Why do you call yourself a Libertarian when you hate Ron Paul and are trying to stop him from winning????!!!!
I’m not a big-L Libertarian — a member of the Libertarian Party — but I’m generally a small-L libertarian. However, I don’t hate Ron Paul. In fact, I like the guy. (He’s my favorite statist.) As I’ve carefully explained, I admire him and I’d be happy if he won. But he can’t win, for reasons that I’ve also outlined. I don’t know how to be more clear than I’ve been.
This is our last chance to take our country back. Ron Paul has to prevail for liberty to win. Even if he doesn’t, we’re educating people and will win another time.
First, your statement presupposes that there was some golden age of freedom until the nasty progressives took over. (Or maybe the social conservatives are your enemy. I don’t know. I’m just guessing.) The truth is that there was more economic freedom a hundred years ago, for the most part, but there was much less freedom in other areas. In terrible fits and stops, there’s been some progress in the area of social freedom, even if I don’t like the methods used to get here at times. (Ask minority groups how much freedom they had in some places 50 years ago.) We weren’t all free in the past. Not 20 years ago. Not 50 years ago. Not a hundred years ago. There’s nothing to “take back.” We’re shooting for something that hasn’t been done before.
Second, there’s no evidence that people are educated in campaigns, at least not in substantial numbers. You can cite your buddy, Steve, or your friend’s sister’s boyfriend, Jim Bob, maybe. (Or maybe even you.) But if you look at the big picture — the number of people who identify with libertarian positions — it’s not really changing. When I got into libertarians politics more than 20 years ago, we were taught that we could educate people and we’d end up with a libertarian world (or at least enough to win elections). It hasn’t happened, and my campaign experience convinces me that it never will happen in enough numbers to matter. Sorry, but I’m being realistic.
I’m not giving up without a fight and if your such a [adjective deleted] [noun deleted] that you won’t fight with us you don’t deserve [noun deleted].
So if people don’t agree with you about how to fight for freedom, they don’t deserve freedom, huh? What if I think you’re wrong in your approach? Are you saying that I have an obligation to fight the way you want me to? Exactly which version of individual freedom do you believe in, my friend?
I don’t have a responsibility to choose your path, just as you don’t have a responsibility to choose mine. I believe your way — that of electing a new bunch of people to run the machinery of the state — is not only doomed to fail, but it’s immoral as well. The problem with the state isn’t that we don’t have the right people running it. The problem is that it exists and has power to control our lives. So in addition to the fact that I don’t believe Ron Paul has a chance in the world of winning — now or ever — I wouldn’t support the system even if he could win. It would still be a dictatorship of the majority.
Why aren’t you talking about the rampant fraud that’s keeping Ron Paul from winning? First the media did their blackout on him because they were afraid of him winning. When that didn’t work, the people doing the polls tried to control them. The honest ones are the online ones cause they’re harder to control. Everytime there’s a web poll, we win it until they delete our votes. Now there’s vote fraud in Nevada big time and I heard he really won Iowa and that was rigged too. I see it all over Facebook so why aren’t you reporting on this?
Before we can talk about this, you’re going to have to take off the tinfoil hat. Yes, seriously. I know that you’re reading bizarro claims such as the one I saw from a Facebook friend today saying that Paul actually won 71 percent of the Nevada vote, but it’s pure conspiracy-theory nonsense with zero foundation in facts.
I’m not reporting the colorful story you’re laying out because I believe it’s an absolutely delusional story. I’m sure you mean well, but you’re lying to yourself to avoid facing the painful truth that other people don’t want the laws (or lack of laws) that you want.
There hasn’t been a media blackout. Paul has gotten lots of coverage, especially considering how little actual support he has and how little actual chance he has of winning. His followers are rabid and committed, but there just aren’t as many of them as you think there are.
I’ve talked before about why straw polls and web “polls” aren’t really polls, but I doubt you’re going to believe me. Regardless, it’s true. Paul doesn’t have the massive amount of support that you believe based on the self-selecting samples on website “polls.”
Last, I haven’t seen any evidence of voter fraud in this election so far. There might be a little. (There usually is some attempt at fraud in an election, even if it’s small.) But even if we believe your conspiracy theory that there’s a location or two where there’s been massive fraud — which I don’t believe yet — it wouldn’t make a difference.
At some point, you have to quit making up excuses and admit that most other people simply don’t agree with you. They don’t support Paul and they’re not going to. You really need to take off the tinfoil hat and start getting into touch with reality. Conspiracy theories just make it harder to deal with reality.
If you have a question for David, drop him a line at firstname.lastname@example.org. He can’t promise to answer all questions, but he’ll try. He also can’t promise not to make fun of you if the question is especially funny.