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

[Evo]

As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.

It does if they're crazy.

 

[mheslep]

It does if they're crazy.

Well that's why he's not going to be President.

 

[mheslep]

Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Johnson/

 

[Evo]

Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?

There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?

This first batch most certainly can't be the best the GOP has to offer.

 

[ThomasT]

Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

Johnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.

He was excluded from all but two of the GOP debates, because his poll numbers were low. His poll numbers were low, I would guess, because he didn't get sufficient exposure to allow even the possibility that they might increase significantly. Why is that?

 

[mheslep]

They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?

There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?

Well Johnson has been in from nearly the beginning, just didn't poll high enough to get in all of the debates. Anyway, yeah its too late now for brand new faces. A Santorum or a Huntsman could surge with a campaign already on the ground. A large chunk of the delegates get committed in the primaries to somebody in March, 3 months. I agree with Intrade: this is Romney's race now that Newt's bubble broke, 68% chance. Romney's serious, he has his pace, is not prone to mistakes. If he picks a strong VP*, and there are several very strong candidates, I think he beats the President if the economy stays flat.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=652757

What's Obama going to do on that score BTW, Biden being a heartbeat away an all that? President Biden?

 

[ThomasT]

It does if they're crazy.

I recall your caution against these threads on politicians degenerating into name-calling.

Paul's positions seem to me to be consistent with his political philosophy (libertarianism), which might in itself be viewed as extremist to a fault, but I don't think it should be characterized as crazy.

When considered wrt most of the GOP candidates, Paul doesn't seem all that crazy (or incompetent, or ill-prepared, or oportunistically slimey). But I suppose that that view isn't really saying much for Paul.

The question wrt the GOP nomination has been framed around which candidate the 'Christian right' will go for. They don't seem to be too happy with the candidates that had previously been supposed to be their obvious choices.

Romney's Mormon association is a big negative for him. Newt comes off as being too smart sometimes. Too few people are familiar with Huntsman. Paul has been around for a long time, but at the rate that he accrues new supporters he would have to be around until (I figure) the mid 2100's to actually get nominated for, much less elected to, the presidency.

 

[Evo]

Who do you think Romney would pick?

 

[Dotini]

...he's not going to be President.

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent.

They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?

There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?

This first batch most certainly can't be the best the GOP has to offer.

Condy Rice, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Jeb Bush are all possibles. In the bad old days, conventions were brokered in smoke filled rooms. That's not supposed to happen these days. But if circumstances became dire enough, the party bosses and financial backers could conceivably subvert the process. All's fair in love and war.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[mheslep]

Johnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.

Ok as of Nov 29. I missed that, though I'd heard him say he might earlier.

He was excluded from all but two of the GOP debates, because his poll numbers were low. His poll numbers were low, I would guess, because he didn't get sufficient exposure to allow even the possibility that they might increase significantly. Why is that?

Dunno, but I guess there's only room for one libertarian flag waiver inside the GOP. Right now that's Paul. I heard Johnson on air saying he visited Paul way back when, was warmly accepted until he told Paul he was going to run in the GOP upon which the "conversation quickly ended" and he was shown the door.

 

[mheslep]

Who do you think Romney would pick?

Rubio. Got to be.

 

[mheslep]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent...

Yes, exactly. He can exert a great deal of influence IF he's reasonable. That is, if he agrees not to run independent in return for getting the nominee to accept some fraction of his policies, and I hope that would be to curtail military spending, then he'll get influence. On the other hand if starts the there's no difference between the GOP and Democrats routine (as he has before) I'm running independent, then he will have zero influence on the GOP, though he'll get Obama reelected.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent.

Good point, imho. Sort of like Ralph Nader (whose primary aim was, imo, to increase the civic involvement of average Americans), but with a lot more political power.

 

[lisab]

Good point, imho. Sort of like Ralph Nader (whose primary aim was, imo, to increase the civic involvement of average Americans), but with a lot more political power.

Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?

 

[Evo]

Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?

Don't forget Ross Perot.

 

[Dotini]

Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?

Don't forget Ross Perot.

I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the common good.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[ThomasT]

Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?

Uh ... no. Not that it wouldn't be interesting. But I don't think that Nader drinks (though I don't know for sure). And I really don't want Paul to drink. Not even a little bit.

Also, I tend to smoke a few cigarettes when I'm drinking. I don't know about Paul, but I'm pretty sure that Nader doesn't smoke.

 

[ThomasT]

I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the better.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

I voted for Nader and Perot. I still think the US would have been better off if either or both of them had been elected.

 

[Dotini]

I voted for Nader and Perot. I still think the US would have been better off if either or both of them had been elected.

I wish I didn't have to worry about politics, corruption and national decline. I have better things like physics to think about. But I'm forced to deal with the reality that current Republicans and Democrats have gone off the tracks of financial sanity as well as overboard on international regime changes and imposing neo-liberal democracy at the point of a gun.

Obviously, I'm a social liberal, a financial conservative and a non-interventionist. I must reject failed leadership, and threaten it with the only available 76 year old baby doctor.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Evo]

I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the common good.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Nader was responsible for getting Bush elected. You need to think about what you are doing when you vote. Was your goal to elect Bush?

Irresponsible voting can have disastrous consequences.

On the positive side he lost the election for Gore.

 

[ThomasT]

Nader was responsible for getting Bush elected.

That's the usual view, and imo, and Pauli's words, it's "not even wrong". Bush got elected because of the incompetency of the Democratic Party, the activism of the fanatical Christian right, and the complacency of the rest of the US electorate. The American people got what they deserved, and, apparently, what they wanted -- eight years of G.W. Bush.

Was your goal to elect Bush?

The goal for people who voted for Nader was, I'm assuming, to elect Nader.

Acquiescence to an undesirable status quo and continued voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is, imo, an irresponsibe use of one's freedom to vote. I voted for the person, Nader, who I most admired and thought would make the best President.

 

[Evo]

That's the usual view, and imo, and Pauli's words, it's "not even wrong". Bush got elected because of the incompetency of the Democratic Party, the activism of the fanatical Christian right, and the complacency of the rest of the US electorate. The American people got what they deserved, and, apparently, what they wanted -- eight years of G.W. Bush.

The goal for people who voted for Nader was, I'm assuming, to elect Nader.

Acquiescence to an undesirable status quo and continued voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is, imo, an irresponsibe use of one's freedom to vote. I voted for the person, Nader, who I most admired and thought would make the best President.

The fact is, he stole enough votes to cause a Bush win.

Exit polls showed New Hampshire staying close, and within the margin of error without Nader[63] as national exit polls showed Nader's supporters choosing Gore over Bush by a large margin,[64] well outside the margin of error. Winning either state would have given Gore the presidency, and while critics claim this shows Nader tipped the election to Bush

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat.

Nader has tried to wriggle out of it, but the fact is, he caused it. No, he didn't intend to cause it, but there you go. Not thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

 

[ThomasT]

The fact is, he stole enough votes to cause a Bush win.

He 'stole' votes? What does that mean? He ran for a public office that he had the right, even the duty (in his supporters' as well as his own view), to run for. The fact of the matter is that nobody has any way of knowing how many votes he might have taken away from Bush and from Gore. But the all important point is that we shouldn't be thinking in those terms.

Nader has tried to wriggle out of it ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEQ5G_w324k&feature=related

hSJ-QtdD64M[/youtube] [MEDIA=youtub...that of those who would have had him not run.

 

[fleem]

About this "stealing" of votes. The problem isn't third party candidates that don't play the system. The problem is the system, itself. The system uses ballots specifically designed to punish third party candidates. There are a myriad of simple ways to design a ballot that mitigates the third party "split" effect, yet never do you hear of legislation for such ballot reform. For one example, each voter could be given two votes that cannot be given to the same candidate. How convenient that our legislators haven't thought of that yet, in spite of 230 years of talk about the "problem" of party splitting. Heaven forbid the people should be given more than two options placed before them by the system.

 

[ThomasT]

About this "stealing" of votes. The problem isn't third party candidates that don't play the system. The problem is the system, itself. The system uses ballots specifically designed to punish third party candidates. There are a myriad of simple ways to design a ballot that mitigates the third party "split" effect, yet never do you hear of legislation for such ballot reform. For one example, each voter could be given two votes that cannot be given to the same candidate. How convenient that our legislators haven't thought of that yet, in spite of 230 years of talk about the "problem" of party splitting. Heaven forbid the people should be given more than two options placed before them by the system.

Good points, imho. But we'd better get back to discussing Ron Paul. You might start a new thread regarding your statements/points. I think it would be an interesting discussion, and I'd probably learn something.

I've watched a bunch of Ron Paul videos on youtube, dating from 25 years ago to recent weeks. I've come to the conclusion that he would be great to have as a family member, but I don't want him to be the president of the US.

This thread could probably be closed, except that there seem to be some diehard Paul supporters here at PF, and also that the Republican race is currently so unpredictable.

 

[lpetrich]

About this "stealing" of votes. The problem isn't third party candidates that don't play the system. The problem is the system, itself. The system uses ballots specifically designed to punish third party candidates. There are a myriad of simple ways to design a ballot that mitigates the third party "split" effect, yet never do you hear of legislation for such ballot reform. ...

There's a name for that effect: Duverger's law - Wikipedia

There are several alternatives that are used by other nations, and even some that are used a little bit here in the US. But I think that such possibilities deserve a thread of their own.

 

[mheslep]

Don't forget Ross Perot.

Dana Carvey version, in case anyone forgets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xT8jS3Y1aQ

 

[ThomasT]

Dana Carvey version, in case anyone forgets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xT8jS3Y1aQ

I enjoyed that. Were you making a point or just a funny?

 

[mheslep]

Nader, in case anyone forgot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg4SOzjAG4M#t=1m13s

 

[mheslep]

I enjoyed that. Were you making a point or just a funny?

Little of both.

 

[ThomasT]

Nader, in case anyone forgot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg4SOzjAG4M#t=1m13s

I don't know what you mean "Nader, in case anyone forgot". Forgot what? Ok, the skit is amusing, but is there a point to it -- besides the obvious fact that Nader was unable to raise sufficient funds? Is that, in itself, something to parady or something that we should be ashamed of? Just a question.

 

[Evo]

I don't know what you mean "Nader, in case anyone forgot". Forgot what? Ok, the skit is amusing, but is there a point to it -- besides the obvious fact that Nader was unable to raise sufficient funds? Is that, in itself, something to parady or something that we should be ashamed of? Just a question.

I think in case anyone forgot what Nader was like. You have to admit he was a character.

 

[Galteeth]

Nader was responsible for getting Bush elected. You need to think about what you are doing when you vote. Was your goal to elect Bush?

Irresponsible voting can have disastrous consequences.

On the positive side he lost the election for Gore.

This is a seriously flawed argument. You are assuming that Gore was an acceptable alternative to Nader voters.

Let me illustrate with the following hypothetical example:

A public vote is to be taken on the subject of making birth control illegal. The options are:

A: Make birth control use punishable by death

B: Make birth control use punishable by life imprisonment

C: Keep birth control legal

You are a supporter of keeping birth control legal. Options A and B are popular positions, while your own position is in the extreme minority.

"You voted for C? Was your goal to make birth control use punishable by death?"

If both options are morally unacceptable to you and it's a matter of degree, many would feel, regardless of the "pragmatism" of voting for option B, that they are morally obligated to vote for C.

 

[Galteeth]

I think in case anyone forgot what Nader was like. You have to admit he was a character.

By the way, Nader has thrown in with Ron Paul.


Keeping this discussion current, anyone want to talk about the fact that Paul is now polling in the lead in Iowa? The media attacks?

 

[turbo]

Ron Paul may be hurt by recent resurrections of his opinions in his newsletters. Racism, homophobia, etc, don't play as well these days, though it may not hurt him in Iowa.