Call me a troll... here's my case... then I'll shut up.

[RageAgainstDC]

we don't have any polls with Ron as an independent, only unspecified 3rd party (due to the libertarian run before). in those situations he is polling much better than he ever did as a republican. i doubt a switch to independent would make any difference at all. if anything it might be worth a point or two.

 

[Mastiff]

we don't have any polls with Ron as an independent, only unspecified 3rd party (due to the libertarian run before). in those situations he is polling much better than he ever did as a republican. i doubt a switch to independent would make any difference at all. if anything it might be worth a point or two.

No no. People will look up "libertarian" on the internet and get all the crap that is not Ron Paul. It's like if a guy ran as Green, I wouldn't even look at him because I automatically think those people are crazy. I'd check out an independent every time.

 

[parke]

We dont need a third party run. We have the money to stay in it until September, broker the convention and make a larger impact on the Republican party. We need Ron in Congress if we cant get him into the white house.. We need Ron to continue to lead this movement.

 

[Redcard]

No no. People will look up "libertarian" on the internet and get all the crap that is not Ron Paul. It's like if a guy ran as Green, I wouldn't even look at him because I automatically think those people are crazy. I'd check out an independent every time.

As opposed to what?

Looking up Ron Paul and getting forums and people talking about CFR, the JOOS, 9/11, the NWO, the Amero, Alex Jones, and what not?

Bad news, mate. He's going to get that no matter where he goes, because its the crowd he hung with/hangs with. The negative influence of his name will still be a weight.

The question is, looking at the positives only, what gives us more positive.

 

[RageAgainstDC]

As opposed to what?

Looking up Ron Paul and getting forums and people talking about CFR, the JOOS, 9/11, the NWO, the Amero, Alex Jones, and what not?

Bad news, mate. He's going to get that no matter where he goes, because its the crowd he hung with/hangs with. The negative influence of his name will still be a weight.

The question is, looking at the positives only, what gives us more positive.

true, but i still think independent beats third party. i was just stating that we didn't have polls for independent, not that i thought it was better to go 3rd party. either way, it'll keep him in the race. we need to get the message out.

 

[Redcard]

Yeah. THe reason I'm up on 3rd party is because if we hit 5% as a 3rd party.. then it means a HUGE crack in the wall of the 2 party system. It'll literally become a 3 party system.

 

[RoyalShock]

Yeah. THe reason I'm up on 3rd party is because if we hit 5% as a 3rd party.. then it means a HUGE crack in the wall of the 2 party system. It'll literally become a 3 party system.

Didn't the Reform Party hit 5+% (much more, actually) in two successive elections?

Where are they now?

 

[Redcard]

Didn't the Reform Party hit 5+% (much more, actually) in two successive elections?

Where are they now?

No. They didn't.

In 2000, they hit .4%
In 1996, they hit 8.4%, but.. for some reason, they didn't try to claim any of the money in the following presidential election
In 1992, Perot had the lead, but dropped out.

 

[My First Name Is Paul]

The only reason I began supporting Ron Paul is because he believes in the principles that I believe in AND he seemed to have a real shot at getting elected. The reason he had a shot was because he was going for the Republican nomination. I always assume that the Libertarian candidate has the same views as I have, but I don't bother supporting them because I have better things to do with my time on this Earth.

A third party attempt will not only fail to accomplish its stated goal, it will lead its supporters to a dead end, just as the above poster alluded to with the example of the Reform party. The last cause that was strong enough to unite anyone to form a lasting third party was the abolishment of slavery. Sadly, the liberty cause has not generated the same results.

 

[DeafPalmdale]

I think it would be better for Ron Paul to go for Independent because it would welcome anyone whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Libertians, Constitutionists, etc. They may not want to vote for McCain or Hillary as long as Obama and Huckabee are not in Vice President position.

 

[WATYF]

Rage, I agree completely. People can talk about technical delegate rules all day but its not going to spark this movement to tell someone its a "possibility" that there could be a brokered convention. Regarding Lincoln, back then I think its safe to say that the delegates were not as informed as they are now. They were probably more willing to change their vote at the convention. These days, if youre a delegate, you are most likely a diehard supporter because of your knowledge about your candidate. Its going to take a lot to convince the entire movement after getting 4% on super tuesday that we can win the GOP.

I agree with half of your position, but completely disagree with the other half.

I don't think Lincoln had a chance back then because people were less knowledgeable. I think Lincoln had a chance because people were actually capable of thinking back then. Today, people support a candidate with an ignorant fervor that can scarcely be explained half of the time. They latch on to one candidate, usually based on one or two "hot-button" issues, and then defend that candidate with any amount of circular, spaghetti logic and head-in-the-sand denial of facts that is necessary for them not to have to admit that they picked the wrong candidate.

As such, I really don't see this whole "brokered convention" thing going our way. I don't however support a third party run either, unless Ron is willing to establish a new party and try to convince a substantial portion of the country into switching to that party as their "main" party.

In other words, if RP plans to run as an "independent" just so he can get in the general election of 2008, then I think that's a bad idea. It'll be a "flash-in-the-pan" approach that will probably end with him just siphoning single (possibly lower double) digits, mostly from the republicans. If, however, Paul realizes that the republican party is lost and decides to start a new, sustainable, long-term party that can build its support over the course of several elections and eventually come to power, then I can see some merit to that idea. This actually happened in Canada in recent years, so we know it to be a viable option.


WATYF

 

[RageAgainstDC]

The only reason I began supporting Ron Paul is because he believes in the principles that I believe in AND he seemed to have a real shot at getting elected. The reason he had a shot was because he was going for the Republican nomination. I always assume that the Libertarian candidate has the same views as I have, but I don't bother supporting them because I have better things to do with my time on this Earth.

A third party attempt will not only fail to accomplish its stated goal, it will lead its supporters to a dead end, just as the above poster alluded to with the example of the Reform party. The last cause that was strong enough to unite anyone to form a lasting third party was the abolishment of slavery. Sadly, the liberty cause has not generated the same results.

think about it this way, it's either an independent run or the movement effectively becomes internet-niche-only (and thus, in all reality, fades off into the sunset). i mean come on, it's our only shot. ron is *not* going to the the republican nominee. the damn gop themselves don't want him, they arent going to let it happen. if you supported him because he was percieved as being electable, but didn't support another candidate you agree with because you assumed they weren't, that's your own shortcoming. if you care so much about electability, then you should obviously support an independent run. he certainly isn't electable if he isn't running in november...

 

[RageAgainstDC]

I agree with half of your position, but completely disagree with the other half.

I don't think Lincoln had a chance back then because people were less[/b knowledgeable. I think Lincoln had a chance because people were actually capable of thinking back then. Today, people support a candidate with an ignorant fervor that can scarcely be explained half of the time. They latch on to one candidate, usually based on one or two "hot-button" issues, and then defend that candidate with any amount of circular, spaghetti logic and head-in-the-sand denial of facts that is necessary for them not to have to admit that they picked the wrong candidate.

As such, I really don't see this whole "brokered convention" thing going our way. I don't however support a third party run either, unless Ron is willing to establish a new party and try to convince a substantial portion of the country into switching to that party as their "main" party.

In other words, if RP plans to run as an "independent" just so he can get in the general election of 2008, then I think that's a bad idea. It'll be a "flash-in-the-pan" approach that will probably end with him just siphoning single (possibly lower double) digits, mostly from the republicans. If, however, Paul realizes that the republican party is lost and decides to start a new, sustainable, long-term party that can build its support over the course of several elections and eventually come to power, then I can see some merit to that idea. This actually happened in Canada in recent years, so we know it to be a viable option.


WATYF

starting a formal alternative party is a great idea, but not something that could be done in this election cycle. i would certainly like to see that made a long term goal of the movement, though.

 

[sharedvoice]

I don't think we should be speculating about anything at this point. I will respect Ron Paul's decision. I am confident that he already has a contingent strategy in mind. One thing is for certain. He is going to continue this fight, as will the rest of us regardless of the outcome.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Sadly, I predict 8 years of Hitlery rule.

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton

Done, Done, Done, Done, Done, Soon, Planned, Planned, Planned, Planned, Planned

you get the picture

Sad

Very sad.

 

[jointhefightforfreedom]

Rage, i am for a 3rd party run as well IMO it would force the media to give exposure or at the very least expose the fact that "MSM elects the president not the people" and hopefully wake up some more sheeple!

Wht has really disturbed me in this election is hearing people discuss why they choose thier candidate i have been hearing things such as:
I like his/her personality!
Him/her speaks well
She is a woman
he is black
and a whole slew of other reasons other than the issues and why they could do the best job!
It's like the sheep are voting for American idol not the president!
THE COLD WAR IS BACK ! ALIVE AND WELL INSIDE THE US!
IS OUR COUNTRY TURNING SOCIALIST(democrats)?

 

[Rahl]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958&hl=en

 

[RageAgainstDC]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958&hl=en

ummm.... anyone else thinking VP?!?!?!

 

[WRellim]

So let's say we try and fail. What's the loss? Ron would lose his seat in Congress. That's a decision he would have to make. Personally I would like to think that he would find the movement to be more important. At the very least we will have had another year to pick up support for the cause, bolster our numbers, develop programs to move the movement forward, etc. If we don't go third party, 90% of the support will be gone before the movement ever got off the ground. We need time, and the only way to buy it is with a 3rd party run.

Well, we would lose a LOT of things besides simply Ron's seat in Congress.

We would lose ALL possibility of getting ANYONE ELSE like Ron Paul elected to Congress either. (And believe me, with a potential McCain-coattail LOSS staring the GOP in the face they will do ANYTHING to hedge their bets -- including running and possibly even financially supporting some "off-brand" candidates for office in Dem vulnerable districts).

And, we would lose ALL of the work being done by THOUSANDS of individuals around the country who are at present working their way INTO the party in order to change it from within.

Oh, I know, most of you really don't care about that -- mainly because its NOT an effort many of you have been willing to make... or indeed even support. But it IS the way to win especially with a McCain driven LOSS (even GOP deep establishment types see that, witness "The Mouse That ROARED" blog article).



As to Ron himself thinking the "movement" is more important. I think he DOES, but he sees it as a LONG TERM movement like the Goldwater/Reagan transition.

He does NOT see it in the terms that you do -- indeed, his whole heart and effort have really never been completely behind this run. Witness the hands-off approach to the campaign (in his congressional campaigns and the 88 run I am told that he was directly involved in a much more substantial way) -- and the minimal retail campaigning in the past few months.


As for the rest... there is NOT another "year" to pick up support. The election day is in VERY early November -- may as well say the end of October for all practical purposes. It is already nearly MARCH. That means a total of 7 months. Seven, not twelve... SEVEN. And most of the effort would have to go to REALLY DIFFICULT TASK of getting him on the ballot with VALIDATED signatures in as many states as possible.

Plus one is then facing not only the money raised by the candidates themselves, but the whole machine of BOTH parties, all of the PACS, and once again the INattention and dismissal of the media (you think they've been dismissive of his primary run? You ain't seen NOTHING YET... the SOLE word they would use is "spoiler" and "thief" as in "who will Ron STEAL votes from"... is the criticism valid? No. But that never stopped the media before.) And a presence in the debates? You're kidding right? Not gonna happen.

A third party run is the equivalent of the movement committing suicide -- and LITERALLY setting us back another TWENTY YEARS.

 

[Lord Xar]

...and you wonder why you're the laughing stock of the political world. perhaps you should practice what dr. paul preaches ,,,,,,, etc..

I grabbed out the beginning of your post. I am rather curious as to the line bolded.

You referred to that person and his association with Ron Paul in the third person. You didn't say "why we're the laughing stock.." you said "Why YOU'RE the laughing stock.."

Clearly, you are not "one of us" but an outsider. So, the question begs - if you are not consdiered one of "us" and come bearing opinion/advice, what is your intent?

That is no "slip", you were talking as an argument pretense, thus you were creating battle lines. You are clearly on one side, us on the the other. So, whats your deal?