Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
742

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Legitimate candidates, as in those who can actually win. Paul will NEVER be President. You do know that right? Or, do you need deprogramming too?[/quote]

Yeah, I got that already. But your choice of word is quite revealing. It seems that you have a real problem with Dr. Paul’s candidacy, and your analysis is based more on emotions than reason.

[i]1le·git·i·mate
Pronunciation: li-'ji-t&-m&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English legitimat, from Medieval Latin legitimatus, past participle of legitimare to legitimate, from Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law
1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth

2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false

3 a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right

4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards

5 : relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy [/i]
743

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Legitimate candidates, as in those who can actually win. Paul will NEVER be President. You do know that right? Or, do you need deprogramming too?[/quote]

You might just be right, this time around. But if Ron Paul is smart, he could capitalize on his organization and wait our for more years.

Just imagine what another four years would do if no real action was taken on immigration control and the Iraq situation still had not been resolved…

Not that I’d actually want him to enact all of his ideas… just the ones I like. :wink:

745

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Just tell me why you think more republicans will pull the Paul lever than any other lever, in the primaries.
[/quote]

Your primary failed assumption: He will not get the majority of votes from the Republican base of the party but rather the centrists. He will also get votes from converts who hold their nose to register as a Republican who try to forget the evils of the neocons whom have stolen the party. I can’t tell you how many converts I have already met.

Fortunately, in the state of MN registering is not necessary to vote in the primary. But I am assuming you are old enough to remember “Regan Democrats”?

Your second failed assumption: he has to win the primary. He does not. If he doesn’t get the nod he will run as an independent or on the Libertarian ticket. His supporters will not let him off the hook easily after all the time and money they have put into this campaign. Many of them are already stating they will write him in anyway.

Why would Ron Paul give that up? It will cost him nothing. That is the benefit of being a man of principle and honor–no one has to agree with you 100% they just trust you to do the right thing.

But other than that, we still have over a year left until the general election. Ron Paul’s popularity is not going to shrink. On the other hand, we can pretty much guarantee that the “top tier” candidates don’t have any popularity left to gain and indeed have a greater chance of self-destructing.

I know for a fact that many Democrats would vote for Ron Paul over Hillary or Barack and we can pretty much assume that they will not vote for any of our neocon friends.

That is why Ron Paul is electable. You want something more tangible? People that don’t even know him genuinely like him and that is enough. Of course, electability is completely subjective and therefore a bullshit metric.

Here is a more objective metric: of the declared candidates he has more support based on the statistics of all poll data. I already said this before but you ignore it and point to Gallup polls, et al, as being more trustworthy. If Ron Paul is motivating people to go to the polls this early then I think you can imagine the outcome of official election polls.

The beauty of this is that we will know soon enough and need not worry about speculation any further. Carry on with your fervent disbelief; we don’t hold it against you and indeed have come to expect your aged words of “wisdom”.

746

[quote]vroom wrote:
At least these guys aren’t (yet) trying to exercise revisionism to recast their failures as successes![/quote]

The beauty of the libertarian philosophy is that it is rooted in natural law. All things will fall into order if we allow it to happen. It is a major point of arrogance for man to think that he can control anything–systems control themselves based on natural laws. The laws of economics, for example, don’t change because man has written laws to benefit certain individuals.

Surely, should a miracle happen and Ron Paul get elected, there will be some “fluctuations” in the market as the system readjusts to a natural point of equilibrium–but that is the way it should be. There used to be a time when business in America was just business and we didn’t look to officials to “help” it along.

I guess the point is that there will be no need for revisionism because failure and success will be determined in the market and not due to a man sitting behind a desk in the White House. But I am sure your opinion differs slightly than mine.

749

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

You’re starting to sound like a retard…sorry.

Please I beg you to stop talking like a retard…

It’s official…you’re retarded!

It’s official - you’re annoying and you need more words at your disposal.

Let’s see you entered this thread with this gem:

“It was your president’s dad. When was the last time a US Senator was voted in as President? Look it up.”

And you’ve been sliding downhill ever since. And in your previous three posts you’ve completely abandon the point of the thread. You’re now on solid troll ground.

It’s far better to be a Paulie (on any thread) than a troll. Personal attacks are fine but could you please attach them to something that’s either amusing or at least on topic?

You might start out by giving me your rendition of why you think Ron Paul actually has a chance to become President.

Or, you can fuck off…I don’t really care.

:)[/quote]

Well I duly apologize for losing interest in discussing anything with you since your remark that you’re not interested in discussing policy - at least not in this thread - was given in reference to my support of Ron Paul’s views.

That “gem” that I offered was in response to your “historical argument”: when was the last time a congressman was elected president? I followed it up with a more subtle refutation - when was the last time a senator was elected president?

You were so proud of the fact that you knew it was JFK without looking it up that the entire fucking point that it was nearly 50 years ago seemed to escape your notice. The argument - “when was the last time a person serving in position X was elected president” is a meaningless observation.

When was the last time the Mayor of New York city was elected president? When was the last time a Vietnam POW was elected President? When was the last time a candidate who starred in the movie Predator wasn’t elected State Governor when they were on the ballot?

Let’s look at some of your other “arguments”. In fact, let’s look at them together. For the sake of keeping this short and simple, let’s compare Ron Paul to former Democratic Candidate Howard Dean in cases where it is applicable.

The argument that Ron Paul lacks name recognition…

Who out of the last batch of Democratic candidates (2004) had instant name recognition? John Kerry? General Clark? Howard Dean? Nobody knew who Howard Dean was - the national media was not reporting him, other democrats had not heard of him, and the newspapers weren’t even talking about him.

But it wasn’t long before you couldn’t turn on a news channel without hearing about Howard Dean. How did this happen? Via the internet - you know what I’m talking about, that whole “internet phenomenon that can only help if you are already a credible candidate” you spoke so eloquently about.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/04/politics/main557004.shtml
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020701&s=cohn070102

The argument that Ron Paul lacks a national organization…

I’m still trying to figure out how this is an argument. Would you like Mothers Against Drunk Driving to support Ron Paul? Are you waiting for your union newsletter to officially list the candidate they support? Are you talking about Ron Paul owning an organization? If you could provide a little more support to this assertion I will be happy to evaluate it.

The argument of Charisma…

I am assuming you’re talking about how Ron Paul portrays himself when he appears in the public eye. This could be the same sort of critique that was rightfully directed at Senator Bob Dole when he ran against President Clinton.

A candidate lacking in charisma would probably suffer greatly after any televised appearance or major media gathering which would greatly enhance the “lack of charisma” inflicting the candidate. Which is why I find it so odd that Ron Paul led republican candidates on every major national poll hosted by every major news organization after each televised debate.

CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC…all of them failed to capture how uncharismatic Ron Paul was according to the American public. Or maybe you just failed to notice.

The argument of a reasonable appeal to the general public otherwise known as the “no president has ever been elected attempting to portray the I’m a revolutionary card”

This argument says more about your lack of understanding Paul’s campaign than anything else. Ron Paul’s views on border security, the war in Iraq, fiscal responsibility, and most importantly his commitment to limiting the powers of government are all themes which he could practically center his campaign around.

Since you are against discussing policy maybe you want to let this point slide.

The argument that Ron Paul lacks general style and presidential comportment - otherwise known as the argument that I had a friend who used to stare at the ceiling a lot when he talked and he wouldn’t have made a good president

This is not much different than your argument about charisma but I’ll refute it anyways. A 10 term congressman who has been actively involved in the political arena since before you could vote and probably before you were even born is not going to have any problems with “general style”.

What in the hell are you talking about his “presidential comportment”? You think Ron Paul’s going to be passing notes during meetings or telling jokes with the press secretary? Maybe you should recall Bob Woodward’ss description of President Bush’s behavior during secret meetings and conferences regarding national security and tell me how he was elected if this is such a primary concern?

Money

I assume you are referring to the “lack” of money in Ron Paul’s campaign. Interesting that Ron Paul’s financial support has grown fourfold and has now exceeded former front running candidate John McCain. Who else had problems raising cash during his bid for the democratic candidacy in 2004?

That’s right, Howard Dean. How did he end up raising more cash than any other candidate? Internet donations. In fact it was Howard Dean’s internet support that allowed him to raise more finances for his campaign than Senator John Kerry.

It also might be helpful for you to concede that Ron Paul’s internet popularity trumps every other candidate by a wide margin. Candidates do not need to rely on mass media anymore, Howard Dean proved it and Ron Paul is proving it again.

People are getting more and more of their political information online and more and more of those people are wondering what Ron Paul is saying.

http://www.ron-paul-business-directory.com/paul-trounces-thompson.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/282540/ron_paul_internet_success_may_reflect.html

750

Here’s a question for you lot: Why is Paul having trouble raising as much money as the other folks? I mean, shouldn’t corporations be throwing money at him since he advocates a free market?

751

[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s a question for you lot: Why is Paul having trouble raising as much money as the other folks? I mean, shouldn’t corporations be throwing money at him since he advocates a free market?[/quote]

why would corporations be interested in a free market?

752

[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s a question for you lot: Why is Paul having trouble raising as much money as the other folks? I mean, shouldn’t corporations be throwing money at him since he advocates a free market?
[/quote]

Large corporations do not support a free market though they may say they do. They support their own interests and usually that involves paying a politician for protection. We already know that is not going to happen with Ron Paul–he is uncorruptible. Lobbyists don’t even bother with him because he wouldn’t take their money.

753

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Hey…what happened? Now it’s going to take a miracle for him to win?
[/quote]
No one ever said anything different. It is going to take a miracle for about 18 out of the 20 candidates running to get elected–there can only be one winner. That was never an argument. You made the argument about his electability–he still has more support than another declared candidate.

I suspect his odds will be lowered any day now. Until then this is all just speculation…now be a good lad and play nice.

755

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
If Paul wins I will post a 200 word apology.

If he loses you will apologize to me, with 200 words, for your ignorant political analysis.

And then the loser will not post on T-Nation for 30 days.
[/quote]
Your bet as it stands isn’t even a fair bet–I am guessing your brilliant analytical mind knows why that is so I am not going to explain the mathematics. As far as the odds go your apology would have to be about 8 times longer but since I don’t care to read it–don’t bother.

If Ron Paul wins I’ll be too happy to care about an apology and I’m hoping you become so embarrassed by your screeching idiocy that you might not come around any more–thats a win-win situation as far as I am concerned.

If Paul loses I’m not going to do a damn thing. Its funny that we would even bother to look back in hindsight and say something was ignorant…which shows your lack of understanding about what analysis is. The funnier thing is you haven’t even stated who you are favoring so we’ll just assume you are too chicken-shit to be wrong. Please grace us with your all-knowing analytical mind and state who the winner will be, you Svengali, you–and you can’t wait until the primaries are over.

As a matter of fact, how about you just tell us who you are supporting and we can laugh at you when that person loses and berate you at every chance we get?

I would be happy with that; until you grow a pair and state your candidate I’m just going to ignore you like the irritating crotch-rot you’ve become. Thanks for playing, buh-bye.

758

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Now I’m clear, you think that Pauls volunteers are more important and in fact can replace the kajillions of dollars being raised by the legitimate candidates.

Now you’re calling Ron “illegitimate”?

Wow.[/quote]

His parents were married. His mom made a mean fish stick.

759

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

It seems that you’ve failed to successfully refute even one of the points. And in addition to that you’re backing a loser.
[/quote]

Mick - what surprises me most is that I even responded to you in the first place. Come back when you actually have an argument or you’re able to participate in some sort of meaningful discussion. As it stands now the only thing you’ve accomplished is to display how impervious you are to reason and common sense.

You see the problem with you is that you are taking a stance that is so easy to defend yet you find a way to do it so poorly. Normally I would never argue with somebody who said that Ron Paul is a longshot for President - everybody knows that. But your list of “essential presidential traits” was so god awful that I felt compelled to respond.

Obviously you’re confusing me with somebody whose life revolves around this thread as much as yours does.

We get it - you don’t think Ron Paul has a good chance of winning. We get it - something prompts you to spout off about this several times a day. We get it - you laugh a lot when you read threads. The only thing you don’t get is that there’s only three of us responding to you because everybody else put you on Ignore status a long time ago.

760

yep!