Ron Paul Can't Win

[MG1968]

He's close enough to be credible, is the point. Your guarantee means nothing.

You don't attack Ron Paul on principle, you try to find meaningless associations of his and attack them. What exactly about Paul's actual politics do you not like?

this is the conundrum I'm faced with, I like Paul's politics (for the most part) I just don't like him very much.

btw, Alex Jones is a 911 Truther idiot, just like Jesse Ventura. Paul going on his show is like Al Gore going on Jon Stewart's show, he knows the audience will be simpatico and the host isn't going to ask any hard questions.

 

[n_huffhines]

I swear I have tried. I have watched pretty much every debate the last 2 cycles now and listened to him several times. He is too bitter and naive for me.

I held my nose and voted for McCain and I could pretty much vote for any of the other GOP candidates except Paul.

I don't think we are talking about the same person. He is a cheerful person, and very-well informed. He's probably more well-read than the other candidates combined. This is the reading list suggested from his book Revolution: A Manifesto:

Armentano, Dominick. Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, 2nd ed. Oakland, Calif.: Independent Institute, 1990.

Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006

Bamford, James. A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies. New York Anchor, 2005.

Bovard, James. Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. The Real Lincoln. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003

Engdahl, F. William. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004

Fleming, Thomas. The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I. New York: Basic Books, 2004

Fleming, Thomas. The New Dealer's War: FDR and the War Within World War II. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

Flynn, John T. As We Go Marching. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1944. Flynn was an accomplished journalist, analyzes facism in Italy and Germany and concludes by considering the state of America in his day.

Folsom, Burton W., Jr. The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America. Herndon, Va.: Young America's Foundation, 1993.

Garrett, Garet. The People's Pottage. Caldwell, Id.: Caxton, 1953. This is a persuasively argued and compellingly written early critique of the New Deal policies of the 1930s.

Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: Modern Library, 2003 [1776-88].

Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, 4th ed. Westlake Village, Calif.: American Media, 2002.

Hayek, Fredrich A. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944.

Hazlitt, Henry. Economics in One Lesson. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1988 [1946] The classic text has helped millions of Americans understand basic economics and the free market in just a few hours. (An indication of how the world has changed: Hazlitt once wrote editorials for the New York Times.)

Hoffer, Eric. The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. New York: Harper & Row, 1951.

Holzer, Henry Mark, ed. The Golden Clause: What It Is and How to Use It Profitably. iUniverse, 2000.

Jastram, Roy William. The Golden Constant: The English and American Experience, 1560-1976. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.

Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 2nd ed. New York: Henry Holt, 2004.

Kwitney, Jonathan. Endless Enemies: America's Worldwide War Against Its Own Best Interests. New York: Congdon & Weed, 1984.

Lane, Rose Wilder. The Discovery of Freedom. New York: John Day 1943.

MacKay, Charles. Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. London: George Routledge & Sons, 1869 [1841].

Mises, Ludwig von. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949.

Mueller, John. Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them. New York: Free Press, 2006.

Napolitano, Andrew P. Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When Government Breaks Its Own Laws. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006.

Napolitano, Andrew P. A Nation of Sheep. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007

Palyi, Melchior. The Twilight of Gold, 1914-1936: Myths and Realities. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1972.

Pape, Robert. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York : Random House, 2006.

Psaternak, Boris. Doctor Zhivago. New York: Pantheon, 1997 [1958].

Paterson, Isabel. The God of the Machine. New York: Putman, 1943. A classic work of libertarian political theory.

Powell, Jim. Wilson's War. New York: Crown Forum, 2005.

Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House, 1957. I consider all of Rand's novels worth reading, in spite of my strong disagreements with her on important matters.

Read, Leonard E. The Love of Liberty. Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y: Foundation for Economic Education, 1975.

Rees-Moog, William. The Reigning Error: The Crisis of World Inflation. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1974.

Roberts, Paul Craig, and Lawrence M. Stratton. The Tyranny of Good Intention: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Rosville, Calif.: Prima 2000.

Rockwell, Llewellyn H., Jr. Speaking of Liberty. Auburn Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2005.

Rothbard, Murray N. America's Great Depression, 5th ed. Auburn Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000.

Rothbard, Murray N. What Has Government Done to Our Money? Auburn Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1990. The entire text is available for free here.

Rueff, Jaques. The Monetary Sin of the West. New York: Macmillan, 1972.

Scheuer, Michael. Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Washington D.C.: Potomac Books, 2004.

Sennholz, Hans F. Age of Inflation. Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1979.

Soloman, Norman. War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. New York: Wiley, 2006.

Sterns, Jessica. Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. New York: Harper Perennial, 2004.

Tansill, Charles Callan. Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1952.

Tocqueville, Alexis De. Democracy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002 [1835, 1840].

Tuchman, Barbara J. The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York Ballantine, 1985

Weaver, Henry Grady. The Mainspring of Human Progress. Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economics Education, 1953.

 

[n_huffhines]

this is the conundrum I'm faced with, I like Paul's politics (for the most part) I just don't like him very much.

btw, Alex Jones is a 911 Truther idiot, just like Jesse Ventura. Paul going on his show is like Al Gore going on Jon Stewart's show, he knows the audience will be simpatico and the host isn't going to ask any hard questions.

That's true. Paul goes on Fox News for the difficult questions. I'd like to emphasize that Paul is not a truther.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhQ8xi312l8[/youtube]

 

[volfanjustin]

No doubt he is a really smart man, I have never questioned that.

 

[volfanjustin]

So you would stay home if Paul ended up with the GOP nomination?

I would stay home, no way I could vote for him. Thankfully I don't believe this will be an issue.

 

[n_huffhines]

No doubt he is a really smart man, I have never questioned that.

"Smart" is not what I'm worried about. You said "naive", but it turns out he is very well-informed.

 

[KiffinKiller]

I just don't see how anyone could responsibly say they could vote for someone like Perry over Paul. Paul at least doesn't give off the "im going to steal all your ****" vibe.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I would stay home, no way I could vote for him. Thankfully I don't believe this will be an issue.

That makes two of us. If anybody other than Paul is nominated, I'll stay at home or just vote 3rd party/write in. I can't bring myself to vote for Romney/Gingrinch/Santorum.

 

[n_huffhines]

That makes two of us. If anybody other than Paul is nominated, I'll stay at home or just vote 3rd party/write in. I can't bring myself to vote for Romney/Gingrinch/Santorum.

The problem is those guys won't change anything, and when everything still sucks people will blame anybody with conservative rhetoric. I'd rather have the GOP lose than taint the views they supposedly espouse. Let the Dems continue to ruin the country until we are willing to elect a leader that will bring about true conservative change. Electing the lesser of 2 evils will just diminish the conservative message.

 

[volfanjustin]

That makes two of us. If anybody other than Paul is nominated, I'll stay at home or just vote 3rd party/write in. I can't bring myself to vote for Romney/Gingrinch/Santorum.

3rd party or write in = waste of a vote, but certainly within your right to do so.

 

[GAVol]

The problem is those guys won't change anything, and when everything still sucks people will blame anybody with conservative rhetoric. I'd rather have the GOP lose than taint the views they supposedly espouse. Let the Dems continue to ruin the country until we are willing to elect a leader that will bring about true conservative change. Electing the lesser of 2 evils will just diminish the conservative message.

What about Santorum is not conservative enough for you?

I hear this argument all the time but mostly it comes off as "if my guy doesn't win I'm leaving and taking my balll home."

 

[n_huffhines]

What about Santorum is not conservative enough for you?

I hear this argument all the time but mostly it comes off as "if my guy doesn't win I'm leaving and taking my balll home."

So you disagree? You don't think voting for a ****ty candidate is promoting future ****ty candidates?

I would cast my vote for Johnson, too. I would even probably vote for Christie or Paul Ryan. Santorum is interested in a strong foreign policy, which IMO, is not traditional conservatism (Russel Kirk). It's neoconservatism. Even if intervention and entangling alliances were traditionally conservative viewpoints, the financial burden aspect is not.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

The problem is those guys won't change anything, and when everything still sucks people will blame anybody with conservative rhetoric. I'd rather have the GOP lose than taint the views they supposedly espouse. Let the Dems continue to ruin the country until we are willing to elect a leader that will bring about true conservative change. Electing the lesser of 2 evils will just diminish the conservative message.

The idea that a Canidate not named Ron Paul, won't make any changes if elected is beyond stupid

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

3rd party or write in = waste of a vote, but certainly within your right to do so.

A vote for Romney/Gingrich/Santorum is a waste because they want to expand govt. Not at the same pace as the dems, but still, they are moving towards the same direction.

 

[n_huffhines]

The idea that a Canidate not named Ron Paul, won't make any changes if elected is beyond stupid

Of course changes will occur, but I'm talking about drastic change. I'm talking about completely reversing our course (which is the only solution to our financial woes). If you thing the other candidates will bring that about you probably haven't been paying attention to politics over the last 40-50 years.

 

[GAVol]

Of course changes will occur, but I'm talking about drastic change. I'm talking about completely reversing our course (which is the only solution to our financial woes). If you thing the other candidates will bring that about you probably haven't been paying attention to politics over the last 40-50 years.

Admit it. As great as it all sounds, you know that Paul has no chance in hell of slashing 5 federal agencies, reforming the tax code, reforming foreign policy, abolishing the Fed and putting us back on a gold standard.

 

[Weezy]

I think he can do all of those except for the gold standard. He won't be able to get rid of the 5 federal agencies, but he could slash them. Maybe not right away, but over an 8 year span, sure. I don't see how it is hard to reform the foreign policy. The tax code will be a battle, but with the right leadership, I think the people would be behind it.

 

[n_huffhines]

Admit it. As great as it all sounds, you know that Paul has no chance in hell of slashing 5 federal agencies, reforming the tax code, reforming foreign policy, abolishing the Fed and putting us back on a gold standard.

I can admit that he won't abolish the Fed or put us on a gold standard. I wouldn't be surprised if he accomplished all the others. I don't think he'd even try for a gold standard. He'd probably end up strengthening controls over the Fed. He'd slash spending. He would veto nearly everything that came across his desk (that's worth electing him alone). He would DEFINITELY reform foreign policy. No question about it.

 

[volfanjustin]

A vote for Romney/Gingrich/Santorum is a waste because they want to expand govt. Not at the same pace as the dems, but still, they are moving towards the same direction.

I will be waiting on your examples of how they want to expand govt. Santorum is the most conservative person in this race.

 

[n_huffhines]

I will be waiting on your examples of how they want to expand govt. Santorum is the most conservative person in this race.

Seriously?

Big Government Loving Rick Santorum Disses the Tenth Amendment – Florida Tenth Amendment Center

and

Importantly, Santorum is a self-avowed proponent of “Compassionate Conservatism.” This too tells us all that we need to know about his stance on government.

In 2005 Santorum gave a speech to the Heritage Foundation in which he argued passionately for this ideology of Big Government. An excerpt from the speech was subsequently published at Townhall.com. “If government is to be effective,” Santorum asserts, “charities, houses of worship, and other civil institutions” have to be, not just “respected,” but “nurtured” (emphasis mine). And because “Compassionate Conservatism” is “founded on an inviolable belief in humanity’s inherent dignity,” respect for the sanctity of human life means that “ending genocide, international sex trafficking and the oppression of minority groups, and promoting the respect for religious freedom around the world will always be top priorities” for the United States government (emphasis mine).

Santorum readily acknowledges that “this agenda will require a role for government that some conservatives find disquieting.” But he assures us “that [this] is a discomfort worth confronting.”

Rick Santorum: Champion of Big Government | The Moral Liberal

 

[n_huffhines]

Very troubling statement right here:

Of course we care about our jobs, we care about money, but we care about our families...The family is the first economy. If the family breaks down, well, government gets bigger because of the consequences of family breakdown. We see in the neighborhoods where there are no marriages and there are no two-parent families. You can't ignore the reality that faith and family are integral parts of having limited government, lower taxes, and free societies.

We are either gonna be constrained by internal controls, internal restraint on our behavior or we're gonna be restrained by external restraints -- and when people say, "We can live free and people can do whatever they want to do," show me an example of that in human history. It doesn't work.

Rick Santorum's Case for Big Government - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

 

[theFallGuy]

Not agreeing with this article. Just thought it was relavant to the topic. Discuss.

Ron Paul

 

[n_huffhines]

Not agreeing with this article. Just thought it was relavant to the topic. Discuss.

Ron Paul

I think the author is painfully naive. He writes the article as if he has all these gotcha questions that nobody can answer.

Paul’s supporters love to talk about how he was a lone voice of dissent. They never explain why he was alone in his dissent. Why couldn’t he convince even his ideologically sympathetic colleagues? Why is there no Ron Paul caucus?

Huh? Maybe if he asked one of us. The reason is congressmen don't have an incentive to behave like Ron Paul. Why would they act like him? They have an incentive to reward constituents with the redistribution of wealth. Pandering to special interest groups will get you ahead, and so congressmen do it.

We all recognize Ron Paul won't accomplish all of his objectives, and he's realistic about it. He's not promising the world. He's not promising anything he can't make happen.

 

[theFallGuy]

Honestly I agree with the writer about the points of getting nothing passed as President. I honestly feel that winning the Senate right now is more important than winning the presidency. Ultimately they are going to write the bills.

 

[myrobbins7]

I didn't know Joe Rogan was a Ron Paul fan, but I guess he is.

Ron Paul on FEAR FACTOR! - YouTube