People angry at Doug Wead?

[AJ Antimony]

Well, there's a lot of idiots on these boards who apparently hate the idea of winning and would prefer to be 3rd party losers.

 

[MarcusI]

One should not forget that the Romney campaign chair in Lousiana said that the legitimate Paul delegates should go to Tampa, so you can't blame Romney for the LA situation.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That makes him not the best choice for "special advisor" to the campaign then....IMO.

I think the idea was to have him help Ron prep for debates. I don't think Ron ever let him, or anybody else, for that matter, and it showed. Unfortunately.

 

[LibertyEagle]

He himself has said in many interviews that he used to be an ex Bush supporter who learned from Ron Paul and came to the message of liberty.
It has happened with many of the Ron Paul people. Many have been Bush or Obama supporters, are we going to discredit all of them too as fakers?
Doug Wead is a good guy, do not hate him for being what most on here have been themselves.

+rep

 

[twomp]

Well, there's a lot of idiots on these boards who apparently hate the idea of winning and would prefer to be 3rd party losers.

Yes you know because you are the "judge" of all this? Who's to say that you're not the idiot? You know the one that wants to try the same thing over and over in hopes of a different result "this time around."

Just be patient, look at Barry Goldwater, look at Pat Roberson, look at the Tea Party. They sure changed the party from within didn't they? No they changed the party's language. The establishment remains firmly in power.

But let me guess, it will be different this time right?

 

[Mini-Me]

Yes you know because you are the "judge" of all this? Who's to say that you're not the idiot? You know the one that wants to try the same thing over and over in hopes of a different result "this time around."

Just be patient, look at Barry Goldwater, look at Pat Roberson, look at the Tea Party. They sure changed the party from within didn't they? No they changed the party's language. The establishment remains firmly in power.

But let me guess, it will be different this time right?

Yes, because we're doing something totally different from what they did. We're taking over the GOP from the ground up...local chairs, state chairs, and eventually RNC. To ignore the difference between that and a single convention (Goldwater) or mere protests and get-togethers (Tea Party) is to be intellectually dishonest about the whole thing to feed your own emotional biases in a closed loop.

 

[AJ Antimony]

Yes you know because you are the "judge" of all this? Who's to say that you're not the idiot? You know the one that wants to try the same thing over and over in hopes of a different result "this time around."

Just be patient, look at Barry Goldwater, look at Pat Roberson, look at the Tea Party. They sure changed the party from within didn't they? No they changed the party's language. The establishment remains firmly in power.

But let me guess, it will be different this time right?

You're right, your plan is better. Vote for the 3rd party that never gets 1% and is a total joke to voters. Your plan has 40 years of failure, if looking from the perspective of the LP. If looking from the perspective of any third party... shit... I don't remember the last third party candidate to win a presidential election. Washington did it twice as an independent, but I can't remember if there were any other third party/independent presidents after him. I doubt it! Certainly not in the Dem/Rep era.

You're also right, political parties can't be changed. The South never voted Democratic. Grover Cleveland was a Republican. Robert Taft was a pro-peace Democrat. Evangelicals have always voted Republican. Yep. Parties never change. Let's just give up and vote 3rd party so we can get our 1% of the vote!

 

[Keith and stuff]

That makes him not the best choice for "special advisor" to the campaign then....IMO.

It was a reason why so many were happy here when he was hired to help Ron Paul. Maybe you are right, looking at it now but pretty much everyone disagreed with what you are currently saying, at the time.

I love how time changes things

 

[twomp]

Yes, because we're doing something totally different from what they did. We're taking over the GOP from the ground up...local chairs, state chairs, and eventually RNC. To ignore the difference between that and a single convention (Goldwater) or mere protests and get-togethers (Tea Party) is to be intellectually dishonest about the whole thing to feed your own emotional biases in a closed loop.

My emotional biases? How am I being bias? Is what I was saying a lie? Did the "Goldwater movement" get co-opted? Did the Tea Party get co-opted? Maybe you are the one here being emotional. I mean how dare I question the RNC and the GOP right?

 

[sailingaway]

One should not forget that the Romney campaign chair in Lousiana said that the legitimate Paul delegates should go to Tampa, so you can't blame Romney for the LA situation.

they apparently are saying they never said that.

 

[twomp]

You're right, your plan is better. Vote for the 3rd party that never gets 1% and is a total joke to voters. Your plan has 40 years of failure, if looking from the perspective of the LP. If looking from the perspective of any third party... shit... I don't remember the last third party candidate to win a presidential election. Washington did it twice as an independent, but I can't remember if there were any other third party/independent presidents after him. I doubt it! Certainly not in the Dem/Rep era.

You're also right, political parties can't be changed. The South never voted Democratic. Grover Cleveland was a Republican. Robert Taft was a pro-peace Democrat. Evangelicals have always voted Republican. Yep. Parties never change. Let's just give up and vote 3rd party so we can get our 1% of the vote!

No what I'm saying is parties DO change. They change their message in order to gain support. What DOESN'T change is their policies. They took Barry Goldwater's message to help them get elected. Once elected, they go back to voting the way the establishment wants them to. Isn't that what co-opting is? The same thing with the evangelicals and the Tea Party. The same thing will happen to our movement if we continue to feel that we can "take over" the GOP. A new crop of politicians will come. They will call themselves "Ron Paul Republicans" and they will sell that message to get elected. Once elected their votes will then go back to voting the way the Establishment wants because in order to get things done in the GOP, you have to "play along to get along."

As for your comment about 3rd party being a failure so far, you are correct. But just because something has never been done before, doesn't mean it will never be done. If people stopped creating new things just because "it's never been done before" then we would still be in a world with sticks and rocks as tools. I'm sure at one point, someone said man will never fly or man will never go to space.

I am not your enemy here. I object to you calling people like me "idiots" just because I don't have the same thought process as you. You say you feel like the way to liberty is through the GOP? Good for you. I'm sure many on this forum will agree with you.

I see it differently. I see Dr. Paul as a catalyst. I believe with him as anchor, the rEVOLution can be the birth of a legitimate 3rd party. He may not win President this year but SOMEONE needs to have the courage to stand up against the 2 -party system not bend to it because "it has never been done before."

 

[twomp]

Yes, because we're doing something totally different from what they did. We're taking over the GOP from the ground up...local chairs, state chairs, and eventually RNC. To ignore the difference between that and a single convention (Goldwater) or mere protests and get-togethers (Tea Party) is to be intellectually dishonest about the whole thing to feed your own emotional biases in a closed loop.

By the way, I'm sure there is plenty of "Goldwater Republicans", "Tea Party Republicans" and "Evangelical Republicans" who have taken over local chairs, state chairs etc... To say that everyone currently in those positions in all 50 states is part of the "establishment" is being intellectually dishonest on your part.

 

[speciallyblend]

well, I heard some people were even bashing Carol. So that just goes to show you.

well i haven't heard anyone bashing carol but after rand endorsing romney. If i was carol i would of demanded ron paul wore a condom on a certain day.

 

[AJ Antimony]

No what I'm saying is parties DO change. They change their message in order to gain support. What DOESN'T change is their policies. They took Barry Goldwater's message to help them get elected. Once elected, they go back to voting the way the establishment wants them to. Isn't that what co-opting is? The same thing with the evangelicals and the Tea Party. The same thing will happen to our movement if we continue to feel that we can "take over" the GOP. A new crop of politicians will come. They will call themselves "Ron Paul Republicans" and they will sell that message to get elected. Once elected their votes will then go back to voting the way the Establishment wants because in order to get things done in the GOP, you have to "play along to get along."

As for your comment about 3rd party being a failure so far, you are correct. But just because something has never been done before, doesn't mean it will never be done. If people stopped creating new things just because "it's never been done before" then we would still be in a world with sticks and rocks as tools. I'm sure at one point, someone said man will never fly or man will never go to space.

I am not your enemy here. I object to you calling people like me "idiots" just because I don't have the same thought process as you. You say you feel like the way to liberty is through the GOP? Good for you. I'm sure many on this forum will agree with you.

I see it differently. I see Dr. Paul as a catalyst. I believe with him as anchor, the rEVOLution can be the birth of a legitimate 3rd party. He may not win President this year but SOMEONE needs to have the courage to stand up against the 2 -party system not bend to it because "it has never been done before."

Turns out Ron Paul completely stood up against the 2-party system in 1988. How did that work out for him? Has his message grown more since his Libertarian 1988 campaign or his 2008 GOP campaign?

I also don't understand your point anymore. So, you're saying we shouldn't continue successfully building and reforming the GOP because, in the future, some guys will call themselves "Ron Paul Republicans" and vote like George W. Bush Republicans? Who's fault is it if some fakes get elected and then stay in office? The voters. If movements get co-opted, it's because they let themselves get co-opted. You seem to be under the impression that the establishment can just snap their fingers and take congressional seats. Don't forget that we have voting in this country. If some fake guys get elected, it's because us voters allowed them to. Movements get co-opted because of stupid voters, not because of the movement itself.

 

[twomp]

Turns out Ron Paul completely stood up against the 2-party system in 1988. How did that work out for him? Has his message grown more since his Libertarian 1988 campaign or his 2008 GOP campaign?

I also don't understand your point anymore. So, you're saying we shouldn't continue successfully building and reforming the GOP because, in the future, some guys will call themselves "Ron Paul Republicans" and vote like George W. Bush Republicans? Who's fault is it if some fakes get elected and then stay in office? The voters. If movements get co-opted, it's because they let themselves get co-opted. You seem to be under the impression that the establishment can just snap their fingers and take congressional seats. Don't forget that we have voting in this country. If some fake guys get elected, it's because us voters allowed them to. Movements get co-opted because of stupid voters, not because of the movement itself.

Are u saying that conditions now are the same as in 1988? Dr. Paul is way more popular now. The GOP as a tool to promote liberty has served its purpose. Dr. Paul will not win the GOP nomination so why not do the country a huge favor and run 3rd party and gain some exposure for the foundation of a legitimate 3rd party. One that is opposed to both the other parties and build on Dr. Paul's ability to draw people from both sides.

As for abandoning the current delegate strategy, of course not. Those patriots have sacrificed time, money and in some cases blood for this cause and it should followed through till Tampa.

I guess my preference is that Dr. Paul go 3rd party AFTER Tampa. Do I think he will actually do it? No probably not. It still doesn't change my stance.

As for your point about the voters, I disagree. The voters usually vote based on the message they are told. Bush didn't campaign on bombing Iraq, Obama didn't campaign on NDAA. You are suggesting the voters voted for illegal wars and indefinite detention? That is what i feel being co-opted is. We elect politicians based on what they tell us, once elected, they vote based on party pressure. Got play along to get along.

My suggestion? Create a party where "play along to get along" means you vote based on the constitution.

 

[Uriah]

I'm about as T'ed off with Wead as I am with peace, love, and freedom!

 

[coffeewithchess]

in Louisiana, it was supporters of santorum, not romney, that caused the violence.

If it was, there was not a Rick Santorum supporter named in the article, which is why he went back and changed the title of it.

 

[opinionatedfool]

Doug Wead is a good guy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

//

 

[AJ Antimony]

Are u saying that conditions now are the same as in 1988? Dr. Paul is way more popular now. The GOP as a tool to promote liberty has served its purpose. Dr. Paul will not win the GOP nomination so why not do the country a huge favor and run 3rd party and gain some exposure for the foundation of a legitimate 3rd party. One that is opposed to both the other parties and build on Dr. Paul's ability to draw people from both sides.

As for abandoning the current delegate strategy, of course not. Those patriots have sacrificed time, money and in some cases blood for this cause and it should followed through till Tampa.

I guess my preference is that Dr. Paul go 3rd party AFTER Tampa. Do I think he will actually do it? No probably not. It still doesn't change my stance.

As for your point about the voters, I disagree. The voters usually vote based on the message they are told. Bush didn't campaign on bombing Iraq, Obama didn't campaign on NDAA. You are suggesting the voters voted for illegal wars and indefinite detention? That is what i feel being co-opted is. We elect politicians based on what they tell us, once elected, they vote based on party pressure. Got play along to get along.

My suggestion? Create a party where "play along to get along" means you vote based on the constitution.

I'm saying that Ron Paul is more popular now because he ran for president as a Republican and not as a loser Libertarian. I'm also saying that the Republican Party is the vessel through which the liberty movement will continue to grow, and that a loser 3rd party is where the movement will die.

Gain some exposure? What are you talking about? Ron Paul and his ideas have been exposed. This isn't 2007 where he's a no-name.

Go 3rd party after Tampa? You make it sound so easy, almost as if you know nothing about getting on a ballot. And you also make it sound like just willy nilly going 3rd party will have zero disadvantages and only advantages. If Ron Paul wants to screw over all his supporters as well as Rand, then he should run third party. If he wants to continue building the liberty movement by successfully rebuilding and reforming the GOP, then he should stay in the GOP. He's going to stay in the GOP.

You still don't understand my point about elections and fake politicians. If a voter hears a candidate state a principle, then that candidate gets elected, then that person votes against his stated principle, then it's up to the voter to get pissed off and vote him out of office. It's also up to the voter to do 5 minutes of homework and not vote for the fake candidate in the first place. Flip flopping politicians are the fault of dumb voters, not entire movements.

If you're really so gung-ho about 3rd parties, you should probably go read about how impossible it is to even get on the ballot and how they spend all their money getting on ballots and then fighting in court to stay on the ballots. It's almost like the only way to make ballot access easier is to reform a major party and elect major-party candidates that will reform ballot access laws.