Ron Paul to Make Major Announcement Next Week
- Thread starter copenhagen
- Start date
- Status
copenhagen
New member
I would assume that if he announced he was going to run again, there would be a little less than apathetic consent from many Americans.
Citizen Carrier
New member
The problem isn't that we have a two party system per say. Any party that wants to declare itself and run can do so.
The problem--for people who identify with third parties--is that not enough Americans hold the same ideas as they do. Not enough to win an election.
The Libertarian Party has never garnered over 500,000 votes nationwide in a presidential election. I think the most they ever got was around 483,000. Most years it is closer to half that.
So their power base is about as big as the population of Columbus, Ohio.
Most people vote DNC or GOP because that is what they are. Most voters vote the same way their parents did. It's a process of socialization.
And political beliefs tend to come in package deals. Gun owners tend to belief in less governemt, a strong military, intervention if necessary, God, and are not supportive of abortion.
A generalization, sure.
You have to admit it takes a curious and unlikely mixture of liberal and ultra-conservative views to be a libertarian. You have to be as anti-war as anybody from Code Pink and more anti-government than most conservatives.
Mix in some belief about legalizing drugs.
There just aren't many Americans who have that unlikely mixture of beliefs.
The problem--for people who identify with third parties--is that not enough Americans hold the same ideas as they do. Not enough to win an election.
The Libertarian Party has never garnered over 500,000 votes nationwide in a presidential election. I think the most they ever got was around 483,000. Most years it is closer to half that.
So their power base is about as big as the population of Columbus, Ohio.
Most people vote DNC or GOP because that is what they are. Most voters vote the same way their parents did. It's a process of socialization.
And political beliefs tend to come in package deals. Gun owners tend to belief in less governemt, a strong military, intervention if necessary, God, and are not supportive of abortion.
A generalization, sure.
You have to admit it takes a curious and unlikely mixture of liberal and ultra-conservative views to be a libertarian. You have to be as anti-war as anybody from Code Pink and more anti-government than most conservatives.
Mix in some belief about legalizing drugs.
There just aren't many Americans who have that unlikely mixture of beliefs.
And its this reason why I think Paul tanked so hard. Earmarks are evil (except when Paul requests them). Government spending is terrible (unless Paul is bringing back the money to his district). Neo nazis and bigots are evil and should never be tolerated (except when they donate to Paul's campaign). Politicians who break their promise are dishonest (except if it means I get to vote for Paul again its ok).
Its simply hypocrisy. Either you value your word or you don't. Either you made a promise or you didn't. There are still some things that are black and white in this world, and one's word is one of them.
Sorry, but if the good doctor gets a pass, then everyone else does as well. Of course I didn't see any of the Paul supporters being so generous with the other candidates during the primary. Wonder why.
Stagger Lee
New member
I seriously suspect that RuPaul is planning to do something aimed solely at denying McCain the Presidency and ushering in an Obama regime just to get even with the majority of common-sense-possessing voters who rightfully haven't given him the time of day.
It's all about him. Not what's realistically best for the country. Just him.
It's all about him. Not what's realistically best for the country. Just him.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
So, even though Paul was soooo adamant on not going third party, but then does, he gets an "Oh, well. It was for the best". Sorry. That doesn't cut the mustard.
And, "in view of many" doesn't hold a drop of water. If other politicians don't get as much as one inch on the rope, neither does the Almighty Paul. IF he does announce going third party ticket, he's a LIAR. The blanket statement of yours doesn't give him a pass...at ALL.
For the record, I don't think he will. He may be out to lunch on some issues, but I view him as a principled man. I don't see him lying.
copenhagen
New member
Amen Brother.
It doesn't help that both parties are controlled/owned by the same elitist interests either. Well hey, they have to keep the masses entertained right?.........(no, I'm not trying to hijack my own thread here)
At any rate, where did the information that other 3rd Party Candidates will be with Dr. Paul during his announcement come from Danzig?
I'll have to get back with you on that, copenhagen. Desiree most likely got it in her google news reader.
edited to add: it's all over the internet. Apparently Barr, Baldwin, McKinney, and Nader have all been invited. Some reports have it at just Barr and Baldwin.
According to reason.com, all 4 have been invited, though Baldwin is the only one to formally accept Dr. Paul's invitation at this time.
So much speculation about it. I think that I will keep any further speculation to myself. It will be interesting to see what this is all about.
edited to add: it's all over the internet. Apparently Barr, Baldwin, McKinney, and Nader have all been invited. Some reports have it at just Barr and Baldwin.
According to reason.com, all 4 have been invited, though Baldwin is the only one to formally accept Dr. Paul's invitation at this time.
So much speculation about it. I think that I will keep any further speculation to myself. It will be interesting to see what this is all about.
Citizen Carrier
New member
Well, your man Paul got to be on all the big debates. Republican voters got to hear his message there and through his surrogates on political forums like this one.
He wasn't running as a third party candidate. He was running as a Republican.
He got plenty of exposure. Radio talk show exposure, interviews.
He got more exposure than any "small L" libertarian EVER got.
The Result: He got about 6% of the votes in the primaries.
That's not media bias. That's not party bigwig smoke-filled room cabals.
That's registered Republican voters hearing what he had to say through either him or his supporters on the internet and then saying, "No."
I know the popular mantra is that the media doesn't give small parties exposure and the elitist big parties control everything, but that is just a bandage on a bleeding cut. [How much coverage is the media SUPPOSED to give to something like the Libertarian Party? Which has never had more than 483,000 votes or so in any election? Are you suggesting anybody should treat it as if it is equal to parties that get 40 million votes every four years?]
And does anybody remember all those great Ron Paul television commercials during the primaries? No, neither do I. We were constantly told about all this great fundraising that was happening...but I never saw a single commercial. Was he even trying to win?
But let's suppose it's true. Let's suppose that Americans are lemmings incapapble of independent thought. Tools for manipulation in the media.
If that's the case, libertarianism is dead before it gets out of the gate.
He wasn't running as a third party candidate. He was running as a Republican.
He got plenty of exposure. Radio talk show exposure, interviews.
He got more exposure than any "small L" libertarian EVER got.
The Result: He got about 6% of the votes in the primaries.
That's not media bias. That's not party bigwig smoke-filled room cabals.
That's registered Republican voters hearing what he had to say through either him or his supporters on the internet and then saying, "No."
I know the popular mantra is that the media doesn't give small parties exposure and the elitist big parties control everything, but that is just a bandage on a bleeding cut. [How much coverage is the media SUPPOSED to give to something like the Libertarian Party? Which has never had more than 483,000 votes or so in any election? Are you suggesting anybody should treat it as if it is equal to parties that get 40 million votes every four years?]
And does anybody remember all those great Ron Paul television commercials during the primaries? No, neither do I. We were constantly told about all this great fundraising that was happening...but I never saw a single commercial. Was he even trying to win?
But let's suppose it's true. Let's suppose that Americans are lemmings incapapble of independent thought. Tools for manipulation in the media.
If that's the case, libertarianism is dead before it gets out of the gate.
Revelation76
New member
STAGE2 WROTE
On earmarks. He's never voted for one. Read this defense-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html
Just to be fair, an opposing view-
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59380
About Neo Nazis and bigots-
They (apart from hatred) are able to think for themselves too, and are not supporting Ron Paul because they believe he hates the same people as they do. I would hope that no one would be a part of any hate group, but they vote too, and why not try to understand why they like Ron Paul, instead of assuming that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. You might as well run from the light of the Sun, because I'm almost positive that Hitler liked a nice summer day.
Yes STAGE2- Some things are black and white, but if you don't even bother to check to see if they might be grey, then your going to pass judgment with no proof, which would coincidentally be quite the American way as it stands, so you'll be in good company.
About giving Ron Paul a "pass"- Seriously look into the issue and make your case. You might start by giving the biggest examples of his failures in your opinion. I'd like to know, because I'm a big supporter of Congressman Paul.
Ron Paul has been more consistent and principled than any other elected official I know of in the 30+ years that he's been involved in politics. You may not agree with the Libertarian ideals, but you cannot say that Ron Paul is interested in self promotion, acquiring wealth through his seat in Congress, or seizing more federal power. Quite the opposite.
Name one other presidential candidate that is looking to take power AWAY from the federal government.
Perhaps some Americans want a more powerful federal government. Obama and McCain are the "two" choices now. They don't respect the 4th Amendment or the 10th. One respects the 2nd to a degree, but I'm not interested in compromising my rights, and settling for the lesser of the evils(whoever that is), as we so often do. I have more complaints about them both, but I'll stop for now.
I TRUST NO ONE THAT WOULD VOTE FOR THE PATRIOT ACT.
I probably wouldn't trust anyone that voted against it either, but they would gain respect for their vote.
On earmarks. He's never voted for one. Read this defense-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html
Just to be fair, an opposing view-
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59380
About Neo Nazis and bigots-
They (apart from hatred) are able to think for themselves too, and are not supporting Ron Paul because they believe he hates the same people as they do. I would hope that no one would be a part of any hate group, but they vote too, and why not try to understand why they like Ron Paul, instead of assuming that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. You might as well run from the light of the Sun, because I'm almost positive that Hitler liked a nice summer day.
Yes STAGE2- Some things are black and white, but if you don't even bother to check to see if they might be grey, then your going to pass judgment with no proof, which would coincidentally be quite the American way as it stands, so you'll be in good company.
About giving Ron Paul a "pass"- Seriously look into the issue and make your case. You might start by giving the biggest examples of his failures in your opinion. I'd like to know, because I'm a big supporter of Congressman Paul.
Ron Paul has been more consistent and principled than any other elected official I know of in the 30+ years that he's been involved in politics. You may not agree with the Libertarian ideals, but you cannot say that Ron Paul is interested in self promotion, acquiring wealth through his seat in Congress, or seizing more federal power. Quite the opposite.
Name one other presidential candidate that is looking to take power AWAY from the federal government.
Perhaps some Americans want a more powerful federal government. Obama and McCain are the "two" choices now. They don't respect the 4th Amendment or the 10th. One respects the 2nd to a degree, but I'm not interested in compromising my rights, and settling for the lesser of the evils(whoever that is), as we so often do. I have more complaints about them both, but I'll stop for now.
I TRUST NO ONE THAT WOULD VOTE FOR THE PATRIOT ACT.
I probably wouldn't trust anyone that voted against it either, but they would gain respect for their vote.
Last edited:
Stage 2 said:
I would think you would be working on the reasons why your man Duncan Hunter tanked sooo much harder than Ron Paul. Wouldn't that be both more important and more productive?
It looks to me like Paul changed his mind on earmarks, in much the same way I have changed my mind on FEMA. I oppose FEMA. When I became eligible for FEMA assistance after hurricane Andrew, I did not go down and apply. All I had to do was sign, and they'd hand me a 5-figure chunk of money. I didn't sign, because I oppose FEMA on principle.
Principled, but stupid.
If Ike hits me, I'm applying. My reasoning? I also oppose the income tax, but it's not optional. If I could opt out of paying, I'd opt out of receiving. I can't, so I'll join the porkwagon. Paul reached the same conclusion regarding his district.
Looks like I'm a hypocrite, and so is Paul, but only because we're both stuck in a big-government system with which we disagree.
Whatever Ron Paul announces, you can be sure of the following;
1. It will be based on his belief in liberty
2. The major media will make very little mention of it, if any
3. The Republicans and democrats will not like it
4. Those who blindly follow the democrats and republicans will parrot whatever the media says about it
1. It will be based on his belief in liberty
2. The major media will make very little mention of it, if any
3. The Republicans and democrats will not like it
4. Those who blindly follow the democrats and republicans will parrot whatever the media says about it
copenhagen
New member
publius42, I really liked your explanation there. FireMax, yes, I too have been worried that the media will make zero mention of it. Heck, they acted like the campaign for liberty did not exist. I think Colbert and Beck were the only ones to make mention of it, and Glenn Beck was the only one to respect it. Then again, he is at the edge of the media too.
Stagger Lee
New member
If I may...
Whatever Ron Paul announces, you can be sure of the following;
1. It will be based on his desire for attention
2. The major media will shrug it off because they know that he's just an attention whore
3. The Republicans and democrats will not care about it
4. Those who blindly follow RuPaul will act as if Jesus himself just issued a pronouncement and not some career civil servant who doesn't pass any legislation or do anything other than show up and collect a government paycheck.
Whatever Ron Paul announces, you can be sure of the following;
1. It will be based on his desire for attention
2. The major media will shrug it off because they know that he's just an attention whore
3. The Republicans and democrats will not care about it
4. Those who blindly follow RuPaul will act as if Jesus himself just issued a pronouncement and not some career civil servant who doesn't pass any legislation or do anything other than show up and collect a government paycheck.
- Status