Ron Paul's candidacy

Proton Soup

i expect he has chicken legs.

whatever happened to Ross Perot?

Galteeth

Honestly, the hardest thing last time around was getting all the younger supporters to register in time for the primary. I think Ron Paul does have a constituency, however one that is definitely not in the majority. One thing is that Paul polls better in a general election against Obama then he does in the republican primary. A lot of the GOP primary voters are pretty authoritarian.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ama_39_paul_38

(The poll for the republican primaries had Perry at 29%, Romney at 17%, Paul at 13%, Bachmann at 10%)


There is a dedicated group of supporters, and this they are very motivated. The grass roots organizing is good. I think it is a mischaracterization to say it is meant to give the impression of larger numbers. Especially in 2007, it was impossible to get any media attention. Honestly there was sort of this impression "If people just heard about Ron Paul they would see what he's saying makes sense."

Also, it really was all grassroots. I remember standing in times square on I think it was new year's. There were also groups of Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. One of the younger Obama guys came up and asked how much Ron Paul was paying us. I thought it was a joke, but apparently some of the guys in that group were getting payed for being there holding up signs.(This was in the background of a news broadcast.) I explained nobody here was getting payed and he was really shocked.

Ivan Seeking

I didn't realize that they now teach about ghosts and UFOs in science classes.

Galteeth

Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.

EDIT: And to tie this back to Ron Paul, yes, there are a disproportionate amount of (illlogical) conspiracy theorists who support Ron Paul.

Ivan Seeking

Not to nitpick, but I wasn't the one who made the overly general reference to UFOs and ghosts.

If by ghost people mean the souls of the dead, then this is generally linked to religious or similar beliefs. If one believes in an afterlife, ghosts are just one step away.

Ivan Seeking

Paul has been running in Presidential campaigns since 1988. The mistake is in thinking there is something new here.

This reminds of the old saying that every generation thinks they invented sex. Like Amway, Paul just keeps coming around.

Galteeth

As far as impact, 1988 and 2007 were very different. Paul didn't spark a popular grassroots movement in 1988 or become a household name. Different time, different situation. Also different mediums of communication. The internet has made a huge difference in terms of how ideas are able to propagate without support from corporate media.

phinds

Actually, I don't think you are nitpicking at all, I think you have made a perfectly legitimate point and I WAS sloppy in my use of terminology. You DO, obviously, understand my intent correctly, but I thank you for pointing out my error. It's the belief in little green men that gets my hackles up.

ThomasT

I think that most US high school students get a very insignificant exposure to science and critical thinking. It's sort of always been that way. You've got the minority who get that stuff at home, or who are intellectually gifted, who get into it. But most kids leave high school pretty ignorant and intellectually unprepared I think. And, not so astoundingly, they become ignorant adults wrt science and modern rational methods of inquiry and critical thinking.

phinds

Sad to say, the evidence I see suggests you are right.

fleem

If we spend all our money making foreign investors rich from our interest payments, then we won't have enough money for food, self defense, providing free police forces for our enemies, or assuring the health of the drug black market. Ron Paul is the sole candidate that realizes these principles. However, if you feel banning partial birth abortion will collapse the infrastructure of the United States far faster than these things, then by all means don't vote for Ron Paul. Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable. As everyone knows the most effective way to use your vote in a solid red or solid blue state is to cast it red or blue--only then will you make a real difference. Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.

Freye

Ron Paul is not for banning abortion at the federal level, he has said on several occasions that he would leave the decision in the hands of individual states to decide.

ThomasT

I'm not sure if he's the only one who realizes them, but he seems to be the only one advocating what I consider to be the obviously best courses of action wrt certain issues.

Ok, nice sarcasm. But there are a few of Paul's positions that I actually disagree with ... eg., his desire to eradicate all forms of government welfare, his position on a federal death penalty, and his advocacy of prayer in schools.

On the other hand, his positions on the war on drugs, protecting our borders, minimizing military engagements in other countries, immigration, gun possession by US citizens, etc. (what did I leave out?) seem most wise to me.

Yeah, it makes no sense at all to not vote for someone simply because the 'polls' say he won't win, or to vote for someone simply because the polls say he's the likely winner.
Unfortunately, I think that's why a lot of people vote how they do. And in doing so, their vote really doesn't matter.

But, imho, if one votes for a Republican or a Democrat, then their vote doesn't matter anyway.

I look at it this way: can a US president, especially a Ron Paul sort of president, really direct the course of US governmental actions? I don't know, but I don't think so. Ultimately, it's the US congress that's responsible for the course of events, because it controls the purse strings. And the US congress is firmly aligned with the status quo. Which means that even if Paul got elected, there would be no abandonment of the disastrous War on Drugs, or any significant changes in any of the policies that the US congress has aligned itself with. It's going to be, for the most part, 'business as usual', because that's what the US congress has a vested interest in.

Imo, the only way for an individual voter to make a difference is to not vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

But of course, that's not going to happen. We're far to ignorant, collectively, to buck the status quo. Probably Mitt Romney, or some other more or less 'centrist' candidate, will get the GOP nomination, and then he'll lose, closely, to Obama. It's all so predictable.

More nice sarcasm. Well, I share your frustration. Who knows, I might end up voting for Paul. Or maybe Nader if he runs ... just on principle, because I admire him and his message, and I don't think he's corrupted, or Paul either for that matter, yet.

More likely though, I probably just won't vote.

fleem

Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/...ia.straw.poll/

Its also really weird how a handful of losers can donate so much to his campaign (compare his fundraising earnings over the last few years to the media favorites)

And bizarre how an unelectable candidate does better in Gallup polls than John McCain did the previous election.

Ah well. As the good scientists we are, we know that such facts should be ignored in light of what the media tells us.

... makes you wonder what would happen if the media actually learned about his existence.

Dotini

Sound money, obedience to the Constitution, paying off and staying out of debt. Sounds simple, but you seldom hear of it anymore.

Rand Paul, Ron's son, has been elected Senator from Kentucky. When politicians figure out most people want sound, sustainable public policy first and social engineering second, they will vote for more folks like the Pauls. Then the Congress will restore its own proper Constitutional functions, such as the sole power to declare war, abrogated to the Imperial Presidency so many decades ago.

Many otherwise very smart people are put off by Paul's Libertarian ideas on personal liberties, state's rights and personal views such as abortion, evolution, etc. To them I would suggest prioritizing massive life/death issues for our civilization such as War and Debt a little bit higher than whether you do or do not attend church, etc. If it helps, you can recall that Dr Paul is baby doctor with thousands of deliveries to his credit - how can such an individual be anything other than personally pro-life? I'm personally all in favor of a woman's right to choose, but if our nation is bankrupt, spending borrowed billions fighting penniless tribesmen all over the world, there are fewer resources to support whatever domestic interests may float your individual boat.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

lisab

And, good scientists that we are, we should know not to put much trust into straw polls .

Evo

The straw polls, etc... are BOGUS, as in FAKE. I posted an article on the fraud earlier in this thread.