PDA

View Full Version : So I spoke with Ron Paul today......(no really)




CTRattlesnake
04-24-2013, 08:58 PM
I was lucky enough to be in the presence of Dr Paul today when he came to talk at my school. I was thinking of what i should ask him during the Q&A session afterwards and I finally came up with what I thought would be the perfect question.


We debate on here about the future of the liberty movement, and the politics behind what Dr Paul set into motion. We talk about integrating into the republicans or democrats, and some talk about going into a third party all together. So I posed this question to Dr Paul, I wanted to know where he saw this movement going and what he hoped others would do in the future with it. I had always been an advocate for a third party approach, it became clear to me that during the primaries that liberty minded republicans would always be treated like outsiders and that ultimately, if the reps didnt want anything to do with us, why should we want anything to do with them. I was, again, interested in how Dr Paul saw things.

He replied simply that it was up to the individual. He didnt see the future of the movement as something to be defined by political parties. He said if a liberty minded individual wanted to join the republicans or democrats or libertarians or greens, it didnt matter. What mattered is what they stood for and the ideas they brought to the table. This obviously was enlightening to me because I had never really thought of this approach. I do think that it is better to have a defined target in mind, but what Dr Paul said made me rethink the meaning of this movement. Is it really about winning seats and winning elections, or is it about changing the way people think? Obviously the latter leads to the former, but should we be focusing on the latter first and foremost? Should we be more concerned about winning over minds instead of political contests?

torchbearer
04-24-2013, 09:00 PM
I was lucky enough to be in the presence of Dr Paul today when he came to talk at my school. I was thinking of what i should ask him during the Q&A session afterwards and I finally came up with what I thought would be the perfect question.


We debate on here about the future of the liberty movement, and the politics behind what Dr Paul set into motion. We talk about integrating into the republicans or democrats, and some talk about going into a third party all together. So I posed this question to Dr Paul, I wanted to know where he saw this movement going and what he hoped others would do in the future with it. I had always been an advocate for a third party approach, it became clear to me that during the primaries that liberty minded republicans would always be treated like outsiders and that ultimately, if the reps didnt want anything to do with us, why should we want anything to do with them. I was, again, interested in how Dr Paul saw things.

He replied simply that it was up to the individual. He didnt see the future of the movement as something to be defined by political parties. He said if a liberty minded individual wanted to join the republicans or democrats or libertarians or greens, it didnt matter. What mattered is what they stood for and the ideas they brought to the table. This obviously was enlightening to me because I had never really thought of this approach. I do think that it is better to have a defined target in mind, but what Dr Paul said made me rethink the meaning of this movement. Is it really about winning seats and winning elections, or is it about changing the way people think? Obviously the latter leads to the former, but should we be focusing on the latter first and foremost? Should we be more concerned about winning over minds instead of political contests?

time to start having conversations with your neighbors. the revolution starts on your street.

sailingaway
04-24-2013, 09:02 PM
So, did you get any pictures when he came to speak at your school? Colgate, one presumes?

phill4paul
04-24-2013, 09:04 PM
That's always been Dr. Paul's stance. It's the only stance that could possibly lead to meaningful change.

MelissaWV
04-24-2013, 09:05 PM
Think of it as a tree. As he said, it is up to the individual, and this lends itself to a variety of approaches. A set of limbs over here is going to try to win back the GOP by being itself, by trying seat by seat to ensure pockets of freedom, and by adding votes to counter the agendas in Congress. Another set is going to sit and watch and point out what the Government is doing that's evil and wrong, but not believe in the process at all. Another area of the tree is made of the 3rd-party types who see no point in standing with GOP candidates, but still slightly believe in the political process. Still others are okay with government, but maybe they are more secessionist in nature and want to do something totally new. Some are going to go with gimmicks, some with classical techniques, some are going to vote in straw polls, and some are going to run for office.

So while all of these things are "right," we do still have to worry about those other branches (if a chunk of a tree gets poisoned somehow, the rest of the tree usually doesn't live) regardless of where we are ourselves.

Winning seats spreads influence and adds visibility to issues and candidates. Winning over hearts and minds is awesome and is the only way to get seats won, but without the candidates out there, it just leads to frustration.

torchbearer
04-24-2013, 09:06 PM
That's always been Dr. Paul's stance. It's the only stance that could possibly lead to meaningful change. i contend it will take all kinds. the educator and the pig wrestler. sort of a drug combo that mixes fixing the symptoms now with treating for long term cure.
Ron Paul on college tour. Rand Paul on presidential campaign tour. Two different fronts of the same campaign for liberty.

QueenB4Liberty
04-24-2013, 09:10 PM
You gotta change minds. No one is going to take you seriously if you say you want no government and yet try and get elected to the government.

CTRattlesnake
04-24-2013, 09:13 PM
So, did you get any pictures when he came to speak at your school? Colgate, one presumes?

No photography or video was allowed during the talk. I got a ninja video on my phone but the phone is out of battery atm

torchbearer
04-24-2013, 09:13 PM
You gotta change minds. No one is going to take you seriously if you say you want no government and yet try and get elected to the government.

rand isn't an anarchist, neither is ron. ron answered this question directly at a recent college speaking engagement he had.

bunklocoempire
04-24-2013, 09:16 PM
He replied simply that it was up to the individual.
Free and voluntary activism -how could this not work? How could it possibly be contained?
http://s6.postimg.org/7lg12yhkh/boss.jpg

ninepointfive
04-24-2013, 09:17 PM
this would have been a good quote to end some forum sparring matches a few months back

CTRattlesnake
04-24-2013, 09:29 PM
this would have been a good quote to end some forum sparring matches a few months back

I was involved in a lot of that. I was always for the third party option, I never thought of myself as an 'R' to begin with and after the treatment Dr Paul got during the primaries, I was ready to say screw the GOP. However, a lot of people thought that 'taking over' the GOP was somehow possible and the best idea.

I think today Dr Paul provided me with a third solution that is far better than both mentioned above

Roxi
04-24-2013, 10:23 PM
I was lucky enough to be in the presence of Dr Paul today when he came to talk at my school. I was thinking of what i should ask him during the Q&A session afterwards and I finally came up with what I thought would be the perfect question.


We debate on here about the future of the liberty movement, and the politics behind what Dr Paul set into motion. We talk about integrating into the republicans or democrats, and some talk about going into a third party all together. So I posed this question to Dr Paul, I wanted to know where he saw this movement going and what he hoped others would do in the future with it. I had always been an advocate for a third party approach, it became clear to me that during the primaries that liberty minded republicans would always be treated like outsiders and that ultimately, if the reps didnt want anything to do with us, why should we want anything to do with them. I was, again, interested in how Dr Paul saw things.

He replied simply that it was up to the individual. He didnt see the future of the movement as something to be defined by political parties. He said if a liberty minded individual wanted to join the republicans or democrats or libertarians or greens, it didnt matter. What mattered is what they stood for and the ideas they brought to the table. This obviously was enlightening to me because I had never really thought of this approach. I do think that it is better to have a defined target in mind, but what Dr Paul said made me rethink the meaning of this movement. Is it really about winning seats and winning elections, or is it about changing the way people think? Obviously the latter leads to the former, but should we be focusing on the latter first and foremost? Should we be more concerned about winning over minds instead of political contests?

Thank you! Both for choosing that question and asking it. This makes me feel kind of amazing because his response is pretty similar to something I've said to people for a couple years now. (and so have many others)

It's not about winning anything, it's about educating minds and spreading the message of freedom.

God I love this movement.

WhistlinDave
04-24-2013, 10:47 PM
You gotta change minds. No one is going to take you seriously if you say you want no government and yet try and get elected to the government.

Some people will say that, but my response to that is, if your goal is to get the beast under control, you're not going to do it by sitting by and just complaining about it. Somebody has to get up on top of the beast and ride it.

KerriAnn
04-24-2013, 11:26 PM
I was lucky enough to be in the presence of Dr Paul today when he came to talk at my school. I was thinking of what i should ask him during the Q&A session afterwards and I finally came up with what I thought would be the perfect question.


We debate on here about the future of the liberty movement, and the politics behind what Dr Paul set into motion. We talk about integrating into the republicans or democrats, and some talk about going into a third party all together. So I posed this question to Dr Paul, I wanted to know where he saw this movement going and what he hoped others would do in the future with it. I had always been an advocate for a third party approach, it became clear to me that during the primaries that liberty minded republicans would always be treated like outsiders and that ultimately, if the reps didnt want anything to do with us, why should we want anything to do with them. I was, again, interested in how Dr Paul saw things.

He replied simply that it was up to the individual. He didnt see the future of the movement as something to be defined by political parties. He said if a liberty minded individual wanted to join the republicans or democrats or libertarians or greens, it didnt matter. What mattered is what they stood for and the ideas they brought to the table. This obviously was enlightening to me because I had never really thought of this approach. I do think that it is better to have a defined target in mind, but what Dr Paul said made me rethink the meaning of this movement. Is it really about winning seats and winning elections, or is it about changing the way people think? Obviously the latter leads to the former, but should we be focusing on the latter first and foremost? Should we be more concerned about winning over minds instead of political contests?

Thank you so much for posting this. I sometimes feel like I am not doing anything to change the world. I am not involved in local politics. I wanted to be, but I had no time. And i wasn't sure it would affect anything anyway. So I decided I would stick to trying to talk to my friends and others around me about the principles I believe in. And lately I have seen a shift in consciousness in the world around me. Is it because of me? I think so, at least partly. All my facebook posts, all my ranting about what freedom really means in the off-hours at work, it has created ripples around me, and they are spreading faster than I ever imagined.

jtstellar
04-25-2013, 01:15 AM
you can do both, like i am, without being destructive to either, when your choice is the opposite as those who choose to spend time in politics under limited time and resources.

unlike some who may do some minimal idea sharing in private life, but are entirely counter productive when others decide on the political approach, bashing our allies left and right and preventing coalitions from being formed then have their idiocy picked up my mass media and put in full parade as 'the ron paul supporters are angry at flip flop blah blah'. staying the hell out of the way would have been better, even.

bolil
04-25-2013, 01:16 AM
Lucky you. If I spoke with Ron Paul I might start crying or faint.

bunklocoempire
04-25-2013, 01:54 AM
this would have been a good quote to end some forum sparring matches a few months back

Everyday.

Weston White
04-25-2013, 03:01 AM
If I might add my thoughts on this subject, I feel that is precisely the larger underlying issue: the broad division and separation brought about by our own misdirected choices or frustrations. There is far too much of this occurring already. To wit, which is almost everybody’s solution, being that we have become awakened or enlightened, or at least we have become aware or attuned that something is amiss, although we cannot yet quite place our finger on it, not just yet anyway. So our solution:

(1) We move to another state, one we perceive as being “freer”, be it Texas or New Hampshire—wherein its own citizen’s and lifeblood become upset that their state is being taken over by outsiders with strange views and to the utter determent of their originating state (e.g., the steady flux of Californian neo-liberalists into Texas, who subsequently want to make Texas into a sort of secondary California—and meanwhile Mexicans want to make California into an extension of Mexico or to otherwise reclaim it as their rightful property).

(2) We start up yet another political (third-wheel) party. Because that will show them all that we mean business! It would officialize our cause, so they will have to take us seriously then and reserve us a spot next to them at the roundtable, right?

Let us also quickly reflect on what the effects of neo-colonialism, upon its intended consequences. Are not many second and third world nations loosing their own “cream of the crops” to American, Canadian, and European immigration? Those citizens abandoning their originating birthrights with the hopes of establishing their immediate families into the surreal privileges and conveniences of the first world; while perhaps obtaining accolades, their own business, fancy new technologies, access to medicines, etc. Meanwhile, their homeland nation falls only further into squalor.

Now, comparatively, isn’t that what is happening through the process of both above (1) and (2)?

Ergo, imagine if all those millions of California’s had decided to remain in-state and instead become politically active, challenging those elected, perhaps even themselves running for office, etc? Just imagine if all the true libertarians and constitutionalists that have long since abandoned our ever-present duopoly had instead unified and overtook either the Democratic or Republican Parties. What progress could we have all made teamed up so thickly (also considering those many active individuals within the myriad of third parties)?

Additionally, a secondary concern, which is monumental in realizing a primary causation as to both above (1) and (2) is far too much divisiveness or otherwise partisanship—i.e., being brought about in large part though social misunderstandings; improper education and parental upbringing (the much negative affect of having been state raised); misdirection and obfuscation by authority figures; personal laziness or malaise; subjugated dependency upon governmental social justice programs and the resulting fear over the loss of that very “entitlement” or want; etc.

Succinctly, I feel that proper answer is to remain tall and fight, not to run off and coward elsewhere, be it by locale or by faction. We should infect our host-systems throughout as would parasites without vaccination. Let us continue reining the Internet and grassroots campaigning to our advantage as if these were the very protoplasm serving to aid parasites spreading all throughout its host; and to do the same within the Republican Party, our own sovereign home state, and then every other political party that remains or comes about.