Are we REALLY this weak?

If it makes you feel good to vote for a candidate that is not on the ballot and will be lumped in as 'SCATTER' with other candidates then you should do that. That is a vote that is essentially the same as staying home and having a steak, which I hear some may do to make them feel better.

Others however believe there is no guarantee we are going to get Rand or some liberty candidate in 2016 if Romney loses. They are already promoting Rubio and Christie as rock stars so he will have quite a bit of competition.

If Obama wins the Overton window will move further in his direction and Conservative-Libertarian like policies will be more unpalatable and extreme to the masses in 4 years. Romney and the party maybe paying lip service to some of our domestic issues as of late which might be meaningless when it comes to action but at least it keeps these issues in the national dialog. An Obama win will be interpreted as the country moving farther to the left.

Voting for Romney maybe like eating a big shit sandwich but I am not going to blast anyone for doing so considering the facts. You are also deluding yourself that there is no difference between Obama and Romney. They are as far away from each other domestically as Ron is from them.

If the US collapses under Romney, it will be spun as the final death of "capitalism," and we will be at a huge disadvantage fighting that narrative. If the US collapses under Obama, we're in a much better position for educating people. Considering the US is just as likely to collapse under either of them, and a Romney win will also prevent us from primarying him in the 2016 election...yeah, a Romney win is the worst case scenario.

Vote Ron Paul. Vote Gary Johnson. Vote Vermin Supreme. Don't vote. Hell, vote for Obama if you have no hard principles regarding votes...but in a practical sense, the worst possible vote you can make is a vote for Romney.
 
Last edited:
It will be in MY state.

No One But Paul.

Another wobbly makes his presence known.

Anyone who votes for or hopes Obama wins is going to permanently set the movement back. If Obama wins, everything is over. There will be NO TURNING BACK. Just look at what he has accomplished in less than 4 years.

No, I'm not voting for Romney but would we be able to use some muscle against Romney and maybe keep the Overton Window from moving too far Left with permanent irreversible damage? Possibly until 2016.

It's why Dr. Paul said he did not "fully endorse" Romney. Read between the lines people.

Come November, we will have a new president (elect), and his name sadly won't be Ron Paul. No one enjoys voting for the lesser of evils, but our nation can NOT survive another 4 years of Obama. I WILL vote for the GOP nominee, whoever that is. Even if it was Lindsey frickin Graham! (barf, puke) Obama WILL bankrupt this nation if he already hasn't, and even Romney won't do near the damage if given 8 years that Obama has done in 3.5

RAND PAUL 2016 or 2020

Writing in Ron Paul won't be a "stand" for anything. Your vote won't be counted.

You have two choices:

1. Romney - With the GOP in control of the House, Senate, and White House, we'll be able to pressure them to support some good legislation, like how we pressured every House Republican to vote for the Audit the Fed bill (which was consequently killed by the Senate Democrats). Also, 4-8 years of Romney will decrease the Establishment/moderate GOP's popularity to the point where a true rebel candidate, someone like a Rand Paul or Justin Amash, will be able to take the nomination. Lastly, we won't have any experienced candidates to field in 2016 either way. Ron Paul is probably out of the race - while all of our other potential future Presidential candidates won't have enough experience to be considered good picks till after 2016. If Ron Paul does decide to run in 2016, it would be good if he did so against Romney, just to show to the American populace that there are two wings of the Republican Party with a differing set of ideals. This would set the stage for a Rand Paul or Justin Amash to run in 2020.

2. Gary Johnson - If the vote Johnson gets is greater than the differential between the two major candidates, i.e. if Johnson gets 3% while either major party candidate loses by 1% or 2%, then that will send a signal to the politicians of the two major parties that there is a new subset of swing voters out there that they have to appeal to. It'll help encourage future candidates to make their platforms slightly more libertarian by supporting civil liberties and fiscal responsibility.
 
If the US collapses under Romney, it will be spun as the final death of capitalism, and we will be at a huge disadvantage fighting that narrative. If the US collapses under Obama, we're in a much better position. Considering the US is just as likely to collapse under either of them, and a Romney win will also prevent us from fielding a viable Presidential candidate in 2016...yeah, a Romney win is the worst case scenario.

It makes no logical sense at all, but it's absolutely true nonetheless.

Fortunately, as the polls showed us months ago, Ron Paul is the only Republican candiate who would have a prayer of a chance in the general election. So, no worries.
 
Yup...

...and in the process, move the football back half the distance to the goal. I will not support Obama. I will, however, view his inevitable re-election as a better outcome than supporting the GOP in any fashion; insofar as taking a long view. A second shot of Black Jesus will help us to turn up the volume on the alarm clock a little louder still.

Waking up the people, and illustrating their subservience to government, is the goal here at RPF - the nomination of Ron Paul is/was merely one facet of our movement, I believe. Regardless of 2012's outcome, I anticipate reading articles in the coming year along the lines of, "Why are these Ron Paul people still organizing, still blah-blah-blah-ing..."

Your mistake here is believing that four more years of Obama will somehow bolster the libertarian wing of the GOP - but a rising tide lifts all boats - and that will include the moderates and the neocons within the GOP Establishment.

I believe our path to victory will be more similar to 2008 - when we had an unpopular incumbent Republican President and consequently an unpopular GOP Establishment vulnerable to being defeated in the primaries by a rebel faction of the Party. Ron Paul didn't have a chance in 2008 because there wasn't a libertarian wing of the GOP yet. But now, thanks to Ron Paul's efforts in 2008 and 2012, there is a libertarian faction within the GOP. Not only can we use our new found power to pressure Republican politicians to support some of our legislation - like the Audit the Fed bill - but now we have a chance of running a rebel AND WINNING against the Establishment pick in 2020.

In the meantime, we have the opportunity to recruit more libertarian Republicans, more Rand Pauls and Justin Amashs and Kerry Bentivolios and Thomas Massies so we can start building a pool of candidates and get them experienced enough in national politics so they actually have a record to run on. Also, we can't drop the ball, we have to continue to strive to take over our local and state GOP party structures.
 
If the US collapses under Romney, it will be spun as the final death of capitalism, and we will be at a huge disadvantage fighting that narrative. If the US collapses under Obama, we're in a much better position. Considering the US is just as likely to collapse under either of them, and a Romney win will also prevent us from fielding a viable Presidential candidate in 2016...yeah, a Romney win is the worst case scenario.

Remember what happened in 2008? Ron Paul got disproportionate attention even though he had no chance of winning - simply because he was representative of a different wing of the Republican Party. He didn't have a chance then, but if we continue our efforts to expand the libertarian wing of the GOP into 2020, we will have a chance at getting the GOP nomination from the moderates and neoconservatives BUT THIS WILL ONLY HAPPEN AS LONG AS THE MODERATES AND NEOCONS ARE BLAMED FOR OUR ECONOMIC WOES.

Again - a rising tide lifts all boats. And having Obama in there till 2016 will bolster the ENTIRE Republican Party - including the moderates and the neocons. We won't have a good experienced candidate to field in 2016 - not good enough to defeat the neocon wing of the GOP. But if the neocons/moderates win this year, then we can make a play for it in 2020 when people are sick and tired of government hyperinterventionism and are looking for an alternative that the Democrats won't be offering.
 
Doesn't matter who you vote for you. Your vote won't be counted. As with everything else in this election, whether it be our candidate, our ideas, or our delegates, your vote will be swept aside and promptly discarded.

The government at all levels is corrupt and lawless. The president and the politicians commit heinous crimes against the constitution on a regular basis. So much so, that such behavior is considered normal, and accepted.

Up is down. Wrong is right. Unconstitutional is constitutional. Tyranny is freedom. War is peace. This country is so incredibly far gone it is beyond repair.

By voting, the only message that sends, is that you still believe in the "system." You still believe that the system works. You still believe that if only we can vote enough liberty people into the system, that we'll be able to vote our freedom back. The problem is, they barely even let us vote at all. Because it is a criminal organization. It is far, far too late to turn it around by working within that system. They have an iron grasp on it. Anything that even remotely threatens their grip, is dealt with efficiently and expediently.

Do not vote. Withdraw your consent. Make it clear to yourself, and anyone who will listen, that this system and these people are criminals and they have no rightful authority.

Okay, so the voting machines are rigged. Okay, so Romney's team compromised the central tabulator this time around. However, they can only cheat so much; otherwise, Ron Paul would have lost his Congressional seat long ago, and none of us would have heard of him, and a lot of people here would still be neocons or progressives. Therefore, the voters in the 14th district of Texas HAVE made a huge demonstrable difference. Just because there are setbacks, and just because it's an uphill battle, is not a valid argument for saying it's totally futile. We've barely even begun to try, and I'm constantly hearing crap about how we should simply give up.

What, do you think the government is going to go away on its own? It won't! So long as the government has enough of an appearance of legitimacy, it can still collect tax money and rape and pillage. What about agorism? Agorism only affects trade, not the large-scale production of most economic goods. We need capital goods and factories and fields that cannot be hidden forever from the IRS to actually produce stuff, which means that there will ALWAYS be enough above-board business for the IRS to tax and fund government with. Education alone means nothing as long as the government is getting its money, and most people have very different personalities from you and me: They cannot be educated by rational argumentation until they're emotionally ready, and they need to hear arguments from "winners" before that happens. Tax revolt? People aren't ready for that kind of sacrifice and risk to fight the establishment, considering they're not even ready to stop voting for the "lesser of two evils." Armed revolt? LOL. What about non-voters? The vast majority haven't "withdrawn consent;" they're simply apathetic, and that is exactly the message that not voting sends outside of a tiny libertarian circlejerk. They have it in their power to actually make third parties WIN if they did vote (see above about the 14th district in Texas)...but they just don't care enough to lift a finger, let alone organize.

I understand you're probably just riding this out and waiting for collapse, but what then? People WILL beg for another government, and likely a more fundamentally compromised one than this. We're not immediately going to go into some voluntaryist paradise from here; that's a lot way off, after the population becomes comfortable enough with years and years of stable minarchy to slowly and methodically dismantle it. Instead, a collapse will bring another state, probably a worse one with "positive rights" codified in its Constitution, unless WE get involved and exert every bit of our influence on its Constitutional Convention. What does that take? Oh, yeah...political action. Whether you wait for collapse or not, political action is literally unavoidable at some point for us to ever actually get anything done...but it just might be considerably more difficult after collapse, depending on the circumstances involved.

In short, please, PLEASE stop pushing such a destructive notion as "withdrawing consent" by washing your hands of literally anything that might have the power to peacefully reduce or dissolve government. Whether before or after collapse, political action is ultimately the ONLY thing that will allow us to push back enough to restrain government; other approaches like agorism help grease the wheels a bit, but as I argued above, literally no other avenue is sufficient without political action, so we'd all better hope it's less futile than you indicate. Quietly disengage if you like, but for all of our sake, please stop trying to convince others to do the same. Or, participate and simply declare that your desire to influence the outcome in no way implies your consent to be ruled by it (unless it's complete voluntaryism). The only people who will even hear your thoughts on consent - or care - are your libertarian friends anyway.
 
Last edited:
It will be in MY state.

No One But Paul.

Another wobbly makes his presence known.

Typical anti-intellectual response. Write in Ron Paul and have your vote not counted if you like. Others here are taking a longer term and strategic look at the situation so we can one day field a libertarian candidate like Ron Paul who will take the GOP nomination and then take the country back.
 
There are some plants here. Romney pays people to support him, he also pays people to disrupt forums. Pay them no mind, they were never Ron Paul supporters to start with.
 
Typical anti-intellectual response. Write in Ron Paul and have your vote not counted if you like. Others here are taking a longer term and strategic look at the situation so we can one day field a libertarian candidate like Ron Paul who will take the GOP nomination and then take the country back.

And if he, like I, don't see any strategic advantage either in falling in line and doing what our oppressors want or pissing off the people we're trying to win as allies in our cause? Especially since we aren't terribly likely to be able to swing the popular vote? In that case, our best strategic vote is arguably to show everyone that we will stand by our principles and stick to our guns.

Not an anti-intellectual response at all.
 
I think Romney might be a tiny bit better than Obama but am voting Johnson now. Well if Romney's lawyers dont get Johnson kicked off the PA ballot. :mad:

I'm voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson as well.

No way in Hell am I voting for a controlling, power mad Nazi like Romney.
 
Vote for Johnson or write in Ron Paul.

I feel like your crazy if don't write Ron in but different states have different rules.
 
Simply not true -- The Republican (voters) will be up in arms, the dems will not have the votes, only executive orders and waring will ensue. And the masses will awaken with our help.

With Romney -- everything you said is true because the republican voter will go back to never-never-land thus giving free reign to the republican establishment.

+1. my thoughts.
 
There are some plants here. Romney pays people to support him, he also pays people to disrupt forums. Pay them no mind, they were never Ron Paul supporters to start with.

Please explain my forum registration date. Or why I was a precinct leader for the Ron Paul Campaign. Or why I'm a coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty.

And if he, like I, don't see any strategic advantage either in falling in line and doing what our oppressors want or pissing off the people we're trying to win as allies in our cause? Especially since we aren't terribly likely to be able to swing the popular vote? In that case, our best strategic vote is arguably to show everyone that we will stand by our principles and stick to our guns.

Not an anti-intellectual response at all.

His response was anti-intellectual - yours wasn't.

This isn't about trying to win the rest of the Party over. It's about making them irrelevant. In 2008, there was an opportunity because there was an unpopular incumbent Republican President and the mainstream GOP had ruined its own brand. We didn't have a chance at winning then because we (our faction of voters) simply didn't exist. BUT Ron Paul made a big splash because his message was different.

Now, in 2012, people are sick and tired of Obama and the Democrats - and that's bolstering ALL Republicans ACROSS THE BOARD. Neocons, moderates, Religious Right, etc. If Obama wins in 2012, what do you think will happen in 2016? The neocons will be even more popular, because they'll be presenting something seen as an alternative to the Democrats. We won't have an experienced candidate to field that year, given Ron Paul's age and the fact that he's retiring and given the fact that Rand Paul will be finishing his FIRST term as a Senator. That will leave us with 4-8 years of a neocon Republican in power and 8-12 years before we can take over the Party and consequently take power.

Our path to victory will be similar to what happened in 2008 - we'll have to face off as a different faction within the GOP opposed to the unpopular incumbent (Romney) and present a different message in order to win the nomination and then win over the American people. In the meantime, we have to focus on taking over our local and state Republican Parties as well as trying to win races big and small so we can develop an experienced cadre of potential libertarian Republican candidates for higher office.
 
Last edited:
I have learned these past few months, Gary Johnson is not the libertarian saint I thought he was but...seriously if you are going to vote for someone then vote him over Obama.
 
Please explain my forum registration date. Or why I was a precinct leader for the Ron Paul Campaign. Or why I'm a coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty.

Explain Jesse Benton. You go ahead and vote for Romney, I bet Benton will too. Some plants here in 2008 voted for McCain, were you one of them?
 
Explain Jesse Benton.

If anyone is the plant, then it's people like you who are questioning RP's judgment and trying to divide the movement.

You go ahead and vote for Romney, I bet Benton will too. Some plants here in 2008 voted for McCain, were you one of them?

I didn't vote.

If that didn't stop the Democrats from electing a president, why would it stop us?

Let's be honest here - the only reason why Obama won his Party's nomination was the fact that he was a racial minority and that electing him was a historic moment.
 
Our path to victory will be similar to what happened in 2008 - we'll have to face off as a different faction within the GOP opposed to the unpopular incumbent (Romney) and present a different message in order to win the nomination and then win over the American people. In the meantime, we have to focus on taking over our local and state Republican Parties as well as trying to win races big and small so we can develop an experienced cadre of potential libertarian Republican candidates for higher office.

I think you have this backwards: We had so much trouble in 2008 because the Republican base was totally asleep. They're all about notions of being strong...being winners. It's only because McCain LOST that they were shaken out of their stupor enough to give us massive gains in 2012, but a Romney victory will convince them it's alright again, and they can keep winning elections without paying any mind to the crazy libertarians.

If Romney wins, there will be no gridlock with Congress, so he will ram through all of the worst parts of the neocon agenda without any friction. If America collapses under Romney, the narrative will be "capitalism is dead forever," and it will be extremely hard to set the record straight. If the country doesn't collapse under Romney, we're looking at 2020 as our earliest serious shot at the Presidency. Even then, that's only if Romney loses in 2016...if he wins, Republicans will still be asleep in 2020, and they'll be about as receptive as they were in 2008. We will only be able to win a Republican Presidential primary on the heels of a Republican loss (and as we learned this year, we'll only win if we've already replaced the RNC). Long story short, a Romney win is literally the worst case scenario.

Here's another thought: If Romney wins and has a friendly Congress, he might also be able to change the laws regarding party politics, which currently protect us from party leaders rigging chairman and RNC member elections the way they're rigging nominations by trampling delegates. Right now, taking over the state parties and RNC is basically a numbers game, and there's little they can do to stop it if we have the activists (unlike what they've done with the nomination process). If Romney changes the laws, all bets are off. He must not be allowed to win the Presidency.
 
Last edited:
I think you have this backwards: We had so much trouble in 2008 because the Republican base was totally asleep. They're all about notions of being strong...being winners. It's only because McCain LOST that they were shaken out of their stupor enough to give us massive gains in 2012

Yeah - it shook them out of their stupor enough to support Romney. Pleeeeaaaase. :rolleyes: The massive gains of the Ron Paul movement have been thanks to Ron Paul and his grassroots support (us).

A rising tide lifts all boats - and having the Democrats in control till 2016 will increase the popularity of our brand of Republicanism, but also the brand of the neocons and moderates. My point is that we won't get anywhere till they destroy their own brand - at which point our brand will be seen as a meaningful alternative. In the meantime, we have to focus on other races in order to develop a pool of experienced candidates. Let's start taking back the House and Senate a few races at a time and then let's look toward the White House.

Also - in 2016 I'd love it if Ron Paul ran again, especially as a primary challenge against Romney. He probably won't win but it'll help grow our wing of the Republican Party and prepare us for victory in 2020.

but a Romney victory will convince them it's alright again, and they can keep winning elections without paying any mind to the crazy libertarians.

If they can win elections without our support, then why did every single Republican in the House vote for our Audit the Fed bill? Why did Romney all of a sudden come out in support of auditing the Fed? Why are Fed transparency, internet freedom, and the gold commission being incorporated into the platform? They know they need us.

Let's not give up - let's continue taking over the GOP and developing our brand of Republicanism, so that when the time comes, we'll be ready.
 
Back
Top