-71 votes

Ron Paul Would Not Have Won

#1 -- He lost (that's why he wouldn't have won)

#2 -- Most people voted Obama or Romney owing to which one they found most charming, manly, virile, articulate or attractive. There has not been a president who won the office for any other reason (then one or all of those) in a very long time (pre-Kennedy).

#3 -- Ron Paul would not have won because his talking points are way-way-way over people's heads. All living Great Grandparents learned "big gov't" economics and politics growing up (let alone their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren). There has not been a national "small gov't" president (beyond rhetoric) since Taft and Coolidge.

Reagan was a "rhetoric small-gov't" politician -- always big gov't.

#4 -- Less than 10% of the people who vote could articulate (beyond one or two talking points) "why" they'd vote RP over Obama -- Don't worry because they can't remember a lick of what Obama says beyond the 30 sec sound bites.

Just watch interviews when the "average American" talks about why they voted Obama or Romney -- "he's for hope" -- "he's for small businesses (I'm a small business owner)" -- "he helps immigrants"

The savviest of them might say "the economy is better (can't explain why)" and if they are pro-Romney might say "the economy is worse (can't articulate why beyond saying "jobless rate is up").

Voting and Lobbying (AS I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS NOW) is: An Abdication of Consumer-Sovereignty (a circumvention of consumer-rule) and An attempt at Bribing the future voting trend of said elected one.

Abdication -- Bribery

How can you get liberty from that -- You can't answer it (beyond a sound bite) whether you agree with it or not.

We live in an era that is driven by fear (fear of the unknown) and we want assurances that our progeny will carry on (right-seeking / guarantees).

Now you could have a Transition Gov't I've articulated and enumerated all the points and conventions of such a system.

But it must have two absolutes:

1) A 1,000 person voting class (a rotating class of highly qualified voters whose reputations would be tarnished if they picked the wrong team).

2) The Federal and State elected "teams" could only serve one-term and were paid solely based on innovation and savings (better services at lower costs).

Since most DPers wont agree to that type of gov't I have little hope of having anything other than what we have now going forward.

The World Gov't is pushing toward world-hegemony -- all men created equal and thus have an equal share of the pie (less the elitist rulers at the top).

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The Grand Shi Strategy of Ron Paul

He was cheated out of votes in the primaries. He was cheated out of delegates in Tampa. The GOP is the one that lost, and they know it. They lost their integrity and with it the youth, fiscal conservatives, Constitutionalists and liberty lovers. According to all the news postings on DP, the libertarians gained a voice and some respect which a humbled party can embrace if they want to move forward and win in 2016. Let us not forget the Grand Shi Strategy of Ron Paul.

The Grand Shi Strategy of Ron Paul - Forbes

My thoughts reposted from a prior comment:
There will be many tears from those feeling the same as I do as we view the video tribute shown by a political machine that treated such an esteemed statesman with such blatant disregard. Looking forward our consolation is the appreciation for what Ron Paul gave to us and his grace and ability to rise above fluid and ever-changing political events to face the next challenge. As a retired baby boomer, my vote for Ron Paul may be the last one I will forever truly treasure as a reflection of my newly gained political awareness, independence and freedom as a critical thinker. Thank you Dr. Paul for showing us how we can become eventual winners to make a difference in a plutocratic authoritarian national state where freedoms must be hard fought and won one step at a time. We have learned that our adversaries are strong, but liberty is stronger.

Romney speaks to people with promises and declarations that he will save them. He will be relegated to history as a politician years from now the same as Obama. Neither will be remembered for their exceptionality except for their deleterious support of such destructive things as NDAA, undeclared wars, government mandates and bailouts and support of the Fed and a plutocratic and authoritarian vs. a capitalist and democratic form of government. We know their promises speak louder than their ability, desire or intention to deliver on those promises.

By contrast Ron Paul will be remembered as a master strategist who lit a fire and started a revolution the results of which will prevail many year to come. He inspired ordinary citizens to believe the world can be a better place if people get involved and work together to fight for their freedoms. We pay homage to you Dr. Paul, a true patriot, gentleman, historian, teacher, leader and visionary by our commitment to spread your message. We shall remember Maine and other states where patriots and delegates courageously fought the statists to support your principles. As in life, the journey there is our greatest reward knowing we are clearing the path for the many who will follow like the Shi force of water, “ultimately overcoming everything in its path.”

#1 Ron Paul didn't want to

#1 Ron Paul didn't want to win, he wanted to profit.
#2 You think Nixon was attractive?
#3 Book tours are supposed to make you think.
#4 Welcome to Idiocracy

Don't vote, Don't contribute, Don't comply.

Ron Paul won

They had to cheat to stop him.

That's what you say because

You are convinced that if only everyone would have known what Paul stood for then he would have won hands down. Or that everyone did know and the vote was rigged to give Paul's votes to Romney.

But the fact is that American people are stupid and dependent. They will not vote for someone who will take their ride away from them. If you support Paul you are in a minority no matter how well you get the word out.

The American people voted in Obama twice and that is all that needs to be said about the stupidity of this country.

Makes no difference at this

Makes no difference at this point, the elections over. It's time to move forward. (Not the Obama forward)

There is nothing to win but liberty.

So many are not buying their crap anymore. In the free market of ideas, the consumer prevails.

You were right. We couldn't defeat their bad ideas unless we marketed better ideas. Then let the consumer decide.

Lobbying and voting to get my way is ineffective.

Luckily, Market rules trump political lobbying such as advertising and other propaganda.

No government can pass laws abridging the right to be wrong.

Free includes debt-free!

Well, you made ... some ..

.. noise.

You lost me at 'He lost, so therefore he wouldn't have won'

whut?? lol man

There were a couple of things in there are pretty much truisms at this point ('American's can't articulate / don't know shit' etc)

But other than that? Nah. Your conclusions are daft imo.

I think if we had anything close to a reasonable functioning democratic system with a free press that was not brainwashing people, he would have blown away Obama in a sweeping tsnuami that would have made Fujitsu look like a ripple in a kiddie pool.

And btw:

Big props for recognizing Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford, and Bush Sr. for the manly, muscle-ripped, hunks of GQ stud muffins they actually were.

Somebody had to do it.

I said "he lost, therefore he would not have won"

to show the absurdity of the arguments reverse "he lost, but actually he won" -- which is what people have been saying on various threads -- since he lost.

Also -- I never said that "studliness" was the only characteristic -- in each case they "came off" as either more viril, more manly, more articulate.........why am I repeating; just read what people write before you comment, hahahahaha.

People make venile choices -- this is not a new "summation" or generality.

I like to make "obvious" posts and watch how people circumvent observable truisms to build the fantasy they'd rather have -- which is why there's never been a man of liberty in the white house; the very nature of voting and lobbying (especially the 1790 kind) means (by definition) that you are not going to win an individualist as the pop-leader.

You don't know that

The evidence says that Ron Paul polled as well as or better than Romney against Obama, so had he gotten the nomination he very well might have had a good shot.

I do not believe 'most' people voted for the prettiest candidate. I believe their first, and in most cases ONLY, consideration was whether or not there was an 'R' or 'D' after the name.

While most voters would have not understood much of Ron Paul's positions (but as I noted above, they would have understood he's a Republican) it is the independents, educated conservatives, and open minded liberals who would have understood him quite well. They are the voters who sat out this past election, or settled for the lesser of two evils.

It was not important that Ron Paul be the nominee, but it WAS important that the ideas be represented by one of the two major candidates. I am convinced that Romney lost the election because he alienated a large number of Americans (half?) who are tired of these wars and are looking for a way out, and a large number who are worried about the growth of government at home. Because Romney represented more war and more big government, he lost.

Really! The 2012 Primary showing (number of voters)

was LESS than the 2008 -- so any numbers showing how Paul would fare against Obama is just silly -- because Paul lost the primaries and the primaries were not good indicators of what would happen during the general election.

Show me one poll that was larger than a 100,000 person sampling of how well Paul would have done against Obama.

You guys do not understand how statistics work.

Individualism is never going to be popular because no one talks about the "transition" in clear well-thought-out language.

Liberty Candidates are great at enumerating the faults of Corporatism but when you hold their feet to the fire and ask them EXACTLY how you make a "smooth" transition they either stutter or if they are honest like RP they talk about "cuts" and that it will be tough for a year or so.

No ONE wants to consciously have a "rough year" -- They would rather swallow a lie or fantasy about how they can solve the debt issue AND have a great year then have a tough year.

When's the last time American's were like, "yeah, give us a tough year wherein price-elasticity is returned to normal?"

Hahahaha -- the answer is NEVER.

Anytime in US history when a "correction" needed to be made it was done without people's permission -- also it was done before women and blacks and American Indians could vote. The 20's.

Every "correction" since never fully "corrected" did it?

Question to Octobox

What if the key was talking "transition" in order for people to get from point a. to point c.

Is the thought so repugnant that nobody would listen or is it possible that a younger college crowd "might" listen and, after listening (only after listening) see that point c. was a possibility?

Always felt that one major detractor from RP gaining more traction was the fact that he talked so little about the "correcting period" ...or transition. Perhaps, given that he was "running" for President did not allow him to do so.

Is it possible that on the next leg of his speaking tour, not running for President, he could do so? And, would you agree or disagree that in the event he makes that speaking tour into a Republican/Rand campaign, he would narrow his potential audience and lose his opportunity to talk transition ie b., thus giving credibility to the goal...point c.

I am very interested in potential ways to get from point a to point c. I am interested in a radical definition of the space between point a (where we are) and point c (where we should be.) Do I make sense?


Fonta: I have a split-personality on this issue

One "me" says: "No, you can never gain liberty (individualism) by forming a lasting union (it would take a lasting union of effort to get the idea of a transition into popularity) -- the latter necessitating voting and lobbying."

The "other" says: "Yes, you can have a transition -- the union formed to get the result (an national understanding of a Mises-like transition toward a free-society) is technically in the short-run if we compare the timeline to how long this nation has been formed, in that case a 50-year timeline still fits the definition."

I don't know that it would take 50 years -- once the price-inflation and boom-bust effects have been shouldered the rate of innovation in a low-tax economy (in all markets) would probably have an exponential effect.

My optimism holds out for the latter, but I have about a 20% approval rating on DP -- if people can't "get it" here then how will the rest of the welfarists?

20%??? You ARE an Optimist!

...hope you are right as "that" would be very encouraging to me.

That you are "split" might indicate a bit of pessimism slipping in as
as I see no reason for optimism without the "other" you becoming critical mass. Personally, I care less about when it happens than I do about it happening sometime.

If people "can't get it here" then... Well, first of all, just because they "don't get it" doesn't mean that they "will never get it." That depends largely on there being a few voices willing to continue to shake their rafters. Second, while "here" is wonderful, it may well not be indicative of just "who" might even as we post be getting it or who might resonate to it elsewhere.

The problem with "awake" people is that often they stop there. A subtle deception is "I am awake..therefore I have arrived." That attitude begins showing ego-satisfaction in there being "them"...the asleep. Any fixation or feeling that one has "arrived" seems to me an indication that there are some who awaken only to fall asleep again and be unaware that they are largely dreaming.

The DP is not the world. Graft a bird onto this rabbit/grassyhopper. I want to be an optimist with convictions that are growing and I want to fly. I realize that my short lifetime is hardly the yardstick of anything. (Granted the younger generation seldom has that perspective).

Thank you for your honest answer to my question; however, you avoided one part of the question which is fine. We will see what he does. And, if need be, I will brace myself for disappointment. And, then I will stand up again if so indicated.


Conversation Starter


I wrote this almost three years ago.

It gives you an first-draft idea of how we get from "here" to "there"

The transition gov't must have limitations and stricter rules.

Thank You and

...I am going to read tonight when I have more time and think about before responding. In the meantime, I would love to see others start the conversation. If they do not (sigh)or if they do, I will be back!


Others Did Not Join In OctoBox

...however, I will. I am still trying to digest as it is a huge jump and challenging for me.

If I can grasp some of the topics you bring up on any reasonable level, most people can ...and that should be reason for encouragement.

I am feeling an urge to stop skimming the surface and posting my personal "moral" platitudes and dig in. I will be back.


Start a new OP -- See if you too can earn the down voting

prowess I've earned 5 years on the mast.

When You Catch A Wabbit

Question on your err suggestion: When you catch a wabbit do you always think about skinning it and throwing it out to the dogs or are you just contemplating doing it to me and then sitting back and watching the "hunger games" ...LOL. Realize that I recently asked how to twit (not knowing it was tweet)...I have a credibility problem.

You only ended up with a -2 (hardly a record for you)on this particular OP and yet actually stirred up some fairly lively conversation. I think I can beat -2 but doubt seriously I would stir up much intelligent conversation.

Sigh. Most of those folks who even commented on your OP are gone. How many people here now would go beyond (a) outrage at the title (b)fear of a Congressional Congress and the end of us (c) picking a word apart as to its "true" libertarian meaning (d) dismissal. I am afraid it would just fly down the page faster than a speeding bullet. I don't think you'd catch any wabbits right now without a set-up.

Soooo How to set-up a set-up:

1. A song and dance like: "Imagine there's no government...imagine if you can. We'll need a workable constitution...when the shit hits the fan.' What would it look like?

2. Left Behind: Imagine something unexpected happens from the heavenly realm. An Elijah type chariot arrives with plenty of room for everyone who wants to throw in the towel and move on up (or in ..just call it "there"). Note: "Many" will feel chosen and exercise their free will to leave believing (incorrectly I think) that they will move on to an existence where all their needs will be provided for, total entitlement program. Those who choose to live out their lives on planet chaos then set about to learn from mistakes and establish order with a new constitution and a free society. What would it look like?

3. Total set-up teaching experiment: Someone organizes a council of elders (surely you do not operate in a complete vacuum and think this stuff up all by yourself) and they comment and set-up a DP Post that begins with a rousing discussion and others are drawn in, Purpose being to discuss what where we want to be would look like and the transition that would be necessary for it to take place. What kind of a Constitution would work best? (There are a few candidates on the DP who pop in like you do. Wolfe has been around lately and I can see him having much to offer and able to politely swat flies who tend to divert and disrupt.

4. Octopolis Plan: You re-post with a better lead in (same title) but just not jumping in over most peoples' heads right off the bat).
Invite them to explore Octopolis.( I know...not your style) Explain why it is designed the way it is. If need be expose the founders as worthy of reverence, but just men who never thought they were writing an infallible, never to be reviewed or revised document that would be treated as some kind of Holy Scripture even when it was no longer followed and even called by one President "just a g'd piece of paper'. Wonder if anyone has ever asked Ron Paul if the Constitution as it is would be perfect for a completely free society where true liberty prevailed and self-rule worked. If not, what would such a Constitution look like to him?

Skin a Wabbit Plan: Never mind. It won't work! But i would be glad to do an OP with a ..."look what I found. It is really interesting and worth discussion. Only comment after you have read it completely. Tomorrow I will post my thoughts and hope you'll add yours."

And my comment would start with something like: We vote knowing our votes are not counted. We elect Congress knowing they don't represent us. We worship a Constitution that has not been consulted for a long time. We accept Supreme Court Judges who already have their script. We put our hand over our heart and pledge allegiance to a farce. We tear up singing as "our flag is still there" in countries where we are committing atrocities, etc.

What's left. We have been left behind. Time to rethink it because we elect to stay and rebuild the country we love for all it can be.


Why all the downvotes?

Read the OP well and then read it again! Don't necessarily agree with how it ended but that's why we're here isn't it?

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    Check out my blog:

    tasmlab's picture

    This reality shouldn't be embarrassing or upsetting

    If half the voting population had suddenly been able to digest Paul, I would've been shocked. All of the reasons above are true, in my opinion. But this shouldn't be disheartening - it's going to take a long time for these ideas to get out there and accepted.

    Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

    What Is UpSetting To Me

    ...is that this article is now approaching the most down-voted in DP history.

    I was hoping that as more commented and agreed, even in part, there would be a movement in the other direction.

    Yes, it will take a very long time; even longer if people are not able to digest the reality of our current situation and be willing to not only be "teachable", but also to listen to those who have studied the demise of the USA for decades and have a wisdom perspective to offer.

    As long as we have so many who do not read past an article title and "vote" their "superior" knowledge, we are hardly teachable. Optimism has its place and I am very much an optimist when I think (and I usually do) of 'in the fullness of time" and ponder what transitions could/should take place to change the current rather dismal paradigm.

    Yes, we have a "message" to sell-in which will require quite a shift for most. However, people should also realize that even Ron Paul only gave the watered down version of "the message" ... a simplified layer he felt might be digestible by enough people to start a movement in the right direction. Strong possibility that he would agree with most of what OctoBox said. Also, possibility they know each other.


    Michael Nystrom's picture

    Not quite the most downvoted ever in history...

    That honor, at -1,144, a record unlikely ever to be surpassed, goes to this post:


    Other highly negative rated posts can be found here:


    Via the blue bar up top. Thanks to our resident magician Joη.

    Should Have Checked Jon's Blue Bar!

    OctoBox could never reach that bar of distinction.

    Think it was about that time that Rand stopped saying "our supporters" and started saying "my dad's supporters."

    Wow. This place has to be a data collecting gold mine for those who make a living out of that kind of stuff or have other reasons to check which way the wind is blowing. Larger sample than many of the stupid polls out there. Add in a little "Who are you guys" research and there you have it! Nobody could accuse the DP of being secretive...we are an open book! Rare in political theater these days.


    Oh Fonta -- Was that a "chhhallange" (french accent)

    I do try, ever so little and humble as I am, *curtsy*

    Go For It

    ...you can shake my rafters anytime.

    Sarcasm Noted: You are certainly neither "little" nor "humble" and yet there are some of us who do not find the choir very melodic or worth listening to. We are "little" (uninformed) and "humble" (open to being teachable).

    We recognize in ourselves that we are both "wabbits" hiding in holes and "gwasshoppers" ready to learn.

    - 60 or whatever means that quite a few stopped at least to feel indignation at the title and the first couple of points. Others actually read and thought about what you wrote. Therefore, yes, I challenge you to break the "i refuse to listen" barrier.

    In fact, I double dare you! Curtsy back.


    americans liked obama so much

    that even though the race was neck and neck four million less people voted for him this time, than last time.

    There is only one reason why Paul would have lost

    And why Romney did as well:

    The takers now officially outnumber the makers.

    Unemployed college graduates probably boosted Obama's numbers for than any other group.

    RON PAUL 2012

    The Obama campaign machine and their

    number 1 SuperPac (the media) would have thrown everything they had at Ron and Dr. Paul would have not been given an equal chance to refute the lies and misinformation because Sheldon Addison, Donald Trump and the Republican big wigs would have abandoned Paul and the media would have blacked him out.

    If we're ever going to win, we've got to do the five following things:
    1) Turn the majority of Americans against the mainstream media.
    2) Teach the majority of Americans what the Constitution is.
    3) Turn the majority of Americans against Woodrow Wilson.
    4) Turn the majority of Ameticans against FDR.
    5) Turn the majority of Americans against LBJ.

    "The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

    Why is this on the front page?

    Seriously, why the fuck is this on the front page? It's absurd. Get your shit together, guys.

    Thank You to the Poster Above

    ...for illustrating in such a colorful manner a few of the OP's points. I now feel compelled to read a relatively new topic on the DP titled "Is Universal Suffrage a Bad Idea."