Democracy Killed the DP - Next stop: The Liberty Movement itself
Submitted by Bill Gillingham on Thu, 09/20/2012 - 13:59Have the grassroots really become weeds? Is the goal to choke out all the leaders of the Liberty Movement? Is Ron Paul next?
I can't beleive what the 'average' DP member has become - which I gauge by the democratic element - the +/- voting.
In the past month or so, Jesse Benton, Rand Paul, Jack Hunter, John Tate, and more(?) have been torn apart on the DP. If you make a post in their defense, the negatives follow - or worse, you yourself are attacked as being a hack for the GOP. It gets to the point where you are afraid to post. Democracy in action.
The attacks against these folks are unreasonable and embarassing.
Frankly, I don't fit in around here. I presume many of the most reasonable folks have left long ago, leaving just the fringe of the fringe.
- Login to post comments
Do you want me to call the
Do you want me to call the WAAAAHMBULANCE about your butt hurt? Go ahead and down vote me, my skin is thick. And who cares what other people think. If you have a point make it and stop worrying what others think of you. As a successful entreprenuer I don't waste time worrying about what others think of me. I find this to be true of most self made types.
Whenever I find myself in a place where I don't fit in, I just leave. I don't make a stink about it and call them names. Frankly, I like being called "fringe" because the rest of the world is so terribly screwed up.
"Liberty, once lost, is lost forever" -John Adams
It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown
Judging by our discussions in other threads...
... you care a lot about what I think - enough to drag out discussions and prompt me for responses.
You are a master instigator.
Hmmm, and I thought the same
Hmmm, and I thought the same about you.
And for what it's worth, I really don't care about you. I think you are lazy and ignorant.
"Liberty, once lost, is lost forever" -John Adams
It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown
Cyber-democracy is the worst kind of democracy
On the web fictitious entities can be created on a whim. One voter can account for 10 or more votes with do-nothing accounts.
The bumping system of threads favors alarmist and controversial posts. True gems rarely stay afloat in the sea of fear and hate.
It is an assumption to believe everyone here are liberty-loving Paul supporters. The illusion is created that the hate is worse than it really is.
Mods can post counterproductive posts to the front page, too.
Internet web boards favors certain demographics, and thus, cyber-democracy is not a good indicator of the full-spectrum.
and there's one more thing...
With voting up/down, there is a tendency to cause the casual reader to take their focus away from interpreting the material for themselves, and it can turn into some sort of social competition. Like spilling coffee on your resume before you can apply for the job.
Democracy is easily manipulated
Caesar had his circuses and the Fed has media propagandists.
But no democracy is more easily manipulated than cyber-democracy, where a single computer can generate thousands of votes.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Good Job Bill!
As of this writing, the post stands at -1.
But you made it to the top of the DP's most contentious list with +32 and -33 votes. And you spurred an excellent, most interesting discussion.
Well... I didn't try to make such a list...
But perhaps I will make the most contentious list a goal.
Thanks for including the +/- count... it is interesting to see. You might consider including it 'on hover' as a tooltip or something... it really does change my perspective. (To see just a '-5' probably has a psychological effect to make one think 'God, they are all against me?!')
Nah..
I'm more fired up than ever
2 Chron 7:13-14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
never happen
G I
what's also strange
is how many individuals take down votes personally.
i enjoy watching my less than 15% approval rating flutter.
"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul
Mine is 9
Mine is 9
Southern Agrarian
You question if the grassroots has become weeds
and believe that " most reasonable folks have left long ago, leaving just the fringe of the fringe." and you wonder why you get down voted?
Down votes don't infringe on your ability to express your thoughts, it merely shows if others agree with your thoughts. I don't know if you belong here or not. I know I don't belong in the GOP and I don't see the purpose of continuing with it. If you look at the history of revolutions, those that seek only to replace the corruption of the current rulers with themselves just become another corrupt regime. The only hope for positive change is a change in the system. In this case this means the two party system, merely changing who controls them doesn't solve anything.
If you remain in the GOP they will continue to sweet talk you when they wish and then stonewall any meaningful change. If you take over the leadership of the GOP you have two choices, you can support neocon and other objectionable candidates as well as liberty candidates, or you will use the rules and the power structure to obstruct them and deny them fair treatment. Which is it that you want? I don't want to be a part of either.
I'm not going to support those who do, although I respect their views and their desire to make change, no matter how imperfectly.
Just so you know, I downvoted your post, and I don't do it behind a screen name.
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
A bit of a rant, if you have the time..
I don't like long winded posts either, but a few thoughts you may consider, if you have the time.
Like most of us I came accross Dr Ron Paul indirectly and decided to do some research and check this man out. What I found was an enigma, a contradiction in terms, a politician that was so obviously a man of conviction and principle, and a man that simply spoke the truth, the real truth..
I later came to the conclusion, from his own statements and responses to interviews, also his reactions and casual remarks, that his objective was to spread the message of liberty. I formed the opinion that the R party was the instrument of choice to best enable his philosophy to be heard. Confirmation of this was to be seen many times during the rallies and the debates, and I think the most surprised and delighted person throughout the campaign, was Ron Paul himself.
I firmly believe the whitehouse was not his intended goal, and explained his humble attitude toward such questions.
I think we were the ones that did that.
Nobody could have envisioned the rapid growth of the RP Intellectual Revolution, not even RP himself, and things changed, which may or may not have been for the better, and may have explained in part, the apparent disconnect of the campaign from the grass-roots.
So here we are, much wiser and awake, wanting change and energetically expressing our views on DP, reflecting on our wins and our defeats.
Are we Libertarians?, are we Conservatives? are we Republicans?, no we are none of those, and we are all of them. We are not constrained by any of those terms or in any of those pigeon holes. We are individuals, constitutionalists awake to reality, and hell bent on creating change for the better.
Some would see us as a fragmented movement, hamstrung by in-fighting, that has lost it's way. Others would see us as a large block of voters right for the picking.
I see the RP movenent as not fragmenting at all, but rather dividing into many different directions that our own convictions would take us. We are after all individuals, and that separates us from all 'political parties' as such.
Recently the question was asked "have we gained consensus on the direction forward", well the answer to that is no, we don't need a consensus to move forward.
We have to realise that ourselves, stop the in-fighting and understand our common goal will be achieved by each of us following the path we, as individuals, feel is the better path to take.
We need to stay together but at the same time explore the directions we, in our own hearts and minds, feel are best for us.
We should be giving advice, but not attempting to change minds. Giving encouragement, to those of us that may require it, but not berating others for the path they choose. Respect each other, and the decisions we make, we all have the same goal.
Follow your heart, use your mind, and choose your path..spread the message, and take back the Nation.
It's an honor to be with you.
"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012 Intellectual Revolution.
" It gets to the point where
" It gets to the point where you are afraid to post. "
This isn't the communities problem, it is yours alone. If you are afraid to post something then it really must not mean a lot to you.
I've only been here a month and I'm not bothered in the least by being down voted into oblivion. I've come from much worse online forums compared to this one. If you are leaving because you feel the rating system is unfair or open for abuse, I laugh at you.
Southern Agrarian
Never said I was leaving
I said I didn't feel like I belonged any more.
Again - my point isn't that I am crying because I get down voted - I'm used to it. My point is that I'm constantly on the negative side of the argument - hence in the minority - and feel like I don't belong. I'm just trying to understand things... I'm trying to figure out why the leaders of the movement are also on the negative side of the argument.
'Afraid' was a poorly chosen word. 'Reluctant' might be better - as in, why bother?
Of course you belong
It's lonely at the top. You;'ve got the guts to stand for what you think and believe. You are willing to be wrong and yet you get downvoted for being RIGHT ON.
The rEVOLution is now in the GOP. Those who didn't go there are downvoting you because they want to to quit, give up, forget yourself and what you think, feel, believe, and join them. If you do, they will ignor you. Instead you are saying things that GET THEM. So GET THEM. You're not telling them what to do, they're telling you wahat to do, and many here are too afraid to be like you, strong enought to stand for what you think and feel without stooping to insult or name calling.
You're a great guy and we're LUCKY to have you. Rock on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgcYfKw0_TI
STAND WITH RAND 2016
It is funny you should respond...
I was going to cite you earlier in a reply to Micheal as the member with the toughest skin. Not to be sappy - but your resolve is inspirational! Thanks for the kind words.
Is it possible to at least require a name with a vote?
There are several reasons for this I will not enumerate.
What harm is there in requiring members that vote on a post to have the same stake as the member that creates the post? That is, the poster is taking a stand and all can see the reception for that stand; the voters are also taking a position but they do so anonymously. The poster must have thick skin but the voter is free to retain thin skin?
Think of such a system as promoting character in the movement. We do need strong Patriots for our difficult task.
Comments?
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
A count of +s and -s would be nice
... so, instead of seeing your post get -5 you might see +20 -25
I don't expect that to happen... but I think it would help with poster moral.
I think thats a good idea.
I was just thinking about that yesterday.
The more information available to people the better.
More transparency can never hurt can it?
"More transparency can never hurt can it?"
Like all issues of transparency, there are always those for more and always those for less transparency. We have a huge issue with transparency right now with our Federal GOV-Very Little Transparency.
Why are some against transparency, what harm can it do? It is apparent that some benefit when there is LESS transparency.
You would think that in this forum, of all places, there would be an overwhelming, if not unanimous call for the maximum transparency practical/doable. Yet, I have raised this issue numerous times since the "Voting" system was implemented and my posts on the matter were quickly shouted down or consigned to the DP memory hole.
Already, on my simple comment, I have received enough down votes to keep it out of positive territory. Who would down vote a proposal like mine above? Anyone that finds less transparency to be a benefit for their ends and More Transparency something that can "HURT" their ends.
Sad. Concerning.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
To me, many of the attacks
To me, many of the attacks are unjustified. I like Rand and Hunter. They may not be 100% on board with all of us, but remain close allies. I believe they are both legit and want to work toward liberty.
Benton... As I said many times, I will wait until there is evidence before I start bashing him. And certainly, until after Florida so as not to hurt the moral of our delegates. Now that the smoke has cleared and Benton has gone to work for Bitch McConnel.. ya.. @#$% Benton. He deserves all he gets here.
"most reasonable folks"
as in those who would more likely go along to get along ? At this stage of America's undoing , what is reasonable about that? I like folks that aren't afraid to call it like it is and do not compromise. Those are the folks who will bring on real change instead of a massaged, reinvented version of the same old crap like your boy Benton is propping up now......
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams
Bill...What you are
Bill...
What you are witnessing is MANY people now see the FRAUD in the 2 party system and from here on out refuse to try to work within it.
Tom Woods spoke out about
Tom Woods spoke out about Jesse and that says something about Benton. I do think Hunter and Rand are attacked rather unfairly.
I like Woods and all...
But his attack didn't prove anything to me. The only thing I could garnish from it was that Woods felt slighted by the campaign and aired his dirty laundry to the grass roots. I just saw sour grapes. I don't know Jesse's side of the story... he might be more of the man for keeping it to himself. I don't know.
Tom is a good speaker and really good at getting ideas across. I'd even suggest that he is a good leader in some ways.
But, I don't put his word higher than any others in the movement. I do know that Ron Paul chose Benton and Tate.
c'mon Bill...who is Benton
c'mon Bill...who is Benton married to?
Ron's granddaughter...
What is your point? That Ron made a foolish choice?
You might see Jesse as evil - I don't. You might see his actions as stabbing Ron in the back - I don't. Neither of us has any proof one way or the other. We don't know what went on behind the scenes - we don't know what were missteps, what was deliberate, or what was calculated (or what was deceptive).
Jesse is apparently good enough for the Senate majority leader to hire... of course, to you that might mean Jesse is evil... to me it means Jesse is still in the game. Remember that Jesse left C4L with written blessings from Ron Paul. Ron didn't have to do that... their absence would have been cited as evidence of a falling out - I think their presence proves the opposite.
Jessie is a jerk, a liar and a cheater
He lied to me and tried to cheat me. The problem with taking the details of such a story public is that it becomes such a spectacle. And me, being he accuser, would come under such attack. In the end, you have to ask whether it is worth it or not. "What are his motives, he's lying, he's only saying it for profit..." Blah blah blah. In a way, it is the same problem you express in the OP. I would get attacked by all the anonymous screen names here. The mob mentality is built in here by anonymity.
But seeing someone like you, who has had no personal dealings with Benton, makes me sick to my stomach, especially in light of my personal dealings with him. That guy is a scoundrel. Do I have proof? How can you offer proof that someone lied to you, went back on their word?
How can you offer that? When I made a handshake deal with him - I thought I was dealing with Ron Paul's agent, and expected the same level of trustworthiness and honesty. Boy did I get a wake up call!
But again, to take it public, is (possibly) to help Jesse fulfill his mission, which is to cause more dissension and division. Anyway, in light of the campaign being over, and what Tom Woods has said, I've been thinking over the best way to approach it. Plus there was another party involved, who isn't too keen on bringing it up. But it is hard to tell the story without talking about him.
One final note: The senate majority leader is Harry Reid, not McConnell.
Well - you aren't an anonymous screen name
- And Tom Woods isn't either. I'm very skeptical of just about everyone... I joke with my wife that God himself could appear to me and I'd still have to consider carefully his motives :) (This usually happens after I show doubt in something she says)
There are not many people that I inherently trust. Ron is one... People closely tied to Ron get extra consideration. I'm sorry I can't give Tom the benefit of the doubt.
Michael Nystrom though? He is one of those few people I would inherently trust... and I really mean that.
While you probably won't see me attacking Jesse (without background) - I probably won't spend much time defending him.
It is just my nature to not attack people without 'the whole story' - and it is also my nature to defend people when the story I see appears to be speculation, conjecture, suggestion, association, innuendo, etc. And really, that is what I have to work from as far as Jesse goes. That - and mostly anonymous attacks.
Your word does carry more weight in my book than even Tom Woods'.