# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  So now what?

## Sematary

It has become apparent that even when playing by the rules, the RNC will do ANYTHING to hold on to power, including changing or breaking it's own rules.
Is it REALLY a lost cause with the GOP? Is it just a pipe dream that we can somehow change the status quo from the inside?
Personally, I'm done with the GOP. After the strong arm tactics, the fraud, and the blatant use of power to ensure that things go exactly as they have planned, it is quite obvious that what we are doing isn't working within the structure of the system because the system simply adapts (see - lies, cheats and steals) to get the outcome it desires.
So now what?

----------


## Mattsa

> It has become apparent that even when playing by the rules, the RNC will do ANYTHING to hold on to power, including changing or breaking it's own rules.
> Is it REALLY a lost cause with the GOP? Is it just a pipe dream that we can somehow change the status quo from the inside?
> Personally, I'm done with the GOP. After the strong arm tactics, the fraud, and the blatant use of power to ensure that things go exactly as they have planned, it is quite obvious that what we are doing isn't working within the structure of the system because the system simply adapts (see - lies, cheats and steals) to get the outcome it desires.
> So now what?


"You can't petition pirates" - Edward G Griffin

It was all very predictable frankly. You didn't seriously believe they were going to play by the rules and roll over did you?

----------


## Sematary

> "You can't petition pirates" - Edward G Griffin
> 
> It was all very predictable frankly. You didn't seriously believe they were going to play by the rules and roll over did you?


What I'm truly amazed at is that (even with the corrupt lame stream media) they can get away with this crap without anyone calling them on it. The only person even talking about it is Ben Swann and how many people actually see his reports?

----------


## wgadget

They're in it together.

----------


## cindy25

call Gary Johnson, get him to slide down to VP , run as Libertarian, and insure that Obama wins.

that the SOBs at the GOP would remember in 2016.

----------


## Rocco

We've been through 2 election cycles, and you're already ready to give up? God, if everyone knew it was that easy to get rid of freedom loving people we'd all be under dictatorship right now.....just freeze them out of the political process the first 8 years they try to get involved and they'll go running away with their tails between their legs. 

My god people, will you show some toughness and not give up so easily?

----------


## Sematary

I tried, I really did, to work within the GOP framework but the GOP just can't stand losing. Ron Paul *had* a plurality of delegates in more than enough states for his name to be placed into nomination in Tampa. When the RNC realized this, the dirty tricks became dirtier. I can't go into the litany of abuses of power that the RNC used to prevent Ron Paul's name being placed into nomination on the floor of the convention but I can say that the criminal organization known as the GOP makes the mafia look like a bunch of boy scouts. The most recent egregiousness took place in Maine, where Governor Lepage decided that since the GOP chose to replace the majority of the duly elected Ron Paul delegates with Mitt Romney friendly supporters, he will not be attending the Tampa convention: http://www.boston.com/news/local/mai...op_convention/
Good for him.

Other instances of RNC shenanigans (being nice here) have been documented by Ben Swann:
http://www.dailypaul.com/250519/real...-of-nomination

The list of straight up illegal and immoral tactics by the GOP to prevent Ron Paul and his supporters from having a voice at the convention is long and, in some cases, comes with the blood (and bones) of patriots: http://rt.com/news/blogs/contrarian-...aul-delegates/

You REALLY CAN'T make stuff like this up. Americans believe we live in a democracy (which we don't - for those who don't know. We live in a "republic") but what we live in is a nation that is controlled by corporations and covered by a main stream media which ignores at the behest of it's owners, the truth. We also live in a nation where those who "represent" us, don't. They represent their corporate masters, who pay the bills. Unfortunately, most Americans don't pay attention to media sources outside of the mainstream and thus, don't know the TRUTH about what has happened in this election cycle.
Unfortunately, because of this, there will be no popular outrage at the facts that point to a stolen election and people will simply go, zombielike, to the polls to vote for either Mitt Romney or Obama. It's a sad state of affairs that more people need to be made aware of but they won't - because the media won't report the truth. People will ONLY get the news that the corporations who own them want them to get and that is mostly fluff and distraction. Well played, GOP, well played.

(reposted from my facebook)

----------


## Rocco

The thing is, the GOP is not a small group of insiders. It is an apparatus with a massive voter list and a lot of prominent donors. The people you are referring to who control the GOP can be thrown out of their positions of power if we stay the course! You have Iowa and Nevada, two MAJOR battleground states with a lot of GOP focus, and we have kicked all those establishment cronies out of power and replaced them with our people in those states. We have national committeemen and women who are officially on the Republican National Committee from these states. Your response to losing the election cannot be to withdraw from the process, despite the progress we have made, because if it is then all that progress will have gone to waste.

----------


## cindy25

> We've been through 2 election cycles, and you're already ready to give up? God, if everyone knew it was that easy to get rid of freedom loving people we'd all be under dictatorship right now.....just freeze them out of the political process the first 8 years they try to get involved and they'll go running away with their tails between their legs. 
> 
> My god people, will you show some toughness and not give up so easily?


changing parties is not giving up.  if the game is stacked against you then change the game you are playing

----------


## Badger Paul

_"Is it REALLY a lost cause with the GOP? Is it just a pipe dream that we can somehow change the status quo from the inside?
Personally, I'm done with the GOP. After the strong arm tactics, the fraud, and the blatant use of power to ensure that things go exactly as they have planned, it is quite obvious that what we are doing isn't working within the structure of the system because the system simply adapts (see - lies, cheats and steals) to get the outcome it desires. So now what?"_ 

Win. That's really what comes down to. A liberty movement candidate is going to have to start winning state primaries and caucus straw votes to take over the party. The way rules have been rewritten, the only alternative is to find a candidate who can win and it may well be Rand like it or not. Given the new rules which the party probably will adopt Monday, you have no choice but to win because they're eliminating the state and CD convention route to operate exactly like the Democrats where everything is tied together. 

So there it is. You have to take power and you can only do that by winning elections and bringing the politicians on to your side because you are winners.

----------


## anewvoice

The sting of loss always takes time to recover from but I think with some time removed and an objective view you may realize we have gained more than expected.  Ron Paul is coming to the end of his fight but he has recruited lieutenants to come behind him in greater force.  Imagine what a liberty loving person felt like for the 20 years prior to Ron Paul running for President.  How absolutely hopeless they must have felt.

What is important is whether we build on these advances or we retreat.  We have gained ground in this war, and we made incursions deep into the GOP, but they fought back.  Now we must hold the line and prepare for the next advance.

----------


## thatpeculiarcat

> call Gary Johnson, get him to slide down to VP , run as Libertarian, and insure that Obama wins.
> 
> that the SOBs at the GOP would remember in 2016.


You know how incredibly disrespectful that is to Jim Gray?
I've seen this kind of post a lot and it makes no sense to me. The Libertarians had their convention and they nominated Gary Johnson and Jim Gray.

Obama will win in November, we don't need to do anything. Ron Paul supporters are split (not evenly of course) between voting Johnson, writing in Paul, not voting, or voting Obama/Romney.

----------


## pcosmar

*So now what?* 

Have the Delegates Voted? Did I miss something??
I know a *LOT* of negativity is being pushed,, and a *LOT* of disinformation.

It seems to be targeted at delegates to make them give up before the vote,,
If they just give up and go home then the vote can be taken without them,, of if so discouraged they may vote for the Status Quo as it is the only choice left.

I'm waiting for the vote, Hoping for a pleasant surprise.

Next week,,will be based on the outcome,, not on the speculation.

----------


## tod evans

Only two options all along;

1) Fight

2) Lay down

Me, I'm a fighter.


[edit]
For the visually inclined.....

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> *So now what?* 
> 
> Have the Delegates Voted? Did I miss something??
> I know a *LOT* of negativity is being pushed,, and a *LOT* of disinformation.
> 
> It seems to be targeted at delegates to make them give up before the vote,,
> If they just give up and go home then the vote can be taken without them,, of if so discouraged they may vote for the Status Quo as it is the only choice left.
> 
> I'm waiting for the vote, Hoping for a pleasant surprise.
> ...



^^ THIS ^^
_"You must spread some rep around first"_

----------


## parocks

> You know how incredibly disrespectful that is to Jim Gray?
> I've seen this kind of post a lot and it makes no sense to me. The Libertarians had their convention and they nominated Gary Johnson and Jim Gray.
> 
> Obama will win in November, we don't need to do anything. Ron Paul supporters are split (not evenly of course) between voting Johnson, writing in Paul, not voting, or voting Obama/Romney.


And some for Virgil Goode.

----------


## georgiaboy



----------


## Smitty

"Now what?" is a very open question which depends on a lot of unpredictable upcoming situations.

But at this point, the liberty movement needs to work to see to it that the GOP doesn't benefit from the  corruption it demonstrated during the primary process.

If the GOP succeeds in placing Romney in the White House,...then *this* liberty movement is over.

----------


## Badger Paul

_"ou have Iowa and Nevada, two MAJOR battleground states with a lot of GOP focus, and we have kicked all those establishment cronies out of power and replaced them with our people in those states. We have national committeemen and women who are officially on the Republican National Committee from these states. Your response to losing the election cannot be to withdraw from the process, despite the progress we have made, because if it is then all that progress will have gone to waste. "_

For now we do, but I would tell our people in those states to watch their backs, because Prebius is going to try and bring back these parties under central control as soon as he can (especially if Romney wins). These new rules have his thumbprints on them too. Anyone who has watched how he operated in Wisconsin and saw how he neutered tea party groups and stifled any independent activism outside the party can see what he's up to. He may be fighting a losing battle historically but he's not giving up without a fight. He wants a top-down, total-control political party once again as it was under Rove.

As I said, the only way your're going to stop this is by winning and taking control yourselves. That's what it comes down to.

----------


## RickyJ

> We've been through 2 election cycles, and you're already ready to give up? God, if everyone knew it was that easy to get rid of freedom loving people we'd all be under dictatorship right now.....just freeze them out of the political process the first 8 years they try to get involved and they'll go running away with their tails between their legs. 
> 
> My god people, will you show some toughness and not give up so easily?


You be as tough as you want to be and you will lose every time to these liars and cheats. The only way you can beat liars and cheats is to expose them. If we don't do that and/or people won't listen to us, the only other option is force.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I tried, I really did, to work within the GOP framework but the GOP just can't stand losing.


Losing fairly is one thing.  You can just find out where you're lacking and concentrate there to do better next time.  But being cheated out of legitimate victories, that's something altogether different.  That, and knowing it will happen again every time you get close to victory is demoralizing.  The GOP apologists on this board and those who are still in denial keep neg-repping me; I suppose they're hoping they can eventually discredit me...but the joke is on them.  Long after I'm gone from this board they will still be wondering why their plan isn't working.

----------


## angelatc

> It has become apparent that even when playing by the rules, the RNC will do ANYTHING to hold on to power, including changing or breaking it's own rules.
> Is it REALLY a lost cause with the GOP? Is it just a pipe dream that we can somehow change the status quo from the inside?
> Personally, I'm done with the GOP. After the strong arm tactics, the fraud, and the blatant use of power to ensure that things go exactly as they have planned, it is quite obvious that what we are doing isn't working within the structure of the system because the system simply adapts (see - lies, cheats and steals) to get the outcome it desires.
> So now what?


What we need to do is keep going to meetings, keep getting ourselves elected to the local governing boards, county conventions, state conventions, national conventions, national committees, local offices, state offices, etc etc.

But as much as we yammer on about revolution, we really aren't willing to actually fight.

----------


## thatpeculiarcat

> And some for Virgil Goode.


Shoot, maybe even some for Jill Stein.

----------


## No1butPaul

I _believe_, wholeheartedly, Romney is in complete control of the RNC, and that is why they are playing so dirty now, completely amoral ... imagine him as president.  He needs to lose and we need to take over that apparatus.

It is that simple.

----------


## angelatc

There are 10's of thousands of GOP committee seats up for grabs at the local level every two years. The more seats that are won by liberty activists, obviously the better. But the fact is most of the people on here would prefer to spew their opinions on a web forum, then get up off their asses and run for office.

----------


## No1butPaul

> There are 10's of thousands of GOP committee seats up for grabs at the local level every two years. The more seats that are won by liberty activists, obviously the better. But the fact is most of the people on here would prefer to spew their opinions on a web forum, then get up off their asses and run for office.


We will, when we recover.  We do have to stop Romney or we won't be able to work through the GOP.

----------


## sailingaway

I honestly think there will be time for post mortums when it is over.  I think we may work on more than one front, going forward, but right now our delegates are fighting literally tyranical rule changes in Tampa, and Ron is speaking Sunday, and we ARE the GOP in multiple states.

Beyond that... I'm going to focus on going forward after Tampa, more after Tampa.

----------


## Travlyr

The liberty movement should be taking-over both the Republican and Democrat Parties. There is no right-left paradigm. Take them both and defeat the oligarchy.

----------


## Sematary

> *So now what?* 
> 
> Have the Delegates Voted? Did I miss something??
> I know a *LOT* of negativity is being pushed,, and a *LOT* of disinformation.
> 
> It seems to be targeted at delegates to make them give up before the vote,,
> If they just give up and go home then the vote can be taken without them,, of if so discouraged they may vote for the Status Quo as it is the only choice left.
> 
> I'm waiting for the vote, Hoping for a pleasant surprise.
> ...


So, the RNC STOLE our delegates and changed the rules to ENSURE a Romney victory and I'm supposed to think what? Personally, I'm hoping that the Ron Paul delegates and alternates cause a ruckus the msm can't ignore.

----------


## No1butPaul

> The liberty movement should be taking-over both the Republican and Democrat Parties. There is no right-left paradigm. Take them both and defeat the oligarchy.


Yep

----------


## Sematary

> What we need to do is keep going to meetings, keep getting ourselves elected to the local governing boards, county conventions, state conventions, national conventions, national committees, local offices, state offices, etc etc.
> 
> But as much as we yammer on about revolution, we really aren't willing to actually fight.


I'm just wondering if there is a better way to fight.

----------


## MarcusI

All in all this campaign was very successful in gaining powerful positions. The mistreatment even caused solidarity under non-Liberty-minded People like Gov. LePage (Kudos for him).

I still dont understand how (by which accusations) the RNC did manage to destroy the Maine (Remember MAINE!) and Louisiana delegations. But surely, next time we will have more liberty-minded partisan judges, etc. And better chances to win a single primary in a state, which hasn't been done yet.

----------


## tod evans

> I'm just wondering if there is a better way to fight.


That isn't morally repugnant......

Or illegal.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> So now what?


Join the libertarian party. Vote for Johnson.
We all need to..
If your not willing to switch to the LP, please vote for Johnson in the general.
He might not be Ron Paul.. but he is hell of a lot better then Romney or Obama. 

I am a Libertarian. I joined the GOP in 2007 to vote for Ron Paul because he was going to bring libertarian ideas to the mainstream. 
That time is over, we need to return to the LP. We would be welcomed with open arms instead of having to fight tooth and nail for scraps.

----------


## Sematary

> Join the libertarian party. Vote for Johnson.
> We all need to..
> If your not willing to switch to the LP, please vote for Johnson in the general.
> He might not be Ron Paul.. but he is hell of a lot better then Romney or Obama. 
> 
> I am a Libertarian. I joined the GOP in 2007 to vote for Ron Paul because he was going to bring libertarian ideas to the mainstream. 
> That time is over, we need to return to the LP. We would be welcomed with open arms instead of having to fight tooth and nail for scraps.


Except that the corruption of the Dems and the Pubs has created scenario where all third party candidates are blocked from getting anywhere near the American public and thus have no chance whatsoever.

----------


## Sematary

> That isn't morally repugnant......
> 
> Or illegal.


Or end up getting you branded a terrorist, thrown into an 8x8 cell without charge and disappeared for life.

----------


## Carlybee

Doesn't seem to be much gain from winning positions when the RNC is able to strip the power from those positions arbitrarily. It is being reported that due to Isaac, Romney will be nominated early. How convenient.
People here need to stop assuming that the whole of the liberty movement is on board with staying in the Republican party.

----------


## Smitty

> Join the libertarian party. Vote for Johnson.
> We all need to..
> If your not willing to switch to the LP, please vote for Johnson in the general.
> He might not be Ron Paul.. but he is hell of a lot better then Romney or Obama. 
> 
> I am a Libertarian. I joined the GOP in 2007 to vote for Ron Paul because he was going to bring libertarian ideas to the mainstream. 
> That time is over, we need to return to the LP. We would be welcomed with open arms instead of having to fight tooth and nail for scraps.


I totally agree.

The Libertarian party is the best tool available to us.

----------


## tod evans

> I totally agree.
> 
> The Libertarian party is the best tool available to us.


One issue with this....Ron Paul has chosen the republican venue.

----------


## Travlyr

> Join the libertarian party. Vote for Johnson.
> We all need to..
> If your not willing to switch to the LP, please vote for Johnson in the general.
> He might not be Ron Paul.. but he is hell of a lot better then Romney or Obama. 
> 
> I am a Libertarian. I joined the GOP in 2007 to vote for Ron Paul because he was going to bring libertarian ideas to the mainstream. 
> That time is over, we need to return to the LP. We would be welcomed with open arms instead of having to fight tooth and nail for scraps.


Let's build more prisons to handle the prison problem and hand the rest of the prisons to the Corporations. Yeah... that's the solution. Vote for Gary Johnson.

----------


## angelatc

> Doesn't seem to be much gain from winning positions when the RNC is able to strip the power from those positions arbitrarily. It is being reported that due to Isaac, Romney will be nominated early. How convenient.
> People here need to stop assuming that the whole of the liberty movement is on board with staying in the Republican party.


I agree that it's naive to believe that Libertarians and Democrats would actually stick around do what Ron Paul asked, especially since we did infinitely better in 2011 than in 2007.     That's what the GOP is banking on , btw.

Nobody ever accused the Libertarians of being loyal team players, that's for sure.

----------


## Smitty

> One issue with this....Ron Paul has chosen the republican venue.


Ron Paul is retiring from politics.

It's time for the liberty movement to select its future path.

----------


## No1butPaul

> One issue with this....Ron Paul has chosen the republican venue.


But they cheated him so badly.  He got his message out, now it's time to MOVE (I think).

----------


## sailingaway

> Or end up getting you branded a terrorist, thrown into an 8x8 cell without charge and disappeared for life.


there are things we can consider, going forward.   I feel strongly we should at least as one string on our bow, continue getting influence in the GOP. They really want us out, so they can do their thing without us, but but being 'out' doesn't get us anything as things currently are.  The more they want us out so they can have their state GOPs back and not have us take them over, the more I want to do more of exactly that, and remember, winning state GOPs means you put people at national, too.

HOwever, I do think we should discuss not just working within the system but working to CHANGE the system.

----------


## angelatc

> But they cheated him so badly.  He got his message out, now it's time to MOVE (I think).


So they can cheat Rand, too?

----------


## thatpeculiarcat

> So they can cheat Rand, too?


It will be less likely with Rand.
Rand has established himself as a team player.

----------


## No1butPaul

huh? the neo-con paul?

----------


## Smitty

> Let's build more prisons to handle the prison problem and hand the rest of the prisons to the Corporations. Yeah... that's the solution. Vote for Gary Johnson.


Gary Johnson is preferrable to Obama and Romney by a wide margin.

Besides,...Gary Johnson isn't the libertarian party.

The Libertarian party will become what it's members decide it should be,...and it's up for grabs.

,..as opposed to the Democratic and Republican parties which have been totally owned almost from their inception.

----------


## KingRobbStark

I believe that we have great chance with GOP. Of course they are corrupt, despicable, and evil to the core. I know that. We all know that, but we also know that they are dying out. I don't mean that figuratively, they really are dying out. Give it time. A little bit of time.

----------


## angelatc

> It will be less likely with Rand.
> Rand has established himself as a team player.


OK, I'm not sure that's true at all, but let's assume it is for the sake of moving on.

You're saying that we should organize in a third party, so we can oppose Rand?

----------


## No1butPaul

Libertarian Party is to Apple Computer what the Republican Party is to Microsoft (or Samsung!)

The Republican Party is a dinosaur.

----------


## sailingaway

> huh? the neo-con paul?


I'm not exactly as excited about Rand as I was, but there is a definition to the term 'neo-con' and Rand nowhere near fits it.

----------


## Smitty

> So they can cheat Rand, too?


Rand has cast his lot with the current mainstream GOP.

Any further alliance with Rand will serve only to divide the liberty movement.

----------


## angelatc

> I believe that we have great chance with GOP. Of course they are corrupt, despicable, and evil to the core. I know that. We all know that, but we also know that they are dying out. I don't mean that figuratively, they really are dying out. Give it time. A little bit of time.


That's true, and they are just as likely to get mad and quit as we are when they're outnumbered.  I wonder how many of these people who are here, trying to fracture the movement have ever attended a GOP meeting and run for a delegate slot.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Doesn't seem to be much gain from winning positions when the RNC is able to strip the power from those positions arbitrarily. It is being reported that due to Isaac, Romney will be nominated early. How convenient.
> People here need to stop assuming that the whole of the liberty movement is on board with staying in the Republican party.


The link to this was posted in another thread, but I thought it would be a good idea to post the details here so it can be revisited how Ron Paul supporters  from primary and caucus voters to duly-elected chairmanship positions were disenfranchised during this 2012 election cycle.  After everyone reads this, *please offer your reasons why anyone should believe this won't/can't happen again in 2016:*

*August 6, 2012*
*How the GOP Establishment Stole the Nomination from Ron Paul*
_By Jaret Glenn
_


> Many of the delegates Romney has won may be the result of dirty tricks and outright election fraud. IA: For the first time ever, the Iowa GOP changed the final vote count to a secret location. FL: The Florida GOP broke party rules by switching to a winner-take-all system. NV: After Paul won, Repugs formed "Team Nevada" to replace his delegation. CO: Romney supporters were caught passing out fake Ron Paul slates. Read more!
> 
> ::::::::
> 
> If you follow mainstream election coverage, you might think Mitt Romney has coasted to an honest, easy, well-deserved Republican nomination. Unfortunately for Republican voters, nothing could be further from the truth. The primary process has been an all-out slugfest and many of the delegates Romney has won may be the result of dirty tricks and even election fraud. The following narrative includes links to reports, first-hand testimonials, and video evidence highlighting actions taken by the GOP to ensure a Romney victory, at the expense of fracturing the party just prior to the general election. Party leaders at the county and state level have changed or violated party rules, cancelled caucuses, changed vote counts, thrown out entire counties of votes, counted public votes privately, called-in the SWAT team, and inexplicably replaced Paul delegates with Romney delegates to block Ron Paul from winning the nomination.
> 
> Iowa: Days before the caucuses, Paul held a commanding lead in the polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like Iowa's Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul's campaign by spreading rumors he would lose to Obama if nominated. Even though the Iowa GOP platform reads like a Ron Paul speech, shortly before the caucuses, Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad told Politico , "[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire". The message from the Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted vote.
> 
> Huffington Post reported that Paul was ahead by one point over Romney and Rick Santorum inentrance polls conducted by Edison Media Research for the AP before the caucuses. For the first time ever, the Iowa GOP changed the final vote count to a secret location . After the caucus, resultsfrom 8 precincts (including those with colleges, in a state where Paul won 48% of the youth vote) went missing. Interestingly, these were all precincts Romney lost in 2008. In addition, GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts. Though polling in a comfortable first place, Paul finished third in this non-binding straw poll, behind Romney and Santorum.
> ...



Source: http://www.opednews.com/populum/prin...nt=a&id=154033


*Submitters Website: http://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/*

----------


## Travlyr

> Gary Johnson is preferrable to Obama and Romney by a wide margin.
> 
> Besides,...Gary Johnson isn't the libertarian party.
> 
> The Libertarian party will become what it's members decide it should be,...and it's up for grabs.
> 
> ,..as opposed to the Democratic and Republican parties which have been totally owned almost from their inception.


Okay. Then vote for him. See if it counts.

----------


## angelatc

> Libertarian Party is to Apple Computer what the Republican Party is to Microsoft (or Samsung!)
> 
> The Republican Party is a dinosaur.



That's a pipe dream.  Libertarians have no power, no real leadership, and they don't win elections.

----------


## SneakyFrenchSpy

GOP to the Liberty movement:

You didn't think we were going to relinquish power that easily, now did ya?



Note: The"rescue" paint job, for comic relief.

----------


## angelatc

> Rand has cast his lot with the current mainstream GOP.
> 
> Any further alliance with Rand will serve only to divide the liberty movement.



You're here trying to divide the liberty movement, saying that Rand will divide the liberty movement.

----------


## angelatc

> GOP to the Liberty movement:
> 
> You didn't think we were going to relinquish power that easily, now did ya?
> 
> 
> 
> Note: The"rescue" paint job, for comic relief.


Tampa's mayor is a Democrat.

----------


## Smitty

> That's true, and they are just as likely to get mad and quit as we are when they're outnumbered.  I wonder how many of these people who are here, trying to fracture the movement have ever attended a GOP meeting and run for a delegate slot.


The movement fractured the day Rand went on Hannity and endorsed Romney.

If that doesn't demonstrate the power of the current iteration of the GOP to you nothing will.

But some of us choose to continue the liberty movement,..and we don't want to wait until after Romney serves his 8 years in the White House to see some results.

For those of us who want more immediate, more realistic results,..there's the Libertarian party.

----------


## Carlybee

> That's a pipe dream.  Libertarians have no power, no real leadership, and they don't win elections.


Neither does the liberty branch of the GOP apparently...even the ones who won states outright.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> One issue with this....Ron Paul has chosen the republican venue.


And that's the one thing that never made sense.  Unless he was planning for Rand's run all along, as far back as 2007.  I've made no secret of the fact that I'm not ready to throw my full support behind Rand as I did for Ron, so sticking around for Rand in 2016 is a no-go for me.  He might win me over, but it's going to be harder to trust him now.

----------


## georgiaboy

We gotta just keep doin' what we're doin'.  It actually is working.  We are winning.

In '07 we got a toe-hold, now we've got feet in the door in some places, a seat at the table in others, and we own the house in a few.

In '08 we had a separate convention.  In '12, we have majority state delegations.

Keep pushing.  In as many ways you can sign up for.  Let it infiltrate every area of your life.  Be the change you seek.

Remember why we're doing this.  Remember the man who inspired us to do it.  It's never, ever over.

----------


## No1butPaul

> That's a pipe dream.  Libertarians have no power, no real leadership, and they don't win elections.


That's going to change.  They said the same thing about Apple ... and they probably feel stupid now.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You're here trying to divide the liberty movement, saying that Rand will divide the liberty movement.


But you don't understand:  Smitty's right, Rand already divided it with his endorsement.  Smitty, Carlybee, I, and others are just pointing out what has already happened.

----------


## Smitty

> You're here trying to divide the liberty movement, saying that Rand will divide the liberty movement.


Absolutely not.

We can debate until the end of time about whether Rand is a positive or a negative for the liberty movement,...but there's no debating the fact that he caused an enormous split within it.

That much is self evident.

----------


## thatpeculiarcat

> OK, I'm not sure that's true at all, but let's assume it is for the sake of moving on.
> 
> You're saying that we should organize in a third party, so we can oppose Rand?


Not necessarily. If Rand was running, I'd pay close attention to him and I would consider voting for him.
But that is just if Rand was running. And if he was, he'd probably be more successful in terms of votes and in terms of the GOP not completely screwing him over, than his father was.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Rand has cast his lot with the current mainstream GOP.
> 
> Any further alliance with Rand will serve only to divide the liberty movement.


Sleep with dogs = get fleas

----------


## Smitty

,..and,.. well,..from that perspective, there's no denying that Rand is a negative for the liberty movement.

----------


## No1butPaul

Why is everyone assuming Rand would even be the next in line?  IMO, ain't gonna happen.  They got what they wanted from him, it didn't work, they have no use for him now.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> Except that the corruption of the Dems and the Pubs has created scenario where all third party candidates are blocked from getting anywhere near the American public and thus have no chance whatsoever.


Normally I would agree with this.. but I think we have an opportunity here.  
The Dems voters are not really excited for another Obama term.  They are not coming out in force to re-elect him. They are mad at his broken promises.
The republican voters think Romney is as bad as a dem.. they are not going to rush out to get him elected either.
They are both weak this year, a 3rd party grabbing 15% of the vote would put the fear of god into them..

----------


## angelatc

> Neither does the liberty branch of the GOP apparently...even the ones who won states outright.


I might remind you that we didn't actually win any primaries, but we got a huge number of votes compared to last time.

Again, we won a lot more this time than we did last time.  You're right - the monkeys higher up on the tree are throwing coconuts down at us.  But the tree only goes so high.  The closer we get to the top, the less momentum the coconuts will have.  And when we get to the top, we get the coconuts.

But we need a stronger leader.

----------


## Travlyr

> Tampa's mayor is a Democrat.


In name only.

----------


## SneakyFrenchSpy

> Tampa's mayor is a Democrat.


Sorry but I fail to see the relevancy there. It's establishment vs Liberty in this fight, not (D) vs (R). The Dems must be delighted to not have to go up against Paul and having the crony-GOP do all the dirty work for them.

----------


## angelatc

> ,..and,.. well,..from that perspective, there's no denying that Rand is a negative for the liberty movement.


Apparently you and I are both members of the Liberty movement.  I see Rand as a positive, if for no other reason than he actually wins elections.  What do you have, except a plan that hasn't brought any political victory for the past 30 years?

----------


## sailingaway

> And that's the one thing that never made sense.  Unless he was planning for Rand's run all along, as far back as 2007.  I've made no secret of the fact that I'm not ready to throw my full support behind Rand as I did for Ron, so sticking around for Rand in 2016 is a no-go for me.  He might win me over, but it's going to be harder to trust him now.


Ron tried the LP and decided things were so stacked against him you spent all your money on ballot access and it made no sense as  an avenue of change. He was then elected back as GOP, so for HIM obviously this worked to an extent (the extent that it is the power brokers and not the voting public impacting assignments and advancement and he wouldn't play the game, bless his heart.)

I think he is right we should become the power center of the GOP, but he is ahead of us and said we should be doing this in all parties.  There are a lot more of us now than 1988 when he would go to a campus and get 30 people. We may have other options.  But I absolutely see the success, slow as it is, in the GOP and think we should continue.  That doesn't mean it has to be the only thing we do.

----------


## georgiaboy

in 07, we had one US Representative out of all of the 536 top elected officials.

in 08, 10, 12, we've been growing our numbers both in the House and the Senate, not only nationally, but in local and state offices as well.

This means our market share is increasing, and others' is shrinking.

We are gaining ground every cycle.  Keep it up.

----------


## angelatc

> We gotta just keep doin' what we're doin'.  It actually is working.  We are winning.
> 
> In '07 we got a toe-hold, now we've got feet in the door in some places, a seat at the table in others, and we own the house in a few.
> 
> In '08 we had a separate convention.  In '12, we have majority state delegations.
> 
> Keep pushing.  In as many ways you can sign up for.  Let it infiltrate every area of your life.  Be the change you seek.
> 
> Remember why we're doing this.  Remember the man who inspired us to do it.  It's never, ever over.


Exactly.  Maybe it's the younger generation's immediate gratification mindset that is causing the disconnect here.

----------


## Smitty

> Okay. Then vote for him. See if it counts.


If everyone in the liberty movement voted for the libertarian candidate, it would demonstrate the size of the liberty movement voting block.

Besides,...the alternative is to vote for Romney or Obama,...and I won't do that.

----------


## sailingaway

> If everyone in the liberty movement voted for the libertarian candidate, it would demonstrate the size of the liberty movement voting block.



so would everyone voting, but leaving President blank, as a vote of no confidence in the choices.  That is tracked, but little reported, but third party results are also little reported. Either way we'd have to get the numbers out.

----------


## wgadget

A 15% turnout for the Libertarian candidate would definitely catch the media's/R's/D's attention, and cause them to defecate down both legs, imo.

----------


## Smitty

> Ron tried the LP and decided things were so stacked against him


,...and then he ran GOP and found that it was stacked against him even more.

The GOP is owned. They adhere to no rules.

That's the lesson that should be taken from this primary.

You won't change it.

The best you can hope for is that it withers up and goes away.

----------


## angelatc

> If everyone in the liberty movement voted for the libertarian candidate, it would demonstrate the size of the liberty movement voting block.
> 
> Besides,...the alternative is to vote for Romney or Obama,...and I won't do that.


In some states, ballot access is also determined by the number of votes the LP gets.  So while there's no danger of GJ actually winning, your vote improves the probability that the LP will have easy access to that slot in the next election.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

I have no intentions of putting Johnson in the white house... So what he stands for is not important.
The idea is to make the LP a viable 3rd party by showing numbers. So lets not fight about what he stands for. 
For 2 cycles now a lot of us libertarians have been in the republican party, this allowed them to nominate Barr and this time Johnson..
That will not be the case in 2016. We will be back to nominating people like Badnarik, Brown, and RON PAUL!

I want Ron Paul to get up on stage at the RNC do the party has lost its way speech, then endorse Jonhson.
I want to watch as all the old guard crap their pants as their dreams of party unity goes out the window.

They f'ed us good. Twice now.
I really have to wonder about the people saying, "oh just stick it out for a 3rd time" or "political change takes time". 
I'm starting to think some of you are being brainwashed by being in the party.. 

Political change doesn't have to take time.. see iceland... 


2 thoughts keep running through my mind... 

Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!
&
The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over, and then expecting different results.

----------


## wgadget

> ,...and then he ran GOP and found that it was stacked against him even more.
> 
> The GOP is owned. They adhere to no rules.
> 
> That's the lesson that should be taken from this primary.
> 
> You won't change it.
> 
> The best you can hope for is that it withers up and goes away.


There are states (like California) who are going to a different primary system, where the TOP TWO no matter the party are in contention in the general. Not sure if this would be good for third parties, but offhand it seems like a positive. 

1988 is DEFINITELY not 2012.

----------


## Origanalist

> Exactly.  Maybe it's the younger generation's immediate gratification mindset that is causing the disconnect here.


I think you are on to something. They haven't been around to watch the slow, inexorable grind of libert and freedom lost one (sometimes) almost unnoticable step at a time. It's only in recent years it has come in such a dizzying rush.

----------


## mport1

> It has become apparent that even when playing by the rules, the RNC will do ANYTHING to hold on to power, including changing or breaking it's own rules.
> Is it REALLY a lost cause with the GOP? Is it just a pipe dream that we can somehow change the status quo from the inside?
> Personally, I'm done with the GOP. After the strong arm tactics, the fraud, and the blatant use of power to ensure that things go exactly as they have planned, it is quite obvious that what we are doing isn't working within the structure of the system because the system simply adapts (see - lies, cheats and steals) to get the outcome it desires.
> So now what?


Now, I think people need to stop wasting time and money on politics.  Ron Paul's campaigns were great for education and spreading the message, but changing things through political means is going to be nearly impossible.  

We now need to focus on education, and other alternatives like the Free State Project and Seasteading.  If we can educate the populace, some political wins will come naturally.  However, we will never have true and lasting freedom without winning over the hearts and minds of the people.

----------


## angelatc

> ,...and then he ran GOP and found that it was stacked against him even more.
> 
> The GOP is owned. They adhere to no rules.
> 
> That's the lesson that should be taken from this primary.
> 
> You won't change it.
> 
> The best you can hope for is that it withers up and goes away.


That's not going to happen. 

Ron Paul has played this game for a lot longer than you. I assure you that he didn't "learn" anything he didn't already know.  This was designed to be a lesson for us in human nature, as well as how important it is for us to be active in the party.

----------


## Carlybee

> I wonder how many of these people who are here, trying to fracture the movement have ever attended a GOP meeting and run for a delegate slot.


You can blame Rand Paul and factions within Ron's campaign for fracturing the liberty movement thank you very much.  I have attended meetings and was elected a county GOP delegate in 2008 and I was a Ron Paul supporter.  Would you like me to relay to you what happened to the Ron Paul movement in 2008 at the hands of the GOP?   Stop trying to paint people here as some sort of traitors when we all know who the real traitors are.

----------


## angelatc

> Now, I think people need to stop wasting time and money on politics.  Ron Paul's campaigns were great for education and spreading the message, but changing things through political means is going to be nearly impossible.  
> 
> We now need to focus on education, and other alternatives like the Free State Project and Seasteading.  If we can educate the populace, some political wins will come naturally.  However, we will never have true and lasting freedom without winning over the hearts and minds of the people.


LOL!

----------


## wgadget

> I have no intentions of putting Johnson in the white house... So what he stands for is not important.
> The idea is to make the LP a viable 3rd party by showing numbers. So lets not fight about what he stands for. 
> For 2 cycles now a lot of us libertarians have been in the republican party, this allowed them to nominate Barr and this time Johnson..
> That will not be the case in 2016. We will be back to nominating people like Badnarik, Brown, and RON PAUL!
> 
> I want Ron Paul to get up on stage at the RNC do the party has lost its way speech, then endorse Jonhson.
> I want to watch as all the old guard crap their pants as their dreams of party unity goes out the window.
> 
> They f'ed us good. Twice now.
> ...


Yep, I guess it's "twice" at this point. The third time we will be officially considered FOOLS, imo.

----------


## angelatc

> You can blame Rand Paul and factions within Ron's campaign for fracturing the liberty movement thank you very much.  I have attended meetings and was elected a county GOP delegate in 2008 and I was a Ron Paul supporter.  Would you like me to relay to you what happened to the Ron Paul movement in 2008 at the hands of the GOP?   Stop trying to paint people here as some sort of traitors when we all know who the real traitors are.


The people who think we need to stay and fight back are the traitors while those that are limping away whining are the patriots.  Got it.

----------


## No1butPaul

Just a thought ...

Internet freedom is great, and necessary, but REAL freedom is better. GOP refused to incorporate NDAA in their platform.

----------


## sailingaway

> Just a thought ...
> 
> Internet freedom is great, and necessary, but REAL freedom is better. GOP refused to incorporate NDAA in their platform.


they refused to incorporate getting rid of it, yes, and avoided monetary policy in their audit plank etc.

----------


## angelatc

> Yep, I guess it's "twice" at this point. The third time we will be officially considered FOOLS, imo.


We did not win a single primary. This despite 8 years of education.

We did win a huge increase in votes.  So by all means, let's get pissed and quit.

I have no patience for this.  If you want to leave, then GTFO.  But these are Ron Paul Forums, and your plans aren't his, so take your crying asses somewhere else so the grownups can get back to work.

----------


## georgiaboy

With the GOP, Ron found a national platform during the presidential debates that started this movement that has been growing astronomically ever since and will continue to do so.

We've found out that the GOP is not owned, that it can be changed.  We've changed it already all over the country.

The big takeaway this primary is what we've been doing is working, and we just need to keep pressing forward, bringing more people along with us.

----------


## Smitty

> Ron Paul has played this game for a lot longer than you.


The rules of the game got changed this cycle.

The delegate strategy failed as a result.

----------


## Carlybee

> That's not going to happen. 
> 
> *This was designed to be a lesson for us* in human nature, as well as how important it is for us to be active in the party.


Really?  My aren't you all seeing and all knowing.  I thought this was a presidential campaign where we were supposed to be supporting our candidate as was his own campaign.  I didn't realize it was just a test run.

----------


## Carlybee

> The people who think we need to stay and *let the GOP $#@! all over us again* are the traitors while those that* are visionary enough to understand why the GOP will never allow a liberty contingent to win* are patriots.


Fixed it for ya

----------


## wgadget

> We did not win a single primary. This despite 8 years of education.
> 
> We did win a huge increase in votes.  So by all means, let's get pissed and quit.
> 
> I have no patience for this.  If you want to leave, then GTFO.  But these are Ron Paul Forums, and your plans aren't his, so take your crying asses somewhere else so the grownups can get back to work.


Um...There is the CHEATING factor that you're forgetting. How can we win when the deck is stacked against us from the start? I'll never forget that Iowa woman saying "The Party won't allow Ron Paul to win. They're trying to figure out how to keep him from winning." And those two news guys saying, "If Ron Paul wins Iowa, it is meaningless, and the second place winner will get the glory." 

WTF?

Sorry for being a realist.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Now, I think people need to stop wasting time and money on politics.  Ron Paul's campaigns were great for education and spreading the message, but changing things through political means is going to be nearly impossible.  
> 
> We now need to focus on education, and other alternatives like the Free State Project and Seasteading.  If we can educate the populace, some political wins will come naturally.  However, we will never have true and lasting freedom without winning over the hearts and minds of the people.


Locally, look into the ACLU NDAA toolkit





> States, cities, and towns across the country have been considering resolutions or legislation opposing Sections 1021 and 1022 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the dangerous provisions that would authorize the president  and all future presidents  to order the military to pick up and imprison people captured far from any battlefield without charging them or putting them on trial.
> 
> The ACLU has drafted a model state and local bill that you can encourage your city council and/or local legislator to adopt - includes:
> 
> The model legislation 
> Talking points 
> Tips on how to pass a community resolution 
> The legislation does several things:
> 
> ...

----------


## angelatc

> Really?  My aren't you all seeing and all knowing.  I thought this was a presidential campaign where we were supposed to be supporting our candidate as was his own campaign.  I didn't realize it was just a test run.


I don't think it started out as a test run.

But IMHO, there was no legitimate reason to believe we could win the presidential nomination without winning a single primary.  (I hope I can now say that without getting banned.)

----------


## georgiaboy

One ongoing takeaway for me concerns the national media.

I want Peter Thiel to take his recently cashed in Facebook stock and start his own cable news channel, one that points our way.  It won't surprise me to see him doing just that.

To me, a legitimate news source that 'gets it' for the masses to begin following is the missing piece to really quickly changing the landscape.

----------


## wgadget

> The rules of the game got changed this cycle.
> 
> The delegate strategy failed as a result.


And the delegate strategy shall NEVER succeed as a result. They've got their tenterhooks in now. Screw em.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Um...There is the CHEATING factor that you're forgetting. How can we win when the deck is stacked against us from the start? I'll never forget that Iowa woman saying "The Party won't allow Ron Paul to win. They're trying to figure out how to keep him from winning." And those two news guys saying, "If Ron Paul wins Iowa, it is meaningless, and the second place winner will get the glory." 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> Sorry for being a realist.


You are not wrong.  If Romney loses, we have a chance to take over the apparatus and reinject morals.  If he wins, I agree, we should GTFO of that dinosaur!

----------


## angelatc

> Um...There is the CHEATING factor that you're forgetting. How can we win when the deck is stacked against us from the start? I'll never forget that Iowa woman saying "The Party won't allow Ron Paul to win. They're trying to figure out how to keep him from winning." And those two news guys saying, "If Ron Paul wins Iowa, it is meaningless, and the second place winner will get the glory." 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Sorry for being a realist.


Of course I'm not forgetting the cheating factor.  I am bemoaning that we weren't strong enough to stop it.  The difference is that I want to add the word "yet" to that sentence, while the perennial losers are here trying to divide our power and undermine the successes we did get.

----------


## No1butPaul

> And the delegate strategy shall NEVER succeed as a result. They've got their tenterhooks in now. Screw em.


Good point, they made sure that strategy won't work in the future ... so the irate, tireless minority will be meaningless in the future.  We DO need to GTFO.

----------


## angelatc

> Fixed it for ya


Take your Social Security check and go home, and cry about life not being fair.  That seems to be your talent.

----------


## Smitty

> And the delegate strategy shall NEVER succeed as a result. They've got their tenterhooks in now. Screw em.


Exactly.

This years primary provided the RNC with the education necessary to ward off all future challenges to it's power.

It has succeeded in doing virtually everything it set out to do except put Romney in the White House.

No one will ever get that close again as long as they work within the GOP.

----------


## sailingaway

> Um...There is the CHEATING factor that you're forgetting. How can we win when the deck is stacked against us from the start? I'll never forget that Iowa woman saying "The Party won't allow Ron Paul to win. They're trying to figure out how to keep him from winning." And those two news guys saying, "If Ron Paul wins Iowa, it is meaningless, and the second place winner will get the glory." 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Sorry for being a realist.


We may need to do other things TOO, but I agree you don't quit something that is working until you have something that is working better in place.  I do suggest we a) address the cheating; and b) start thinking about what that additional something else might be.

----------


## angelatc

> Good point, they made sure that strategy won't work in the future ... so the irate, tireless minority will be meaningless in the future. .


Why do you think the delegate strategy won't work? We need more delegates, and we need candidates that can actually win elections.  That's too hard, so we quit?

----------


## sailingaway

> Exactly.
> 
> This years primary provided the RNC with the education necessary to ward off all future challenges to it's power.
> 
> It has succeeded in doing virtually everything it set out to do except put Romney in the White House.
> 
> No one will ever get that close again as long as they work within the GOP.


These rules have not yet been adopted and they sharply impact ALL states.  also, rules can change.

----------


## No1butPaul

> they refused to incorporate getting rid of it, yes, and avoided monetary policy in their audit plank etc.


Yes, of course ... when I say they refused to incorporate NDAA, I mean OUR POSITION w/respect to the NDAA provision that allows for the unlawful indefinite detention of American citizens at the whim of the current "king."

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't think it started out as a test run.
> 
> But IMHO, there was no legitimate reason to believe we could win the presidential nomination without winning a single primary.  (I hope I can now say that without getting banned.)


It wouldn't have mattered if we had won half the primaries.  The RNC changed the rules so that the delegates have no voice.  Or did you miss that news?

----------


## jkob

Keep chipping away

they can't stop us forever

----------


## wgadget

> These rules have not yet been adopted and they sharply impact ALL states.  also, rules can change.


The GOP has effectively demonstrated that the rules are arbitrary and meaningless.

I thank them for the education.

----------


## wgadget

> Why do you think the delegate strategy won't work? We need more delegates, and we need candidates that can actually win elections.  That's too hard, so we quit?


Never gonna be another candidate as principled and pure as Ron Paul. I don't see it happening.

----------


## Smitty

> .  also, rules can change.


Not only can they,...they *will* be,..as necessary.

But they will never be changed in a manner which will cause the leadership of the GOP to be handed over.

It's a privately owned organization.

That's the only realistic way to view it at this point.

----------


## angelatc

> Yes, of course ... when I say they refused to incorporate NDAA, I mean OUR POSITION w/respect to the NDAA provision that allows for the unlawful indefinite detention of American citizens at the whim of the current "king."



OK, I admit that I don't care about the platform, because they always ignore it as quickly as they can.  

But we got a sitting Congressman to state that the Founders put it in the Constitution, implying that it was absurd that the GOP wouldn't put it in their platform.  4 years ago we would have been sending him thousands of dollars just for that support.  This year, it hardly registered a blip.

We're taking our victories for granted.

----------


## angelatc

> Never gonna be another candidate as principled and pure as Ron Paul. I don't see it happening.


OK, for you it is about the man and not the message.  Fair enough.

----------


## angelatc

> Not only can they,...they *will* be,..as necessary.
> 
> But they will never be changed in a manner which will cause the leadership of the GOP to be handed over.


Honey, it was *never* realistic to believe they were going to "hand over" the leadership.

----------


## Smitty

> Honey, it was *never* realistic to believe they were going to "hand over" the leadership.


So what was the effort of the liberty movement intended to produce,.."honey?"

----------


## angelatc

> It wouldn't have mattered if we had won half the primaries.  The RNC changed the rules so that the delegates have no voice.  Or did you miss that news?


My God, you are so negative.  I thought I was bad, but damn...

The way I read the rules, if we won half of the primaries, Ron Paul would have all the delegates in half the primary states. 

And the local GOP groups have habits of breaking the RNC rules.  Take, for example, when to hold their primaries.  And the winner-take-all rules.  If the rules are unpopular, they'll change them again.  They change the rules all the time.  Its what they exist to do.

----------


## wgadget

> OK, for you it is about the man and not the message.  Fair enough.


No, it's not that. It's that when a pure, honest, consistent standard-bearer can't make the grade, WHO CAN?

----------


## angelatc

> So what was the effort of the liberty movement intended to produce,.."honey?"


Majority control of the GOP.  Sorry it didn't happen quick enough to suit you.  Politics is a bloodsport.  I am just surprised that so many people are shocked to find that the ruling elite will cheat, lie and steal to retain power. 

If it's a wake up call for some of you, then awesome. Welcome to our world.  But don't you DARE assert that we were the naive people in this movement.  Some of knew how this was going to play out.

Heck, some of us got banned for saying it out loud.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> No, it's not that. It's that when a pure, honest, consistent standard-bearer can't make the grade, WHO CAN?


The good isn't the enemy of the perfect. For example, if I can get XXX amount of candidates/politicians to agree with me 80%+ of the time, there is then plenty of avenues to seek for more liberty. If I can only get 1 congressman to agree with me 100% of the time, we get what we've always got.

----------


## angelatc

> No, it's not that. It's that when a pure, honest, consistent standard-bearer can't make the grade, WHO CAN?


I can't make that decision for you.   But I can throw out several names of people currently holding office that I would probably support all the way to the top, and I can't remember ever before feeling that way in my nearly  50 years on this planet.

----------


## wgadget

My point is that with the power of the media/GOP against us at every turn with a "clean candidate", isn't the whole thing an exercise in futility? 

Sorry for the negativity, but the political situation in the US is discouraging and disgusting.

----------


## Carlybee

> My God, you are so negative.  I thought I was bad, but damn...
> 
> The way I read the rules, if we won half of the primaries, Ron Paul would have all the delegates in half the primary states. 
> 
> And the local GOP groups have habits of breaking the RNC rules.  Take, for example, when to hold their primaries.  And the winner-take-all rules.  If the rules are unpopular, they'll change them again.  They change the rules all the time.  Its what exist to do.


I am talking about what they did at the national level.  It didn't matter what happened at the local or state primary level, the RNC threw every single gain in the trashcan.  Now you can keep shooting the messenger, call me negative or whatever but it doesn't change the facts.  Have you not been paying attention these last few weeks to what they did to keep every single Ron Paul delegate in line as they see it?

*"RNC Passes Rule Giving Itself Power To Change Any Rule Without Delegate Vote"
*

----------


## Smitty

> Majority control of the GOP.  Sorry it didn't happen quick enough to suit you.  Politics is a bloodsport.  I am just surprised that so many people are shocked to find that the ruling elite will cheat, lie and steal to retain power. 
> 
> If it's a wake up call for some of you, then awesome. Welcome to our world.  But don't you DARE assert that we were the naive people in this movement.  Some of knew how this was going to play out.
> 
> Heck, some of us got banned for saying it out loud.


I'd like to believe that it's been a wake up call,...but unfortunately,..even in the face of the lying, cheating and outright criminality, some people still think that the best course is to work within the cauldren of lying, cheating, and outright criminality of the GOP.

There comes a time to put away childish things.

Generation X and the millennials are a huge voting block.

It's important that they don't get co-opted into the corruption of the GOP.

(Rand Paul's submission to it didn't help matters)

The best way to keep the upcoming generations from becoming a part of the problem is to offer them a viable alternative.

The Libertarian party is the best bet out there.

----------


## sailingaway

> Majority control of the GOP.  Sorry it didn't happen quick enough to suit you.  Politics is a bloodsport.  I am just surprised that so many people are shocked to find that the ruling elite will cheat, lie and steal to retain power. 
> 
> If it's a wake up call for some of you, then awesome. Welcome to our world.  But don't you DARE assert that we were the naive people in this movement.  Some of knew how this was going to play out.
> 
> Heck, some of us got banned for saying it out loud.


some got banned for harrassing people who were fighting the fight and dampening enthusiasm.  Unless you think people should stop fighting the fight.

----------


## sailingaway

> The good isn't the enemy of the perfect. For example, if I can get XXX amount of candidates/politicians to agree with me 80%+ of the time, there is then plenty of avenues to seek for more liberty. If I can only get 1 congressman to agree with me 100% of the time, we get what we've always got.


utilitarian arguments work for some people, others need inspiration.

----------


## Origanalist

> My point is that with the power of the media/GOP against us at every turn with a "clean candidate", *isn't the whole thing an exercise in futility?* 
> 
> Sorry for the negativity, but the political situation in the US is discouraging and disgusting.


No, it's not. Listen, I never even heard of Mises, Rothbard, or the whole libertarian world until W,s second term. Really. There's a lot of people that are being made aware and the louder we "squeak" the more people will hear it. I still don't consider myself a doctrinaire libertarian, but we have *much* in common. much more than the gop neocons.

----------


## angelatc

> I am talking about what they did at the national level.  It didn't matter what happened at the local or state primary level, the RNC threw every single gain in the trashcan.  Now you can keep shooting the messenger, call me negative or whatever but it doesn't change the facts.  Have you not been paying attention these last few weeks to what they did to keep every single Ron Paul delegate in line as they see it?


No, they didn't throw every single gain in the trashcan.  Yes, it is a travesty that all our delegates are not going to be seated, absolutely.   

But we will have a lot more delegates on the floor than we did in 2007.  

As for the changes to the delegate system - if Ron Paul had won every single primary, but the neocons swooped in and took delegates away at the convention level, we'd be pissed.  For that reason, I don't hate the fact that the delegate assignments are now tied to the popular vote.  That seems more equitable to me. I don't like winner-take-all, because that seems to defeat the delegate system.

 (I'd rather caucus instead of primary, but that's neither here nor there.)

----------


## moostraks

> My God, you are so negative.  I thought I was bad, but damn...
> 
> The way I read the rules, if we won half of the primaries, Ron Paul would have all the delegates in half the primary states. 
> 
> And the local GOP groups have habits of breaking the RNC rules.  Take, for example, when to hold their primaries.  And the winner-take-all rules.  If the rules are unpopular, they'll change them again.  They change the rules all the time.  Its what exist to do.


You folks on the stay in the GOP angle have an almost impossible task in front of you and will probably lose even more enormously next round.I think they have enough in place rules wise to handle Rand supporters easily. You don't have a viable candidate in the wings who isn't spoiled fruit and you have a party that made it very clear it wants nothing to do with the platform or the people who support real liberty from tyrannical government. Most folks are smart enough not to play games with the fat bully that cheats. 

I saw the cheating last cycle in Newt's old district and according to your bar of did I run for delegate in order to comment, yes. It opened my eyes to what the old guard will do and how hard it will be to slay the dragon. Without even having a pure candidate with Ron Paul's record, I think the GOP crowd might be screwed. It might actually be more logical to go to something without the red/blue context to keep the outliers engaged. You are free to disagree but stop painting people as lazy or cry babies for questioning whether a different course might be necessary. It is people using discernment and questioning things that brought them to look outside of the msm candidates in the first place. Now most of the time those same people are ridiculed mercilessly and shamelessly here.

----------


## wgadget

> No, it's not. Listen, I never even heard of Mises, Rothbard, or the whole libertarian world until W,s second term. Really. There's a lot of people that are being made aware and the louder we "squeak" the more people will hear it. I still don't consider myself a doctrinaire libertarian, but we have *much* in common. much more than the gop neocons.


I think we agree...But the neocon GOP is not about to let the libertarian wing fly without a fight.

Here's what I just posted on another related thread:

Seems that Ron Paul in 2012 could possibly have the power to carry the Libertarian Party to new heights of acceptance. Remember the constant questioning of the MSM as to whether he would run third party? An endorsement of Gary Johnson would not make a liar out of him, since he usually answered NO. But it would give the LP credence and a boost, especially in 2012, when THE MASSES are totally despondent about the horrible choices we've been given.

And after all, he apparently thought running as a Libertarian was a WORTHWHILE cause back in 1988, or he wouldn't have done it. It's important to remember what he learned from that experience: namely, that it's an exercise in futility. It wouldn't surprise me ONE BIT if he'd relish the thought of rectifying that situation once and for all, and he could do it with his endorsement.
Just my opinion.

Ron Paul's power lies in his humble political purity, imo, which is rare indeed lately. I hope he uses it wisely in the coming few days.

----------


## sailingaway

> You folks on the stay in the GOP angle have an almost impossible task in front of you and will probably lose even more enormously next round.I think they have enough in place rules wise to handle Rand supporters easily. You don't have a viable candidate in the wings who isn't spoiled fruit and you have a party that made it very clear it wants nothing to do with the platform or the people who support real liberty from tyrannical government. Most folks are smart enough not to play games with the fat bully that cheats. 
> 
> I saw the cheating last cycle in Newt's old district and according to your bar of did I run for delegate in order to comment, yes. It opened my eyes to what the old guard will do and how hard it will be to slay the dragon. Without even having a pure candidate with Ron Paul's record, I think the GOP crowd might be screwed. It might actually be more logical to go to something without the red/blue context to keep the outliers engaged. You are free to disagree but stop painting people as lazy or cry babies for questioning whether a different course might be necessary. It is people using discernment and questioning things that brought them to look outside of the msm candidates in the first place. Now most of the time those same people are ridiculed mercilessly and shamelessly here.


I think a variety of avenues should be pursued.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'd like to believe that it's been a wake up call,...but unfortunately,..even in the face of the lying, cheating and outright criminality, some people still think that the best course is to work within the cauldren of lying, cheating, and outright criminality of the GOP.
> 
> There comes a time to put away childish things.
> 
> Generation X and the millennials are a huge voting block.
> 
> It's important that they don't get co-opted into the corruption of the GOP.
> 
> (Rand Paul's submission to it didn't help matters)
> ...



Actually if the Libertarian Party expects to be a power player they need a makeover.   Beginning with millions and millions of dollars in donations, a billionaire SuperPac, etc...because unfortunately that's what it takes to win elections in America.  It's really hard to get that as well without being stuck up the ass of the banks and the MIC.  It's a nice thought, but frankly not very realistic. Until the majority of people in this country get up and start raising their voices and protesting not much changes...and how do they do that with vote rigging and the DHS ready to stomp on their necks?  Thanks to the Patriot Act and those who keep voting for it our voices as the people have been silenced and our power has become impotent.  So to say that any political party in this country is a best bet one has to take all those things into consideration.

----------


## angelatc

> some got banned for harrassing people who were fighting the fight and dampening enthusiasm.  Unless you think people should stop fighting the fight.


It was (and is) a very emotional time.  I don't want to dwell on it.

----------


## wgadget

I think Ron should start a DISENFRANCHISED PARTY.

The votes are built-in.

----------


## angelatc

> You folks on the stay in the GOP angle have an almost impossible task in front of you and will probably lose even more enormously next round..


Sure.  But it's still far and away the best chance we have.

----------


## Smitty

> Actually if the Libertarian Party expects to be a power player they need a makeover.   Beginning with millions and millions of dollars in donations, a billionaire SuperPac, etc...because unfortunately that's what it takes to win elections in America.


Any true liberty candidate running in any party will need to be able to win without that.

----------


## Carlybee

> No, they didn't throw every single gain in the trashcan.  Yes, it is a travesty that all our delegates are not going to be seated, absolutely.   
> 
> But we will have a lot more delegates on the floor than we did in 2007.  
> 
> As for the changes to the delegate system - if Ron Paul had won every single primary, but the neocons swooped in and took delegates away at the convention level, we'd be pissed.  For that reason, I don't hate the fact that the delegate assignments are now tied to the popular vote.  That seems more equitable to me. I don't like winner-take-all, because that seems to defeat the delegate system.
> 
>  (I'd rather caucus instead of primary, but that's neither here nor there.)


So what if we have more delegates...their voices and votes have been effectively castrated. You won't get a second chance. Not in the Republican party anyway.  See sig.  They will just keep throwing out gains and votes and God only knows what else they will resort to.  Murder?  Wouldn't surprise me.

----------


## Smitty

> Actually if the Libertarian Party expects to be a power player they need a makeover.   Beginning with millions and millions of dollars in donations, a billionaire SuperPac, etc...because unfortunately that's what it takes to win elections in America.


Any true liberty candidate running in any party will need to be able to win without that.

----------


## Carlybee

> No, they didn't throw every single gain in the trashcan.  Yes, it is a travesty that all our delegates are not going to be seated, absolutely.   
> 
> But we will have a lot more delegates on the floor than we did in 2007.  
> 
> As for the changes to the delegate system - if Ron Paul had won every single primary, but the neocons swooped in and took delegates away at the convention level, we'd be pissed.  For that reason, I don't hate the fact that the delegate assignments are now tied to the popular vote.  That seems more equitable to me. I don't like winner-take-all, because that seems to defeat the delegate system.
> 
>  (I'd rather caucus instead of primary, but that's neither here nor there.)


So what if we have more delegates...their voices and votes have been effectively castrated. You won't get a second chance. Not in the Republican party anyway.  See sig.  They will just keep throwing out gains and votes and God only knows what else they will resort to.  Murder?  Wouldn't surprise me.

----------


## moostraks

> I think a variety of avenues should be pursued.


While I agree in principle it is much how we can't even get enough to agree on how to make a statement with our votes now. So it will most likely just result in a watered down effect.  Ron Paul gave folks someone who various un-relateds could unite behind and it is unlikely that type of candidate will exist in the near future. I think many of us feel this pain to our core being.

----------


## moostraks

forum burp....

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I'd like to believe that it's been a wake up call,...but unfortunately,..even in the face of the lying, cheating and outright criminality, some people still think that the best course is to work within the cauldren of lying, cheating, and outright criminality of the GOP.
> 
> There comes a time to put away childish things.
> 
> Generation X and the millennials are a huge voting block.
> 
> It's important that they don't get co-opted into the corruption of the GOP.
> 
> (Rand Paul's submission to it didn't help matters)
> ...


Most of the younger (my) generation don't give a crap about politics, so believe me they are hardly going to be corrupted by the process. As we continue to embed ourselves within the leadership structure of the GOP, the corruption will minimize. As far as Rand goes, all he did was pay lip service to R-money and you want to act like the sky is falling. Yet in the Senate, he and others took on the McCain element in regards to NDAA so in no way shape or form is he anything but a pro-liberty politician. Rand just takes a more pragmatic approach to furthering liberty principles than does Ron. Ron is old school and calls it like it is by saying we need to bring the troops home and close oversea bases. Rand wants to audit the Pentagon to show exactly where the money is spent and where it is wasted and then by default, fiscal conservatives will have to look at defense spending and see where the money really should go for defense and cut out the junk.

----------


## MelissaWV

> So what if we have more delegates...their voices and votes have been effectively castrated. You won't get a second chance. Not in the Republican party anyway.  See sig.  They will just keep throwing out gains and votes and God only knows what else they will resort to.  Murder?  Wouldn't surprise me.


Which is why some of us were trying, even five or six years ago, to get into positions to make the rules.  Some succeeded and are even currently running for Congress.  Others are looking for any hyperbole to hide behind, rather than trying to do something about it.

All of these alternatives are great to try, but they are not likely to have much better results.  People pushing third party need to understand the words "ballot access" and understand that, as it stands, you cannot just vote for whomever you want in an election.  THAT should be a big concern to everyone.  You cannot write in a protest vote in many states.  You cannot do anything but push a button and pick an approved choice.  

The whining reminds me of people who are upset after someone wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college.  If you really disagree with something, work to have it changed, and don't wait until it's "your guy" on the losing end.

ETA:

I keep seeing the L Party mentioned over and over.  Which L Party, I wonder?  Ruwart's?  Root's?  Gravel's?  Johnson's?  It's a little difficult to convince me and mine that we should throw ourselves behind a party whose sole identity seems to be "we have no identity and sometimes people in our party put forth really unpleasant and stupid ideas but we support them because we're small so we pretty much accept anyone!"  Scientologists are Libertarian now?  No, no thanks.  It's a hard enough battle to deal with local politicians and plant the seed of ideas.  I don't need to do all of that (since the L's are not any more likely to listen to me) AND work to gain ballot access and respect for a party who is always as misunderstood as its craziest leader.

----------


## moostraks

> Sure.  But it's still far and away the best chance we have.


No, this is _your_ opinion. The problem is that the GOP is divisive and there is not currently a candidate that excites people the way Ron Paul does. So the people who left their chosen party have no motivation to stay.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> No, this is _your_ opinion. The problem is that the GOP is divisive and there is not currently a candidate that excites people the way Ron Paul does. So the people who left their chosen party have no motivation to stay.


Yeah, I'll vote for Gary and put my efforts and money towards getting Kerry, Massie, Art, Bills elected as well as helping out certain state level candidates that have decent chances to improve our farm team.

----------


## moostraks

> Which is why some of us were trying, even five or six years ago, to get into positions to make the rules.  Some succeeded and are even currently running for Congress.  Others are looking for any hyperbole to hide behind, rather than trying to do something about it.
> 
> All of these alternatives are great to try, but they are not likely to have much better results.  People pushing third party need to understand the words "ballot access" and understand that, as it stands, you cannot just vote for whomever you want in an election.  THAT should be a big concern to everyone.  You cannot write in a protest vote in many states.  You cannot do anything but push a button and pick an approved choice.  
> 
> The whining reminds me of people who are upset after someone wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college.  If you really disagree with something, work to have it changed, and don't wait until it's "your guy" on the losing end.


The environment of acceptance for a third party candidacy is just as legitimate a discussion for changing the system as staying within the two(one) party system and fighting the old guard.

----------


## Smitty

> Most of the younger (my) generation don't give a crap about politics, so believe me they are hardly going to be corrupted by the process. As we continue to embed ourselves within the leadership structure of the GOP, .



How will your generation embed itself in the process if it doesn't give a crap about politics?

Your generation's not always going to be young and apolitical.

It's important that they have something besides the RNC to represent them,...and there will be no "embedding" into the GOP just as there will be no "embedding" into any other criminal organization.

That's just another varient of the old "Hope & Change" message that gets reiterated every 4 years by the liars who own and control both of the dominant parties.

A brand new structure is much easier to occupy than one which is filled to the rafters with garbage.

----------


## MelissaWV

> The environment of acceptance for a third party candidacy is just as legitimate a discussion for changing the system as staying within the two(one) party system and fighting the old guard.


I did not say one was more legitimate.  That was kind of my point.  There are, though, a whole lot of people saying that nothing can ever get done within the GOP.  I would say there is progress being made here and there, and it would be silly to abandon it wholesale.  Likewise, breaking the party system apart would be the most beneficial thing.  If you could vote for ANYONE, that would be pretty awesome.  Instead it's that preapproved list I mentioned.  Barring all of that, the smaller parties gaining supporters would be the next best thing.

----------


## moostraks

> I did not say one was more legitimate.  That was kind of my point.  There are, though, a whole lot of people saying that nothing can ever get done within the GOP.  I would say there is progress being made here and there, and it would be silly to abandon it wholesale.  Likewise, breaking the party system apart would be the most beneficial thing.  If you could vote for ANYONE, that would be pretty awesome.  Instead it's that preapproved list I mentioned.  Barring all of that, the smaller parties gaining supporters would be the next best thing.


Foul temper today must have me misinterpreting. I am not sure where my vote will be heading. I have no problem exploring all options at this point...

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> How will your generation embed itself in the process if it doesn't give a crap about politics?
> 
> Your generation's not always going to be young and apolitical.
> 
> It's important that they have something besides the RNC to represent them,...and there will be no "embedding" into the GOP just as there will be no "embedding" into any other criminal organization.
> 
> That's just another varient of the old "Hope & Change" message that gets reiterated every 4 years by the liars who own and control both of the dominant parties.
> 
> A brand new structure is much easier to occupy than one which is filled to the rafters with garbage.


No, I was merely replying to your worry that the young folk will eventually be corrupted into or by the GOP, hence my comments about doing what is necessary and proper for taming the party in a pro-liberty direction. By and large, my gen could care less about anything regarding government. However, people like my bro and I are trying to be the frontrunners of our gen by getting involved by doing our part to reclaim the GOP to liberty so it will be ripe for when the gen does pay attention. As in, it won't be a criminal org by that time if we do our part. There is nothing in the LP to occupy as I've tried it for ten years prior to coming back to the GOP. More power to you if that's the route you want to go but I'm following Ron's advice as well as acknowledging the many gains we've made in just a short amount of time.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

dub

----------


## parocks

> So what was the effort of the liberty movement intended to produce,.."honey?"


we have to "grab it".  They won't "hand it over".  It's more difficult.  

But they are clearly cheating, breaking rules, and we should wreck their convention, making no one want to vote for Romney.  That is what you get for fking with us.

----------


## No1butPaul

> No, this is _your_ opinion. The problem is that the GOP is divisive and there is not currently a candidate that excites people the way Ron Paul does. So the people who left their chosen party have no motivation to stay.




The problem is that the GOP CHEATS!!!!

----------


## sailingaway

> Foul temper today must have me misinterpreting. I am not sure where my vote will be heading. I have no problem exploring all options at this point...


I don't either.  I'm vaguely thinking: 1) keep up the gains in the GOP; *and* 2) start an organization that would support a new party, eventually, *and* 3) go after fraud in this GOP cycle in the courts, as remedies, pursuing changes to the system so state and major party collusion through ballot access laws etc can't disenfranchise all the nation who don't like the major party candidates.

That would take a lot of interest and support by people besides me, though.  I'm just kicking thoughts around.

----------


## Carlybee

> I did not say one was more legitimate.  That was kind of my point.  There are, though, a whole lot of people saying that nothing can ever get done within the GOP.  I would say there is progress being made here and there, and it would be silly to abandon it wholesale.  Likewise, breaking the party system apart would be the most beneficial thing.  If you could vote for ANYONE, that would be pretty awesome.  Instead it's that preapproved list I mentioned.  Barring all of that, the smaller parties gaining supporters would be the next best thing.


When the ptb within the GOP changes the rules at a moment's notice nothing _can_ ever get done within the GOP.  And the only way to become part of the ptb within that party seems to be being willing to abandon principle and endorse their flawed ideology.  Amash and Bills just endorsed Romney...how is that breaking the party system apart?  Even in states where liberty candidates took the controlling positions the delegates were invalidated.

----------


## sailingaway

> When the ptb within the GOP changes the rules at a moment's notice nothing _can_ ever get done within the GOP.  And the only way to become part of the ptb within that party seems to be being willing to abandon principle and endorse their flawed ideology.  Amash and Bills just endorsed Romney...how is that breaking the party system apart?  Even in states where liberty candidates took the controlling positions the delegates were invalidated.


Amash endorsed Romney? Did I miss that?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-For-President

----------


## Smitty

> There is nothing in the LP to occupy as I've tried it for ten years prior to coming back to the GOP.


I've also been a member of the GOP,.....for 37 years.

It has nothing to offer me today,...and it definitely offers nothing to my children.

Any time or effort spent trying to reform the Republican party is lost.

----------


## Carlybee

> Amash endorsed Romney? Did I miss that?


  Sorry I'm wrong on that.  I was thinking about him voting for the Israel thing.  My mistake.  (unless he did it and I didn't see it I do remember him saying he wasn't going to endorse Romney). SORRY.   (I did just read at DP that he may endorse Romney post convention...which is just as bad IMO)

----------


## MelissaWV

> When the ptb within the GOP changes the rules at a moment's notice nothing _can_ ever get done within the GOP.  And the only way to become part of the ptb within that party seems to be being willing to abandon principle and endorse their flawed ideology.  Amash and Bills just endorsed Romney...how is that breaking the party system apart?  Even in states where liberty candidates took the controlling positions the delegates were invalidated.


Most of those liberty candidates are still in the process of being elected.  I'm not sure how you figure a candidate is going to be able to change what happens in the delegations from their states.  

If you believe that the only way is to abandon principle, then that's what you believe and there's really no changing that.  I notice your location and can sympathize with why you would feel that way.  It's not the case in every location.  The biggest problem I have seen is that people are not willing to start small, occupy lower-level positions, then work their way into the national positions.  They want to make it to the 100th floor after two stairs.  It just doesn't work that way.

----------


## parocks

> While I agree in principle it is much how we can't even get enough to agree on how to make a statement with our votes now. So it will most likely just result in a watered down effect.  Ron Paul gave folks someone who various un-relateds could unite behind and it is unlikely that type of candidate will exist in the near future. I think many of us feel this pain to our core being.


I'll take a Libertarian Conservative.  The fact that a handful of antiwar Democrats like Ron Paul and pushed Ron Paul away from positions that the Conservatives in the Republican Party liked was not beneficial to Ron Paul.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'll take a Libertarian Conservative.  The fact that a handful of antiwar Democrats like Ron Paul and pushed Ron Paul away from positions that the Conservatives in the Republican Party liked was not beneficial to Ron Paul.


SRSLY?

That's the name of donderooooooos web page.

I'm sure not going to try to move away from candidates like Ron Paul -- those are the candidates I want.

----------


## hazek

> Is it REALLY a lost cause with the GOP?


Not just the GOP, the whole idea of the state or the political process is a lost cause unless you enjoy constantly being the slaves to a small group of people..


The answer is education, spreading the right ideas and actually living by them. And you must live by them even if living by them means some people will try to exterminate you. 

Then and only then we'll see real change.

----------


## sailingaway

> Not just the GOP, the whole idea of the state or the political process is a lost cause unless you enjoy constantly being the slaves to a small group of people..
> 
> 
> The answer is education, spreading the right ideas and actually living by them. And you must live by them even if living by them means some people will try to exterminate you. 
> 
> Then and only then we'll see real change.


I feel a need to pursue multiple avenues, including political. It has an educational side to it, as well.

----------


## parocks

> Majority control of the GOP.  Sorry it didn't happen quick enough to suit you.  Politics is a bloodsport.  I am just surprised that so many people are shocked to find that the ruling elite will cheat, lie and steal to retain power. 
> 
> If it's a wake up call for some of you, then awesome. Welcome to our world.  But don't you DARE assert that we were the naive people in this movement.  Some of knew how this was going to play out.
> 
> Heck, some of us got banned for saying it out loud.


yeah

----------


## Origanalist

> I think we agree...But the neocon GOP is not about to let the libertarian wing fly without a fight.
> 
> Here's what I just posted on another related thread:
> 
> Seems that Ron Paul in 2012 could possibly have the power to carry the Libertarian Party to new heights of acceptance. Remember the constant questioning of the MSM as to whether he would run third party? An endorsement of Gary Johnson would not make a liar out of him, since he usually answered NO. But it would give the LP credence and a boost, especially in 2012, when THE MASSES are totally despondent about the horrible choices we've been given.
> 
> And after all, he apparently thought running as a Libertarian was a WORTHWHILE cause back in 1988, or he wouldn't have done it. It's important to remember what he learned from that experience: namely, that it's an exercise in futility. It wouldn't surprise me ONE BIT if he'd relish the thought of rectifying that situation once and for all, and he could do it with his endorsement.
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Ron Paul's power lies in his humble political purity, imo, which is rare indeed lately. I hope he uses it wisely in the coming few days.


I believe there has to be a rallying point after the convention is over. There is going to be a lot of pissed off people, more than there is now in my opinion. The question then becomes what we do with our anger, and whether or not we can focus it as a group.

----------


## Carlybee

> Not just the GOP, the whole idea of the state or the political process is a lost cause unless you enjoy constantly being the slaves to a small group of people..
> 
> 
> *The answer is education, spreading the right ideas and actually living by them. And you must live by them even if living by them means some people will try to exterminate you. 
> *
> Then and only then we'll see real change.


+rep   and living by them doesn't mean turning around and endorsing the enemy.

----------


## sailingaway

> I believe there has to be a rallying point after the convention is over. There is going to be a lot of pissed off people, more than there is now in my opinion. The question then becomes what we do with our anger, and whether or not we can focus it as a group.


yup

----------


## Smitty

> The fact that a handful of antiwar Democrats like Ron Paul and pushed Ron Paul away from positions that the Conservatives in the Republican Party liked was not beneficial to Ron Paul.


So a handful of Democrats are responsible for Ron Paul's anti war stance?

That's major news to *me*.

----------


## Carlybee

> I believe there has to be a rallying point after the convention is over. There is going to be a lot of pissed off people, more than there is now in my opinion. The question then becomes what we do with our anger, and whether or not we can focus it as a group.



Part of the problem is that "focusing as a group" implies collective thought which many of us with a libertarian bent find distasteful.  And probably part of the reason that there is divisiveness in the first place.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I believe there has to be a rallying point after the convention is over. There is going to be a lot of pissed off people, more than there is now in my opinion. The question then becomes what we do with our anger, and whether or not we can focus it as a group.


Frankly, people were pissed after last time as well.  Some weren't around for it, and some have chosen to block it out.  People were less than pleased when Ron spent a whole lot of "extra" money on setting up an organization.  Many felt there should have BEEN "extra" money.  There were a lot of accusations even then.

----------


## WilliamShrugged

I personally will avoid voting national and rather focus most of my attention on state and local elections. I'll probably stay with the GOP even though i'm a anarcho capitalist. But right now i will just further my own personal goals (save money, educate myself, work towards career) then move to New Hampshire. There, i will be a diehard citizens trying to educate and spread the message of liberty.

----------


## hazek

> I feel a need to pursue multiple avenues, including political. It has an educational side to it, as well.


I will not, ever again, participate and thereby help to legitimize a system of which the sole mission is to make me it's slave and I don't care how big the educational benefit of such an action could potentially be.

----------


## sailingaway

> Frankly, people were pissed after last time as well.  Some weren't around for it, and some have chosen to block it out.  People were less than pleased when Ron spent a whole lot of "extra" money on setting up an organization.  Many felt there should have BEEN "extra" money.  There were a lot of accusations even then.


Yeah, and I was just lurking (and donating) but for me C4L was the rally point to keep us together so it didn't bother me as much as it did others.  Ron was still going to be in the House.  We do have to see what's what after his speech on Sunday.

----------


## hazek

Oh and btw let's not forget how much money was sunk into this fruitless effort that oh so many foresaw was going to be utterly fruitless precisely because they(we) predicted that the status quo isn't just going to bow down and take it, and how much more efficiently this same money could have been spent educating people and simply spreading the right ideas.

But I guess, some lesson just must be learned the hard way.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Yeah, and I was just lurking (and donating) but for me C4L was the rally point to keep us together so it didn't bother me as much as it did others.  Ron was still going to be in the House.  We do have to see what's what after his speech on Sunday.


Did you get the RevPAC email?  ...  I have a heavy feeling that's what's next.

----------


## Carlybee

> Oh and btw let's not forget how much money was sunk into this fruitless effort that oh so many foresaw was going to be utterly fruitless precisely because they(we) predicted that the status quo isn't just going to bow down and take it, and how much more efficiently this same money could have been spent educating people and simply spreading the right ideas.
> 
> But I guess, some lesson just must be learned the hard way.


Think about the delegates who spent money to get to Tampa only to have the campaign cut a deal.

----------


## hazek

Come November this is what I will do:

I'll take the voting slip and I'll write on it: "I do not agree to be in any way, shape or form governed by anyone without my contractually arranged explicit consent." and I'll return it without voting for anyone.

EDIT: I realize this is pointless and wont change anything but at least I'll be faithful to myself and my own convictions.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Think about the delegates who spent money to get to Tampa only to have the campaign cut a deal.


Being a part of the political process at that level is not cheap.  If any of them went thinking that they were going to get Ron the nomination and overwhelm the traditional GOP with their superior numbers, understanding of the rules, and discipline... I'm not sure what to tell them.  I also do not think as many people spent oodles of their own money as we might think.  The campaign had talked about funding some of the delegates, I thought.  Others had ChipIns ages ago.  Others pooled resources and are crashing on couches or piling into rooms.

----------


## Carlybee

> Being a part of the political process at that level is not cheap.  If any of them went thinking that they were going to get Ron the nomination and overwhelm the traditional GOP with their superior numbers, understanding of the rules, and discipline... I'm not sure what to tell them.  I also do not think as many people spent oodles of their own money as we might think.  The campaign had talked about funding some of the delegates, I thought.  Others had ChipIns ages ago.  Others pooled resources and are crashing on couches or piling into rooms.


I doubt they expected the campaign to cut a deal to unseat some of them.

----------


## sailingaway

> Being a part of the political process at that level is not cheap.  If any of them went thinking that they were going to get Ron the nomination and overwhelm the traditional GOP with their superior numbers, understanding of the rules, and discipline... I'm not sure what to tell them.  I also do not think as many people spent oodles of their own money as we might think.  The campaign had talked about funding some of the delegates, I thought.  Others had ChipIns ages ago.  Others pooled resources and are crashing on couches or piling into rooms.


Everyone was trying to get him a 15 minute speech and a show of force because he actually DID win the delegates in enough states before the RNC stripped them. If you lie down and just take it, you just encourage it. I think it is a shame to diminish the work people did to get that, something that has not happened since 1976 by pretending it was only about the GOP nomination and anyone working for that was delusional.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But as much as we yammer on about revolution, we really aren't willing to actually fight.


Thread winner, for many reasons, on many levels.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Everyone was trying to get him a 15 minute speech and a show of force because he actually DID win the delegates in enough states before the RNC stripped them. If you lie down and just take it, you just encourage it. I think it is a shame to diminish the work people did to get that, something that has not happened since 1976 by pretending it was only about the GOP nomination and anyone working for that was delusional.


I must not be expressing myself well, though I see nothing wrong with what I wrote.

The person I quoted seemed to imply that now that a deal had been cut, the delegates had wasted all of their money on going down there.  I am saying that they did not go down there just to nominate Ron.  I doubt most thought they were going to do that.  I have more faith in my fellow Ron Paul supporter than that.  I also pointed out that this image of the starving Ron Paul supporter spending thousands to go be a delegate and win Ron the Presidency, only to be betrayed by the campaign and utterly crushed, is a meme that needs to die right now.  Again, I have more faith in my fellow supporters than that.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Think about the delegates who spent money to get to Tampa only to have the campaign cut a deal.


But, if they and the chipin helpers didn't spend any scratch to get there then none in the movement would've placed any high hopes and no one would be freaking out right now and assessing who to scapegoat. I think it was very beneficial for us that we forced the RNC and co to do what they did to show how officially dirty they can be. If it burned some people out about playing GOP politics then so be it. If it made others decide that they were gonna be extra active in flipping the old guard and restoring the party then even better. I have no problem if people want to take different approaches but to continually decry the GOP restoration project despite the many successes we've seen all over the board on this board, is a slap in the face to Ron and others that have taken the bull by the horns and still do. I'll still vote lib from time to time but my short term goal is changing my state party's leadership and getting better people from our area in the RNC. If this is duplicated in as many places as possible, we can revenge the corrupt bastards for what they've done to us and the good doctor.

----------


## affa

> The thing is, the GOP is not a small group of insiders. It is an apparatus with a massive voter list and a lot of prominent donors. The people you are referring to who control the GOP can be thrown out of their positions of power if we stay the course! You have Iowa and Nevada, two MAJOR battleground states with a lot of GOP focus, and we have kicked all those establishment cronies out of power and replaced them with our people in those states. We have national committeemen and women who are officially on the Republican National Committee from these states. Your response to losing the election cannot be to withdraw from the process, despite the progress we have made, because if it is then all that progress will have gone to waste.


Unfortunately, I have no interest in the process.   I signed up for this because of Ron Paul, held my nose, and engaged in a political system I absolutely despise.    My entire life I've vehemently disagreed from the 'change from within the system' people, but for 8 years, Ron Paul gave me hope we might actually pull it off.    

However, all we've actually done is get TPTB to show themselves a bit more than usual.  That is to say, before Ron Paul I'd talk about media manipulation and most people wouldn't believe it possible; with Ron Paul, it was so obvious nobody could deny it.  

I'm not here to be 'political'.  I'm here to change the world.  Staying with the GOP trying to further change it, after they've shown how corrupt and disgusting they were, would only eat my head.  I don't want to be a cog in a machine I despise. I don't want to be fighting for a political system I disagree with.  

I understand you 'change from within' people don't understand our position, and just wish we'd join up to help.  But by the same token, we wish you'd just give up on that change from within pipe dream, because as we see it, that tactic just doesn't work... it just become an ever moving target ("in 4 years we're gonna").   

Neither side is 'giving up'.  We just have different tactics, desires, beliefs, goals and aspirations.

----------


## Smitty

> Everyone was trying to get him a 15 minute speech and a show of force because he actually DID win the delegates in enough states before the RNC stripped them. If you lie down and just take it, you just encourage it. I think it is a shame to diminish the work people did to get that, something that has not happened since 1976 by pretending it was only about the GOP nomination and anyone working for that was delusional.


For me it wasn't about the 2012 nomination *or* the speech.

It was about the momentum,....and the momentum really started rolling just before the campaign pulled the plug.

A few days later,..there was Rand on Hannity's show singing the virtues of Romney.

I was always a bit dubious about the "working within the GOP" strategy, but I believed it was as good of a venue as any to get out the message.

Now I don't believe so.

A price must be paid to be a member of their club,...and the price paid for Rand's membership in the club was the squelching of the momentum which was building up around the message,....and the RNC has been rubbing the liberty movement's nose in the mud ever since.

I'll never be involved with anything GOP again.

----------


## Carlybee

You won't be able to convince some of us that the GOP is simply too corrupt to be changed from within. I agree with FSP that one good thing that came out of this is that we got to see just how corrupt they are.

----------


## Smitty

> You won't be able to convince some of us that the GOP is simply too corrupt to be changed from within. .


Time will.

----------


## sailingaway

> Time will.


there's no reason not to continue it ON TOP of our other efforts.

----------


## Bossobass

> Thread winner, for many reasons, on many levels.


Amen.

For example, in the Olympics:

You aren't allowed to take enhancement drugs to win.
You can't disqualify your opponent through slander and libel.
You aren't allowed to leave the gate before the gun.
You aren't allowed to trip or mace your opponent during the race.
You aren't allowed to pay others in the race to trip or mace your opponent.
You aren't allowed to pan the audience while the tripping incident takes place and claim there's no video evidence.
You aren't allowed to rig the finish line result with trick tape and film tampering.
Your aren't allowed to bribe the judges to rig the results.

And, you most certainly aren't allowed to just walk up to the winner while his anthem plays and grab the gold medal out of his hands in broad daylight.

So, the bottom line is not how better to infiltrate Sodom & Gomorrah, the question is what the hell are we willing to do about this blatant, in-your-face theft of our election bid?

If the answer is (as it usually is around these boards, both last cycle and this) "Nothing. There was no theft, you conspiracy nut, and if you decide to do anything, make sure you tuck your shirt in and wear white gloves and study your politically polite etiquette manuals first and foremost.", then have a happy, you dumb donkeys.

----------


## Smitty

> there's no reason not to continue it ON TOP of our other efforts.


Well, maybe,...maybe not.

Having the liberty movement operating within the GOP gives the GOP the ability to co-op the message,...as they're currently doing with a measure of success,..although anyone with an ounce of understanding knows that there will never be a true audit of the Federal Reserve under Romney.

Basically,...the GOP doesn't deserve to be associated with the liberty movement,...and the liberty movement doesn't deserve to wear the damaged Republican brand.

----------


## Carlybee

Via DP http://www.dailypaul.com/250677/joel...se-hope?page=1





> Joel Skousen: Reforming Republican Party a 'False Hope'
> 
> 
> From Joel Skousen's World Affair's Brief Aug. 22nd, quoting Justin Raimondo @Antiwar.com (Joel's commentary in brackets):
> 
> "[Even though, it might have been a symbolic gesture, the delegates behind Ron Paul were intending to at least get Rep. Paul nominated at the convention. It would give a great boost to the grand liberty movement Dr. Paul has built for the last 20 years and the rebellion against establishment control of the GOP. They only needed delegate majorities from 5 states to nominate the good doctor and to keep Romney from going uncontested before the convention. But alas, the illegal maneuvers of the RNC have robbed the movement of their last show before the cameras, and contrary to assurances by an “insider” within the RNC, Ron Paul will get no speaking slot.]"
> 
> “The Republican party Establishment is eager to crush any public expressions of dissent — both inside and outside the convention hall. Ron Paul’s supporters in the GOP learned that the hard way, as the Romneyites used their control of the party bureaucracy at the state and national levels [actually it wasn’t Romneyites, but the old guard elite inside the GOP that have always controlled things at the top] to retroactively change the rules in order to unseat duly elected Paul delegates."
> 
> ...

----------


## Carlybee

> Well, maybe,...maybe not.
> 
> Having the liberty movement operating within the GOP gives the GOP the ability to co-op the message,...as they're currently doing with a measure of success,..although anyone with an ounce of understanding knows that there will never be a true audit of the Federal Reserve under Romney.
> 
> *Basically,...the GOP doesn't deserve to be associated with the liberty movement,...and the liberty movement doesn't deserve to wear the damaged Republican brand.*


^this

----------


## affa

> The people who think we need to stay and fight back are the traitors while those that are limping away whining are the patriots.  Got it.


um, i'm pretty sure the poster  was saying the traitors were the old guard (traitors to liberty and the constitution), not you.

----------


## Carlybee

> Take your Social Security check and go home, and cry about life not being fair.  That seems to be your talent.



Wow...awesome debating skills there.

----------


## Anti Federalist

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.







> Amen.
> 
> For example, in the Olympics:
> 
> You aren't allowed to take enhancement drugs to win.
> You can't disqualify your opponent through slander and libel.
> You aren't allowed to leave the gate before the gun.
> You aren't allowed to trip or mace your opponent during the race.
> You aren't allowed to pay others in the race to trip or mace your opponent.
> ...

----------


## affa

> Majority control of the GOP.  Sorry it didn't happen quick enough to suit you.  Politics is a bloodsport.  I am just surprised that so many people are shocked to find that the ruling elite will cheat, lie and steal to retain power. 
> 
> If it's a wake up call for some of you, then awesome. Welcome to our world.  But don't you DARE assert that we were the naive people in this movement.  Some of knew how this was going to play out.
> 
> Heck, some of us got banned for saying it out loud.


oh please.  none of us are "shocked to find that the ruling elite will cheat, lie and steal to retain power".   That you say that is simply showing your refusal to understand the position of many here.

We're not 'shocked' by that at all.  We're saying the exact opposite -- that it's SO corrupt that playing it by their rules in the future can not and will not work.  This doesn't mean we didn't know it was corrupt before.

----------


## Mini-Me

In 2008, it took the GOP leadership no real effort to steamroll us.  This time, they're desperately pulling out all the stops and sweating the whole way.  They're still likely to succeed, but it's obviously getting a lot harder for them.  I'm not sure how the lawsuit against their cheating will fare, but the fact we are able to mount one at all shows that we've forced the GOP leadership into making themselves vulnerable.  (Unless we're going to go around literally tarring and feathering the cheaters, the lawsuit is our best hope for close scrutiny and accountability for this particular election.)  Now that we've taken over the GOP in a few states, I think it would be wise for the long term to keep up the pressure...anything else, and they'll feel relief.  They'll keep cheating of course, but we're still winning small victories one at a time despite everything, and every time they cheat gives us another opportunity to expose them with a lawsuit.  We're knocking their supports out from under them one by one with every state chairman position we grab, and once we make it to replacing the RNC - an achievable goal in the long term - it's all over.

Giving up on reforming the GOP is exactly what they want from us, and it's the behavior they're trying to encourage:  What they're doing here is not just blocking our delegates.  What they're doing is using emotional manipulation, like a nervous villain giving a speech to the heroes about why it's hopeless and they should stop struggling.  I see a lot of people here who are nodding their heads in agreement with the villain, but I for one think that listening to them would be a huge mistake.  As rigged as the GOP is, the general elections are even more rigged against third parties and independents; the laws were made this way to splinter opposition and turn third parties into dead-end traps.

We should still vote for third parties in general elections, but actually expecting to gain any real ground from them is a pipe dream.  Even if we managed a Ross Perot-like showing and mustered a Presidential victory in a single election, plurality voting ensures the two-party system would reassert itself quickly, and we would not have the national infrastructure we need to field a large number of Congressional and Senatorial candidates...which is essential for actually changing the voting laws, among other things.  With the third party route, we cannot build upon small victories to achieve more (like winning state chairs in the GOP).  Instead, every single election would be a new battle just as hard as the last, from a similar starting point in terms of miniscule resources...like trying to build our success on a foundation of quicksand.

I think that's the key point that GOP strategy naysayers misunderstand:  If we want lasting success, the foundation for it must come first.  We don't have the resources to win a large number of elections ourselves, and neither do third parties.  Winning the Presidency for Ron Paul would have been a tremendous symbolic and practical achievement, but even if we did, he could not save our country alone...he could only buy us more time to mount a larger assault on the establishment, and use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to demonstrate the message by example.  In the long run, the GOP leadership's momentary success in cheating Ron Paul out of delegates is much, MUCH less important and lasting than our success at grabbing GOP chairman positions one at a time.  Their success shows their current institutional strength, but our smaller successes show that if we keep it up, they're not going to have that strength forever.

While expecting much from third parties is a pipe dream, expecting change to happen outside of the political system entirely - like through massive civil disobedience - is absurd:  We live in a country where a dismal number of people are even willing to vote third party in a general election to protest the two-party system, so the idea that a critical mass would risk everything in a tax revolt (for instance) is just ludicrous at this point...and as long as the government has its funding, it will continue raping and pillaging.

----------


## AJ Antimony

Jesus Christ, do we really need 20 threads about the exact same thing?

----------


## Smitty

I'd guess that the path for the future of the liberty movement will be the prevailing theme for the next few years.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> * the liberty movement doesn't deserve to wear the damaged Republican brand.*


This was a concern I had, too...I'm glad someone said it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> oh please.  none of us are "shocked to find that the ruling elite will cheat, lie and steal to retain power".   That you say that is simply showing your refusal to understand the position of many here.
> 
> We're not 'shocked' by that at all.  We're saying the exact opposite -- that it's SO corrupt that playing it by their rules in the future can not and will not work.  This doesn't mean we didn't know it was corrupt before.


+rep   It's amazing how people tend to twist words to their advantage, isn't it?

----------


## hazek

> there's no reason not to continue it ON TOP of our other efforts.


Unless you don't mind being a fool you are right, because doing so most certainly and now undeniably is a fool's errand.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> The liberty movement should be taking-over both the Republican and Democrat Parties. There is no right-left paradigm. Take them both and defeat the oligarchy.


We do need to be active in both.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> It has become apparent that even when playing by the rules, the RNC will do ANYTHING to hold on to power, including changing or breaking it's own rules.
> Is it REALLY a lost cause with the GOP? Is it just a pipe dream that we can somehow change the status quo from the inside?
> Personally, I'm done with the GOP. After the strong arm tactics, the fraud, and the blatant use of power to ensure that things go exactly as they have planned, it is quite obvious that what we are doing isn't working within the structure of the system because the system simply adapts (see - lies, cheats and steals) to get the outcome it desires.
> So now what?


We are at the big boy table now (well, some of us...). Rand is our leader now, Ron Paul is/was...well, not even sure about that. We follow Rand, we line up behind him because he represents us so well. He understands the problems within the establishment, but that to be respected, you must respect them and follow their rules. He has been speaking up on our behalf, since he endorsed Mitt Romney. He has been holding Romney's feet to the fire. RAND has the seat and is representing us the best way possible that $50+ million could not do in two campaigns.

----------


## Mini-Me

> We are at the big boy table now (well, some of us...). Rand is our leader now, Ron Paul is/was...well, not even sure about that. We follow Rand, we line up behind him because he represents us so well. He understands the problems within the establishment, but that to be respected, you must respect them and follow their rules. He has been speaking up on our behalf, since he endorsed Mitt Romney. He has been holding Romney's feet to the fire. RAND has the seat and is representing us the best way possible that $50+ million could not do in two campaigns.


Why do you insist on trolling people who disagree with you about reforming GOP?  You know very well that our arguments have nothing to do with Rand Paul (let alone obsequious worship of him) but about the importance of a national party infrastructure for fielding a large number of candidates at once (which is necessary to take Congress, for instance).  What purpose do your snide and sarcastic straw man attacks serve, other than to grief people?

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Why do you insist on trolling people who disagree with you about reforming GOP?  You know very well that our arguments have nothing to do with Rand Paul (let alone obsequious worship of him) but about the importance of a national party infrastructure for fielding a large number of candidates at once (which is necessary to take Congress, for instance).  What purpose do your snide and sarcastic straw man attacks serve, other than to grief people?


Perhaps you missed who my response was for, the original OP who said, "Why do you insist on trolling people who disagree with you about reforming GOP?"
As am I. I didn't even read the other comments, and didn't reply to any of them directly. I don't see stating events and interpretations of events as trolling, perhaps you don't like the method of the delivery, but that's a different story. I was answering the original OP, and agreeing with him, and that was before I even realized this thread was 20+ pages long!

"You know very well that our arguments have nothing to do with Rand Paul (let alone obsequious worship of him) but about the importance of a national party infrastructure for fielding a large number of candidates at once."

I have no clue what your argument is, other than what you just stated. That doesn't change the fact that the system itself is corrupt, and has checks and balances to allow it to be corrupt forever as we are seeing.
As for your assumption that my comment was to "grief people", if by people you mean the Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jesse Benton, Jack Hunter, John Tate and the other campaign staffers that have been getting paychecks and sitting by in silence while this is all happening, then yes.

I don't need to see anymore of Jack Hunter's opinion on the official campaign website, because he is paid for his opinion to be "positive", and saying crap like, "Why am I going to Tampa?" because he is giving a speech. He is paid by the campaign. He is speaking at the Ron Paul rally. If this was "about the message" as they keep trying to say now, they did a pretty terrible job with that considering their funds/supporters.

Again, perhaps you have missed my comments around here before, I have no issue with the supporters, as I think the supporters went above and beyond any other campaign (as can be clearly seen with the delegate situation), but the campaign itself and those officially associated with it (see above) should have grief.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Perhaps you missed who my response was for, the original OP who said, "Why do you insist on trolling people who disagree with you about reforming GOP?"
> As am I. I didn't even read the other comments, and didn't reply to any of them directly. I don't see stating events and interpretations of events as trolling, perhaps you don't like the method of the delivery, but that's a different story. I was answering the original OP, and agreeing with him, and that was before I even realized this thread was 20+ pages long!
> 
> "You know very well that our arguments have nothing to do with Rand Paul (let alone obsequious worship of him) but about the importance of a national party infrastructure for fielding a large number of candidates at once."
> 
> I have no clue what your argument is, other than what you just stated. That doesn't change the fact that the system itself is corrupt, and has checks and balances to allow it to be corrupt forever as we are seeing.
> As for your assumption that my comment was to "grief people", if by people you mean the Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jesse Benton, Jack Hunter, John Tate and the other campaign staffers that have been getting paychecks and sitting by in silence while this is all happening, then yes.
> 
> I don't need to see anymore of Jack Hunter's opinion on the official campaign website, because he is paid for his opinion to be "positive", and saying crap like, "Why am I going to Tampa?" because he is giving a speech. He is paid by the campaign. He is speaking at the Ron Paul rally. If this was "about the message" as they keep trying to say now, they did a pretty terrible job with that considering their funds/supporters.
> ...


Fair enough, then.

----------


## angelatc

> I don't either.  I'm vaguely thinking: 1) keep up the gains in the GOP; *and* 2) start an organization that would support a new party, eventually, *and* 3) go after fraud in this GOP cycle in the courts, as remedies, pursuing changes to the system so state and major party collusion through ballot access laws etc can't disenfranchise all the nation who don't like the major party candidates.
> 
> That would take a lot of interest and support by people besides me, though.  I'm just kicking thoughts around.


Well, Ron's plan is to take over the GOP.  In the past, people were booted for not supporting Ron's plans.  Yet today, this thread is rife with people who are not only quitting and/or migrating to third parties, but are adamant that those of us who are staying need to be talked out of it. 

Like I said, it appears that the days of being banned for not supporting Ron's plans are over.

Aside from that, any effort that divides the movement is a loss to the movement UNLESS we pick up a new faction in the exchange.    The more people that leave, the weaker the movement becomes and the less likely that the politicians we support will stay true, or in office.

----------


## angelatc

> oh please.  none of us are "shocked to find that the ruling elite will cheat, lie and steal to retain power".   That you say that is simply showing your refusal to understand the position of many here.
> 
> We're not 'shocked' by that at all.  We're saying the exact opposite -- that it's SO corrupt that playing it by their rules in the future can not and will not work.


And that's where you're wrong.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Well, Ron's plan is to take over the GOP.  In the past, people were booted for not supporting Ron's plans.  Yet today, this thread is rife with people who are not only quitting and/or migrating to third parties, but are adamant that those of us who are staying need to be talked out of it. 
> *
> Like I said, it appears that the days of being banned for not supporting Ron's plans are over.*
> 
> Aside from that, any effort that divides the movement is a loss to the movement UNLESS we pick up a new faction in the exchange.    The more people that leave, the weaker the movement becomes and the less likely that the politicians we support will stay true, or in office.


While I'm not big on banning, I really think it speaks to the morality and integrity of those who would use private property here to relentlessly sabotage the official liberty movement as guided by Ron. Yet, the more I think of it, those who would go out of their way to actively piss on Ron's legacy perhaps should be banned. People are free to make their own choices as to what is effective activism but not to pursue it through this online channel. Again, I understand peoples' newly found frustrations but keep the hysteria to yourselves. Holding up what the RNC did as conclusive evidence that we as a whole will never be able to make any further headway is bunk and they know it. However, it is a convenient time to spread division amongst the onlookers who are perusing this board for direction. Mods need to tighten the leash esp in GRC of RPF.

----------


## angelatc

> Wow...awesome debating skills there.


You're weren't debating. You were whining.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And that's where you're wrong.


So you think all of these corrupt people will just allow themselves to be voted out by decent and principled people.  I'll bet someone could sell you that ocean front property in Kansas.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You're weren't debating. You were whining.


She wasn't whining.  She was trying to give you a dose of reality, but you're too idealistic to see it.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> So you think all of these corrupt people will just allow themselves to be voted out by decent and principled people.  I'll bet someone could sell you that ocean front property in Kansas.


It happened on a smaller scale at our most recent MI state convention in May where Saul Anuzis, the former chair that wanted Ron out of the debates last go around, got voted out of his role as national committeeman. In his place, we put Dave Agema who is more trustworthy and dependable to our liberty folk enough so that he immediately endorsed Kerry Bentivolio once McCotter bowed out and the insiders stacked Cassis to run a write-in against Kerry as the bonafide nominee. That, my colleague, is the definition of success working inside the GOP and the next convention will see the party leadership getting the same treatment. And yes, when they get voted out, they leave and the new people assume the duties and positions. Simple

----------


## Smitty

> We are at the big boy table now (well, some of us...). Rand is our leader now, Ron Paul is/was...well, not even sure about that. We follow Rand, we line up behind him because he represents us so well. He understands the problems within the establishment, but that to be respected, you must respect them and follow their rules. He has been speaking up on our behalf, since he endorsed Mitt Romney. He has been holding Romney's feet to the fire. RAND has the seat and is representing us the best way possible that $50+ million could not do in two campaigns.


You voting for Romney?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> While I'm not big on banning, I really think it speaks to the morality and integrity of those who would use private property here to relentlessly sabotage the official liberty movement as guided by Ron. Yet, the more I think of it, those who would go out of their way to actively piss on Ron's legacy perhaps should be banned. People are free to make their own choices as to what is effective activism but not to pursue it through this online channel. Again, I understand peoples' newly found frustrations but keep the hysteria to yourselves. Holding up what the RNC did as conclusive evidence that we as a whole will never be able to make any further headway is bunk and they know it. However, it is a convenient time to spread division amongst the onlookers who are perusing this board for direction. Mods need to tighten the leash esp in GRC of RPF.


Go ahead.  Appeal to have me banned.  

But you should know that some of us were involved in various ways with liberty politics before 2007 when Ron Paul decided to run for POTUS as a Republican.  Some of us even go back to 1988 when he ran for POTUS as a Libertarian.  Some of you probably weren't even born by 1988.  

I have no idea why Ron suddenly decided in 2007 to take the GOP "back to its roots" (his words).  I've never  understood that, and I never liked it. I don't even know what GOP "roots" he's talking about. I can't recall any time in my life (50+ years) when the GOP was anything like Ron Paul.  The only candidate who came close was Barry Goldwater, and the GOP rejected his run for POTUS too.  Reagan only sounded like Ron Paul, but he increased government spending in contrast to his words.

So excuse me if I don't get your meaning when  you say we want to piss on Ron's legacy...you couldn't be more wrong.  I'm trying to urge all of you to keep Ron's legacy alive, because *it is the GOP that will piss all over it (they already have!)* 

Yes I know this is private property and I have no right to express my opinion here if it goes against the wishes of the owner.  So go ahead.  Appeal to have me banned if you wish.  I've expected it for quite some time to be honest.  

Just know that in doing so, you expose yourself as yet another person who puts party ahead of principle and liberty.  Because you won't find either in the GOP.

----------


## angelatc

> It happened on a smaller scale at our most recent MI state convention in May where Saul Anuzis, the former chair that wanted Ron out of the debates last go around, got voted out of his role as national committeeman. In his place, we put Dave Agema who is more trustworthy and dependable to our liberty folk enough so that he immediately endorsed Kerry Bentivolio once McCotter bowed out and the insiders stacked Cassis to run a write-in against Kerry as the bonafide nominee. That, my colleague, is the definition of success working inside the GOP and the next convention will see the party leadership getting the same treatment. And yes, when they get voted out, they leave and the new people assume the duties and positions. Simple


And make no mistake - that didn't happen in a vacuum. I wish Livingston had the enthusiasm of Oakland though. 

Having said that, the liberals started lobbying for a national health care system in the 20's.  It took them 70 years to get half of what they want.  We didn't win the big prize the second time we played for real?  Oh well.  You can't win if you don't play.

----------


## Smitty

I'm 57 and been a follower of Ron Paul since his run for the Presidency in 88,..but he really got my attention when he gave his "We've Been Neo-conned" speech in front of Congress in 2003.

I believe his message is very close to flawless, but I'm not enthusiastic about many aspects of his strategy.

It's important that his message stays alive.

It's not important that it exists within the Republican party.

In fact,..as mentioned, I will no longer endorse anything associated with the GOP.

If this forum morphs into a vehicle for the GOP,.as appears is happening, there will be no need to throw the ban hammer around.

Those who are serious about the liberty movement will seek other venues to make their thoughts known and this forum will follow the Republican party into obscurity.

----------


## Meatwasp

The game here is to turn the G.O.P. to our liking. A third party will never never work, as Ron found out.

----------


## Sematary

> The game here is to turn the G.O.P. to our liking. A third party will never never work, as Ron found out.


DAMNIT!!! Every time I think that I should just tell the GOP to $#@! itself, I find people such as yourself talking sense. STOP IT! :-)
Do you think it would be easier to take over the Democratic party? lol

----------


## Smitty

> The game here is to turn the G.O.P. to our liking.


How is that working out for ya?

----------


## Sematary

> How is that working out for ya?


Well, you have to be honest. The Liberty movement has made tremendous inroads in the last 4 years.
I AM willing to give Rand an opportunity to prove that he is the man we hope he is.
In the meantime - goddam GOP

----------


## Smitty

> Well, you have to be honest. The Liberty movement has made tremendous inroads in the last 4 years.
> I AM willing to give Rand an opportunity to prove that he is the man we hope he is.
> In the meantime - goddam GOP


You'll know that the GOP has turned the corner when it is renounced by William Kristol.

Don't hold your breath.

----------


## Sematary

> You'll know that the GOP has turned the corner when it is renounced by William Kristol.
> 
> Don't hold your breath.


Personally, I'm waiting to see Rush Limbaugh do an about face. If you listen to him (I do for a chuckle), it is UNBELIEVABLE how behind Romney this asshat is. Romney is the opposite of EVERYTHING that Limburger has been preaching all these years but somehow he brought himself to forsake everything he professed to believe in to give Romney his full support. Go figure. So, when he does the same for a Liberty candidate (Rand maybe?) then we can talk.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm 57 and been a follower of Ron Paul since his run for the Presidency in 88,..but he really got my attention when he gave his "We've Been Neo-conned" speech in front of Congress in 2003.
> 
> I believe his message is very close to flawless, but I'm not enthusiastic about many aspects of his strategy.
> 
> It's important that his message stays alive.
> 
> It's not important that it exists within the Republican party.
> 
> In fact,..as mentioned, I will no longer endorse anything associated with the GOP.
> ...


Oddly, Ron Paul's subforum, as I see it, at least, is for Ron Paul supporters to discuss stuff including what next?  Some of Ron's supporters want to work in the GOP, others may not.  Why can't all be welcome? He welcomes all of us.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> How is that working out for ya?


I presume your point is what the RNC is doing to Ron/us. Aside from that let's see from '08-present, we own the IA, NV and AK state parties, we will have controlling interests in likely ME, MN, LA, OK, MI and a few others if things hold and our delegates show, instead of just Ron in the House we'll have Massie, Bentivolio, Amash, perhaps Robinson, the RP dem (dude on the underwear bomber flight) from here in MI, some other obscures that I can't think of, Rand in the Senate along w/ Lee, DeMint, Cruz, perhaps Bills and a few others in the TP caucus, loads more precinct delegates across the landscape, we actually have more than a handful of at-large nat'l dels and committeepersons, and more that don't rightly come to mind.

----------


## Meatwasp

> How is that working out for ya?


 By graduate scale we can win the G.O.P.  Look at the progress we have done so far.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Personally, I'm waiting to see Rush Limbaugh do an about face. If you listen to him (I do for a chuckle), it is UNBELIEVABLE how behind Romney this asshat is. Romney is the opposite of EVERYTHING that Limburger has been preaching all these years but somehow he brought himself to forsake everything he professed to believe in to give Romney his full support. Go figure. So, when he does the same for a Liberty candidate (Rand maybe?) then we can talk.


Had you listened to Limbaugh before the Iowa caucus?  He was totally against Romney.  He's only for him now because he's another who puts party first.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Oddly, Ron Paul's subforum, as I see it, at least, is for Ron Paul supporters to discuss stuff including what next?  Some of Ron's supporters want to work in the GOP, others may not.  Why can't all be welcome? He welcomes all of us.


The only thing I was referencing is the relentless trash talking of Ron's concept to restore the GOP beyond making one's initial point. Sorry if cajun took offense and as I said I normally don't go for banning nor have I ever neg repped someone I didn't see eye to eye with. But, I'm starting to see a mini-conspiracy club around here with the blatant attempt to troll Ron's own forum to do other things besides his mission. I realize Ron's own buddies like Lew and Woods don't do politics yet they aren't out bashing those who do nor crapping on Ron for pushing for this. The successes we've had across the scenery injecting our people into the GOP is beyond questioning and reproach based on current results yet some will stop at nothing to find any wedge to muddy the waters all the while abusing this forum to do so.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> It has become apparent that even when playing by the rules, the RNC will do ANYTHING to hold on to power, including changing or breaking it's own rules.
> Is it REALLY a lost cause with the GOP? Is it just a pipe dream that we can somehow change the status quo from the inside?
> Personally, I'm done with the GOP. After the strong arm tactics, the fraud, and the blatant use of power to ensure that things go exactly as they have planned, it is quite obvious that what we are doing isn't working within the structure of the system because the system simply adapts (see - lies, cheats and steals) to get the outcome it desires.
> So now what?


You're playing right into their hands by losing heart and dropping out of the political process.




> We've had the RNC rig the game, steal the show, and invalidate all of our hard work that many begun long before the 2012. Many people are discouraged. Why?
> 
> I've had it on my mind a lot lately, what do we do from here? It would be so easy to run, and many are prepared to jump ship on the Republican Party now. Admittedly, I've seriously considered it too. The RNC doesn't care about us. But they're not winning.
> 
> I had a high up GOP leader here pull me aside the other night after a replacement delegate nearly blew a blood vessel for people being upset with him. This individual told me that the old guard are all waiting until after the election for us to leave, they all expect it and they're merely laying low until they can come back in and retake their old positions. He pleaded with me not to leave and others to not as well. I heard the same thing at the State Convention as time went on and it became increasingly clear what the score was: we're only here for the man, once the man is gone, we will be, too.
> 
> But it's more than a man. It's a message. And if this is truly the case, then we're not going anywhere.
> 
> The RNC won this battle by successfully thwarting the nomination of Congressman Ron Paul and preventing a speaking spot. They won.
> ...

----------


## Smitty

> I presume your point is what the RNC is doing to Ron/us. Aside from that let's see from '08-present, we own the IA, NV and AK state parties, we will have controlling interests in likely ME, MN, LA, OK, MI and a few others if things hold and our delegates show, instead of just Ron in the House we'll have Massie, Bentivolio, Amash, perhaps Robinson, the RP dem (dude on the underwear bomber flight) from here in MI, some other obscures that I can't think of, Rand in the Senate along w/ Lee, DeMint, Cruz, perhaps Bills and a few others in the TP caucus, loads more precinct delegates across the landscape, we actually have more than a handful of at-large nat'l dels and committeepersons, and more that don't rightly come to mind.


You should realize by now that the accepted conventional structure of the political parties is a hoax.

It's not real,...the 2 party system isn't real.

Those who control the 2 dominant political parties will crush them before they allow them to be occupied by the liberty movement.

----------


## Smitty

*ahem*,.."wake up"

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> We've been through 2 election cycles, and you're already ready to give up? God, if everyone knew it was that easy to get rid of freedom loving people we'd all be under dictatorship right now.....just freeze them out of the political process the first 8 years they try to get involved and they'll go running away with their tails between their legs. 
> 
> My god people, will you show some toughness and not give up so easily?


No kidding.  The people in Burma have been under a _real_ totalitarian regime for 40 years, they've been imprisoned, raped, and murdered.  Their political equivalent to Ron Paul has been imprisoned for 20+ years.  They haven't given up the fight, nor should we.

----------


## bunklocoempire

I just posted this in another thread, but it certainly fits here as well.

True story, and one that will stay with me forever.

About 10-15 years ago I read a story of an altercation on Maui.

There was some sort of boyfriend-girlfriend-uncle dispute in a which a young man wrongly pulled a loaded pistol and pointed it at a distant relative of the young lady.

The man being drawn upon was an unarmed Samoan gentleman who ripped the loaded pistol out of the young fellows hand and beat him unconscience with it stopping the attack. 

There was no permanent damage done to the young man.

The current RNC/GOP is the young man, the pistol is the power the RNC/GOP wields, the young lady represents liberty which power wielding authoratarian thugs spurn and abuse, and we are the Samoan gentleman uncle.

The punks need to have that power taken from them, they are not going to simply lay it at our feet and change their behavior towards liberty.

Ripping a gun outta someone's hand and beating them with it is oh so much better than approaching them with a gun of your own. 

On oh so many, many levels.  

MSM probably being the main factor for this approach and what needs to be done.  We take over the GOP and a third party will be formed by the establishment headed up by a Trump/Palin or such -real mavericks.   More work for them.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The thing is, the GOP is not a small group of insiders. It is an apparatus with a massive voter list and a lot of prominent donors. The people you are referring to who control the GOP can be thrown out of their positions of power if we stay the course! You have Iowa and Nevada, two MAJOR battleground states with a lot of GOP focus, and we have kicked all those establishment cronies out of power and replaced them with our people in those states. We have national committeemen and women who are officially on the Republican National Committee from these states. Your response to losing the election cannot be to withdraw from the process, despite the progress we have made, because if it is then all that progress will have gone to waste.


We're also making great inroads in New Hampshire.  The liberty movement is really in a great position being strong in the first 2 states to vote in Presidential primaries.  We're strong in 3/5 of the first states!  We could really set the tone for the next Presidential cycle.

----------


## wgadget

> Personally, I'm waiting to see Rush Limbaugh do an about face. If you listen to him (I do for a chuckle), it is UNBELIEVABLE how behind Romney this asshat is. Romney is the opposite of EVERYTHING that Limburger has been preaching all these years but somehow he brought himself to forsake everything he professed to believe in to give Romney his full support. Go figure. So, when he does the same for a Liberty candidate (Rand maybe?) then we can talk.


Limburger is a shill.  Doesn't anyone else think it's funny that he started out in 1984, during the Reagan administration? I'm sure he's backed by the Puppetmasters.

----------


## Smitty

"Giving up" really doesn't figure into it.

The ability to recognize and accept reality is destined to be the deciding factor.

The liberty movement can't waste any more time and resources trying to reform gangsters.

There's no reform in them.

----------


## wgadget

> Oddly, Ron Paul's subforum, as I see it, at least, is for Ron Paul supporters to discuss stuff including what next?  Some of Ron's supporters want to work in the GOP, others may not.  Why can't all be welcome? He welcomes all of us.


I agree with your conclusion, sailing. After all, the BEST STRATEGY against such a wily enemy is to attack them from ALL SIDES. Keep 'em guessing. 

Some of us should join the L's, some the D's and some of us with the stomach for it should stay with the GOP. Meantime, ALL LIBERTY VOTERS should scope out the LIBERTY CANDIDATES in any election and vote them into office.

----------


## wgadget

> The only thing I was referencing is the relentless trash talking of Ron's concept to restore the GOP beyond making one's initial point. Sorry if cajun took offense and as I said I normally don't go for banning nor have I ever neg repped someone I didn't see eye to eye with. But, I'm starting to see a mini-conspiracy club around here with the blatant attempt to troll Ron's own forum to do other things besides his mission. I realize Ron's own buddies like Lew and Woods don't do politics yet they aren't out bashing those who do nor crapping on Ron for pushing for this. The successes we've had across the scenery injecting our people into the GOP is beyond questioning and reproach based on current results yet some will stop at nothing to find any wedge to muddy the waters all the while abusing this forum to do so.


Well, how DOES Ron feel about it? I never heard him say anything about the stolen delegates in OK and LA, and not much about what's been going on lately...Can you give us a clue? It's hard to imagine, after what he learned in 1988, that he is not equally disgusted with his treatment by "his party" of late.

----------


## Sematary

Man, I go out for 4 or 5 hours to pick up the disgusting road side trash that people seem incapable of taking home and I come back to a full on assault of a discussion.
I love it. :-)

----------


## wgadget

We're still out in the open, too...not in Hot Topics.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> That's a pipe dream.  Libertarians have no power, no real leadership, and they don't win elections.


We've accomplished more in 4 years than the LP has in 40 years.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> You're here trying to divide the liberty movement, saying that Rand will divide the liberty movement.


I can't even give you any more +Rep 

There's a lot of self-fulfilling prophecy going on here.

----------


## tod evans

Gansters have a code of ethics..........politicians don't.





> The liberty movement can't waste any more time and resources trying to reform gangsters.
> 
> There's no reform in them.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The movement fractured the day Rand went on Hannity and endorsed Romney.
> 
> If that doesn't demonstrate the power of the current iteration of the GOP to you nothing will.
> 
> But some of us choose to continue the liberty movement,..and we don't want to wait until after Romney serves his 8 years in the White House to see some results.
> 
> For those of us who want more immediate, more realistic results,..there's the Libertarian party.


Not really.  Ron Paul running and becoming President was a hail mary pass.  Rand playing the political game is running the ball up field.  Turning this country around is going to be a longer process than most of us thought.  Why quit when we're only in the 1st quarter of this game?

----------


## Mini-Me

> DAMNIT!!! Every time I think that I should just tell the GOP to $#@! itself, I find people such as yourself talking sense. STOP IT! :-)
> Do you think it would be easier to take over the Democratic party? lol


It would be much, much harder.  The party insiders will be equally dishonest and evil in both cases, but the GOP base is more amenable than the Democratic base for two reasons:  First, they're much more demographically concentrated.  They're aging, and they know they require new blood, no matter how reluctant they are to let us lead.  The Democrats are a lot more demographically challenging here, because the progressive movement has given them a lot of youthful energy.  The Republican base knows deep down that they need us (even though the GOP leaders recognize us as their arch-enemies), and the Democratic base knows that they don't.  Second, the GOP's near-homogeneity ensures we have a lot of issues in common with the vast majority of grassroots Republicans:  They can collectively relate to us on fiscal conservatism and free market policies, so the only major battles we have to fight with them regard social wedge issues, the police state, and foreign policy.  In contrast, the Democratic Party is a much more motley crew of disparate interest groups...including totalitarian statists who don't believe in a single pro-liberty issue.  The ONLY issues they're united around are statist issues like increasing taxes and regulations, so there's literally no common ground at all that we share with the Democratic party as a whole, despite being able to relate with subgroups of Democrats who are anti-war and anti-police state.

----------


## Smitty

> We've accomplished more in 4 years than the LP has in 40 years.


We've accomplished *nothing* in the GOP.

The GOP has successfully eliminated our candidate from contention and pretty much demonstrated to an entire generation that there is nothing to be gained from any political activism which falls outside of the mainstream.

It has coerced the son of our candidate to turn his back on his father and endorse the candidate who has led the charge against our movement.

It's going to take a lot of work to undo the damage which the GOP has wrought upon the liberty movement during the past year.

All in all,...it couldn't have gone any worse.

That's reality.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Absolutely not.
> 
> We can debate until the end of time about whether Rand is a positive or a negative for the liberty movement,...but there's no debating the fact that he caused an enormous split within it.
> 
> That much is self evident.


I think it's really overblown by irrational supporters and exploited by political opportunists.  After Ron lost Iowa it was essentially over.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> We've accomplished *nothing* in the GOP.
> 
> The GOP has successfully eliminated our candidate from contention and pretty much demonstrated to an entire generation that there is nothing to be gained from any political activism which falls outside of the mainstream.
> 
> It has coerced the son of our candidate to turn his back on his father and endorse the candidate who has led the charge against our movement.
> 
> It's going to take a lot of work to undo the damage which the GOP has wrought upon the liberty movement during the past year.
> 
> All in all,...it couldn't have gone any worse.
> ...


far out

----------


## Carlybee

> While I'm not big on banning, I really think it speaks to the morality and integrity of those who would use private property here to relentlessly sabotage the official liberty movement as guided by Ron. Yet, the more I think of it, those who would go out of their way to actively piss on Ron's legacy perhaps should be banned. People are free to make their own choices as to what is effective activism but not to pursue it through this online channel. Again, I understand peoples' newly found frustrations but keep the hysteria to yourselves. Holding up what the RNC did as conclusive evidence that we as a whole will never be able to make any further headway is bunk and they know it. However, it is a convenient time to spread division amongst the onlookers who are perusing this board for direction. Mods need to tighten the leash esp in GRC of RPF.


Interesting attempt to squash dissent (as well as the truth) coming from someone who professes to be part of a FREE state.(If one goes by the FSP in your handle).  CC is not the only one who feels that way...are you going to try and have everyone banned who disagrees that the Republican party can be reformed?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I might remind you that we didn't actually win any primaries, but we got a huge number of votes compared to last time.
> 
> Again, we won a lot more this time than we did last time.  You're right - the monkeys higher up on the tree are throwing coconuts down at us.  But the tree only goes so high.  The closer we get to the top, the less momentum the coconuts will have.  And when we get to the top, we get the coconuts.
> 
> But we need a stronger leader.


Enter: Rand Paul

Ron Paul is a great teacher and philosopher, he's exactly what we needed at the right time in 2007.  Now we need a fighter though going into 2016.

----------


## Smitty

Rand Paul,...more than anyone else, collapsed the movement.

----------


## Travlyr

> If everyone in the liberty movement voted for the libertarian candidate, it would demonstrate the size of the liberty movement voting block.
> 
> Besides,...the alternative is to vote for Romney or Obama,...and I won't do that.


That is as cute as my kitty.

----------


## Carlybee

> The only thing I was referencing is the relentless trash talking of Ron's concept to restore the GOP beyond making one's initial point. Sorry if cajun took offense and as I said I normally don't go for banning nor have I ever neg repped someone I didn't see eye to eye with. But, I'm starting to see a mini-conspiracy club around here with the blatant attempt to troll Ron's own forum to do other things besides his mission. I realize Ron's own buddies like Lew and Woods don't do politics yet they aren't out bashing those who do nor crapping on Ron for pushing for this. The successes we've had across the scenery injecting our people into the GOP is beyond questioning and reproach based on current results yet some will stop at nothing to find any wedge to muddy the waters all the while abusing this forum to do so.



Have you recieved an email from Ron recently telling you how to proceed from here?  Because all I got was one asking for money to continue the Audit the Fed fight and one a couple of weeks ago asking to help the delegates.  I haven't seen anything since the RNC decided that they could throw out all the rules. When I get another email from him telling us how he would like us to proceed then I will decide if I should bow out of this forum.  Until then I remain..a free thinker.

----------


## Smitty

> That is as cute as my kitty.


Whatever that's supposed to mean,...

So,...you voting for Romney?

----------


## affa

> And that's where you're wrong.


I'm wrong because I don't think you can reform the GOP?  Have at it. Prove me wrong.  Tell  me how much it will be better four years from now, while in the meantime we're still killing innocents overseas, while we're still mounting debt that will tear this country apart, while the cameras are mounted on every street, drones flying in the air.     

It's clear to me some of you don't realize the most important thing about Ron Paul is that he was able to gather an army of politically diverse liberty lovers.    He awoke many, but many were already awake.  He pulled people in from the left.  He pulled people in from the right.  He pulled in radicals.  He pulled in Libertarians.  He pulled in Republicans.   He pulled in the apathetic.

But just because Ron Paul pulled us all in, doesn't mean we adopted whatever _your_ pet project is. Because I know that some of you -- especially the ones who previously were unawake GOPers, or are from the Libertarian movement, or deep in the Liberty movement, see this huge group of assembled people and now want them to stay around for your personal movement of choice.   That means some of you want us all to stay around to 'reform' the GOP.   That means some of you want us all to switch over to the Libertarian Party, and vote Gary Johnson.   Some of you want us all to support Rand Paul's political journey.   Some of you even want us all to hate Rand Paul, or hate Gary Johnson.   Some of you want us to push forward the goals of the Liberty Movement, as represented by [fill in your organization of choice].   And of course, then you have the trolls trying to stir things up, one way or another.

But that's not what this about.  It's about Ron Paul 2008, and now 2012. And yes, hopefully Ron Paul awoke enough people that will now act in their various ways, and we'll eventually see something change in the world.   But we're all going to go about that in our own ways.

So I'm sorry that not everyone above will get their way.   We're an eclectic bunch of liberty lovers from all sorts of backgrounds.  I have no interest in 'reforming' the GOP, you do.   That doesn't mean I'm apathetic.  That doesn't mean I am giving up.  That simply means I have different goals from you.   Yes, I think your engaging in something that can't be done, but don't let me stop you.  

Personally, I never viewed this as 'reforming' the GOP.  I viewed this attempt as a hostile takeover.   In 2008, and 2012, we did something unimaginable - we used the corrupted rules and established procedures for politics in America against themselves.   And in doing so, we witnessed TPTB exert their various powers over the media and establishment GOP.   It's rare you seem them out in the open like that.   You could actually see them pump up Santorum, and smear Ron Paul, ignore him... 

But now? They've witnessed, and most likely survived, a serious grass roots threat to their power.  And by 'their', I mean the GOP, not even TPTB (who survived without a scratch).   They're circling their wagons and are closing every loophole to prevent anything remotely like this happening again.  

I hope Ron Paul's ascension to prominence changes the world.  It very well may.  But personally? I don't think it's going to happen through the GOP, and even if it does? I want no part of it.  The GOP disgust me. The talking heads disgust me.  Our political system, if you even want to call it that, disgusts me - corrupt through and through, rewarding pandering and deceit, rewarding fearmongering and warmongering, all blessed by the media overlords.

----------


## Rocco

This demonstrates the issue with your entire argument. 90% of the GOP voting base is completely unaware of the establishment running the party and could care less about this. Since this is true, and the voter base has no loyalty to the current establishment, whoever controls that establishment controls that voter base. Therefore, it is not a matter of reforming the people in there, we want to throw the bums out! This idea that working within the GOP equals cozying up to the establishment is the complete opposite of reality. 





> "Giving up" really doesn't figure into it.
> 
> The ability to recognize and accept reality is destined to be the deciding factor.
> 
> The liberty movement can't waste any more time and resources trying to reform gangsters.
> 
> There's no reform in them.

----------


## Sematary

> Rand Paul,...more than anyone else, collapsed the movement.


I disagree with that statement. The "movement" is still here. Our collective belief that Rand would be the chosen one is not. I have watched him in action. He makes me proud. He endorsed Romney. He pissed me off. I will not hold that one mistake against him if he proves in the next 4 years that he is the man we all hope he is - the one who will lead the liberty movement to a victory and a chance to give liberty a chance to fix America. My feelings on him will be determined by his actions in the Senate, not this one event (endorsing Romney).

----------


## Rocco

Please, don't pretend to speak to the importance of Ron Paul while at the same time trying to decry his biggest goal. You people act like the actions his campaign team took to make GOP inroads were completely absent his input, it's borderline insulting really. 




> I'm wrong because I don't think you can reform the GOP?  Have at it. Prove me wrong.  Tell  me how much it will be better four years from now, while in the meantime we're still killing innocents overseas, while we're still mounting debt that will tear this country apart, while the cameras are mounted on every street, drones flying in the air.     
> 
> It's clear to me some of you don't realize the most important thing about Ron Paul is that he was able to gather an army of politically diverse liberty lovers.    He awoke many, but many were already awake.  He pulled people in from the left.  He pulled people in from the right.  He pulled in radicals.  He pulled in Libertarians.  He pulled in Republicans.   He pulled in the apathetic.
> 
> But just because Ron Paul pulled us all in, doesn't mean we adopted whatever _your_ pet project is. Because I know that some of you -- especially the ones who previously were unawake GOPers, or are from the Libertarian movement, or deep in the Liberty movement, see this huge group of assembled people and now want them to stay around for your personal movement of choice.   That means some of you want us all to stay around to 'reform' the GOP.   That means some of you want us all to switch over to the Libertarian Party, and vote Gary Johnson.   Some of you want us all to support Rand Paul's political journey.   Some of you even want us all to hate Rand Paul, or hate Gary Johnson.   Some of you want us to push forward the goals of the Liberty Movement, as represented by [fill in your organization of choice].   And of course, then you have the trolls trying to stir things up, one way or another.
> 
> But that's not what this about.  It's about Ron Paul 2008, and now 2012. And yes, hopefully Ron Paul awoke enough people that will now act in their various ways, and we'll eventually see something change in the world.   But we're all going to go about that in our own ways.
> 
> So I'm sorry that not everyone above will get their way.   We're an eclectic bunch of liberty lovers from all sorts of backgrounds.  I have no interest in 'reforming' the GOP, you do.   That doesn't mean I'm apathetic.  That doesn't mean I am giving up.  That simply means I have different goals from you.   Yes, I think your engaging in something that can't be done, but don't let me stop you.  
> ...

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> We did not win a single primary. This despite 8 years of education.
> 
> We did win a huge increase in votes.  So by all means, let's get pissed and quit.
> 
> I have no patience for this.  If you want to leave, then GTFO.  But these are Ron Paul Forums, and your plans aren't his, so take your crying asses somewhere else so the grownups can get back to work.


Here, here!  Anything counter to Ron Paul's plan should at the very least be discussed in Hot Topics, and preferably a different forum.  Your plans aren't Ron Paul's plans...well said!

----------


## Smitty

> whoever controls that establishment controls that voter base. .


And those who control it now will crush it before they allow it to be taken.

They have no ideology.

They want power.

It doesn't matter to them if their power is generated through the GOP,..the Democratic party, or a police state.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> With the GOP, Ron found a national platform during the presidential debates that started this movement that has been growing astronomically ever since and will continue to do so.
> 
> We've found out that the GOP is not owned, that it can be changed.  We've changed it already all over the country.
> 
> The big takeaway this primary is what we've been doing is working, and we just need to keep pressing forward, bringing more people along with us.


You're correct.  They are incredibly weak and lacking passion.  We have the passion and just need to work on building our numbers.

----------


## Travlyr

> Whatever that's supposed to mean,...
> 
> So,...you voting for Romney?


Oh for God's sakes no. I've been a Republican for 40 years. I'll never vote for a Republican again unless they promise to obey their oath of office.

----------


## Rocco

I third this. This idea that we can "all take part in this movement" and actively oppose everything Dr Paul and the majority of us are trying to do will ultimately destroy us if it takes a serious foothold. We've seen what happens when the liberty movement goes in on something half assed (Schiff for Senate, Bills for Senate). 




> Here, here!  Anything counter to Ron Paul's plan should at the very least be discussed in Hot Topics, and preferably a different forum.  Your plans aren't Ron Paul's plans...well said!

----------


## Sematary

> Oh for God's sakes no. I've been a Republican for 40 years. I'll never vote for a Republican again unless they promise to obey their oath of office.


It should take far more than a "promise" at this point.

----------


## Rocco

No, you still don't get it, they have NO control over those voters because the voters have no loyalty to them. They control the massive voter list known as the GOP, all of their power derives from the organization itself. If we control that organization we don't just suddenly lose the voters. 




> And those who control it now will crush it before they allow it to be taken.
> 
> They have no ideology.
> 
> They want power.
> 
> It doesn't matter to them if their power is generated through the GOP,..the Democratic party, or a police state.

----------


## Travlyr

> It should take far more than a "promise" at this point.


Indeed. It does.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Interesting attempt to squash dissent (as well as the truth) coming from someone who professes to be part of a FREE state.(If one goes by the FSP in your handle).  CC is not the only one who feels that way...are you going to try and have everyone banned who disagrees that the Republican party can be reformed?


We've been through this before but I'll say it once more so that it may sink in. I have no problem with you or any of the others aside for your blatant attempts to bash Ron's restoration plan and then continue to do so over and over and then buddy up with others to lay it on even thicker. Go do whatever it is that you think will further liberty just don't regurgitate the same anti-GOP stuff ad nauseum. There's a reason Ron didn't show up to P.A.U.L fest and that's because he does the speaking and associating himself not the LP. Here in this forum, it's the pursuit of Ron's legacy that is the mission and to poopoo that religiously and zealot-like can only aggravate those of us actively involved. And yet, you don't stop and that lends me in particular to not want to have those detractors involved in this private community (which has rules) after I've tried to reason with them time and time again. I don't want to other liberty lovers not involved but if you're allied up in your trolling, this affects the onlookers that I seek to bring into the fold. You and others have demonstrated in no short terms that you're through with our goal here, more power to you and others in your endeavor to pursue liberty in your own way. The upfront commonality here is working on Ron's GOP restoration program. Even if I didn't like the idea, I can still see the successes that we've had and continue to have and also my participation is in due part as tribute to Ron's career which has changed my life for the better. 

As far as the FSP, I'm just a billboard for the concept as well as a participant.

----------


## Smitty

> Here, here!  Anything counter to Ron Paul's plan should at the very least be discussed in Hot Topics, and preferably a different forum.  Your plans aren't Ron Paul's plans...well said!


Censorship is anathema to the liberty minded.

I don't expect you to understand that yet, however.

You're bulb is flickering,...but it's not got a good enough connection to fully light up.

----------


## wgadget

> I'm wrong because I don't think you can reform the GOP?  Have at it. Prove me wrong.  Tell  me how much it will be better four years from now, while in the meantime we're still killing innocents overseas, while we're still mounting debt that will tear this country apart, while the cameras are mounted on every street, drones flying in the air.     
> 
> It's clear to me some of you don't realize the most important thing about Ron Paul is that he was able to gather an army of politically diverse liberty lovers.    He awoke many, but many were already awake.  He pulled people in from the left.  He pulled people in from the right.  He pulled in radicals.  He pulled in Libertarians.  He pulled in Republicans.   He pulled in the apathetic.
> 
> But just because Ron Paul pulled us all in, doesn't mean we adopted whatever _your_ pet project is. Because I know that some of you -- especially the ones who previously were unawake GOPers, or are from the Libertarian movement, or deep in the Liberty movement, see this huge group of assembled people and now want them to stay around for your personal movement of choice.   That means some of you want us all to stay around to 'reform' the GOP.   That means some of you want us all to switch over to the Libertarian Party, and vote Gary Johnson.   Some of you want us all to support Rand Paul's political journey.   Some of you even want us all to hate Rand Paul, or hate Gary Johnson.   Some of you want us to push forward the goals of the Liberty Movement, as represented by [fill in your organization of choice].   And of course, then you have the trolls trying to stir things up, one way or another.
> 
> But that's not what this about.  It's about Ron Paul 2008, and now 2012. And yes, hopefully Ron Paul awoke enough people that will now act in their various ways, and we'll eventually see something change in the world.   But we're all going to go about that in our own ways.
> 
> So I'm sorry that not everyone above will get their way.   We're an eclectic bunch of liberty lovers from all sorts of backgrounds.  I have no interest in 'reforming' the GOP, you do.   That doesn't mean I'm apathetic.  That doesn't mean I am giving up.  That simply means I have different goals from you.   Yes, I think your engaging in something that can't be done, but don't let me stop you.  
> ...


Exactly. The DIVISION is what makes the Puppetmasters MOST happy of all. But WE ARE RON PAUL, and WE ARE LEGION. 

Freedom is popular, not to be COLLECTIVIZED by TPTB. Let them TRY to squelch the ideas of freedom..just let them TRY.

----------


## Smitty

> If .


There's that old iff'n game.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Jesus Christ, do we really need 20 threads about the exact same thing?


Apparently.  On top of that, there is entirely too much "we" in this thread and others.  I wish people could leave one another alone unless they really do see eye to eye as to how to proceed.  Those that hate the process are always going to hate it, and are hopping up and down saying "I told you so!" while those who believe in the process will still support other candidates, and maybe run for office themselves.  I don't think a lot of crossing over will happen.

----------


## Carlybee

> Enter: Rand Paul
> 
> Ron Paul is a great teacher and philosopher, he's exactly what we needed at the right time in 2007.  Now we need a fighter though going into 2016.


At least you aren't hiding your agenda. Are you being paid by his campaign? And I'm a troll? LMAO. RON is what we need NOW but the GOP fixed that.

----------


## wgadget

> Here, here!  Anything counter to Ron Paul's plan should at the very least be discussed in Hot Topics, and preferably a different forum.  Your plans aren't Ron Paul's plans...well said!


Again...What ARE Ron Paul's plans?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Censorship is anathema to the liberty minded.
> 
> I don't expect you to understand that yet, however.
> 
> You're bulb is flickering,...but it's not got a good enough connection to fully light up.


Censorship on a private forum with a stated Mission Statement is not actually possible.

I don't expect you to understand that yet, however.

"You're" bulb is flickering.  Perhaps a read of that Mission Statement and the affiliated rules of the forum is in order?

----------


## Carlybee

> Indeed. It does.


Oh they'll promise, but they will be lying about it.

----------


## Rocco

The worst part about this is, if you have 50 Ron Paul supporters in your county with a little bit of commitment you can take over your county GOP and actually advance liberty but these people are so goddamned short sighted that they can only see what happened to our presidential candidate...

----------


## Sematary

> Again...What ARE Ron Paul's plans?


From what I understand - retirement. He will be missed.

----------


## Carlybee

> Censorship on a private forum with a stated Mission Statement is not actually possible.
> 
> I don't expect you to understand that yet, however.
> 
> "You're" bulb is flickering.  Perhaps a read of that Mission Statement and the affiliated rules of the forum is in order?



SailingAway is in this forum everyday and does a good job of monitoring.  Why don't you people let her and the admins do their jobs and decide if someone is in violation of the mission statement and the rules.  Or if some of you think you can do a better job, petition the admin to be a moderator.  Until then the rest of us are equal as far as voice.

----------


## sailingaway

> From what I understand - retirement. He will be missed.


I'm hoping he leads C4L, with a true believer to draft his emails, not an 'experienced fundraiser' from other kinds of people. 

He could be like Grover Norquist, only a lot better.

----------


## Sematary

> I'm hoping he leads C4L, with a true believer to draft his emails, not an 'experienced fundraiser' from other kinds of people. 
> 
> He could be like Grover Norquist, only a lot better.


Would you blame him, though, if he just wanted to fade away and live out his life in obscurity?

----------


## Carlybee

> The worst part about this is, if you have 50 Ron Paul supporters in your county with a little bit of commitment you can take over your county GOP and actually advance liberty but these people are so goddamned short sighted that they can only see what happened to our presidential candidate...



Yep and then when they get to the national convention the RNC can decide that their votes won't count unless they tow the establishment line.

----------


## Sematary

> Yep and then when they get to the national convention the RNC can decide that their votes won't count unless they tow the establishment line.


true story

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm hoping he leads C4L, with a true believer to draft his emails, not an 'experienced fundraiser' from other kinds of people. 
> 
> He could be like Grover Norquist, only a lot better.


I recieved a letter from C4L the other day with Ron Paul and Rand Paul's names on the masthead.

----------


## Rocco

Not the RNC, with 2 liberty oriented national committeemen from 25 state GOP's. If we take over from the bottom up there's really nothing they can do about it. The committeeman process (at least in New York) is in state election law it isn't just something they can change. If we can get a majority of county GOP's (would require a little over 1000 activists state wide in most states), we can elect liberty state GOP officers who can then send one national committeeman and committeewoman to the RNC. We don't need a supermajority of people or any clout, we just need a small group of people dedicated to liberty! 




> Yep and then when they get to the national convention the RNC can decide that their votes won't count unless they tow the establishment line.

----------


## Smitty

> Censorship on a private forum with a stated Mission Statement is not actually possible.
> 
> I don't expect you to understand that yet, however.
> 
> "You're" bulb is flickering.  Perhaps a read of that Mission Statement and the affiliated rules of the forum is in order?


I don't need to read the mission statement.

Ron Paul's mission is the expansion of personal liberties.

If this forum has a mission statement that's contrary to that, it shouldn't be billing itself as the "Ron Paul Forum".

Unless I'm mistaken, even *you* can understand that.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I don't need to read the mission statement.
> 
> Ron Paul's mission is the expansion of personal liberties.
> 
> If this forum has a mission statement that's contrary to that, it shouldn't be billing itself as the "Ron Paul Forum".
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, even *you* can understand that.


So it is your contention that Ron advocates your freedom to say anything, at any time, anyplace, regardless of whether or not you are using someone's services or on their property?  Especially if you agreed to abide by certain rules and regulations as a condition of your using the forums?

I wonder what Ron thinks of breaking contracts along those lines.

----------


## sailingaway

> Would you blame him, though, if he just wanted to fade away and live out his life in obscurity?


It is his choice, always, but he said he'd be fighting for liberty with his last breath when he ended his 2008 campaign, and I haven't seen him change.  He's due a vacation, certainly, but I'm hoping he will give us an idea on Sunday what his direction will be.  He'll be in the House until January, it isn't like he'll be gone, but he'll have the biggest platform, likely, on Sunday.

----------


## sailingaway

> I recieved a letter from C4L the other day with Ron Paul and Rand Paul's names on the masthead.


Yeah.  I have a problem with Rand's personally, since it is Ron's organization, but I know what they are up to with that.  I meant I hope RON heads it. RON'S followers, some of whom feel flayed raw where Rand is concerned need somewhere to go. 

Moreoover, if C4L is going to be to pester lawmakers and keep them honest, it may need to take positions Rand isn't willing to take to be useful to the rest of us. 

 But he is doing what he wants, not what I want, obviously.

----------


## Smitty

> So it is your contention that Ron advocates your freedom to say anything, at any time, anyplace, regardless of whether or not you are using someone's services or on their property?  Especially if you agreed to abide by certain rules and regulations as a condition of your using the forums?
> 
> I wonder what Ron thinks of breaking contracts along those lines.


So have me banned for breaking a contract by advocating personal liberties on the Ron Paul forum.

I won't be discussing any more nonsense with you.

It distracts from the topic.

----------


## wgadget

> So have me banned for breaking a contract by advocating personal liberties on the Ron Paul forum.
> 
> I won't be discussing any more nonsense with you.
> 
> It distracts from the topic.


Tut-tut-tut! Libertarian rule #1: I will do all that I agreed to do. 

She has a point. 

LOL

----------


## Smitty

> Tut-tut-tut! Libertarian rule #1: I will do all that I agreed to do. 
> 
> She has a point. 
> 
> LOL


I'll be an advocate for personal liberties and Ron Paul,..and be a critic of the GOP for as long as I'm allowed to have a voice here.

If that's going to cause issues on this forum, it's best that I be banned now.

----------


## Mini-Me

> The worst part about this is, if you have 50 Ron Paul supporters in your county with a little bit of commitment you can take over your county GOP and actually advance liberty but these people are so goddamned short sighted that they can only see what happened to our presidential candidate...





> Not the RNC, with 2 liberty oriented national committeemen from 25 state GOP's. If we take over from the bottom up there's really nothing they can do about it. The committeeman process (at least in New York) is in state election law it isn't just something they can change. If we can get a majority of county GOP's (would require a little over 1000 activists state wide in most states), we can elect liberty state GOP officers who can then send one national committeeman and committeewoman to the RNC. We don't need a supermajority of people or any clout, we just need a small group of people dedicated to liberty!


Rocco is absolutely correct here.  I know that people are upset right now, but the lesson to be taken away is not, "It's impossible to take over the GOP."  Why?  The failure of the Ron Paul 2012 campaign does not logically imply the failure of the GOP takeover strategy, because they're two separate strategies with fundamentally different time scales and challenges.

The Ron Paul 2012 campaign has been a short-term uphill effort, and we have definitely learned a lesson from it:  We have learned that *as long as the current GOP leadership is in place,* it's impossible to win the GOP Presidential nomination with our delegates.  When establishment villains are in charge of the bomination process, they can simply flaunt the rules and direct the cops to arrest anyone who doesn't accept it...because party officers are in charge, not delegates.

The strategy to take over the GOP is, not coincidentally, a long-term strategy aimed at eliminating establishment control over the GOP and its nomination process.  The whole point of "taking over the GOP" is to oust corrupt party officers and replace them with our own people, so we can actually start winning primaries, and so we have access to party resources (like the massive pool of party members and donors).  We CAN take over the state parties, and we already have in some cases, because the rules involved in this process are a lot harder for incumbents to ignore or change.  These are real institutional gains that give us a real foothold, and the only thing we need to actually take over is a sizable number of activists unwilling to be deterred...perhaps 1000 per state, as Rocco said.  If we don't muster up the numbers, we'll fail.  If we do have enough people who persevere with that strategy and replace the party leadership across the board, then replacing the RNC wholesale will follow as well...and THEN we can have elections where delegates actually matter.

I understand affa's argument that a lot of people were only here for the Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 campaign, but the truth is that, as he said, people are being killed every day by the US government.  I'd like a quick fix just as much as anyone, and the GOP and political process disgust me just as much as anyone else, but what if there really is no quick fix?  If we're so desperate to end the madness right now that we flail around blindly and ignore - or worse, deliberately undermine - a clear strategy for setting things right in the long term, then we're dooming ourselves to the madness continuing - and people being killed - indefinitely.

----------


## Carlybee

> We don't need a supermajority of people or any clout, we just need a small group of people dedicated to liberty!


We had that this year and it didn't quite work out that way.  Whomever the establishment nominee is, is who anyone in the GOP must support.  It is decreed per dur fuhrers...the ptb..the mic...et al.  They are OWNED.  If we took over we would be expected to be OWNED...which is why we won't ever be able to do it.  Are some of you blind as to what just happened?  If that wasn't the case, why did Rand endorse Romney over his own dad?   Why did Kurt Bills endorse Romney before the convention?  Splain that to me Lucy.

----------


## wgadget

> I'll be an advocate for personal liberties and Ron Paul,..and be a critic of the GOP for as long as I'm allowed to have a voice here.
> 
> If that's going to cause issues on this forum, it's best that I be banned now.


Yeah.  I don't think you've gone over the top...I think this thread has WAY too much tension going on is all.

Just having fun with ya. It's what I teach my kids.  Just call me Mom.

----------


## Smitty

lol,..I'm very likely *way* too old to call anyone on this forum "mom".

----------


## wgadget

> Rocco is absolutely correct here.  I know that people are upset right now, but the lesson to be taken away is not, "It's impossible to take over the GOP."  Why?  The failure of the Ron Paul 2012 campaign does not logically imply the failure of the GOP takeover strategy, because they're two separate strategies with fundamentally different time scales and challenges.
> 
> The Ron Paul 2012 campaign has been a short-term effort, and we have definitely learned a lesson from it:  We have learned that *as long as the current GOP leadership is in place,* it's impossible to win the GOP Presidential nomination with our delegates.  When establishment villains are in charge of the bomination process, they can simply flaunt the rules and direct the cops to arrest anyone who doesn't accept it...because party officers are in charge, not delegates.
> 
> The strategy to take over the GOP is, not coincidentally, a long-term strategy aimed at eliminating establishment control over the GOP and its nomination process.  The whole point of "taking over the GOP" is to oust corrupt party officers and replace them with our own people, so we can actually start winning primaries, and so we have access to party resources (like the massive pool of party members and donors).  We CAN take over the state parties, and we already have in some cases, because the rules involved in this process are a lot harder for incumbents to ignore or change.  These are real institutional gains that give us a real foothold.  If we persevere with that strategy and replace the party leadership across the board, then replacing the RNC wholesale will follow...and THEN we can have elections where delegates matter.
> 
> I understand affa's argument that a lot of people were only here for the Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 campaign, but the truth is that, as he said, people are being killed every day by the US government.  I'd like a quick fix just as much as anyone, and the GOP and political process disgust me just as much as anyone else, but what if there really is no quick fix?  If we're so desperate to end the madness right now that we flail around blindly and ignore - or worse, deliberately undermine - a clear strategy for setting things right in the long term, then we're dooming ourselves to the madness continuing - and people being killed - indefinitely.


And what is your plan to combat the complicit lobbyist/media megaconglomerate?

----------


## sailingaway

> I'll be an advocate for personal liberties and Ron Paul,..and be a critic of the GOP for as long as I'm allowed to have a voice here.
> 
> If that's going to cause issues on this forum, it's best that I be banned now.


not that I've noticed.

It would depend on how you do it. If you are obnoxious to everyone and harass people trying to get projects out, you would be banned for being obnoxious and harassing people, not for disliking the GOP, at least if I were the one doing it.

----------


## wgadget

> lol,..I'm very likely *way* too old to call anyone on this forum "mom".


Maybe not too old to call ME Mom.  

Heh.

----------


## Rocco

It didnt work out that way? Did you follow the convention process at all? We now control several state GOP's. We are in a position to gain control in several more who have officer elections in 2013. Our LONG TERM plan is working to perfection. 




> We had that this year and it didn't quite work out that way.  Whomever the establishment nominee is, is who anyone in the GOP must support.  It is decreed per dur fuhrers...the ptb..the mic...et al.  They are OWNED.  If we took over we would be expected to be OWNED...which is why we won't ever be able to do it.  Are some of you blind as to what just happened?  If that wasn't the case, why did Rand endorse Romney over his own dad?   Why did Kurt Bills endorse Romney before the convention?  Splain that to me Lucy.

----------


## Smitty

> not that I've noticed.
> 
> It would depend on how you do it. If you are obnoxious to everyone and harass people trying to get projects out, you would be banned for being obnoxious and harassing people, not for disliking the GOP, at least if I were the one doing it.


I prefer to think of it as blunt.

I'm fully capable of being obnoxious, but I haven't encountered anyone here who is worthy of my full scale obnoxious assault.

I'm an old school INTJ Libertarian. It's a DNA thing,....

I don't expect to be making any apologies for it in the near future.

----------


## Carlybee

> It didnt work out that way? Did you follow the convention process at all? We now control several state GOP's. We are in a position to gain control in several more who have officer elections in 2013. Our LONG TERM plan is working to perfection.



And most of the delegates were tossed out like yesterday's garbage.  They have no voice at the convention.  Having control of a state GOP just means you now get to do what the National GOP and the RNC tell you to do.  And there is no way of knowing how your long term plan will play out...so far...no so good with liberty candidates endorsing the enemy.

----------


## Smitty

From what I can determine,...Ron Paul is an old school INTJ Libertarian also.

I expect that he and I could relate to each other much better than I can relate to many on here.

----------


## wgadget

> From what I understand - retirement. He will be missed.


I was referring to the more immediate future...as in who will he be endorsing? Or...?

----------


## wgadget

> I prefer to think of it as blunt.
> 
> I'm fully capable of being obnoxious, but I haven't encountered anyone here who is worthy of my full scale obnoxious assault.
> 
> I'm an old school INTJ Libertarian. It's a DNA thing,....
> 
> I don't expect to be making any apologies for it in the near future.


HEY!  "Mom" is an INTJ, too!  Cool.

----------


## Smitty

> HEY!  "Mom" is an INTJ, too!  Cool.


There's an inordinate number of us in the liberty movement,...especially since we only comprise 2% of the population.

----------


## Rocco

You still don't get it, the nomination is COMPLETELY inconsequential to our plan. We lost half of the Maine delegation, but does that mean Maine's liberty movement is in any less of a fantastic position to clean out the state central committee and send the Maine state GOP chair packing? Of course not, and we will have 100% liberty takeover in Maine no matter what the RNC does. 




> And most of the delegates were tossed out like yesterday's garbage.  They have no voice at the convention.  Having control of a state GOP just means you now get to do what the National GOP and the RNC tell you to do.  And there is no way of knowing how your long term plan will play out...so far...no so good with liberty candidates endorsing the enemy.

----------


## wgadget

Hmm. We must be the smart ones...

----------


## Smitty

> Hmm. We must be the smart ones...


Have a read.

http://politicsandprosperity.wordpre...and-happiness/

----------


## Mini-Me

> And what is your plan to combat the complicit lobbyist/media megaconglomerate?


At what stage of the process?  Control over the GOP boils down to control over the state parties and the RNC, and that's almost purely a ground game between hands-on activists, where the media thankfully has little influence.  If we had been in charge of the GOP this year, it's possible we might have scraped by with a victory even despite the media's voter manipulation:  For one, if we were the GOP leadership, the current GOP leadership wouldn't be in the position to change the rules in their favor, or fraudulently disqualify our delegates, or shut down conventions when they didn't get their way.  Moreover, it appears that Romney's people may have rigged the central tabulator for the 2012 elections (see the vote flipping threads), rendering the popular vote counts and resulting delegate counts questionable.  With us in charge, this couldn't have happened.

As you suggest though, the media would still try to manipulate primary voters, no matter who controlled the GOP.  They're going to be a constant problem no matter what we do, and I have no compelling insight here for how to deal with them...but I do know that the media problem is not unique to the GOP takeover strategy either.  In fact, it's even worse if we go the third party/independent route, let alone the civil disobedience route:  The media will still try to squash our primary candidates in GOP races, but they won't be able to marginalize major party nominees (when we do win primaries) the way they can completely ignore third party candidates...and let's not even get started on how they'd characterize any budding tax revolt movement.

One way or another, we may have to find a way to effectively expose and neutralize the mainstream media.  I'm not sure how to go about doing this, but whatever our strategy should be on this front, it's likely orthogonal to how we use the political process itself.  All that said though, there's a saving grace here:  The MSM can do a lot to effectively manipulate Presidential races, but Congressional races receive a lot less national media attention and manipulation and local news tends to be at least a little more balanced (even though a lot of papers are Murdoch-controlled).  The national MSM does still have the resources to effectively pick off a few candidates individually, but they wouldn't have the time to do the same to derail a large number of candidates all at once, which leaves us mainly with the local media to deal with in a scenario where we control the GOP and field lots of candidates.  Once we do have control over the GOP, that might be enough to tip the scales and shift the narrative local voters hear about who they should vote for too, and that's in addition to directing party resources in a positive way instead of letting the establishment continue to use them to crush liberty candidates in primaries.

----------


## wgadget

> At what stage of the process?  Control over the GOP boils down to control over the state parties and the RNC, and that's almost purely a ground game between hands-on activists, where the media thankfully has little influence.  If we had been in charge of the GOP this year, it's possible we might have scraped by with a victory even despite the media's voter manipulation:  For one, if we were the GOP leadership, the current GOP leadership wouldn't be in the position to change the rules in their favor, or fraudulently disqualify our delegates, or shut down conventions when they didn't get their way.  Moreover, it appears that Romney's people may have rigged the central tabulator for the 2012 elections (see the vote flipping threads), rendering the popular vote counts and resulting delegate counts questionable.  With us in charge, this couldn't have happened.
> 
> As you suggest though, the media would still try to manipulate primary voters, no matter who controlled the GOP.  They're going to be a constant problem no matter what we do, and I have no compelling insight here for how to deal with them...but I do know that the media problem is not unique to the GOP takeover strategy either.  In fact, it's even worse if we go the third party/independent route, let alone the civil disobedience route:  The media will still try to squash our primary candidates in GOP races, but they won't be able to marginalize major party nominees (when we do win primaries) the way they can completely ignore third party candidates...and let's not even get started on how they'd characterize any budding tax revolt movement.
> 
> One way or another, we may have to find a way to effectively expose and neutralize the mainstream media.  I'm not sure how to go about doing this, but whatever our strategy should be on this front, it's likely orthogonal to how we use the political process itself.


Remember Debra Medina.

----------


## Carlybee

> You still don't get it, the nomination is COMPLETELY inconsequential to our plan. We lost half of the Maine delegation, but does that mean Maine's liberty movement is in any less of a fantastic position to clean out the state central committee and send the Maine state GOP chair packing? Of course not, and we will have 100% liberty takeover in Maine no matter what the RNC does.


But not inconsequential to nominating Ron Paul which was the short term plan and at one time possible had the GOP not lied and cheated. No one is denigrating what Maine has done..just a pity they will be stuck with a rotten label.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Remember Debra Medina.


With Beck, you mean?

----------


## wgadget

> Have a read.
> 
> http://politicsandprosperity.wordpre...and-happiness/


Thanks..Interesting.

----------


## wgadget

> With Beck, you mean?


Yes, he was a major instigator. I think Hannity got in on the act as well, did he not? 

Those creeps have WAY too much influence, imo.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Remember Debra Medina.


I'm glad you mentioned her.  I'm sorry I didn't think about her sooner in this discussion.

----------


## No1butPaul

> Think about the delegates who spent money to get to Tampa only to have the campaign cut a deal.


I was thinking about that this morning ... its heartbreaking really.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Yes, he was a major instigator. I think Hannity got in on the act as well, did he not? 
> 
> Those creeps have WAY too much influence, imo.


I can't argue with you there...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> <snip>


*This is for you, Bastiat's The Law:*

OT:  I've noticed you have my username, as well as the usernames of two of my longtime friends,  listed in your sig and have called us out as a "Defeatist trolls".  

Perhaps you should read this post from Bryan, who I see is one of the admins here.  I've bolded the part to which you should pay particular attention:




> *In many forums there are often individuals who decry others as "troll" and the like. While this may be mildly entertaining and accurate, there are often problems with this tactic to maintaining good community decorum.
> 
> My personal philosophy is that there are no trolls, there is just troll behavior. Claiming someone to be a troll assumes you understand the intent of the poster, in our case here, if they are truly a supporter of Dr. Paul or not.*
> 
> Here at RPFs.com, in this campaign of freedom and peace we do not want to assign people into groups such as if they really support Dr. Paul or not or if they are a troll or not. However, if there is disruptive behavior it should be dealt with. It doesn't manner if the people truly support Dr. Paul or not- we can never really know that but we can study and understand how individuals deceptively engage in troll behavior to incite disruptions against our campaign objectives (different than healthy debate and disagreement). The goal of the forum guidelines and sub-forum structure has been crafted to best deal with issues of disruptive behavior to the forum community and they can continue to be refined, suggestions are always welcome:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22
> 
> Some people argue that we should quickly ban disruptive users, in some cases it may be justified but in other cases if we banned Dr. Paul supporters who are engaging in postings that are possibly harmful to the campaign they'd just go elsewhere and continue to do the same. So in my view, it is an asset to the campaign for the more wise and politically experienced users to help lead the way.
> 
> ...



Furthermore, while looking through the Forum Guidelines, I came across this post from JoshLowry, the Senior Admin:




> Moderators, Bryan, myself and others have put this together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this forum is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
> 
> 
> I think it will be displayed at the top of a page for guests to read along with some text encouraging them to join. If you are logged in then you won't see it, but it will be on the guidelines page.


Maybe now you, or any of the other know-it-all GOP mouthpieces who want to have those of us banned who disagree with you, can tell us just what part of this Mission Statement it is that we are violating?  Hmmm?  

Moderators?  Anyone??

----------


## Carlybee

> Yes, he was a major instigator. I think Hannity got in on the act as well, did he not? 
> 
> Those creeps have WAY too much influence, imo.


In complicity with Rick Perry's campaign because he was the establishment choice. So they were interfering at the state level as well.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Most of the younger (my) generation don't give a crap about politics, so believe me they are hardly going to be corrupted by the process. As we continue to embed ourselves within the leadership structure of the GOP, the corruption will minimize. As far as Rand goes, all he did was pay lip service to R-money and you want to act like the sky is falling. Yet in the Senate, he and others took on the McCain element in regards to NDAA so in no way shape or form is he anything but a pro-liberty politician. Rand just takes a more pragmatic approach to furthering liberty principles than does Ron. Ron is old school and calls it like it is by saying we need to bring the troops home and close oversea bases. Rand wants to audit the Pentagon to show exactly where the money is spent and where it is wasted and then by default, fiscal conservatives will have to look at defense spending and see where the money really should go for defense and cut out the junk.


Ron punches to the head and Rand punches to the body, it's a good combination.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I don't either.  I'm vaguely thinking: 1) keep up the gains in the GOP; *and* 2) start an organization that would support a new party, eventually, *and* 3) go after fraud in this GOP cycle in the courts, as remedies, pursuing changes to the system so state and major party collusion through ballot access laws etc can't disenfranchise all the nation who don't like the major party candidates.
> 
> That would take a lot of interest and support by people besides me, though.  I'm just kicking thoughts around.


Too many moving parts.  Too many people pulling in different directions.

----------


## Carlybee

> Too many moving parts.  Too many people pulling in different directions.



Get my name out of your sig now.

----------


## sailingaway

> Too many moving parts.  Too many people pulling in different directions.


Yeah, but your entire participation in this subforum has been to pull people OUT of it to your projects, so I kind of personally see you more as an outsider (on this subforum, not to the forums overall) trying to make everyone go your way, than as one of the members of this subforum community determining direction.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> But, if they and the chipin helpers didn't spend any scratch to get there then none in the movement would've placed any high hopes and no one would be freaking out right now and assessing who to scapegoat. I think it was very beneficial for us that we forced the RNC and co to do what they did to show how officially dirty they can be. If it burned some people out about playing GOP politics then so be it. If it made others decide that they were gonna be extra active in flipping the old guard and restoring the party then even better. I have no problem if people want to take different approaches but to continually decry the GOP restoration project despite the many successes we've seen all over the board on this board, is a slap in the face to Ron and others that have taken the bull by the horns and still do. I'll still vote lib from time to time but my short term goal is changing my state party's leadership and getting better people from our area in the RNC. If this is duplicated in as many places as possible, we can revenge the corrupt bastards for what they've done to us and the good doctor.


Precisely.  Many dwell on losing this RNC fight, but forget that just getting into the room to fight is a major accomplishment.  No other avenue would've gotten us into that fight with the GOP brass; of course the alternative is joining the Vermin Supreme party or some other useless third party and fighting amongst ourselves for...what exactly?  Who gets to wear the Burger king crown that day?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Yeah, but your entire participation in this subforum has been to pull people OUT of it to your projects, so I kind of personally see you more as an outsider (on this subforum, not to the forums overall) trying to make everyone go your way, than as one of the members of this subforum community determining direction.


Since when is working within the GOP "my project"?  It was Ron Paul's plan..and it's been successful.  I'm trying to remind people of that before they piss it all away.

----------


## angelatc

> Too many moving parts.  Too many people pulling in different directions.


Plus rep.

----------


## wgadget

> Get my name out of your sig now.


Yep. This is a definite violation of libertarian rule #2:  I will not encroach on other people or their property.

Tut-tut, Bastiat.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Too many moving parts.  Too many people pulling in different directions.


But I'm only concerned, for now, with which direction I want to pull in.  I guarantee you if one of the avenues sailing mentioned gains traction, people working on the other ones will hop on to help out (and to gripe, but that's human nature).

----------


## anaconda

> call Gary Johnson, get him to slide down to VP , run as Libertarian, and insure that Obama wins.
> 
> that the SOBs at the GOP would remember in 2016.


^This. In my opinion, it would accomplish just as much if Ron joined the Libertarian ticket as VP. But Gary might like that Ron can get a fat chunk of matching funds and raise his own profile if he lets Ron take over the Presidential slot on the ticket. Ron must accompany this with a detailed report and press conference calling out the corruption in the Republican party.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> In 2008, it took the GOP leadership no real effort to steamroll us.  This time, they're desperately pulling out all the stops and sweating the whole way.  They're still likely to succeed, but it's obviously getting a lot harder for them.  I'm not sure how the lawsuit against their cheating will fare, but the fact we are able to mount one at all shows that we've forced the GOP leadership into making themselves vulnerable.  (Unless we're going to go around literally tarring and feathering the cheaters, the lawsuit is our best hope for close scrutiny and accountability for this particular election.)  Now that we've taken over the GOP in a few states, I think it would be wise for the long term to keep up the pressure...anything else, and they'll feel relief.  They'll keep cheating of course, but we're still winning small victories one at a time despite everything, and every time they cheat gives us another opportunity to expose them with a lawsuit.  We're knocking their supports out from under them one by one with every state chairman position we grab, and once we make it to replacing the RNC - an achievable goal in the long term - it's all over.
> 
> Giving up on reforming the GOP is exactly what they want from us, and it's the behavior they're trying to encourage:  What they're doing here is not just blocking our delegates.  What they're doing is using emotional manipulation, like a nervous villain giving a speech to the heroes about why it's hopeless and they should stop struggling.  I see a lot of people here who are nodding their heads in agreement with the villain, but I for one think that listening to them would be a huge mistake.  As rigged as the GOP is, the general elections are even more rigged against third parties and independents; the laws were made this way to splinter opposition and turn third parties into dead-end traps.
> 
> We should still vote for third parties in general elections, but actually expecting to gain any real ground from them is a pipe dream.  Even if we managed a Ross Perot-like showing and mustered a Presidential victory in a single election, plurality voting ensures the two-party system would reassert itself quickly, and we would not have the national infrastructure we need to field a large number of Congressional and Senatorial candidates...which is essential for actually changing the voting laws, among other things.  With the third party route, we cannot build upon small victories to achieve more (like winning state chairs in the GOP).  Instead, every single election would be a new battle just as hard as the last, from a similar starting point in terms of miniscule resources...like trying to build our success on a foundation of quicksand.
> 
> I think that's the key point that GOP strategy naysayers misunderstand:  If we want lasting success, the foundation for it must come first.  We don't have the resources to win a large number of elections ourselves, and neither do third parties.  Winning the Presidency for Ron Paul would have been a tremendous symbolic and practical achievement, but even if we did, he could not save our country alone...he could only buy us more time to mount a larger assault on the establishment, and use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to demonstrate the message by example.  In the long run, the GOP leadership's momentary success in cheating Ron Paul out of delegates is much, MUCH less important and lasting than our success at grabbing GOP chairman positions one at a time.  Their success shows their current institutional strength, but our smaller successes show that if we keep it up, they're not going to have that strength forever.
> 
> While expecting much from third parties is a pipe dream, expecting change to happen outside of the political system entirely - like through massive civil disobedience - is absurd:  We live in a country where a dismal number of people are even willing to vote third party in a general election to protest the two-party system, so the idea that a critical mass would risk everything in a tax revolt (for instance) is just ludicrous at this point...and as long as the government has its funding, it will continue raping and pillaging.


Brilliant post.

----------


## wgadget

> ^This. In my opinion, it would accomplish just as much if Ron joined the Libertarian ticket as VP. But Gary might like that Ron can get a fat chunk of matching funds and raise his own profile if he lets Ron take over the Presidential slot on the ticket. Ron must accompany this with a detailed report and press conference calling out the corruption in the Republican party.



Oooooooooooooohhhh.....PLEASE, GOD.

----------


## Carlybee

> Oooooooooooooohhhh.....PLEASE, GOD.


But he won't. Rand is too tied in to the GOP now. He won't jeopardize that even though he wasn't shown the same courtesy.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Well, Ron's plan is to take over the GOP.  In the past, people were booted for not supporting Ron's plans.  Yet today, this thread is rife with people who are not only quitting and/or migrating to third parties, but are adamant that those of us who are staying need to be talked out of it. 
> 
> Like I said, it appears that the days of being banned for not supporting Ron's plans are over.
> 
> Aside from that, any effort that divides the movement is a loss to the movement UNLESS we pick up a new faction in the exchange.    The more people that leave, the weaker the movement becomes and the less likely that the politicians we support will stay true, or in office.


It's astonishing that Ron Paul's plan and people following his plan are openly attacked for doing so on a Ron Paul website.  I can understand some depressed supporters and even a few dropping out politically, but there's a coordinated effort on these forums to kick us when we're down and discourage us from further participation in the political process.  And its in numerous threads, over and over again...usually by the same handful of screen names.

If these people really despise Ron Paul's plan of reforming the GOP than why are they here constantly attacking it?  If they truly believed in something better wouldn't they be out working towards it instead of posting defeatism ad nauseam on an internet forum?  These are obvious divide and conquer tactics by saboteurs.

----------


## sailingaway

> It's astonishing that Ron Paul's plan and people following his plan are openly attacked for doing so on a Ron Paul website.  I can understand some depressed supporters and even a few dropping out politically, but there's a coordinated effort on these forums to kick us when we're down and discourage us from further participation in the political process.  And its in numerous threads, over and over again...usually by the same handful of screen names.
> 
> If these people really despise Ron Paul's plan of reforming the GOP than why are they here constantly attacking it?  If they truly believed in something better wouldn't they be out working towards it instead of posting defeatism ad nauseam on an internet forum?  These are obvious divide and conquer tactics by saboteurs.


Ron actually has been known to say this should be in ALL parties which means some of his supporters would have to carry it. He has also, unlike you, typically addressed the question of "what should I do" with the answer: "You should do whatever you choose to do!"

At one college he added, "And you may choose to do nothing, which in my opinion would be the wrong choice."

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It's astonishing that Ron Paul's plan and people following his plan are openly attacked for doing so on a Ron Paul website.  I can understand some depressed supporters and even a few dropping out politically, but there's a coordinated effort on these forums to kick us when we're down and discourage us from further participation in the political process.  And its in numerous threads, over and over again...usually by the same handful of screen names.
> 
> If these people really despise Ron Paul's plan of reforming the GOP than why are they here constantly attacking it?  If they truly believed in something better wouldn't they be out working towards it instead of posting defeatism ad nauseam on an internet forum?  These are obvious divide and conquer tactics by saboteurs.


What is it going to take to get you to take my username out of your sig line?

I'll remove your name from mine when you do the right thing.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> While I'm not big on banning, I really think it speaks to the morality and integrity of those who would use private property here to relentlessly sabotage the official liberty movement as guided by Ron. Yet, the more I think of it, those who would go out of their way to actively piss on Ron's legacy perhaps should be banned. People are free to make their own choices as to what is effective activism but not to pursue it through this online channel. Again, I understand peoples' newly found frustrations but keep the hysteria to yourselves. Holding up what the RNC did as conclusive evidence that we as a whole will never be able to make any further headway is bunk and they know it. However, it is a convenient time to spread division amongst the onlookers who are perusing this board for direction. Mods need to tighten the leash esp in GRC of RPF.


Here, here!

----------


## cajuncocoa

delete

----------


## MelissaWV

So now what?  Now we fight amongst ourselves over stupid crap, like whether or not we can have other folks' names in our sigs.

THAT'LL SHOW 'EM!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So now what?  Now we fight amongst ourselves over stupid crap, like whether or not we can have other folks' names in our sigs.
> 
> THAT'LL SHOW 'EM!


Not about having names in sig lines, but whether to have name-calling of others in sig lines.  Capiche?

----------


## sailingaway

> Not about having names in sig lines, but whether to have name-calling of others in sig lines.  Capiche?


this is in fact against TOS and goes to yours as well. Please remove it.

----------


## Carlybee

> So now what?  Now we fight amongst ourselves over stupid crap, like whether or not we can have other folks' names in our sigs.
> 
> THAT'LL SHOW 'EM!


Easy to say when it's not happening to you isn't it?   We have a point of view that is shared by quite a few people on this board yet CC and I are the main one's being called out for it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> this is in fact against TOS and goes to yours as well. Please remove it.


Done.

----------


## sailingaway

> Done.


thank you.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> DAMNIT!!! Every time I think that I should just tell the GOP to $#@! itself, I find people such as yourself talking sense. STOP IT! :-)
> Do you think it would be easier to take over the Democratic party? lol


Umm, no lol.  The democratic party is utterly hopeless.  Another lesson from Ron Paul's run, that Brian Doherty points out so well, is that very few democrates actually care about protecting civil liberties or ending the wars.  The biggest mover to those people is income RE-distribution on a massive scale.  It's virtually their religion.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Well, you have to be honest. The Liberty movement has made tremendous inroads in the last 4 years.
> I AM willing to give Rand an opportunity to prove that he is the man we hope he is.
> In the meantime - goddam GOP


You're good man Sematary.  Just do what everyone did last go around, get drunk or go to the firing range and pop off a few rounds.  Not at the same time mind you

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> You'll know that the GOP has turned the corner when it is renounced by William Kristol.
> 
> Don't hold your breath.


I'm hard pressed to think of a more worthy goal actually!

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Interesting attempt to squash dissent (as well as the truth) coming from someone who professes to be part of a FREE state.(If one goes by the FSP in your handle).  CC is not the only one who feels that way...are you going to try and have everyone banned who disagrees that the Republican party can be reformed?


Sounds like a good GOP/RNC model to follow. Just taking lessons from the professionals apparently.

----------


## Rocco

Excuse me, but what gives you more authority then Ron Paul to decide what our movement is about? You do realize that the OFFICIAL Ron Paul rally is centered around the idea of taking back the GOP, right? You do realize that HE has directed all of the changes that have been made by the campaign to better our GOP standing, right? If Bastiat is an outsider then Ron Paul is an outsider. Unfortunately, I think that is EXACTLY the mentality of many of these ancap/kokesh types who continue to decry the movement. 




> Yeah, but your entire participation in this subforum has been to pull people OUT of it to your projects, so I kind of personally see you more as an outsider (on this subforum, not to the forums overall) trying to make everyone go your way, than as one of the members of this subforum community determining direction.

----------


## sailingaway

> Excuse me, but what gives you more authority then Ron Paul to decide what our movement is about? You do realize that the OFFICIAL Ron Paul rally is centered around the idea of taking back the GOP, right? You do realize that HE has directed all of the changes that have been made by the campaign to better our GOP standing, right? If Bastiat is an outsider then Ron Paul is an outsider. Unfortunately, I think that is EXACTLY the mentality of many of these ancap/kokesh types who continue to decry the movement.


I'm not defining what OUR movement is about, and Ron has made it clear everyone should do what they think is right, in ALL parties and outside politics as well, and that HIS choice is to work in the GOP and he cites his reasons for his choice.

I never said Bastiat is an outsider to the movement, he knows who he is.  But he wasn't part of pushing Ron's campaign and participating in activities to further Ron's campaign, which is the purpose of this SUBFORUM.  His activity here has been solely to pull people to other activities, so he isn't part of the 'us' deciding what now that Ron's campaign is ending, he left long ago, before he joined the forums, if he was in it previously.  

I shouldn't have used the word 'outsider', though, it was careless. He is biased about where we should go because he wants us to push goals he already has and has been trying to get us to push, for months.

----------


## Rocco

Don't give me that self determination garbage, that applies to policy not politics. In politics we must function as a coalition in order to ever effectively change things. This requires that people not do things which are completely destructive, like abandoning the plan to take back the GOP. Our movement is about taking the GOP back, and if you aren't on board to take back the GOP you are not apart of the liberty movement. You may believe in the tenets of liberty but you will not be a part of the group advancing it. 




> I'm not defining what OUR movement is about, and Ron has made it clear everyone should do what they think is right, in ALL parties and outside politics as well, and that HIS choice is to work in the GOP and he cites his reasons for his choice.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Don't give me that self determination garbage, that applies to policy not politics. In politics we must function as a coalition in order to ever effectively change things. This requires that people not do things which are completely destructive, like abandoning the plan to take back the GOP. Our movement is about taking the GOP back, and *if you aren't on board to take back the GOP you are not apart of the liberty movement.* You may believe in the tenets of liberty but you will not be a part of the group advancing it.


Are you the decider of who is a part of the liberty movement?  LOL!  How liberty-minded of you.

----------


## sailingaway

> Don't give me that self determination garbage, that applies to policy not politics. In politics we must function as a coalition in order to ever effectively change things. This requires that people not do things which are completely destructive, like abandoning the plan to take back the GOP. Our movement is about taking the GOP back, and if you aren't on board to take back the GOP you are not apart of the liberty movement. You may believe in the tenets of liberty but you will not be a part of the group advancing it.


so you get to bully people to do it your way?

Where's your nonagression principle?




> if you aren't on board to take back the GOP you are not apart of the liberty movement


fascinating.  You might want to run that by Ron.

----------


## wgadget

Ah, cat-herding...

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Personally, I'm waiting to see Rush Limbaugh do an about face. If you listen to him (I do for a chuckle), it is UNBELIEVABLE how behind Romney this asshat is. Romney is the opposite of EVERYTHING that Limburger has been preaching all these years but somehow he brought himself to forsake everything he professed to believe in to give Romney his full support. Go figure. So, when he does the same for a Liberty candidate (Rand maybe?) then we can talk.


They have no real political philosophy or internal principal, it's their biggest weakness.  Once again, Ron Paul was right @ 2:05

----------


## sailingaway

> Ah, cat-herding...


you can't herd cats, you have to tempt them with something they want, so they WANT to come to or with you.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I presume your point is what the RNC is doing to Ron/us. Aside from that let's see from '08-present, we own the IA, NV and AK state parties, we will have controlling interests in likely ME, MN, LA, OK, MI and a few others if things hold and our delegates show, instead of just Ron in the House we'll have Massie, Bentivolio, Amash, perhaps Robinson, the RP dem (dude on the underwear bomber flight) from here in MI, some other obscures that I can't think of, Rand in the Senate along w/ Lee, DeMint, Cruz, perhaps Bills and a few others in the TP caucus, loads more precinct delegates across the landscape, we actually have more than a handful of at-large nat'l dels and committeepersons, and more that don't rightly come to mind.


Great summation of our accomplishments thus far. 

+Rep

----------


## sailingaway

> They have no real political philosophy or internal principal, it's their biggest weakness.  Once again, Ron Paul was right @ 2:05


odd you picked a 2008 video right after he had appeared with various third party candidates saying what was important was the principles and platforms and putting out a four point platform he endorsed, challenging parties to accept it.

----------


## Rocco

I'm not bullying anyone, but the fact of the matter is the large majority of us have decided to go one way with the movement. It's not that people who dont join the GOP aren't _welcome_ to be a part of the movement, it's just that the legitimate activism of the movement will be entirely GOP centric for the foreseeable future. Therefore, libertarian party members (for example) will basically have the same ineffective outlets they did before. Really the liberty movement and the libertarian party are two separate movements in that their basic functions and basic goals are different. My appeal is for those people to join the superior liberty movement that has clearly made all the progress and abandon the plan that has shown itself to be completely ineffective. 




> so you get to bully people to do it your way?
> 
> Where's your nonagression principle?
> 
> 
> 
> fascinating.  You might want to run that by Ron.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The only thing I was referencing is the relentless trash talking of Ron's concept to restore the GOP beyond making one's initial point. Sorry if cajun took offense and as I said I normally don't go for banning nor have I ever neg repped someone I didn't see eye to eye with. But, I'm starting to see a mini-conspiracy club around here with the blatant attempt to troll Ron's own forum to do other things besides his mission. I realize Ron's own buddies like Lew and Woods don't do politics yet they aren't out bashing those who do nor crapping on Ron for pushing for this. The successes we've had across the scenery injecting our people into the GOP is beyond questioning and reproach based on current results yet some will stop at nothing to find any wedge to muddy the waters all the while abusing this forum to do so.


You're not the only one seeing something is rotten in the state of Denmark.  We must separate genuine disillusionment (Sematary) and the mini-conspiracy club that trashes Ron Paul's restore the GOP concept with every post.  They're like moths to a flame piling on when a genuine person is feeling discouraged.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Great summation of our accomplishments thus far. 
> 
> +Rep


Do we own NV? LA? MI? OK? If so, why doesn't RP have 5 states, and exactly what good has "owning" those done? RP lost NV, placed third in Iowa behind Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, and let's not talk about LA, MI, and the others.

Ron Paul lost Nevada behind NEWT GINGRICH.

Again, I have said it before, if this was about a movement/message...whatever the campaign is selling you for wasting your time/money, there are several other ways to have "ended" this that might have been slightly difficult for some, but at least had a foundation to move forward on and not sit by in silence as the entire thing was/is collapsing.

The gains that have been made though, I give credit to the supporters for getting out and investing their time/money into those areas, not the campaign. The problem is, with gains, there have been losses. Some very good "liberty" candidates has lost, and the GOP/RNC know the RP supporters more by name now, and will come out in full force against them.

The campaign has been effective in a few things though. Causing a split the "movement", and being absolutely horrible at what it was designed to do: getting RP elected.

----------


## Sematary

> There's an inordinate number of us in the liberty movement,...especially since we only comprise 2% of the population.


I'm an ENTJ

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm not bullying anyone, but the fact of the matter is the large majority of us have decided to go one way with the movement. It's not that people who dont join the GOP aren't _welcome_ to be a part of the movement, it's just that the legitimate activism of the movement will be entirely GOP centric for the foreseeable future. Therefore, libertarian party members (for example) will basically have the same ineffective outlets they did before. Really the liberty movement and the libertarian party are two separate movements in that their basic functions and basic goals are different. My appeal is for those people to join the superior liberty movement that has clearly made all the progress and abandon the plan that has shown itself to be completely ineffective.


who elected you spokesman for 'the movement'?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> odd you picked a 2008 video right after he had appeared with various third party candidates saying what was important was the principles and platforms and putting out a four point platform he endorsed, challenging parties to accept it.


I think Ron learned that that was a terrible strategy, especially when Bob Barr was a no show.  I don't think he anticipated inciting a real movement.  That's why his later efforts have been much more focused (C4L, YAL, Restore the GOP), instead of saying do whatever.

----------


## sailingaway

> You're not the only one seeing something is rotten in the state of Denmark.  We must separate genuine disillusionment (Sematary) and the mini-conspiracy club that trashes Ron Paul's restore the GOP concept with every post.  They're like moths to a flame piling on when a genuine person is feeling discouraged.


what I see is people trying to drive people so hard in one direction that they are driving them away, and I think you are going to create what you fear.

----------


## Carlybee

All I see here are directives and ultimatums.  Sorry but none of you get to define the liberty movement in terms directly opposed to the very definition of the word liberty. We do as we wish...keep your collectivism but you can't force anyone to crawl in bed with the devil.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think Ron learned that that was a terrible strategy, especially when Bob Barr was a no show.  I don't think he anticipated inciting a real movement.  That's why his later efforts have been much more focused (C4L, YAL, Restore the GOP), instead of saying do whatever.


He has said 'do whatever' on the campaign trail in 2011 and 2012, actually.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Sounds like a good GOP/RNC model to follow. Just taking lessons from the professionals apparently.


Clever yet not so much. The difference is the RNC cheating and committing fraud yet those of us that want either the trolls to behave or gtfo are completely transparent about it and have put up with it for months and it's climaxing now. The saturation of negativity about Ron's restoration program and the overlooking of any of its successes is rampant by a small cabal of rabid saboteurs. Just calling it as is.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Do we own NV? LA? MI? OK? If so, why doesn't RP have 5 states, and exactly what good has "owning" those done? RP lost NV, placed third in Iowa behind Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, and let's not talk about LA, MI, and the others.
> 
> Ron Paul lost Nevada behind NEWT GINGRICH.
> 
> Again, I have said it before, if this was about a movement/message...whatever the campaign is selling you for wasting your time/money, there are several other ways to have "ended" this that might have been slightly difficult for some, but at least had a foundation to move forward on and not sit by in silence as the entire thing was/is collapsing.
> 
> The gains that have been made though, I give credit to the supporters for getting out and investing their time/money into those areas, not the campaign. The problem is, with gains, there have been losses. Some very good "liberty" candidates has lost, and the GOP/RNC know the RP supporters more by name now, and will come out in full force against them.
> 
> The campaign has been effective in a few things though. Causing a split the "movement", and being absolutely horrible at what it was designed to do: getting RP elected.


I really don't want to rehash Nevada with you *sigh* but we didn't really control Nevada until AFTER the primary.  We made our biggest gains at the conventions.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> I think Ron learned that that was a terrible strategy, especially when Bob Barr was a no show.  I don't think he anticipated inciting a real movement.  That's why his later efforts have been much more focused (C4L, YAL, Restore the GOP), instead of saying do whatever.


When Bob Barr didn't show? Serioiusly? Ron Paul didn't endorse Bob Barr in 2008, and he didn't endorse John McCain (the Republican nominee). Ron Paul endorsed a third party candidate.

----------


## Rocco

Well, I attended the YAL National Convention where nearly all of the lectures and training sessions centered around taking back the GOP. It certainly seemed like the leaders of the movement have coalesced around the GOP. It's pretty obvious that our movement is GOP centric. I'm not a spokesman for anything, i'm just not a fool. 




> who elected you spokesman for 'the movement'?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> He has said 'do whatever' on the campaign trail in 2011 and 2012, actually.


No, he clearly stated he wanted to reform the GOP and get his supporters involved with the political process at the state, delegate, and convention level.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> I really don't want to rehash Nevada with you *sigh* but we didn't really control Nevada until AFTER the primary.  We made our biggest gains at the conventions.


Which is my point. If the "gains" made were the delegate strategy, how exactly did that pay off?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> When Bob Barr didn't show? Serioiusly? Ron Paul didn't endorse Bob Barr in 2008, and he didn't endorse John McCain (the Republican nominee). Ron Paul endorsed a third party candidate.


He endorsed Chuck Baldwin, and then I voted for him.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> When Bob Barr didn't show? Serioiusly? Ron Paul didn't endorse Bob Barr in 2008, and he didn't endorse John McCain (the Republican nominee). Ron Paul endorsed a third party candidate.


Are you going to pay me for the history lesson or do you want to Google it for yourself?

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Clever yet not so much. The difference is the RNC cheating and committing fraud yet those of us that want either the trolls to behave or gtfo are completely transparent about it and have put up with it for months and it's climaxing now. The saturation of negativity about Ron's restoration program and the overlooking of any of its successes is rampant by a small cabal of rabid saboteurs. Just calling it as is.


The only "restoration" project I know Ron has mentioned, is following the Constitution. He doesn't seem to care if you are Republican, Democrat, or third party...just follow your oath of office, and follow the Constitution. The only reason RP is a Republican now, is so that he could get elected in Texas. If RP lived in California, my guess is he would be a Democrat, or whatever it is necessary to get elected. Not one party.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Are you going to pay me for the history lesson or do you want to Google it for yourself?


Ron Paul endorsed a third party candidate in 2008, that is the history lesson.

----------


## Rocco

How did that pay off? We control the Nevada GOP! 




> Which is my point. If the "gains" made were the delegate strategy, how exactly did that pay off?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Clever yet not so much. The difference is the RNC cheating and committing fraud yet those of us that want either the trolls to behave or gtfo are completely transparent about it and have put up with it for months and it's climaxing now. The saturation of negativity about Ron's restoration program and the overlooking of any of its successes is rampant by a small cabal of rabid saboteurs. Just calling it as is.


Fine. I'm tired of the insults and accusations. I'll stop "trolling" Ron's board.  I've already expressed my opinion and there's nothing more to say.  Have fun in the GOP.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> He endorsed Chuck Baldwin, and then I voted for him.


Yeah, I had followed Baldwin during the primary season, because of his great articles on Ron Paul and his positions. He seemed to be very well spoken, and knew his target audience well with his message. I wrote him, before he decided to run, and thanked him for his articles he had put together.

----------


## Sematary

> You're not the only one seeing something is rotten in the state of Denmark.  We must separate genuine disillusionment (Sematary) and the mini-conspiracy club that trashes Ron Paul's restore the GOP concept with every post.  They're like moths to a flame piling on when a genuine person is feeling discouraged.


I'm assuming the disillusionment will pass. At least I hope it will. It's an incredibly large hill to scale and I'm not generally of the mind to quit. So once my anger passes and I'm ready to move on, well, you get the idea.... I'll most likely still be a reluctant Republican till either it (the gop), or we, are defeated.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> How did that pay off? We control the Nevada GOP!


How many delegates from NV are there, and how has controlling the Nevada GOP helped in the current delegate situations with the RNC?

----------


## Carlybee

> No, he clearly stated he wanted to reform the GOP and get his supporters involved with the political process at the state, delegate, and convention level.


I've been on his email list for quite a few years and in none of them did issue an edict ..it was a suggestion. And that was before his campaign decided he wouldn't pursue the nomination and before the delegates were tossed under the Romney bus yesterday. There obviously will be some changes in the gameplan and we who pays the money will decide how we wish to proceed.

----------


## sailingaway

> Clever yet not so much. The difference is the RNC cheating and committing fraud yet those of us that want either the trolls to behave or gtfo are completely transparent about it and have put up with it for months and it's climaxing now. The saturation of negativity about Ron's restoration program and the overlooking of any of its successes is rampant by a small cabal of rabid saboteurs. Just calling it as is.


don't call members trolls just because they disagree with you, and I dont see where you should be telling people they need to work with you or gtfo.  I agree with the negativity bit TO A POINT, and after Tampa would begin to ask people to cut it out. But when I say TO A POINT it is because this is a natural reaction by people who have just been freshly shafted by the RNC, and those who have not recently been putting their drive into Ron's campaign don't share the feelings as strongly Yet this is RON's campaign subforum.  In Rands you likely won't find this push back.  I don't see that your implying people who feel this way should gtfo of RON'S subforum when they have been more immersed in RON'S campaign than you, is appropriate.

----------


## Rocco

See, this is precisely the problem, there is a world beyond 2012, we gained all of these spots at the Nevada state convention just a few months ago, and after this election cycle we will begin to see the benefits. You cannot expect benefit when there's really been no action the new GOP couldve taken at this point.  




> How many delegates from NV are there, and how has controlling the Nevada GOP helped in the current delegate situations with the RNC?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Which is my point. If the "gains" made were the delegate strategy, how exactly did that pay off?


We only gained 10,000% over our delegate totals from 2008.  To any unbiased observer those are off the chart gains made by our movement, not including all the other gains we've made that were already pointed out at the local, state, House, and Senate level.  Why throw it all away and do nothing, none of the naysayers have provided any viable alternative.  If we grow our delegation by a simple 200% we're a major player, 300% and we're in the drivers seat in 2016.

If the rational argument doesn't work, there's always the moral one.  This is what Ron Paul wanted us to do.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> See, this is precisely the problem, there is a world beyond 2012, we gained all of these spots at the Nevada state convention just a few months ago, and after this election cycle we will begin to see the benefits. You cannot expect benefit when there's really been no action the new GOP couldve taken at this point.


My question was an honest question. How many delegates do we have from NV, and how has controlling the NV GOP helped with the delegate situation? I mean, there's gotta be some benefit to it right?
I thought Ben Swann (who has incorrectly reported things) said that NV is where Romney and his campaign basically paid/hired/funded their separate convention in NV, and elected delegates only for Romney or something? Or, was that another state?

----------


## Sematary

> We only gained 10,000% over our delegate totals from 2008.  To any unbiased observer those are off the chart gains made by our movement, not including all the other gains we've made that were already pointed out at the local, state, House, and Senate level.  Why throw it all away and do nothing, none of the naysayers have provided any viable alternative.  If we grow our delegation by a simple 200% we're a major player, 300% and we're in the drivers seat in 2016.


I love your enthusiasm and unbridled optimism

----------


## Rocco

My apologies. Yes, Romney has hired his own Nevada team to do his campaigning, but we control the official state party. That means we can nominate candidates for state level and congressional positions, endorse candidates and has access to the largest lists of republicans of any list. We also nominate 2 representatives to the RNC.




> My question was an honest question. How many delegates do we have from NV, and how has controlling the NV GOP helped with the delegate situation? I mean, there's gotta be some benefit to it right?
> I thought Ben Swann (who has incorrectly reported things) said that NV is where Romney and his campaign basically paid/hired/funded their separate convention in NV, and elected delegates only for Romney or something? Or, was that another state?

----------


## Rocco

My apologies. Yes, Romney has hired his own Nevada team to do his campaigning, but we control the official state party. That means we can nominate candidates for state level and congressional positions, endorse candidates and has access to the largest lists of republicans of any list. We also nominate 2 representatives to the RNC.




> My question was an honest question. How many delegates do we have from NV, and how has controlling the NV GOP helped with the delegate situation? I mean, there's gotta be some benefit to it right?
> I thought Ben Swann (who has incorrectly reported things) said that NV is where Romney and his campaign basically paid/hired/funded their separate convention in NV, and elected delegates only for Romney or something? Or, was that another state?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Again...What ARE Ron Paul's plans?


To help those working to reform the GOP.  Why do you think he spoke at those convention were we could make the most gains?  Why did he endorse Bentivolio, Massie, or Amash?

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> I'm assuming the disillusionment will pass. At least I hope it will. It's an incredibly large hill to scale and I'm not generally of the mind to quit. So once my anger passes and I'm ready to move on, well, you get the idea.... I'll most likely still be a reluctant Republican till either it (the gop), or we, are defeated.


You have more strength than me brother!

Me... I'm thinking land, with a stream, in mountains, in TN.
No state income tax on wages or pensions, property taxed at 4% of assessed value with a low mil rate.
I'm going to find my apathy and live out my days where I wont be bothered by the collapse of society that is coming.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Remember Debra Medina.


Beck set the trap, but she bares some responsibility for walking into it.  I think she learned a valuable lesson and will play the game smarter next time.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> My apologies. Yes, Romney has hired his own Nevada team to do his campaigning, *but we control the official state party*. That means we can nominate candidates for state level and congressional positions, endorse candidates and has access to the largest lists of republicans of any list. We also nominate 2 representatives to the RNC.


Most of the affects of which will be noticed going forward not the instant gratification needed by some around here.

----------


## gte811i

> You have more strength than me brother!
> 
> Me... I'm thinking land, with a stream, in mountains, in TN.
> No state income tax on wages or pensions, property taxed at 4% of assessed value with a low mil rate.
> I'm going to find my apathy and live out my days where I wont be bothered by the collapse of society that is coming.


I hear you man.  All I've ever wanted is just to live my life in peace and tranquility with my family.  Buy a place and make my stand.

Unfortunately, economics and politics pervades everything.  With no liberty lovers fighting for it how long until TN has state income taxes or how long until property taxes go up?

----------


## coffeewithchess

> We only gained 10,000% over our delegate totals from 2008.  To any unbiased observer those are off the chart gains made by our movement, not including all the other gains we've made that were already pointed out at the local, state, House, and Senate level.  Why throw it all away and do nothing, none of the naysayers have provided any viable alternative.  If we grow our delegation by a simple 200% we're a major player, 300% and we're in the drivers seat in 2016.
> 
> If the rational argument doesn't work, there's always the moral one.  This is what Ron Paul wanted us to do.


Actually, I have provided alternatives, and even provided an example of how Rand Paul could/should have endorsed Mitt Romney without lying and dragging RP supporters into it. I provided an example of how to change one simple lines in a video, would make the message better targeted at the Republican base.
One issue when some of us around here provide examples, we are simply called things like "armchair qbs", or something similar.

As for percentage of votes gained from 2008 to 2012, Ron Paul gained fewer popular votes than Mitt Romney, and if you want to compare it to dollars spent, Ron Paul was the worst for dollars/vote I would imagine...considering he had less than Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich.

Ron Paul had 1,160,403 total votes in 2008. Ron Paul had 2,063,043 total votes in 2012. He didn't even double the number of votes. Romney received more votes in 2008, than Ron Paul did in 2008 and 2012 combined.

As for the delegates percentages how exactly did all their time/work payoff, and how did not attacking Romney, and Rand's endorsement of Romney help get Ron Paul's name into the nomination for the convention?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Excuse me, but what gives you more authority then Ron Paul to decide what our movement is about? You do realize that the OFFICIAL Ron Paul rally is centered around the idea of taking back the GOP, right? You do realize that HE has directed all of the changes that have been made by the campaign to better our GOP standing, right? If Bastiat is an outsider then Ron Paul is an outsider. Unfortunately, I think that is EXACTLY the mentality of many of these ancap/kokesh types who continue to decry the movement.


"You must spread some reputation."

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Why did he endorse Bentivolio, Massie, or Amash?


The same reason he endorsed a third party presidential candidate in 2008? He agreed with their views more than the others?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Ron Paul endorsed a third party candidate in 2008, that is the history lesson.


Only after Barr blew him off did he side with Baldwin.  He originally intended an endorsement of a protest vote of whatever third party flavor you liked best.  Barr had an outside chance of capturing Ron's exclusive endorsement, but he blew it, which isn't surprising; Barr is a horrible candidate and person.

----------


## Sematary

> You have more strength than me brother!
> 
> Me... I'm thinking land, with a stream, in mountains, in TN.
> No state income tax on wages or pensions, property taxed at 4% of assessed value with a low mil rate.
> I'm going to find my apathy and live out my days where I wont be bothered by the collapse of society that is coming.


That's as good a plan as any. Personally, I'm working on my survival skills, just in case they become necessary.

----------


## paulbot24

This video is worth watching as regards to this issue. Just play it. It's worth taking the six minutes. Especially when you're just doing meaningless updates on facebook anyway.

----------


## Carlybee

> Most of the affects of which will be noticed going forward not the instant gratification needed by some around here.



It's insulting to the grassroots who gave time and money as well as the delegates to chalk up the events of the past few months as something that some only wish instant gratification for.  No one expected it to be easy.  But no one expected the campaign to virtually throw in the towel while the delegates were not only fighting for their lives but racking up positions and in some cases majorities in primaries and caucuses in various states.  No one expected the email that Jessie Benton sent out effectively shutting down everyone's hopes of fighting to the finish, and no one expected the delegates to be cut off completely from being to nominate Ron from the floor or at the very least from being able to help secure him a speaking position.  No one expected fingers to be broken, hips to be dislodged and here at the last minute, the RNC to change rules that would bring any hopes of having a national platform for the liberty message to a screeching halt.  It has been made very clear that it does not matter if we control the official state parties, unless we control the national party, we are getting tossed under the bus.  Unless our candidates are capable of supporting the movement 100% (yes I am referring to Rand and anyone else who endorsed or plans to endorse Romney) then they are totally at the whim of their masters...once you acquiesce, you have immediately given up your power and placed it in the hand of your opponent.  It is one thing to form coalitions with regard to certain or specific bills in Congress in order to get support, it is quite another to make deals with the enemy in the middle of a campaign.  THAT is not a liberty position and it is not the way to conduct a revolution in either action nor ideal.  So next time you start branding everyone trolls who may see things a bit differently, maybe you should stop and think about why they see things differently and maybe those who are questioning the turn of events should ask themselves if there is a trail of power or money that needs to be investigated before they blindly attach themselves to a movement.  Ask yourselves who is the one benefitting from a certain set of actions, now and going forward and how does that affect the original intention of the movement.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I love your enthusiasm and unbridled optimism


Thanks Sematary.  I was at the place where you are now back in January.  I started to get excited again seeing the new crop of liberty candidates emerge.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Only after Barr blew him off did he side with Baldwin.  He originally intended an endorsement of a protest vote of whatever third party flavor you liked best.  Barr had an outside chance of capturing Ron's exclusive endorsement, but he blew it, which isn't surprising; Barr is a horrible candidate and person.


Based on what? The fact Barr was on the Libertarian ticket? What "outside chance" did he have, other than being the Libertarian candidate, which RP was once himself as well? At least Baldwin was a very active RP supporter in 2008...
I'm not sure what I'm missing, other than the fact we are trying to dismiss Ron Paul endorsing a third party candidate? The fact is if RP had endorsed Bob Barr in 2008, that still would not have been John McCain............

----------


## angelatc

> It's insulting to the grassroots who gave time and money as well as the delegates to chalk up the events of the past few months as something that some only wish instant gratification for.  No one expected it to be easy.  But no one expected the campaign to virtually throw in the towel while the delegates were not only fighting for their lives but racking up positions and in some cases majorities in primaries and caucuses in various states.  No one expected the email that Jessie Benton sent out effectively shutting down everyone's hopes of fighting to the finish, and no one expected the delegates to be cut off completely from being to nominate Ron from the floor or at the very least from being able to help secure him a speaking position.  No one expected fingers to be broken, hips to be dislodged and here at the last minute, the RNC to change rules that would bring any hopes of having a national platform for the liberty message to a screeching halt.  It has been made very clear that it does not matter if we control the official state parties, unless we control the national party, we are getting tossed under the bus.  Unless our candidates are capable of supporting the movement 100% (yes I am referring to Rand and anyone else who endorsed or plans to endorse Romney) then they are totally at the whim of their masters...once you acquiesce, you have immediately given up your power and placed it in the hand of your opponent.  It is one thing to form coalitions with regard to certain or specific bills in Congress in order to get support, it is quite another to make deals with the enemy in the middle of a campaign.  THAT is not a liberty position and it is not the way to conduct a revolution in either action nor ideal.  So next time you start branding everyone trolls who may see things a bit differently, maybe you should stop and think about why they see things differently and maybe those who are questioning the turn of events should ask themselves if there is a trail of power or money that needs to be investigated before they blindly attach themselves to a movement.  Ask yourselves who is the one benefitting from a certain set of actions, now and going forward and how does that affect the original intention of the movement.


We get it already.  You're done.  Bye.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> We get it already.  You're done.  Bye.


So, what exactly did you disagree with that was said?

----------


## Carlybee

> We get it already.  You're done.  Bye.



Fortunately that's hardly for you to decide.  Your comment has been duly noted.

----------


## angelatc

> So, what exactly did you disagree with that was said?


At this point, just about everything she says is just bitter.  But to start with, she said that "nobody" expected any of those things, which isn't true in the least. Those of us who were here in 2007 saw them ignore the people who did just what they were supposed to last time, too. 

I'm too tired to spend the evening rehashing the failings of the campaign, but I'd like to point out that if they had actually campaigned in Maine, Ron Paul probably would have won. And if he had won, his delegates would be seated.  But he didn't go there, they didn't run any commercials....and when the grassroots did everything the campaign wanted them to do, they were sold out.  Because this happened in LA and NV in 2007, there was no reason NOT to expect it would happen again.

Like I said earlier, I'm absolutely thrilled at the fact that there are several people in office now that I could see myself supporting all the way to the top, something that I have never experienced previously in my adult life.  But I knew 5 years ago that the Ron Paul campaign wasn't the group that would lead us to victory.

----------


## angelatc

> Fortunately that's hardly for you to decide.  Your comment has been duly noted.


So you're not done?  You're still going to support liberty candidates, and work in the GOP to advance the movement of our candidates there?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> At this point, just about everything she says is just bitter.


And you're Little Miss Sunshine, aren't ya?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So you're not done?  You're still going to support liberty candidates, and work in the GOP to advance the movement of our candidates there?


When are the three of you (you, Bastiat, and FSP) going to get it?  How many times must you be told that it is not necessary to work in the GOP to advance the liberty movement??  Are you that obtuse?  Are just someone who likes to harass other people?

----------


## Michigan11

> And you're Little Miss Sunshine, aren't ya?


come one cajuncocoa, you have been posting depressed posts for weeks now, you're better than that. no long faces?

----------


## Carlybee

> At this point, just about everything she says is just bitter.   
> 
> 
> 
>  But I knew 5 years ago that the Ron Paul campaign wasn't the group that would lead us to victory.

----------


## Carlybee

> So you're not done?  You're still going to support liberty candidates, and work in the GOP to advance the movement of our candidates there?


What I do is none of your concern, is it?  Nor is staying in the GOP a mandate.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> So you're not done?  You're still going to support liberty candidates, and work in the GOP to advance the movement of our candidates there?


I didn't realize they ever said they were done. That was all you. Just because somebody doesn't like the official campaign, the GOP/RNC outcome, doesn't mean they are "done" or "going away" or anything of the sort, and responses here in this very thread from some of the posters are more likely to cause the liberty movement to shrink, and not grow. Telling people things like, "Bye" "get out", or anything similar to it...doesn't exactly show a great way to "advance the movement". It's the exact same response the GOP/RNC is telling the Ron Paul delegates.

How many RPF members vanished in 2007/08? I didn't find it necessary to comment here after the last election, because my dealings weren't on a national level. They were/are local, but that doesn't mean I stopped dropping liberty truths to people.

----------


## angelatc

> 


The difference being is that I'm not here crying that it's not fair, or that everybody should leave the GOP because I'm butthurt over what the campaign did or didn't do.  I'm here saying the opposite - that it sucks, but it was predictable, we've learned a lot of hard but valuable lessons about party politics, and that we need to double our efforts.

----------


## angelatc

> What I do is none of your concern, is it?  Nor is staying in the GOP a mandate.


Well it wasn't a concern, but since you keep putting it out there, now it has my attention.  YOu're right. Staying in the GOP isn't a mandate.  Like I said - bye.

----------


## Carlybee

> I didn't realize they ever said they were done. That was all you. Just because somebody doesn't like the official campaign, the GOP/RNC outcome, doesn't mean they are "done" or "going away" or anything of the sort, and responses here in this very thread from some of the posters are more likely to cause the liberty movement to shrink, and not grow. Telling people things like, "Bye" "get out", or anything similar to it...doesn't exactly show a great way to "advance the movement". It's the exact same response the GOP/RNC is telling the Ron Paul delegates.
> 
> How many RPF members vanished in 2007/08? I didn't find it necessary to comment here after the last election, because my dealings weren't on a national level. They were/are local, but that doesn't mean I stopped dropping liberty truths to people.


And she can call me bitter all she wants but it doesn't change the truth about what has transpired.  If people here are so willing to try and spin or sugarcoat the truth about the chain of events, it doesn't say much about the integrity of the type of movement they want this to be going forward.

----------


## Carlybee

> Well it wasn't a concern, but since you keep putting it out there, now it has my attention.  YOu're right. Staying in the GOP isn't a mandate.  Like I said - bye.


I'm sorry is this the GOP forum?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> come one cajuncocoa, you have been posting depressed posts for weeks now, you're better than that. no long faces?


Yes, I certainly have.  Know why?  Because I'm DEPRESSED!  How can a Ron Paul supporter NOT be depressed over the events of the past few weeks??  Srsly?

----------


## angelatc

> I'm sorry is this the GOP forum?


No, but everything else is a fast track towards irrelevance.  So, bye.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, but everything else is a fast track towards irrelevance.  So, bye.


Are you leaving?

----------


## angelatc

> And she can call me bitter all she wants but it doesn't change the truth about what has transpired.  If people here are so willing to try and spin or sugarcoat the truth about the chain of events, it doesn't say much about the integrity of the type of movement they want this to be going forward.


I'm beyond thrilled with the advances in the movement we've seen in a mere 4 years.

----------


## Carlybee

> The difference being is that I'm not here crying that it's not fair, or that everybody should leave the GOP because I'm butthurt over what the campaign did or didn't do.  I'm here saying the opposite - that it sucks, but it was predictable, we've learned a lot of hard but valuable lessons about party politics, and that we need to double our efforts.


I'm not telling anyone what to do. I am trying to make sense of the events in order to decide how I want to move fwd after investing the last few years trying to help get Ron Paul elected president.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> When are the three of you (you, Bastiat, and FSP) going to get it?  How many times must you be told that it is not necessary to work in the GOP to advance the liberty movement??  Are you that obtuse?  Are just someone who likes to harass other people?


Ron Paul told advised us to work within the GOP.

This is Ron Paul forums.

This is not the "It's not necessary to work in the GOP" forums.

----------


## Michigan11

> Yes, I certainly have.  Know why?  Because I'm DEPRESSED!  How can a Ron Paul supporter NOT be depressed over the events of the past few weeks??  Srsly?


I am not mad at you about being depressed at all so you know. I know you are better than spreading this long face around however, and that is why I called you out on it. I am no better or wise than you, by making this statement, but we, you and I are both in this movement for the same reasons - liberty and freedom. I was too after 08', thats how I know you are and many in here are. I understand completely. I hope you know many of us are still moving forward locally, and donating nationally, I know you don't want to discourage that. Either way, I am patient and understand completely and am definitely thankful for everything you have done. Don't think any of us forget what you have done. You're a patriot.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron Paul told advised us to work within the GOP.
> 
> This is Ron Paul forums.
> 
> This is not the "It's not necessary to work in the GOP" forums.


You know, you act just like the bullies in the GOP that have disenfranchised Ron's delegates this week.  Why am I not surprised?

----------


## angelatc

> I'm not telling anyone what to do. I am trying to make sense of the events in order to decide how I want to move fwd after investing the last few years trying to help get Ron Paul elected president.


Good luck with that!

----------


## sailingaway

> No, but everything else is a fast track towards irrelevance.  So, bye.


that _does_  have the impression you are kicking someone out for having a different idea of how to pursue liberty. Obviously, you will do it your way, but I for one don't want to lose the people that only might be involved with Ron Paul C4L initiatives or for particularly good candidates, just because they see working in the GOP differently.  On the other hand, when people are working on projects surrounding the GOP, it isn't right for those who think that doesn't make sense to just take pot shots at the efforts, any more than it was right for those who didn't want us spending time on Ron's campaign to take pot shots on our efforts.  

We want this forum to positively support grassroots projects to spread the message Ron Paul personifies, wherever that is.  If everyone takes pot shots at the way everyone else sees fit to do that, that will hurt all of us, imho.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> When are the three of you (you, Bastiat, and FSP) going to get it?  How many times must you be told that it is not necessary to work in the GOP to advance the liberty movement??  Are you that obtuse?  Are just someone who likes to harass other people?


The only harassment I see is the constant stream of negativity from you and Carlybee.  You said your piece.  You hate Ron Paul's plan to reform the GOP so move on.  The people here are going to keep working for what Ron Paul envisioned.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I am not mad at you about being depressed at all so you know. I know you are better than spreading this long face around however, and that is why I called you out on it. I am no better or wise than you, by making this statement, but we, you and I are both in this movement for the same reasons - liberty and freedom. I was too after 08', thats how I know you are and many in here are. I understand completely. I hope you know many of us are still moving forward locally, and donating nationally, I know you don't want to discourage that. Either way, I am patient and understand completely and am definitely thankful for everything you have done. Don't think any of us forget what you have done. You're a patriot.


And I too will move forward, but not within the GOP.  Ron Paul is my candidate, but he is not my master, nor would he want to be.  I think it's the wrong path, everything that has happened this week tells me I'm right about that.  I do promise not to continue to harp about this, however...there are only so many ways one can say it.  I have noticed, however, that Carlybee and I are not the only ones who feel this way, but for some reason, FSP, Bastiat, and angelatc insist on insulting only the two of us.  I would already be gone if not for that.  When challenged, I will rise to the call.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> The difference being is that I'm not here crying that it's not fair, or that everybody should leave the GOP because I'm butthurt over what the campaign did or didn't do.  I'm here saying the opposite - that it sucks, but it was predictable, we've learned a lot of hard but valuable lessons about party politics, and that we need to double our efforts.


"...we need to double our efforts."
I disagree. "we" just needed a candidate/campaign that was serious about winning, unfortunately, we didn't have that. If anything, the grassroots could probably use a good break, pitch ideas around, and figure out how to come together in a different method to "advance the message".

----------


## Carlybee

> You know, you act just like the bullies in the GOP that have disenfranchised Ron's delegates this week.  Why am I not surprised?


And the moderator has already called him out on it, yet he persists.  

FYI Bastiat...this is a privately owned forum.  It is not owned by Ron Paul, but inspired by Ron Paul. 
We are ALL part of the grassroots.  Most ALL of us have contributed time and money toward Ron Paul's run.  And this forum was intended for the Ron Paul campaign..not the Rand Paul campaign, or any other candidate campaign.  There are separate forums for those.  We are posting in the correct forum, being members of the grassroots, and we have every right to discuss, bitch about or whatever about the recent turn of events affecting the Ron Paul for President campaign.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The only harassment I see is the constant stream of negativity from you and Carlybee.  You said your piece.  You hate Ron Paul's plan to reform the GOP so move on.  The people here are going to keep working for what Ron Paul envisioned.


So work for it, no one is stopping you.  But just like a typical GOP operative, you cannot stand dissent...you intend to squash it instead.

----------


## Carlybee

> The only harassment I see is the constant stream of negativity from you and Carlybee.  You said your piece.  You hate Ron Paul's plan to reform the GOP so move on.  The people here are going to keep working for what Ron Paul envisioned.


And you keep putting words in everyone's mouth.  Who died and put you in charge or made you the mouthpiece for Ron Paul and his intentions?

----------


## angelatc

> I am not mad at you about being depressed at all so you know. I know you are better than spreading this long face around however, and that is why I called you out on it. I am no better or wise than you, by making this statement, but we, you and I are both in this movement for the same reasons - liberty and freedom. I was too after 08', thats how I know you are and many in here are. I understand completely. I hope you know many of us are still moving forward locally, and donating nationally, I know you don't want to discourage that. Either way, I am patient and understand completely and am definitely thankful for everything you have done. Don't think any of us forget what you have done. You're a patriot.


I think you're on to something there.  I was devastated in 2007, when the first primary results came in and we got....essentially nothing.  But two years ago we did better, and this year we did even better again.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul told advised us to work within the GOP.
> 
> This is Ron Paul forums.
> 
> This is not the "It's not necessary to work in the GOP" forums.


He said why HE worked within the GOP, he advised people to work in all parties, and in education etc.

I suspect working in the GOP is going to make up most of the grass roots projects, because this is a largely political forum, however, go to the list of subforums.  It is NOT ONLY about working in the GOP and some forum members may not want to, yet may add quite a bit to the forums.

Right now people who had their hearts in Ron's campaign as you have NOT, are feeling badly and it is a bad time to hound them, which frankly, I  think you shouldn't do.  Persuade, yes, bully, no.

They shouldn't just take pot shots at your efforts but they absolutely are allowed to have discussions about where they personally want to work for liberty without agreeing with your direction.

----------


## angelatc

> "...we need to double our efforts."
> I disagree. "we" just needed a candidate/campaign that was serious about winning, unfortunately, we didn't have that. If anything, the grassroots could probably use a good break, pitch ideas around, and figure out how to come together in a different method to "advance the message".


I'm not interested in education anybody.  I want to be involved with electoral politics, because that's how elections are won.  At least, that's what Ron Paul told me.

----------


## angelatc

> He said why HE worked within the GOP, he advised people to work in all parties, and in education etc.
> 
> I suspect working in the GOP is going to make up most of the grass roots projects, because this is a largely political forum, however, go to the list of subforums.  It is NOT ONLY about working in the GOP and some forum members may not want to, yet may add quite a bit to the forums.
> 
> Right now people who had their hearts in Ron's campaign as you have NOT, are feeling badly and it is a bad time to hound them, which frankly, I  think you shouldn't do.  Persuade, yes, bully, no.


Ron Paul said that third parties are a waste of time and money.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> I'm not interested in education anybody.  I want to be involved with electoral politics, because that's how elections are won.  At least, that's what Ron Paul told me.


Can you provide the Ron Paul quote you are talking about? And yes, winning is the goal, which wasn't the goal for the Ron Paul campaign unfortunately...

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> Ron Paul said that third parties are a waste of time and money.


And that is why he endorsed one in 2008?... 

This is what Ron Paul told us:



So STOP putting words in his mouth!

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul said that third parties are a waste of time and money.


I don't know everything he said but he endorsed someone in a third party last time, and he said these ideas had to be in all parties. I'm not pitching for a third party as things stand, we'd have to change the process to make it work first, if we went that route.  However, that is MY opinion, and no one died to make me God and decide how everyone else should work for liberty.

In different contexts he has said different things, but he has generally said OTHERS should do what they want.  He has said that over and over, speaking of journalists, teachers, and working in all parties. He has opinions on what *he* will do, of course.  And a lot of people who feel no urge to work in the GOP will feel significant urge to help Ron Paul with his projects.  Give people room and time to come to their own conclusions, is all.

----------


## angelatc

> Can you provide the Ron Paul quote you are talking about? .


No, because it's something Ron Paul literally told me in a handshake line in Chicago 5 years ago.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> And the moderator has already called him out on it, yet he persists.  
> 
> FYI Bastiat...this is a privately owned forum.  It is not owned by Ron Paul, but inspired by Ron Paul. 
> We are ALL part of the grassroots.  Most ALL of us have contributed time and money toward Ron Paul's run.  And this forum was intended for the Ron Paul campaign..not the Rand Paul campaign, or any other candidate campaign.  There are separate forums for those.  We are posting in the correct forum, being members of the grassroots, and we have every right to discuss, bitch about or whatever about the recent turn of events affecting the Ron Paul for President campaign.


I think everyone can agree that "bitching" should go to The Vent subforum.  The vast majority of your posts and cocoa's belong there.

----------


## angelatc

> I don't know everything he said but he endorsed someone in a third party last time, and he said these ideas had to be in all parties. I'm not pitching for a third party as things stand, we'd have to change the process to make it work first, if we went that route.  However, that is MY opinion, and no one died to make me God and decide how everyone else should work for liberty.
> 
> In different contexts he has said different things, but he has generally said OTHERS should do what they want.  He has said that over and over, speaking of journalists, teachers, and working in all parties. He has opinions on what *he* will do, of course.  And a lot of people who feel no urge to work in the GOP will feel significant urge to help Ron Paul with his projects.  Give people room and time to come to their own conclusions, is all.


That's fine.  But it's absurd to let them pretend that anything significant is going to come from those efforts.  The system is stacked, hard, for the two major parties.  The LP is the most successful third party around today, and the best they've ever done is about 1%, and that was the year they ran a Koch brother on the ticket.  Spinning wheels on those venues gets us nothing but burned out.  Spinning wheels in the GOP gets us elected.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> So work for it, no one is stopping you.  But just like a typical GOP operative, you cannot stand dissent...you intend to squash it instead.


I already am.  I take you to the woodshed every time you attack Ron Paul's plan.  The members here are much more in line with Ron Paul's plan than your none no-plan.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> I think everyone can agree that "bitching" should go to The Vent subforum.  The vast majority of your posts and cocoa's belong there.


What do you disagree with in their posts? They seem to be stating legitimate concerns/disagreements with the campaign, and the way events have unfolded. If I don't agree with something, that doesn't mean it's negative, or complaining, it may mean we interpret the results differently.

As for a mod telling people to not call others names, I found that personally hilarious based on my own history around here...having comments/threads moved (and deleted) and being cursed at/name-called by other forum users...which the very same moderator left their comments in the thread while moving my comments out which did not attack other RPF members.

Kind of interesting how things change...

----------


## Carlybee

I don't recall him ever saying that about a third party.  I know he didn't want to run third party because he has spent so much of his life in the GOP.  And that is understandable, plus the fact that when he began this run he was still serving his congressional seat concurrently.  Yes he wants to reform the GOP, bring it back to what he believes it's roots are and it is/was an admirable cause.  Unfortunately the GOP has proven that they will stop at nothing to prevent that from happening, even resorting to violence and frankly I believe they wouldn't hesitate to use military force if it came down to any sort of threat they felt they could not handle through their noral M.O. of lying and cheating.  Now if that makes me sound bitter or negative, sorry.  If someone can tell me that none of those events actually happened, and that the delegates that were won were not totally disenfranchised making his nomination a complete impossibility, then speak up now and tell me how I am wrong and how things are going to be so much better going forward.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't know everything he said but he endorsed someone in a third party last time, and he said these ideas had to be in all parties. I'm not pitching for a third party as things stand, we'd have to change the process to make it work first, if we went that route.  However, that is MY opinion, and no one died to make me God and decide how everyone else should work for liberty.
> 
> In different contexts he has said different things, but he has generally said OTHERS should do what they want.  He has said that over and over, speaking of journalists, teachers, and working in all parties. He has opinions on what *he* will do, of course.  And a lot of people who feel no urge to work in the GOP will feel significant urge to help Ron Paul with his projects.  Give people room and time to come to their own conclusions, is all.


Well stated, and 100% true.

----------


## Carlybee

> I think everyone can agree that "bitching" should go to The Vent subforum.  The vast majority of your posts and cocoa's belong there.


And the vast majority of yours belong in the Rand Paul sub-forum.

----------


## angelatc

> I already am.  I take you to the woodshed every time you attack Ron Paul's plan.  The members here are much more in line with Ron Paul's plan than your none no-plan.


Be careful - cc's been on my ignore list for about as long as it's been a member, and I'm putting its twin, CB, on that list too. Some people aren't worth the effort.

----------


## Michigan11

> And the vast majority of yours belong in the Rand Paul sub-forum.


Cause Rand is? a neo-con?

Ron's own son? Did you even help elect Rand? If not where do you come from in your argument?

----------


## Carlybee

> Spinning wheels in the GOP gets us elected.


    Apparently gets the delegates disenfranchised as well.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I already am.  I take you to the woodshed every time you attack Ron Paul's plan.  The members here are much more in line with Ron Paul's plan than your none no-plan.


Taking me to the woodshed? LMAO!! Internet tough guy pounds out another post on his keyboard...watch out!!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Be careful - cc's been on my ignore list for about as long as it's been a member, and I'm putting its twin, CB, on that list too. Some people aren't worth the effort.


Good!

----------


## Carlybee

> Cause Rand is? a neo-con?
> 
> Ron's own son? Did you even help elect Rand? If not where do you come from in your argument?


No because Bastiat has been pushing Rand in this forum and this is not the Rand forum.  And no I did not help elect Rand nor would I at this point given that he endorsed his dad's opponent prior to the convention.

----------


## angelatc

> And that is why he endorsed one in 2008?... 
> 
> This is what Ron Paul told us:
> 
> 
> 
> So STOP putting words in his mouth!


I'm not putting words in his mouth.  He said, repeatedly, that he wouldn't run as a third party again because it cost too much in time and money simply to get on the ballot, and that the media ignores third party candidates.   

ANd he's right.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Cause Rand is? a neo-con?
> 
> Ron's own son? Did you even help elect Rand? If not where do you come from in your argument?


Well, some people will speak up against Rand, because of the way he went about his endorsement of Mitt Romney, dragging his dad and his dad's supporters into that endorsement.

----------


## Carlybee

> Be careful - cc's been on my ignore list for about as long as it's been a member, and I'm putting its twin, CB, on that list too. Some people aren't worth the effort.


Ditto drama queen

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That's fine.  But it's absurd to let them pretend that anything significant is going to come from those efforts.  The system is stacked, hard, for the two major parties.  The LP is the most successful third party around today, and the best they've ever done is about 1%, and that was the year they ran a Koch brother on the ticket.  Spinning wheels on those venues gets us nothing but burned out.  Spinning wheels in the GOP gets us elected.


Then why spend so much time and insults over the posts of two people who won't do anything significant according to you and your ilk? Go watch a movie or something and chill.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> That's fine.  But it's absurd to let them pretend that anything significant is going to come from those efforts.  The system is stacked, hard, for the two major parties.  The LP is the most successful third party around today, and the best they've ever done is about 1%, and that was the year they ran a Koch brother on the ticket.  Spinning wheels on those venues gets us nothing but burned out.  Spinning wheels in the GOP gets us elected.


You are missing the point completely. 

LP gets 1% because they got no money to buy air time and the MSM wont cover them.
If the liberty movement was funding the LP that wouldn't be the issue, we know how to raise money when we want to.  
There are a lot of Dems that are angry with Obama, trust me, I live with 2 of them.. 
There are a lot of the Republicans that are not happy about Romney..
This is the perfect storm... We could make a viable 3rd party out of this election..

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Cause Rand is? a neo-con?
> 
> Ron's own son? Did you even help elect Rand? If not where do you come from in your argument?


if sending money is helping him to get elected, yes...I did.

----------


## angelatc

> You are missing the point completely. 
> 
> LP gets 1% because they got no money to buy air time and the MSM wont cover them.
> If the liberty movement was funding the LP that wouldn't be the issue, we know how to raise money when we want to.  
> There are a lot of Dems that are angry with Obama, trust me, I live with 2 of them.. 
> There are a lot of the Republicans that are not happy about Romney..
> This is the perfect storm... We could make a viable 3rd party out of this election..


God Bless You.

I wish I thought you were right, I really do.  But I tried to get Ron a guaranteed spot on the ballot months ago, and heard firsthand how little support there was for it. 

I'd be thrilled to see you prove me wrong.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You are missing the point completely. 
> 
> LP gets 1% because they got no money to buy air time and the MSM wont cover them.
> If the liberty movement was funding the LP that wouldn't be the issue, we know how to raise money when we want to.  
> There are a lot of Dems that are angry with Obama, trust me, I live with 2 of them.. 
> There are a lot of the Republicans that are not happy about Romney..
> This is the perfect storm... We could make a viable 3rd party out of this election..



Of course we could, but certain GOP operatives wouldn't like that! Shhh!!

----------


## Michigan11

> No because Bastiat has been pushing Rand in this forum and this is not the Rand forum.  And no I did not help elect Rand nor would I at this point given that he endorsed his dad's opponent prior to the convention.


There is nothing wrong with pushing Ron's own son Rand in Ron's forum. Those of us around in 2010 called and donated alot to get him elected, and hoped he would succeed as he has, and he has learned from Ron. Contrary to what you may read, Rand is more politically savvy, because Ron paved the way for people like Rand to get into office, when there were no liberty candidates in congress besides Ron. 

Ron wants more Rands in office.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

Rand is not a neo-con..but Rand is willing to play their game..so, I'm not happy with Rand.

I would still vote for him, but I would not support him with money or my time.

----------


## Michigan11

> Well, some people will speak up against Rand, because of the way he went about his endorsement of Mitt Romney, dragging his dad and his dad's supporters into that endorsement.


If you think Ron and Rand never communicate, or that Ron is politically insufficient, and he would rather have everyone do as he does, you aren't seeing the play going on. Politics, is a 3 dimensional chess board, and Ron knows damn well what Rand is doing and vice versa. This isn't anything new. Both are fully for freedom and liberty

----------


## Carlybee

> There is nothing wrong with pushing Ron's own son Rand in Ron's forum. Those of us around in 2010 called and donated alot to get him elected, and hoped he would succeed as he has, and he has learned from Ron. Contrary to what you may read, Rand is more politically savvy, because Ron paved the way for people like Rand to get into office, when there were no liberty candidates in congress besides Ron. 
> 
> Ron wants more Rands in office.


Sorry I respect your opinion, but it will take me a while to get over Rand endorsing Romney the way he did.  I feel protective toward his dad even if he doesn't himself.  Ultimately Rand is in bed with the devil.  Maybe he feels that he can handle it, I don't know but the GOP is owned by the MIC and the Banking industry (amongst others).  As long as that is the case, liberty will not win a place in the GOP.  I agree that there should be more liberty minded people in office in both parties but really I wish both parties at this point would just crash and burn.  I want nothing to do with either of them. I think they are going to screw Rand over too just because of who his dad is.  I really wish I didn't feel this way but I do and I am generally right when I get these kind of vibes.

----------


## Michigan11

> if sending money is helping him to get elected, yes...I did.


You know how devistated this movement was after 08'? I would go so far as to say almost everyone on the boards at that time, not only gave more money than they could, but they also gave up their jobs and time to knock on doors. In 2010, Rand came, and few were even interested in helping him out. There is a evolving strategy going on here, such as is the case in a job(politics). Some don't get that, but some do, and try to input their own motives.

----------


## sailingaway

> What do you disagree with in their posts? They seem to be stating legitimate concerns/disagreements with the campaign, and the way events have unfolded. If I don't agree with something, that doesn't mean it's negative, or complaining, it may mean we interpret the results differently.
> 
> As for a mod telling people to not call others names, I found that personally hilarious based on my own history around here...having comments/threads moved (and deleted) and being cursed at/name-called by other forum users...which the very same moderator left their comments in the thread while moving my comments out which did not attack other RPF members.
> 
> Kind of interesting how things change...


I don't read every post, if you don't report something, don't blame mods if we don't respond to it.  I'm sure I miss a lot of insults.  Sometimes I think people are just getting back what they've given. If someone does it routinely, or severely, I'm more likely to act.   Also, when people gang up, I'm more likely to act. It isn't a perfect algorithm.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> God Bless You.
> 
> I wish I thought you were right, I really do.  But I tried to get Ron a guaranteed spot on the ballot months ago, and heard firsthand how little support there was for it. 
> 
> I'd be thrilled to see you prove me wrong.


Yeah trying to run as an independent, getting ballot access is a no go. 
That is why the LP and the CP need to join and form the Liberty party...

Anyways, its funny here with the 2 Dems.. They are really worried that Romney is gonna win..
They say that the Dems are just as fractured as the republicans. 
I tried telling them there is no way Romney is going to get elected, but they wont listen, they are scared. 
This is going to be an all time low for voter turn out.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> You are missing the point completely. 
> 
> LP gets 1% because they got no money to buy air time and the MSM wont cover them.
> If the liberty movement was funding the LP that wouldn't be the issue, we know how to raise money when we want to.  
> There are a lot of Dems that are angry with Obama, trust me, I live with 2 of them.. 
> There are a lot of the Republicans that are not happy about Romney..
> This is the perfect storm... We could make a viable 3rd party out of this election..


Money is the key. If we had a Ross Perot, it could rock things like crazy. That's the big issue most here seem to be missing though. The power players will throw in a "viable" third party candidate if they need to keep somebody at bay I believe. Remember Donald Trump? He would run third party if "the right" Republican candidate didn't get the nomination? Same issue with Rand running in 2016. Let's say Rand is the fine upstanding candidate he is supposed to be (lying doesn't show me that), and that he will really change things...am I supposed to believe that the millions and millions being spent, wouldn't be changed over to a Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, or someone like them that your general zombie voter would support because the Republican party chooses "the wrong" candidate?

Unfortunately, I think RP and his entire campaign have made an incredibly wrong bet, and instead of going for broke...they went for a seat within that gained them nothing.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> I don't read every post, if you don't report something, don't blame ME if I don't respond to it.


You commented within the very same thread, you saw it, and if I were to post it up here...it would be moved.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> What do you disagree with in their posts? They seem to be stating legitimate concerns/disagreements with the campaign, and the way events have unfolded. If I don't agree with something, that doesn't mean it's negative, or complaining, it may mean we interpret the results differently.
> 
> As for a mod telling people to not call others names, I found that personally hilarious based on my own history around here...having comments/threads moved (and deleted) and being cursed at/name-called by other forum users...which the very same moderator left their comments in the thread while moving my comments out which did not attack other RPF members.
> 
> Kind of interesting how things change...


Because its blatantly obvious its not genuine.  They just want to stir the pot of dissent.  Call them plants, call them trolls, call them saboteurs.  I'll be damned if I see a legitimate forum member like Sematary used as their foil and beaten into disillusionment.   They've been doing this for months, not just the past few days like they claim.

You should be asking them why they're still here if they hate Ron Paul's plan so much and already voiced their opinions on the matter.  What keeps them here besides wanting to sow the seeds of dissent and disillusionment?

----------


## Michigan11

> Sorry I respect your opinion, but it will take me a while to get over Rand endorsing Romney the way he did.  I feel protective toward his dad even if he doesn't himself.  Ultimately Rand is in bed with the devil.  Maybe he feels that he can handle it, I don't know but the GOP is owned by the MIC and the Banking industry (amongst others).  As long as that is the case, liberty will not win a place in the GOP.  I agree that there should be more liberty minded people in office in both parties but really I wish both parties at this point would just crash and burn.  I want nothing to do with either of them. I think they are going to screw Rand over too just because of who his dad is.  I really wish I didn't feel this way but I do and I am generally right when I get these kind of vibes.


Don't take my word or anyone's word for it. Just watch and listen for yourself. Too many back then were thinking Ron was a dummy, he is not. Ron knows politics, and knew he had to talk the talk, but Rand is much more sophisticated and has the means to actually win and put into effect what Ron wanted to. If you think Ron needs protecting from his own son, you need to think about that. Rand is more advanced looking and calculating, because his father burned the path for him.

----------


## Carlybee

> That is why the LP and the CP need to join and form the Liberty party...


It's a thought.  The reason the Dems think Romney is going to win is because they think the election was stolen from Gore by Bush and they are envisioning those hanging chads. No one really trusts the vote counting system.  There was a whole website devoted to the black boxes as I recall.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Be careful - cc's been on my ignore list for about as long as it's been a member, and I'm putting its twin, CB, on that list too. Some people aren't worth the effort.


I considered that, but I enjoy taking out the garbage.

----------


## sailingaway

> You commented within the very same thread, you saw it, and if I were to post it up here...it would be moved.


I don't read every post when I post in a thread, either. Often I go to the end, or start where someone reported something.  But honestly, sometimes I feel you were out of line, particularly when others were trying to get things done, and then the repetition will cause me to act on what may not be the worst post.

I did make allowances for the fact that I consider you sincere and knew you were upset.   We WANT people to be passionate about this -- at least, I do.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

So Sematary, did you think this thread was gonna hit 500 posts within 24 hours when you started it?

Good job! This thread is a great time killer. 

+1post

----------


## Carlybee

> Because its blatantly obvious its not genuine.  They just want to stir the pot of dissent.  Call them plants, call them trolls, call them saboteurs.  I'll be damned if I see a legitimate forum member like Sematary used as their foil and beaten into disillusionment.   They've been doing this for months, not just the past few days like they claim.
> 
> You should be asking them why they're still here if they hate Ron Paul's plan so much and already voiced their opinions on the matter.  What keeps them here besides wanting to sow the seeds of dissent and disillusionment?


What kind of sheep do you think your fellow members here are that they would be SO influenced by a few dissenting voices on a message forum.  Piss off.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> There is nothing wrong with pushing Ron's own son Rand in Ron's forum. Those of us around in 2010 called and donated alot to get him elected, and hoped he would succeed as he has, and he has learned from Ron. Contrary to what you may read, Rand is more politically savvy, because Ron paved the way for people like Rand to get into office, when there were no liberty candidates in congress besides Ron. 
> 
> Ron wants more Rands in office.


I'm sorry, but there is more that I have seen that shows Rand Paul is not politically savvy, than that he is... 
He needs a new PR person ASAP, or just common political sense.

----------


## sailingaway

> I considered that, but I enjoy taking out the garbage.


comments like that will get you a vacation.

----------


## Carlybee

> Don't take my word or anyone's word for it. Just watch and listen for yourself. Too many back then were thinking Ron was a dummy, he is not. Ron knows politics, and knew he had to talk the talk, but Rand is much more sophisticated and has the means to actually win and put into effect what Ron wanted to. If you think Ron needs protecting from his own son, you need to think about that. Rand is more advanced looking and calculating, because his father burned the path for him.


We may have to agree to disagree.  I do not think Rand is his dad and enough said about that.  He may be better at playing the political game but no one will ever be Ron Paul.  And sorry but yes I do think Ron needed to be protected from his own campaign, or factions within it that may have led to Rand endorsing his dad's own opponent.  I'm trying to be polite here.

----------


## Michigan11

> I'm sorry, but there is more that I have seen that shows Rand Paul is not politically savvy, than that he is... 
> He needs a new PR person ASAP, or just common political sense.


Then you should try looking at him with different glasses, or a new perspective. If you want to hear Rand or other liberty candidates talk like Ron then you are missing the picture. You may want to look into other avenues...

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Then why spend so much time and insults over the posts of two people who won't do anything significant according to you and your ilk? Go watch a movie or something and chill.


We never actually confirmed you're two people.  You could be Kokesh's subconscious for all we know

----------


## sailingaway

> Because its blatantly obvious its not genuine.  They just want to stir the pot of dissent.  Call them plants, call them trolls, call them saboteurs.  I'll be damned if I see a legitimate forum member like Sematary used as their foil and beaten into disillusionment.   They've been doing this for months, not just the past few days like they claim.
> 
> You should be asking them why they're still here if they hate Ron Paul's plan so much and already voiced their opinions on the matter.  What keeps them here besides wanting to sow the seeds of dissent and disillusionment?


Ron Paul doesn't have just one plan and you really shouldn't pretend he does. He doesn't order people around like you do.

----------


## sailingaway

> Then you should try looking at him with different glasses, or a new perspective. If you want to hear Rand or other liberty candidates talk like Ron then you are missing the picture. You may want to look into other avenues...


he can also have his opinion which is different from yours. That is fine, too.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> That's fine.  But it's absurd to let them pretend that anything significant is going to come from those efforts.  The system is stacked, hard, for the two major parties.  The LP is the most successful third party around today, and the best they've ever done is about 1%, and that was the year they ran a Koch brother on the ticket.  Spinning wheels on those venues gets us nothing but burned out.  Spinning wheels in the GOP gets us elected.


Yet many have come to realize the absurdity of nothing significant coming from within-the-GOP efforts LEGISLATIVELY, as the policy of more government, more foreign intervention and more debt has continued without a break for decades. Winning elections is a moot victory if nothing ever changes. That is also wheel spinning, that has burned out many of us as well. So it's a wash, but at least we agree a lot of wheel spinning is going on.

----------


## Carlybee

> We never actually confirmed you're two people.  You could be Kokesh's subconscious for all we know



You are just baiting at this point.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Then you should try looking at him with different glasses, or a new perspective. If you want to hear Rand or other liberty candidates talk like Ron then you are missing the picture. You may want to look into other avenues...


I don't want them to talk like Ron, perhaps you missed my thread started to help RP with one-liners? Rand's endorsement of Mitt Romney is probably the best example of why he is not politically savvy.

----------


## angelatc

> Money is the key. If we had a Ross Perot, it could rock things like crazy. That's the big issue most here seem to be missing though.


Agree 100%.  A candidate with a strong personality and deep pockets could indeed have shaken things up this year.  But the GOP & DNC tightened up the rules after Perot almost embarrassed them.  At this point, I just don't think a candidate could even get in the debates, much less develop effective strategies and recruit staff in time.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> If you think Ron and Rand never communicate, or that Ron is politically insufficient, and he would rather have everyone do as he does, you aren't seeing the play going on. Politics, is a 3 dimensional chess board, and Ron knows damn well what Rand is doing and vice versa. This isn't anything new. Both are fully for freedom and liberty


In less colorful language...there's more than one way to skin a cat!

----------


## angelatc

> I don't want them to talk like Ron, perhaps you missed my thread started to help RP with one-liners? Rand's endorsement of Mitt Romney is probably the best example of why he is not politically savvy.


Meh - the campaign has never really had much use for us. It's not really surprising that they never stopped to consider our thoughts on the matter.

----------


## Michigan11

> We may have to agree to disagree.  I do not think Rand is his dad and enough said about that.  He may be better at playing the political game but no one will ever be Ron Paul.  And sorry but yes I do think Ron needed to be protected from his own campaign, or factions within it that may have led to Rand endorsing his dad's own opponent.  I'm trying to be polite here.


Let's say we do disagree. The only way Rand is different than his dad is say? What? Did Ron ever say no Rand is what I'm fighting against? Could you imagine Ron saying let's fight his own son, or saying man you guys all screwed up and elected my son who is a traitor? This makes us look like idiots right? even if you don't agree, that's fine. Ron has a handle on his campaign or if he doesn't would be a lousy executive right? Politics is in play, because we are playing politics right? Yet Ron and Rand both agree with Ron's rhetoric otherwise they wouldn't vote the way they do?

Anyways, if you see it, then stop posting these lousy posts, and step on up otherwise keeep on posting and we will see

----------


## sailingaway

> In less colorful language...there's more than one way to skin a cat!


but people are free to prefer one way to another.

----------


## angelatc

> but people are free to prefer one way to another.


Sure, and Ron Paul is (in)famous for not telling people what to do.  Even when he should.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> So Sematary, did you think this thread was gonna hit 500 posts within 24 hours when you started it?
> 
> Good job! This thread is a great time killer. 
> 
> +1post


LOL!  We should all be doing something productive on a Saturday night!

----------


## Michigan11

> I don't want them to talk like Ron, perhaps you missed my thread started to help RP with one-liners? Rand's endorsement of Mitt Romney is probably the best example of why he is not politically savvy.


Rand is looking forward, as is Ron. This movement is growing and taking over the minds of the Repubs minds voters, so yes Rand is more savvy per se, yet again Ron paved the highway for Rand types to get into office. Until we have enough of them, their rhetoric is going to be much different than Ron's unless they have super powers, since Ron let the cat out of the bag, letting the rest of the world know, we are coming!

----------


## sailingaway

> Rand is looking forward, as is Ron. This movement is growing and taking over the minds of the Repubs minds voters, so *yes Rand is more savvy per se*, yet again Ron paved the highway for Rand types to get into office. Until we have enough of them, their rhetoric is going to be much different than Ron's unless they have super powers, since Ron let the cat out of the bag, letting the rest of the world know, we are coming!


that is your opinion.  Some in this subforum may disagree with you.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> You are missing the point completely. 
> 
> LP gets 1% because they got no money to buy air time and the MSM wont cover them.
> If the liberty movement was funding the LP that wouldn't be the issue, we know how to raise money when we want to.  
> There are a lot of Dems that are angry with Obama, trust me, I live with 2 of them.. 
> There are a lot of the Republicans that are not happy about Romney..
> This is the perfect storm... We could make a viable 3rd party out of this election..


Exactly, the right candidate with the right movement and resources behind him could blast past the structural barriers designed to suppress alternative candidates. Paul has slipped past the containment field the establishment has set up in several respects, and thus could set the precedent to show it could be done.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> What kind of sheep do you think your fellow members here are that they would be SO influenced by a few dissenting voices on a message forum.  Piss off.


They're not sheep.  That's your word, not mine.  They're human and this is an emotional time.  I saw it in 2008.

Stop beating your fellow forum members into depression...and why would you want to anyway?  What is your motive?  What is your agenda here?

----------


## Carlybee

> Let's say we do disagree. The only way Rand is different than his dad is say? What? Did Ron ever say no Rand is what I'm fighting against? Could you imagine Ron saying let's fight his own son, or saying man you guys all screwed up and elected my son who is a traitor? This makes us look like idiots right? even if you don't agree, that's fine. Ron has a handle on his campaign or if he doesn't would be a lousy executive right? Politics is in play, because we are playing politics right? Yet Ron and Rand both agree with Ron's rhetoric otherwise they wouldn't vote the way they do?
> 
> Anyways, if you see it, then stop posting these lousy posts, and step on up otherwise keeep on posting and we will see


I'm not trying to pit Ron against Rand, but I am not going to believe they are one and the same nor am I inferring that Ron is not in control enough of his faculties to run his own campaign, but it is obvious there were factions within his campaign working against him and the grassroots.  That is what I believe until something is proven differently...which may never happen.  I do believe Ron wants the future of the liberty movement for Rand..it's human nature to want your child to do well and in this case to carry the torch.  I believe they both believe the only way to do it is from within the GOP...which is where I disagree given the last few months and especially yesterday's actions by the RNC.   I also really don't appreciate you telling me how and what to post, so this conversation is over.  I've about had it with the authoritarianism on this board and in this thread.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm not trying to pit Ron against Rand, but I am not going to believe they are one and the same nor am I inferring that Ron is not in control enough of his faculties to run his own campaign, but it is obvious there were factions within his campaign working against him and the grassroots.  That is what I believe until something is proven differently...which may never happen.  I do believe Ron wants the future of the liberty movement for Rand..it's human nature to want your child to do well and in this case to carry the torch.  I believe they both believe the only way to do it is from within the GOP...which is where I disagree given the last few months and especially yesterday's actions by the RNC.   I also really don't appreciate you telling me how and what to post, so this conversation is over.  I've about had it with the authoritarianism on this board and in this thread.


Ron has a very hands off management style, it has come up before. From things I saw in his interviews that contradicted things being put out by the campaign, I don't think that ever changed.

RON was WILLING to be President, he wasn't driven to be.

----------


## Kylie

> ^^ THIS ^^
> _"You must spread some rep around first"_


Gotcha covered. Actually had done it before I saw your post, but ya know

----------


## Carlybee

> They're not sheep.  That's your word, not mine.  They're human and this is an emotional time.  I saw it in 2008.
> 
> Stop beating your fellow forum members into depression...and why would you want to anyway?  What is your motive?  What is your agenda here?



What is yours?  You've only been here since April.  What is your agenda?  What is your motive?  Why do you treat people like sheep if you don't think they are sheep?  You don't give them the benefit of the doubt to form their own opinions.  Why do you insist on the authoritarianism to get your point across?   Don't you believe your own rhetoric?

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Because its blatantly obvious its not genuine.  They just want to stir the pot of dissent.  Call them plants, call them trolls, call them saboteurs.  I'll be damned if I see a legitimate forum member like Sematary used as their foil and beaten into disillusionment.   They've been doing this for months, not just the past few days like they claim.
> 
> You should be asking them why they're still here if they hate Ron Paul's plan so much and already voiced their opinions on the matter.  What keeps them here besides wanting to sow the seeds of dissent and disillusionment?


What is Ron Paul's plan though? Saying one thing, and doing another doesn't help. Abandoning delegates and not trying to win the election? Sitting by silently, allowing your campaign to completely collapse, and not saying anything for more than a week after Rand's endorsement?
The Ron Paul 2012 campaign, did more to destroy the "movement" it had built up, than the MSM could ever have done, which is really unfortunate.

----------


## sailingaway

> They're not sheep.  That's your word, not mine.  They're human and this is an emotional time.  I saw it in 2008.
> 
> Stop beating your fellow forum members into depression...and why would you want to anyway?  What is your motive?  What is your agenda here?


Why are YOU beating on people?  Both of these people strongly support Ron.

----------


## Carlybee

> Ron has a very hands off management style, it has come up before. From things I saw in his interviews that contradicted things being put out by the campaign, I don't think that ever changed.
> 
> RON was WILLING to be President, he wasn't driven to be.


  I thought we were driving him to be or do you mean driven from within?  If so that's true..I know he was reluctant to run because I signed petitions begging him to.

----------


## sailingaway

> What is Ron Paul's plan though? Saying one thing, and doing another doesn't help. Abandoning delegates and not trying to win the election? Sitting by silently, allowing your campaign to completely collapse, and not saying anything for more than a week after Rand's endorsement?
> The Ron Paul 2012 campaign, did more to destroy the "movement" it had built up, than the MSM could ever have done, which is really unfortunate.


I don't think Ron watched his campaign, I think he got periodic reports that didn't contain what we felt was important, personally.  He said over and over that he had professionals in his campaign and he did what he did and they did what they did.

----------


## Michigan11

> I'm not trying to pit Ron against Rand, but I am not going to believe they are one and the same nor am I inferring that Ron is not in control enough of his faculties to run his own campaign, but it is obvious there were factions within his campaign working against him and the grassroots.  That is what I believe until something is proven differently...which may never happen.  I do believe Ron wants the future of the liberty movement for Rand..it's human nature to want your child to do well and in this case to carry the torch.  I believe they both believe the only way to do it is from within the GOP...which is where I disagree given the last few months and especially yesterday's actions by the RNC.   I also really don't appreciate you telling me how and what to post, so this conversation is over.  I've about had it with the authoritarianism on this board and in this thread.


Well that's fine if we disagree. I wish those who want to discourage would go away from a movement that is prospering. Leave us up to the decision to push ahead, if you decide to stay behind. Is that wrong?

----------


## sailingaway

> I thought we were driving him to be or do you mean driven from within?  If so that's true..I know he was reluctant to run because I signed petitions begging him to.


Yeah, I meant internally driven.  He set himself to run a good race, and if he won he won but he left the campaign to the campaign.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well that's fine if we disagree. I wish those who want to discourage would go away from a movement that is prospering. Leave us up to the decision to push ahead, if you decide to stay behind. Is that wrong?


the movement contains different parts not JUST working within the GOP, and I wouldn't like any solid forum member who is  pursuing liberty in its other facets to be squeezed out PARTICULARLY in this subforum.  Many dumping on those who are currently upset have been in here repeatedly trying to get people to work on other things instead. It is clear those people aren't as emotionally invested in RON's campaign and those who are as far as I'm concerned have priority to his own subforum through Tampa without being hounded to leave because they don't agree with a faction of people here on next steps.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Meh - the campaign has never really had much use for us. It's not really surprising that they never stopped to consider our thoughts on the matter.


But, that never stopped them from throwing up the moneybomb ticker, and sending emails asking for money. That's the issue for many. Either run to win, and be "in it to win it" as they claimed, or stop asking for money for the official campaign and learn how to close things down as Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich did...and every other candidate.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Ron Paul doesn't have just one plan and you really shouldn't pretend he does. He doesn't order people around like you do.


I never heard Ron Paul give a speech about reforming the Socialist Party or the Green Party.  Heard him encourage us into the republican party.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

This is how I feel about Ron Paul saying he doesn't want to be nominated from the floor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rApjT3iWU_E#t=416s

----------


## coffeewithchess

> I don't think Ron watched his campaign, I think he got periodic reports that didn't contain what we felt was important, personally.  He said over and over that he had professionals in his campaign and he did what he did and they did what they did.


It's his name/campaign and his responsibility. He can only play the "I didn't write those" cards so many times...it really is ridiculous.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Agree 100%.  A candidate with a strong personality and deep pockets could indeed have shaken things up this year.  But the GOP & DNC tightened up the rules after Perot almost embarrassed them.  At this point, I just don't think a candidate could even get in the debates, much less develop effective strategies and recruit staff in time.


I think we've gone full circle back to the mystery billionaire.

----------


## sailingaway

> I never heard Ron Paul give a speech about reforming the Socialist Party or the Green Party.  Heard him encourage us into the republican party.


I've specifically on multiple occasions heard him say we need people working within all the parties, that this is an American message, not just a GOP message.

Most here will likely work in the GOP because Ron is a Republican and we are.  But others who work in other ways are welcome too.

----------


## sailingaway

> This is how I feel about Ron Paul saying he doesn't want to be nominated from the floor:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rApjT3iWU_E#t=416s


He never said it, it was cleared up as a miscommunication by a staffer who just felt saying that would make people not try.

----------


## Carlybee

> Well that's fine if we disagree. I wish those who want to discourage would go away from a movement that is prospering. Leave us up to the decision to push ahead, if you decide to stay behind. Is that wrong?


How is speaking the truth discouragement? Should I lie?? Should I let you tell me that my last 8 yrs trying to promote the ideals of liberty don't matter? Should I forget what happened this week?

----------


## Michigan11

> the movement contains different parts not JUST working within the GOP, and I wouldn't like any solid forum member who is  pursuing liberty in its other facets to be squeezed out PARTICULARLY in this subforum.  Many dumping on those who are currently upset have been in here repeatedly trying to get people to work on other things instead. It is clear those people aren't as emotionally invested in RON's campaign and those who are as far as I'm concerned have priority to his own subforum through Tampa without being hounded to leave because they don't agree with a faction of people here on next steps.


Sailingaway, it's clear this central forum needs to be cleaned up and many are voicing it. This forum is not clearly representing the main activity of the forum in general at this point.

----------


## Carlybee

> Well that's fine if we disagree. I wish those who want to discourage would go away from a movement that is prospering. Leave us up to the decision to push ahead, if you decide to stay behind. Is that wrong?


How is speaking the truth discouragement? Should I lie?? Should I let you tell me that my last 8 yrs trying to promote the ideals of liberty don't matter? Should I forget what happened this week?

----------


## sailingaway

> It's his name/campaign and his responsibility. He can only play the "I didn't write those" cards so many times...it really is ridiculous.


Except that he was completely transparent from the start that he was never going to manage it in that sense. If we wanted him we had to take him as he was.  It is a 'flaw' in a sense but also just part of who he is, and I still consider him the man I want as candidate any time.  Even with that flaw.  But I really want a true believer at his elbow communicating with us not someone who thinks our concerns are petty and unimportant so doesn't address them, or worse, patronizes them with canned rhetoric

----------


## coffeewithchess

> If you think Ron and Rand never communicate, or that Ron is politically insufficient, and he would rather have everyone do as he does, you aren't seeing the play going on. Politics, is a 3 dimensional chess board, and Ron knows damn well what Rand is doing and vice versa. This isn't anything new. Both are fully for freedom and liberty


Oh, I think Ron and Rand do communicate, and Ron knew about Rand's endorsement before it happened just as Rand said, which is why the campaign asking for more money after that and Ron Paul's official campaign website being used to defend Rand's endorsement was dishonest. The fact they stayed in the race and kept raising/asking for money misleading donors they were serious about winning, doesn't bode well for Ron or Rand.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> What is yours?  You've only been here since April.  What is your agenda?  What is your motive?  Why do you treat people like sheep if you don't think they are sheep?  You don't give them the benefit of the doubt to form their own opinions.  Why do you insist on the authoritarianism to get your point across?   Don't you believe your own rhetoric?


I've been at this game longer than April.  Some take the fight to pavement, others post on forums.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> What is Ron Paul's plan though? Saying one thing, and doing another doesn't help. Abandoning delegates and not trying to win the election? Sitting by silently, allowing your campaign to completely collapse, and not saying anything for more than a week after Rand's endorsement?
> The Ron Paul 2012 campaign, did more to destroy the "movement" it had built up, than the MSM could ever have done, which is really unfortunate.


I'd be happy to discuss the short comings of the campaign on another thread or in a PM.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> I did make allowances for the fact that I consider you sincere and knew you were upset.   We WANT people to be passionate about this -- at least, I do.


Allowances? For what? I didn't curse, curse at anybody, or call anybody a name. LOL.

----------


## Carlybee

> I've been at this game longer than April.  Some take the fight to pavement, others post on forums.


I really could care less if you were the pilot of the Ron Paul blimp.  I dislike your methods and frankly think your people skills suck.  I've been at it a while too and nothing you say is going to have any effect on me nor am I going to let you try and intimidate me into sucking GOP ....well I'll just stop there and try to figure out how to put you on ignore.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Why are YOU beating on people?  Both of these people strongly support Ron.


Not beating anyone, only responding to 24/7 defeatists with an agenda.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Hat tip to pcosmar

----------


## Carlybee

> Sailingaway, it's clear this central forum needs to be cleaned up and many are voicing it. This forum is not clearly representing the main activity of the forum in general at this point.



And there are plenty more who agree there are many unanswered questions...I know because I get +repped on my comments by people who I don't see posting.  I think it's shabby that some of you are questioning the moderator and basically trying to take over the forum.

----------


## sailingaway

> Sailingaway, it's clear this central forum needs to be cleaned up and many are voicing it. This forum is not clearly representing the main activity of the forum in general at this point.


this is not 'the central forum' it is the Ron Paul 2012 grass roots forum.  Before Ron ran it wasn't up here. It was created for the campaign, and for Ron.  It is central in that it is the most popular but that doesn't mean it is a different purposed forum.  

General politics can be used for general matters.  2012 candidates can be used for all things 2012 candidates related including grass roots projects.  If it gets more popular, I am sure subforums will be added. But you can't come where people are on one message and just say 'look  at all the people here, lets make this forum about something else'.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Well that's fine if we disagree. I wish those who want to discourage would go away from a movement that is prospering. Leave us up to the decision to push ahead, if you decide to stay behind. Is that wrong?


I'd +Rep you but I'm out

----------


## coffeewithchess

> I think we've gone full circle back to the mystery billionaire.


Well, Peter Thiel just made about a billion off of Facebook...

----------


## angelatc

> I've specifically on multiple occasions heard him say we need people working within all the parties, that this is an American message, not just a GOP message.
> 
> Most here will likely work in the GOP because Ron is a Republican and we are.  But others who work in other ways are welcome too.


I'm not sure why you're suddenly convinced a multitude of different strategies are a wonderful thing, especially when the big supporters of those strategies  seem to have a hard time NOT posting crap accusing us of being "GOP apologists" and starting threads encouraging us to "Leave The GOP NOW!!!!"    Again, for months were were told to toe a line, and now it's ok to trash the people who are following the plans that Ron Paul laid out for us? 

There's no way the movement can sustain itself without a cohesive strategy.  For example, take PaulFest. People had a freaking stroke when the PAC merely accepted a donation from the LP.    

These people who are not really ready to work with each other in the same party are not going to fare any better when they start bitching about each other's agenda.

----------


## sailingaway

> Oh, I think Ron and Rand do communicate, and Ron knew about Rand's endorsement before it happened just as Rand said, which is why the campaign asking for more money after that and Ron Paul's official campaign website being used to defend Rand's endorsement was dishonest. The fact they stayed in the race and kept raising/asking for money misleading donors they were serious about winning, doesn't bode well for Ron or Rand.


I read the tea leaves differently, but I know you think Hunter defending Rand means Ron was on board in advance.  I think he was notified just in advance, not consulted, and we can discuss it in pms sometime if you like, because I know it matters to you just as it does to me, but the forums have been over and over that and I don't want to turn this into another thread about it.

----------


## Michigan11

> And there are plenty more who agree there are many unanswered questions...I know because I get +repped on my comments by people who I don't see posting.  I think it's shabby that some of you are questioning the moderator and basically trying to take over the forum.


Well get your questions out there then....  Let's get past these neg posts and move on, I like Sailingaway but I will disagree with how it's run but not often. But right now yes this is getting ridiculous isn't it?

----------


## Carlybee

I'm out for the night.  For future reference I have added Bastiat's the Law, Angeltc and Michigan11 to my ignore list.  I won't tolerate this authoritarian "my way or the highway" bullcrap.  I've dedicated my time and money to Ron Paul 2012 and I deserve to be here and speak my opinion.  If it is so threatening to others then maybe they need to reexamine their own commitment to the cause.

_Liberty: The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
_

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm not sure why you're suddenly convinced a multitude of different strategies are a wonderful thing, especially when the big supporters of those strategies  seem to have a hard time NOT posting crap accusing us of being "GOP apologists" and starting threads encouraging us to "Leave The GOP NOW!!!!"    Again, for months were were told to toe a line, and now it's ok to trash the people who are following the plans that Ron Paul laid out for us? 
> 
> There's no way the movement can sustain itself without a cohesive strategy.  For example, take PaulFest. People had a freaking stroke when the PAC merely accepted a donation from the LP.    
> 
> These people who are not really ready to work with each other in the same party are not going to fare any better when they start bitching about each other's agenda.


I think they shouldn't call people GOP appologists also. I was giving some leeway because they seemed to be being hounded by people not as emotionally invested n Ron's campaign, and I know they are upset about the RNC developments now.  That doesn't apply to saying things like that to you, because you were immensely involved in Ron's campaign and Ron's efforts and are not too happy yourself right now.

I feel like saying something like "I wish we were just kinder to eachother' so I must be getting tired, or something.  All the same, I do wish it.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> this is not 'the central forum' it is the Ron Paul 2012 grass roots forum.  Before Ron ran it wasn't up here. It was created for the campaign, and for Ron.  It is central in that it is the most popular but that doesn't mean it is a different purposed forum.  
> 
> General politics can be used for general matters.  2012 candidates can be used for all things 2012 candidates related including grass roots projects.  If it gets more popular, I am sure subforums will be added. But you can't come where people are on one message and just say 'look  at all the people here, lets make this forum about something else'.


Actually Grassroots Central has always been the main forum people posted in.

----------


## sailingaway

> Actually Grassroots Central has always been the main forum people posted in.


In 2010 when I joined it wasn't. If you haven't been here much since 2008 the old one might have been, but in between presidential campaigns, General Politics was.

There have been a handful of times already where it has more people than grassroots, as the campaign winds down.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Well, Peter Thiel just made about a billion off of Facebook...


I like Peter Thiel.  He should've gotten out sooner though.  Wouldn't be surprised to see Facebook go into the single digits.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I read the tea leaves differently, but I know you think Hunter defending Rand means Ron was on board in advance.  I think he was notified just in advance, not consulted, and we can discuss it in pms sometime if you like, because I know it matters to you just as it does to me, but the forums have been over and over that and I don't want to turn this into another thread about it.


I'm ready and willing to take this to a conference call at the moment.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I'm out for the night.  For future reference I have added Bastiat's the Law, Angeltc and Michigan11 to my ignore list.  I won't tolerate this authoritarian "my way or the highway" bullcrap.  I've dedicated my time and money to Ron Paul 2012 and I deserve to be here and speak my opinion.  If it is so threatening to others then maybe they need to reexamine their own commitment to the cause.
> 
> _Liberty: The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
> _


Care to prove that?  You don't seem to like any Paul supporter I've ever come across in person.

----------


## anaconda

> But he won't. Rand is too tied in to the GOP now. He won't jeopardize that even though he wasn't shown the same courtesy.


Just a humble opinion, but I don't think Rand gains much by "playing nice." My prediction is that the PTB will run roughshod over him in 2015-2016 in a similar manner to which they treated Ron in 2011-2012. Maybe even worse. I don't think anyone will hold him accountable for Ron's actions.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Rand will be crucified by the Republican Party and the media starting in 2015, the same as Ron has been. This is an issue that I believe is widely misunderstood. It will do no one any good to "play nice" on behalf of Rand. The powers that be will not let Rand near the oval office. There is nothing "in jeopardy" that will not be by playing nice.


Define "near the oval office" and we can bet on it.

----------


## anaconda

> Define "near the oval office" and we can bet on it.


I think the puppet masters are horrified at the thought of a Rand Paul presidency and will pull out all of the stops to derail him.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> I like Peter Thiel.  He should've gotten out sooner though.  Wouldn't be surprised to see Facebook go into the single digits.


LOL, sooner? Is that a joke?

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> I like Peter Thiel.  He should've gotten out sooner though.  Wouldn't be surprised to see Facebook go into the single digits.


He got out as soon as it was legally possible. He set the date before the IPO. The forced him to hold it this long...

Facebook stock will be worthless once people realize they are the product that is being sold. Then maybe more will stop using it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> this is not 'the central forum' it is the Ron Paul 2012 grass roots forum.  *Before Ron ran it wasn't up here. It was created for the campaign, and for Ron.*  It is central in that it is the most popular but that doesn't mean it is a different purposed forum.  
> 
> General politics can be used for general matters.  2012 candidates can be used for all things 2012 candidates related including grass roots projects.  If it gets more popular, I am sure subforums will be added. But you can't come where people are on one message and just say 'look  at all the people here, lets make this forum about something else'.


Sailing, the Ron Paul Forums was created to support Ron Paul's run for President.  The forum didn't exist before that time.

----------


## Cigaboo

Ron Paul's presidential campaigns are a worthy effort.  They succeeded in awakening thousands, and exposed the corruption present in the political parties and media.  The strategy to win the election failed, but we continue to gain from it in other ways.

My concern is that our efforts for peaceful revolution have been an irritation for tyranny, but have not stopped or reversed it.  Some argue that we expect too much from only 8 years of our movement.  However, the majority of people I've spoken with about our Liberty ideals either don't care or oppose them.  I have also noticing a sharp increase in Socialist idealogy in the general public that blaims our economic failures on Capitalism.  If we can't sway the majority of Americans to our way of thinking, even with Ron Paul's appearances in debates, interviews, and followers reaching out to the general public, with such a positive and rational message, what hope is there for total reform of the political system?  Will we always be a loud but ineffective minority?

Not that I'm advocating it (war is a terrible thing), but will the day come where a line is crossed in our liberties where bloodshed becomes the only defense?  Or will the system collapse on its own due to economic failure, presenting an opportunity for reform?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I think the puppet masters are horrified at the thought of a Ran Paul presidency and will pull out all of the stops to derail him.


Oh people will come gunning from all angles, but I think Rand can fight them off.

----------


## sailingaway

> Sailing, the Ron Paul Forums was created to support Ron Paul's run for President.  The forum didn't exist before that time.


In 2008, yeah, but the corresponding forum from then is in archives.  I'm talking about the particular subforum created for Ron's 2012 run, as opposed to, for example, 2012 candidates, or General Politics.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This is how I feel about Ron Paul saying he doesn't want to be nominated from the floor:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rApjT3iWU_E#t=416s


Didn't you hear that this was not true?

----------


## LibertyEagle

//

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm out for the night.  For future reference I have added Bastiat's the Law, Angeltc and Michigan11 to my ignore list.  I won't tolerate this authoritarian "my way or the highway" bullcrap.  I've dedicated my time and money to Ron Paul 2012 and I deserve to be here and speak my opinion.  If it is so threatening to others then maybe they need to reexamine their own commitment to the cause.
> 
> _Liberty: The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
> _


As long as your comments are constructive, yes.  After a point, though, I'm not sure if constant negativity towards other forum members' chosen project/strategy can be seen as being constructive.

----------


## LibertyEagle

//

----------


## affa

> Please, don't pretend to speak to the importance of Ron Paul while at the same time trying to decry his biggest goal. You people act like the actions his campaign team took to make GOP inroads were completely absent his input, it's borderline insulting really.


Pretend?  Seriously, go fly a kite.   Ron Paul's biggest goal is to restore this NATION, not the GOP.   The GOP was his chosen technique, post- his 1988 Libertarian try.   But seriously, go fly a kite for using that word, 'pretend'.  My post was making a very simple, and obvious, point - we come from a ton of backgrounds, and therefore have different goals.   That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, yet somehow now anyone with a different goal from [insert your goal here] is the enemy.  It's a load of divisive bull$#@!.  We're all on the same $#@!ing team, team liberty - but to expect us all to take the same path there is both naive and serves only to divide us.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Pretend?  Seriously, go fly a kite.   Ron Paul's biggest goal is to restore this NATION, not the GOP.   The GOP was his chosen technique, post- his 1988 Libertarian try.   But seriously, go fly a kite for using that word, 'pretend'.  My post was making a very simple, and obvious, point - we come from a ton of backgrounds, and therefore have different goals.   That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, yet somehow now anyone with a different goal from [insert your goal here] is the enemy.  It's a load of divisive bull$#@!.  We're all on the same $#@!ing team, team liberty - but to expect us all to take the same path there is both naive and serves only to divide us.


+rep

----------


## cajuncocoa

Something to think about...I believe there are some members of this board who are not residing in the United States.  I'm not sure if they're U.S. citizens living abroad or not, but if not that means they CAN'T work within our GOP.  Are you going to want them banned as well?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Something to think about...I believe there are some members of this board who are not residing in the United States.  I'm not sure if they're U.S. citizens living abroad or not, but if not that means they CAN'T work within our GOP.  Are you going to want them banned as well?


What is so hard about letting people work on the project that they want to and leaving them alone?

----------


## anewvoice

> What is so hard about letting people work on the project that they want to and leaving them alone?


+rep, damn tried and I must spread some more around first

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What is so hard about letting people work on the project that they want to and leaving them alone?


Back at ya.

----------


## Carlybee

> As long as your comments are constructive, yes.  After a point, though, I'm not sure if constant negativity towards other forum members' chosen project/strategy can be seen as being constructive.


Sometimes truth is not all sunshine and lollipops. I hope if some of you plan to ever run for office you are able to summon better defense mechanisms or you will be devoured if you are that perturbed by some comments on the internet.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Back at ya.


Your project is to disrupt others.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Your project is to disrupt others.


And yours is to squash dissent.  How liberty-minded! (Not)

----------


## Smitty

The "stay the GOP course" people are waiting for Rand to step up.

Regardless of my opinion of Rand, it's a risky thing to devote 4 years to.

In the first place, it's based on the belief that A: Romney will lose the current election, or B: Rand will be able to defeat an incumbent in the 2016 primary.

The reality is,..the RNC chooses the GOP candidate,..as we've all witnessed during this primary cycle.

It won't choose Rand.

----------


## angelatc

> I feel like saying something like "I wish we were just kinder to eachother' so I must be getting tired, or something.  All the same, I do wish it.


Oh sure, as do I.  But this place wears you down.  Grassroots central was designed to be a place where the grassroots could hook up and meet *like minded individuals,*  form little coailitions, and work on activist projects.

But the campaign hired at least one troll to disrupt those efforts, and others seem to feel an obligation to do it pro bono.  Not only is it predictable, it gets old.

----------


## angelatc

> The "stay the GOP course" people are waiting for Rand to step up..


No, not necessarily.  We're working on getting liberty-minded people elected at all levels of government.  The Presidency is certainly the trophy, but at my age even a significant minority in the House and Senate would make my heart sing.

----------


## Origanalist

> The "stay the GOP course" people are waiting for Rand to step up.
> 
> Regardless of my opinion of Rand, it's a risky thing to devote 4 years to.
> 
> In the first place, it's based on the belief that A: Romney will lose the current election, or B: Rand will be able to defeat an incumbent in the 2016 primary.
> 
> The reality is,..the RNC chooses the GOP candidate,..as we've all witnessed during this primary cycle.
> 
> It won't choose Rand.


While I'm *not* waiting for Rand, it is interesting to note the reaction from neoconland to Rand's weekly gop address. I know a couple commenters are libertarian, but the rest are firmly in the neocon camp.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danield...ly_gop_address

----------


## angelatc

> Sailing, the Ron Paul Forums was created to support Ron Paul's run for President.  The forum didn't exist before that time.


I know what she meant. 

In 07/08, Grassroots Central was supposed to be the place where the activists could work on their projects, but it quickly became the catch-all for every article that people "knew" that everybody else needed to see.  When they redid the subforums, they tried to make grassroots more usable by creating areas of specific interest where like minded individuals could hang out.  That's how me managed to get the anarchists, who were fundamentally the same animals in that they insisted on polluting threads with philosophical dissertations about how ultimately pointless and/or wrong politics all was, a "philosophy" section.  I would love to see an AJ section too, since he's currently the biggest divisive force here.)

General Politics became the popular forum, because that's where the political news was.

----------


## angelatc

> While I'm *not* waiting for Rand, it is interesting to note the reaction from neoconland to Rand's weekly gop address. I know a couple commenters are libertarian, but the rest are firmly in the neocon camp.
> 
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danield...ly_gop_address


They're never going to go away.  And they're never going to give up control of the party easily.    

I prefer reading "The Daily Caller."  We totally rule those comments now, but that wasn't always the case.  And Yahoo isn't nearly as hard to read as it used to be, either.

----------


## Origanalist

> They're never going to go away.  And they're never going to give up control of the party easily.    
> 
> I prefer reading "The Daily Caller."  We totally rule those comments now, but that wasn't always the case.  And Yahoo isn't nearly as hard to read as it used to be, either.


My point was how positive the reaction was from the neocons. (not sure if that's a good or bad sign?)

----------


## Sematary

> The "stay the GOP course" people are waiting for Rand to step up.
> 
> Regardless of my opinion of Rand, it's a risky thing to devote 4 years to.
> 
> In the first place, it's based on the belief that A: Romney will lose the current election, or B: Rand will be able to defeat an incumbent in the 2016 primary.
> 
> The reality is,..the RNC chooses the GOP candidate,..as we've all witnessed during this primary cycle.
> 
> It won't choose Rand.


Hopefully, in four years, WE will have the ability to pick Rand - if that is who we choose to support.

----------


## Sematary

> My point was how positive the reaction was from the neocons. (not sure if that's a good or bad sign?)


If I start seeing Rush, Hannity, etc... start to side with Rand, I'm going to get WORRIED.

----------


## MelissaWV

So now what?

Now we watch Ron's retirement party 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=hEmD...41e0465e235d7e

----------


## Mini-Me

> Ron Paul's presidential campaigns are a worthy effort.  They succeeded in awakening thousands, and exposed the corruption present in the political parties and media.  The strategy to win the election failed, but we continue to gain from it in other ways.
> 
> My concern is that our efforts for peaceful revolution have been an irritation for tyranny, but have not stopped or reversed it.  Some argue that we expect too much from only 8 years of our movement.  However, the majority of people I've spoken with about our Liberty ideals either don't care or oppose them.  I have also noticing a sharp increase in Socialist idealogy in the general public that blaims our economic failures on Capitalism.  If we can't sway the majority of Americans to our way of thinking, even with Ron Paul's appearances in debates, interviews, and followers reaching out to the general public, with such a positive and rational message, what hope is there for total reform of the political system?  Will we always be a loud but ineffective minority?
> 
> Not that I'm advocating it (war is a terrible thing), but will the day come where a line is crossed in our liberties where bloodshed becomes the only defense?  Or will the system collapse on its own due to economic failure, presenting an opportunity for reform?


I think the important thing to remember is that psychological biases play a role here.  Most people are capable of following rational arguments, but ONLY if they're emotionally open to them first.  *Funny enough, instead of forming and shifting their beliefs based on rational supporting arguments, most people actually form their beliefs first for entirely unrelated emotional and social reasons, then seek out rational supporting arguments to retroactively justify them.*

The problem is that people are irrational about politics, and they profoundly tie their own personal identity to their beliefs, and they tie their sense of self-worth to their opinions of their party or government.  These emotional biases are extremely difficult to overcome, to the point where the vast majority of people simply cannot be swayed by rational argumentation alone.  People also feel strength in numbers and pride from considering themselves "winners," as shown by people who vote for President like it's a horse race.  Similarly, most people form and solidify their beliefs based on social cues, and so they won't seriously consider arguments - no matter how rational - coming from some hated and frequently ridiculed "fringe" group or figurehead.  They simply shut down or search for any emotionally comforting rebuttal to our arguments, no matter how illogical or superficial, and they seek refuge in knowing their beliefs are popular and shared by a large number of allies.

Smitty posted an interesting link midway through the thread about personality types and intelligence.  There are people of all intelligences and personalities all across the political spectrum, but highly intelligent people are strongly libertarian on average, and the [unfortunately uncommon] rational personality types are disproportionately likely to be intellectually gifted.  This movement includes people from all over the intelligence and personality spectrum as well, but we have an unusually strong concentration of intuitive thinking types.  Kludge conducted personality polls a couple times on the forum, and they showed a large number of INTJ and INTP types.  It's common for Internet forums to be disproportionately comprised of I-types, but INTP's and INTJ's?  Not so much.

What this shows is that the liberty message - at least as delivered by Ron Paul, in this particular political environment - resonates much more easily with rational types than others.  INTP's in particular are thought to be the most self-conscious of their own cognitive and emotional biases on average, which makes it easier to overcome them and judge arguments on their actual merits.  (I feel compelled here to go off on a bit of a tangent:  The link Smitty posted indicates that INTJ's are statistically the most likely to be gifted, at least as judged by IQ tests.  That's a bit strange though, because I read a different study that indicated INTP's were on top, followed by INFP's and then INTJ's.  I can't find the study anymore for the life of me, but the data curiously demonstrated that the personality types were neatly ordered - from least likely to most likely to be gifted, after accounting for the prevalence of that type - as: ESFJ, ESTJ, ESFP, ESTP, ISFJ, ISTJ, ISFP, ISTP, ENFJ, ENTJ, ENFP, ENTP, INFJ, INTJ, INFP, INTP.  The most interesting thing about the results was that the N/S trait was the most relevant to intelligence across the board, followed by the I/E trait, then the P/J trait, and finally the T/F trait.  I originally expected there to be more noise and inconsistency in the results, and I also expected the T/F trait to correlate more strongly with intelligence than the P/J trait, but apparently not.  There are tradeoffs with every personality trait though, and every type has strengths and weaknesses.  For instance, P types are generally more intelligent than their corresponding J types, but J types are more likely to actually get things done and achieve practical success in life.)

The challenge here is, how do we bring the liberty message to other personality types who are typically dominated more strongly by their biases?  *I think the key here is that before we can educate everyone, we must first demonstrate that we're "winners."*  Think back to how the media manipulated people in Iowa:  As soon as they talked about Santorum "surging," it magically began to happen.  The same thing happened with Huntsman in New Hampshire.  Think back also to the difference between 2008 and 2012:  What changed, which made so many more people suddenly open to Ron Paul's ideas?  From what I can see, this shift happened because McCain not only LOST the election, but he lost badly.  This was a huge blow to Republicans who tied their identities to notions of strength and victory, and it shook their self-certainty and arrogance and made them more open than usual to outside influence.  By flooding the comment sections of articles and otherwise refusing to sit quietly, we have given our message repeated exposure, so it's gradually managed to reach more people, one by one.

If we can make pro-liberty beliefs popular and emotionally rewarding through social proof, an increasing number of strongly biased people will finally lower their defenses, giving them a rare window of growth where they're actually open to rational argumentation.  The more ground we gain and the longer we can hold it, the more people will not only identify but internalize correct logical arguments.  Once pro-liberty beliefs become part of their "identity politics," they'll be just as hard to shake as their current irrational beliefs are slow to adapt today.

So, how do we actually show we're winners, when we don't currently have the popular support or resources to win a lot of elections?  It seems at first like a "chicken and egg" problem, but this is another reason why I'm so supportive of taking over the GOP:  Taking over the state parties and the RNC is something we can do with activists alone, so unlike any other strategy I've heard, a priori popular support is not a prerequisite.  Instead, increased popular support will be a likely consequence:  By taking over a major party, we will demonstrate that we're "winners."  Republicans who follow the herd will suddenly be getting their official platform and marching orders from us instead of the neocons, so whether they consciously realize what we've done or not, they'll come to understand that it's now "okay" and perfectly American to believe in liberty.  That alone might not be enough for a massive social awakening, especially in the face of continued media manipulation, but taking over the GOP has another advantage:  By coopting one of the institutional pillars of neocon influence, we will not just be popularizing our beliefs by showing we're "winners."  We will also be making losers out of the neoconservatives, and neoconservative beliefs (like endless war and indiscriminate killing in foreign countries) will become commensurately less popular and socially acceptable.

Ron Paul has been known to say from time to time, "Liberty is popular!"  The more true we make this, the more true it will become.  The media is our greatest enemy here, because they have the power to dominate public opinion.  I don't know if there's any easy solution for counteracting them, but I do know that it requires us to be loud.  We must make our presence known and felt constantly, and we must make our message heard everywhere.  The more times people hear it repeated and see that we're "everywhere," the more people will finally open their minds to it.




> The "stay the GOP course" people are waiting for Rand to step up.
> 
> Regardless of my opinion of Rand, it's a risky thing to devote 4 years to.
> 
> In the first place, it's based on the belief that A: Romney will lose the current election, or B: Rand will be able to defeat an incumbent in the 2016 primary.
> 
> The reality is,..the RNC chooses the GOP candidate,..as we've all witnessed during this primary cycle.
> 
> It won't choose Rand.


If you think the strategy to take over the GOP means, "Take over the GOP by trying to get Rand elected the same way we tried with Ron, then get screwed by the RNC," then you fundamentally misunderstand the strategy.  Taking over the GOP means, "Take over the state parties, which will allow us to replace and take over the RNC."   Getting rid of them comes first, or every Presidential election will be just like this one and the one in 2008, and we'll continue struggling to fund even a small handful of Congressional liberty candidates.  Taking over the state parties alone isn't enough to win elections with liberty candidates, but it will put us in a position to take over the RNC...and the strategy ultimately rests upon throwing the RNC incumbents out into the cold.  Thankfully, achieving this is primarily a game of activist numbers, because the rules and laws governing this are a lot less malleable by corrupt incumbents than the rules governing the nomination of political candidates.

IF we have enough activists who follow through with this strategy, we'll not only prevent the current RNC from screwing Rand, but we'll also win the larger battle of acquiring the resources to field a large number of Congressional (and Senatorial) liberty candidates.  That is why people in favor of this strategy - like myself - are so vocal against anyone trying to convince other people to "drop the GOP."  This strategy can work, but we need concentrated strength in activist numbers ASAP to make it work, or we'll be wasting years and years we might not have left to waste.  The clock is always ticking.  It's cool for people to be skeptical and go their own way, but we do need the numbers, so we get pretty upset about people who cut our legs out from under us by spending all their energy talking other people out of it.  I should clarify that most people critical of the GOP strategy are not like this, either...it's just a couple or a few who have been trying to tear it down nonstop for months (i.e. since long before my most recent gap in posting), and they've been all too successful.  This thread has been little more than a giant flame war at times, but it looks like they might finally be willing to give it a rest.

----------


## affa

> Grassroots central was designed to be a place where the grassroots could hook up and meet *like minded individuals,*  form little coailitions, and work on activist projects.


See, that's what I mean by divisive.  You bold "like-minded" and it makes it sound like anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't like-minded and doesn't deserve to be on these forums.   Now, except for the population of trolls, which I do agree exist on here, we're all like-minded.    Even if some like Rand and some don't.  Even if some plan to vote GJ, some plan to write-in RP, and some plan to abstain.  Heck, even if someone votes BO just to spite Romney.    Liberty, as you know, means freedom, and that by definition means we're not all going to walk in lock step.   Does it hurt us?  Sure, it means our numbers for any given project will never be as great, because we're all acting on our own, to some degree.  But it's also our greatest strength.  

I hear some of you keep saying, basically "oh, stop insulting people who want to work within the GOP"... but you don't realize in your second breath you're insulting everyone who doesn't want to work within the GOP.   Meanwhile, people that don't want to work in the GOP generally say some variant of 'It's too corrupt to work' which some of you then take personally, and further insult us, which then keeps the cycle going.    Understanding we all have different goals is the first step to realizing that, beyond that, we're all like-minded individuals.  You 'fix the GOPers' swelled your ranks dramatically these past 8 years, and many will stay, but to expect everyone to once Ron Paul is no longer a magnet is, well, silly.





> No, not necessarily.  We're working on getting liberty-minded people elected at all levels of government.  The Presidency is certainly the trophy, but at my age even a significant minority in the House and Senate would make my heart sing.


See, that's where I have to politely disagree.  I understand why you say that, but I can't register anything in my head as a victory if we're still bombing [insert a small handful of countries here].   Heck, even if we got a liberty minded president in the oval office, that's still a power structure that disturbs me.   I'm okay with Ron Paul because he's a paragon of virtue.   I'm not okay with... well, pretty much anyone else.  

My heart won't sing, not even a little bit, till those bombs stop whistling.

----------


## angelatc

> My point was how positive the reaction was from the neocons. (not sure if that's a good or bad sign?)


I think it's a false paradigm.  As long as Rand is criticizing Obama's foreign policy, the neocons will smile and nod.  But when it becomes the foreign policy of a Republican president, he could see himself ostracized. 

I hope he can play it right!

----------


## Origanalist

> I think it's a false paradigm.  As long as Rand is criticizing Obama's foreign policy, the neocons will smile and nod.  But when it becomes the foreign policy of a Republican president, he could see himself ostracized. 
> 
> I hope he can play it right!


There's no denying that aspect, from both sides. As long as it's their guy slaughtering people, it's unfortunate but neccesary. It's only when the other side does it that it's immoral.

----------


## angelatc

> See, that's what I mean by divisive.  You bold "like-minded" and it makes it sound like anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't like-minded and doesn't deserve to be on these forums.


You misunderstood what I meant.  What I was referring to was the habit of people to invade planning threads (the blimp, the lawsuit, Paulfest, Phone Banks, Sign waves) and moan about how ineffective and terrible the results will be.  There are three things there that I didn't think had merit, but you won't find me in their planning threads berating the enthusiastic participants for doing something they wanted to do.  (The anarchists were the main instigators last time we went through this.  We couldn't have a thread discussing GOTV strategy without a bunch of anarchists flooding the thread to convince us that voting is a total wast of time and effort.)

I make no secret about the fact that I think third parties are useless, liberals are evil and the GOP is the only legitimate chance we have to win elections.  Deal with it.





> Now, except for the population of trolls, which I do agree exist on here, we're all like-minded.    Even if some like Rand and some don't.  Even if some plan to vote GJ, some plan to write-in RP, and some plan to abstain.  Heck, even if someone votes BO just to spite Romney.    Liberty, as you know, means freedom, and that by definition means we're not all going to walk in lock step.   Does it hurt us?  Sure, it means our numbers for any given project will never be as great, because we're all acting on our own, to some degree.  But it's also our greatest strength.


No,, it isn't.  Like I said - look what happened when the LP gave money to PaulFest.  People here had a major case of the vapors over it. 


> I hear some of you keep saying, basically "oh, stop insulting people who want to work within the GOP"... but you don't realize in your second breath you're insulting everyone who doesn't want to work within the GOP.


I know exactly what is in my second breath.  I don't go out of my way to attack Libertarians, but when they start trying to fool young people into believing that they're effective in any sense of the word at the expense of the movement that Paul himself started,  I have a right to point out the fallacy.





> Meanwhile, people that don't want to work in the GOP generally say some variant of 'It's too corrupt to work' which some of you then take personally, and further insult us, which then keeps the cycle going.    Understanding we all have different goals is the first step to realizing that, beyond that, we're all like-minded individuals.  You 'fix the GOPers' swelled your ranks dramatically these past 8 years, and many will stay, but to expect everyone to once Ron Paul is no longer a magnet is, well, silly.


Of course it is.  I just wish they'd go quietly. If their goals aren't to use the most effective methods of getting candidates elected, they're no longer relevant. 


> See, that's where I have to politely disagree.  I understand why you say that, but I can't register anything in my head as a victory if we're still bombing [insert a small handful of countries here].   Heck, even if we got a liberty minded president in the oval office, that's still a power structure that disturbs me.   I'm okay with Ron Paul because he's a paragon of virtue.   I'm not okay with... well, pretty much anyone else.  
> 
> My heart won't sing, not even a little bit, till those bombs stop whistling.


Paul said his movement was about the message, not the man.  If you can't reconcile to that, then your activism probably ends here, because Ron Paul isn't running again. 

Good luck getting the wars to end using a complete takeover of government by a third party.

----------


## angelatc

> We're all on the same $#@!ing team, team liberty - but to expect us all to take the same path there is both naive and serves only to divide us.


If we're not on the same path, we are divided.  Part of us are politically relevant, and the rest aren't.

----------


## angelatc

> If I start seeing Rush, Hannity, etc... start to side with Rand, I'm going to get WORRIED.


Eh - they're cheap whores.  I've seen O'Reilly transform from the right to the left over the years, and I can only assume it's because it maximizes his ratings.  If Hannity et al jump on the bandwagon, that's a good thing.  They might not stay on it, but it's a sign that the message is something that the mainstream is at least interested in hearing.

----------

