this post was submitted on
252 points (76% like it)
365 up votes 113 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

top 200 commentsshow all 401

[–]stealthboy 147 points148 points ago

I am already resigned to the reality - Romney will get the nomination, and then Obama will win the election. It's really quite simple to see.

[–]d357r0y3r 89 points90 points ago

That's the ideal situation. If Obama wins, Rand Paul can run and win in 2016. If Romney wins, we're pretty much fucked until 2020, and I doubt it'll really matter too much by then.

[–]WarParakeet 15 points16 points ago

Don't get me wrong, I like Rand, but why is he automatically the torch bearer in 2016?

[–]StrictlyDownvotes 4 points5 points ago

I think because for every 1 part of Ron that he loses he gains 2 parts of electability. Right now, the only 2 people I can think of are Rand Paul and Gary Johnson. I think we'll have a good chance to see Gary Johnson campaigning in the general election. We need to figure out who we're backing for 2016 by like the end of 2013 so we can build a political machine next go around.

  • 2008 = omg wtf other people like liberty too??!
  • 2012 = a real campaign but amateur
  • 2016 = the motherf***ing get-out-the-vote machine of doom

[–]wolfehr 2 points3 points ago

2016 = the motherf***ing get-out-the-vote machine of doom freedom.

FTFY

[–]Rearden_Steel 3 points4 points ago

What other options are there? I know there are a ton of neo-cons coming up in the ranks who will be interested in 2016, but who do the true right have to look forward to if not Rand?

[–]nanowerx 11 points12 points ago*

We all rally around Gary Johnson next time if Rand doesn't run. If Johnson does run again, that is where I'm going.

[–]WarParakeet 1 point2 points ago

I'm just not a fan of political "dynasties."

Bush, Kennedy, fuck em.

[–]d357r0y3r 2 points3 points ago

He's bold as hell. He's making a name for himself in the Senate because he's standing up to bullshit when no one else will. He basically created the tea party. His term is up in 2016, he's far more marketable to mainstream Republicans, and he's younger/more articulate than Ron Paul.

It's not guaranteed, but I think he would have a really strong shot at the White House.

[–]WarParakeet 1 point2 points ago

There are other libertarians out there. Libertarianism doesn't have to be a Paul family circle jerk.

[–]d357r0y3r 0 points1 point ago

How many currently hold office and have actually been accepted by the GOP mainstream?

Listen, I get that Rand Paul is not perfect, but this is the United States. We're not going to elect a Rothbardian. We need a libertarian that can essentially "trick" the Republican party into thinking he's one of them, while also garnering a good deal of Democratic/independent voters that agree with his foreign policy and stance on civil liberties.

[–]dieyoung 18 points19 points ago

if we can get to 2016 :(

[–]shstmo 13 points14 points ago

Well, if Romney wins, I think we can all agree that the Mayans were right.

[–]lurkerturneduser 1 point2 points ago

If Romney wins and the Mayans were right, there will never be a Romney inauguration.

[–]gizram84 0 points1 point ago

Well, if Obama wins, I think we can all agree that the Mayans were right.

It works both ways!

[–]stealthboy 15 points16 points ago

Agree on all points.

[–]Randy_Manimal 2 points3 points ago

Rand Paul can run and win in 2016

Circumstances may be different in 2016. A lot depends upon whether the economy improves in the meantime. Anti-establishment movements are difficult in bad times and doubly more difficult in good times.

Rand Paul can run and win in 2016

Or Gary Johnson. Or Chris Christie. Or some other libertarian type.

[–]ebg13 10 points11 points ago

Don't trust Chris Christie. He is in bed with Ashcroft.

[–]apiratewithadd 14 points15 points ago

better be a king size with a strengthened frame.

[–]ipposan 2 points3 points ago

Didn't he back Romney?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

If Christie is ever elected though we could at least places doughnuts every few feet from the the white house until he eats himself to death.

[–]topgunsarg 1 point2 points ago

Christie may have mediocre history and an endorsement for Romney, but I gotta say, I love what he's done with the budget in NJ.

[–]flynnguy 2 points3 points ago

Haha... As a NJ resident, I can firmly say Chris Christie is not a libertarian type.

[–]the_ancient1 1 point2 points ago

The chances of the economy improving with Romney or Obama at the helm are about as good as my chances at winning the lottery with out buying a ticket...

I expect to see 70's style inflation before 2016

As far as Christie, he is NOT a libertarian, FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR from it..... it is more of a liberal than Romney is. The only reason why libertarian and conservatives like him is because he stands up to Public Unions, but guess what, FDR was against public unions as well

[–]topgunsarg 1 point2 points ago

Christie is not more liberal than Romney. Christie is just a realist who believes we must talk to democrats and republicans and come together to make a plan, which is true, no matter your political beliefs. Christie balanced the budget in NJ and is now bringing down taxes. He doesn't sound very liberal to me.

[–]Randy_Manimal 0 points1 point ago

The chances of the economy improving with Romney or Obama at the helm are about as good as my chances at winning the lottery with out buying a ticket...

You must have very little faith in the American people.

I think human ingenuity is the most powerful force in the world, even when it's shackled by the chains of government. Look at China. There are few major countries more oppressive than China. And yet, despite the overbearing State, the people of China have managed to improve their standard of living.

[–]topgunsarg 0 points1 point ago

Don't think we have much to worry about in terms of the economy improving under Obama/Romney; the debt this country has is something no one anywhere can bail out, and serious fiscal reform is required if the USA hopes to survive until the next election.

[–]fizolof 1 point2 points ago

He can still run in 2024.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points ago

In all likelihood there won't be a united states in its current form in 2024 if things continue the way they have been.

2017 is the crunch date for Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid problems and I don't really see the county surviving that issue. Either they raise taxes higher than they are already which causes many people to flee/stop compiling or they remove the programs and a number of states remove themselves from the union.

Edit: also you may be interested in who is currently buying up <5y treasuries right now and has been for the last 2 years, the federal reserve are the only reason the USD hasn't already rightly collapsed in to oblivion. (Not supporting them at all, merely pointing out they are prolonging the inevitable). China have divested 98% of their <2y holdings and look to be doing the same with other forms of securities when they come up for renewal.

[–]sharlos 3 points4 points ago

raise taxes higher than they are already

The US has historically low tax rates and low tax rates compared to many first world countries. While I agree that America is going to face some serious challenges in the next few decades, I don't think raised taxes will be the prime cause.

[–]lazerbeem 3 points4 points ago

The US needs to split up into smaller countries, it is way to big for one central government to manage, that or it breaks up into states and reunites under a confederation.

[–]AmoDman 20 points21 points ago*

By god, you're right! States. We could use some of those. Like, let's say... 50 of them? We've got a lot of land and people to cover, so I'm not even sure if that's enough. But I think it's a decent starting point.

And we could even keep our national identity. We could have some sort of overarching federal... Union? Something with enough power to make us an internationally recognized collective, but while keeping the federal government severely limited to only a few domestic responsibilities so that the states could take care of most of their own shit.

Man, this is really coming together. We just need to draft up some sort of declaration. Or covenant. Or, say, a Constitution? Something to define the identity and role of the federal government in this awesome new system so that we can get things started and make this country happen.

[–]stealthboy 1 point2 points ago

This is great... I like where you're going here. So your radical idea is for some kind of Constitutional Republic of sorts? That's crazy!

[–]nosoupforyou 0 points1 point ago

Unless something happens (a tech breakthrough) in the next few years, and whoever is president gets credit.

I mean, just suppose the e-cat is real, we'd see the beginnings of an economic boom in 2013.

[–]Str82thaDOME 2 points3 points ago

Anyone hoping for a technological breakthrough should watch Transcendent Man, it's very eye opening, and frightening, yet hopeful.

[–]metamemetics 5 points6 points ago*

Kurzweil completely fails to understand economics. You see things like Moore's Law for microprocessors because demand for computational power was huge, well established, and highly inelastic. It's very unreasonable to assume that Moore's Law also applies to technologies that do not yet exist which there is currently NO consumer demand for.

Touch screen tablets existed 10 years ago but there was no consumer demand until Steve Jobs marketed it. 30 years ago you could purchase a plane ticket on supersonic passenger jets faster than all commercial flights today. 40 years ago the government had much more powerful rockets that could reach the moon. There are an infinite number of paths technology might take, you have to look at consumer demand for your predictions to have any credibility.

Kurzweil has not had much luck keeping on time with his predictions so far. In the Singularity is Near, he predicted we would have invisible computers in our clothes by now, but then backtracked and made things more vague to try and claim an iPhone counts. He has more recently pushed back the date for the Singularity.

[–]gadgetdevil 2 points3 points ago

I am not a Kurzweil singularity-worshiper and I perfectly welcome criticism that he may be wrong, but I take issue with your argument.

"You see things like Moore's Law for microprocessors because demand for computational power was huge, well established, and highly inelastic. It's very unreasonable to assume that Moore's Law also applies to technologies that do not yet exist which there is currently NO consumer demand for."

No, actually, I argue it's very reasonable if the data supports it (and that's what he does for a living, after all). The derivative of an exponential curve is yet another exponential curve. The reason he uses microprocessors is because it is easily quantifiable not because exponential growth curves only apply to information technology, it applies to agriculture, medicine, transportation, etc.

Regarding the idea that, "Touch screen tablets existed 10 years ago but there was no consumer demand until Steve Jobs marketed it." The main reason was not Steve Jobs, it was that the supporting technologies to create the iPad had matured and become cost-effective to mass produce (i.e. NVRAM, IPS Displays, Lithium Polymer battery) as well as wireless services (3G, 4G, GPS, etc.)

Kurzweil himself states, "And, I noticed that most inventions fail, not because the R&D department can't get it to work -- if you look at most business plans, they will actually succeed if given the opportunity to build what they say they're going to build, and 90 percent of those projects or more will fail, because the timing is wrong -- not all the enabling factors will be in place when they're needed."

You are measuring technological success from its proliferation. Analyzing proliferation and market cap is fine if you are an entrepreneur trying to build a business, but that is not what technological progress is about.

Technological progress seeks to answer the question, "Can we do it?" not "Can we sell it?"

[–]auribus 7 points8 points ago

It truly makes me laugh that the GOP leadership is expecting the libertarian elements of the Republican party to support Romney when he gets the nomination in order to beat Obama. Sorry, but beating Obama was never my objective and the only reason I'm registered as a Republican in the first place is to vote for Ron Paul.

[–]stealthboy 1 point2 points ago

It's Paul or nobody. If it it comes down to Obamney as my choice, I'll write in Ron Paul.

[–]imasunbear 11 points12 points ago

Hope and pray for a strong libertarian showing. +10% would be great.

[–]bondogban[S] 16 points17 points ago

...and we're all just here for the circlejerk?

[–]AlexisDeTocqueville 39 points40 points ago

Welcome to libertarianism. You get to cycle through optimism, cynicism and blame taking while never actually holding power.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

Pretty much. Then there's a bloody revolution, and some people say some really vague, meaningless things that feel good, so everyone rallies around them. Return to Square One.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I don't consider myself libertarian. I don't consider myself anything, and until we start dropping the titles for politicians we will be stuck in a cycle of this bullshit party politics. Until we start electing people on the individual and not the party, we will be better off. Is it not possible to have a party-less system?

[–]animalcub 5 points6 points ago

It makes me feel better there are other people that really get it, I see it as a support group more than a political movement at this point.

[–]socoamaretto 11 points12 points ago

Sadly, yes.

[–]aRealSomebody 0 points1 point ago

Often it feels that way, but recently I've seen questions posed questioning the theories behind Austrian economics which have led to interesting answers and debate.

It is largely a circle jerk but there is still room for growth here. What else do you expect from a group that's all dedicated to one ideology? It happens everywhere.

[–]canyouhearme 8 points9 points ago

However much I don't like any of the repubs, I'm still shocked the rank and file don't understand that magic underwear guy has no chance of winning.

Obama may not have delivered as many of his promises as he should, but his superior campaigning skills will wipe the floor with Romney - who's gaff prone and so obviously bought and paid for by big business that I'm surprised he hasn't sold advertising space on his forehead.

Paul may be a nut, but he would at least have a chance of winning over moderate voters. The christian, far, far, right will fall into line no matter what.

The repub central cabal must really hate the idea of not having big business control of the president.

[–]stealthboy 12 points13 points ago

Republicans 2012: "Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory"

Seriously - they were handed this election on a silver platter. f'ing idiots.

[–]Clumpy 14 points15 points ago

Don't want to let this slide - the "magical underwear" meme is a deliberate misinterpretation of the LDS use of the same type of clothing that any number of religious sects and groups wear as a show of devotion. Going on about "magic underwear" is just an attempt to capitalize on the private, secret and silly mental associations we have with underwear and attempt to associate all of those attributes with an entire faith.

Romney probably has a chance because the GOP base is a little more homogenous, though some non-insignificant proportion of evangelicals will never vote for a Mormon. Obviously many will bite the bullet and vote for him anyway, but for those voting purely on tribalism a third party will probably leech off votes from people who won't vote for the black guy or the Mormon.

[–]howiehardcore 8 points9 points ago

Clumpy's statement is the common Mormon apology for garments, I think it has flaws, in that, it truly is underwear and it's not just the clergy who wear it, it's the common, rank and file Mormons that wear it almost 24 hours a day, every day. And it's an important thing to know, since, because it is underwear, it's hidden, mostly, and so if you're talking with a garment wearing Mormon, you'd probably not even be aware of it, as opposed to a yarmulke donning Jew or a priest wearing a collar. As Romney gets the nomination this magic underwear thing will become a much bigger story as more and more Americans come to understand that the guy who is running for leader of the world wears underwear that he believes is sacred and truly has god-given protection through the wearing of the underwear. And if that's not the definition of "magic" then I don't know what is.

[–]Clumpy 4 points5 points ago

The only thing I really object to is the dismissive "magic underwear" term. Discussing it in more context is fine, though if there's any "protective" attributes ascribed to the material, it's as a reminder and reinforcement of one's commitment and dedication rather than an item of clothing with some sort of Indiana Jones-like relical properties. I understand the hesitance to nominate somebody who is part of a more unified religious body with a defined structure (I mean, look at the brouhaha over JFK, the first Catholic nominee who everybody believed was going to basically run the country through Papal instruction), but Romney is a terrible candidate for reasons quite unrelated to his religious background. I'd rather have him denounced for being thoughtless, bought out and incapable of self-examination than through sheer red herrings.

[–]aggressiveanswers 4 points5 points ago

It is the thinking behind wearing magic underwear in the first place that makes the idea so disturbing - if this man honestly believes his underwear is magical and endowed with superpowers from god, then that same thought process will directly affect his political decisions. Fuck that.

[–]chinri1 3 points4 points ago

Same goes for any devoutly Christian candidate, which would be... all of them. When you go on about the underwear vs. the edible Jesus flesh & blood vs. the everything else about Christianity, that's just the novelty talking.

[–]thetaprime 0 points1 point ago

Ok so you couldn't elect a Catholic, Jew or Buddhist because of their symbolic beliefs either. Have fun with electing that scientologist!

[–]thetaprime 0 points1 point ago

And like the Jewish phylacteries and other trappings, are simply there to offer protection in the form of reminders of covenants made to keep certain commandments, not stop bullets and flame-throwers.

[–]MsgGodzilla 2 points3 points ago

It's almost like they are intentionally self destructing.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Of course they are, because Romney is bought and paid for, by the same people who bought and paid for Obama, and Bush the years before, and Clinton before him.

[–]WalterWhite_Jr 1 point2 points ago

No, it's not that cut and dried.

Firstly, watch this TED talk, then consider what would happen if Ron Paul ran on the Libertarian Ticket after failing to win the GOP nod.

It could still happen.

[–]stealthboy 0 points1 point ago

I thought Paul said he wouldn't run on a third party ticket...

[–]wowcars 0 points1 point ago

No, Obama will lose in a landslide. Obama has exacerbated the wort economy since the great depression. The GOP could run Bob Dole and still win.

[–]HandcuffCharlie 60 points61 points ago

I don't think anyone, including Ron Paul really thinks he has a huge chance of winning. I think he is trying to achieve two goals, shifting peoples political philosophy in the country and shifting the GOP towards libertarianism.

I think about my own shift from being a traditional Republican to being a libertarian. I had been leaning towards libertarianism since I read, "On Liberty" by JS Mill..That kinda got me on board with the civil liberty aspect of it, but, Paul's rant in the 2008 debates about borrowing money from China to give it to a dictatorship in Pakistan while fighting for democracy Iraq made me really stop and think about what we were doing foreign policy wise. It didn't really push me all the way, I didn't think we should have pulled out of Iraq until we stabilized it. Then on my second tour in iraq, 09-10, I was fortunate to sit in on some higher end meetings...And that just put the nails in the coffin for me.

In short, he is not doing good in the short-term....He is doing great long-term. In my opinion at least. He is planting seeds in so many peoples minds...Just like that rant did for me. He may not change their mind this cycle, but, I think people will come around.

[–]jamespetersen 7 points8 points ago

Any chance you can elaborate on what you heard in this meetings?

[–]HandcuffCharlie 3 points4 points ago

Well the meetings were between command type people back in DC and command type people in Iraq..I was literally the lowest ranking person there and was pretty much a fly on the wall. It was in the middle of the SOFA pullout of the Iraqi cities and in general there were a lot of strategic/tactical issues with the transition. In short, the pullout out of the cities was going to screw up the way my unit did missions that were pretty critical to counter insurgency.

The first question asked, from a command person from Iraq was regarding some pay deferential bullshit that was going on in DC. The DC command person pretty much called the guy on how retarded of a question it was...Then the next three questions were literally the same but phrased differently. There were no questions relating to our mission. There was some other stuff said that was absolutely retarded, but, I can't really talk about it. That is the jist of it, sorry I can't really be more specific.

[–]jamespetersen 1 point2 points ago

What about all this really changed your mind?

[–]HandcuffCharlie 6 points7 points ago

Just witnessing the disconnect between policy setting and the implementation of those policies. I am still glad we stabilized Iraq before pulling out, but, it changed my opinion on whether we should be doing nation building in the future.

[–]yosemighty_sam 1 point2 points ago

Probably a combination of ineptitude and misguided priorities.

[–]betterthanthee 1 point2 points ago

elaborate on the meetings please

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

He may have had a better chance if he was running for presidents all those years in between 88-08

[–][deleted] 119 points120 points ago

Our reality check should be that the majority of US citizens are still brainwashed by the establishment media, and also that there is a huge disconnect between those who search for outside news sources on the internet and those who simply watch TV, read Time/Newsweek and listen to AM radio on the way to work.

But Ron Paul is still doing very well in a sense that his message is spreading like wildfire. Most of us are young, and we will always remember Ron Paul as the man who first ignited the flame of rEVOLution in our hearts.

[–]GreatWillHunting 129 points130 points ago*

the senior citizens are crushing him. they're more than willing to send the young people off to war and accumulate trillions in debt as long as they get their goddamn social security.

[–][deleted] 49 points50 points ago

Agreed. That's a huge problem with democracy in general. People are always going to vote themselves more and more from the public treasury until we go bankrupt and turn into a dictatorship. We need to become a republic again awfully quick before this shit happens.

[–]NoSheDidntSayThat 35 points36 points ago

Relevant:

"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder."

  • Frederic Bastiat, The Law

[–]HXn 8 points9 points ago

Also relevant:

"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! These words convey to us ideas of crime and the penitentiary, since we are the contemporaries of a developed civilization, specifically based on the inviolability of property. And this tang is not lost when we are convinced that land and sea robbery is the primitive relation of life, just as the warrior's trade - which also for a long time is only organized mass robbery - constitutes the most respected of occupations. Both because of this, and also on account of the need of having, in the further development of this study, terse, clear, sharply opposing terms for these very important contrasts, I propose in the following discussion to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the "economic means" for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means."

-Franz Oppenheimer, The State

There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means.1 The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means. The primitive exercise of the political means was, as we have seen, by conquest, confiscation, expropriation, and the introduction of a slave-economy. The conqueror parcelled out the conquered territory among beneficiaries, who thenceforth satisfied their needs and desires by exploiting the labour of the enslaved inhabitants.18 The feudal State, and the merchant-State, wherever found, merely took over and developed successively the heritage of character, intention and apparatus of exploitation which the primitive State transmitted to them; they are in essence merely higher integrations of the primitive State.

The State, then, whether primitive, feudal or merchant, is the organization of the political means. Now, since man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion, he will employ the political means whenever he can-exclusively, if possible; otherwise, in association with the economic means.

-Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy, The State

[–]adelie42 0 points1 point ago

Just read Our Enemy, The State recently and thoroughly enjoyed it. What I found particularly unique was that Nock seems to separate the idea of the State, organization of the political means, and government, organization of society. In this respect I think one could consider Rotherbard an advocate of "big government" but absent a "State".

Would you recommend a cover to cover read of Oppenheimer's "The State"?

[–]HXn 1 point2 points ago

Absolutely. He gives a wonderful analysis of the origins of the State from a sociological standpoint, especially the "conquest theory":

What, then, is the state as a sociological concept? The state, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.

His notion of "vanquished" and "victors" also plays into social class theory...It's interesting to note that Oppenheimer was unorthodox in his economic views (from Wikipedia):

A classical liberal and socialist sympathiser, Oppenheimer regarded capitalism as "a system of exploitation and capital revenues as the gain of that exploitation", but placed the blame not on the genuinely free market, but on the intervention of the state.[1]

So he was basically a "free market anti-capitalist" (more here) who agreed with the socialists on the problems (social classes, exploitation, etc.), but identified the source of the problems as the State--unlike the vast majority of socialists or what is thought of as "a socialist". Today's "Left"-libertarians (Roderick Long, Kevin Carson, etc.) follow this line of reasoning.

[–]chinri1 0 points1 point ago

The first quote misses entirely, and the second quote only hints at, one very important fact - that while economic and political means are different by nature, in some abstract sense, they almost always coexist in highly complex ways, and the root problems currently afflicting society have to do with the infeasibility of separating them. It is way too easy to blame government for all of these problems, because after all they are the ones passing these shitty laws which make it so hard to separate the two, but this is a dangerously naive view.

Computational theorist Sanjeev Arora et al. recently proved that it is computationally intractible from the client's point of view to ascertain whether a finacial services firm is cheating them or not, in some very common situations. This is a form of violence as surely as swinging a stone club is - it's just that our civilization hasn't caught up to it yet. This essentially makes it physically impossible to discern whether fraud is being committed or not, which makes the distinction between political power and economic power rather moot.

[–]ChaosMotor 19 points20 points ago

One way to avoid this is for there to not be a public treasury.

[–]Ragark 3 points4 points ago

How much I wish for a direct democracy where people who vote yes have to abide by a rule, and the ones who vote no don't have to.

[–]YngMrWeber 1 point2 points ago

I don't believe that's how a direct democracy works..

[–]Ragark 2 points3 points ago

Then whatever you'd call it, it'd be better than the stuff we have now.

[–]adelie42 1 point2 points ago

I think the belief that "anything would have to be better than what we have now" is a big part of why things keep going to hell. In particular, I heard this very statement used in support of the recent "Healthcare Reform Bill".

[–]rushmc1 0 points1 point ago

Yes, because our elected representatives have proven themselves SO reliable and responsible...

[–]PBRBeer 24 points25 points ago

I agree with this right here, i participated in the NV caucus, no one else in my precinct was under 60 years old, when i gave a speech advocating Ron Paul all i got for responses was a bunch of old hodgers going "Der derp derp whut about dem muslims, they wanna come over heer and kill us" -or- "derp der der Ron Paul is an isolationist, isolationism doesn't work, we need r military around the world to keep us safe"

[–]30pieces 19 points20 points ago

Greatest generation my ass.

[–]jesuschrysler 16 points17 points ago

Uh...wrong generation.

[–]AmoDman 15 points16 points ago

Can we just agree that they both suck and call it a dealio?

[–]30pieces 7 points8 points ago

That works for me.

[–]squiremarcus 18 points19 points ago

i think that people over 75 shouldn't be allowed to vote. for the same reason that people under 18 cannot vote

[–]30pieces 14 points15 points ago

I think you are on to something.

[–]CromTheDestroyer 4 points5 points ago

Better yet, we should recognize that voting doesn't change anything, and it's just an excuse to make government seem legitimate (voting is the modern version of the divine right of kings - before, rules were chosen by god, today they're chosen by "the People").

It's amazing to me how people still claim that simply voting better people in office will improve things. No one tries to vote for a bad candidate, and still nothing changes. That should say something about the "vote for better people" thinking.

[–]squiremarcus 0 points1 point ago

if their were better candidates they would be in office. and better candidates can exist at the local level. if this was a country of 500 people voting would work extremely well. if this was a country of 500,000 people a republic would be representative of our population. but with 300 million america is actually the least represented people in the western world with one representative per 750,000 people. one congressman cannot accurately represent 750,000 people.

maybe we need a confederacy to be accurately represented

[–]YesYesLibertarians 8 points9 points ago

I think you should only be allowed to vote if you are a net tax payer.

[–]squiremarcus 4 points5 points ago

i suggest you read starship troopers. in that book they suggest that only people who have volunteered for a few years in the military (or hard labor for the pacifists) get citizenship and everyone else is just legal residents. (and in your plan. what happens if i graduate college and i cant get a job? for the first year after college i cant vote until i can find a job and start paying taxes?)

[–]YesYesLibertarians 0 points1 point ago*

starship troopers

I'm sorry but that's completely different. Only letting people participate in government who have volunteered to give themselves over to the state is a great way to cultivate fascism, and the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about giving the vote only to those most antagonized by government. They're more likely to have a realistic view of the effects of policy.

Similarly, I think it would be a great policy to let every prisoner of non-violent drug offenses to vote on drug prohibition. To let everyone who pays the fees to register their vehicles and get driver's licenses a say in what the road laws are. "Consent of the governed" is an important principle.

what happens if i graduate college and i cant get a job

You would be free of the burden of politics. I admit, this plan would only work if the government funded itself exclusively through taxation. But it doesn't. It prints its own money. Through counterfeiting, our government levies a stealth tax on anyone in the world holding Dollars.

So in present-day terms, anyone who uses Dollars should have a federal vote (perhaps including "illegal immigrants" and the Chinese?), excluding anyone who works for bailout recipients, war profiteers, government contractors, or anyone who is directly employed by the federal government.

[–]DWR2k3 2 points3 points ago

That way, if you have no income and want to vote against the people who are promoting you staying that way, you can't.

[–]packetguy 1 point2 points ago

So what do propose for a system of government? Women lying in ponds distributing swords?

[–]YesYesLibertarians 0 points1 point ago

That way, if your income is derived from government (government employees, politicians, government contractors) and you want to vote for people who would grow the state for your benefit, you can't.

FTFY

[–]GenTiradentes 2 points3 points ago

I think no one should be allowed to vote.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. I never agreed to this shit. Just because the people that want this out number me doesn't make it right.

[–]RAFFATTACK 0 points1 point ago

I am going with your logic, but another way with it. Instead of taking voting rights from people, just make them pay taxes.

[–]jamespetersen 18 points19 points ago*

"What if we say 'Lets give the seniors a 15% social security cut, so the older generations might still have something later'"

"I worked hard for that money, that's not fair."

Well these kids are right, they've looked at the numbers and they know it won't be there when they're old, so why should they have to pay into it if they know nothing is ever going to come out of it for them?"

"Life isn't fair, they need to learn that someday".

This was basically how it went down on some Stossel interview of a bunch of seniors on medicare. All I saw was "It's not fair if we have to give anything up because we worked for it, but it is fair for the younger generation to have to subsidize us because we end up taking out more than we put in".

[–]kbless 34 points35 points ago

My dad (in his mid 50's) explained it to me this way: "When I was your age I didn't mind paying social security because the previous generation had left us with a strong economy and widespread prosperity, plus the toll WWII took on them. Their sacrifices gave us a lot of opportunities. People your age (I'm 25) are coming out of college into a shit job market, a shit economy, and general shitiness all around. I wouldn't want to pay the old people who screwed it all up either."

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points ago

Hey old people, how bout this: YOU VOTED FOR RETARDS and were too incompetent to save money yourself. It's your fault, how about YOU pay for the consequences of your ignorant actions.

[–]Knight0fCydonia 5 points6 points ago

I turned 21 yesterday. This is a ridiculous statement. Grouping everyone who's against Paul and the philosophy as "old" is on the level of MSM. The "old" people put in just as much work as the young people in this campaign, and more of them have to deal with families, careers, etc...

The young generation is probably just as awake as the old generation, and although there are a large percentage of paul supporters on campuses, the majority today are talking about the superbowl and the Madonna half-time show while the young and "old" of this campaign are thinking WTF.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

Actually, you are incorrect. Yes, there are people of all ages who are asleep (and awake), but one cannot argue with statistics. And statistically, Ron Paul's biggest supporters are under the age of 30. His fewest supporters come from those who are above the age of retirement. Those are statistical facts.

[–]asharp45 2 points3 points ago

Since OP mentioned Nevada, it should be pointed out that GOP voters are 20%+ Mormon, and those voters choose Romney ~90% of the time.

Also - NH, IA, FL, SC, NV -- these are not typical states. They are the first primary states for a reason. White, old-school, non-diverse politically.

I despise this meme that because early primary states aren't overwhelmingly voting Paul we should give up. California, Texas, New York and many other states could hold surprises for Ron Paul's campaign.

Let's try to stay positive and committed.

[–]DWR2k3 1 point2 points ago

Hell, I expect this campaign to last through all the primaries.

[–]QnA 17 points18 points ago

Most of us are young, and we will always remember Ron Paul as the man who first ignited the flame of rEVOLution in our hearts.

I thought the same thing with Nader in the early 90's. Eventually as you grow older and wiser, you realize that a third party president is impossible with our flawed "winner-take-all" election process.

It's at this point, you realize you have to work within the flawed system to get the changes you want (by starting locally and at the state level). It's an extremely slow process which is why many become jaded and apathetic. People want to see results now, not 15 years from now. And that's the problem. We shouldn't give up.

[–]imasunbear 6 points7 points ago

How would we change our winner take all voting system? Would it take an amendment?

I'd image the way to do it would be to, as you said, start local. Get as many local governments to use a plurality of instant run-off vote in order to increase public awareness. When people see how much better that system is, the State and Federal governments will slowly follow suit.

[–]matts2 4 points5 points ago

How would we change our winner take all voting system? Would it take an amendment?

Instant Run-off or some such system would work. There are a couple of places trying it. It would not take an amendment except for the presidency: you have to get rid of the electoral college to make it work.

But it is not at all clear that you end up with a "better" system. (Better is a problematic term, there are lots of ways to measure voting systems.) Israel and Italy are actually reasonable examples of multiparty system and both are broken. The U.S. actually has just about the weakest party system in the Western World and we actually like that in many ways. Consider England (with, admittedly a more perversely broken voting system than the U.S. or Italy). In England you don't get to even think about who runs the country, you just vote for the party. This is generally true in most multiparty systems. In the U.S. you actually get to pick the person running for the job. Is that better? Well as I said that depends on how you define better. Is it more important to pick an ideology or the person who is going to implement things? (My answer is I don't fucking know.)

[–]rockhoward 0 points1 point ago

Sadly instant runoff would not work to help third parties. At least it has never helped third parties become first or second parties anywhere it has been tried. Approval voting or range voting would seriously weaken the party system to the point where it might not matter all that much anymore. But that is an unlikely reform. Working within the two parties may be the only hope. We could really use libertarian minded candidates running as democrats. Then we could really confuse the pollsters even more.

[–]sharlos 0 points1 point ago

In the U.S. you actually get to pick the person running for the job. Is that better?

I'd say no, I think it is the primary reason behind so much accumulated executive power in America (and other presidential nations).

[–]onyxrev 0 points1 point ago

The National Initiative For Democracy could do it http://ni4d.us/national_initiative

[–]Krases 1 point2 points ago

Libertarians need to read up on Duverger's Law. Basically, in a two party system like the US, there is only three ways for a third party to penetrate into the mainstream of a twp party system.

A). The most likely way is to take over a different party from the inside out. Imagine if libertarians took over the republicans from the inside out, eventually taking over the party. It wouldn't be the first time major political parties in the US took large internal shifts.

B). Another way is for one party to be outright replaced by another. So lets say a libertarians suddenly gained a huge body of support and took it away from the democrats and republicans, but more so from the republicans. This could lead to the two party system switching from social liberal/fiscally liberal vs. social conservative/fiscally conservative to a system of libertarian vs. authoritarian. Pretty unlikely to happen though and there can only be two parties left in the aftermath.

C). Change the voting system completely. Because of our first past the post voting system, there can only be two parties or else votes will get split. So imagine if the libertarians got 30% of the vote, and the Republicans got 30% of the vote, but the democrats got 35% of the vote with other parties all getting the remaining 5%. The Democrats would win despite being incredibly unpopular. There are other voting systems out there that combat this problem and some cities/counties in the US are already starting to implement systems that make 3rd parties viable.

[–]sharlos 1 point2 points ago

I agree completely except for the part about Republicans being fiscally conservative.

[–]Rent-a-Hero 0 points1 point ago

Nader.

He is the example why people who say Paul should run 3rd party need to step back a bit. Nader "losing" the 2000 election for the Democrat Party pissed off all those voters, and made them dislike a 3rd party candidate. If Paul runs and impacts the election in any substantial way, he would ruin any good will the libertarian movement has within the Republican party.

[–]Cryptic0677 2 points3 points ago

that his message is spreading like wildfire.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't really think he is doing much better than in 2008. And I'm still young (23).

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

Well, by June of 2008, Paul had only received 14 pledged delegates. I believe he is on track to do much better this year.

[–]bski1776 12 points13 points ago

The percent of the vote he's capturing has doubled to tripled depending on the state. Unfortunately, that's still not high enough.

[–]donnie_dark0 0 points1 point ago

For the firewall that the media has put up on Paul, he's doing amazing - because grassroots support, much like any resistance movement, has the ability to gather it's own momentum outside of controlled state-sanctioned press organizations.

I think soon enough, when the monetary system has fallen into disarray, all the bubbles have burst, will people start to realise that the crazy old man that they kept calling crazy was in fact the only sane person on stage warning everyone. The party will continue on until it doesn't.

But like Paul in 2002 said about everything he predicted about Iraq and excessive government spending, "Let's hope and pray that I'm wrong on all accounts." Sadly, not only would I trust his opinion on the matter, but all you have to do is look at the numbers to know we're fucked.

[–]james_joyce 1 point2 points ago

I probably agree with you about most things - but please don't dismiss people that disagree with you as "brainwashed."

[–]JoCoLaRedux 2 points3 points ago*

Nobody knew who we- and who he- was just five years ago. Now Ron Paul is a household name, and libertarianism is mentioned all over the place, The Road to Serfdom went to no. 1 on Amazon, Atlas Shrugged was made into a movie, etc.

That he's gotten this far is a victory unto itself. Make no doubt about it, we've made a splash, and a big one. If his 2012 Presidential run has taught us one thing, it's that the establishment is angry and very fucking scared at being shown up for what they are.

And we're not going away. The 2012 Presidential election is just a battle; we're in it to win the war.

[–]adelie42 0 points1 point ago

we will always remember Ron Paul as the man who first ignited the flame of rEVOLution in our hearts.

This statement concerns me a little because it didn't START with Ron Paul, but rather a dying breed in part because I think people forget who came before him such as Barry Goldwater.

Everything else, couldn't agree more. As some have put it, whoever gets elected is who "we" deserve.

[–]Santorum_2012 174 points175 points ago

No one is saying it because it's improper english. FTFY: Ron Paul is really not doing that WELL

[–]graveybrains 76 points77 points ago

This will be the only time I vote for you.

[–]fireballbren 35 points36 points ago

Nice try Santorum.

[–]jrainr 53 points54 points ago

Pro-Life, Pro-Grammar.

[–]vagabondvet 17 points18 points ago

Sounds like a Grammar Nazi.

[–]Conchobair 11 points12 points ago

Superman does good.

[–]EatingSteak 4 points5 points ago

[–]goans314 0 points1 point ago

WHO THE FUCK VOTES FOR RICK SANTORUM?!

[–]Ryphal 28 points29 points ago

Honestly, when we can't carry the "Live Free or Die" state and a state that's based on legalizing prostitution and gambling, then we really have no chance, and I hate this feeling. He's doubling his support and that's good, but he needed to start this movement a cycle or two sooner. I feel we can only change the conversation, and then after the next administration fails (either Obama's second term or Romney's) we push Gary Johnson or Rand Paul to the front. They just need to keep campaigning for the entirety of the next 4 years to keep numbers high.

[–]Aerthan 10 points11 points ago

when we can't carry the "Live Free or Die" state and a state that's based on legalizing prostitution and gambling, then we really have no chance

Maybe they like the monopoly. I remember when Texas was considering betting on horse races there were several "Christian" groups fighting against the evils of gambling, but it turned out it was actually funded by horse and dog racing groups from neighboring states that didn't want to lose their income.

[–]Xdes 7 points8 points ago

The south of New Hampshire is the suburbs of the liberal Boston.

[–]jimothy 3 points4 points ago*

The classic baptist and bootlegger story.

[–]charlie_p 1 point2 points ago

Precisely.

[–]FalseMyrmidon 2 points3 points ago

I feel the same way. The fact that his numbers have increased so much represents a large increase in the libertarian thought which is still a victory of sorts. I'm hoping that it paves the way for Johnson or Rand or someone libertarian in the future.

[–]gawainjones 0 points1 point ago

Johnson 2016!

[–]FlexNastyBIG 14 points15 points ago

I am a longtime Ron Paul supporter who has come to believe that Gary Johnson is a better candidate. Mind you, by "longtime", I mean that I volunteered for Ron Paul's 1988 campaign.

Ron Paul just has too many flaws. That there were once racist newsletters printed under his name is a showstopper in itself. I don't care how good the explanation is - most general election voters don't have the attention span to hear it. But, beyond that, Paul is just not very good at explaining his positions in a way that doesn't alienate Joe Average. He comes across like the cranky old granddad you see at Thanksgiving who rants and raves about the gubmint. (I aspire to be that granddad one day, but I don't think he changes many minds.)

Gary Johnson is extremely articulate and savvy, has a great track record, and no known newsletter baggage. It's all but guaranteed that he'll be a general election candidate (he needs to first secure the LP nomination in May). All we need to do with GJ is to get him into a televised general election debate, and then it's game on. That would be a challenge, but... we libertarians have put together a fairly powerful voting bloc in the past few years, in case you haven't noticed. If we would flex our online muscle for GJ, there's no telling what could happen.

If and when it becomes clear that Ron Paul will not secure the GOP nomination, his supporters would do well to look at Gary Johnson and to consider what a difference he could make with their support.

[–]james_joyce 4 points5 points ago

My only real problem with Gary Johnson is that he's making the "fair tax" his big thing. I really don't think that's a good idea, and I wish he'd stop.

[–]baggytheo 0 points1 point ago

He's also not to strong on the Fed.

[–]spivey378 0 points1 point ago

Not a big fan of the "no body but paul" thing and think we should throw our support behind Johnson to make it a three way televised debate. It would throw the manufactured "differences" between Romney and Obama out the window.

[–]tjh5012 0 points1 point ago

But how does Santorum get away with his anti-homosexual hate speech, and how does Gingrich get away with agreeing to the death penalty for Marijuana offenders?

[–]My_soliloquy 0 points1 point ago

I agree with you, except that Gary Johnson was already on two of the televised Republican debates in the beginning, and he got no traction.

I had his sticker on my car for about 6 months, literally NO ONE asked be about him. The only local people in his campaign were the legalize marijuana folks who had business interests for self promotion, not anyone really libertarian or that actually cared about the direction of this country.

I still changed from an Independent to Republican to vote in my states Primary for Ron Paul to get his questions further into the mainstream debates. It still looks futile.

But I will not actually vote for Ron Paul or a Republican for president, again.

I have given up on the sheeple. I intend on enjoying the rest of my life, until the circus stops. And that sucks, because I like my modern life, I've seen and experienced what it is like in third world countries. It is not pretty or even comfortable at all.

I just don't think our modern society is going to be around for my children or possible eventual grandchildren to enjoy. I hope the Georgia Guidestones survive, but I doubt it, the religious assholes will probably tear them down.

[–]buffalo_pete 50 points51 points ago

Romney had double Paul's votes

Funny you should put it like that, Clark County had double their own votes the next morning.

Massive and systemic fraud in NV is a real possibility at this point. The idea that someone who didn't even campaign in NV took second with >20% is ludicrous. The idea that it takes >24 hours to count the votes in a poll with roughly the same level of sophistication as voting for class president of a middle school is laughable. The idea that someone who ran in '08 and has more than doubled his vote totals from that year in every single state that has voted so far could flatline in what has historically been comparatively friendly turf is asinine.

[–]bski1776 14 points15 points ago

The idea that someone who didn't even campaign in NV took second with >20% is ludicrous.

The media campaigned for him. Tons of articles and videos about Gingrich, he'll get a decent turnout because the media painted him as a valid candidate.

[–]maineac 5 points6 points ago

In the Penobscot Maine caucus no one even spoke for Gingrich. If the vote goes anything like the number of Ron Paul buttons and stickers walking around he should win in a landslide. If he doesn't come in first or a very close second there is definitely something fishy going on. They are hiding the outcome until the caucus is complete. This is the first time they have done that, I smell fraud.

[–]bski1776 2 points3 points ago

Very well may be fraud. At this point, I could definitely see it happening.

[–]cgeezy22 4 points5 points ago

Blatant fraud and people overall are just ok with it.

[–]Adding_Machine 4 points5 points ago

can you give a credible source for this information?

[–]buffalo_pete 11 points12 points ago

It's all over the place. If you want a good, middle-of-the-road, non-fanatical source, this article would be a solid place to start.

[–]harlows_monkeys 0 points1 point ago

The idea that someone who ran in '08 and has more than doubled his vote totals from that year in every single state that has voted so far could flatline in what has historically been comparatively friendly turf is asinine

He went from 13% in 2008 to around 19% in 2012. That's a considerable improvement.

What's asinine is is comparing the number of votes from 2008 and 2012, which is basically meaningless.

[–]lurkerturneduser 0 points1 point ago

Newt was polling at 25% in NV up until the caucus. Paul actually considerably outperformed the polling. http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/nv-pres-12-r

[–]jscoppe 6 points7 points ago

Ron will get a lot more delegates than the media would lead you to believe, but because of Romney's momentum, he's going to win all or most of the rest of the winner-take-all states, and might end up with more than 50% of the delegates, which would make him the automatic winner.

:(

[–]Elliptical_Tangent 6 points7 points ago

Better than any Libertarian candidate in history. This is how you have to look at it.

[–]CMAN1995 17 points18 points ago*

Reality check... I think most of the people in this sub-reddit realize that RON PAUL isn't the most popular, but realize he's the one most suitable for the job.

[–]edmyster81 17 points18 points ago

There have been less than 150 delegates pledged... Of over 1000. This is only the beginning.

[–]jscoppe 20 points21 points ago

Of over 2200+ delegates.

[–]jthen 3 points4 points ago

Is there really any reason to think the proportions will change for the rest?

[–]M74 9 points10 points ago

Did people actually think he would win the nomination, ever? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm a supporter and he has my vote regardless, but for me this was always about the message rather than winning in Tampa. It seemed clear to me that Romney was the de facto nominee from day one. Still, this is the first time in recent history that discussion about constitutionalism and libertarian-minded concerns have been given any mainstream treatment. That was the whole point, and it's a step in the right direction.

[–]unforeseeable 10 points11 points ago

South Carolina really screwed things up. Has Newt not won it's entirely possible he'd be out of the race by now.

That said, WTF is up with the people around Carson City?

[–]Kinglink 9 points10 points ago*

We've needed one since day one "he's going to win" no. He was winning internet polls and polls where people pay to go. Statistically biased polls, and unfortunately biased in his favor.

We've needed this reality check for the longest time. Nothing is wrong with exuberance, but America is just not ready for a Liberatarian. It's got nothing to do with brain washing, it's got everything to do with his ideas being scary to the typical American because in sound bite form... they are!

I'm not asking for anyone to drop their support, but the whole "we're going to win" isn't how you win a campaign, calling for people to help out it what we need. Spread the word.

Edit: What a shock, realism or reality checks get downvoted again.

[–]misterdoctorproff 3 points4 points ago

The fact that America hasn't been ready for a libertarian is the reason it's in such a mess now.

[–]Kinglink 4 points5 points ago

The issue is people are morons. They believe if you throw money at problems they get solved. The issue I hear from most people isn't "they're spending too much money". It's "they're spending too much money on X and not enough money on Y".

Both sides of the Aisle believe in this. A fiscally conservative government is gone by the choice of the people. It's not just the government who is corrupt, it's Americans in general. They believe the government should work FOR them, not for everyone, but only for the people they believe is "right".

Libertarians believe the government shouldn't work for anyone (yes, we believe it should work for everyone equally, but we don't want the government to take money and use it for any projects, we want it to enforce the constitution. )

So what happens is a liberal hears that and thinks we don't want to help the homeless. A republican hears that and thinks we don't support the military. This scares both sides to the point where they reject the Libertarian view. Libertarianism has arrived too late.

BUT WAIT! That doesn't mean all hope is lost. Ron Paul has got extremely large gains since the 2008 primary But this is going to be an uphill battle both ways. We can't be overly optimistic. We have to fight to get in the mind set of every true American who believes we can change. We won't win this one, but the numbers have shown we're at least making huge gains.

[–]KantLockeMeIn 5 points6 points ago

So, what do you measure success based upon? If you were disillusioned to think that RP was going to win the nomination this time, he's doing poorly. If you, like me, were looking for RP to lay the groundwork for future libertarians to gain traction by introducing people to the ideology, he's had immense success.

[–]smellsliketuna 4 points5 points ago

I recognize that RP will not get the nomination. If he is on the ballot in any way, shape, or form, he's getting my vote. Even if I know going into the election that he will lose. I would rather vote my conscience than give in to the corruption. Fuck Newt Gingrich. Fuck Romney. And fuck Rick Santorum (actually, fuck this guy more than the others).

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

This is not a libertarian country. A small percentage of people who use the term libertarian to describe themselves actually are libertarians, and when people say they want freedom, what they usually seem to want is cradle-to-the-grave financial security, so long as you don't call it socialism.

That said, for historical perspective -- there is no libertarian who has gone further than Ron Paul.

The movement really begins - or dies - when he fails to be elected and all of his supporters figure out what to do next.

I never expected him to be elected (but I will vote for him) - what I want for Ron Paul is to create a new opposition to the big-government Left. One which actually is for limited government, and has a chance of appealing to young people.

[–]fubo 1 point2 points ago

Well, here's some food for thought:

Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and Murray Rothbard were involved in the "paleolibertarian" experiment last century: an attempt to get libertarian-ish conservatives elected by playing to cultural conservatives of the isolationist, nationalist, Pat Buchanan sort — while denouncing the "libertinism" of the rest of the libertarian movement, for wanting crazy hippie things like drug legalization and the decriminalization of sodomy.

That's what those infamous race-baiting newsletters came out of: a concerted, rather manipulative attempt to make traditionalist conservatives think that government was their enemy and that free-market (but non-freaky) libertarians were their ally.

The paleolibertarian experiment failed. Badly.

By my reading, it failed for a number of reasons, among them ① Ronald Reagan, who successfully talked a small-government line while expanding government; ② traditionalist conservatives turning out to be much more authoritarian than expected — much less interested in merely being let alone, and much more interested in getting up in other people's business; and ③ the gross strategic and values mistake of allying with the overtly racist anti-Civil-Rights-Act crowd.

Libertarians should learn from this. Political libertarianism cannot succeed without a culture of liberty. Today's libertarian youth, I think, know this ... and have a chance to succeed where their grandparents' generation screwed up.

[–]30pieces 10 points11 points ago

it is all about the delegate count and not the straw poll count.

[–]fireballbren 5 points6 points ago

Does he have the most amount of delegates?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

the audacity of hope…

[–]dieyoung 6 points7 points ago

There is no doubt that there is voter fraud going on, but I'll probably be labeled a conspiracy theorist for saying that. At the one caucus meeting CNN aired, everyone there was OVERWHELMINGLY for Ron Paul and he garnered over half the vote as the ballots were counted live on the air. Regardless, its still pretty early, and with a win in Texas, Ron Paul could get almost twice as many delegates are Romney in one day.

He's not doing great now, but win lose or draw, Ron Paul wins by getting the message out there.

[–]ThereAreDozensOfUs[!] 2 points3 points ago

Eh, I mean I thought Paul had a realistic shot, but then Gingrich didn't die out like I thought he would. That was problematic

I've already accepted that most of the people in this country are lost causes. I'll continue to support RP and other Libertarian candidates. Just going to go on with living life and doing whatever i can to fuck over the system as much as possible, in peaceful ways

No sense in worrying too much about it

[–]fourcat85 2 points3 points ago

A lot of the conversation here is still rooted in the idea that this is a two-party system, and the "right" will lose again because of the GOP squashing Paul. The fact is this isn't a two-party system, which would've failed anyway. This is a one-party system with two branches, both equally corrupt. They will NOT let anyone like Ron Paul or Rand Paul win. Just let that sink in for a minute. They WILL NOT let men like that have any power, ala the old George Carlin bit, this is all here to give you the illusion of choice, when you in fact have no choice. Intelligent, resourceful men and women like those often found in r/libertarian should have long since started brainstorming ways to take their country back that don't involve the system, because you will NOT win.

[–]swiheezy 2 points3 points ago

I never expected him to win, but it will be funny as hell to see how mad people get when he doesn't go away.

I'm hoping for Gary Johnson to pick him up on the Libertarian ticket, but we'll see.

[–]jec68 2 points3 points ago

Yes, that's a great idea. Maybe we can all just stop posting to reddit and wallow in despair about the imbecilic neighbors of ours who would literally go out of their way to give a stamp of approval to a person like newt Gingrich.

That's sure to be a winning strategy.

[–]hblask 5 points6 points ago

I think of Ron Paul as the bulldozer knocking down the walls. He'll never get to be president, but he is clearing the path for the energy of the youth that believe in him to make real changes over the next couple of decades.

As to the primary results, on the bright side, he's more than doubling his results from last time. On the dark side, that's not nearly enough.

[–]ZeeHanzenShwanz 13 points14 points ago

I'd like to think he's like the kool aid man. Blastin through establishment walls and gettin the kids all juiced up with sugary drinks and ideals of individual liberty.

[–]fus-ro-da 6 points7 points ago

I request a GIF of this asap

[–]OHhokie1 6 points7 points ago

*well

[–]gayfishsticks 1 point2 points ago

Well hes opened my eyes to how corrupt the system is.I was in the dark up until about 3 months ago. I continually spread his message and I know there are thousands of people like me.

[–]aRealSomebody 1 point2 points ago

Yes, I've been saying this already and am grateful you've steed up with a topic about it.

For a subreddit that prides itself on being able to think for itself, it seems that people are far too eager to read articles simply re-affirming beliefs they've already held without acknowledging that Paul is essentially out of it.

Sure, anything can happen, and he's doing a great job spreading his message and growing the Libertarian movement so his successors can make a real run for office, but even he'll admit that he doesn't expect to be President, and it sounds as if he doesn't really care to be.

I love that he represents a standard for honest, consistent politics and runs as a gentleman who has no time for the bullshit of the media.

I love many of his ideas and the fact that he is getting people to question the status quo from a limited-government perspective.

I wish he could be President, but he won't be. If he had this momentum and were 8-12 years younger, 2016 might be within reach, assuming that his Austrian theories hold true and the economy continues to suffer under New-Keynesian policies and he doesn't have to deal with the cult of personality surrounding Obama.

[–]eukey1337 1 point2 points ago

I don't care his chances, his cause is more than his election. He is running for the cause of liberty. If he doesn't get the nomination I will support the libertarian nominy. BUT WE MUST NOT LOSE HOPE! Liberty is worth the fight! Everyone here! campaign your asses off. In my state I am getting up at 5 and campaigning all day non stop. Ron Paul CAN win! If his message gets across! The Nevada caucas was rigged. Just look it up, Ron Paul should have gotten at least 2nd. When Ron Paul is in an election it takes more for him to win, his votes count for less than that of the others. Because he challenges the status quo. That is not popular for the media and Wall Street, but god damnit, it is popular to the people who outnumber the skeptics. RON PAUL REVOLUTION!

[–]seldomsage 1 point2 points ago

You guys are all missing the point. Let's assume that Gingrich, Romney, Paul (and possibly Santorum) all stay in the race until the convention. This makes it likely that no candidate will have received 50 percent of the delegates, which is the requirement in order to receive the nomination. At this point a brokered convention results. Pledged delegates are no longer pledged. All delegates revote (regardless of popular vote), and the majority chooses the nominee. Since Ron Paul's people have become heavily involved in the delegate process, it is not outside the realm of possibility that he could have a very substantial number of his supporters in national delegate positions. All we need is a brokered convention.

In my experience (from Montana) we have a huge influence in local politics, and I am certain that the majority of our national delegates will be Ron Paul delegates. Many other states are in a similar position.

DISCLAIMER: If Romney wins 50% of the delegates (likely he will), he will be the nominee, and Barack Obama will be our president for another 4 years.

[–]stalcottsmith 1 point2 points ago

There are many, many safeguards built into the electoral system in the us to prevent non establishment cadidates from getting near to real power. He is doing well from the perspective of a veteran of the 2008 campaign. You have to be realistic though. His national campaign has always been about waking people up. There will have to be more pain and discomfort for substantially greater numbers to wake up. It will come but not as soon as many would like.

[–]fuss58 1 point2 points ago

he did so well because of the strong mormon support in nevada for Romney

[–]FalseGDP 1 point2 points ago

Are you not aware of voter fraud?

[–]maleman 1 point2 points ago

When it comes down to it, we all know the vast majority of r/libertarian will either stay home or pull the lever for whatever shitbag has an (R) next to his name.

[–]ThrowTheRascalsOut 1 point2 points ago

The question of how well Ron is doing is relative.

I've actively supported libertarians since the 70's, big and small l. I ran the Ed Clark campaign at my college and ran for office. In those days single digit percentages in national races were phenomenal results.

Ron is doing a tremendous job. He is polling higher than past national libertarian campaigns and more importantly he is changing the debate by raising issues that would not be raised otherwise -- even if the MSM prefers to ignore them. He is setting the stage for future campaigns.

While Ron's getting elected President is a long shot, don't underestimate his impact. The deck is very much stacked against those seeking meaningful change. He is blazing a trail for those who will follow. Heck, he is actually in the debates -- it was not to long ago that libertarians were completely excluded...

I, for one, am very grateful that he is doing what he is doing.

Thanks Ron. Please keep doing what you're doing.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

The way this sub looked before the NV caucus, it was like just sit back and wait for the landslide, but the next morning Romney had double Paul's votes. Do we need a reality check?

Some of us have been pointing out for a year that he didn't stand a chance but we always get downvoted in to oblivion. It seems libertarianism has gone from being based in rationality to mindless drone support of a political candidate.

The GOP would not permit him to have the nomination and even if he somehow did he would be impeached inside of a week. They don't need to prove he has done something wrong, they simply need a 2/3rds majority in both houses which they would easily get as both parties despise him.

If you actually want to be involved with something that has actually shown results and could make a substantial and prolonged change then join http://freestateproject.org. Neither Ron or Rand will ever be in the white house, stop sulking and actually find something to do productive instead.

[–]_TURbo 0 points1 point ago

However is Ron Paul's in total votes for all the states been higher than the 2008 election?

[–]rushmc1 0 points1 point ago

That WELL, not that GOOD.

[–]Oba-mao 0 points1 point ago

If the media and Republican party got behind Ron Paul like the Dems and media got behind Obama he would get elected no problem

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Buying votes doesn't make your ideas right. And it's well-known that Romney will say absolutely anything to be elected, so it's not unlikely that he'd be more palatable to rank-and-file Republicans than someone who refuses to compromise his principles. I just consider Romney's success the state of the party, and really the state of politics in America at this point. A comfortable farce is better than an uncomfortable reality.

[–]bobbaphet 0 points1 point ago

Is it better than last time? If so, then it IS good.