Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite being surprised to see my 2008 thread resurrected, here it is 2012, and another presidential election upon us, where are the Libertarians running for local offices around the country? Don't you think you need that kind of structure to build a Presidential run?
That was the way it worked when the Republican party was founded. Republicans gained enough seats in local and state offices to gain numbers for Congressional races, and with Lincoln, the Presidential race.
All the gains were done at the Whig Party's expense. After Lincoln was re-elected, the Whigs managed to put up a Presidential candidate in the following election, but by then, they were the 3rd party. By the next election, they were gone for good as a national party.
And where did I say that?? Or are you clairvoyant and can know what I believe without me saying a word?
Just so you know, what I believe is exactly what I wrote. Party politics will be the death of this country, as it has proved itself over the last 100 years. The puppetmasters behind the scenes keep taking from all of us while we bicker back and forth about the 'issues' they put in front of us.
Like it or not, the American system of government is so heavily weighted in favor of a 2 party system that it is next to impossible for a 3 party system to ever be established here permanently. The only way a multiple party system works is the voters vote for the party, and the party selects it's leader after the election. As long as the American voters have a say in who they want as President, there's no hope for 3 parties. I don't think the American voter would ever agree with letting the winning party decide for itself who the President will be.
That's the Parliamentary system. It works as well as ours, but it's so much different that a new Constitution would have to be written to adopt it, and our Constitution was written to intentionally be different than the British Parliament.
We have had 3rd parties arise, but always eventually cause a previously existing party to disappear; the old party is always absorbed by the new one, or broken into factions that are absorbed by both parties.
You, the guy that has praised Obama over and over, while kissing his feet is an independent.
So you voted for Bush? The other elder Bush? Dole? Reagan? Ford? Nixon?
If a person is an independent, how does voting for those guys change that? Independent voters often vote for the candidates they like in either party in local, state and national elections while sticking with one party or the other for the Presidential choice.
A declared party member can do the same; the independents just don't declare a party affiliation. All you did, Bent Bow, was describe a Republican who votes down the party line exclusively. That is no evidence of independence.
Once they achieve their goal of a second Obama term, their work is done.
That's what usually happens with a 3rd party. The outcome is usually the same, but one party or the other gains the Presidency by a tighter outcome than what would have been otherwise.
The goal of the 3rd party is always opposite from what the outcome is. (Or at least for the last 150 years or so for the election of the President. The last successful 3rd party candidate was Lincoln.)
and stay away from the foreign policy issues that make him sound like a kook!
I am a former staunch supporter of the GOP and one of the reasons I will not support any of the other candidates besides Ron Paul is FOREIGN POLICY. He is the only one who has the nerve to tell the truth about it and the GOP warmonger establishment has distorted and twisted it from the word go.
Ron Paul's biggest endorsement that verifies his credibility on national security and foreign policy is Michael Scheuer, 22 year veteran of the CIA who was head of the Bin Laden unit from 1996-1999.
One of his statements prior to Ron Paul's candidacy sums it up quiet well:
Quote:
Motivated by Washington’s interventionist policies in the Muslim world, that foe declared war on America in August 1996. Sadly, we have yet to find a U.S. political leader in either party who will forthrightly accept the fact that we are at war with the Islamists and will tell the American people that we are at war because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world — unqualified support for Israel, support for Arab tyrannies, invading Iraq, etc. — and not for who we are and how we live here in North America.
I still find it amazing that people buy into the idea that Bin Laden came after the US because we are free and prosperous.
Ron Paul is not fully opposed to war. His view on war is that of the founding fathers. Non-interventionism, no entangling alliances, and CONGRESS AUTHORIZING WAR WITH A DECLARATION. Paul also believes that war should be brutal, ugly, and short, with only one objective: defeat the enemy quickly and soundly, and COME HOME.
The Iraq war is the biggest demonstration of the lunacy of the GOP establishment approach to foreign policy:
4500 of our precious troops killed
Thousands more permanently maimed and disfigured
More than 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians that we call "collateral damage" as if that makes them less human
Iraq officially became and ISLAMIC REPUBLIC, complete with sectarian violence, chaos, and loss of stability
Christians in Iraq were reasonably safe under Saddam. After we went in, Iraq's Christian population (one of the oldest groups of Christians on the planet), went from 1.5 million to now less than 500,000. They are also unable to practice their faith in public without fear of being harrassed and targeted for violence and murder. They celebrate Christmas in secret now, yet before they were able to celebrate openly
Cost of well over $2trillion, probably closer to $4trillion, and counting since even though the "war is over", we have an embassy the size of the Vatican along with 16,000 military advisers and private contractors
On top of all that, the big scare and fearmongering issue of WMD's, well we never found any.
All that, and the Republicans can't even admit it was a mistake. If that is what today's Republicans call strong national security, count me out of it, permanently.
I have been voting since I was 18. I'm 56 now and I have observed from time to time, a presidential candidate will run for President with ideas contrary to the norm/either political party. They will lose and there won't be a peep until another Presidential election where some other guy will show up from out of nowhere (meaning not in the national public political eye) shock the mainstream with their unconventional ideas about 1 or 2 issues and of course, lose the election.
But you guys (Ron Paul fans) seem to have organization and fundraising skills I have never seen before. So my question to you is, what are you going to do after the 2008 presidential election?
See, I don't understand why you don't develop a permanent platform that will stand the test of time and then try to run candidates that support that platform in local elections and maybe for the House of Representatives. In other words, actually build a third party (but don't call it that) based on a multi-issue platform, not just shoot straight for the top position only to go down in flames every 4 years and then disappear until another presidential election.
Am I wrong? Has there been any thought given to this?
"We've" been doing that (or trying to) for 6 years. That is what the Tea Party movement started out about until the Neo-con Republicans mostly co-opted it. The Campaign for Liberty group, inspired by Ron Paul, started 4 years ago which is all about educating people about the system and getting them involved and hopefully running for office and supporting those who do run. They have over 100,000 members. Gov. Nikki Haley benefited from Campaign for Liberty but now that she is SC's governor she is a lot less tea party/freedom oriented than she started out when CforL folks rallied around her.
It has been done, several times; but it always fails. Here's why.
Basically - people on the whole are stupid, have the attention span of moths, are driven by emotion, and vote not based on their own fiduciary interests, but on the basis of sound bytes, pretty boys and pretty lies. This is why Ron Paul will not only never get elected, but why no one else who steps forward with the same beliefs and same honesty will get elected - or stay in power for long. Because the con artists, thieves, and liars are better at convincing stupid, emotionally-driven people that fighting over gay marriage and abortion rights, and that "spreading democracy to the world" with CIA plants, bombs and bullets, are more important, more righteous, than individual rights and personal freedoms.
With personal freedom comes personal responsibility - and no one truly wants that responsibility. They want to be lied to, they want to be conned, they want to believe that they deserve a chicken in every pot, free health care, a guaranteed 6-figure job after graduation from a free university, and a lexus in every McMansion driveway - at someone else's expense. As long as they have a scapegoat handed to them - be it the muslims, the jews, the gays, the liberals, the conservatives, the occupiers, the tea party, the boomers, the y-gen - they not only don't know, they don't want to know, and don't care, what it costs them in the long run.
Yeah, I'm verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. Here's a topic - "Freedom means ____ to me."
It has been done, several times; but it always fails. Here's why.
Basically - people on the whole are stupid, have the attention span of moths, are driven by emotion, and vote not based on their own fiduciary interests, but on the basis of sound bytes, pretty boys and pretty lies. This is why Ron Paul will not only never get elected, but why no one else who steps forward with the same beliefs and same honesty will get elected - or stay in power for long. Because the con artists, thieves, and liars are better at convincing stupid, emotionally-driven people that fighting over gay marriage and abortion rights, and that "spreading democracy to the world" with CIA plants, bombs and bullets, are more important, more righteous, than individual rights and personal freedoms.
With personal freedom comes personal responsibility - and no one truly wants that responsibility. They want to be lied to, they want to be conned, they want to believe that they deserve a chicken in every pot, free health care, a guaranteed 6-figure job after graduation from a free university, and a lexus in every McMansion driveway - at someone else's expense. As long as they have a scapegoat handed to them - be it the muslims, the jews, the gays, the liberals, the conservatives, the occupiers, the tea party, the boomers, the y-gen - they not only don't know, they don't want to know, and don't care, what it costs them in the long run.
Yeah, I'm verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. Here's a topic - "Freedom means ____ to me."
I would agree if this was your assessment after the 2008 election but I think exponentially more people really DO care. They are starting to see what is going on. I don't think so many of them this time around are going to vote for the "lesser of two evils" .
I think people are figuring out that there is little if any difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both are BIG SPENDERS and WAR MONGERS. I think enough people have had enough and they know in order to get REAL CHANGE they have to do something DIFFERENT and vote for other than that status quo. That means Ron Paul or a third party candidate.
If a person is an independent, how does voting for those guys change that? Independent voters often vote for the candidates they like in either party in local, state and national elections while sticking with one party or the other for the Presidential choice.
A declared party member can do the same; the independents just don't declare a party affiliation. All you did, Bent Bow, was describe a Republican who votes down the party line exclusively. That is no evidence of independence.
Here's my problem with Independents. You determine the election so candidates cater to you instead of party members. Every stinkin' party analyst says "Oooh, you gotta vote for this guy so we can get the Independent vote or you have to appeal to this guy so we can get the Independent vote." So my advice to the party: If you are going to cater to Independents to get them to vote for you or your guy, go ask them for money, bleep you and leave us the bleep alone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
