SilentScope001 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 In 2004, the Grassroots were for Howard Dean. Howard Dean lost. The grassroots cried, and then...left. 2008, the Grassroots were for Ron Paul. Ron Paul lost. The grassroots cried, and then...left. What will happen in 2012? Will those same grassrooters go and support a second Ron Paul bid? Or has he gone too 'old', and so get quickly ignored for some OTHER candinate? Could they endorse, say, a Mayan Priest for the President of the US, in order to lead it past the terrible December 12th, 2012 "end of the world" business? But that candinate may lose. Come 2016, can another crazy grassroot candinate arise and gain their support? My god! What happens if one of these grassroots candinates actually wins? Even in the best case, you will get people spamming "Vote for [iNSERT CANDINATE HERE!]" on every webboard, making you lose your sanity. But worst of all...I am paranoid that these grassrooters only stay for one candinate, and then leave when they get bored of that candinate, and sign up for the next crazy man/woman/alien. Instablity may be bad. So, um, am I just too worried about this trend? Or could it lead to something bad? (NOTE: To everyone who support Ron Paul and who is a TRUE supporter of Liberterian ideals, I salute you for party loyalty. I have nothing against Ron Paul, and do like the idea of the gold standard. However, my attack is not on you, but rather on Grassrooters who flee one Presidental Candinate to another Presidental Candinate due to a internet fad. They don't join Ron Paul because they agree with his policy on the gold standard and trimming the government, they join Ron Paul because he looks like a new face, is against the Iraq War, and basically sends a standard "I hate the two-party system so this guy MUST be okay, really". And that I fear these Grassrooters will abandon Ron Paul come 2012.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I think better words might be unorganized and unfocused. The internet might be a place where you can express your feelings on an issue with almost immediate gratification, but that doesn't raise the funds necessary to field a candidate to get your views represented in government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I actually fear the day when the internet grass roots campain succeeds.... Imagine all campaigns spending a bulk of their cash on internet campaigns... Ugh... there won't be a single place on the internet without "Vote for my guy!!!!" spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoiuyWired Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Well... and you wonder how Palpy get to be Galatic Emperor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Well, he ousted Supreme Chancellor Valorum with a Vote of No Confidence, used the large sympathy vote to get him into the Chancellorship, manipulated the Confederacy as well as Jar Jar to grant him emergency powers, played the puppet game for a few years, allowed himself to get kidnapped by Grievous, thus getting rid of the Dooku loose end, set Anakin up to bring Mace Windu and his ownage squad to his office, burned his face off during the fight, got Windu killed, then used his new deformities to gain even more sympathy in the Senate, allowing him to declare himself Galactic Emperor. Wait, you were being rhetorical. If they go by their present standard, they'll never win. Ron Paul and Howard Dean both had no prayer. Howard Dean was nuts, and Ron Paul is just out there. He loses the conservative support by suggesting we back out of Iraq, and he loses the Liberal support by suggesting that we back out of the United Nations. He was about as likely to getting the nomination as Beelzebub is to being made into the next Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MdKnightR Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 2008, the Grassroots were for Ron Paul. Ron Paul lost. The grassroots cried, and then...left. It ain't over til its over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 You do realize that Paul will end up being no more than a spoiler (like Perot, John Anderson or Nader) in the general election? I think you really are going to need a grass roots party effort to put people in Congress first before the current system shifts from being a 2-part one at the presidential level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jvstice Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Silentscope: Actually the randomness I like because it makes our leaders a little less sure of themselves and keeps them looking over their shoulders and hopefully a bit more mindful that they have a large dissatisfied number of citizens looking for change. As long as they refuse to govern the majority well and aim to please partisan special interests against the good of their country, they should rest a little less comfortably, and the grass roots serves as just that kind of reminder. It also serves to change the nature of the debates that form. Do you really think that the Clinton & Bush debates would have covered remotely the same content if Perot didn't get the other two candidates talking about the deficit? MidknightR & Totenkopf: I'm not hopeful. In this country when a 3rd party has gone mainstream it has never just been because some people just lined up behind 1 person running for president, but that person had other people running for office at all levels of government who largely shared some of their ideals. Ron Paul needs people on the Sheriff, mayor, city council, and congressional ballots if he really wants to get serious about some fo the changes he's talking about and be percieved as such by the mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted February 26, 2008 Author Share Posted February 26, 2008 Silentscope: Actually the randomness I like because it makes our leaders a little less sure of themselves and keeps them looking over their shoulders and hopefully a bit more mindful that they have a large dissatisfied number of citizens looking for change Except for the very leader who gets the support of the grassroots and becomes too addicted to its praise and reveals himself/herself to be egoistic. But, yeah, I get what you mean. Still, the randomness disturbs me a bit. If they stayed with one person, I'll be fine, it's the fact that they may defect at a moment's notice. You can manitan pressure on the government without having to flock to a different political ideology every election season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.