-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).

Comment viewing options

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

The fact that the LP doubled

The fact that the LP doubled their voter turnout suggests that more people are ready for a change.

Suggesting that elections are about pretty looks is disingenuous. Paul could have overcome that as well. It would be different, I suppose, if Paul looked like the Emperor from Star Wars. However, he looks real good at his age. I would dare say that he looks like everyone's favorite grandfather.

In a head to head debate against Obama, Ron would have shredded him. That is powerful in swaying voters. He would have shown how presidential he is and how out of league Obama really is.

________________________________________

Lots of people shop at JC

Lots of people shop at JC Penny. Nothing wrong or disingenuine about the way Ron looks. I think he looks presidential. He represents what America is.

or . . .

the election was rigged anyway. If so, who did it--

how and why?

Who? The globalist bankers' minions--
How? Computer programs to mess with voting machines where there are voting machines; where there are not voting machines, let it be.

Why? To gain complete control over those who are under their 'power' (because of financial dependency)

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Ron Paul is a thinking man--

and most Americans don't think.

Do they not think, because of fluoride/chemicals in food, etc.? Because of public education?
Because of the MSM?

Or are a majority of people non-thinkers?

Some can claim that the founding fathers believed a majority of people to be followers/non-thinkers--

but despots/tyrants/oligarchs have always taken advantage of at least that idea--

How do people learn to be free? How do they develop the freedom/thinking ability? Is it a gene?

I don't know. One of my parents was a thinker; the other was a follower with a good mind.

Why do people not want freedom?

Dr. Paul wanted to wake people up; he woke up some--

but many of *those* he woke up are still followers, still unable to find their own way without leadership--

It's hard to be a thinker/freedom lover in the closed box that is *our* present society/culture. Very hard--

Hard to break out, even if you want to--

so many rules, regulations; so many cameras--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Idk...both my parents voted

Idk...both my parents voted for Obama. I have no idea where I came out of! Lol!

I've been alone in my family for decades as well--

a sibling and that sibling's spouse joined my spouse and myself about 7 years ago in political belief; that was a wonderful moment.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

"How do people learn to be

"How do people learn to be free? How do they develop the freedom/thinking ability? Is it a gene?"

People can think for themselves just fine. They haven't seen or heard or anything worthy of changing their opinion, and thinking it's a problem "with their genes" insures they never will. You'll just make an enemy for life.

"Why do people not want freedom?"

Because they covet, and want to "live free" off another persons productive labor and property. They want slaves and plunder.

They see government force as a means to that end. It starts from the bottom and goes all the way to the top. Getting rid of government force won't stop it. The problem predates government force. All you can do is your best to insure that it's only used to defend liberty rather than answer peoples unjust prayers, or else government force becomes a tool of oppression and injustice.

The only way to learn how to think is by thinking.

_

Free includes debt-free!

Anarchist right?

Sorry, Anarchists aren't Libertarians.

They're godless Communists standing next to Libertarians holding a black flag screaming: "I am an enemy of the state!"

They're people who hate everything and everyone, and it flows out of them through their words. I've yet to encounter a single Anarchist who can explain themselves, and I say it's because they're phonies who can't tell you what they actually are.

Libertarians represent justice, and want a government that uses collective force to do one thing; defend peoples liberty.

"Freedom, liberty, and their common defense."

Anarchists represent the Judas Goats and naive, those who'd unleash mans covetous nature in a free market.

I can see why you hate the idea of a government that defends liberty.

Listen to yourself, and ask yourself; why would anybody believe that you want people to be free? You see them as soulless animals, something so stupid they can barely think. Why not just spread chaos and laugh into your hand as they kill each other, as they do what you couldn't do yourself?

Well I guess you think Thomas

Well I guess you think Thomas Paine was a godless communist... Sigh! Nothing like painting with a real broad brush there...

http://www.mises.org/daily/2897

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

I didn't say Thomas Paine was a Communist.

I said Anarchists can't explain themselves because they're either naive or misrepresenting themselves; LIARS.

"So what you think is (insert Anarchist garbage)."

Try some truth? Come on Anarchist?

EXPLAIN where you get your Justice from, and make sure that it sounds nothing like that evil "false deity" you call the government, that it in now way involves violence, faith, or any concept of an afterlife.

Tell me how you intend to deal with those who chose violence to take what they covet, those who team up against you, and buy the most muscle they can to take you and everyone you love as slaves?

Show me your enlightenment?

Enlightenment

Sure I'll enlighten you since you asked, the question is; are you willing to reconsider your position objectively?

You have redefined anarchist and use the media propaganda as your definition. Anarchy does not mean chaos and lawlessness. Your description of the anarchist as the lone wolf or group running around doing violence taking anything they want by force if they are able is a looter not an anarchist.

One of the longest standing societies in history was Anarchist. All their problems were settled through contracts sureties and private arbitration.

It was one of the longest running and freeest societies in history and the most sophisticated of its time the libertarian/anarchist society of the Ancient Irish Celts. 1000 years of relative peace and freedom! There were others also in Iceland and elsewhere. The modern cultural meaning of anarchy as chaos is incorrect. The modern myth that we need all the trappings of government we see today is just that; a myth!

The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts, however, has been neglected by historians until very recently. And this was also a society where not only the courts and the law were largely libertarian, but where they operated within a purely state-less and libertarian society. This was ancient IrelandÑan Ireland which persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe.

http://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/1000-years-of-iri...

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

We could learn a lot from the ancient celt society:

For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written:

'There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justiceÉ. There was no trace of State-administered justice.'

How then was justice secured? The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath. All 'freemen' who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies,

In the first place, the law itself was based on a body of ancient and immemorial custom, passed down as oral and then written tradition through a class of professional jurists called the brehons. The brehons were in no sense public, or governmental, officials; they were simply selected by parties to disputes on the basis of their reputations for wisdom, knowledge of the customary law, and the integrity of their decisions.

But what of the elected 'king'? Did he constitute a form of State ruler? Chiefly, the king functioned as a religious high priest, presiding over the worship rites of the tuath, which functioned as a voluntary religious, as well as a social and political, organization. As in pagan, pre-Christian, priesthoods, the kingly function was hereditary, this practice carrying over to Christian times. The king was elected by the tuath from within a royal kin-group (the derbfine), which carried the hereditary priestly function. Politically, however, the king had strictly limited functions: he was the military leader of the tuath, and he presided over the tuath assemblies. But he could only conduct war or peace negotiations as agent of the assemblies; and he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of administering justice over tuath members. He could not legislate, and when he himself was party to a lawsuit, he had to submit his case to an independent judicial arbiter.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf

As for those who do violence and loot they would be dealt with the same way society has always dealt with them even anarchist will collectively fight or eliminate a common enemy.

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

I haven't redefined anything.

I haven't redefined anything. You just don't like the fact that words have definitions.

Anarchy: "a state of society without government or law."

Anarchism :"a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty."

Anarchist: "a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism."

Anarchists think they get liberty with the abolishment of government restraint, but what they get is chaos. What they do is unleash the nature they need to pretend doesn't exit.

I get it, you think you're a good man. Good men do exist. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't care. I'd just watch as you get destroyed. But you're also naive if you can look around and think you'll get "liberty" when removing government restraint.

'There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justiceÉ. There was no trace of State-administered justice.'

I don't recognize your kangaroo courts "Brehon", and since you have no legislature, police, or public enforcement of justice, I should have no problem ganging people up and destroying those who exalted themselves, those who thought they were going lord over me with violence in a system in which I have no representation or association.

You want to see how bad things can get, that's fine.

Anarchists get beat in the street like dogs for a reason, for running their mouths, mocking everything and everyone, denigrating people of faith and calling anybody who didn't agree with them "sheep" and retards.

Bring on your "justice" Anarchist.

I am sorry I didn't realize I

I am sorry I didn't realize I was addressing a mentally challenged person.

an·ar·chy   [an-er-kee] Show IPA
noun
1. a state of society without government or law.

2.political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

3. anarchism ( def. 1 ) .
4. lack of obedience to an authority;

Literally means the opposite of hierarchy or no king or without government. AS the society I showed you proves is viable and maximizes freedom without government.

Some definitions call it disorder but that is a misnomer they are assuming like all the sheeple these days a lack of government means society automatically falls into disorder chaos etc which it not true as Thomas Paine points out quite succinctly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

For the record that society you said you would have no problem ganging people up and destroying those you claimed are exalted that society lasted 1000 years in relative peace and freedom.

No one was exalted the Brehons were private arbiters chosen by the conflicting parties to settle problems. They had no police powers or enforcement. it was enforced through surities. These people did everything privately including justice. If you failed to abide by the decision you were shunned and no one would do business with you ever again.

Just in case you missed it that's 1000 YEARS! That is 5 times longer then your precious constitution of a proven anarchist (without government) society dealing with their problems WITHOUT GOVERNMENT! So your ridiculous made up scenarios are really irrelevant since they have proven it works for 1000 years.

No harm no crime and honor your contracts what a concept! I guess people just can't handle having their illusions blown out of the water by facts and proof by a society that lived it for 1000 years.

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

So you favor slavery?

_

Free includes debt-free!

I will if Anarchists destroy what they don't understand.

It doesn't take a government or any statist for men to decide to use violence to take what they covet.

It goes all the way back, as far as our eyes can see. It predates any form of government or statism.

As of now, I'm a Libertarian, and what's the point of even mentioning liberty unless you know what threatens it; that there are people more than happy to take you as a slave, to kill you because they see you as excess garbage, something with no value polluting their mud ball, or at a minimum; something here to serve them.

Look around. The whole world is falling to debt slavery, and Anarchists claim to oppose what's happening, but refuse to do anything about other than try and snap their fingers thinking they can make mans covetous nature disappear.

Sorry. You don't have that power. You'll need a better plan.

If you ever have any doubt about mans true covetous nature, just look at all the pyramids that pollute the landscape like scars. I LOVE that they stand the test of time. They're like evidence.

It's like God himself wants to remind all you little Anarchists; evil men covet, want slaves, plunder, and they want to be your GOD.

So more government will solve everything?

Government always thinks it is God of all.

Free includes debt-free!

Like I said; Anarchists are totaly dishonest.

"So more government will solve everything?"

When did I argue that? Did you get the impression that Libertarians are fighting for "more government", or are you just another lying Anarchist who talks himself into corners?

"Government always thinks it is God of all"

Government WANTS to be the God of all, but it runs in cycles, and it always gets put in it's place. Collapse and rebirth, destruction born from a covetous mans nature.

It can't get what it wants, because men know the truth when they hear it, and no other man is your God.

Government never gets put back in it's place.

It never has. Instead of the random evils of greedy and mean human animals government is the institutionalized greed and meanness that lives for generations.

Patriotism is the recognition of government as our father (Pater).

I would rather be an idiot. One that was "on one's own" was a patronizing slur used by Ancient Greek Democratic Society. In Greek, that was idiots like me.

I'll have to read more about Socrates. He struck me a "on his own". He was executed by the State.

So when was government put in it's place?

Free includes debt-free!

"Instead of the random evils

"It never has"

Then what are you even working towards? Are you wasting your time, or are you like I said; a liar, and can't tell people what new form of tyranny you want to create.

"Instead of the random evils of greedy and mean human animals government is the institutionalized greed and meanness that lives for generations."

You want "random evils of greedy and mean human animals" instead of government? I can arrange that just fine.

"Patriotism is the recognition of government as our father (Pater)."

You think I view government as my Lord? Wrong. That IS the problem though, man worship, and it starts from the bottom and goes all the way to the top.

It starts from what Anarchists need to pretend doesn't exist; mans covetous nature. They need to believe that men are inherently good, that their is no flaw inside them causing the injustice and violence.

http://www.dailypaul.com/262123/the-liberty-message-is-poise...

Sorry. You won't be "on your own". The rest of humanity doesn't just disappear with Anarchy, nor does its covetous nature disappear because you want it to.

You'll just be "an idiot", something they prey on, something that has what they unjustly want and need, or simply something in the way because they want to be "on their own" too.

Getting rid of the self described "idiots" is how that begins.

Getting rid of people.

It how all patriots and tyrannical governments begin.

Still waiting for examples so show when any government has promoted liberty?

Free includes debt-free!

Look into Libertarianism.

"Still waiting for examples so show when any government has promoted liberty?"

Check out Libertarianism. It's the only real solution, and it doesn't work without addressing where injustice begins. I know Libertarianism is a foreign idea for you Anarchists, something that you've never looked into, but you really should.

I'm more than happy to use force against those who'd take your liberty, and you aren't, and that's why you'll NEVER get liberty.

Even as bad as our government is, it's still better than what you'd promote. I can't currently buy buy my own army and take you as a slave, although it's certainly getting easier and easier, which is the direction Anarchists hope to move things.

mercy!

Why so hateful of anarchists? Mercy, mercy!

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Then explain yourself

Tell me where I'm wrong.

You're darn right I hate the people who'd tear down something they don't understand while they run their mouths denigrating everything and everyone, calling the people I love soulless animals who can't think, exalting themselves and spreading chaos, hoping people will destroy each other, that they'll do what an Anarchist is too big a coward to do themselves; kill the people they hate and see as less than them.

All an Anarchist wants to do is destroy and spread chaos, to create a world of injustice, and they hope to do it by setting loose mans covetous nature in a world that won't meet injustice with collective force.

They claim to think they'll get justice from the free market in a world filled with violent and covetous people.

It's time to wake up and see Anarchists for what they are.

They aren't that dumb. Look at what the covetous horde has already done to the world. They want to set that loose in a free market rather than try and address the problem, and the problem can't be ignored. It goes with us everywhere we go and there's no hiding from it, it's inside us, and an Anarchist wants to deny that nature exists, pretend that it's the states doing, while they encourage people to call themselves animals and serve their libertine nature.

you are overgeneralizing and . . .

collectivizing--

I don't know which anarchists you are talking about, but the only anarchists I have ever met are people who simply want to be left alone and don't trust governments.

I suppose that during the 20s (or earlier) there were people who mobbed and burned who called themselves anarchists, but I think that was just a convenient label.

*They* equals collectivizing--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

You aren't alone, and that's not what Anarchists get. Sorry.

"the only anarchists I have ever met are people who simply want to be left alone and don't trust governments"

Satan Claus knows you want to just be left alone; that's why liberty is the enemy of all covetous men. A covetous person can't just leave you alone, because you have what they unjustly want; productive labor, something worth stealing.

Whether government or free market goon squads sold to the highest bidder, tomAtoes, tomatOes, it's all just a gun tempting covetous people.

So you need a ruler, to dictate the terms of your life.

_

Free includes debt-free!

I want liberty.

Liberty is anything but "dictating the terms of my life" and I know I'll never get it without justice.

The man who'll rule you doesn't NEED anything from you either, but he'll CHOOSE to take everything from you. He covets, and if you have nothing he wants, he'll just to get rid of you. Your death alone will be enough.

He'll take all your productive abilities, anything of value, and use it to serve his will, and he'll do it through force; VIOLENCE against you and everybody you love.

That's what Anarchists want to set loose in the free market, because they're either naive or WANT that unleashed.

You don't know yourself, and deny your own nature, and that's why the people who DO know themselves and their enemy will always win.

They win because they know you think they care about justice. They don't. They're destroyers who covet. They want injustice.

Liberty is their enemy for a reason; it's where justice begins. In the future a destroyer imagines, his slaves have never even heard the word "liberty".

"Know thyself and your enemy, and you will win all battles; know thyself and not thy enemy, for every victory there will be a defeat; know neither yourself nor your enemy and you'll be defeated all the time." Sun-Tzu, The Art of War

you sound

like a skeptic and he won you over. Don't under-estimate the truth.

Americans are confused, which is part of the plan. The media outlets are positioned with political nut jobs that are settling past scores from the 2 party paradigm. The "news" is a stage where criminals blame each other and hide their own misconduct.

Sort of like 2 used desperate car salesmen claiming to give a better deal and the buyer ends up with just the same junk

I tend to agree, but...

Ha ha Its been a long time since I have read something from you (haven't been here in a long time) and if I recall correctly I often disagreed with you.

However I agree with your points about people in general but disagree that Ron would not have won. Had the republican party nominated him the republican blind voters would have voted for him and he pulls enough of a cross section to put him over the top had he got the exposure he would have as the nominee...

However as you pointed out he did not get the nomination precisely because of the points you mention so I guess it is a moot point... Good post though.

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!