[quote]Mick28 wrote:
So, you agree that McCain has no chance of winning
[/quote]
I don’t believe any Republican has much of a chance in the general election. Spending and the war has hurt the party badly. Thinking about it it over the last couple of days, if I was to vote Republican (I have no plans to) I’d hold my nose and vote Huck. And only because of foreign policy.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
This is also a good way for Paul to save up for his retirement. Did you know that he can keep every dollar donated to his failed presidential bid?
I hope the 20 somethings keep sending him their beer money. He’ll be able to afford a beach house in Malibu.
[/quote]
For all the criticisms of the guy, this one is way off.
Anyways, I think he may end up running third party. His support is really pushing for him to do this if he loses the nomination (which he will). He’ll still get enough money flow to do so, if he chooses.
See, you’re sort of missing the point of his continued support. It’s not about winning. It’s about keeping one real small government, non-interventionist, fiscal converative, pro civil liberty voice in this race for as long as possible. And maybe from there, we’ll see more of such candidates in the future.
There’s this Jane Q. friend of mine who said some insightful words. Thought I’d share:
[i]"If Paul has no chance, it will be precisely because of all the otherwise well-meaning people who keep saying “Paul has no chance”.
The “wasted vote” is a myth, or at best a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you do not vote for who you WANT to win, then someone you do not want will win. Period. It is as simple as that. Thinking about it any other way is nothing more than second-guessing, or mental jerking off."[/i]
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
This is also a good way for Paul to save up for his retirement. Did you know that he can keep every dollar donated to his failed presidential bid?
[/quote]
This explains much. His campaign was calculated to raise money from fringe people, not sway the debate or get votes.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
This is also a good way for Paul to save up for his retirement. Did you know that he can keep every dollar donated to his failed presidential bid?
I hope the 20 somethings keep sending him their beer money. He’ll be able to afford a beach house in Malibu.
For all the criticisms of the guy, this one is way off.
Anyways, I think he may end up running third party. His support is really pushing for him to do this if he loses the nomination (which he will). He’ll still get enough money flow to do so, if he chooses.
See, you’re sort of missing the point of his continued support. It’s not about winning. It’s about keeping one real small government, non-interventionist, fiscal converative, pro civil liberty voice in this race for as long as possible. And maybe from there, we’ll see more of such candidates in the future.[/quote]
Agreed. You can slam Nominal Prospect and other Paulies or whatever as much as you want, but I think most of Paul’s supporters are rational conservatives or libertarians fed up with the Republican Party, who may well have known Paul had a minimal (not non-existent, but extremely minimal) chance to win the GOP nomination. We supported him because we got sick of choosing the lesser of two evils time and again.
But please, Thunderbolt, give us another lecture on how a two-party democracy works.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
This is also a good way for Paul to save up for his retirement. Did you know that he can keep every dollar donated to his failed presidential bid?
This explains much. His campaign was calculated to raise money from fringe people, not sway the debate or get votes.
[/quote]
Honestly, why do you think Rudy was even running? You don’t really believe it had to do with anything besides him making money, do you?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
But please, Thunderbolt, give us another lecture on how a two-party democracy works.[/quote]
Another fantastic whine by someone whose candidate is on the outside looking in. No more, no less.
Of course, there is no two-party system - it is a winner take all system that naturally generates two parties, as broad coalitions join forces to defeat other coalitions.
Interestingly, this same “joining forces” happens in parliamentary governments.
Now, Gdollars, you have bleated out the complaint - tell me, how exactly are third parties prohibited in the American scheme? Surely you must know. Are they illegal? Restricted? Do they not enjoy the same 1st Amendment privileges of assembly and free speech to get their message out? In the marketplace of ideas, do they not get a fair chance?
Perhaps the government should indulge in the “fairness doctrine” so candidates from the Green, Constitution, Libertarian, Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, and Whigs can stop being “oppressed” by the “system”?
If you have a superior system to that of the Founding Fathers of the country - I am all ears. Right now we have essentially a “free market” of political ideas - the equivalent of small business, no-name software companies having to put their product on the same shelf as Microsoft or Apple to compete for consumer attention - but by all means, suggest an alternative. Can’t wait to hear your thoughtful piece.
No, it’s likely not the system you are mad at. What seems to be the case is that your candidate - who dwells at the margins with most of his political opinions, in addition to his questionable character - can’t crack the rotation, so your natural reaction is to victimize him and claim it must be someone else’s fault that he isn’t elected President by a unanimous vote of Americans.
I can give you a much better reason why your candidate can’t get traction - not enough people think his ideas have merit.
I know - almost painfully too simple - but the system is and has always been open to Paul. Always.
It’s not the “system” that doomed Paul - it’s that the American electorate ain’t buying what Uncle Ron is selling.
But let’s hear - what is a better system?
[quote]tme wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
This is also a good way for Paul to save up for his retirement. Did you know that he can keep every dollar donated to his failed presidential bid?
This explains much. His campaign was calculated to raise money from fringe people, not sway the debate or get votes.
Honestly, why do you think Rudy was even running? You don’t really believe it had to do with anything besides him making money, do you?
[/quote]
Rudy is so broke he couldn’t pay his staffers. He ran to increase his national political presence and perhaps get elected. Paul is lining his pockets with donations from white supremacists and others.
What I would like is some kind of multi-party system. Temporary alliances could be formed and broken, depending on the pressing issues. Legislation would still have to go through the constitutional checks and balances, of course. But, it would be nice to have some real choice.
I don’t know if states could be encouraged to look at their ballot access procedures, but it would be welcome. So much money and time is spent on just getting on the ballot, it leaves little for actually getting the name and message out. But, I have a feeling the two parties would find common ground in lobbying against any meaningful changes. But hey, gotta try. Nothing needs to be said about McCain Feingold, except that it sucks.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
But please, Thunderbolt, give us another lecture on how a two-party democracy works.
Another fantastic whine by someone whose candidate is on the outside looking in. No more, no less.
Of course, there is no two-party system - it is a winner take all system that naturally generates two parties, as broad coalitions join forces to defeat other coalitions.
Interestingly, this same “joining forces” happens in parliamentary governments.
Now, Gdollars, you have bleated out the complaint - tell me, how exactly are third parties prohibited in the American scheme? Surely you must know. Are they illegal? Restricted? Do they not enjoy the same 1st Amendment privileges of assembly and free speech to get their message out? In the marketplace of ideas, do they not get a fair chance?
Perhaps the government should indulge in the “fairness doctrine” so candidates from the Green, Constitution, Libertarian, Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, and Whigs can stop being “oppressed” by the “system”?
If you have a superior system to that of the Founding Fathers of the country - I am all ears. Right now we have essentially a “free market” of political ideas - the equivalent of small business, no-name software companies having to put their product on the same shelf as Microsoft or Apple to compete for consumer attention - but by all means, suggest an alternative. Can’t wait to hear your thoughtful piece.
No, it’s likely not the system you are mad at. What seems to be the case is that your candidate - who dwells at the margins with most of his political opinions, in addition to his questionable character - can’t crack the rotation, so your natural reaction is to victimize him and claim it must be someone else’s fault that he isn’t elected President by a unanimous vote of Americans.
I can give you a much better reason why your candidate can’t get traction - not enough people think his ideas have merit.
I know - almost painfully too simple - but the system is and has always been open to Paul. Always.
It’s not the “system” that doomed Paul - it’s that the American electorate ain’t buying what Uncle Ron is selling.
But let’s hear - what is a better system?[/quote]
I never said a word about Paul being barred from the political “free market”, nor am I in some snit about “my guy” not winning. I like Paul an awful lot, but I’ll probably end up voting for McCain in November, and I like him a fair bit more than you do I think.
And I’m perfectly aware that the American electorate is probably not buying what Paul’s selling. If you think that’s a good thing, well, enjoy the direction of our country.
Third parties are not barred, obviously, I remember the profusion of small parties on the ballot in 2004 when I unfortunately picked Bush again. I probably should have given my vote to the Workers of the World Party or some other clown, in retrospect.
But third parties face an extremely uphill struggle in the U.S. due to the method of campaign financing. In a winner-take-all system, and especially in one as increasingly corrupted as ours (too many examples to note) a viable third party is very tough to build.
What would I rather see? The system I’m most familiar with outside the U.S. is probably Germany’s, and I like the way that works. Two big, broad, center-right (CDU/CSU) and center-left (SPD) parties, and then a couple of smaller but still sometimes important parties, like the FDP (small business/free market) and the Greens. Obviously this works differently in a parliamentary system, but I still like it far more than two huge coalition parties whose rhetoric is driven by their fringes but whose actions are usually surprisingly close.
Do you have some more baseless condescension to contribute?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
How foolish of me to think that a 72 year old man might be thinking about his future in terms of a cushy retirement. Or, how naive of you to not think it.
[/quote]
I doubt he is worried about his retirement. Perhaps that’s why he’s opted out of the “immoral” congressional pension system we taxpayers fund. Naive? No, I do have a record to refer to to form a somewhat educated opinion.
It’s not about winning.
[quote]
Oh but it WAS about winning. Don’t you remember the idiot child Nominal Prospect ranting and raving on this very forum about Paul coming on to win in NH and then take the entire country by storm. And it wasn’t just this tiny tot who had his hopes set on Paul WINNING it was many, many of his supporters who rationalized their fifty and hundred dollar bills into the Paul war chest.
Most of the nutty Paul supporters thought he was going to WIN and now that his campaign turned out to be the FLOP that I predicted it would be the money flow to Paul will dry up…and fast.[/quote]
Great, you’ve proven some Ron Paul supporters thought in the manner you’ve set forth. Many others didn’t. A number of us said all along that his chances were slim to none. So yeah, my opinion is just as valid, if not moreso, as to why he’s continued to recieve the support he has. And, I feel comfortable having supported a candidate Reagan campaigned for. I don’t believe Ron Paul’s platform was any different then.
Because every man is a biped, fifty men are not a centipede.
G.K. Chesterton
Anyone else think this forum has become a microcosm of the Republican party? A lot of in fighting, in my opinion. Good stuff.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I never said a word about Paul being barred from the political “free market”, nor am I in some snit about “my guy” not winning. I like Paul an awful lot, but I’ll probably end up voting for McCain in November, and I like him a fair bit more than you do I think.[/quote]
No, you simply supported Paul till the bitter end and then snarked about the two-party system as a direct follow up to the Paul support - can’t imagine why anyone would surmise Paul’s failure and the limits of the system could be intertwined.
Let’s see - gold standard economics in a modern economy, isolationism in fact, blaming America for totalitarian violence (essentially stealing the cape of Marxists), flirting with discredited conspiracy theories, and either (a) being a rank bigot of the worst sort, or (b) not having the intelligence or character to dissociate himself from such foul nonsense?
Yeah, Gdollars - we really lost out on the second coming of George Washington. Shame on the American electorate.
What you describe is what we have de facto. The parties essentially have those “wings” within them, and they make plenty of noise. Plus, we still have minority parties. What would be so different, except that parties with more radical politics can actually get bona fide representation in elective bodies, which is a bad thing?
You can like the German system better, no problem - but the American system is designed to marginalize radical parties. Don’t like it? Fine by me - I think it is an indispensable virtue of the system, as do most conservatives, who typically, by temperment, like a system that puts demagogues on the bench.
So odd - you invoke a response from me with a patronizing post when we hadn’t been trading posts prior (“please lecture us on the benefits of the two-party system”), and then you suddenly want to complain about me returning in kind?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So odd - you invoke a response from me with a patronizing post when we hadn’t been trading posts prior (“please lecture us on the benefits of the two-party system”), and then you suddenly want to complain about me returning in kind?[/quote]
Of all posters here, you easily get first prize for condescension.
What do you think about the Constitution Party Gdollars? I think I may support their candidates whenever available. Them, and proably RLC candidates.
[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
So odd - you invoke a response from me with a patronizing post when we hadn’t been trading posts prior (“please lecture us on the benefits of the two-party system”), and then you suddenly want to complain about me returning in kind?
Of all posters here, you easily get first prize for condescension. [/quote]
And we kind of wonder where he is condescending from?
Came he down the mountain, with wisdom carved in stone by the Gods themselves, that would be one thing…
[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
So odd - you invoke a response from me with a patronizing post when we hadn’t been trading posts prior (“please lecture us on the benefits of the two-party system”), and then you suddenly want to complain about me returning in kind?
Of all posters here, you easily get first prize for condescension.
And we kind of wonder where he is condescending from?
Came he down the mountain, with wisdom carved in stone by the Gods themselves, that would be one thing… [/quote]
Well, his name is Thunderbolt, you know…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
being a rank bigot of the worst sort[/quote]
Now, I think that’s a bit of an overstatement. Have we really already forgotten the campaigns of David Duke and Pat Buchanan?