At What Point Do We Enter--- PHASE II ??

[SJohnsson]

Ok, so...

PHASE 1 = Getting Ron Paul the nomination, and then the Presidency.

This had a couple purposes:

• Obviously, as an attempt to take over the White House (most powerful single position in our federal govt)
• Inject our ideas of real liberty into the national debate

So we are doing a great job of injecting our ideas into the national conciousness, however in a realistic sense, it is still a longshot to get Dr. Paul the nomination. In this process though, we have created THE GREATEST FREEDOM MOVEMENT SINCE THE ENLIGHTENMENT. And we all know that this movement does not end with Ron Paul, but will continue even after the primaries regardless of results. So, although disheartening if Dr. Paul does not win the nomination, the grassroots must make a very SIGNIFICANT choice in the coming months (I'll call this PHASE II).

We must either:

• Support Dr. Paul in a 3rd party run (I sincerely believe his decision to run 3rd party lies with us)
• Look toward Congressional seats, and use the IMMENSE power of our movement to place our people in Congress

I think it's very important for us not to be blinded by our love and devotion to the good Dr. and make a truly objective and calculating decision as to which option will further our cause the fastest. I've laid out here a few points that each option would provide our movement if we decided to push forward. Remember, the 2 options are not mutually exclusive, but splitting resources is obviously a concern. Also, other options exist but i consider these to be where our future lies. So here is my analysis:

Support Dr. Paul Run 3rd Party

• possibly more injection of ideas into national debate (but questionable considering media's past record considering 3rd party runs)
• remote possibility of taking office
• most likely siphoning republican votes = democrat in white house (probably the big govt ideas of Barack/Clinton)

Support Paul-like Legislators

• Less national impact with ideas
• Much more likely to be elected = possibly form a RP coalition in house that could make it very hard to pass these garbage bills??
• Longer lasting effects if candidates actually elected

So, i know i've only touched the surface of the ideas here, but i want to know what everyone thinks. Ron Paul has specifically stated that he will run as long as we keep financing him. So we will need to make an important decision soon as how best to use resources to enact real change in this country. I know some of you may not want to hear this, but remember that we have a REAL GOAL by our support of RP, and he is only the first vehicle for the change we will push in this country. This is purely food for thought, and for the time being, RP must have our 100% SUPPORT, so please don't say that i'm eroding his support by bringing up important topics.

 

[hueylong]

libertycongress.org

 

[[email protected]]

If we don't get the nomination outright, we can hope for a brokered convention. Anything can happen then, but even with 10% Dr. Paul would be very powerful, he could easily get a VP spot, or a lot of his ideas put before congress. We just need to keep getting as many votes as we can.

 

[SJohnsson]

If we don't get the nomination outright, we can hope for a brokered convention. Anything can happen then, but even with 10% Dr. Paul would be very powerful, he could easily get a VP spot, or a lot of his ideas put before congress. We just need to keep getting as many votes as we can.

agreed, although i can't see him being offered a VP spot

 

[me3]

Just stay focused on winning right now. It's waaaay to premature to be discussing defeat. We'll deal with what comes, not lose our focus before.

 

[Ron2Win]

Yeah, just do your jobs. Each of you.

 

[SJohnsson]

Just stay focused on winning right now. It's waaaay to premature to be discussing defeat. We'll deal with what comes, not lose our focus before.

Possibly, but every company and especially military has extensive contingency plans for every scenario. Our movement does not end with Dr. Paul, nomination or not.

 

[me3]

Possibly, but every company and especially military has extensive contingency plans for every scenario. Our movement does not end with Dr. Paul, nomination or not.

Right, so since it won't end, worry about it after the nomination is out of the way.

It's good to think ahead, but let's take it one game at a time.

 

[juddpuds]

I am a lifelong Republican, and Ron Paul stands for everything I have always believed. I find it incredibly frustrating that in the last 12 years or so the neocons and evangelical social conservatives have formed an alliance and pushed the libertarian wing of the party aside. From their perspective, what can we do...it's not as if the democrats offer a solution. To me this revolution is a war to take my party back to its roots. If Paul ends up running as a Libertarian and costing the republicans the white house, I will support him, because that is what will force the neocon/evangelical alliance to splinter or at least force them to bring the Goldwater republicans back to positions of power within the party.

 

[Max_in_WA]

I am a lifelong Republican, and Ron Paul stands for everything I have always believed. ... To me this revolution is a war to take my party back to its roots. ...

I was reading about 4th Generation Warfare the other day. Very interesting article about it generally:
http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/4gw_continued.htm and a very detailed explanation as well http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/fmfm_1-a.pdf

Anyway, this got me thinking about Ron Paul, Libertarianism, and the long fight ahead to get back to our roots. So 4th Gen. War is the type employed against the US in Iraq, or by Ghandi in India (it's about the moral victory, not the military victory). One interesting element is that pure military victory can actually result in ultimate loss because heavy reliance on overwhelming firepower results in wide ranging damage, which encourages hate toward the attacker, and sympathy with the losing party.

In a metaphorical sense, Fox used its overwhelming firepower in the recent debate, but nobody likes a bully. Already stories trickle into the news about Fox's behavior. They've clearly won the battle, but they lost the moral high ground. To win this "war" of ideas, we have to be able to take bullying such as this, and turn it against the bully. The bully may win that battle, but it will lose a little more credibility each time it decides to take out a lone fighting man (and everything else in the area) with jets, helicopters, and tanks.

Anyway, when I mention "war", it is of course in the metaphorical sense, not the violent sense. For example, the people walking behind the audience in the Frank "fuck you" Luntz piece after the debate were great. Like a starving Tiny Tim peering in a Christmas window -- some people are likely to feel bad for Ron Paul and thus, Fox wins the battle, loses the moral war.

In the article I linked to above, there is a comment toward the end that goes something like "In the 4000 years the story of David and Goliath has been told, how many people identified with Goliath?"

We have to be careful however, and make sure we do not project a bullying image ourselves. That will not win us the moral victory, and without the moral victory, we cannot win.

 

[SJohnsson]

I am a lifelong Republican, and Ron Paul stands for everything I have always believed. I find it incredibly frustrating that in the last 12 years or so the neocons and evangelical social conservatives have formed an alliance and pushed the libertarian wing of the party aside. From their perspective, what can we do...it's not as if the democrats offer a solution. To me this revolution is a war to take my party back to its roots. If Paul ends up running as a Libertarian and costing the republicans the white house, I will support him, because that is what will force the neocon/evangelical alliance to splinter or at least force them to bring the Goldwater republicans back to positions of power within the party.

I agree with your sentiments but I don't think the 'powers that be' in the new Republican party on a national level is willing to cede any ground to our voting bloc. We represent something unseen in the national dialogue since pre-Woodrow Wilson. The fact that we disapprove of American policies to "make the world safe for democracy" aka interventionism on all levels is something just as repugnant to Democrats. The establishment of both parties would rather cede defeat to the other as long as this tradition continues unimpeded. I believe our best chance to take this party back is to convince the evangelicals of the atrocity of neconservative foreign policy. The evangelical voters are good people, but heavily misguided. We need to reawaken their sense of the 'Golden Rule' in an internationalist way.

 

[SJohnsson]

I was reading about 4th Generation Warfare the other day. Very interesting article about it generally:
http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/4gw_continued.htm and a very detailed explanation as well http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/fmfm_1-a.pdf

Anyway, this got me thinking about Ron Paul, Libertarianism, and the long fight ahead to get back to our roots. So 4th Gen. War is the type employed against the US in Iraq, or by Ghandi in India (it's about the moral victory, not the military victory). One interesting element is that pure military victory can actually result in ultimate loss because heavy reliance on overwhelming firepower results in wide ranging damage, which encourages hate toward the attacker, and sympathy with the losing party.

In a metaphorical sense, Fox used its overwhelming firepower in the recent debate, but nobody likes a bully. Already stories trickle into the news about Fox's behavior. They've clearly won the battle, but they lost the moral high ground. To win this "war" of ideas, we have to be able to take bullying such as this, and turn it against the bully. The bully may win that battle, but it will lose a little more credibility each time it decides to take out a lone fighting man (and everything else in the area) with jets, helicopters, and tanks.

Anyway, when I mention "war", it is of course in the metaphorical sense, not the violent sense. For example, the people walking behind the audience in the Frank "fuck you" Luntz piece after the debate were great. Like a starving Tiny Tim peering in a Christmas window -- some people are likely to feel bad for Ron Paul and thus, Fox wins the battle, loses the moral war.

In the article I linked to above, there is a comment toward the end that goes something like "In the 4000 years the story of David and Goliath has been told, how many people identified with Goliath?"

We have to be careful however, and make sure we do not project a bullying image ourselves. That will not win us the moral victory, and without the moral victory, we cannot win.

Great read, and very insightful. I truly believe that RP serves his best purpose reawakening the masses through his message and as a rallying point for the grassroots, somewhat of a symbolic figure. However, the task we undertake must be like 4G warfare. It's nearly impossible for us to take the behemoth of establishment politics and mainstream media at the highest levels on ( i equate it to a guerilla force attacking head on a contemporary military). However, the cumbersome trait of a national media and centralization of political power within the parties couldn't hold a candle to the damage we could inflict on local congressional elections. Perhaps installing just 10 congressmen/women combined with those already aligned with RP's ideas could place serious roadbloacks for future legislation.

Food for thought.

 

[Isupportliberty]

I was reading about 4th Generation Warfare the other day. Very interesting article about it generally:
http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/4gw_continued.htm and a very detailed explanation as well http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/fmfm_1-a.pdf

Anyway, this got me thinking about Ron Paul, Libertarianism, and the long fight ahead to get back to our roots. So 4th Gen. War is the type employed against the US in Iraq, or by Ghandi in India (it's about the moral victory, not the military victory). One interesting element is that pure military victory can actually result in ultimate loss because heavy reliance on overwhelming firepower results in wide ranging damage, which encourages hate toward the attacker, and sympathy with the losing party.

In a metaphorical sense, Fox used its overwhelming firepower in the recent debate, but nobody likes a bully. Already stories trickle into the news about Fox's behavior. They've clearly won the battle, but they lost the moral high ground. To win this "war" of ideas, we have to be able to take bullying such as this, and turn it against the bully. The bully may win that battle, but it will lose a little more credibility each time it decides to take out a lone fighting man (and everything else in the area) with jets, helicopters, and tanks.

Anyway, when I mention "war", it is of course in the metaphorical sense, not the violent sense. For example, the people walking behind the audience in the Frank "fuck you" Luntz piece after the debate were great. Like a starving Tiny Tim peering in a Christmas window -- some people are likely to feel bad for Ron Paul and thus, Fox wins the battle, loses the moral war.

In the article I linked to above, there is a comment toward the end that goes something like "In the 4000 years the story of David and Goliath has been told, how many people identified with Goliath?"

We have to be careful however, and make sure we do not project a bullying image ourselves. That will not win us the moral victory, and without the moral victory, we cannot win.

QFT

 

[Ronin]

A little off topic, but it's late... Just a heads up. The Real-ID act is about to go into effect. I know some supporters in my state (Virginia) are introducing a bill banning it. We should all be looking into this as the federal deadline is coming up soon.

 

[SJohnsson]

A little off topic, but it's late... Just a heads up. The Real-ID act is about to go into effect. I know some supporters in my state (Virginia) are introducing a bill banning it. We should all be looking into this as the federal deadline is coming up soon.

Truth. Also, there are a group of big-time bloggers (e.g. Glenn Greenwald, etc) that are introducing plans to put a stop to telecom amnesty over illegal eavesdropping. I believe this month, so its important we help in their effort.