Young Republicans and Ron Paul people work with the Libertarian Party also

[tuggy24g]

I think if we work with both the Libertarian Party and Republican Party we can optimize are chances to grow faster. Also to get Liberty minded people into office. Working with the Republican Party I think will take twice as long then if we worked with both parties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-otR8ZG4Ok

 

[thoughtomator]

Be careful that you do not in the process make yourself ineligible to participate in GOP conventions. In Virginia if you are involved in another party in any way (such as voting in a primary of another party) you are barred from being a convention delegate.

 

[WarAnonymous]

Be careful that you do not in the process make yourself ineligible to participate in GOP conventions. In Virginia if you are involved in another party in any way (such as voting in a primary of another party) you are barred from being a convention delegate.

Oh snap!

 

[CPUd]

I don't know how well it would work out during major elections. Last time, a lot of them came over to help campaign for RP during the primaries, and it probably screwed their party for the whole cycle. Then immediately after the RNC, they expected everyone to go campaign for Gary, when a lot of folks really just needed a break from the whole thing.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't know how well it would work out during major elections. Last time, a lot of them came over to help campaign for RP during the primaries, and it probably screwed their party for the whole cycle. Then immediately after the RNC, they expected everyone to go campaign for Gary, when a lot of folks really just needed a break from the whole thing.

Ron thinks we need to be in all parties and I agree. The statists are.

Some won't go GOP for whatever reason and for the LP to field a better candidate, it needs people at their conventions. I think people should do what they think best, personally. I think our current greatest gains are in the GOP, but I've always been GOP. If the 'next Ron Paul' came up in a different party, I'd vote for them whereever they were.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Ron thinks we need to be in all parties and I agree. The statists are.

Some won't go GOP for whatever reason and for the LP to field a better candidate, it needs people at their conventions. I think people should do what they think best, personally. I think our current greatest gains are in the GOP, but I've always been GOP. If the 'next Ron Paul' came up in a different party, I'd vote for them whereever they were.

That's the idea. "Follow the movement, not follow the party," as Gerald Celente has said. Have a growing presence across the spectrum, such that the parties can't get anywhere reliably without dealing with the liberty agenda. And what's this cop-out about people being "too tired after the RNC" to then campaign for Gary? Would they have been too tired to campaign if Paul had won the nomination? At times, some Paul supporters seem to evidence a tendency to make this the cult of personality, or a reform one-party project. Follow the movement, not follow the party.

 

[sailingaway]

That's the idea. "Follow the movement, not follow the party," as Gerald Celente has said. Have a growing presence across the spectrum, such that the parties can't get anywhere reliably without dealing with the liberty agenda. And what's this cop-out about people being "too tired after the RNC" to then campaign for Gary? Would they have been too tired to campaign if Paul had won the nomination? At times, some Paul supporters seem to evidence a tendency to make this the cult of personality, or a reform one-party project. Follow the movement, not follow the party.

People wouldn't have been too tired to campaign for Ron, just speaking for myself, because he is inspiring. Gary, to me, isn't. I said the right candidate, not any candidate standing. It is the principles Ron has always steadfastly fought for, popular or not that makes him inspiring. Those who don't do that, can't expect the same support. That isn't personality cult, because anyone could do it, and I wish many would.

 

[The Goat]

That's the idea. "Follow the movement, not follow the party," as Gerald Celente has said. Have a growing presence across the spectrum, such that the parties can't get anywhere reliably without dealing with the liberty agenda. And what's this cop-out about people being "too tired after the RNC" to then campaign for Gary? Would they have been too tired to campaign if Paul had won the nomination? At times, some Paul supporters seem to evidence a tendency to make this the cult of personality, or a reform one-party project. Follow the movement, not follow the party.

Or they might be like me and said "I'll vote for him, but I'll only put my effort behind someone like Ron."

 

[Christian Liberty]

I was disappointed that I was three months too young to vote for Gary, but Gary isn't Ron Paul. Not even close....

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I understand Gary wasn't, and isn't Ron Paul. But he was more substantial than just "somebody to vote for on Election day," yet got basically no one pulling for him in the fall campaign outside the normal LP camp. I do not understand virtually the entire movement acting like a 1 or a 0, that cannot put together even a fraction of the unified effort it put behind Paul. If it was mainly about the principles, the labor would switch over to supporting others running on mainly the same positions and issues, not the near total shutdown that was seen in fall 2012.

And if Rand actually decides not to run in 2016, will there even be a level 1 effort to elect someone else, or just a 0 non-effort? Are we really saying nobody in the US is a suitable replacement for Ron, or another Paul family member running? Is the movement even building a farm system for national successor candidates?

 

[sailingaway]

I understand Gary wasn't, and isn't Ron Paul. But he was more substantial than just "somebody to vote for on Election day," yet got basically no one pulling for him in the fall campaign outside the normal LP camp. I do not understand virtually the entire movement acting like a 1 or a 0, that cannot put together even a fraction of the unified effort it put behind Paul. If it was mainly about the principles, the labor would switch over to supporting others running on mainly the same positions and issues, not the near total shutdown that was seen in fall 2012.

And if Rand actually decides not to run in 2016, will there even be a level 1 effort to elect someone else, or just a 0 non-effort? Are we really saying nobody in the US is a suitable replacement for Ron, or another Paul family member running? Is the movement even building a farm system for national successor candidates?

check out the 2014 candidate section. Check out Leah Cole in MA. Some are trying. If there isn't a good candidate will we give our all to whatever happens along? Hardly. But the next Ron Paul may be named Marjorie Chan for all I know. (I made that name up, so don't bother googling it.)

 

[fr33]

Where I live it makes as much sense to work with the Libertarians as it does with the Republicans. The liberty movement doesn't have the numbers to elect Republican delegates and doesn't have enough Libertarian voters to be taken seriously.

As far as other scenarios go, I imagine it makes more sense for some in strong "blue democrat" areas to convince Republicans to work with the libertarians. If pragmatism and incrementalism have no chance, a principled campaign of education seems to be the most worthy cause.

 

[tuggy24g]

That is the spirit guys. Also check out my video too!

 

[Sujan]

I understand Gary wasn't, and isn't Ron Paul. But he was more substantial than just "somebody to vote for on Election day," yet got basically no one pulling for him in the fall campaign outside the normal LP camp. I do not understand virtually the entire movement acting like a 1 or a 0, that cannot put together even a fraction of the unified effort it put behind Paul. If it was mainly about the principles, the labor would switch over to supporting others running on mainly the same positions and issues, not the near total shutdown that was seen in fall 2012.

And if Rand actually decides not to run in 2016, will there even be a level 1 effort to elect someone else, or just a 0 non-effort? Are we really saying nobody in the US is a suitable replacement for Ron, or another Paul family member running? Is the movement even building a farm system for national successor candidates?

I was always a bit afraid the movement turning into a cult worshipping the person Ron Paul instead of adhering to the ideas and backing the candidates who voice those ideas, although they might be a tad different here and there. You do no want a cult of personality like that of Barrack Obama.

 

[sailingaway]

I was always a bit afraid the movement turning into a cult worshipping the person Ron Paul instead of adhering to the ideas and backing the candidates who voice those ideas, although they might be a tad different here and there. You do no want a cult of personality like that of Barrack Obama.

cult of personality is something people tend to throw at us when they want a candidate who isn't as principled as Ron to get the same kind of enthusiasm. It is a cult of principles and any who follow them in the same principled manner can expect to attract us. Those who don't, can't.