sometimes I feel like it's rigged to get Ron Paul INTO office.

I mean, there's no contest. They pick 4 dumbasses, 1 free thinker, and using media censorship to scare us into voting for ron paul.


[/conspiracy theory]

12/7/2011 12:11:55 AM

how about a little attention for Buddy Roemer

i'm ignorant of him substantively, but his rhetoric is nice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMoAMnFczY

12/7/2011 12:26:10 AM

Quote :

"Basically what I've been saying. He can't win the republican primary because he isn't a republican. If he does, great, I'd rather have him debate Obama and actually force Obama to the left on certain issues, but that won't happen. Strategically, for him, he should run as an independent, take his ardent supporters with him, and try to grab some more moderates and disenfranchised democrats. He still won't win, but he'll alter the political discourse for the future, which is really the best he can hope for. How old is the dude, anyway? At this point, he should consider being a political martyr and taking one for the country by running as a independent rather than trying to reform the most stubborn political establishment that's ever existed. He's trying to win over a demographic that is held hostage by Donald Trump/Sarah Palin supporters. That can't happen, and he'd be better of branching off and taking a sizable chunk of the GOP with him."

Yep, his ability to shape the debate is why I like him. I'm aligned with him in a lot of ways, but really I'm kind of a different flavor of libertarian. Still, Ron Paul helps broader libertarianism by raising the tide, and if he has enough success or makes the right moves (3rd party run?), maybe it'll make the GOP honor its libertarian wing, which is probably above all else what I'd like to see (as the capital L guys aren't gonna win significantly in the foreseeable future.)

12/7/2011 1:39:04 AM

I don't think the average voter knows what a libertarian is and it would be instant marginalization of Paul ran as a libertarian.

It would take someone like Palin or Bush to switch to libertarian for "normal" people to have any awareness of this.

12/7/2011 2:50:25 AM

They might not know libertarian, but they know independent. Ross Perot was not that long ago, and he got 19% of the vote in the general election. Ron Paul has a much bigger following and an expanding base of volunteers.

Republicans would be pissed if Paul went that route. Fuck 'em. They've done everything in their power to marginalize him, and if it bites them in the ass, so be it. If Newt or Mitt gets elected, it's really not much of a difference over Obama.

12/7/2011 10:09:25 AM

^ pretty much

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM. Reason : Except that in many ways it would be a big difference...just little better]

12/7/2011 11:51:13 AM

http://www.rickperry.com

proof you should never let your domain name expire

12/7/2011 12:10:11 PM

$912,748.83 almost there.

12/7/2011 12:27:37 PM

Mitt Romney is Obama's white doppelganger. There would be a pretty big difference with Newt, though.

12/7/2011 2:50:43 PM

I've noticed FoxNews starting to say some "positive" things about ROn Paul recently. and it makes me feel dirty every time. And by "positive," I mean "not always calling him batshit insane." It was so shocking, that for a split second it made me think less of Paul, like he MUST have done something sinister to garner their "praise"

12/7/2011 4:32:12 PM

Quote :

"Mitt Romney is Obama's white doppelganger. There would be a pretty big difference with Newt, though."

He kinda feels more like a Kerry to me, though standing a much better chance than Kerry did. The conservatives right now are so self-absorbed this doesn't register though. They pretty much are assuming they will win the General Election, so they're nominating with only their own agenda wishlist in mind, moderates and independents be damned!

12/7/2011 4:48:06 PM

No offense theduke, but you are a total idiot politically

You are one of those "blah blah blah" guys who panders to the right ideas but when push comes to shove you're a pansy ass that knows his place.

You'll talk a bunch of shit about how you're an idea guy but when it comes down to it you'll fall into place like a good little sheep.

People like you are the problem. You're complacent with the life you've carved out for yourself so you refuse to buck the status quo.

Don't get upset at me. You're the one who has to look yourself in the mirror. I'm just telling you what everyone else sees.

Now go vote for Gingrich you fake ass Libertarian.

12/8/2011 12:05:53 AM

to be fair, he did say, "no offense"

12/8/2011 12:16:47 AM

Quote :

"I've noticed FoxNews starting to say some "positive" things about ROn Paul recently. and it makes me feel dirty every time. And by "positive," I mean "not always calling him batshit insane." It was so shocking, that for a split second it made me think less of Paul, like he MUST have done something sinister to garner their "praise""

They have to mention him when he's finishing in the top 3 in the first two primary states. Keith Olbermann had a piece on his show about whether or not Ron Paul could become "the frontrunner." Of course, he had some commentator saying, "no, no, don't worry, Ron Paul won't be it."

The campaign is strong. There are a shitload of volunteers mobilizing, so all bets are off going into 2012, especially with a strong finish in Iowa and New Hampshire.

12/8/2011 12:18:52 AM

^^^I think you calling me a "total idiot politically" is laughable.

...but, I mean, I'm not a "fake-ass Libertarian." I think I've been pretty clear about my frustration with the Libertarian Party, which is why I've never bothered to change my registration from GOP.

As far as being a "pansy ass who knows his place", and "fall[s] into place like a good little sheep", I think not. I mean, where in the fuck do you get that? I've stated many times that I mostly don't vote and/or write-in "No confidence." I voted for Bush in 2000 (a vote that I regret), and Badnarik (L) in 2004 (which wasn't a very serious vote, as I view him as a typical capital-"L" fucking nutter...I actually forgot about that one; I have stated before that I've only voted for President once, although for practical purposes, that's pretty much true, haha). At any rate, after that, I resolved to only vote for candidates I like, and I haven't seen once since. I voted for McCain in the '08 primary, then did not vote for him in the general election after he completely turned his back on everything he ever stood for.

So, in short, I'm not a "fake-ass Libertarian" because I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a right-leaning libertarian/libertarian Republican. A claim that I complain but ultimately fall into line could be pretty much no further from the truth--look at my fucking voting record.

Sorry I don't pass your purity test. That attitude and people like you are one of the biggest reasons that libertarianism stays doomed to the footnotes of the American political landscape. Thanks a lot, cocksucker.

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM. Reason : ^^^]

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 12:33 AM. Reason : across the board detachment from reality. Par for the capital-"L" course. ]

12/8/2011 12:30:04 AM

If only Paul was 30 years younger and more charismatic, now would be the ideal time to run a limited government candidate.

Here's hoping for a wildcard independent.

12/8/2011 12:39:23 AM

I think you're equating "Libertarian" with "libertarian". Ron Paul is a Republican. He is not a Libertarian. He is a libertarian.

Party affiliation is one thing. I'm a Republican. I hate the Republican party with a passion, only slightly less than the Democratic party. The only reason I tolerate the GOP is because our electoral system lends itself to a two party system, so you have to work from the inside of one of the parties. If you want to have any influence at all, that is the reality.

Republican or Democrat, left or right, all of that is bullshit. We can go right to the meat of any political discussion by using the only spectrum that matters: libertarian versus authoritarian. In other words, on any given issue, do you think the government should or should not intervene. To answer that question, regardless of your position on the morality of government, you should be asking, "What are the consequences of intervention?"

12/8/2011 12:47:39 AM

^ I will slightly alter that last point to say that I generally support maximizing of liberty. From time to time, government intervention is desirable (or at least less undesirable than the consequences of not doing so). Everything has costs and benefits...you try to foresee and weight them as best as you can. I am personally more accommodating of intrusion than the vast majority of Libertarians, placing more or less weight on the costs/benefits of different areas than they do (and, I dare say, not being guilty of slavish adherence to ideology, failing to even make such trade-off judgment calls, which some Libertarians are guilty of in my opinion). That said, I am far, far, far less tolerant of government interference than 98%+ of Republicans, and probably 100% of Democrats.

Quote :

"I'm a Republican. I hate the Republican party with a passion, only slightly less than the Democratic party. The only reason I tolerate the GOP is because our electoral system lends itself to a two party system, so you have to work from the inside of one of the parties. If you want to have any influence at all, that is the reality. "

That describes me exactly.


...and if your first statement is directed at me, trust me, I understand as well as anyone the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. I do not use those terms interchangeably.

12/8/2011 1:05:27 AM

okay sorry i was hammered last night. What I should have said was I really fucking hate people who seem to understand the problems the country is facing but yet still won't vote for Ron Paul.

Actually I just hate people who aren't voting for Ron Paul in general. He's not the perfect candidate, but he's the only viable one.

12/8/2011 1:15:08 PM

So I was reading the Drudge Report today and noticed a link "Who Would you Vote for Today". It was a poll so I decided to cast my vote. Here are the results....



granted...Bachmann comes in second so that kind of made me go

but then I read another interesting article in Politico

"Study: Ron Paul is winning on Twitter"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70072.html

[Edited on December 8, 2011 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2011 2:28:21 PM

Haha, well yeah, Paul dominates the hell out of the Internet.

^^ I may vote for him in the primary, if Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman are out of the race by FL.

12/8/2011 9:40:43 PM

Bear in mind that Ron Paul fans are basically the only Republicans on the internet who know how to do anything aside from check their email and read Drudge

12/9/2011 9:09:16 AM

ol ronnie is doin pretty good in iowa

12/9/2011 2:30:02 PM

Just going to throw this out there......... every single year I hear Ron Paul fans talking about how his base is mobilizing and his supporters are growing more and more, but he always falls way, way behind. He's incredibly smart and knows a lot of the issues, at least domestically which is something that most GOP candidates lack, but I'd be willing to bed Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination.

Politics in a two party system work like a pendulum. When one party swings things too far one way, the other party swings it right back. If you put in a Ron Paul type of person, I wouldn't be shocked if the Democrats had a massive surge in support for midterm election, 2010 style. Just my two cents...

12/9/2011 3:05:22 PM

Quote :

"Just going to throw this out there......... every single year I hear Ron Paul fans talking about how his base is mobilizing and his supporters are growing more and more, but he always falls way, way behind. He's incredibly smart and knows a lot of the issues, at least domestically which is something that most GOP candidates lack, but I'd be willing to bed Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination. "

Here's the deal: if Ron Paul doesn't finish strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, the campaign's going nowhere.

In 2008, you would have been right. Polls are showing Ron Paul as 2nd or 3rd in Iowa and NH, though. Newt is way ahead, but he's just the new flavor of the week. There's really no way that Newt is going to be able to live down his past. He's too much of a slimeball to make it all the way through.

If we see Ron Paul upset Iowa or New Hampshire, it's going to majorly change to course of primary season. The media wants to ignore Ron Paul, because he's not representing a party, he's representing an ideology that goes against everything our political system has been built upon: stealing and killing. He is a true threat to the establishment.

Quote :

"Politics in a two party system work like a pendulum. When one party swings things too far one way, the other party swings it right back. If you put in a Ron Paul type of person, I wouldn't be shocked if the Democrats had a massive surge in support for midterm election, 2010 style. Just my two cents..."

Typically this is true, but I think we've got a unique set of circumstances. The global economy is a wreck. Failed fiscal and monetary policy has us on the brink of financial disaster. Both parties want to keep the scam going for as long as possible. Ron Paul is a lone voice in the crowd demanding that we have sensible policies and actually use the Constitution.

He's not perfect. He's not a slick, smooth-talking candidate, which we've been told is necessary to be elected. He does have integrity and he sticks to his principles. People can sense that he's a genuine candidate that won't sell out. We desperately need to elect someone that understands the country's problems. Obama doesn't. Mitt doesn't. Newt doesn't.

Ron Paul's Army Eyes an Iowa Upset

http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/09/ron-pauls-army-eyes-an-iowa-caucus-upset/

[Edited on December 9, 2011 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2011 3:59:08 PM

Quote :

"Politics in a two party system work like a pendulum. When one party swings things too far one way, the other party swings it right back. "

Uh, no. We've been sliding to the right since 1980. We just slide faster when Republicans are in charge, but the direction has been the same for quite some time now.

People like to pretend that the system works the way you described, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Workers rights have eroded, unions have been busted, the wealth gap has widened, and civil rights have stagnated both socially and financially. Social Safety nets have been under attack, government programs have been privatized, state revenues have fallen, and we've overextended ourselves militarily.

If Democrats were supposed to be the balancing power during all of this, then they've done a shit awful job.

12/9/2011 5:02:03 PM

We kInda fell to the left off of a cliff under FDR and again under LBJ. The creeping to the right has generally gone slowly across many many years, but there is still a pendulum.

12/9/2011 6:37:58 PM

Quote :

"Workers rights have eroded, unions have been busted"

Sorry, what? UAW managed to bring down the biggest manufacturing industry we had, then the government bailed them out.

Quote :

"the wealth gap has widened"

True, but this is not due to what you consider "right wing" politics. This is due to structural problems that have been championed by those on the right and left.

Quote :

"Social Safety nets have been under attack, government programs have been privatized, state revenues have fallen"

None of the big programs have being meaningfully reformed or privatized. Medicare and Social Security are still siphoning wages from our generation, just at a faster rate. With more graduates unemployed or unemployed, the FICA tax is a relatively larger chunk.

But, hey...we have to sacrifice so that the generation that promised itself a comfortable retirement and longevity can keep on truckin'. Doesn't matter that we'll never be given access to the same benefits, right?

[Edited on December 9, 2011 at 7:22 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2011 7:20:41 PM

Quote :

"Sorry, what? UAW managed to bring down the biggest manufacturing industry we had, then the government bailed them out. "

You might want to look at the decline in union membership. It's gone from around 30% in the 1970s to around 10% today. Ever since Reagan busted the air traffic control strike, it has been open season on unions throughout the country. Just go ask that cock-sucker Scott Walker up in Wisconsin, who is using budget shortfalls to strip away the benefits of those fat-cat school teachers. I know its the cool thing these days to blame the UAW on everything, but that's a pretty myopic analysis of the situation. With the introduction of a billion chinamen into the labor market willing to work for 15 cents and hour, the US business model has shifted to erode worker rights so that corporations can compete with developing nations that endorse horrible workers rights. And while that may be great for the corporate bottom line, its actively helping turn industrialized nations across the globe into banana republics.

And this is exactly the point where I get off the Ron Paul train, as his economic policies would only exacerbate that disparity by eliminating all of the regulatory departments that would at least (on the surface) try to reduce the exploitation of labor. He's ideologically consistent, I'll give him that. And I actually prefer his foreign policy to most, but when it comes to his solutions to labor, I get all 0_o

Quote :

"True, but this is not due to what you consider "right wing" politics. This is due to structural problems that have been championed by those on the right and left."

Which is exactly why I put blame on the Democratic party for abandoning their labor principles. They whored themselves out to Wall Street in order to get that sweet campaign funding.

Quote :

"None of the big programs have being meaningfully reformed or privatized."

Not yet. But Social Security is on the chopping block. That much is clear. Even Obama offers up Social Security reform as a peace offering every chance he gets.


[Edited on December 9, 2011 at 7:56 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2011 7:47:18 PM

Quote :

"we have to sacrifice so that the generation that promised itself a comfortable retirement and longevity can keep on truckin'. Doesn't matter that we'll never be given access to the same benefits"

Wasn't Social Security enacted by the greatest generation? and now that the baby boomers, i.e., the worst generation have gotten their share of it, they want to privatize it for the younger generations?

12/9/2011 8:05:55 PM

Quote :

"You might want to look at the decline in union membership. It's gone from around 30% in the 1970s to around 10% today. Ever since Reagan busted the air traffic control strike, it has been open season on unions throughout the country. Just go ask that cock-sucker Scott Walker up in Wisconsin, who is using budget shortfalls to strip away the benefits of those fat-cat school teachers. I know its the cool thing these days to blame the UAW on everything, but that's a pretty myopic analysis of the situation. With the introduction of a billion chinamen into the labor market willing to work for 15 cents and hour, the US business model has shifted to erode worker rights so that corporations can compete with developing nations that endorse horrible workers rights. And while that may be great for the corporate bottom line, its actively helping turn industrialized nations across the globe into banana republics."

I don't really believe in "workers' rights" as you've described them. I believe in individual rights. I don't think anyone has a right to a certain wage, as they're free to leave for a better wage or better working conditions. Unions, at least as they've manifested in the United States, have done nothing to raise wages across the board except for the individuals that are actually hired. For the rest of the people that can't find a job, they're just fucked.

Unions also do nothing to help the United States compete with countries like China, either. In fact, they make us less competitive, because industries end up paying above-market wages for shittier products.

Quote :

"Not yet. But Social Security is on the chopping block. That much is clear. Even Obama offers up Social Security reform as a peace offering every chance he gets."

There's no choice. It will get chopped no matter what, it's just a matter of how we do it. Do we cut benefits deliberately as to protect those that have become dependent, or do we pretend nothing is wrong until one day, draconian cuts are mandatory, with the government's hand forced by bondholders? What do you think is going on in the Eurozone right now?

Quote :

"Wasn't Social Security enacted by the greatest generation? and now that the baby boomers, i.e., the worst generation have gotten their share of it, they want to privatize it for the younger generations?"

I'm part of the younger generation, and I have no interest in privatizing it. I want to not pay into it all, but I also don't expect to get anything when I'm old.

The older generations are milking us, and they've convinced most of us that it's "compassionate" for us to let them continue. Meanwhile, there's a growing dearth of opportunity in this country due to past economic blunders, and we're expected to deal with it, despite the fact that most aren't even old enough to hold office.

It's immoral to obligate future generations to pay back debt. There's no reason we should accept it.

12/9/2011 9:22:16 PM

Quote :

"I don't really believe in "workers' rights" as you've described them. "

I know you don't.

Quote :

"There's no choice. It will get chopped no matter what, it's just a matter of how we do it."

Social Security has a $2.5 Trillion surplus.. It can pay 100% of benefits through 2027, and can pay 75% of benefits through 2083. So, unless that money has already been spent (on...saaaay, unneeded wars and tax cuts for the rich) then Social Security is not in the dire straights people like to pretend.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37755.html

12/9/2011 11:59:34 PM

The Social Security Trust Fund is held in US Treasuries. It's a $2.5 trillion IOU.

Also,

Quote :

"By REP. ANTHONY WEINER"

No, you're right, SS is in solid shape.

12/10/2011 9:49:51 PM

Obviously he doesn't know anything about Social Security, because he pulls his cock out.

Maybe he should put that shit in a lock-box.

12/10/2011 11:18:39 PM

To make a credible argument it helps to have a credible source.

Put what in a lockbox? As of 2010 SS is running an annual deficit.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

How bout Paul in the debate tonight? I read somewhere that said if there is a snowstorm the night of the caucus then Paul wins. Presumably because his supporters are so diehard.

12/11/2011 12:32:23 AM

^^ to be fair , you just stated false numbers and pretended they were correct

12/11/2011 2:18:40 AM

Really solid ad here about how Newt Gingrich is a whore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRdqGKA782A

12/12/2011 12:56:59 PM

What the hell is this? Positive coverage from MSM? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTZL8X-CNFg

Suck it haters.

12/12/2011 7:19:32 PM

i REALLY don't like how god damned negative that ad is. and I'm a Paul supporter.

12/12/2011 10:34:33 PM

Quote :

"civil rights have stagnated both socially and financially"

lol wut

last time I checked, they've been slowly improving, at least with respect to sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion; with respect to race, sex, and national origin most of the legislative work has been done already (well ok there has been backsliding for Muslims and people from the Middle East)

12/12/2011 11:48:11 PM

Destroyer, which do you expect to happen sooner: The GOP base warming up to drug legalization OR the GOP base admitting that US foreign policy over the past half-century contributed to 9/11 ?

12/13/2011 1:49:47 PM

The GOP base is not as homogeneous and stubborn as you might think. The GOP establishment will change as needed; this has happened at several "turning points" in the past. I believe we are on the cusp of another one of those moments.

I think Ron Paul is effectively making the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and ending the federal war on drugs. His performance in the last debate was outstanding. With guys like Glenn Beck now saying they'd support Ron Paul, I think you'll see more conservatives crossing over. As the economic situation gets more dire, and as the media begins to acknowledge that Paul is, in fact, a contender, more people are waking up to reality.

To answer your question, I think the GOP will sooner concede the point on drugs, especially if it becomes clear that doing so is not "political suicide" as has often been purported.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 2:03 PM. Reason : ]

12/13/2011 2:01:55 PM

And what will the currently-dominant GOP demographic, the evangelicals, have to say about that?

Quote :

"The GOP base is not as homogeneous and stubborn as you might think."

I'm having a hard time imagining a more homogenous and stubborn group even existing, short of the Taliban.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2011 2:11:28 PM

I think that ^^ might be referring more to the entire GOP, whereas ^ are referring specifically to the base.

12/13/2011 10:02:24 PM

I think destroyer believes the GOP "base" is composed of the moderate wing of the party...

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 10:18:14 AM

With the GOP race becoming a flavor of the week thing Paul has his timing just about perfect to come out of nowhere at the right time and take the frontrunner position. I see that as becoming a real possibility with all other options extinguished (btw watching Cain flameout was pure entertainment) and the approaching caucus not to mention Romney still being frozen in a solid block of ice.

12/14/2011 11:58:10 AM

I think what you're missing is that all of those flavors of the week: Pawlenty, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, all agree on 98% of the issues. That's why they were shuffled between so readily, they're mostly interchangeable.

Paul has openly said that 9/11 was blowback from US foreign policy. Paul has openly advocated ending the Drug War. Paul doesn't advocate war with Iran or China or Pakistan. Paul regularly collaborates with Progressives like Kucinich and Nader and even Socialist Bernie Sanders. He tries to compromise with the other side of the aisle on common ground, rather than change positions as soon as common ground is discovered just to oppose liberals for the sake of opposing them.

I mean fuck, you Paul fans should know better than anybody that he's not a typical Republican, yet you expect him to get a round in the typical-Republican-roulette that's characterized this primary?

What could possibly make you think that the people who found Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich all agreeable would also find Paul just as agreeable? Seriously, get over your blind optimism and hope for your candidate and try to think realistically about who makes up the GOP base (Hint, it's not the moderates or the socially liberal ones, they've already sided with Romney).

This is why Paul flopped in 2008 and why he'll flop this year too. His supporters are more active when it comes to protecting their own egos and staying optimistic, rather than critically evaluating the race and forming a strategy aside from swamping internet polls then pointing to the swamped polls as evidence that he's catching on.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 1:12:32 PM

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/speaking-of-people-whose-models-have-failed/

I thought I'd post this article because I disagree with it so strongly. I find it completely outrageous that Krugman thinks Ron Paul stands a chance of winning the primary.

12/14/2011 3:18:36 PM

12/14/2011 4:03:43 PM

Ron Paul surging in Iowa! Also is the only republican who defeats Obama head to head in Iowa

12/14/2011 4:18:50 PM