20 votes

2016 Presidential Race: Drafting One Liberty Candidate Isn't Enough

I'm noticing a lot of posts on the DP asking "Who will be the next Ron Paul?"

Some of you are saying it's Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Judge Napolitano, Tom Davis, Tom Woods, and Justin Amash.

For some strange reason the consensus on here is that we need to get behind one single candidate... I couldn't disagree more.

I realized a few months ago that trying to get a liberty candidate elected won't happen unless the masses understood our message... And obviously, the masses don't understand it... YET!

If we really want to end the Neo-con's grip, since the media won't do it, we need to educate the populace and one of the best ways of "waking" people up is through the presidential debates.

I'm sure most of you can relate because you discovered Ron Paul by watching the debates... (So did I)

You see, millions of people watch the presidential debates and I think we need to exploit that.

Forget about winning the presidency... Presidents can't do much without the support and understanding of the people. We need to worry about educating educating educating and more educating.

So here's my Idea:

We draft a Super Team of liberty candidates to run for president just to have them all on the debate stages:

Rand Paul, Judge Napolitano, Gary Johnson, Tom Davis, Tom Woods, and Justin Amash... Hell even Peter Schiff!

Just imagine what that will do to the narrative... It would be earth shattering!

Their TV commercials shouldn't be cheesy political ads, but smart educational clips about "blowback", sound money, the Federal Reserve, and many other interesting subjects... Remember it's all about education.

The Neo-Cons would crap their pants if they had to debate a bunch of our brilliant guys and chances are, they would be completely outnumbered on stage. That alone would send a HUGE message to the establishment.

That's when the crazy power-hungry lunatics will realize that their time is up and WE'RE HERE TO TAKE OVER THEIR PARTY!

So I suggest we work on drafting a super team of liberty candidates in 2016... The more the merrier.

Who's with me?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Good idea!

The establishment has used a strength in numbers tactic on us too often: "Congressman Paul, you are the only one on stage that..."

Another benefit is having a variety of personality types and speaking styles which would likely reach a broader audience. For example, Ron Paul and Peter Schiff deliver a very similar message regarding the economy. More or less the same message but with very different delivery styles. I enjoy both.

For this to work, they would

For this to work, they would have to be well known names, otherwise they could be ignored exactly like Johnson was.
The media is ruthless. I think one of the only ways anyone can get ahead here is to replace the power people in most of the republican party. Then we can dictate the rules and make it easy for people like Ron Paul to come forward.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Brilliant Idea

Should clarify those that are not yet thinking about office and need our push to get them running: Judge Nap, Peter Schiff, Tom Woods.

And Those that already are in office or will be: Justin Amash, Tom Davis, Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson(kind of)

I WOULD EVEN RECOMMEND DOUG WEAD!!!. I love that guys personality. he is so likable.

I would edit your idea to say to get those who are already in office to run for president: Rand and Amash.

Everyone else just needs to run for some U.S. office in 2014

You don't run them all to the end

You run them and then drop them out one at a time and let them endorse as they drop out. You start out knowing the one who will be left at the end from the minute you start. The others play interference. Would also help if you had two Neoconish roll players that would hand an endorsement down as they dropped out.

I was thinking the same.

I was thinking the same. Basically, we'll do what the establishment candidates do.

They always run a bunch of them at the same time and then drop out and endorse the "strongest" candidate... We should do the same.

It Won't Work

We had 2 in this election cycle (RP and GJ) but GJ was marginalized to the point where he was allowed in only 2 debates. Apparently you have to poll a certain number in order to be allowed into the debates. GJ was reaching that threshold except in polls where his name wasn't even on this list of candidates. Yet, those polls (where his name wasn't even on the ballot) were used to determine whether or not he was allowed into the debates.

In other words, TPTB will NOT allow this to happen. We have to change our mindset here. The system is rotten to the core. Remember that Jon Corzine is a free man and it doesn't seem like he'll ever be prosecuted. Eric Holder is in contempt of court but there seems to be no penalty for that. Our president can indefinitely detain and kill American citizens without a trial. This country isn't going to shit, it has already gone to shit.

Educate All You Want But Without Winning Government Representati

it becomes a waste of time. In order to educate a popular way for people to receive it is needed. Thus Liberty Conservatives have to dominate on the web and possibly find a way to compete with Fox, CNN, etc. through a news channel of its own.\\Vote GJ 2012

Yes and no. Yes, because we

Yes and no. Yes, because we definitely need more freedom candidates. No, because having more candidates means effectively that they will have to share ALL the donations that RP exclusively got as a lone candidate.

Considering how the opposition has MEGA bucks, we the people have never be able to match that for a single candidate, let alone multiple candidates. And RP is special, cause he has been spending VERY wisely, in part because of his great economic knowledge.

IF we are to support multiple candidates, TWO candidates is the most that are sustainable. We would also have to increase our numbers sufficiently in order to financially support two candidates.

Who says that every candidate

Who says that every candidate needs to launch expensive tv commercials? They can use the internet instead.

I think a guy like Tom Woods would be more than happy to run for president just to be on the debates and sell more of his books... The same for Peter Schiff. They don't necessarily need a ton of money from us just to be on the debates.

You cannot compete by only

You cannot compete by only doing online ads. That's a pipe dream and totally unrealistic. I AM sure that one can use the internet more effectively and spend more wisely, but that alone is not enough against Republican/Democrat warchests.

You're missing the point

It's not about getting "elected", it's about being on the debates to educate millions of people. Period.

Ah, that's a very good

Ah, that's a very good argument. Still, like RP stated, the best way to promote your cause is through winning. We would still need atleast one serious candidate. But I get what you are saying. Having multiple candidates in the debate with minimal expenditure would indeed be worthwhile.

Numbers is what Ron has always stated since 2007.

He was able to construct the base. There are more than enough of us to build it bigger. And, we will get many of those present TeaGOP'rs to join us. They will slowly see the light that we turned on.

This is great, we need people

This is great, we need people who can debate real issues. I couldn't see this group disagreeing on much lol. Regardless this is what we need, A statement with Gary Johnson is 2012 is where we need to start.

"For some strange reason the

"For some strange reason the consensus on here is that we need to get behind one single candidate... I couldn't disagree more."

and then

"Forget about winning the presidency..."

Yep, that explains it. You and the bulk of us are after entirely different things. You want some psychological feel-good victory, sure, you can dilute your votes among 12 candidates. Personally I don't give a fuck about all that sentimental bullshit. I want FREEDOM and I want it NOW. And if I don't get it, I'm going to war.

We won Virgin Islands because our delegates were concentrated. Romney had too many delegates, and even though there were more Romney delegate votes, the Paul delegates won.

It's terrible strategy to dilute your votes if you actually want to win anything. This group will never be able to concentrate its votes though, because people have this stupid moral superiority complex. Half of you absolutely WILL NOT VOTE for anyone they view as less than perfect. For this reason, America is already dead.

Take a deep breath...

You're aware that a president isn't king right?

So even if a liberty candidate got elected, he couldn't just wave a magic wand and give us liberty.

We have over 100 years of brainwashing to undo... It's going to take a few decades until the majority of the population understands our message.

So calm your horses... Geeze.

No, I'm painfully aware that

No, I'm painfully aware that a president IS king. Are you paying any damn attention?


We start out with many liberty candidates. They drop out one by one, ultimately there will be only one, the one that is best with any luck.

I'm with you! :)

I'm with you! :)

the problem is you need to

the problem is you need to reach a certain percentage to get in the debates, so it will be impossible to get that many candidates in. 2, maybe 3 is doable though.

Yes, it's better than having one candidate who is ganged up on

by all of the establishment puppets


We need to be the ones ganging up on the establishment puppets!