I was never interested in politics until now,

abec

abec

Wil
I have been drawn into politics after catching some youtube videos of Dr. Ron Paul. For the first time in my adult life I now have someone worth voting for, I am registered as a republican, and will be voting ron pual 2012.

After watching some the debates from this year and last, I realize some of you many who watch TV for their news are seeing ron paul with blinders on. These two videos, although long, are extremely informative. One is an interview of him at Google, the other a documentary of his 2008 run and of those who supported him.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg"]Candidates@Google: Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIcIkoOwp7s"]For Liberty: How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty - YouTube[/ame]
 
Welcome!

There are more than a couple of Ron Paul fans here in the NFC section of the forum:dance:

Since Pennsylvania has closed primaries, I have to change my vote registration to Republican every four years to vote for him.
 
He does have the virtue...

of actually having some virtues. He is utterly unelectable at present largely due to his own party in the nominating process and he would bring out the very biggest guns from the Democrats to defeat him in a general election. Even the faintest shadows of the Pauline ethos like Perry and Bachmann are going to have a hard time tailoring their stances in order to gain traction with the independent middleground voter. He is too extreme for America and too much his own man for the GOP to tolerate. The party will move itself rightward in order to pick up the bulk of the Teaparty, but they think they have already done that with Perry(and probably have)
A vote for Paul is certainly an honorable one-he is what he is and never changes so if it turned out that by a miracle he were elected nobody could rightly complain that they didn't know what they were getting. But he is about as likely to get the GOP nomination as Bernie Sanders is of getting the Democratic one.
 
I think you, as with anyone else who repeats that point, is doing the united states a grave injustice. I wish people and the media would just let the process happen without labeling any candidate unelectable. Rather then claiming unelectable, how about your argue against his views?

Notice how GOP candidates who rolled their eyes at anything Ron Paul said in 07-08 are now starting to sound a lot like him? When did these guys become "anti fed" all of a sudden? This sounds like the same talk Obama did claiming to be anti war, campaigning to bring the troops home. We all see how that went.

The thing about Ron Paul voters, is they are people like myself. People who would not be voting if Ron Paul had not come along. Ron Paul if not nominated by the GOP, has a shot at becoming president if he chooses to once again run as an Independent, because his base draws not only from republicans but from democrats and libertarians.

His views are not extreme, they are logical. They don't attack your emotions like the typical political talk, but rather require you to think about the issue.
 
In defense of USTA, and noting that you did mention that you are sort of new to politics, longtime political observers such as USTA, myself, and many others do tend to occasionally get caught up in the "horse race", where much of the discussion revolves around oddsmaking and pontificating about the chances of any candidate gaining traction, gaining delegates, gaining their party's nomination, and then conducting the campaign.

Regarding the mainstream media, I do heartily agree with you that waaaaay to much of their coverage is horse race and so little coverage is devoted to issue analysis. And I can lament with you about how lame the issue analysis is when you get any at all.

But my sense of USTA (Pat) is that he is not a "horse race" only guy...he can sling policy analysis around with the best of 'em.:wink2::geek::worship::lol:
 
How am I standing in the way...

of the process? And my comment on him being 'too extreme' was as against the all important and politically sanctified 'independent voter' not against some absolute benchmark of extremity. It does his cause no good for any statement about his 'electability' to be so roundly denounced as a condemnation of Paul himself-it might just as easily be a condemnation of the electorate. Where did I actually critcize Mr. Paul? I said a vote for him was honorable. I said he had real virtue, that he was as he presents himself. The fact that his own party and the vast middleground of the American political landscape are tilted against him is not my doing.
His most 'extreme' views are the ones in direct contradiction of his party's long standing obsession with the national security state and intervention by military force and the posturing of our forces in hundreds of installations on foreign soil-all of which, it should be noted are at odds with Barry Goldwater's views.
The Paulines have a hard time discriminating between there enemies and those who are impressed with Mr. Paul but have reservations about the practical consequences of his policies. I have some reservations-deep ones-about the assumptions he makes in regards to the Constitution and his insistence on state's rights. these aren't things that can be effectively argued in short bursts of assertion and counter assertion.
If it was possible to go back through the posts here and compile reasonably positive thing I have ever said about American politcians they would almost all be about Ron Paul. I have said some unflattering things too, but on balance I think better of him than of the current occupent of the WH or any of the contenders for future tenancy there. That I disagree with some of his stances is as healthy as his oppositon to those he disagrees with.
 
I suppose that if being against extreme government spending, extreme government debt, extreme foreign intervention, extreme monetary policy and extreme government power then Ron Paul is extreme.
 
Here are a bunch of links related to the Nolan Chart:
http://freedomkeys.com/nolancharts.htm

This is the first time I've seen the Nolan annotated with political/historical figures:
PoliticalSpace.jpg
 
The narrative given by the media is, "Oh you like Ron Paul? Thats to bad, because hes crazy and unelectable. I have an idea, how about instead you pick from one of these two."

If you follow the recent mainstream media polls, oddly Ron Pauls name gets left off many of them... odd. The effort going into creating that narrative is rather absurd.

Its deceptive and undermines the process for those who do not spend time to really investigate the candidates online through alternative forms of media. Fortunately that population is shrinking as the younger generations, who almost exclusively use the internet, myself start becoming more politically aware.

So its not that you criticized Ron Paul in any way, just that I take offense to anyone claiming someone is unelectable. I say tell me why he SHOULDN'T be elected, NOT that that he can't be. I would rather you criticized him, because then there is a true discussion of the issues, and not a dismissal of the candidate.
 
Calling anyone un-electable over-estimates the cognitive abilities of a large proportion of the electorate. I remember being completely dumbfounded when GWB won a second term.

I have lost nearly all faith in the process. :(
 
I think that the last 10 years or so has proven that there is no such thing as "unelectable". If the timing is right anyone can win. Absolutely anyone.
 
Now that is uncanny, as it's

MGandini said:
Calling anyone un-electable over-estimates the cognitive abilities of a large proportion of the electorate. I remember being completely dumbfounded when GWB won a second term.

I have lost nearly all faith in the process. :(
Click to expand...


errily similar to my reaction to the results of November of 2008. But - as to your last statement - I'm a man of faith and I have faith that the American people won't get fooled again.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm sorry you took offence...

but the claim that he is 'unelectable' is really only controversial because I didn't say 'probably unelectable'. I am taking it as given that all the forces that could be arrayed against his election are in fact arrayed against it. The media, as you say have marginalized him. His own party has marginalized him by other GOP candidates treating him like an ideological cafeteria counter-taking only the ideas they want and leaving the others in the warming trays. Without media attention and with a damning with faint praise attitude (not to say patting him on the head like he is some dotty old uncle) his own party will not put any effort into his candidacy. He ran as a Libertarian once and won't make that mistake again. So where does this all leave him-out in the cold I'm afraid.
It's too bad, it really is too bad-but I think it is a reasonable prediction.
I don't dismiss him as a candidate or a thinker or a worthy person or anything else-I just don't think that as things stand he has any chance worth calling it a chance.
 
This seals the deal...

Looks like you Paul fans are in good company... at least I think that's the famous schlockmeister...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGRnCq0hK3I"]Barry Manilow Supports Ron Paul!! - YouTube[/ame]
 
Being 'actually' against those....

would make you extreme in our politics. 'Saying' you are against them just makes you one more good haircut and a pair of Banana Republic chinos. So I will stick with my assertion that for American electoral politics he is too 'extreme'.:wink2:

What do you think of that idea Matt?:)
 
What would be the defining...

item separating 'getting fooled' from 'not getting fooled'?
Or more to the point, who would not fool us? There is that to say about Ron Paul, if you vote for him and he remains Ron Paul there ain't no room for fooling. Everyone else? Way hard to say. I wouldn't trust any of the rest of them with my wallet-or yours for that matter.
 
usta in Portland said:
item separating 'getting fooled' from 'not getting fooled'?
Or more to the point, who would not fool us? There is that to say about Ron Paul, if you vote for him and he remains Ron Paul there ain't no room for fooling. Everyone else? Way hard to say. I wouldn't trust any of the rest of them with my wallet-or yours for that matter.
Click to expand...

I would trust Ron Paul with my wallet... thought he wouldn't get very far with its contents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top