View Poll Results: How should Ron Paul proceed with his GOP candidacy?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Keep hoping America wakes up before someone else gets the nomination.

    7 22.58%
  • Be pragmatic and secure libertarian influence in the next GOP ticket/administration.

    8 25.81%
  • Burn the house down and run/endorse third-party.

    16 51.61%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Decision Time: How to Proceed

  1. #31

    Default

    I appreciate the OPs thought out message, but concern that the RPGC forum might not be the best fit for it. This isn't anything new, we had the same issues in 2008, over and over, so we created a dedicated sub-forum for such discussion- perhaps it is time to take it out of moth balls- here it is:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdi...icial-Campaign
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Site Usage Guidelines which define a Code of Ethics, etiquette on the treatment of others, protocols for the content you post and information on the promotion of businesses and other self-interests. Disagreeing or debating with the Site Staff is perfectly allowed and welcomed, don't think otherwise.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Article V View Post
    Sure, I can tell you exactly where I get that mentality.

    First, it's important to note that I'm not talking about some pseudo-influence such as a prime-time speech at the convention. A speech's influence is fast-fading.

    To be truly influential, exposure and message repetition are key (and these are the two things Ron Paul is quickly losing and would most certainly lose entirely if he isn't part of the next government). As a VP or Secretary of State or Secretary of the Treasure, Ron Paul would have regular international exposure and a real seat at the decision table of the administration. Even when Ron Paul's ideas are disregarded, the mere mention of them at the table would cause the discussion to shift and be more balanced and would cause everyone in the room to get smarter, simply because they're forced out of their groupthink comfort zone. Much like how Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Tim Geithner get regular press and regularly shape the cultural discussion as well as their own administration, even when Obama et al. disagree with them.

    I believe I touched on some of this thinking in my OP, but hopefully this additional explanation helps clarify it further. If you need still more clarification, I would urge you to read the economics book The Wisdom of Crowds and the business book Where Good Ideas Come From to learn about how a sole dissenting voice in a room always, even when dismissed, reshapes the group's discussion and the overall outcomes of the group's decisions (whether that group is the Presidential Cabinet, the Senate, the Press Room, the American populace, or the world).
    You think Joe Biden reshapes any disucssions? He only gets on TV when he says something stupid. As for Hilary she was already a "celebrity" before her cabinet position. If you see how the press ignores Ron now what makes you think they can't do the same thing just because he gets thrown some token cabinet position? For Pete's sake he can be up on a stage in front of a national audience with only 4 other guys and they will constantly keep the camera off of him and give him very little speaking time.

    You do what you want, but all I'd say is this: Remember my post, remember what I said, IF Ron doens't win and IF he get's offered and accepts VP or what have you under someone like Romney or Santorum and they win the White House, come back here in 4yrs and let's see what you have to say then. Ron will be tucked away in a corner and when Romney/Santy crash, and they will, Ron and this movement will come crashing down with them, if I'm wrong I will gladly give you a big apology, if I'm right you will have to live with the knowledge that you knew better and the GOP played you anyway.
    Golden Rule? Booooo. Go back to Texas!

  4. #33

    Default

    The way I see it, if Ron isn't elected this year the country's going to be in an even bigger mess by 2016 than it is in now. If Obama is POTUS going into 2016, people will blame democrats and be open to a Republican, so we might be able to push someone decent like Rand. If Mittens/Santa/LardAss is in charge, people will blame republicans, elect a democrat, and no liberty candidate will have a chance*.

    * I am assuming all liberty candidates are currently running Republican or 3rd party, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

  5. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    3,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VanBummel View Post
    I am assuming all liberty candidates are currently running Republican or 3rd party, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
    They are, though I would say that the ones running LP or CP are honestly only worth a protest vote at best. The LP and the CP are both great examples of how NOT to run a third party organization. The CP HQ is here in PA and they cannot even manage to get a seat in the state legislature, so how could they possibly be effective competing for a House or Senate seat in other states?

    40 years of the LP and they have NEVER won a single congressional seat, and have only won 12 state legislature seats. That is tens of thousands of electoral loses. I toss their candidates votes only as a means of protesting the GOP nominee for a seat, but there is no time in the foreseeable future that I can see myself donating to their candidates or volunteering for them.

  6. #35

    Default

    Poll is badly worded. Option 1 should say "Keep doing what were doing and racking up as many delegates as possible and see what shakes out at the convention." Hoping that America "wakes up" has nothing to do with it. (And I agree that badly worded troll thread deserved to be moved). Racking up momentum is the way to make either option 2 or 3 viable. The "burning down the house" option never goes away even if Ron Paul is time barred from getting on ballots as a 3rd party candidate because he could always wholeheartedly get behind Gary Johnson.

    That said, while I still voted for option 1, I can't help but post....

    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Eze 22:25 There's a conspiracy of prophets within her....

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.

  7. #36

    Default

    I think tbone717 and Article V are making a lot of sense. I have also observed the strange movements of threads. There was one thread I joined that was originally in Grassroots central but got moved after I posted a number of supposedly "negative" comments.

    Dissenting views that seem to be critical of RP and the campaign or appear to be "negative" (even if they are just stating facts) are generally not tolerated which is a shame because sometimes, the person in the role of Devil's advocate may actually help you have a more intelligent discussion and campaign strategy. The usual excuse is that it will supposedly discourage the grassroots and harm RP's candidacy which I think is absolute nonsense because if the supporters of RP are such emotional weaklings who get moved by a little dissenting opinion, they should not have become supporters in the first place. He doesn't need such kind of fickle supporters.

    As for visitors to this forum who may read "negative" comments, I doubt that voters will base their vote on comments in a heated debate on this forum. Probably 90% of people voting in the GOP primary will never visit this site. They are more likely to visit the official campaign website.

    IMHO, I think that it would be more useful for the moderators to be a little more tolerant of "contrarian" views within reason. My biggest disappointment is that too many people are given free reign on this forum to insult and viciously attack people deemed to be "trolls", even if objectively they are not. These hate-mongers apparently get off with a slap on the wrist which is why they continue unabated.

    Every thread that gets heated up is filled with hateful personal attacks that add no value to the discussion. I would humbly recommend that people who engage in vicious personal attacks should be permanently banned to improve the quality of this forum as it is full of people far worse than "trolls".
    Last edited by Lethalmiko; 03-14-2012 at 01:51 PM.

  8. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    3,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lethalmiko View Post
    As for visitors to this forum who may read "negative" comments, I doubt that voters will base their vote on comments in a heated debate on this forum. Probably 90% of people voting in the GOP primary will never visit this site. They are more likely to visit the official campaign website.
    You would think that the owners of the site would be more concerned with the large number of conspiracy threads, unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, bashing of average voters (I had to call someone out yesterday for calling the voters of AL "idiots") rather than some thoughtful conversation about the future direction of this movement. But no they would rather feed the delusional among us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lethalmiko View Post
    IMHO, I think that it would be more useful for the moderators to be a little more tolerant of "contrarian" views within reason.
    Personally, I think the reasoned analytic views of the situation are far more concerned with the future progress of this movement, and the long term growth of it. The cheerleader views that blanket the front page, are more focused on the short term. Just look how many people on RPF are ready to "burn the house down" if Paul doesn't get the nomination. That view is short sighted, where the view others take is based on a much more long term strategy.
    Last edited by tbone717; 03-14-2012 at 03:10 PM.

  9. #38

    Default

    Had did this thread end up in 2008?

    I say we continue on in the GOP. You think the media blackout is bad now? You would hear nothing of RP on the MSM if he ran 3rd party.
    My 2016 prediction: Hillary Clinton will NOT run for president.

    Rand Paul 2016

  10. #39

    Default

    It is a sorry state of affairs when a so called "liberty" forum displays censorship and authoritarianism that would make the federal government proud. The simple fact is that many members here, and indeed moderators, are no different than the other groups they like to denigrate constantly, and have no more idea what liberty is than Rick Santorum does. Differing opinions are not welcome here, that is made perfectly clear. Instead we all have to take part in the chant of the day, we have to pledge total allegiance to the campaign, we have to publically state that losing is winning, and hold on to fantasy as though it were reality. Otherwise you're a troll, a Santorum plant, and just for good measure, probably a Mason. Even more alarming is the sheer number of people who cannot accept that the campaign bears any responsibility for any loss, and immediately conjure up massive conspiracies to explain it all away. Which is more likely, that Ron's total unwillingness to conduct traditional, tried and true retail politics is to blame for poor performance, or that there is a nationwide, mass conspiracy using super sophisticated technique, and of which there is not a single witness that has come forward or a shred of proof displayed? But don’t be daunted by that, they have an explanation for that too…the MSM is in cahoots with the conspirators! This kind of unsubstantiated insanity where we invent bogeymen rather than look in the mirror is what makes our movement distasteful to the general populace.

  11. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    3,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridasun1983 View Post
    It is a sorry state of affairs when a so called "liberty" forum displays censorship and authoritarianism that would make the federal government proud. The simple fact is that many members here, and indeed moderators, are no different than the other groups they like to denigrate constantly, and have no more idea what liberty is than Rick Santorum does. Differing opinions are not welcome here, that is made perfectly clear. Instead we all have to take part in the chant of the day, we have to pledge total allegiance to the campaign, we have to publically state that losing is winning, and hold on to fantasy as though it were reality. Otherwise you're a troll, a Santorum plant, and just for good measure, probably a Mason. Even more alarming is the sheer number of people who cannot accept that the campaign bears any responsibility for any loss, and immediately conjure up massive conspiracies to explain it all away. Which is more likely, that Ron's total unwillingness to conduct traditional, tried and true retail politics is to blame for poor performance, or that there is a nationwide, mass conspiracy using super sophisticated technique, and of which there is not a single witness that has come forward or a shred of proof displayed? But don’t be daunted by that, they have an explanation for that too…the MSM is in cahoots with the conspirators! This kind of unsubstantiated insanity where we invent bogeymen rather than look in the mirror is what makes our movement distasteful to the general populace.
    You make a very excellent point. I think one of the biggest failures of this site is that far too many on here fail to provide critical analysis of the campaign and candidate, so that we can learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. Either they are afraid to do so, ignorant of the facts, or they are so blindly enamored with Ron Paul that they fail to see any fault in him. There is a thread on the main page of the site right now called "100 things I learned from the 2012 primaries" and the large majority of posts there are blaming everyone and everything else but the campaign and candidate.

    The voters are stupid, the voters are bloodthirsty neo-cons, the media is out to get us, the election is rigged. All of that stuff is defeatist, and fails to address the real things that we should have learned from this election season. Which leads me to believe one thing, that the majority of the people here have learned NOTHING at all about how to be more effective in their grassroots efforts. Hell, there are probably still some people that think we could have won this whole thing in a landslide if we only had a blimp.
    Last edited by tbone717; 03-20-2012 at 08:12 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •