The rise and fall of the libertarians?

[brandon]

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]

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.

[robert68]

Can't fall when you never had power.

[heavenlyboy34]

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]

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]

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...



...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]

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]

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/showthr...-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]

The Libertarian Party (LP) (so called) is just another frickin' oxymoron and always has only been.

[RJ Liberty]

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]

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]

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]

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/showthr...sion-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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I'm not following your point, could you explain?

Thanks.

[RJ Liberty]

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 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.

[Bryan]

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]

I wouldn't count libertarianism dead just yet. Libertarian Party registrations have doubled 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.

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]

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]

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

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]

I agree, especially about the "Losertarian" business. It's posts like this 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.