Santorum drops out.

[MMMark]

Thurs. 12/04/12 17:49 EDT
.post #140

[url=Santorum drops out. - #48 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]I guarantee you if Rand Paul becomes the VP candidate, he’s not going to get fired right after the election.

Are you assuming here that Romney/Paul beats Obama/Biden? In that case, I won’t argue with you. However, the truth of that assumption is not obvious to me. I think a Romney/Rand Paul ticket, with a cabinet appointment to Ron, would be far less attractive to “a significantly large” number of Ron Paul supporters than the prospect of Ron as the GOP presidential nominee. I’ll go further and say that “a significantly large” number of Ron Paul supporters wouldn’t even vote for a Romney/Rand Paul ticket.

My assumption is that this election is a “fixed fight,” with Obama the “chosen” winner. Any “concessions” Romney might make to Paul supporters would not, in my opinion, change that outcome. Even if Romney/Paul did beat Obama, I believe that no meaningful change to the status quo would result. So it’s “heads I win, tails you lose.” The prospect of Ron Paul as the nominee, however, offers a third alternative to either “heads” or “tails,” and I think it’s worth holding out for, promises of proven liars notwithstanding.

@John James

I mean the idea of Paul winning is not the reason people hate him. I know millions of Americans who would elated regardless of who won, so long as he has an “R” by his name.

I don’t argue with what you just said, but recall, I didn’t say “people” or “millions of Americans” hate Ron Paul. I said It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He’d win. So, certain people hate Ron Paul, i.e., the people to whom Ron Paul, and especially a Ron Paul win, is “dangerous.”

@John James

Exactly my point. 55% of 1.1%. Aka, nothing.

Ah, but John! I didn’t say “55% of 1.1% is significant.” I said a 55% improvement (using your example) is a number I’d consider “significantly better” than anything the libertarian party had previously achieved. I also think a greater-than-55% improvement is possible with Ron Paul as the libertarian candidate for president. Tell me, what number would you consider to be not “Aka, nothing”?

@John James

So why bother repeating it as if you were saying something new…let alone something that was contradicting the article?

I didn’t mean to come across as “saying something new,” and I also think that what both I and ABillyRock said is, to some degree, different from what Ron Holland is saying in his article.

I’d distill Holland’s message to this:

1. A third party run would be harmful to “the revolution”;
2. A Romney/Paul alliance could be helpful.
3. We should stay and fight for our liberties inside the GOP as only here using their institutions designed to control us do we have the chance to be free once again.

You agree:

@John James

… we will take over the GOP and be in a position to change the entire country, and effectively history. This obviously won’t happen in one election, but it is happening. … The future of the movement (if it is to have any future) is not in some 3rd party. It is in transforming the GOP.

You and Holland both strongly shun the third party strategy, and embrace the idea of GOP infiltration, takeover, and transformation. I don’t say you’re wrong, it’s just that I think these are secondary issues. What is primary is the spread of libertarian ideas. A (post-GOP primaries) Ron Paul Libertarian Party (for example) candidacy won’t, in my opinion, hurt or halt the spread of libertarian ideas. Will it hurt the ability of libertarians to infiltrate the Republican Party? I don’t see why. Will it hurt the ability of libertarians to run, as Republicans, for Congress? I don’t see why. Will it hurt Rand Paul’s chances of a 2016 bid for nominee as Republican presidential candidate? I don’t see why. Maybe I’m shortsighted and haven’t thought it through, but I don’t see why the spread of libertarian ideas depends so strongly on taking control of the Republican Party. Actually, I think the reverse is the case: taking control of the Republican Party will be one of the consequences of the spread of libertarian ideas. Another consequence might be the ascendancy of the U.S. Libertarian Party.

@John James

Because that whole comment was just a whole lot of nothing. It was some of the most over-the-top fluffery I’ve ever read, and it’s exactly the kind of thing I would expect a very clever writer to say if he were trying to poke fun at the excitement displayed by Ron Paul supporters. … That’s great if you really feel that way.

hahaha! John, don’t mince words; just please say what you mean!

First, yeah, I really do feel that way. The growth in popularity of libertarian ideas during the last twenty-five years amazes me. Ron Paul’s enormous contribution amazes me. The internet amazes me. The intellectual caliber of some this forum’s participants amazes me. I get a huge kick out of reflecting, not just on how far it’s all come, but also on the speed at which it’s gotten from there to here. Twenty-five years ago, I wouldn’t have predicted what I’m seeing today. To witness it happening is, for me, a beautiful thing.

Second, the last part of what I wrote is consistent with the rest of it. The popularization of libertarian ideas, in my opinion, is and will continue to be the primary impetus for the dismantling of the State.

@John James

Multiple people in this thread have basically argued that Paul should run third party as a way to educate people and wake them up to the ideas of liberty or something.

As (I hope) I’ve made clear, I’m not arguing that. I just don’t see a third-party run as the “… establishment promoted death trap for millions of Ron Paul supporters and liberty advocates” that both you and Ron Holland see it to be.

But, I could be dead wrong. Maybe I haven’t thought it through.