So what happens to RPF

Of course the message was the most important thing, but Ron was what really ignited and united us. I'd hate to see RPF go anywhere, OR be renamed.
 
Ron Paul got this party started so the reference to this forum is historically wise to keep.
Like minded people seem to gather in similar forums if they are too different they leave.
Thats' why some have left either in apathy or anger.
 
It's really not just this place, old fashioned discussion forums like this one seem to be turning into ghost towns everywhere I go online, as social media has taken over the role discussion forums used to have for a lot of people....

I've been following RP and Rand for years, and rarely post anymore, but I still come hear to read every so often. Sadly I don't know if I see this site picking up with too many new followers, since people seem to just gravitate to Facebook or Twitter or wherever these days. God that makes me feel old, lol.
 
I don't see any need for name change or re-branding ATM. mises.org is named after a guy who's been dead for several decades and that seems to work out fine.
 
Last edited:
I guess I am on the brink of feeling lost as well.

I signed up for RPF just a few days ago, and then all of this happens. I finally found a place full of like minded people, and then the rug got pulled out from underneath me.

So I'm hoping we can all stay together on here to advance our cause together. But there are so many questions now that we are ready in the wilderness.

Ted is are really slimy, backstabbing neocon, who will say or do anything to get elected. He is Ron Paul's biggest mistake.

Rubio is basically Cuban Obama.

Trump is Pat Buchanan if he was crossed with Michael Bloomberg and George Lincoln Rockwell.

Carson is a good man, but will be led by "the experts"...

Bush...is Bush. Also a good man, but not a man of Liberty at all.

The rest are essentially done.

The Constitution Party seem appealing, but they are only half right, for all of the wrong reasons. I don't want a theocracy, or protectionism. I want to be left alone!

The Libertarian Party would seem like the logical choice...but honestly, they are as bad ares Cruz. They brag about not supporting Paul, they actively hurt him in fact. Their message is being subverted by fedora wearing social justice warriors. They are also half right...for all the wrong reasons. The drug war shouldn't be abandoned because it doesn't work. It should be abandoned because it violates basic human liberty and the Constitution. When is the last time you heard the LP defend the Constitution...as opposed to hearing them try to use the Constitution to defend their positions.

I don't know who to vote for. It can't be the Dems. It won't be the Repubs. Not pro-choice hippy Gary Johnson. Not a 'Constitutionalist' theocratic from the CP. I just can't.

I guess I'll be writing in Paul then. But then what...how long do I have to live ignored and unrepresented? God I hate stupid people so, so much.

Nice. Glad to see someone else who can't really go full on for the Libertarian Party. A lot of mainstream libertarians are mostly driven by self interest and non-priority issues, such as drugs. They often don't have any enthusiasm for capitalism, and have no problem voting Democrat just to spite Republicans on social issues. They're worried about corruption and see freedom as a moral issue, but are just as sucked into the loss of morality slippery slope as Democrats are. Ironically, some Libertarians could actually be better for social conservatism than Republicans, due to willingness to let states decide things. But it would require the right Libertarian, one that is not morally corrupted, for me to trust.

I would argue that the Constitution Party aligns better for many paleocons than LP, even if some if it is for the wrong reasons. Though I am skeptical of the Constitution Party's willingness to tackle certain key issues like the NSA.

However, I don't have much enthusiasm for strengthening a 3rd party that would destroy the Republican Party. Unless the Democratic Party is also destroyed in the process, it would give too much power to the Democrats, and America would fall to socialism. I can't see the Democratic Party being destroyed anytime soon, since there's no diversity of thought in it. Everyone just "goes with the flow" and they always lump farther left with the same ideology over and over. There was practically zero resistance in that party to the introduction of socialism. The only thing I can see stopping the two party machine is a party that can pull in independents somewhat equally from the left and the right. Perhaps a "Populist" or organized "Independent" party. It would have quite a wide range of political ideologies, and a very diverse cast fighting for the nomination each time. If the party had recorded debates, they could gain national attention, as they'd be Democrat V.S. Republican esque, which would give people craving the general election debates early something to watch.
 
Last edited:
"Liberty" means different things to different people. There are progressives who actually believe that our brand of liberty, real liberty, is fascism because we don't want to let them have their welfare state and opportunity to get single payer health insurance. They want the "liberty" to enforce their mandates on everybody else through the democratic process.

Ron Paul did a great job of educating people about what real liberty actually means, and he did that for a broad spectrum of the population. Ron Paul is good to have front and center for as long as it takes at least until another person steps up who has the understanding and influence that he did.

I agree, Danno. I just hope everyone remembers that this place isn't limited to libertarians and anarchists.
 
we have been here a while and I don't forsee us going anywhere.

This ^^^

"Liberty" means different things to different people. There are progressives who actually believe that our brand of liberty, real liberty, is fascism because we don't want to let them have their welfare state and opportunity to get single payer health insurance. They want the "liberty" to enforce their mandates on everybody else through the democratic process.

Ron Paul did a great job of educating people about what real liberty actually means, and he did that for a broad spectrum of the population. Ron Paul is good to have front and center for as long as it takes at least until another person steps up who has the understanding and influence that he did.

And that ^^^
 
we have been here a while and I don't forsee us going anywhere.

take-over-the-world.jpg
 
Nice. Glad to see someone else who can't really go full on for the Libertarian Party. A lot of mainstream libertarians are mostly driven by self interest and non-priority issues, such as drugs. They often don't have any enthusiasm for capitalism, and have no problem voting Democrat just to spite Republicans on social issues. They're worried about corruption and see freedom as a moral issue, but are just as sucked into the loss of morality slippery slope as Democrats are. Ironically, some Libertarians could actually be better for social conservatism than Republicans, due to willingness to let states decide things. But it would require the right Libertarian, one that is not morally corrupted, for me to trust.

I truly believe that you can't have Liberty without Virtue, or Virtue without Liberty...they go hand in hand. The Libertarian Party seems to be resistant to Virtue. The Constitution Party seems to frown upon Liberty. The Democrats are going full Marxist. The Republicans are going full Imperialist.

I was happier when I was ignorant. God...why did I ever look away from that damn TV?
 
Back
Top