# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Should RPF Endorse a Third Party Candidate?

## r3volution 3.0

I propose that RPF officially endorse the Libertarian Party (whoever the nominee is).

This would mean putting up a banner, allowing vigorous promotion, etc.

It would NOT mean banning promotion of alternative third parties, as that would cause needless division. 

I think most of us will support the LP, but some prefer the CP, and they should be allowed to promote as well. 

Likewise for any other third parties which reflect the site's guiding principles (though I'm not aware of any other than the LP and CP). 

Why do this? Because we have a real opportunity this cycle to bring anti-Trumpers into the liberty movement.

(and maybe even some disaffected Bernie supporters)

An official endorsement and some promotion by RPF would help achieve this worthy goal. 

What do you think?

----------


## specsaregood

> What do you think?


I disagree.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I disagree.


Can I ask why?

The last thing I want is to create division over this, that would be worse than doing nothing.

So I don't want to argue with you, but I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

----------


## specsaregood

> Can I ask why?
> 
> The last thing I want is to create division over this, that would be worse than doing nothing.
> 
> So I don't want to argue with you, but I'm just curious as to your reasoning.


Because it will only divide the remaining members on the site and the LP has a recent history of nominating douchebags.  And RPF doesn't need to lower itself by endorsing douchebags.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Because it will only divide the remaining members on the site and the LP has a recent history of nominating douchebags.  And RPF doesn't need to lower itself by endorsing douchebags.


Fair enough

Suffice it to say, I don't think it would cause division if done properly.

----------


## brushfire

Yes, please.   I dont know how anyone wins with Trump or Hillary.   There is no victory, they are, as I see it, EXACTLY the same.

So why not make your vote count?   The single party system is the problem, and now is the time to strike.   Voting for the single party (republican or democrat) has an absolute outcome - failure.

Also, even if the LP doesnt win, just a few votes can lead to "legitimacy" in terms of the election and debate process.   So when Hillary or Tump fail, there will be a viable LP offering to fill the vacuum.

I'm 100% behind voting libertarian - there has NEVER been a better time to vote outside the controlling party.

----------


## younglibertarian

I'd say wait until the convention is over later this May. The candidate they choose will be the deciding factor. If they nominate Petersen or McAfee I'm down, but I just am simply appalled by the half ass libertarianism that Gary Johnson brings to the table. 

Darrell Castle is a good option, but I don't think getting behind him fully is a good idea. The CP is simply to small and insignificant.

I suggest we make little icons for each LP/CP candidate, similar to the "Stand with Rand" bar under each individual profile pic. It would be a cool way to know right off the bat which candidate people support.

(Only for candidates that comply with the site mission of course.)

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I really think we need to wait until the LP nominates their candidate for President before we declare our support for the party.

----------


## younglibertarian

^Yes.

If Austin Petersen or John McAfee is the nominee I will be happy to actively campaign in my local area for them.

If it's Gary Johnson I'll probably vote for him out of reluctance, he just doesn't inspire me to actually go out side and wave a sign, pass out leaflets, and defend him on internet forums all day

----------


## Origanalist

At the moment I'm leaning towards Castle but I need to do some more research. As for the point that the LP nominates douchbags, what do you think the two major parties are doing? I'm not totally against the idea but I'm sure there will be a lot of conflicting opinions on this.

----------


## brushfire

> If it's Gary Johnson I'll probably vote for him out of reluctance, he just doesn't inspire me to actually go out side and wave a sign, pass out leaflets, and defend him on internet forums all day


Even a vote for goofball Johnson is a vote for political relevance.  At this point, I'm voting for another slot on the bill, not any individual in particular.   The current single party controls the candidate pool, we need an alternative.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I really think we need to wait until the LP nominates their candidate for President before we declare our support for the party.


My thinking is this:

We all know the LP candidate isn't going to win, whoever it is.

We're just hoping for a good showing to send a message (and maybe ease ballot access for the LP in the future). 

So, even if they nominated Satan himself, it wouldn't matter, as long as he _represented himself_ well as a libertarian.

I think any of the three potential nominees would do an adequate job at that, don't really have a preference.

----------


## specsaregood

> As for the point that the LP nominates douchbags, what do you think the two major parties are doing?


The same thing.  But that doesn't mean RPF needs to endorse douchebags from any of the parties.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> At the moment I'm leaning towards Castle but I need to do some more research. *As for the point that the LP nominates douchbags, what do you think the two major parties are doing?* I'm not totally against the idea but I'm sure there will be a lot of conflicting opinions on this.


Oh, snap.

----------


## phill4paul

I'm kinda torn on this. I honestly don't think there is necessarily a candidate all can coalesce behind like we did Ron. I understand the reasoning behind getting behind a certain third party candidate so that the % will increase towards making a third party competitive. I don't know why the LP or CP wait so long to choose a nominee. With the hindrances against third parties it seems to me that it would make sense to choose very early (like 1 yr. or more) so that a movement can be created behind a candidate.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I'm in favor of this.  It's a good idea if for no other reason than to try to get a bigger following for the Libertarian Party (and hence the Liberty Movement in general) for the future.  Even if they nominate someone we consider less than stellar, how can it be worse than Trump or Hillary (especially since we know the LP has no chance of actually winning the WH)? Let's just try to help them build their party so *liberty* has a chance.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I'm kinda torn on this. I honestly don't think there is necessarily a candidate all can coalesce behind like we did Ron. I understand the reasoning behind getting behind a certain third party candidate so that the % will increase towards making a third party competitive. I don't know why the LP or CP wait so long to choose a nominee. With the hindrances against third parties it seems to me that it would make sense to choose very early (like 1 yr. or more) so that a movement can be created behind a candidate.


That's a good point.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Should RPF Endorse a Third Party Candidate?


No.  Just like this isn't Trump forums, it isn't LP forums, either.

----------


## brushfire

> No.  Just like this isn't Trump forums, it isn't LP forums, either.


RP had more libertarian values.   "Liberty Forums".   Ron Paul is always teaching a libertarian message.   Trump is a mother-fkn authoritarian.   Quite a difference when considering the site mission - that is, in my most humble of opinions.

----------


## phill4paul

> No.  Just like this isn't Trump forums, it isn't LP forums, either.


  So it was fine to coalesce around a Republican candidate like Ron Paul, but it is not ok to coalesce around an LP candidate like Austin Petersen? Have you looked at his platform and positions? About as close to Ron Paul as any candidate out there. Yet, because he is not GOP you don't think he should be supported?

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

I'm ok with it. Although it could also be 'any third party'.

----------


## younglibertarian

> So it was fine to coalesce around a Republican candidate like Ron Paul, but it is not ok to coalesce around an LP candidate like Austin Petersen? Have you looked at his platform and positions? About as close to Ron Paul as any candidate out there. Yet, because he is not GOP you don't think he should be supported?


Arguably Austin Petersen stands closer to Ron Paul then even Rand.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Liberty Eagle has already stated that she'll be voting for Trump.

Naturally, Trump supporters will not be in favor of RPF endorsing anyone but Trump.

----------


## Origanalist

> The same thing.  But that doesn't mean RPF needs to endorse douchebags from any of the parties.


Ha ha ha, I knew you would say that. As soon as I went back in and started working that hit me.

----------


## brushfire

> Naturally, Trump supporters will not be in favor of RPF endorsing anyone but Trump.


Why would a trump supporter even care?   They essentially won without the support of RPF, or Ron Paul for that matter...

The comb-over obama is here!   I listened to all his promises - they were quite tremendous.  I actually broke out in laugher listening to trump and the cheering in the background.   Then he had his pump going while he was inflating his defeated opponent, in turn, inflating himself.   Quite amazing.

Yea, the "3rd party", as the single party folks refer to it, is where its at.   I'm not wasting time with the single party nonsense.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I propose that RPF officially endorse the Libertarian Party (whoever the nominee is).
> 
> This would mean putting up a banner, allowing vigorous promotion, etc.
> 
> It would NOT mean banning promotion of alternative third parties, as that would cause needless division. 
> 
> I think most of us will support the LP, but some prefer the CP, and they should be allowed to promote as well. 
> 
> Likewise for any other third parties which reflect the site's guiding principles (though I'm not aware of any other than the LP and CP). 
> ...


This must be a Kodak moment, but I'm in full agreement. The dispute we've had over recent months, from my POV, had to do with whether we should only consider adherence to the liberty agenda when expressing support for candidacies, or whether we should (in the wake of the defeats of the Paul campaign) acknowledge strategic advances for the cause achieved by others. So absent the major party emphasis we've had mainly due to Paul, there should be no problem with us at least agreeing that the LP in general is in line with the liberty mission of this movement and site.

----------


## Cleaner44

I think if the LP produces a quality candidate like Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik or Ron Paul... then yes an endorsement would make sense.

If the LP nominates someone like Bob Barr... not so much.

----------


## TomtheTinker

Ron Paul 2016

Because we need you

----------


## iNoob

Ron Paul 2016.

----------


## 69360

As long as RPF doesn't endorse Trump or Clinton, I'm fine with it. 

I'm almost definitely voting LP unless they self destruct and nominate somebody too crazy.

----------


## acptulsa

In 2008, Ron Paul endorsed a third party candidate.  He just didn't specify which one.

I don't think we should repeat that.  I think we need to try to unify the Anyone But Them vote and make it count--in one column, not watered down.

That will require some negotiation before the best ticket can be determined.

----------


## oyarde

I will be voting Third party I guess . Looking at my electoral map earlier this week ( our primary was yesterday ) , It looks like the GOP cannot win without Fla assuming the Dems carry the same states they have, which I believe is a safe bet . My vote will not be needed in my state against the Dem's so I would rather it go towards a percentage needed for ballot access . I voted for Rand and he pulled about 100 votes in my county.

----------


## Origanalist

> In 2008, Ron Paul endorsed a third party candidate.  He just didn't specify which one.
> 
> I don't think we should repeat that.  I think we need to try to unify the Anyone But Them vote and make it count--in one column, not watered down.
> 
> That will require some negotiation before the best ticket can be determined.


That would be ideal, whether it is possible remains to be seen.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

What does it mean I've been "tagged" in this thread?  I haven't even posted here... (until now)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What does it mean I've been "tagged" in this thread?  I haven't even posted here... (until now)


When you add a person's name to the "tags" they get a notification.

It's a new feature.

The idea's to let one user quickly notify another that there's a thread he should check out.

I tagged you and everybody else listed up there, because I wanted your opinion on this.

P.S. And for anyone I didn't tag, don't worry, it's not because you've been denied entry to the kool klub. 

I just tagged everybody who answered "Other" in afwjam's recent poll about who you're voting for in November.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

That's about as bad a strategic move as it gets.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That's about as bad a strategic move as it gets.


Will you be voting for Trump?

----------


## Bryan

Thanks for the thread and idea. I'm certainly not opposed to it, some thoughts...

- This would certainly be an open system, not just for one party.
- People can already promote any candidate that receives a positive evaluation within our formal system, this wouldn't preclude promotions to just one person.
- The goal won't be to try to focus acceptance / conformity, but highlight what is seen as excellence.


  A key issue would be the process used. A few thoughts on that...
- Anything done should build off of our candidate evaluation system. Maybe start there as a baseline and do point-vs-point comparisons being as objective as possible. This would have a side benefit of improving out evaluation methodology.
- At some level, there has to be a subjective judgement call, the question is, who makes that call? While the site staff doesn't have interest in being control freaks, there has to be some combination of membership involvement and final staff sign-off, which could largely be token but necessary to prevent going off-course. For membership voting, I would suggest that voting be limited to members that actively contribute to the data gathering and evaluation process.
- An ideal process should be fun, educational and not over-the-top in effort needed. One system that may work is to do multiple head-to-head comparisons and develop a liberty candidate leaderboard of sorts. At the deadline, who ever is at the top of the leaderboard would be the top choice for a site endorsement.

----------


## Bryan

> I don't know why the LP or CP wait so long to choose a nominee. With the hindrances against third parties it seems to me that it would make sense to choose very early (like 1 yr. or more) so that a movement can be created behind a candidate.


I agree, but conversely a strong and timely analysis can help in this process. 





> As long as RPF doesn't endorse Trump or Clinton, I'm fine with it..


That won't be an issue:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ial-Candidates

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> When you add a person's name to the "tags" they get a notification.
> 
> It's a new feature.
> 
> The idea's to let one user quickly notify another that there's a thread he should check out.
> 
> I tagged you and everybody else listed up there, because I wanted your opinion on this.
> 
> P.S. And for anyone I didn't tag, don't worry, it's not because you've been denied entry to the kool klub. 
> ...


Oh, ok.  Well my opinion is that "Ron Paul Forums" can do whatever the person or persons who control it want to do.  My personal opinion on this lost election is if I bother to vote at all it will be to write in Ron Paul...

----------


## mrsat_98

> Ron Paul 2016
> 
> Because we need you





> Ron Paul 2016.



NOBP

----------


## Todd

gosh......we've set the bar so high with someone like Ron that it's very difficult to gain a consensus.  Think about how hard it was to rally around Rand.  I wouldn't go ape crap if this forum were to rally around Gary Johnson or McAfee.    

At this time my choices are NOTA.  It's not because I don't think some of the third party guys wouldn't be infinitely better than the two douchebags we have, it's that the key time period to gain traction has passed and I just don't care enough about the faux process that culminates in November to take time out of my life to go play the bull$#@! freedom game.

----------


## Chieppa1

No

----------


## osan

Waste of effort.

----------


## younglibertarian

> Waste of effort.


Please elaborate?

----------


## jkob

Think it is better to focus on down ballot stuff instead of the presidential race since so many people are going to disagree.

----------


## James Otis, Jr.

> In 2008, Ron Paul endorsed a third party candidate.  He just didn't specify which one.


In 2008, Ron Paul endorsed Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin:  http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/

----------


## osan

> Please elaborate?


Because it will have no sufficiency of effect.  This election is by all means going to boil down to Trump v. Clinton, barring some event cataclysmic to one or both of those dubious choices.  By all means vote your conscience, whatever the case.  Make endorsements if it makes you happy.  I just find that I have better things to do with my time, like set myself on fire or drown in the toilet bowl.

Today, my goal is to hone a philosophical basis for living properly among one's fellows, and perhaps make some effort to disseminate that framework as broadly as possible. At the end of the day, I am only a man.  Changing the world requires many hands.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Will you be voting for Trump?


Actually, I meant to post this in the 'Rand should join #NeverTrump" thread. Who RPF supports isn't a concern of mine.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------

