Ron Paul 2012

[beorhthelm]

Oh, and I think Ron Paul just won the nomination

even if true, along with the other Paul supporter you are making the mistake of assuming unbound delegates would vote for Paul. it would be a travesty of democracy if hundreds of delegate went against the candidates that where chosen in the primaries, and instead voted for someone a tiny fraction of the population... no of the republican population actually supported.

 

[BadFish]

Haha, are you a republican then?

Personally, I could not care about the Republicans however, seeing as I have to know about them I can provide you my point of view about Ron Paul having been looking closely at the Republican primaries since it began (of course I do not want to bore the majority of NSC)

I think that you can presume that if we are on this thread we are interested. So please bore us!

 

[dingodan]

even if true, along with the other Paul supporter you are making the mistake of assuming unbound delegates would vote for Paul. it would be a travesty of democracy if hundreds of delegate went against the candidates that where chosen in the primaries, and instead voted for someone a tiny fraction of the population... no of the republican population actually supported.

Paul is getting the delegates. Mitt's delegates are Paul supporters.

And you don't understand the process. The nomination is not by popular vote. The "straw polls" are measures of which way the wind is blowing. The process is the selection of state and then national delegates to the convention. That is how the process works. The media have told the story like the straw vote is some kind of election process, but it isn't. The process is the conventions, which Ron Paul supporters have attended and taken part in, and in large part have won/are winning.

Why do you think the establishment and the media treat him so badly? Because he is not a war mongering sold out politician, he doesn't appeal to the base of the republican party, which has been largely taken over by neocons. He appeals to alot of former Obama supporters (and democrats in general) and independents. So the number of votes he gets in a straw vote in a republican primary isn't even a good measure of his popularity amongst American voters, a republican primary is a not a representative sample.

Put up against Obama he does quite well: RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Paul vs. Obama

Does better than Romney against Obama, and this is with all the BS and media blackout of his campaign.

He is totally winning

 

[sten_super]

These threads are hilarious, because you invite us to talk about a topic (Ron Paul in this case) and then talk down to anyone that disagrees with you and attempt to convince them via YouTube videos.

Going back to my initial post;

There is nothing extreme about the rule of law, the constitution, sound money and personal liberty. What is extreme is abandoning the rule of law, counterfeiting money, and undermining personal liberty.

He would not be "moderate". Moderating his views is not something he is renowned for, in fact his record suggests he is unmovable.

If you don't think that Ron Paul in the White House would be far more moderate than he currently is then I suggest that you don't know a whole lot about the minuate of politics. Even if he got there and wanted to bring in some of his more 'extreme' (i.e. furthest from consensus) measures, such as ceasing all overseas activity (including aid and military excursions) do you really think he'd be able to get it past the the two houses?

You also know as well as I do that, in Ron Paul's case, 'personal liberty' includes removing all state aid for individuals (including health insurance and unemployment benefit). That, by any contemporary perspective you care to judge it by, would be seen as extreme.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Paul is getting the delegates. Mitt's delegates are Paul supporters.

And you don't understand the process. The nomination is not by popular vote. The "straw polls" are measures of which way the wind is blowing. The process is the selection of state and then national delegates to the convention. That is how the process works. The media have told the story like the straw vote is some kind of election process, but it isn't. The process is the conventions, which Ron Paul supporters have attended and taken part in, and in large part have won/are winning.

Why do you think the establishment and the media treat him so badly? Because he is not a war mongering sold out politician, he doesn't appeal to the base of the republican party, which has been largely taken over by neocons. He appeals to alot of former Obama supporters (and democrats in general) and independents. So the number of votes he gets in a straw vote in a republican primary isn't even a good measure of his popularity amongst American voters, a republican primary is a not a representative sample.

Put up against Obama he does quite well: RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Paul vs. Obama

Does better than Romney against Obama, and this is with all the BS and media blackout of his campaign.

He is totally winning

I like some planks of Ron Paul's policy, but many are complete batshit.

And he won't win. The only people arguing here are people who understand this, and he isn't winning. he doesn't control enough state-party chairs, and they will nominate Romney by acclamation. You seem to suggest this is somehow anti-democracy when its clear to all that the Paul supporters are the ones trying to subvert the popular vote.

Are you even sure Ron Paul himself wants this?

and by the way, considering Romney is ahead or within 3 of Obama on on all his national polling, Obama being +7 on Paul is not 'doing better than Romney'.

 

[beorhthelm]

Paul is getting the delegates. Mitt's delegates are Paul supporters.

how do you know this? because lots of pro-Paul blogs, websites and youtube videos tell you, or there is verifiable polling? I have no doubt that some delegates are supporters of Paul, but even if you are right and its a majority, this means there is a large disconnect between the Republican party delegates and the registered Republican voters - they have not voted for Paul in large numbers. you cant hide from this fact, he was behind Gingrich in many votes and even Cain in some early straw polls. Are you really so confident that delegates would appoint a leader with such a poor grass roots support? It would be like the Tory party voting in Redwood, they might like his positions but know he has little wide appeal.

He appeals to alot of former Obama supporters (and democrats in general) and independents.

I have no doubt he does appeal to some of them. But again, he doesnt even appeal to a significant minority of his own party, how well is going to fair with Democrats, independents and floaters.

I confess that i do not fully understand the bizarre nomination ritual, however i do get that it indicates the way the wind is blowing as you put it, and the primaries, caucus, strawpolls etc all point to a wind blowing no where near Paul.

and i still dont understand why you care so much since you are not participating in the vote.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Why Ron Paul's suspending his active campaign:
Ron Paul Suspends Active Campaign: Why It's Really Happening (CHART)

 

[GreersElbow]

Paul's an Austro-Libertarian. If he wins, he'll be the first to most likely implement Austrian economics into a large economy. I'm not overly keen on austrian economics, but I think this is because it has all been predominantly theory, as no one has been elected on the grounds of their economics. They are incredibly radical, even more so than Thatcher's implementation of Friedman's monetarism.

I'm hoping he wins so we can see this economic theory put to the test, if successful, in theory (as always) the general population's wealth and income should rise. I'm just doubtful of his views on abortion, but then again he does have a good argument as to why he's pro-life.

But, the best Republican is actually Obama. Paul is closer to the Libertarian Party, but chose the GOP simply because it would give him a better platform, in the Senate, he usually votes against the GOP. (You should see his Senate record, he's legitimately one of the soundest politicians you'd read about. Now I say Obama simply because of the Republicans holding the House of Reps. The budget was largely controlled by the GOP, the Healthcare reform was hugely adjusted by the GOP (even when Obama actually had hold of Congress). Obama probably won't win, but neither would Paul. So we'd be left with an absolute batshit crazy Republican in charge of the biggest superpower for the time being.