Should The Grassroots Have a Meetup To Decide Who to Support?

[samsung1]

We really need to be unified with this. Should we decide to vote for the guy who will take us over the cliff the quickest or for the guy who will forestall the inevitable, who will kick the can down the road? Lets face it, nothing will change until a major collapse happens and then everyone will see that Ron Paul was and always has been right. Should we al be united and support the candidate who will be the one to finally end the republic?

 

[sailingaway]

I think everyone should make up their own mind. We aren't a collective.

 

[LJC4Liberty]

I have to say the same idea crossed my mind this weekend. To get the apathetic Honey Boo Boo/Kardashian watchers to even notice that their country is being taken right out from under their noses perhaps the quickest road to the demise might bring about an awakening. I am leaning in that direction vs. voting for the million dollar band aid man.

 

[acptulsa]

The crash will take care of itself. Strategic voting means less than nothing as usual, and even less than usual (if that's possible) because not even Romney and Obama are pretending that there's one bit of difference between them.

If there's an advantage to be had by us working as a team, it's in the realm of showing our strength and demonstrating that even third party votes get counted. Assuming, of course, that we have muscle to flex, can work together long enough to flex it, and our votes really will get counted. Which, I admit, are three mighty big assumptions.

 

[specsaregood]

We really need to be unified with this.

Oh I agree completely. We should all unite and support Romney, sure he sucks but at least we'll still all be united and being unified is the goal we should all collectively work to achieve.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I think everyone should make up their own mind. We aren't a collective.

^^THIS.

 

[acptulsa]

...being unified is the goal we should all collectively work to achieve.

I've got some super glue. Anyone have bailing wire? Duct tape? Bubble gum? We'll have us a coalition built in no time!

If it's all for Romney, though, count me out. It won't do any good (though it couldn't do any harm, considering how life is under the 'competition'), and Romney will just take credit and pretend that our help was no help.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

My vote is my own. I'd rather not feel like I have to vote in one direction or the other.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

The rhetoric of "unity" is far fetched and fraught with divisive perils.

"Coalitions" are much simpler; coupled with respect for others (following differing strategies towards similar goals) and we have a combo sure to win ground for freedom

 

[parocks]

gary johnson

 

[acptulsa]

gary johnson

It would certainly demonstrate exactly how strong we are when we choose to work together. Which, in turn, would allow people to decide if we've become strong enough to be worth joining next time. The thing about refusing to demonstrate our strength is, we could get big enough to reach 'critical mass' but never actually achieve 'critical mass' because it's a secret and no one knows we've grown that much.

Success breeds success. And we do want to grow the movement enough to gain a majority, do we not?

 

[pcosmar]

gary johnson

Vermin Supreme










/jk


NOBP

 

[acptulsa]

Vermin Supreme

Whatever sends the clearest message and builds the biggest coalition.

 

[specsaregood]

It would certainly demonstrate exactly how strong we are when we choose to work together.

I think it would demonstrate how weak we are and how willing we are to throw out principles and vote for war mongers.

 

[acptulsa]

I think it would demonstrate how weak we are and how willing we are to throw out principles and vote for war mongers.

As to the former, how strong and how weak are the same measurement. As to the latter, it depends upon who we vote for.

 

[btwilli1]

Obama in 2012, Rand in 2016!

 

[specsaregood]

As to the former, how strong and how weak are the same measurement.

Fair enough, but when you are weak you dont go out of your way to prove how weak you are.

 

[sailingaway]

Our numbers won't be counted in a vote for SOMEONE ELSE imho, it will be seen as our believing that other person is good enough, and would indicate we aren't serious about the 'tough stuff' to me, assuming they even gave us credit for the numbers at all. A write in for Ron, counted as specifically for him or not, shows people who by number were willing to take the trouble to vote, so are not content or apathetic, yet refused all the choices on the ballot. That to me is much more telling than implying some other candidate who doesn't do it for me is actually ok in my book.

 

[erowe1]

We really need to be unified with this.

Hogwash.

If this happens. I'll do my best to rally half of us to do something else just for the sake of not being unified.

 

[acptulsa]

Fair enough, but when you are weak you dont go out of your way to prove how weak you are.

Some of us don't seem to have gotten the memo:

If this happens. I'll do my best to rally half of us to do something else just for the sake of not being unified.

I believe that we, as a group, could pretty well guarantee the success of socialism on a global scale simply by adopting this as our long-term strategy.