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

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
578 replies · 81K views
CAC1001 said:
One look at the media in Europe and one will see that the Europeans have a rather limited worldview given how their media leans almost entirely socially-democratic. It isn't like in the U.S., where you have firey polemic on both ends of the spectrum. This is because the Europeans don't trust the free-market to handle the issue of media, and thus entrust it to the government, in the idea that the government running the media will ensure it is fair, balanced, objective, etc...but which often results in it being unfair, unbalanced, and completely subjective. Media that is run by the private-sector, they regulate very stringently.

As a European, I am not sure whether I should be grateful for being enlightened.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Last night's sweep of caucuses and beauty contest by Santorum really sets the cat amongst the pigeons. Paul even pushed Romney down to 3rd in Minnesota.

This is going to set in a state of extreme jitters, blood-spitting and deep agonizing amongst the party pros, financiers, pundits and media elites. They literally have no idea what to do, so I expect anything, possibly including would-be savior figures like Mitch Daniels to suddenly appear on the screens.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
Dotini said:
possibly including would-be savior figures like Mitch Daniels to suddenly appear on the screens.
Gov. Daniels was pushed hard to enter before the primaries started and did not. Do you have any information indicating he would change his mind now, when its nearly a practical impossibility to run a campaign?
 
mheslep said:
Gov. Daniels was pushed hard to enter before the primaries started and did not. Do you have any information indicating he would change his mind now, when its nearly a practical impossibility to run a campaign?

Yes, sir. The scenario I have in mind has the current candidates continuing to score delegates such that, come the convention, none of them have sufficient numbers to take the nomination on the first ballot. This allows a unification candidate to be presented by the party elders on subsequent ballots. I mentioned Daniels, but there are several others who might fit the role.

Respectfully yours,
Steve
 
I don't know why, but I love how you put "respectfully yours" after your messages. It makes them so much nicer to read.
 
Char. Limit said:
I don't know why, but I love how you put "respectfully yours" after your messages. It makes them so much nicer to read.

Thank you!

Mainly, I do it because I really mean it.

After retiring from Boeing, I joined numerous forums for continuing education, intellectual stimulation and various special interests. I've come to learn that things go better when one is polite, respectful and follows the rules, and also that PF members are the smartest, most highly educated people I've met on any forum.

Respectfully yours,
Steve
 
Last edited:
Dotini said:
Yes, sir. The scenario I have in mind has the current candidates continuing to score delegates such that, come the convention, none of them have sufficient numbers to take the nomination on the first ballot. This allows a unification candidate to be presented by the party elders on subsequent ballots. I mentioned Daniels, but there are several others who might fit the role.
That's not possible without cooperation of the existing candidates. In many states those delegates are committed in writing to voting for the winning candidate in their state, unless that candidate releases them.
 
CAC1001 said:
Not really. That's a common stereotype, but it isn't true. One look at the media in Europe and one will see that the Europeans have a rather limited worldview given how their media leans almost entirely socially-democratic. It isn't like in the U.S., where you have firey polemic on both ends of the spectrum. This is because the Europeans don't trust the free-market to handle the issue of media, and thus entrust it to the government, in the idea that the government running the media will ensure it is fair, balanced, objective, etc...but which often results in it being unfair, unbalanced, and completely subjective. Media that is run by the private-sector, they regulate very stringently.

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.
 
SoggyBottoms said:
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.

At least, that's what the media says :biggrin:.
 
Yes obviously smugness has long been the way to go there.
 
SoggyBottoms said:
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. :smile:
 
ThomasT said:
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?
 
Jasongreat said:
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.
 
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.
 
ThomasT said:
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. :)
 
Jasongreat said:
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.
 
ThomasT said:
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.
 
turbo said:
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.
 
ThomasT said:
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.
 
turbo said:
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.
 
Last edited:
ThomasT said:
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?
 
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
 
ThomasT said:
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?
 
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:
newsone said:
why he believes the North was wrong in the Civil War and why the South was right.
which is misleading, bordering on a lie.
 
Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
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.