PolicyReader
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,399
Your personal misunderstanding and rage does not equate to proof. Your hostility and sarcasm do not equate to accurate or well founded analysis.
A brokered convention means no one has the delegate total needed going into the convention that means finding some soft support.
Counting on the base to be politically savvy enough to understand that some soft support needs to be gathered so that we can clinch the nomination.
Clearly in your case that's something that shouldn't have been counted on, mores the pity.
You mention "the future of the liberty movement", I can't be polite about this 2016, let's spend decades to take over the GOP, 2012 is just about the movement/message (or whatever the latest flavor is) garbage anymore, even if it drags this thread into The Vent. I will strive to maintain at least minimal civility at least (mods, if I go over the line please do cut my post). But bluntly all this "look to the future" movement garbage is toxic and I'm sick of biting my tongue about it.
This is about electing Ron Paul in 2012 to be PRESIDENT! You want to talk about "narrow windows" 2012 is the window, after this without Paul it gets worse, or it gets much worse.
As best I can tell Paul knows this, and why wouldn't he he's been talking about how bad it can get, and then how much worse it can get, for decades now.
So do I think Paul is trying to use every legal means to attain the office? Yes I do, some people talk about his age or how he's at the end of his political career as if that changes the game for him.. have you forgotten he has family? Or are you just assuming that he doesn't care about them enough to want their nation to be one of liberty? How can anyone who's read Pauls record seriously believe he'd in essence turn into a lobbyist now?
If someone is a "hardcore" supporter they won't let an interview with Benton or any other non-Paul redefine the fundamental view, which bluntly means that in my book you don't qualify no matter how many political office titles you throw at me.
"conservative" "libertarian" "republican" are all labels I don't care what "happens to" a given political label, I care what happens to the nation and how bad it will be in the next four years without Paul as president. Some of us are more interested in trying to deal with what is in front of us than in talking about some theoretical future of 'the movement'. I know people from across the political spectrum and all around the states, many are willing to give Paul and thus his ideas a look because of his record, even then many are still hesitant and take persuading. Without Paul as the candidate this "movement" is "cratered" not because Paul is some 'cult of personality' figure but because he's the only one with the record to back it up (I think Rand and Justin will have that record, but they don't yet, they haven't been there long enough). There are a lot of voters (and I'm not even talking about the Blue Republicans among us, just the Indys) who simply would never consider voting republican without Paul. What's left of "the movement" when it fractures? When the Indys and the BlueReps are gone and the "remaining" fracture between 'take back the GOP' and 'build up the LP' ?
If it's this easy for "hardcore" supporters to lose faith in Paul who has a mufti-decade proven track-record who will even in theory have a shot of doing a better job? Rand or Justin who are both already painted in the minds of many voters as icons of the co-opted 'TeaParty' ? That term is a kiss of death among many Dem and Repub voters. Or someone with even less national recognition? Who is going to vouch for some new name in a way that will rally national support? How would a new name be vetted?
With Paul elected this year there is a movement, without that there is a prayer. You don't want to trust the man who's spent his lifetime fighting for liberty? Fine, your business, but that's on you not him. And remember while you're issuing your ultimatums about your vote and your signs that you're accomplishing nothing. If you 'succeed' at punishing Paul for not being what you define as a leader then all you've achieved is four more years of the same.
This year right now Paul is the single candidate who might turn things around, and your answer as an 'advocate of "the movement"' is to try and trash him because he's not doing what you tell him to do? From a practical standpoint that is both foolish and absurd. You don't even know if he's heard what you have to say on the subject, you don't know if he has relevant information that you don't possess (or what the implications of such information are), you don't even know if what you're flipping out over is actually real. The only tangible harms you've enumerated to date are those from yourself and people who act the same.
So, you refuse to support the only liberty candidate who has any shot at president this year? That's your call, but stop toxifying the efforts of those of us who are still working on this day by day.
Last edited:
