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

[Galteeth]

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.

Many "fringe" groups have contributed to Paul's campaign. Paul has criticized Lincoln, and has suggested a better way to deal with the conflict would have been to incrementally buy and set free slaves (keep in mind the original purpose of the war was not to free slaves but to preserve the union, and slavery remained legal in four union states even during the war.). This is far from suggesting the Confederacy was in the right. Regardless, these are historical speculations that don't have much to do with current politics.

As far as the JBS goes, I really don't get the point. Sure the JBS has some wacky members. Historically they were wrapped up in anti-communist hysteria (most unfortunately being paranoid of the civil right movement for being infiltrated by communists). But even then they rejected racism officially. Their current positions are pretty much small "l" libertarian. It's natural they would support Paul.

 

[ThomasT]

Many "fringe" groups have contributed to Paul's campaign. Paul has criticized Lincoln, and has suggested a better way to deal with the conflict would have been to incrementally buy and set free slaves (keep in mind the original purpose of the war was not to free slaves but to preserve the union, and slavery remained legal in four union states even during the war.). This is far from suggesting the Confederacy was in the right. Regardless, these are historical speculations that don't have much to do with current politics.

As far as the JBS goes, I really don't get the point. Sure the JBS has some wacky members. Historically they were wrapped up in anti-communist hysteria (most unfortunately being paranoid of the civil right movement for being infiltrated by communists). But even then they rejected racism officially. Their current positions are pretty much small "l" libertarian. It's natural they would support Paul.

Good points, imo. Still, I remain skeptical wrt Paul.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

Again, all I'm seeing is a bunch of vague (unnamed person, unspecified connections) assertions and no citation to a source that will clarify.

Here, try this for size: Apparently a person who has been instrumental in contributing to Obama's philosophy wishes that God would condemn the United States. And this idea seems to me to be consistent with Obama's demonstrated preference of apologizing for the actions of the US.

I would suppose that if Obama were asked directly about this he would probably deny it. Just as he denies advocating some of the violent stuff that was practiced in the past by one of his friends.

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.

Unless you specify (with evidence, where needed), what speific positions you find extreme, it's difficult for a reader to know what you're talking about: one person's 'extreme' is another person's 'reasonable'.

For instance...

By the way, I am in agreement with Paul regarding the legalization of marijuana.

I imagine a large majority[1] of people in the party Paul is running in likely consider that an extreme position, even though it seems wholly reasonable to you.

1. See, for instance, p17 in this PDF --> http://people-press.org/files/2011/03/711.pdf

 

[ThomasT]

Again, all I'm seeing is a bunch of vague (unnamed person, unspecified connections) assertions and no citation to a source that will clarify.

Yes, that is a problem. I just recall reading that a certain (apparently significant) contributor to Paul's effort was pro confederacy. But since I don't remember the source, then it's not a significant or arguable point, and, unless it can be documented, then it should be disregarded.

Here's an interchange between Paul and a newsperson on the civil war:


Paul's responses here seem pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

For someone who is so vehemently abhorrent of the two-party system and the influence of corporate money on politics, I find it a little surprising you don't show even the slightest signs of support or sympathy for the one candidate that seems to be most immune to both of these ills.

I disagree with Paul on many of his positions. But his steadfastness to principle and his disinterest in lobbyists are a sight for sore eyes.

In 2010, the average payout to members of Congress from lobbyists was around $50,000, with top recipients (usually senior members of Congress, mostly Dems) bagging over a million bucks each of lobbying money. Paul is credited with receiving a whopping $352.

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/lobbyists-pay-millions-honor-congress-executive-branch/[/size]

 

[turbo]

For someone who is so vehemently abhorrent of the two-party system and the influence of corporate money on politics, I find it a little surprising you don't show even the slightest signs of support or sympathy for the one candidate that seems to be most immune to both of these ills.

My lack of support for Paul is based on his off-the-wall views on many issues. Even if he had a chance at getting elected, there is no way that a sitting president can reform the electoral system, roll back Citizens United, and eliminate lobbying. Congress has to do those things to make them happen, but they won't because the system is rigged toward incumbents.

 

[mheslep]

... But his steadfastness to principle and his disinterest in lobbyists are a sight for sore eyes.

Well said and strongly agree. I wonder if those characteristics have become available only to libertarian candidates. I see similar characteristics in his son the Senator from Kentucky.

 

[mheslep]

@Turbo - a popular president with strong principles on limited government could well demolish much of the existing system. Beholden to no government interest, least of all government employees, such a leader could, and would, threaten that which the existing
interests hold most dear: spending. Such a leader would not blink at a threat of shutting down the government from Congress, and could simply veto spending bills until he gets what he wants.

 

[turbo]

That's a long-shot though. The do-nothing Congress will shut the government down all by itself - no President required.

 

[Galteeth]

That's a long-shot though. The do-nothing Congress will shut the government down all by itself - no President required.

Sounds great...

 

[Galteeth]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3792005&posted=1#post3792005

I am requesting for anyone with statistics expertise to please look at this thread.

 

[Dotini]

Don't look now, but it would appear Ron Paul has won the Iowa and Minnesota primaries. As he's still very much in the running, and Romney hasn't locked up the requisite delegates, perhaps it not really over until the deals are cut at the convention? Paul's supporters will not quit until they prevail.

 

[mheslep]

Don't look now, but it would appear Ron Paul has won the Iowa and Minnesota primaries. As he's still very much in the running, and Romney hasn't locked up the requisite delegates, perhaps it not really over until the deals are cut at the convention? Paul's supporters will not quit until they prevail.

Then they will never quit, as they will not prevail. Santorum won 11 states and he's out (9 if you give back Iowa and Minn to Paul).

 

[Evo]

Don't look now, but it would appear Ron Paul has won the Iowa and Minnesota primaries. As he's still very much in the running, and Romney hasn't locked up the requisite delegates, perhaps it not really over until the deals are cut at the convention? Paul's supporters will not quit until they prevail.

Please post where the GOP has decided this and you must use a maintream, official source, I can't find one.

 

[Dotini]

Please post where the GOP has decided this and you must use a maintream, official source, I can't find one.

Dear Evo,
I'd love to be able to post that the GOP has finally decided this, but the delegate process is ongoing in many states and under many different sets of rules.

But I will give you a true anecdote: Despite never having been a Republican, I was elected to be one of 21 delegates to the Washington State Republican Convention at the 36th Legislative District Caucus (comprising the Belltown, Queen Anne, Magnolia and Ballard neighborhoods in Seattle). When it became clear that the Paul delegates outnumbered the combined "unity slate" delegates for Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, the GOP LD executive had the ballots and counting machine immediately secreted from the premises! Despite this dirty trick - all too typical in politics - the Paul delegates prevailed and took all 21 delegate spots and 21 alternates to the State party convention. Other LD's around the state have strong Paul contingents. Then at the convention it will be decided who wins the state and its delegate count. You out in TV land may wish to believe the talking heads on TV, but at the grass roots level the fight goes on, the count is not in, and decision not made. Ron Paul has a shot at Washington State, as well as others.

I will tell you something else, too. At 63, I was probably among the very oldest persons for Paul in the caucus of 214 precinct delegates. Paul's supporters are varied, but young people and veterans were prominent in numbers, thoughtfulness and energy. Their hands are now gripping the levers of power in the local Republican party.

In conclusion, I will venture to say that the future is out there for the young and strong to win, and those that rest easy in their Lazyboy recliners and put their trust in talking heads on TV are in for a big surprise.

Very respectfully yours,
Steve

 

[turbo]

Maine's GOP is in turmoil since the caucuses. Waldo county's voters were disregarded, as were Washington county's voters, and the heavily Paul-supporting Waterville caucus results were also suppressed (there are two colleges in that town).

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-15/politics/31062266_1_paul-s-campaign-ron-paul-vote-count
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57381016/ron-paul-wins-maine-county-caucus/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/ron-paul-maine-caucus-results-2012_n_1270850.html
http://www.infowars.com/maine-caucuses-counties-ron-paul-won-were-ignored-omitted-from-final-count/

I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but he sure did get the dirty end of the stick from the Maine GOP.

 

[jduster]

At this point, even if Ron Paul won every single state, by a landslide, he would not win the nomination.

But he can keep moving the goalpost to keep his supporters happy.

 

[ThomasT]

At this point, even if Ron Paul won every single state, by a landslide, he would not win the nomination.

Yeah, anyway, Paul's message or ideas seem to be unimportant to the American people. He's history. Close the thread.

 

[Rajput9572]

I would vote for him in the general election against Obama.

 

[mheslep]

I would vote for him in the general election against Obama.

As would millions of others.

 

[Evo]

As would millions of others.

So why did he lose so badly in the primaries? Dead last doesn't show much support from actual humans IMO, "virtual" supporters can't vote.

 

[Hobin]

So why did he lose so badly in the primaries? Dead last doesn't show much support from actual humans IMO, "virtual" supporters can't vote.

To be fair, in the latest Gallup polls he could still count on ~10% support from GOP supporters. That makes him lose badly, of course, but that's still millions of people.

 

[jduster]

There is a reason why Ron Paul gets all of these donations, has stadiums packed at his rallies and has grassroots all over the nation, yet so little votes.

Ron Paul supporters are a vocal minority, whereas Romney supporters are a silent majority.

Let's say there are 1 million Paul Supporters and 10 million Romney Supporters, which primaries show this simplistic estimate isn't too far from reality.

The 1 million Ron Paul supporters will be outside campaigning, while almost all of Romney's supporters will be sitting at home, living their normal lives for months, and generally not having politics on their minds.

When voting day comes, whether you campaigned every week for the past 12 months or you are barely political. Your vote counts no more than anyone elses.

 

[mheslep]

So why did he lose so badly in the primaries? Dead last doesn't show much support from actual humans IMO, "virtual" supporters can't vote.

A majority of R. primary voters, not all, found the other R. candidates more appealing. Paul maintained a dedicated support hovering around ~20% nationally up through February at least. There is also a progressive/left leaning anti-war contingent that switches over from the Democrats only for the idea of Paul candidacy in the general election. Of the ~120 million or so that turn out for a presidential election, Paul would get his millions against Obama, even if he would highly unlikely to win.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

A majority of R. primary voters, not none, found the other R. candidates more appealing. Paul maintained a dedicated support hovering around ~20% nationally up through February at least. There is also a progressive/left leaning anti-war contingent that switches over from the Democrats only for the idea of Paul candidacy in the general election. Of the ~120 million or so that turn out for a presidential election, Paul would get his millions against Obama, even if he would highly unlikely to win.

if a majority of R. primary voters found Santorum and Romney more appealing than Paul... I have a hard time seeing Paul ever getting to the general election.

 

[Gokul43201]

As would millions of others.

If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

I think it's pretty clear that Paul has been in this race primarily to influence the way people think about fiscal and foreign policy rather than to actually win the nomination. If anything, I imagine Paul would have had a vastly better chance of winning the Presidency as an independent candidate than as a Republican. The reason he chose to run as a Rep was to gain visibility, have the opportunity to debate the other candidates, and influence the national psyche. I think he's been very successful at that.

 

[SixNein]

If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

I think it's pretty clear that Paul has been in this race primarily to influence the way people think about fiscal and foreign policy rather than to actually win the nomination. If anything, I imagine Paul would have had a vastly better chance of winning the Presidency as an independent candidate than as a Republican. The reason he chose to run as a Rep was to gain visibility, have the opportunity to debate the other candidates, and influence the national psyche. I think he's been very successful at that.

I find it hard to be impressed by a person who actually takes libertarian ideas seriously.

 

[mheslep]

If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

I think it's pretty clear that Paul has been in this race primarily to influence the way people think about fiscal and foreign policy rather than to actually win the nomination. If anything, I imagine Paul would have had a vastly better chance of winning the Presidency as an independent candidate than as a Republican. The reason he chose to run as a Rep was to gain visibility, have the opportunity to debate the other candidates, and influence the national psyche. I think he's been very successful at that.

Agreed. And in so doing he paves the way for another libertarian-ish candidate that may be more electable, i.e. his Senator son, former Gov Johnson, or the like.

 

[CAC1001]

I find it hard to be impressed by a person who actually takes libertarian ideas seriously.

Small-L libertarians are fine I think. Libertarian Party libertarians are where you find the people who believe that President Bush was being secretly controlled by aliens, 9/11 was an inside job, the Moon landing was a hoax, every single government regulatory agency needs to be done away with, etc...but otherwise, libertarian ideas in terms of limited government, economic freedom, social freedom, etc...I think are very sound.

 

[SixNein]

Small-L libertarians are fine I think. Libertarian Party libertarians are where you find the people who believe that President Bush was being secretly controlled by aliens, 9/11 was an inside job, the Moon landing was a hoax, every single government regulatory agency needs to be done away with, etc...but otherwise, libertarian ideas in terms of limited government, economic freedom, social freedom, etc...I think are very sound.

I suppose I don't understand the appeal of objectivism.