Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Khorum]

7. Profit

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Gahid

I, without a doubt in my mind, know that Ron Paul is a political mouthpiece for the Libertarian Party. Why?

1) He is a Libertarian. This is obvious to me being a Libertarian myself and having met a lot of Libertarians in my days.

He is a libertarian, as I am a libertarian, as Milton Friedman was a libertarian, as Richard Cobden was a libertarian, as Bastiat was a libertarian. None of the preceding names were capital-L Libertarians. The two are not inextricably interlinked; not even close. How does what I've quoted prove Ron Paul is shilling for the Libertarian Party?

2) He is running on a Republican platform. This will foster media attention, as any Libertarian politician knows. Shit, I worked as a personal assistant to a Libertarian gubernatorial candidate in Oregon. He is now in another office, after running as a Republican. He did not compromise a single value. His reason, out of his mouth, is that they only give you air time if you run along major party lines.

He has run as a Republican since the 1970s. This is not an example of the Libertarian candidate realizing the futility of running under the LP aegis and deciding to become a Republican for this election cycle. This is an example a libertarian (note: small L) Republican who happens to have run as a Libertarian (note: big L) once. How does what I've quoted prove Ron Paul is shilling for the Libertarian Party?

3) Ron Paul is ridiculous. There is no fucking way we would ever vote him into office - he looks like a clown (looks are everything in the pres. election), makes bold statements that few will rally behind, and now his commercials. Come on. Watch those commercials and tell me this guy thinks he has a chance of being the next US President.

As he's said many times, it is unlikely that he will win; the odds are certainly against it. But the odds were also against his campaign achieving a fraction of the success it has achieved at this point. Something unforeseen and breathtaking has happened already; that something even more breathtaking might happen is not outside the realm of possibility. How does what I've quoted prove Ron Paul is shilling for the Libertarian Party?

4) The target demographic is VERY clearly 18-25. This is historically a large voting body, but also historically an irresponsible voting body which does not show up to the polls. If you want to be president, you target people who are going to vote.

He hasn't targeted anyone -- at least he didn't initially. This demographic, who happens to be the most tech savvy group, gravitated to his message. Moreover, the people who have hitched their star to Ron Paul are not your normal political supporters. They are FAR more engaged, FAR more active, and FAR more interested than your average 22 year old Hillary supporter. How does what I've quoted prove Ron Paul is shilling for the Libertarian Party?

5) In 2012, the 18-25 demographic will be 22-29 - far more responsible, politically active, and also the most attractive and likely to influence other people en masse. They will not have forgotten Ron Paul.

That is very promising. How does what I've quoted prove Ron Paul is shilling for the Libertarian Party?

6) In 2012, you will see a serious Libertarian candidate.

I hope that will be the case. How does what I've quoted prove Ron Paul is shilling for the Libertarian Party?


In summation, your points are an eclectic scattering of unsubstantiated assertions, wishful -- by both you and me -- thoughts, and pure miscellany. Unless you've taken care not to reveal some secret information to this point, your thesis -- that Ron Paul is running to promote the Libertarian Party -- is utter birdshit. Why are you continuing to spew such garbage?

[Ortega]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

Haha, why? Because they'd have to include Ron Paul? :-p

Probably because Sean Hannity will kill himself if he wins another text poll after the debate lol!

[darksensei]

After finding out Clinton plants questions, it seems CNN does the same.

Marc Ambinder (November 16, 2007) - "Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN (Updated With CNN Response)
Questions about Carville and CNN - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

Is there any journalistic integrity left for news? Anyone know of a decent place I could check out online?

[Burf]

Originally Posted by Tristinn

If you build the only network that caters to racist, women-hating, redneck dumbasses, of course it is going to have more viewership. That audience is a bunch of close-minded morons who need people to sugarcoat their news with.. well, no news at all. Just stories about Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and missing white girls. Dumbasses love that stuff.

Let me guess: If you had to describe yourself, you'd use words like "enlightened, free-thinker, inclusive, caring, open-minded."

When, in fact, you've just proved, with one statement, how close-minded and racist you are.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Semi-related - it looks like Dr. Paul will have to work his treasury saving magic a lot sooner than we'd hoped - OPEC forgot to turn off a microphone, and everyone heard that they want to abandon the dollar. We're fucked. Enjoy the plummeting dollar!

[rinthea]

the dollar is so ripe for a sharp 10-20% rally to fuck over all these dollar bears

might have to wait a few weeks though, but they'll cop it

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Dollar Woes Continue - Chinese State TV Advises Sell Off

Weeee.

[Soriak]

I came across HR 300 that Ron Paul has introduced a couple times now... is it me, or would that rule unconstitutional the end of racial segregation? Along with any rulings past and future about abortion, gay marriage, sexual harrassment, privacy and so on.

H.R. 300: We the People Act (GovTrack.us)

The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.
1/5/2007--Introduced.
We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states.
Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act.
Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal.
Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.

I'm not sure if the Intelligent Design case was handled by a state supreme court or a federal court, but that may fall, too? Bets on what states would replace Evolution with Intelligent Design on the curriculum.

[Aulirophile]

Originally Posted by Soriak

I came across HR 300 that Ron Paul has introduced a couple times now... is it me, or would that rule unconstitutional the end of racial segregation? Along with any rulings past and future about abortion, gay marriage, sexual harrassment, privacy and so on.

H.R. 300: We the People Act (GovTrack.us)


I'm not sure if the Intelligent Design case was handled by a state supreme court or a federal court, but that may fall, too? Bets on what states would replace Evolution with Intelligent Design on the curriculum.

All states have state level laws about integrated schools now, so no. The rest is accurate, but you have to bear in mind that people can literally vote with their feet. Without welfare states anymore, productive people will move where their kids will get a good education. States will actually be competing with each other to be a good place to live, because they can't rely on Federal welfare anymore. Most of the states that would approve of ID are already bankrupt, they'd need to cultivate a VERY good image to stay solvent without being propped up.

And they can't increase taxes because: No Income Tax! They could increase property taxes but the real estate prices in States that aren't popular will fall drastically as it is, increasing taxes will just push more people away. A lot of what he proposes will result in real, meaningful economic competition between states.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Aulirophile

All states have state level laws about integrated schools now, so no.

I don't think Alabama does: Alabama clings to segregationist past | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

[FulorianC]

Alabama can cling to its racist traditions and everyone can move out of the state that cares to, the economy goes further into the shitter, and the state dies. Problem solved.

[Aulirophile]

Originally Posted by Soriak

I don't think Alabama does: Alabama clings to segregationist past | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

It does, but there are two conflicting laws, both still in place. It'd be an interesting problem for them.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by FulorianC

Alabama can cling to its racist traditions and everyone can move out of the state that cares to, the economy goes further into the shitter, and the state dies. Problem solved.

I don't think the issue is this simple for the average black, or white for that matter, family in Alabama.

And where are all these out of state jobs coming from?

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Soriak

I don't think Alabama does: Alabama clings to segregationist past | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

"Racism by itself is far too simple an explanation." - Prof. Fair, quoted in the article. Sounds like most of the opposition to the change was focused on potential litigation over education that would arise from another section of the proposal.