Opportunity?

[Mr Tansill]

I have been wondering a lot lately during this campaign season specifically in its relation to the 2008 and 2012 elections. I came to the RP camp back in 2007, witnessed the original formation of the tea party, then witnessed its "popularization" and "co-opting" by the likes of types such as Ted Cruz, et al. What I'm thinking is that there is possibly a new opening here for a guy/gal such as a Ron or Rand Paul to begin to make the case again that there is another way. I do think there are lots of disenfranchised types on the "right", but I look at what has happened to the Republican party, and all I can do is laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

I may be (and likely am?) highly biased here, but I see the Republican Party's current conundrum as a direct result of their unwillingness to discuss the issues Ron Paul was bringing up back in '08 and then again in '12. I remember the way he was dismissed by everyone: McCain, Guiliani, Santorum, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. and I do feel a little happy that they are now reaping the likes of Don Trump as their candidate. So fun to watch Guiliani twist and turn and try to make sense of what Trump says, LULZ.

So what would be the best path for picking up the inevitable pieces of the Republican Party and re-shaping it into what it should be?

 

[CaptUSA]

So what would be the best path for picking up the inevitable pieces of the Republican Party and re-shaping it into what it should be?

I agree with your post. Best path? Try liberty. (see my sig.)

 

[HVACTech]

I have been wondering a lot lately during this campaign season specifically in its relation to the 2008 and 2012 elections. I came to the RP camp back in 2007, witnessed the original formation of the tea party, then witnessed its "popularization" and "co-opting" by the likes of types such as Ted Cruz, et al. What I'm thinking is that there is possibly a new opening here for a guy/gal such as a Ron or Rand Paul to begin to make the case again that there is another way. I do think there are lots of disenfranchised types on the "right", but I look at what has happened to the Republican party, and all I can do is laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

I may be (and likely am?) highly biased here, but I see the Republican Party's current conundrum as a direct result of their unwillingness to discuss the issues Ron Paul was bringing up back in '08 and then again in '12. I remember the way he was dismissed by everyone: McCain, Guiliani, Santorum, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. and I do feel a little happy that they are now reaping the likes of Don Trump as their candidate. So fun to watch Guiliani twist and turn and try to make sense of what Trump says, LULZ.

So what would be the best path for picking up the inevitable pieces of the Republican Party and re-shaping it into what it should be?

Mea Culpa?

I have noticed that Donald Trump.... has managed to do what we failed to do. :o

he has managed to "wake up" a significant proportion of sheeple... and is doing "battle" with the Republican (in name only) party...
just like we were tasked with doing...

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Mea Culpa?

I have noticed that Donald Trump.... has managed to do what we failed to do. :o

he has managed to "wake up" a significant proportion of sheeple... and is doing "battle" with the Republican (in name only) party...
just like we were tasked with doing...

Wake up? Trump is authoritarian garbage. He's picked up alot of the Anti SJW crowd simply because he is running against Hillary and he doesn't talk all PC.

 

[HVACTech]

Wake up? Trump is authoritarian garbage. He's picked up alot of the Anti SJW crowd simply because he is running against Hillary and he doesn't talk all PC.

I can be hopeful.. ya know.

perchance he learned from our mistakes? (we took the intellectual route)

around here we KNOW that we are dealing with Americunts and neocons.
therefore,
why is it rude to suggest. that Trump kicked our collective azz?
the proof is in the pudding Dude.

 

[TheCount]

So what would be the best path for picking up the inevitable pieces of the Republican Party and re-shaping it into what it should be?

Call me naive, but I think that it's (still) to have actual policies and to explain to people what we think should happen and why it's best for the country. I would hope, after this election in particular, that it would be refreshing to the average American to be treated like an adult.


This idea is based on my hope that the majority of people supporting Trump are doing so very reluctantly. If, on the other hand, what Trump is offering and providing in this election is actually what a large portion of the Republican party want, then there's no saving it and there will be at least two decades of solid left-wing control of the federal government before anything can/will be done about it.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

... and there will be at least two decades of solid left-wing control of the federal government before anything can/will be done about it.

Why would YOU want something done about it? You're a solid left winger for federal government control.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I can be hopeful.. ya know.

perchance he learned from our mistakes? (we took the intellectual route)

around here we KNOW that we are dealing with Americunts and neocons.
therefore,
why is it rude to suggest. that Trump kicked our collective azz?
the proof is in the pudding Dude.

That, indeed, is the point. It's not just Trump, it's that the entire populist end of the liberty movement got up, and have done the things the Pauls would not---namely succeed in fighting the establishment and put together a winning voting coalition, not just talk about doing so. These things needed to happen in addition to, and on top of the intellectual factors. The fixation with imagining we could prevail solely by prioritizing a coherent agenda, while spurning any other dynamic, has limited the reach of the Paul campaigns, compared to the growth otherwise seen in the rest of the grassroots.

Notice specifically, Trump did many of the things the little Napoleons of our movement kept screaming for the Pauls not to do---from openly talking about election fraud, to dangling the threat of running third party, to embracing America first or pro-sovereignty interests, to fighting PC, to questioning Obama's birth status, to raising conspiracy and collusion issues, to outright insulting or deflating the media and other candidates, to seriously bonding with socons, etc---yet did far better than did either Paul, who tried to get traction using rationalistic pitches alone.

The outsider, alt-right populist wave he has been riding has demonstrated itself to be a far better and more complete political vehicle for couching a viable, electable liberty message than the dry, utterly-consistent-intellectual-agenda-above-all-else emphasis that has dominated the Paul movement to date. Whatever happens on Election day, this presages a near future where the much, much larger populist liberty factions within the alt-right and patriot media will likely take over the LP or the "intellectual" side of the liberty movement, and not the reverse. At this point, they have acquired and established more authority to lead it and take it to victory than we have.

 

[HVACTech]

That, indeed, is the point. It's not just Trump, it's that the entire populist end of the liberty movement got up, and have done the things the Pauls would not---namely succeed in fighting the establishment and put together a winning voting coalition, not just talk about doing so. These things needed to happen in addition to, and on top of the intellectual factors. The fixation with imagining we could prevail solely by prioritizing a coherent agenda, while spurning any other dynamic, has limited the reach of the Paul campaigns, compared to the growth otherwise seen in the rest of the grassroots.

Notice specifically, Trump did many of the things the little Napoleons of our movement kept screaming for the Pauls not to do---from openly talking about election fraud, to dangling the threat of running third party, to embracing America first or pro-sovereignty interests, to fighting PC, to questioning Obama's birth status, to raising conspiracy and collusion issues, to outright insulting or deflating the media and other candidates, to seriously bonding with socons, etc---yet did far better than did either Paul, who tried to get traction using rationalistic pitches alone.

The outsider, alt-right populist wave he has been riding has demonstrated itself to be a far better and more complete political vehicle for couching a viable, electable liberty message than the dry, utterly-consistent-intellectual-agenda-above-all-else emphasis that has dominated the Paul movement to date. Whatever happens on Election day, this presages a near future where the much, much larger populist liberty factions within the alt-right and patriot media will likely take over the LP or the "intellectual" side of the liberty movement, and not the reverse. At this point, they have acquired and established more authority to lead it and take it to victory than we have.

and now we have this... from Gettysburg... (last night)

In terms of actual political measures that Trump would propose and/or enact, he listed the following six:

"A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress."
"A hiring freeze on all federal employees."
"A requirement that for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated."
"A 5-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government."
"A lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government."
"A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...lan-first-100-days-office-here-are-highlights
when I read stuff like this...

it is not hard for me to imagine... that he is on "our side"
what if, my thesis is correct? we did make a pretty big splash in 07-08. that dufuss americanus was oblivious. is just a fact.
but we did speak truth to power....

 

[nikcers]

and now we have this... from Gettysburg... (last night)


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...lan-first-100-days-office-here-are-highlights
when I read stuff like this...

it is not hard for me to imagine... that he is on "our side"
what if, my thesis is correct? we did make a pretty big splash in 07-08. that dufuss americanus was oblivious. is just a fact.
but we did speak truth to power....

When I read that, I remember Ted Cruz in the debate telling Rand Paul he is going to get the Ron Paul voters. I mean, I am glad that politicians pander to us, I just don't think of non liberty politicians as people willing to enact those things. I think of it like its a con.

 

[TheCount]

it is not hard for me to imagine... that he is on "our side"

Trump is on our side? He has had damn near two full years of campaigning to talk about all of this stuff up until now, and he shits it out at the last second as a desperate attempt to boost his numbers! What makes you think that he in any way believes in, agrees with, or will actually implement any of that?

Trump is on Trump's side. That's as far as it goes.

 

[nikcers]

Trump is on our side? He has had damn near two full years of campaigning to talk about all of this stuff up until now, and he $#@!s it out at the last second as a desperate attempt to boost his numbers! What makes you think that he in any way believes in, agrees with, or will actually implement any of that?

Trump is on Trump's side. That's as far as it goes.

I guess Trump did drive the establishment along with the Republican party off a cliff. He did that after Rand Paul vowed to be on the bus that goes off the cliff though. I guess it can be said that at least every election cycle more and more of our platform gets picked up. I remember trying to think on the bright side last election that audit the fed was on the republican platform. That still didn't drive me to vote for Mitt Romney though.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

The GOP establishment was so against Trump because the whole point of the Republican Party is to have as many of its candidates in office as possible. They (and the Democrats) are in the business of winning elections. Of particular importance is the White House. Trump was by far the weakest candidate in the field, and thus the Republican establishment, wanting to win the election, tried to stop him.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The GOP establishment was so against Trump because the whole point of the Republican Party is to have as many of its candidates in office as possible. They (and the Democrats) are in the business of winning elections. Of particular importance is the White House. Trump was by far the weakest candidate in the field, and thus the Republican establishment, wanting to win the election, tried to stop him.

LOL, weak candidates don't roll over a field of 16 strong candidates in the primaries to win the nomination, as Trump did. Every one of those other candidates (even Gilmore) were arguably "stronger" based on backing (Jeb), ideology (Rand), ground game skills (Cruz), debate skills (Christie, Fiorina) or at least previous campaign experience, so for Trump to have defeated them all by definition shows he was not weak.

In terms of the election campaign, knowing what we now know (confirmed by the Wikileaks and DNC leaks) about how completely the entire establishment has been in the tank for Hillary, other than Rand who could have done better in beating back the tsunami-sized negative campaign waged by the Clinton/MSM machine? As we speak, according to the IBD, La Times and Rasmussen polls Trump is ahead in the national polls, despite all of the attack media deluge reigned upon him.