Technology Adaptation Curve Explains the Liberty Movement and Rand Paul

The Rebel Poet Mon, 12/21/2015 - 02:44
+1
+7
-1

Ever heard of the Gartner Hype Cycle? Wikipedia describes it thusly:

The Hype Cycle is a branded graphical presentation developed and used by IT research and advisory firm Gartner for representing the maturity, adoption and social application of specific technologies.

 And here is the graph:

When a new technology comes out, it often has a big hype. The hype of the viability or benefits of the technology often becomes exaggerated. Then as people start to see that it's not all they thought, many become disillusioned and give up on it. As the technology becomes more widely used, more realistic expectations of it's viability and benefits allow it to grow and attract more users.

Now look what happens when we change the labels on the graph:
Ron Paul sparked a movement when he ran for President in 2008, and he continued that movement in 2012. Do you remember how hyped up the movement was in 2012? I remember people saying that Ron was winning the race and that it was over for the establishment. That was totally unrealistic on several levels. Some people actually believed that Ron was going to go to Tampa and win the nomination outright from delegate strength. Ron did come really close to making it, but as we all know, he did not win in the end. The dashing of people's hopes that ensued after he lost was a very big problem, and many became disillusioned. They became anarchists, or Sanders supporters, or Trump supporters etc. Now Rand is trying to continue the education and White House aspirations of his father, but he's feeling the brunt of this disillusionment. But the war is not over, and many will come around and new converts will abound when they see that we can win little by little and educate people in the process. Rand will continue to press on, and he will certainly do better than the 3% he's been at lately, but even if 2016 ends up looking like a failure, 2020 will be another opportunity to educate people. A lot more people, because "No army can stop an idea whose time has come."

What is the category of this post? (choose up to 2): 
The Rebel Poet's picture
About the author
ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ
crabacado's picture
+1
+1
-1

White Heart

A man who chops his own wood is warmed by it twice

Shonn33's picture
+1
+2
-1

and I will tell you why...1st he has not accepted a penny from wall street, 2nd, someone is finally preaching peace (besides RP Sr.), 3rd, he has introduced a flurry of bills to show the American people he means business while calling out the phonies like M.R., J.B., D.T., T.C, H.C., and B.O. (yes, the white house does stink of many felonies)... Most folks I know will vote for MY dark horse R.P. Jr.!

 

"Justice is indivisible, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". MLK

Joeinmo's picture
+1
+4
-1

And it's probably more than caucused for Ron, and that's why Rand is saying wait till the media sees what the campaign is going to do come election night.

 

 

...

Joeinmo's picture
+1
+5
-1

and I think that's the idea, when Iowa is done I do believe Rand will either win it or come in a close 2nd and that's exactly what he wants - shock and awe (but the good kind)

...

free_your_mind's picture
+1
+3
-1

He is fighting a mountain of negativity by those who either attack him for his "low poll numbers", his "dangerous isolationism" or just don't mention him at all...as if he doesn't even exist.  Of course, the latter two were the same game plan they used against his dad.  However, I do find it interesting that I hear major neocons like the recently retired Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham still attacking Rand which he just did last week.  I'm thinking that Rand must be getting traction because otherwise Graham wouldn't bother mentioning him.

.

ATruepatriot's picture
+1
+3
-1

As the wise Quiltingsando used to say at the DP..."Baby steps". I think far too many want a change to happen instantly in one election when in reality it takes many elections with small advancements in the right direction. Each small step will indeed eventually get you to the intended outcome but consistency, patience and perseverance is what it will take. As for myself, I don't expect to see a major change in my immediate future but I keep taking small steps in the right direction so that it may indeed come about for my Children or Grandchildren. It's not about me...it's about what kind of world will they be presented with as a main priority. :)

Quiltingsando is another wise member from the DP I would be absolutely elated to see show up here. :)

 

"Jack of all Trades...Master of None" But forever learning more!

crabacado's picture
+1
0
-1

You just stated what I've been thinking for quite a while now

I think far too many want a change to happen instantly in one election when in reality it takes many elections with small advancements in the right direction.

This is the main Trump as president problem for me.....epic blowback, unintended consequences, domestically.

but seriously, I'm not a 'that guy' fan, however, I do think he could and would avert WW3.

This is the one and only credit I give him.

Okay, there was that Georgia farm thing too

I'm not being defeatist, I support and want Rand to win...and I really hope Legalize is right, he crushes the Iowa caucuses.

 

A man who chops his own wood is warmed by it twice

The Rebel Poet's picture
+1
+1
-1

Thanks. Rand doesn't need to win in 2016 to have a success, he is really setting himself up for 2020 either way.

ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

ATruepatriot's picture
+1
+2
-1

But of the upmost importance, folks from all parties are digging and agreeing with his positions and direction! Just that this is coming about is a huge victory in it's self! He is setting the bar towards common sense the others will soon have to address! :)

It's great to see this happen!

"Jack of all Trades...Master of None" But forever learning more!

HVACTech's picture
+1
0
-1

what else did you have to throw?

how large is the gap, between Anarchy and min- Anarchy? 

(you have a calipiter.)

why are you avoiding my query?  (confused)

 

.

mwstroberg's picture
+1
0
-1

aren't so young. Waiting until 2020 for even a quasi-pro-liberty President means I will never see anything approaching liberty in my lifetime. I have not given up on 2016 and I don't think you should either, even if you ae young enough to think you have "all the time in the world."

.

The Rebel Poet's picture
+1
+1
-1

I don't think that we shouldn't try to win and make changes now nor do I think that I have all the time in the world. I simply understand that if victory isn't won right away it can still happen later. Have you not noticed the plethora of "Rand can't win so he should quit" comments? My point was that even if he somehow does only get 2% of the vote, he could still be laying a groundwork for future success.

I hope this doesn't sound snarky, because I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't appreciate being lumped together with "kids these days" or having my feelings assumed. I'm not mad, just can't stand being misunderstood.

ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

LibertyUserName's picture
+1
+2
-1

I just think it is even more unlikely that he will win than I thought it was for Ron and I was skeptical on Ron as well. But no, quitting is for quitters. I just think people are acting a little....well...unrealistic about it and saying things like 'he will win Iowa...' yah...probably not. In the mean time I think it is important to support any liberty candidate in any election anywhere from the local school board up to congressional races and to pick a topic educate yourself forwards and backwards about it and educate the hell out of the population on it.

 

My specialty is off grid survival. Some people work hard on anti vaccination stuff, others 2A, others truth in media....if we all have a topic or two of expertise and we push it wherever we can that is just as good in my mind as wishin and hopin for the powers that be to allow Rand a win anyways.

HVACTech's picture
+1
0
-1

pffft. IF that were true.

you would be talking to me.

it is NOT a wise idea to play that card with me pal.  :)

.

Joeinmo's picture
+1
+2
-1

Have you ever been to a caucus? You just don't vote and leave.  It's a process.

Trump supporters are lets say to be nice - low information voters. They are Astro turf.  They are not going to show in Iowa.  It's going to be Rand, Cruz and Rubio, but really Cruz and Rand supporters are the most hard core and of those 2 candidates, Rand supporters have the only experience when it comes to actual people showing up and knowing what to do, sure some of Cruz's campaign staff have been their before, but 8 years of battle tested Ron/Rand supporters are going to show and know.

we know how to turn out caucus goers, Rand's internal polling and info shows that he has a very powerful campaign in Iowa. The amount of people that Rand has that are precinct captains is more than Ron had.  

Just like I told people on PL that Rand would be in the last debate and he was (while others were saying stick a fork in him) , Im telling you Rand will win or come in a tight 2nd in Iowa.  

I know how to win caucus' -I helped organize 2008 and 2012 winning caucuses for the 3rd largest county in my state.  It's 100% all ground organization in a caucus, all the media and polls mean nothing, and Cruz, Trump, Rubio have half of the ground force that Rand has to best that I can tell from going on Facebook, meetups, etc.  Its very very hard for a non-evangelistic candidate to win in Iowa, Ron actually did and if Rand can pull it off, it will make NH and Nevada and Colorado a lot easier to win.  The trick to getting caucus goers is a very early ground game, guess what Rand's started in 2008, no other candidate in the race has that.  

...

crabacado's picture
+1
0
-1

The winter ground game in Iowa 2012 was truly inspiring, there's that one video where college students out sign bombing at 6am in the freezing cold before the sun comes up

 

Wow, those memories, those tears of joy

Now that my friends was a story

A song here, I feel it

It will fester as long as this site does the same

 

A man who chops his own wood is warmed by it twice

Joeinmo's picture
+1
+2
-1

Have you ever been to a caucus? You just don't vote and leave.  It's a process.

Trump supporters are lets say to be nice - low information voters. They are Astro turf.  They are not going to show in Iowa.  It's going to be Rand, Cruz and Rubio, but really Cruz and Rand supporters are the most hard core and of those 2 candidates, Rand supporters have the only experience when it comes to actual people showing up and knowing what to do, sure some of Cruz's campaign staff have been their before, but 8 years of battle tested Ron/Rand supporters are going to show and know.

we know how to turn out caucus goers, Rand's internal polling and info shows that he has a very powerful campaign in Iowa. The amount of people that Rand has that are precinct captains is more than Ron had.  

Just like I told people on PL that Rand would be in the last debate and he was (while others were saying stick a fork in him) , Im telling you Rand will win or come in a tight 2nd in Iowa.  

I know how to win caucus' -I helped organize 2008 and 2012 winning caucuses for the 3rd largest county in my state.  It's 100% all ground organization in a caucus, all the media and polls mean nothing, and Cruz, Trump, Rubio have half of the ground force that Rand has to best that I can tell from going on Facebook, meetups, etc.  Its very very hard for a non-evangelistic candidate to win in Iowa, Ron actually did and if Rand can pull it off, it will make NH and Nevada and Colorado a lot easier to win.  The trick to getting caucus goers is a very early ground game, guess what Rand's started in 2008, no other candidate in the race has that.  

...

LibertyUserName's picture
+1
0
-1

 

I would put my bottom dollar on him not winning Iowa but I will agree he could potentially pull off a decent 2nd place standing. He won't win though. No need to quit trying as I said above, but winning Iowa is a pie in the sky dream that is just incredibly unlikely as well as him winning the nomination. It is unfortunate but if voting really made a difference they wouldn't let us do it, and no one is going to let the masses go around voting for Rand Paul for President. I'm not sure why people here who know how the game is played think that the powers that be will allow that to happen.

HVACTech's picture
+1
-1
-1

to assuage my SELF after the SHTF.

and yes dear.  I can also be childish. toady.

 

 

.

mwstroberg's picture
+1
+1
-1

You and my girlfriend, except, in her case, she does get a little angry about it.

No problem, Rebel. Trying my hardest to not be a bitter old man. I've been a liberty activist for 38 years, and have seen everything continue to go down hill the whole time. I have never had quite such a struggle making a decent living. I would love to have my $15,000.00 back (average cost per American) for the Iraq and Afghan wars.

I hope you are correct, that failure now does not foretell failure in the future. It just seems to me that if we come close to achieving actual change, but do not succeed completely, the powers that be will alter the system to reduce the probability of peaceful change essentially to zero, as they will have had the living daylights scared out of them.

.

Pages