Ron Paul's candidacy


by Char. Limit
Tags: candidacy, paul
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#325
Jan4-12, 03:29 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
The fact is that CU allows corporate entities to make unlimited ad-buys without ever having to disclose the identities of the donors. I won't retract fact. And please stop calling me a liar.
You stated:
If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) ...
without caveat or an IMO. I'm not interested in tangents about CU. Its very simple. You either i) know Cato/Koch fund Paul via a source, or ii) have an opinion that they do and stated it here as fact. Which?
Jimmy Snyder
Jimmy Snyder is offline
#326
Jan4-12, 03:31 PM
P: 2,163
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.
Private pensions pay interest, but they do not pay for inflation. Yet people buy them without getting ticked at them.
ginru
ginru is offline
#327
Jan4-12, 04:32 PM
P: 2
Wow it's almost like Daily Show deja vu. #1 and #2 pictured prominently while #4 and #5 get video spots. Well, at least Ron Paul got a few lukewarm sentences and a link to a silly article about a twitter joke down at the bottom.

BTW, here's a Q&A article on him. http://news.yahoo.com/q-ron-paul-iow...081000162.html

In it, Paul says:

"I'm super-confident in the message. Of course, I know my own shortcomings in the way I deliver messages, but I think it's the message that makes America great.
What do you mean by shortcomings?
I never use notes. I'm spontaneous and I'm more effective that way. And sometimes they'll say, 'Well, he sort of jumps around.' And I say, well I should jump around. But I survive it all. The message always come through. Today we talked to the high school kids, and it's the same message when I talk to the retired people."


-----------------------------------------------------------
I like that he's honest about what I see as a key weakness. He doesn't deliver the message well enough in playing the campaign game. Romney comes off as polished, well-groomed and well-coached with what I'd assume is a top-notch staff. Paul comes off as a jumpy loon in comparison (though more genuine as well). Perhaps he just needs the right consultant or adviser to give him that needed balance of polished electability with his honest conviction. It seems like much of politics is down to packaged marketing.
Char. Limit
Char. Limit is offline
#328
Jan4-12, 05:21 PM
PF Gold
Char. Limit's Avatar
P: 1,930
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
You stated:
without caveat or an IMO. I'm not interested in tangents about CU. Its very simple. You either i) know Cato/Koch fund Paul via a source, or ii) have an opinion that they do and stated it here as fact. Which?
I don't see how that's fact. If I stated something like this:

If mheslep has enough support to stay in it (think Evo, Micromass, etc.)
That's not stating that you are receiving support from those two users. That simply says "think about people like that". Of course, in this case, I just pulled random names out of my "last people remembered" list.
turbo
turbo is offline
#329
Jan4-12, 06:24 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
Private pensions pay interest, but they do not pay for inflation. Yet people buy them without getting ticked at them.
Private pension-plans EARN interest, if they are invested properly. Determined-benefit plans (my wife and I each have one from previous employers) have to buy financial instruments. Such pensions are designed to provide adequate benefits to the beneficiaries (yes, even with projected inflation rolled in) but they are not designed to deal with criminal behavior on the part of the banks issuing the "investments" that are supposed to keep the funds healthy.
Tosh5457
Tosh5457 is offline
#330
Jan5-12, 06:37 AM
P: 223
Yes Ron Paul has many radical ideas which I don't agree with, but it's funny how people think that the other candidates are more moderate. Continuing with the same foreign policy and with the gigantic military spending, for example, in my opinion is a radical idea, and the other republican candidates support this.

The policies on drugs are also ridiculous, and they mean a lot of unnecessary government spending.

And the debt is just monstrous, any serious candidate should now be talking on how to reduce the debt.

Ron Paul addresses these problems, and the other candidates just don't seem to care. Yes he has many radical ideas, but don't forget that a president can't pass anything he wants, so I think he'd do more good than bad as a president (unlike the others, who will definitely do more bad than good).

What I don't get is why so many people say Ron Paul isn't a real candidate, and that he never will the elections so the media shouldn't mention him. First of all that isn't democratic at all, every candidate should be respected independent on how he's running and his ideas. And second, then why does the media pay attention to Bachman and Gingrich? Ron Paul has more chances than them, so why doesn't the media pay more attention to Ron Paul than them? Hypocrisy at its finest...
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#331
Jan11-12, 07:13 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Paul humor.

Evo
Evo is offline
#332
Jan11-12, 08:45 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,967
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Paul humor.

LOl.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#333
Jan11-12, 09:58 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Tosh5457 View Post
... What I don't get is why so many people say Ron Paul isn't a real candidate ...
I think it's at least partly (mostly?) because that's the image that the mainstream corporate media is promulgating. Just imagine the problems that a Ron Paul with the power of the presidency might cause for the status quo.

This is not to say that I would vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't. But I don't think he's the least desirable GOP candidate (in GOP field wrt which, imho, all candidates are undesirable for one reason or another).
Evo
Evo is offline
#334
Jan11-12, 10:02 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,967
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I think it's at least partly (mostly?) because that's the image that the mainstream corporate media is promulgating. Just imagine the problems that a Ron Paul with the power of the presidency might cause for the status quo.

This is not to say that I would vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't. But I don't think he's the least desirable GOP candidate (in GOP field wrt which, imho, all candidates are undesirable for one reason or another).
Only Santorum is scarier. IMO. But, yeah, even the republicans don't like the line up, 58% polled don't want any of them.
turbo
turbo is offline
#335
Jan11-12, 10:09 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
I don't know a single Republican who has a "favorite" out of that batch of lukewarm dishwater. It's pretty sad. This country has a pretend "two-party" system in which the top officials in both parties are beholden to the wealthy/big businesses. The GOP has tossed in the towel for 2012, IMO. Not a good thing.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#336
Jan11-12, 10:10 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Only Santorum is scarier. IMO.
I agree that Santorum is worse. And so, apparently, do most Americans ... at least for the time being.

And, while not particularly desirable, imo, a Ron Paul presidency would at least be interesting. Whereas a, say, Mitt Romney presidency would be pretty boring, ie., just more of the same business as usual, imho.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#337
Jan11-12, 10:17 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
I don't know a single Republican who has a "favorite" out of that batch of lukewarm dishwater. It's pretty sad. This country has a pretend "two-party" system in which the top officials in both parties are beholden to the wealthy/big businesses. The GOP has tossed in the towel for 2012, IMO. Not a good thing.
I basically agree with this assessment. It's "a good thing" only in the sense that Obama has established, imo, that he's not going to do any great harm ... but then he isn't really advocating, or making happen, changes that I think would significantly improve the lives of average Americans. (Of course, it can be argued that that's mostly due to the intransigence of the GOP dominated congress, which is a topic for another thread.)
Evo
Evo is offline
#338
Jan11-12, 10:20 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,967
The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide. Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.

IMO.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#339
Jan11-12, 10:42 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide.
Well, that's an empirical question that can only be definitively answered if America was to implement Paul's isolationist ideas.

Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.IMO.
But it could be argued that the people who are in positions to do anything about international politics are tools of the status quo. So, it's wrt that consideration that I would consider a Ron Paul presidency to be ... interesting.
Tosh5457
Tosh5457 is offline
#340
Jan12-12, 09:30 AM
P: 223
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide. Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.

IMO.
Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?

The other republican candidates will just keep the same foreign policy going, and I don't see how that could be better than what Ron Paul says.
MarcoD
MarcoD is offline
#341
Jan12-12, 03:10 PM
P: 98
Quote Quote by Tosh5457 View Post
Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?
Life is never that simple. For all we know, Europe could have been fascist or communist by now, Saddam could have taken over the Middle East and slaughtered half of it, and Israel might have gone down the drains decades ago.

I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.
Tosh5457
Tosh5457 is offline
#342
Jan12-12, 06:46 PM
P: 223
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
Life is never that simple. For all we know, Europe could have been fascist or communist by now, Saddam could have taken over the Middle East and slaughtered half of it, and Israel might have gone down the drains decades ago.

I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.
The reasons for USA going to war against Iraq weren't that noble, to prevent Saddam from taking over the Middle East. The fact that US could have or could have not prevent an eventual bigger evil isn't a reason to support a war, especially when there are darker reasons behind that war.

And you can't compare WWII to this... The Axis posed a threat to the Allies back then, and now do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA? Not even to Israel, with the support they've been getting from US. But on the Israel issue, USA-Israel alliance is one-sided: USA has always helped Israel, but what has Israel done for US? That's not even an alliance, that's just a country that doesn't need aid receiving aid from another country. If it wasn't for the strong political power Israel has on Washington, they'd get nothing. If the corrupt politicians weren't influenced by the pro-Israel lobbies, they'd end the alliance with Israel and let Israel govern for itself.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Paul Dirac Science & Math Textbook Listings 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