Ron Paul Revolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

Outside of the immediate issue of RP newsletters, accusations based on emotional decree seem to be incredibly effective no matter how off base they are.

If you call/ take someone to court/ have a media publicize someone as a rapist, racist, or philander, no matter how untrue the allegations… the PR damage is done. Discrediting people blatantly on the issues themselves seems to not matter as much.

Case in point. People seem to give much more of a shit about Newt’s affairs and love life than say his connection to the sub prime mortgage crisis and lack of transparency on that issue.

Moral character is obviously an issue for a candidate, though many relevant and identifiable examples fall by the wayside to more gut based resonating ones.

282

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Outside of the immediate issue of RP newsletters, accusations based on emotional decree seem to be incredibly effective no matter how off base they are.[/quote]

An emotional attachment to an idea is like gravity. We can only overcome it by expending tons of mental energy.

283

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Just wondering how you felt regarding her. I asked because it seems as though every person I talk to about Paul, the answer is the same; he’s “crazy”, or “he’s got weird ideas”.[/quote]

Well, he does have werid ideas. Not all fo them are, and alot of the weirdness comes from the degree (with respect to his economic positions). For example, I can get on board with some of his criticism of the Fed - I don’t like the Fed’s statutory jurisdiction (why is our central bank trying to achieve “full employment” policies?) and I agree with him (generally) that our monetary policy is too quick to tolerate (and encourage) inflation. I also agree with him (generally) on the concept of malinvestment.

But, these bizarre jaunts into conspiracy land about the Fed discredit his good ideas. And there is little chance that we are going back to a gold standard. Paul wants to completely de-politicize money - that won’t happen, not in the 21st century.[/quote]

I can understand that you don’t agree with him in these areas, but by what measure do you qualify what he says about the Fed as “bizarre conspiracy”?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
But these same people have never read any of his books, they think that Bachmann isn’t crazy as shit, and weren’t even aware that Romney wears and believes in magic underwear. That’s some crazy shit right there. [/quote]

I have plenty of information on Paul without having to waste my time on his books. There are better books to read.[/quote]

That’s too bad, his books are great, and would give you so much more information than the quips, articles, and clips that seem to have formed your perception of him.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I’m not sure who you’re supporting in this circus, but I don’t see anyone other than Paul that is making any sense; seriously. These letters have been quite a letdown for me, and his handling of it has been atrocious. But I’m still not seeing one candidate for the GOP, other than Paul that’s worth a shit…not one. Even with this letter debacle, Paul still seems to me the best choice. [/quote]

Right now, I support Huntsman. He is the only GOPer who has come out with legitimate and realistic policy proposals to deal with the kinds of problems that got us into the most recent economic mess. He also is savvy on foreign policy in a way that the other candidates are not, especially with respect to China.[/quote]

I’m not as familiar with Huntsman as I probably should be, I’ll have to invest some time into learning a little more about him. Perry makes me want to vomit for a litany of reasons, Bachmann the same. I’ve read Newt’s books, and am pretty familiar with his positions (and his changes to those positions), but still not sure of him either. He has alot of experience in the Washington political arena, which is also a drawback for alot of people too. Double edged sword right there.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
You say that his foreign policy is “left wing radical”, but there was a time when Paul’s ideology was just good policy.[/quote]

No, it wasn’t. Paul doesn’t support good old-fashioned “isolationism”, which whether you think it’s good policy or not, it’s not terribly unique. No, Paul supports “blame America first” non-interventionism - effectively, he has the same foreign policy philosophy of Noam Chomsky and Jeremiah Wright.[/quote]

Yes, it was. The founding fathers and many presidents thereafter didn’t feel the need to engage the world with the hubris we do now. That’s just fact no matter who’s stating it. Non-interventionism is NOT “blame America” first", as you say. Non-interventionism is not isolationism either, to say otherwise is a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty. Paul, just as our founding fathers did, advocate a foreign policy that engages the world with commerce, free trade, diplomacy, and honest friendship. We don’t need to be the official world cop, nor do we need any involvement with filthy, impotent, anti American organizations like the UN.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I’m curious, what books of his have you read that’ve influenced your perception of him?[/quote]

None - reading his books would be a tremendous waste of time. I’ve read articles published by Paul, and that’s about all I could stand.
[/quote]

Some articles? LOL…okay.

284

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

I can understand that you don’t agree with him in these areas, but by what measure do you qualify what he says about the Fed as “bizarre conspiracy”?[/quote]

The conspiracy of international bankers, the Bilderberger stuff, etc.

I’ll have to take your word for it. Honestly, the more I learn about Paul, the less I like. I mean, I once thought he was a garden-variety libertarian, even as I disagreed with him (I am not a libertarian) - the more I learn, the less I think that is true. And nothing he has said or done encourages me to want to see his thoughts in any kind of extensive writing.

Frankly, he just isn’t interesting enough to read.

I really don’t like Newt, and neither Perry nor Bachmann are ready for prime-time (and I don’t exactly see eye-to-eye with them on everything, but the candidates need to be legitimate before that next step, if you ask me, and these two are not). I can live with Romney - I think he is an Eisenhower-Republican, a serious, smart adult in the room that has the intelligence and skill sets to take over the mess. He’s not exciting, but what America needs is not only a change in political substance, but tone and temperment of its leaders. Romney can do that, even if he is lukewarm at best.

Right now, I still like Huntsman the best, but he has struggled to develop his persona on the trail.

But that’s my point - that is not where Paul stops. Peel back the layers of the onion, and Paul has a vile “blame America first” principle at the root of his foreign policy. All of his proto-Marxist “blowback” ramblings about terrorism are a good example - the concept that we “create” terrorists via our policy, as opposed to these maniac ideologues simply being responsible for what is clearly their own independent political mission that exists regardless of what our foreign policy does or does not do.

Oh, and his Truther associations and apparent beliefs. Not exactly in the grand tradition of the Founding Fathers.

That isn’t the stuff of Washington and Jefferson - that’s the stuff of Noam Chomsky.

They are Paul’s articles - so it’s straight from the horse’s mouth.

285

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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”:

http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/[/quote]

So a former staffer, and self professed right winger says that he thinks Paul’s foreign policy is “lunacy”, for basically being very non interventionist and Libertarian. Sorry, but no story here. I cold get this view point right here from right wingers like yourself. The link gives absolutely no new information on Paul w/r/t the right wing interpretation of his foreign policy.

What he does tell us however, is that the letters are a non-issue, and he’s most certainly not a racist or a homophobe.

286

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

So a former staffer, and self professed right winger says that he thinks Paul’s foreign policy is “lunacy”, for basically being very non interventionist and Libertarian. Sorry, but no story here. I cold get this view point right here from right wingers like yourself. The link gives absolutely no new information on Paul w/r/t the right wing interpretation of his foreign policy.[/quote]

Incorrect - it highlights Paul’s foreign policy positions in an unvarnished manner (from an insider to Paul, assuming his comments are credible). This “lunatic” foreign policy is far outside of the mainstream of the Republican Party, the party of which Dr. Paul is seeking the presidential nomination. Moreover, it provides more detail as to the degree Paul believes in his brand of foreign policy. That ain’t good for his chances in Iowa.

[quote]What he does tell us however, is that the letters are a non-issue, and he’s most certainly not a racist or a homophobe.
[/quote]

Wrong again - the letters are most certainly an issue, because even if Paul isn’t a racist or a homophobe, he hasn’t adequately repudiated the contents and they have discredited his campaign.

Paul and his supporters would like for the letters not to matter - that doesn’t mean they don’t. They do, just as they would had a Democratic candidate trafficked in far-left newsletters of equal extremism.

287

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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]

SM, I’d suggest you look again at Huntsman. Bachmann (sp?) has a very bad rep with her staffers going back years. The quote I remember (from a fellow republican) when another chief of staff quit was: “It’s hard to stay on the ship when the captain is crazy” (paraphrase). Personally, her domestic views disqualify her in my book (but I would guess that they would not in yours.)

I’m not sure about Huntsman in terms of domestic issues, but I was impressed with some of the things he said about international affairs. ('Course, I was impressed with Bachmann too.) This along with what TB wrote has him on my radar.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

289

Speaking of the primary, I was LOLing at a few lines from this article: The right Republican | The Economist

290

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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]

Do you agree with Bachmann that American and Israeli foreign policy are inextricably intertwined?

292

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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]

Do you agree with Bachmann that American and Israeli foreign policy are inextricably intertwined? [/quote]

Yes

293

Maybe the Republican Party is becoming irrelevant because there isn’t a single idea to unite people into it.

Maybe in order to entice more “electable” people into the party it needs to decide on what it really, collectively stands for.

…something like, I don’t know, liberty and justice for all (not just the politically connected)…something cool and rhetorical sounding like that.

Of course, there is the hard part of finding someone that will not get drunk on power and will consistently follow through with that idea.

295

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

SM, I’d suggest you look again at Huntsman. Bachmann (sp?) has a very bad rep with her staffers going back years. The quote I remember (from a fellow republican) when another chief of staff quit was: “It’s hard to stay on the ship when the captain is crazy” (paraphrase). Personally, her domestic views disqualify her in my book (but I would guess that they would not in yours.)

I’m not sure about Huntsman in terms of domestic issues, but I was impressed with some of the things he said about international affairs. ('Course, I was impressed with Bachmann too.) This along with what TB wrote has him on my radar.

Anyway, my 2 cents. [/quote]

I’ll be keeping my eye on all the candidates. My judgement of Huntsman’s foreign policy is based on the very limited information he has so far given.

296

Santorum, or bust.

297

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Maybe the Republican Party is becoming irrelevant because there isn’t a single idea to unite people into it.

Maybe in order to entice more “electable” people into the party it needs to decide on what it really, collectively stands for.

…something like, I don’t know, liberty and justice for all (not just the politically connected)…something cool and rhetorical sounding like that.

Of course, there is the hard part of finding someone that will not get drunk on power and will consistently follow through with that idea.[/quote]

There’s all that AND…people who don’t vote.[/quote]

People who don’t vote are not the problem but rather its the people who do that are.

To vote is to presume to know what is best for other people.

Imagine if people consistently minded their own business: government would not only no longer be seen as necessary it also could not have any authority over people because no one would give it any consent.

298

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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”:

http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/[/quote]

Very informative.[/quote]

Just read the comments section: the Paulbots are the new Heart of Darkness.

299

‘literally swatted his hand away’ - The man has a screw loose. He obviously believes everything that he approved and published in the Newsletters.

‘When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand’ - This stuff won’t shake the Paulbots’ faith - cognitive dissonance

Expected responses:

“Eric Dondero was fired by Ron Paul. Eric Dondero then ran against Ron Paul and got trounced. Eric Dondero’s real name is Eric Rittberg.” - Character assassination

“I say ignore him other than pointing out him lying about his name. We should not have to waste resources addressing what he has voided. Our response should only be “How much truth can a man who lies about his name, say?” We should not help this miserable kind by letting any of his stench escape - let him keep it inside his pants” - Denial

“go ahead and believe a lie and be damned” - Threats to other cult members

We even get treated to a sort of epistemological argument:

“There’s no way to deny or affirm what this guy is saying. You are all just doing one or the other based on what you want to believe. I prefer to let a man condemn himself with his own words and actions. Not what someone else says, or writes. None of us will ever know what these guys are like behind closed doors. We only have their public record. Paul has made very clear his beliefs through a very consistent public record. Based on this, intelligent people will decide whether or not to support him.”

300

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…the Paulbots are the new Heart of Darkness.[/quote]

‘You can’t judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man. No, no, no! Now just to give you an idea - I don’t mind telling you, he wanted to shoot me too one day - but I don’t judge him.’

‘Shoot you!’ I cried. ‘What for?’

‘Well, I had a small lot of ivory the chief of that village near my house gave me. You see I used to shoot game for them. Well, he wanted it, and wouldn’t hear reason. He declared he would shoot me unless I gave him the ivory and then cleared out of the country, because he could do so, and had a fancy for it, and there was nothing on earth to prevent him killing whom he jolly well pleased. And it was true too. I gave him the ivory. What did I care! But I didn’t clear out. No, no. I couldn’t leave him.’