[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But he’s always been a loser to you so your opinion carries no weight.
This is a non issue and people who understand Ron Paul understand why they are voting for him.[/quote]
This is ridiculous. He can’t win the Presidency off of Paulnuts alone. It IS an issue for someone seeking that office, end of story.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Well you’ve just usurped your own credibility with that blanket statement.[/quote]
Well, I don’t think so - just read the posts here at PWI for examples of what I am talking about.
You won’t get much disagreement from me on that point.
Problem is - we don’t have a two-party system. We have a winner-take-all system, and so two parties naturally form around that, because coalitions form into one big party when they have aligned interests. Third parties exist, and there is no conspiracy to keep them down. Third parties are usually irrelevant because the positions they advance that are somewhat mainstream are already captured by one of the big parties, and they are third parties (usually) because they have some extreme issue that can’t quit be absorbed into the platform of the mainstream parties. Thus, their irrelevance is often a function of their non-mainstream ideas.
That said, the issue is: with all the awful baggage that Ron Paul brings as the standard-bearer for libertarianism, why aren’t libertarians finding a new standard-bearer? Why are so many libertarians wedded to the standard-bearer and not the standard?
I wouldn’t vote for Gary Johnson - I’m not a libertarian, and never will be. But he isn’t radioactive - why the continued cult-like devotion to a damaged messenger like Ron Paul?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nope, sorry, it makes me like him more because he is loyal and a good boss. He’s taken responsibility for the publishing of these articles and will not tarnish the writer who has tarnished him. That is the most presidential thing I’ve ever seen a candidate do.[/quote]
This reads like intentional satire - it’s even more hilarious because I know it’s not.
Ron Paul is being “loyal” when he refuses to out an associate who, according to Paul himself, misappropriated Paul’s image without Paul’s permission for his own benefit and whose unpermitted actions now threaten to derail Paul’s chanced of winning a major primary?
And, for bonus points, Paul is “predidential” because he won’t “tarnish” the reputation of a vile, racist author - because such a reputation, of course, currently “untarnished” deserves not to be “tarnished”.
I nominate this for dumbest post of 2011.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But he’s always been a loser to you so your opinion carries no weight.
This is a non issue and people who understand Ron Paul understand why they are voting for him.[/quote]
This is ridiculous. He can’t win the Presidency off of Paulnuts alone. It IS an issue for someone seeking that office, end of story. [/quote]
That is true but then again most of his supporters are in fact very sane.
To discount them as nuts is ignorant.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nope, sorry, it makes me like him more because he is loyal and a good boss. He’s taken responsibility for the publishing of these articles and will not tarnish the writer who has tarnished him. That is the most presidential thing I’ve ever seen a candidate do.[/quote]
This reads like intentional satire - it’s even more hilarious because I know it’s not.
Ron Paul is being “loyal” when he refuses to out an associate who, according to Paul himself, misappropriated Paul’s image without Paul’s permission for his own benefit and whose unpermitted actions now threaten to derail Paul’s chanced of winning a major primary?
And, for bonus points, Paul is “predidential” because he won’t “tarnish” the reputation of a vile, racist author - because such a reputation, of course, currently “untarnished” deserves not to be “tarnished”.
I nominate this for dumbest post of 2011.[/quote]
Why should Ron Paul out one of his employees? This has nothing to do with him as a possible future President. If anything we know that if someone in his admin fumbles he will take the fall for it. No other president has ever done that.
And besides it is not his place to publicly correct his employees behavior but rather accept responsibility for publishing something in his name. He’s done that and you have no other argument.
"Problem is - we don’t have a two-party system. We have a winner-take-all system, and so two parties naturally form around that, because coalitions form into one big party when they have aligned interests. Third parties exist, and there is no conspiracy to keep them down. Third parties are usually irrelevant because the positions they advance that are somewhat mainstream are already captured by one of the big parties, and they are third parties (usually) because they have some extreme issue that can’t quit be absorbed into the platform of the mainstream parties. Thus, their irrelevance is often a function of their non-mainstream ideas.
That said, the issue is: with all the awful baggage that Ron Paul brings as the standard-bearer for libertarianism, why aren’t libertarians finding a new standard-bearer? Why are so many libertarians wedded to the standard-bearer and not the standard?
I wouldn’t vote for Gary Johnson - I’m not a libertarian, and never will be. But he isn’t radioactive - why the continued cult-like devotion to a damaged messenger like Ron Paul? "
I’m not Libertarian, nor would I be either. That’s the crux of the problem with this country if you ask me. Who gives a shit what party he is? Is he a solid man that has solid ideas, experience, and record in office that suggests he could do a good job as a leader of the free world? That’s what I care about. The fact that the majority for years has voted based on the party and not the person is why we find ourselves in this shit mess that we have and why people like Paul can garner such a following. People are pissed and tired of the business as usual politics in this country. Paul, to them, represents a complete 180 degree turn.
I concede and agree that people are a bit short sighted in looking to Paul for the answer but the Obama campaign proves this concept. People just wanted change, not another tired ass old white guy pimping the same Republican platform ideas that have held sway for intermittent periods of time until we had to spin around to neo-socialist ideas as a backlash for the consequences of that kind of leadership, until we get tired of overbearing government programs and try to flip back to the same tired Republican ideas in this perpetual back and forth of neither party being in play long enough for any of their ideas to fruit fully and a constant game of cock blocking.
If we can ditch the two party system we may make progress but no one party holds enough of the ideas of their followers true enough and it ends up the same crap every four years. South Park nailed it. Choose between a douche or a turd sandwich, that’s what you get America.
Storey, It’s not that simple. Paul has always said its the message of liberty that is important and the man only matters in his capacity to protect it (paraphrasing).
The other problem is that it’s hard to find honest men like him who do not lust for power - maybe I only speak for myself but that is part of his appeal. People like that would just assume stay out of politics and do something useful with their lives.
Also, I like that he is grandfatherly.
Proof of Ron Paul’s racism.
A reasonable article about “the newsletters”.
“…the only voices they [FOX News] can find who actually thinks it’s an important issue belong to Paul’s opponent Newt Gingrich and GOP apparatchik Karl Rove and National Review editor Rich Lowry (whose own publication’s history has worse to answer to in terms of racial insensitivity combined with actual expressed support for legal actions against the rights of African-Americans, which leads Paul fans to believe that none of this has to do with actual objections to anyone with connections to past awful race-based comments, but with scuttling what is good about the Ron Paul campaign).”
DrS and flor -
Would either of you two tire of handling and answering the same questions, the same ones you were asked a few weeks ago? Then you are asked the same type of question three times, directly in a row? After answering the question that you had no idea of the activities and ‘disavowed’ the stance, you are further asked again and again. Try and tell me you wouldn’t walk away.
Ron Paul had answered the same type of question with CNN previously and they were trying to dig up the same supposed garbage, again. The posted video was the uncut version. Go to CNN’s website and see how Dr. Paul’s response was twisted in favor of their story. Ron Paul stands up for himself and still he is attacked because the responses weren’t the headlines desired my the media. Then you have two more people who jump on the bandwagon of trying to drown a man who has stood for more consistency than in my life time.
Here is a youtube to the story CNN aired - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5LtbXG62es&feature=related - do you see any discrepancy?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Link is of an uncut Ron Paul interview with CNN’s Gloria Borger. Interesting how the media spins a story they want.
His answer to the newsletter question whas painfull to watch, posting this vid
did not do ron paul any service. I am actually starting to believe that SM and Bolt
are on to something regarding it.
Still he`s answer to some of the questions in the start where good, to bad he fell under pressure on the last one.[/quote][/quote]
If a newsmen catches him off-message, he can look downright scattered and frantic.
He’s been testy, but he has had practice: he has been avoiding the questions for years:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/ron_beats_rudy_in_nh?id=1871705&pageNo=5#bottom
(My comments start on 1/10/2008)
To read the newsletters, as SM has posted them, is even more peculiar. Paul may be a cranky ideologue, or fanatic of extraordinarily narrow horizons, or, maybe, just a very bad huckster selling his $99 newsletters, using racism as its advertising medium.
Newsmen point out how well organized his “campaign” is in Iowa; that is an accomplishment, I suppose, even for a state that has more pigs than people.[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why should Ron Paul out one of his employees? This has nothing to do with him as a possible future President. If anything we know that if someone in his admin fumbles he will take the fall for it. No other president has ever done that.[/quote]
Because until he actually “gets to the bottom” of who wrote the newsletters, the fair inference is that Paul is responsible for the content and harbors those beliefs himself? And people don’t want people in the Oval Office who harbor those beliefs, so it destroys his chances of winning? And smart libertarians understand that the messenger is dragging down the message because it has the effect of assigning an unsavory set of motives to a political philosophy?
This isn’t an act of “fumbling” - this is crime and cover-up. Paul isn’t outing the “true” author because it ultimately won’t absolve Paul from the content. Paul isn’t some selfless hero - he is trying to keep the lid on a controversy by feiging ignorance.
He hasn’t taken responsibility - he’s done the opposite. He’s only said he should have monitored more carefully. Taking responsibility would be providing legitimate answers to the questions, such as “ok, so you didn’t write them - who did?”. Assuming Paul actually doesn’t know - and I don’t believe that to be the case - he’s one phone call away from finding out, yet he plays coy.
Nope. The court of public opinion doesn’t allow you to assign responsibility to unnamed phantom culprits. The newsletters included some vile opinions, and the people want to know if Paul had any responsibility for the content.
Perfectly fair questions, and Paul knows he’s between a rock and a hard place. Outing the writer won’t help him - it’ll only hurt at this point.
Mufasa -
Dr. Ron Paul walked out of a interview where the Gloria was being ignorant and obviously trying to infuriate him. If this is supposed to be an example of how ‘poor he would be as a President’ then please forgive my snide comment in regards to your audacious remark when I saw how he handled himself perfectly fine when confronted with a opponent who had their head buried deep, in their sand hole. I know many people who would soon regret their own responses. I applaud Dr. Paul in his tenacious spirit.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
C’mon, guys:
Any “pressure” he may feel from Gloria Borger is a fraction of a fraction of a FRACTION of what he would face daily as President.
I just don’t see him as President of the United States.
Mufasa[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Because until he actually “gets to the bottom” of who wrote the newsletters, the fair inference is that Paul is responsible for the content and harbors those beliefs himself?[/quote]
That is logically incorrect.
kneedragger:
Let me first say that Paul is more “man” than me.
I HATE being “baited” or pulled into ClusterFucks of arguments where you know there is no end, even on the Internet. So I tend to back off and let people “have their day”. It’s just not worth it.
But this isn’t about me, but about a man who wants to be President of the United States.
I’ll never, ever run for Political Office; and being President is a position that I can’t see why anyone would want.
Even though I read a lot; I’ve never read Paul’s work, his pamphlets OR his newsletters. What I have derived about him comes mostly from debates and his public responses to questions. In other words; his OWN words and his OWN responses…NOT someone else’s interpretation of what he has to say.
While I have liked some of what he has to say (reeling in waste and spending; the fact that the U.S. Government has a SYSTEM problem, not a PARTY one); he appears to “flounder” and be unsure when pressed on specifics on many topics.
Ask him about the Federal Reserve and its history, and he’ll kick ass. But ask him about the recent history of his Newsletters; or how he would respond rapidly to an International Crisis if all our forces are pulled home. Ask him about the myriad of Social Issues that a President must deal with (from food to unemployment); or, God forbid, you ask him about Israel; and you get either a) “The Constitution is “clear” on that” answers and /or b) rambling diatribes that have little to do with the question.
And therein lies the problem with me.
While I wish that it wasn’t so; The President often has to deal in VERY murky waters, and often with problems that have neither clear NOR “easy” answers.
Mufasa
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t disagree with this - Huntsman needs to expand his chops to include smart assessments w/r/t the Middle East. And Huntsman does try and reroute foreign policy issues too often to China, because that is his expertise.
But that isn’t necessarily indicative of having no foreign policy ideas on non-China issues, and in any event, he’s not that much different than his fellow candidates, who also stay pretty general on issues related to Middle East.
What separates Huntsman from the rest of the pack on foreign policy ideas (in my opinion) is not simply ideas, but experience. If 2008 and 2010 taught us anything, there is a premium on candidates who know what they’re doing.[/quote]
In one of the Republican debates Huntsman said he’d withdraw from Afghanistan. He wasn’t asked any questions on foreign policy for the rest of the debate. The only way I can interpret his foreign policy platform is as some kind of naive attempt to de-escalate the wars by just leaving the theatres.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t disagree with this - Huntsman needs to expand his chops to include smart assessments w/r/t the Middle East. And Huntsman does try and reroute foreign policy issues too often to China, because that is his expertise.
But that isn’t necessarily indicative of having no foreign policy ideas on non-China issues, and in any event, he’s not that much different than his fellow candidates, who also stay pretty general on issues related to Middle East.
What separates Huntsman from the rest of the pack on foreign policy ideas (in my opinion) is not simply ideas, but experience. If 2008 and 2010 taught us anything, there is a premium on candidates who know what they’re doing.[/quote]
In one of the Republican debates Huntsman said he’d withdraw from Afghanistan. He wasn’t asked any questions on foreign policy for the rest of the debate. The only way I can interpret his foreign policy platform is as some kind of naive attempt to de-escalate the wars by just leaving the theatres.[/quote]
There ain’t no flippin’ way Paul or Huntsman or Johnson or any other libertarian or libertarian leaning candidate is just gonna up and bail on Afghanistan (or even Iraq). They’ll talk big during the campaign 'bout doing so, aka Obama with Guantanamo, and then when in office “suddenly” realize that the problem is too complicated and more time is needed to reassess it.[/quote]
I agree. But I think Obama’s expressed simpatico with the tenets of Islam and his penchant for pan-Arab nationalist associates/friends influenced his foreign policy for the worse, notwithstanding his being confronted with the cold hard facts. I don’t think Huntsman has any of those qualities but I think he would carry with him the baggage of naivety and make many mistakes. Bachmann on the other hand is well aquainted with facts and gives the most reassuring answers on foreign policy.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
That is logically incorrect.[/quote]
No, it isn’t.
The news gets worse for Dr. Paul. A former aide to Paul has come out with a piece detailing Paul’s foreign policy views as “lunacy”: