Rachel Maddow: Will Ron Paul’s Success Alter the GOP?

[Mini-Me]

I don't think you can do that without money. Money is necessary to coordinate production, and the money will be in rapid decline, just because Americans won't want to hold cash, even if the U.S. gets other countries to do what they want. My bet in that scenario is that production will be very inefficient, not even talking about the war here, but to fulfill the basic needs of the population, and the wealth will be dissipated literally in a month. I don't think you can keep a population docile when they're starving, and 50% of them have guns.

Money wasn't necessary to coordinate production in the Soviet Union or Mao's China, was it? Lacking a pricing mechanism created so much inefficiency that famines were common, but they still maintained industrial production for military and police purposes. Priorities, you know? People finally had enough in the Soviet Union, and the ruling class actually had enough of a self-preservation instinct to "give in," but it took decades of Communism (and implicit bankruptcy) before this happened.

You're right about guns though: We have a unique advantage here that other populations did not, and it just might be our saving grace if government collapse and martial law happens before we can change course. Still, don't underestimate the power of propaganda: If the government chooses this path, the media and government will do everything in their power to convince the people that their poverty is the fault of external enemies, who they must fight against for their very survival. A lot of people will be convinced, and it's mainly due to Ron Paul that we'll have the numbers to counteract that propaganda and spread the truth.

 

[jj-]

Money wasn't necessary to coordinate production in the Soviet Union or Mao's China, was it? Lacking a pricing mechanism created so much inefficiency that famines were common, but they still maintained industrial production for military and police purposes. Priorities, you know?

I think the difference is that they didn't have to go from an economy with a high degree of division of labor, which is only made possible by somewhat stable money, to an almost completely planned economy in a very short period of time. The U.S. would have to make a transition like that, and it will probably collapse before the transition is over. Our main point of disagreement is however that I think the unrest would be more significant. Sure, if there is zero unrest when people are dying, they can have the war machine and nothing else going.

 

[Mini-Me]

I think the difference is that they didn't have to go from an economy with a high degree of division of labor, which is only made possible by somewhat stable money, to an almost completely planned economy in a very short period of time. The U.S. would have to make a transition like that, and it will probably collapse before the transition is over. Our main point of disagreement is however that I think the unrest would be more significant. Sure, if there is zero unrest when people are dying, they can have the war machine and nothing else going.

I think you're right about our main point of disagreement: I'm taking a conservative/pessimistic view of the amount of unrest...it really depends on the effectiveness of propaganda. I guess I'm afraid of being caught off guard if reality falls short of optimistic projections, so I'd rather brace myself for a worst case scenario. Truth be told though, the propaganda would have to be extremely effective here (moreso than in most other countries) due to the pervasiveness of guns and ammo. If peaceful revolution is made impossible and the stakes are close enough to "life or death," even a small level of resistance could be quite effective in this country.

Either way, the neocon ringleaders believe in fascism, so they'd be much more "optimistic" about their chances than you are. Unless they allow a collapse to occur to usher in a one-world government, I expect them to at least attempt something like this.

 

[jj-]

I think you're right about our main point of disagreement: I'm taking a conservative/pessimistic view of the amount of unrest...it really depends on the effectiveness of propaganda. I guess I'm afraid of being caught off guard if reality falls short of optimistic projections, so I'd rather brace myself for a worst case scenario. Truth be told though, the propaganda would have to be extremely effective here (moreso than in most other countries) due to the pervasiveness of guns and ammo.

Either way, the neocon ringleaders believe in fascism, so they'd be much more "optimistic" about their chances than you are. Unless they allow a collapse to occur to usher in a one-world government, I expect them to at least attempt something like this.

Well, I'll be waiting for the moment to come back to this thread and tell you "I told you" the thing would collapse quickly!

Also, what I'm projecting is not optimism. It's chaos. I just think the idea of setting up a world government in the middle of a monetary collapse just can't materialize.

 

[Mini-Me]

Well, I'll be waiting for the moment to come back to this thread and tell you "I told you" the thing would collapse quickly!

I hope we can change course in this country first, but if we can't and this whole thing collapses, then I hope you're right.

 

[jj-]

I hope we can change course in this country first

I guess you're the optimist here.

 

[Mini-Me]

I guess you're the optimist here.

Maybe. We're slowly taking over the GOP, so it's really a matter of how fast the true collapse is coming (which I would define as the fall of the petrodollar standard). It's very difficult to time this sort of thing: It could happen next week, or it could take a few more decades. My asspull guess is that we still have ten years or more, and I think we'd be smart to cover our bases and fight at every step, in case things get harder instead of easier after collapse.

 

[jj-]

Maybe. We're slowly taking over the GOP, so it's really a matter of how fast the true collapse (defined by the fall of the petrodollar standard) is coming. It's very difficult to time this sort of thing: It could happen next week, or it could take a couple more decades. I just think we'd be smart to cover our bases and fight at every step, in case things get harder instead of easier after collapse.

This is probably another main point of disagreement: when the collapse will come. I believe a significant loss of borrowing power will trigger a sequence of catastrophic events, and that loss of borrowing power could happen just by a recession in the Chinese economy. So if I was forced to bet on this hard to predict thing, I'd put it within 5 years.

 

[Mini-Me]

This is probably another main point of disagreement: when the collapse will come. I believe a significant loss of borrowing power will trigger a sequence of catastrophic events, and that loss of borrowing power could happen just by a recession in the Chinese economy. So if I was forced to bet on this hard to predict thing, I'd put it within 5 years.

We should have a poll on this.

 

[Number19]

He likes to use 'dysfunctional' a lot, but he gives some good insight into the mindset of the people in power of both the national parties.

When they erect a shadow party, that means they are waiting for the real one to dry up.

Each state sends one national committeeman and one national committeewoman to the GOP executive committee. As we begin to control the state parties, we begin to exert increasing influence over control of the national party apparatus.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I'm saying we fail at getting out the vote. Hell, half the people that claim to support paul don't vote because they are morally opposed to it or don't bother to register in the correct party.

Not even close to half of the people who support RP are ancaps.

 

[mczerone]

Not even close to half of the people who support RP are ancaps.

...yet.

 

[drummergirl]

I'm saying we fail at getting out the vote. Hell, half the people that claim to support paul don't vote because they are morally opposed to it or don't bother to register in the correct party.

The reason that you believe this is because you believe that the reported election results are accurate. They are not. At this point we have a mountain of evidence (building every day) that all but a handful of the republican POTUS primaries were rigged. So you've misidentified the problem. We can turn out the voters, but we can't win rigged elections.

 

[angelatc]

Right now there's still hope among some of us that we can "mutiny" and take over the GOP ship before she sinks. I think the smarter move is to head to the life boats before the entire party capsizes into irrelevance.

If Obama continues to run the same campaign he's currently running, there's a significant chance that Milquetoast Mitt will actually win this, and the GOP could even conceivably control all 3 branches of government again. That really doesn't seem like irrelevance to me.

 

[BenIsForRon]

If Obama continues to run the same campaign he's currently running, there's a significant chance that Milquetoast Mitt will actually win this, and the GOP could even conceivably control all 3 branches of government again. That really doesn't seem like irrelevance to me.

This makes me very sad for America. They never fucking learn.

 

[DeMintConservative]

I think by "Welcome" is meant to treat with respect and follow the rules. If you look at the video proof of Ron Paul supporters being hit, arrested, etc.. for just following the rules, or where rules are broken by the establishment and slates ramed through with motions being ignored you will understand what is meant by not feeling welcome.

edit: Although I agree that when taking over the party they will have to support the party as they make changes to it but that does not mean they must support Romney at this point (he's not the nominee).

That's obviously not what he meant by "welcome".

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...lter-the-GOP&p=4503387&viewfull=1#post4503387

He was very clear that what he meant by "welcome" was getting everybody else to support who he likes but without him even bothering to support those he doesn't like.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Oh please come off of it. All hail the Grand Old Glorious Party! Just showing blind allegience to anyone or Party is what has gotten us in the mess we are in today. Anytime I've told anyone outside my family I'm involved the immediate response is why would you want to join such corrupt organizations (speaking of political parties in general).

It is very simple, the more a candidate reflects the values of an organization or group of people the more people will go to bat and work hard for that person. Even if you are in a big Party position, blindly supporting someone who doesn't inspire people to work for them is just plain dumb. See McCain 2008.

You are right the Party is a vehicle to get candidates elected, but the battle should be over recruiting the right candidates that will inspire people to work hard for them.

I would suggest those who believe in such strong allegience to the Party read a section from Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" call "Why the worst get on Top" and do some actual historical research on the german nazi party. A lot of people didn't actually believe in nazism, they just showed blind allegience to the party. All Hail the Party!!

I think you misunderstood me. I couldn't care less about showing blind allegiance to the party. But if you're in a party, elected to the party structures, then the basic think you need to do is to support your party nominees. It's the very basic job description. You can't use the party structures to oppose the party nominees even if you don't like them. If it's too much for you to stomach, just quit. There are other opportunities to contribute politically and in terms of civic duty. Plenty of life outside of parties, let alone party structures.

Basically, if you aren't willing to be a partisan, then don't become one. But you can't have it both ways though.

 

[DeMintConservative]

If Obama continues to run the same campaign he's currently running, there's a significant chance that Milquetoast Mitt will actually win this, and the GOP could even conceivably control all 3 branches of government again. That really doesn't seem like irrelevance to me.

Hopefully. It's the only way of pushing the country a bit in the right direction in the next couple of years.

 

[JasonM]

How do you come to that conclusion? Are you saying that Mitt Romney has a better Grass roots than we do? If so give me some of what your smoking.

Ehh, look at the popular vote and tell me who has the most voters. Tell me who is in 2nd place. Now 3rd place. Now, finally, 4th place.

Turning out the vote = getting more people to actually vote for YOUR candidate than the other guy.

In that department, we have failed in all 50 states, and every territory except 1 in an election that less than 20% of the eligible voter population actually engages in (and that's being wildly and unrealistically generous).

 

[DeMintConservative]

Ehh, look at the popular vote and tell me who has the most voters. Tell me who is in 2nd place. Now 3rd place. Now, finally, 4th place.

Turning out the vote = getting more people to actually vote for YOUR candidate than the other guy.

In that department, we have failed in all 50 states, and every territory except 1 in an election that less than 20% of the eligible voter population actually engages in (and that's being wildly and unrealistically generous).

CSV file

VRRs = “registered republicans”, RVs = “registered voters”, VEP = “voting-eligible population”, Pop = “population”:

State;VRRs;RVs;VEP;Pop
Alabama;na;1.39%;0.89%;0.65%
Alaska;2.48%;1,00%;0.64%;0.45%
Arizona;3.39%;1.32%;0.92%;0.61%
Colorado;0.72%;0.34%;0.22%;0.15%
Connecticut;1.83%;0.37%;0.32%;0.22%
DC ;2.05%;0.21%;0.14%;0.1%
Delaware;1.74%;0.72%;0.46%;0.33%
Florida;2.89%;1.47%;0.91%;0.62%
Georgia;na;1.45%;0.92%;0.61%
Hawai;na;0.42%;0.21%;0.15%
Idaho;na;1.21%;0.75%;0.52%
Illinois;na;1.49%;0.99%;0.68%
Iowa;4.07%;1.68%;1.17%;0.85%
Kansas;0.51%;0.28%;0.19%;0.13%
Luoisiana;1.53%;0.47%;0.35%;0.25%
Maine ;0.73%;0.26%;0.2%;0.15%
Maryland;2.47%;0.9%;0.57%;0.39%
Massachussets;7.55%;0.86%;0.75%;0.53%
Michigan ;na;2.26%;1.6%;1.77%
Minnesota ;na;0.48%;0.35%;0.25%
Mississippi ;na;0.85%;0.61%;0.44%
Missouri ;na;1.02%;0.7%;0.51%
Nevada ;1.54%;0.62%;0.35%;0.23%
New Hampshire;24.6%;7.41%;5.69%;4.31%
New York;0.88%;0.3%;0.19%;0.13%
North Dakota;na;0.88%;0.62%;0.47%
Ohio ;na;1.99%;1.3%;0.96%
Oklahoma ;3.25%;1.72%;1.03%;0.74%
Pennsylvania;3.48%;1.75%;1.1%;0.83%
Puerto Rico ;na;0.06%;0.06%;0.04%
Rhode Island;4.88%;0.68%;0.45%;0.03%
South Carolina ;na;3.4%;2.28%;1.69%
Tennesse;na;1.76%;1.09%;0.79%
Vermont ;na;4.32%;3.16%;2.46%
Virginia;na;2.12%;1.9%;1.34%
Washington;na;0.37%;0.27%;0.19%
Wisconsin ;na;3.02%;2.1%;1.54%