Are we REALLY this weak?

NH counts all write in votes.

http://writein2008.blogspot.com.br/search/label/New Hampshire

Sorry if I didn't take half a page of brainy text to make that point.

Your point, remains unclear, however.

One of the drawbacks of trying to make every internet post one writes a Socratic high achievement.

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.
 
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.

Could be plants, but could also be wobblies.

I've seen this all before, playing out almost exactly like it did in 2008.

NOBP.
 
Not going to vote for Romney or Obama under any circumstances. If I vote at all it will be for Gary Johnson or to write in Ron Paul.
 
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).
Where did the extra votes come from, kaju? They came from people who were jeering at us in 2008, but who humbled themselves enough after a loss to start listening. Our hard support is marginally higher, but it's our soft support that made the real gains. I'm not saying the whole base "woke up." I'm saying that most people have different personality types than us, and there are only short windows of vulnerability where they're open-minded enough to overcome their biases and give rational arguments a fair hearing. That window is NOT when they're in power. Did you see the anti-war left making great strides with Obama in office and a Democratic Congress? No...you don't even hear about them anymore.

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.
Neocons will not destroy their OWN brand in the eyes of the vast majority of Republicans. They didn't with Bush, and Obama hasn't done so with progressives. That's not the way things work. The vast majority of people are completely oblivious to their party's own failings when they're in power. It's only after they lose when they start paying attention to see what's wrong.

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.
Primarying a sitting President is futile, especially considering a Romney win this year will return a dose of pride and arrogance to ordinary GOP'ers.

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.
They ARE at the point where they can't win Presidential elections without our support, which is why they keep trying to woo us. That doesn't mean they'll do anything for us afterwards. Once they're in power, they obviously have no more use for us for four more years, the same way Obama and the Democrats had no more use for the anti-war, anti-police state left. You could say, "Well, then we know they can't be trusted." No, I already know they can't be trusted, and if you don't already know it now - with all this going on at the convention today including missing buses - then I have a bridge to sell you. Our power comes from rejecting their overtures, not bowing to them. If even Ron Paul's hard support on these forums is foolish enough to buy into the promises and empty gestures of establishment politicians, we're doomed.

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.
I agree with taking over the GOP. I do not agree with helping Romney in ANY way...and once again, please consider my arguments about what happens if America collapses under Romney.
 
Last edited:
People also haven't seemed to take into consideration that the better Romney does, the better our liberty candidates in the house and Senate will do. The worse Romney does, the worse our candidates in the house and Senate will do. If Romney lost in a landslide defeat, it's likely Justin Amash would lose as well.
 
People also haven't seemed to take into consideration that the better Romney does, the better our liberty candidates in the house and Senate will do. The worse Romney does, the worse our candidates in the house and Senate will do. If Romney lost in a landslide defeat, it's likely Justin Amash would lose as well.

Oh, fuck that shit! They can run on their record. Which is what they should be doing anyway. Fuck Rmoney. Fuck supporting the Rethuglican party until they can get their shit together.
 
Oh, fuck that shit! They can run on their record. Which is what they should be doing anyway. Fuck Rmoney. Fuck supporting the Rethuglican party until they can get their shit together.

1) I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote for Romney. I'm voting 3rd party this year.

2) I'm simply saying that it's foolish to openly root for Romney to lose, or to vote for Obama. Whether you want to admit it or not, the worse Romney does in the election, the worse Justin Amash and other liberty candidates will do. When the top of the ticket does worse, the bottom of the ticket does worse as well. That's just common sense.
 
1) I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote for Romney. I'm voting 3rd party this year.

2) I'm simply saying that it's foolish to openly root for Romney to lose, or to vote for Obama. Whether you want to admit it or not, the worse Romney does in the election, the worse Justin Amash and other liberty candidates will do. When the top of the ticket does worse, the bottom of the ticket does worse as well. That's just common sense.

They will do as well as long as they energize and hold true to the constituents that got them there. Regardless of where the party is at.
 
1) I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote for Romney. I'm voting 3rd party this year.

2) I'm simply saying that it's foolish to openly root for Romney to lose, or to vote for Obama. Whether you want to admit it or not, the worse Romney does in the election, the worse Justin Amash and other liberty candidates will do. When the top of the ticket does worse, the bottom of the ticket does worse as well. That's just common sense.

Don't you think you're confusing correlation for causation here? People vote for the top and bottom of the ticket at the same time, and while people who vote against a party's Presidential candidate in any particular election are historically likely to vote a straight ticket against that party, the same logic does not apply to us. My hope is that a critical number of voters will deny Romney victory not because they're liberals or straight party voters (even straight party swing voters), but because they're tired of corrupt establishment politicians. That's why you're voting third party, after all. My hope and tentative belief is that our voting bloc is now large enough to single-handedly spoil any neoconservative Presidential bid from this point forward, thereby preventing a Republican from being in office during a collapse (spun as the "death of capitalism") and forcing Republican voters to be more open to liberty candidates if they ever want to win again.
 
Last edited:
Writing in Ron Paul won't be a "stand" for anything. Your vote won't be counted.

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.

This.

If you want to have the most impact promoting liberty, I don't see how voting for someone besides Gary Johnson will achieve your goal.

Gary Johnson isn't Ron Paul, but he's pretty darn good. The next four years are going to be hell either way, but 2016 doesn't have to be.

Imagine if the Libertarian Party gets enough votes to be included in future debates. That would lead into more popularity for third parties, more funding for third parties, and it would snowball from there once people see the evil two-headed beast can indeed bleed. And if it bleeds, we can kill it. (Relax, watch-list goons, that's just a line from Predator.)

Ron Paul will not be on the ballot in all 50 states. Gary Johnson will be.

If nothing else, watch Gary Johnson's speech from Paul Fest and then decide.

 
Gary will be at my school Oct. 5th, looking forward to talking with him personally.
 
A vote for Obama is the best strategy for 2016 as much as people don't want to have to do so. The next best strategy is to vote for Gary Johnson and it has the extra benefit of actually voting for a good candidate. The worst strategy is to vote for Romney, since if he wins it will be impossible to put up someone else in 2016 and I worry about the fragility of the liberty movement at this time. Marginally Romney might be slightly better on taxes than Obama, but I don't think it's worth it granted the massive negatives.
 
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

He wasn't a threat until we showed up. There was no need to undermine him back then. He was just a gadfly for most of those years. Once millions of people started supporting him, that quickly changed.

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.

Give up? Give up? This fight has barely just begun. We have completed phase 1: the awakening. Politics has served its purpose. We can continue to try to use it to wake up the few left capable of waking up, but for the most part, we have expended the political system's usefulness. We won't get much more out of it.

It's time to start phase 2.

What, do you think the government is going to go away on its own? It won't!

Who said anything about it going away on its own?

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.

I couldn't agree more. But you wish to work within the broken system, so that when the system breaks, we're already set up inside the system so that we can convince people to come to our side. However, it's not going to work that way.

What's going to happen, is that when the collapse happens, we're going to point out to them that we saw this coming, explain to them how it happened, and then show them a path to a brighter future. And they're going to tell us to shove that brighter future up our ass, because they want more State. Dr. Paul has predicted nearly everything that has come to pass today, the police state, the economic collapse, the encroachments on our liberty, the endless wars, the insurmountable debt. Noone cares. They want more State, have always wanted more State, and will always want more State. Future generations are not so hopeless, but this current generation absolutely is. They will oppose us. Always.

What does that take? Oh, yeah...political action. Whether you wait for collapse or not, political action is literally unavoidable

Sure. Political action. But that does not necessarily mean that our political actions should be in the framework of their political system. When this collapse happens, we do want to have an infrastructure. But we don't want that infrastructure to be inside of their system. There are simply too many reasons not to do it. They will attempt subterfuge against us, they will undermine us at every turn, and generally just fight us however they can. This makes it very hard for us to organize.

Any "organization" that we attempt to form inside of their system will not work. Because working within the system implies working with Republicans (or Democrats, or any other party), that means we are working with those people. They will be a part of the conversation. This means that every time we try to have meaningful discourse on how to proceed or what should be done, we have to fight off all of those other people who despise liberty and freedom.

The only positive to working within the system is to try to convert new people. And that's a noble pursuit. However, there's not many left to convert. As things get worse, more people will be willing to come to our side, but for now we have reached a ceiling. We can continue to reach out to these people without needing to be inside of their system. If we have our own infrastructure, and as long as we are welcoming to all who want liberty and freedom, as the saying goes - build it, and they will come.

We need to start building our own infrastructure. A political party, if you like. But the purpose is not to win elections. The purpose should be solely to organize like minded individuals. Only with proper organization can we ever hope to achieve anything, and we won't find that organization by trying to "take over the GOP."

The GOP has nothing to offer us anymore. We need to organize ourselves and prepare for the coming collapse. When the system collapses, our infrastructure will be in place, and we'll have much better chances of successfully opposing the rest of the country's desire for tyranny.

Quietly disengage if you like

You like many others are living in a false dichotomy. Refusing to participate in their system is not "giving up." In my book, I call it "just getting started."
 
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.

Why do you say that about Johnson?
 
A vote for Obama is the best strategy for 2016 as much as people don't want to have to do so. The next best strategy is to vote for Gary Johnson and it has the extra benefit of actually voting for a good candidate. The worst strategy is to vote for Romney, since if he wins it will be impossible to put up someone else in 2016 and I worry about the fragility of the liberty movement at this time. Marginally Romney might be slightly better on taxes than Obama, but I don't think it's worth it granted the massive negatives.

peter schiff made a good point yesterday. if romney were to win and a collapse were to happen or if romney failed to improve things and went back on his "promises", rand could stand up and say hey, i worked with you before but you havent done anything. now you have to work with me. if rand were to primary him, it would be a 1 on 1 battle instead of having to share the stage with 9 other candidates. i think too many people are assuming an obama win is the best case scenario if you are just interested in rand winning 2016.
 
We're screwed either way with Obama or Romney. Might as well vote for Johnson. This country, along with it's mornonic voters and their BS, deserve a collapse. This country had it's chance with RP, twice.
 
Back
Top