PDA

View Full Version : Libertarian Party Options




progressiveforpaul
04-24-2012, 08:58 AM
Two weeks from today the Libertarian Party will be holding their national convention in Las Vegas to nominate a presidential ticket. If they can delay this decision until early September, we might still have a chance of changing America and its politics for the good...

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/04/libertarian-party-if-you-are-interested.html

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 09:31 AM
Two weeks from today the Libertarian Party will be holding their national convention in Las Vegas to nominate a presidential ticket. If they can delay this decision until early September, we might still have a chance of changing America and its politics for the good...

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/04/libertarian-party-if-you-are-interested.html


I'd be AMAZED if that dog would hunt.

The Libertarian Party has been working for I-don't-know-how-long to become viable. THIS YEAR presents a remarkable opportunity. Who CARES that it traces more to disgust with established "parties" than with conversion to Libertarianism?

To delay their nomination until September would sacrifice MAY, JUNE & JULY for campaigning (think, MOMENTUM) . . . WHY?

WHY, especially, considering Ron Paul expresses NO INTEREST in assuming that mantle?

WHY, especially, when Gary Johnson has said that if Ron Paul secures the Republican nomination, he would NOT pursue the Libertarian Party challenge?

WHY undermine third-party progress after all these years . . . when it is Ron Paul himself who clings to the (I think odious) Republican Party?

WHY should Gary Johnson put HIS life on hold?

Why should LIBERTARIANS put their lives on hold? Or are they supposed to BANG THE REPUBLICAN DRUM until August and then, if Ron Paul loses, flip-flop back to Libertarianism?

progressiveforpaul
04-24-2012, 09:55 AM
Don't disagree with any of your observations. At the beginning of this race and still now, I have been advising an intentional and upfront coalition candidacy. I thought originally do it within the Republican party. As it became evident to me that he had no chance of even gaining a plurality of votes (thanks to zero major libertarian or progressive voices endorsing a coalition), I began to think independent run and when I checked the filing deadlines, i questioned my support of the GOP course. Now that Paul seems hell bent on going all the way to Tampa with this delegate strategy, I am thinking he's not going to get an independent candidacy so, let's try third party. Maybe if he does not gain any substantial ground in the primaries today, he will change his mind. I have heard through the grapevine that his campaign has no backup plan. So I guess they will continue with the actuarial coup strategy. Hopefully some lessons will be learned going forward.

I'd be AMAZED if that dog would hunt.

The Libertarian Party has been working for I-don't-know-how-long to become viable. THIS YEAR presents a remarkable opportunity. Who CARES that it traces more to disgust with established "parties" than with conversion to Libertarianism?

To delay their nomination until September would sacrifice MAY, JUNE & JULY for campaigning (think, MOMENTUM) . . . WHY?

WHY, especially, considering Ron Paul expresses NO INTEREST in assuming that mantle?

WHY, especially, when Gary Johnson has said that if Ron Paul secures the Republican nomination, he would NOT pursue the Libertarian Party challenge?

WHY undermine third-party progress after all these years . . . when it is Ron Paul himself who clings to the (I think odious) Republican Party?

WHY should Gary Johnson put HIS life on hold?

Why should LIBERTARIANS put their lives on hold? Or are they supposed to BANG THE REPUBLICAN DRUM until August and then, if Ron Paul loses, flip-flop back to Libertarianism?

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 10:31 AM
Don't disagree with any of your observations. At the beginning of this race and still now, I have been advising an intentional and upfront coalition candidacy.

Me, too.

Do you and I SUCK at this...or are people MARRIED TO THEIR DESIRES & FEARS, and commensurately stubborn?




I thought originally do it within the Republican party.

NOT me.

Every SINGLE thing that is going awry with Ron Paul's (I think erroneous and whimpy) "traditional" Old Boy Network campaign? If the data base of this Board has integrity, there are PLENTY of posts that "permit" me today to say I TOLD YOU SO.

Some consolation. That and a dollar won't even buy a Dollar Meal, considering tax.



As it became evident to me that he had no chance of even gaining a plurality of votes (thanks to zero major libertarian or progressive voices endorsing a coalition)...

AND some other missteps.



I began to think independent run and when I checked the filing deadlines, i questioned my support of the GOP course. Now that Paul seems hell bent on going all the way to Tampa with this delegate strategy, I am thinking he's not going to get an independent candidacy so, let's try third party. Maybe if he does not gain any substantial ground in the primaries today, he will change his mind. I have heard through the grapevine that his campaign has no backup plan. So I guess they will continue with the actuarial coup strategy.

HELL-BENT is an incisive word choice.

NO BACK UP PLAN has been the tagline of The Game for as long as I have been, like a spectator at Wimbledon, watching the back-and-forth.



Hopefully some lessons will be learned going forward.

The DOOR PRIZE of an Educational Campaign.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 10:38 AM
Two weeks from today the Libertarian Party will be holding their national convention in Las Vegas to nominate a presidential ticket. If they can delay this decision until early September...



I'd be AMAZED if that dog would hunt.



http://www.lp.org/event/2012-libertarian-party-convention-at-red-rock-resort-in-las-vegas

2012 Libertarian Party Convention at Red Rock Resort in Las Vegas

When:

Start: 05/02/2012 - 6:00pm
End: 05/06/2012 - 2:00pm
Timezone: US/Pacific
Where:

11011 West Charleston Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89135


Description:

2012 Libertarian Party National Presidential Nominating Convention at Red Rock Resort in Las Vegas.

Convention web site: www.LibertyWillWin.com

Link to hotel web site: www.redrocklasvegas.com

Link for room reservations (this link will waive your $24.99 resort fee; don't worry about the message you see here):


That dog WON'T hunt.

Nathan Hale
04-24-2012, 11:03 AM
I posted in another thread about my similar concerns - and apparently it is Johnson's prerogative to drop down to VP and allow Paul into the Presidential slot if he so desires it (so long as GJ's VP goes quietly). At least that's the answer I got from the thread chat.

progressiveforpaul
04-24-2012, 11:04 AM
Cheapseats, We might be twins from different mothers. I don't think the dog will hunt but we are running out of dogs.

progressiveforpaul
04-24-2012, 11:06 AM
Interesting rule. Could he drop down two notches to Secretary of Treasury? Make room for Kucinich.

I posted in another thread about my similar concerns - and apparently it is Johnson's prerogative to drop down to VP and allow Paul into the Presidential slot if he so desires it (so long as GJ's VP goes quietly). At least that's the answer I got from the thread chat.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 11:23 AM
Cheapseats, We might be twins from different mothers. I don't think the dog will hunt but we are running out of dogs.


Kindred spirits . . . and RUGGED INDIVIDUALISTS.

oyarde
04-24-2012, 11:30 AM
Interesting rule. Could he drop down two notches to Secretary of Treasury? Make room for Kucinich. Sec of treasury , who would want that job ??

oyarde
04-24-2012, 11:31 AM
I would rather be the Asian Carp Czar

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 11:40 AM
I posted in another thread about my similar concerns - and apparently it is Johnson's prerogative to drop down to VP and allow Paul into the Presidential slot if he so desires it (so long as GJ's VP goes quietly). At least that's the answer I got from the thread chat.


Interesting rule. Could he drop down two notches to Secretary of Treasury? Make room for Kucinich.


[I apologize in advance for offending gung-ho Ron Paulers. I appreciate the CONVICTION, I do. But I KNOW up close and personal the "terrible swift sword" of #BigMoney and, from where I sit, Ron Paul is NOT going to prevail ON THE GOP PATH.]

I have heard/read nothing about Gary Johnson being able to "rearrange" the ticket. But I HAVE heard/read him say that he would not PROCEED with a Libertarian challenge if Ron Paul snags the GOP nod.

Even if Ron Paul could win the Republican nomination and then the presidency, I don't think his Supporters "watch the whole movie" -- as they say on the Recovery Circuit. LOOK at the gray in Obama's hair. IF Ron Paul could sneak past Romney in Tampa, HE LACKS THE POPULARITY THAT WOULD FACILITATE HIS INTENTIONS.

Shall he rule by Executive Order?

Obama did not CAUSE the Financial Crisis, but LOOK how willing Republicans are to lay ALL blame at his feet.

We ain't comin' outta these woods in the next four years. WHOEVER sits at that THE BUCK STOPS HERE desk is in for a BOATLOAD of vilification. INCLUDING Ron Paul, who does not seem to me to be WIRED to not give a shit what people think and say.

IF he could win the GOP nomination and then the Presidency, I do NOT think he could take a second term (even if he is willing to be President rather than Granddad in the denouement of his life).

What about a NOVELTY vice president...not someone famous-for-being-famous, but someone famous-for-getting-stuff-done? (Which is NOT Ron Paul's claim to fame, it bears mention.) As one example: T. BOONE PICKENS. People DIG the ideas of #AlternativeEnergy and #EnergyIndependence. T. Boone Pickens actually knows something about Energy, and he LOOKS like he's got another four years in him.

Triathlete Gary Johnson could DEFINITELY do the broad-shouldered SUCK IT UP thing for eight years.

Gary Johnson can take the "blame" for the INEVITABLE decriminalization of #Marijuana. "Smaller Government Lower Taxes" people seem IGNORANT of the immediate and substantial savings AND the immediate and substantial REVENUES. (Notice that I leave mamby-pamby JUSTICE outta the equation, just like America and American Officials and American Executives do.)

Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury or, even better, CHAIRMAN OF THE FED . . . y'know, to oversee its HAIRCUT.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 11:48 AM
Liberterian Party = waste of time, money and votes

pahs1994
04-24-2012, 11:51 AM
Does anyone know if CSPAN will cover the Libertarian Party Convention this year? Last year was pretty interesting to watch

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 11:51 AM
Liberterian Party = waste of time, money and votes


Canned, knee-jerk, reflexive, unthinking . . . UNPERSUASIVE.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 11:54 AM
Sec of treasury , who would want that job ??


HANK THE BANK PAULSON.

In point of fact, he resigned as Top Dog at GOLDMAN SACHS to take the post.

"Naturally", he had to sell his GS stock at TOP OF THE MARKET. Cleared a cool HALF-BILLION, lol, to avoid conflicts of interest.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 11:56 AM
Canned, knee-jerk, reflexive, unthinking . . . UNPERSUASIVE.

How many presidents, senators, congressmen, governors, state senators, state representatives has the Liberterian Party gotten elected? Oh right...0

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 11:59 AM
How many presidents, senators, congressmen, governors, state senators, state representatives has the Liberterian Party gotten elected? Oh right...0


When Columbus proposed to SAIL AROUND THE WORLD, had it ever been done?

You are INDOCTRINATED, "only" differently.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 12:01 PM
When Columbus proposed to SAIL AROUND THE WORLD, had it ever been done?

You are INDOCTRINATED, "only" differently.

Well he failed to sail around the world, just like the liberterian Party has failed to even win a single race.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 12:04 PM
Well he failed to sail around the world, just like the liberterian Party has failed to even win a single race.


Yeah, he "only" made it to what is now America . . . fuckin' LOSER.

The really terrific thing is that WE ARE NOT TRYING TO RULE THE WORLD . . . "only" America.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 12:07 PM
Well he failed to sail around the world...


If at first you don't succeed, QUIT?

Begs the question, WHY IS RON PAUL RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? He already lost . . . TWICE.




...just like the liberterian Party has failed to even win a single race.

And just like Ron Paul has failed to win a SINGLE STATE.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 12:10 PM
Yeah, he "only" made it to what is now America . . . fuckin' LOSER.

The really terrific thing is that WE ARE NOT TRYING TO RULE THE WORLD . . . "only" America.

Actually Colombus never even saw why is now "America" (as in the US), he explored the Caribbean and what is now Colombia and Venezuela.

Anyway, the point is the LP has and always will be a failure.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 12:12 PM
If at first you don't succeed, QUIT?

Begs the question, WHY IS RON PAUL RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? He already lost . . . TWICE.

And just like Ron Paul has failed to win a SINGLE STATE.

And being realistic Ron Paul isn't going to win the nomination. Sucks to say it, but his chances are closer to 0% than to 1%.

Our real hope is Romney loses and Rand runs in 2016.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 12:13 PM
Actually Colombus never even saw why is now "America" (as in the US), he explored the Caribbean and what is now Colombia and Venezuela.

You are NOT a Critical Thinker, or you ARE deliberately obtuse.




Anyway, the point is the LP has and always will be a failure.

MY point is that you are an INDOCTRINATED DEFEATIST who absolutely swallows Establishment Dogma.

Hook, line...and sink us.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 12:17 PM
And being realistic Ron Paul isn't going to win the [Republican] nomination.


THAT is true.

Hence the focus on Third Party.



Our real hope is Romney loses and Rand runs in 2016.

Speak for yourself.

Separately from my hope that Rand Paul is NEVER president, I think he would be FOOLISH to make the play in 2016. Not ENTIRELY foolish . . . "loser" candidates still make out like BANDITS.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 12:17 PM
You are NOT a Critical Thinker, or you ARE deliberately obtuse.

MY point is that you are an INDOCTRINATED DEFEATIST who absolutely swallows Establishment Dogma. Hook, line and sink us.

No, I'm just not going to waste my time with a petty that had never won, isn't winning and will never win. The LP is the party for those ideologues who can't win in any other party and just run as LP candidates for the exposure, knowing they'll lose (well some are stupid/naÔve/delusional enough to think they have a chance)

Also, I'd never vote for a party that believes murdering unborn children is fine and has it on their platform.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 12:24 PM
No, I'm just not going to waste my time with a petty that had never won, isn't winning and will never win.

Spend your time/money/vote as you please. "It's a free country," LOL.

But "and never will" is INDOCTRINATED DEFEATISM.

You gotta OWN it to change it, and I hope you DO.




The LP is the party for those ideologues who can't win in any other party and just run...for the exposure, knowing they'll lose (well some are stupid/naÔve/delusional enough to think they have a chance)

Sounds a lot like Ron Paul.




Also, I'd never vote for a party that believes murdering unborn children is fine and has it on their platform.

But yer good with the Party that believes in murdering Innocents AFTER they're born?

The Free Hornet
04-24-2012, 12:55 PM
Also, I'd never vote for a party that believes murdering unborn children is fine and has it on their platform.

-1 "You lie". This is their platform statement on the issue:


1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

http://www.lp.org/platform

I expect Ron Paul supporters to be more sensitive with this issue. For example, false critics of Ron state he is fine with people doing heroin. That is false. Rather, he doesn't see an effective or Constitutional role for the federal government here.

More so, regarding the issue of what the penalty for abortion ought to be, I have not seen a response to my post here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?370886-Banning-abortion-doesn-t-make-sense-to-me.&p=4373779#post4373779).

The evidence strongly suggests that pro-life leads to little or no prosecution of mothers and will instead lead to prosecution of doctors, so-called abortionists, advocates even if exercising free speech, and the sale of any items or precursors that may be associated with abortion. This will not be unlike the war on drugs where users can get a pass and government can remain in the business of misregulation and punishing any men that compete with their power claims.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 01:03 PM
-1 "You lie". This is their platform statement on the issue:



"keeping government out of it" means leaving the murder of unborn children legal.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 01:06 PM
I expect Ron Paul supporters to be more sensitive with this issue. For example, false critics of Ron state he is fine with people doing heroin. That is false. Rather, he doesn't see an effective or Constitutional role for the federal government here.

More so, regarding the issue of what the penalty for abortion ought to be, I have not seen a response to my post here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?370886-Banning-abortion-doesn-t-make-sense-to-me.&p=4373779#post4373779).

The evidence strongly suggests that pro-life leads to little or no prosecution of mothers and will instead lead to prosecution of doctors, so-called abortionists, advocates even if exercising free speech, and the sale of any items or precursors that may be associated with abortion. This will not be unlike the war on drugs where users can get a pass and government can remain in the business of misregulation and punishing any men that compete with their power claims.

VERY like the War on Drugs . . . from the OUTRAGEOUSNESS of imposing one's will on another, to the FUTILITY of imposing one's will on another.


ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo
@GovGaryJohnson: I LIKE #Pickens on ticket...#EnergyIndependence LIKES #Pickens. But also, howzabout #MitchDaniels? SHELVE THE SOCIAL SHIT.


"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Nathan Hale
04-24-2012, 01:13 PM
Folks, I'll be the first to admit that the LP stalwarts have little political sense, but what they have is ballot access. If their 50 state ballot access meets our organization, we can parlay it into 15% in the polls, which gets us access to the debates, which opens the door to a historical presidential election...

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 01:17 PM
Folks, I'll be the first to admit that the LP stalwarts have little political sense...

There's a lotta that goin' around.




...but what they have is ballot access.

Try these on for size:

He's kinduva bore, but he's gotta LOTTA money.

She's not very intelligent, but she IS gorgeous.



If their 50 state ballot access meets our organization, we can parlay it into 15% in the polls, which gets us access to the debates, which opens the door to a historical presidential election...

Presence of a Third Voice will compel the DUOPOLY to draw distinctions, which will produce GREATER SUBSTANCE in the Debates. SUBSTANTIVE DIALOGUE catapults scary stuff like LIBERTY & JUSTICE & PEACE into a more flattering light.

This bears repeating: historical presidential election...

There is ALWAYS a reason WHY NOT.

Danke
04-24-2012, 01:26 PM
How many presidents, senators, congressmen, governors, state senators, state representatives has the Liberterian Party gotten elected? Oh right...0

:confused:

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 01:29 PM
:confused:

Yeah that's my face when I hear someone say they're members of the LP

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 01:50 PM
Just got a -rep from DerailingDaTrain


04-24-2012 11:21 AM
DerailingDaTrain
Thread: Libertarian Party Options
Then you must disagree with Ron Paul because that's his stance too. He would leave it up to individuals to decide what they wanted in their state. 10th amendment ftw.

Ron Paul wants abortion to be illegal in every state. He's introduced legislation every session of congress to define life as beginning at conception on a federal level and to remove court jurisdiction from the abortion debate, thereby overturning Roe v Wade.

Ron Paul would not allow any state to legalize the murder of any of its citizens, regardless of whether they have been born or not!

People need to stop misrepresenting his stance on this. Ron Paul is 100% pro-life and does not use the 10th amendment argument as a way out. No state has the right to legalize murder.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 01:53 PM
People need to stop misrepresenting his stance on this.


People need to stop talking about this, PERIOD, if they want a shot in the General.

ABORTION. HYSTERIA. DOES. NOT. PLAY. OUTSIDE. THE. HARDRIGHT. BUBBLE.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 01:54 PM
People need to stop talking about this, PERIOD, if they want a shot in the General.

I thought you're an LP supporter? You don't have to worry about the general election, LP has already lost before it even starts.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 01:56 PM
I thought you're an LP supporter?

That is because you are NOT a Critical Thinker, or you ARE deliberately obtuse.




You don't have to worry about the general election, LP has already lost before it even starts.

If he STAYS THE COURSE, Ron Paul doesn't have to worry about the General, either.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 01:58 PM
...LP has already lost before it even starts.


INDOCTRINATED DEFEATIST, with a crystal ball.

We all die in the end, do I have THAT much right?

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 01:59 PM
That is because you are NOT a Critical Thinker (or a careful reader), OR you are deliberately obtuse.

Ron Paul doesn't have to worry about the General, either, if he STAYS THE COURSE.

No, Ron Paul doesn't have to worry about the general election actually. He won't run 3rd party because he knows it's a waste of time as he found out (and regrets) in '88.

DerailingDaTrain
04-24-2012, 02:01 PM
Just got a -rep from DerailingDaTrain



Ron Paul wants abortion to be illegal in every state. He's introduced legislation every session of congress to define life as beginning at conception on a federal level and to remove court jurisdiction from the abortion debate, thereby overturning Roe v Wade.

Ron Paul would not allow any state to legalize the murder of any of its citizens, regardless of whether they have been born or not!

People need to stop misrepresenting his stance on this. Ron Paul is 100% pro-life and does not use the 10th amendment argument as a way out. No state has the right to legalize murder.

Yeah. That's exactly what I said and I sent you a PM about it too. Ron Paul believes in allowing the individuals in the states to decide and has said this many times before. Get over it buddy. He personally disagrees with abortion.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 02:01 PM
No, Ron Paul doesn't have to worry about the general election actually. He won't run 3rd party because he knows it's a waste of time as he found out (and regrets) in '88.


Hello, Square One.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 02:03 PM
Yeah. That's exactly what I said and I sent you a PM about it too. Ron Paul believes in allowing the individuals in the states to decide and has said this many times before. Get over it buddy. He personally disagrees with abortion.

He would leave the prosecution to te individual states, but no state would be allowed to legalize abortion. He has not only said that many, many times, but has introduced legislation and signed pledges supporting that position.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 02:04 PM
.
ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo
#GovGaryJohnson: No need to tread lightly re: #Paul. His rational support will COME ON OVER after he loses GOP nod...DEVOTED support, never.
.

DerailingDaTrain
04-24-2012, 02:07 PM
He would leave the prosecution to te individual states, but no state would be allowed to legalize abortion. He has not only said that many, many times, but has introduced legislation and signed pledges supporting that position.

No, they would. If my state legalized abortion then Ron Paul would not interfere in the matter. You are wrong.

This is from his own website:

Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

So he would only prohibit taxpayer funds from going to those programs

Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

And there you have it. Ron Paul would not allow the Feds to interfere with state decisions on life and would do so by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction. So if a state decided to allow abortion he would do nothing to interfere with that state's decision. Correct?

John F Kennedy III
04-24-2012, 02:11 PM
We don't need a third party. That's where TPTB want us. We need to focus on taking over the GOP. And to expand our movement even further we can get people to run as Democrats to take over that party as well.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 02:12 PM
No, they would. If my state legalized abortion then Ron Paul would not interfere in the matter. You are wrong.

That's not what Ron Paul has said, so stop misrepresenting his position. In your PM you said "it's something Ron Paul as a Texas Congressman would do, but not President Paul" so you're essentially calling him a lying, hypocritical flip flopper.

Ron Paul has consistently said that the most important role of government is to protect life and that this protection is paramount for there to be a guarantee of liberty.

Ron Paul believes the constitution already guarantees the right to life and that's they he says an amendment is unnecessary. He does not believe any state has the right to legalize the murder of the unborn, but they have the right to write their laws on how to enforce and prosecute violent crime.

DerailingDaTrain
04-24-2012, 02:13 PM
That's not what Ron Paul has said, so stop misrepresenting his position. In your PM you said "it's something Ron Paul as a Texas Congressman would do, but not President Paul" so you're essentially calling him a lying, hypocritical flip flopper.

Ron Paul has consistently said that the most important role of government is to protect life and that this protection is paramount for there to be a guarantee of liberty.

Ron Paul believes the constitution already guarantees the right to life and that's they he says an amendment is unnecessary. He does not believe any state has the right to legalize the murder of the unborn, but they have the right to write their laws on how to enforce and prosecute violent crime.

Read the quotes from his website and weep buddy.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 02:15 PM
Read the quotes from his website and weep buddy.

Sanctity of Life Act:

The Sanctity of Life Act defines human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."

DerailingDaTrain
04-24-2012, 02:18 PM
Sanctity of Life Act:

The Sanctity of Life Act defines human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWXym8vc2I4

I suggest you watch this interview and skip to 28 minutes in.

Ron Paul is opposed to abortion, drugs, and prostitution but he has said many times that he would leave these issues up the states and would not allow the Federal government to interfere just because he disagrees. You just don't want to admit that.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 02:23 PM
Ron Paul is opposed to abortion, drugs, and prostitution but he has said many times that he would leave these issues up the states and would not allow the Federal government to interfere just because he disagrees. You just don't want to admit that.

Then why did he say this:


Response from Ron Paul Campaign:
Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge

Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USAís goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.

I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.

As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Courtís misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.

It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.

What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.

This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.

Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.

DerailingDaTrain
04-24-2012, 02:25 PM
Then why did he say this:

You're still leaving out the part where even if the Feds define something as such he wouldn't allow them to interfere with a state's decision to allow something based on his personal beliefs. Like he has said many times before.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 02:27 PM
You're still leaving out the part where even if the Feds define something as such he wouldn't allow them to interfere with a state's decision to allow something based on his personal beliefs. Like he has said many times before.

He they write their murder laws and prosecute is completely different from them having the ability to legalize murder of the unborn.No state would have the right to legalize the murder of the unborn.

You still have failed to realize that regardless of how they enforce it, states under a Ron Paul presidency would not be allowed to legalize abortion. It would be federally defined as murder.

Feeding the Abscess
04-24-2012, 02:31 PM
Then why did he say this:

Because in the SC forum with DeMint and others, he himself rejected that the federal government has that power or authority.

That was written by campaign staff.

Pisces
04-24-2012, 02:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWXym8vc2I4

I suggest you watch this interview and skip to 28 minutes in.

Ron Paul is opposed to abortion, drugs, and prostitution but he has said many times that he would leave these issues up the states and would not allow the Federal government to interfere just because he disagrees. You just don't want to admit that.

I watched from 28:00-33:03, Ron doesn't say anything like what you claim above. In fact, he says that the fetus has rights. You may be confused by how Ron answered the question about dealing with a woman that was raped. He believes that it is ok to give that woman an estrogen shot within a few days of the rape because there is no way of knowing if a child was conceived at that point.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 02:36 PM
Because in the SC forum with DeMint and others, he himself rejected that the federal government has that power or authority.

That was written by campaign staff.

No he did not.

DerailingDaTrain
04-24-2012, 02:37 PM
I watched from 28:00-33:03, Ron doesn't say anything like what you claim above. In fact, he says that the fetus has rights. You may be confused by how Ron answered the question about dealing with a woman that was raped. He believes that it is ok to give that woman an estrogen shot within a few days of the rape because there is no way of knowing if a child was conceived at that point.

I was using that video to prove what RP said in the case of rape to go along with his argument against me that Ron Paul was staunchly pro-life and would never allow such a thing to happen. There's another one where he says something more in tune to my argument but I can't find the video at this moment. Damn YouTube.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 02:40 PM
I was using that video to prove that Ron Paul would allow an abortion in the case of rape to go along with his argument against me that Ron Paul was staunchly pro-life and would never allow such a thing to happen. There's another one where he says something more in tune to my argument but I can't find the video at this moment. Damn YouTube.

He said he wouldn't be oppose to an estrogen shot for a rape victim because you don't know if a child has been conceived or if the egg has implanted or will implant itself into the uterus wall.

That's completely different from the issue of whether he believe states have the right to legalize murder.

DerailingDaTrain
04-24-2012, 02:42 PM
He said he wouldn't be oppose to an estrogen shot for a rape victim because you don't know if there had a child has been conceived or if the egg has implanted or will implant itself into the uterus wall.

That's completely different from the issue of whether he believe states have the right to legalize murder.

You know I'm done arguing. I presented the evidence to prove you wrong. People have agreed with me and given me +rep for my posts. Good luck arguing about this in a thread about the Libertarian Party. Sorry for going off-topic people.

Edit: I'll leave you with this to think on.


Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of abortion". In 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the Federal level. However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".He believes that according to the U.S. Constitution states should, for the most part, retain jurisdiction.


Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 02:47 PM
You know I'm done arguing. I presented the evidence to prove you wrong. People have agreed with me and given me +rep for my posts. Good luck arguing about this in a thread about the Libertarian Party. Sorry for going off-topic people.

Either you've realized youre wrong or youre too blind and fucking stupid to read what Ron Paul wrote about making abortion murder federally. That states have the right to write their murder laws and prosecute murderers does not mean they have the right to legalize murder of the unborn, especially if life is defined at beginning to conception.

DerailingDaTrain
04-24-2012, 02:48 PM
Either you've realized youre wrong or youre too blind and fucking stupid to read what Ron Paul wrote about making abortion murder federally. That states have the right to write their murder laws and prosecute murderers does not mean they have the right to legalize murder of the unborn, especially if life is defined at beginning to conception.

Thanks to Feeding the Abscess for the video. It starts at 36: 50


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

Also, why is it that I can be civil in a conversation, and you insult me and use swear words a lot? You did it in the neg rep you gave me too. Calm down.

Pisces
04-24-2012, 02:59 PM
Thanks to Feeding the Abscess for the video. It starts at 36: 50


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

Also, why is it that I can be civil in a conversation, and you insult me and use swear words a lot? You did it in the neg rep you gave me too. Calm down.

No, it actually starts at 32:59. If you only listen starting at 36:50, you leave out the most salient part of Ron's answer to the abortion question. It's deceptive to say his answer starts at 36:50.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 03:02 PM
Also, why is it that I can be civil in a conversation, and you insult me and use swear words a lot? You did it in the neg rep you gave me too. Calm down.

I am calm, but you seem to be avoiding the fact that Ron Paul has on many occasions said (and even introduced legislation) which completely contradicts you saying he would allow states to legalize abortion (murder) if they want to. Either you're just avoiding that or you clearly lack any reading comprehension. Either way, you're fucking wrong.

Ron Paul would not allow any state to legalize the murder of the unborn. Simple as that.

I'm going to post this again so you can read it:



Response from Ron Paul Campaign:
Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge

Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USAís goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.

I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.

As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Courtís misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.

It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.

What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.

This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.

Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.

Feeding the Abscess
04-24-2012, 03:05 PM
I am calm, but you seem to be avoiding the fact that Ron Paul has on many occasions said (and even introduced legislation) which completely contradicts you saying he would allow states to legalize abortion (murder) if they want to. Either you're just avoiding that or you clearly lack any reading comprehension. Either way, you're fucking wrong.

Ron Paul would not allow any state to legalize the murder of the unborn. Simple as that.

While introducing legislation that would allegedly make ending life after conception murder (it wouldn't; he rejected incorporation doctrine at the DeMint forum and in countless other places), he's prescribed hormonal birth control, morning after pills, and even estrogen shots to prevent implantation and called all of those things good.

By your definition, Ron Paul advocates mass murder and has participated in it himself.

For my own thoughts, I will never understand why any limited government advocate would ever want to introduce the thieving death machine that is the state in this issue. Want to ensure that more killing and suffering takes place? Involve the government.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 03:08 PM
While introducing legislation that would allegedly make ending life after conception murder (it wouldn't; he rejected incorporation doctrine at the DeMint forum and in countless other places), he's prescribed hormonal birth control, morning after pills, and even estrogen shots to prevent implantation and called all of those things good.

By your definition, Ron Paul advocates mass murder and has participated in it himself.

The thing will all those things you have listed is, although they can lead to abortion, you never know if there has been conception or implantation of a fertilized egg.

That doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul believes that abortion is murder and that he does not believe states have aright to legalize the murder of ANYONE, including the unborn.

Feeding the Abscess
04-24-2012, 03:10 PM
The thing will all those things you have listed is, although they can lead to abortion, you never know if there has been conception or implantation of a fertilized egg.

If you can never know if there has been conception or implantation of a fertilized egg, it is quite possibly the dumbest idea ever to bring in the thieving death squad known as government to enforce and regulate conception and implantation.

Let's violate everyone's rights and enforce an unenforceable issue. What could go wrong?

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 03:18 PM
If you can never know if there has been conception or implantation of a fertilized egg, it is quite possibly the dumbest idea ever to bring in the thieving death squad known as government to enforce and regulate conception and implantation.

Let's violate everyone's rights and enforce an unenforceable issue. What could go wrong?

Has never said he would do that. He's never even said how to punish those who commit abortion or any other violent act for that matter. That's what he would leave to the individual states to decide. But that still does not change the fact that Ron Paul would like life defined as begining at conception to be defined federally and to give the unborn legal personhood and all the protections of the law, including protection against murder.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 03:29 PM
Obama/Democrats WANT Romney (and all R's still standing) to tack further right. WHY? Because it propels the Center (where the votes are up for grabs) to the Left.

Mark the launch of the attack on SECRECY (full-throttle irony) . . . which can be handily parlayed against Ron Paul's STEALTH Delegate Strategy, if need be.


#ReeseWitherspoon as June Carter: "Y'all can't walk no line."


I observe I do not hear the usual WHINING about derailment of the thread with pesky dot connection. LOL at the cognitive dissonance around this joint.

THIRD PARTY PROPONENTS will recognize Abortion Hysteria to be the red herring distraction that it always is...oh, looky here, by the very people who, AS PARTY LOYALISTS, obstruct a third-party effort.

Abortion Hysterics would LOGICALLY stick with the Republican "Party". The new NON-party coalition doesn't WANT them. They SCARE AWAY a greater number of Votes than they themselves constitute.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 03:32 PM
#ReeseWitherspoon as June Carter: "Y'all can't walk no line."


I observe I do not hear the usual WHINING about derailment of the thread with pesky dot connection. LOL at the cognitive dissonance around this joint.

THIRD PARTY PROPONENTS will recognize Abortion Hysteria to be the red herring distraction that it always is.

Abortion Hysterics would LOGICALLY stick with the Republican "Party". The new NON-party coalition doesn't WANT them. They SCARE AWAY a greater number of Votes than they themselves constitute.
I agree that its a red herring issue if you're discussing passing a constitutional amendment. The abortion legality question is already settled by the Constitution. The 5th Amendment guarantees every person the right to life, and the unborn are people. This could be clarifies even more with a simple majority vote by congress if they passed Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act.

Doesn't change, however, the fact that I would never vote for a political who is in favor of abortion. The prime responsibility of government is to defend life.

MikeStanart
04-24-2012, 03:34 PM
Keep in mind that being involved in multiple primaries is generally a misdemeanor.

If you've voted for Paul / been involved in the delegate process; DO NOT involve yourself in the Libertarian Party primary / delegate process.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 03:37 PM
I agree that its a red herring issue if you're discussing passing a constitutional amendment. The abortion legality question is already settled by the Constitution. The 5th Amendment guarantees every person the right to life, and the unborn are people. This could be clarifies even more with a simple majority vote by congress if they passed Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act.

Doesn't change, however, the fact that I would never vote for a political who is in favor of abortion. The prime responsibility of government is to defend life.


WORSE than irrelevant to a BIG TENT third-party run for the presidency . . . COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

But then, Masterminds know that.

LANDSLIDE is the only way.

IF Ron Paul's Stealth Delegate Strategy would "work" . . . which is to say, if ONLY RON PAUL PEOPLE are yelling from the sidelines that they have the Delegates, "JUST NOT THE POPULAR VOTE" . . . it wouldn't work.

Again, tho, I would not EXPECT Abortion Hysterics to vote anything but Republican, or something HARDER "right", or not at all.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 03:39 PM
WORSE than irrelevant to a BIG TENT third-party run for the presidency . . . COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

But then, Masterminds know that.

LANDSLIDE is the only way.

IF Ron Paul's Stealth Delegate Strategy would "work" . . . which is to say, if ONLY RON PAUL PEOPLE are yelling from the sidelines that they have the Delegates, "JUST NOT THE POPULAR VOTE" . . . it wouldn't work.

Again, tho, I would not EXPECT Abortion Hysterics to vote anything but Republican, or something HARDER "right", or not at all.

I wouldn't vote for a party, but for a candidate. But I would keep in mind the candidate's ability to win. That's why I wouldn't vote LP, because it would be a wasted vote.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 03:45 PM
I wouldn't vote for a party, but for a candidate. But I would keep in mind the candidate's ability to win. That's why I wouldn't vote LP, because it would be a wasted vote.

I think MILLIONS OF DOLLARS thrown at the Republican nomination is WASTED...tho not for Staff, Media, Vendors, et al.

Agree to disagree . . . except to agree that THIRD PARTY OPTIONS is empirically NOT about Abortion. Even as a DOT CONNECTION exercise, its only pertinence is specifically that it has NO PLACE in a non-party CRITICAL MASS.

Shotdown1027
04-24-2012, 04:30 PM
"How many presidents, senators, congressmen, governors, state senators, state representatives has the Liberterian Party gotten elected? Oh right...0 "

This isn't true, actually. 12 Libertarian Party candidates have been elected to State Legislatures since the party's founding. Most of them in New Hampshire, but 3-4 were elected in Alaska and 1 in Vermont.

Also, there are currently 157 Libertarians holding elected office. Recently the Indianapolis City Council had a Libertarian Party member.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 04:37 PM
"How many presidents, senators, congressmen, governors, state senators, state representatives has the Liberterian Party gotten elected? Oh right...0 "

This isn't true, actually. 12 Libertarian Party candidates have been elected to State Legislatures since the party's founding. Most of them in New Hampshire, but 3-4 were elected in Alaska and 1 in Vermont.

Also, there are currently 157 Libertarians holding elected office. Recently the Indianapolis City Council had a Libertarian Party member.

Liberterian party currently has:

0/100 US Senators
0/435 US Representatives
0/50 Governors
0/1921 State Senators
0/5410 State Representatives

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 04:43 PM
Also, there are currently 157 Libertarians holding elected office. Recently the Indianapolis City Council had a Libertarian Party member.

Hahaha they include:

Peter Schmerl
Continental Elementary School District #39 (Green Valley), Arizona

Scott Stewart
Pima County Community College Board, Arizona

James Guadagni
Liberty Elementary School Governing Board, California

Kate O'Brien
Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District Board, California

Lawrence Samuels
Seaside Project Area Committee Chairman, California

What an important list of elected officials :rolleyes:


Edit: LOL this is another one listed on the LP website


Karin Vermillion
Mahomet Library Board, Illinois

So being on the library board of a town of 7000 makes it to their "elected officials" page...what a joke of a party.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 04:45 PM
.
ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo
#GovGaryJohnson: No need to tread lightly re: #Paul. His rational support will COME ON OVER after he loses GOP nod...DEVOTED support, never.
.


ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo
@GovGaryJohnson: Over 100,000 miles, like Little Red Hen...ON ground, not flying OVER it. EVERYWHERE, folks say they're READY 4 #ThirdParty.

LOL, almost everywhere.


ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo
@GovGaryJohnson: Die-hard Dems will vote D, period. Die-hard Repubs will vote R, period. FORTY PERCENT claim #Independent. I spy #PLURALITY.

Shotdown1027
04-24-2012, 04:49 PM
Liberterian party currently has:

0/100 US Senators
0/435 US Representatives
0/50 Governors
0/1921 State Senators
0/5410 State Representatives

Yep. I don't disagree with that. Just pointing out that the LP has had SOME success, although it's been very limited.

I noticed you picked out the least impressive officeholders, but there are some that actually have power--an Indianapolis City Councilman, several County Chairmen, many city councilors and mayors, etc. Like I said, I'm not claiming they're an electoral force, just saying they have elected people from time to time. To whatever degree the LP is successful, it pretty much directly benefits us too.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 04:50 PM
23 Apr ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo
@almightygod: Sorry to disturb with secular PRAYER/PLEADING but might you rally #Atheists behind #ThirdParty candidate...for FART IN CHURCH?



ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo
@almightygod: If #Atheists & #Undecided & Exploited & #Embittered & Exhausted & Righteous & Ripped Off all vote #ThirdParty, voila...WE WIN.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 05:12 PM
We don't need a third party. That's where TPTB want us.


Ass-backward.

They want you to be RELIABLE PARTY LOYALISTS . . . in a two-party STRANGLEHOLD.

NOTHING good comes from Duopoly, unless it replaces MONOPOLY. Two "parties" ARE better than one Dictator.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 05:39 PM
...LP has had SOME success, although it's been very limited.

I spy a parallel with CRASH FAD DIETS and SLOW SENSIBLE WEIGHT REDUCTION.




...some that actually have power... Like I said, I'm not claiming they're an electoral force, just saying they have elected people from time to time.

ELECTED PEOPLE = REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC SERVANTS

ELECTORAL FORCE = WE THE PEOPLE

By the time enough Libertarians or Whoever have enough INDIVIDUALS WITH ENOUGH POWER to be a Force unto themselves, I guaran-fucking-tee there will be agitation to displace THAT Ruling Elite.



To whatever degree the LP is successful, it pretty much directly benefits us too.

No dispassionate argument can credibly be mounted to the contrary, truly.

Political Activists/Junkies are, in their own way, invested in the Status Quo. If everything were sorted out and running rightly, they'd be out of an Avocation.

Pisces
04-24-2012, 05:48 PM
Ass-backward.

They want you to be RELIABLE PARTY LOYALISTS . . . in a two-party STRANGLEHOLD.

NOTHING good comes from Duopoly, unless it replaces MONOPOLY. Two "parties" ARE better than one Dictator.

No, JFK III is right. See link with video of Bill Kristol, of all people, saying it would be good if Ron Paul left the GOP and basically bragging about driving Pat Buchanan out of the party.

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/204565-bill-kristol-better-for-the-republican-party-if-ron-paul-left-gop-

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 05:49 PM
No, JFK III is right. See link with video of Bill Kristol, of all people, saying it would be good if Ron Paul left the GOP and basically bragging about driving Pat Buchanan out of the party.

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/204565-bill-kristol-better-for-the-republican-party-if-ron-paul-left-gop-

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Pisces again.

seawolf
04-24-2012, 05:55 PM
So if anyone on this thread that has trashed the Libertarian Party think that the vast majority of Ron Paul Supporters will support the Republican Nominee you are out of your mind!!!

Many will write in Ron Paul or vote Libertarian or Constitution Party. The third parties will do far better in 2012 than they did in 2008.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 05:57 PM
So if anyone on this thread that has trashed the Libertarian Party think that the vast majority of Ron Paul Supporters will support the Republican Nominee you are out of your mind!!!

Many will write in Ron Paul or vote Libertarian or Constitution Party. The third parties will do far better in 2012 than they did in 2008.

So instead of 0.40% for the LP and 0.15% for the CP, they might get 1% each?

Shotdown1027
04-24-2012, 06:13 PM
So instead of 0.40% for the LP and 0.15% for the CP, they might get 1% each?

That'd be a good start, yeah. Look ,no one is asking you to invest money or time. If you don't want to, don't. No one is asking you to re-register.

But c'mon man, who else you going to vote for?

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 06:15 PM
That'd be a good start, yeah. Look ,no one is asking you to invest money or time. If you don't want to, don't. No one is asking you to re-register.

But c'mon man, who else you going to vote for?

Writing in Ron Paul.

NOBP

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 06:17 PM
Ron Paul was WARMLY welcomed in this interview.

When talk comes around to Third Party viability, note the qualifier "...in 20 or 30 years". Fuck that for a laugh.

http://runronpaul.com/interviews/ron-paul-on-news-and-views-4912/

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 06:24 PM
"Greatness does not approach him who is forever looking down." - Hitopadesa


"No great man ever complains of want of opportunity." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


"Great men are true men, the men in whom nature has succeeded. They are not extraordinary - they are in the true order. It is the other species of men who are not what they ought to be." - Henri Frederic Amiel

FindLiberty
04-24-2012, 06:26 PM
I'd like to see the LP nominate ABC for POTUS, and XYZ for VP (...with Ron Paul and ??? named as "alternates"
that should be pre-selected as "backup candidates if ABC and/or XYZ can't or won't serve"). i.e., If it becomes
necessary for someone to "step down" at some later point, just before the ballots are locked in and printed up for the
Nov 2012 elections. This "option" could expire right after the GOP convention in Florida, or not come in to play at all
if those first nominees are willing and able to remain viable. These LP convention approved "alternative" candidates
would of course, have NOTHING at all to do with the GOP race or Ron Paul!

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 06:27 PM
"There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are forced by circumstances to meet." - William F. Halsey

ronpaulfollower999
04-24-2012, 06:29 PM
Voting is too depressing. Voted in my first primary this year, but will probably skip the general. My only vote would be for writing in Ron Paul, then I'd probably skip all the other offices up for election. Romney or Obama? Fuck them.

That said I will be more than happy to contribute to Massie, Amash, Gunny, etc.

Sigh. Im just depressed over the whole campaign really. Disappointment sums it up.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 06:29 PM
"Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them."

- William Shakespeare

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 06:50 PM
Voting is too depressing. Voted in my first primary this year, but will probably skip the general. My only vote would be for writing in Ron Paul, then I'd probably skip all the other offices up for election. Romney or Obama? Fuck them.

That said I will be more than happy to contribute to Massie, Amash, Gunny, etc.

Sigh. Im just depressed over the whole campaign really. Disappointment sums it up.



Imagine how much LESS enthusiasm you will have if Ron Paul loses the GOP nomination and, poof, THAT'S THAT for another four years.

Imagine how THRILLING it would be to have [Coalition Candidate] pull off the BIGGEST UPSET IN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS SINCE "DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN."

Rest when we're dead, eh?

Danke
04-24-2012, 07:49 PM
Yeah that's my face when I hear someone say they're members of the LP

I gave you the :confused: face because a lot of Libertarians have been elected since 1971. And they have influenced the debate.

RonPaulMall
04-24-2012, 08:15 PM
So instead of 0.40% for the LP and 0.15% for the CP, they might get 1% each?

It is conceivable that Gary Johnson could start leading in the polls in New Mexico, and if that happens his campaign could steamroll in to Perot like proportions. Whether you want to vote Libertarian is a personal issue. Personally, I think all voting is immoral, so even pulling the trigger for Ron Paul is a huge compromise. I don't think many people will "write in" a candidate, because in most states they don't even read the write ins. If your vote quite literally isn't even going to be counted, you might as well take the higher road and not vote at all.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 08:21 PM
It is conceivable that Gary Johnson could start leading in the polls in New Mexico, and if that happens his campaign could steamroll in to Perot like proportions.

Stranger things have happened. Also WORSE things.




Whether you want to vote Libertarian is a personal issue. Personally, I think all voting is immoral, so even pulling the trigger for Ron Paul is a huge compromise. I don't think many people will "write in" a candidate, because in most states they don't even read the write ins. If your vote quite literally isn't even going to be counted, you might as well take the higher road and not vote at all.

I will argue that at THIS juncture, the High Road is to band together with people we don't like very well (or at all)...in the spirit of hanging together or separately...to jettison into the corner office a leader that TPTB unmistakably have not tapped as WE CAN DO WHAT WE DO WITH THIS DUDE. Wall Street is "good to go" with either Obama or Romney at this point.

That wasn't so, say, 18 months ago. [My opinion, obviously.] How does anyone imagine the "GRAND" Old (Boy) Party assembled ANOTHER lackluster field, after 2008? The original SAVE OURSELVES plan what two terms for Obama.

We can go back to our various Hatfield & McCoy feuds after we drive some fuckin' snakes outta Washington.

RonPaulMall
04-24-2012, 08:26 PM
I will argue that at THIS juncture, the High Road is to band together with people we don't like very well (or at all), in the spirit of hanging together or separately.

We can go back to our various Hatfield & McCoy feuds after we drive the snakes out of Washington.

I'll probably vote for the LP party nominee (so long as it isn't Wayne Allen Root!). The way I see it, we should use this as a dry run for 2016 when Rand runs. The more votes the LP gets, the more the terrified the GOP becomes and the fairer they have to treat us next cycle.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 08:26 PM
I gave you the :confused: face because a lot of Libertarians have been elected since 1971. And they have influenced the debate.

Yes, like Karin Vermillion who was elected to the Mahomet Library Board, in Mahomet, Illinois, a beautiful town of 7000.

Danke
04-24-2012, 08:29 PM
Yes, like Karin Vermillion who was elected to the Mahomet Library Board, in Mahomet, Illinois, a beautiful town of 7000.

And many representatives.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 08:32 PM
And many representatives.

A dozen. In 40 years. They currently have:

0/100 US Senators
0/435 US Representatives
0/50 Governors
0/1921 State Senators
0/5410 State Representatives

Feeding the Abscess
04-24-2012, 08:44 PM
Liberterian party currently has:

0/100 US Senators
0/435 US Representatives
0/50 Governors
0/1921 State Senators
0/5410 State Representatives

The LP was founded as a protest party, to show the joke that is the two party system (and attempt to educate while at it) and has lost its purpose as it has attempted to be politically viable.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 08:47 PM
The LP was founded as a protest party, to show the joke that is the two party system (and attempt to educate while at it) and has lost its purpose as it has attempted to be politically viable.

Well said.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 08:53 PM
A dozen. In 40 years. They currently have:

0/100 US Senators
0/435 US Representatives
0/50 Governors
0/1921 State Senators
0/5410 State Representatives

YOU. ARE. AN. INDOCTRINATED. DEFEATIST.

If you are a YOUNG man . . . here's hoping, y'know? Here's hoping.

GOT IT, wide-screen, that NOBP's are NOT on board with a third-party run.

PITY, really, that we can't hammer out a Plan B that includes you but...SHIT HAPPENS. Ron Paul Die Hards know ALL about THAT. The cold hard facts of the matter include NOBP's being a much smaller number than the HOLY GRAIL OF SWING VOTES in the middle. The ones that are ACTUALLY UP FOR GRABS.

Agitation for meaningful choice is HAPPENING, with or without you.

B-b-but Ron Paul IS a meaningful choice. Yeah? Then encourage him to jump the floundering Republican ship.

Don't you have some PHONE BANKING to do?

Would you like me to come back up to Grassroot Central, spreading MY opposition to the Stealth Delegate Strategy?

PISSER ON PARADES R US.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 08:57 PM
YOU. ARE. AN. INDOCTRINATED. DEFEATIST.

If you are a YOUNG man . . . here's hoping, y'know? Here's hoping.

GOT IT, wide-screen, that NOBP's are NOT on board with a third-party run.

PITY, really, that we can't hammer out a Plan B that includes you but...SHIT HAPPENS. Ron Paul Die Hards know ALL about THAT. The cold hard facts of the matter include NOBP's being a much smaller number than the HOLY GRAIL OF SWING VOTES in the middle.

Agitation for meaningful choice is HAPPENING, with or without you.

B-b-but Ron Paul IS a meaningful choice. Yeah? Then encourage him to jump the floundering Republican ship.

Don't you have some PHONE BANKING to do?

Would you like me to come back up to Grassroot Central, spreading MY opposition to the Stealth Delegate Strategy?

PISSER ON PARADES R US.

Can you please re-write that in a way that people other than 13 year old girls can read?

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 09:07 PM
Can you please re-write that in a way that people other than 13 year old girls can read?


As the sword is the last argument of Kings, ad hominems, non sequiturs and CRITICISM OF STYLE RATHER THAN SUBSTANCE are the last resorts of impassioned Political Activists. That is my experience.

Read it and weep, COMRADE.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/politics/april-24-primaries/index.html?hpt=hp_c1



Romney sweeps Tuesday primaries, declares race is on with Obama

From The CNN Political Unit
updated 10:23 PM EDT, Tue April 24, 2012

(CNN) -- Mitt Romney swept the five Republican primaries being contested Tuesday, and he turned from securing the Republican nomination and toward the general election against President Barack Obama.

The former Massachusetts governor was projected to win in Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island while New York.
With a big lead in delegates and his nearest competitor out of the race, Romney told a cheering victory rally in New Hampshire, "A better America starts tonight."

"The last few years have been the best that Barack Obama can do, but it's not the best America can do," Romney said. "Tonight is the beginning of the end of the disappointments of the Obama years and it's the start of a new and better chapter that we will write together."

Speaking to CNN's Piers Morgan after Romney's speech, Obama 2012 press secretary Ben DeBolt said, "The fact is a better title for Gov. Romney's speech tonight, than 'A Better America,' should have been 'Back to the Future,' because he's proposing the same economic policies that got us into the economic crisis in the first place."

Far ahead of the field in the battle for delegates, Romney became the presumptive nominee April 10 after his closest rival, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, suspended his campaign. Even though former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas continue their long-shot bids for the White House, the party appears to be consolidating around Romney.

According to a CNN estimate, Romney has 695 of the 1,144 delegates needed, with Santorum holding 273 delegates, Gingrich 141 and Paul 72. By CNN's count, the earliest Romney could reach the nomination threshold is late May, while Obama already has clinched the Democratic nomination, as expected.
Rick Santorum on Mitt Romney Obama pushes for the youth vote Gingrich 'rethinking' campaign Joel Osteen: Obama, Romney are Christian
Gingrich told NBC on Monday that he would "reassess" his campaign depending on how he finishes in Delaware, a winner-take-all state in which he has campaigned for several weeks.

"I think we need to take a deep look at what we are doing," Gingrich told NBC. "We will be in North Carolina tomorrow night, and we will look and see what the results are."

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said Gingrich would in the coming days "assess whether or not there is a path forward," and a decision could come "in a few days."

But in a concession speech in North Carolina on Tuesday, Gingrich said, "We are going to go to Tampa to fight for an American energy independence plan so no American president will ever again bow to a Saudi king."

Paul told CNBC on Monday that he won't step aside, even if Romney soon clinches the nomination...

SEND MORE MONEY!

Danke
04-24-2012, 09:14 PM
A dozen. In 40 years. They currently have:

0/100 US Senators
0/435 US Representatives
0/50 Governors
0/1921 State Senators
0/5410 State Representatives

Now maybe, but they have had members in the past.

LibertyEagle
04-24-2012, 09:48 PM
[I apologize in advance for offending gung-ho Ron Paulers. I appreciate the CONVICTION, I do. But I KNOW up close and personal the "terrible swift sword" of #BigMoney and, from where I sit, Ron Paul is NOT going to prevail ON THE GOP PATH.]

I have heard/read nothing about Gary Johnson being able to "rearrange" the ticket. But I HAVE heard/read him say that he would not PROCEED with a Libertarian challenge if Ron Paul snags the GOP nod.

Even if Ron Paul could win the Republican nomination and then the presidency, I don't think his Supporters "watch the whole movie" -- as they say on the Recovery Circuit. LOOK at the gray in Obama's hair. IF Ron Paul could sneak past Romney in Tampa, HE LACKS THE POPULARITY THAT WOULD FACILITATE HIS INTENTIONS.

Shall he rule by Executive Order?

Obama did not CAUSE the Financial Crisis, but LOOK how willing Republicans are to lay ALL blame at his feet.

We ain't comin' outta these woods in the next four years. WHOEVER sits at that THE BUCK STOPS HERE desk is in for a BOATLOAD of vilification. INCLUDING Ron Paul, who does not seem to me to be WIRED to not give a shit what people think and say.

IF he could win the GOP nomination and then the Presidency, I do NOT think he could take a second term (even if he is willing to be President rather than Granddad in the denouement of his life).

What about a NOVELTY vice president...not someone famous-for-being-famous, but someone famous-for-getting-stuff-done? (Which is NOT Ron Paul's claim to fame, it bears mention.) As one example: T. BOONE PICKENS. People DIG the ideas of #AlternativeEnergy and #EnergyIndependence. T. Boone Pickens actually knows something about Energy, and he LOOKS like he's got another four years in him.

Triathlete Gary Johnson could DEFINITELY do the broad-shouldered SUCK IT UP thing for eight years.

Gary Johnson can take the "blame" for the INEVITABLE decriminalization of #Marijuana. "Smaller Government Lower Taxes" people seem IGNORANT of the immediate and substantial savings AND the immediate and substantial REVENUES. (Notice that I leave mamby-pamby JUSTICE outta the equation, just like America and American Officials and American Executives do.)

Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury or, even better, CHAIRMAN OF THE FED . . . y'know, to oversee its HAIRCUT.

Interesting to know that you prefer T. Boone, as his goal was to feed at the government trough to facilitate his alternative energy ideas.

Speaks volumes, cheapseats.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 09:56 PM
Interesting to know that you prefer T. Boone, as his goal was to feed at the government trough to facilitate his alternative energy ideas.

As opposed to staying the course with our SUBSIDIZED OIL INDUSTRY, replete with wars predicated on our OIL DEPENDENCY/ADDICTION?

Alternative Energy is THE FUTURE. Like the future, it is coming whether hardcore Free Marketers dig how it happens or not.

Be there, or be . . . oh, that's right.




Speaks volumes, cheapseats.

You have ZERO impartiality.

LibertyEagle
04-24-2012, 10:00 PM
As the sword is the last argument of Kings, ad hominems, non sequiturs and CRITICISM OF STYLE RATHER THAN SUBSTANCE are the last resorts of impassioned Political Activists. That is my experience.

Read it and weep, COMRADE.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/politics/april-24-primaries/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Romney has been claiming the win since before the race even began. Go ahead and weep, yourself, if you want to.


SEND MORE MONEY!
:rolleyes:

He's not going to quit, because he is fighting to save our country. That seems to be a difficult concept for you.

LibertyEagle
04-24-2012, 10:04 PM
As opposed to staying the course with our SUBSIDIZED OIL INDUSTRY, replete with wars predicated on our OIL DEPENDENCY/ADDICTION?

Alternative Energy is THE FUTURE. Like the future, it is coming whether hardcore Free Marketers dig how it happens or not.

Be there, or be . . . oh, that's right.
No one has ever called me a hardcore free marketer. ROFL.

Actually, I was very disappointed in Pickens when he did this. But the facts are the facts. He's just another oinker who wants government money.


You have ZERO impartiality.

Impartiality to WHAT, cheap? Because I refuse to support someone whose goal is to feed at the government trough? Pickens has a great deal of money. He can fund his ideas himself, if he really believed in them. Rather, he'd prefer if all of us paid for them. No thanks. Feel free to send him a check if you want though. But, I'd thank you to keep your hand out of my pocket.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 10:05 PM
He's not going to quit, because he is fighting to save our country. That seems to be a difficult concept for you.


It seems difficult-or-impossible for you to understand the SLIMNESS of his chances of winning the Republican nomination. If memory serves, that's the word Ron Paul used: SLIM.

It would be much much much much much cheaper for Others (and probably more lucrative for him) to be on an extended Speaking Tour. It would probably do MORE to educate people, frankly, if TEACHING/LEARNING weren't entwined with DONATING/VOTING. He'd get honorary degrees all over the place...the most requested Commencement Speaker on the circuit.

Nicer note on which to end his distinguished career than losing a THIRD presidential bid.

LibertyEagle
04-24-2012, 10:06 PM
YOU. ARE. AN. INDOCTRINATED. DEFEATIST.

If you are a YOUNG man . . . here's hoping, y'know? Here's hoping.

GOT IT, wide-screen, that NOBP's are NOT on board with a third-party run.

PITY, really, that we can't hammer out a Plan B that includes you but...SHIT HAPPENS. Ron Paul Die Hards know ALL about THAT. The cold hard facts of the matter include NOBP's being a much smaller number than the HOLY GRAIL OF SWING VOTES in the middle. The ones that are ACTUALLY UP FOR GRABS.

Agitation for meaningful choice is HAPPENING, with or without you.

B-b-but Ron Paul IS a meaningful choice. Yeah? Then encourage him to jump the floundering Republican ship.

Don't you have some PHONE BANKING to do?

Would you like me to come back up to Grassroot Central, spreading MY opposition to the Stealth Delegate Strategy?

PISSER ON PARADES R US.

That would probably not be a winner, if you enjoy being here.

LibertyEagle
04-24-2012, 10:08 PM
It seems difficult for you to understand the SLIMNESS of his chances of winning the Republican nomination. If memory serves, that's the word Ron Paul used: SLIM.

It would be much much much much much cheaper for Others (and probably more lucrative for him) to be on an extended Speaking Tour. It would probably do MORE to educate people, frankly, if TEACHING/LEARNING weren't entwined with DONATING/VOTING. He'd get honorary degrees all over the place...the most requested Commencement Speaker on the circuit.

I think we all know there is a slim chance that he will get the nomination at this point. But, there is still a chance and while there is, most of us will support his efforts. You, on the other hand, seem to be here to advocate for other candidates. Interesting. Really.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 10:13 PM
That would probably not be a winner, if you enjoy being here.


Yeah, I know. I have an INFRACTION page . . . re-MEM-ber?

I think we can leave ENJOYMENT outta this, or maybe this IS fun & games for Perpetual Activists?

Considering that Ron Paul is TRAILING BADLY, I'd think NOBP's would be busy-busy working on THEIR ground game, rather than WHINING about a separate ground game that can ONLY APPLY MORE PRESSURE on the Bad Guys.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 10:15 PM
I think we all know there is a slim chance that he will get the nomination at this point. But, there is still a chance and while there is, most of us will support his efforts. You, on the other hand, seem to be here to advocate for other candidates. Interesting. Really.


I don't know what part of this you don't GET, but if we would wait for Ron Paul to run out the clock on Tampa and he LOSES (as he is likely to do), it would be too late to START this process that scares you so much.

While there is "still a chance", why don't you work on THAT while others work on THIS?

Shotdown1027
04-24-2012, 10:39 PM
Writing in Ron Paul.

NOBP

Why? All of your criticisms for third parties apply double to writing in Ron Paul. It won't even get counted in most states, the media won't cover it at all, and it won't have any effect on ballot access or public perception.

You could at least help a party maintain ballot access.

JebSanderson
04-24-2012, 10:57 PM
Why? All of your criticisms for third parties apply double to writing in Ron Paul. It won't even get counted in most states, the media won't cover it at all, and it won't have any effect on ballot access or public perception.

You could at least help a party maintain ballot access.

I don't care to help the LP with ballot access and I don't support the party platform. The only party I would consider voting for apart from voting for RP is the CP, but I don't like their nominee and they have even less of a chance than the LP, even though I do agree with most of their platform.

Since Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate this year I can support, I will be voting for him no matter what.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 11:18 PM
I don't care to help the LP with ballot access and I don't support the party platform.

I don't care to help the Republican Party, which is every bit as culpable as the Democratic Party, and I don't support the party platform.




Since Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate this year I can support, I will be voting for him no matter what.

"It's a free country."

Ron Paul isn't even CLOSE to securing the Republican nomination and, as you keep mentioning and as everyone knows, Gary Johnson is a super-long shot. There is plenty of work to be done on both fronts.

Are you diligently doing the PHONE FROM HOME thing, and the GOTV thing? Voter turnout is exceptionally low.

Some Ron Paul Supporters apprehend ADVANTAGE in low Voter turnout. What say you?

mport1
04-24-2012, 11:34 PM
The Libertarian Party is now a joke and should be completely ignored. They are a waste of time and money. After the Barr/Root ticket and the likely Gary Johnson nomination, they are just a party of statist Republicans.

If you are going to play politics, why not just do so in one of the main parties? Who cares about their labels? Ron Paul has clearly never been a Republican but has been elected as one. Just put the R or D by your name and campaign on a libertarian message.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 11:40 PM
The Libertarian Party is ... just a party of statist...

+


Just put the R or D by your name...

=

Cognitive Disconnect.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 11:43 PM
If you are going to play politics, why not just do so in one of the main parties?


Because a DUOPOLY in Government Power is BAD.

AS WE CAN SEE AND FEEL.

mport1
04-24-2012, 11:44 PM
+



=

Cognitive Disconnect.

I don't understand. I'm saying the LP is now statist, so what is the point of trying to take them over to run a principled libertarian campaign (which even then will never go anywhere)?

The point of the LP was for education, but they aren't doing an effective job of that. You might as well be a "Republican" like Ron Paul and educate people from that platform which has more exposure. Republicans and Democrats are obviously all statist as well though.

mport1
04-24-2012, 11:46 PM
Because a DUOPOLY in Government Power is not good.

AS WE CAN SEE AND FEEL.

Nope, but the LP has done nothing since its inception in the 70s to stop it.

cheapseats
04-24-2012, 11:52 PM
The Libertarian Party is now a joke and should be completely ignored. They are a waste of time and money. After the Barr/Root ticket and the likely Gary Johnson nomination, they are just a party of statist Republicans.

If you are going to play politics, why not just do so in one of the main parties? Who cares about their labels? Ron Paul has clearly never been a Republican but has been elected as one. Just put the R or D by your name and campaign on a libertarian message.


Sooo, yer sayin' SINCE EVERYONE IS A STATIST, BE A STATIST?





If you are going to play politics, why not just do so in one of the main parties?

If people will as you so aptly put it PLAY POLITICS, why not do so in the spirit of actually SHAKING THINGS UP & SETTING THINGS RIGHT?

So they can go wrong again, and another generation can step up to the plate or not?

STRONG argument can be mounted that rank-and-file Americans, beleaguered as they are, ARE SHIRKING THEIR DUTY.

mport1
04-24-2012, 11:57 PM
Sooo, yer sayin' SINCE EVERYONE IS A STATIST, BE A STATIST?

No, I'm saying that you might as well just give yourself a label "Republican" just like Ron Paul did (in case people haven't realized this, Ron Paul is not a Republican, he is a libertarian). The positions advocated should be completely pro-liberty.


If people will as you so aptly put it PLAY POLITICS, why not do so in the spirit of actually SHAKING THINGS UP & SETTING THINGS RIGHT?

So they can go wrong again, and another generation can step up to the plate or not?

STRONG argument can be mounted that rank-and-file Americans, beleaguered as they are, ARE SHIRKING THEIR DUTY.

In general I think there are much better ways to advance liberty. I'd rather see millions of man hours spent on education which I think will have a much higher return on investment than politics, especially LP politics.

If people want to spend their time and money on the LP, they should go for it. I've just wasted too much of mine and I'm done with them.

cheapseats
04-25-2012, 12:09 AM
Nope, but the LP has done nothing since its inception in the 70s to stop it.


C'mon. Ron Paul Supporters, of ALL people, know how long it can take for Good Ideas to gain traction.

This election is like NONE OTHER in my whole life. A remarkable opportunity exists, THIS YEAR.

Even I bought a ticket for that recent $640 mega-million jackpot, tho I did not expect to win.

If Government is not reined in SOON, I daresay those strategizing for 2016 and beyond will "find themselves" with ground conditions much changed from those they incorporated into their strategeries. Much changed, for the WORSE.

cheapseats
04-25-2012, 12:12 AM
No, I'm saying that you might as well just give yourself a label "Republican" just like Ron Paul did (in case people haven't realized this, Ron Paul is not a Republican, he is a libertarian).


He is a "libertarian-leaning" REGISTERED REPUBLICAN.

Party of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Chertoff, Henry Paulson...

Republican is NOT "just" a label. It is a MACHINE. Broken, like the System.

ProvincialPeasant
04-25-2012, 12:27 AM
Libertarian Party? Kucinich? REALLY?!

There are way too many liberals who have come to Ron Paul because they need to feel like they felt in 2008 when they fainted at the sight of Obama. Libertarians agree with Kucinich on a handful of things, and that is it. At least if you are going to run independent, choose a Democrat who agrees with your platform (it is budget-cutting for those who haven't read it).

I see the same moaning every time there is a primary; immature pundits forecasting Ron sweeping NY with 450% of the vote. When it doesn't happen, everyone threatens to go independent and not vote for Romney all-over-again, as if Romney actually needs the support of forum pundits.

I suppose my reaction to all this crap is GET OVER YOURSELVES.

cheapseats
04-25-2012, 12:38 AM
Libertarian Party? Kucinich? REALLY?!

I have only heard his name bandied in connection with AMERICANS ELECT, which apparently requires a mixed-party ticket?




Ron sweeping NY with 450% of the vote.

Good one.



When it doesn't happen, everyone threatens to go independent and not vote for Romney all-over-again, as if Romney actually needs the support of forum pundits.

True enough.

But this year IS different. And Romney is NOT beloved. And Obama is much LESS beloved than in 2008.




GET OVER YOURSELVES.

Ron Paul is CLEARLY influenced by his "enthusiastic" Supporters, or he wouldn't even be RUNNING.

D'ya reckon he'd be IMPERVIOUS if he was flooded by Supporter pleas to RUN THIRD PARTY?

cheapseats
04-25-2012, 12:47 AM
Romney has been claiming the win since before the race even began.


I draw attention to the CNN dateline. It makes a big difference if Mainstream Media PICKS UP one's remarks, as you know so well from the Media Blackout.




http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/politics/april-24-primaries/index.html?hpt=hp_c1



Romney sweeps Tuesday primaries, declares race is on with Obama

From The CNN Political Unit
updated 10:23 PM EDT, Tue April 24, 2012

(CNN) -- Mitt Romney swept the five Republican primaries being contested Tuesday, and he turned from securing the Republican nomination and toward the general election against President Barack Obama...



I am, of course, aware of and horrified by MEDIA BIAS = MODERATION SLANT.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17835742

24 April 2012 Last updated at 23:33 ET

Mitt Romney vows to oust Obama after primary sweep

Speaking while racking up a series of primary night victories, he said a "new campaign" was beginning, heralding the start of the road to November's vote.

"Hold on a little longer. A better America begins tonight," he said.

The presumptive nominee easily won primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

His claim to the Republican nomination is now unrivalled, with no serious challengers remaining in the contest.

With 14 primaries remaining, Mr Romney has amassed an unbeatable lead in the race for the delegates who will formally crown him the Republican nominee at the party's convention in November.

Without competition in the remaining contests he is expected to cruise past the 1,144 delegates he needs to take the nomination...

driller80545
04-25-2012, 01:06 AM
I have read this whole thread and I have to say that Cheapseats is right. My personal feeling is that RP has degraded himself by associating himself with the GOP. This country needs and wants sweeping changes, and they will not happen inside either of the establishment institutions. The times may be now for a third party. Maybe not, too, but this strategy is going nowhere.

cheapseats
04-25-2012, 01:36 AM
I have read this whole thread and I have to say that Cheapseats is right. My personal feeling is that RP has degraded himself by associating himself with the GOP. This country needs and wants sweeping changes, and they will not happen inside either of the establishment institutions. The times may be now for a third party. Maybe not, too, but this strategy is going nowhere.


What's THIS?? I am making note of the date. Perhaps also a screenshot. ;)


Rick Santorum is on Piers Morgan as I type. He says he will support the Republican nominee, who he expects to be Romney. Obviously he thought HE was the better candidate but, since he is no longer in the race, "YEAH," Romney is next best. Something about "do all I can."

"I'm meeting with the Governor tomorrow..." Something about trying to "work something out."

To his credit, Piers Morgan DID raise the issue of a campaign debt deal-io, maybe a cabinet post.

DEFINITELY NOT ABOUT THAT, chorused both husband and wife.

Of course not. Catholics don't make back-room deals, lol.

Would he/they accept the v.p. slot? Something about "there's a lot to talk about."

cheapseats
04-25-2012, 09:47 AM
I posted in another thread about my similar concerns - and apparently it is Johnson's prerogative to drop down to VP and allow Paul into the Presidential slot if he so desires it (so long as GJ's VP goes quietly). At least that's the answer I got from the thread chat.



[I apologize in advance for offending gung-ho Ron Paulers. I appreciate the CONVICTION, I do. But I KNOW up close and personal the "terrible swift sword" of #BigMoney and, from where I sit, Ron Paul is NOT going to prevail ON THE GOP PATH.]

I have heard/read nothing about Gary Johnson being able to "rearrange" the ticket. But I HAVE heard/read him say that he would not PROCEED with a Libertarian challenge if Ron Paul snags the GOP nod.

Even if Ron Paul could win the Republican nomination and then the presidency, I don't think his Supporters "watch the whole movie" -- as they say on the Recovery Circuit. LOOK at the gray in Obama's hair. IF Ron Paul could sneak past Romney in Tampa, HE LACKS THE POPULARITY THAT WOULD FACILITATE HIS INTENTIONS.

Shall he rule by Executive Order?

Obama did not CAUSE the Financial Crisis, but LOOK how willing Republicans are to lay ALL blame at his feet.

We ain't comin' outta these woods in the next four years. WHOEVER sits at that THE BUCK STOPS HERE desk is in for a BOATLOAD of vilification. INCLUDING Ron Paul, who does not seem to me to be WIRED to not give a shit what people think and say.

IF he could win the GOP nomination and then the Presidency, I do NOT think he could take a second term (even if he is willing to be President rather than Granddad in the denouement of his life).

What about a NOVELTY vice president...not someone famous-for-being-famous, but someone famous-for-getting-stuff-done? (Which is NOT Ron Paul's claim to fame, it bears mention.) As one example: T. BOONE PICKENS. People DIG the ideas of #AlternativeEnergy and #EnergyIndependence. T. Boone Pickens actually knows something about Energy, and he LOOKS like he's got another four years in him.

Triathlete Gary Johnson could DEFINITELY do the broad-shouldered SUCK IT UP thing for eight years.

Gary Johnson can take the "blame" for the INEVITABLE decriminalization of #Marijuana. "Smaller Government Lower Taxes" people seem IGNORANT of the immediate and substantial savings AND the immediate and substantial REVENUES. (Notice that I leave mamby-pamby JUSTICE outta the equation, just like America and American Officials and American Executives do.)

Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury or, even better, CHAIRMAN OF THE FED . . . y'know, to oversee its HAIRCUT.


OUR COUNTRY, OUR RULES . . . only if we MEAN it enough to go to the wall on things. To the Victors go the spoils, it was ever thus. No different than back when Financial Kingpins played CHICKEN with America, over who would get stuck with the Toxic Assets. Congress flinched >> TARP.

In fights, one side or the other WINS, or it goes on & on & on . . . unless BOTH parties/sides REACH CONSENSUS on ENDING the fight.

TPTB are NOT gonna reach consensus with DEMANDING Freedom Fighters. Why WOULD they, unless they HAVE to? They're holding all the cards . . . EXCEPT FOR THE WARM BODIES. They are oh-so-few in number.

I don't know the (capricious and self-serving) Rules, but I recollect something about NOT being able to run (in some states) on ANOTHER ticket in the General if one ran in the Primary on a DIFFERENT ticket? True, or false? If true, how much of a handicap does it establish?

OBVIOUSLY, a third-party run has more momentum WITH Ron Paul (and especially his "enthusiastic" Supporters), but he has REPEATEDLY said he does not want to go that route.

Ron Paul endorsed someone OTHER than the Republican nominee in 2008, right? RIGHT.

If Ron Paul LOSES the Republican nomination (as seems likely), AND Gary Johnson wins the Libertarian Party nomination (as seems likely), AND Ron Paul endorses Gary Johnson, where stand THEN the No One But Paul people on voting for Gary (doesn't fill Ron's shoes) Johnson?

Has the question been asked and answered, whether Gary Johnson would do an unglamorous stint as v.p. on a Paul/Johnson ticket? I have said (not in a mean way) that I don't think Ron Paul would be "good for" a second term even IF he could win a first. But it's either one or two, we know THAT about Presidencies.

Paul/Johnson portends 4 to 16 years in the White House. (Or zero, obviously.)

EIGHT years of Obama portends 8 to 16 years of Republican control of the White House. But FOUR years of Obama portends some bitchy tit-for-tat. Four for US, four for YOU, four for US, four for YOU...'cuz we BOTH suck.

LOOK TO JAPAN to get an idea of our "Recovery" timeline.

cheapseats
04-25-2012, 10:14 AM
Santorum was with Piers Morgan last night.

Bachmann was with Greta Van Susteren.

BOTH answered WILL/DO YOU ENDORSE ROMNEY in the exact same coy way.

BOTH were pressed to specify whether their words constitute ENDORSEMENT, and both declined to do that. Both repeatedly "clarified" that 1.) they WILL SUPPORT THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE, and 2.) they EXPECT ROMNEY TO BE THE NOMINEE.

Now. Are they covering their backs in case Romney gets mired and underperforms, JUST LIKE OBAMA? Are they making a less glaring transition from ATTACKING Romney to BACKING Romney, so THEY aren't charged with flip-flopping, JUST LIKE ROMNEY? Are there back-room talks underway for who SHALL be the nominee, if those pesky Paulers manage to flick a fly into the ointment?

Recollect that Gingrich called Ron Paul DANGEROUS.

If an uber-establishment "Wild" Card "suddenly" manifests in Tampa, career politicians Santorum and Bachmann would not want to "find themselves" in league with the Loser.

The Free Hornet
04-25-2012, 11:09 AM
No, I'm saying that you might as well just give yourself a label "Republican" just like Ron Paul did (in case people haven't realized this, Ron Paul is not a Republican, he is a libertarian). The positions advocated should be completely pro-liberty.

You understate the case. Ron Paul believes in a republican form of government, not a democracy. More so, he is a member of the Republican Party (and an elected one at that). These facts more than qualify him to honestly call himself a Republican. It has been an MSM talking point to smear Ron Paul as not a Republican or to call him a Libertarian.

The issue is differentiation from the non-republican Republicans (or RINOs or neocons). "Constitutional Conservative" works (used well by Rand Paul it has been co-opted somewhat by Bachmann and others).

No label will ever be perfect. As such, it is best to not worry too much about it and gravitate to where we can influence power. The strategy of running as a Republican while being a "small l" libertarian works great.

I'd rather be a libertarian Republican in a primary than a Libertarian running against a Republican in a general.




I have read this whole thread and I have to say that Cheapseats is right. My personal feeling is that RP has degraded himself by associating himself with the GOP.

Ron Paul elevates the Republican Party, their reputation doesn't tarnish him. Some neocon soot may rub onto Rand Paul but that his choice.

cheapseats
04-25-2012, 11:40 AM
Ron Paul believes in a republican form of government, not a democracy.

REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT does not explicitly or implicitly extrapolate to REPUBLICAN PARTY MACHINE.




More so, he is a member of the Republican Party (and an elected one at that). These facts more than qualify him to honestly call himself a Republican. It has been an MSM talking point to smear Ron Paul as not a Republican or to call him a Libertarian.

MSM IS WINNING. Even more than Charlie Sheen.

Ron Paul DID endorse someone OTHER than the Republican nominee in 2008, did he not?




The issue is differentiation from the non-republican Republicans (or RINOs or neocons). "Constitutional Conservative" works (used well by Rand Paul it has been co-opted somewhat by Bachmann and others).


MENTAL MASTURBATION within the bubble. CLEAR AS MUD AND IRRITATING, TO BOOT for the Voting Public.




No label will ever be perfect.

REPUBLICAN is not a simple label. It is an OUTTA CONTROL MACHINE, WITH DASTARDLY OPERATORS.





As such, it is best to not worry too much about it and gravitate to where we can influence power. The strategy of running as a Republican while being a "small l" libertarian works great.

If it "works great" for a small-l libertarian to run as a Republican, Ron Paul would be LEADING. Unless y'all wanna cop to him being NOT WELL ENOUGH LIKED BY ENOUGH PEOPLE TO PRESUME TO LEAD.





I'd rather be a libertarian Republican in a primary than a Libertarian running against a Republican in a general.

What if the choice is LIBERTARIAN against Democrat AND Republican vs. NOT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION AT ALL?





Ron Paul elevates the Republican Party, their reputation doesn't tarnish him.

He does NOT elevate the "party"...public discontent with BOTH parties is PRONOUNCED. Their reputation does NOT tarnish him? Then why must resources be expended on "differentiation from the non-republican Republicans (or RINOs or neocons)"?




Some neocon soot may rub onto Rand Paul but that his choice.

"Some neocon soot" rather trivializes fallout from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Paulson/Chertoff/et al.

Shall he stick with that choice in the face of NEARLY INSURMOUNTABLE ODDS? Curiously, he DID say he'd ride it out to Tampa EVEN IF ROMNEY SECURES 1144 DELEGATES. What's THAT all about?

Education? It would be cheaper AND fairer AND more productive for Universities (with endowment funds) to pay Ron Paul's expenses to SPREAD THE MESSAGE. Less divisive, less threatening . . .

Nathan Hale
04-25-2012, 07:16 PM
The LP was founded as a protest party, to show the joke that is the two party system (and attempt to educate while at it) and has lost its purpose as it has attempted to be politically viable.

I totally disagree. I've been involved in the LP since its early years, and believe me it wasn't some witty attempt to parody the system. It was simply staffed by ideologically-sound but politically-retarded operatives. And it has remained that way. If you ask me, the best thing to happen to the LP has been the internal reform movement to turn it into a functioning political party. Alas, the Randroid tip-of-the-diamond cohort that runs the show (and pushes out the brilliant thinkers like Carl Milsted), undermines the party at every turn.

Nathan Hale
04-25-2012, 07:18 PM
The Libertarian Party is now a joke and should be completely ignored. They are a waste of time and money. After the Barr/Root ticket and the likely Gary Johnson nomination, they are just a party of statist Republicans.

If you are going to play politics, why not just do so in one of the main parties? Who cares about their labels? Ron Paul has clearly never been a Republican but has been elected as one. Just put the R or D by your name and campaign on a libertarian message.

Thank you, self-identified anarchist, for your moral appraisal of the situation.

Nathan Hale
04-25-2012, 07:20 PM
I have only heard his name bandied in connection with AMERICANS ELECT, which apparently requires a mixed-party ticket?

Paul currently polls first on AE, and Gary Johnson just happens to conveniently no longer be a Republican.

progressiveforpaul
04-25-2012, 09:00 PM
Cheapseats i see you've been holding down the fort while I was out. Ron Paul will not win the GOP. Gary Johnson will not win the general election. The only option of any viability was a coalition candidacy. We have about 2 minutes left on the clock for everyone here to recognize that I and cheapseats are right. After that it's another 4 years in pseudo progressive corporate Obama land. Tribalism and sectarianism have prevailed here and at the Huffington Post. Romney and Obama are laughing all the way to the bank at all your dreams of triumphalism.

I'll have something new posted in the morning here: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/

progressiveforpaul
04-25-2012, 09:24 PM
Got it done before midnight. You get the first read. Forgive the lack of editing. I'll try to take care of it tomorrow.

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/04/beyond-bad-news-of-2012-getting-it.html

cheapseats
04-25-2012, 09:50 PM
. . . win the general election. The only option of any viability was a coalition candidacy. We have about 2 minutes left on the clock . . .



2012 Libertarian Party Convention at Red Rock Resort in Las Vegas

When:

Start: 05/02/2012 - 6:00pm
End: 05/06/2012 - 2:00pm
Timezone: US/Pacific
Where:

11011 West Charleston Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89135


Description:

2012 Libertarian Party National Presidential Nominating Convention at Red Rock Resort in Las Vegas.

Convention web site: www.LibertyWillWin.com

Link to hotel web site: www.redrocklasvegas.com

http://www.lp.org/event/2012-libertarian-party-convention-at-red-rock-resort-in-las-vegas

Shotdown1027
04-25-2012, 11:09 PM
I don't care to help the LP with ballot access and I don't support the party platform. The only party I would consider voting for apart from voting for RP is the CP, but I don't like their nominee and they have even less of a chance than the LP, even though I do agree with most of their platform.

Since Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate this year I can support, I will be voting for him no matter what.

Ok, then you could help the CP keep ballot access. It's not like it matters if you disagree with Goode--he won't be in a position to enforce his opinions anyway.

But for the record, the guy has repudiated his prior support of the Patriot Act and is actively calling for its repeal. He's also calling for the withdrawal of US troops from MANY overseas bases and countries, including Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sola_Fide
04-25-2012, 11:10 PM
Ok, then you could help the CP keep ballot access. It's not like it matters if you disagree with Goode--he won't be in a position to enforce his opinions anyway.

But for the record, the guy has repudiated his prior support of the Patriot Act and is actively calling for its repeal. He's also calling for the withdrawal of US troops from MANY overseas bases and countries, including Afghanistan and Iraq.

Shootdown!!! STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING! PERMIT ME TO DERAIL THE THREAD FOR ONE SECOND.


I'm CALLING YOU OUT RIGHT NOW!!! YES YOU!!! DO YOU CARE ABOUT LIBERTY??? PROVE IT!!!

Match my $20.12 donation to Thomas Massie right now! Post your donation tag in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?373657-It-s-now-or-never-RPF!-Thomas-Massie-Moneybomb-Donation-Thread


I'm calling you out for liberty's sake! DONATE NOW!!! thomasmassie.com

Shotdown1027
04-25-2012, 11:14 PM
The Libertarian Party is now a joke and should be completely ignored. They are a waste of time and money. After the Barr/Root ticket and the likely Gary Johnson nomination, they are just a party of statist Republicans.

If you are going to play politics, why not just do so in one of the main parties? Who cares about their labels? Ron Paul has clearly never been a Republican but has been elected as one. Just put the R or D by your name and campaign on a libertarian message.

In what world is Gary Johnson just a "statist Republican"? He was against both wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), has called for withdrawing many overseas troops, is pro-choice, is for the repeal of drug laws, and the legalization of gay marriage.

rockerrockstar
04-25-2012, 11:25 PM
It would be cool if Ron Paul got on the ticket if he does not get the nomination for the republicans.

Paul Or Nothing II
04-26-2012, 02:16 AM
Two weeks from today the Libertarian Party will be holding their national convention in Las Vegas to nominate a presidential ticket. If they can delay this decision until early September, we might still have a chance of changing America and its politics for the good...

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/04/libertarian-party-if-you-are-interested.html

It's utter stupidity on their part NOT to wait, at least until near the end of the primary season, if not Tampa

They have NOTHING to lose, they have not gotten anywhere all this while & if Ron doesn't get GOP nomination & runs Libertarian then that will be a huge boom for them; it makes sense for them to WAIT A LITTLE


Writing in Ron Paul.

NOBP

Writing in is a waste, period, nobody bothers about write-ins!

If CONSERVATIVES want their voices heard in the GOP then they should either vote Obama or 3rd Party & make sure GOP loses big & may be then they'll value the conservative-votes & offer us a god-damn CONSERVATIVE options rather than shoving a flip-flopping LIBERAL down our throats :mad:

If conservatives continue voting GOP, be it writing in, then they have no reason to accommodate for us because then the establishment knows that they have us in the bag if we're unwilling to look at other options
If we talk so much about free markets then we must understand that COMPETITION is what gets people to care for their patrons!


Interesting to know that you prefer T. Boone, as his goal was to feed at the government trough to facilitate his alternative energy ideas.

Speaks volumes, cheapseats.

+1


As opposed to staying the course with our SUBSIDIZED OIL INDUSTRY, replete with wars predicated on our OIL DEPENDENCY/ADDICTION?

Alternative Energy is THE FUTURE. Like the future, it is coming whether hardcore Free Marketers dig how it happens or not.

Be there, or be . . . oh, that's right.

You have ZERO impartiality.

As opposed to what? GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED "alternative energy" :rolleyes:

And free marketers are NOT necessarily opposed to "alternative energy", what they ARE opposed to is GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZATION - & that goes for both oil as well as "alternative energy" but it just so happens that oil is much more cost-effective & viable AT THE MOMENT compared to "alternative energy"


I don't know what part of this you don't GET, but if we would wait for Ron Paul to run out the clock on Tampa and he LOSES (as he is likely to do), it would be too late to START this process that scares you so much.

While there is "still a chance", why don't you work on THAT while others work on THIS?

I just find it very funny that you think that it's somehow deluded for people to think that Ron can get GOP nomination while at the same time, you THINK that he can WIN as a 3rd-party candidate :rolleyes:

The chances of him winning as a 3rd-party candidate are even lower than him winning the GOP nomination, always have been because most voters simply don't want vote 3rd-party, irrespective of how many identify themselves as "independent"

Of course, if he doesn't get the GOP nomination or Romney seals 1144 BOUND delegates then 3rd-party can be looked at but his best chance of winning General would always be as a Republican, not 3rd-party

According to polls, in case of a three-way General Election between Obama-Romney-Paul, Paul gets about 15-20%, which is far cry from winning but more IMPORTANTLY, it ensures a GOP LOSS :D so a 3rd-party run would act more or less as a protest-run but winning seems improbable - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_p residential_election,_2012#Three-way_race


Why? All of your criticisms for third parties apply double to writing in Ron Paul. It won't even get counted in most states, the media won't cover it at all, and it won't have any effect on ballot access or public perception.

You could at least help a party maintain ballot access.

+1

Yes, writing-in is a TOTAL WASTE, if we want our voices to be respected then a protest-vote AGAINST GOP is in order, be it voting for Obama or 3rd-party :mad: If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination this tim, then conservatives need to band together & teach GOP a lesson by making sure they lose big so that next time we'll be offered a REAL CONSERVATIVE candidate


It would be cool if Ron Paul got on the ticket if he does not get the nomination for the republicans.

Yes, I was hoping for the same but for some reason Libertarian Party seems hell-bent on relegating themselves to fringes of politics than just a WAIT a little, at least until Romney secures enough delegates & then see what Ron does

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 03:07 AM
It's utter stupidity on their part NOT to wait, at least until near the end of the primary season, if not Tampa

In my view, it is utterly stupid for Ron Paul TO wait for Tampa.




They have NOTHING to lose

Whereas Ron Paul has WHAT to lose by joining them . . . the "favor" of Republican Party Bosses?




...they have not gotten anywhere all this while

Like saying Ron Paul hasn't gotten anywhere all this while.





if Ron doesn't get GOP nomination & runs Libertarian then that will be a huge boom for them; it makes sense for them to WAIT A LITTLE


IF Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination? IF?!?!

It makes sense for Ron Paul to PISS OR GET OFF THE POT.

This year is a "huge boon" for the Libertarian Party ALREADY . . . one man's disappointment being another man's opportunity. Finder's keeper, Loser's weeper.

Libertarian Party has ballot access in all 50 states.

UNLIKE the ol' write-in option.

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 03:07 AM
//

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 04:18 AM
Micro:
Finder's keeper, Loser's weeper.


Macro: (FINDERS = KEEPERS) + (LOSERS = WEEPERS)

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 04:34 AM
SHOW OF HANDS: How many "No But One Paul And Only As A Republican" Activists will call Gary Johnson BACK STABBER, if he dares to don and run like a goddamn TRIATHLETE with the mantle that Ron Paul AND YOU reject?

LibertyEagle
04-26-2012, 06:02 AM
I don't know what part of this you don't GET, but if we would wait for Ron Paul to run out the clock on Tampa and he LOSES (as he is likely to do), it would be too late to START this process that scares you so much.

While there is "still a chance", why don't you work on THAT while others work on THIS?

If you want to advocate for other candidates for President, besides Ron Paul, do it somewhere else than on Ron Paul Forums.

progressiveforpaul
04-26-2012, 07:29 AM
Information questions for cheapseats:
Can the libertarian party nominate Gary Johnson and then Gary Johnson have the option of handing the baton to ron Paul if Paul desires to run after he loses GOP nomination?
Can the LP nominate GJ as VP and leave top spot open or can GJ after being nominate drop down to VP slot to make room for RP?
Can the LP make a deal with the Green party and nominate Jill Stein as GJ's running mate?
Can the LP nominate RP andGJ for P?VP and then if RP says no move GJ up to P and offer VP to Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson or Buddy Roemer?

I know those are lots of questions. Some are based on ideas I have heard here and elsewhere. Some are based on my desire to find a way to form a coalition ticket. The inability of the RP campaign staff to adjust tactically is very troublesome. Do you think nepotism has anything to do with it? Hard to fire your son-in-law especially if his in cahoots with your son. Maybe I should make that thread happen next and watch this place go bat $#!+ crazy. if you want ot beat me to it you're welcome.

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 10:15 AM
If you want to advocate for other candidates for President, besides Ron Paul, do it somewhere else than on Ron Paul Forums.


I most certainly do NOT want to advocate other candidates, here or anywhere. But, like you, I DO have Civic Duties.

Is our big-picture agenda a RON PAUL REPUBLICAN PRESIDENCY or SAVING AMERICA BEFORE SHE GOES OVER THE FALLS?

I appreciate that Ron Paul Supporters BELIEVE that only a Ron Paul Presidency CAN save America from going over the (rapidly approaching) falls. Perhaps that is even TRUE.

But it is ALSO true that Ron Paul runs an EXCEEDINGLY good chance of NOT winning the GOP nomination. What then? Just HANG ON while we DO go over the falls? Try NOTHING ELSE to avert catastrophe?

Is the sum total of your advice to NON REPUBLICAN Soft Support, which will NOT pimp the Republican Party, to STFU until after the Republican convention? When I joined the Board...in the LAST "election cycle", when Ron Paul lost his SECOND presidential bid...LIBERTY FOREST was above RON PAUL in the forum banner.

You would more constructively encourage Ron Paul to BAIL ON THE THOROUGHLY CORRUPTED REPUBLICAN PARTY MACHINE...chop-chop, time is of the essence...and SEIZE the Libertarian Party nomination next week.

Y'know all those "special" campaign announcements that were not even remotely special? THIS would be special.

This would MAKE NEWS.

Ron Paul has "simply" and sustainedly been UNABLE to parlay gi-normous rallies into a populist Game Changer. Why d'ya reckon that is, LibertyEagle, why do YOU reckon that is? And WHATEVER the explanation/rationalization (e.g. Big Bad Media), how do YOU propose to change that...substantively enough and quickly enough to MATTER?

Or do you advise trusting the campaign implicitly, and STAYING THE COURSE?

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 02:07 PM
2012 Libertarian Party Convention at Red Rock Resort in Las Vegas

When:

Start: 05/02/2012 - 6:00pm
End: 05/06/2012 - 2:00pm
Timezone: US/Pacific
Where:

11011 West Charleston Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89135


Description:

2012 Libertarian Party National Presidential Nominating Convention at Red Rock Resort in Las Vegas.

Convention web site: www.LibertyWillWin.com

Link to hotel web site: www.redrocklasvegas.com


http://www.lp.org/event/2012-libertarian-party-convention-at-red-rock-resort-in-las-vegas


ELVIS IS IN THE BUILDING if Ron Paul shows up.

Peace&Freedom
04-26-2012, 02:58 PM
It is in Romney and Paul's mutual interest for Paul to stay in the race through Tampa. That way Romney knows (or thinks he knows) Paul will not run third party, and he has a slight chance of reaching Paul voters, or at least not alienating them. Paul wants to walk into the convention with a massive amount of delegates that give him chance to win it, or failing that a thunderous swan song moment for himself with the GOP, compared to not even being allowed on the floor of the 2008 convention. It would be in either case a great 'changing of the guard' experience showing the growing presence of the young pro-liberty, end the wars, end the Fed new generation on the major party scene.

The issue has always been whether Paul would pursue the third party option as an ADDITIONAL avenue for advancing his candidacy in 2012 and the liberty movement past this year. An LP nomination would enhance Paul's ability to gain the GOP nomination, but the LP does not have to delay its deliberations for the sake of the latter. I concur with others in this thread about the monstrous hubris of the Republican partisans here who have foisted the notion that the other parties should be on hold waiting for the outcome of the Republican convention in August. The world does NOT revolve around the GOP, nor does it even revolve around Paul. We need to change the political world so that it revolves around LIBERTY and the Constitution once more. Right now that means through Paul, but it is the whole movement that must carry forward.

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 04:17 PM
With respect, yes? I have a disposition like ten miles of bad road ANYWAY (shall we shoot me?), and people are being STIFF-NECKED, and we are running out of time on one particular opportunity.

Like weapons/spells or "lives" in a computer game...why NOT grab every one you can?


It is in Romney and Paul's mutual interest for Paul to stay in the race through Tampa. That way Romney knows (or thinks he knows) Paul will not run third party, and he has a slight chance of reaching Paul voters, or at least not alienating them...

It is ABSOLUTELY in Mitt Romney's better interests, for Ron Paul to remain in the Republican fold. I'd remind his "enthusiastic" Supporters that their enthusiasm is pretty much still BLACKED OUT, as it has been from the start.

The "casual" Viewer/Voter (if you can call MAYBE an hour per day hearing about Trayvon Marten getting killed and Columbian Hookers getting screwed 'casual') hears again and again, on a GOOD day/night, some rendition of LONG-SHOT RON PAUL WHO NOW TRAILS INSURMOUNTABLY & HIS ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTERS VOW TO REMAIN IN THE RACE UNTIL TAMPA, BUT THEY ARE REALISTICALLY TOO FEW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN IN THE TIME REMAINING.

On a bad night, they say something snarky. On the really bad nights, they say NOTHING AT ALL. Y'all know damn well there are people who don't know/think he's still in the race. They don't think about him at all, any more than they think of Huntsman or Pawlenty.

IS HE STILL IN THE RACE? I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HE WAS STILL IN THE RACE. I've heard 'em a hundred times. APIECE.




Paul wants to walk into the convention with a massive amount of delegates that give him chance to win it...

NOT happening, with "massive amount of delegates." NOT. HAPPENING.

By what logic does anyone imagine that, in the UNLIKELY event of a brokered convention that Mitt Romney fails to win (after public reminder about WHO'S THE BOSS), somehow commanding numbers of Delegates magically coalesce behind a Candidate that has pointedly NOT secured the popular vote? As ECSTATIC as Ron Paul People would be, is how OUTRAGED not-Paul people would be. Good LUCK, making manifest The Message.



or failing that a thunderous swan song moment for himself with the GOP, compared to not even being allowed on the floor of the 2008 convention. It would be in either case a great 'changing of the guard' experience showing the growing presence of the young pro-liberty, end the wars, end the Fed new generation on the major party scene.

As was Barack Obama's famous speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

He even managed the LANDSLIDE thing (or someone did), and STILL his post-election accomplishments PALE beside his campaign rhetoric. NO MATTER WHICH REPUBLICAN WOULD "WIN", payback gridlock is NOT a bitch for #BigMoney.




The issue has always been whether Paul would pursue the third party option as an ADDITIONAL avenue for advancing his candidacy in 2012 and the liberty movement past this year. An LP nomination would enhance Paul's ability to gain the GOP nomination, but the LP does not have to delay its deliberations for the sake of the latter. I concur with others in this thread about the monstrous hubris of the Republican partisans here who have foisted the notion that the other parties should be on hold waiting for the outcome of the Republican convention in August. The world does NOT revolve around the GOP, nor does it even revolve around Paul. We need to change the political world so that it revolves around LIBERTY and the Constitution once more. Right now that means through Paul, but it is the whole movement that must carry forward.

Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead. Everything we got, ALL IN, balls to the wall. If not now, seriously, WHEN?

People type and type and type about how #BigGovernment = #BigMoney is TIGHTENING THE NOOSE, but somehow the folks WITHOUT power will finagle to swipe power out from under the Powerful...and also not become corrupted by power. After May 2nd, I won't pester y'all anymore about Ron Paul reconsidering third-party/indie/whatever. In the meantime, I sincerely-if-not-sweetly suggest you reconsider opposition to an IN-PLAY PLAN B.

Ron Paul DOES respond to Supporters, yes? If not, why would anyone want him to rule over them?

If you wade thru the FLUFF on page one of General Politics, other "headlines" herald our IMMINENT future, absent the UPSET OF THE MILLENNIUM:



Federal Govt Attempts to Sieze Control of Food Retail System

Feds to ban children from farm chores

Homeland Security raids flea market over bogus sports jerseys

"..Republican Party Machine is Now Focused on Suppressing the Paul Campaign"

Obama defends raids on medical marijuana providers in Rolling Stone interview

The End of Parental Consent

URGENT Vote on CISPA now expected WITHIN THE HOUR!! Call your reps 2 vote against!!

Big Pharma: Drug Them and Then Deny End-Of-Life Care

How a RPF forum member's stepson with autism was shot and killed at school by a cop

Population Reduction Agenda


I AM DEEEE-LIGHTED TO BE WRONG, but my educated and considered opinion is that WE'LL GET 'EM IN 2016, 2020, 2024 is nonsense...except for people who derive Income &/or Pleasure from politics. Delusional, or design-ful.

And I don't think expressing that belief warrants penalizing me with the ban that I stipulate lies within the purview of Private Property Owners. If newspaper publishers in Revolutionary America had cited PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS to disseminate only British Propaganda, they'd not have lived to print the tale. NO, I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE A TURNCOAT OR THREATENING HARM. I am pointing out that The Powers That Be HERE do unto others as others do unto Ron Paul.

OF COURSE we win ultimately, if we keep resisting rather than rolling over. No WONDER people buy into the delayed gratification slash SUCK IT UP construct of Heaven...or 72 Virgins, as the case may be. What a suck-y life.

progressiveforpaul
04-26-2012, 04:51 PM
cheapseats, Do me a favor and stop making so much sense. I'm not use to it very much around here. All these libertarian folks proclaiming their non conformist ways but everyone is in lock step with self destruction. The the previous poster.... I refuse to post the link again that i have posted more than a dozen times. Find it yourself....RON PAUL CANNOT WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE GOP CONVENTION TO RUN INDY OR 3RD PARTY BECUASE THERE ARE ONLY ABOUT 6 OR 7 STATES THAT WILL ALLOW HIM TO FILE AS SUCH AFTER AUGUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


With respect, yes? I have a disposition like ten miles of bad road ANYWAY (shall we shoot me?), and people are being STIFF-NECKED, and we are running out of time on one particular opportunity.

Like weapons/spells or "lives" in a computer game...why NOT grab every one you can?



It is ABSOLUTELY in Mitt Romney's better interests, for Ron Paul to remain in the Republican fold. I'd remind his "enthusiastic" Supporters that their enthusiasm is pretty much still BLACKED OUT, as it has been from the start.

The "casual" Viewer/Voter (if you can call MAYBE an hour per day hearing about Trayvon Marten getting killed and Columbian Hookers getting screwed 'casual') hears again and again, on a GOOD day/night, some rendition of LONG-SHOT RON PAUL WHO NOW TRAILS INSURMOUNTABLY & HIS ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTERS VOW TO REMAIN IN THE RACE UNTIL TAMPA, BUT THEY ARE REALISTICALLY TOO FEW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN IN THE TIME REMAINING.

On a bad night, they say something snarky. On the really bad nights, they say NOTHING AT ALL. Y'all know damn well there are people who don't know/think he's still in the race. They don't think about him at all, any more than they think of Huntsman or Pawlenty.

IS HE STILL IN THE RACE? I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HE WAS STILL IN THE RACE. I've heard 'em a hundred times. APIECE.





NOT happening, with "massive amount of delegates." NOT. HAPPENING.

By what logic does anyone imagine that, in the UNLIKELY event of a brokered convention that Mitt Romney fails to win (after public reminder about WHO'S THE BOSS), somehow commanding numbers of Delegates magically coalesce behind a Candidate that has pointedly NOT secured the popular vote? As ECSTATIC as Ron Paul People would be, is how OUTRAGED not-Paul people would be. Good LUCK, making manifest The Message.




As was Barack Obama's famous speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

He even managed the LANDSLIDE thing (or someone did), and STILL his post-election accomplishments PALE beside his campaign rhetoric. NO MATTER WHICH REPUBLICAN WOULD "WIN", payback gridlock is NOT a bitch for #BigMoney.





Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead. Everything we got, ALL IN, balls to the wall. If not now, seriously, WHEN?

People type and type and type about how #BigGovernment = #BigMoney is TIGHTENING THE NOOSE, but somehow the folks WITHOUT power will finagle to swipe power out from under the Powerful...and also not become corrupted by power. After May 2nd, I won't pester y'all anymore about Ron Paul reconsidering third-party/indie/whatever. In the meantime, I sincerely-if-not-sweetly suggest you reconsider opposition to an IN-PLAY PLAN B.

Ron Paul DOES respond to Supporters, yes? If not, why would anyone want him to rule over them?

If you wade thru the FLUFF on page one of General Politics, other "headlines" herald our IMMINENT future, absent the UPSET OF THE MILLENNIUM:





I AM DEEEE-LIGHTED TO BE WRONG, but my educated and considered opinion is that WE'LL GET 'EM IN 2016, 2020, 2024 is nonsense...except for people who derive Income &/or Pleasure from politics. Delusional, or design-ful.

And I don't think expressing that belief warrants penalizing me with the ban that I stipulate lies within the purview of Private Property Owners. If newspaper publishers in Revolutionary America had cited PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS to disseminate only British Propaganda, they'd not have lived to print the tale. NO, I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE A TURNCOAT OR THREATENING HARM. I am pointing out that The Powers That Be HERE do unto others as others do unto Ron Paul.

OF COURSE we win ultimately, if we keep resisting rather than rolling over. No WONDER people buy into the delayed gratification slash SUCK IT UP construct of Heaven...or 72 Virgins, as the case may be. What a suck-y life.

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 05:04 PM
ELVIS IS IN THE BUILDING if Ron Paul shows up.


SUIT UP & SHOW UP, sez a different They . . . who are actually ON a Recovery Path.

Rather than talking to Santorum about his comparative Few, talk to Gary Johnson about the FORTY PERCENT of Americans who identify as INDEPENDENT. Behind close doors, like Santorum is talking to Romney . . . sumthin' SPECIAL.

Big splashy entrance . . . it's VEGAS.

Even "just" a CAMEO appearance . . . SHOW UP = NO BRAINER. See what happens.

At least LET something happen, if a Collective Subconscious heretofore unknown to itself MAKES something happen. Not because they fall in love with Ron Paul or hear the call of Sound Money, but "only" because they are all like passengers on the Titanic. "From first class to steerage."

Upsetting the Establishment applecart is BETTER for Rank & File, WORSE for Entrenched Elite.

RACE = SPORT

AND THE CROWD GOES WILD!!

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 06:00 PM
QUESTION:

Why is it reprehensible to saddle future Others with our self-assumed Debt, which can NEVER can be repaid, if it is NOT reprehensible to saddle them with our self-imposed Broken System, which prevents EVER putting a stop to saddling future Others with accumulated unpayable Debt = Bondage?

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 09:59 PM
Top of Drudge:

MOST UNPOPULAR GOV'T IN 15 YEARS


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75666.html

cheapseats
04-26-2012, 10:06 PM
Apr 26, 2012 3:01pm

Young People May Not Bother to Vote for Obama: Poll


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/young-people-may-not-bother-to-vote-for-obama-poll/

Paul Or Nothing II
04-27-2012, 05:58 AM
In my view, it is utterly stupid for Ron Paul TO wait for Tampa.

Whereas Ron Paul has WHAT to lose by joining them . . . the "favor" of Republican Party Bosses?

Like saying Ron Paul hasn't gotten anywhere all this while.

IF Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination? IF?!?!

It makes sense for Ron Paul to PISS OR GET OFF THE POT.

This year is a "huge boon" for the Libertarian Party ALREADY . . . one man's disappointment being another man's opportunity. Finder's keeper, Loser's weeper.

Libertarian Party has ballot access in all 50 states.

UNLIKE the ol' write-in option.

There have been many polls where Ron Paul beats Obama as a REPUBLICAN while the max he's got as a 3rd-party candidate is about 20% or so with Obama at 40-45%; that should make it clear to any rational person where he has a better chance & why he's taken that path!

And you're disregarding the countless hours & money that many have spent on the delegate-process & to push Ron Paul within the Republican Party with their blood, sweat & tears, may be you don't care about such things but Ron does & he even mentioned it in the recent interview


Information questions for cheapseats:
Can the libertarian party nominate Gary Johnson and then Gary Johnson have the option of handing the baton to ron Paul if Paul desires to run after he loses GOP nomination?
Can the LP nominate GJ as VP and leave top spot open or can GJ after being nominate drop down to VP slot to make room for RP?
Can the LP make a deal with the Green party and nominate Jill Stein as GJ's running mate?
Can the LP nominate RP andGJ for P?VP and then if RP says no move GJ up to P and offer VP to Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson or Buddy Roemer?

I know those are lots of questions. Some are based on ideas I have heard here and elsewhere. Some are based on my desire to find a way to form a coalition ticket. The inability of the RP campaign staff to adjust tactically is very troublesome. Do you think nepotism has anything to do with it? Hard to fire your son-in-law especially if his in cahoots with your son. Maybe I should make that thread happen next and watch this place go bat $#!+ crazy. if you want ot beat me to it you're welcome.


The issue has always been whether Paul would pursue the third party option as an ADDITIONAL avenue for advancing his candidacy in 2012 and the liberty movement past this year. An LP nomination would enhance Paul's ability to gain the GOP nomination, but the LP does not have to delay its deliberations for the sake of the latter.

Yes, bring LP nominee while running GOP would help him within GOP as they wouldn't want to split the GOP vote but some felt that it might also antagonize the Republican voters so I don't know :(


cheapseats, Do me a favor and stop making so much sense. I'm not use to it very much around here. All these libertarian folks proclaiming their non conformist ways but everyone is in lock step with self destruction. The the previous poster.... I refuse to post the link again that i have posted more than a dozen times. Find it yourself....RON PAUL CANNOT WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE GOP CONVENTION TO RUN INDY OR 3RD PARTY BECUASE THERE ARE ONLY ABOUT 6 OR 7 STATES THAT WILL ALLOW HIM TO FILE AS SUCH AFTER AUGUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you think Ron Paul is an idiot? He's someone who knows first-hand how much the political machine is geared to obliterate competition so I'm sure he understands that
So IF HE WANTS to run 3rd-party then he'll choose that path in the near future if Romney continues to secure bound-delegates, it's up to him I guess

Schifference
04-27-2012, 06:18 AM
Maybe he should have run directly against Obama as a democrat.

cheapseats
04-27-2012, 06:33 AM
]
Do you think Ron Paul is an idiot? He's someone who knows first-hand how much the political machine is geared to obliterate competition so I'm sure he understands that
So IF HE WANTS to run 3rd-party then he'll choose that path in the near future if Romney continues to secure bound-delegates, it's up to him I guess


I suggest, with respect due to Ron Paul, that he never believed he would actually come face-to-face with the real-life at-hand prospect of BEING President of the United States. I don't think that was ever HIS "I have a dream."

I KNOW WHERE ALL Y'ALL STAND ABOUT HIM BEING PRESIDENT.

Where he stands on it is less clear. "All the way to Tampa EVEN IF ROMNEY HAS 1144 DELEGATES." Does that sound like someone who wants to WIN? I ask, what are his chances of winning the GOP nomination if Romney goes in with the magic number?

ARE HIS ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTERS DEMANDING ANSWERS? Or are they implicitly trusting not only HIM, but also an "official" campaign directed by OTHER (can't fill Ron's shoes) mortals? Is he being SHIELDED from this "tough choice", same as discussion HERE gets bounced into cyber-oblivion?

The Libertarian Party nominating convention begins in Las Vegas on May 2.

If Ron Paul does not at least make AN ACT OF PRESENCE, then I will not that say that he is an idiot...empirically, he is NOT an idiot..but I WILL say that he has come face-to-face with BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, and does not WANT to win.

WANTING to lord over all is one of the things that is LEAST appealing about "Presidential Hopefuls". PICK ME! PICK ME!

Some of his personal strengths are political liabilities in the "new" millennium. Sadly, c'est la vie.

A critical mass of Americans, INCLUDING some Ron Paul Supporters "simply" revere Profits & Perks above Principles & Peace, Actors & Athletes above Philosophers & Scientists, and Tits & Ass above Smarts & Ethics.

cheapseats
04-27-2012, 09:20 AM
.
2h ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo
@RonPaul: Does January headline perchance ring bell as MISSTEP? "Paul goes home to Texas just as campaign heats up": http://yhoo.it/IgVJCx

.

ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo
@RonPaul: You can make it home on eve of critical Caucus, seems you could make ACT OF PRESENCE at #LibertarianPartyConvention in #LasVegas.

.

cheapseats
04-27-2012, 10:07 AM
.
.
ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo
@RonPaul: You should be dealing w/ #JOHNSON, not #Santorum. Even cameo appearance at #LibertarianPartyConvention...ELVIS IS IN THE BUILDING.
.
.

Shotdown1027
04-27-2012, 02:18 PM
BTW: Dan Gordon is a State Representative in Rhode Island who is a Libertarian. He switched from Republican a few months ago.

So, you're wrong again? :P

Shotdown1027
05-03-2012, 02:18 AM
Their convention has started.

Paul Or Nothing II
05-03-2012, 04:05 AM
QUESTION:

Why is it reprehensible to saddle future Others with our self-assumed Debt, which can NEVER can be repaid, if it is NOT reprehensible to saddle them with our self-imposed Broken System, which prevents EVER putting a stop to saddling future Others with accumulated unpayable Debt = Bondage?

Yes, passing on debt to future generations is a form of intergenerational slavery but I'd just like to point out that the debt is NOT "unpayble" as many conspiracy theorists claim; there's no such theoretical impediment at all, the problem is the unwilling to cut spending & save on the part of the Congress & the people themselves

For example, if public opinion could be influenced enough for people to agree to cutting massively & let's say 2.5 trillion is collected in revenue & 1.5 is spent & saved 1 trillion is used to pay off the debt then the debt can be brought down to nothingness in the future; so the real problem is that different factions of the population don't want to give up & cut their favorite spending, be it warfare or welfare

There are many conspiracy theorists out there who simply don't understand economics & the nature of money, interest & debt OR are simply lying to agitate people to make money off people or to gain fame; here's the basic understanding of it - http://mises.org/daily/4569

Another widespread MYTH amongst conspiracy theorists is that "government pays interest to Fed"
Well, yes, it does & what happens next? Well, the Fed hands over nearly all of its "profits" to Treasury/government so basically, interest "paid" to Fed comes right back to government anyway - http://mises.org/daily/4029