Where are all of the Libertarians, Democrats and Independents? Only Republicans left?

[Russellk30]

I used to like this forum a lot. I could click on a discussion topic and observe varying levels of debate. Not anymore. It would seem that the Republican Party promoters have taken over. A combination of aggressive and dismissive behavior and the recent spike in banning members has really taken a toll on the numbers.

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/rpforums_online_users.html

Hundreds were labeled as trolls and either left on their own or were booted off. No big deal. This is a private forum after all, but disappointing nonetheless. Oh well. The echo chamber is collapsing in on us. Pretty soon we will be no better than the daily kos. A bunch of slobbering fools whose obnoxiousness and false optimism is matched only by their irrelevance and self-denial.

On the positive side, Ron Paul’s campaign videos on Youtube are being watched by hundreds of thousands of people a day with incredibly high ratings, which means his supporters are still out there somewhere, just not here. I guess I will go find them.

The problem with the Republican Party is that Republicanism is defined as:

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a republic.
2. Favoring a republic as the best form of government.
3. Republican Of, relating to, characteristic of, or belonging to the Republican Party of the United States.

Of course, none of those definitions are overtly negative, but the definition has such a general nature that one can easily forget what principles are represented by a political party that promotes them.

"I support Republicanism." Well, good for you. I glad you like that form of government. The definition cannot be expanded upon.

Supporting the Republican Party, even as a tool, is nothing more than supporting the two party system that has so corroded any idea of honest politics. I wonder if that phrase "honest politics" was always an oxymoron. I guess I am too young to know.

What I do know is that multiple political parties would be healthy for American Politics, and as of now, multiple parties, the anti-establishment freedom movement and small government are about all that I am willing pledge allegiance to.

Jerusel

 

[american empire]

more than a two party system....im with ya bro

problem is that Americans have yet to come out of the McCarthy era yet alone to understand the problems with two parties...they like to think in belonging to a group and not individual issues

 

[Mini-Me]

I'm pretty new, so I guess I have no idea where everyone went - personally, I'm registered as an independent (don't worry, Ohio's primary is an open one )).

Multiple parties would be great, but plurality voting inherently and inevitably devolves into a two-party or even a one-party system (right now, we essentially have a one-party system pretending to be a two-party system with a false dilemma). The fact that the Republicans and Democrats have been dominant for 150 years doesn't help, nor does the media's refusal to really cover any other parties and the general voter mindset about "electability." For instance, the Libertarian Party has been around for 36 years, but it hasn't really gotten anywhere...and with the establishment's utter dominance over national media, third parties will still not become viable even with our full support and backing. I want third parties to succeed as much as anyone, but if we're to make that happen, we first have to overtake one of the existing parties from the bottom up. That way, we can change the voting and ballot access laws in the first place to eliminate the whole "wasting your vote" idea - for instance, we should probably implement range voting, but that cannot happen until we have taken over at least one of the two "major" parties...Ron Paul seems to think the Republican Party is the best avenue for this, and I'm liable to agree - but liberty-minded people should also try to run for office as Democrats, too (especially the ones that have libertarian ideas at the federal level but more liberal ideas at state and local levels).

In other words, the best thing to do is this...register Republican so you can vote for Ron Paul Republicans in the primaries for various offices (or even run for office yourself eventually). If they lose, then vote for the third party candidate of your choice in the general election Nobody ever said you had to vote for the candidate from the party you're registered as! Besides, if you like the Libertarian Party, they practically much force everyone to run on the same platform anyway, so voting in their primaries isn't exactly a necessity.

 

[tommy7154]

I don't even know the difference between a Dem and a Republican really...
I've always found voting for a particular party and not a particular candidate and the issues to be fucking dumb.

I'm sure there's lame jokes out there that would explain it for me.

 

[Russellk30]

I'm pretty new, so I guess I have no idea where everyone went - personally, I'm registered as an independent (don't worry, Ohio's primary is an open one )).

Multiple parties would be great, but plurality voting inherently and inevitably devolves into a two-party or even a one-party system (right now, we essentially have a one-party system pretending to be a two-party system with a false dilemma). The fact that the Republicans and Democrats have been dominant for 150 years doesn't help, and nor does the media's refusal to really cover any other parties and the general voter mindset about "electability." For instance, the Libertarian Party has been around for 36 years, but it hasn't really gotten anywhere...and with the establishment's utter dominance over national media, third parties will still not become viable even with our full support and backing. I want third parties to succeed as much as anyone, but if we're to make that happen, we first have to overtake one of the existing parties from the bottom up. That way, we can change the voting and ballot access laws in the first place to eliminate the whole "wasting your vote" idea - for instance, we should probably implement range voting, but that cannot happen until we have taken over at least one of the two "major" parties...Ron Paul seems to think the Republican Party is the best avenue for this, and I'm liable to agree - but liberty-minded people should also try to run for office as Democrats, too (especially the ones that have libertarian ideas at the federal level but more liberal ideas at state and local levels).

In other words, the best thing to do is this...register Republican so you can vote for Ron Paul Republicans in the primaries for various offices (or even run for office yourself eventually). If they lose, then vote for the third party candidate of your choice in the general election Nobody ever said you had to vote for the candidate from the party you're registered as! Besides, if you like the Libertarian Party, they practically much force everyone to run on the same platform anyway, so voting in their primaries isn't exactly a necessity.

Power is required to change ballot requirements, but changing ballot requirements leads to loss of Power. Once power is attained, it is never voluntarily given up. On an individual level, maybe. On an institutional level, never. For a political party to voluntarily release power is equivalent to make an opposing party stronger.

One may say that a goal of this movement is the increase political freedoms, but do you really think that a political party in power would ever willingly weaken itself? Human nature just isn’t that pretty, and institutionalism only compounds the problem further. You think the Ron Paul Republicans, many of whom openly despise the Libertarian Party, would want to make it stronger?

To argue that the only way to beat the system is to become the system doesn’t sit well in my stomach. To beat the terrorist one must become the terrorists? To kill the devil one must become the devil? Those that revolt against their oppressors only to become the tyrants they abhorred do not do so under the principle of intrinsic freedom.

I will revolt against the corrupt and unworkable system, not become part of it.

 

[Rhys]

there's a huge problem calling people troll. but the graph doesn't show it. numbers in the median range are only down as of Feb. 5 being over, which is to be highly expected. people are a little burnt out, with less to do.

 

[affa]

Not a Republican.

 

[Mini-Me]

Power is required to change ballot requirements, but changing ballot requirements leads to loss of Power. Once power is attained, it is never voluntarily given up. On an individual level, maybe. On an institutional level, never. For a political party to voluntarily release power is equivalent to make an opposing party stronger.

One may say that a goal of this movement is the increase political freedoms, but do you really think that a political party in power would ever willingly weaken itself? Human nature just isn’t that pretty, and institutionalism only compounds the problem further. You think the Ron Paul Republicans, many of whom openly despise the Libertarian Party, would want to make it stronger?

To argue that the only way to beat the system is to become the system doesn’t sit well in my stomach. To beat the terrorist one must become the terrorists? To kill the devil one must become the devil? Those that revolt against their oppressors only to become the tyrants they abhorred do not do so under the principle of intrinsic freedom.

I will revolt against the corrupt and unworkable system, not become part of it.

I think you misunderstand: The point is not to take over the Republican Party and then have "sweet, beautiful power - power we can keep forever!" The whole point is to take over the Republican Party for the purpose of ousting the corrupt, power-hungry establishment, restoring Constitutional law, and making our election system fair to others like us so that we can never again be reduced to the tightly-controlled "two"-party system like we have today. You have to understand that the people in office today (and especially those at higher, unseen and shadowy levels of the establishment) are people who had a natural desire for power in the first place. They sought power for power's sake, and that's why it corrupted them so readily.

We, on the other hand, are people with quite different personality types from those currently in office. We are now seeking power not because we have a natural craving for it, but because we recognize that people like us must come into power if we are to save our country. Whereas the incumbents got involved in politics out of base desire, we're getting involved out of duty and patriotism, and that makes every difference in the world. McCain said something like, "We came to change Washington, but Washington changed us." Bullshit - Washington never changed Ron Paul! People like McCain were the scum of the earth from the start...the system only gave them opportunities to prove it.

Could many of us "become what we hate?" Perhaps, yes...the weaker-willed among us will. Power does indeed corrupt. However, power will corrupt you much slower if you resist its influence than if you outright embrace it like our own oppressors have. Besides, it doesn't matter whether we try to gain control over the system through the Republican Party or Libertarian Party - each of us is still the same person regardless of which party we choose as a vehicle, and we're no more or less likely to become "the tyrants we abhor" by choosing one party over another. There is nothing inherently evil about the Republican Party itself that isn't also inherently evil about the Libertarian Party - they're both political parties, nothing more or less - they're merely vehicles for those who choose to use them. When you say that political parties always seek to maintain their power, you're viewing them as monolithic sentient beings unto themselves, but in truth, political parties are only as evil and power-hungry as the people running them. The only difference is that if we infiltrate the Republican Party, it will work. If we vainly try to build up a third party in a political environment that has effectively made it impossible for third parties to become relevant, we will be doomed to 36 more years of failure. People have already tried that route, and it led them to a dead-end...let's try something different. Public opinion perceives Republicans as electable, and it does not perceive Libertarians as electable. Unfortunately, public perception becomes its own reality. Furthermore, it is easier to win primaries than general elections due to lower voter turnout.

 

[Xenophage]

I used to like this forum a lot. I could click on a discussion topic and observe varying levels of debate. Not anymore. It would seem that the Republican Party promoters have taken over. A combination of aggressive and dismissive behavior and the recent spike in banning members has really taken a toll on the numbers.

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/rpforums_online_users.html

If you look at those graphs its easy to see the real source of the loss of forum activity: Iowa and New Hampshire.

Our peak activity was before the New Hampshire primary. There's a steady decline after that, with the problem worsening after each primary or caucus loss. Super Tuesday, arguably the most important primary day, drew in a little more than half the forum users that the New Hampshire primary did.

 

[Mordan]

The goal is the promote Ron Paul ideas. I believe the Republican Party is the best medium for that.
I understand though it must be frustrating for democrats supporting Ron Paul.
Nobody can dismiss the rationale behind Ron Paul's move to stay in the Republican Party.

 

[Mini-Me]

If you look at those graphs its easy to see the real source of the loss of forum activity: Iowa and New Hampshire.

Our peak activity was before the New Hampshire primary. There's a steady decline after that, with the problem worsening after each primary or caucus loss. Super Tuesday, arguably the most important primary day, drew in a little more than half the forum users that the New Hampshire primary did.

I think a lot of people had some misplaced optimism that we would boldly sweep the primaries and Ron Paul would win the Presidency and single-handedly save our country from ruin in a single term. Unfortunately, restoring the republic is nothing less than the battle of our lives, and it's going to be a long and difficult struggle...coming down from extreme optimism going into the primaries, that's a pretty tough pill for most people to swallow. It's a depressing thought, and I think a lot of people kind of "shut down" at the prospect of it.

 

[seeker1]

That would be me.

I think a lot of people had some misplaced optimism that we would boldly sweep the primaries and Ron Paul would win the Presidency and single-handedly save our country from ruin in a single term. Unfortunately, restoring the republic is nothing less than the battle of our lives, and it's going to be a long and difficult struggle...coming down from extreme optimism going into the primaries, that's a pretty tough pill for most people to swallow. It's a depressing thought, and I think a lot of people kind of "shut down" at the prospect of it.

I am one of the people that really believed we were trying to storm the gates and take this election. It turns out that I was naive to think that.

I know this gets me flamed more than anything I ever say, but we were sold a bill of goods, as the campaign never intended to win this election. It was always about the message and never about winning and when the energized masses began to see this they just stopped being involved rather than be berated by the GOP loyalists.

I saw the fragile reality at my first meetup, diverse backgrounds that wouldn't pass the time of day if it wasn't for Ron Paul. Only a strong leader could keep this group intact and sadly, Ron Paul didn't do that. He was a reluctant leader that didn't see winning as a reality, but like so many have flamed me in the past have said, he knows what he is doing.

I am sorry, but I totally disagree that he realized what he had in his hands. We wouldn't need to reinvigorate the republicrat party, we could have been the ron paul party, but that wave crumbled long ago and we won't be riding it now.

So, like many have already said, with each loss and subsequent pointing to the next win, which also was a loss, people just lost hope. Sad, but true.

I, also am in Ohio. I'll vote for Ron Paul, just like I have for the last six presidential elections, as my protest vote.

 

[literatim]

I am one of the people that really believed we were trying to storm the gates and take this election. It turns out that I was naive to think that.

I know this gets me flamed more than anything I ever say, but we were sold a bill of goods, as the campaign never intended to win this election. It was always about the message and never about winning and when the energized masses began to see this they just stopped being involved rather than be berated by the GOP loyalists.

I saw the fragile reality at my first meetup, diverse backgrounds that wouldn't pass the time of day if it wasn't for Ron Paul. Only a strong leader could keep this group intact and sadly, Ron Paul didn't do that. He was a reluctant leader that didn't see winning as a reality, but like so many have flamed me in the past have said, he knows what he is doing.

I am sorry, but I totally disagree that he realized what he had in his hands. We wouldn't need to reinvigorate the republicrat party, we could have been the ron paul party, but that wave crumbled long ago and we won't be riding it now.

So, like many have already said, with each loss and subsequent pointing to the next win, which also was a loss, people just lost hope. Sad, but true.

I, also am in Ohio. I'll vote for Ron Paul, just like I have for the last six presidential elections, as my protest vote.

Which Meetup group is that? Because it certainly isn't the Meetup groups I know about in Ohio as we are working as hard as ever to get Ron Paul elected.

Just because Ron Paul doesn't want to run 3rd party, doesn't mean he is not trying to win. Anyone who thinks this entire battle would somehow be easy have deluded themselves.

Being in Ohio, I am sure you know that there is basically zero 3rd party presence here because of how the entire political system works.

 

[1836]

I for one am not surprised if indeed there are more Republicans now, as a percentage, than there has been before.

A lot of the antiwar types who thought that Paul was going to be the savior of the antiwar movement and sweep the primaries were sadly mistaken, on both counts.

Paul is a Republican, always has been (except for 88, but the LP is just the defected Taft GOP), and always will be.

Unfortunate for those who had other things in mind.

I'm against the war, too, but come on folks, you can't win with just one issue. Ask George McGovern.

 

[Sematary]

I used to like this forum a lot. I could click on a discussion topic and observe varying levels of debate. Not anymore. It would seem that the Republican Party promoters have taken over. A combination of aggressive and dismissive behavior and the recent spike in banning members has really taken a toll on the numbers.

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/rpforums_online_users.html

Hundreds were labeled as trolls and either left on their own or were booted off. No big deal. This is a private forum after all, but disappointing nonetheless. Oh well. The echo chamber is collapsing in on us. Pretty soon we will be no better than the daily kos. A bunch of slobbering fools whose obnoxiousness and false optimism is matched only by their irrelevance and self-denial.

On the positive side, Ron Paul’s campaign videos on Youtube are being watched by hundreds of thousands of people a day with incredibly high ratings, which means his supporters are still out there somewhere, just not here. I guess I will go find them.

The problem with the Republican Party is that Republicanism is defined as:

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a republic.
2. Favoring a republic as the best form of government.
3. Republican Of, relating to, characteristic of, or belonging to the Republican Party of the United States.

Of course, none of those definitions are overtly negative, but the definition has such a general nature that one can easily forget what principles are represented by a political party that promotes them.

"I support Republicanism." Well, good for you. I glad you like that form of government. The definition cannot be expanded upon.

Supporting the Republican Party, even as a tool, is nothing more than supporting the two party system that has so corroded any idea of honest politics. I wonder if that phrase "honest politics" was always an oxymoron. I guess I am too young to know.

What I do know is that multiple political parties would be healthy for American Politics, and as of now, multiple parties, the anti-establishment freedom movement and small government are about all that I am willing pledge allegiance to.

Jerusel

I have personally decided to remain a Republican to attempt to effect change from within because 3rd parties will always be the boot lickers in our system and can't change anything. I will always be independent in my voting, however and never vote party for the sake of voting party.

 

[seeker1]

I'm easily misunderstood.

Which Meetup group is that? Because it certainly isn't the Meetup groups I know about in Ohio as we are working as hard as ever to get Ron Paul elected.

Just because Ron Paul doesn't want to run 3rd party, doesn't mean he is not trying to win. Anyone who thinks this entire battle would somehow be easy have deluded themselves.

Being in Ohio, I am sure you know that there is basically zero 3rd party presence here because of how the entire political system works.

I wasn't implying that the meetup groups were falling apart, but I can see where you could read that. It was the frailty of the joining of so many disparate viewpoints, anti-war, truthers, birchers, and even old hippies that actually know Ron Paul.

Now, it's republicrats or the highway. I went back to the highway.

By the way, anyone who thinks Ron Paul is trying to win is seriously deluding themselves. Sounds more pompous coming from me, I guess.

 

[WilliamC]

Ron Paul has chosen to make his stand in the Republican Party, so that's where I've decided to try and do what little I can to help the cause.

It is my belief that many rank-and-file Republicans, at least here in Mississippi, are good people who care deeply about the Constitution, American sovereignty, and individual rights. They just have been misled by their own establishment Republican leaders for so long that they have, in the words of Ron Paul, lost their way.

I will try to talk to them one-on-one and help them realize that loyalty to the principles of the Constitution is more important than loyalty to a political Party.

Others may have more success pursuing other means, including trying to promote and grow third parties. But the more diluted we become the less impact we will have. The more concentrated we are (i.e. in the Republican Party) the faster we can get local, State, and even National candidates elected who will put the Constitution first and the Republican Party second.

 

[raystone]

1. Congressman Paul recently wrote he's a Republican, and he'll stay a Republican

2. There hasn't been a "2 party system" for a long time...just one big establishment party

3. We must take back the power centers to win this fight...consensus (Ron Paul, grassroots polls, Ron Paul Republicans running for congress, the GOP effin original platform itself) says Republican power centers is where this thing is starting.

 

[billjarrett]

I agree that we should all stay "Republican".. But I don't think those that are offended by the word should interpret as such.

At first, the establishment is going to consider us all RINOs. I have been Republican for many years, yet I'm considered an outsider in this party now.

It's not about joining the Republicans and being what they want. It's about taking over the machine and making it what we want. They are weak right now, as shown from the amount of voters going out.

Although I'd love to say "Lets start a 3rd party and change the world", that will be alot more work than taking over one that exists and making it ours. And once we take it, we can open up the process to make it easier for the 3rd party message. This is what our founders wanted. If we take over the GOP and change federal policies, not all of us will be like Dr. Paul, not all of us will be able to resist the power and corruption. We need to take it over, and put policies in place that if we fall, and if Washington changes us, that we've opened the gates for others to out us.

 

[Bossobass]

I have always maintained that there should be no parties. Just candidates.

Parties are group think pigeon holes. There are no Americans left. Only groups of people, huddled together, each feeling some false sense of brotherhood, pointing at all of the other groups and saying that those groups are idiots, my group is right.

Each candidate should stand as an individual and be elected on his own merit.

As far as the claim that Ron Paul is the reluctant candidate who never wanted to win...you really gotta be kiddin' me.

Ron has criss-crossed this nation like an 18 year old. He's delivered 3 speeches in one day many times while nursing his voice which was all but gone. He remained afterward to greet every single supporter who showed up, every time, for a year.

He stood up at every debate, head held high, while moderators asked him bullshit questions like, "Are you blaming the American people for the 9/11 attacks?", "Are you saying that we should take our marching orders from Al Qaeda?", and "regarding electability...do you have any?", while the other candidates laughed at him through purposely left open microphones.

He did countless interviews, heavily laden with similar ridiculous questions , that never got aired. He was made to stand outside in the freezing cold to do an interview with Larry King 'Live', that was never aired, just one example of many such interviews. MSM would attempt to set him up, looking for a Dean moment. When instead, Ron knocked the cover off the ball, they simply didn't air the segment.

Ron delivered a speech in Iowa while his wife of 50 years lay in a hospital bed awaiting surgery to implant a pacemaker during what is infamously referred to now as the "comedic" Ames straw poll. He arrived late after having to pry himself away from his wife and many assurances by the local surgical team that she would be fine. After the longest Iowa straw poll vote count in history, which took place behind locked doors with armed guards at the doors, the GOP announced RP in 5th place. MSM proceeded to publish the results, leaving Ron out of the results altogether, listing the 4th place and 6th place finishers.

The campaign asked beforehand if they could be present for the vote count. The answer was that "each candidate may have a representative there to observe the feeding of the paper ballots into the machines, but there will not be a hand count of any kind." When the campaign insisted on a hand count of the paper ballots, the Iowa GOP told them they would have to pay $185,000.00 up front.

The end result was a "hand count of some 1,500 ballots due to a Diebold machine malfunction." Later reports estimated that 4,500 ballots had to be hand counted, one third of the total votes cast. None of this could be verified because it took place behind locked doors.

And this was just the Iowa Straw Poll.

Ron has never let up for a second. His answers have not changed. His stump speeches have contained precisely the same platform he has had for 30+ years.

No spin doctors, no handlers, no flip flops, no lies, no false promises, no pandering. Hard at it, against all odds, on a shoestring budget (yes, virginia, Ron has been outspent at least 2 to 1 by all of his opponents. McCain had spent more than Ron has raised for the entire campaign by October), with threats, cheating, smears, personal attacks, personal attacks against the Americans who support him and lastly and most importantly...a media blackout the likes of which has never occurred.

Many people have posted in these forums that RP didn't get media exposure because he didn't poll above 15%, to which I say:

McCain was at 15% in December. He had to take a personal loan of $3 million just to get through December. He had fired over 150 staff. Yet, he got 1,500% more media coverage than RP.

RP had set a record for a single day donations. He then shattered that record by setting the all-time record. He was the only candidate to increase his donations in all 4 quarters of '07. He had won more straw polls than all the other candidates combined. He received more donations from active military personnel than all the other candidates combined. He was opening new offices around the country every day. He was hiring new staff.

His was THE story of the campaign. Polls my foot. He got 0.02 percent media coverage. HE WAS BLACKED OUT. PERIOD. people say it's because "HQ" didn't return media phone calls. What a gigantic crock of shit.

McCain miraculously shot up 20 points in the polls despite the reality of the situation because of no apparent reason, unless you've followed this race closely from the beginning, then it is painfully apparent. Virtually impossible, yet it happened.

Sorry for the long rant, but it's been a long race. The longest and most expensive primary race in history...because of Ron Paul and his astounding support.

I've said it before, and I'm here to say it as many times as needed. I'm in this until Ron Paul tells me it's over. He and his campaign have done there part. We need to continue to do ours.

I'm just sayin...

Bosso