If You Still Believe Ron Paul Can Win...

[progressiveforpaul]

don't read this:

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/05/august-30-2012-rip-libertarian-cause.html

[ShaneEnochs]

Ah, speculation and no meat.

[RickyJ]

Ron can win if he runs third party. The Republicans fixed it against him from the start. He never had a chance with them. The governor of Iowa even said that we can't let Ron Paul win. He was speaking for all establishment Republicans.

[ShaneEnochs]

I always wonder why people believe he can win if he runs third party. The last person to do it was Millard Fillmore, which was like a HUNDRED AND SIXTY YEARS AGO.

[cheapseats]

I always wonder why people believe he can win if he runs third party. The last person to do it was Millard Fillmore, which was like a HUNDRED AND SIXTY YEARS AGO.


I wonder why Ron Paul Supporters believe they can pull off a Revolution. The last time anyone pulled that off was like TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO.

[ShaneEnochs]

I wonder why Ron Paul Supporters believe they can pull off a Revolution. The last time anyone pulled that off was like TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO.

Apples and oranges. The revolution we're doing is changing political ideologies. The revolution that happened way back when was violent against an oppressive country. The two aren't comparable.

[chudrockz]

I wonder why Ron Paul Supporters believe they can pull off a Revolution. The last time anyone pulled that off was like TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO.

So what you're saying is that we're long overdue! ;)

[cheapseats]

don't read this:

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/05/august-30-2012-rip-libertarian-cause.html


Howz THIS for positivity:



Chin up, chin up
Everybody loves a happy face
Wear it, share it
It'll brighten up the darkest place
Twinkle, sparkle
Let a little sunshine in
You'll be on the right side
Looking at the bright side
Up with your chinny chin chin...

- Charlotte's Web


If we make a few people realize that NOT wanting Gary Johnson in the race or the debates plays RIGHT into Decider/Controller hands, it is time well spent.

I dunno about you, but I spy a lotta people falling for a lotta bullshit, while accusing others of falling for bullshit.

But maybe I'm crazy.

In which case, the Clydesdales among the stiff-necked can fund my Disability benefits.

[RickyJ]

Apples and oranges. The revolution we're doing is changing political ideologies. The revolution that happened way back when was violent against an oppressive country. The two aren't comparable.

Funny!

The British were mild compared to the oppression from our current government. Maybe you should look up the term "revolution" in the dictionary. If you think what we are trying to accomplish is as simple as changing political ideologies then you don't have a clue. If only it were that simple we would have been freed from the oppressors long ago.

[cheapseats]

Apples and oranges. The revolution we're doing is changing political ideologies. The revolution that happened way back when was violent against an oppressive country. The two aren't comparable.


Y'all don't WANT it to be comparable, because then yer up against yer NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE. And yer private property reverence.

TYRANNY. IS. A. POLITICAL. IDEOLOGY.

Tyranny is WINNING...as you can plainly FEEL.

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION is most definitely one of the aspects of history that is "repeating itself."

[anewvoice]

I always wonder why people believe he can win if he runs third party. The last person to do it was Millard Fillmore, which was like a HUNDRED AND SIXTY YEARS AGO.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

[cheapseats]

The COGNITIVE DISCONNECT between mocking third-party "chances" and FUNDING Ron Paul's chances is laughable or disturbing, depending on whether one views y'all as a gathering force/danger.

Outside the Ron Paul Bubble, people mock Ron Paul people's COGNITIVE DISCONNECT.

[RickyJ]

Make fun of a third party run all you want to, it is not more funny than Ron Paul trying to win the presidency as a Republican. Some of you people have no idea what we are up against. They will kill you if they have to. they won't let you take over their party.

[Lishy]

Whatever Paul is trying to do, I know he's not stupid. There must be a reason he is running Republican.

[NoOneButPaul]

Ron can win if he runs third party. The Republicans fixed it against him from the start. He never had a chance with them. The governor of Iowa even said that we can't let Ron Paul win. He was speaking for all establishment Republicans.

Pass that over here chief...


How again do all you 3rd party screamers really expect Ron to get 270 electoral votes with 3 people running for President, and him with no chance to debate, and the least amount of money of the 3? AND Gary Johnson splitting the Lib vote with Paul?

Going 3rd party would absolutely destroy this movement and make it as fringe as the LP. People like Amash and Rand and Massie and all the other liberty lovers who have been claiming for years we are just as republican as the NeoCons would be left holding the bag of shit Ron left in their hands for a 3rd party run where he'd get smoked...

What needs to happen is the 3rd parties need to wise the fuck up and join us over here in the GOP so we can build this entire thing from the ground up. Running 3rd party is EXACTLY where the GOP wants us- fringe and irrelevant.

[NoOneButPaul]

Oh and then there's the whole fact of Obama would no doubt win if Ron ran 3rd party and then we'd get blamed for it- hurting our movement even more, perhaps fatally.

Romney and the GOP elite would get a total pass for putting out such a shitty candidate and Obama would get 4 more years to wrack up 10 more trillion...

I Want Ron as President too guys but the 3rd party stuff is so beyond nonsense it shouldn't even be discussed. You're playing right into the GOP Elite's hand with this shit...

[RickyJ]

Hey NoOneButPaul, are you voting for Paul in November? If you are and he is not the Republican nominee then that essentially is A THIRD PARTY vote you are casting as a write in. If you aren't voting for Ron Paul in November then you need to change your screen name.

[NoOneButPaul]

Hey NoOneButPaul, are you voting for Paul in November? If you are and he is not the Republican nominee then that essentially is A THIRD PARTY vote you are casting as a write in. If you aren't voting for Ron Paul in November then you need to change your screen name.

Me voting 3rd party and Ron sending the entire movement to the fringes of it are totally unrelated. This is a ridiculous statement to make.

I'm not holding the future of the movement in my hands with a write in vote for Paul. Ron is, however, holding the movement in the palms of his hands, and he knows going 3rd party would do nothing but kill us and give the GOP the cannon fodder they're looking for.

[RickyJ]

Me voting 3rd party and Ron sending the entire movement to the fringes of it are totally unrelated. This is a ridiculous statement to make.

I'm not holding the future of the movement in my hands with a write in vote for Paul. Ron is, however, holding the movement in the palms of his hands, and he knows going 3rd party would do nothing but kill us and give the GOP the cannon fodder they're looking for.

If Ron decided to run third party, and there is still a chance he will do that because he still hasn't ruled it out, then would you vote for him?

The Republican and Democrat parties are the fringe, that is why over half of the people in America do not even vote!

[ShaneEnochs]

Y'all don't WANT it to be comparable, because then yer up against yer NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE. And yer private property reverence.

TYRANNY. IS. A. POLITICAL. IDEOLOGY.

Tyranny is WINNING...as you can plainly FEEL.

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION is most definitely one of the aspects of history that is "repeating itself."

If you feel that strongly about it, then why have you not armed up and marched on the capital?

[cheapseats]

Pass that over here chief...


How again do all you 3rd party screamers really expect Ron to get 270 electoral votes with 3 people running for President, and him with no chance to debate, and the least amount of money of the 3? AND Gary Johnson splitting the Lib vote with Paul?


There is a contingent of Freedom Fighters which rejects WORKING WITHIN THE BROKEN SYSTEM as fanciful, opportunistic and/or cowardly and, further, which does NOT expect Ron Paul to secure the coveted GOP nomination. Some Freedom Fighters NEVER harnessed their Objective to the Republican Party.




Going 3rd party would absolutely destroy this movement and make it as fringe as the LP.

It has become clear that there are IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES on definition of The Cause.

Libertarians-for-lack-of-a-better-label and Progressives-for-lack-of-a-better-label would no more join the Republican Partaaay than Hardright or Holy Rollers would join the Democratic Partaaay.

Socialists, Commies & Limousine Liberals? To the LEFT, two, three, four...

Holy Rollers, "Social Conservatives", Unapologetic Profiteers to the RIGHT, two, three, four...

FORTY PERCENT OF FIFTY PERCENT identify as Independent. Sure sure, they don't ACT it. But they must WANT to act it, or they must think it is CORRECT. A whopping FIFTY PERCENT "customarily" does not vote, for EITHER "side".

I believe that latter lump can be goosed/enticed/persuaded to vote ONCE...in a BIG way.

Highly HIGHLY unlikely, of course.

We're playin' long odds all round. THE EMOTIONAL are keeping all their chips on one bet. Their chips, their choice.

For hunting & gathering votes, the 50% non-voting public is a richer forest than 15% of whatever percent the GOP has of 40%.





People like Amash and Rand and Massie and all the other liberty lovers who have been claiming for years we are just as republican as the NeoCons would be left holding the bag of shit Ron left in their hands for a 3rd party run where he'd get smoked...

There is PLENTY O' ROOM for three parties . . . so long as no one is bent on CONTROL.





What needs to happen is the 3rd parties need to wise the fuck up and join us over here in the GOP so we can build this entire thing from the ground up. Running 3rd party is EXACTLY where the GOP wants us- fringe and irrelevant.

I was a registered Republican for THREE DECADES. I finally bailed under Gee Dub and Darth Cheney. TERRIFYING.

Respectful nod to NEVER SAY NEVER, but never is when I anticipate realigning with that DEN OF VIPERS & THIEVES.

But I welcome it, I APPLAUD it, if y'all can resurrect the GOP as an ethical entity.

I want the same to happen in the Democratic party.

But I have no FALSE HOPE, on either "side".

Even if both parties (or only the GOP) eventually straighten up and fly right (what's the target now, 2020?), there is STILL a broad neglected swath of voters in the middle that warrants-indeed-INVITES a Third Party.

[RickyJ]

For all you people that think Ron Paul is against third party runs you are wrong!

He endorsed the Constitution party nominee Chuck Baldwin in 2008, not the Republican nominee McCain.

He ran for president himself in 1988 as a Libertarian.

And last but not least, he has NEVER ruled out running third party this election.

[ShaneEnochs]

There is a contingent Freedom Fighters...who reject WORKING WITHIN THE BROKEN SYSTEM as fanciful and/or cowardly...that does NOT expect Ron Paul to get the coveted GOP nomination. Indeed, some who NEVER harnessed their Objective to Republican Party gains.

Even if/when Ron Paul becomes the nominee, there's no guarantee that he'll win the general. The DNC is hundreds of millions to push negative ads. It's hard to compete against that. Just ask Newt. On top of that, it's incredibly difficult to beat a sitting President. So the odds are against ANYONE who is going against Obama.

Swinging the wagon around is the best option available at this point. If that doesn't work, then maybe something more extreme would be considered, but we're not there yet.



It has become clear that there are IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES on definition of the The Cause.

Libertarians-for-lack-of-a-better-label and Progressives-for-lack-of-a-better-label would no more join the Republican Partaaay than Hardright or Holy Rollers would join the Democratic Partaaay.

Socialists, Commies & Limousine Liberals? To the LEFT, two, three, four...

Holy Rollers, "Social Conservatives", Unapologetic Profiteers to the RIGHT, two, three, four...

FORTY PERCENT OF FIFTY PERCENT identify as Independent. Sure sure, they don't ACT it. But they must WANT to act it, or they must think it is CORRECT.

A whopping FIFTY PERCENT "customarily" does not vote.

I believe that latter lump can be goosed/enticed/persuaded to vote ONCE...in a BIG way.

You're falling for the left/right fallacy. There's not a person on this planet that is completely to the left or completely to the right when all the rules apply to them. Everyone is right there in the middle somewhere.

And you're not going to get apathetic people to vote. Maybe 3% - 5% of them can be woken up, as I was, but many of them just don't care.

[ShaneEnochs]

For all you people that think Ron Paul is against third party runs you are wrong!

He endorsed the Constitution party nominee Chuck Baldwin in 2008, not the Republican nominee McCain.

He ran for president himself in 1988 as a Libertarian.

And last but not least, he has NEVER ruled out running third party this election.

Ron Paul himself said that he learned that the system is stacked against third party runs. He's said this time and time again.

[Lishy]

All I know is we must calm down because Paul knows what the heck he is doing, and he has got this under control. Things are serious now, so he is obviously playing a poker face!

[cheapseats]

You're falling for the left/right fallacy.


It ain't ME clinging to the thoroughly corrupted GOP.

[cheapseats]

All I know is we must calm down because Paul knows what the heck he is doing, and he has got this under control. Things are serious now, so he is obviously playing a poker face!


He has lost not-one-but TWO presidential bids.

On the Left, he is the RALPH NADER of the not-right Right.

Do you think he WANTS to win?

Would you be willing to force-without-force a win, if he really doesn't feel up to it?

[cheapseats]

Ron Paul himself said that he learned that the system is stacked against third party runs. He's said this time and time again.


Exactly so.

He does not believe that he can overcome the festival of capricious obstacles designed to perpetuate the two-party stranglehold. HIS LOSS AS A LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE validates his belief.

Sooo, tell me again why anyone resents Gary Johnson giving it a whirl.

Someone please take a whack at explaining why MORE PRESSURE on entrenched "parties" and politicians is a bad thing.

[soulcyon]

From article: "Of course there is also an additional problem with the exclusive delegate strategy. Next time around it will be mimicked and supplemented by neo-cons and cultural conservatives. That means the popular vote becomes a bigger cause next time around, especially without the aid of crossover voters and the likelihood that the 2016 primary (assuming Romney loses) will see two libertarian candidates dilute that constituency."

I highly disagree with the sentiment that neo-cons can actually garner support as powerful as Ron Paul. The only thing that they have, and we don't, is Money. The delegate strategy can't be mimicked with just money, they'll need to actually gain support at the local level and by pushing a realitic cause. Its only a matter of time until the libertarian philosophy becomes the new mainstream - the neocons won't get far with teir fear-tactics in this day and age.

That blog post was pretty sad and pessimistic, -1 @ author. Although I do agree with his open tactical advice post.

[cheapseats]

If you feel that strongly about it, then why have you not armed up and marched on the capital?


To what PURPOSE, alone? They kill individuals every day.

I have offered to stand in front, if they're gonna mow us down.

[ShaneEnochs]

It ain't ME clinging to the thoroughly corrupted GOP.

I'm an Independent captain.


Exactly so.

He does not believe that he can overcome the festival of capricious obstacles designed to perpetuate the two-party stranglehold. HIS LOSS AS A LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE validates his belief.

Sooo, tell me again why anyone resents Gary Johnson giving it a whirl.

Someone please take a whack at explaining why MORE PRESSURE on entrenched "parties" and politicians is a bad thing.

I have no problem with Johnson running third party. I hope he's included in the debates as well. The point is, at least for this election cycle, people will shy away from voting third party because they believe that only a Republican or Democrat can win.

[Occam's Banana]

Whatever Paul is trying to do, I know he's not stupid. There must be a reason he is running Republican.
The reason is that he knows the 3rd-party/independent route is a hopeless fantasy that is doomed to fail.

As poor as his chances might be in the Republican party (as it currently exists), those chances are *still* orders of magnitude greater than they would be if he ran 3-P/I.

And that's just considering the presidency. Running 3-P/I would completely sabotage all the *other* gains that have been made w.r.t. taking over state GOPs, etc. Those gains represent a significant opportunity to weild real influence in the future, and there are simply *no* corresponding opportunities in a 3-P/I run.

[RickyJ]

Running 3-P/I would completely sabotage all the *other* gains that have been made w.r.t. taking over state GOPs, etc.

Did Ron Paul endorsing Chuck Baldwin over John McCain in 2008 sabotage any gain he made in state GOPs?

According to people in Iowa, it did no such thing. So your logic is wrong.

[Occam's Banana]

Make fun of a third party run all you want to, it is not more funny than Ron Paul trying to win the presidency as a Republican. Some of you people have no idea what we are up against. They will kill you if they have to. they won't let you take over their party.
What I don't understand is this:

If you think RP's chances against just the Republicans are non-existent, then what on earth makes you think that his chances will be any better against BOTH Republicans AND Democrats (which is exactly what a 3rd-party/independent run would amount to)?

[cheapseats]

I'm an Independent captain.

I have no problem with Johnson running third party. I hope he's included in the debates as well.


It's a no-brainer. If Ron Paul does NOT get the Republican nomination (and if his appeal is tied up in LEGAL, like Al Gore's), why WOULDN'T we want a saner, less beholden voice to force Obama and Romney to either distinguish themselves from one another, or seem more and more ALIKE?

Whether he feels the same after his shabby treatment by Ron Paul Supporters (or whether he EVER meant it), I heard with my own ears and read with my own eyes that Gary Johnson would NOT pursue the Libertarian bid if Ron Paul won the GOP nod.

RESOURCES ARE SCARCE = FIRST LAW OF ECONOMICS.




The point is, at least for this election cycle, people will shy away from voting third party because they believe that only a Republican or Democrat can win.

The point is, they would do the same next election and the next election and the one after that.

IT IS THE PARTY LINE, of both parties in the two-party stranglehold.

And a laughable-or-disturbing number of people on this Board buy the party line...hook, line and sink us.

[cheapseats]

Ron Paul PASSED on the third-party option.

He was given every opportunity...y'all were given every opportunity to persuade him...he passed and you passed.

Or you passed and he passed. Whatever.

Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party nominee.

NOBP's waterloo or triumph is in Tampa.

[Occam's Banana]

Did Ron Paul endorsing Chuck Baldwin over John McCain in 2008 sabotage any gain he made in state GOPs?

According to people in Iowa, it did no such thing. So your logic is wrong.
*sigh* I'm afraid the failure of logic is coming from your direction. That is often a side-effect of wishful thinking.

An "also-ran" *endorsing* someone other than the GOP nominee 4 years ago is NOT the same as *running* *against* the GOP nominee today. Those two acts, taken in their respective contexts, have entirely different implications & consequences. IOW: apples & oranges.

Furthermore, RP & the movement did *not* have any gains to protect four years ago when he made that endorsement.

ETA: RP's endorsement in 2008 had no measureable effect. A 3-P/I run in 2012 *would* have a measureable effect - it very possibly could "throw" the election to Obama. Do you truly not understand that these two things (impactless 2008 endorsement vs. impactful 2012 independent run) will be attended by profoundly different consequences?

[RickyJ]

Furthermore, RP & the movement did *not* have any gains to protect four years ago when he made that endorsement.


Yes they did. And not only did his endorsement of Baldwin and third parties in general not hurt him in the Republican party, he continued to make gains after the endorsement.

[Occam's Banana]

Yes they did. And not only did his endorsement of Baldwin and third parties in general not hurt him in the Republican party, he continued to make gains after the endorsement.
Nothing anywhere even remotely close to the level of gains being made now, which are orders of magnitude greater. (And what's more, you can just add those relatively minor 2008 gains to the list of things that will be lost if RP runs 3rd-party/independent).

And to reiterate my previous post: RP's endorsement of Baldwin was A) utterly inconsequential, and B) is NOT in *any* way comparable to RP actually running against the GOP nominee. The two simply do not have anything to do with one another. So, I'll repeat my original question:

Do you really not see that these two things (impactless 2008 endorsement vs. impactful 2012 independent run) will result in profoundly different consequences (with the latter being many orders of magnitude more harmful to the gains that have been made)?

[chudrockz]

Make fun of a third party run all you want to, it is not more funny than Ron Paul trying to win the presidency as a Republican. Some of you people have no idea what we are up against. They will kill you if they have to. they won't let you take over their party.

While I have no doubts about the ferocity of SOME in power, we took over the GOP in Minnesota with no blood spilt.

[Thanehand]

I always wonder why people believe he can win if he runs third party.Because they haven't followed the history of our election process and don't understand that it is *deliberately* rigged to *only* allow Democrats and Republicans to win?

Here's just one example (emphasis mine):

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
—League President Nancy M. Neuman, LWV October 03, 1988"

[NoOneButPaul]

If Ron decided to run third party, and there is still a chance he will do that because he still hasn't ruled it out, then would you vote for him?

The Republican and Democrat parties are the fringe, that is why over half of the people in America do not even vote!

Again, my point about my voting not equaling Ron's decision stands...

If Ron makes a poor decision and runs 3rd party I will still vote for him (he's getting my vote no matter what) but it does not mean I would agree with the decision. It's pretty damn obvious that Ron doesn't believe 3rd parties are viable or he would have stayed in the Libertarian Party after he lost in 88 and came back in 96. He didn't, there's a reason why he didn't and he knows it... there's a reason why he isn't running now. And the entire reason he never dismissed it is because he wanted to scare the shit out of the GOP elite so they couldn't royally fuck him.

We have made such an incredible amount of progress these last 5 years I don't know how anyone in their right mind would think leaving for a 3rd party would accomplihs anything but keeping hope alive for 1 god damn election! That's all you people are doing, you're failing to see the big picture and you're selfishly holding onto the hope that this Ron Paul ride isn't over and he'll declare 3rd party for us. I don't want it to be over either guys but wise the hell up and think about what you're actually asking for...

You miss how much Ron has already accomplished the last 5 years working through the party, you miss all the local and state elections we've won, you miss the fact we've done more in the last 5 years than the LP or CP has done in their ENTIRE existences. You guys want to give all that up so you can cling on to your false hope that Ron would win 270 electoral votes as a 3rd party.

Well, bottom line is this...

He wouldn't win 270 electoral votes.
He would lose Romney the election and give the GOP their perfect patsy for their OWN fuck up.
He would play right into the GOP's narrative that we aren't real republicans.
He would fuck over the entire liberty movement (including his own flesh and blood) from here on out.
He would cast our entire movement back into the fringes of the LP from which it came.
He would speed up the dollar crash by getting Obama back in.

All that shit for your own false hope? I don't believe the good Dr. is that stupid... infact I know he isn't. That's why the 3rd party nonsense needs to stop. It's ludicrious on literally every level.

The other reason I will not support Johnson is because we need to get the LP and CP back into the GOP NOW and giving them false hope with a successful Johnson run isn't going to help our cause here in the GOP.


Once we take over the GOP we can amend the constitution to ban political parties forever- that's the solution.

You don't throw away everything we've accomplished now for some false hope. Period.

[cheapseats]

...I don't know how anyone in their right mind would think leaving for a 3rd party would accomplihs anything but keeping hope alive for 1 god damn election!

Some people DO believe that a third-party upset is PRECISELY what keeps hope alive for another election, that EITHER Obama or Romney SEALS THE DEAL on the dreaded but determined "New" World Order.

Besides which, you are lumping quote-unquote Conservatives and quote-unquote Independents in one collective. NOT. HAPPENING.

Independent minded people do not view REPUBLICAN GAINS as automatic plus-es. It's all we can do to keep left-of-center Disenfranchised from viewing Republican gains as EWW/YIKES/INCOMING!





Once we take over the GOP . . .

We'll leave the light on for ya. Gotta target year in mind?




You don't throw away everything we've accomplished now for some false hope. Period.

Stay the course, ALWAYS, no matter what?

ONCE AGAIN, it is no longer about Ron Paul "abandoning" the Grand Old Party (that treats him and you so grandly). That ship has sailed. It's about placing more than one bet.

[cheapseats]

Because they haven't followed the history of our election process and don't understand that it is *deliberately* rigged to *only* allow Democrats and Republicans to win?



We understand it well enough to believe that a brute force populist blitz up the middle has a better chance than some flea-flicker end-run.

We could be wrong, and both are unlikely as all get-out.

Since we CAN tho, why not run both plays?

[RickyJ]

Since we CAN tho, why not run both plays?

There is no reason not to. People say that he just won't win, well guess what, he isn't winning as a Republican either! It can't hurt one bit.

Then there are the people who say, but it would destroy everything he has been doing. That is BS. It would destroy nothing!

Then there are those that say it would hurt his son if he decides to run 2016. To them I say who cares? He is not Ron Paul! He is a compromised candidate and we don't need him!

[Sam I am]

Why does Ron Paul not winning mean the death of the libertarian cause?

[Occam's Banana]

There is no reason not to. People say that he just won't win, well guess what, he isn't winning as a Republican either! It can't hurt one bit.

You are wrong. It can hurt, and a lot more than a bit. Numerous people have pointed out why this is the case.

You have failed to address any of those points in a substantive or significant way (let alone refute them).

Ron Paul will no more run 3rd-party/independent in 2012 than he did in 2008 - especially considering that if he does, there is so much more to lose this time around.


Then there are the people who say, but it would destroy everything he has been doing. That is BS. It would destroy nothing!

I am one of those people. It is not BS. I and others have explained why it is not BS.

Repetition of assertions based on nothing more than wishful thinking does not prove otherwise.


Then there are those that say it would hurt his son if he decides to run 2016. To them I say who cares? He is not Ron Paul! He is a compromised candidate and we don't need him!

You are right about one thing - he is not Ron Paul. But he *is* Ron Paul's son, so ...

Who cares? Has it occurred to you that maybe - just maybe - Ron Paul cares?

You seem to be under the impression that RP ought to care more about the things that YOU want or "need" (such as a 3rd-party/independent run).

I am willing to bet that he does not.

[Occam's Banana]

Why does Ron Paul not winning mean the death of the libertarian cause?

It doesn't. But there are those of fatalist, apocalyptic &/or "instant gratification" mindset who seem to wish that it did.

[cheapseats]

Why does Ron Paul not winning mean the death of the libertarian cause?


It doesn't, necessarily.

But a distinct Ron Paul Oddity is that some FANS REVERE THE MAN, practically worship him...trust not only HIM but "his people", WITHOUT QUESTION...then steadfastly refuse to recognize that "cross-over" voters do not even BEGIN to see fortifying the Republican party as a strategic second-best to Ron Paul winning the presidency.

Deee-lusional.

[FindLiberty]

Awareness of the timeless Liberty versus tyranny battle is on the rise! Huge numbers of people have now seen the Creature from Jekyll Island's naked ass. In that sense, RP is winning. If he became (when he becomes?) POTUS, I’d be even more concerned about his personal safety than I am now. America needs him. The world needs him. Those in power have FUBAR'd things relentlessly, but they still won't give up the throne.

This thread is effectively holding up a mirror to the faces of Ron Paul supporters. Reactions vary. Clearly, everyone is still able to "fog the mirror" since people are still joining as opposed to bailing from the r3VOLution.

It reminds me of this team conversation (between actors remaining in character as their TV show is cancelled). They try to maintain their "course", but don't start picking on each other or casting blame, they just don't give up!

Captain Kirk: Deflectors up.

Mr. Sulu: Captain, the helm does not respond. The controls are dead.

Mr. Spock: We're slowing down, Captain. We're stopping.

Captain Kirk: Bridge to engine room, acknowledge.

Voice of Mr. Scott: [ through control panel ] Scotty here, Captain.

Captain Kirk: What in blazes is going on, Scotty?

Voice of Mr. Scott: I din-na know, Captain. We're losing power, and I don't know why!

Captain Kirk: Well, do something, man! Go to manual override. Cut in auxiliary systems.

Voice of Mr. Scott: Saints preserve us, Captain, but even the emergency systems are out.

Captain Kirk: Well, fix it, Scotty. I don't care how, but fix it!

[cheapseats]

You are wrong. It can hurt, and a lot more than a bit. Numerous people have pointed out why this is the case.

You have failed to address any of those points in a substantive or significant way (let alone refute them).

For Non Republican Freedom Fighters, are there any owie's outside the Republican Par-taaay?





Ron Paul will no more run 3rd-party/independent in 2012 than he did in 2008 - especially considering that if he does, there is so much more to lose this time around.

Stipulated.

IF HE LOSES THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION, would you rather have a credible third-party candidate in the "race" with Obama & Romeny, or not? Gary Johnson may not be viable, but he IS credible. Empirically.





I am one of those people. It is not BS. I and others have explained why it is not BS.

It IS bullshit, for people with whom the Republican Par-taaay is understandably in the dog house.






Repetition of assertions based on nothing more than wishful thinking does not prove otherwise.

Truer words were never spoken.





You are right about one thing - he is not Ron Paul. But he *is* Ron Paul's son, so ...

Who cares? Has it occurred to you that maybe - just maybe - Ron Paul cares?

It certainly HAS.





You seem to be under the impression that RP ought to care more about the things that YOU want or "need" (such as a 3rd-party/independent run).


Are you suggesting it would be alright to elevate his son's career above The Cause?

Or do you define The Cause as something on the order of INFILTRATING & TAKING OVER THE GOP?

[NoOneButPaul]

Man... there's already a Libertarian Party and it's failed miserably.

How can you guys seriously believe Ron running 3rd party and failing miserably in the electoral votes wouldn't hurt us in the GOP? Handing Obama the election is all that will accomplish and it's all we'd be remembered for.

We've accomplished more within the party than the 3rd parties ever have, and because you don't like the old guard (who, btw, will die way before we will) you want to throw it all away for your own selfish false hope for 1 election?

It's really pretty sad...

[cheapseats]

Man... there's already a Libertarian Party and it's failed miserably.

I hate to get hackneyed about it, but FLIGHT eluded mankind for quite awhile too.




How can you guys seriously believe Ron running 3rd party and failing miserably in the electoral votes wouldn't hurt us in the GOP?

ONCE AGAIN, i do not believe Ron Paul will run Third Party. Him failing miserably at a third-party run is not relevant to my arguments. I believe the third-party ship has SAILED for Ron Paul. I believe he wants it that way.

I have lately been accused of INCOHERENT RAMBLING.

Is this clearer? TO HELL WITH THE GRAND OLD PARTY.





Handing Obama the election is all that will accomplish and it's all we'd be remembered for.

I thought the non-collective party line wuz that Romney WILL lose to Obama, that Romney CANNOT beat Obama without Paul Supporters.

Wouldn't you RATHER the "blame" fall on Gary Johnson than Ron Paul?




We've accomplished more within the party than the 3rd parties ever have, and because you don't like the old guard (who, btw, will die way before we will) you want to throw it all away for your own selfish false hope for 1 election?

That is YOUR and Board Majority Opinion.

MINE is that the "New" Guard is not AT ALL reassuring. When y'all ALLOWED THE TEA PARTY TO BE SWIPED OUT FROM UNDER YOU, it took a turn for the Hardright. THIS Freedom Fighter is not "down" with that.

MOREOVER, it seems to me an eighth grader would understand that beating Obama involves capturing the Swing Center AND some Disgusted Democrats. Hardright was NEVER the right strategery for THAT.

Oh, look! Now that Deciders have decided maybe they want Romney to win after all, Romney tacks LESS Hardright...trying to UNDO DAMAGE from playing to "the Republican base".

Oh, look! Obama is tacking less-not-more radical. (Yes, I KNOW some find the Gay Marriage red herring to be evidence of radicalism, but keep your eyes on prize Voting Blocs.) Obama is HANGING ON now, rather than STRUTTING HIS STUFF. From where I sit, this campaign will be the hardest he has worked since the LAST campaign.

The people with un-fucking-believable amounts to lose reeeeeeally do not want Civil Unrest. It may SEEM like they do, the way they PUSH the people and PUSH the people and PUSH the people. But they have Masterminds to know when to say WHEN.

Low boil, low boil, low boil . . . divide & conquer, divide & conquer, divide & conquer.

What spectacular good fortune for America's Nobility, that America's best-armed Serfs embraced the Non Aggression Principle.

Almost uncanny.




It's really pretty sad...

I quite agree.

[Revolution9]

The COGNITIVE DISCONNECT between mocking third-party "chances" and FUNDING Ron Paul's chances is laughable or disturbing, depending on whether one views y'all as a gathering force/danger.

Outside the Ron Paul Bubble, people mock Ron Paul people's COGNITIVE DISCONNECT.

I'll bet yer the life of the frikkin' party with your miasma spewing from all pores.

Rev9

[cstarace]

Sees member has over 300 posts and has net negative rep.

Leaves thread.

[cheapseats]

I'll bet yer the life of the frikkin' party with your miasma spewing from all pores.

Rev9


Right back atcha, tough guy.

Some people have felt the meat grinder; some haven't. Some people can connect dots and see big pictures; some can't.

You will surely concede, even if it means agreeing with me, that not everyone is in the same intellectual, experiential or cognitive "space".

"Activists" on this very Board say blithely that their significant others/families/friends aren't "into" politics, so they give the people they LIKE a pass and do their Big Talking HERE. Some even take a superior tone, about how they can refrain from harping at The Disinterested.

Then they WHINE about how oblivious Voters remain. While complying with regulation atop regulation and sustaining abuse after abuse, claiming to be winning.

Of the following two sentiments, which best describes yours:

This is an epic crossroads, people, and we are fast running out of time.

or

This S.N.A.F.U. may be more fucked up than usual but, we're not fixing fuck-all anyway, so lighten up.

[cheapseats]

Sees member has over 300 posts and has net negative rep.


Over 300 posts since October 2010, whereas you have 800 since January of this year.

[cheapseats]

WWJD?

Weep, go ballistic, or both.

[ican'tvote]

For everyone who thinks the Republican Party is not worth saving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5tThNV1dVA
Skip to 2:40

[heavenlyboy34]

Again, my point about my voting not equaling Ron's decision stands...

If Ron makes a poor decision and runs 3rd party I will still vote for him (he's getting my vote no matter what) but it does not mean I would agree with the decision. It's pretty damn obvious that Ron doesn't believe 3rd parties are viable or he would have stayed in the Libertarian Party after he lost in 88 and came back in 96. He didn't, there's a reason why he didn't and he knows it... there's a reason why he isn't running now. And the entire reason he never dismissed it is because he wanted to scare the shit out of the GOP elite so they couldn't royally fuck him.

We have made such an incredible amount of progress these last 5 years I don't know how anyone in their right mind would think leaving for a 3rd party would accomplihs anything but keeping hope alive for 1 god damn election! That's all you people are doing, you're failing to see the big picture and you're selfishly holding onto the hope that this Ron Paul ride isn't over and he'll declare 3rd party for us. I don't want it to be over either guys but wise the hell up and think about what you're actually asking for...

You miss how much Ron has already accomplished the last 5 years working through the party, you miss all the local and state elections we've won, you miss the fact we've done more in the last 5 years than the LP or CP has done in their ENTIRE existences. You guys want to give all that up so you can cling on to your false hope that Ron would win 270 electoral votes as a 3rd party.

Well, bottom line is this...

He wouldn't win 270 electoral votes.
He would lose Romney the election and give the GOP their perfect patsy for their OWN fuck up.
He would play right into the GOP's narrative that we aren't real republicans.
He would fuck over the entire liberty movement (including his own flesh and blood) from here on out.
He would cast our entire movement back into the fringes of the LP from which it came.
He would speed up the dollar crash by getting Obama back in.

All that shit for your own false hope? I don't believe the good Dr. is that stupid... infact I know he isn't. That's why the 3rd party nonsense needs to stop. It's ludicrious on literally every level.

The other reason I will not support Johnson is because we need to get the LP and CP back into the GOP NOW and giving them false hope with a successful Johnson run isn't going to help our cause here in the GOP.


Once we take over the GOP we can amend the constitution to ban political parties forever- that's the solution.

You don't throw away everything we've accomplished now for some false hope. Period.
lolz! Then someone will use the assembly clause (1st amendment) or some obscure thing like that to bring the parties back. You're just never going to separate corruption from electoral politics. It's wishful thinking.

[progressiveforpaul]

I am all in favor of Gary Johnson being on the debate stage and all the hard core libertarian Paul supporters are a bunch of hypocrites if they don't promote Johnson now. I am leaning in the direction of Stein and Anderson myself. would love to see all 5 on stage at the debates but the rules are stacked against it happening. Unfortunately after all is said and done, I may have to vote for Obama since I'm in a swing state. If Paul gives Romney a passive endorsement, I will have no other choice but Obama.



If we make a few people realize that NOT wanting Gary Johnson in the race or the debates plays RIGHT into Decider/Controller hands, it is time well spent.

I dunno about you, but I spy a lotta people falling for a lotta bullshit, while accusing others of falling for bullshit.

But maybe I'm crazy.

In which case, the Clydesdales among the stiff-necked can fund my Disability benefits.[/QUOTE]

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The scumbags on top and their followers rely on our despair and fear to weaken us. Everything they say is impossible is exactly what they fear.

[progressiveforpaul]

There you go again cheapseats...complicating things with a severe dose of reality...I need to monitor you... Yoohoo...overhear watch this guy he's making too much sense.


The COGNITIVE DISCONNECT between mocking third-party "chances" and FUNDING Ron Paul's chances is laughable or disturbing, depending on whether one views y'all as a gathering force/danger.

Outside the Ron Paul Bubble, people mock Ron Paul people's COGNITIVE DISCONNECT.

[progressiveforpaul]

Watch it Ricky...only cheapseats is allowed to speak with sanity here. ;)

Hey NoOneButPaul, are you voting for Paul in November? If you are and he is not the Republican nominee then that essentially is A THIRD PARTY vote you are casting as a write in. If you aren't voting for Ron Paul in November then you need to change your screen name.

[progressiveforpaul]

Glad you agree with the open tactical advise. The post in question here was meant to stir up anger over a failed strategy and gear us up toward a better one next time around. I agree that neo-cons can't get delegates at the local level but what they can do is fund a Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee who appeals to cultural conservatives and could produce a great deal of local delegate support. Huckabee would be in line with all the foreign policy of the neo-cons and he would tow the corporate line as well but his popular appeal would be on cultural issues. he would also beat the hell out of Rand Paul in a two way race for the nomination. Since you appreciated my open Tactical post, I think you will find this appealing as well: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/05/2014-2016-way-to-win.html



From article: "Of course there is also an additional problem with the exclusive delegate strategy. Next time around it will be mimicked and supplemented by neo-cons and cultural conservatives. That means the popular vote becomes a bigger cause next time around, especially without the aid of crossover voters and the likelihood that the 2016 primary (assuming Romney loses) will see two libertarian candidates dilute that constituency."

I highly disagree with the sentiment that neo-cons can actually garner support as powerful as Ron Paul. The only thing that they have, and we don't, is Money. The delegate strategy can't be mimicked with just money, they'll need to actually gain support at the local level and by pushing a realitic cause. Its only a matter of time until the libertarian philosophy becomes the new mainstream - the neocons won't get far with teir fear-tactics in this day and age.

That blog post was pretty sad and pessimistic, -1 @ author. Although I do agree with his open tactical advice post.

[ShaneEnochs]

I am all in favor of Gary Johnson being on the debate stage and all the hard core libertarian Paul supporters are a bunch of hypocrites if they don't promote Johnson now. I am leaning in the direction of Stein and Anderson myself. would love to see all 5 on stage at the debates but the rules are stacked against it happening. Unfortunately after all is said and done, I may have to vote for Obama since I'm in a swing state. If Paul gives Romney a passive endorsement, I will have no other choice but Obama.

You don't have to vote for anyone. Voting for Obama is just as bad as voting for Mitt. Why would you vote for either of these war-hungry, corporatist shills?

[progressiveforpaul]

It's not Ron Paul losing that kills the libertarian cause. It's the inability of sectarian libertarians to see that they need to be in a coalition with progressives before the libertarian cause can even begin to live.


Why does Ron Paul not winning mean the death of the libertarian cause?

[progressiveforpaul]

Don't wan to start another string of these cheapseats but AMEN!

It doesn't, necessarily.

But a distinct Ron Paul Oddity is that some FANS REVERE THE MAN, practically worship him...trust not only HIM but "his people", WITHOUT QUESTION...then steadfastly refuse to recognize that "cross-over" voters do not even BEGIN to see fortifying the Republican party as a strategic second-best to Ron Paul winning the presidency.

Deee-lusional.

[progressiveforpaul]

Talk about herd mentality...

Sees member has over 300 posts and has net negative rep.

Leaves thread.

[progressiveforpaul]

It's a judgement call but I am in a swing state and while I want to vote for a coalition ticket, it ain't happening. Also might vote for Johnson Stein or Anderson depending on who's on the ballot in my state. I think there is a difference between Romny and Obama. It's mostly rhetorical but Obama imo is the slightly lessor evil.... Romney wants to be a war president. Obama just wants to be president and is more likely listen to the American people if they speak loudly enough for peace. but you are right; they are both corporate shills and I am extremely saddened that both progressives and libertarians did not see the need for a coalition alternative this time around.


You don't have to vote for anyone. Voting for Obama is just as bad as voting for Mitt. Why would you vote for either of these war-hungry, corporatist shills?

[ShaneEnochs]

It's a judgement call but I am in a swing state and while I want to vote for a coalition ticket, it ain't happening. Also might vote for Johnson Stein or Anderson depending on who's on the ballot in my state. I think there is a difference between Romny and Obama. It's mostly rhetorical but Obama imo is the slightly lessor evil.... Romney wants to be a war president. Obama just wants to be president and is more likely listen to the American people if they speak loudly enough for peace. but you are right; they are both corporate shills and I am extremely saddened that both progressives and libertarians did not see the need for a coalition alternative this time around.

Obama already IS a war president. Surely you see that? Look at Libya. Heck, he has drones flying in OUR own airspace for goodness sakes.

[progressiveforpaul]

Yes he is a war president but I think he knows that if he keeps it up forever he will ruin the economy and the Democratic party. Romney on the otherhand sees war as the means for economic growth and is willing to escalate the present ones enough to actually make the economy grow. Again, I have no delusions about Obama. i give him a D+ and anticipate an F from Romney. i would much rather be voting for Paul/Kucinich this November. again i am in a swing state and so i have to see how close it gets before i make up my mind. If i were in MS or Texas'd be voting for Stein, Anderson, Johnson or Paul. I'm in NC where one vote could mean a life and death difference this time around. My admittedly subjective judgement tells me Obama will continue to kill innocents by the hundreds and Romney by the thousands. If we had a viable alternative, I would vote for it even here but we don't.

Obama already IS a war president. Surely you see that? Look at Libya. Heck, he has drones flying in OUR own airspace for goodness sakes.

[ShaneEnochs]

Yes he is a war president but I think he knows that if he keeps it up forever he will ruin the economy and the Democratic party.

Where do you live? In my neck of the woods, the economy is pretty ruined already.



Romney on the otherhand sees war as the means for economic growth and is willing to escalate the present ones enough to actually make the economy grow.

You just described just about every President since WWI. Since then, we've kept a standing army, and we've always kept them doing something in other countries. That something definitely wasn't planting flowers.



Again, I have no delusions about Obama. i give him a D+ and anticipate an F from Romney. i would much rather be voting for Paul/Kucinich this November. again i am in a swing state and so i have to see how close it gets before i make up my mind. If i were in MS or Texas'd be voting for Stein, Anderson, Johnson or Paul. I'm in NC where one vote could mean a life and death difference this time around. My admittedly subjective judgement tells me Obama will continue to kill innocents by the hundreds and Romney by the thousands. If we had a viable alternative, I would vote for it even here but we don't.

Thousands have ALREADY died from Obama's policies. Don't be deceived. He is one of the most bloodthirty presidents we've ever had behind Lincoln.

[progressiveforpaul]

What exactly do you want me to do? Risk allowing Romney to win by one vote? It could get that tight here in NC. If one candidate opens up a substantial lead am glad to vote for one of the alternatives. It will probably be in that case someone who is on the ballot, not a write-in. I would hop that libertarians vote for Johnson if Paul is not on the ballot.


Where do you live? In my neck of the woods, the economy is pretty ruined already.




You just described just about every President since WWI. Since then, we've kept a standing army, and we've always kept them doing something in other countries. That something definitely wasn't planting flowers.




Thousands have ALREADY died from Obama's policies. Don't be deceived. He is one of the most bloodthirty presidents we've ever had behind Lincoln.

[ShaneEnochs]

What exactly do you want me to do? Risk allowing Romney to win by one vote? It could get that tight here in NC. If one candidate opens up a substantial lead am glad to vote for one of the alternatives. It will probably be in that case someone who is on the ballot, not a write-in. I would hop that libertarians vote for Johnson if Paul is not on the ballot.

You can do whatever you wish. You should always vote your conscious. I'm just saying please don't pick "the lesser of two evils", because you'll always be choosing evil.