# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Leaving the GOP is what the establishment WANTS you to do!

## Matt Collins

If you leave the Republican Party, they win...

----------


## FSP-Rebel

no kidding

----------


## wgadget

Who's leaving? I can vote Libertarian for President as a Republican.

Best of both worlds. Screw em.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Who's leaving? I can vote Libertarian for President as a Republican.
> 
> Best of both worlds. Screw em.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Exactly. All I hear from these mainstream Republicans is "Will you people just leave now. We never wanted you and never will."

But I was already a Republican, and I'm not leaving,

----------


## Origanalist

I don't have to register party affiliation in WA so they don't need to know how I voted.

----------


## twomp

How many more of these threads do you get to keep on posting before it's considered spamming? Although I do understand what you're doing though. With the 2012 campaign dying down, gotta do what you can to keep these paychecks coming in...

----------


## TrishW

No, you are wrong. Its true, They don't want us to speak or have any opinions, but they do want us. They want us to shut up and vote for their pick.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> How many more of these threads do you get to keep on posting before it's considered spamming? Although I do understand what you're doing though. With the 2012 campaign dying down, gotta do what you can to keep these paychecks coming in...


How many threads do people have to post that pertain to "Wahhh! I am leaving the GOP!" and stomping off like a baby before they're considered spam? (Not defending Collins, by the way, he can take care of himself)

I've seen plenty of those around.

----------


## affa

If you vote Romney, they double win, and all of our efforts are for naught, since you teach them they can run us over, beat us, cheat us, lie to us... and still get our vote.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> If you vote Romney, they double win, and all of our efforts are for naught, since you teach them they can run us over, beat us, cheat us, lie to us... and still get our vote.


I don't think anyone on RPF plans on voting for Romney... Can't speak for all of the "softies" outside of RPF, though.

----------


## Cleaner44

Putting sand into the Republican machine is so much fun why would anyone ever want to stop?  The GOP has given no quarter and they will receive none!  Let us continue to give the neocons fits as they lose the white house back to back to a known Marxist.  If Republican voters want to defeat the liberal Democrats they must offer independent voters more than a liberal Republican.  Eventually the GOP will be forced to improve their product if they want to win the presidency.  Not being Obama is not good enough.  Let us enjoy causing the neocons heartburn and disappointment as they fail to defeat an admitted socialist!

----------


## EBounding

They pretty much said this to the new precinct delegates at my last county convention.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> How many more of these threads do you get to keep on posting before it's considered spamming? Although I do understand what you're doing though. With the 2012 campaign dying down, gotta do what you can to keep these paychecks coming in...


+rep

----------


## fr33

Sorry I just don't agree. I don't really want to debate it because I've read all the reasons for and against a thousand times probably.

I just don't think you will accomplish enough in taking it over. The math is against you. Mainstream republicans have the overwhelming numbers that they can show up for decades ousting you if they wake up to it. 

In my opinion, you can keep trying this and in 5-10 years you might get some lukewarm politician that talks libertarian but does not practice it in reality. Something like the Reagan revolution.

----------


## twomp

> How many threads do people have to post that pertain to "Wahhh! I am leaving the GOP!" and stomping off like a baby before they're considered spam? (Not defending Collins, by the way, he can take care of himself)
> 
> I've seen plenty of those around.


Checking the first 2 pages of these forums, I see 1 thread related to what you are saying. I see 3 threads by Mr. Collins though. Please point out any that I may have missed. Yes, you are defending him. Maybe you'd like to see a few more by Mr. Collins before you start noticing it?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Sorry I just don't agree. I don't really want to debate it because I've read all the reasons for and against a thousand times probably.
> 
> I just don't think you will accomplish enough in taking it over. The math is against you. Mainstream republicans have the overwhelming numbers that they can show up for decades ousting you if they wake up to it. 
> 
> In my opinion, you can keep trying this and in 5-10 years you might get some lukewarm politician that talks libertarian but does not practice it in reality. Something like the Reagan revolution.


Dude, apparently you're either not taking into consideration our standing in '08 v. '12 or willfully playing ostrich. Back when, we had Ron and very few local party delegates and virtually no control in any state party nor had any national commpersons which are auto nat'l delegates. Now, Ron can spend more time promoting our candidates, we have certain state parties under our wings, we're on the verge of restoring more parties in certain states, precinct delegates up the wazoo everywhere, building coalitions with other Tea party conservatives everywhere, sending likely a handful of decent folks to the Senate, ~15 reps to the House and God knows how many prospects we are polishing on the farm team in state houses all across the country. If that isn't making progress in Ron's GOP restoration project, I don't know what is.

----------


## Origanalist

> Putting sand into the Republican machine is so much fun why would anyone ever want to stop?  The GOP has given no quarter and they will receive none!  Let us continue to give the neocons fits as they lose the white house back to back to a known Marxist.  If Republican voters want to defeat the liberal Democrats they must offer independent voters more than a liberal Republican.  Eventually the GOP will be forced to improve their product if they want to win the presidency.  Not being Obama is not good enough.  Let us enjoy causing the neocons heartburn and disappointment as they fail to defeat an admitted socialist!


The problem is that the establishment really doesn't care if they win the presidency, they are perfectly happy one way or the other. It's all one big party to them no matter who wins. It's only the voters who care, because they are too frigging stupid to see it doesn't matter. It will only matter if the establishment can be taken down.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I just don't think you will accomplish enough in taking it over. The math is against you. Mainstream republicans have the overwhelming numbers that they can show up for decades ousting you if they wake up to it.


Minnesota, Iowa, and several other state Republican Parties would disagree with you.

----------


## fr33

> Dude, apparently you're either not taking into consideration our standing in '08 v. '12 or willfully playing ostrich. Back when, we had Ron and very few local party delegates and virtually no control in any state party nor had any national commpersons which are auto nat'l delegates. Now, Ron can spend more time promoting our candidates, we have certain state parties under our wings, we're on the verge of restoring more parties in certain states, precinct delegates up the wazoo everywhere, building coalitions with other Tea party conservatives everywhere, sending likely a handful of decent folks to the Senate, ~15 reps to the House and God knows how many prospects we are polishing on the farm team in state houses all across the country. If that isn't making progress in Ron's GOP restoration project, I don't know what is.





> Minnesota, Iowa, and several other state Republican Parties would disagree with you.


The voting public and the possible neocon delegates in reserve disagree with you. We are an irate *minority*.

----------


## hrdman2luv

> If you leave the Republican Party, they win...


Finally, me and GOP finally agree on something.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> The voting public and the possible neocon delegates in reserve disagree with you. We are an irate *minority*.


I don't really care about the voting public right now, they'll perk up as they continue to feel the pinch in the pocket plus as we continue to restore state parties and field the candidates that we want, the republicans will still vote republican and the indies will be more attracted to us. As far as neocon dels, that bunch is being handled through attrition plus our newcomers and our alliances. As the current minority, it is up to us to educate our fellow man and inspire them to our cause. I've got my polished talking points lined up for whatever type of republican I run into, most are reasonable and if you know how to speak to them you win them to your side. Put on a smile and spread the honey, not the vinegar.

----------


## EBounding

We have counties and state legislatures set to nullify the NDAA.  I wasn't involved a few years ago, but I'm pretty sure this would not be happening if we weren't involved in the Republican party.

----------


## TheTyke

> Who's leaving? I can vote Libertarian for President as a Republican.
> 
> Best of both worlds. Screw em.


Absolutely.

Why did they cheat when they didn't need to to win the nomination? Probably to sicken us into departing. Let's not be manipulated. Let's not abandon all those states who did what it took and won... let's join them.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The voting public and the possible neocon delegates in reserve disagree with you. We are an irate *minority*.


That's all that is needed to prevail.

----------


## Origanalist

> Absolutely.
> 
> Why did they cheat when they didn't need to to win the nomination? Probably to sicken us into departing. Let's not be manipulated. Let's not abandon all those states who did what it took and won... let's join them.


When the bully punches you in the gut just because he want's to, you get right back up and show him you can take it. Any other action just gets you another punch in the gut.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> Checking the first 2 pages of these forums, I see 1 thread related to what you are saying. I see 3 threads by Mr. Collins though. Please point out any that I may have missed. Yes, you are defending him. Maybe you'd like to see a few more by Mr. Collins before you start noticing it?


Really going to be that way, aren't you, pal? Wow... 

First off, I don't have a horse in the race related to Collins. I don't care what he says or does. In fact, a couple weeks ago he was doing the same thing (posting multiple threads over the same subject) and I jokingly (at the same time, seriously) asked him why and if we could merge the threads. 

Second, do you not recall all of the people who were saying they were done with the GOP after the RNC? 

I suggest you back off in your assumption that I am defending anyone. I made a very valid point related to the subject, not the poster. And I should have been more specific in that I was speaking of not only threads, but posts as well from pissed off people around here-we all were, but, some were saying they were done with the GOP outright and switching parties (of which I will not start digging just for you, your highness). 

We have too many little whiny pissants on this forum and it's very tiring. I sometimes think we have too many former leftists on here (the constant whining and feeling the need to nitpick every single thing, and I say this in all generality).

----------


## PatriotOne

Heading into round 3 stronger than ever.  If only everyone in this movement knew how much progress we have made they would be invigorated.

----------


## NH4RonPaul

> I don't think anyone on RPF plans on voting for Romney... Can't speak for all of the "softies" outside of RPF, though.


You don't have to vote for Romney... you can leave that blank even. But please do go vote especially for your local offices.

I've been GOP for 40 years. I'm not leaving now.. let the RINOs and socialists leave. They are the ones not following the platform which is supposed to restore the REPUBLIC!

----------


## Carlybee

Sorry we're not 12 years old.  I am leaving the GOP because I don't want to be associated with their scumbag brand.  That being said as an independent voter I will vote for fully vetted liberty candidates as I see fit from whatever political affiliation they happen to belong to.   Coming in here with these admonitions like we are all too stupid to figure out what to do on our own is frankly condescending. Some of us no longer care what impact our actions have on the GOP and I really don't care if it means "they win"...which is a misnomer since most of them are nothing more than losers where it counts to begin with.  We are quite aware that all of these posts are intended to keep liberty candidates within the GOP from losing support, but just because we may no longer be members of the party doesn't necessarily mean some of them won't still have that.  I can't and won't speak for others, but personally I will support anyone (regardless of party) who can stand having their feet held to the fire but if they start betraying the ideals of liberty for political gain, they will get no support from me.

----------


## Origanalist

> You don't have to vote for Romney... you can leave that blank even. But please do go vote especially for your local offices.
> 
> I've been GOP for 40 years. I'm not leaving now.. let the RINOs and socialists leave. They are the ones not following the platform which is supposed to restore the REPUBLIC!


Exactly, 36 here, and I can't see quiting now that we're forcing them to show their true colors.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Sorry we're not 12 years old.  I am leaving the GOP because I don't want to be associated with their scumbag brand.  That being said as an independent voter I will vote for fully vetted liberty candidates as I see fit from whatever political affiliation they happen to belong to.   Coming in here with these admonitions like we are all too stupid to figure out what to do on our own is frankly condescending. Some of us no longer care what impact our actions have on the GOP and I really don't care if it means "they win"...which is a misnomer since most of them are nothing more than losers where it counts to begin with.  We are quite aware that all of these posts are intended to keep liberty candidates within the GOP from losing support, but just because we may no longer be members of the party doesn't necessarily mean some of them won't still have that.  I can't and won't speak for others, but personally I will support anyone (regardless of party) who can stand having their feet held to the fire but if they start betraying the ideals of liberty for political gain, they will get no support from me.


We have had success getting liberty candidates elected through the Republican Party.  Being registered as a Republican means that you can vote in the primary to get them nominated.  If they are not nominated, they cannot win the general.

----------


## Monotaur

I know our county GOP is stacked full of Paul supporters at the higher level (well, minus one now - they had to resign in their leadership position because they are running for a Colorado State house Seat  ).  And we are filling up more leadership positions in precinct and district captains as this cycle winds down.

We are now beginning to have sway in changing how our county GOP works.  For example, previously, higher level delegates to State and Congressional District assemblies were chosen at the precinct level (so about half our of county couldn't be represented at the higher levels).  This is unfair, and really only benefited the establishment (people who were past chairs, etc, who live in precincts that aware such delegate positions).  This cycle things were a little different, and we elected higher level delegates at our County Assembly.  The establishment folks didn't like this as us Paul folks showed up and *gasp* organized to vote for ourselves and rallied others to vote for us, thus denying delegate positions to the establishment folks who just go along with the GOP as usual.  There will be a meeting coming up in the next couple of months for all PCPs/DCs to vote on how we proceed going forward.  But, based on how the Paul people are now participating in the GOP (much to the shegrins of the establishment folks), we have now swayed the conversation from "Should we revert back to awarding delegate positions at the precinct level?" to "Which method of awarding delegates at higher levels do we take?".  While this is a small victory (it will be important for next cycle!), it's one of many.  Being involved also means that you can help shape the local party and it's positions.

I'm going to ask that we take a stand in "supporting fair elections at all levels" at our next meeting, which may ruffle some feathers (see previous paragraph), but little by little we are having a larger voice.

I didn't mean for this to turn into a debate on why we should stay in the party, it just turned into that.

----------


## Sematary

I'm with her 1000%
Let's keep winning!

----------


## Carlybee

> We have had success getting liberty candidates elected through the Republican Party.  Being registered as a Republican means that you can vote in the primary to get them nominated.  If they are not nominated, they cannot win the general.


I am well aware of that. I have been a registered Republican for some time.  I've been an elected delegate. Unfortunately at this point I just don't really care. You people who love the idea of being a Republican can sort that out. I can however participate in money bombs and other ways of spreading the word.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I am well aware of that. I have been a registered Republican for some time.  I've been an elected delegate. Unfortunately at this point I just don't really care. You people who love the idea of being a Republican can sort that out. I can however participate in money bombs and other ways of spreading the word.


I don't think anyone here "loves" to be a Republican.  We want to win this war, Carly, and right now the Republican Party is proving an effective mechanism to get our candidates elected.

But, to each their own.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't think anyone here "loves" to be a Republican.  We want to win this war, Carly, and right now the Republican Party is proving an effective mechanism to get our candidates elected.
> 
> But, to each their own.


  I will never believe you will take over the GOP and after Tampa not sure why anyone would want to, but as you say to each his own. I will contribute as I can, in my own way.  I recently donated a little to a delegate who was down there to help out since they got so royally screwed.  Even if it was just enough to help for the trip back home.  There are ways to help without having to compromise your own sense of principle.

----------


## Cleaner44

> The problem is that the establishment really doesn't care if they win the presidency, they are perfectly happy one way or the other. It's all one big party to them no matter who wins. It's only the voters who care, because they are too frigging stupid to see it doesn't matter. It will only matter if the establishment can be taken down.


The establishment may not care which party wins the white house, but the Republican voters certainly do.  The more they lose fielding crappy candidates like McCain and Romney, the more they will question their methods and direct.  It is the GOP voters that must demand better of their party and they will simply improve their product or lose to their hated competition... the socialist Democrats.

----------


## Origanalist

> The establishment may not care which party wins the white house, but the Republican voters certainly do.  The more they lose fielding crappy candidates like McCain and Romney, the more they will question their methods and direct.  It is the GOP voters that must demand better of their party and they will simply improve their product or lose to their hated competition... the socialist Democrats.


No arguement here, I basically said the same thing and I don't feel it's in our best interest to see Romney in the White House. As much as I despise Obama.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> I just don't think you will accomplish enough in taking it over. The math is against you. Mainstream republicans have the overwhelming numbers that they can show up for decades ousting you if they wake up to it.


Good point.  That's why I recommend not in anyway trying to take it over.  Just become part of it.  Become friends with others who are part of it.  Work with them when you can.  Encourage your friends to become part of it. The direction changes but people feel like they are responsible for the change in direction.  They feel that they like the change in direction.  Everyone wins.

----------


## fr33

> Good point.  That's why I recommend not in anyway trying to take it over.  Just become part of it.  Become friends with other who are part of it.  Work with them when you came.  Encourage your friends to become part of it. The direction changes but people feel like they are responsible for the change in direction.  They feel that they like the change in direction.  Everyone wins.


I'll support you guys but I'm afraid I'm so anti-war that I cannot get along with them on a personal level.

----------


## Origanalist

> I'll support you guys but I'm afraid I'm so anti-war that I cannot get along with them on a personal level.


That really is the toughest part, so many of them see it as a ongoing necessity.

----------


## Monotaur

> I'll support you guys but I'm afraid I'm so anti-war that I cannot get along with them on a personal level.


Members of our local GOP have such stark differences as well (more than anti-war too).  We usually don't butt heads or bring up "controversial" stuff, but the only way to change minds is to use your voice.  Otherwise, they won't hear you and then group-think sets in.

EDIT: Is is tough sometimes I'll give you that.  Especially when there are Romney signs everywhere or candidates start talking about insane positions.  Just don't support those folks and only support those that you agree with.  You have much more voice inside the party than just voting in a primary too - you can help shape how funds are allocated to candidates, help determine your local GOP public presence, and other things as well.

----------


## gjdavis60

I think our reason to be in the Republican Party is to capture it, not capitulate to establishment candidates or establishment policies.  The most important things we can do within the party to forward our agenda are:

1. Participate in local Republican Party organizations.  Being membership organizations, all Republican Party organizations are subject to the will of their members. Controlling a political organization usually requires nothing more than a simple majority.   Local organizations feed into state party organizations proportionally and state organizations make up the RNC proportionally.    If we become the members - if we begin to gain majorities - we will begin to assert control.  I believe this is attainable if for no other reason than the huge disparity of enthusiasm between our movement and the rest of the Republican establishment.  We can win by simply showing up. This is one of the reasons we have made so much progress in the past 7 years.  I hope we can continue motivating people to get involved.

2. Get "our" candidates on ballots.  I believe that most people will vote for a liberty-minded Republican over a Libertarian 9 times out of 10.  The two parties have huge financial, legal, and psychological advantages over third parties:  so much so, that I think it is easier overcome the obstacles within the Republican Party than to win elections from within a third party.

Just my two cents.

----------


## mport1

Luckily I've never had to join the GOP to vote for Ron Paul, and I never plan to do so.

----------


## cpike

> The voting public and the possible neocon delegates in reserve disagree with you. We are an irate *minority*.


We were a minority here in Minnesota in 2008, we're completely ramrodded at the state convention, much like that RNC this  year; but after four years of hard work in 2012 we became the majority.

----------


## fr33

> We were a minority here in Minnesota in 2008, we're completely ramrodded at the state convention, much like that RNC this  year; but after four years of hard work in 2012 we became the majority.


22,000 people can remove all of you fairly easily, for decades. At the least they can contribute enough to help rules being kept changed so this strategy will continue to fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results...ries#Minnesota

----------


## twomp

> Really going to be that way, aren't you, pal? Wow... 
> 
> First off, I don't have a horse in the race related to Collins. I don't care what he says or does. In fact, a couple weeks ago he was doing the same thing (posting multiple threads over the same subject) and I jokingly (at the same time, seriously) asked him why and if we could merge the threads. 
> 
> Second, do you not recall all of the people who were saying they were done with the GOP after the RNC? 
> 
> I suggest you back off in your assumption that I am defending anyone. I made a very valid point related to the subject, not the poster. And I should have been more specific in that I was speaking of not only threads, but posts as well from pissed off people around here-we all were, but, some were saying they were done with the GOP outright and switching parties (of which I will not start digging just for you, your highness). 
> 
> We have too many little whiny pissants on this forum and it's very tiring. I sometimes think we have too many former leftists on here (the constant whining and feeling the need to nitpick every single thing, and I say this in all generality).


They are whiners so they must be leftist even though you seem like you're the one whining here. You made a point that there are threads from people whining that they want to leave the GOP. That is true but do you notice the same amount or even more of the same threads regarding staying in the GOP? I suppose since you agree with those people, you won't "whine" about that. 

Mr. Collins has made I don't know how many threads now about this, maybe if someone else had done it, it would have gotten merged or someone would have called it spamming by now. How many thread about the same thing do you think I can make before the mods consider me a spammer? 

As for suggesting that you are defending Mr. Collins. It's easy, I made a comment towards him, you decide to speak out against it so I consider that defending him. It doesn't make you a horrible person by any means.

----------


## fr33

The neocon establishment have the media on their side. I can't imagine Rush or Hannity changing their minds. Their bosses are too invested in the corporatist sham of American imperialism. They can march the sheep into conventions if they want to.

----------


## AJ Antimony

Agreed!

----------


## cpike

> 22,000 people can remove all of you fairly easily, for decades. At the least they can contribute enough to help rules being kept changed so this strategy will continue to fail.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results...ries#Minnesota


They didn't, and they won't. In my BPOU we had a Paul Slate and a Santorum slate, they outnumbered us for sure, but they were disinterested and most left before the vote to send delegates to state and CD 4/5. Some that DID go through supported the Paul slate at state after Santorum dropped out. It's the Romney people you have to worry about, the Santorum supporters are not the corrupt, they're well meaning, and some are even somewhat libertarian, just didn't finish taking the red pill.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The neocon establishment have the media on their side. I can't imagine Rush or Hannity changing their minds. Their bosses are too invested in the corporatist sham of American imperialism. They can march the sheep into conventions if they want to.


Then, we need to figure out how to overcome it.  Have any ideas?  I and others have thought that possibly people like Peter Thiel and/or Jim Rogers might be persuaded to start a new TV network.

Look, we don't have the option of just giving up.  It can and will get a lot worse than it is now if we do nothing.  So much in fact, that what we have now would look like paradise, in hindsight.  

So, instead of thinking about how hard it will be, or how the odds are stacked against us, put your brain power on ideas to succeed.

----------


## 69360

> Who's leaving? I can vote Libertarian for President as a Republican.
> 
> Best of both worlds. Screw em.


Same here. I'm not leaving.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Then, we need to figure out how to overcome it.  Have any ideas?  I and others have thought that possibly people like Peter Thiel and/or Jim Rogers might be persuaded to start a new TV network.
> 
> Look, we don't have the option of just giving up.  It can and will get a lot worse than it is now if we do nothing.  So much in fact, that what we have now would look like paradise, in hindsight.  
> 
> So, instead of thinking about how hard it will be, or how the odds are stacked against us, put your brain power on ideas to succeed.


I have a humble suggestion: www.freestateproject.org

We have to concentrate our efforts, if we are to succeed. Frankly, I don't think focusing on the national scale is going to be a successful tactic. We are too spread out, and they are too entrenched. I think state nullification/independence is a far more feasible method of protecting ourselves from the federal government, than attempting to elect a president or congressional majority, and roll back federal bureacracy.

But yes, I plan to vote GJ, and continue to work within the republican party. Especially here in NH, much of the state level republican party does actually stand for liberty.

----------


## kylejack

I was never in the Republican Party. If a good liberty candidate comes along, I don't care which party they are in, I will back them.

----------


## Occam's Banana

Everyone seems to be obsessed with the "bright, shiny object" of the Presidency. And to a lesser (but still greatly excessive) extent with Congress and other public offices.

So much so that they never see all the low-hanging fruit, ripe for the picking - things like precinct committee seats & local/state party positions.

And if they do see it - or have it pointed out to them - they dismiss it because plucking it might require them to associate with a bunch of "nasty GOP scumbags" (or some such thing).

So they retreat into (relatively) friendly & welcoming venues like the Libertarian Party, where never they hear a discouraging word, and all the echoes are of voices that agree with them on (just about) everything.




> The voting public and the possible neocon delegates in reserve disagree with you. We are an irate *minority*.


So are the people who actually go out and participate in their local & state parties - regardless of whether they are "pro" or "anti" Ron Paul.

The vast majority of Republicans (and Democrats) do nothing more than vote in general elections. Fewer vote in primaries, and of those who do, fewer still take any part at all in the dull, boring hum-drum of month-to-month party business. Thus, an irate minority can acquire & exercise *enormous* influence - *far* more influence than will *ever* be achieved by those who insist on trying to use 3rd parties to achieve electoral succes.

Those who prefer to go the 3rd-party route with purposes OTHER than achieving electoral success are doing fine. There are many important things they can work on and accomplish - education, promotion, waking people up, etc. Unfortunately, significant & maintainable electoral success just isn't one of those things. If getting libertarians voted into public office is at the top of your liberty movement "todo" list, then "insurging" the GOP is pretty much the only viable option.




> I believe that most people will vote for a liberty-minded Republican over a Libertarian 9 times out of 10.  The two parties have huge financial, legal, and psychological advantages over third parties:  so much so, that I think it is easier overcome the obstacles within the Republican Party than to win elections from within a third party.
> 
> Just my two cents.


That bit alone is worth a lot more than just two cents.

What you said would be just as true if the "liberty-minded Republican" and the "Libertarian" that you mention had *exactly* the same beliefs & positions on *everything*.

The Republican "brand" has social credibility. The Libertarian "brand" does not.

That sucks. That *really* sucks - and it sucks *hard*. But things are what they are.

----------


## fr33

> Then, we need to figure out how to overcome it.  Have any ideas?  I and others have thought that possibly people like Peter Thiel and/or Jim Rogers might be persuaded to start a new TV network.
> 
> Look, we don't have the option of just giving up.  It can and will get a lot worse than it is now if we do nothing.  So much in fact, that what we have now would look like paradise, in hindsight.  
> 
> So, instead of thinking about how hard it will be, or how the odds are stacked against us, put your brain power on ideas to succeed.


I support joining the Libertarian party, adjusting their platform to fit us, and start growing our base. Here come the irrelevancy insults. I know all about it. They are no more irrelevant than the liberty movement.

Let's talk about growing our base. We can logically win arguments, ya know? Ron Paul accurately predicted many things and we are predicting things as well. It is possible to prove our point of view is right. It does take time. This movement has some irreconcilable principles that the GOP just won't budge on. They won't budge because it pays for all their campaign funds. They get off on warfare. They profit from it. They feel they can't survive without it. It's unacceptable.

----------


## FrankRep

*RNC Corruption: Should Libertarians Leave Republican Party?*




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2qhx_LXAOw



The RNC mistreated Ron Paul and his delegates. Does this mean it is time to leave the Republican Party? Or does it mean that libertarians are being effective in the GOP? I weigh in.

Please like me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/JulieBorowski

Follow me on Twitter: http:///www.twitter.com/JulieBorowski

----------


## Xhin

> Should Libertarians Leave Republican Party?


They tried that once before. The Libertarian Party was the result of that.

----------


## jclay2

Guys, this is a revolution. It will not be decided based on whether or not we can take over the republican party.

----------


## RickyJ

Putting up with the GOP is also what the establishment wants you to do. I for one am not going to put up with them! The establishment can go to hell. 

Ron Paul said parties are irrelevant and that the GOP is not his party.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Putting up with the GOP is also what the establishment wants you to do. I for one am not going to put up with them! The establishment can go to hell. 
> 
> Ron Paul said parties are irrelevant and that the GOP is not his party.


That's not what he meant and you know it.  He was saying it didn't currently reflect his principles.

No one here likes political parties.  But, for right now that is how you get someone elected to office.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Guys, this is a revolution. It will not be decided based on whether or not we can take over the republican party.


If you do not have a mechanism to get our liberty candidates into office, our "revolution" will have a voice the level of a whisper.  We have been successful in using the Republican Party to get our candidates elected and have made tremendous inroads in owning the leadership positions.  Why on earth would we give up our gains and start all over again somewhere else?

----------


## RickyJ

> That's not what he meant and you know it.  He was saying it didn't currently reflect his principles.


If he didn't mean it then why did he say it? The way he said it, it sure sounded like he meant it. He had a lot of passion in his voice when he said "it's not MY party." I think most objectives listeners think he meant exactly what he said.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> If you vote Romney, they double win, and all of our efforts are for naught, since you teach them they can run us over, beat us, cheat us, lie to us... and still get our vote.


You can walk and chew gum can't you?  Nobody brought up voting for Romney.  Stay in the republican party and support our people running down ticket and Johnson or someone else for POTUS.

----------


## jkob

Running 3rd party this time around doesn't mean we have to leave the GOP, it's not like there are any more primaries to vote in. I still think the GOP is the best vehicle to electing our candidates in 2014 and beyond.

----------


## TheTexan

The establishment wants us to believe the establishment wants us to leave the GOP.


(The establishment wants us working within their system, period.... doesn't matter if it's GOP, DP, LP, CP, as long as you're concentrating on pulling those voting levers, the establishment don't really give a $#@!)

----------


## hazek

Bull$#@! they want you to leave.

They need you to win general, why the hell would they want you to leave?! No, no. It's clear as day they want you to stay and they even want more people to come, they just don't want You taking over and Forcing Them to operate according to Your principles. No, what they want is for you to stay and submit into being their little bitches, slaves they can use for slave labor: voting & campaigning for their chosen guy

As has been clearly demonstrated to you this past cycle you have two choices:
- you stay and be their bitches or 
- you leave, be autonomous and faithful to your own principles of liberty and ignore them into irrelevance. 

Which do you choose?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I know our county GOP is stacked full of Paul supporters at the higher level (well, minus one now - they had to resign in their leadership position because they are running for a Colorado State house Seat  ).  And we are filling up more leadership positions in precinct and district captains as this cycle winds down.
> 
> We are now beginning to have sway in changing how our county GOP works.  For example, previously, higher level delegates to State and Congressional District assemblies were chosen at the precinct level (so about half our of county couldn't be represented at the higher levels).  This is unfair, and really only benefited the establishment (people who were past chairs, etc, who live in precincts that aware such delegate positions).  This cycle things were a little different, and we elected higher level delegates at our County Assembly.  The establishment folks didn't like this as us Paul folks showed up and *gasp* organized to vote for ourselves and rallied others to vote for us, thus denying delegate positions to the establishment folks who just go along with the GOP as usual.  There will be a meeting coming up in the next couple of months for all PCPs/DCs to vote on how we proceed going forward.  But, based on how the Paul people are now participating in the GOP (much to the shegrins of the establishment folks), we have now swayed the conversation from "Should we revert back to awarding delegate positions at the precinct level?" to "Which method of awarding delegates at higher levels do we take?".  While this is a small victory (it will be important for next cycle!), it's one of many.  Being involved also means that you can help shape the local party and it's positions.
> 
> I'm going to ask that we take a stand in "supporting fair elections at all levels" at our next meeting, which may ruffle some feathers (see previous paragraph), but little by little we are having a larger voice.
> 
> I didn't mean for this to turn into a debate on why we should stay in the party, it just turned into that.


Great insight into what is going on locally and the impact we're having.

----------


## TheTexan

> - you leave, be autonomous and faithful to your own principles of liberty and ignore them into irrelevance.


The obvious counterpoint to hazek's argument is that by leaving the GOP to go 3rd party sends _us_ into irrelevance.... but if we're as strong as we think we are, by doing that we can make sure the GOP never wins a presidential election, ever again.

We may never win an election going 3rd party... but if we can make the GOP lose, time and time again, we definitely wouldn't be irrelevant

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I think our reason to be in the Republican Party is to capture it, not capitulate to establishment candidates or establishment policies.  The most important things we can do within the party to forward our agenda are:
> 
> 1. Participate in local Republican Party organizations.  Being membership organizations, all Republican Party organizations are subject to the will of their members. Controlling a political organization usually requires nothing more than a simple majority.   Local organizations feed into state party organizations proportionally and state organizations make up the RNC proportionally.    If we become the members - if we begin to gain majorities - we will begin to assert control.  I believe this is attainable if for no other reason than the huge disparity of enthusiasm between our movement and the rest of the Republican establishment.  We can win by simply showing up. This is one of the reasons we have made so much progress in the past 7 years.  I hope we can continue motivating people to get involved.
> 
> 2. Get "our" candidates on ballots.  I believe that most people will vote for a liberty-minded Republican over a Libertarian 9 times out of 10.  The two parties have huge financial, legal, and psychological advantages over third parties:  so much so, that I think it is easier overcome the obstacles within the Republican Party than to win elections from within a third party.
> 
> Just my two cents.


The psychological advantage is huge!  People don't think a third party can win and that severely diminishes votes and donations are nonexistent.  Those are enormous hurdles to overcome when you're selling a third party candidate to the average voter.  You don't even get to actually policy discussions because you're forever battling the voting psychology of average Americans.

Great post and insight +Rep

----------


## Natural Citizen

One of these days someone will hopefully explain what one of those _above_ "average" Americans are. I always thought Americans were Americans. Whoda thunkit...

Gosh, I really hate that language.

----------


## kathy88

> If you leave the Republican Party, they win...


If I leave the Republican party I win.

----------


## MelissaCato

Dear GOP, "All your base are belong to us" !!

----------


## Occam's Banana

> If he didn't mean it then why did he say it? The way he said it, it sure sounded like he meant it. He had a lot of passion in his voice when he said "it's not MY party." I think most objectives listeners think he meant exactly what he said.


Objective listeners? I doubt it. The interpretations (on both sides of the issue) of what RP said in this interview constitute an excellent illustration of confirmation bias in action.

Your comment is a perfect example of this. In short: you heard what you wanted to hear (just as those who disagree with you heard what they wanted to hear).

----------


## wgadget

Some guy on Bloomberg radio said if Romney loses to Obama there will be a huge rift in the GOP with the Tea Party.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If he didn't mean it then why did he say it? The way he said it, it sure sounded like he meant it. He had a lot of passion in his voice when he said "it's not MY party." I think most objectives listeners think he meant exactly what he said.


You misinterpreted the meaning of what he said.  Again, he was saying it wasn't HIS party, in that he didn't own it and it did not reflect his principles.  That is the way it sounded to me, anyway.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Some guy on Bloomberg radio said if Romney loses to Obama there will be a huge rift in the GOP with the Tea Party.


Like there isn't now?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The obvious counterpoint to hazek's argument is that by leaving the GOP to go 3rd party sends _us_ into irrelevance.... but if we're as strong as we think we are, by doing that we can make sure the GOP never wins a presidential election, ever again.
> 
> We may never win an election going 3rd party... but if we can make the GOP lose, time and time again, we definitely wouldn't be irrelevant


Big whoopee!  Then the other head of the hydra wins; the Democrats.  How is that helping anything?  The goal isn't to stop one of the parties from winning, it is to win, ourselves.

----------


## TrishW

I have no desire what-so-ever to stay within the Republican Party.  I think Americans are very dissatisfied with the choices the two party system has allowed us.  I am voting for Gary Johnson and hopefully Ron Paul will be the VP.  I remain an Independent with a strong leaning toward liberty. 

You are fooling yourself to think that you can take down the machine from the inside. They will squash you like a bug, just as what happened at the RNC.  To do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results, is the definition of insanity. 

I think that if Gary is in the debates, he will do very well. I think that if Ron Paul agrees to be his VP, the cause of liberty will be heard.  We will make a differnce.... not in 4 years, or 8 years, or 16 years... THIS YEAR.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> One of these days someone will hopefully explain what one of those _above_ "average" Americans are. I always thought Americans were Americans. Whoda thunkit...
> 
> Gosh, I really hate that language.


I'll give you hint.  Average Americans reelected George Bush.  Average Americans fell for "hope" and "change".  Average Americans flock to Sarah Palin book signings.  Average Americans aren't very bright.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Big whoopee!  Then the other head of the hydra wins; the Democrats.  How is that helping anything?  The goal isn't to stop one of the parties from winning, it is to win, ourselves.


Precisely!

----------


## TheTexan

> Big whoopee!  Then the other head of the hydra wins; the Democrats.  How is that helping anything?  The goal isn't to stop one of the parties from winning, it is to win, ourselves.


It proves a point.  They can't win without our support.

If we are successfully recognized for Romney's loss, and guarantee the GOP never wins another presidential election, I see three scenarios happening:

1) They are more accommodating next time because they want to win
2) They won't be more accommodating, will look like idiots again when they lose, and the few who see this come to our camp
3) They won't be more accommodating, will look like idiots again when they lose, and noone will notice, and just continue to lose over, and over, and over


In scenario 1, congratulation, you successfully co-opted the GOP.

In scenario 2, congratulations, we just got more support, and will continue to get more support with each election, and we just broke the two party system.

In scenario 3, it doesn't matter what we do at that point, stay in GOP or not, this country's *$#@!ed* if those idiots are that dead-set on their war-mongering trillion-stealing corporatist police-state ways

----------


## acptulsa

> How many more of these threads do you get to keep on posting before it's considered spamming? Although I do understand what you're doing though. With the 2012 campaign dying down, gotta do what you can to keep these paychecks coming in...


What?  You can't tell that this is a completely different, unrelated, utterly opposite thread?  Collins isn't a broken record.  This thread is completely different.

All the others were straight up appeals to those who are smart and reasonable enough to agree with him.  This one is reverse psychology to trick the rest into agreeing with him.  A good little sheep dog has more than one trick up his sleeve...

----------


## wgadget

> Like there isn't now?


Well, yeah, but it's "not mentioned" for the sake of "unity."  You know it's the truth.  But when Romney loses, we'll be the scapegoats. 

I say BRING IT. Let's talk. Let's get all the cheating out in the open and on the airwaves.

----------


## TrishW

Romney losing will be a win for us.  At least that's the way I see it. I am about as average an American as you can get. lol  

I don't want to fight, but I also don't like to get pushed down.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, yeah, but it's "not mentioned" for the sake of "unity."  You know it's the truth.  But when Romney loses, we'll be the scapegoats. 
> 
> I say BRING IT. Let's talk. Let's get all the cheating out in the open and on the airwaves.



I am perfectly happy with that.  Gore's loss, enabled party by Nadar, paved the way for Obama.  I want to swing hard right, not less left.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It proves a point.  They can't win without our support.


*The people at the very top do not care.*  They own both major parties.  Which is why the overall agenda never changes, regardless of which party is in office. 




> If we are successfully recognized for Romney's loss, and guarantee the GOP never wins another presidential election, I see three scenarios happening:
> 
> 1) They are more accommodating next time because they want to win
> 2) They won't be more accommodating, will look like idiots again when they lose, and the few who see this come to our camp
> 3) They won't be more accommodating, will look like idiots again when they lose, and noone will notice, and just continue to lose over, and over, and over
> 
> 
> In scenario 1, congratulation, you successfully co-opted the GOP.
> 
> ...


I don't think that will work.  I think the only way is for us to take the sucker over, of course while winning over hearts and minds as we go, and electing people with good principles.  Of course, we ourselves would vote for whomever we thought was best, regardless of party, as we go.

----------


## LBennett76

I'm getting more and more pissed by the day. I live in Ohio. The Republican Party is super thick with good old boys in this state. There is no taking it over. Family legacies carry on the party. To even try to infiltrate it is near impossible. Write-in votes aren't counted here unless the person has registered to be one. Now, Romney is trying to get Johnson off the ticket. Where does this leave me??? Come November, could I really not have anyone to vote for? I'm really at a loss about what to do...
Right now, the Republicans can kiss my ass. They're trying to create a situation where for the first time in 5 presidential elections I can't vote for anyone I want to! URGH!

----------


## wgadget

Ron should seriously consider starting the DISENFRANCHISED VOTER party.

----------


## hrdman2luv

Has anyone ever seen the movie "The Black Legion". It's an old black n white Bogart movie.
I'll give you the short version:

Boggy losses his promotion to a "new American"... This makes him angry against immigrants.  So he joins an anit-immigrant organization called The Black Legion.  To join this group, you have to buy things like the uniform, the gun and other things.  You also have to terrorize these immigrants. Burning their houses, kicking them out of town, beating them up and sometimes even kill them.

About halfway through the movie, it switches to NYC (far away from the town Boggy lives in), where we pick up 3 NYC business men, who head up The Black Legion.  Their main focus is not stopping the immigrants, but the profits from selling The Black Legion their guns, uniforms and everything else.  They are also focused on increasing their numbers, which creates an even higher profit for them.

I see the RNC and the DNC just like these NYC scumbags. They are in cahoots with each other to continue staying in power. It's obvious they don't care about the people they say they represent. It's so obvious, that they can read straight from a "publicly viewed teleprompter" and get away with it.

I just can't stomach being a part of the RNC. To me, they are as bad as the KKK.

----------


## wgadget

Yes, and just think about where people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others on the left (who I'm not as familiar with) would be if there were not "TWO PARTIES."

----------


## tremendoustie

> I'm getting more and more pissed by the day. I live in Ohio. The Republican Party is super thick with good old boys in this state. There is no taking it over. Family legacies carry on the party. To even try to infiltrate it is near impossible. Write-in votes aren't counted here unless the person has registered to be one. Now, Romney is trying to get Johnson off the ticket. Where does this leave me??? Come November, could I really not have anyone to vote for? I'm really at a loss about what to do...
> Right now, the Republicans can kiss my ass. They're trying to create a situation where for the first time in 5 presidential elections I can't vote for anyone I want to! URGH!


I used to live in LA. 

There is a solution to the problem of being stuck in Ohio with an entrenched anti-liberty GOP and too few pro-liberty people to have a voice ...

----------


## tremendoustie

> Well, yeah, but it's "not mentioned" for the sake of "unity."  You know it's the truth.  But when Romney loses, we'll be the scapegoats. 
> 
> I say BRING IT. Let's talk. Let's get all the cheating out in the open and on the airwaves.


I would never vote for Obama, but I do hope Romney loses, for just this reason.

----------


## PointsOfOrder

I left the GoP. Until you can understand what we are fighting (and it is not human) there will never be a change.

How could that be? How could it not be????

----------


## Matt Collins

> Sorry we're not 12 years old.  I am leaving the  GOP because I don't want to be associated with their scumbag brand.


Good thing Ron Paul didn't take that attitude.




> Some  of us no longer care what impact our actions have on the GOP


That's very short sighted. The GOP controls a good portion of  the government. If we are to try and gain the power needed to reshape  our government, then the Republican Party is the most viable vehicle in  front of us at this time.




> all of these  posts are intended to keep liberty candidates within the GOP from losing  support, but just because we may no longer be members of the party  doesn't necessarily mean some of them won't still have that.  I can't  and won't speak for others, but personally I will support anyone  (regardless of party) who can stand having their feet held to the fire  but if they start betraying the ideals of liberty for political gain,  they will get no support from me.


Supporting candidates is great  and is needed, but these candidates must have at minimium a non-hostile  infastructure within which to work. If we don't have liberty people  inside the Republican Party, then the life of these liberty candidates  will be short lived.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm getting more and more pissed by the day. I live in Ohio. The Republican Party is super thick with good old boys in this state. There is no taking it over.


You don't have to take it over, but your goal should be to have enough of a presence that they have to deal with you and can't run right over you.




> To even try to infiltrate it is near impossible.


If you get half of the Ron Paul supporters in your area to show up to a Republican Party election, you can probably get a fair amount of liberty people elected to Republican Party positions. I've done it multiple times where we had a very small minority.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If I leave the Republican party I win.


Not in the long term you don't. Good and viable liberty candidates won't have any internal support without us holding positions within the GOP to stop the neocon wing from railroading their people through.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Running 3rd party this time around doesn't mean we  have to leave the GOP, it's not like there are any more primaries to  vote in. I still think the GOP is the best vehicle to electing our  candidates in 2014 and beyond.





> You can walk and chew gum can't you?   Nobody brought up voting for Romney.  Stay in the republican party and  support our people running down ticket and Johnson or someone else for  POTUS.





> The obvious counterpoint to hazek's argument is that by leaving the GOP to go 3rd party sends _us_  into irrelevance.... but if we're as strong as we think we are, by  doing that we can make sure the GOP never wins a presidential election,  ever again.
> 
> We may never win an election going 3rd party... but if we can make the  GOP lose, time and time again, we definitely wouldn't be  irrelevant





> Romney losing will be a win for us.  At least that's the way I see it. .





> It proves a point.  They can't win without our support.
> 
> If we are successfully recognized for Romney's loss, and guarantee the  GOP never wins another presidential election, I see three scenarios  happening:
> 
> 1) They are more accommodating next time because they want to win
> 2) They won't be more accommodating, will look like idiots again when they lose, and the few who see this come to our camp
> 3) They won't be more accommodating, will look like idiots again when  they lose, and noone will notice, and just continue to lose over, and  over, and over
> 
> 
> ...





> I am perfectly happy with that.  Gore's loss, enabled party by Nadar, paved the way for Obama.  I want to swing hard right, not less left.


Bingo! If McCain and Romney lose, the GOP will be more likely to put up a liberty candidate in 2016, enter a possible Rand Paul Presidency. I am glad to see that so many people here are understanding this concept!

----------


## Matt Collins

> You are fooling yourself to think that you can take down the machine from the inside. They will squash you like a bug, just as what happened at the RNC.  To do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results, is the definition of insanity.


Minnesota, Iowa, and a few other states have just proven you wrong.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I was never in the Republican Party. If a good liberty candidate comes along, I don't care which party they are in, I will back them.


If they don't have any internal support within the GOP, then they won't have a chance in hell of winning. We _MUST_ have good liberty people in positions of power within the GOP if our liberty candidates are going to have a chance to win.

----------


## Carlybee

> Good thing Ron Paul didn't take that attitude.
> 
> That's very short sighted. The GOP controls a good portion of  the government. If we are to try and gain the power needed to reshape  our government, then the Republican Party is the most viable vehicle in  front of us at this time.
> 
> Supporting candidates is great  and is needed, but these candidates must have at minimium a non-hostile  infastructure within which to work. If we don't have liberty people  inside the Republican Party, then the life of these liberty candidates  will be short lived.


Sorry but trying to lay a guilt trip is lame. If nothing ever changes...nothing ever changes...and every single voice of liberty was effectively squashed by the GOP when they decided they will do anything they want to do at anytime to anyone and the media and the judicial system turns a blind eye. The GOP are a bunch of warmongering empire builders controlled by the MIC. For all of the good Ron Paul did, they couldn't even give him a lousy speaking slot at their convention...so unfortunately other than his audit the fed bill and a few others he was still cut off at the knees in the end. If y'all want to schmooze with those kinds of people go for it...I find it intellectually dishonest. We don't know what RP would do if he had it to do over.

----------


## wgadget

STAYING in the GOP is what Matt Collins WANTS us to do...WHY?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Sorry but trying to lay a guilt trip is lame.


I'm not laying a guilt trip. But the facts are the facts. If liberty people do not get involved and stay involved, then the authortarians win. It's really just that simple.




> If nothing ever changes...nothing ever changes...and every single voice of liberty was effectively squashed by the GOP when they decided they will do anything they want to do at anytime to anyone and the media and the judicial system turns a blind eye. The GOP are a bunch of warmongering empire builders controlled by the MIC. For all of the good Ron Paul did, they couldn't even give him a lousy speaking slot at their convention...so unfortunately other than his audit the fed bill and a few others he was still cut off at the knees in the end. If y'all want to schmooze with those kinds of people go for it...I find it intellectually dishonest. We don't know what RP would do if he had it to do over.


We simply didn't have the numbers this time. But if we work harder, we WILL have the numbers next time. Iowa, Minnesota, and a few other state parties are proof of this.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Sorry but trying to lay a guilt trip is lame. If nothing ever changes...nothing ever changes...and every single voice of liberty was effectively squashed by the GOP when they decided they will do anything they want to do at anytime to anyone and the media and the judicial system turns a blind eye. The GOP are a bunch of warmongering empire builders controlled by the MIC. For all of the good Ron Paul did, they couldn't even give him a lousy speaking slot at their convention...so unfortunately other than his audit the fed bill and a few others he was still cut off at the knees in the end. If y'all want to schmooze with those kinds of people go for it...I find it intellectually dishonest. We don't know what RP would do if he had it to do over.


But, he cannot do it over.  None of us can.  We are where we are.  We have had success in using the Republican Party to get liberty candidates elected and many have made tremendous inroads in owning the leadership slots in their states.   If one of our goals is to get our candidates elected, it seems to lack common sense to toss away something that is working.  I suppose it does though, if your goal is something else entirely.

----------


## kathy88

> I'm getting more and more pissed by the day. I live in Ohio. The Republican Party is super thick with good old boys in this state. There is no taking it over. Family legacies carry on the party. To even try to infiltrate it is near impossible. Write-in votes aren't counted here unless the person has registered to be one. Now, Romney is trying to get Johnson off the ticket. Where does this leave me??? Come November, could I really not have anyone to vote for? I'm really at a loss about what to do...
> Right now, the Republicans can kiss my ass. They're trying to create a situation where for the first time in 5 presidential elections I can't vote for anyone I want to! URGH!


I've seen that mentioned, about Rmney trying to get Johnson out. Why? Signatures?

----------


## wgadget

> I've seen that mentioned, about Rmney trying to get Johnson out. Why? Signatures?


Why? So that he can force people to vote for him instead of the Libertarian candidate. Romney is such a damn cheater.

----------


## Eire4RonPaul

Who's talking about leaving the GOP? You can still be a member of the Republican Party and vote Libertarian in November. Hell, you can even be a member of the GOP and Libertarian Party simultaneously - the same as Ron Paul.

----------


## TheTexan

> But, he cannot do it over.  None of us can.  We are where we are.  We have had success in using the Republican Party to get liberty candidates elected and many have made tremendous inroads in owning the leadership slots in their states.   If one of our goals is to get our candidates elected, it seems to lack common sense to toss away something that is working.  I suppose it does though, if your goal is something else entirely.


We aren't a slave to the GOP.  If you keep the mindset that we *must* stay in the GOP at all costs because it is the only way, then we will get nowhere.

I'm not saying we shouldn't stay in the GOP.  But we have to keep our options open.  Otherwise, what's the point?  They'll just keep ignoring us because as long as we're in their party, we're not a threat to them, at all.

But 3rd party... and the ability to play spoiler in every election from this point forward, that's called leverage, and we would be a *fool* not to use it.

----------


## Eire4RonPaul

> We aren't a slave to the GOP.  If you keep the mindset that we *must* stay in the GOP at all costs because it is the only way, then we will get nowhere.
> 
> I'm not saying we shouldn't stay in the GOP.  But we have to keep our options open.  Otherwise, what's the point?  They'll just keep ignoring us because as long as we're in their party, we're not a threat to them, at all.
> 
> But 3rd party... and the ability to play spoiler in every election from this point forward, that's called leverage, and we would be a *fool* not to use it.


LibertyEagle is a GOP religiously motivated hack - yeah....one of *those*.

He/She has demonstrated that he/she is not interested in libertarianism or a free society - only old fashioned in-bred, brain-dead "America, f*ck yeah!" and "f*ck them foreigners" conservatism of the GOP.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> One of these days someone will hopefully explain what one of those _above_ "average" Americans are. I always thought Americans were Americans. Whoda thunkit...
> 
> Gosh, I really hate that language.





> I'll give you hint.  Average Americans reelected George Bush.  Average Americans fell for "hope" and "change".  Average Americans flock to Sarah Palin book signings.  Average Americans aren't very bright.


The way I look at it, less than 20% of the population's brains can even meaningfully process the info we are trying to give them. :/


I am part of the 2% and I find dealing with most people very frustrating...

----------


## amy31416

> STAYING in the GOP is what Matt Collins WANTS us to do...WHY?


Because he thinks he stands to make money and potentially have power/influence. 

Staying with the GOP may be the best course of action for the time being, but the more Collins yaps, the less I want to be part of it. When someone with his sociopathic/narcissistic tendencies starts telling other people what to do, especially given his superficial knowledge on this subject--I certainly don't want to participate. And there's no way in hell that I'll ever donate to any organization that gives him a cent.

----------


## libertygrl

Why are people getting so hung up over this and fighting amongst each other??  Let's be careful here.   I don't want any of us to fall prey to possible outsiders coming in here trying to divide us while we are still emotionally vulnerable over what happened.

 If we can be BOTH (L&R) like Ron Paul why not?  After the stunts the GOP establishment pulled at the RNC,  more people who were sitting on the fence, now see that us Paulbots weren't a bunch of whiners afterall.  They see that these new rules directly affect them as well, and that we were telling the truth about the fraud and corruption on the state level all along.  

We have been waiting for some sort of big PR moment that would propel our movement to reach even more people with the truth and now we have it.   As disgusting and dispicable as the RNC has behaved, their arrogance has exposed them for what they truly are.  They really screwed up big time. We will now have more people on our side.   Their actions were the spark that will begin the cracks in the foundation of the party.  It will be destroyed from within and that's when we should be in position to take over.  

The many grassroots groups will never tolerate this power grab. Let's all just have an open mind here.   Get involved at the state level until - as Ron Paul said, WE BECOME THE TENT.  That means getting elected to local and state committees, adopting resolutions, buttonholding RNC members, etc.  If all else fails THEN we will abandon the party and take the majority of the conservative grassroots with us.  I think at this moment we are still too emotionally wrapped up about what happened and need to chill out and see what transpires from here.   

As for now,  I think we should gather up as many videos and articles about what happened at the RNC and make them go viral. THIS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY.  I have been getting positive feedback from the Tea Party forums I have placed them in.  There were some who actually said they are sick of the party and won't be voting for Romney.  We should be doing this right now while the iron is still hot.  The media certainly won't do it for us.

I personally think we could learn alot by borrowing some stratagies from the establishment's own playbook.   We should ask ourselves, what would they do if our roles were reversed and we were caught in such lies and deceptions?   I believe they would take advantage that our weakness was exposed to the public.  They would make sure this information was constantly played out for more people to see.  I also believe, they would try to divide us and make us turn on each other.   Something to think about....

----------


## kathy88

> Why? So that he can force people to vote for him instead of the Libertarian candidate. Romney is such a damn cheater.


hahah I know WHY, I meant what is the excuse?

----------


## kathy88

> The way I look at it, less than 20% of the population's brains can even meaningfully process the info we are trying to give them. :/
> 
> 
> I am part of the 2% and I find dealing with most people very frustrating...


Could you clarify WHICH 2%? lol

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The obvious counterpoint to hazek's argument is that by leaving the GOP to go 3rd party sends _us_ into irrelevance.... but if we're as strong as we think we are, by doing that we can make sure the GOP never wins a presidential election, ever again.
> 
> We may never win an election going 3rd party... but if we can make the GOP lose, time and time again, we definitely wouldn't be irrelevant


You need to stop making so much sense around here!

----------


## Maltheus

Being a Republican puts up a wall between us and those on the left, who would otherwise be open to parts of our message. Right now, people are too entrenched in partisan games for us to make any headway (not to mention the rules being rigged). The dollar will have to crash before most ever face reality. There's not point in trying to take over the Titantic. Our time is better spent teaching people how to use the lifeboats.

----------


## truthspeaker

> Sorry I just don't agree. I don't really want to debate it because I've read all the reasons for and against a thousand times probably.
> 
> I just don't think you will accomplish enough in taking it over. The math is against you. Mainstream republicans have the overwhelming numbers that they can show up for decades ousting you if they wake up to it. 
> 
> In my opinion, you can keep trying this and in 5-10 years you might get some lukewarm politician that talks libertarian but does not practice it in reality. Something like the Reagan revolution.


They did it with Goldwater. They did it with Reagan.

We ARE this generation's Goldwater. 

(Romney's father supported Goldwater's opponent, Rockefeller afterall. History repeats itself).

----------


## Matt Collins

> Because he thinks he stands to make money and potentially have power/influence.


Not making money, but yes power and influence is what we should all be striving for. If we don't have power, someone else will, and I can assure you those other people don't care about liberty.




> Staying with the GOP may be the best course of action for the time being, but the more Collins yaps, the less I want to be part of it. When someone with his sociopathic/narcissistic tendencies starts telling other people what to do, especially given his superficial knowledge on this subject--I certainly don't want to participate. And there's no way in hell that I'll ever donate to any organization that gives him a cent.


heh that's really sad and lame.

----------


## wgadget

It appears they are even fighting the Libertarians by keeping GJ off if certain key ballots. THAT'S just how smarmy the GOP is. 

Impressive. It almost makes sense to regroup and fight them from the outside. 

I know one thing--If RP were to go Indie somehow, we'd have a rudder.

----------


## amy31416

> Not making money, but yes power and influence is what we should all be striving for. If we don't have power, someone else will, and I can assure you those other people don't care about liberty.
> 
> heh that's really sad and lame.


All you want is money and power...but you're not worthy of it. And there's another lie--you did make money off the campaign.

It's not "sad and lame" to not want to contribute to an incompetent sociopath--that's quite reasonable. Step up your game.

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

> Putting sand into the Republican machine is so much fun why would anyone ever want to stop?  The GOP has given no quarter and they will receive none!  Let us continue to give the neocons fits as they lose the white house back to back to a known Marxist.  If Republican voters want to defeat the liberal Democrats they must offer independent voters more than a liberal Republican.  Eventually the GOP will be forced to improve their product if they want to win the presidency.  Not being Obama is not good enough.  Let us enjoy causing the neocons heartburn and disappointment as they fail to defeat an admitted socialist!


I love your post so much.  Thank you.  You've spoken for me.

To contribute:

Does anyone else here find it as ridiculous as I do that vast swathes of the population voted for Zero, with their rationale being boiled to, essentially, "He is the opposite of Bush," and now, vast swathes of the population representing the _other_ side are are voting for Robamney, with their rationale being boiled down to, essentially, "He is the opposite of Obama!"

And neither group seems to be capable of recognizing that they've been herded like animals into the same behavior?  For Pete's pickles, everyone - this was the DNC's strategy in '08, and it's now the RNC's strategy in '12...and heaven help you if you attempt to explain this to most Republicans.  

Yet it is *we* who are the kooks.  Limbaugh was calling us the *morons* today.  Am I alone in recognizing this as true?  

Screw the Republican party, now and forevermore.  We can not and will not succeed in "changing the party from within," not ever.  We can only defeat it by educating who we're able to educate over the course of many years.  This, in my view, reflects the purpose of the RP movement going forward through the decades.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I love your post so much.  Thank you.  You've spoken for me.
> 
> To contribute:
> 
> Does anyone else here find it as ridiculous as I do that vast swathes of the population voted for Zero, with their rationale being boiled to, essentially, "He is the opposite of Bush," and now, vast swathes of the population representing the _other_ side are are voting for Robamney, with their rationale being boiled down to, essentially, "He is the opposite of Obama!"
> 
> And neither group seems to be capable of recognizing that they've been herded like animals into the same behavior?  For Pete's pickles, everyone - this was the DNC's strategy in '08, and it's now the RNC's strategy in '12...and heaven help you if you attempt to explain this to most Republicans.  
> 
> Yet it is *we* who are the kooks.  Limbaugh was calling us the *morons* today.  Am I alone in recognizing this as true?  
> ...


Those controlling the country applaud you.  They wanted you to quit.  

You were turning heads and changing the conversation and that was causing trouble for us.  Yes, please go back to preaching to the choir, which others like you RP people have been doing for decades on end.  That leaves us free to complete our goals, while you chatter on amongst yourselves.  

Signed:
The establishment

----------


## Bman

> Could you clarify WHICH 2%? lol


+rep

----------


## LibertyEagle

Ron Paul did more educating in his last two runs for President than almost anything anyone has done in this country for a very, very long time.  He also ran for President as a Libertarian, but as far as educating a bunch of people, no, there wasn't much.  Why?  Because very few pay any attention at all to what the Libertarian Party does.  

If you do not have a podium that people pay attention to, then they will not hear what you have to say.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Ron Paul did more educating in his last two runs for President than almost anything anyone has done in this country for a very, very long time.  He also ran for President as a Libertarian, but as far as educating a bunch of people, no, there wasn't much.  Why?  Because very few pay any attention at all to what the Libertarian Party does.  
> 
> If you do not have a podium that people pay attention to, then they will not hear what you have to say.


The people running and getting money from the liberty movement aren't running as Ron Paul Republicans. It's increasingly shifting to Rand Paul Republicans, and those goalposts are significantly narrower than Ron's.

The podium may be important, but more important is the message. You can have the largest podium in the world, but if the message isn't there, what good is it? Perfect example, which speech would wake more people up, Ron's Rally speech or Rand's RNC speech?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The people running and getting money from the liberty movement aren't running as Ron Paul Republicans. It's increasingly shifting to Rand Paul Republicans, and those goalposts are significantly narrower than Ron's.


Who?




> The podium may be important, but more important is the message. You can have the largest podium in the world, but if the message isn't there, what good is it?


I agree the message is the most important thing, but I also realize that some will choose the topics to lead with.  We, on this forum, tend to like the scorched earth approach.  While it may work with us, it doesn't with the majority of others.

I do agree that we should choose our candidates wisely.  Perhaps that means that someone like you should run.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

What did Collins get banned for? Or is he just doing what he did with his Zanzibar puppet account?

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

> Those controlling the country applaud you.  They wanted you to quit.  
> 
> You were turning heads and changing the conversation and that was causing trouble for us.  Yes, please go back to preaching to the choir, which others like you RP people have been doing for decades on end.  That leaves us free to complete our goals, while you chatter on amongst yourselves.  
> 
> Signed:
> The establishment


LibertyEagle, history is a story of fallen kings, dynasties, and empires.  This logic also applies to political parties and schools of thought.  I'm convinced that what we are seeing is the very early stages of the beginning of the end of the dominance of a two-party paradigm in the United States; granted, this process is in its infancy.  I believe this sentiment is shared by many on these very forums.

Is it your position that that should be aborted?

Attempting to co-opt and consume the GOP from within is a strategy more akin to joining any gang of outlaws of old west fame with the intention of exerting a benevolent influence, with the express purpose of getting them to change their ways.  It will always be the good-intentioned interloper conforming to the will of the outlaws - the opposite has never, and will never, be true.

Did you ever wonder why Rand endorsed Robamney?  He believes that he can be the exception to this time-tested adage.  He's wrong.  In time, he will be covered from head to toe in the same $#@! Zero and Robamney are covered in.

This is why our Moms and Dads always taught us not to run with the "bad" kids.  We needed strength of character as children, and we need strength of character as adults.  How many Evangelical Christian kids are in MS-13?  

$#@! both the Republican and Democratic parties with equal vigor and duration.  It's time to focus on the future, and as the future of Liberty in America is clearly not going to be found in the GOP, it's time to cut ties.  

L-I-B-E-R-T-Y is what this is all about, LibertyEagle.  You've been involved with these forums longer than I; cripes, you even have it in your username.  I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

----------


## Suzu

> They pretty much said this to the new precinct delegates at my last county convention.


It's very true in my experience too. But not all of them, just the idiot faction want us to go.

I lost my precinct committee election by a much narrower margin than in '08. The lady who won is one of the few remaining die-hard idiots on the county committee, which we have pretty much taken over. Even though I lost, I've been attending meetings, and seeing the progress we're making. 

At the first meeting, one of the agenda items was to fill any precinct vacancies. After electing liberty-lovers as chairman, vice chairman, secretary and treasurer, four more vacant seats were filled with our people. There are still a few precincts without representation, and we're looking for the right folks for those so they can be elected at the next meeting.

The evening was not without turmoil. Most of the ill will arose from my opponent. Everything the new liberty-loving majority wanted, she argued against, just to be contrary and a pain. She and her friends know they are outnumbered and outdated and unwanted. At one point she said something to the effect of "Why don't all you people just leave the GOP so we can do what the RNC wants us to do." Even her friends looked askance at her for saying that. We are hoping she will get mad enough to resign. It seems likely she will do that, eventually, because she got so upset that she literally *turned green* and almost exploded.

I also attended legislative, senatorial and congressional district meetings, where our people won most of the officer elections - much to the dismay of the old guard.

I hope y'all are doing similar things across the country.

----------


## Suzu

> No, you are wrong. Its true, They don't want us to speak or have any opinions, but they do want us. They want us to shut up and vote for their pick.


You left a letter (r) out of the last word in your post.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LibertyEagle, history is a story of fallen kings, dynasties, and empires.  This logic also applies to political parties and schools of thought.  I'm convinced that what we are seeing is the very early stages of the beginning of the end of the dominance of a two-party paradigm in the United States; granted, this process is in its infancy.


That is what some people thought 40 years ago when they formed the Libertarian Party and others thought 20 years ago when the TaxPayer Party/Constitution Party was formed.  Neither of these have really had any impact at all.  So, all those, mostly Republicans, who left and formed those parties may have felt more pure, but they effectively neutralized themselves and their voices.

Surely, there will be a time for a 3rd party, but it is not yet.  Do you believe we have the time to all but neutralize our voices for the next 10, 20 or more years?  I don't.




> I believe this sentiment is shared by many on these very forums.


Yes, and the vast majority of the neocons believe that we should police the world.  It doesn't make them right.  




> Is it your position that that should be aborted?


The only thing that I see some trying to abort is what Dr. Paul started and some very hardworking patriots implemented in a variety of states around the country.  We now own the GOP political apparatus in Iowa, Minnesota and soon, Maine.  Imagine if we owned over 1/2 of them.  No longer would there be the level of cheating that we saw this go around and we would have a vehicle that we could use even more successfully than we are now, to get more liberty candidates elected.

But, it will take dedication and hard work to do it.  

Did you see when Marianne Stebbins (one of us) was at the RNC announcing the delegates for her state, Minnesota?  She prefaced it by saying Minnesota, where we hold fair and honest elections with integrity?  I am paraphrasing here, but that is close.  All but one of the delegates went to Ron Paul.  The one that we didn't have was a gift to Michele Bachmann.   There is a video of her talking about how they both now own the leadership positions in the GOP AND changed hearts and minds.  They spent the last 4 years working hard, meeting other people in that party in their local communities and getting to know them.  So, it took more than just showing up to vote, or attending a rally.




> Attempting to co-opt and consume the GOP from within is a strategy more akin to joining any gang of outlaws of old west fame with the intention of exerting a benevolent influence, with the express purpose of getting them to change their ways.  It will always be the good-intentioned interloper conforming to the will of the outlaws - the opposite has never, and will never, be true.


No, actually, the Republican Party is whomever is in it.  If we are the prevailing voice, it will be ours.  There used to be many like us, you know.  They were called Goldwater-conservatives.  Why do you think Dr. Paul invites Barry Goldwater, Jr. to speak at so many of his big events?




> Did you ever wonder why Rand endorsed Robamney?  He believes that he can be the exception to this time-tested adage.  He's wrong.  In time, he will be covered from head to toe in the same $#@! Zero and Robamney are covered in.


I know why he endorsed him and that has been covered ad nauseum.




> This is why our Moms and Dads always taught us not to run with the "bad" kids.  We needed strength of character as children, and we need strength of character as adults.  How many Evangelical Christian kids are in MS-13?


Life isn't like that.  You can go to where the battle is being waged or sit in the corner congratulating each other about how pure you are.  Right now, and for the foreseeable future, for those who are interested in getting liberty candidates elected, there are only two choices to do it and those are one of the major parties.  Like it or not.  That is the fact.




> $#@! both the Republican and Democratic parties with equal vigor and duration.  It's time to focus on the future, and as the future of Liberty in America is clearly not going to be found in the GOP, it's time to cut ties.


If you are looking for liberty in a political party, you will never find it.  Liberty must be in your heart.  Political parties are solely for getting the candidates who share your views elected.  

No one is suggesting that you become a corrupted piece of trash, like the establishment currently running the GOP.  As we become the GOP and take over the leadership positions, in our quest to have an expedient vehicle to get our candidates elected, they will be kicked to the curb, anyway. 




> L-I-B-E-R-T-Y is what this is all about, LibertyEagle.  You've been involved with these forums longer than I; cripes, you even have it in your username.  I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.


If you want liberty, it's going to take a lot of hard work.  Do you want it?

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

So many good and thought provoking points, LE.  Will re-read in the morning, and think on your words tonight.  Thanks for your response.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> That is what some people thought 40 years ago when they formed the Libertarian Party and others thought 20 years ago when the TaxPayer Party/Constitution Party was formed.  Neither of these have really had any impact at all.  So, all those, mostly Republicans, who left and formed those parties may have felt more pure, but they effectively neutralized themselves and their voices.
> 
> Surely, there will be a time for a 3rd party, but it is not yet.  Do you believe we have the time to all but neutralize our voices for the next 10, 20 or more years?  I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the vast majority of the neocons believe that we should police the world.  It doesn't make them right.  
> 
> 
> ...


Absolutely brilliant post!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Those controlling the country applaud you.  They wanted you to quit.  
> 
> You were turning heads and changing the conversation and that was causing trouble for us.  Yes, please go back to preaching to the choir, which others like you RP people have been doing for decades on end.  That leaves us free to complete our goals, while you chatter on amongst yourselves.  
> 
> Signed:
> The establishment


Here, frickin here!!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> It's very true in my experience too. But not all of them, just the idiot faction want us to go.
> 
> I lost my precinct committee election by a much narrower margin than in '08. The lady who won is one of the few remaining die-hard idiots on the county committee, which we have pretty much taken over. Even though I lost, I've been attending meetings, and seeing the progress we're making. 
> 
> At the first meeting, one of the agenda items was to fill any precinct vacancies. After electing liberty-lovers as chairman, vice chairman, secretary and treasurer, four more vacant seats were filled with our people. There are still a few precincts without representation, and we're looking for the right folks for those so they can be elected at the next meeting.
> 
> The evening was not without turmoil. Most of the ill will arose from my opponent. Everything the new liberty-loving majority wanted, she argued against, just to be contrary and a pain. She and her friends know they are outnumbered and outdated and unwanted. At one point she said something to the effect of "Why don't all you people just leave the GOP so we can do what the RNC wants us to do." Even her friends looked askance at her for saying that. We are hoping she will get mad enough to resign. It seems likely she will do that, eventually, because she got so upset that she literally *turned green* and almost exploded.
> 
> I also attended legislative, senatorial and congressional district meetings, where our people won most of the officer elections - much to the dismay of the old guard.
> ...


If you're not doing things similar to this in your local area, take a good look in the mirror because you're part of the problem.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Who?
> 
> 
> I agree the message is the most important thing, but I also realize that some will choose the topics to lead with.  We, on this forum, tend to like the scorched earth approach.  While it may work with us, it doesn't with the majority of others.
> 
> I do agree that we should choose our candidates wisely.  Perhaps that means that someone like you should run.


I'd be up against Darrell Issa and his $200 million. If I could scrap together 10k (I think it's 10k to register, at least) I'd run a rabblerousing campaign as a primary challenger, perhaps. Since the democrats frequently don't run anyone against him in general elections, I'd honestly have a chance to make more of an impact as a democrat.

----------


## Romer

Now, after they changed party rules, they don't give a f... you stay or leave the party.

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

I really kicked over a hornet's nest last night in this thread, and I'm glad I did, precisely because folks like LibertyEagle constantly force me to challenge my own ideas. I love this place!  While I remain in respectful disagreement - I believe the time has come for the GOP to become marginalized, and for the liberty movement to abandon it - I do recognize that LE's response to my above post illustrates the best way through the next few election cycles.  To remain viable, our movement may well find its best chance of success within the GOP apparatus.  

At the same time, it remains the more likely outcome that it is we ourselves, the liberty movement proper, that will change, rather than be the initiator of change within the GOP.  They have proven time and time again that we are not wanted in that group, and we should only accept a handful of kicks in the teeth, rather than the several, before this point sinks into our heads.  It is we who will be corrupted, not they who will be made to come around to our way of thinking.

If we can flood the ranks, as I take your meaning to be, my point is moot.  And that's a noble goal that I, and anyone here, can support.

----------


## hrdman2luv



----------


## Maltheus

> Now, after they changed party rules, they don't give a f... you stay or leave the party.


Yep. And also, why should we care what they want? The GOP is a dying party, Let them die. How are we supposed to draw more people into the movement, without an inspiration figure like Ron Paul? He was the only reason most of us got in, in the first place. But we don't have the numbers at the peak of his involvement, and the neo and social-cons, outnumber us 6-1.

The day we "take over" the GOP is the day that 3rd parties become viable in this country. They'll reform, under something new. We'll have wasted all of our political energy on resuscitating a corpse, tainting our name in the process. The best we can do, at this point, are ballot initiatives and education.

----------


## aclove

I have long believed that our goal should be to either take over the GOP or provoke it into destroying itself.  There can be no other option.  We do not have the numbers yet to destroy it by leaving, and as such, that simply leaves it to the Straussians, who use it for destructive ends.  

If we stay involved, we either take over, one state at a time, or we provoke the bad guys into de-legitimizing themselves and losing enough support that the party is no longer dangerous.  It may very well come to that, and we may very well have seen the first steps in that direction at the RNC last week.  But there still aren't enough people aware enough to realize how far the RNC powerbrokers are willing to go to maintain control.  To get to that point, we have to keep fighting them, either defeating them through superior numbers, or forcing them to use tactics so dirty and obvious that people abandon them in droves.

----------


## Tod

see sig below.

----------


## TrishW

Why can't we have it all?    Why not vote for liberty and get into politics promoting liberty... wherever and whenever you can. We need the world to change, and waiting on it, isn't going to get anything done. I say.. Find a way in, infect all of government with the liberty bug.

----------


## fr33

Everyone should read these:
http://www.texasgopvote.com/knowledg...ll-king-004561

http://www.conservative-usa.com/2012...kill-the-king/

Opinions from some of the opposition...

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Everyone should read these:
> http://www.texasgopvote.com/knowledg...ll-king-004561
> 
> http://www.conservative-usa.com/2012...kill-the-king/
> 
> Opinions from some of the opposition...





> Several months ago, as the Ron Paul campaigns strategy to win the Republican nomination by stacking the various state delegations with their own supporters began to roll out, I made the observation in a post that I believed this strategy to be an unwise idea. As I said at the time: it would not work, was doomed to failure and would invite blow-back from the GOP which would only serve to isolate what I considered then (and still consider) to be an important, vital and desirable faction of the party.
> 
> *No organization, be it a political party, a social club or a public corporation, would tolerate a move by a minority to subvert the will of the majority.* The annals of corporate lore are filled with attempts by minority shareholders to remove boards of directors and replace them with members more to their liking. Such efforts generally end in failure and the result is often a minority with even less influence than before.


Yeps, I wrote the same thing here. 

What people need to do is to make up their mind about working within a major party. And then stay with it. You can't be part of a party in one day, then have fantasies about destroying the same party the other day because you're unhappy with the outcome of a primary then still expect to be taken seriously the next day.

Many here have a fundamental inability to understand what politics is about. If you keep treating the rest of the GOP as enemies, the rest of the GOP will eventually reciprocate. 

Politics is about persuasion, not "conquering" and the war related metaphors that fancy so many here. The first truth of political action: * if people think you dont like them, nothing else matters.* They wont vote for you  even if that means voting for someone with whom they disagree even more.

----------


## TrishW

DeMintConservative... So your suggestion is we fake it?   We pretend that we support all the things we do not? We pretend as though we support all the candidates we do not?  In order to achieve the goal you set out for us, isn't that exactly what we would have to do? Aren't there enough fake people in politics already?

----------


## DeMintConservative

> DeMintConservative... So your suggestion is we fake it?   We pretend that we support all the things we do not? We pretend as though we support all the candidate we do not?  In order to achieve the goal you set out for us, isn't that exactly what we would have to do?


Why do you need to pretend anything? I'm not following. 

If you hate the GOP as so many here - who would want to "destroy it" and who prefer to vote for Obama, etc -, if you can't see politics as the art of possible (and often a very painful one), then simply stay out of it. Why would any mentally sane person belong to a party they hate? Nobody is forced to be in one of the major political parties; I reckon it's a very taxing activity. 

What I'm saying is very simple: politics is not about antagonizing people. If you want to "change the GOP" and "conquer the GOP" you'll never do that by treating 90% of the GOP as enemies. This seems awfully simple to understand to me.

----------


## Pawn3d

We're taking over and getting our own people elected. Why would we leave?

----------


## TrishW

> Why do you need to pretend anything? I'm not following. 
> 
> If you hate the GOP as so many here - who would want to "destroy it" and who prefer to vote for Obama, etc -, if you can't see politics as the art of possible (and often a very painful one), then simply stay out of it. Why would any mentally sane person belong to a party they hate? Nobody is forced to be in one of the major political parties; I reckon it's a very taxing activity. 
> 
> What I'm saying is very simple: politics is not about antagonizing people. If you want to "change the GOP" and "conquer the GOP" you'll never do that by treating 90% of the GOP as enemies. This seems awfully simple to understand to me.


Do you think that Ron Paul likes the goals and current stand of the Republican Party?  Do you think that Ron Paul played along?  I would rather see thousands, and thousands, of "Ron Pauls" within the Republican Party... than our people giving up their principles to get along.

So if I am crazy, I have some pretty good company.

BTW.. I do not hate, I disagree. Hate is a very strong word.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> What I'm saying is very simple: politics is not about antagonizing people. If you want to "change the GOP" and "conquer the GOP" you'll never do that by treating 90% of the GOP as enemies. This seems awfully simple to understand to me.


Pretty much agree. We need to coalition build whenever possible and that means constantly discussing the issues which Paul folk are supposed to be good at. Plus, issues are what most grassroots activists of all stripes are interested in and if we can show commonality across many fronts, people are more likely to "like" you and stand beside you when votes are taken at county and state conventions. Same works for when trying to educate voters and/or get them to vote for the people you're advocating.

----------


## DeMintConservative

Exactly. Stressing commonality is very important.

Ron Paul's ceiling was always limited because he was obsessed with focusing on the things separating him from the rest of the GOP while rarely stressing the areas of agreement. 

Rand Paul is doing the exact opposite and that's why he can become  a credible national candidate.

----------


## Todd

> We now own the GOP political apparatus in Iowa, Minnesota and soon, Maine. Imagine if we owned over 1/2 of them


Yep.  Imagining it is becoming much easier.

----------


## BringBackLiberty

Stay in the GOP. Keep supporting the Liberty movement. Don't vote for Mitt Romney (I feel it would be a step backwards, however that's just my opinion). That makes the most sense to me. Leaving the GOP or expressing contempt toward the party in general would eat away at the progress we've made. Just keep taking over little by little and use the recent events as fuel to keep on going.

----------


## July

> Exactly. Stressing commonality is very important.
> 
> Ron Paul's ceiling was always limited because he was obsessed with focusing on the things separating him from the rest of the GOP while rarely stressing the areas of agreement. 
> 
> Rand Paul is doing the exact opposite and that's why he can become  a credible national candidate.


Well, even Ron Paul, in areas where he could not find agreement, still reached back to find past Republican examples of those who did share his views, when he could. So I would say not even Ron Paul himself has taken such an extreme antagonistic stance. He told the ugly truth and did not waver from unpopular views...and Rand certianly has a lighter touch...but even still, Ron didn't talk about "destroying" the party either...but rather bringing it back to earlier values, restoring it, etc. So a hateful or vindictive tone is not really Ron's style either. The media made it appear that way, often, because he was frequently put on the defensive in debates, with only a very small amount of time to explain himself, and a lot of nasty articles have been written in the press. But when you listen to a full length speech, you can see that he is not really that angry or unforgiving. 

At any rate, I think that some people are maybe confusing their hatred of the establishment with average rank and file republicans. I don't think all republicans deserve the blame for the actions of what is really a very small minority of corrupt individuals, who happen to be in control. Those same people will simply remain in control, unopposed, if we can't learn to build peaceful coalitions on issues we can agree on.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Exactly. Stressing commonality is very important.


I agree that it is most effective to lead with what you have in common, yes.




> Ron Paul's ceiling was always limited because he was obsessed with focusing on the things separating him from the rest of the GOP while rarely stressing the areas of agreement.


I hope you are not implying that those principles that all real conservatives used to believe, be somehow buried and never mentioned.  Because that will not be happening, nor should it.  

You talk about the GOP like it is some kind of singular-mind monolith and it NEVER has been.  There were big government Rockefeller-Republicans, who had much more in common with their leftist brethren, than the Goldwater-conservatives who also existed in the Republican Party.  When the Trotskyites entered the Republican Party under the name of neoconservatives, during Reagan's run, the Rockefeller-Republicans had some new big government buddies; although they differed on a few issues.  The Goldwater-conservatives were overrun by a bunch of big government Republicans from 2 camps who, after Reagan, ALL called themselves conservatives.  Eventually, the "neo" was dropped and the takeover of the conservative movement as it existed, was complete.

Some of the Goldwater-conservatives left the Republican Party in disgust, others were propagandized by the likes of FOX news and some just wondered what the hell had happened. 

Ron Paul DID wake up some of those real conservatives.  It had been so long since they had heard anyone talk like that.  I had friends who told me, wow, I remember that.  Still others could not hear him and that is my hope for Rand; that he will be able to break through the wall in their minds that years of propaganda has built.

So yes, I believe in persuasion, as you suggest.  Because it is usually the most effective way of winning people over.  But, I also am not so naive to believe that we will win everyone over, because some have never believed in limited government and individual liberty.  The good thing is, we don't need to win everyone over.




> Rand Paul is doing the exact opposite and that's why he can become  a credible national candidate.


Rand is leading with the issues that most Republicans like for a reason.  It brings down walls in peoples' minds.  But, while he is doing that, he is also slowly chinking away at the sacred cows that the neoconservatives built and will continue to do so until they no longer exist.

But, I have this to say about your use of the word, "credible".   While Ron Paul will likely never become President, his two runs opened the eyes of so very many and it is those people and the remnant that Dr. Paul talked of so often, who have scared the ever-lovin' beejeezus out of the establishment insiders who are taking our country down.  So, say what you will about Ron Paul, but we wouldn't be here talking today, if he had not done what he did.

----------


## Ender

> I agree that it is most effective to lead with what you have in common, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are not implying that those principles that all real conservatives used to believe, be somehow buried and never mentioned.  Because that will not be happening, nor should it.  
> 
> You talk about the GOP like it is some kind of singular-mind monolith and it NEVER has been.  There were big government Rockefeller-Republicans, who had much more in common with their leftist brethren, than the Goldwater-conservatives who also existed in the Republican Party.  When the Trotskyites entered the Republican Party under the name of neoconservatives, during Reagan's run, the Rockefeller-Republicans had some new big government buddies; although they differed on a few issues.  The Goldwater-conservatives were overrun by a bunch of big government Republicans from 2 camps who, after Reagan, ALL called themselves conservatives.  Eventually, the "neo" was dropped and the takeover of the conservative movement as it existed, was complete.
> 
> Some of the Goldwater-conservatives left the Republican Party in disgust, others were propagandized by the likes of FOX news and some just wondered what the hell had happened. 
> ...


+1000!

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

> Everyone should read these:
> http://www.texasgopvote.com/knowledg...ll-king-004561
> 
> http://www.conservative-usa.com/2012...kill-the-king/
> 
> Opinions from some of the opposition...


After having read the information in these links, I'm more convinced that abandoning the GOP is the right way forward.  They are concerned only with power, the proliferation of power, and the use of power in American politics.  It's liberty that we're concerned with.  

I'd say we are diametrically opposed at this point, we and the GOP.  I think we should be proud of that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

As I wrote that, I am even more convinced that we need to find a way to get a friendly TV network.  Surely, there is some way to get Peter Thiel, Jim Rogers, or someone with deep pockets to start such a network.

----------


## twomp

> Many here have a fundamental inability to understand what politics is about. If you keep treating the rest of the GOP as enemies, the rest of the GOP will eventually reciprocate.


Say what you want but your party is dying. In the coming years, more people will register independent, team red and team blue will slowly lose people. The only difference is there are young people in team blue. The GOP is filled with old people hanging on to their pictures of Regan and dreaming of the glory days. The majority of young Republicans are supporters of Dr. Ron Paul. Go back and look through the primary elections as proof of this.

YOU NEED US MORE THAN WE NEED YOU! The Establishment may have control now but we don't need to play nice. It is YOU GUYS and your group of Grand Old Corrupt Politicians that needs to be nice to us. I will enjoy watching your party slowly die off.

----------


## DeMintConservative

The idea that I needed Ron Paul to educate me on what being a conservative means is insulting and doesn't do anything to persuade me: quite the opposite. Or that "real conservatives" and "Goldwater conservatives" are those who agree with Ron Paul on everything (I disagree, especially on foreign policy and money creation, areas in which Ron Paul ideas can be more aptly described as "Rothbardian libertarians" than as "conservative", Goldwater or any other brand). 




> Well, even Ron Paul, in areas where he could not find agreement, still reached back to find past Republican examples of those who did share his views, when he could. So I would say not even Ron Paul himself has taken such an extreme antagonistic stance. He told the ugly truth and did not waver from unpopular views...and Rand certianly has a lighter touch...but even still, Ron didn't talk about "destroying" the party either...but rather bringing it back to earlier values, restoring it, etc. So a hateful or vindictive tone is not really Ron's style either. The media made it appear that way, often, because he was frequently put on the defensive in debates, with only a very small amount of time to explain himself, and a lot of nasty articles have been written in the press. But when you listen to a full length speech, you can see that he is not really that angry or unforgiving. 
> 
> At any rate, I think that some people are maybe confusing their hatred of the establishment with average rank and file republicans. I don't think all republicans deserve the blame for the actions of what is really a very small minority of corrupt individuals, who happen to be in control. Those same people will simply remain in control, unopposed, if we can't learn to build peaceful coalitions on issues we can agree on.


I wasn't thinking about the tone. Rather that he'd emphasize what separates him from the rest of the GOP over the common grounds. 

For a good reference, check the criticism to Rand's RNC speech coming from some people who think he should use the speech to hammer the national security and foreign policy issues.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Say what you want but your party is dying. In the coming years, more people will register independent, team red and team blue will slowly lose people. The only difference is there are young people in team blue. The GOP is filled with old people hanging on to their pictures of Regan and dreaming of the glory days. The majority of young Republicans are supporters of Dr. Ron Paul. Go back and look through the primary elections as proof of this.
> 
> YOU NEED US MORE THAN WE NEED YOU! The Establishment may have control now but we don't need to play nice. It is YOU GUYS and your group of Grand Old Corrupt Politicians that needs to be nice to us. I will enjoy watching your party slowly die off.


Be careful describing everyone in one fell swoop.  Republicans don't all agree with each other.  Or didn't you notice all those gray-haired individuals who were wearing Ron Paul shirts at the Iowa Straw Poll, for just one example.  

Don't forget the remnant.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> You talk about the GOP like it is some kind of singular-mind monolith and it NEVER has been.


I certainly don't do that. It's because I'm fully aware the of the opposite - that in a 2 party system, both parties will necessarily be big tents that appeal to a whole range of ideological niches - that I find the thesis that making political coalitions is somehow compromising your principles as fundamentally silly.

----------


## TrishW

2011 40% of voters identified as Independents.  It is said, this year the election will be decided by the Independents.  

They needed us, and yet, they threw us out.

----------


## twomp

> Be careful describing everyone in one fell swoop.  Republicans don't all agree with each other.  Or didn't you notice all those gray-haired individuals who were wearing Ron Paul shirts at the Iowa Straw Poll, for just one example.  
> 
> Don't forget the remnant.


LOL my bad LE. I meant the neo-cons and their group of old followers. Not the ENTIRE Republican population... you know what I mean... I think...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The idea that I needed Ron Paul to educate me on what being a conservative means is insulting and doesn't do anything to persuade me: quite the opposite.


A little touchy, aren't you?  Not everyone had to be educated.  Some never forgot.  




> Or that "real conservatives" and "Goldwater conservatives" are those who agree with Ron Paul on everything (I disagree, especially on foreign policy and


No one said "everything"?  Regarding foreign policy, I hate to tell you, but the foreign policy that is espoused by many Republican leaders today was taken from the leftist Woodrow Wilson.  Surely, you are not implying that is conservative, are you?




> money creation, areas in which Ron Paul ideas can be more aptly described as "Rothbardian libertarians" than


Sure, you may have agreed with someone more like Friedman, but I never met a traditional conservative who knew anything about economics at all, who thought Keynesian economics was a good idea. 




> as "conservative", Goldwater or any other brand).


Perhaps you should tell that to Barry Goldwater, Jr., who has supported Ron Paul for years.  

Or, perhaps you are speaking of conservatism after it was re-branded by the Trotskyites.  Because they would probably agree with you.




> I wasn't thinking about the tone. Rather that he'd emphasize what separates him from the rest of the GOP over the common grounds. 
> 
> For a good reference, check the criticism to Rand's RNC speech coming from some people who think he should use the speech to hammer the national security and foreign policy issues.


I think Rand's speech was perfect.  Some others prefer the scorched earth approach and  I don't think it will be effective with that part of the GOP we are trying to get through to.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> 2011 40% of voters identified as Independents.  It is said, this year the election will be decided by the Independents.  
> 
> They needed us, and yet, they threw us out.


That sounds a bit illogical on a first impression. Are you an independent or a republican? 

Who threw you out? 

I think many of here have this notion that if people don't agree with you on everything and don't support Ron Paul then they're throwing you out and are your active enemies. That people who decide to support Romney or someone else over Ron Paul are throwing you out.

It's your prerogative to believe in that. But in that case, I'd venture a major party isn't the proper place for you to pursue your political activity.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LOL my bad LE. I meant the neo-cons and their group of old followers. Not the ENTIRE Republican population... you know what I mean... I think...


A lot of those "old followers" can be won over.  Many are good people and have just been propagandized by the likes of FOX news and talk radio.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Some others prefer the scorched earth approach and  I don't think it will be effective with that part of the GOP we are trying to get through to.


No, it won't. It's perceived as being from the left as we've all seen throughout debates and commentators' reactions to the public. Overloading people doesn't work, but speaking to their issues endears one to them and then they're more open for further recommendations of thought and more trusting of you. Some think unless we're poking in the eye that we're compromising the principles. We don't have to be a rolling billboard for every libertarian issue there is, reminds me of those who load up 15 stickers on the rear of their car expecting the public to grasp and appreciate every concept they're trying to get across. Less is more in many instances and prevents attention spans from bursting.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Where did I say "everything"? Regarding foreign policy, I hate to tell you, but the foreign policy that is espoused by many Republican leaders today was taken from the leftist Woodrow Wilson.  Surely, you are not implying that is conservative, are you?


No, but that isn't really a good argument. Policies aren't conservative or not conservative because of those who supported them. I find that Wilsonian interventionist as un-conservative as Rothbard/Paul non-interventionism. 




> Sure, you may have agreed with someone more like Friedman, but I never met a traditional conservative who knew anything about economics at all, who thought Keynesian economics was a good idea.


Agreed. But most conservatives don't side with Rothbard on money creation and fractional reserve banking. Not even most Austrian ecomomics supporters: I'd venture a majority, or at least a very sizeable chunk, sides with Hayek. 





> Perhaps you should tell that to Barry Goldwater, Jr., who has supported Ron Paul for years.


What kind of argument is that? Goldwater daughter has supported Obama and progressive democrats for years. Is that to be taken seriously?




> Or, perhaps you are speaking of conservatism after it was re-branded by the Trotskyites.  Because they would probably agree with you.


I have little patience for Lew Rockwell's obessions. But what's the difference between Goldwater's positions on foreign policy and of those neoconservatives?

If anything, Goldwater was much more of an extremist. 

Personally I believe conservatives shouldn't have ideological views on foreign policy. I think Ron Paul and those interventionist neocon are much closer to each other than they'd like to believe. They share the same underground. I'm somewhere else.




> I think Rand's speech was perfect.  Some others prefer the scorched earth approach and  I don't think it will be effective with that part of the GOP we are trying to get through to.´


I agree with that.

----------


## July

> The idea that I needed Ron Paul to educate me on what being a conservative means is insulting and doesn't do anything to persuade me: quite the opposite. Or that "real conservatives" and "Goldwater conservatives" are those who agree with Ron Paul on everything (I disagree, especially on foreign policy and money creation, areas in which Ron Paul ideas can be more aptly described as "Rothbardian libertarians" than as "conservative", Goldwater or any other brand). 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't thinking about the tone. Rather that he'd emphasize what separates him from the rest of the GOP over the common grounds. 
> 
> For a good reference, check the criticism to Rand's RNC speech coming from some people who think he should use the speech to hammer the national security and foreign policy issues.


Rand did mention national security and foreign policy in his speech--which was well received--so I'm not sure why some are so critical of him for that. I didn't feel he needed to hammer it any harder than he did, and I was pleased with the balance he struck. I like Rand a lot. 

You are right that people can sometimes feel insulted when others come on too strong, and I try to be more mindful of that. Respect begets respect. I think the golden rule and turning the other cheek is a good example to set, even while we may not feel we are being treated fairly. It will pay off more on the long run to practice forgiveness.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, but that isn't really a good argument. Policies aren't conservative or not conservative because of those who supported them. I find that Wilsonian interventionist as un-conservative as Rothbard/Paul non-interventionism.


I judge conservatism by principles.    

Since you do not agree with non-interventionism, nor interventionism, please explain what you do believe.




> Agreed. But most conservatives don't side with Rothbard on money creation and fractional reserve banking. Not even most Austrian ecomomics supporters: I'd venture a majority, or at least a very sizeable chunk, sides with Hayek.


Ok.  That's fair.




> What kind of argument is that? Goldwater daughter has supported Obama and progressive democrats for years. Is that to be taken seriously?


Ha ha.  Good point.  But, his son had common beliefs; his daughter did not.  Regardless, Ron Paul's principles and Goldwater's aren't very far apart at all.




> I have little patience for Lew Rockwell's obessions.


I'm actually not a huge fan, either.  Don't get me wrong, I think he is a very good man, but I don't ascribe to anarcho-capitalism.




> But what's the difference between Goldwater's positions on foreign policy and of those neoconservatives?
> 
> If anything, Goldwater was much more of an extremist.


Hardly.  He was interventionist as far as Communism goes, it's true.  But, I never heard him advocate policing the world or empire-building.  




> Personally I believe conservatives shouldn't have ideological views on foreign policy.


Oh, I do.  Absolutely.




> I think Ron Paul and those interventionist neocon are much closer to each other than they'd like to believe. They share the same underground. I'm somewhere else.


Pray tell, what in the heck are you talking about?




> I agree with that.

----------


## LBennett76

Okay so the RP people I know should go try to take it over in our county according to Matt Collins...... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! 
SO this single mom who works part time as a medical assistant, a few pizza delivery guys, a bag boy at the grocery store, and some other odds and ends are going to go into the Belmont County GOP and drive out Jim Carnes, his son, his brother-in-law, his nephew (a local preacher and head of several organizations like Kiwana's who was a Young Republican when he like 10), etc. etc. etc. who've all been involved forever. LOL His wife is the head of the Board of Elections. The Treasurer is the wife of a prominent local judge. Heck looking at the list, there's a lot of wives of judges, lawyers, and politicians. None of them are going anywhere. No one would ever vote for the lowly non-country club likes of us into any position at all. Ron Paul got 309 votes, 2400 less than Santorum who took 52% of the vote in my county. Sadly, there is no taking it over. We don't have the numbers or credentials to overpower them.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> I judge conservatism by principles.    
> 
> Since you do not agree with non-interventionism, nor interventionism, please explain what you do believe.
> 
> 
> Ok.  That's fair.
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Good point.  But, his son had common beliefs; his daughter did not.  Regardless, Ron Paul's principles and Goldwater's aren't very far apart at all.
> ...


I don't view conservatism as an ideological philosophy of government, that lends itself to axiomatic explanation or abstract reasoning. It's significant that Burke's "Reflections on the French Revolution" are so different from Marx's Manifesto or Rawls' Theory of Justice. It's a reaction to a concrete event happening in a concrete, discrete, place and time; not a systematic exposition of ideas and prepositions to be universally applied to the political questions. 

I think that in foreign policy is the area in which these tenets of conservatism as a hostile attitude towards theoretical reasoning and ideological prescription shines more obviously. I see this entire dichotomy between interventionism and non-interventionism as a bogus modern creation with no attachment to a foreign policy guided by a conservative mind. Each side implies that there's some sort of rationally deduced first principles that can be codified in some abstract principles upholding some sort of logical consistency. In my view, circumstances trump all that; and at the core of a conservative foreign policy is careful judgement guided by necessity of protecting Americans from foreign aggression, not doctrine. 

The idea that the consistent exercise of doctrine of non-interventionism will lead to some sort of perpetual peace (see Ron Paul's remarks on how 9/11 wouldn't happen if people had followed his advice) sounds just as bizarre to me as the idea that international crusadeism will yield the same results (democracies don't wage war against it each other, etc). Rothbard always believed in the theory that any attack on America was a blowback from some previous American interventionist aggression - this doesn't sound any less metaphysically mad than the idea America has some sort of identity, vocational, active duty, a pathos, to spread her republican principles, the seed of Liberty, around the world or emancipating the slavish part of the world (although I do agree that ethos exists inertly - as Madison and Washington did).  

Washington said in his Farewell that "if we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected;* when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel*."

I think this choice is strictly one of prudential judgement that shouldn't be constrained by any sort of preconceived principles except the necessity of national security, survival and self-preservation . Sometimes war is necessary - even preemptive military action, even military alliances in time of peace (I reckon none of these remedies would be necessary with the military technology of past centuries) and it should be waged. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's wise to settle for something in the middle. Unfortunately there is no abstract prescription to guide use effectively in this type of decision. As Burke said "circumstances are infinite and infinitely combined; transient and variable" so "the science of constructing a commonwealth ... is not to be taught a priori".

(ps. not sure this is the right subforum to have this conversation, at least my side of it  - and it seems it's the only remaining point of contention. Maybe we should move it to some other thread? If a mod wants to delete this post and put it somewhere else, feel free).

----------


## July

> I think this choice is strictly one of prudential judgement that shouldn't be constrained by any sort of preconceived principles except the necessity of national security, survival and self-preservation .


I don't think this line of thought is wholly incompatible with a constitutional foreign policy, or with the Non Aggression Principle that many libertarians follow. The NAP, in contrast to pacifism, does not preclude self defense for survival and self preservation. 




> Unfortunately there is no abstract prescription to guide use effectively in this type of decision.


I think it is true to say that every situation is different, and there may be different circumstances when it comes to national security. Which is why I think it's so important to emphasize the need for a declaration of war. It clarifies who we are at war with, who the enemy is, what the mission is, what the goals are, etc. I think when a lot of Paul supporters come on so strongly about this issue, it is perhaps reactionism to neoconservatives, to whom aggression and preemption seems to always be the answer to every conflict and circumstance. We perceive that we are entering conflicts that are not necessarily in our best national security interest and/or do not pose a real threat--without an end in sight. And the economic consequences of this policy can be seen, as well, including the socialization of a large sector of the economy. It's not that we never defend ourselves. It's that we should not go to war lightly, and there should be some kind of discussion and debate. We should go to war for national security and defense, not nation or empire building.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> I don't think this line of thought is wholly incompatible with a constitutional foreign policy, or with the Non Aggression Principle that many libertarians follow. The NAP, in contrast to pacifism, does not preclude self defense for survival and self preservation.


There are so many interpretations of the NAP - different people conclude diverse consequences of it. 

The problem with a strict adherence to the NAP is that, in the modern age, national security can be jeopardized even before any sort of tangible aggression takes place. Hence conservative statesmen ought to act as watchdogs of their countries security in time of peace. Which often leads to scenarios under which is necessary to achieve some sort of reasonable conflict resolution among all competing values. Many libertarians see liberty as an overriding value while in my view, a conservative foreign policy abides to the understanding that any value can be relativized  by circumstances. 

Say, the establishment of military bases abroad or even the nurturing of military alliances strictus sensus. While doctrinaire Rothbard libertarians have a fundamental opposition to them, I'd say a conservative would not be opposed to their existence in principle - I personally believe they're necessary, while it's certainly open to discussion if we need so many. Of course, a 18th century conservative would see things differently - I wouldn't care about military bases abroad if the technology was that of 100 years ago. Maybe they'll become unnecessary again in the future as military technology keeps developing.

So, I think that in foreign affairs it's necessary to weight the long-term consequences of inaction if you're strictly adhering to the principle that you should remain inactive until someone directly attacks you. 




> I think it is true to say that every situation is different, and there may be different circumstances when it comes to national security. Which is why I think it's so important to emphasize the need for a declaration of war. It clarifies who we are at war with, who the enemy is, what the mission is, what the goals are, etc. I think when a lot of Paul supporters come on so strongly about this issue, it is perhaps reactionism to neoconservatives, to whom aggression and preemption seems to always be the answer to every conflict and circumstance. We perceive that we are entering conflicts that are not necessarily in our best national security interest and/or do not pose a real threat--without an end in sight. And the economic consequences of this policy can be seen, as well, including the socialization of a large sector of the economy. It's not that we never defend ourselves. It's that we should not go to war lightly, and there should be some kind of discussion and debate. *We should go to war for national security and defense, not nation or empire building.*


I agree with most of that, especially the bolded sentence. 

I think many wrongly identify neoconservatism with foreign affairs interventionism when in fact the first generation of neoconservatives didn't care much about foreign policy and were much more worried with domestic issues but that's pretty much settled political terminology. 

I agree that war is often the biggest facilitator of government growth and expansion. One of the many terrible, evil, consequences of an undesirable entreprise. Sadly we live in a world of men, not angels, so often the best course of action is a very undesirable one.

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

My my, this has evolved into a lively debate, has it not?  

Both sides of the prevailing argument of this thread (stay with the GOP, leave the GOP) are, in my view, working in the same direction with the same goal.  There's going to be a lot of this type of discussion here over the coming weeks.  This is a good thing - especially considering we are all friends here.

Just think of the discussions and arguments there will be over at the Freepers and throughout the halls of power within the GOP when they lose in November...yeah, I don't believe Robamney will win.  God help us under Zero's second term...

----------


## fr33

> My my, this has evolved into a lively debate, has it not?  
> 
> Both sides of the prevailing argument of this thread (stay with the GOP, leave the GOP) are, in my view, working in the same direction with the same goal.  There's going to be a lot of this type of discussion here over the coming weeks.  This is a good thing - especially considering we are all friends here.
> 
> Just think of the discussions and arguments there will be over at the Freepers and throughout the halls of power within the GOP when they lose in November...yeah, I don't believe Robamney will win.  God help us under Zero's second term...


I quite enjoy reading the Freepers talk bad about Romney. They hate him as much as we do.

----------

