9 votes

After the convention... what then?

Yes, we have a lot on our plates to deal with right now. But...

Looking ahead, what happens after the convention?

I have been following with interest the debate on the DP over the campaign Republican/delegates camp and the third party/Independent run camp. Amongst all the bashing, there have been some legitimate arguments from both sides of the debate.

I'm hoping that someone will reveal that there are two plans already in place.

Plan #1: Dr. Paul wins the Republican nomination. What then?

Plan #2: Dr. Paul loses the Republican nomination. What then?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My take on it.

Plan #1: Haul out a giant stereo system and play Beethoven's entire "Heroic" symphony. Then campaign like crazy and laugh as O-bomb-a goes down in flames with no hope of winning whatsoever.

Plan #2: Get military weapons, loads of ammo, and a lot of canned food and bottled water. It's gonna be a rough ride to 2016. If we last that long - and assuming we have elections - our movement will have grown enough that we will have already overwhelmed the GOP, becoming an incredibly powerful minority Then it'll be an easy win for Rand Paul and a Liberty congress.

Plan #2

First off, thanks to all who have commented on this thread thus far.

I think Plan #1 is pretty simple and self-evident... the campaign carries on a full frontal assault against Obama's record and the Progressive agenda, while championing the cause for Liberty.

Plan #2 is much more difficult. In an earlier post, champion26 gave an answer that included some specifics. Although I realize that situations are ever-changing, would anyone else like to comment with a specific course of action for Plan #2?

Ron Paul wins nomination, then keep up the support.

Ron Paul loses then buy more guns and ammo and join a private militia cause when the peaceful path to restoring freedom fails, the violent path will eventually follow.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Keep AND Step Up the Momentum

...because with Plan #1 or Plan #2...the momentum and growth is the real key. Regardless, what we do now is key because its time has come.

If President Paul is elected, he/we will need the organization in place (and all the groundwork has been laid) more than ever to back him every step of the way.

If President Paul is prevented from being elected, he/we will need the organization (and all the groundwork has been laid) more than ever to keep liberty alive.

It is not going to be easy. The only way we will succeed is if we understand the fine line between free speech and protecting ourselves against the division that comes along with egos that want to be heard and declared *right* more than they want liberty. Unity in Diversity will ultimately win all the battles that really matter.

fonta

As has been said many times

This isn't about Ron Paul, it's about the people taking back control. We're going to keep running in and winning local elections, build support, win state elections, and so on.

Once Paul's presidential hopes are confirmed or denied, we're going to start looking at who we want as a candidate for 2016.

+ Follow the Cooperative principle
+ Civility first
+ Constructive comments

Well personally

Ron Paul wins the nomination:

- Everyone works harder than ever before as the campaign to restore liberty takes centre stage.

Ron Paul loses the nomination:

- Ron Paul runs third party and has enough support to get on the debates where on a national stage he can deliver his message right to the people without the corrupt filter of the media who distorts him at every turn.

- Supporters of Ron Paul get behind Gary Johnson and he attempts to do the abovementioned.

- Ron Paul runs with Dennis Kucinich. Each compromise a tiny bit to form a new third party that brings the libertarians and progressives together. This party captures a huge portion of independents, apathetic voters, libertarians and progressives. It continues to take over the political system and becomes the major force within American politics. And at some point in time, the various coalitions are able to break up and run on their own platforms with new political parties finally bringing down the Republican and Democratic parties.

The last one is what i want to see. I am not convinced a pure libertarian ticket can win just yet, but i think you bring Kucinich on the ticket and the presidency is there for the taking.

You will lose many...

... pro-life, liberty-minded people in the process (see my remarks in another reply below). I think that would cause the effort to crash and burn. A strong alloy of pro-Liberty AND pro-Life themes is necessary. That is Dr. Paul's strength...

I agree with you

In what you said about the pro-life movement and i do not see him needing to compromise that.

I think the four core issues which unite Paul and Kucinich are the Federal Reserve, corporatism, civil liberties and war.

I even think they are united on the debt, and this is where i see the compromise taking place. Kucinich accepts huge cuts in spending to pay off the debt, Paul accepts tax increases to pay off the debt.

I understand that there are some fundamental issues that people cannot get past, and they usually lie in with the social issues, but on others, people cannot be selfish and only get behind a candidate if they agree with them 100%.

If offered the choice between are corrupt president, a corrupt Republican nominee and a non-corrupt candidate who you agree with 80% on, there can only be one choice.

I think at a time like this, compromise on the non-essentials is essential for the survival of the country.

This might fly if Kucinich...

...or another 'pro-choice' member of the coalition is in a particular Cabinet position...but not as VP, in-line for the Presidency.

Best Chance

As much as I would love to switch parties to a libertarian I do not think I will any time soon. The best and only chance we have is with the republican party. I think we all need to look past the name of the party and instead focus on the message. To me it is just a name. I would switch to a democrat if that party had any chance to promote freedom.

The worst thing that can happen is not Dr. Paul losing the nomination. The worst thing that can happen is if even one Paul supporter gives up on the movement.

As of now over a million people have voted for Dr. Paul in this primary season. You realize if even 25% of that population got actively involved in their local politics the country would change over night.

When it comes down to it voting is the just the first step and the easiest. It is time to get involved. And please do it in the republican party. Believe me I love the libertarian party but we are splitting our votes. If you run for office run as a republican. In most places if you win the primaries you will win the general election.

Never stop. Get involved. We outnumber them. I personally will be dragging every one I know to our local caucus' and am getting them all on the ballot to be delegates. There is not a person in my family who does not know where I stand. Liberty is contagious.

Keep up the fight!

For Liberty!

Take your pick

New International Version (©1984)
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"So don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today's trouble is enough for today.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

International Standard Version (©2008)
So never worry about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Therefore you shall not be concerned about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be concerned for itself. A day's own trouble is sufficient for it.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"So don't ever worry about tomorrow. After all, tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. Stop Judging-

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Take therefore no thought for tomorrow: for tomorrow shall take thought of the things for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

American King James Version
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof.

American Standard Version
Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Be not therefore solicitous for to morrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.

Darby Bible Translation
Be not careful therefore for the morrow, for the morrow shall be careful about itself. Sufficient to the day is its own evil.

English Revised Version
Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Webster's Bible Translation
Therefore be not anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be solicitous for the things of itself. Sufficient to the day is its own evil.

Weymouth New Testament
Do not be over-anxious, therefore, about to-morrow, for to-morrow will bring its own cares. Enough for each day are its own troubles.

World English Bible
Therefore don't be anxious for tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Each day's own evil is sufficient.

Young's Literal Translation
Be not therefore anxious for the morrow, for the morrow shall be anxious for its own things; sufficient for the day is the evil of it.

Don't you have enough to do today?

Ed in Phoenix

Rights are like muscles; you must exercise them to keep them fit, or they will atrophy and die.

Don't worry, be happy

Ed, I respect the many translations you cited regarding worry, and I agree with the Scriptures on that. But please note that my original post was not meant to convey a feeling of worry over the situation. I'm just trying to find out if any solid plans have been formulated. And, yes, I have plenty to do today. How about you?

Big Picture?

We elect our own liberty candidates, continue to swarm GOP meetings and offices, and reform the party itself. After we've changed the party and gotten real candidates elected we can start thinking up ways to tear down the two-party system. Perhaps an OWS takeover of the Democrats would introduce some honesty/consistency to the two party system.

I respect Ron Paul running in the Republican nomination

because he gets good exposure at the debates and can transform people's minds.

But for the life of me, i cannot understand the desire to transform the Republican and Democratic parties. They have been around for far too long and the time is right for new parties to take over.

People are tired of the two party system, more people than ever before have said they would strongly consider voting third party, the electorate cannot stand congress, there are more independents than ever before, more apathetic voters than ever before - the time is right and the sentiment is right.

Forget about reform. Start fresh.

ummm, Ron Paul IS a Republican...

LOL! A 12 term Republican congressman.

everything that has a

everything that has a beginning has an end. including the two party system. the roman empire etc...

Real simple

We get elected as Romney delegates. ANd flip the convention.

Then we campaign against the occupiers in the White House.

I say we have a massive summer event with over a million in attendance.

Music, workshops and fun.

I propose a Million Man March

I propose a Million Man March on the convention!!! Are there enough of us willing to leave our parents basements to do this?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Unanimity of Action

We will be lampooned, we will be written off, and the narrative will continue: Establishment D versus Establishment R, no policy differences on the Fed, on spending, on the wars, on civil liberties, on any matter of substance.

This means, and I have said it before, we must be unified in going forward, especially with the vote in November. It is my belief that Ron Paul will endorse Gary Johnson, and we should follow him if he does. If we are splintered, if 1/3 stay home, 1/3 vote for Johnson and 1/3 write in Dr. Paul, they can still say we're irrelvant, and that will be imputed to Rand if he runs in 2016.

But if we are unified, if we all decide upon a course of action and follow it, there will be no denying our influence, and the Republican Party, if it ever wants electoral success again, better give Rand a fair shake. I think right now, the easiest way to show our strength as a movement is to vote for Gary Johnson. If he gets 12-15% of the popular vote, they'll know what cost them. Writing in Ron Paul's name would be good, but as has been said before, I don't trust that the results would be accurate, or that the vote tallies would even be announced. Johnson would be the candidate for a small, but universally recognized 3rd Party that will have increased its support tenfold.

I know it goes against every principle of libertarian thought to be unified, but for the movement to be perceived as strong as it actually is, we have to stick together in the November vote.

Dr. Paul probably wouldn't endorse...

...Gary Johnson, since he's not pro-life; and frankly, if Dr. Paul does endorse him, it will put the lie to his conviction that the protection of Life is foundational to Liberty, and I would stop supporting Dr. Paul. The Liberty movement had better fully embrace the Life movement if it wants to get anywhere. I'm with Dr. Paul and Judge Nap and other pro-life libertarians/constitutionalists. If pro-abortion 'libertarians' don't mind holding their nose and going along with this view, then fine. But don't expect pro-life folks to go the other way...not happening.

I find the abortion debate...

Rather irrelevant to my support. I am pro-life, but I do not think anything can change in regards to that argument. Electing a pro-life official isn't going to change anything, just as much as electing a pro-choice candidate isn't going to change anything. As long as they're both libertarians they aren't going to use government to push their beliefs on anyone. If we want to end abortion in this country we need to introduce a constitutional amendment ourselves and then change the country so completely that they'll ratify the amendment come election time.

Dr. Paul himself has noted the lack of good an official can have on this debate. It is the changing morality of the society that dictates abortion laws, it is not the morality of the government officials.

I agree with the whole changing hearts and minds...

...line of thinking; but still, asking me to vote for someone who does not advocate protection of unborn Life is akin to asking me to support someone who is against abortion but is not for protecting Life by ending our senseless warmongering, interventionist foreign policy. Either way, you're going to lose me, and I would guess many others.

Imagine if Rick Santorum was completely in sync with the Liberty movement EXCEPT that he still was a warmonger/interventionist on foreign policy issues. I would guess that most of us here on DP would find that sufficient cause not to support him, despite our overlap in other areas. It's the same way for me with Gary Johnson -- I appreciate that his views have a lot of overlap with Dr. Paul/myself, but I can't overlook a disregard for unborn human Life. It would be like asking me to support someone who comes across as for Liberty in every way except that they are pro-choice on slavery.

My intent here is not to start a debate on the abortion issue; just to state the fact that there are many pro-life folks who see this the same way as me, and will not set that aside for someone like Johnson.

I will not vote for someone who is pro- drug war. I will not vote for a neocon interventionist. I will not vote for an NDAA/Patriot Act supporter. I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. These are all vital issues.

There is a difference between

There is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. If pro-life means that no life is lost unnecessarily then pro-abortion would mean that all fetuses are aborted.

Also, if you're willing to let the entire U.S. go down in flames over this little issue, then you truly are no better than the Evangelicals which support Santorum.

By-the-way, those who wont support Johnson, because he is not as staunchly against wars as Dr. Paul, won't support him because wars cost an exorbitant amount of money; money we don't have, they don't not support Johnson just because people die in wars, it is a multitude of unidentified costs associated with war, which isn't the case with abortion.

If you want to compare a group of people who wouldn't support one candidate because he will end-up spending us into oblivion, to another group of people who wouldn't support a candidate because of a social issue -I suppose that is your right; however, it is a completely flawed comparison. Though, it does show where your priorities lay(a Federal Ban on Abortion which implies you don't mind using force to compel others to behave a certain way, as long as it is the way you want them to behave).

So, would you vote for a person whose personal view is that of pro-choice, but officially they want to leave it to the States to decide the issue?

I will only vote for someone...

... who understands that the protection of Life is foundational to the protection of Liberty, as does Dr. Paul. People who elevate the latter while diminishing the former are building a house on sand, and it will not last. It seems there are quite a few like you who disagree with Dr. Paul on this, though.

I, like Dr. Paul, think the

I, like Dr. Paul, think the States should decide; you apparently do not, and therefore you do not agree with Dr. Paul's position, which is to leave the States decide. So, why do you support Dr. Paul, since he doesn't believe in making a federal law banning abortion?

In his speech to the SC pro-life forum...

...last fall (he was on satellite feed from DC), Dr. Paul made it clear that he supports federal-level efforts to end abortion, but that overturning Roe v Wade and sending it back to the States was an INTERIM step that would save many lives in the meantime. Your statement that Dr. Paul does not support federal efforts is incorrect, and actually, this was a concern I had until I heard him clarify things in that very forum. So if you're saying that Dr. Paul is flip-flopping on this, then maybe I'm in doubt of my support for him. So far, I believe his presentation in that forum was an accurate statement of his views.E

I have listened to and read

I have listened to and read nearly everything Dr. Paul has said, and I have never heard him say anything about getting the federal government involved with this issue. Dr. Paul's specific pet-peeve is that the federal government is already too involved in the interactions of citizens, and that this wasn't the role of the federal government; it was the individual States' which had the authority to effect the lives of the citizens and not the federal government.

Not to belabor things...

...but reflecting on the comments above, I realized something: since you and others view the Life issue as "little" and "irrelevant", while others like me view it as major and highly relevant, it seems like the best thing is for you all to go along with finding a pro-life candidate similar to Dr. Paul, in order to keep the coalition together if he's no longer in the race.

If Group #1 views it irrelevant whether A or B is chosen, and Group #2 views it as essential that A is chosen; if a coalition between the two is to be formed, then Group #1 should go along with A, since it doesn't matter much to them. Dr. Paul is the option A that is fitting this description now. Rather than demanding/asking that the pro-life people like me agree with you that the issue is irrelevant in order to support a pro-choice candidate, you should be finding a pro-life substitute for Dr. Paul, since you care little about it. If you insist on the pro-choice candidate, then I don't think I believe that you really think the issue is little or irrelevant.

Here's a link to that...

...speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fByI0vYp_DQ

If you listen to the whole thing, it's clear Dr. Paul says he supports federal efforts like a constitutional amendment, but that he doesn't see why it shouldn't go back to the States in the meantime, as a life-saving interim step. I agree with his views, at least as presented in this speech.

By pro-abortion I mean...

...supporting that it exists as a legal option. It's just like someone who is 'pro-choice' on slavery. Just the fact that they think it should exist as a legal option amounts to them being 'pro-slavery' in effect. It's kind of like good people being silent on calling out tyranny. Silence, at the end of the day, is almost as bad as actually promoting the tyranny.

But I understand that quibbles over labels can be distracting, so I'll grant you the label 'pro-choice'; just understand that in my mind that comes across the same way as if you said you're pro-choice on child sacrifice, or pro-choice on slavery, or pro-choice on arson.