People angry at Doug Wead?

[twomp]

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.

I agree that Dr. Paul wouldn't have been as well known had he not run for President as a Republican both in 2007 and this year. At the same time, I feel that using the GOP as a tool to promote liberty has served it's purpose. He is effectively retiring from politics this year and he should use his popularity to promote a 3rd party. How many times in the last 50 years have we had a candidate with a solid 5-10 percent base that would vote for him NO MATTER what party he's in? Hell there is a lot of people on this VERY forum that will vote for him even if he's NOT on the ballot? What do you say to those people? That they are throwing away their vote?

As for exposure, you are wrong. The MSM has done a brilliant job in shutting Ron Paul out. I bet you could walk out on your street or go to your library and find people who don't know who Ron Paul is. I'm sure if you asked them who Romney or Obama is, they would know.

To address your point about getting on the ballot. He doesn't have to start from scratch, there are parties out there that I'm sure would be willing to have him on their ticket just for his base. But you are right, I should look more into this so that I don't look like I'm talking out my ass and I definitely will.

As for the career of Rand Paul, I believe his career is safe now in the ample bosom of one Willard Mitt Romney. It is going to be hard to for people to blame Rand for his dad's actions. I'm sure they will try though. All Rand Paul has to say is "look I publicly supported Mitt Romney and I caught hell for it." Besides it's not like the establishment GOP helped him get elected anyways.

I will get back to you about the getting on the ballot stuff, I've heard Dr. Paul speak on how hard it is to get on every state but I never really looked up the requirements. Now that you mention it though, I'll probably look up which party managed to get on the ballots in all 50 states, it can't be that much seeing how hard it is. Either way, I hope one of these parties extend an invitation to Dr. Paul and find a way to get him on the ticket.

And finally to address your voter comments. I'm sure the voters would vote the frauds out IF THEY KNEW! People have lives and families, they trust what they see on the evening news after a long hard day at work. The media doesn't show them what is really going on. Why would they vote someone out when they don't even know what he's done wrong? NDAA was barely reported on by the media as well as all those countless other crap that Congress and the President has pulled off. You blame the voters for something media and establishment has been responsible for. I'm sure you were one of the "enlightened" ones who saw through this crap way back in the 70's with Dr. Paul right? But for the rest of us, we have been manipulated by the media. Hell up till about 8 months ago, I didn't know the Federal Reserve was a private company.

In any case, the disagreement remains. The Barry Goldwater movement couldn't change the GOP "from within." The Pat Roberson evangelical movement couldn't do it. The Tea Party couldn't do it.

It's time to stop trying the same thing over and over and try a new approach. This opportunity goes away when Dr. Paul does. There has been NO candidate with his appeal and he is the ONLY one that could be the anchor for a legitimate 3rd party run. If it doesn't work, well the GOP will still be here in 2016 no? It still wouldn't be to late to rebuild that corrupt party from within.

 

[olsonly]

Really

 

[olsonly]

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.

That is really stupid.

 

[AJ Antimony]

I agree that Dr. Paul wouldn't have been as well known had he not run for President as a Republican both in 2007 and this year. At the same time, I feel that using the GOP as a tool to promote liberty has served it's purpose. He is effectively retiring from politics this year and he should use his popularity to promote a 3rd party. How many times in the last 50 years have we had a candidate with a solid 5-10 percent base that would vote for him NO MATTER what party he's in? Hell there is a lot of people on this VERY forum that will vote for him even if he's NOT on the ballot? What do you say to those people? That they are throwing away their vote?

As for exposure, you are wrong. The MSM has done a brilliant job in shutting Ron Paul out. I bet you could walk out on your street or go to your library and find people who don't know who Ron Paul is. I'm sure if you asked them who Romney or Obama is, they would know.

To address your point about getting on the ballot. He doesn't have to start from scratch, there are parties out there that I'm sure would be willing to have him on their ticket just for his base. But you are right, I should look more into this so that I don't look like I'm talking out my ass and I definitely will.

As for the career of Rand Paul, I believe his career is safe now in the ample bosom of one Willard Mitt Romney. It is going to be hard to for people to blame Rand for his dad's actions. I'm sure they will try though. All Rand Paul has to say is "look I publicly supported Mitt Romney and I caught hell for it." Besides it's not like the establishment GOP helped him get elected anyways.

I will get back to you about the getting on the ballot stuff, I've heard Dr. Paul speak on how hard it is to get on every state but I never really looked up the requirements. Now that you mention it though, I'll probably look up which party managed to get on the ballots in all 50 states, it can't be that much seeing how hard it is. Either way, I hope one of these parties extend an invitation to Dr. Paul and find a way to get him on the ticket.

And finally to address your voter comments. I'm sure the voters would vote the frauds out IF THEY KNEW! People have lives and families, they trust what they see on the evening news after a long hard day at work. The media doesn't show them what is really going on. Why would they vote someone out when they don't even know what he's done wrong? NDAA was barely reported on by the media as well as all those countless other crap that Congress and the President has pulled off. You blame the voters for something media and establishment has been responsible for. I'm sure you were one of the "enlightened" ones who saw through this crap way back in the 70's with Dr. Paul right? But for the rest of us, we have been manipulated by the media. Hell up till about 8 months ago, I didn't know the Federal Reserve was a private company.

In any case, the disagreement remains. The Barry Goldwater movement couldn't change the GOP "from within." The Pat Roberson evangelical movement couldn't do it. The Tea Party couldn't do it.

It's time to stop trying the same thing over and over and try a new approach. This opportunity goes away when Dr. Paul does. There has been NO candidate with his appeal and he is the ONLY one that could be the anchor for a legitimate 3rd party run. If it doesn't work, well the GOP will still be here in 2016 no? It still wouldn't be to late to rebuild that corrupt party from within.

5-10% base?? Good one! Have a source for that? No, I know you don't, because you made those numbers up. Completely made up. Ron Paul got 11% in the entire 2012 GOP primary race, and I guarantee not all of that 11% are die hard supporters. Maybe half of them are? Who knows. Even if we say all 2,000,000 GOP votes for Ron Paul are from die hard supporters, in a general election of 130,000,000 voters, that's only 1.5% of the vote. If we make the completely unverifiable assumption that Ron Paul has 2,000,000 die hard voters in the Democratic Party, then we are up to 3% of the general election electorate! My signature applies to you and what you said here. You believe Ron Paul has a completely bogus number of die hard voters. He doesn't. His die hard voters are such a tiny fraction of the electorate. It actually amazes me how such a small amount of supporters have been able to overhaul GOP.

Regarding exposure, who cares what some dolts on the street know about politics? Half of America doesn't vote. We only care about exposure among GOP voters. Polls have shown that Ron Paul has high name recognition among voters. They know him from 2008. I think I saw some polls like this before Iowa, but I don't remember. Do voters know exactly where he stands on the issues? Of course not. But they don't really have any idea where Obama and Romney stand either.

"Besides it's not like the establishment GOP helped him get elected anyways." Um, the GOP certainly helped him win the general election...

Regarding voters, you're right that voters vote like morons because they don't know anything. But this is still, at least partially, their fault. Voters are not completely faultless. Again, 5 minutes on Google can teach voters more about their candidates than the MSM can in 5 weeks. It's their fault that they don't care to do their homework.

Your overall point still has absolutely no logical support. You are saying that because a movement may be "co-opted," then it's the movement's fault for trying to restore a political party. And again, as another poster pointed out, are you even sure you are comparing apples to apples here? Are you sure the Goldwater, evangelical, and Tea Party movements are exactly the same as the Ron Paul movement? Are you sure? Seeing as you don't know much about ballot access, I highly doubt you know much about the Goldwater movement. I sure don't know a lot about it!

If you could please explain how supporting an unpopular third party candidate/ticket is NOT trying the same thing over and over, then that would be great. By the way, how is Ron Paul the ONLY anchor for a "legitimate" 3rd party run? Like it or not, Ron Paul was a congressman that really didn't get anything done. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, is a two term major party governor that did a great job as governor. To me, a two term governor seems more "legitimate" than a congressman (how did former GOP Rep. Bob Barr do in 2008?)

 

[parocks]

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?

It's an continuous fight. The conservative tradition is one in the republican party. conservatives have been battling the eastern establishment since at least 1940 - on basically the same lines - against the new deal, too big fed gov. Taft - Goldwater - Reagan - Paul. Keep fighting.

 

[twomp]

5-10% base?? Good one! Have a source for that? No, I know you don't, because you made those numbers up.

It says 7-10 percent like Ron Paul.

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=18901

Polls have shown that Ron Paul has high name recognition among voters.

I won't call you a liar but how do I know that you didn't make that up? You want to know if people know who he is? Just ask 10 random people you see tomorrow.

Your overall point still has absolutely no logical support. You are saying that because a movement may be "co-opted," then it's the movement's fault for trying to restore a political party. And again, as another poster pointed out, are you even sure you are comparing apples to apples here? Are you sure the Goldwater, evangelical, and Tea Party movements are exactly the same as the Ron Paul movement? Are you sure? Seeing as you don't know much about ballot access, I highly doubt you know much about the Goldwater movement. I sure don't know a lot about it!

You're right. You don't know. Where did I say they were exactly the same? No two movements are the same. The thing they have in common is that they all got co-opted. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this to you but let me try again. Those previous movements have TRIED to change the party from within. They got co-opted in the process. Is it their "fault"? I don't even know what you mean by their "fault for trying to restore a political party"? Those movements had good intentions when they started. The Barry Goldwater movement was big on conservatism. The Pat Roberson movement was big on faith and religion. The Tea Party was against big government and crony capitalism. They all succeeded in changing the rhetoric. They failed in "changing the party" from within. They got co-opted. I don't know how many times I can explain this. Maybe 2-3 more times?

If you could please explain how supporting an unpopular third party candidate/ticket is NOT trying the same thing over and over, then that would be great. By the way, how is Ron Paul the ONLY anchor for a "legitimate" 3rd party run? Like it or not, Ron Paul was a congressman that really didn't get anything done. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, is a two term major party governor that did a great job as governor. To me, a two term governor seems more "legitimate" than a congressman (how did former GOP Rep. Bob Barr do in 2008?)

Sure for the 3rd time, I will explain it again. Gary Johnson doesn't have the base that Ron Paul does. Ron Paul has a base that will vote for him no matter what party he is in and I'm sure you've seen some of the posts here of how folks will vote for him even if he isn't on the ballot. There has been NO other candidate in the past 40 years that has that kind of a base. If the polls for the video I linked from above is correct, then Dr. Paul will start with a 5-10 percent base. IF you can find any polls that says otherwise, I'd love to see it. I'm looking for a fairly recent poll of how he would match up versus Mitt Romney AND President Obama.

If Dr. Paul is considering running in 2016, I would say stay in the party. Since it's unlikely that he will do that. Why not find a way to run 3rd party and give the country a legitimate 3rd option. A REAL rEVOLution would be the start of a 3rd party.

 

[speciallyblend]

That is really stupid.

wearing a condom is safe not stupid . what is really stupid is people endorsing obamney and then trying to justify it. Romney is obama and a liar. people who are willing to endorse obamney should not be trusted.

 

[WhistlinDave]

I think the topic of this thread and many other threads I've seen, and the general level of tension and anger out there overall, seems to indicate a lot of people need to seriously chill out.

Keep up with efforts on a local and state level, throw in with the lawsuit if you have anything pertinent to contribute, and other than that, chill out.

Everyone is getting uptight because they cannot wait until Tampa and they are wanting all the answers and some kind of resolution or closure now, whether it's winning or losing the nomination. Some people cannot stand the fact that everything is in Limbo. They cannot stand the indications that things may not be going well. How quickly some people have already mentally given up!

But all the anger and getting mad at this person or that person or calling this one a traitor and that one useless or whatever, none of it is constructive.

We all need to just keep chugging along, and chill out, because getting all frenzied does not help anything. If Ron loses the nomination in Tampa, there will still be more work to do. If Ron wins the nomination in Tampa, there will still be more work to do. This heightened level of anxiety some people are feeling in the meantime is not going to make August get here any faster and it certainly isn't going to help anyone or anything.

Whenever you see people flipping out, whether here, or other places online (or in real life for that matter) please remind them Tampa is still a ways off, and encourage them to take a deep breath and relax. People need to channel their passion and find something to do that will help the cause of Liberty, not find someone to get mad at.

 

[CPUd]

On cognitive dissonance: