Register to reply

Ron Paul's candidacy

by Char. Limit
Tags: candidacy, paul
Share this thread:
ThomasT
#73
Sep23-11, 02:41 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by DoggerDan View Post
So it's "straw" only because it's unofficial?
I think the assumption is that polls which can be 'stacked' with the supporters of one candidate or another don't reliably predict the outcomes of the real elections. In other words, most voters don't vote in straw polls, so if an inordinately high percentage of the supporters of a particular candidate participate in a straw poll, then this can result in an outcome that is not reflective of the true relative support of that candidate wrt the general electorate.

Thus, the results of such polls can be misleading. And in Ron Paul's case, they are.

But I think the main reason why Paul doesn't have much support is because he has been deliberately marginalized by the mainstream (corporate) media in the US. That is, if they wanted to, they could make Paul a leading contender, and perhaps make him the nominee, and perhaps make him the president. But it seems clear that they don't want to do that, and I'm not sure why. It can't be because he doesn't have enough support, because they can change that. So it has to be for some other reason(s). Maybe it's because Paul is likely to buck the status quo wrt some very significant issues, whereas Romney isn't.
Evo
#74
Sep23-11, 09:08 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,522
Aside from the phony straw poll results, just do a search.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...+paul+crackpot

The Mad Doctor, who proudly consorts with 9/11 Truthers, announced his third race for the nation’s highest office on Friday the 13th (appropriately enough) by declaring that if he were president he never would have authorized a lethal strike against Osama bin Laden. The firestorm over this remark distracted attention from previous controversial comments just eight days earlier, when he used the first debate of the 2012 race to stake out exclusive territory on the lunatic libertarian fringe.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...l-liberty.html
fleem
#75
Sep23-11, 10:07 AM
P: 461
@evo,

Thanks for explaining how to google for "Ron Paul' and 'Crackpot'. That is a far more scientific method of deciding whether I agree with Paul on the issues than my previous method of looking at his platform to see if it matches mine. I assume, of course, you've used that useful method for your candidate as well. Speaking of science, I notice the DailyBeast article you linked wisely replaces references to the clear correlation between prohibition of non-violent crime with violent crime in so many countries over the last 100 years (http://www.independent.org/publicati...type=full&id=2), with ubiquitous name calling. I now see the proper tone we are to use in physicsforum posts, and you are making me realize I was given a lot of misinformation on the scientific method and logical thinking during my school years.
Dotini
#76
Nov23-11, 07:50 AM
PF Gold
P: 513
In legendary tortoise and hare fashion, Ron Paul is miraculously overtaking the staggering Republican field, according to this new report from the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...-write-him-off
Consider these recent headlines:
“Ron Paul is for real in Iowa. Seriously.” (Washington Post)
“Niche Voters Giving Paul Momentum in Iowa Polls” (New York Times)
“Ron Paul’s 19 percent in Iowa may indicate a path to the nomination” (Daily Caller)
“GOP outsider Ron Paul gaining traction in Iowa” (Associated Press)
“Ron Paul And Libertarians Can't Be Discounted” (Forbes)



I'm 62, and I concede that the future belongs mainly to the youth, who are a large part of Ron Paul's following, along with presumably youthful military donors to the Paul campaign. Perhaps if the folks of the older generations don't vote, Paul will carry the day?

I understand how Paul frightens neo-cons and neo-liberals alike. I think I've passed through both these phases into some kind of libertarian.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
daveb
#77
Nov23-11, 07:53 AM
P: 925
I was very impressed (and agree) with him last night in his remarks about the Patriot Act during the debate, though at times he seemed (to me) as if he knew he was tilting at windmills.
Proton Soup
#78
Nov23-11, 03:43 PM
P: 1,070
and by windmills, i assume you mean neocon thinktanks itching for another war.
daveb
#79
Nov28-11, 08:46 AM
P: 925
No, by windmills, the audience applause and almost unanimous view from the other candidates that the PATRIOT Act needed to be strengthened.
pergradus
#80
Nov28-11, 09:48 AM
P: 156
Evo, I think you're discrediting Ron Paul because of an emotional resentment to his stance on abortion. Am I right that you're vehemently pro-choice?
Evo
#81
Nov28-11, 12:27 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,522
Quote Quote by pergradus View Post
Evo, I think you're discrediting Ron Paul because of an emotional resentment to his stance on abortion. Am I right that you're vehemently pro-choice?
I am pro choice, but all of the Republican candidates that I am aware of are anti-abortion, so your agument is nothing more than a red herring.
Proton Soup
#82
Nov28-11, 12:46 PM
P: 1,070
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
No, by windmills, the audience applause and almost unanimous view from the other candidates that the PATRIOT Act needed to be strengthened.
there certainly seemed to be a lot of fascists in attendance, yes.
pergradus
#83
Nov28-11, 03:04 PM
P: 156
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
I am pro choice, but all of the Republican candidates that I am aware of are anti-abortion, so your agument is nothing more than a red herring.
And all would deny the existence of evolution (they all want to appeal to the Christian conservative vote), so that quote you linked is also a red herring. See how this works?

So far all you've managed to come up with against Ron Paul is "Straw polls don't count!".

Still waiting for some real arguments against his political stances.
Evo
#84
Nov28-11, 03:11 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,522
Quote Quote by pergradus View Post
And all would deny the existence of evolution (they all want to appeal to the Christian conservative vote), so that quote you linked is also a red herring. See how this works?

So far all you've managed to come up with against Ron Paul is "Straw polls don't count!".

Still waiting for some real arguments against his political stances.
I don't waste my time arguing against politicians I don't consider viable. I've given my reasons I agree with others that say he's not viable, and looney to boot, if you don't agree, I quite honestly don't care.
Astronuc
#85
Nov28-11, 06:01 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,865
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
I don't waste my time arguing against politicians I don't consider viable. I've given my reasons I agree with others that say he's not viable, and looney to boot, if you don't agree, I quite honestly don't care.
At least he's consistent.
ThomasT
#86
Nov29-11, 12:15 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by pergradus View Post
Still waiting for some real arguments against his political stances.
I think Paul is taking the right approach wrt some things and the wrong approach wrt others (which I detailed a bit more in a previous post in this thread).

It's hard to tell how deep his thinking is on some very important issues such as his position on government welfare for the poor. He would do away with programs that contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the general economy; provide tens of thousands of government jobs; benefit tens of thousands of businesses, business owners and their employees; and provide food, shelter and temporary monetary assistance to millions. And he suggests that all that can be replaced by help from family, friends, and religious and other private sector organizations -- which is absurd, imo.
daveb
#87
Nov29-11, 08:18 AM
P: 925
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
It's hard to tell how deep his thinking is on some very important issues such as his position on government welfare for the poor. He would do away with programs that contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the general economy; provide tens of thousands of government jobs; benefit tens of thousands of businesses, business owners and their employees; and provide food, shelter and temporary monetary assistance to millions. And he suggests that all that can be replaced by help from family, friends, and religious and other private sector organizations -- which is absurd, imo.
I think the main reason Paul seems to some to not think through some of his positions is that they fail to realize that Paul is a strict Constitutionalist - that is, if it doesn't say the government can perform some function, then they are not allowed to do this, despite that he might feel the government should perform this function because it might be "the right thing to do".
mheslep
#88
Nov29-11, 04:53 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,097
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
...He would do away with programs that contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the general economy; provide tens of thousands of government jobs; benefit tens of thousands of businesses, business owners and their employees; and provide food, shelter and temporary monetary assistance to millions. And he suggests that all that can be replaced by help from family, friends, and religious and other private sector organizations -- which is absurd, imo.
Doesn't the logical extension of that argument give you any pause? If what you say were the case then the federal government should confiscate all money to create jobs for all, zeroing unemployment, and providing food, shelter and assistance universally. That fallacy and current day examples like Greece aside, Paul's argument is that, regardless of the economic wisdom of these actions, the federal government has NO business doing any of them, that these functions were and are the domain of state and local governments. Whatever the modern legal interpretation, it is a fact that at least at the time of its creation the federal government was understood to have none of these powers.
ThomasT
#89
Nov29-11, 06:42 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Doesn't the logical extension of that argument give you any pause? If what you say were the case then the federal government should confiscate all money to create jobs for all, zeroing unemployment, and providing food, shelter and assistance universally.
I don't get what you're saying here.

I get that Paul's arguing (as a strict constitutionalist of sorts) that the federal government shouldn't be doing welfare programs. I just disagree with his position for at least a couple of reasons. The federal domain can be interpreted to include anything that the constitution doesn't expressly prohibit as being part of that domain, and, imo, private sector forces and state and local governments can't and won't deal with the problem(s) as effectively as the federal government can.
mheslep
#90
Nov29-11, 08:02 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,097
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I don't get what you're saying here.
When you say, "[government] programs that contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy", that money has to come from somewhere. It has to be first taken out of the economy (or its future by borrowing).

Quote Quote by ThomasT
...The federal domain can be interpreted to include anything that the constitution doesn't expressly prohibit as being part of that domain,
Quote Quote by US Constituion, 10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You will find at most a couple dozen 'delegated' powers in Article I (on Congress) of the constitution: coin money, "provide and maintain a Navy", run the post office, etc. You will not find anything specific on an armed fish and wildlife service raiding guitar manufacturers in Tennessee. I grant that the federal government has come to "reinterpret" those limits today, but doesn't mean a President Paul would not be within his rights to revert to the simple meaning of the text.

and, imo, private sector forces and state and local governments can't and won't deal with the problem(s) as effectively as the federal government can.
Aside from the issue of dealing with foreign countries, why not? Consider the following the following ways to spend money:

Quote Quote by economist Milton Friedman
[1]You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. [2]Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. [3]Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! [4]Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
An extension of the above is that in the case of local governments, one is at least closer to case [1] than [4] than in with the federal government.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Paul Dirac Science & Math Textbooks 12
Paul the octopus Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 5
Les Paul General Discussion 10
Ron Paul Current Events 197
The Taz-Cut Con - Paul Krugman Current Events 1