PM
What makes you think we won't dominate no matter what the rules are?

What rule can "they" possibly make that will keep us out?

Oh, there are plenty of rules they could make, like specifying who the delegates can be such as big GOP donors, GOP officials, and other establishment type of criteria. In order to be in an electoral college for the GOP, you must have good party ties, be a big donor, or be very important for the GOP.

kathy88
04-23-2012, 07:31 PM
We don't have four more years to wait. At the rate Washington is eroding the constitution this could be our last free election.

I wish more people felt this urgency.

NIU Students for Liberty
04-23-2012, 08:47 PM
It's either Ron now or never. Indie/LP run please.

gerryb
04-23-2012, 11:15 PM
Oh, there are plenty of rules they could make, like specifying who the delegates can be such as big GOP donors, GOP officials, and other establishment type of criteria. In order to be in an electoral college for the GOP, you must have good party ties, be a big donor, or be very important for the GOP.

Oh, please.

Get involved.

The GOP is a decentralized, grassroots organization. Its blood is volunteers.

Read your local bylaws. Learn what it takes to win. Recruit. Win.