Why Ron Paul should run for president for the Libertarian Party

[torchbearer]

There is the other reason not to do this is that the Libertarian Party is no longer libertarian. It has been taken over by Republicans.

in our state, almost all the lalp leadership become republican and led most of the ron paul groups around the state.
the only guys that were left in the lalp were the assholes and inexperienced. the anarchs left several years ago because of the hostility they would have from the assholes.
the inexperience don't know any better, and can't help that much.
our la movement grew out of the lp. we got our training running as the outsiders.

 

[MN Patriot]

I am a registered member of the LP because I got sick to my stomach when I thought about my registration in the GOP. It was also a symbolic move when the LP candidate for governor was trying to get the LP full party status in my state.

This system is built for two parties, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. Either play the game or go home. Hoping and wishing that you will convince enough people to vote third party is ridiculous.

Times they are a changin'. Many people are tired of the two old parties. The word "libertarian" is all around us now. I think it is time to take it mainstream.

 

[Flash]

If Ron Paul fails to secure the Republican nomination, then I would support a third party run. Preferably a merger of Constitution, Libertarian, Conservative Party, & Reform Party into one, brand new party. Give it a name like the Taxpayers' Party, or simply the Conservative Party. This is, of course, assuming a few independent polling companies put Ron Paul at least 15% in a 3-way race. If he wasn't eligible for the debates, it makes this whole thing pointless.

Thankfully, PPP released a poll a year ago that placed RP @ 13% in a hypothetical three-way race between Obama/Romney/Paul. So, I can only assume his momentum will keep growing and more Moderates/Dems will hear his message and be willing to support him in a third party run.

Besides, this could be the event we need to wake the Republican Party up. Either listen to the Tea Party/Conservative/Libertarian wing of the party or die.

Times they are a changin'. Many people are tired of the two old parties. The word "libertarian" is all around us now. I think it is time to take it mainstream.

Meh, the word Libertarian is cool to use on forums or message boards... but it would make more sense to 'hijack' the word Conservative or something more main stream.

 

[MN Patriot]

The revolution will not be over. Liberty does not ride solely on Ron Paul. I think there is likely zero chance he will win under any circumstance. However, that is not what is important. The most important thing is changing hearts and minds about the message of liberty. Winning elections will do nothing if the people still want big government and don't understand liberty.

I agree wholeheartedly. But I am trying to promote the idea that libertarianism naturally belongs in its namesake political party. It doesn't belong in the Republican Party. The LP needs to grow and become bigger than the Republican Party. Until then, this is their best chance to receive national recognition as the party of liberty, with Ron Paul leading the charge. It is about the future, will libertarians spend the next x years as maligned and disregarded members of the Republican Party? Or as a distinct group with distinct ideas? Sure, the statists will still malign and disregard libertarians, but as a viable political party, enough voters may eventually choose the LP over the other two parties.

 

[MN Patriot]

If Ron Paul fails to secure the Republican nomination, then I would support a third party run. Preferably a merger of Constitution, Libertarian, Conservative Party, & Reform Party into one, brand new party. Give it a name like the Taxpayers' Party, or simply the Conservative Party. This is, of course, assuming a few independent polling companies put Ron Paul at least 15% in a 3-way race. If he wasn't eligible for the debates, it makes this whole thing pointless.

Thankfully, PPP released a poll a year ago that placed RP @ 13% in a hypothetical three-way race between Obama/Romney/Paul. So, I can only assume his momentum will keep growing and more Moderates/Dems will hear his message and be willing to support him in a third party run.

Besides, this could be the event we need to wake the Republican Party up. Either listen to the Tea Party/Conservative/Libertarian wing of the party or die.



Meh, the word Libertarian is cool to use on forums or message boards... but it would make more sense to 'hijack' the word Conservative or something more main stream.

Sore loser laws prevent a candidate from running as a third party candidate if they don't get the nomination. That is why Ron should decide by the fall of this year to run as a Libertarian.
Yes, a coalition should be considered.
I disagree with hijacking anything. Why not be open and honest about our goals and motives? We have nothing shameful to hide, unlike the socialists who use terms like "progressive" and "liberal".

 

[MN Patriot]

You facepalmers haven't risen to my challenge yet.
Why don't you facepalmers man up and put out some REAL arguments.

Why wouldn't Ron Paul as a Libertarian candidate WHO WOULD GUARANTEED TO BE ON THE BALLOT NATIONWIDE, with a full slate of Libertarian congressional candidates, plus state candidates, promote his ideas more effectively than ONE 76 YEAR OLD MAN WHO WILL FAIL TO RECEIVE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION?

tired...going to bed...pick this up tomorrow...maybe...

 

[TIMB0B]

If you want the LP to have a chance in the presidential elections, you first need to vote libertarians into the house and senate to the point where their numbers overwhelm the dems and repubs combined.

 

[RM918]

Also, wouldn't he lose his committee assignment? And if he does run, won't he severely split the Republican vote and Obama will win (I think he'll win anyway if they don't nominate Paul), then everybody will blame it on him?

 

[libertybrewcity]

If he was running in the Libertarian Party the moneybomb ticker would read about $200 right now.

 

[cindy25]

If Ron Paul fails to secure the Republican nomination, then I would support a third party run. Preferably a merger of Constitution, Libertarian, Conservative Party, & Reform Party into one, brand new party. Give it a name like the Taxpayers' Party, or simply the Conservative Party. This is, of course, assuming a few independent polling companies put Ron Paul at least 15% in a 3-way race. If he wasn't eligible for the debates, it makes this whole thing pointless.

Thankfully, PPP released a poll a year ago that placed RP @ 13% in a hypothetical three-way race between Obama/Romney/Paul. So, I can only assume his momentum will keep growing and more Moderates/Dems will hear his message and be willing to support him in a third party run.

Besides, this could be the event we need to wake the Republican Party up. Either listen to the Tea Party/Conservative/Libertarian wing of the party or die.



Meh, the word Libertarian is cool to use on forums or message boards... but it would make more sense to 'hijack' the word Conservative or something more main stream.

you can't do that because NY already has a conservative party (and elected Jim Buckley to the US senate back in 1970)

and more importantly conservative has become the same as neo-con in a lot of minds. when I think conservative I think McCain, not Paul. conservative means stay the same, and I want change.

 

[Flash]

e loser laws prevent a candidate from running as a third party candidate if they don't get the nomination.

Don't only a few state have sore loser laws? I only know of Texas having them. Would Ron Paul win Texas anyways in a 3-way race? Probably not.

Also, wouldn't he lose his committee assignment?

That's not a problem if he's planning on retiring soon anyways, which could be a possibility.

And if he does run, won't he severely split the Republican vote and Obama will win (I think he'll win anyway if they don't nominate Paul), then everybody will blame it on him?

Yeah that's the main problem that I have with a Paul third party run. I don't want the Paul family to be blamed for years to come for Obama. Then on the other hand I think-- how long does America have left before another depression?

you can't do that because NY already has a conservative party (and elected Jim Buckley to the US senate back in 1970)

and more importantly conservative has become the same as neo-con in a lot of minds. when I think conservative I think McCain, not Paul. conservative means stay the same, and I want change.

Yeah and Liberals/Moderates may not like RP identifying himself as a 'Conservative.' I guess 'Constitution Party' is an OK name.

 

[MN Patriot]

If you want the LP to have a chance in the presidential elections, you first need to vote libertarians into the house and senate to the point where their numbers overwhelm the dems and repubs combined.

Yes, but you miss the point, which most everyone else here in the RPFs do. ONE MAN CANNOT CHANGE THINGS. It takes thousands of candidates and millions of people supporting them.
There are already millions of people in the USA who identify with the libertarian ideology. They view the Republican Party as the lesser of two evils.

In a three way race, all you need is 34% of the vote. Jesse Ventura proved that third parties can win.

Yes, a libertarian revolution needs candidates for every elections. That is what I have been saying, run a full slate of congressional LP candidates. Run state wide office LP candidates plus as many state legislature candidates as possible in 2012. The libertarian message would be impossible to ignore.

Hoping that Ron and Ron alone will receive the Republican nomination to carry the libertarian message will likely end in the primaries when the Establishment favorite will win. If Ron ran as a LP candidate, he would be on the ballot in all 50 states, if the LP were able to get competent leadership to do that. hopefully Ron would attract enough people to follow him to the LP. But so many libertarians have been conditioned to think "3rd party = fail" by the political Establishment.

 

[MN Patriot]

Also, wouldn't he lose his committee assignment? And if he does run, won't he severely split the Republican vote and Obama will win (I think he'll win anyway if they don't nominate Paul), then everybody will blame it on him?

If Ron does run as a Libertarian, the Republican would be taking votes away from him.

As so what if Obama wins. That might be a good thing, with the economy going bad. If a full slate of LP candidates reverses the Republican takeover in 2010, then Democrats in office will be held accountable for our bankrupt government.

This is one of the most challenging aspects of this third party thing, having the "conservatives" mad at libertarians for ruining their party. So what, "conservatives" have proven themselves incapable of running government like libertarians because they are NOT libertarians.

 

[MN Patriot]

To racap this thread, like a ninja master, I deflected all the arguments against my position with ease why Ron should run for the LP in 2012. People who post a facepalm picture utterly fail to present a rational aguement. I facepalm your facepalm.

Why wouldn't Ron Paul as a Libertarian candidate WHO WOULD GUARANTEED TO BE ON THE BALLOT NATIONWIDE, with a full slate of Libertarian congressional candidates, plus state candidates, promote his ideas more effectively than ONE 76 YEAR OLD MAN WHO WILL FAIL TO RECEIVE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION?

This is a libertarian revolution, not a conservative revolution, so Ron the libertarian should run in the party that describes his philosophy.

Running as a Libertarian, Ron WOULD be on the ballot nationwide in the general election. Running as a Republican, Ron will likely fail to win the primaries.

Running as a Libertarian, Ron would get massive media coverage as the spoiler for the Republicans. Plus all the LP candidates for Congress. Plus all the talk show hosts who call themselves libertarian would have the opportunity to endorse him.

Ron is 76 years old. Where will this revolution be in 2014? 2016? Will it fizzle and die because Ron is no longer running as a Republican? I contend that libertarians need to look long term, have Ron start a new Libertarian Party that will have a new status as a viable political party that makes the Republican Party irrelevant.

The word "libertarian" has gained public prominence, with many talk show hosts who call themselves libertarian. More people understand what it means. I say ride the trend.

 

[FrankRep]

[Larry McDonald] was the most principled man in Congress.
- Ron Paul, The Philadelphia Inquirer​

Ron Paul on Congressman Larry McDonald, the President of the John Birch Society.

Ron Paul went to Congressman Larry McDonald, a Democrat, for advice on running for Congress. McDonald said, "Run in the party you think you can WIN because political parties are irrelevant." This made Ron Paul become a Republican.​

Ron Paul explains:

 

[dude58677]

Historically third parties have failed because of the electoral college. Ross Perot was a long shot from even getting an electoral vote.

 

[FiannaPaul]

This thread is a FAIL

 

[demolama]

Ron did his best to get people to vote 3rd party and you know what the LP presidential candidate Bob Barr gave him a big FU. As long as people like Barr and Root are the main guys the LP wants... I'll pass

 

[psi2941]

Peter Schiff sums up nicely what the LP should do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45sN9xbBOEE