PDA

View Full Version : The rise and fall of the libertarians?




brandon
05-14-2016, 10:15 PM
Since the inception of the libertarian party in the 70's they struggled to gain ground or be noticed. They spent about 2 decades getting < 1% in national elections and never being included in the bigger conversations. It seemed Ron Paul was the libertarian break through that changed all of that. In 2008 he brought libertarianism to the main stream. He made the average politco second guess themselves. In 2012 He became a viable candidate for the nomination. The entire nation of political observers were talking about Ron Paul and Libertarianism.

Then he lost, and it all went away. Rand Paul ran for president, but he certainly didn't continue and libertarian legacy.

And today, 8 years after Ron Paul ignited a cultural firestorm, it seems libertarianism is totally dead. Who is there to continue it? What can we do to get back on our feet?

I worry that we are going to have to wait another 30 years for the next libertarian revolution. If that's the case, I'll be ready to do my best in 30 years. But realistically, what else is there for us? What do we have left of our political movement?

spudea
05-14-2016, 10:27 PM
people started listening and supporting Ron Paul because of the financial crisis and the decade of bullshit wars. I imagine it'll have to get really bleak once more for more people to wake up and realize traditional democrats and republicans don't have the solutions and are instead part of the problems.

robert68
05-14-2016, 11:05 PM
Can't fall when you never had power.

heavenlyboy34
05-14-2016, 11:31 PM
Since the inception of the libertarian party in the 70's they struggled to gain ground or be noticed. They spent about 2 decades getting < 1% in national elections and never being included in the bigger conversations. It seemed Ron Paul was the libertarian break through that changed all of that. In 2008 he brought libertarianism to the main stream. He made the average politco second guess themselves. In 2012 He became a viable candidate for the nomination. The entire nation of political observers were talking about Ron Paul and Libertarianism.

Then he lost, and it all went away. Rand Paul ran for president, but he certainly didn't continue and libertarian legacy.

And today, 8 years after Ron Paul ignited a cultural firestorm, it seems libertarianism is totally dead. Who is there to continue it? What can we do to get back on our feet?

I worry that we are going to have to wait another 30 years for the next libertarian revolution. If that's the case, I'll be ready to do my best in 30 years. But realistically, what else is there for us? What do we have left of our political movement?
As long as you look to politics for "liberty salvation", you'll be disappointed. Look to your community and free yourself and loved ones. Freedom will only happen when people abandon the delusion of State authority en masse.

Petar
05-14-2016, 11:34 PM
Trump will probably win and open the Pandora's Box for every manner of alternative candidate.

The Libertarian party has already rode the Trump-Train and doubled their support to a whopping 2%.

acptulsa
05-15-2016, 07:32 AM
people started listening and supporting Ron Paul because of the financial crisis and the decade of bull$#@! wars. I imagine it'll have to get really bleak once more for more people to wake up and realize traditional democrats and republicans don't have the solutions and are instead part of the problems.

Actually, our Blue Republican efforts (which people like Matt Collins spent hours and hours trying to derail) have ensured that the LP is a go-to for millions of anti-war liberals whenever the Democratic Party screws them.

Which is all the time. Including right now.

Of course, it's hard to tell by hanging around here, because the anti-war people lurk one time, see the Trump shills being allowed to run wild...

http://i.giphy.com/12hrEugFLzoZy.gif

...and go away. But LP registrations are way up, even if traffic on this site is way down. So, maybe you're just using the wrong metric to measure libertarian support.

Bryan
05-15-2016, 10:29 AM
Of course, it's hard to tell by hanging around here, because the anti-war people lurk one time, see the Trump shills being allowed to run wild...

...and go away.
If you see someone violating the guidelines then please flag it. As most should know, promoting Trump is not allowed, that doesn't mean we can't cover the election new cycle and do some analysis on it. Otherwise, I have not seen what you claim, Trump is topping the news so people are going to talk about him. Some micro-promotions are removed or locked, some get by, I don't see it causing a big problem.



But LP registrations are way up, even if traffic on this site is way down. So, maybe you're just using the wrong metric to measure libertarian support.
Site traffic has always reflected the presidential race. It is not "way down" from where we were 3 years ago but is down from when Rand was still in the race. From what I've seen the LP registration jumped when Cruz dropped from the race, this is more of an anti-Trump effect then people discovering liberty. In general, I think Brandon is correct, it's not just us here, and it's not just Ron Paul people. Much of the '09 Glenn Beck / tea party crowds are gone too.

If the LP is doing something golden to make registration go way up, what is it? Was it a new marketing campaign? Are people bring brought in by the candidates? I'd be interested to hear you analysis.

Thanks.

acptulsa
05-15-2016, 10:51 AM
The Blue Republican initiative was a seed we planted. If that seed is having a growth spurt, it's because the Democratic Party is fertilizing it...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?495378-Chaos-At-Nevada-Democratic-Convention-DNC-Leaders-Flee-Building

The Sanders camp is painted as being the most die-hard of the nation's socialists. But I don't see it. I believe they are mostly anti-war, and the reason I think that is because Clinton is as socialist as anyone you can name, but a large percentage of these people don't seem to view her as an adequate substitute.

If we are anti-war too, then we and they are natural allies. If not, then Trump might be an adequate substitute for us, provided we think more of being xenophobes than of being free.

The plan is working for them, for the most part, but at this point Clinton's coronation can only be guaranteed if the population is afraid of 'throwing their votes away' on a third party. If not, then all of the people who are sick of being bled dry to support imperialistic wars can unite their protest votes and turn them into a force to be reckoned with, and suddenly this presidential race will be wide open.

Which is why we are seeing 'Losertarians' spammed with a vengeance.

The antiwar crowd will go wherever they smell a chance of success. The media has had a good time painting the Sanders crowd as enthusiastic commies, but the anti-war crowd did just as good a job of enlarging Ron Paul's rallies and infecting them with enthusiasm. So the portrait the mainstream propaganda machine is painting of them is not necessarily accurate. Yes, there are die-hard socialists at Sanders rallies just as there were die-hard libertarians at Ron Paul rallies. But who was fattening both crowds up?

We made a marriage of convenience with them before, and we can do it again. But we won't be having that discussion with them somewhere where they and we have to wade through xenophobic spam to be heard.

Ronin Truth
05-15-2016, 10:59 AM
The Libertarian Party (LP) (so called) is just another frickin' oxymoron and always has only been. :p

RJ Liberty
05-15-2016, 11:14 AM
The Sanders camp is painted as being the most die-hard of the nation's socialists. But I don't see it. I believe they are mostly anti-war, and the reason I think that is because Clinton is as socialist as anyone you can name, but a large percentage of these people don't seem to view her as an adequate substitute.

If we are anti-war too, then we and they are natural allies. If not, then Trump might be an adequate substitute for us, provided we think more of being xenophobes than of being free.

The plan is working for them, for the most part, but at this point Clinton's coronation can only be guaranteed if the population is afraid of 'throwing their votes away' on a third party. If not, then all of the people who are sick of being bled dry to support imperialistic wars can unite their protest votes and turn them into a force to be reckoned with, and suddenly this presidential race will be wide open.

Which is why we are seeing 'Losertarians' spammed with a vengeance.

The antiwar crowd will go wherever they smell a chance of success. The media has had a good time painting the Sanders crowd as enthusiastic commies, but the anti-war crowd did just as good a job of enlarging Ron Paul's rallies and infecting them with enthusiasm. So the portrait the mainstream propaganda machine is painting of them is not necessarily accurate. Yes, there are die-hard socialists at Sanders rallies just as there were die-hard libertarians at Ron Paul rallies. But who was fattening both crowds up?

We made a marriage of convenience with them before, and we can do it again. But we won't be having that discussion with them somewhere where they and we have to wade through xenophobic spam to be heard.

Good post. I agree that a huge chunk of Sanders people could be converted to the liberty movement, especially once it becomes crystal clear to them that the DNC nomination is entirely rigged. The DNC establishment stunt last night has helped clarify that to a good portion of Bernie folks in Nevada.

The question becomes: where will the Sanders people go? Unfortunately, it won't be here. This forum, as you correctly mention, has become Trump Central, with Trump being promoted over liberty candidates. (Just look at the most recent presidential poll on this forum, if you don't believe me).

Nor would Sanders people really be welcome here, I think. A certain portion of this forum has painted all the Sanders people as communist freeloaders; there's been no real discussion of the Sanders policies that closely align with the liberty movement: closing for-profit prisons, demilitarizing police forces, reining in the NSA, etc. Sanders has millions of supporters, and some of them could easily be converted to liberty voters. Unfortunately, that will never happen here.

Bryan
05-15-2016, 11:21 AM
We made a marriage of convenience with them before, and we can do it again. But we won't be having that discussion with them somewhere where they and we have to wade through xenophobic spam to be heard.

Xenophobic viewpoints are the antithesis of our values, if you see any such posts report them. That said, certainly not all Trump supporters are xenophobic.


Community Values
As a community:

* We value a plethora of viewpoints. All are welcomed except those based on negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than as individuals. Sexism, racism and anti-semitism are the antithesis of our values.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989

acptulsa
05-15-2016, 11:26 AM
Good post. I agree that a huge chunk of Sanders people could be converted to the liberty movement, especially once it becomes crystal clear to them that the DNC nomination is entirely rigged. The DNC establishment stunt last night has helped clarify that to a good portion of Bernie folks in Nevada.

The question becomes: where will the Sanders people go? Unfortunately, it won't be here. This forum, as you correctly mention, has become Trump Central, with Trump being promoted over liberty candidates. (Just look at the most recent presidential poll on this forum, if you don't believe me).

Nor would Sanders people really be welcome here, I think. A certain portion of this forum has painted all the Sanders people as communist freeloaders; there's been no real discussion of the Sanders policies that closely align with the liberty movement: closing for-profit prisons, demilitarizing police forces, reining in the NSA, etc. Sanders has millions of supporters, and some of them could easily be converted to liberty voters. Unfortunately, that will never happen here.

I'm beginning to fear you're right. This place has become anything but a 'safe zone' for them. And it has mostly been done by the very sort of people who are the first to accuse others of driving people away.

It's a shame, because this is the place where anti-war people of every stripe were once able to mingle in, if not peace, at least in an atmosphere of sufficient tolerance that things could be accomplished. But if half this site is people spamming Trump, and screaming 'Losertarians!' and bleating about how independent parties are nothing but the places Wasted Votes accumulate, they will take one look and go someplace useful.

Bryan
05-15-2016, 11:50 AM
The question becomes: where will the Sanders people go? Unfortunately, it won't be here. This forum, as you correctly mention, has become Trump Central, with Trump being promoted over liberty candidates. (Just look at the most recent presidential poll on this forum, if you don't believe me).

Some people are voting for him, but in no case is he bring promoted in any non-micro way beyond being talked about, there are no "Vote for Trump", "Donate to Trump" threads. There is value in what is allowed as it educates Trump supporters on the problems of what his campaign is about. We don't shy away from reality. The referenced poll is just on voting, it doesn't have anything to do with promoting.


Nor would Sanders people really be welcome here, I think.
Sanders supporters are certainly welcome here just like anyone else. They just must follow the guidelines which includes not promoting agendas that counter our Mission, which would include the Sanders campaign. That doesn't mean that they can't talk about the things the like about Sanders, just like Trump, this is useful dialog that leads to education.



A certain portion of this forum has painted all the Sanders people as communist freeloaders;
I concur this is a bit of a problem. I am open to suggestions on solutions.



there's been no real discussion of the Sanders policies that closely align with the liberty movement: closing for-profit prisons, demilitarizing police forces, reining in the NSA, etc.
Everyone is welcome to start topics.



Sanders has millions of supporters, and some of them could easily be converted to liberty voters.
If this is easily done could you cite some cases of it? The challenge of any movement to get the right information to the right people at the right time. What information can be used to convert the Sanders supporters to liberty? How is it being done? Is anyone doing this on twitter, fb, etc?




Unfortunately, that will never happen here.
How do you know what the future holds? As part of moving the site into a new era, this is one thing we aim to do. That said, from my unscientific observation, forums aren't the best vehicles to convert people, it's a series of well done writing and/or videos, tailored on the persons learning style, world view and more. Those are bigger parts of our goal:


A key outcome of this effort is to develop the tools to help people think and live better. This point is fundamental to our new vision.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?494373-A-new-site-vision-a-new-era


General note- I certainly appreciate functional criticism of the site, but normally it's only helpful if it is specific.

Thanks.

RJ Liberty
05-15-2016, 12:00 PM
I'm beginning to fear you're right. This place has become anything but a 'safe zone' for them. And it has mostly been done by the very sort of people who are the first to accuse others of driving people away.

It's a shame, because this is the place where anti-war people of every stripe were once able to mingle in, if not peace, at least in an atmosphere of sufficient tolerance that things could be accomplished. But if half this site is people spamming Trump, and screaming 'Losertarians!' and bleating about how independent parties are nothing but the places Wasted Votes accumulate, they will take one look and go someplace useful.

I agree, especially about the "Losertarian" business. It's posts like this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?492990-Never-Have-We-Had-a-Better-Crop-of-Lemons&p=6182373&viewfull=1#post6182373) that made me realize there is a definite push on RPF to keep RPF-goers voting for the Republican candidate, even if that candidate represents the complete opposite of anything the Pauls believe in. We already know Ron Paul isn't voting for Trump. So we, as Ron Paul supporters, know we cannot support Trump, and must vote for a third party candidate. Then someone comes along, scoffing about "Losertarians", shilling for Trump, in nearly every political thread. The "Losertarian" comments, for me, are an instant red flag: this person is shilling for the GOP.

Ronin Truth
05-15-2016, 12:03 PM
Xenophobic viewpoints are the antithesis of our values, if you see any such posts report them. That said, certainly not all Trump supporters are xenophobic.


Community Values
As a community:

* We value a plethora of viewpoints. All are welcomed except those based on negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than as individuals. Sexism, racism and anti-semitism are the antithesis of our values.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989

Certainly no collectivist mindsets and group memberships in "community values". Ahem!

acptulsa
05-15-2016, 12:04 PM
How do you know what the future holds? As part of moving the site into a new era, this is one thing we aim to do. That said, from my unscientific observation, forums aren't the best vehicles to convert people, it's a series of well done writing and/or videos, tailored on the persons learning style, world view and more.

This forum was once a hotbed of just that sort of activity.

Why don't I let one of the people I'm talking about--one of the very people Petar is insisting is a myth and Smitty is insisting has joined the alt-right--speak for herself?



And therein lies the problem with the liberty "movement".

I came on this forum years ago as a leftist to learn what I could about this guy, Ron Paul, who was talking about the Federal Reserve and wanted to end the wars. The more I learned the more zealous I became. Ron was the total package. I tainted myself by getting involved with the GOP to get Republicans to support Ron. I threw a frickin tea party to spread the word about Ron and educate people about the Federal Reserve, co-operative banking, the 10th Amendment... I personally converted more people than I can count. ON ISSUES. WITH PEOPLE. WHO VOTED.

I don't even care if you vote. More will change based on SCOTUS than with whoever is elected. However, I do believe that by turning their noses away from "socialists" and "leftists" the "liberty movement" is wasting an opportunity to share the non-aggression principle with the voters most likely to embrace it.

Bryan
05-15-2016, 12:15 PM
I'm beginning to fear you're right. This place has become anything but a 'safe zone' for them.
Can you please cite for me amply cases of where Trump is being promoted such that this is a safe zone? Just as important, have these posts been reported and not acted upon?



And it has mostly been done by the very sort of people who are the first to accuse others of driving people away.
The accusations are against the guidelines, they should be reported.


2) Treat others with respect.

Do not make accusations, declarations on others' character, question their motives, be judgmental, assign them to a group or make any other negative personal commentary of members.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989



But if half this site is people spamming Trump,
Please define "spamming"; because the certainly aren't openly promoting. Again, yes, there are some micro-promotions being done and some is allowed if there is a larger educational value to the topic.



and screaming 'Losertarians!'
People have been using that here sine 2007, it's nothing new. Do you think we should ban that? Filter it out? Ban anyone who says something bad about the LP? What do you suggest as a solution. I agree I am not a fan of such name calling of groups but it has been allowed since day one. There has been some consideration to end it, but that has problems too because then we have to come up with lists of "approved" name and "not approved" name. None-the-less, this goes against our Community Values:



Community Values
As a community:

* We value an understanding that name-calling of any person or group proves nothing and has no worthy intellectual foundation.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989


and bleating about how independent parties are nothing but the places Wasted Votes accumulate, they will take one look and go someplace useful.
You'll get those arguments everywhere, but they are not allowed in our Liberty Campaigns forums, flag them if you seem them. From the guidelines:


6) Do not disrupt Mission-supporting activism efforts.

The following elements are off-topic within these forums:
* Attempts to undermine the political party of the individual / campaign.



From what I can see, the guidelines are all in place to provide a functional framework. The staff is responding to every report as timely as possible. People are being education on the guidelines when they break them, and if they keep repeating they will be banned. The staff just can't read every post so members flagging guideline violations plays an important role.

Thanks.

Bryan
05-15-2016, 12:18 PM
Certainly no collectivist mindsets and group memberships in "community values". Ahem!
I'm not following your point, could you explain?

Thanks.

RJ Liberty
05-15-2016, 12:18 PM
Since the inception of the libertarian party in the 70's they struggled to gain ground or be noticed. They spent about 2 decades getting < 1% in national elections and never being included in the bigger conversations. It seemed Ron Paul was the libertarian break through that changed all of that. In 2008 he brought libertarianism to the main stream. He made the average politco second guess themselves. In 2012 He became a viable candidate for the nomination. The entire nation of political observers were talking about Ron Paul and Libertarianism.

Then he lost, and it all went away. Rand Paul ran for president, but he certainly didn't continue and libertarian legacy.

And today, 8 years after Ron Paul ignited a cultural firestorm, it seems libertarianism is totally dead.

I wouldn't count libertarianism dead just yet. Libertarian Party registrations have doubled (http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/05/04/bye-gop-libertarian-party-registrations-double-mass-exodus-trump-win/) as many are leaving the GOP after Trump's GOP victories. "Bye Bye, GOP!" is becoming a phrase as Gallup Polls indicate 27% of voters consider themselves libertarians. (http://truthinmedia.com/libertarian-party-registrations-rising/)

Bryan
05-15-2016, 12:32 PM
This forum was once a hotbed of just that sort of activity.
Yes, the question is why was there that energy? From my view, people were energized with the Ron Paul campaigns, seeing Ron on the debates, getting caught up with new friends in meet-ups, seeing the possibility of real change. IMO, right now, we lack a beacon (a game changer in the presidential race), and we lack the opportunity for immediate change. There is no urgency, so other things take a priority. This is seen all over. How many Ron Paul meet-ups started in 2007/2008 are still going?



Why don't I let one of the people I'm talking about--one of the very people Petar is insisting is a myth and Smitty is insisting has joined the alt-right--speak for herself?
IMO, forums can provide the fuel for someone to go the distance to change. People can be there to answer the every question about their changing world view; but forums don't make good beacons on their own. That was my original point. Ron Paul was the beacon for LLS, we helped provide the fuel.

So my statement of "forums aren't the best vehicles to convert people, it's a series of well done writing and/or videos, tailored on the persons learning style, world view and more. " - should also include a spokesman with the right bully pulpit. Perhaps history has shown such leaders are actually the most effective, but as we lack one, where do we turn?

Bryan
05-15-2016, 12:35 PM
I wouldn't count libertarianism dead just yet. Libertarian Party registrations have doubled (http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/05/04/bye-gop-libertarian-party-registrations-double-mass-exodus-trump-win/) as many are leaving the GOP after Trump's GOP victories. "Bye Bye, GOP!" is becoming a phrase as Gallup Polls indicate 27% of voters consider themselves libertarians. (http://truthinmedia.com/libertarian-party-registrations-rising/)

Right, so I think part of the lesson is to work to position yourself and wait for the right conditions to leverage. There wasn't anything great or magical that the LP just did. When you consider it, Ron Paul did the same thing, he positioned himself for 20 years and then things just went crazy with the right conditions.

acptulsa
05-15-2016, 12:52 PM
Can you please cite for me amply cases of where Trump is being promoted such that this is a safe zone?

The staff just can't read every post so members flagging guideline violations plays an important role.

Thanks.

Here we have someone fresh off of a temporary ban, and who came back with a vengeance, as you yourself admitted.


A nationalist certainly can be an imperialist, but it takes a globalist to conspire to destroy ones own nation.

Who do you honestly believe is more keen to start endless wars?

Now, everyone knows that Hitler was no globalist, beyond his desire to take the globe from the globalists. Yet he started a war that didn't end in his lifetime, and destroyed his own nation with it. And every schoolchild knows it.

There's no reason for a libertarian to rewrite history in this manner. But it certainly does qualify as a sales pitch for Trump, doesn't it?


Donald Trump, who wants to find an efficient, low-cost way to take the oil, or Hillary Clinton, who wants to continue endless wars for the purpose of sinking the USA into as much debt as possible so that the nation can be swallowed up by its international debtors?

Let's imagine for a moment that LLS is considering rejoining us, and is lurking at this very moment. Is the admission that Trump is trying to steal the world's oil, combined with a contention that he's trying to do it as efficiently as possible, going to entice her to log in and join the conversation?


Sanders supporters absolutely are stupid (insomuch as the truly believe in socialism) but that does not mean that even they might not be able to tell that Donald Trump is simply a lot less evil than Clinton.

Painting with a broad brush (is a Sanders supporter not capable of deciding that socialism is bad, but war is worse?), insulting potential supporters, and nakedly promoting Trump (and not using any provable facts to do it).


And not a single voter anywhere who is going after Clinton with a vengeance is going to sabotage themselves by voting for any third party that can only really hurt Donald Trump.

Since when is it a given that the antiwar faction is afraid of 'third' parties, and what is there about Mr. Conquer the Middle East and Take Their Oil is going to attract the antiwar faction?

Our best hope to form a winning coalition, and your best hope of restoring traffic to this place, lies in forming coalitions, and the antiwar group is about as big and active a group as any of us could ever hope to coalesce with. Would it not be wise to make this place attractive to them, now that their horse is about to be eliminated from the race?

Trump people have about a hundred echo chambers they can hang out in. Those who are here, therefore, are pretty likely to have an agenda. And a coalition for liberty is not it.

Ronin Truth
05-15-2016, 12:58 PM
I'm not following your point, could you explain?

Thanks.


Community Values
As a community:

* We value a plethora of viewpoints. All are welcomed except those based on negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than as individuals. Sexism, racism and anti-semitism are the antithesis of our values.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989)

Seems more than pretty obvious to me. Is "community" NOT a collectivist mindset with human group membership?

Shall we tackle authoritarian Internet forums based on liberty, next?

LibertyEagle
05-15-2016, 01:07 PM
I agree, especially about the "Losertarian" business. It's posts like this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?492990-Never-Have-We-Had-a-Better-Crop-of-Lemons&p=6182373&viewfull=1#post6182373) that made me realize there is a definite push on RPF to keep RPF-goers voting for the Republican candidate, even if that candidate represents the complete opposite of anything the Pauls believe in. We already know Ron Paul isn't voting for Trump. So we, as Ron Paul supporters, know we cannot support Trump, and must vote for a third party candidate. Then someone comes along, scoffing about "Losertarians", shilling for Trump, in nearly every political thread. The "Losertarian" comments, for me, are an instant red flag: this person is shilling for the GOP.

1. Issue 1: This site isn't a libertarian site, as some wish to tell others so often. From my understanding it is for anyone and everyone who will respect the guidelines and the mission.

2. Issue 2: He's darn good, but Ron Paul is not a god. Just because RP is doing or not doing something, doesn't mean we all have to walk lockstep.

3. Issue 3: Again, this site is not limited to Libertarians or libertarians. You criticize with one breath, someone saying Losertarian, but with the other, call someone who supports Trump to be "shilling" for both Trump and the GOP. I have seen all kinds of names being used on this forum to describe Ron and Rand supporters, who, after Rand dropped out, decided to support Trump; Trumpsters, Trumptards, Trumpaloopas and worse. They have been called idiots, stupid, etc. And it has been constant.... But, someone who brow-beat forum members for daring to mention that their 2nd choice was Trump, is now advocating for all Rand supporters to vote Libertarian is not described as "shilling"? If not, why the double standard?

Petar
05-15-2016, 01:10 PM
Here we have someone fresh off of a temporary ban, and who came back with a vengeance, as you yourself admitted.

Now, everyone knows that Hitler was no globalist, beyond his desire to take the globe from the globalists. Yet he started a war that didn't end in his lifetime, and destroyed his own nation with it. And every schoolchild knows it.

There's no reason for a libertarian to rewrite history in this manner. But it certainly does qualify as a sales pitch for Trump, doesn't it?

Let's imagine for a moment that LLS is considering rejoining us, and is lurking at this very moment. Is the admission that Trump is trying to steal the world's oil, combined with a contention that he's trying to do it as efficiently as possible, going to entice her to log in and join the conversation?

Painting with a broad brush (is a Sanders supporter not capable of deciding that socialism is bad, but war is worse?), insulting potential supporters, and nakedly promoting Trump (and not using any provable facts to do it).

Since when is it a given that the antiwar faction is afraid of 'third' parties, and what is there about Mr. Conquer the Middle East and Take Their Oil is going to attract the antiwar faction?

Our best hope to form a winning coalition, and your best hope of restoring traffic to this place, lies in forming coalitions, and the antiwar group is about as big and active a group as any of us could ever hope to coalesce with. Would it not be wise to make this place attractive to them, now that their horse is about to be eliminated from the race?

Trump people have about a hundred echo chambers they can hang out in. Those who are here, therefore, are pretty likely to have an agenda. And a coalition for liberty is not it.

Hitler was a globalist tool.

He destroyed Germany in order to further the agenda of the Rothschild's - and every other inbred family of weirdo aristocrats that control the world behind the scenes.

Nouveau riche Trump is nowhere near so controlled, and if the only choice is between a crass billionaire mercantilist, and just another standard, globalist stooge, then the choice should be clear.

Donald Trump's likely victory is going to open the Pandora's Box for every manner of alternative candidate anyway.

Rather ironic that you seem to want to murder that baby while it's still in the cradle.

jct74
05-15-2016, 01:17 PM
people started listening and supporting Ron Paul because of the financial crisis and the decade of bullshit wars. I imagine it'll have to get really bleak once more for more people to wake up and realize traditional democrats and republicans don't have the solutions and are instead part of the problems.

There is some truth to this. Ron Paul came along at a time when a lot of the issues he had been preaching about for 30 years were coming to the forefront..... but now the situation is somewhat different. Inflation is significantly lower than it was 8 years ago, the dollar is stronger, and another financial crisis has yet to occur. Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is much reduced and we haven't gotten into another major war. Also huge progress has been made on the drug war which is an issue that brought a lot of people into the libertarian movement and Ron's campaign (such as myself). I think these things significantly bolstered the support for both of Ron's presidential campaigns, and have worked to take some of the steam out of the movement since. On the bright side, the fact that we haven't gotten into another major war and that great progress has been made on the drug war are positive developments. And the liberty movement has no doubt had an influence in making that happen. Of course there are many ways in which we are worse off than in 2008, but I think the stuff mentioned above drew a lot of people to Ron Paul and the liberty movement... especially liberals... and now that dynamic is much less in play. That is at least part of the story of what is going on.

RJ Liberty
05-15-2016, 01:32 PM
1. Issue 1: This site isn't a libertarian site, as some wish to tell others so often. From my understanding it is for anyone and everyone who will respect the guidelines and the mission.

Please explain, LE, how supporting a non-liberty candidate is supporting the forum's mission to provide a forum for those who seek individual liberty.



2. Issue 2: He's darn good, but Ron Paul is not a god. Just because RP is doing or not doing something, doesn't mean we all have to walk lockstep.

So you would ignore Ron Paul's advice not to support Trump? Well, that's ridiculous.



3. Issue 3: Again, this site is not limited to Libertarians or libertarians. You criticize with one breath, someone saying Losertarian

Yes, I do: it's a red flag for me, and it indicates to me that someone wants to denigrate the LP as much as possible. Which, of course, makes me wonder why. Rand Paul isn't in the race anymore, so there are no libertarian-leaning candidates running in the GOP presidential race. Why would libertarian-leaning forum-goers, or even conservative forum-goers want me (or anyone else on these forums) to vote for Donald Trump, who has no liberty values, and who has no conservative values he won't sell out? And why, for that matter, would anyone on RPF repeatedly argue against voting for candidates espousing actual liberty positions?

LibertyEagle
05-15-2016, 01:34 PM
Here we have someone fresh off of a temporary ban, and who came back with a vengeance, as you yourself admitted.
Petar is honest and sometimes blunt. You yourself are quite blunt. He doesn't promote open borders or globalism, which is not in vogue with some here these days.


Now, everyone knows that Hitler was no globalist, beyond his desire to take the globe from the globalists. Yet he started a war that didn't end in his lifetime, and destroyed his own nation with it. And every schoolchild knows it.

By bringing up Hitler, you seem to be attempting to equate anyone who believes in putting their own country first as like Hitler. Do you really believe that? Putting your own country first used to be called being an American.


There's no reason for a libertarian to rewrite history in this manner. But it certainly does qualify as a sales pitch for Trump, doesn't it?
If you are saying that globalists and their useful idiots left a door wide open for an American who actually put America first to walk though, I would say, ABSOLUTELY! Imagine that.


Let's imagine for a moment that LLS is considering rejoining us, and is lurking at this very moment. Is the admission that Trump is trying to steal the world's oil, combined with a contention that he's trying to do it as efficiently as possible, going to entice her to log in and join the conversation?
Possibly not. But, imagine if the many who left this site when it took an observable swing leftward, in addition to other Americans who love their country, might think if they see other people who aren't trying to run what is left of their nation in the dirt and spit on it.


Painting with a broad brush (is a Sanders supporter not capable of deciding that socialism is bad, but war is worse?), insulting potential supporters, and nakedly promoting Trump (and not using any provable facts to do it).
You mean like all the names that Ron and Rand supporters have been called, after they said they were going to vote for Trump, after Rand dropped out? Like that?


(and not using any provable facts to do it)
Many provable facts have been posted, but they are ignored and the libel is continued.


Since when is it a given that the antiwar faction is afraid of 'third' parties, and what is there about Mr. Conquer the Middle East and Take Their Oil is going to attract the antiwar faction?
I haven't seen anyone say that. But, you do realize that the "antiwar" faction is but one small sliver of what was the Ron Paul movement, right? In fact, just the term alone sends shivers up the spine of most traditional conservatives, because the people using it were leftist pacifists back in the day.


Our best hope to form a winning coalition, and your best hope of restoring traffic to this place, lies in forming coalitions, and the antiwar group is about as big and active a group as any of us could ever hope to coalesce with. Would it not be wise to make this place attractive to them, now that their horse is about to be eliminated from the race?
You want this place to be limited to libertarians. Just be honest about it.


Trump people have about a hundred echo chambers they can hang out in.
And here you are suggesting Ron and Rand supporters, who, after Rand dropped out have chosen to vote for Trump, should get the hell out. How quaint. Maybe you should start your own forum.


Those who are here, therefore, are pretty likely to have an agenda.
Yes, and that agenda is the same as it always has been. Attempting to save my nation from total destruction and my liberty with it. But, I will admit, that it's rather frustrating to run into some here who claim to be such liberty-supporters, yet promoting the same agenda as the globalists who are trying to destroy us.


And a coalition for liberty is not it.
Sure it is. But, it doesn't include the destruction of the nation, which some here apparently believe is a necessity for their version of "liberty".

LibertyEagle
05-15-2016, 01:48 PM
Please explain, LE, how supporting a non-liberty candidate is supporting the forum's mission to provide a forum for those who seek individual liberty.
He is in several regards, in my opinion and not on a whole lot of others. Have you listened to his foreign policy speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW8RqLN3Qao

Given where our country is right now in the big scheme of things, I am concerned we won't have a country at all, if at least a screwdriver is put in the globalists' spokes. I think Trump will try to do that. Again, listen to the video.


So you would ignore Ron Paul's advice not to support Trump? Well, that's ridiculous.
Absolutely. I think he is very wrong on this.


Yes, I do: it's a red flag for me, and it indicates to me that someone wants to denigrate the LP as much as possible. Which, of course, makes me wonder why. Rand Paul isn't in the race anymore, so there are no libertarian-leaning candidates running in the GOP presidential race. Why would libertarian-leaning forum-goers, or even conservative forum-goers want me (or anyone else on these forums) to vote for Donald Trump, who has no liberty values, and who has no conservative values he won't sell out? And why, for that matter, would anyone on RPF repeatedly argue against voting for candidates espousing actual liberty positions?
Which LP candidate would that be? Gary Johnson stinks. He made an ass of himself on his foreign policy last time he ran. Isn't he also pro-abortion? It's not my number one issue, considering the state of our country right now, but if you are holding him out as a liberty candidate, you need to go back to the drawing board.

Trump is far from perfect and yes, he may be full of hot air. We always run that risk with most any candidate, with exception of Ron. Listen to Trump's foreign policy speech. Maybe you will start to understand then. Beyond that, I'm trying my best not to promote Trump, per Bryan's wishes.

acptulsa
05-15-2016, 01:49 PM
I haven't seen anyone say that. But, you do realize that the "antiwar" faction is but one small sliver of what was the Ron Paul movement, right? In fact, just the term alone sends shivers up the spine of most traditional conservatives, because the people using it were leftist pacifists back in the day.

Sure it is. But, it doesn't include the destruction of the nation, which some here apparently believe is a necessity for their version of "liberty".

And you have actively driven off anyone you consider a leftist, back in the day and to this very day. Yet they are active, they vote, they are concerned about civil liberties, and they have demonstrated a willingness to be open and work with us.

Either this site is a place where the disaffected can be brought together and rallied in the cause of liberty, or this is Trump Echo Chamber #284. It is unlikely to be both. You whine about globalism, but being fooled into giving up our liberties for security and putting American Imperialism before Global Imperialism is to go down the exact same road, but with blinders on. Eventually, it will lead us to the same place.

Trump is not Monroe, and his 'better deals' are not alliances that will not entangle us. Even if he is what you say he is, the place he will leave us after eight years (assuming he can win at all, which is also highly doubtful) is just the place the globalists want us--about three baby steps away from the New World Order. And that's your best case scenario.

I'll take my chances with the leftists, provided they're principled. Thanks anyway. Any leftist who supports the Libertarian Party is not promoting globalism, because what they are supporting is more localized control, which obviously moves a nation farther from the New World Order, not closer.

LibertyEagle
05-15-2016, 01:53 PM
And you have actively driven off anyone you consider a leftist, back in the day and to this very day.
That's not true. I never drove you off.


Yet they are active, they vote, they are concerned about civil liberties, and they have demonstrated a willingness to be open and work with us.

Either this site is a place where the disaffected can be brought together and rallied in the cause of liberty, or this is Trump Echo Chamber #284. It is unlikely to be both. You whine about globalism, but being fooled into giving up our liberties for security and putting American Imperialism before Global Imperialism is to go down the exact same road, but with blinders on. Eventually, it will lead us to the same place.

Trump is not Monroe, and his 'better deals' are not alliances that will not entangle us. Even if he is what you say he is, the place he will leave us after eight years (assuming he can win at all, which is also highly doubtful) is just the place the globalists want us--about three baby steps away from the New World Order. And that's your best case scenario.

I'll take my chances with the leftists, provided they're principled. Thanks anyway. Any leftist who supports the Libertarian Party is not promoting globalism, because what they are supporting is more localized control, which obviously moves a nation farther from the New World Order, not closer.
Of course you will.

acptulsa
05-15-2016, 02:06 PM
That's not true. I never drove you off.

But we do keep trying, don't we.


Of course you will.

Of course I will. I have no irrational fear of the term 'left'. Anyone who is willing to work for local control, and therefore willing to work for a situation where a globalist has to work at integrating fifty states and seven territories, instead of just corrupting Washington to achieve their goal, is an ally that can actually impede globalism.

Someone focused on condensing power in Washington, conquering the Middle East and cutting deals is not.

LibertyEagle
05-15-2016, 02:13 PM
But we do keep trying, don't we.
Apparently not, or you would have been gone long ago. But, I (mod edit) anyone who doesn't hate Trump and is not willing to run around here lying about his positions.


Of course I will. I have no irrational fear of the term 'left'. Anyone who is willing to work for local control, and therefore willing to work for a situation where a globalist has to work at integrating fifty states and seven territories, instead of just corrupting Washington to achieve their goal, is an ally that can actually impede globalism.
Maybe you are the person who can pull the left together to get rid of Agenda 21, locally, and the like. We certainly need people to do that.


...instead of just corrupting Washington to achieve their goal, is an ally that can actually impede globalism. Someone focused on condensing power in Washington, conquering the Middle East and cutting deals is not.
Trump is anti-globalist. You need to watch that video.

RJ Liberty
05-15-2016, 02:13 PM
He is in several regards, in my opinion. Have you listened to his foreign policy speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW8RqLN3Qao

Trump has contradicted himself at every juncture. You cannot take anything he says at face value. This is a man who supported the War in Iraq, and indeed called for an invasion of Iraq, in the media, before it happened. Link (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/). He has called for "boots on the ground" (what he means is US soldiers: humans, not boots) to fight ISIS. Link (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_War_+_Peace.htm). He has called for troops to remain in Afghanistan. Link (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_War_+_Peace.htm). He has called for strengthening our military, already the largest on the planet. He has called for bombing oil fields in Iraq. He has called for stopping Iran's nuclear program "by any means necessary", and has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea. Link (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_War_+_Peace.htm).

How are any of these positions liberty positions? They are pro-war, ultra-war-hawk positions which would/will involve the US in even more overseas military quagmires.




Which LP candidate would that be? Gary Johnson stinks. He made an ass of himself on his foreign policy last time he ran. Isn't he also pro-abortion? It's not my number one issue, considering the state of our country right now, but if you are holding him out as a liberty candidate, you need to go back to the drawing board.

Johnson called for a 43% reduction in military spending. This is exactly what needs to happen. We need to bring our troops home from overseas entanglements. Any of the LP candidates have a better foreign policy than Donald Trump, who of course has two positions on any issue.

acptulsa
05-15-2016, 02:18 PM
Either this is a place where we cower in fear of 'leftists', and promote the GOP, and pat each other on the back and try to reassure each other that Trump might do something for us if we get on our knees and beg him to, or this place is a force for liberty.

Given the fact that we would have to ignore about 75% of the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth to pull the former off...

And just because no one has run me off...


Maybe you should start your own forum.

..is no indication that no one has tried. But it's the sort of rhetoric one expects from someone who wants us to ignore 75% of what their candidate has said over time.

Smitty
05-15-2016, 03:02 PM
,...and as soon as we get the Socialists on board, somebody should give La Raza a call.

Ronin Truth
05-15-2016, 03:13 PM
Either this is a place where we cower in fear of 'leftists', and promote the GOP, and pat each other on the back and try to reassure each other that Trump might do something for us if we get on our knees and beg him to, or this place is a force for liberty.

Given the fact that we would have to ignore about 75% of the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth to pull the former off...

And just because no one has run me off...



..is no indication that no one has tried. But it's the sort of rhetoric one expects from someone who wants us to ignore 75% of what their candidate has said over time.

False dichotomy, neither option is acceptable. How about pure revulsion at their perpetual dishonesty and mega statism?


"By their body counts ye shall know them."

Krugminator2
05-15-2016, 04:03 PM
I was a libertarian before Ron Paul came along. I liked and respected Ron, but I was never hugely excited about what he was doing. 70%-80% of the people supporting Ron were not libertarian in any meaningful way. And the people Ron did encourage to become libertarian didn't necessarily learn the right lessons.

Rand was the best libertarian shot probably ever but his chances were were still low single digits. The excitement for libertarianism was always overstated.

There is value in keeping ideas alive and conversing with like minded people. It doesn't take that many people to shift policy. You could have looked back at many points in the 20th Century and be very pessimistic. But a small number of free market intellectuals changed world history for the better.

LibertyEagle
05-15-2016, 04:52 PM
Either this is a place where we cower in fear of 'leftists', and promote the GOP, and pat each other on the back and try to reassure each other that Trump might do something for us if we get on our knees and beg him to,
No one has asked anyone to get on your knees and beg Trump to do anything at all, or to even like him. You make those statements about the GOP, yet, you have said your goal is to replace the GOP with the LP. Does that mean that you want everyone to pat each other on the back and try to reassure each other that whomever the LP nominates will be the way, the truth and the light?

Seriously, this is whacko bird stuff, Tulsa. Instead of getting so upset that a few Paul supporters are going to vote for Trump, why don't you do your own thing. Promote the LP or whatever. I personally am not going to join with that, because I think it fruitless, but we don't all have to take the same path.


or this place is a force for liberty.
Yes, it's a place for liberty and not just YOUR version of it. You seem to not have a problem with those promoting the illegal alien overrun of our borders, cultural marxism and globalism as a whole, but damn, if you see someone who doesn't hate Trump, all hell breaks loose.


Given the fact that we would have to ignore about 75% of the stuff that comes out of Trump's mouth to pull the former off...
That's interesting, because at least 75% of the Trump griping around here is taking his words out of context. Something that was often done to Ron and we hated it. Yet, some of us are willing to turn around and do it to someone else.


And just because no one has run me off...
:rolleyes: A bit disingenuous, don't you think. Since I said that to you in response for YOU telling Petar to get lost.


..is no indication that no one has tried. But it's the sort of rhetoric one expects from someone who wants us to ignore 75% of what their candidate has said over time.
I don't think anyone gives a rat's damn what you think. People only care if lies are told. Because those who lie show that they are unable to argue against his actual positions. Instead preferring to make shit up, or take his statements completely out of context and post them repeatedly, including in juvenile pictures and cartoons. Even when the complete interview from which said statements were excerpted that proves his actual position is posted, it doesn't stop the libelous ones. No, can't have that.

cajuncocoa
05-15-2016, 05:05 PM
I don't think anyone gives a rat's damn what you think.
This won't come as a shock to you, but I care what @acptulsa (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=12430) thinks. Because I know he's not taking Trump's words out of context as you claim he is (no, it's not at all the same thing that was done to Dr. Paul, unless you're also accusing Ron of doing the same thing, too.)

Rad
05-16-2016, 06:15 AM
Trump has contradicted himself at every juncture. You cannot take anything he says at face value. This is a man who supported the War in Iraq, and indeed called for an invasion of Iraq, in the media, before it happened. Link (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/). He has called for "boots on the ground" (what he means is US soldiers: humans, not boots) to fight ISIS. Link (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_War_+_Peace.htm). He has called for troops to remain in Afghanistan. Link (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_War_+_Peace.htm). He has called for strengthening our military, already the largest on the planet. He has called for bombing oil fields in Iraq. He has called for stopping Iran's nuclear program "by any means necessary", and has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea. Link (http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_War_+_Peace.htm).

How are any of these positions liberty positions? They are pro-war, ultra-war-hawk positions which would/will involve the US in even more overseas military quagmires.




Johnson called for a 43% reduction in military spending. This is exactly what needs to happen. We need to bring our troops home from overseas entanglements. Any of the LP candidates have a better foreign policy than Donald Trump, who of course has two positions on any issue.
People project their wants on Trump and Bernie. There are leftist that see through Bernie: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/

Bernie supports Obama's kill list. I think Ron Paul had a smart message that united everyone. Corporations/banks have the system that protects themselves from capitalism with government help, the country is broke and money is wasted on wars which create more enemies for ourselves, and that we have lost our freedoms. He wanted to start by cutting spending by 1 trillion dollars. I think Victor Gold nails one of the main reasons Ron Paul was popular: https://youtu.be/HYQDwHPSF5A?t=4m47s

Ronin Truth
05-16-2016, 07:44 AM
I was a libertarian before Ron Paul came along. I liked and respected Ron, but I was never hugely excited about what he was doing. 70%-80% of the people supporting Ron were not libertarian in any meaningful way. And the people Ron did encourage to become libertarian didn't necessarily learn the right lessons.

Rand was the best libertarian shot probably ever but his chances were were still low single digits. The excitement for libertarianism was always overstated.

There is value in keeping ideas alive and conversing with like minded people. It doesn't take that many people to shift policy. You could have looked back at many points in the 20th Century and be very pessimistic. But a small number of free market intellectuals changed world history for the better.

Me too.

+Rep!

Bryan
05-16-2016, 12:40 PM
.


Please keep the discussion civil and on topic. This thread isn't about any candidate or their political views. Thanks.






Here we have someone fresh off of a temporary ban, and who came back with a vengeance, as you yourself admitted.


Now, everyone knows that Hitler was no globalist, beyond his desire to take the globe from the globalists. Yet he started a war that didn't end in his lifetime, and destroyed his own nation with it. And every schoolchild knows it.

There's no reason for a libertarian to rewrite history in this manner. But it certainly does qualify as a sales pitch for Trump, doesn't it?



Let's imagine for a moment that LLS is considering rejoining us, and is lurking at this very moment. Is the admission that Trump is trying to steal the world's oil, combined with a contention that he's trying to do it as efficiently as possible, going to entice her to log in and join the conversation?



Painting with a broad brush (is a Sanders supporter not capable of deciding that socialism is bad, but war is worse?), insulting potential supporters, and nakedly promoting Trump (and not using any provable facts to do it).



Since when is it a given that the antiwar faction is afraid of 'third' parties, and what is there about Mr. Conquer the Middle East and Take Their Oil is going to attract the antiwar faction?

Our best hope to form a winning coalition, and your best hope of restoring traffic to this place, lies in forming coalitions, and the antiwar group is about as big and active a group as any of us could ever hope to coalesce with. Would it not be wise to make this place attractive to them, now that their horse is about to be eliminated from the race?

Trump people have about a hundred echo chambers they can hang out in. Those who are here, therefore, are pretty likely to have an agenda. And a coalition for liberty is not it.
On its own, you are correct, that would not project what we want but consider the following... A Trump supporter wants to see what the Paul people are thinking and comes to the site, reads that message and is saying "That's what I'm thinking!". Then comes the liberty rebuttal to puts everything in place in a nice logical fashion. Confronted with the big picture the Trump supporter then gives pause and has to reflect on the merits of their position; they know they can't win a debate against someone who knows the issues.

So the point is, there can be value in an intellectual discussion of the ideas. If that message was put forth on the site with no rebuttal in its own corner, elevated to the front page or otherwise glorified it would be a big problem, but that's not what's happening. So good discussion has merit.

One problem can arise from this, if the same arguments get hashed out over and over. Our solution to this is with "Site Issue Evaluations", where we have one master thread to contain the debate and derive conclusions. Once conclusions have been made it is then against the guidelines to repeat talking points around the site that counter the conclusions. Doing so will eventually get you banned.

For complete details on the "Site Issue Evaluations" protocol see:
www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989


I agree on the point of building coalitions, and in effect we are working to that end. As part of the next step we are working to raise the level of site discourse, all the personal bickering and fighting have to end. We can focus on issues without this, this is a barrier for a lot of people.

As for what any one persons agenda is, that is something that no one will ever know across the board, instead all we can do it look at peoples actions and the fruit that they bring forth. Do the bring good things or not? The underlying goal of the Community Guidelines is to weed out people who bring forth bad fruit while allowing as much latitude as possible. Again, we're always open to ideas on how to better achieve our goals.

Bryan
05-16-2016, 12:46 PM
Seems more than pretty obvious to me. Is "community" NOT a collectivist mindset with human group membership?

Shall we tackle authoritarian Internet forums based on liberty, next?
Thanks for clarifying. From my view there is a big different between viewing people as being part of some group vs. viewing people in a group in a negative manner. There is nothing negative about saying that people who signed up for this website are a part of the "site community", it's a label to convey a concept in a simpler manner and allows us to communicate better.


However, if someone says "all people who signed up for the website are dumb." then they are making a sweeping generalization with some arbitrary negative attribute. Such sweeping and negative generalizations are problematic in multiple ways and have no intellectually foundation.

Bryan
05-16-2016, 12:50 PM
Either this site is a place where the disaffected can be brought together and rallied in the cause of liberty, or this is Trump Echo Chamber #284. It is unlikely to be both.
The policy of this issue was resolved with the Trump Evaluation.

Smitty
05-16-2016, 12:50 PM
. The underlying goal of the Community Guidelines is to weed out people who bring forth bad fruit .

Good idea. There's enough leftists contaminating this place without encouraging the Bernie Sanders Socialists to start hanging out here.

You might as well change the name of the place to "The Trotsky Forums" if you do that.

Ender
05-16-2016, 01:04 PM
Apparently not, or you would have been gone long ago. (Mod edit) anyone who doesn't hate Trump and is not willing to run around here lying about his positions.


Maybe you are the person who can pull the left together to get rid of Agenda 21, locally, and the like. We certainly need people to do that.


Trump is anti-globalist. You need to watch that video.

My experience is that YOU are the (mod edit).

There is absolutely no reasonable way to discuss Trump- Trump supporters will not allow "discussion"; we must all conform to his greatness or we are called SJWs, leftist, communists, Hillary lovers, etc.

Ender
05-16-2016, 01:06 PM
Good idea. There's enough leftists contaminating this place without encouraging the Bernie Sanders Socialists to start hanging out here.

You might as well change the name of the place to "The Trotsky Forums" if you do that.

Just proved my point- again.

Smitty
05-16-2016, 01:10 PM
Just proved my point- again.

That's nice.

Have a good day.

Ender
05-16-2016, 01:13 PM
That's nice.

Have a good day.

You're welcome.

Kade
05-16-2016, 01:13 PM
When I was an activist libertarian in college, we most closely identified as Anti-authoritarian. If that is the claim, then certainly, we have lost everything.

Bryan
05-16-2016, 01:32 PM
I was a libertarian before Ron Paul came along. I liked and respected Ron, but I was never hugely excited about what he was doing. 70%-80% of the people supporting Ron were not libertarian in any meaningful way. And the people Ron did encourage to become libertarian didn't necessarily learn the right lessons.

This has been seen as a major lost opportunity, we had peoples attention and did not capitalize on it. This is something that has to be structurally fixed. It's part of what need to be done and part of what I am calling the Liberty Blueprint:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?494373-A-new-site-vision-a-new-era

luctor-et-emergo
05-16-2016, 01:42 PM
This has been seen as a major lost opportunity, we had peoples attention and did not capitalize on it. This is something that has to be structurally fixed. It's part of what need to be done and part of what I am calling the Liberty Blueprint:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?494373-A-new-site-vision-a-new-era

I'd say it's more our fault than RP's fault. Ron definitely did everything to make people understand what liberty actually means. I think a lot of people want to get some kind of 'victory' out of politics. I personally don't want any such victory, it's nice, for a day or so... I just want to be left alone, for the most part. I think that's where the major difference is between those who supported Ron for the 'wrong' and 'right' reasons. From our perspective that is, I don't think intentions are judge-able in this regard. I'll respect the fact people want some kind of authoritarianism as long as they don't put any effort into actually achieving it.

But I definitely think a lot of people who supported Ron suddenly saw someone, who was not a 'career politician' (yeah I know he was in congress for 30 years but he was never 'one of them', which is my point.), who was honest, who said things people liked. People may have supported him because they finally felt like there was someone who said things they thought, even though it may have been a very small part of the message.

It's something we can see on the forums here as well, a lot of people have different issues they are passionate about, there is nothing wrong about that but I guess on most issues we can find disagreement here. I don't think there's a real ideology around here, it's a mixture of different ideologies. The only thing we have going for ourselves, is that we respect each-other. For the most part that is. And I must add to that that I think a bit of adversity from time to time is good for a healthy relationship.

So yeah, the blueprint, framework... It's what we need, even though not everyone might agree with everything. Even if we just set a basic framework for what our 'ideology' is around here, we'll be clearer about ourselves. Being clear and making sure people understand where you are coming from is a powerful tool, one we have not wielded too much around here.

my 2cts.

Ronin Truth
05-16-2016, 03:20 PM
I'd say it's more our fault than RP's fault. Ron definitely did everything to make people understand what liberty actually means. I think a lot of people want to get some kind of 'victory' out of politics. I personally don't want any such victory, it's nice, for a day or so... I just want to be left alone, for the most part. I think that's where the major difference is between those who supported Ron for the 'wrong' and 'right' reasons. From our perspective that is, I don't think intentions are judge-able in this regard. I'll respect the fact people want some kind of authoritarianism as long as they don't put any effort into actually achieving it.

But I definitely think a lot of people who supported Ron suddenly saw someone, who was not a 'career politician' (yeah I know he was in congress for 30 years but he was never 'one of them', which is my point.), who was honest, who said things people liked. People may have supported him because they finally felt like there was someone who said things they thought, even though it may have been a very small part of the message.

It's something we can see on the forums here as well, a lot of people have different issues they are passionate about, there is nothing wrong about that but I guess on most issues we can find disagreement here. I don't think there's a real ideology around here, it's a mixture of different ideologies. The only thing we have going for ourselves, is that we respect each-other. For the most part that is. And I must add to that that I think a bit of adversity from time to time is good for a healthy relationship.

So yeah, the blueprint, framework... It's what we need, even though not everyone might agree with everything. Even if we just set a basic framework for what our 'ideology' is around here, we'll be clearer about ourselves. Being clear and making sure people understand where you are coming from is a powerful tool, one we have not wielded too much around here.

my 2cts.

+Rep!

younglibertarian
05-16-2016, 03:31 PM
I think we are "asleep" more then dead. Not as much motivation these days.

Ronin Truth
05-16-2016, 04:09 PM
I think we are "asleep" more then dead. Not as much motivation these days.

Some are dead, some are asleep, some are not.

r3volution 3.0
05-16-2016, 04:12 PM
Since the inception of the libertarian party in the 70's they struggled to gain ground or be noticed. They spent about 2 decades getting < 1% in national elections and never being included in the bigger conversations. It seemed Ron Paul was the libertarian break through that changed all of that. In 2008 he brought libertarianism to the main stream. He made the average politco second guess themselves. In 2012 He became a viable candidate for the nomination. The entire nation of political observers were talking about Ron Paul and Libertarianism.

Then he lost, and it all went away. Rand Paul ran for president, but he certainly didn't continue and libertarian legacy.

He did, actually.

What happened is that we discovered that most Ron Paul supporters were not libertarians.

They were just contrarians, vague "anti-establishment" people.

These people abandoned libertarian Rand for socialist Trump/Sanders.

The Rebel Poet
05-16-2016, 04:32 PM
Trump will probably win and open the Pandora's Box for every manner of alternative candidate.

The Libertarian party has already rode the Trump-Train and doubled their support to a whopping 2%.
Um, people are not registering Libertarian to vote for Trump. That's not how that works. They are registering Libertarian because they see through The Trumptard and how dangerous he is. The LP is not "riding the Trump-Train" they are riding the wave of backlash against him.

Petar
05-16-2016, 05:01 PM
Um, people are not registering Libertarian to vote for Trump. That's not how that works. They are registering Libertarian because they see through The Trumptard and how dangerous he is. The LP is not "riding the Trump-Train" they are riding the wave of backlash against him.

Same shizer.

When Trump is finished doing his thing, the Losertarian party may even end up being viable.

If the Losertarian party helps kill Trump in the cradle, their support level will continue to suck.

The Rebel Poet
05-16-2016, 05:24 PM
Same shizer.

When Trump is finished doing his thing, the Losertarian party may even end up being viable.

If the Losertarian party helps kill Trump in the cradle, their support level will continue to suck.
There are times when even "here's your sign" is just not enough. The government will increase liberty under Trump, the Libertarian party can only grow by shrinking, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

younglibertarian
05-16-2016, 05:28 PM
I hope the LP is not the Tea Party 2.0

dbill27
05-16-2016, 08:25 PM
Like half of my ron paul supporter facebook friends that I assumed were libertarians are now supporting trump, sanders and are continously posting anti-free trade or anti market things without even seeming to realize that they supported the complete opposite of that 4 years ago. A lot of the people who supported ron paul were just as derpy or more so than the average voter. Even glenn beck is principled enought to see thru trump for god's sake.

younglibertarian
05-16-2016, 10:36 PM
Like half of my ron paul supporter facebook friends that I assumed were libertarians are now supporting trump, sanders and are continously posting anti-free trade or anti market things without even seeming to realize that they supported the complete opposite of that 4 years ago. A lot of the people who supported ron paul were just as derpy or more so than the average voter. Even glenn beck is principled enought to see thru trump for god's sake.

Honestly I think Ron Paul's Anti-War policies were the main attraction to his campaign. Also explains the massive votes on campuses.

Natural Citizen
05-16-2016, 11:35 PM
And today, 8 years after Ron Paul ignited a cultural firestorm, it seems libertarianism is totally dead. Who is there to continue it? What can we do to get back on our feet?


What we're seeing (well...if we're paying attention) is that progressives are beginning to make organized moves to kind of repatriate libertarian ideology or principles from a Cultural Marxist perspective in the direction of their audiences. Actually, I'd meant to follow up on this thought in another thread. I just never did. This is something we'd do well to acknowledge and head off at the pass. The fact is that there are a growig number of young people (a measurable demograph) who are attracted to libertarian principles but they're confused by a progressive push for A Democracy in the name of Democracy and from behind the cloak of libertarianism. The progressives are winning on that front. Problem is that modern libertarians tend to want to participate in intellectual contests and a bunch of dick waving among themselves instead of focusing their time and energy where it could actually grow onto others. People are going to have to learn to get in the mix in a lot of those progressive circles instead of preaching to the choir all of the time. An opportunity exists to win minds. For the time being anyway. Of course, there are also some so called "conservative" platforms out there operating behind the cloak of libertarianism, too. both are essentially functioning as stalking horses.

Good question, though. A meaningful question.

I'm going to try to follow up on what I mention here in a more detailed way as time passes. Maybe in this thread. Not sure. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?495268-Against-‘government-at-gunpoint’-Libertarian-candidates-debate-on-RT-America&p=6216499&viewfull=1#post6216499

Along those lines, there are some things I'd like to do just for the purpose of testing that theory. Except I need about a dozen people with the right temperament to help me out. I want to infiltrate a popular progressive forum. But not to cause drama or to create arguments or anything on their boards. I dont' want to go looking for an argument or to have some kind of intellectuakl contest. I want to be just agreeable with them enough and to ask questions to where they are led to ask questions correctly themselves and to approach any given issues being discussed in the correct way. Just until the light upstairs dings. You know? But that's just a very small little experiment. Just a social experiment.

LibertyEagle
05-16-2016, 11:55 PM
My experience is that YOU are the (mod edit).

There is absolutely no reasonable way to discuss Trump- Trump supporters will not allow "discussion"; we must all conform to his greatness or we are called SJWs, leftist, communists, Hillary lovers, etc.

We are happy to discuss facts. Lies, not so much.

LibertyRevolution
05-17-2016, 04:40 AM
Wake me up when they get Michael Badnarik to run again, until then I am returning to my apathy.