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

[The Proservative]

I invite all party members to join in the Proservative movement. We support any and all RP supporters, politicians, etc

 

[jsu718]

Well, currently I support any party that isn't Republican or Democrat in most elections. As far as the federal government goes I am a "top of the diamond" libertarian. I would call myself an independent more than anything though, seeing as I am undeclared as anything and don't vote based on party. I am still here.

 

[dblee]

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.

This might be among the most well phrased and logical post I have ever read on this forum. Bravo +1000

 

[firebirdnation]

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.

+1

 

[hyoomen]

Independent with a penchant for libertarianism and fiscal conservatism here. Granted, my political leanings are only within the context of serving civilization as sustainably as possible, as I do not think civilization as we know it is ultimately sustainable and any matter of fine tuning only prolongs an inevitable collapse. (How's that for a radical?)

At any rate, for those of us who are not Judeo-Christian and do not want Biblical values restored to America, I think there must be options other than the GOP. I definitely want to see the GOP shifted back towards small gov't conservatism, but I have serious reservations whether either of the two parties can either allow Americans to live as they want to without social interference.

 

[RlxdN10sity]

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

That pretty much sums it up brother. I could not have said it better myself. Thank you.

 

[Russellk30]

Independent with a penchant for libertarianism and fiscal conservatism here. Granted, my political leanings are only within the context of serving civilization as sustainably as possible, as I do not think civilization as we know it is ultimately sustainable and any matter of fine tuning only prolongs an inevitable collapse. (How's that for a radical?)

At any rate, for those of us who are not Judeo-Christian and do not want Biblical values restored to America, I think there must be options other than the GOP. I definitely want to see the GOP shifted back towards small gov't conservatism, but I have serious reservations whether either of the two parties can either allow Americans to live as they want to without social interference.

Is government representation for those that would promote small government possible? One must continually fight to keep those that would fudge the role and increase the size of government out of the position to so, but must also maintain vigilance against their own susceptibilities.
Something other than the motivations of man must guard against potential abuses of government. I guess that’s the purpose of the constitution. Too bad it is so easily ignored. There must be a better way; the oath of office just isn’t cutting it.

 

[Mini-Me]

So, what does "staying Republican" mean? Are you going to vote for McCain in the general election?

Perish the thought! This is absolutely not about party loyalty - far from it! We should never, ever vote for an establishment candidate or anyone else who violates our principles. The idea is for freedom-minded candidates to start overtaking the Republican Party from the bottom up (local and state assemblies will be the easiest, followed by Congress and the Presidency).* In other words, the point of staying Republican is to vote for our people in Republican primaries and perhaps even run for office ourselves. However, if our candidates lose their primaries, we should never vote for the establishment candidates who beat them. Instead, we should proceed to vote for third party candidates in the general election.

This approach is win/win, since we can try taking over the Republican Party from within Ron Paul style, but whenever we fail to take a spot, we can bolster the credibility of third parties by voting for their candidates in the general elections. Although I believe our electoral system and apathetic culture combined make it nearly impossible for third parties to gain footholds, it's infinitely better to throw votes in their direction than to vote for the "lesser of two evils."

*For that matter, it might be a good idea to get freedom-loving people into law enforcement and judicial positions, too!

I agree that the drop-off in membership does coincide with the primary losses, but after each loss I also remember some senior members of this forum questioning where the campaign was going, and instead of engaging these individuals, a troll witch hunt ensued, people were banned, others just left instead weathering the continual bombardment of negative labels. Trolls, traitor, weak-minded, plant, quitter and so on. This at a time when supporters of candidates that recently dropped out were in all likelihood checking out our forums and asking questions, only to be driven away with a pitch fork because they obviously didn’t understand our movement. A stranger is not necessarily an enemy.

My original rant was directed more at the aggressive and dismissive behavior of Ron Paul Republicans and the idea of working within the establishment (Republican or Democrat) than at the Republican Party itself. Do we embrace the system that is the problem? Are we really so naive to believe that once Republican Party control is achieved, power would be willingly be given up to promote unrestricted ballot access. After fighting so hard for control, just give it away?

I know that many see in a future Republican Party, the same ideals and integrity that you yourselves hold. The idea of giving up power then seems plausible, but don’t count on institutional integrity and ideals matching your own. It is not easy to fundamentally change institutional groupthink that has been building up for decades. Most within the Republican Party accept lies as truth without flinching. Much of the constituency is no different.

One of the most used arguments against third party or independent politics is "What have they done in the past few decades?" but my question is, what has the freedom movement within the Republican Party accomplished over the past many decades? When was the size of government actually reduced? If the freedom movement would set off on its own instead of maintaining the relationship of bastard child within the Republican Party, a little success would be a possibility. The original Taft Republicans saw this and learned from it. Are we to learn the same difficult lessons all over again?

One thing is true. If all of you that plan on reconstructing the Republican Party want to eventually (in the distant future, maybe) succeed, reaching out to people within differing viewpoints is a must. Chasing people off this forum because they are not absolutely committed to this movement or your plans will end in failure.

You make some very important points, and I think we need to take them to heart: We can debate about the best course of action to take, but we need to make sure all of our "different factions" always remain friendly with each other. It's an absolute must that no one group scares the rest away through intolerance. Our differences in opinion may unfortunately prevent us from forming a united front (which is partially why the freedom movement has always been so historically divided anyway into the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and the "old school conservatives" remaining in the Republican Party), but a loose confederation and open dialogue is far better than everyone totally going their separate ways. I have also been very troubled by the witch hunt for trolls, the endless accusations, the personal attacks, the tendency to marginalize groups of members by constantly blaming them for failures (9/11 truthers vs. "anti-truthers"), and the prevailing fascist attitude towards dissent. If there's one thing our enemy excels at, it is using the method of "divide and conquer" to scatter all opposition. We must never let this happen to us. We all desperately need each other, so it's important that we avoid letting mere differences of opinion escalate into outright hostility.



I want to make a crucial point that I neglected earlier, and I hope it might help to sway a few more people into doing things the "Ron Paul way." Please take heed:

Throughout the past few decades, this movement has been sharply divided between Republican Party stragglers, the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party. Until Ron Paul came along with his wonderful platform, these groups have been unable to come to a compromise and unite behind a common cause:

• ]Until now, most Republican Party stragglers simply became jaded and gave up.
• The Libertarian Party is fairly adamant about its candidates following the strict party line, which includes polarizing issues like a completely open border policy, support for Roe vs. Wade instead of states' rights, etc. Together, these two issues are enough to alienate about half of Ron Paul's supporters (many of whom look to the Constitution Party as a more culturally conservative alternative).
• The Constitution Party also has some extremely contentious factors, especially its overtly Christian (almost theocratic?) slant and all of the anti-freedom baggage that goes along with openly trying to legislate religious morals. I can't tell if they support federal regulation of pornography or not, but their support for states' rights seems in almost all instances to revolve around a desire to legislate "Christian values." Even where their platform itself is correct, their tone and overall message is too narrow for a "big tent group" like us to unite behind. Much like the Libertarian Party's stance on Roe vs. Wade, the Constitution Party's evangelism is enough to alienate at least half of Ron Paul's supporters.

The most amazing thing about Ron Paul is that he was able to bring together such a "big tent" of people with a fantastic freedom-oriented platform that's an acceptable compromise to supporters of both of the above-mentioned parties (as well as disillusioned Republicans, Democrats, independents, and even Greens). Together, our Ron Paul Revolution has been able to make more of a mark than any of these separate groups ever have. For the first time, the "Jerry Falwell fire and brimstone bigoted bible-thumpers" from the Constitution Party and the "Godless flaming queer abortionist druggies" from the Libertarian Party have been able to put aside their differences and work towards saving our republic!

United we stand, and divided we fall. Only Ron Paul's platform can keep such a diverse group of supporters together and focused on our common goal. We can choose to scatter back to our parties of origin, but I feel that to do so would be a grave mistake...

Unless we were to reshape the platform of the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party (which would be quite rude ), neither third party is acceptable to enough Ron Paul supporters to actually unite behind and use as a vehicle. Therefore, anyone wishing to register with those parties must do so with the understanding that they're in many ways leaving behind the "consensus platform" and big-tent support base of Ron Paul. Many will say to each other, "Where you go, I cannot follow."

Now, this is probably the most important part to understand:
As I mentioned before, even if we could all unite behind a single third party, the system will prevent us from getting anywhere. As if it were not already nearly impossible, if such a third party ever did become relevant, the establishment would quickly and effortlessly "raise the bar" for ballot access to utterly stamp that party out (in addition to forcing a media blackout, of course). The only reason third parties even have ballot access right now is that the establishment does not yet see them as a threat. If you look at the situation from this point of view, you'll understand that third parties are unwittingly being used by the establishment as controlled opposition. They are afforded ballot access to give disillusioned people "a choice," but we are given this choice only so that we will direct our efforts into dead-end pursuits.

If we return to our third parties of origin (or even unite behind a single one, which is unlikely), we'll certainly be making a principled stand as a protest group, but such a stand will be merely symbolic. We cannot achieve a real foothold in the political realm that way, and as a result, we will be handing the world to the establishment on a silver platter.

In light of all of this, I'm asking each and every one of you to try this a new way - Ron Paul's way - by fighting to take over the Republican Party. For every primary battle we lose, you're still completely free to vote for your favorite third party candidate in the general election...but for the sake of the revolution, the only real way forward is to overtake the Republicans.

 

[Tidewise]

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.

QFT. Mini-Me - you are on a roll here, bro (sis?)!

 

[tomveil]

I'm still here.

I'm a Democrat, but I'm anti-stupid more.

 

[Mini-Me]

Is government representation for those that would promote small government possible? One must continually fight to keep those that would fudge the role and increase the size of government out of the position to so, but must also maintain vigilance against their own susceptibilities.
Something other than the motivations of man must guard against potential abuses of government. I guess that’s the purpose of the constitution. Too bad it is so easily ignored. There must be a better way; the oath of office just isn’t cutting it.

The "better way" is simple (or at least, the main idea behind it is - the implementation is probably a bit complex ): Once we restore the republic, we need to add teeth to the Constitution. Almost all laws come in two parts - the "here is the law" part, and the "here is what happens if you break it" part. The Constitution is missing the second part, and that's exactly why we have the problems we do. Whenever judges declare laws unconstitutional (...which is far less often than they should), the law is struck down, but the politicians who enacted it just say, "Oh, whoops! Silly me. Won't happen again! <wink>"

I'm still working out the details on exactly how I'd go about amending the Constitution for this, but the basic idea is that implicit violations of the Constitution (i.e. breaking the Tenth Amendment by exercising powers not explicitly granted) should be considered perjury and/or dereliction of duty and explicit violations of the Constitution (i.e. exercising powers explicitly forbidden, e.g. passing and enforcing the Patriot Act in defiance of Fourth Amendment) should probably be considered treason (waging war on the United States). Any legislator, executive officer, or judge who legislates, executes, or upholds such powers, respectively, would be guilty of said crimes. This would result in immediate dismissal, a permanent ban on holding similar positions, and eligibility for criminal prosecution. These offenses might have to be considered unpardonable to prevent cronyism...

Also, since judges are often corrupt, judicial review can't be the only way to determine a law is unconstitutional. We need multiple paths to determine constitutionality...one should be an easy way for states and/or the people to declare a law unconstitutional without the help of the federal government, and another should be a clever system of incentives for government officials and branches to work against each other in getting unconstitutional laws struck down. (That said, there would also have to be some strong protections against eliminating opponents by wrongfully getting their legislation declared unconstitutional.)

The bottom line: We just need to amend the Constitution to make it easy to enforce.


Oh, and dblee and Tidewise...thanks :o And yes, I'm a bro

 

[pacelli]

bump

 

[Revolution9]

I invite all party members to join in the Proservative movement. We support any and all RP supporters, politicians, etc

What kind of collective are you starting? It looks like a dichotomy.

best
Randy

 

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

Perish the thought! This is absolutely not about party loyalty - far from it! We should never, ever vote for an establishment candidate or anyone else who violates our principles. The idea is for freedom-minded candidates to start overtaking the Republican Party from the bottom up (local and state assemblies will be the easiest, followed by Congress and the Presidency).* In other words, the point of staying Republican is to vote for our people in Republican primaries and perhaps even run for office ourselves. However, if our candidates lose their primaries, we should never vote for the establishment candidates who beat them. Instead, we should proceed to vote for third party candidates in the general election.

This approach is win/win, since we can try taking over the Republican Party from within Ron Paul style, but whenever we fail to take a spot, we can bolster the credibility of third parties by voting for their candidates in the general elections. Although I believe our electoral system and apathetic culture combined make it nearly impossible for third parties to gain footholds, it's infinitely better to throw votes in their direction than to vote for the "lesser of two evils."

*For that matter, it might be a good idea to get freedom-loving people into law enforcement and judicial positions, too!





You make some very important points, and I think we need to take them to heart: We can debate about the best course of action to take, but we need to make sure all of our "different factions" always remain friendly with each other. It's an absolute must that no one group scares the rest away through intolerance. Our differences in opinion may unfortunately prevent us from forming a united front (which is partially why the freedom movement has always been so historically divided anyway into the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and the "old school conservatives" remaining in the Republican Party), but a loose confederation and open dialogue is far better than everyone totally going their separate ways. I have also been very troubled by the witch hunt for trolls, the endless accusations, the personal attacks, the tendency to marginalize groups of members by constantly blaming them for failures (9/11 truthers vs. "anti-truthers"), and the prevailing fascist attitude towards dissent. If there's one thing our enemy excels at, it is using the method of "divide and conquer" to scatter all opposition. We must never let this happen to us. We all desperately need each other, so it's important that we avoid letting mere differences of opinion escalate into outright hostility.



I want to make a crucial point that I neglected earlier, and I hope it might help to sway a few more people into doing things the "Ron Paul way." Please take heed:

Throughout the past few decades, this movement has been sharply divided between Republican Party stragglers, the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party. Until Ron Paul came along with his wonderful platform, these groups have been unable to come to a compromise and unite behind a common cause:

• ]Until now, most Republican Party stragglers simply became jaded and gave up.
• The Libertarian Party is fairly adamant about its candidates following the strict party line, which includes polarizing issues like a completely open border policy, support for Roe vs. Wade instead of states' rights, etc. Together, these two issues are enough to alienate about half of Ron Paul's supporters (many of whom look to the Constitution Party as a more culturally conservative alternative).
• The Constitution Party also has some extremely contentious factors, especially its overtly Christian (almost theocratic?) slant and all of the anti-freedom baggage that goes along with openly trying to legislate religious morals. I can't tell if they support federal regulation of pornography or not, but their support for states' rights seems in almost all instances to revolve around a desire to legislate "Christian values." Even where their platform itself is correct, their tone and overall message is too narrow for a "big tent group" like us to unite behind. Much like the Libertarian Party's stance on Roe vs. Wade, the Constitution Party's evangelism is enough to alienate at least half of Ron Paul's supporters.

The most amazing thing about Ron Paul is that he was able to bring together such a "big tent" of people with a fantastic freedom-oriented platform that's an acceptable compromise to supporters of both of the above-mentioned parties (as well as disillusioned Republicans, Democrats, independents, and even Greens). Together, our Ron Paul Revolution has been able to make more of a mark than any of these separate groups ever have. For the first time, the "Jerry Falwell fire and brimstone bigoted bible-thumpers" from the Constitution Party and the "Godless flaming queer abortionist druggies" from the Libertarian Party have been able to put aside their differences and work towards saving our republic!

United we stand, and divided we fall. Only Ron Paul's platform can keep such a diverse group of supporters together and focused on our common goal. We can choose to scatter back to our parties of origin, but I feel that to do so would be a grave mistake...

Unless we were to reshape the platform of the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party (which would be quite rude ), neither third party is acceptable to enough Ron Paul supporters to actually unite behind and use as a vehicle. Therefore, anyone wishing to register with those parties must do so with the understanding that they're in many ways leaving behind the "consensus platform" and big-tent support base of Ron Paul. Many will say to each other, "Where you go, I cannot follow."

Now, this is probably the most important part to understand:
As I mentioned before, even if we could all unite behind a single third party, the system will prevent us from getting anywhere. As if it were not already nearly impossible, if such a third party ever did become relevant, the establishment would quickly and effortlessly "raise the bar" for ballot access to utterly stamp that party out (in addition to forcing a media blackout, of course). The only reason third parties even have ballot access right now is that the establishment does not yet see them as a threat. If you look at the situation from this point of view, you'll understand that third parties are unwittingly being used by the establishment as controlled opposition. They are afforded ballot access to give disillusioned people "a choice," but we are given this choice only so that we will direct our efforts into dead-end pursuits.

If we return to our third parties of origin (or even unite behind a single one, which is unlikely), we'll certainly be making a principled stand as a protest group, but such a stand will be merely symbolic. We cannot achieve a real foothold in the political realm that way, and as a result, we will be handing the world to the establishment on a silver platter.

In light of all of this, I'm asking each and every one of you to try this a new way - Ron Paul's way - by fighting to take over the Republican Party. For every primary battle we lose, you're still completely free to vote for your favorite third party candidate in the general election...but for the sake of the revolution, the only real way forward is to overtake the Republicans.

This is a great post!

The Basic tenents on Ron Paul Conservatism:
Small Government.
Constitutional listed powers for the Federal Government.
States retain all other powers.
Peace with all nations, alliances with none.

Liberties bring peace, peace brings prosperity.

 

[Steveco]

people are tired of being called liberals, demeicrats, repulicans

neocons, fuckingboomers, teenagers, trolls, warmangers ect,
In my opinion that is why they are leaving the forum. That and if most of the folks left are elected delegates, they had to change there affiliation to republican (or were already republicans) to be a delegate so chances are republicans who are still active in the campain are proabaly going to outnumber the people that just thought RP was cool.

The divide and conquer" stratagy is working, we are all to bussy fighting over gay marriage or who the best NFL quarterback of all time is, to ever accomplish much. People can't even decide to support other people that think like ron paul because they are "republicans".


mini me you rock, his is the best thread I have seen on here in a long time

 

[Revolution9]

The "better way" is simple (or at least, the main idea behind it is - the implementation is probably a bit complex ): Once we restore the republic, we need to add teeth to the Constitution. Almost all laws come in two parts - the "here is the law" part, and the "here is what happens if you break it" part. The Constitution is missing the second part, and that's exactly why we have the problems we do. Whenever judges declare laws unconstitutional (...which is far less often than they should), the law is struck down, but the politicians who enacted it just say, "Oh, whoops! Silly me. Won't happen again! <wink>"

I'm still working out the details on exactly how I'd go about amending the Constitution for this, but the basic idea is that implicit violations of the Constitution (i.e. breaking the Tenth Amendment by exercising powers not explicitly granted) should be considered perjury and/or dereliction of duty and explicit violations of the Constitution (i.e. exercising powers explicitly forbidden, e.g. passing and enforcing the Patriot Act in defiance of Fourth Amendment) should probably be considered treason (waging war on the United States). Any legislator, executive officer, or judge who legislates, executes, or upholds such powers, respectively, would be guilty of said crimes. This would result in immediate dismissal, a permanent ban on holding similar positions, and eligibility for criminal prosecution. These offenses might have to be considered unpardonable to prevent cronyism...

Also, since judges are often corrupt, judicial review can't be the only way to determine a law is unconstitutional. We need multiple paths to determine constitutionality...one should be an easy way for states and/or the people to declare a law unconstitutional without the help of the federal government, and another should be a clever system of incentives for government officials and branches to work against each other in getting unconstitutional laws struck down. (That said, there would also have to be some strong protections against eliminating opponents by wrongfully getting their legislation declared unconstitutional.)

The bottom line: We just need to amend the Constitution to make it easy to enforce.


Oh, and dblee and Tidewise...thanks :o And yes, I'm a bro

I enjoyed your train of thought in this and your other post requoted above. I have thought much the same thing about third parties and see the political chess logic in the way RP is doing this. That is why I take my marching orders from Ron. When hear him speak and watch him at the debates and in speeches at rallies i do not think "What a bunch of piffle and rose strewn paths tripe." I see that he is posed to sweep the board and that what he speaks to can be accomplished. The tighter the focus we have on this the more strength politically we will have. Something very, very important here too.. In a time when the military rank and file is near mutiny the real military is backing Ron Paul. There may be the teeth in The Constitution necessary if the top military do their duty, which it seems the White Hats are working away rolling up the carpet.

Best Regards
Randy

 

[KnownasTIm]

it's too bad

 

[Xenophage]

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.

Dude, what makes you think we ever COULD win this nomination?

We played to win the nomination, but the wiser amongst us who've been involved in this sort of thing in the past knew that we wouldn't. Our real win is longer term... just think of all these people who've never heard this message before! Ron Paul popularized something that has been extremely fringe and controversial throughout the 20th century.

That was always our battle: trying to educate people. To change a society you need to change the people within the society. There is no other path to victory. Therefore, we have to make libertarians out of a majority of Americans. Our victory will not be complete until that happens.

 

[Steveco]

Remember "He cured my apathy

He cured my apathy, I would have never became a delegate or considered a run for state legislature. If Paul can do it any of us can, we can fix things but it takes awhile.
Louisiana will never be the same after this. We are taking over a political party from the ground up.
Alaska will never be the same


Think about how fat you get between thanksgiving and Newyears day, now think about how much longer it takes to loose the weight then it takes to put it on.
Liposuction would be great if you have the resources, if you don't have those resources you have to work hard. I am going to work hard and there are many like us.

 

[Steveco]

It only takes 3% of a population to change everythig

That 3% has to be determined and I think we are and I think we are more then 3% if we can hold together,

We really need to to drop the proservitives, the third parties and the RP Democrats,

We need a united frount and we need to keep out goal in sight witch is to take over from the ground up.

We can do this if we stick together.