Ron Paul Can't Win

#402
#402
utvolpj said:
actually that kind of thinking is how Obama ended up winning and why the GOP is running such crap candidates. If voters keep doing that then nothing truly changes
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but what good does it do me to prove a point by not voting if the country implodes in the process?
 
#403
#403
volfanjustin said:
I don't think America can afford 4 more minutes of Obama but when it comes to foreign policy issues I don't see a dimes worth of difference in Paul and Obama.

I don't agree on all issues with the other candidates but I could and would vote for either one of the others.

Thankfully this is a non issue for me because he has a core group of supporters but he has no chance to branch out and gain any more support than he currently has.
Click to expand...

I can't see Ron Paul getting involved in Libya. :unsure:
 
#404
#404
theFallGuy said:
Maybe so, but what good does it do me to prove a point by not voting if the country implodes in the process?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it is Obama or Romney/Newt. The only difference between the 2 parties right now is the pace at which we eventually implode. They are both leading us over a cliff. Obama has his foot planted on the gas peddle, and the GOP seems to want to prolong the agony by having an 80-year old slowly drive us over the cliff.

This country needs a change in direction, not a change of pace.
 
#408
#408
Rasputin_Vol said:
It doesn't matter if it is Obama or Romney/Newt. The only difference between the 2 parties right now is the pace at which we eventually implode. They are both leading us over a cliff. Obama has his foot planted on the gas peddle, and the GOP seems to want to prolong the agony by having an 80-year old slowly drive us over the cliff.

This country needs a change in direction, not a change of pace.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you but taking control of the senate is the first step. The President needs congress and if congress is full of more "ron paul types" that's a start.
 
#410
#410
RespectTradition said:
As for the matter of representation, if no one is arguing for your point of view, how can you say that you are represented? Also, I think the idea of representation by geographic division is stupid. Candidates should be voted on by ideas. I may be in the minority in any given locale, but I am still part of a rather large group. Everyone should vote for the people they want to represent them, regardless of where you live, and those people should get votes based on how large their constituency is. Pipe dream? Yup. Still would be a heck of a lot fairer.
Click to expand...

There is a reason we have an electoral college. Our founding fathers were fairly wise. The popular vote is great in theory but piss poor in reality. The politicians, lobbyist, and special interests would concentrate on those areas which have a very large population. I will say, there is a day in the future where the population dynamics in this country will make a popular vote viable in terms of fairness.

If you are truly concerned with the "fairness" of your representation, you should be advocating for a multiparty system. Very few people are hook, line, and sinker for either of our two parties. A multiparty system would promote a diversity of ideas and angles to address the various problems which face the county. They will also allow for people to be more accurately represented both by a representative and a party platform.

At the end of the day, we all have an equal say in our government. That is as fair of a system as you can devise for a society. If you believe your representative is too vanilla for your tastes (either way), then advocating for a more fractured political system is the way to go.

RespectTradition said:
As to Social Contract Theory: There is a necessary amount of sublimation of the individual's will that is required within any society. However, the amount necessary is not that hard to determine and anything that exceeds that amount is criminal, even if it is not illegal. My authority to exercise my will ends when it becomes an attack on you. Like the old idea: 'your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.' Society has a right to govern itself, but only to prevent the initiation of force, theft, coercion, and fraud. That means that any government program or law that goes beyond that is not legitimate. To take from me (tax) and use it to fund illegitimate programs is a form of theft, because illegitimate taking is theft.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes. You wish to live within a better social contract. Congrats. You are one of three hundred million other people in the United States who would also want to tweak the current social contract more to their liking.

I actually agree with all of your outlined grievances. However, we are only two individuals living within a society. It is a social contract. If our fellow countrymen had our ideals, our social contract would reflect those ideals. They don't. Unfortunately, they are the majority at the moment. As I responded to fallguy, I do believe we are on the verge of the s*** hitting the fan. I am not sure if it will be next year, five years, or ten years down the road but it is coming. I believe the both political and economic paradigm shift which will result in a new social contract closer to what you and I desire.

To your last point, again, sour grapes. Those laws are legitimate. They were enacted by a Congress which was elected in a fair manner by the people, signed into law by a President who was also elected by the people, and upheld by the Judicial Branch as outlined by our Constitution. Although you or I might disagree with them fundamentally, they do reflect the overall will of the people. I do not understand why you can't except that you and I are in the minority on a lot of issues. It does not follow that because we disagree with the tax and spending policies of our democratically elected government; that those laws then constitute "theft."
 
#411
#411
PKT_VOL said:
There is a reason we have an electoral college. Our founding fathers were fairly wise. The popular vote is great in theory but piss poor in reality. The politicians, lobbyist, and special interests would concentrate on those areas which have a very large population. I will say, there is a day in the future where the population dynamics in this country will make a popular vote viable in terms of fairness.

If you are truly concerned with the "fairness" of your representation, you should be advocating for a multiparty system. Very few people are hook, line, and sinker for either of our two parties. A multiparty system would promote a diversity of ideas and angles to address the various problems which face the county. They will also allow for people to be more accurately represented both by a representative and a party platform.

At the end of the day, we all have an equal say in our government. That is as fair of a system as you can devise for a society. If you believe your representative is too vanilla for your tastes (either way), then advocating for a more fractured political system is the way to go.
Click to expand...
I think my way is better than multiparty, which I will grant is much better than the two branches of the progressive party that we have now. If we made it work something like this: anyone who gets, lets say, 10000 votes goes to congress, no matter where they live and you can vote for anyone no matter where you live. Then, for every 10000 people who vote for them, their vote counts that many times. No need for parties at all. Even a group as small as 10k people can still have a voice in government. May need to tweak the numbers a bit.
Sour grapes. You wish to live within a better social contract. Congrats. You are one of three hundred million other people in the United States who would also want to tweak the current social contract more to their liking.

I actually agree with all of your outlined grievances. However, we are only two individuals living within a society. It is a social contract. If our fellow countrymen had our ideals, our social contract would reflect those ideals. They don't. Unfortunately, they are the majority at the moment. As I responded to fallguy, I do believe we are on the verge of the s*** hitting the fan. I am not sure if it will be next year, five years, or ten years down the road but it is coming. I believe the both political and economic paradigm shift which will result in a new social contract closer to what you and I desire.

To your last point, again, sour grapes. Those laws are legitimate. They were enacted by a Congress which was elected in a fair manner by the people, signed into law by a President who was also elected by the people, and upheld by the Judicial Branch as outlined by our Constitution. Although you or I might disagree with them fundamentally, they do reflect the overall will of the people. I do not understand why you can't except that you and I are in the minority on a lot of issues. It does not follow that because we disagree with the tax and spending policies of our democratically elected government; that those laws then constitute "theft."
Click to expand...

That theory of social contract allows for any government action as long as we voted on our representatives. I prefer the Lockean version involving natural rights. Building a social contract theory based on natural rights is the only way to be legitimate. Anything else is based on depriving us of our rights.
 
#412
#412
RespectTradition said:
I think my way is better than multiparty, which I will grant is much better than the two branches of the progressive party that we have now. If we made it work something like this: anyone who gets, lets say, 10000 votes goes to congress, no matter where they live and you can vote for anyone no matter where you live. Then, for every 10000 people who vote for them, their vote counts that many times. No need for parties at all. Even a group as small as 10k people can still have a voice in government. May need to tweak the numbers a bit.
Click to expand...

Interesting proposal. It would definitely be an effective way fracture the political system which I think is paramount for improving true representation to adequately reflect the will of the American people. The amount of members in congress would skyrocket though. That would decrease efficiency quite a bit (and its not an efficient process as is). It would drive the lobbyist nuts, especially if they are independents (no party to adhere to).

RespectTradition said:
That theory of social contract allows for any government action as long as we voted on our representatives. I prefer the Lockean version involving natural rights. Building a social contract theory based on natural rights is the only way to be legitimate. Anything else is based on depriving us of our rights.
Click to expand...

I agree in principal. Locke's social contract is wonderful in theory but isn't practical. Idealism vs Realism. I am a realist. :hi:
 
#414
#414
MG1968 said:
sorry that this is from a relatively obscure blog, but the evidence they present seems pretty damning to Paul's claim that he had nothing to do with the content of his newsletters
Click to expand...

I can't believe I'm getting ready to pull a GS. Before I post these videos, he's the only one talking about how the War on Drugs perpetrates the most injustice on the black community, don't think I've heard another candidate state that.

I thought liberals were the only ones to throw the racist charge, guess I was wrong.

For starters:

tumblr_lv8vejVU9A1qdqc0do1_500.jpg


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvAuSXq5etA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaSLxCwb0eY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fl0vy44GO0&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qzPt_Ykse4[/youtube]
 
Last edited:
#416
#416
And sorry, I will never believe that Ron Paul is a racist. One of his main justifications for ending the war on drugs is that it will help minorities. Just like MV was pointing out.
 
#417
#417
theFallGuy said:
I just don't feel simply "not voting" really accomplishes anything.
Click to expand...

If you don't vote, you don't continue to enable the the GOP. You can either sit at home or cast a protest vote for the 3rd party candidate of your choice (which is what I did in 2000 and 2004).

I don't buy into that lesser of 2 evils nonsense.
 
#418
#418
nbakerld said:
And sorry, I will never believe that Ron Paul is a racist. One of his main justifications for ending the war on drugs is that it will help minorities. Just like MV was pointing out.
Click to expand...

People that hate Ron Paul use 2 of the most lazy a** arguments and distortions you could ever come up with:

He is a racist and an "isolationist".

People must really hate this guy. I mean, it would not surprise me if a right wing kook didn't try to put him down even if he did get the nomination.

Yeah, I went there...
 
#419
#419
nbakerld said:
MG posts "Ron Paul: I'm not racist, I have black friends." in 5....4.....3....2....1....
Click to expand...

easy now, slick. I'm just pointing out that the story is out there and that many RP supporters, like yourself, are quick to attempt to destroy the messenger before doing your own research into the veracity of the claims.

Even if he isn't a racist, a newsletter with his name on the masthead and that listed him as the editor in chief published some pretty vile things.
 
#420
#420
MG1968 said:
easy now, slick. I'm just pointing out that the story is out there and that many RP supporters, like yourself, are quick to attempt to destroy the messenger before doing your own research into the veracity of the claims.

Even if he isn't a racist, a newsletter with his name on the masthead and that listed him as the editor in chief published some pretty vile things.
Click to expand...

You think I haven't heard of this? You think I haven't looked into it?
 
#421
#421
nbakerld said:
You think I haven't heard of this? You think I haven't looked into it?
Click to expand...

have you?

are you just buying Paul's "I plead ignorance" defense because, like so many sycophantic followers of political leaders, you can't believe that your hero is deeply flawed?
 
#422
#422
MG1968 said:
Who Wrote The Ron Paul Newsletters? Ron Paul Wrote Them – Clear Proof | Conservatives Network

sorry that this is from a relatively obscure blog, but the evidence they present seems pretty damning to Paul's claim that he had nothing to do with the content of his newsletters
Click to expand...

I just scanned through that link and three things jump out at me:

1. One of the arrows that says "1st Person" was not actually a quote by Ron Paul but was actually said by a Dr. Douglass

"I have always said," notes Dr. Douglass, "and our forefathers told us"...
Click to expand...

2. There is a banner at the bottom that makes the claim that Ron Paul didn't return money given to him by a white supremacist. Old news and I agree with his decision. If we are going to have candidates return money from people that they have no control over whether they give or not, then how much redneck west Georgia money is Newt going to have to return? How much s**tkicker Texas money is Perry going to have return? I mean really? Ever campaign would be forced to sift through every donation and make sure that there isn't a racist donating money. Totally ridiculous expectation.

3. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banner is right next to this other banner. I've heard Paul's explanation for that and I assume that it falls in line with the concerns Barry Goldwater had dealing with Title II.


You guys are really grasping...
 
#423
#423
rednecks from Georgia and ****kickers from Texas aren't quite the same as David Duke and the larger white power movement

if you're going to criticize Newt for taking money from Freddie and Fannie, then you should hold your hero to an identical standard
 
#424
#424
MG1968 said:
have you?

are you just buying Paul's "I plead ignorance" defense because, like so many sycophantic followers of political leaders, you can't believe that your hero is deeply flawed?
Click to expand...

I've heard of it and I already told you that. I've also heard his explanation, and I buy it. Even if he approved the message at the time, people can change. The agenda he pushes for today completely refutes the man you are trying to make him out to be.
 
#425
#425
nbakerld said:
I've heard of it and I already told you that. I've also heard his explanation, and I buy it. Even if he approved the message at the time, people can change. The agenda he pushes for today completely refutes the man you are trying to make him out to be.
Click to expand...

I will have to remember you said that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top