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

[phinds]

It's saying that there are more Americans who say they're Christians than Americans who say they believe in ghosts.

Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.

 

[Proton Soup]

How does Ron look in a short skirt?

Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?

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/pub...n_2012_presidential_election/obama_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]

Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.

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

 

[Galteeth]

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

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]

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.

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]

Honestly there was sort of this impression "If people just heard about Ron Paul they would see what he's saying makes sense."

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable.

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.

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.

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.

Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.

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/09/17/california.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]

(what did I leave out?)

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]

Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.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.

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

 

[Evo]

Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.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.

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

 

[Dotini]

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

Okay, straw polls, etc. are fake. Maybe even national polls have an element of fraud. Is there a better way to determine who should be a candidate or an elected official?

Paul's campaign claims military donations lead the Republican pack at a whopping 71% for Paul the peacenik. Is this also a misleading or meaningless statistic?

http://www.dailypaul.com/179080/if-a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Galteeth]

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

They aren't fake, and what you posted about isn't fraud. What you were referencing is that supporters of ron paul realized that with his passionate supporter base and the organization of the grassroots, they could do well at straw polls. Straw polls are not a neutral sample, but rather a sample of people who are politically enthusiastic. They may not be representative of the GOP elecorate, but they aren't fake. I don't know what you're talking about with regards to fraud. Encouraging people to attend and vote in polls isn't fraud. Fraud would be something illegal or in violation of the pol rules, i.e, manipulating voting machines or interfering with other candidates' votes.

 

[lisab]

They aren't fake, and what you posted about isn't fraud. What you were referencing is that supporters of ron paul realized that with his passionate supporter base and the organization of the grassroots, they could do well at straw polls. Straw polls are not a neutral sample, but rather a sample of people who are politically enthusiastic. They may not be representative of the GOP elecorate, but they aren't fake. I don't know what you're talking about with regards to fraud. Encouraging people to attend and vote in polls isn't fraud. Fraud would be something illegal or in violation of the pol rules, i.e, manipulating voting machines or interfering with other candidates' votes.

Straw polls are not representative of the general population, i.e., they aren't statistically valid.

Definition -

Straw poll: an unofficial poll or vote taken to determine the opinion of a group or the public on some issue

 

[DoggerDan]

Straw polls are not representative of the general population, i.e., they aren't statistically valid.

Definition -

Straw poll: an unofficial poll or vote taken to determine the opinion of a group or the public on some issue

So it's "straw" only because it's unofficial?

 

[ThomasT]

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]

Aside from the phony straw poll results, just do a search.

http://www.google.com/search?source...&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS339US339&q=ron+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/articl...ndidates-addled-take-on-personal-liberty.html

 

[fleem]

@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/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?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]

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/Electi...-in-Iowa-shows-it-s-too-soon-to-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]

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]

and by windmills, i assume you mean neocon thinktanks itching for another war.

 

[daveb]

No, by windmills, the audience applause and almost unanimous view from the other candidates that the PATRIOT Act needed to be strengthened.

 

[pergradus]

Uhm, yeah.



http://www.wctv.tv/wswg/headlines/Ron_Paul_I_Dont_Accept_the_Theory_of_Evolution_128652403.html

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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).

...The federal domain can be interpreted to include anything that the constitution doesn't expressly prohibit as being part of that domain,

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:

[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.

 

[ThomasT]

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 ...

Insofar as that money is payroll and withholding taxes, then it's not contributing to the general economy unless the government in some way puts it into the general economy. Welfare programs are one way to do that, and the degree to which that benefits the general economy (ie., the desirability/necessity of federal welfare programs as opposed to no federal welfare programs) is an open question.

But you suggested that my assertion (that federal welfare programs benefit the general economy by infusing hundreds of billions of dollars into the general economy) implied that "the federal government should confiscate all money to create jobs for all, zeroing unemployment, and providing food, shelter and assistance universally" -- and I still don't get how that is implied in a basic framework of private enterprise and private sector ownership of businesses (including publicly owned and traded companies).

In my view, state and local governments and private sector businesses, organizations, and people don't have the resources (or are unwilling to use their resources) to deal with the problems addressed by federal welfare programs, and that abolishing most/all federal welfare would have disastrous effects. Paul suggests otherwise. So, I disagree with him on that.

 

[lpetrich]

I must say that I am mystified by the zeal that some of Ron Paul's supporters have. What about him and his positions could possibly inspire such zeal?

I remember the 2008 primaries, and there was an interesting split in the vote for him between the various primary events. There are two kinds: primaries proper, where ordinary members vote, and caucuses, local party meetings.

Ron Paul had differing amounts of votes in the two types of events. In the caucuses, he often got percentages in the teens, while in the primaries proper, he often got low single digits.

What might explain that discrepancy? It seems to me that Ron Paul provokes a lot of support among Republican activists, but that those activists have been unable to convey their enthusiasm to the broader public.

 

[turbo]

What might explain that discrepancy? It seems to me that Ron Paul provokes a lot of support among Republican activists, but that those activists have been unable to convey their enthusiasm to the broader public.

That level of support doesn't even begin to translate to the broader GOP primary electorate. Paul's support is not deep enough to get the Republicans worked up, in part (IMO) because some of his Libertarian views may seem too "liberal" to the base. He might have a better level of support if he changed his party affiliation to Dem.

 

[KingNothing]

I don't know why I'm even chiming in so late, but...

I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat. If not him, then Obama. Although I don't agree with him on everything, to me he is a symbol that a candidate can deviate from party lines and still be viable. I am tired of the status quo and I am tired of every candidate being a puppet in the hands of their party.

 

[mheslep]

Aside from scaling back the US military, what or which of Ron Paul's view's could be considered liberal?

 

[Dotini]

For one, Paul would scale back the War on Drugs, because he and most libertarians do not feel it is the role of government to say what a person can or cannot put into their body.

He is anti-authoritarian, and favors maximizing personal liberties. I think most liberals like the idea of personal freedoms and liberties, but are more ambivalent about authority.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[mheslep]

I must say that I am mystified by the zeal that some of Ron Paul's supporters have. What about him and his positions could possibly inspire such zeal?

The sense that the federal government is out of constitutional control, that it has run-a-muck in both its spending and action, especially abroad, find a lot of common ground. Paul has established integrity on the subject so many believe he'd do as he says given the chance. I'm happy he won't be the nominee. IF he was, though I find him a bit of old crackpot, I calculate an isolationist crackpot is not likely to do much harm abroad in a few years compared to the harm the current President could do by continuing to run trillion dollar deficits and continuing to gather power unto Washington, DC.

 

[ThomasT]

The sense that the federal government is out of constitutional control, that it has run-a-muck in both its spending and action, especially abroad, find a lot of common ground.

Yes, I think this is Paul's essential message, and why he's attractive, at least initially, to lots of voters.

Paul has established integrity on the subject so many believe he'd do as he says given the chance.

Yes, I think this is true.

I'm happy he won't be the nominee. IF he was, though I find him a bit of an old crackpot.

We diverge here. I don't think Paul should be labeled a crackpot. His positions are consistent with what he says he believes. He's a strict constitutionalist, a libertarian, and a devout Christian. There's nothing crackpotty about any of that, imo.

But I do happen to very much disagree with Paul's stated positions wrt several issues.

 

[Galteeth]

I must say that I am mystified by the zeal that some of Ron Paul's supporters have. What about him and his positions could possibly inspire such zeal?

I remember the 2008 primaries, and there was an interesting split in the vote for him between the various primary events. There are two kinds: primaries proper, where ordinary members vote, and caucuses, local party meetings.

Ron Paul had differing amounts of votes in the two types of events. In the caucuses, he often got percentages in the teens, while in the primaries proper, he often got low single digits.

What might explain that discrepancy? It seems to me that Ron Paul provokes a lot of support among Republican activists, but that those activists have been unable to convey their enthusiasm to the broader public.

Caucuses depend on people "making deals". It is a format that favors prepared, committed activists. The casual voter who doesn't have strong convictions is unlikely to get far in a caucus meeting. Paul's people are passionate, well organized, and won't accept a compromise at a caucus that doesn't get them something. As far as the zeal, is it that hard to understand? There is a small but significant group of people who believe in the libertarian philosophy of non-aggression. When I first heard about Paul in 2007, although I didn't agree with everything he said, it was the first time a politician really spoke to me. The enthusiasm is also contagious once you engage with other activists.

 

[turbo]

How many people here have actually attended caucuses? They are exercises in horse-trading and arm-bending IMO. And they DON'T reflect the views of the majority in either party. They can be black-bloced by party activists to their own ends. If you live in a really small town where "everyone knows your name" caucuses can be an effective tool for trying to exert some local control. Live in a large town? Caucuses can be a very effective tool for ideologues to hijack your elections.