An open letter: 10 ways for Ron Paul to get many more progressives on board

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul will not get the nomination without a massive influx of progressive voters.

Incorrect. Witness KY 2010.

 

[progressiveforpaul]

You are exactly right. Progressives need a motivation if they are going to change parties. Ron Paul needs to give us the details of his transitional plan. His first term ought to exclude cuts from domestic spending except as progressives want to rearrange how the money is spent. I think he can get at least 700 billion a year in defense, security, war and empire spending each year. That's at least 2.8 trillion over 4 years. Let us progressives have 800 billion during that 4 years along with the current domestic spending levels. By 2016 the economy will be roaring and unemployment will be diving on its way to 3-4%. The net increase in jobs adds another 500 billion to pay the debt down further. You guys will claim credit because you cut spending by 2 trillion and increased revenue by half a trillion thus reducing our debt by 2.5 trillion over what it is projected to be. We will claim credit because we invest 800 billion into a new green economy. We go our separate ways at the polls in 2016 and see what the rest of America thinks. I think you take this deal, you guys win in 2016 and then you go hacking away at social programs and other domestic spending and we win in 2020. By that time, neo cons are history. Cultural conservatives form their own third party and we have a new America. Who knows you guys might be right and we progressives disappear along with the neo cons in in 2020. What is not to like about this strategy? Are libertarians scared to succeed? Do you think any thing changes if we do not form this temporary coalition? Really...that's the bottom line. Ron Paul needs progressives to win the primary and then to win the general election. Without us he gets maybe 10% of the delegates in the GOP primaries. With enough progressives in Iowa, New Hampshire and SC jumping ship to vote for him, we have real revolution in American politics. And all it costs is you pinching your nose for 4 years while President Paul says, "I do not like this, but a deal is a deal." I think he makes that deal and we are spared from a Romney or Obama corporate drift toward fascism.

I disagree with the last point because I think the progressives are like us in activism and more likely IF they felt it important, to actually change registration and vote in a primary. But Ron won't promise what he can't deliver. I agree he should detail what HIS view of his transition plan is better so people can envision it, given that during his term, he wouldn't be able to get beyond that and would take our support in electing like minded people and badgering reps who aren't like minded to even get that through.

 

[progressiveforpaul]

KY was a small state without an incumbent. That strategy cannot be duplicated nationally.

Incorrect. Witness KY 2010.

 

[Pillowpants]

Ask not what Ron Paul can do for you, but what you can do for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been saying the same things and fighting for the same things for more than 30 years. That's why we like him. He isn't going to change his views now just to cater to progressives. And you shouldn't want him to! You already have a president that told you everything you wanted to hear, and he obviously isn't following through on it, so why would you want another? With Ron Paul, you take what you like about his views, weigh it against what you don't like, and act accordingly knowing damn well that he's going to follow through on everything he says to the best of his ability.

Fuckin a! This.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

Right now the only people we care about are likely Republican primary voters!


If we get the nomination then we can consider how to attract people from the left. But that's a losing strategy during the primary.

I don't necessarily agree. There's not going to be a contested Democrat primary so a lot of progressives/left leaning independents who can't stand the corporatist/war state we're in who may be intrigued by the idea of voting for Ron Paul in the primary.

 

[fisharmor]

can't find what you are talking about...maybe you could paste it here.

Maybe you could read what you quoted.

Stop listening to yourself talk and address the following line of reasoning between the asterisks.

****************************************************
When you centralize power, that power attracts the power-hungry.
The power-hungry are not capable of serving the public interest any more than is necessary to retain power.
Because the goal of a centralized system immediately becomes retention of power, centralized systems do more public harm than public good.
The quickest way to centralize power is through taxes and tariffs.
Ergo, taxes and tariffs are to be avoided.
****************************************************

You guys need to recognize that we're the ones with the superior bargaining position.
The most progressive of the progressives didn't stop the wars, he expanded them.
The most progressive of the progressives didn't stop the torture.
The most progressive of the progressives continued the bailouts.
The most progressive of the progressives continued the spying, secret renditions, PATRIOT act, and controlled demolition of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Our positions do not overlap. The difference is that ours is genuine. If we reach out to progressives, it's to give you the things you want that your leaders fail to provide.
I happen to think what you're being offered is plenty. Stop asking more of us. We will not agree to be taxed for the privilege of giving you what you can't get from your anointed ones.

 

[progressiveforpaul]

I don't necessarily agree. There's not going to be a contested Democrat primary so a lot of progressives/left leaning independents who can't stand the corporatist/war state we're in who may be intrigued by the idea of voting for Ron Paul in the primary.

I am intrigued to the point of planning to vote for him. I also am working hard to bring progressives on board. If Ron Paul can be as specific as possible about clarifying his transitional plan or as i like to call it his grand compromise (maybe we should call it a grand transitional compromise), i think he can get a lot of progressives headed his way quickly.

 

[ChaosControl]

Tell us you are willing for states to devise their own health insurance plans and that you will not interfere with states wanting to create single payer and public option systems and to compact with other states in doing so.

This is the proper way to go about things. Handle it at the states, or even more preferably at the county level. If they want single payer, fine. If they want total free market, fine. Each individual area can have as they desire. Economic systems work best on small local scales, they become corrupt and twisted on national scales. It doesn't matter if it is socialism or capitalism, both become corrupted on a large centralized level.

We should be able to be allies and both work towards decentralization, then we all can choose at the local level to fight for what we want. It is much easier to change things locally than federally and if we cannot change them, we can always move a county or a state over to somewhere more receptive to our desires.

So if there is to be more domestic spending, that should be a state thing. The federal government needs to get out of economic matters entirely.

 

[progressiveforpaul]

Maybe you could read what you quoted.

Stop listening to yourself talk and address the following line of reasoning between the asterisks.

****************************************************
When you centralize power, that power attracts the power-hungry.
The power-hungry are not capable of serving the public interest any more than is necessary to retain power.
Because the goal of a centralized system immediately becomes retention of power, centralized systems do more public harm than public good.
The quickest way to centralize power is through taxes and tariffs.
Ergo, taxes and tariffs are to be avoided.
****************************************************
Centralized power is generally corrupting. Decentralizing power involves redistributing wealth. This gets done all the time...it is the very nature of economics. the best way to do it is through a combination of private sector competition and truly democratic public sector investment. If you don't have revenue to do this wealth and the power it creates and sustains will continue to be centralized and corrupt.

You guys need to recognize that we're the ones with the superior bargaining position.
The most progressive of the progressives didn't stop the wars, he expanded them.
The most progressive of the progressives didn't stop the torture.
The most progressive of the progressives continued the bailouts.
The most progressive of the progressives continued the spying, secret renditions, PATRIOT act, and controlled demolition of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Our positions do not overlap. The difference is that ours is genuine. If we reach out to progressives, it's to give you the things you want that your leaders fail to provide.
I happen to think what you're being offered is plenty. Stop asking more of us. We will not agree to be taxed for the privilege of giving you what you can't get from your anointed ones.

Centralized power is generally corrupting. Decentralizing power involves redistributing wealth. This gets done all the time...it is the very nature of economics. the best way to do it is through a combination of private sector competition and truly democratic public sector investment. If you don't have revenue to do this wealth and the power it creates and sustains will continue to be centralized and corrupt.

you do have a strong negotiating position but so do we progressives. if progressives are told we are gutting social security, medicare medicaid and the rest of the domestic budget along with the MIC, you are not going to get enough of us on board for Ron paul to win the primary, much less the election.

 

[progressiveforpaul]

This is the proper way to go about things. Handle it at the states, or even more preferably at the county level. If they want single payer, fine. If they want total free market, fine. Each individual area can have as they desire. Economic systems work best on small local scales, they become corrupt and twisted on national scales. It doesn't matter if it is socialism or capitalism, both become corrupted on a large centralized level.

We should be able to be allies and both work towards decentralization, then we all can choose at the local level to fight for what we want. It is much easier to change things locally than federally and if we cannot change them, we can always move a county or a state over to somewhere more receptive to our desires.

So if there is to be more domestic spending, that should be a state thing. The federal government needs to get out of economic matters entirely.

I am with you on localism. The problem is the local and state governments are all broke with few exceptions. The federal government has to have a redistributive role if local government is to have a fighting chance. Moreover, moving from one county or state to another is not an easy task and it weakens family connections (a main reason for cultural conservatives to be economic progressives). I would be willing to have the shift in funds be predicated on reduction in the size of the federal government but you have to create a mechanism to make sure the states and localities get the revenue they need. If we progressives unconditionally give up federal redistribution, the state and local governments most likely to not raise revenues of their own are the very ones who are most dependent upon federal funding. Let state governments create the funding plan first and then we can let go of the federal sources of funding.

 

[erowe1]

if progressives are told we are gutting social security, medicare medicaid and the rest of the domestic budget along with the MIC, you are not going to get enough of us on board for Ron paul to win the primary, much less the election.

OK. Well then your mind's made up. There's nothing Ron Paul, being what he is, can do to win you over. If you ever change your mind and decide that the annoyance of being free and responsible for you own life is a small enough price to pay for a president who isn't as bellicose as Obama, please consider voting for RP. If not, that's up to you.

 

[Seraphim]

Fixed.

Democracy sucks.

Centralized power is generally corrupting. Decentralizing power involves redistributing wealth. This gets done all the time...it is the very nature of economics. the best way to do it is through a combination of private sector competition and truly VOLUNTARY public sector investment. If you don't have revenue to do this wealth and the power it creates and sustains will continue to be centralized and corrupt.

you do have a strong negotiating position but so do we progressives. if progressives are told we are gutting social security, medicare medicaid and the rest of the domestic budget along with the MIC, you are not going to get enough of us on board for Ron paul to win the primary, much less the election.

 

[Seraphim]

The only reason why local and State Govt are broke are because of these so called redistributive measures you delusionally believe can serve the general public.

Yep, let's treat cancer with cigarettes.

I am with you on localism. the problem is the local and state governments are all broke with few exceptions. The federal government has to have a redistributive role if local government is to have fighting chance. Moreover, moving from one county or state to another is not an easy task and it weakens family connections (a main reason for cultural conservatives to be economic progressives). I would be willing to have the shift in funds be predicated on reduction in the size of the federal government but you have to create a mechanism to make sure the states and localities get the revenue they need. If we progressives unconditionally give up federal redistribution, the state and local governments most likely to not raise revenues of their own are the very ones who are most dependent upon federal funding. Let state governments create the funding plan first and then we can let go of the federal sources of funding.

 

[ChaosControl]

I am with you on localism. the problem is the local and state governments are all broke with few exceptions. The federal government has to have a redistributive role if local government is to have fighting chance. Moreover, moving from one county or state to another is not an easy task and it weakens family connections (a main reason for cultural conservatives to be economic progressives). I would be willing to have the shift in funds be predicated on reduction in the size of the federal government but you have to create a mechanism to make sure the states and localities get the revenue they need. If we progressives unconditionally give up federal redistribution, the state and local governments most likely to not raise revenues of their own are the very ones who are most dependent upon federal funding. Let state governments create the funding plan first and then we can let go of the federal sources of funding.

The federal government is also broke. If people were not taxed federally, they could be taxed more locally to pay for more locally run services to make up for the end of federal services. And yes moving isn't always easy, but it is easier to move from county to county than from the US to wherever. If I desire either a more free market or a more controlled market, I'd have to move to another nation, that is hardly desirable.

I think states could also implement plans to help people move. So if a poor family was in an area that didn't have services, there could be towns that had such and offered funding to the person to move there to get the help they need. Many areas will have very minimal services, and many will have very expansive services, which is really the entire point, people can have what they most prefer then.

I actually would support more economic equality, but I hate the state and centralization. I would be fully on board to do some kind of county-wide health care system where everyone is covered where the fees for such are given voluntary as opposed to some state mandating taxes.

 

[progressiveforpaul]

OK. Well then your mind's made up. There's nothing Ron Paul, being what he is, can do to win you over. If you ever change your mind and decide that the annoyance of being free and responsible for you own life is a small enough price to pay for a president who isn't as bellicose as Obama, please consider voting for RP. If not, that's up to you.

My mind is made up. I'm voting for Ron Paul. Ron Paul has won me over for 2012. He needs to win alot more like me if he is to win the primary and the election so that your dream of parasitic liberals like myself getting off our lazy asses and working can be realized. He has already made a commitment to funding domestic programs in exchange for a net cut in total spending. Watch the whole of this video. it's less than 3 minutes. Toward the end you will hear it. I hope it does not turn you against him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx9a4hNeIRo&NR=1

 

[progressiveforpaul]

The federal government is also broke. If people were not taxed federally, they could be taxed more locally to pay for more locally run services to make up for the end of federal services. And yes moving isn't always easy, but it is easier to move from county to county than from the US to wherever. If I desire either a more free market or a more controlled market, I'd have to move to another nation, that is hardly desirable.

I think states could also implement plans to help people move. So if a poor family was in an area that didn't have services, there could be towns that had such and offered funding to the person to move there to get the help they need. Many areas will have very minimal services, and many will have very expansive services, which is really the entire point, people can have what they most prefer then.

I actually would support more economic equality, but I hate the state and centralization. I would be fully on board to do some kind of county-wide health care system where everyone is covered where the fees for such are given voluntary as opposed to some state mandating taxes.

You know your problem CC is that you are entirely too reasonable.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

He needs to win alot more like me if he is to win the primary and the election

On the positive note for Progressives for Paul is:

Ron Paul: More Progressive Than Obama?

and

A Progressive for Ron Paul


On the negative side of Progressives for Paul you have these comments...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/29/971321/-Is-Ron-Paul-more-Progressive-than-Obama#

 

[progressiveforpaul]

Great to see this ...first 2 that is.

On the positive note for Progressives for Paul is:

Ron Paul: More Progressive Than Obama?

and

A Progressive for Ron Paul


On the negative side of Progressives for Paul you have these comments...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/29/971321/-Is-Ron-Paul-more-Progressive-than-Obama#

 

[osan]

While progressives are skeptical of your economic agenda

Because they have not even the first clues about economics, save their masturbatory fantasies originating on planet Bizarro.

w

e find ourselves in agreement with much of what you are advocating,

Not nearly enough.

especially restoring American respect and strength in the world through immediately drawing down our overseas military commitments and cutting wasteful, counterproductive and unnecessary military and security spending.

But not wasteful "social programs". Typical progressive hypocrisy.

We are disappointed with President Obama and are looking to send him and future presidential candidates a message. Challenging him in the 2012 Democratic primary would yield disastrous results.

This is the sort of ball-less POV I would expect. You don't like Obama's performance but will not face him head on based on a principled stance, so you attempt the back-door approach so you can blame Paul if perchance your machinations blow up in your faces. Clever, but despicable.

We believe that you can and should do more to reach out to disenfranchised progressives.

He should reach out and bitch-slap you to China, where you all belong.

You can help your cause by appealing more to progressives... by clarifying the details of your grand compromise and doing the following:

1.) Specify the amount of cuts in defense and other empire building and maintenance you want to make over the next 10 years.

If he is going to be honest, and it appears that thus far he has a good score for it, he would also have to tell you how much welfare and other social programs would be butchered. Bet you would be screaming bloody murder.

2.) Specify the amount of net cuts and the level of the total budgets over the next 4 years. In other words, tell us how much we progressives can expect to spend on domestic programs and projects in each of the first 4 years of your presidency and how much has to be cut from the overall budgets of each year from 2013 to 2016.

Oh I see... spend on rancid social programs, but cut everything else. Got it.

3.) Tell us what excise taxes you want congress to put on legalized drugs like marijuana, heroine and cocaine and how much revenue you would expect to raise from these taxes over the next 10 years. Rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol products would be very appealing.

Why tax it? What's the moral basis for such taxation? Why should you be enriched by the legitimate choices of others? How about we tax you for breathing? I am pretty certain whatever nonsensical phony argument you would use to justify taxing Johnny Q. for smoking a joint could be used to similarly justify taxing you for breathing, since sensibility, truth, and reason are apparently not required bases for making such decisions in your world.

4.) Let us know what other tax revenues you would add.

More progressive mental vomit - taxation being the grand solution to the woes of the downtrodden. Thus far your letter will be tugging at Mr. Paul's heart strings, I am sure.

Upping the Trump ante on tariffs on Chinese products in exchange for reductions in domestic spending and income taxes might be doable, especially if you implement number five on this list. A comprehensive plan to base tariff rates on the country of origin's human and civil rights, and labor, environmental and consumer protection policies would be wildly popular with Americans across the political spectrum, especially if you add democracy fees to the purchase of US treasury notes and up the tariffs more for countries who refuse to float their currencies on the open market.

Finally SOMETHING you say makes some remote sense, though I'm willing to bet this is purely accidental.

5.) Propose a progressive consumption tax to take the place of the income tax.

There's that world "progressive" again... so tax those who work hard, smartly, and bring good things tot he world more than those who merely punch a clock or collect a welfare check. That makes all good sense - it will really motivate people to excel.

6.) Lower the rate of payroll taxes while raising the cap in a revenue neutral way.

Meaningless statement without a precise account of how it would be done. Why not just demand they "defy gravity"?

7.) Tell us you are willing for states to devise their own health insurance plans and that you will not interfere with states wanting to create single payer and public option systems and to compact with other states in doing so.

This is unconstitutional and immoral in its very fabric. This is socialistic bullshit wherein the earned monies of some will be stolen to subsidize healthcare for the rest. I'm sure Ron will be all over that.

8.) Promise to appoint progressives to at least 40% of your domestic cabinet.

You're fucking insane. Get to a psychiatrist immediately. You need it more than you know.

Naming them in advance of the primaries would work well for progressives.

I am sure it would. The question here is, who gives a shit what progressives want? They are psychotic and should go to live in the peoples' paradise of China.

9.) Endorse progressive Democrats, Greens and independents in 2012 House and Senate races against non-libertarian and neo-con Republicans. Urge progressives to vote for you and other libertarian candidates in the 2012 GOP primaries and caucuses.

Urge them... but they will never vote for you, and in so urging, alienate those with their brains not in their asses, thereby causing the conservative side to self destruct. Yes, I am sure he will do this.

10.) Promise to pardon all non-violent drug offenders within the first 100 days of your presidency.

Another sensible remark. Wow.

Admittedly, this sort of outreach risks sending short-sighted libertarians into the arms of Gary Johnson.

"short-sighted"? By whose standard? More likely this sort of "outreach" would cause smart people to question Ron's sanity. Progressives are the sworn enemies of freedom, all lies to the contrary notwithstanding. I would not given them the time of day. I would, however, provide them all with one-way tickets to China in exchange for the promise never to return to the USA.

It is an unconventional and bold strategy but you have proven yourself to be the type of person who is willing to do the right thing for your country even if it drives the status quo oligarchs crazy.

You seek to drive yourselves crazy? Jesus, you poor stupid bastards really do need medical attention.

Radical problems require radical solutions.

Because you say so. Righty-0.

What a load of tripe.

 

[osan]

Ron is not going to change his message.

Agreed. Let us hope we are right.

4) Ron... is for Free-Trade.

Unless I misunderstand his position, you are wrong. He is for FREE MARKETS, which are not the same as that thing upon which they have painted "Free Trade".