Ron Paul Wins Illinois Straw Poll...Media Blackout Continues

[p0ck3taces]

From Gallup.com:
Yeah... That's fair. 100% people who answer phones, (a.k.a. morons.) Never a single internet user.



Get your argument straight.

In fact I said:
That's pretty much the opposite of "old people don't go online." :smokin:

Read better. Check my post again.

I posted two links, one that shows people answering phones as you have pointed out and the other poll showing age groups of people visiting candidates sites.

"old people don't go online" was me just prefacing an argument you might have for the second link I pointed out, not trying to quote anything you already said.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

I agree with just about everything he has to say, and that's coming from someone who has a very open mind.

Tell me, what is it that RP believes that you disagree with?

He views the world through a very particular lens. The nature of his economic and political philosophy is to reject empiricism in favor of relying on principle.

When you make decisions in your life, do you try to carefully analyze and weigh the evidence before making a decision? Or do you only act out of principle?

On the one hand, if you know what principles someone stands for, and that they have a track record of standing by those principles, you're going to have a pretty good idea what they're going to do. That was something that originally appealed to me about Ron Paul. We'd been through half a decade of an administration that seemed intent on antagonizing the rest of the world, destroying our economy, and turning the country into a police state. Someone that rejects all that on principle seemed far preferable.

Over time though, I realized that there were too many areas where I disagreed with him. I don't believe that getting rid of every federal agency is a great idea. Or ending social welfare programs.

I accept that government can be a problem. That it creates regulations that help large businesses and hurt small ones. That to me is argument for no government though, or better government, not smaller government. Government, where it exists, typically gets corrupted and typically gets bigger. But if you start cutting the size of government, what do you think is going to go and what will stay? I'll tell you: anything that helps big business will stay. Anything that helps the little guy, will go. Because they can use their power and influence to make it that way.

And that, right there, is my big problem with cutting government. What's left will be less for the people, and more for big business. So short of anarchy, I can't see cutting government working out for anyone but the 0.1%. Reform, yes. The government is always in need of reform and improvement to better serve the needs of the population, and to fight corruption.

Ron Paul also holds some decidedly non-libertarian beliefs, which he has attempted to pass into law. Like defining life as starting at conception, which is frankly fairly ridiculous and opens up an avenue to allowing state governments to interfere with people having control over their own bodies. Sorry, that doesn't seem like liberty to me.

Beyond that, Ron Paul has no team, no party, no coalition. He's just one guy and his supporters. You need a lot more than that to get anything done in government. He won't get the nomination. Everyone knows it (excepting the denialists). Even if he did, it wouldn't matter. Even if he got elected, he wouldn't be able to get anything done.

So I'm a bit cynical about politics right now, really. The establishment guys are no good (though, like Chomsky has said, I think the average person is slightly better off with Democrats in power). Ron Paul isn't for me. I think that's really the sentiment of #OWS, as well. Shit ain't working. We don't know how to fix it, or even how to clearly define the problem, but we know it's not working.

I believe smart people are smart.

I'm not sure I follow you... smart people are... smart? :stonedsmilie:

A smart person, no matter his age (Although most will be over 40 because experience makes you smarter) is likely to become a libertarian

Or maybe they're more likely to become liberal?

You ever watch TED? Those people are pretty smart. And mostly pretty liberal.

We could trot out different studies and data points to support whatever point of view, I'm sure. At the end of the day, what's the point of making such claims but to induce divisiveness?

...I wonder if RP moneybombs have raised more cash this time around... Anyone know the answer to that? I'm thinking so.

According to opensecrets.org, by this time (Q4) in '07, Ron Paul had raised ~$28M compared with ~$12M so far this cycle. That would seem to indicate he's not doing nearly as well? But maybe it can be partially blamed on the economy...

 

[Moxie]

Even if he got elected, he wouldn't be able to get anything done.

Congress hasn't declared war since World War II, yet presidents since then have been able to send the military into operations that have cost trillions.

You mention ending welfare programs, but that would be one of the things that he would not be able to do. Congress in the next 8 years is not going to vote to end Medicare or legalize heroin, or do other controversial things that Paul might want. He's admitted his ideal form of government is not going to happen, and that he would rather see the money used on health care instead of wars.

 

[dreamache]

But if you start cutting the size of government, what do you think is going to go and what will stay? I'll tell you: anything that helps big business will stay. Anything that helps the little guy, will go. Because they can use their power and influence to make it that way.

I think you have that backwards. That is what has been happening for decades, our federal government is so corrupt because these big businesses have bought 95% of them.

The only way to deal with it is to cut the size of the federal government. If you make the role of the federal government very clear (which would mean it would be 90% less the size it is today, with it's primary purpose being military defense), then you eliminate the ability of corporations to control the policies that are made on a federal level.

As long as you have very strong & enforced antitrust laws to ensure competing businesses can:
(a) emerge in the event that a corporation is acting against the interest of consumers
(b) can compete on a level playing field
..their ability to "fuck consumers" and turn us all into slaves is negated, because it can't happen in a truly open and free market.

Ron Paul also holds some decidedly non-libertarian beliefs, which he has attempted to pass into law. Like defining life as starting at conception, which is frankly fairly ridiculous and opens up an avenue to allowing state governments to interfere with people having control over their own bodies. Sorry, that doesn't seem like liberty to me.

I've always been pro-choice but recently I've been questioning myself and I'm uncertain, after reading RP's explanation of his stance on abortion. I will paste what I read here:

The heated debate about abortion is filled with emotional arguments that usually center on secondary considerations such as sexual morality, religious beliefs, women’s rights, or purely on pragmatic reasons: if abortion were made illegal it would still take place – under unsanitary conditions that would endanger additional lives.

However, a rational evaluation of abortion must be built upon one single question: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between?

Not even the most radical feminist would find it okay to tear apart a recently-born baby just because it is not wanted by its mother. All other considerations aside, the only reason many individuals can support abortion with a good conscience is because they believe it’s not murder… and that unborn babies do not count as human beings.

Ron Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He believes that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life.

Recalling his personal observation of a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his medical residency, Ron Paul stated, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”

In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” Additionally, Ron Paul said that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is “an act of aggression” against a fetus.

He definitely raises some worthy points to consider. I haven't really made up my mind yet, but if I come out disagreeing with him on only *this* issue, I'm still all for him.

Beyond that, Ron Paul has no team, no party, no coalition. He's just one guy and his supporters. You need a lot more than that to get anything done in government. He won't get the nomination. Everyone knows it (excepting the denialists). Even if he did, it wouldn't matter. Even if he got elected, he wouldn't be able to get anything done.

Being elected is a huge feat in and of itself. It's a powerful sign that conventional left/right divide in this country is not working, look where it has gotten us. He has the ability to de-fund many executive based departments, and also staff departments with others who share his political/economic ideas.

Also, "not being able to get anything done" is a good thing. He'd be able to veto any bill that digs our economic hole further into the ground, or at least delay the process, in hopes that the markets will finally be able to correct themselves as they haven't been allowed.

At this point, I would much rather a president be elected who "can't get anything done" because those who do, are simply puppets of our corporation-controlled federal overlords and they will likely continue to act to their benefit, not the people.

 

[MSTeacher]

I can't say for sure, but I suspect a lot of younger people that supported Paul last time around, the "early adopters" if you will, have defected as they've matured politically and philosophically and were forced to confront criticisms of his ideology.

You can count me among them.

a majority of whom are conservatives that felt the Bush administration had betrayed traditional conservative values, and all these other guys - Romney, Perry, Cain etc. - are offering up more of the same...

...and also the rise in popularity of the formerly fringe conspiracy theory scene

Yup, absolutely. When RP started gaining real popularity in the early-mid 2000s it was unquestionably the younger crowd that got behind him to make that popularity surge. I think a lot of 2006ish and later RP fans don't know that a very large chunk of his initial populist support in the early 2000s was a direct result of his willingness to publicly state he would support a new 9/11 investigation, he would nationalize - not end - the Fed, stop the wars, abolish the CIA, bring meaning back to the dollar, etc. It was the young populists and conspiracy activists acting through alternative media who really pushed to put RP and his message into the limelight. And yeah, some people whose primary issue was libertarianism. Without that behind him he would currently be way, way more marginalized even than he is now. The old media was essentially forced to pay attention to him because it was so embarrassing to see how much populist support he had on the internet and among activists while they droned on about their manchurian candidates.

Now that he's had some exposure and with the last few rounds of neocons - and since tweaking some things in his message here and there - he has a much broader support base.

 

[PunchMyFace]

Ron Paul's "Support Them Now" Veterans Day Money Bomb - November 11, 2011 - SupportThemNow.com

Spread The Word!

 

[MSTeacher]

our federal government is so corrupt because these big businesses have bought 95% of them.

The only way to deal with it is to cut the size of the federal government.

That is not a necessary conclusion. No more than saying the only cure for an infection is to hack off 95% of the body part infected.

If you make the role of the federal government very clear (which would mean it would be 90% less the size it is today, with it's primary purpose being military defense), then you eliminate the ability of corporations to control the policies that are made on a federal level.

Increased size definitely creates decreased clarity, but that doesn't mean government needs to be 90% smaller to be clearly defined.

It's also worth considering that the tradeoff for this kind of drastic reduction of Federal power is an increased vulnerability to regional influence, balkanization, secession, and cultural disunity. It is arguably more dangerous to the health of a national state than a more centralized model.

As long as you have very strong & enforced antitrust laws to ensure competing businesses can:
(a) emerge in the event that a corporation is acting against the interest of consumers
(b) can compete on a level playing field
..their ability to "fuck consumers" and turn us all into slaves is negated, because it can't happen in a truly open and free market.

I don't know a whole lot about the 'truly open and free market' so maybe I'm wrong but doesn't regulation like antitrust go against a 'free and open market'?

 

[Pseudo Nym]

I think you have that backwards. That is what has been happening for decades, our federal government is so corrupt because these big businesses have bought 95% of them.

The only way to deal with it is to cut the size of the federal government. If you make the role of the federal government very clear (which would mean it would be 90% less the size it is today, with it's primary purpose being military defense), then you eliminate the ability of corporations to control the policies that are made on a federal level.

See, I don't see how this can get done. The conservative message is always "less government," but what the people - libertarians and traditional conservatives alike - mean by that and what the politicians end up doing are at odds. "Less government" ends up being less taxes and less regulations on big business, but oh hey, same old hoops for the rest of you chumps, and by the way we need to cut some of these social programs because they're too expensive (nevermind that we cut taxes) and OMG black welfare queens.

So it's fine in theory, but what ends up happening is people end up supporting some establishment shill. Look what happened with the Tea Party... from supporting Ron Paul to... Sarah Palin? Really? The message is just too easily co-opted.

..their ability to "fuck consumers" and turn us all into slaves is negated, because it can't happen in a truly open and free market.

Hypothetically, anyway. It's moot though; we've never had one and won't anytime soon.

I've always been pro-choice but recently I've been questioning myself and I'm uncertain, after reading RP's explanation of his stance on abortion.

It's never been a particularly clear-cut issue for me, either. I went from not having an much of opinion on the reasoning that "it wasn't up to me," to thinking I should have a more informed opinion and doing some reading up on it. The graphic depictions of late-term abortions are certainly shocking, and I think we have a intuitive visceral reaction to them that is worth paying attention to.

I found it worthwhile to re-frame my perspective on the issue with this exercise (particularly as I'm not a woman):

Undoubtedly you've seen the movie Alien. So imagine that you found out you were host to parasitic organism, like in the movie, and it would grow in your abdomen and after a few months it would burst out of your crotch and cause you excruciating pain in the process. For the sake of argument, let's say this creature has incorporated some of your DNA into its own and will also grow into an adult creature that is every bit as intelligent and aware as you are. Now let's say you were told that you could not remove this parasite from your body, and were required to let it live inside you until it had completed its gestation. How would you feel about that?


Maybe that'll clarify the issue a bit for you. It did for me. I also read summaries of Roe v. Wade and found it to be pretty fair in its judgment.

This essay on the topic by Carl Sagan and his wife is also worth a read.

At this point, I would much rather a president be elected who "can't get anything done" because those who do, are simply puppets of our corporation-controlled federal overlords and they will likely continue to act to their benefit, not the people.

You mention ending welfare programs, but that would be one of the things that he would not be able to do. Congress in the next 8 years is not going to vote to end Medicare or legalize heroin, or do other controversial things that Paul might want. He's admitted his ideal form of government is not going to happen, and that he would rather see the money used on health care instead of wars.

It's difficult for me to see how a completely impotent president would solve anything at all. And, in fairness, it's debatable how much has been "solved" in the last 3 (or 11) years. If Ron Paul had been elected in '08, would the country be in better shape economically?

I suppose one significant positive of a Paul administration is that the US would be much less likely to be involved in foreign conflicts (or is it...? I'm sure some foreign policy hawks would disagree). So there's that.