So, Ron Paul is calling it quits.... by Wulfenstar

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

So, Ron Paul is calling it quits....

POSTED BY: WULFENSTAR
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 05:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1215
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, June 13, 2008 5:02 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

F
R
A
K

So I'm left, once again, trying to decide between the lesser of two evils. Frak that. I'm so sick of the government screwing us over..giving our money to foreign powers (Israel ect), sending our jobs to China and India, and all the time taking away our freedoms and privacy. *sigh

So how bad does it have to get before we decide to REALLY change things?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 13, 2008 5:33 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I have to say I'm kinda with Hero on this one - did you really think he had a chance? Was he going to sweep into the Republican National Convention and steal the nomination from McCain? Running as a Republican, he was never going to get any traction.

Now, if he wants to run as an Independent, I'd support that. Maybe he could get more support than Nader did, and maybe he could get just enough interest to get some of his issues addressed by a more mainstream candidate.

I won't echo Hero's advice to simply not vote. I know he's no fan of McCain, but I'll bet when the day comes, he'll pull that lever...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 13, 2008 8:39 PM

WHODIED

Not quitting, more of a tactical retreat.

We need to continue to refine the message so that our more, shall we say, distracted neighbors can see it when it flickers into the media periphery.

Ron Paul knows this and let's face it, the Browncoat-like devotion of his followers kind of caused the nation to dismiss the messenger out of hand.

I would suggest that the (rightly) disappointed Constitutionalists stay on point. The left and right will continue to work their see-saw: be the fulcrum.

Whoever wins this November, there are many issues that need to be addressed. Doctor Paul is approaching these from his position in Congress, try to help however you can.

My congresswoman is real estate agent Thelma Drake. I don't believe she's familiar with the constitution, so I've started watching her every move, in hopes that I may be able to advise her. Loudly.

If these people continue to refuse to see the light, I say we shine it on their activities. It is our duty.

--WhoDied

_______________________

Some people who should be here today... aren't.

But we are. Journey's end.

And what is a journey? Is it just-- distance traveled? Time spent?

No. It's what happens on the way, it the things that happen to you.

At the end of the journey you're not the same.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 4:14 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So, now we have to wait ANOTHER 4 years before anything changes. And in all truth, things are going to just get worse.

We have gone so far from what the Constitution laid out....

The government should only be for these few things...keeping corporations in check, building roads, keeping a standing army, making sure that products are safe, and keeping business dealings fair.

Other than that, it should be up to the states to decide what they want.

Self government, dammit. When did we walk away from that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 4:46 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Other than that, it should be up to the states to decide what they want.

Self government, dammit. When did we walk away from that?

I believe it was April, 1865.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 5:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I have one question: Why does RP insist on running as a Republican? The Party of Goldwater disappeared 40 year ago! He's a bright guy, hasn't he noticed that the Party's been taken over by religious nuts and imperialists? Ya gotta follow the money, honey, and nobody of any consequence (except maybe freedom-loving individuals) have any interest whatsoever in self-governance!

I really like RP about 50% of the time. If he were running as an Independent I'd vote for him. But since the Republican Party has frozen him off the ticket, I'm kinda stuck. Yanno what I mean?

But here's my unsolicited advice: Aim for the next primaries. There was a tomato-grower from NY who used to post here, a really bright guy, and what he said was: the best place to influence an election is the primaries. Most people wait until the election itself to get involved, and the sheer number of people will swamp whatever contribution you have to make. But if you work on swinging the primaries it just takes a few people in each region to make a difference.

Aim for them. Even if your candidate doesn't get on the ticket he can swing the debate if the established parties see enough votes behind him.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 10:21 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have one question: Why does RP insist on running as a Republican?...

Because the only way to have any direct influence on government is through the Republocrats. They've spent many decades erecting barriers against any third party ever gaining a foothold. Short of complete institutional collapse, there's really no other way.

Or to put it another way, how much attention do you think Ron Paul's campaign would have received if he'd ran third party from the start? Compared to the dust he was able to stir up giving the neo-cons the finger in their own backyard, it would have been negligible.

As it is, he's raised enough money and awareness to fund a broad range of candidates and causes that might, someday, add up to real change. But even then, it will almost certainly come up through the ranks of the tired old two-party system. It's pretty much set in stone at this point.

As an afterthought, it could change. If people somehow decided, en masse, to turn off their televisions and quit letting the corporate press do their thinking for them. Though that seems considerably less likely than complete institutional collapse.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 10:58 AM

WHODIED

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have one question: Why does RP insist on running as a Republican?...

Because the only way to have any direct influence on government is through the Republocrats. They've spent many decades erecting barriers against any third party ever gaining a foothold. Short of complete institutional collapse, there's really no other way.

Exactly. Just like they use to tell the hippies, you have to change the system from within.

That only other option, revolution, would render The Constitution void, and likely backfire spectacularly.

It's also probable that he runs republican because he doesn't want to alienate the voter base that's keeping him in office.

--WhoDied

_______________________

As much as it pains me to admit it, there’s probably a great deal we could accomplish with the resources available here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 11:17 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ross Perot got 19 % of the vote. 19 % !

For a third party candidate who had EVERY VESTED INTEREST against him, he didn't do all that badly. And given that, it would behoove those who want to change the system to learn ALL the lessons from Perot's run, both positive and negative. The positive lesson - it IS possible if your message resonates with the public. The negative lesson - you need to get your message out early and often, especially when responding to dirty tricks (- you think swift-boating was invented with Kerry ???? !).

It's not 'the system' that beat Ron Paul. It was his message, tailored to a very small subset of disaffected some-time voters - and maybe also the messenger.

And btw what Ron Paul needs to do is stop telling everyone he's an independent who says what he means - and then keeps calling himself a repubican. There's just something that smells so ... political ... about that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 3:57 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
.....Because the only way to have any direct influence on government is through the Republocrats....

Reminds me of the Simpsons when the aliens Kang and Kodos run for president. A lone voice in the crowd says, "I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate" and Kodos (or is it Kang) replies, "Go ahead, throw your vote away." We're too stupid to vote outside party lines.

Any one got stats on how Anderson in his third party run?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 5:08 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's not 'the system' that beat Ron Paul. It was his message, tailored to a very small subset of disaffected some-time voters - and maybe also the messenger.

You know, I'm actually willing to give that notion some consideration. RP isn't the ideal candidate by any means - his delivery isn't particularly slick, and he tends to talk too much about subtleties. I can also see why it's a satisfying pronouncement to those who find libertarian ideals threatening.

But when you really look at it, it doesn't hold up. The reality is, the vast majority of voters never thought about his ideas, more likely never heard about them. And that is very much about the system. Voters are corralled and managed by a very efficient machine. I've always suspected as much, but this election I had the opportunity to see it firsthand.

It would be just as easy for conservative cheerleaders to say that Ralph Nader is dismissed because of his extreme liberal views - that his ideas are what turns off voters. But, again, that's just not how it works. Both of these men have notions for real change that would resonate with large portions of the voting public if they weren't systemically silenced.

The real reason they lose is because they represent real change - change that threatens the vested interests in control of society. They have the most to lose from real public awareness and radical change, and they'll do whatever is necessary to prevent it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 5:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeantX

I was thinking of Nader specifically as compared to Perot. Who hasn't heard of Nader ? And at the time he stepped into the race, who had heard of Perot ?

And yet the years they both ran - which were 1992 and 1996 - Perot's message - a message for real change I might add - got across, while Nader's never got any traction with the public. Not then and not any of the other 3 times he ran. You could add up all of Nader's votes and not equal those of Perot.

Similar reasoning holds for Paul. If the message resonates, it WILL get through - like Perot's did. If it doesn't, it goes the way of Nader's, just another vanity also-ran with pointless blah blah blah.

Maybe you need to rethink the potential for libertarianism - even the semi-repubican mainstream kind.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 6:28 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And yet - Perot's message - a message for real change I might add - got across

heh... so Perot represents 'real change' for you? I guess that 'splains it.

Perot got attention (and even then only in a very limited way) because people thought he had enough money to actually break through the barriers that squelch our democracy.

This has nothing to do with the viability of libertarian philosophy, despite your attempts to make it so. Dr. Paul's message generated broad appeal from liberals and conservatives alike when it was actually heard.

The most common reasons people gave for not voting for him (those who even knew who he was) was the perception that he didn't have a chance. The same can be said of Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and any candidate who dared to speak truth in defiance of media created reality.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy promoted deliberately and aggressively by those in control of our media and government (and those who dutifully echo their pronouncements).

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 16, 2008 7:26 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The real reason they lose is because they represent real change - change that threatens the vested interests in control of society. They have the most to lose from real public awareness and radical change, and they'll do whatever is necessary to prevent it.

I think you've got a point. Even Edwards couldn't get traction. It's like my previous post to you (Sarge) about the Dems' lack of traction in Congress... I swear to god they could strip naked on the steps of the Capitol building and the media would ignore them.

I think someone in the Bush admin promised the media giants... Murdoch, Time Warner et al ...an open path towards consolidation in exchange for a free ride. And Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son) the FCC chair has certainly done his best to help them along. Despite an outcry (three million objections logged with the FCC) he went ahead and changed the rules to allow mergers and acquisitions.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:12 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's like my previous post to you (Sarge) about the Dems' lack of traction in Congress... I swear to god they could strip naked on the steps of the Capitol building and the media would ignore them.

hmmm... I was having so much fun bashing the Democrats I don't think I really saw this, but you're right. The Dems who did speak out weren't exactly rewarded for their courage - by the media or otherwise.

Quote:
I think someone in the Bush admin promised the media giants... Murdoch, Time Warner et al ...an open path towards consolidation in exchange for a free ride. And Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son) the FCC chair has certainly done his best to help them along. Despite an outcry (three million objections logged with the FCC) he went ahead and changed the rules to allow mergers and acquisitions.

maybe... though I'm always hesitant to pitch camp with the conspiracy nuts. Usually it's not necessary.

[opportunistic axe-grinding]
Historically, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that this kind of progression is inevitable. Institutions are created with lofty purpose and noble dedication to the public welfare, but ultimately answer to the interests of those with the money and power to control the process.
[/opportunistic axe-grinding]

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE