21 replies to this topic

[and then]

The title may seem like a taunt but that is the farthest thing from my mind.  I genuinely wonder why the Paul masses do not keep campaigning and raising money to build a party movement for 2016.  A third party is only going to be viable if those in it work harder and longer for support.  Paul had some really good ideas.  Ideas whose time will come but the only way to force them into the public consciousness is through activism in the "off season".  Obama is already showing that he plans to try to run roughshod over the Republicans just as he did in the first term.  He will accomplish nothing through congress and the people are going to be practically BEGGING for a sane alternative in 4 years.  RP is too old to run I guess and Rand has been hoist on his own petard but someone can stand up from within the movement and make a third party a viable reality.  After all the passion I saw on these boards last Spring and Summer and now it's like smoke in the wind when it should be growing the best.

[Kasey2601]

I think the two-party system has got a deathgrip on this country and there will never be a third party. Of any kind.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

The last election was long and very intense. I think maybe people that actively support a third party might just want to relax, enjoy the holidays, and give Obama a chance to show his true intentions. Theres lots of time to get the ball rolling again.

Although a third party might never really have a serious chance at full presidental election, it still might be able to make a difference by offering the voting public some alternative ideas regarding the direction this country is heading in with our present, stagnent two party system.

Although right now its all about the financial mess we're in, I believe we must work together to protect our civil liberties, before we don't have any left at all. I think thats a strong message we should all be concerned with. Not just third party members.

[Corp]

Wasn't there going to be a revolution if he didn't become president? Seems kind of quiet down south...


As for the third party stuff it's been done several times in America's history so there's no reason why it can't happen again. Just need to get a good part of the population to believe that and find a party they will back.

Edited by Corp, 03 December 2012 - 05:31 PM.

[Pandora7321]

Are you on Facebook, Twitter or other social networking sites? If so, are you subscribed to Ron Paul, Libertarian sites that support him or other independent type sites? If you are, then you will see that there is still ongoing support and rallying for people to "stay the course" so to speak. Granted it's not as rabid as during the elections but quite frankly, people need a bit of break from that from time to time. It's still going on and will obviously wax and wane but I think that is to be expected. If something is constantly in your face on high alert 24/7 it becomes less of a passionate plea and more of an irritating infomercial. People can't maintain that level for too long. There has to be a little break from it periodically.

[ealdwita]

Lady Kasey, on 03 December 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

I think the two-party system has got a deathgrip on this country and there will never be a third party. Of any kind.

We have a three 'main' party system over here, and you couldn't insert a cigarette paper between the policies of all of them! At least in the US voters have a reasonably clear choice when they go to the polls.

[acidhead]

Pandora7321, on 03 December 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Are you on Facebook, Twitter or other social networking sites? If so, are you subscribed to Ron Paul, Libertarian sites that support him or other independent type sites? If you are, then you will see that there is still ongoing support and rallying for people to "stay the course" so to speak. Granted it's not as rabid as during the elections but quite frankly, people need a bit of break from that from time to time. It's still going on and will obviously wax and wane but I think that is to be expected. If something is constantly in your face on high alert 24/7 it becomes less of a passionate plea and more of an irritating infomercial. People can't maintain that level for too long. There has to be a little break from it periodically.

You're absolutely correct.  Once RP didn't get the R's nominee during the primaries many were caught holding their breath wondering if some kind of a deal was made with Mitt.  Those who stayed loyal to the cause of Liberty stood by Paul's side while media pundits predicted Paul would join the dark side.... many goof balls here repeated their talking points and were WRONG.

RP's days as a politician were activism at it's best.  He used the two party system to relay the message of freedom and it echoes around the globe.  Freedom is a new idea not an old one.  America tasted freedom but it's gone for now.  The Libertarian Party is gaining momentum.  The Fed election came and went with no surprise except that the Libertarian party grew substantially.  

I wouldn't be surprised if RP ran in 2016 as the Libertarian candidate.

[acidhead]

ealdwita, on 03 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

We have a three 'main' party system over here, and you couldn't insert a cigarette paper between the policies of all of them! At least in the US voters have a reasonably clear choice when they go to the polls.

Incorrect.  Both the D's and R's have identical Foreign and Monetary policies.

[sam12six]

In a way it doesn't matter if someone else comes along and espouses all the things Paul did and gets elected president. I said it when Paul was running and it would still be true - the only real and immediate change a president alone with a congress that's against him could actually accomplish would be to countermand some bad executive orders (which would be great but wouldn't really affect much in the average American's life).

For people who care about the country as an entity as opposed to those who care only for the 1% to have any hope of getting anything resembling an equal say, it would need to be a grass roots thing. People would need to elect local politicians with the right attitude toward their responsibility and have their careers grow to the point that they become a force in the national Congress.

I'm cynical about our chances because I can't imagine enough of the country staying on point to accomplish this, especially with the media fighting it the entire way. People are afraid of looking like fools and when the media tells them voting for a given person is foolish, most won't. I truly believe we're due for a revolution. A violent revolution won't work unless it comes as a military coup. Unlike historical populist coups, the sheer number of common people won't overcome the advantages of the modern nobility. Between the actual military and the cops (military lite), there's no way 10% of the population could march on Washington and force a change with threat of violence.

Our best (and only I believe) hope is a cultural revolution with enough voters who want representatives who put our country first. At best, this would take a generation and could take several. I think we're in a race between the revolution (in whatever form it takes) and the house of cards falling down on its own and forcing the government to completely reevaluate how it operates. In other words, I believe things will get better but that they'll get a lot worse first.

[MiskatonicGrad]

His whole fix the system by becoming a bigger part of the system soured with alot of his supporters.

[preacherman76]

You could have every single person over the age of 18 vote for him, and theyd still find a way to steal the election. The game is rigged, and short of a major revolution, nothing is ever going to change.

[Yamato]

and then, on 03 December 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

The title may seem like a taunt but that is the farthest thing from my mind.  I genuinely wonder why the Paul masses do not keep campaigning and raising money to build a party movement for 2016.  A third party is only going to be viable if those in it work harder and longer for support.  Paul had some really good ideas.  Ideas whose time will come but the only way to force them into the public consciousness is through activism in the "off season".  Obama is already showing that he plans to try to run roughshod over the Republicans just as he did in the first term.  He will accomplish nothing through congress and the people are going to be practically BEGGING for a sane alternative in 4 years.  RP is too old to run I guess and Rand has been hoist on his own petard but someone can stand up from within the movement and make a third party a viable reality.  After all the passion I saw on these boards last Spring and Summer and now it's like smoke in the wind when it should be growing the best.

The best way we can have a viable liberty movement in this country in 2016 is for Rand Paul to keep doing what he's doing in the legislature, introducing great ideas, leading from the pulpit, setting a good example.   Keeping a political dog and pony show going in perpetuity is the problem with politics today, not the solution, or an answer to "where are the Ron Paul supporters?"    I'm right here, bro.  And I'll support Ron Paul until the day I drop dead.   He gave us a lifetime of good work and set the standard.  The least I can do is give him a lifetime of support.  And not jump on the bandwagon demonizing his son for supposedly not meeting his father's high standard either.   Rand is doing just fine.  I don't agree with everything Rand does but then I don't agree with everything anyone does.   And that's okay.

[Legaia]

Corp, on 03 December 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

Wasn't there going to be a revolution if he didn't become president? Seems kind of quiet down south...


As for the third party stuff it's been done several times in America's history so there's no reason why it can't happen again. Just need to get a good part of the population to believe that and find a party they will back.

I like the "down south" dig that you threw in there. That's laughable at best. Think for yourself and stop letting the media brainwash you. His movement is widespread, friend. His strongest supporters come from the college campuses, known by stereotypers as "liberal havens".

Edited by Legaia, 09 December 2012 - 12:46 PM.

[Ryinrea]

Legaia, on 09 December 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

I like the "down south" dig that you threw in there. That's laughable at best. Think for yourself and stop letting the media brainwash you. His movement is widespread, friend. His strongest supporters come from the college campuses, known by stereotypes as "liberal havens".

In fact a lot of college campuses have a molding pot of view points, which is somewhat a liberal haven. A liberal haven doesn't necessarily mean the political form  as well it means to have a open mind while  a conservative mind tends be less open to change. The people who normally go to a college are more liberally open to ones viewpoints and is willing to change this is why its known as a Liberal Haven.

[preacherman76]

Corp, on 03 December 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

Wasn't there going to be a revolution if he didn't become president? Seems kind of quiet down south...

Ive never heard that. Him becoming president WAS the revolution.