The Grand Shi Strategy of Freedom is Hard at Work

[HoneyBadger]

Independent from annoying party lines, the "Grand Shi" strategy is hard at work in the United States!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/07/29/the-grand-shi-strategy-of-ron-paul (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/07/29/the-grand-shi-strategy-of-ron-paul/)


The strategy of these forces are visible in the past Republican presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. To some, Paul’s stubborn persistence in the campaign has been just that: a stubborn unwillingness to lie down and die despite evidence of sure defeat. But what they have missed is a common misperception of a subtle yet powerful age-old strategy at play.

Edited to add: I don't want to start another Ron Paul/3rd party pissing match. This article mentions Ron Paul a lot, but he is done running for office after this presidential election is over. The "Grand Shi" strategy refers to the ideas of liberty and freedom spreading across America. I think this is really good news for all of us Liberty-loving Americans, (even you cranky old guys that like to shoot down every new political idea (http://www.ar-15.co/forums/member.php?u=1119)). Now, play nice and don't call each other names [Tooth]

[TFOGGER]

Now, play nice and don't call each other names [Tooth]


You're quite the optimist today...[ROFL1]


I think the idea of taking back our political system from the career politicians is a wonderful one. A 3rd party candidate may help to foster that change...

[HoneyBadger]

You're quite the optimist today...[ROFL1]


Hahaha I know, right?

This is not what I want this thread to focus on, but since you brought it up...

The more conversations I have and the more research I do, I am becomming more and more confident that a 3 party system cannot work in the united states, mostly for the reason that most (if not all) legislation requires 51% or 2/3 of the vote in the house or senate and you will never get that kind of support as a percentage with 3 distinct parties.

That being said, a 3rd party could certainly come in and replace one of the current 2 mainstream parties, but what I think is more likely (and honestly I think it would be easier) is that one or both of the parties could have internal revolutions. This is exactly what Ron Paul has done this election cycle. This is what the TEA party has been doing. This is what Senator Jim DeMint is doing. This is exactly what Ted Cruz just did in Texas. The party is changing. People are getting sick of losing their liberties and getting trampled on by the federal elephant in the room. You can resist the change and be a PITA, or you can join the momentum and turn the Republican party back into the party of liberty, freedom, limited government, and personal responsibility.

/rant

[Rucker61]

The problem with one of the current parties being taken over by more conservative/liberal elements is that it makes capturing the important moderate middle swing voters that much more difficult. If the moderates ever organize politically, they will be the true power in politics. However, since not even moderates have a good definition of "moderate", that organization is unlikely to happen.

[HoneyBadger]

The problem with one of the current parties being taken over by more conservative/liberal elements is that it makes capturing the important moderate middle swing voters that much more difficult. If the moderates ever organize politically, they will be the true power in politics. However, since not even moderates have a good definition of "moderate", that organization is unlikely to happen.


I guess we'll have to wait and see. I think the next presidential election (2016) will speak a lot to this topic.

[Storm]

I just posted that article on FB on a friends wall that is very much a Paulite (I am too, but am realistic about his chances).

I think that, if we can make it through the next few years financially and economically, with so many younger voters (20-30 somethings) on the Ron Paul bandwagon, we may have a more libertarian government in the future (perhaps with Rand Paul as President). I would surmise from my own recollections of (err) youth, that many of these voters may have become liberal or Democrats, had RP not been around. I find that encouraging.

I just hope they don't get co-opted by either of the two main parties establishment or their ideals diluted with age and cynicism at the process.

I don't think that this will happen soon. At the earliest, 8-10 years out and perhaps as long as 20 years.

[Great-Kazoo]

The problem with one of the current parties being taken over by more conservative/liberal elements is that it makes capturing the important moderate middle swing voters that much more difficult. If the moderates ever organize politically, they will be the true power in politics. However, since not even moderates have a good definition of "moderate", that organization is unlikely to happen.


I'm in agreement (write the date & time) both sides of the aisle have become tools of extreme ideology. Both sides refusal, or insistence they adhere to certain "Party" ideals is making it more difficult for the moderates to pick a candidate they feel shares the same ideals.
Steve Forbes was not a solid R person, however he had ideas i liked. Because he did not have "charisma" OR was dismissed by the "old guard" of the GOP he faded from view.

Bob Schaeffer is a good example (for me) of a person who had great potential to get back in the game. Even though i did not agree with 100% of his politics, he had focus when in office and i hoped he would be able to revive that momentum. What happens? The GOOD OL Boys (MONEY) within the party went, No Way and we lost with the stinker the R's chose.

As long as the 2 party system, with the help of the media, maintains their grip, a 3rd party has little chance of becoming a full blown threat.
When a viable person starts to rise outside of the D or R mold, they get dismissed as a fringe element that no one should take seriously.

When the people can get their act together a 3rd even 4th party may yet rise. I see the disappointment of voters on both the R & D side possibly bring this to reality in the near future.

[CO Hugh]

My understanding, from some seminars and articles, is that our constitutional system is designed to be a two party system. The analysis is usually in articles related to the electoral college system.

Generally, the federal government was designed to avoid multi party systems due to the chaos they create, such as in Europe. My understanding is also that a parliamentary system is not like the House of Representatives, for instance parties, selection of candidates and proportional representation is more top down than bottom up like here.

The arguments I have heard is that the two party system forces voters and coalitions to form pre election, whereas in a multiparty system you vote for your candidate and if they win figure out later how to form a coalition government, such as Europe, which leads to weird alliances and chaos even in the larger countries, such as Germany and England.

We have to demand accountability from our officials, no matter what party they are in, but particularly the Republicans. The Republicans under Bush lost their core values and lost their seats. If there is an establishment it is the elected officials, who succumb to the lifestyle and lobbyist pressures.

Get active and hold officials accountable, especially on everyone's major issue here gun control don't give any quarter.

[ScooterCO]

I think core values have been lost by both sides.. and both have lost all meanings of responsibility of duty to the citizen.
The only solution I maintain and promote is term limits for Congress and the Senate and the repeal of a pay check for life after service! How were they ever able to get that one past us? We were asleep that day.
Honor back in Washington!

[Great-Kazoo]

My understanding, from some seminars and articles, is that our constitutional system is designed to be a two party system. The analysis is usually in articles related to the electoral college system.

Generally, the federal government was designed to avoid multi party systems due to the chaos they create, such as in Europe. My understanding is also that a parliamentary system is not like the House of Representatives, for instance parties, selection of candidates and proportional representation is more top down than bottom up like here.

The arguments I have heard is that the two party system forces voters and coalitions to form pre election, whereas in a multiparty system you vote for your candidate and if they win figure out later how to form a coalition government, such as Europe, which leads to weird alliances and chaos even in the larger countries, such as Germany and England.

We have to demand accountability from our officials, no matter what party they are in, but particularly the Republicans. The Republicans under Bush lost their core values and lost their seats. If there is an establishment it is the elected officials, who succumb to the lifestyle and lobbyist pressures.

Get active and hold officials accountable, especially on everyone's major issue here gun control don't give any quarter.


It only became a 2 party system over time.