Okay, I see a problem here, what's the solution?

[Dr.3D]

As members of RPF, loving liberty and wishing to pursue the proper course of action to achieve more liberty, what are our choices in this presidential election?

With the current list of candidates, what is the best case scenario we can hope for?

I see a lot of argumentation about one certain candidate. I'm not even going to say his name, but I do want some input here.

What outcome from this mess should be our objective?

Who do you want to see nominated in the primary?

I suppose one option is that we are supposed to just sit this one out and hope for the best?

[acptulsa]

Promote McAfee on the grounds that if the American people demand a criminal and a clown, it might as well be something besides a totalitarian criminal clown.

[Dr.3D]

Promote McAfee on the grounds that if the American people demand a criminal and a clown, it might as well be something besides a totalitarian criminal clown.
Good, but what are the chances he would be nominated? I mean, even if we could get all of the liberty people to vote for him?
Or is this just supposed to be an educational exercise?

[jmdrake]

Here's an option you haven't considered. It's from Matthew 24:20.

Pray that your flight be not in winter neither on the Sabbath day.

[VIDEODROME]

Deez Nutz

[thoughtomator]

Good, but what are the chances he would be nominated? I mean, even if we could get all of the liberty people to vote for him?
Or is this just supposed to be an educational exercise?

If we're going to do a futile educational exercise then we all may as well just write in Ron Paul for the millionth time again.

Some people have become absolutely unhinged at the ugly process of sorting and evaluating the various rogues and cretins that are the only ones left who could realistically win.

[hells_unicorn]

As members of RPF, loving liberty and wishing to pursue the proper course of action to achieve more liberty, what are our choices in this presidential election?

With the current list of candidates, what is the best case scenario we can hope for?

I see a lot of argumentation about one certain candidate. I'm not even going to say his name, but I do want some input here.

What outcome from this mess should be our objective?

Who do you want to see nominated in the primary?

I suppose one option is that we are supposed to just sit this one out and hope for the best?

Concentrate on the lower echelons of American politics, namely senate seats, congressional elections, state and local offices. If the main course section of a buffet is serving deep friend excrement and baked excrement, check the areas where the side dishes and the salad bar are located and see if there is anything worth consuming. The stronger the presence of liberty office holders at the lower levels, the less damage the despot at the top can perpetuate.

[Dr.3D]

If we're going to do a futile educational exercise then we all may as well just write in Ron Paul for the millionth time again.

Some people have become absolutely unhinged at the ugly process of sorting and evaluating the various rogues and cretins that are the only ones left who could realistically win.
That's the purpose of this thread.

I want to see what folks here can come up with as some kind of most acceptable end result we should all be working toward.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Honest opinion shut down the 2016 forum and focus on the site initiative. This shit is toxic.

[nikcers]

Shut down the 2016 convention, nominate ham sandwich.

[jmdrake]

The only argument I've heard as to why Ted Cruz is supposedly worse than Donald Trump is that Cruz received sacks of the Gold man's money. (Goldman Sachs money). So? Rand Paul received Peter Thiel money and Thiel is a member of the Bilderberg Group and they're just as bad as Gold man's sacks. I don't like Cruz being such a freaking Israel firster though. (Forgot about his asshattery of trying to tell Middle East Christians that if they didn't "stand with Israel" he couldn't "stand with them." Ugggghh!)

I may not vote.

[Dr.3D]

Concentrate on the lower echelons of American politics, namely senate seats, congressional elections, state and local offices. If the main course section of a buffet is serving deep friend excrement and baked excrement, check the areas where the side dishes and the salad bar are located and see if there is anything worth consuming. The stronger the presence of liberty office holders at the lower levels, the less damage the despot at the top can perpetuate.
So you are saying, we should just ignore the presidential election and do something else at this time?

Sure the menu sucks, but if we are going to be forced to eat something from it, shouldn't we try to select the one item with the least excrement in it?

[acptulsa]

Good, but what are the chances he would be nominated? I mean, even if we could get all of the liberty people to vote for him?
Or is this just supposed to be an educational exercise?

Well, the only liberty people who can vote for him are the delegates to the Libertarian Party convention.

But, yes. If lampooning the electorate is the only way to educate them, then by all means.

[thoughtomator]

That's the purpose of this thread.

I want to see what folks here can come up with as some kind of most acceptable end result we should all be working toward.

At this point there is such broad disagreement on fundamentals that there is no useful function for this forum anymore, and it's become an unfortunate display of the inability of many participants to handle whatever stage of grief they're in. If you read the Trump threads in particular, you can see that a number of people are in the midst of unfolding mental breakdowns.

If it were my site, I'd set a 90-day timer to let everyone establish independent contacts with friends made here, then shut it down, so that visitors to the site would see merely


Liberty Movement
born August 1765 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty)
died June 7th, 2012 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/rand-paul-endorses-romney-125624)
R.I.P.

[Makes Interesting Points]

This may be a risky mindset, but one of the best outcomes may be Trump or Cruz winning the Republican nomination, but then losing to Clinton in the general election, provided Clinton has an unpopular term. Then Clinton may destroy the country, and we'd only have to wait four years for another liberty candidate to participate in the Republican nomination process, rather than 8. If Trump wins the nomination, but loses to Clinton, the Republican voters would continue their trial-and-error mindset and think "Well, if the moderate Romney lost to the Democrat, and the very moderate and non-substantive Trump lost to the Democrat, then what the heck kind of Republican can we elect that will beat the Democrat? Hey, who's this Paul guy... he's actually substantive, and is very conservative unlike Trump, yet has appeal to moderates". In the scenario where Cruz wins the nomination, but loses to Clinton, Republican voters would think "Well, if the moderate Romney lost to the Democrat, and the very conservative dirty trickster & evangelical pandering Cruz lost to the Democrat, then what the heck kind of Republican can we elect that won't lose to the Democrat? Hey, listen to this Paul guy. Every type of Republican keeps losing to the Democrat, so maybe we should go with this legit conservative guy who has appeal to moderates with all that criminal justice reform talk".

[Dr.3D]

Well, the only liberty people who can vote for him are the delegates to the Libertarian Party convention.

But, yes. If lampooning the electorate is the only way to educate them, then by all means.
I'm still trying to figure out how successful our educational campaign has been so far. Any feedback that you've seen?

[Dr.3D]

At this point there is such broad disagreement on fundamentals that there is no useful function for this forum anymore, and it's become an unfortunate display of the inability of many participants to handle whatever stage of grief they're in. If you read the Trump threads in particular, you can see that a number of people are in the midst of unfolding mental breakdowns.

If it were my site, I'd set a 90-day timer to let everyone establish independent contacts with friends made here, then shut it down, so that visitors to the site would see merely


Liberty Movement
born August 1765 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty)
died June 7th, 2012 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/rand-paul-endorses-romney-125624)
R.I.P.

I'm hoping for something more conducive to the health of this site and could tide us through till after the primary.

[RJB]

I only take comfort that we are not the first group of people to watch society go down in flames and not be able to do a thing to stop it. Others had lived through it in the past. I may just enjoy more quality time with friends and family.

[Dr.3D]

I only take comfort that we are not the first group of people to watch society go down in flames and not be able to do a thing to stop it. Others had lived through it in the past. I may just enjoy more quality time with friends and family.
So you don't plan on visiting the forums as much as before?

There's more to RPF than the 2016 presidential elections. I was hoping to get an idea of what our focus here on RPF should be while we watch society go down in flames.

[nikcers]

There is always another choice, but they are all false choices, anyone who has a chance at winning at this point in the election are establishment pawns. We always have more choices then we are given, but revolutions are almost always bloody. The problem we have had over the years is a false choice of two parties. When the executive begins writing legislation a form of Tyranny will ensue, I don't think of any of those crazy bastards are arguing for less executive power besides Rand. Sanders at least has a good chance at being at least anti neocon, but Trump is just a neocon trojan, with Sanders hopefully we would at least get gridlock but he is just a progressive Trojan so Clinton can win the primary instead of being coronated.

[wmmonk]

At this point there is such broad disagreement on fundamentals that there is no useful function for this forum anymore, and it's become an unfortunate display of the inability of many participants to handle whatever stage of grief they're in. If you read the Trump threads in particular, you can see that a number of people are in the midst of unfolding mental breakdowns.

If it were my site, I'd set a 90-day timer to let everyone establish independent contacts with friends made here, then shut it down, so that visitors to the site would see merely


Liberty Movement
born August 1765 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty)
died June 7th, 2012 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/rand-paul-endorses-romney-125624)
R.I.P.


This is interesting, because this would encourage more people to get OUT.


I'm hoping for something more conducive to the health of this site and could tide us through till after the primary.

The health of the site and many members went out the window years ago apparently when it was established criticisms of certain campaigns and politicians were not allowed.

[phill4paul]

Good, but what are the chances he would be nominated? I mean, even if we could get all of the liberty people to vote for him?
Or is this just supposed to be an educational exercise?

If we get together and back him like we did Ron.....

Probably better than a third party has ever achieved. It starts with giving John a little love. A bit of encouragement. Put him out on social media. Best case...a money bomb!

[Dr.3D]

If we get together and back him like we did Ron.....

Probably better than a third party has ever achieved. It starts with giving John a little love. A bit of encouragement. Put him out on social media. Best case...a money bomb!
Well, there's an idea that can be focused on.

[fisharmor]

Shut down the 2016 convention, nominate ham sandwich.

I like it, considering conventional wisdom says a ham sandwich is the only thing a prosecutor can convince a grand jury to indict.

[Dianne]

I'm falling into the trap to go Trump, just to jack up the f'king RINO's who hate him. But then I think, that could all be fake. Maybe they love him and know we will hate him, if they support him.

There is not one candidate I can live with. Possibly we can survive four years under Trump, Kasich, Carson, Cruz. I don't know.

[Dr.3D]

I'm falling into the trap to go Trump, just to jack up the f'king RINO's who hate him. But then I think, that could all be fake. Maybe they love him and know we will hate him, if they support him.

There is not one candidate I can live with. Possibly we can survive four years under Trump, Kasich, Carson, Cruz. I don't know.
Sort of looks like we will have a helping of one of those items, if they beat the Hillery.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, there's an idea that can be focused on.

If there was ever a year for a 3rd party to gain momentum, it will be when both majors are utterly hated.

[Dr.3D]

If there was ever a year for a 3rd party to gain momentum, it will be when both majors are utterly hated.
Interestingly, many believe they have found a major candidate who they think foils the very party he claims to be a member of.

[RJB]

So you don't plan on visiting the forums as much as before?

There's more to RPF than the 2016 presidential elections. I was hoping to get an idea of what our focus here on RPF should be while we watch society go down in flames.

Well you guys are some of the friends I plan on hanging out with. :)

[The One]

Opened this thread hoping the problem Dr. 3D saw was an upside down glass at the bottom of an empty tub. Left disappointed.

[Dr.3D]

Opened this thread hoping the problem Dr. 3D saw was an upside down glass at the bottom of an empty tub. Left disappointed.
You have a good memory sir.

Nope,haven't done that particular trick for many years.

[Origanalist]

This is interesting, because this would encourage more people to get OUT.



The health of the site and many members went out the window years ago apparently when it was established criticisms of certain campaigns and politicians were not allowed.

That is a pretty bold statement from someone who has only been here since October 2015.....just sayin'....:rolleyes:

[angelatc]

As members of RPF, loving liberty and wishing to pursue the proper course of action to achieve more liberty, what are our choices in this presidential election?

With the current list of candidates, what is the best case scenario we can hope for?

I see a lot of argumentation about one certain candidate. I'm not even going to say his name, but I do want some input here.

What outcome from this mess should be our objective?

Who do you want to see nominated in the primary?

I suppose one option is that we are supposed to just sit this one out and hope for the best?

I think I don't have a dog in the hunt this go-round.

[Dr.3D]

I think I don't have a dog in the hunt this go-round.
It's too bad we are required to have a helping of the game taken in the hunt.

[GunnyFreedom]

Interestingly, many believe they have found a major candidate who they think foils the very party he claims to be a member of.

LOL yeah, the same guy who's been buying the party's allegiance this whole time. :D

[69360]

Cruz is sort of ok I guess. But it looks like he will be done as of next week.

It's over we lost. Keep your head down and stay safe.

[jmdrake]

Sort of looks like we will have a helping of one of those items, if they beat the Hillery.

They can be Hillary. They can't beat Sanders. But Hillary will cheat her way past Sanders.

[Origanalist]

Cruz is sort of ok I guess. But it looks like he will be done as of next week.

It's over we lost. Keep your head down and stay safe.

Exactly. I'm waiting to see how it plays out so I can make a proper strategy to stay where I'm at. As in under the radar.

[jmdrake]

Here's a thought. I wonder if all the money raised in money bombs since 2007 had instead gone to ballot initiatives to legalize pot? I'm beginning to believe that direct democracy is the only way to get freedom back.

[nikcers]

If it were my site

dailypaul.com

?

[HVACTech]

At this point there is such broad disagreement on fundamentals that there is no useful function for this forum anymore, and it's become an unfortunate display of the inability of many participants to handle whatever stage of grief they're in. If you read the Trump threads in particular, you can see that a number of people are in the midst of unfolding mental breakdowns.

If it were my site, I'd set a 90-day timer to let everyone establish independent contacts with friends made here, then shut it down, so that visitors to the site would see merely


Liberty Movement
born August 1765 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty)
died June 7th, 2012 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/rand-paul-endorses-romney-125624)
R.I.P.


can Liberty defend itself? can anarchy defend itself?

or are they in fact, one and the same?

if they are.. one and the same, then..
the primary threat to both becomes obvious. it is the "state"
can the "state" be prohibited from forming?
and if it is NOT possible to stop "states" from forming..

FUNDAMENTAL query. (our founders faced this very same dilemma)
how do we protect ourselves from "states", outside our CONfederation?

how do we prohibit our own CONfederation of "states" from straying down the wrong path?

:)

"when life and people bring on primal scream, you've got to think of what it takes to make your dreams. " heh,


https://youtu.be/Lim43YzG97c

if indeed Anarchy, CANNOT stop "states" from forming.
then anarchy needs to be discarded as a viable preposition.
in favor of something that can control or at least, minimize them.

if all my friends from this place... do not recognize this as fact.. in 9 years running..
then they are not my friends or family.
and this bad is on me. :)

[GunnyFreedom]

Here's a thought. I wonder if all the money raised in money bombs since 2007 had instead gone to ballot initiatives to legalize pot? I'm beginning to believe that direct democracy is the only way to get freedom back.

Direct Democracy may make a small handful of social issues marginally better, but the electorate by and large are blithering idiots. I'm pretty confident that if we were to truly empower direct democracy in America, then ultimately the costs would far outweigh the benefits.

[69360]

Here's a thought. I wonder if all the money raised in money bombs since 2007 had instead gone to ballot initiatives to legalize pot? I'm beginning to believe that direct democracy is the only way to get freedom back.

Oh they will let that happen anyway eventually. A nation of dopers is easier for the overlords to control.

[wmmonk]

Right. I'm a "progressive" because I know what a tyrant looks like. If you want to know why we can't have a "rational discussion" about Trump, then I suggest you invest in a mirror.

Vermin Supreme is a tyrant. He admits it. I support Vermin Supreme, because he is at least honest (I think?!).

At the OP:
I'm not supporting anybody other than Vermin Supreme, because he is the best choice obviously, but I do understand where some get from seeing Donald Trump apparently "destroying" the establishment GOP.

I think it's pretty amazing at how much Donald Trump has survived with his candidacy, considering many of the things he has said and done would have tanked other campaigns in the past.
If the only two things Donald Trump's campaign did was to destroy the Bush dynasty idea (not sure if it's long-term enough) and make Glenn Beck appear even crazier and hopefully hurt his credibility even more, then those are things that I think are good.

[GunnyFreedom]

At this point there is such broad disagreement on fundamentals that there is no useful function for this forum anymore, and it's become an unfortunate display of the inability of many participants to handle whatever stage of grief they're in. If you read the Trump threads in particular, you can see that a number of people are in the midst of unfolding mental breakdowns.

If it were my site, I'd set a 90-day timer to let everyone establish independent contacts with friends made here, then shut it down, so that visitors to the site would see merely


Liberty Movement
born August 1765 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty)
died June 7th, 2012 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/rand-paul-endorses-romney-125624)
R.I.P.


LOL well, that's not surprising. You want to shut it all down and close up shop...and I'm supposed to be the bad guy? How about just banish the trumpshit to it's own ignorable subform where people who actually love liberty don't have to be annoyed by the petty tyrants and dingbat despots?

[Dr.3D]

Oh they will let that happen anyway eventually. A nation of dopers is easier for the overlords to control.
I hear some kinds of dope might help people see through the smoke and mirrors of the political system. Maybe that's why dopes illegal.

[wmmonk]

That is a pretty bold statement from someone who has only been here since October 2015.....just sayin'....:rolleyes:

Go back and read the old threads. It's amazing what you can see and find in them.
2012 was not a good year for this forum. Many active liberty activists, were run off the forums. Many of them left on their own from what happened with Ron Paul 2012, and they didn't return this year.

Where were all the video makers? Photo editors? Yes, the sign wavers? The blimpers? The people organizing the Tea Parties around the country and holding a moneybomb on the same day?

I can link you to some of the threads I've been reading through, and it doesn't matter when you join to do that if you look and try to learn from history. I just see history is repeating itself again on the forums.

[twomp]

The only argument I've heard as to why Ted Cruz is supposedly worse than Donald Trump is that Cruz received sacks of the Gold man's money. (Goldman Sachs money). So? Rand Paul received Peter Thiel money and Thiel is a member of the Bilderberg Group and they're just as bad as Gold man's sacks. I don't like Cruz being such a freaking Israel firster though. (Forgot about his asshattery of trying to tell Middle East Christians that if they didn't "stand with Israel" he couldn't "stand with them." Ugggghh!)

I may not vote.

Did Rand Paul hide it from the public for years as well?

[phill4paul]

Hunter S. Thompson would approve of...

John McAfee 2016!

"When the going get's weird, the weird turn pro!"

http://forusnotthem.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/hunter-s-thompson.jpg

[Origanalist]

I hear some kinds of dope might help people see through the smoke and mirrors of the political system. Maybe that's why dopes illegal.

That and there is a shitload of money and power to be had by the King decreeing it unacceptable to the court.

[Dr.3D]

That and there is a shitload of money and power to be had by the King decreeing it unacceptable to the court.
Of course the king can play that two ways and attach a huge tax to make it acceptable.

[thoughtomator]

can Liberty defend itself? can anarchy defend itself?

or are they in fact, one and the same?

if they are.. one and the same, then..
the primary threat to both becomes obvious. it is the "state"
can the "state" be prohibited from forming?
and if it is NOT possible to stop "states" from forming..

FUNDAMENTAL query. (our founders faced this very same dilemma)
how do we protect ourselves from "states", outside our CONfederation?

how do we prohibit our own CONfederation of "states" from straying down the wrong path?

:)

"when life and people bring on primal scream, you've got to think of what it takes to make your dreams. " heh,


https://youtu.be/Lim43YzG97c

Anarchy isn't even the same thing as anarchy.

There are so many different versions of what anarchy is, and many of them are fundamentally opposed to each other.

In my opinion, complete-statelessness must necessarily resolve to some version of feudalism. It is not a stable form of civilization.

[HVACTech]

Anarchy isn't even the same thing as anarchy.

There are so many different versions of what anarchy is, and many of them are fundamentally opposed to each other.

In my opinion, complete-statelessness must necessarily resolve to some version of feudalism. It is not a stable form of civilization.

and the difference between anarchy and Liberty would be... what? :confused:

WARNING! the op understands both proportional controls and servomechanisms.
he is very "controlling" :p

[phill4paul]

and the difference between anarchy and Liberty would be... what? :confused:

John "Fuggin" McAfee 2016!

Honestly.

[Occam's Banana]

http://i.imgur.com/NMHZkE9.png

[Ronin Truth]

Politics is a sociopathic cult.

[thoughtomator]

and the difference between anarchy and Liberty would be... what? :confused:

Nothing, if you can physically dominate the area in which you wish to operate.

For everyone else, it means you are prey for that guy.

[Ronin Truth]

and the difference between anarchy and Liberty would be... what? :confused:

You don't need to get a shepherd's permission for anarchy.

[libertyjam]

Hunter S. Thompson would approve of...

John McAfee 2016!

"When the going get's weird, the weird turn pro!"

http://forusnotthem.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/hunter-s-thompson.jpg


I approve this message

[specsaregood]

Where were all the video makers? Photo editors? Yes, the sign wavers? The blimpers? The people organizing the Tea Parties around the country and holding a moneybomb on the same day?


They grew up, added responsibilities, they had kids, got mortgages, other interests. Unfortunately for this election cycle, there was more competition in specific niches for the new blood and other candidates focusing on top interests that took away old blood.

[thoughtomator]

They grew up, added responsibilities, they had kids, got mortgages, other interests. Unfortunately for this election cycle, there was more competition in specific niches for the new blood and other candidates focusing on top interests that took away old blood.

That's not what happened. Rand Paul all but told us to shut up and sit down because we were embarrassing him, with the act of stuffing his own father in the closet.

[Brian4Liberty]

As members of RPF, loving liberty and wishing to pursue the proper course of action to achieve more liberty, what are our choices in this presidential election?

With the current list of candidates, what is the best case scenario we can hope for?

I see a lot of argumentation about one certain candidate. I'm not even going to say his name, but I do want some input here.

What outcome from this mess should be our objective?

Who do you want to see nominated in the primary?

I suppose one option is that we are supposed to just sit this one out and hope for the best?

As there are no liberty candidates running now, there will be no consensus on a candidate. People will have their own ideas on lesser of evils or blocking greater evils or sitting back and watching the circus.

[Anti Federalist]

I only take comfort that we are not the first group of people to watch society go down in flames and not be able to do a thing to stop it. Others had lived through it in the past. I may just enjoy more quality time with friends and family.

This.

I have no dog in this hunt.

I joke about Vermin Supreme, but why not?

I'll be writing in either his name or Ron's, if I bother at all.

Right now it seems it will be one of the three: Trump, Sanders or Clinton.

The first is a bombastic fool, who says a few things I like, the second a command and control commie, who says a few things I like, the third is just plain evil.

What a choice...I'm out.

Enjoy more quality time at home, do my best to carve out a tiny slice of freedom in an unfree world, and stop badgering people about this.

They don't care anyway.

[Anti Federalist]

That's not what happened. Rand Paul all but told us to shut up and sit down because we were embarrassing him, with the act of stuffing his own father in the closet.

Took the wind right out of our sails, didn't it?

[thoughtomator]

Took the wind right out of our sails, didn't it?

More than ANYTHING any of our enemies could have done.

But as I mentioned, it did end up establishing one crucially important fact: The establishment will never work with us, assist us, cooperate with us, play fair with us, or in any other way be anything but the most hardcore of enemies to our cause, even if we throw our own families on the altar as a sacrifice.

This makes them mortal enemies, and relieves us of any moral obligation to give them any quarter. If Hitler were reincarnated and promised to line them up against the wall and shoot every one of them, it would be a strategic imperative for us to vote for him.

It is absolutely necessary to our survival to smash the establishment first and foremost, and let the chips fall where they may. They have assured beyond any doubt and taken every possible measure to insure that there is no other alternative left to us.

[RJB]

You know, I may just have fun. I took part in some of the satire forums in 2008 and was pretty much obnoxious on the internet pretending to be a neocon, but in real life I've been exceedingly nice.

I may just buy a bunch of Trump and Hillary bumper stickers and cut people off, give them the finger and act like a jackass when I drive. Live satire in real life.

Ever since I put the RP 2008 bumper sticker, I've been driving like an elderly nun. It may be time to shuck that thing and have some fun.

ETA: I'm not sure whether I'm kidding around or not with this post :)

[Dr.3D]

As there are no liberty candidates running now, there will be no consensus on a candidate. People will have their own ideas on lesser of evils or blocking greater evils or sitting back and watching the circus.
Well, I hope this doesn't destroy what we have been working on for the past eight years.

Perhaps things will brighten up when the primary is over.

Let's just sit and watch the circus.....

/* sniffs for elephants */

[Valli6]

I see no possible “solution” for what's happened.
But what are some possible outcomes that we could be ready to respond to?

My most optimistic thoughts:


1) If - at the convention, the RNC treats Trump and his delegates, the same way they treated Ron Paul and his delegates in 2012 - the media will have a much harder time hiding it from the public. I don’t see any replacement Republican (Rubio, Ryan) being accepted by Trump’s supporters and it’s not hard to imagine something close to a riot occurring at the convention. Less concerned than RP delegates with following rules, or trying to be reasonable, they may tear the place apart! The RNC will be utterly exposed, destroyed, and out of the presidential election business. Trump may be left without a party.

The Libertarian party would be ripe to pick up the pieces. They are the only ones that will be on the ballot in every state. It’s too late for an Independent to get on. Where else could any voter go if they consider themselves even just a little conservative, or pro-freedom, or anti-PC culture, anti-interventionist, pro-free-market, etc?

2) If Trump were to actually win, the (mostly) duopoly-approved members of the Senate and the House would both HATE him so much, they would finally begin to take back their power from the executive branch. They’d fight him on everything and would suddenly lose their fear of threatening a president with impeachment - might even try it.

Too much of a stretch?

(Personally, I will be voting for Rand Paul in the primary and most likely the Libertarian in the general.)

[thoughtomator]

@Valli - hop on over to freerepublic.com and search on the word "libertarian". They despise libertarians and use the word as an epithet. By their actions their preference for Democrats over Libertarians is palpable. These are your hoo-rah Eagle Bacon flag-waving "conservative" evangelical "Christian" types. They hate us with a passion and will stay home before they vote Libertarian.

[LibertyEagle]

The only argument I've heard as to why Ted Cruz is supposedly worse than Donald Trump is that Cruz received sacks of the Gold man's money. (Goldman Sachs money). So? Rand Paul received Peter Thiel money and Thiel is a member of the Bilderberg Group and they're just as bad as Gold man's sacks. I don't like Cruz being such a freaking Israel firster though. (Forgot about his asshattery of trying to tell Middle East Christians that if they didn't "stand with Israel" he couldn't "stand with them." Ugggghh!)

I may not vote.

That, and he was a very strong advocate of TPA/TPP. Which fits nicely with his wife being on the CFR task force to build a North American Union.

[seapilot]

I see no possible “solution” for what's happened.
But what are some possible outcomes that we could be ready to respond to?

My most optimistic thoughts:


1) If - at the convention, the RNC treats Trump and his delegates, the same way they treated Ron Paul and his delegates in 2012 - the media will have a much harder time hiding it from the public. I don’t see any replacement Republican (Rubio, Ryan) being accepted by Trump’s supporters and it’s not hard to imagine something close to a riot occurring at the convention. Less concerned than RP delegates with following rules, or trying to be reasonable, they may tear the place apart! The RNC will be utterly exposed, destroyed, and out of the presidential election business. Trump may be left without a party.

The Libertarian party would be ripe to pick up the pieces. They are the only ones that will be on the ballot in every state. It’s too late for an Independent to get on. Where else could any voter go if they consider themselves even just a little conservative, or pro-freedom, or anti-PC culture, anti-interventionist, pro-free-market, etc?

2) If Trump were to actually win, the (mostly) duopoly-approved members of the Senate and the House would both HATE him so much, they would finally begin to take back their power from the executive branch. They’d fight him on everything and would suddenly lose their fear of threatening a president with impeachment - might even try it.

Too much of a stretch?

(Personally, I will be voting for Rand Paul in the primary and most likely the Libertarian in the general.)

Number 2 would be a positive outcome and is realistic. Obama and Republican did not come to agreement and shut down govt a few times. It would get 10 times worse with Trump, both trying to make the other look bad. They might override his power and pass budgets without him. Then Trump would use every alphabet agency to get even with congress. Power struggles get messy.

[wmmonk]

Took the wind right out of our sails, didn't it?

It didn't take the wind "right out of our sails". It just redirected us!
We didn't see it at the time, but we should have jumped directly to Vermin Supreme.
We knew in 2012 (and 2008) he would be running again in 2016. He has been running for President since 1992.
The media hates him. The establishment hates him. Proof?

How many Americans know who Vermin Supreme is, and what his stands for?
EXACTLY! He is ignored, or called crazy at best (probably) when he is talked about.
They make fun of what he wears, not what he says. Because he IS the candidate of THE FUTURE!

Sure, there were some around these parts apparently saying this strategy Rand attempted wouldn't work, and it was a mistake. BUT GUESS WHAT, THOSE PEOPLE WERE RUN OFF! THEY WERE "THROWN IN THE CLOSET"!

When they said and showed how Rand's strategy and game playing wouldn't work, they were told to SHUT UP!

AND GUESS WHAT!? RIGHTLY SOOOO!
Those people weren't VOTING HARD ENOUGH! They weren't DONATING HARD ENOUGH! They weren't VOLUNTEERING HARD ENOUGH!
Had just 1% of those people been voting, donating, and volunteering for Vermin Supreme, he probably could have taken New Hampshire.

But, what did we get? Hillary? Trump?

When the wind was taken out of our sails, you know what we should have done and could have done? LAUNCHED A BLIMP!
BLIMPS travel better in light/no wind, and this is what we missed!

[Dr.3D]

That, and he was a very strong advocate of TPA/TPP. Which fits nicely with his wife being on the CFR task force to build a North American Union.
Strange how people seem to neglect that part of the equation.

[erowe1]

As members of RPF, loving liberty and wishing to pursue the proper course of action to achieve more liberty, what are our choices in this presidential election?

With the current list of candidates, what is the best case scenario we can hope for?

I see a lot of argumentation about one certain candidate. I'm not even going to say his name, but I do want some input here.

What outcome from this mess should be our objective?

Who do you want to see nominated in the primary?

I suppose one option is that we are supposed to just sit this one out and hope for the best?

I don't think it's possible to predict at this point. I think the best case is whichever president ends up in the most gridlock with Congress, or else the one most likely to prompt radical measures on the parts of states that oppose them and finally having enough and asserting their sovereignty. It's not just about what they stand for but a complex function of countless factors. I honestly think it's best just to sit out the election, and even make a concerted effort to keep voter turnout as low as possible, and focus on other things.

[Danke]

If you don't vote, you have nothing to complain about.

[dude58677]

HOW ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NOMINEE NEEDS MAJORITY OF VOTES IN EACH STATE AND IF NOT IT BECOMES A CONTESTED CONVENTION AND VOTE FOR RAND?

He is STILL on the ballot!

[thoughtomator]

I don't think it's possible to predict at this point. I think the best case is whichever president ends up in the most gridlock with Congress, or else the one most likely to prompt radical measures on the parts of states that oppose them and finally having enough and asserting their sovereignty. It's not just about what they stand for but a complex function of countless factors. I honestly think it's best just to sit out the election, and even make a concerted effort to keep voter turnout as low as possible, and focus on other things.

Congressional gridlock is a myth. GOP Congresses are false opposition to Democrat Presidents, and in the reverse case a GOP President always concedes anything in order to get his war spending.

[HVACTech]

If you don't vote, you have nothing to complain about.

there are other things on the ballot besides the presidential race.

[MelissaWV]

HOW ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NOMINEE NEEDS MAJORITY OF VOTES IN EACH STATE AND IF NOT IT BECOMES A CONTESTED CONVENTION AND VOTE FOR RAND?

He is STILL on the ballot!

That's strange. You should tell that to previous elections.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/20140526005342%21Republican_Party_presidential_pri maries_results%2C_2012.svg

Those are the first place finishes by popular vote in the 2012 GOP primary.

Orange is Romney with 42 states/territories, with Newt in purple at 2 states/territories, and Rick Santorum in green with 11 states/territories, and Ron with one.

Of note is that Mitt didn't win the plurality of delegates in every state, either, though I suppose you could say this proves your point that it leads to a contested convention since there were 3 "first place finishes by convention roll call" for Ron according to the same page.

[Dr.3D]

If you don't vote, you have nothing to complain about.
The biggest complaint I have is that there is seldom anybody on the ballot worth voting for.

[erowe1]

Congressional gridlock is a myth. GOP Congresses are false opposition to Democrat Presidents, and in the reverse case a GOP President always concedes anything in order to get his war spending.

Congressional gridlock has been pretty good to us over the past 5 years.

[Occam's Banana]

[...] The establishment will never work with us, assist us, cooperate with us, play fair with us, or in any other way be anything but the most hardcore of enemies to our cause, even if we throw our own families on the altar as a sacrifice.

This makes them mortal enemies, and relieves us of any moral obligation to give them any quarter. If Hitler were reincarnated and promised to line them up against the wall and shoot every one of them, it would be a strategic imperative for us to vote for him.

It is absolutely necessary to our survival to smash the establishment first and foremost, and let the chips fall where they may. They have assured beyond any doubt and taken every possible measure to insure that there is no other alternative left to us.

That is crazy talk (even if it is just enthusiastic hyperbole), and you wits are badly deranged if you actually believe it.

No Hitlerian figure is ever going to "smash the establishment." Just the opposite, in fact. While a latter-day Hitler (or Mussolini, or Bolshevist, or etc.) might damage or destroy some particular faction(s) within the "establishment," such a figure, if successful, would merely go on to implement establishmentarianism in its fullest and purest (and thus most vicious) expression. That is, after all, exactly what the real HItler (and Mussolini, and Bolshevists, etc.) actually did.

In and of itself, "smashing" the establishment is at best orthogonal to achieving liberty (http://fee.org/articles/hating-the-establishment-is-not-the-same-as-supporting-liberty/) - and the promotion of rabid authoritarianism as an avenue for the achievement of anything resembling liberty is as perfect an example of cognitive dissonance as could be asked for ...

[Occam's Banana]

I don't think it's possible to predict at this point. I think the best case is whichever president ends up in the most gridlock with Congress, or else the one most likely to prompt radical measures on the parts of states that oppose them and finally having enough and asserting their sovereignty. It's not just about what they stand for but a complex function of countless factors. I honestly think it's best just to sit out the election, and even make a concerted effort to keep voter turnout as low as possible, and focus on other things.

This ^^^ - especially the bolded part, right up to and including outright secession.

To paraphrase what I said in another thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?490867-Trump-A-rational-discussion-(and-analysis)&p=6145805&viewfull=1#post6145805), you can't beat the establishment by playing the game under their rules, on a board they control, with pieces they have allowed you to choose (no matter how raucously "anti-establisment" some of those pieces might be). The only alternative to is to stop playing the game, take your marbles, and go home ...

[dude58677]

The GOP adopted new rules saying that the nominee has to have the majority of the votes.



That's strange. You should tell that to previous elections.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/20140526005342%21Republican_Party_presidential_pri maries_results%2C_2012.svg

Those are the first place finishes by popular vote in the 2012 GOP primary.


Orange is Romney with 42 states/territories, with Newt in purple at 2 states/territories, and Rick Santorum in green with 11 states/territories, and Ron with one.

Of note is that Mitt didn't win the plurality of delegates in every state, either, though I suppose you could say this proves your point that it leads to a contested convention since there were 3 "first place finishes by convention roll call" for Ron according to the same page.

[KEEF]

Deez Nutz
This is who I'll be voting for... just as long as he picks Tea Bagenmouth for his running mate.

[dude58677]

The biggest complaint I have is that there is seldom anybody on the ballot worth voting for.

Rand Paul is still on the ballot and I voted for him on absentee. His "dropping out" only means that he will not make an effort personally to campaign. It doesn't take his name off the ballot.

[GunnyFreedom]

The GOP adopted new rules saying that the nominee has to have the majority of the votes.

....from X number of states. I think 8. rMoney is the one who pressed the rule change prior to the last RNC convention. The rule change was 100% compatable with that map, because that map was operating under the rules currently in place.

besides, even if the rules said you had to win a majority of the delegates in every state (which would mean we'd never have had any nominees, but I digress), they would just change the rules within 24 hours prior to the nomination, like they did in 2012.

[enhanced_deficit]

Easy.

Problem:

https://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/14380305205153.gif?w=714&h=507


Solution:

http://insider.foxnews.com/sites/insider.foxnews.com/files/trumpwater.gif

[Dr.3D]

Rand Paul is still on the ballot and I voted for him on absentee. His "dropping out" only means that he will not make an effort personally to campaign. It doesn't take his name off the ballot.
So far, that seems to be the only option I have. His name is on the ballot. I have no excuse. He is worth voting for.

[Dr.3D]

....from X number of states. I think 8. rMoney is the one who pressed the rule change prior to the last RNC convention. The rule change was 100% compatable with that map, because that map was operating under the rules currently in place.

besides, even if the rules said you had to win a majority of the delegates in every state (which would mean we'd never have had any nominees, but I digress), they would just change the rules within 24 hours prior to the nomination, like they did in 2012.
Can't win when the game is rigged. House wins every time.

[HVACTech]

right up to and including outright secession.

The only alternative to is to stop playing the game, take your marbles, and go home ...

this is your advice?

[Dr.3D]

this is your advice?
Yeah, that's the problem, Ron Paul cured my apathy. Am I supposed to have a relapse?

[CPUd]

The GOP adopted new rules saying that the nominee has to have the majority of the votes.

This year so far, no one has gotten the majority in Iowa, NH, SC or NV.

[Occam's Banana]

I don't think it's possible to predict at this point. I think the best case is whichever president ends up in the most gridlock with Congress, or else the one most likely to prompt radical measures on the parts of states that oppose them and finally having enough and asserting their sovereignty. It's not just about what they stand for but a complex function of countless factors. I honestly think it's best just to sit out the election, and even make a concerted effort to keep voter turnout as low as possible, and focus on other things.

This ^^^ - especially the bolded part, right up to and including outright secession.

To paraphrase what I said in another thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?490867-Trump-A-rational-discussion-(and-analysis)&p=6145805&viewfull=1#post6145805), you can't beat the establishment by playing the game under their rules, on a board they control, with pieces they have allowed you to choose (no matter how raucously "anti-establisment" some of those pieces might be). The only alternative to is to stop playing the game, take your marbles, and go home ...

this is your advice?

It's not advice. It's a statement of simple facts. Make of them what you will.

You may even ignore them, if you wish - but they won't stop being facts.


Yeah, that's the problem, Ron Paul cured my apathy. Am I supposed to have a relapse?

I didn't say anything about relapsing into apathy. There are any number of avenues of endeavor (the "other things" to which erowe1 alluded) that might be fruitful - but playing the electoral game under the system's rules is not one of them (especially at the national or presidential level, and especially given that the purpose of those rules is to co-opt, divert or otherwise neutralize any such efforts).

So long as obsessing over "our choices in this [or any other] presidential election" is regarded as "the proper course of action to achieve more liberty" (to use the words from your own OP) - only to become discombobulated when you end up without some POTUS candidate that you can imagine will somehow "fix" things for you from the top down - you'll have achieved nothing but the replacement of your former apathy with present frustration. And I can't think of a better way than that for driving people back into apathy ...

[HVACTech]

It's not advice. It's a statement of simple facts. Make of them what you will.

You may even ignore them, if you wish - but they won't stop being facts.


yay! I got it right! :)

I should take my marbles and go home!

[Dr.3D]

yay! I got it right! :)

I should take my marbles and go home!
Dang it, I didn't know we were paying marbles.

[Suzanimal]

Dang it, I didn't know we were paying marbles.

We? I think HVAC is the only person playing with his marbles.

[Miss Annie]

That, and he was a very strong advocate of TPA/TPP. Which fits nicely with his wife being on the CFR task force to build a North American Union.

And.... he committed voter fraud in Iowa. I guess we have been conditioned to that being the norm now?

[Occam's Banana]

yay! I got it right! :)

I should take my marbles and go home!

*shrug* They're your marbles. Do whatever you want with them.

But taking them and going home (where at least you might have some chance of doing something effective and useful with them) is certainly a better option than giving them to Trump or Clinton or Rubio or Sanders or Bush or Obama or Romney or Gore or Bush (again) or Clinton (again) or Bush (yet again) - or whatever other authoritarian stooge/figurehead that their system is periodically willing to allow you to play with ...

[Dr.3D]

We? I think HVAC is the only person playing with his marbles.
Well, it sort of looks like he took em and left. Hasn't posted since that post.

I was never very good at marbles. If I won, somebody would just beat me up and take all my marbles anyway. (Tough neighborhood.)

[thoughtomator]

We? I think HVAC is the only person playing with his marbles.

I hear that can make a man go blind.






sent from my iBraille keyboard

[Dr.3D]

I hear that can make a man go blind.






sent from my iBraille keyboard

Thought that was indicated by hair on the palms of the hands. I'm already wearing glasses.