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

[daveb]

* In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234]
* He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13]
* Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13]
* He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235]
* He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13]
* He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27]
* He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]

Holy Crap! From the titles/descriptions., those are issues which I would similarly vote (based upon no knowledge whatsoever of the particular issue, of course).

 

[Office_Shredder]

* In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234]
* He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13]
* Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13]
* He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235]
* He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13]
* He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27]
* He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]

All of these positions are consistent with the position "The US government should stop doing things". Nothing suggests that he would maintain current regulatory powers

 

[AlephZero]

I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment.

Much of China is a good counter-example to that - unless you don't accept that China is an "economic success", of course. Rainforest destruction is economically "successful" as well - that's why people are doing it.

The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).

That was the result of bad regulations, not no regulations. Try somewhere like Norway as a better example (e.g. the oil industry is 100% state controlled with profits taxed at more than 80%, but there's nothing much wrong with the standard of living or the quality of the environment).

 

[Evo]

Some of his *proposals*

Spending: Paul proposes cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year in office, and balancing the budget by his third year. He would do this in part by eliminating five cabinet departments: Depeartment of Energy (DOE); Housing and Urban Development; Commerce; Interior; and Education. (Paul has not offered specifics on what would happen to some of the functions currently performed by the departments he wants to abolish--maintaining our nuclear weapons, administering our intellectual property system, and conducting the Census, for instance.)

he's nuts, IMO. And just who is going to takeover these functions?

Taxes: Paul has said in the past that he'd like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn't suggest that. It does propose lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, from 35 percent. And it would extend the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the estate tax. Paul's campaign has said elsewhere that he supports eliminating the capital gains tax, which, as we've written, would be a boon for, among others, private-equity managers on Wall Street.

Sounds like a boon for Wall Street and big Corporations.

Regulation: He would also get rid of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law intended to increase regulation of Wall Street. And he'd scrap Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate governance law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal.

No more corporate oversight to keep Big corps honest. Brilliant!

End Foreigh Aid

oh, yes let's snub other countries. This will really endear the rest of the World to us, but hey, we're so popular and loved, why not cut ourselves off from the rest of the world?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...taxes-spending-social-security-142130626.html

 

[mheslep]

...
oh, yes let's snub other countries. This will really endear the rest of the World to us, but hey, we're so popular and loved, why not cut ourselves off from the rest of the world?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...taxes-spending-social-security-142130626.html

Me, I find the idea of borrowing $1.2 trillion/year from other countries and then giving it out as 'aid' to still other* countries as nuts.

*Edit: Or giving back to the same ones. The US even gives even gives a little foreign aid to China.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/15/lawmakers-scrutinize-us-foreign-aid-china/

 

[mheslep]

Some of his *proposals*

he's nuts, IMO. And just who is going to takeover these functions?

Sounds like a boon for Wall Street and big Corporations.

Romney was right when he said corporations are just people. This is especially true in the context of taxes, because the income people receive via the corporation is inevitably taxed. Zeroing out the corporate income tax does not mean income escapes taxation.

OECD countries, http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3746,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html US is second only to Japan:

Australia* 30.0
Austria 25.0
Belgium* 34.0
Canada 27.6
Chile* 20.0
Czech Republic 19.0
Denmark 25.0
Estonia* 21.0
Finland 26.0
France* 34.4
Germany* 30.2
Greece 20.0
Hungary* 19.0
Iceland 20.0
Ireland 12.5
Israel* 24.0
Italy* 27.5
Japan 39.5
Korea 24.2
Luxembourg* 28.8
Mexico 30.0
Netherlands* 25.0
New Zealand* 28.0
Norway 28.0
Poland* 19.0
Portugal* 26.5
Slovak Republic 19.0
Slovenia 20.0
Spain 30.0
Sweden 26.3
Switzerland* 21.2
Turkey 20.0
United Kingdom* 26.0
United States* 39.2

 

[mheslep]

I watched Bill Buckley's 1988 Firing Line interview with Ron Paul the other night. Arg. Paul was just as rambling as a young man as he is today, 33 years later, so he's aged well. ;-)

The transcript is available here:
http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/displayTranscript.php?programID=1168

On the IRS:

Paul: ... If we don't keep the right records, can you imagine this tax simplification bill that just came out? If we don't learn those forms and do it right, we have a gun pointed at our head by the IRS and say, "You're going to be put in prison if you don't learn to fill out those forms"... We are guilty until proven innocent--

Buckley: No.

Paul: ... then we will go to jail they confiscate money from out banks --

Buckley: You got it a little bit wrong Dr Paul. Here is how it works. If the federal government --if the IRS --contests your tax, the presumption is theirs.

Paul: Right.

Buckley: But in any prosecution of you for a criminal trespass, the presumption is yours.

On Reagan, Tip O'neil's congress and spending:

Buckley: ... that's what Reagan wants, a constitutional amendment [to balance the budget].

Paul: ... that's a cop-out, because we have to ask, what were the number of vetoes that Ronald Reagan used in his term? You know, I did support Ronald Reagn in 1976, but, you know, I sincerely believe I owe Gerald Ford and apology. Because Gerald Ford vetoed more bills, percentage wise, than Ronald Reagn ever did. So Ronald Reagn did not really follow through.

Buckley: No, Dr Paul listen. You know and I know and everybody knows that you know and I know [laughter] that the techniques of handling presidential obstructionism were devised by Tip O'Neil during the past 15 years to make it easy to get around. What they simply do is amalgamate everything into one big bill. So there is the President of the US. he finds out he either vetoes this bill in which case the zoos close in Washington and the animals die or else he signs it. [laughter] Now, he is also been after the line item veto. When Ford was vetoing every other day of his life, he was getting bills for $50-100-200 million, $300 million. But that's not the kind of bills they have been giving the president of the US in the last congressional generation. They have been giving two-time bills, $500 billion, $400 billion, $200 billion.

 

[Evo]

Romney was right when he said corporations are just people. This is especially true in the context of taxes, because the income people receive via the corporation is inevitably taxed. Zeroing out the corporate income tax does not mean income escapes taxation.

But that's the tax rate before all of the deductions, write offs, loop holes, etc... I can't imagine any corporation having no deductions.

 

[FlexGunship]

Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:

The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).

I'm just saying...

 

[Evo]

Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:

The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).

I'm just saying...

That's another good point, his entire campaign is based on nonsense and false promises. BUT, he can steal enough votes if he runs as an independant to cause the GOP choice to lose the bid for Presidency.

 

[mheslep]

But that's the tax rate before al of the deductions, write offs, loop holes, etc... I can't imagine any corporation having no deductions.

Yep, about half of large corps pay less than half that rate effectively, while many of the small companies without the same access to tax avoidance pay the full freight. I expect the large companies like it that way, keeps out the little guy competition with their troublesome disruptive ideas. It's been posted already in this thread that Paul intends to do away with many of the loopholes, as does much of the current GOP (not all), and, even if he didn't, the loopholes don't pay as well at a lower marginal rate which levels the playing field.

 

[mheslep]

Much of China is a good counter-example to that - unless you don't accept that China is an "economic success", of course. Rainforest destruction is economically "successful" as well - that's why people are doing it.

I doubt it. I certainly point to China as an example of economic success, but without political freedom. I also grant China has bad pollution problems. But I ask, as compared to what? The Chinese are no longer denuding their country side because, as in extremely poor countries, wood is their only fuel and building material and farming/ranching is the only way to make a living. Also, I'd suggest that Chinese pollution is a temporary phase, as once one rises out of subsistence living clean air and water can become a primary concern. If the Chinese get some political freedom I expect they'll do something about that.

That was the result of bad regulations, not no regulations.

Yes, I suggest the attempt to regulate everything can only lead to bad regulations and cronyism.

 

[mheslep]

... Try somewhere like Norway as a better example (e.g. the oil industry is 100% state controlled with profits taxed at more than 80%, but there's nothing much wrong with the standard of living or the quality of the environment).

Eh, Statoil is a company 2/3 owned by the government, not run by it, similar I suppose to the current General Motors - US ownership situation. And Statoil is far from the beginning and end of the Norwegian oil industry in the North Sea.

The more relevant point here for me is that a citizenry of only some four million has managed a government that oversees the environment reasonably. I doubt Norwegians would welcome Brussels stomping in, claiming the Norwegian government lacks resources, or small governments will be overrun by big companies, etc, so an ever more thoughtful EU EPA will now watch over things. I suspect my state of ~six million could manage as well.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What's the difference between a regulation and a law? Do the good laws against murder and theft only lead to bad laws and cronyism? If they pass a regulation preventing my neighbor from poisoning my well does that put us on the slippery slope to chaos and mayhem? How about a law instead?

 

[mheslep]

Laws are made only by legislatures. Regulations can be created, with the force of law, by any old GS whatever employed by the executive branch. There have been some moves to change the current situation.

...requires congressional approval of a major rule -- one that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more -- before it can take effect. ...
The bill says that if Congress doesn't approve the rule within a certain time period, the rule is deemed not to have been approved and it shall not take effect,

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-congressional-approval-for-major-regulatio/

 

[feathermoon]

I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment. The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).

I don't think that's a good example. When the Aral sea's headwaters were diverted for irrigation, was the economic gains in farming equal or greater to the local economic losses of peoples dependent on it for fish, etc.?

I'm not trying to argue against your point, for I've not fully thought it through so well that I can agree or disagree fully or just in part. But, I'll agree that currently the worst environmental damage is occurring in poorer countries.

 

[daveb]

Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:

The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).

I'm just saying...

Not to hijack the thread (and you're right, it's COngress), why does Obama get blamed for things like the Health Care Act, etc., when it was Congress that poassed these bills?

 

[chiro]

Not to hijack the thread (and you're right, it's COngress), why does Obama get blamed for things like the Health Care Act, etc., when it was Congress that poassed these bills?

One thing I have noticed is that with monolithic systems like government, it has become default to pass the buck and blame someone else.

Also due to the nature of such monolithic systems, it becomes harder and harder to assign absolute responsibility to anyone person or group, and that unfortunately is a nice thing for politics.

It's not to say that people are not 'actually' responsible (because they are), but its just the unfortunate nature of the system.

 

[daveb]

Laws are made only by legislatures. Regulations can be created, with the force of law, by any old GS whatever employed by the executive branch. There have been some moves to change the current situation.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-congressional-approval-for-major-regulatio/

While true, their authority is derived by Congress who delegates authority to the agency that does the regulating (well, at least in the case of the NRC and DOT). I imagine it's the same with other Departments as well (that they are established and derive their authority by an Act of Congress).

 

[mheslep]

I don't think that's a good example. When the Aral sea's headwaters were diverted for irrigation, was the economic gains in farming equal or greater to the local economic losses of peoples dependent on it for fish, etc.? ...

I can't see how the two compare; the Aral was the 4th largest lake in the world.

 

[mheslep]

Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note:

The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country.

Neither Congress nor the President can dictate policy, unless ...

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful.

Unless they are willing to go to the mat and shut the government down. In such a case of course a President Paul could end all foreign aid, or any other positive action of the government by simply vetoing the aggregated appropriation bill until he gets what he wants. I submit there is little question Paul would close the government as long as necessary to get his promised ~$1T cuts. Some years into his term a Congress could beat him up enough politically to override, but any negative action of a recently elected President is politically impossible to overcome. So I'll completely reverse this one assertion and say that if a President Paul is elected it is guaranteed that much government based foreign aid ends.

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse).

I don't know. Of course the President can not unilaterally overturn the Federal Reserve Act. He requires positive action by the Congress, new legislation to do that. He does however have the power to appoint Fed Chairmen, so he could certainly appoint someone that will pursue only tight money policy, open the Fed books to auditing, etc, somebody like Jim Grant. The appointment is subject to Senate approval, but again for a newly elected P. he will get his way for awhile, and even if not, as the current President has demonstrated, he can do rolling recess appointments.

The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss).

A newly elected President might push that through the Senate, as there is already substantial agreement. The usual defense of catering to the rich won't stick to a President Paul.

 

[Gokul43201]

Paul's now in the lead in Iowa (in 3 out of the last 4 polls): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

 

[Evo]

Paul's now in the lead in Iowa (in 3 out of the last 4 polls): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

He's losing to Romney in the latest poll.

Romney back to leading US Republicans in Iowa: poll
(AFP) – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney has retaken the lead among Republican White House contenders in Iowa less than two weeks before it holds the first nominating contest, a poll said Thursday.

The former Massachusetts governor and on-again, off-again favorite had appeared to slip behind former House speaker Newt Gingrich in recent weeks, but the poll by Rasmussen Reports showed Romney regaining momentum.

The poll showed Romney with 25 percent support, followed by small-government champion Ron Paul at 20 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent, with the remainder of the candidates at 10 percent or less.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hjqSelHet5Ma3y2HPRXuGFn8nY7A?docId=CNG.e2eaa3a1d5b6df35ac9841bb3a6ef85b.a1

 

[John Creighto]

Neither Congress nor the President can dictate policy, unless ...


Unless they are willing to go to the mat and shut the government down. In such a case of course a President Paul could end all foreign aid, or any other positive action of the government by simply vetoing the aggregated appropriation bill until he gets what he wants. I submit there is little question Paul would close the government as long as necessary to get his promised ~$1T cuts. Some years into his term a Congress could beat him up enough politically to override, but any negative action of a recently elected President is politically impossible to overcome. So I'll completely reverse this one assertion and say that if a President Paul is elected it is guaranteed that much government based foreign aid ends.

He'll still need some congressional support. Congress can overturn a veto with 2/3rds suppot.

 

[mheslep]

He'll still need some congressional support. Congress can overturn a veto with 2/3rds suppot.

As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.

 

[Evo]

As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.

It does if they're crazy.

 

[mheslep]

It does if they're crazy.

Well that's why he's not going to be President.

 

[mheslep]

Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Johnson/

 

[Evo]

Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?

There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?

This first batch most certainly can't be the best the GOP has to offer.

 

[ThomasT]

Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

Johnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.

He was excluded from all but two of the GOP debates, because his poll numbers were low. His poll numbers were low, I would guess, because he didn't get sufficient exposure to allow even the possibility that they might increase significantly. Why is that?

 

[mheslep]

They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?

There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?

Well Johnson has been in from nearly the beginning, just didn't poll high enough to get in all of the debates. Anyway, yeah its too late now for brand new faces. A Santorum or a Huntsman could surge with a campaign already on the ground. A large chunk of the delegates get committed in the primaries to somebody in March, 3 months. I agree with Intrade: this is Romney's race now that Newt's bubble broke, 68% chance. Romney's serious, he has his pace, is not prone to mistakes. If he picks a strong VP*, and there are several very strong candidates, I think he beats the President if the economy stays flat.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=652757

What's Obama going to do on that score BTW, Biden being a heartbeat away an all that? President Biden?

 

[ThomasT]

It does if they're crazy.

I recall your caution against these threads on politicians degenerating into name-calling.

Paul's positions seem to me to be consistent with his political philosophy (libertarianism), which might in itself be viewed as extremist to a fault, but I don't think it should be characterized as crazy.

When considered wrt most of the GOP candidates, Paul doesn't seem all that crazy (or incompetent, or ill-prepared, or oportunistically slimey). But I suppose that that view isn't really saying much for Paul.

The question wrt the GOP nomination has been framed around which candidate the 'Christian right' will go for. They don't seem to be too happy with the candidates that had previously been supposed to be their obvious choices.

Romney's Mormon association is a big negative for him. Newt comes off as being too smart sometimes. Too few people are familiar with Huntsman. Paul has been around for a long time, but at the rate that he accrues new supporters he would have to be around until (I figure) the mid 2100's to actually get nominated for, much less elected to, the presidency.

 

[Evo]

Who do you think Romney would pick?

 

[Dotini]

...he's not going to be President.

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent.

They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?

There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?

This first batch most certainly can't be the best the GOP has to offer.

Condy Rice, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Jeb Bush are all possibles. In the bad old days, conventions were brokered in smoke filled rooms. That's not supposed to happen these days. But if circumstances became dire enough, the party bosses and financial backers could conceivably subvert the process. All's fair in love and war.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[mheslep]

Johnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.

Ok as of Nov 29. I missed that, though I'd heard him say he might earlier.

He was excluded from all but two of the GOP debates, because his poll numbers were low. His poll numbers were low, I would guess, because he didn't get sufficient exposure to allow even the possibility that they might increase significantly. Why is that?

Dunno, but I guess there's only room for one libertarian flag waiver inside the GOP. Right now that's Paul. I heard Johnson on air saying he visited Paul way back when, was warmly accepted until he told Paul he was going to run in the GOP upon which the "conversation quickly ended" and he was shown the door.

 

[mheslep]

Who do you think Romney would pick?

Rubio. Got to be.

 

[mheslep]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent...

Yes, exactly. He can exert a great deal of influence IF he's reasonable. That is, if he agrees not to run independent in return for getting the nominee to accept some fraction of his policies, and I hope that would be to curtail military spending, then he'll get influence. On the other hand if starts the there's no difference between the GOP and Democrats routine (as he has before) I'm running independent, then he will have zero influence on the GOP, though he'll get Obama reelected.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent.

Good point, imho. Sort of like Ralph Nader (whose primary aim was, imo, to increase the civic involvement of average Americans), but with a lot more political power.

 

[lisab]

Good point, imho. Sort of like Ralph Nader (whose primary aim was, imo, to increase the civic involvement of average Americans), but with a lot more political power.

Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?

 

[Evo]

Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?

Don't forget Ross Perot.

 

[Dotini]

Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?

Don't forget Ross Perot.

I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the common good.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[ThomasT]

Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?

Uh ... no. Not that it wouldn't be interesting. But I don't think that Nader drinks (though I don't know for sure). And I really don't want Paul to drink. Not even a little bit.

Also, I tend to smoke a few cigarettes when I'm drinking. I don't know about Paul, but I'm pretty sure that Nader doesn't smoke.

 

[ThomasT]

I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the better.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

I voted for Nader and Perot. I still think the US would have been better off if either or both of them had been elected.

 

[Dotini]

I voted for Nader and Perot. I still think the US would have been better off if either or both of them had been elected.

I wish I didn't have to worry about politics, corruption and national decline. I have better things like physics to think about. But I'm forced to deal with the reality that current Republicans and Democrats have gone off the tracks of financial sanity as well as overboard on international regime changes and imposing neo-liberal democracy at the point of a gun.

Obviously, I'm a social liberal, a financial conservative and a non-interventionist. I must reject failed leadership, and threaten it with the only available 76 year old baby doctor.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Evo]

I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the common good.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Nader was responsible for getting Bush elected. You need to think about what you are doing when you vote. Was your goal to elect Bush?

Irresponsible voting can have disastrous consequences.

On the positive side he lost the election for Gore.

 

[ThomasT]

Nader was responsible for getting Bush elected.

That's the usual view, and imo, and Pauli's words, it's "not even wrong". Bush got elected because of the incompetency of the Democratic Party, the activism of the fanatical Christian right, and the complacency of the rest of the US electorate. The American people got what they deserved, and, apparently, what they wanted -- eight years of G.W. Bush.

Was your goal to elect Bush?

The goal for people who voted for Nader was, I'm assuming, to elect Nader.

Acquiescence to an undesirable status quo and continued voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is, imo, an irresponsibe use of one's freedom to vote. I voted for the person, Nader, who I most admired and thought would make the best President.

 

[Evo]

That's the usual view, and imo, and Pauli's words, it's "not even wrong". Bush got elected because of the incompetency of the Democratic Party, the activism of the fanatical Christian right, and the complacency of the rest of the US electorate. The American people got what they deserved, and, apparently, what they wanted -- eight years of G.W. Bush.

The goal for people who voted for Nader was, I'm assuming, to elect Nader.

Acquiescence to an undesirable status quo and continued voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is, imo, an irresponsibe use of one's freedom to vote. I voted for the person, Nader, who I most admired and thought would make the best President.

The fact is, he stole enough votes to cause a Bush win.

Exit polls showed New Hampshire staying close, and within the margin of error without Nader[63] as national exit polls showed Nader's supporters choosing Gore over Bush by a large margin,[64] well outside the margin of error. Winning either state would have given Gore the presidency, and while critics claim this shows Nader tipped the election to Bush

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat.

Nader has tried to wriggle out of it, but the fact is, he caused it. No, he didn't intend to cause it, but there you go. Not thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

 

[ThomasT]

The fact is, he stole enough votes to cause a Bush win.

He 'stole' votes? What does that mean? He ran for a public office that he had the right, even the duty (in his supporters' as well as his own view), to run for. The fact of the matter is that nobody has any way of knowing how many votes he might have taken away from Bush and from Gore. But the all important point is that we shouldn't be thinking in those terms.

Nader has tried to wriggle out of it ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEQ5G_w324k&feature=related

hSJ-QtdD64M[/youtube] [MEDIA=youtub...that of those who would have had him not run.

 

[fleem]

About this "stealing" of votes. The problem isn't third party candidates that don't play the system. The problem is the system, itself. The system uses ballots specifically designed to punish third party candidates. There are a myriad of simple ways to design a ballot that mitigates the third party "split" effect, yet never do you hear of legislation for such ballot reform. For one example, each voter could be given two votes that cannot be given to the same candidate. How convenient that our legislators haven't thought of that yet, in spite of 230 years of talk about the "problem" of party splitting. Heaven forbid the people should be given more than two options placed before them by the system.

 

[ThomasT]

About this "stealing" of votes. The problem isn't third party candidates that don't play the system. The problem is the system, itself. The system uses ballots specifically designed to punish third party candidates. There are a myriad of simple ways to design a ballot that mitigates the third party "split" effect, yet never do you hear of legislation for such ballot reform. For one example, each voter could be given two votes that cannot be given to the same candidate. How convenient that our legislators haven't thought of that yet, in spite of 230 years of talk about the "problem" of party splitting. Heaven forbid the people should be given more than two options placed before them by the system.

Good points, imho. But we'd better get back to discussing Ron Paul. You might start a new thread regarding your statements/points. I think it would be an interesting discussion, and I'd probably learn something.

I've watched a bunch of Ron Paul videos on youtube, dating from 25 years ago to recent weeks. I've come to the conclusion that he would be great to have as a family member, but I don't want him to be the president of the US.

This thread could probably be closed, except that there seem to be some diehard Paul supporters here at PF, and also that the Republican race is currently so unpredictable.