Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[SoggyBottoms]

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[lpetrich]

Returning to the OP, Wikipedia now has a collection of the Republican primary results. This page's maintainers will update it as more states vote.

Mitt Romney now has over half the delegates, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum about 1/6, and Ron Paul about 1/10. Looking back to 2008, Ron Paul is now doing better than he had in 2008 in delegate fraction.

 

[ThomasT]

There is plenty of right wing media in Europe, but if by right wing media you mean overweight windbag demagogues, then yes, you're going to find less of it, because apparently there's no market for that in Europe.

I think there's still a market for it in Europe, but less so in Europe than in America. Let's not forget that the US was originally populated and continues to be replenished, to a certain extent, by people who couldn't make it in their home countries.

Anyway, the real reason I replied to you is your username, SoggyBottoms, which reminded me of the Smucker's ads -- "With a name like Smuckers, it has to be good!"

With a name like SoggyBottoms, you had better be good.

 

[Jasongreat]

I think there's still a market for it in Europe, but less so in Europe than in America. Let's not forget that the US was originally populated and continues to be replenished, to a certain extent, by people who couldn't make it in their home countries.

Come on thomas,is that true or a common missconception? The US is populated by people who thought their chances better in America than in their home country. For the most part in early history most those who came here, came because the country they were leaving was oppressive, mostly religiously, in america your abilities were all that counted. I enjoyed one of Franklins letters to a frenchman, he pretty much said you can find mechanics, masons, blacksmiths, carpenters, pretty much any trade, in america, the one thing you wouldn't find is an athiest.

For the most part immigrants came here because of religious oppression in their home country, second to that scientific oppression. See Joseph Priestly. Today I would agree that religion takes second place to those just wanting a better life, but to sy they couldn't make it in their home countries is dissengenious. Did Einstein come because he couldn't make it in his home country?

 

[ThomasT]

The US is populated by people who thought their chances better in America than in their home country. For the most part in early history most of those who came here, came because the country they were leaving was oppressive, mostly religiously, in America your abilities were all that counted.

I don't see anything in your statement that counters mine. I think that, other than sheer adventurers and financed profiteers, the bulk of the people who migrated to the US did so because they weren't, and foresaw no prospects of being, successful in their home countries. They were the poor, the tired, the hungry, the oppressed, etc. To a certain extent that I don't know enough about to quantify. So I could be a bit off wrt that notion. But I don't think it would be correct to call it a myth, as I think it's, essentially, an accurate characterization of a significant portion of the people who have migrated to the US, and an accurate characterization of a significant portion of portion of the people who are, in current times, migrating to the US.

 

[ThomasT]

We'd better get back on Ron Paul, or somebody will close the thread. Paul seems to be doing a little better than he did 4 years ago, which I suppose he would consider a victory in terms of his avowed aim of running for president in order to get a certain message into the mainstream.

 

[Jasongreat]

We'd better get back on Ron Paul, or somebody will close the thread. Paul seems to be doing a little better than he did 4 years ago, which I suppose he would consider a victory in terms of his avowed aim of running for president in order to get a certain message into the mainstream.

I would have to agree, but I don't think Paul is running for president, that it is his message he cares about. There are more people now than in a long time actually discussing topics they would have thought taboo years ago. What does it mean to be conservative? What is the difference between an isolationist and a non interventionist? Is a military establishment neccesary?

It is a discussion we haven't seen in years, Goldwater was the last that I know of(i wish I could say remember but it was a bit before my time). It seems to me at about that time modern conservatives went against conservatism, we have had a few republican presidents going down the not-so-conservative path, a couple completely down the wrong path, Paul is bringing that message back. Though I do feel that message still has a long long way to go.

Thanks for reminding me of the topic, I do get carried away sometimes. :)

 

[ThomasT]

I would have to agree, but I don't think Paul is running for president, that it is his message he cares about. There are more people now than in a long time actually discussing topics they would have thought taboo years ago. What does it mean to be conservative? What is the difference between an isolationist and a non interventionist? Is a military establishment neccesary?

It is a discussion we haven't seen in years, Goldwater was the last that I know of(i wish I could say remember but it was a bit before my time). It seems to me at about that time modern conservatives went against conservatism, we have had a few republican presidents going down the not-so-conservative path, a couple completely down the wrong path, Paul is bringing that message back. Though I do feel that message still has a long long way to go.

Thanks for reminding me of the topic, I do get carried away sometimes. :)

The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.

The more I look into his history, the more weird he seems.

 

[turbo]

The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.

The more I look into his history, the more weird he seems.

Paul's past is a bit troublesome, for average voters. He has gone well beyond Barry Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty" standard, in my opinion. At some point, we have to have to filter out the nuts and the extremists, or we just can't have fair and free elections.

 

[ThomasT]

Paul's past is a bit troublesome, for average voters. He has gone well beyond Barry Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty" standard, in my opinion. At some point, we have to have to filter out the nuts and the extremists, or we just can't have fair and free elections.

I don't know. I mean "nuts and extremists" would seem to characterize the GOP candidates. Except maybe wrt Romney. But then he is a Mormon. An extremely rich Mormon.

Paul's past is a bit more than troublesome for me. I find myself coming around to Evo's view that the guy is just a nut case.

The system does seem to filter out extremists. In Paul's case it seems that that's a good thing. But I'm not sure that that's always the case.

 

[turbo]

Paul's past is a bit more than troublesome for me. I find myself coming around to Evo's view that the guy is just a nut case.

The system does seem to filter out extremists. In Paul's case it seems that that's a good thing. But I'm not sure that that's always the case.

I don't think that the GOP primary system is doing a good job filtering out extremists. If we are going to pretend that we have a two-party system in the US, at least we ought to have marginally electable candidates if both parties. I don't see that basic benchmark in the GOP, which is pretty sad.

 

[AlephZero]

If we are going to pretend that we have a two-party system in the US, at least we ought to have marginally electable candidates if both parties.

An op-ed piece in the UK Financial Times made the comment that the Democrat party has effectively redefined itself from being the "industrial working class party" to "the billionaires, academics, minorities, and single women party". The consequence of that shift was to drive the white working class to the Republicans, which is now split into the "Rotary Club Wing" of its traditional upper-middle-class membership base, and the new "Burger King Wing".

It draws the analogy with Humphrey and Wallace for the Democrats in 1968, where the Wallace faction moved to Republican after 72, and forecasts that similarly many "Romney Republicans" will be Democrats in 2016.

The FT piece didn't make any comparison with the UK, but I think there is a similarity, except that in the UK's multi-partys system, the white working class who felt abandoned by the Labour Party's shift to "New Labour" have tended to join new minority right wing parties (e.g. the UK Independence Party and the British National Party) rather than join up with the tranditional Conservatives.

 

[Galteeth]

The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.

The more I look into his history, the more weird he seems.

Could you be a bit more specific?

 

[Dotini]

I'm interested in recent reports that say Paul's organization is taking over the GOP at the grassroots delegate level, installing many people in ongoing positions of influence and authority in the party infrastructure. They say these delegates will play a powerful role not only at the convention, but well beyond. Maybe Paul is crazy - crazy like a fox!

I think I'm starting to enjoy this,
Steve

 

[Gokul43201]

The Paul thread has been neglected for some time, so I'll make a comment. I recently read an article about Paul's apparent affinity with the John Birch Society and certain individuals that still advocate the confederacy.

Can you show us this article, so we can read it too?

 

[turbo]

Here is a JBS/Paul story with embedded links.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/president-ron-paul-ron-pa_b_890037.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Here is a JBS/Paul story with embedded links.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/president-ron-paul-ron-pa_b_890037.html

While it points out the affinity with the JBS, that article doesn't say anything about Paul being sympathetic to advocacy of a confederacy, does it? But that seems to be one of Thomas' concerns about Paul.

 

[turbo]

While it points out the affinity with the JBS, that article doesn't say anything about Paul being sympathetic to advocacy of a confederacy, does it? But that seems to be one of Thomas' concerns about Paul.

Here you go:

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gan...right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/

 

[mheslep]

I don't know if Paul has somewhere else said the things attributed to him in that newsone article, but he does not make statements that merit the term 'neo confederate' in the video. Newsone purports that he does:

why he believes the North was wrong in the Civil War and why the South was right.

which is misleading, bordering on a lie.

 

[ThomasT]

While it points out the affinity with the JBS, that article doesn't say anything about Paul being sympathetic to advocacy of a confederacy, does it? But that seems to be one of Thomas' concerns about Paul.

It's just one concern. Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Paul's political career is an advocate of an independent coalition of Southern states. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Paul's professed preference for state and local government preeminence as opposed to federal government.

I would suppose that if Paul were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the racist stuff that was published in his past newsletters.

But I have to wonder, just how extreme is this guy? And my current opinion is that he's a bit too extreme to be entrusted with running the (still) most powerful country in today's world.

By the way, I am in agreement with Paul regarding the legalization of marijuana. And, no, I don't smoke, or advocate smoking, the stuff.

 

[Galteeth]

It's just one concern. Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Paul's political career is an advocate of an independent coalition of Southern states. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Paul's professed preference for state and local government preeminence as opposed to federal government.

I would suppose that if Paul were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the racist stuff that was published in his past newsletters.

But I have to wonder, just how extreme is this guy? And my current opinion is that he's a bit too extreme to be entrusted with running the (still) most powerful country in today's world.

By the way, I am in agreement with Paul regarding the legalization of marijuana. And, no, I don't smoke, or advocate smoking, the stuff.

Many "fringe" groups have contributed to Paul's campaign. Paul has criticized Lincoln, and has suggested a better way to deal with the conflict would have been to incrementally buy and set free slaves (keep in mind the original purpose of the war was not to free slaves but to preserve the union, and slavery remained legal in four union states even during the war.). This is far from suggesting the Confederacy was in the right. Regardless, these are historical speculations that don't have much to do with current politics.

As far as the JBS goes, I really don't get the point. Sure the JBS has some wacky members. Historically they were wrapped up in anti-communist hysteria (most unfortunately being paranoid of the civil right movement for being infiltrated by communists). But even then they rejected racism officially. Their current positions are pretty much small "l" libertarian. It's natural they would support Paul.

 

[ThomasT]

Many "fringe" groups have contributed to Paul's campaign. Paul has criticized Lincoln, and has suggested a better way to deal with the conflict would have been to incrementally buy and set free slaves (keep in mind the original purpose of the war was not to free slaves but to preserve the union, and slavery remained legal in four union states even during the war.). This is far from suggesting the Confederacy was in the right. Regardless, these are historical speculations that don't have much to do with current politics.

As far as the JBS goes, I really don't get the point. Sure the JBS has some wacky members. Historically they were wrapped up in anti-communist hysteria (most unfortunately being paranoid of the civil right movement for being infiltrated by communists). But even then they rejected racism officially. Their current positions are pretty much small "l" libertarian. It's natural they would support Paul.

Good points, imo. Still, I remain skeptical wrt Paul.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's just one concern. Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Paul's political career is an advocate of an independent coalition of Southern states. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Paul's professed preference for state and local government preeminence as opposed to federal government.

I would suppose that if Paul were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the racist stuff that was published in his past newsletters.

Again, all I'm seeing is a bunch of vague (unnamed person, unspecified connections) assertions and no citation to a source that will clarify.

Here, try this for size: Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Obama's philosophy wishes that God would condemn the United States. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Obama's demonstrated preference of apologizing for the actions of the US.

I would suppose that if Obama were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the violent stuff that was practiced in the past by one of his friends.

But I have to wonder, just how extreme is this guy? And my current opinion is that he's a bit too extreme to be entrusted with running the (still) most powerful country in today's world.

Unless you specify (with evidence, where needed), what speific positions you find extreme, it's difficult for a reader to know what you're talking about: one person's 'extreme' is another person's 'reasonable'.

For instance...

By the way, I am in agreement with Paul regarding the legalization of marijuana.

I imagine a large majority[1] of people in the party Paul is running in likely consider that an extreme position, even though it seems wholly reasonable to you.

1. See, for instance, p17 in this PDF --> http://people-press.org/files/2011/03/711.pdf

 

[ThomasT]

Again, all I'm seeing is a bunch of vague (unnamed person, unspecified connections) assertions and no citation to a source that will clarify.

Yes, that is a problem. I just recall reading that a certain (apparently significant) contributor to Paul's effort was pro confederacy. But since I don't remember the source, then it's not a significant or arguable point, and, unless it can be documented, then it should be disregarded.

Here's an interchange between Paul and a newsperson on the civil war:


Paul's responses here seem pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think that the GOP primary system is doing a good job filtering out extremists. If we are going to pretend that we have a two-party system in the US, at least we ought to have marginally electable candidates if both parties. I don't see that basic benchmark in the GOP, which is pretty sad.

For someone who is so vehemently abhorrent of the two-party system and the influence of corporate money on politics, I find it a little surprising you don't show even the slightest signs of support or sympathy for the one candidate that seems to be most immune to both of these ills.

I disagree with Paul on many of his positions. But his steadfastness to principle and his disinterest in lobbyists are a sight for sore eyes.

In 2010, the average payout to members of Congress from lobbyists was around $50,000, with top recipients (usually senior members of Congress, mostly Dems) bagging over a million bucks each of lobbying money. Paul is credited with receiving a whopping $352.

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/lobbyists-pay-millions-honor-congress-executive-branch/

 

[turbo]

For someone who is so vehemently abhorrent of the two-party system and the influence of corporate money on politics, I find it a little surprising you don't show even the slightest signs of support or sympathy for the one candidate that seems to be most immune to both of these ills.

My lack of support for Paul is based on his off-the-wall views on many issues. Even if he had a chance at getting elected, there is no way that a sitting president can reform the electoral system, roll back Citizens United, and eliminate lobbying. Congress has to do those things to make them happen, but they won't because the system is rigged toward incumbents.

 

[mheslep]

... But his steadfastness to principle and his disinterest in lobbyists are a sight for sore eyes.

Well said and strongly agree. I wonder if those characteristics have become available only to libertarian candidates. I see similar characteristics in his son the Senator from Kentucky.

 

[mheslep]

@Turbo - a popular president with strong principles on limited government could well demolish much of the existing system. Beholden to no government interest, least of all government employees, such a leader could, and would, threaten that which the existing
interests hold most dear: spending. Such a leader would not blink at a threat of shutting down the government from Congress, and could simply veto spending bills until he gets what he wants.

 

[turbo]

That's a long-shot though. The do-nothing Congress will shut the government down all by itself - no President required.

 

[Galteeth]

That's a long-shot though. The do-nothing Congress will shut the government down all by itself - no President required.

Sounds great...

 

[Galteeth]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3792005&posted=1#post3792005

I am requesting for anyone with statistics expertise to please look at this thread.

 

[Dotini]

Don't look now, but it would appear Ron Paul has won the Iowa and Minnesota primaries. As he's still very much in the running, and Romney hasn't locked up the requisite delegates, perhaps it not really over until the deals are cut at the convention? Paul's supporters will not quit until they prevail.

 

[mheslep]

Don't look now, but it would appear Ron Paul has won the Iowa and Minnesota primaries. As he's still very much in the running, and Romney hasn't locked up the requisite delegates, perhaps it not really over until the deals are cut at the convention? Paul's supporters will not quit until they prevail.

Then they will never quit, as they will not prevail. Santorum won 11 states and he's out (9 if you give back Iowa and Minn to Paul).

 

[Evo]

Don't look now, but it would appear Ron Paul has won the Iowa and Minnesota primaries. As he's still very much in the running, and Romney hasn't locked up the requisite delegates, perhaps it not really over until the deals are cut at the convention? Paul's supporters will not quit until they prevail.

Please post where the GOP has decided this and you must use a maintream, official source, I can't find one.

 

[Dotini]

Please post where the GOP has decided this and you must use a maintream, official source, I can't find one.

Dear Evo,
I'd love to be able to post that the GOP has finally decided this, but the delegate process is ongoing in many states and under many different sets of rules.

But I will give you a true anecdote: Despite never having been a Republican, I was elected to be one of 21 delegates to the Washington State Republican Convention at the 36th Legislative District Caucus (comprising the Belltown, Queen Anne, Magnolia and Ballard neighborhoods in Seattle). When it became clear that the Paul delegates outnumbered the combined "unity slate" delegates for Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, the GOP LD executive had the ballots and counting machine immediately secreted from the premises! Despite this dirty trick - all too typical in politics - the Paul delegates prevailed and took all 21 delegate spots and 21 alternates to the State party convention. Other LD's around the state have strong Paul contingents. Then at the convention it will be decided who wins the state and its delegate count. You out in TV land may wish to believe the talking heads on TV, but at the grass roots level the fight goes on, the count is not in, and decision not made. Ron Paul has a shot at Washington State, as well as others.

I will tell you something else, too. At 63, I was probably among the very oldest persons for Paul in the caucus of 214 precinct delegates. Paul's supporters are varied, but young people and veterans were prominent in numbers, thoughtfulness and energy. Their hands are now gripping the levers of power in the local Republican party.

In conclusion, I will venture to say that the future is out there for the young and strong to win, and those that rest easy in their Lazyboy recliners and put their trust in talking heads on TV are in for a big surprise.

Very respectfully yours,
Steve