I hate to say it but...(Newt/RP)

[SUP3RNOVA]

You either ignored this post or failed to fully understand it.

In regards to principle, guerilla is right. I've said this more than once, he is absolutely right. So is Ron Paul. But it's not practical to expect Ron Paul to gain office and start wiping out the establishment like it's nobody's business. It will take more than a presidential term to abolish the FED, DOE, income tax, etc. The President is only one man, special interests and money will still play a major role in Washington.

Whether you personally have a problem with it is irrelevant. Can you build a logically and ethically consistent argument for confiscating property under threat of violence? Can you at least build an economic case for the confiscation and redistribution of property?

No, but millions of other misinformed and/or lazy Americans can. And they do have real influence.

Why the hell are so many world governments socialist? Why isn't every government founded and run on libertarian principles? Robotic logical answers only get you so far.

You have been here since '07. On numerous occasions, it has been stated that libertarians do not seek, nor do they promise, utopia. I am certain you have seen these posts.

Are you dumb, forgetful, or trolling? I can imagine no other options.

I said libertarian utopia. I have nothing against Darwinism but that's because I have an intellectual advantage over most people. There are hundreds of millions of weak people that do not want to be left in the dust, and feel like they would by libertarian principles. That doesn't make them right, but they still are the majority. It's a factor.

Claptrap. Prove it logically, or abandon it. (Or, cling to it and keep emoting.)

Are you saying that money and special interests don't have a choke-hold on our current political process? The media, corporations, and Washington politicians despise Ron Paul for a good reason.

Translation: "I want peace. And I support peace. But for the good of the country, we must promote violence. That's just realistic."

Where did I say we must promote violence?

Again, I do not tell anybody in the "real world" to vote for Newt Gingrich because he's the most realistic option. I tell them all to vote for Ron Paul. Only in a forum of Ron Paul supporters could I mention what's actually realistic, but then I get called out for being an illogical troll.

What does "that's the contrast America needs" even mean? You use words without saying anything. You are emoting. Nothing more.

The contrast of Ron Paul is that he's genuine, honest, and looking out for the long-term best interest of the US. Current Washington is dishonest and looking out for special interest groups. Ron Paul uses logical arguments and historical facts to get his message across. Current Washington uses deception and lies.

Current Washington has been winning for decades, which is why RP is bringing an actual fresh contrast that's been growing. We do need that movement and contrast to keep growing.

Heads up: I know your way, Paul. You respond to critical posts asking for a logical position by emoting. So, my comments above are not meant to spark a discourse with you. Nor are they meant to offer logical arguments since doing so in this thread would be a waste of time. My comments are meant to highlight flaws in your statements.

I avoid discourse with you because I have learned there is nothing to gain from it.

I'm sorry that the real world isn't as logical and robotic as we want it to be.

I like having a more realistic discussion with people around me that share the same ideals, most people see that as trolling. We agree with the same logical principles, the problem is that those principles are in such sharp contrast with the current establishment AND society that you can't introduce them overnight (aka in 1 Presidential term).

It's not realistic that RP is going to win the nomination even though we both want him to (and fight for that to happen). But I would like to see him hold a higher position in office and fight for the same ideals he's been fighting for. Running as someone's VP gives him a chance to do that, but I do agree in saying that it's also probably not realistic.

RP will likely return to the grassroots and start endorsing his son a lot more.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

That statement is an absolute, rendering it a contradiction.

God damnit Obi Wan, how did Lucas miss that.

Now are you going to answer my question, or keep posting nonsense?

I think I've answered it multiple times - you are right. The unfortunate part is that most people don't think that way, yet.

While absolutes may exist, relativity also exists. Ron Pauls ideals are absolutely right for many, and absolutely wrong for many others. It just so happens that 'others' represent the majority, and that does change the equation.

Perhaps the topic I was trying to discuss got fogged in my "cognitive dissonance", but the question I'd ask is: would Ron Paul be better off returning to the grass roots movement as a congressman, or attempting to score a VP position running under Newt?

I'd personally like to see him be somebody's VP, but I think he's hated to the point where not even that's realistic.

 

[guerilla]

God damnit Obi Wan, how did Lucas miss that.

How did you miss it? It's not George Lucas' job to think for you.

I think I've answered it multiple times - you are right. The unfortunate part is that most people don't think that way, yet.

Every person like you I come across, and believe me, you guys are legion, all have the same issue. You're unable to think outside of the box you have been trained in.

The earth wasn't flat, even if people believed it was. The sun didn't rotate around the earth, even though people believed the earth was the center of the universe.

Facts are independent of opinion.

 

[turbolapp]

would Ron Paul be better off returning to the grass roots movement as a congressman, or attempting to score a VP position running under Newt?

Being VP would accomplish none of the goals of the RP movement. Infact, I think it would muddle and tarnish it, killing everything he worked for in the last 10 years. It would pretty much be political suicide.

(If the GOP really wants to kill the movement, like I think they do, it would be very smart of them to offer him the position)

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

How did you miss it? It's not George Lucas' job to think for you.

1) The ensuing lightsaber battle kind of scrambled my mind, but I did memorize that entire dialogue.

2) I was kind of going with the whole "Jedi are the good guys" thing, and wouldn't expect such an ironic statement of wisdom to come from Obi. Then again, the entire saga is based on the absolutes of good and evil. Hurr on my part.

Every person like you I come across, and believe me, you guys are legion, all have the same issue. You're unable to think outside of the box you have been trained in.

The earth wasn't flat, even if people believed it was. The sun didn't rotate around the earth, even though people believed the earth was the center of the universe.

Facts are independent of opinion.

I feel like you're not reading my posts. By people "like me", what do you mean? When it comes to most things in life, thinking outside of the box is what I'm particularly good at.

For the record: I agree with the logic of you and Ron Paul. I want Ron Paul to be President. I donate to Ron Paul and hand out Ron Paul pamphlets like a Jehovah's Witness. I publicly endorse no other candidate. I agree that the "status quo" needs to be changed, and that the grassroots/RP movement has been growing in success.

That being said, despite all of my campaigning I still think Romney is taking the GOP ticket and the US is generally in line for more of the same. I do not think Ron Paul has enough momentum because of the 30+ crowd and the media. As an alternative from returning to congress, I think it would benefit RP to be someone's Vice President.

Do you think Rand Paul is the bright future of the grassroots movement?

It would be nice to see something more out of you than snappy one-liners and analogies.

 

[Andrew Scherer]

Every person like you I come across, and believe me, you guys are legion, all have the same issue. You're unable to think outside of the box you have been trained in.

The earth wasn't flat, even if people believed it was. The sun didn't rotate around the earth, even though people believed the earth was the center of the universe.

Facts are independent of opinion.

Fuck off, free thinking scum.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Being VP would accomplish none of the goals of the RP movement. Infact, I think it would muddle and tarnish it, killing everything he worked for in the last 10 years. It would pretty much be political suicide.

(If the GOP really wants to kill the movement, like I think they do, it would be very smart of them to offer him the position)

Does the VP have no power, say, or influence in the government?

As I said before, what RP has been doing for years can be considered "political suicide". Politicians already hate him as well as the media. What he has is a motivated following that I don't think would hate him for getting into some position of power rather than none.

Obviously President Paul is the best case scenario, but is congressman Paul better than Vice President Paul?

My opinions are a bit elastic and I'm still learning a lot about politics (I only really got into it about a year ago). I'd like to know why being VP would be such a bad thing when he is already given barely any political credit. This would be a better chance for him to change some things from the inside. I may just have no understanding of the role of the VP.

 

[guerilla]

On the issue of 2 + 2 = 4;

Mathematically, you are right. Practicality is a different issue, not a conflict with mathematics. I don't have a problem with 2 + 2 = 5 as a step towards the mathematical utopia scientists seek. But truthfully speaking, American nor Washington is ready for a mathematician like you. You've done a great job in making the younger generation aware of the problems that face us, and if you wants to really have an influence in Washington I think you'd be a great lab assistant.

Again, when I argue here it's not with my own interests and intellect in mind, it's that of this country. Of course I'd support 2 + 2 = 4 over 2 + 2 = 5, but I also realize that 2 + 2 = 5 is far more realistic.

That being said, "out on the streets" I fight for math's ideals because that's the contrast America needs. Most people here don't need to be preached to about this because they agree, which is why I always argue from the most realistic standpoint given the situation.

 

[DanWesson]

Does the VP have no power, say, or influence in the government?
...
I may just have no understanding of the role of the VP.

What does Joe Biden do? Is he any more influential than any of Obama's other advisers?
VP isn't 2nd-in-command even if it is said to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

 

[Rexibit]

What does Joe Biden do? Is he any more influential than any of Obama's other advisers?
VP isn't 2nd-in-command even if it is said to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

There's a reason Hilary wanted Secretary of State.

 

[turbolapp]

^^ Exactly. All VP would do is align himself with Newt and the rest of the big government GOP.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

On the issue of 2 + 2 = 4;

Mathematically, you are right. Practicality is a different issue, not a conflict with mathematics. I don't have a problem with 2 + 2 = 5 as a step towards the mathematical utopia scientists seek. But truthfully speaking, American nor Washington is ready for a mathematician like you. You've done a great job in making the younger generation aware of the problems that face us, and if you wants to really have an influence in Washington I think you'd be a great lab assistant.

Again, when I argue here it's not with my own interests and intellect in mind, it's that of this country. Of course I'd support 2 + 2 = 4 over 2 + 2 = 5, but I also realize that 2 + 2 = 5 is far more realistic.

That being said, "out on the streets" I fight for math's ideals because that's the contrast America needs. Most people here don't need to be preached to about this because they agree, which is why I always argue from the most realistic standpoint given the situation.

If the right position is 2+2=4 and the current status quo is 2+2=5, it is not a step in the right direction to be happy with 2+2=5 because you step nowhere. 2+2=4.5 is also completely wrong, but closer than 2+2=5. People today will not accept that 2+2=4, and they want the standard kept at 2+2=5 (many want 2+2=6). In terms of progress, getting society to agree that 2+2=4.5 is better than retaining the norm of 2+2=5 or regressing in the other direction. As much as you think they shouldn't, things do function relatively and the average person's intellect isn't as robotic as you want it to be. It makes a lot of people happy to think that 2+2=5 and that happiness allows them to ignore the absolute truth. It's a byproduct of socialist mathematics.

My critique (if any) is that you're seeming to ignore "those" people as the majority in this country. At this point I feel like you really don't seem to understand my position (judging by your analogy) and are just trolling me into redundancy. I was interested in hearing your thoughts on the questions I had (maybe I could learn something), but I'll just exit this conversation.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

What does Joe Biden do? Is he any more influential than any of Obama's other advisers?
VP isn't 2nd-in-command even if it is said to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I'm not sure really, I don't know how much Biden's opinion weighs on Obama.

Unless Ron Paul is elected President, our foreign policy isn't going to change. What you would hope for at VP is that a person like Gingrich would actually heed his economic advice (which I know is much related to his foreign policy). But if Gingrich would just ignore RP and use him purely for votes, yeah it'd be pretty useless. You could always hope for Gingrich to have a coronary.

 

[JakeStratham]

What does Joe Biden do? Is he any more influential than any of Obama's other advisers?

Don't knock Biden. He's great in the "verbal stumbles" department. While he can't match Bush - and seriously, who can? - he's knocked a few into the stands.

 

[eVandals]

I have nothing against Darwinism but that's because I have an intellectual advantage over most people.

I know, ur brain is like bulging at the seams broe!

nEwT/RoN PaUl 2012 Duurrrp

 

[guerilla]

My critique (if any) is that you're seeming to ignore "those" people as the majority in this country.

Majorities don't dictate facts.

Why would anyone worry about what a majority thinks, particularly when it's in contradiction to reality?

 

[lose lose win]

WTF. RON PAUL ISN'T WINNING THE GOP NOMINATION. Is your brain real?

What does that have to do with the fact that RP would never be Newt's VP? And that Newt is lying out of his ass to win over some RP supporters? Which is what this thread is about. Not a god damned thing.

Is it better to vote for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich (w/ Paul VP), Obama, Johnson (independent ticket), or cry in a corner come election day? Welcome to the real world.

I would vote Johnson, and I don't even know who he is.

On a related note, I don't really get this mentality of not supporting RP because he isn't winning or isn't going to win.. Wtf is up with that? My mental and physical energies will be directed in the support of someone that ACTUALLY FUCKING REPRESENTs ME AND MY FAMILIES INTERESTS.. til the very end, just like last election. Too many people willing to jump ship and pick the lessor of evils. Fuck that, I just won't vote before I give support to some sell out faggot who will continue this erosion of our liberties and wealth.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Fuck it I guess I'm not exiting.

Majorities don't dictate facts.

In political voting systems, they do. At least they're supposed to. As opposed to math, in which case a 9:1 vote would not overrule the fact that 2+2=4, because there is no conceivable proof for it.

Why would anyone worry about what a majority thinks, particularly when it's in contradiction to reality?

Because in reality, the majority of people do matter. If the majority of voting America supported Ron Paul, he would be President. Hell, he's getting close to winning with much of America not knowing who he is. My opinion is hinged on the fact that I don't think he will win, so you have to ask why? It's not only the special interests, it's the people of the welfare state who are numbered in the tens of millions.

In principle, nobody should be allowed to abuse welfare. In reality, millions abuse it. Try telling those people that they're undeserving cretins and see what happens. Millions of people are getting used to living the socialist lifestyle, and they're not just going to roll over to a radical that wants to cut and control welfare spending because it's principally right.

Trust me, whenever somebody tells me "Eh it doesn't matter, Ron Paul isn't going to win anyway", I am the FIRST one to jump all over them about it. But as much as I'd love RP to win, I don't think it's going to happen. So what's the next best scenario? Hope the grassroots movement keeps doing what it's doing and hope for a majority Rand Paul vote in 8 years? Switch support to someone like John Huntsman or Gary Johnson?

 

[monies]

That statement is an absolute, rendering it a contradiction.

ahahahahha

can i just say i don't get why people quote or draw inspiration from movies. it's fucking fake god dammit.

 

[guerilla]

Fuck it I guess I'm not exiting.

There is hope for you yet.

In political voting systems, they do. At least they're supposed to. As opposed to math, in which case a 9:1 vote would not overrule the fact that 2+2=4, because there is no conceivable proof for it.

You're continuing to conflate political action or results with facts. They are two different domains.

It was legal in Russia to torture people and send them to gulags. That didn't make it moral, it was still immoral, but legal and politically sanctioned.

Going back to the original discussion, Paul doesn't want a 0% tax. He rejects the idea of tax altogether. No one is close to that, even if they endorse a low tax because the fundamental premise is different.

Because in reality, the majority of people do matter.

Can they make the earth flat? Can they make the sun orbit the earth?

Majorities are abstractions, nothing more.

In principle, nobody should be allowed to abuse welfare.

What is the principle of which you speak?

Millions of people are getting used to living the socialist lifestyle, and they're not just going to roll over to a radical that wants to cut and control welfare spending because it's principally right.

No one expects them to. America is going to eat itself, along with much of the west. It's damn near inevitable at this point.

Whether people vote for, or believe or care about Ron Paul and his ideas are largely irrelevant. That they act in their own short run self interest at the detriment of their long term self interest, doesn't change the facts or consequences of what is happening.

There is no election that cures the world. Libertarians are not utopians. People who think you can vote change are utopians. (See Obama)

So what's the next best scenario?

Make money, minimize your tax footprint, avoid confrontations with state bureaucrats and agents whenever you can, get a second citizenship. That's a good starting point.

Anyone who is waiting for other people to guarantee by vote, their own security or liberty, is a fool.