PDA

View Full Version : What NOT to do as a Ron Paul Republican




skfornh
08-11-2014, 10:10 AM
http://i327.photobucket.com/albums/k468/shemkelloggfornh/Tom_zpsada3def2.jpg

BACKGROUND
For those of you who don't know me, I am a Ron Paul supporter running for state representative in New Hampshire: shemkellogg.com. I am less than one month away from my primary. Ron Paul Forums has been generous enough to offer the campaign its own subforum in the "Defenders of Liberty" section, alongside Rand Paul and others: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?262-Shem-Kellogg-2014-Forum

I am using it to involve users who sincerely care to help me, convince them that my race is winnable, and demonstrate that I am committed to winning. My hopes are that my race will encourage other activists to run for office.

Since I filed to be on the ballot, I have been receiving candidate surveys and other items in the mail. I have been sharing these and my responses to the surveys in the forum.

On Friday I received the above piece in the mail. Social media suggests that the letter was mailed to at least all of the Republican state rep candidates. I'm not sure how many candidates there are but the New Hampshire House is the fourth largest deliberative body in the English-speaking world, behind only the UK Parliament, the Parliament of India, and the US House of Representatives. We have 400 state representatives, which works out to around 3K voters per representative.

I don't think I've ever met Tom in person, but he's a former state rep who resigned (see NY Times link at the bottom). Here are some important points that Tom may be overlooking:

Republican voters in NH like liberty.
Ron Paul placed a strong second in the first-in the-nation Republican Primary. In fact he got more votes than Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry combined. (He even took second in the Democratic Primary; he received more votes than Barack Obama if you combine both primaries). Unrelated to Ron Paul, NH is one of the freest states in the US, with no income tax, no general sales tax, no helmet laws or adult seatbelt laws, no mandatory car insurance, and very few gun restrictions. This freedom is thanks, in large part, to Republican voters.

Republican politicians in NH like liberty.
If anyone was watching, 41% of the US and state legislators who endorsed Ron Paul were from New Hampshire. Three state senators endorsed him. Last year, the chair of the state Republican party spoke at Liberty Forum, the liberty conference hosted by the Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org)which has hosted Ron Paul in the past, and personally welcomed liberty activists to the NHGOP. In 2013, the speaker of the house who served during New Hampshire's historic 17.6% cut in state-funded spending sat on panel at the FSP's Porcupine Freedom Festival (PorcFest), to discuss the bill he sponsored, which was signed into law that allows defense attorneys in New Hampshire to inform the jury in criminal cases about their right to nullify the law. Prior to the law passing, liberty Republican activists who were elected to the state convention succeeded on having jury nullification added to the state party platform.

CONCLUSION
Show people some respect. Threats are not going to wake people up to cause of liberty, and if you're going to make them, please do not implicate Ron Paul and the rest of the liberty movement.

EXTRA
More Tom:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/11/us/legislator-who-endorsed-killing-of-police-resigns-under-fire.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ4IhMPhkYw

erowe1
08-11-2014, 10:33 AM
Looks like satire.

CaptUSA
08-11-2014, 10:40 AM
I don't know, Shem. This sounds like it came from the opposition. This guy is either working for someone, or he is mentally disturbed. "Nominate libertarian extremists"???? Yeah, I don't think that's our type of language.

It's a shame that the views of this guy could transfer on to any reasonable person.

Christian Liberty
08-11-2014, 10:49 AM
Looks like satire.

Maybe, but I agreed with it. It really is the same thing. This country is 95% filled with people that are stupid, evil, or both. The more I debate with people, the more I realize with it. Sometimes I pretend to respect them, but in my heart I don't respect them,

Larken Rose parodied "but who would build the roads" by asking "But who would pick the cotton" and its an apt metaphor.

Statists are enslaving us. They don't deserve civility of any kind.

Christian Liberty
08-11-2014, 10:50 AM
Maybe, but I agreed with it. It really is the same thing. This country is 95% filled with people that are stupid, evil, or both. The more I debate with people, the more I realize with it. Sometimes I pretend to respect them, but in my heart I don't respect them,

Larken Rose parodied "but who would build the roads" by asking "But who would pick the cotton" and its an apt metaphor.

Statists are enslaving us. They don't deserve civility of any kind.


To be clear, when I say "Statists" I'm talking about people who have had this stuff explained to them and continue to support war and political control anyway. I'm not talking about people who are in the process of "getting there" or people who haven't had a chance to think about it yet.

Vanguard101
08-11-2014, 11:39 AM
I don't get it. Does this thing want us to nominate libertarian extremists?

skfornh
08-11-2014, 11:44 AM
I don't get it. Does this thing want us to nominate libertarian extremists?
Apparently the author thought this letter would persuade nh candidates for state rep and delegate to vote for libertarian extremists

Vanguard101
08-11-2014, 12:09 PM
Apparently the author thought this letter would persuade nh candidates for state rep and delegate to vote for libertarian extremists

Ahhhh

brandon
08-11-2014, 12:29 PM
That image-text was the most confusing thing I read so far today. I think the author has mild brain damage.

acptulsa
08-11-2014, 12:54 PM
Allegedly the author thought this letter would persuade nh candidates for state rep and delegate to vote for libertarian extremists

Fixed that for you. Because no one calls themselves extremists.


"A fanatic is always the fellow that is on the opposite side."--Will Rogers 1930

I can see drawing a line in the sand. We've done it, and nothing on Heaven or Earth will cause us to deviate from it. Of course, part of the problem we're having with Rand Paul is we've had the luxury before of standing by a wide line in the sand, because none of the candidates have been anywhere near that line. Except for Ron Paul, all the presidential candidates have been many a bloody, broke mile from our line in the sand. Now we have someone who at least pretends to tiptoe along that line, and we find that as he does some of us consider him to be on the same side as us and some don't.

In any case, I can see drawing a line in the sand. I can see it. And I can see telling other Republicans that unless they stop mouthing platitudes and live by principles instead, the GOP is dead. But it requires we sort of divide ourselves. In order to pull it off, we have to have 'good cops and bad cops'. And the 'bad cops' will never be able to get away with running for office. The 'bad cops' can't even easily get away with being an official part of the campaigns.

So, though I don't condemn that circular, I do agree with this:


CONCLUSION
Show people some respect. Threats are not going to wake people up to cause of liberty, and if you're going to make them, please do not implicate Ron Paul and the rest of the liberty movement.

erowe1
08-11-2014, 01:08 PM
Apparently the author thought this letter would persuade nh candidates for state rep and delegate to vote for libertarian extremists

Why do you think that? It looks designed to do the opposite.

erowe1
08-11-2014, 01:08 PM
Looks like satire.

I got a minus rep for this post?

devil21
08-11-2014, 03:20 PM
Fixed that for you. Because no one calls themselves extremists.

Except that Goldwater fellow. "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!"

I agree with most that the letter is confusing and not ideal, however staying away from terms like "extremist" is allowing your opponents to define your strategy.

acptulsa
08-11-2014, 03:35 PM
Except that Goldwater fellow. "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!"

I agree with most that the letter is confusing and not ideal, however staying away from terms like "extremist" is allowing your opponents to define your strategy.

The difference is that Goldwater was neither calling the love of liberty extreme nor advocating extremism be the path of first resort. He was simply avowing that if that's what was needed then he would be willing to supply it.

Threats should be at least somewhat veiled, conditional, and should have good, solid reasons behind them. Above all, they should cause the recipient to seriously consider if what they're fighting for is worth fighting for. That is where this claptrap (seemingly purposely) falls short.

fr33
08-11-2014, 08:51 PM
No I wouldn't word it that way to people not in "the movement" but I can't say that I disagree with the content.

Keith and stuff
08-12-2014, 08:08 AM
I don't know, Shem. This sounds like it came from the opposition. This guy is either working for someone, or he is mentally disturbed. "Nominate libertarian extremists"???? Yeah, I don't think that's our type of language.

It's a shame that the views of this guy could transfer on to any reasonable person.
This guy is real. He predates the free staters. There are crazies like this in every state. I've talked to him in person at events and he seems non-threatening in person. He is a big talker that says stuff you would expect on 4chan. I think he believes it. He used to call into Free Talk Live and talk badly about police.

If I am not mistaken, he was kicked out of the LP, the GOP and maybe even the Democrat Party.

Joe For Liberty
08-12-2014, 10:08 PM
He resigned n 2001 5 weeks after being elected.

[Mr. Alciere (pronounced al-see-AIR), who ran as a Republican but has said he is really a Libertarian, supports the legalization of all drugs, the end of mandatory school attendance and the repeal of the minimum drinking age. He has said he supports killing police officers both because of the frequency of police abuses and because he believes the laws they enforce are often unjust.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/11/us/legislator-who-endorsed-killing-of-police-resigns-under-fire.html

Keith and stuff
08-13-2014, 12:41 AM
Unfortunately, the anti-tax people in the most populous region in the nation move to New Hampshire. 1,000s of such people move to New Hampshire. It is a regular occurrence. They don't tend to like taxes or people that support taxes. Some of these people are anti-corruption. I am not sure what to do about it.

Keith and stuff
08-16-2014, 08:19 AM
A New Hampshire based statist blog is chatting about this guy and his letter.

Former state Rep. Alciere: ‘Nominate libertarian extremists — or we sink the Republican Party’
http://miscellanyblue.com/post/94488705632

ProIndividual
08-19-2014, 12:24 AM
"libertarian extremists"?

The word "extremist" is a derogatory term for radical. Radical means "going to the root of the problem". So, the word "extremist" is too often used to refer to nonviolent people whose ideas go to the true root of the problem, simply because the rest of society is too illogical, and therefore immoral, to agree with the radicals.

I'm proud to be a radical. If you call me an "extremist" it's just an ad hominem that replaces the word radical....nothing more.

ProIndividual
08-19-2014, 12:30 AM
Unfortunately, the anti-tax people in the most populous region in the nation move to New Hampshire. 1,000s of such people move to New Hampshire. It is a regular occurrence. They don't tend to like taxes or people that support taxes. Some of these people are anti-corruption. I am not sure what to do about it.

How can you like legalized extortion on the threat of rape cages and property seizure (taxes)? :)

And he is right about sinking Republicans. That gives us power in that Party by way of game theory mathematics. If they can't win without us, then we become the new base. If they lose elections for Presidency, we get another chance every 4 years, instead of every 8 years (because if Romney won, the chances of him facing a realistic libertarian Primary challenger is almost nil, which would mean Rand 2016 would be pushed back to Rand 2020).

If they refuse to nominate who we want, the smart strategy mathematically is to make them lose at all costs. I wrote a thread about this and even broke down the math for everyone. It's on these forums somewhere, under the same "Operation Game Theory". The math isn't debatable.