Great WaPo Article

[savonarola]

about how we're changing the political dialog (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299.html). I think the important point is how we conduct our revolution after the election--whether he wins or loses. I've heard some comments about it all being "over" if he doesn't win, and that can't be farther from the truth. We're going to be a force for as long as we want to be. For those who think that Paul is our only hope, perhaps you should read the Remnant, by Albert Nock.

We need to support the other Liberty Candidates as best as possible. Yes, getting Dr. Paul elected is directive #1, but why not think about the larger scope?

On a side note, after seeing the Ms. Kucinich interview, I'd be fully supportive of a Paul/Kucinich 3rd party ticket. If Kucinich is seeing the light on monetary policy, it seems like Murray Rothbard's dream alliance between the libertarian "left" and "right" may finally come to fruition. Heck, then we can coax the British Lib-Dems into making it a worldwide movement.

[AlexMerced]

Yep, already on this, I'll be rolling the Liberty Independence Alliance more fully towards the middle of the general election so we don't get distracted, to get a taste check link in my sig.

[skiingff]

Yes

[RPFTW!]

I can't wait till we fill up congress with Paulites! I know its coming! At first there will only be 3 or 4 but that will be the perfect number to give them adequate support and donations.

[voisine]

in a winner take all system, the natural tendency is two parties. the majority will vote against the candidate they perceive as being the worst by voting for the second worst.

when the few who vote on principle throw an election to the other party, the principled candidate gets blamed for it instead of the major party candidate for having not earned those votes.

[AlexMerced]

Yeah, we SMPD voting system which automatically creates tw moderate parties from how it works, then there is a PR system where instead of voting for a caidate you vote for a party and then the party get so many seats equal to the percentage it got then legislature chooses a prime minister, or if you have a president you also vote for a president on the ballot.

I'm currently taking comparative government, good stuff, Iran doesn't really make sense as a threat once you know how their government works and their history.

Japan has similar system to our PAC which is really the cause of the strangle hold by liberal democrates (who are actually conservative, haha)

[savonarola]

in a winner take all system, the natural tendency is two parties. the majority will vote against the candidate they perceive as being the worst by voting for the second worst.

when the few who vote on principle throw an election to the other party, the principled candidate gets blamed for it instead of the major party candidate for having not earned those votes.


With a BA in political science, I understand that fully. However, realigning elections do occur. Typically the D&Rs can adjust to the movement and win. However, this time, I don't think they will. It looks more like 1854 than 1912. Ironically, 1854 was the year the Republicans came on the scene and wiped out the Whigs.

Regarding the Liberty Candidates--how can we organize a structured way to donate to them? I'll look into what type of organization is best, but I think we need to have a way to raise funds for these campaigns. I think we also need a solid network of political gurus from which the liberty candidates can draw. These are all the functions of a political party.

Ok, I'm gonna go off for a bit, so bear with me.

PLEASE STOP WITH THE "IT CAN'T HAPPEN" TALK. I know we need rational solutions, and history does seem to indicate that 3rd parties have no chance, but all the same arguments are used against Ron Paul's campaign by the nay-sayers. A REAL look at history shows that people can and have liberated themselves from their chains. It shows that grassroots change CAN and HAS happened (good and bad).

The reality is, we are not going to take over the Republican party. They have more money than us, and they refuse to listen. We can beat them, though. While we do not have the control, we have the power.

Ron Paul is the best candidate since 1912, and one of the best ever. Strong figures lead to movements. It's then up to the movement to cause real change.

We are the change--stop thinking we're not

[troyd1]

There can be more viable parties because the msm can't say there are only 2 choices anymore. They can, but they cannot hide theor lies about it.