[GLIL] Re: Ron Paul would be soundly defeated

Ron Paul is pushing the most important libertarian views of our time:
That aggressive war, the US empire, the war on terror and the war on
Iraq are wrong; that preemptive nuclear war on Iran must be opposed.

The US war machine is the most evil of all US government programs, and
it is the greatest threat to American liberty and world peace.

I am astounded by any libertarians that don't see how crucial this
issue is. It is as though it were the 1840s and the big debate was on
slavery, and a bunch of libertarians were attacking the loudest
abolitionist in the country on the basis of his support for local
internal improvements.

--- In GLIL@yahoogroups. com, Jim Peron <esteem@...> wrote:

Oh dear.

I've been sorting through some of the e-mails in the
digest today, and this one was the most amusing.

Let's accept the questionable premise that
Libertarians must abandon all other libertarian issues
in order to support a major party candidate who is
opposed to the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and
preventing a war on Iran.

Barack Obama, not Ron Paul, is the logical choice.
Ron Paul doesn't even place.

Obama is outspoken in opposition to all three
policies.

Barack Obama is the 2nd place candidate in the major
party favored to win the presidency. Ron Paul is the
last-place candidate in the major party favored to
lose the presidency.

Barack Obama has 12x the campaign funds and 32x the
popular support of Ron Paul. Ron Paul's support (and
campaign funds) are a rounding error to Obama.

It's not even close -- if Libertarian voters are to
abandon all other issues to focus exclusively on an
anti-war major party candidate, Obama is the logical
choice with every measure of "electability" out there.

Now let's accept the other end of the argument -- that
many Libertarians choose to support an anti-war
candidate who also holds libertarian beliefs.

Here, a number of LP top-tier candidates are all
better choices. All of them have about the same
likelihood of winning the White House as Ron Paul --
but they're not only opposed to the war machine, but
are uncompromisingly solid supporters of
libertarianism in general.

Either way, Ron Paul is a non-entity.

That's why these emotional appeals to support his
campaign are so damaging to the libertarian movement
as a whole. If you accept a "support a major party
candidate and ignore all other issues except these key
issues" argument, Ron Paul will always be the
least-funded, least-supported major party candidate
other than Gravel. And if you accept that we should
be willing to trade off "electability" to get a
candidate who is an unashamed libertarian on most
issues, then the LP candidates remain the better
choice.

Cheers,

Brian

--- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:

Brian, you are wrong. Obama has supported war with
Iran in the past and is a big supporter of the
military industrial complex. Some of his biggest
contributors are military contractors. Obama will be
no better than Hillary and Co. I feel Ron Paul or Mike
Gravel are the only honest guys there (and Kucinich on
the war) so really they are the only ones to support
on the war only. However, I think there are other
pressing issues that libertarians and Ron Paul are
fighting for. I also realize you won't be voting for
RP. Neither will Rob or Eric and a small handful of
other currently registered Libertarians. Okay, so
what. We as Ron Paul supporters need to go out and
find new recruits, supporters, and voters from the
ranks of the non voters, the youth, the otherwise
political homeless and get them turned onto Paul, and
his (our) ideals. Then, if/when he doesn't get the R
nod, these same voters and supporters and volunteers
can help LP candidates, preferably for winnable local
office or even for unwinnable President. We RP
supporters have to begin ignoring the ignorant ones on
this list who have no idea how you grow a political
party, which is always a small segment of a greater
political movement. So I will not be posting anymore
responses to Brian, Rob, Eric or others on this list
who won't support Ron Paul, because I would rather
convince those that don't know him, why they should
support him than convince those that hate him for a
few issues. I believe we will grow the party and
movement by finding and keeping these "fresh" minds
and either ignore or push out those dissenting voices
that do not want to grow the movement.

-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

Ah, I'd imagine that Obama supporters who are similar
to Paul supporters would mouth a few platitudes:

1) "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

2) "Obama is our best chance to stop most of the bad
stuff from happening now."

3) "Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected, we need
to support someone who does."

4) "We need to bring Obama supporters and grassroots
into the LP, so stop criticizing him from your purist
viewpoint."

I could think of others (they've been repeated all
throughout this discussion!) but I'll leave our gentle
readers to do that.

The point being that Ron Paul still fails the
essential test being offered under the Ron Paul
standard when compared to Obama ("imperfect on our
issues but closer than anyone else -- and electable")
as well as the LP candidates (better than Paul on all
the issues).

It's a bear trap of the Paul campaign's making --
unfortunately, it's going to have to gnaw its own leg
off to get out of it.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:

Brian, you are wrong. Obama has supported war with
Iran in the past and is a big supporter of the
military industrial complex. Some of his biggest
contributors are military contractors. Obama will be
no better than Hillary and Co. I feel Ron Paul or
Mike
Gravel are the only honest guys there (and Kucinich
on
the war) so really they are the only ones to support
on the war only. However, I think there are other
pressing issues that libertarians and Ron Paul are
fighting for. I also realize you won't be voting for
RP. Neither will Rob or Eric and a small handful of
other currently registered Libertarians. Okay, so
what. We as Ron Paul supporters need to go out and
find new recruits, supporters, and voters from the
ranks of the non voters, the youth, the otherwise
political homeless and get them turned onto Paul,
and
his (our) ideals. Then, if/when he doesn't get the R
nod, these same voters and supporters and volunteers
can help LP candidates, preferably for winnable
local
office or even for unwinnable President. We RP
supporters have to begin ignoring the ignorant ones
on
this list who have no idea how you grow a political
party, which is always a small segment of a greater
political movement. So I will not be posting anymore
responses to Brian, Rob, Eric or others on this list
who won't support Ron Paul, because I would rather
convince those that don't know him, why they should
support him than convince those that hate him for a
few issues. I believe we will grow the party and
movement by finding and keeping these "fresh" minds
and either ignore or push out those dissenting
voices
that do not want to grow the movement.

-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

> Oh dear.
>
> I've been sorting through some of the e-mails in
the
> digest today, and this one was the most amusing.
>
> Let's accept the questionable premise that
> Libertarians must abandon all other libertarian
> issues
> in order to support a major party candidate who is
> opposed to the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and
> preventing a war on Iran.
>
> Barack Obama, not Ron Paul, is the logical choice.

> Ron Paul doesn't even place.
>
> Obama is outspoken in opposition to all three
> policies.
>
> Barack Obama is the 2nd place candidate in the
major
> party favored to win the presidency. Ron Paul is
> the
> last-place candidate in the major party favored to
> lose the presidency.
>
> Barack Obama has 12x the campaign funds and 32x
the
> popular support of Ron Paul. Ron Paul's support
> (and
> campaign funds) are a rounding error to Obama.
>
> It's not even close -- if Libertarian voters are
to
> abandon all other issues to focus exclusively on
an
> anti-war major party candidate, Obama is the
logical
> choice with every measure of "electability" out
> there.
>
> Now let's accept the other end of the argument --
> that
> many Libertarians choose to support an anti-war
> candidate who also holds libertarian beliefs.
>
> Here, a number of LP top-tier candidates are all
> better choices. All of them have about the same
> likelihood of winning the White House as Ron Paul
--
> but they're not only opposed to the war machine,
but
> are uncompromisingly solid supporters of
> libertarianism in general.
>
> Either way, Ron Paul is a non-entity.
>
> That's why these emotional appeals to support his
> campaign are so damaging to the libertarian
movement
> as a whole. If you accept a "support a major
party
> candidate and ignore all other issues except these
> key
> issues" argument, Ron Paul will always be the
> least-funded, least-supported major party
candidate
> other than Gravel. And if you accept that we
should
> be willing to trade off "electability" to get a
> candidate who is an unashamed libertarian on most
> issues, then the LP candidates remain the better
> choice.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- bruce powell <brucemajorsdcre@...>
wrote:
>
> > From: Anthony Lee Gregory
> > <anthony.gregory@...>
> > To: GLIL@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 7:03:13 PM
> > Subject: [GLIL] Re: Ron Paul would be soundly
> > defeated
> >
> > Ron Paul is pushing the most important
libertarian
> > views of our time:
> > That aggressive war, the US empire, the war on
> > terror and the war on
> > Iraq are wrong; that preemptive nuclear war on
> Iran
> > must be opposed.
> >
> > The US war machine is the most evil of all US
> > government programs, and
> > it is the greatest threat to American liberty
and
> > world peace.
> >
> > I am astounded by any libertarians that don't
see
> > how crucial this
> > issue is. It is as though it were the 1840s and
> the
> > big debate was on
> > slavery, and a bunch of libertarians were
> attacking
> > the loudest
> > abolitionist in the country on the basis of his
> > support for local
> > internal improvements.
> >
> > --- In GLIL@yahoogroups. com, Jim Peron
> <esteem@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Not really, focus on the situation. This is
the
> > vote for a
> > > REPUBLICAN. Any Republican will get this
> > percentage unless they are
> > > are a gay, atheist, embezzler who is an
illegal
> > immigrant and Arab.
> > > There is absolutely no concern about what
> politics
> > Paul has here.
> > >
> > > And which libertarian views would it be that
are
> > getting promoted?
> > > The libertarian view that the Constitution has
> to
> > be changed to stop
> > > the children of non-documented immigrants from
> > being citizens? Is it
> > > the libertarian view that a multi billion wall
> has
> > to be built on the
> > > border and we have to deport people who live
in
> > the US without the
> > > prior permission of politicians? Is it the
> > libertarian view that will
> > > use eminent domain to build that wall along
with
> > billions in taxes to
> > > do so? Is the libertarian view that puts in
> > earmarks for subsidies to
> > > the shrimp industry?
> > >
> > > If it is then maybe it's better that it not
get

=== message truncated ===

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, bruce powell
<brucemajorsdcre@...> wrote:

From: Anthony Lee Gregory <anthony.gregory@...>

It is as though it were the 1840s and the big debate was on
slavery, and a bunch of libertarians were attacking the loudest
abolitionist in the country on the basis of his support for local
internal improvements.

LOL. Um, if it's 1840, then Ron Paul isn't the abolitionist. He's
the guy screaming "states rights" to defend state-based assaults on
individual liberty.

Ron Paul as the "loudest abolitionist" in 1840 is easily the least apt
analogy I've read in a decade.

Something tells me there's a mole in the Paul camp making these
ridiculous statements in an effort to undermine the campaign. Too
funny. :smiley:

Rob
(me not Outright...)