32 votes

Rational discussion about what to do for the 2012 race for POTUS

Most regular users of the Daily P.Au.L are aware that I openly support Gary Johnson. That is beside the point with respect to this post. My intentions here are only to encourage rational consideration of the available options left for Paulites in the general election and to attempt to spark a healthy discussion with no name-calling or other actions stemming from anger, disappointment, spite, etc. I hope you will set the emotional nature of the current times aside and genuinely consider what I have to say.

Option 1 - Vote for Obama:

Pros:

- Delivering the election to Obama is a method of punishing Romney
- Romney may be considered unelectable in 2016 given that Obama is much weaker than he was in 2008 and Romney may likely do worse than McCain did

Cons:

- Our troops remain in Afghanistan until 2014 (at least - whatever happened to the recent 2024 extension? Is 2014 election year fodder?)
- We may end up engaged in more needless militarism in Iran, Syria, etc, putting tens of thousands of American lives at stake
- Indefinite detention clauses in the current NDAA will remain
- The UN Small Arms Treaty will likely be signed
- Draconian censorship laws will likely be levied against internet freedom
- Whistle blowers will continue to be treated like sub-human criminals
- The government will continue to grow at an alarming pace
- We will likely get stimulated again with the current economic outlook
- The War on Drugs will continue even in states that have put in place legalization/decriminalization laws
- The healthcare mandate will endure
- There will be no audit of the Fed
- Foreign aid will remain untouched or maybe even increased
- The Welfare State will likely continue to expand

Option 2 - Vote for Romney:

Pros:

- Slight possibility that Romney would listen to Austrian solutions in another economic crisis (I doubt it though)

Cons:

- Romney will be rewarded for his underhanded tactics used to attain the nomination
- Our troops remain in Afghanistan until 2014 - at least
- We may end up engaged in more needless militarism in Iran, Syria, etc putting tens of thousands of American lives at stake
- Indefinite detention clauses in the current NDAA will remain
- Draconian censorship laws will likely be levied against internet freedom
- Whistle blowers will continue to be treated like sub-human criminals
- The government will continue to grow at an alarming pace
- We will likely get stimulated again with the current economic outlook
- The War on Drugs will continue even in states that have put in place legalization/decriminalization laws (likely at a more aggressive pace than Obama. Romney equated drug use to murder in a speech aired on HLN earlier in the year)
- The healthcare mandate will endure
- There will be no audit of the Fed (I don't trust Romney's sincerity)
- Foreign aid will remain untouched or maybe even increased
- The Welfare State will likely continue to expand (Medicare promises)

Option 3 - Write-in Ron Paul:

Pros:

- You get to vote for one of your heroes

Cons:

- No one outside of your personal contacts will know you did so
- A write-in campaign has no chance at successfully electing Dr. Paul

Option 4 - Vote for Johnson:

Pros whether he wins or loses:

- The votes will be counted (to some varying degree depending on the state - I doubt there would be 100% vote flipping) which would send a clear message to the GOP that the Liberty Movement won't just fall in line based on political rhetoric and/or coercion
- 5% of the vote puts the LP in major party status for 2016 which would likely help to solve problems with gaining participation in the debates
- Johnson will not be the last LP POTUS nominee. Others after him may be more universally acceptable to the Liberty Movement, and major party status would give those potential candidates much firmer footing
- It will piss off both the Democrats and the Republicans (Johnson affects the duopoly candidates differently depending on the state in question)

Pros for the outside chance he wins:

- Afghanistan will immediately be drawn down
- Avoid war with Iran, Syria, etc, potentially saving tens of thousands American lives
- A budget with $1.4 trillion in cuts - enough to balance year one (more than the $1T proposed by Paul) - will be submitted to Congress which would likely lead to real cuts (not just baseline cuts)
- In the event of a financial crisis, no economic intervention will be employed thereby creating an environment for real recovery
- If Audit the Fed hits his desk, it will get signed
- The Drug War will end
- If the legislation passes, the 16th Amendment will be repealed, the IRS abolished, and a consumption tax implemented which would eliminate all federal payroll withholding (saving entrepreneurs a fortune), eliminate taxes on all used goods (clothes, cars, etc), and distribute the federal tax burden over everyone that interacts with our economy (illegal aliens, tourists, other visitors) not just the employed citizens.
- Religious influences will no longer be employed to provide collectivist, government benefits to straight couples while punishing the gay and lesbian community. Separation of Church and State should not have exceptions, and the only argument that exists is based in religion.
- Although Johnson is pro-choice up to independent viability of the fetus, he takes the same policy approach as Ron Paul in saying it should be left to the states, thereby negating the importance of his personal opinions on the issue

Cons:

- If the legislation passes, some are concerned that the Fair Tax would create a new entitlement system due to the prebate that would be distributed to all US citizens. However, I would argue that collectivism is avoided because all citizens will receive it, and the prebate only represents the amount of tax that would be paid based on poverty level income (~$2000/yr) which is not nearly enough to survive on and provides a logical solution to the regressive nature of other consumption taxes
- Johnson said he may be willing to militarily intervene for humanitarian reasons in other countries; however, he said he would only do so with approval from Congress (giving respect to the process provided by the Constitution)

----------------------------------------------

Did I leave anything out? Please discuss.

One last note: To illustrate the unreliability of emotion based decision making, please consider the following questions -

What percentage of people in prison (barring victimless crimes) are there because they acted out of emotion? I would venture to say greater than 90%.

What percentage of people in prison (barring victimless crimes) are there because they made rational decisions? Very few.

Did your parents ever tell you to "think before you act?" If so, why did they tell you that? Was it because making emotional decisions out of anger or other emotions can often get you into trouble?

Is the purpose of the Liberty Movement to gain liberty? If not, what is the goal? Given the above information, what is the most productive choice for Liberty with respect to the 2012 race for POTUS on a rational basis, neglecting emotion?

The factors stated above are what led me to where I stand now.

Thanks ahead of time for your genuine consideration and responses.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

In a bunch of those states...

In a bunch of those states... Paul would have needed to petition to get his write-ins counted. In a bunch of others... there are sore-loser laws that would get write-ins not counted as well.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Gary Johnson: the new face of the Ron Paul movement...

Not!

He would, at least in the short-term, become the face of our revolution because that is how the media would portray him. It might sound great to get a couple ideas of ours into the debates - but millions of people will be tuning in for the first time and will hear "Gary Johnson the Libertarian and new face of the Ron Paul movement..."

I can't figure out if I have a jealousy issue with him being crowned by the media as the next Ron Paul - or if I really have deeper issues with the man.

I'm not sure he is even really that close to our movement. While people claim 'he is 85% Ron Paul' - I disagree. He is pretty good on civil liberties and fiscal stuff (though his campaign is currently in debt - unheard of around here). I fear he would compromise on other issues - particularly intervention / war.

I'm not convinced he is good for the movement to promote.

Is a 43% first year cut in military spending compromising?

He's not our Thomas Jefferson but one could make the case he can be our George Washington.

That's silly - The media has been ignoring him like the plague..

since he said in a debate that - "His neighbors dogs have provided more shovel ready jobs that Obama."

Give me a break. They'll do anything they can to marginalize him - just like they did Dr. Paul with petty garbage.

Not as much as I avoid the MSM

=

Free includes debt-free!

Then what is the point?

If he will be ignored then what is the point?

To get Matching funds for the Libertarians?

Matching funds

Taking tax payer's money.

Matching Funds

I thought matching funds were voluntary contributions made during your payment to the Fed for our involuntary tax contributions?

Don't all the funds come from the check box "would you like to contribute to the campaign fund?" (something like that).

* The reason this sticks in my memory is a High School civics teacher pounded it into our heads decades ago saying that it was important to contribute. Otherwise 3rd party candidates or a qualified but under-funded candidate of any party had no chance in today's hyper-funded campaign cycle.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Public Funding of Presidential Elections

In 1966, Congress enacted the first public funding legislation, but suspended it a year later. That law would have made U.S. Treasury funds available to eligible nominees in the Presidential general election through payments to their political parties. Funds would have come from a Presidential Election Campaign Fund in the U.S. Treasury consisting of dollars voluntarily checked off by taxpayers on their federal income tax returns. A subsidy formula would have determined the amount of public funds available to eligible candidates.

In 1971, Congress adopted similar provisions, which formed the basis of the public funding system in effect today. Under the 1971 Revenue Act,1 the nominee, rather than the party, receives the public funds accumulated through the dollar checkoff. The Revenue Act also placed limits on campaign spending by Presidential nominees who receive public money and a ban on all private contributions to them.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

The money goes to GJ, not the LP

It also says there is a 20 million matching fund, so that is money available as a sum total. What would be good to know is how much the treasury collects from registration annually. Think it's more or less than 20 M?

My Guess, they collect more than they distribute

*Presidential elections every 4 years, the Fed collects annually.
*Usually only RepubliCrats "qualify" so let's say 20m X 2 = 40m
*I think you are allowed to donate about $10 or that is the average.. an assumption.

40m / 10.00 = 4m citizens who elect to give $10 to the fund in one year.

I am sure more than 4m had that civics lesson I had and it "stuck". I bet the number of people who contribute is higher out of a population of 311.5m. (4m = 1.3% of the total population).

Quick math - the Federal Government makes out like a bandit. So, Gov. Johnson should take the money. At least it doesn't get re-directed to the military or HUD, or...

Agree with the math?

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

So GJ should take the money?

I'm not saying anything is wrong with that, however, it's not how one would grow a liberty movement, by empowering the party that nominated you.

And if you believe elections are rigged like I do, then if he achives 15%, it becomes a nice bonus for when he leaves the LP to it's own demise, as he prepares to fund his next campaign, probably back in the GOP.

I think so, can't keep any surplus

If the funds were donated as I believe I read it then it makes sense to apply for the funds. So should any other candidate who qualifies (Jill Stein, etc...).

The party benefits because their candidate is able to compete. Here is what I bet happens. Let's say the funds allow the Governor to "upset the apple cart". The fund will be repealed before the next election.

My thought - if the money was willfully donated for this purpose then a 3rd party candidate would have to take it. The Governor is entering a gunfight with bare hands. He has to grab whatever weapons he can.

....................................

Repayments of Public Funds:

The Commission requires candidates and convention committees to repay public funds to the U.S. Treasury when the FEC audit determines that:

*The amount of public funds received exceeds the amount to which the candidate or convention committee is entitled;
*Spending limits are exceeded;
*Public funds are used for purposes other than qualified campaign expenses;
*Surplus funds remain after debts and obligations have been paid;
*Interest is earned on invested public funds; or
*The spending of public funds is not sufficiently documented.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Absolutely he should apply

I don't disagree with you, actually you laid it out very well.

Right...

Which I know Ron would never accept.

As citizens of this nation, it is Our responsibility...

to hold politicians accountable.

We try to elect the best choice possible, and if they don't do a job to Our pleasing, we turn Our support elsewhere. In this case, Johnson is the rational choice.

Voting for Johnson is a vote against the IRS, the Drug War, war in the Middle East, collectivism against gays and lesbians, and a vote against the two-party duopoly that has ruled us since the 1860's.

These are interesting times to live in. This is not just another election. We are in a sovereign debt crisis that is going to throw a huge monkey wrench into the idea of economic "planning." This is a revolution.

I hope it occurs as a r3VOLutions, but there's no guarantees. It's time for the citizens to unite and take a stand against the system that dragging us into the depths of servitude. One of the themes at the DNC was - "We belong to the government"

It's time to make a stand. Divided we will be marginalized. United we can send a clear message to the PTB that they can kiss Our ass; We're not going to be co-opted or pushed under the rug.

As members of the revolution, it is Our responsibility...

...to not compromise.

Ron Paul did not compromise while in Congress.

To vote Gary Johnson is compromising. It is like a big spending bill with a bone thrown in for this or that congressman. Wouldn't that be a definition of being co-opted?

Compromising our principles is one thing a lot of us have become pretty hard core against doing.

Take it from someone who

has worked the equation and WON. In South Carolina there were die-hard/deeply committed Ron Paul supporters of many stripes. I chose to work "inside the system/party", as has RP, and I ended up the only delegate who could cast a vote for Ron Paul in Tampa and did so.

Who an individual votes for (in the general election in Nov) is in the end a private secret matter. The fact that you did or did not vote is public record through the voter registration system. At least it is so, in South Carolina.

On November 7th, the results will be known, barring any hanging chads. Then we can move forward armed with the principles Ron Paul has educated us in and which we will use to return our country to "the Republic for which it stands".

Peace and Liberty,

-mike

Dr. Mike Vasovski
South Carolina Campaign Chairman, Ron Paul 2012
The SINGLE vote in the SC delegation for RP, GOP Convention, Tampa, FL
2010 Candidate, US Congress SC-03
Past Chairman, Aiken, SC County Tea Party

Sometimes the only vote that counts is the lone vote.

Thanks Dr. Mike for standing to face the wind for liberty.

For liberty and the Constitution meant to support Liberty.

Paul_S.

Free includes debt-free!

the only rational thing to do

is prepare for 4 more years of President Obama. Stop wasting your time and energy on presidential elections. If you want to vote, go ahead, but stop acting like its going to be counted. You will only be disappointed. Your gunna need a clear head and plenty of positive energy here in the next few years and more.

All it takes is 5% to get major party status for 2016...

We don't have to outright win.

Major party status? I am skeptical.

?

Free includes debt-free!

That would be great if...

That would be great if Ron suggested he plans on running as a Libertarian in 2016. What if it turns out to be a 'Bob Barr?'

Sorry - I don't see how that benefits our movement - it just gets matching funds for the Libertarians. I thought our long term goal was to take over the GOP?

A weakened GOP is easier to influence.

When Mittens loses they will be softened up.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

i think the goal is to get

i think the goal is to get one of the two major parties to have libertarian principles. the republican party is the obvious choice since it has libertarian rhetoric, and its easier to change a parties policies than it is to change their rhetoric.

but pushing them in the right direction takes two forces: leadership from within, and a threat from the outside. as long as the RP knows the paul supporters are safe inside their party, the coalition is secure, and they dont need to change. if the LP becomes credible and increases its influence, the RP will have to give more voice to paul supporters.

so strengthening the LP is a good tactic toward the long-term goal. and if the RP still doesnt change its ways... well there always be a two-party system in the US, but history shows its not always the same two parties.

Who said that you can't wake

Who said that you can't wake up millions of Americans about the glaring and destructive similarities between Obama and Romney, get millions of Americans interested in Ron Paul and the definition of "liberty", to help end the two party duopoly, to show millions of Americans they don't need to vote their fear of the opposite candidate even though they don't like either one...

And then for the sake of the GOP takeover...
Put all our votes behind one 3rd party candidate so the GOP can see why they lost or barely won in 2012 for the sake of them not only abstaining from alienating us, but seeing the positive of promoting a libertarian candidate in 2016... to win or win by an even larger margin with less risk.

Pretty sure that getting behind Johnson now HELPS with the GOP takeover and a true libertarian in the GOP next election.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Your reasons are emotional

Your history of the future is fantasy based political speculations.

I may be good enough for you.

Free includes debt-free!

Simply saying that it's

Simply saying that it's "fantasy based" without evidence doesn't make it so. Each of the points listed have a full explanation of how they're realistic expectations and no one has ever attempted to invalidate them the multiple times I've listed them here on the site.

Even a few celebritarians agree with me and the strategy.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Your words - all fantasy speculation posing as fact.

- to help end the two party duopoly,

-Put all our votes behind one 3rd party candidate so the GOP can see why they lost

-see why they [] barely won in 2012

-to win or win by an even larger margin with less risk

-Pretty sure that getting behind Johnson now HELPS with the GOP takeover and a true libertarian in the GOP next election.

Free includes debt-free!