Jump to content


Ron Paul


The_Godfather
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anybody else excited about him and his ideas? I am absolutely enamored with him right now and would love to see him as President. His one flaw might be his age, but just looking at him you get the idea that he is the epitome of health. His ideas might be too big and radical to see change in 8 years, but damn..we need something big and radical.

 

 

He has surpassed McCain in funds raised and is getting some serious hype right now. The internet has the possibility to change the way elections work, and somebody like Paul could do something amazing.I pulled up some stuff from his website, check it out.

 

 

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

 

He has never voted to raise taxes.

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

He has never taken a government-paid junket.

He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

 

He voted against the Patriot Act.

He voted against regulating the Internet.

He voted against the Iraq war.

 

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RonPaul2008.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites


He's someone I'd definatly vote for. The problem is the GOP has been trying their best to stop him from being successful, but they can't do that for much longer with all the calls and mail the GOP gets expressing support for Ron Paul.

 

I don't think his online support is going to do much though since so much weight of the election is put into the Iowa primaries, which is decided by a bunch of morons who haven't heard of the internets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that he ran as a Republican, honestly.

 

Unfortunately he will almost certainly be forgotten in a few months, once the primary votes start coming in.

 

Of course you are b/c you've always been mistaken on the definitions of things such as liberal and conservative. Ron Paul is what the republican party is supposed to be before it was hijacked by the former Democrat, neo-conservatives.

 

Paul is a true conservative/classical liberal. I definitely agree with him on most of his stances, and in reality with the candidates that are out now, he has a good chance. Mostly b/c the front runner, Guiliani is not a social conservative. So the primary is up for grabs regardless what early polls say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of now, he's the only major-party candidate I would vote for. And in interviews, he's been asked why he is running as a Republican and whether he would consider running as an independent or Libertarian, to which he said no. Here's why:

1) He has served as a Republican in Congress for 20 years.

2) His principles are historically the ones supported by the Republican Party. During the debates he mentioned how for the most part, Republicans were elected to end wars. Also there is a logical consistency with supporting less government intervention at home and abroad.

3) Running as a Libertarian in 1988, he said that he spent all of his time and money just trying to get on the ballot in various states and has been highly critical of ballot access laws in general. So he would only run as a Republican because he feels third-party and independent candidates face an insurmountable disadvantage unless they are independently wealthy and can finance their own campaigns (Perot and Bloomberg).

 

Here's why I think he has a better chance than people give him credit for (including George Stephanopoulos, who had Paul on his show Sunday and told him to his face that he'd be willing to bet every cent that he won't win). There are 10--or 11, counting Thompson--Republicans running. While support for the war in Iraq specifically, and foreign intervention generally, is high among Republicans, there is a significant portion of Republicans opposed to it. The other guys split the pro-war vote, while Paul is unopposed in courting the remainder. I wrote an article compiling some of the polls out there, as well as some other information about Paul's chances. Here are some of the tidbits I found in researching this piece:

 

-57% of Iowa Republicans want the US out of Iraq within 6 months.

-27% of Republicans nationally favor either immediate withdrawal or a timetable.

 

Who else are these people going to vote for? I raise a whole bunch of other issues as well, including the way in which polls are conducted, the fervent support for Paul compared to the tepid support for the frontrunners, and so on. So yeah, he's a longshot, but all the same I think he stays in the primaries longer than anyone would suspect based on his current standing. There are enough antiwar Republicans, generally disaffected Republicans, and libertarians/other independents that support him to do some serious damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While he has a problem with the mainstream Republican party he has another big problem, and I know I'm going to catch sh*t for this but his supporters are the most pompous supporters I've yet to meet. It turns most people off, like somehow they're all a member of this cool club and everyone else just doesn't get it. Much like the majority of the national libertarian party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While he has a problem with the mainstream Republican party he has another big problem, and I know I'm going to catch sh*t for this but his supporters are the most pompous supporters I've yet to meet. It turns most people off, like somehow they're all a member of this cool club and everyone else just doesn't get it. Much like the majority of the national libertarian party.

 

Why should that even matter? You vote for the candidate, not his supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While he has a problem with the mainstream Republican party he has another big problem, and I know I'm going to catch sh*t for this but his supporters are the most pompous supporters I've yet to meet. It turns most people off, like somehow they're all a member of this cool club and everyone else just doesn't get it. Much like the majority of the national libertarian party.

 

Why should that even matter? You vote for the candidate, not his supporters.

:rolleyes:

 

Yes because I've established myself over the years as a Libertarian Republican. I'm a Democrat who has a problem with Libertarian policies so trust me I don't think Paul is high on my list.

 

The fact is though people in Iowa are not going to respond well to 20 year old trust fund hipsters who want to smoke pot without it interfering when they go for a stock broker job in 10 years and have their grandfather's assets in tact when they clock out and it's time for them to get it.

 

That's my stereotypical but in my experience accurate description of a Ron Paul supporter. Their annoying and think they are better than everyone. Come to think of it, I should be a Paul supporter.

 

All jokes aside, Paul is an Internet mirage. You go on the net and he's really something, you go on the ground where it matters and Ron Paul means as much as Tom Tancredo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While he has a problem with the mainstream Republican party he has another big problem, and I know I'm going to catch sh*t for this but his supporters are the most pompous supporters I've yet to meet. It turns most people off, like somehow they're all a member of this cool club and everyone else just doesn't get it. Much like the majority of the national libertarian party.

 

Why should that even matter? You vote for the candidate, not his supporters.

:rolleyes:

 

Yes because I've established myself over the years as a Libertarian Republican. I'm a Democrat who has a problem with Libertarian policies so trust me I don't think Paul is high on my list.

 

The fact is though people in Iowa are not going to respond well to 20 year old trust fund hipsters who want to smoke pot without it interfering when they go for a stock broker job in 10 years and have their grandfather's assets in tact when they clock out and it's time for them to get it.

 

That's my stereotypical but in my experience accurate description of a Ron Paul supporter. Their annoying and think they are better than everyone. Come to think of it, I should be a Paul supporter.

 

All jokes aside, Paul is an Internet mirage. You go on the net and he's really something, you go on the ground where it matters and Ron Paul means as much as Tom Tancredo.

 

I dont think he meant "you" literally.

 

While I agree that Paul is a true Republican, even if by some miracle he would win the primary he would have no shot in the general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has a much better shot in the general than in the primary. B/c then the democrat candidate, especially if its hillary cant use the war to her advantage, b/c he didnt vote for it and she did. And she'd lose ground on social conservative issues as well ,b/c paul is not a social conservative either. So, most likely the social conservatives wont vote for anyone or will only vote for a third party, and the social liberal vote and anti-war vote would be split if not in favor of paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Night Phantom

That's my stereotypical but in my experience accurate description of a Ron Paul supporter. Their annoying and think they are better than everyone. Come to think of it, I should be a Paul supporter.

 

All jokes aside, Paul is an Internet mirage. You go on the net and he's really something, you go on the ground where it matters and Ron Paul means as much as Tom Tancredo.

I'd like to respectfully say you're wrong on both counts.

 

First, the typical Ron Paul supporter in my experience is a young idealistic Republican. And the number is growing. And growing. Does have the majority of any level of the party yet? Nah. But the number is going up. As long as he doesn't go away, he's got a chance.

 

Furthermore, as someone who is actually "on the ground" in the Republican party, the support is not as limited as you think it is. I'm not willing to say he's with Giuliani and Thompson at the moment, but he's got a loyal base that has a chance to get bigger with McCain dropping out very soon.

 

Am I saying he's going to win? No. Does he have a decent chance? Yes, he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to respectfully say you're wrong on both counts.

 

First, the typical Ron Paul supporter in my experience is a young idealistic Republican. And the number is growing. And growing. Does have the majority of any level of the party yet? Nah. But the number is going up. As long as he doesn't go away, he's got a chance.

 

Furthermore, as someone who is actually "on the ground" in the Republican party, the support is not as limited as you think it is. I'm not willing to say he's with Giuliani and Thompson at the moment, but he's got a loyal base that has a chance to get bigger with McCain dropping out very soon.

 

Am I saying he's going to win? No. Does he have a decent chance? Yes, he does.

Young Idealistic Republican seems to fit my description. I have five people I know closely that are supporters of Ron Paul and they all seemingly fit my description. Their young so they are loose on social standards and enjoy a good time but still don't want the government eating away at Grandfather's inheritance check coming their way. I really disagree with your assesment though, I've yet to see one Iowa, Nevada, or New Hampshire poll that has him even getting close to 5%. He polls the same place as the likes of Thompson and Gilmore, and the only "real" support I see him get is a bunch of annoying college students clogging up CNN and Fox New's blogs pre debate with their elequent responses that go a little something like this "Ron Paul pwns Rudi Guiliani". Of course the voting public for the most part viewed him as just another lunatic.

 

Paul's support is all a mirage and if it was real sustainable stuff I want to see poll numbers to justify it, I want to see buzz on Paul that goes beyond just commenting on his net prescence. That is honestly the only mainstream coverage of Paul I've seen, his supporters are big online and they clog up servers posting their stuff but it's not real solid stuff that will translate to votes. The caucus goers do not go for this kind of stuff and if you want an excellent example look at the Dean camp(Paul is not even close to accomplishing what Dean did however, which btw had already been translating at this time in 04, Paul can not say the same), they were running high nationally but were killed in the final weeks in Iowa's when Dean's kids got loose.

 

Another great example is Eugene Mcarthy. His supporters were young and much more in number than Paul's and he still did not have a real chance.

 

Again, I want to see real sustainable action because the fact is this time four years ago Dean had overtaken Edwards and Kerry and was in full momentum. Paul going on the same stuff is still with the likes of Tommy Tancredo and Jim Gilmore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The neo-conservatives did not come from the Democratic party. They have always been associated with the GOP, for some reason.

 

this is incorrect on many, many counts.

 

while i abhor using wikipedia as a source and believe that anyone who does so in any sense of academia should be slapped in the face (*slaps self*) i am feeling particularly lazy and have many other things to do other than going through textbooks and citing the pages to make my point, so i'll cop out and use wikipedia for a simplistic, lazy application to the origins of the neoconservative movement. while wiki does not give a totally comprehensive history, the premise is accurate.

 

ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter where the movement started and if you are into "blaming" one party for neoconservatism's emergence you are a moron. but in the interest of accuracy here is some reading material from a less than stellar source.

 

and for the record, i am not a fan of the neoconservative movement, though i do agree with a select few of their foreign policy objectives

 

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left, especially in response to key developments in modern American history.[citation needed]

 

The forerunners of neoconservatism were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported World War II, and who were influenced by the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman[citation needed]. A number of future neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA[citation needed].

 

Some of the mid-20th Century New York Intellectuals were forebears of neoconservatism. The most notable was literary critic Lionel Trilling, who wrote, "In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition." It was this liberal "vital center," a term coined by the historian and liberal theorist Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., that the neoconservatives would see as threatened by New Left extremism. But the majority of "vital center" liberals remained affiliated with the Democratic Party, retained left-of-center viewpoints, and opposed Republican politicians such as Richard Nixon who first attracted neoconservative support.[citation needed]

 

Initially, the neoconservatives were less concerned with foreign policy than with domestic policy. Irving Kristol's journal, The Public Interest, focused on ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended and harmful consequences. Norman Podhoretz's magazine, Commentary formerly a journal of the liberal left, had more of a cultural focus, criticizing excesses of the movements for black equality and women's rights and the academic left. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the early neoconservatives had been socialists or liberals strongly supportive of the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King.[8][5]

 

Opposition to Dtente with the Soviet Union and the views of the anti-Soviet and anti-capitalist New Left, which emerged in response to the Soviet Union's break with Stalinism in the 1950s, was one factor that would cause the Neoconservatives to split with the "liberal consensus" of the early postwar years.

 

While initially, the views of the New Left became very popular among the children of hard-line Communists, often Jewish immigrant families on the edge of poverty and including those of some of today's most famous neoconservative thinkers, some neoconservatives also came to despise the counterculture of the 1960s and what they felt was a growing anti-Americanism among many baby boomers, exemplified in the emerging New Left by the movement against the Vietnam War.

 

As the radicalization of the New Left pushed these intellectuals farther to the right, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism, while also becoming disillusioned with the Johnson Administration's Great Society.

 

Academics in these circles, many of whom were still Democrats, rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s, especially after the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. Many of their concerns were voiced in the influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by future television commentator and neo-conservative Ben Wattenberg. Many clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat derisively known as the "Senator from Boeing," during his 1972 and 1976 campaigns for President; but later came to align themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront charges of Soviet "expansionism." Among those who worked for Jackson are Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Richard Perle and Felix Rohatyn.

 

Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, wrote that neoconservatism "originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' When the Cold War ended, "many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center… Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists."[9]

 

In his semi-autobiographical book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Irving Kristol cites a number of influences on his own thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on some neoconservatives has generated some controversy.

 

The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. Author Michael Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of former Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class'". He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution". He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism", which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history." However, few leading neoconservatives cite James Burnham as a major influence.[10]

 

Critics of Lind contend that there is no theoretical connection between Trotsky's "permanent revolution", and that the idea of a "global democratic revolution" instead has Wilsonian roots.[11] While both Wilsonianism and the theory of permanent revolution have been proposed as strategies for underdeveloped parts of the world, Wilson proposed capitalist solutions, while Trotsky advocated socialist solutions.

 

Lind argues furthermore that "The organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins". He draws a line from the center-left anti-Communist Congress for Cultural Freedom to the Committee on the Present Danger to the Project for the New American Century and adds that "European social-democratic models inspired the quintessential neocon institution, the National Endowment for Democracy."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He got 65% of the vote in the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers straw poll over the weekend. Granted, that's not an actual poll, but I get the impression that it's the type of people who would vote in a primary.

That's the equivalent of polling an NRA convention on who they would have voted for in 2004 Bush or Kerry and then trying to pass it off as the voting public's opinion.

 

ALL state wide opinion polls of likely republican primary voters have him ranging from a 0 - 2 %. And his campaign had the same buzz two months ago so I don't by he's picking up. He's running the same campaign as Dean, his just isn't getting off the ground like Dean already was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why such strong "internet support" is so quickly pushed aside like it means nothing. This is the new form of media and I would assume it has passed all other forms except for televison(I could see it conceivably passing even TV in a few years).

What are you talking about? I've not pushed it aside. Their's a reason I mentioned Dean he was a guy who had considerable net prescence and used it to translate it into real votes.

 

Whether you like it or not, opinion polls poll the actual voters of the state and are more reliable than a crappy CNN post debate poll. Internet prescense is great if you can use it to translate it into actual votes. The fact is though Ron Paul up to this point has absolutely failed converting that prescence into votes, polling at 1% in Iowa in the last poll is not running a good campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why such strong "internet support" is so quickly pushed aside like it means nothing. This is the new form of media and I would assume it has passed all other forms except for televison(I could see it conceivably passing even TV in a few years).

What are you talking about? I've not pushed it aside. Their's a reason I mentioned Dean he was a guy who had considerable net prescence and used it to translate it into real votes.

 

Whether you like it or not, opinion polls poll the actual voters of the state and are more reliable than a crappy CNN post debate poll. Internet prescense is great if you can use it to translate it into actual votes. The fact is though Ron Paul up to this point has absolutely failed converting that prescence into votes, polling at 1% in Iowa in the last poll is not running a good campaign.

 

 

Internet presence is only great if you can translate it into actual votes, I agree. Let's see what happens when actual votes do take place and then you can argue that he is simply an internet mirage.

 

Six months is a lifetime in opinion politics when there is no clear cut leader. Hell, 6 months ago John McCain was leading those same opinion polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Night Phantom

Their young so they are loose on social standards and enjoy a good time but still don't want the government eating away at Grandfather's inheritance check coming their way.

I really don't know anything about your friends, but I think you're using a small sample size to improperly diagnose an entire base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Ron Paul, and I think he is guy with logical policies, even if they go against something I stand for.

 

I think he stands zero chance in this election, especially with what he has already said on foreign policy. But I think he could be building a base that could grow into something viable down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he stands zero chance in this election, especially with what he has already said on foreign policy.

 

 

I would agree with that if this race had clear cut front runners. The only "semi lock" (90% chance or better) right now is that Clinton or Obama will win the democratic nod. The republican side is wide open though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Night Phantom

But I think he could be building a base that could grow into something viable down the road.

The return of the Libertarian Right :mischief

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their young so they are loose on social standards and enjoy a good time but still don't want the government eating away at Grandfather's inheritance check coming their way.

I really don't know anything about your friends, but I think you're using a small sample size to improperly diagnose an entire base.

They are not friends :mischief But you are correct, I can't say that for everyone but I like stereotypes. I know it's not the case with you and a least a few others on this board.

 

However I did some shower thinking and I'll put this out their as a very friendly wager to any Paul supporter if they want to pick it up. Ok, we know his poll numbers are not great right now but many of you have said just wait. So how about this if Ron Paul can average 8% in two polls that are either national, or part of the big three(NH, Nevada, Iowa) in the next 45 days I will make a 10$ donation to the Ron Paul for President campaign(I know it's small but I am so very poor). For instance two polls from Iowa can come out one with him polling at 10, an another say a week later at 6. My only condition you can not mix and match, they have to come from the same category.

 

Now if he fails to do this, whoever takes me up makes a 10$ dollar donation to the Bill Richardson for President fund.

 

Just something to throw out there if anyone wants to take me up cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...