Why voting for the best candidate is important
mammasan
Posts: 5,656
This is the problem that faces many voters in this day and age. To vote for the candidate we truly believe in or the one most likely to win. Many times I have been told that a vote for a non-mainstream candidate is simply throwing away my vote. I strongly disagree with anyone who would believe this to be so. Someone sent me this article and it reinforced my belief that we can make a difference. While candidates like Gavel, Kucinich or Paul have no shot at winning the White House they still can generate enough energy and ethusiasm to force change. I hope that you guys find this article as inspiring and hopeful as I did.
Why Ron Paul Won in 2008
Published by Colin June 5, 2008 in Essays, Politics and Current Events.
With a headline like this, it must be first mentioned that this is not a paranoid conspiratorial piece on how delegates were STOLEN (all caps), votes weren’t counted or the major media somehow sabotaged the Ron Paul campaign. Rather, it is important to take a realistic look at the goals that Ron Paul’s campaign set out to accomplish, and examine how he fared.
First of all, did Ron Paul actually enter this election to win? Before we start getting our competitive juices flowing, just think about what Ron Paul stands for and what a realistic assessment of this kind of “victory” would have meant. He would have gone to the Oval Office with a congress that absolutely hated and loathed him, departments that feared him and would fight him as though their jobs were at stake (which they would be) and a public (after fickle popular support had waned) which was bewildered with the kind of radical policies and actions that were coming from the president. A Ron Paul presidency may have destroyed the best fruits of his candidacy.
Ron Paul’s campaign has always been a bottom-up phenomenon. Secondly, it is a more purely philosophical and ideological agenda - rather than a pragmatic political one. While many have criticized that this is a bad thing - is it not more beneficial in the long-term to sacrifice an election in order to generate hundreds of thousands of individual awakenings to liberty?
Rather than being humble, Paul was being very honest when he said countless times that the campaign wasn’t about him, but about the people who supported him. Paul’s campaign jarred the intellectually lazy and cynical over a few months (which may have been all they needed), and made them take a moment to consider what freedom, consitutionalism and liberty really mean. He showed us what a free society should look like.
This is key, because rather than end up in a politically neutered position of central power, Ron Paul has lit the spark of changed hearts and minds. And for those that have not changed, especially many conservatives, they have had to reconsider what kind of GOP they now support. Paul’s campaign was in the spotlight for enough time to act as a mirror against the new GOP - and show conservatives just how long it’s been since they took a good look at themselves - many of them no longer recognizing their own faces.
Ron Paul’s expectations have been wildly exceeded by his campaign. For the first time in decades, there is an active block of people who are learning about the evils of central banking, empire-building and welfarism. These aren’t the crazies and kooks who were in the cracks of society, burying guns in Idaho - these are regular folks, who work regular jobs and have become evangelical about the message of freedom.
This movement, which has been scattered and divided across the spectrum: libertarians, constitutionalists, republicans, democrats, independents, anarchists and even some former socialists have been united under Paul’s big tent platform. And while it may be easy to ridicule the conspiracy theorists, it is a testimony to the movement that they now join with college professors, intellectuals and businessmen. Or the atheists, homosexual activists and objectivists now aligning with radical Christians and New Agers. These people now realize that they have more in common than they once thought - and while disagreements remain, there is now more than a undefined dissatisfaction with what has happened in America, but a visible way out.
John McCain or Barack Obama will go to the White House in 2008. But their policies, which favour a continuation of America’s slow decline into the also-rans of history, will prove Ron Paul right again. People like BJ Lawson, Murray Sabrin and Carl Bunce are setting themselves up as future advocates. Many of these would have never thought to seek political office, but have been inspired by the optimism and hope that Ron Paul exampled.
Ron Paul won in 2008, by taking the exact opposite approach of most politicians. Instead of coalition building, compromising, pandering and standing for nothing and everything at the same time, Paul explicitly denounced the problems we have created and boldly proclaimed the solutions found in freedom and liberty. Ron Paul has mobilized many in the coming generation to build a better future. This long-term investment may not have resulted in an immediate gratification, but over time, compounded with interest, this movement may very well pay off.
Why Ron Paul Won in 2008
Published by Colin June 5, 2008 in Essays, Politics and Current Events.
With a headline like this, it must be first mentioned that this is not a paranoid conspiratorial piece on how delegates were STOLEN (all caps), votes weren’t counted or the major media somehow sabotaged the Ron Paul campaign. Rather, it is important to take a realistic look at the goals that Ron Paul’s campaign set out to accomplish, and examine how he fared.
First of all, did Ron Paul actually enter this election to win? Before we start getting our competitive juices flowing, just think about what Ron Paul stands for and what a realistic assessment of this kind of “victory” would have meant. He would have gone to the Oval Office with a congress that absolutely hated and loathed him, departments that feared him and would fight him as though their jobs were at stake (which they would be) and a public (after fickle popular support had waned) which was bewildered with the kind of radical policies and actions that were coming from the president. A Ron Paul presidency may have destroyed the best fruits of his candidacy.
Ron Paul’s campaign has always been a bottom-up phenomenon. Secondly, it is a more purely philosophical and ideological agenda - rather than a pragmatic political one. While many have criticized that this is a bad thing - is it not more beneficial in the long-term to sacrifice an election in order to generate hundreds of thousands of individual awakenings to liberty?
Rather than being humble, Paul was being very honest when he said countless times that the campaign wasn’t about him, but about the people who supported him. Paul’s campaign jarred the intellectually lazy and cynical over a few months (which may have been all they needed), and made them take a moment to consider what freedom, consitutionalism and liberty really mean. He showed us what a free society should look like.
This is key, because rather than end up in a politically neutered position of central power, Ron Paul has lit the spark of changed hearts and minds. And for those that have not changed, especially many conservatives, they have had to reconsider what kind of GOP they now support. Paul’s campaign was in the spotlight for enough time to act as a mirror against the new GOP - and show conservatives just how long it’s been since they took a good look at themselves - many of them no longer recognizing their own faces.
Ron Paul’s expectations have been wildly exceeded by his campaign. For the first time in decades, there is an active block of people who are learning about the evils of central banking, empire-building and welfarism. These aren’t the crazies and kooks who were in the cracks of society, burying guns in Idaho - these are regular folks, who work regular jobs and have become evangelical about the message of freedom.
This movement, which has been scattered and divided across the spectrum: libertarians, constitutionalists, republicans, democrats, independents, anarchists and even some former socialists have been united under Paul’s big tent platform. And while it may be easy to ridicule the conspiracy theorists, it is a testimony to the movement that they now join with college professors, intellectuals and businessmen. Or the atheists, homosexual activists and objectivists now aligning with radical Christians and New Agers. These people now realize that they have more in common than they once thought - and while disagreements remain, there is now more than a undefined dissatisfaction with what has happened in America, but a visible way out.
John McCain or Barack Obama will go to the White House in 2008. But their policies, which favour a continuation of America’s slow decline into the also-rans of history, will prove Ron Paul right again. People like BJ Lawson, Murray Sabrin and Carl Bunce are setting themselves up as future advocates. Many of these would have never thought to seek political office, but have been inspired by the optimism and hope that Ron Paul exampled.
Ron Paul won in 2008, by taking the exact opposite approach of most politicians. Instead of coalition building, compromising, pandering and standing for nothing and everything at the same time, Paul explicitly denounced the problems we have created and boldly proclaimed the solutions found in freedom and liberty. Ron Paul has mobilized many in the coming generation to build a better future. This long-term investment may not have resulted in an immediate gratification, but over time, compounded with interest, this movement may very well pay off.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
One question...can't we find a fringe candidate that doesn't look or sound goofy? That would help the cause!!!!
I hope less people see this as a loss and more see it as an opportunity to slowly effect real effective and positive change for the future. Perhaps as the generations move foward more people will look to the platform rather than the DNC RNC as they make primary choices.
It really was. I also think that Paul succeed in more ways than say Nader, Kucinich and Gavel (nothing against them) is because he did make his campaign about more than just himself. It wasn't so much a campaign for President as it was a movement for real change.
http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Exactly, good point.
Well part of it is that the media paints these men in that light. I'm sure that men like Nader, Kucinich, Gavel and Paul are extremely articulate and intelligent. The media will never portray them that way. It is far easier to write them off as kooks and weirdos that to actually debate them.
seriously tho, it would be nice to have a 'fringe' candidate who actually isn't referred to as fringe, but seen as a real possibility to get elected.
interesting read indeed.
altho i must say i really don't appreciate the foregone conclusion that status quo is exactly what we will get if obama is in office, but whateva...not the point of this thread.
i can honestly say i have *believed* in the presidential candidates i have voted for in the past, thought they were the best choice of the lot each election cycle...sans one. 2004 was a rough year. i don't understand why in 2008 we imo had so many 'better' choices...but back in 2004......ugh. eh well.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Nope, all you have to do is look at them and hear them speak...they do it to themsleves.
I think it's just a coincidence, and certainly not a reason to dismiss them, but they are certainly some weirdos.
Hahaha...I was going to put fringe in quotes.
How does Nader make himself look bad? I mean he may sound dry to some who don't wanna be bogged down with many details but the man is a very articulate, eloquent and passionate speaker.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UzxIxXj5K_M
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Goofy looking and boring!!!!!!!
I'm mostly joking...and mostly refering to your hero DK and Ron Paul.
Look at McCain, Bush, Hillary these people don't sound a little fucked up too you. Yes Some of the "fringe" candidates may sound a little off their rocker only because we are not used to hearing politicians being honest and upfront. We are so used to the double speak and bullshit that to hear an actual honest politician knocks us for a bit of a loop.
Oh Dennis is just before his time.(and that's the truth) Leave him alone, cincy!
And what about Ron Paul? I like the way he speaks. he speaks like he cares and is a good person instead of talking down to people like he knows what's best for them even if they don't. He clearly takes the time to explain his stance to people because he knows he's being authentic and true....he doesn't dodge tough questions and look for some way to spin like the mainstreamers. He always takes the questions presented to him head on because he has clear and honest reasoning to back him up and he's not busy trying to cover up why he has said or voted a certain way like the others all have to do when asked.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Bingo!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Like I said, I'm joking around about the 2 trolls.
You're right though...GW fits in pretty well, and Obama with thos ears???? BUt I disagree about McCain and even (can't believe I'm saying this) Hillary.
I wasn't refering to what they say...just how they talk.
Except that lovely little troll that Abook loves so much, DK even talks about Aliens!!!
Ok, I'll stop now. Once you got past the craziness of Ron Paul, he certainly did have some good things to listen to.
Goofy must be the new word for extremely logical response.
We're simply not used to people making too much sense!! There's no catch phrases and cheerleading involved! Yes we can!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Cincy, do you actually think we are the only lifeforms in the whole universe or other universes? That, to me, is a crazy thought but whateves.
And what's crazy about Paul? I'll give you that he has some whacked out supporters but hey every candidate does.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Oh yeah, Cincy's a conservative....what was I thinking? He probably doesn't even believe in evolution.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But without sloganeering, how will we feel patronised and condescended to?
Maybe they could break it down into Dick and Jane type sentences for our attention span's sake....but 'yes we can' kinda already fits that bill.
Tell me what else we can do, oh wise and powerful one's!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
see, that was funny!
i bet even cincy sees it too.
maybe we need a REAL fring party, as in "the fringe party"...much like the green party, the democratic party, etc.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
the only sensible post in this thread, and i'm sure it will get largely ignored. it doesn't fit into the group paulsterbation display that this thread is intended to be.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Hahaha...you take me too seriously sometimes.
What's crazy abotu Ron Paul????? You're telling me that if you saw him on a street corner, giving a speach, you wouldn't think..."Man that guy looks a little off and his delivery is a little kooky...even if he makes sense."
I would probably put a dollar in his coffee cup ...
for the least they could possibly do