Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

RockinRolla · 11-01-2011 12:40am #1

I think the world is worried and define him as the only one on Earth that can change things. If he wins, Earth, as we know it, will change forever with his libertarianism.

Thoughts?

Het-Field · 11-01-2011 12:47am

No.

The zeitgeist which surrounded Paul in 2007/2008 has morphed and has been changed. The Tea Party have taken center stage, and have bastardised Paul's original message. It is a sad fact that the likes of Sarah Palin, and Crhistine O Donnell are spoken of in the same breath as Paul.

First, Paul remains persona non grata in many ranks of the Republican Party. He does carry a group of Republicans, but not nearly enough to sustain a significant push for the white house.

Second, the likes of Arubio, Huntsman, Christie, Jindal, Barbour, and Romney are in more prominant positions then Paul, and enjoy greater exposure.

Finally, the social conservativism which Paul espouses turns off the floating voter.

In short, Paul will never see the Oval Office.

FreudianSlippers · 11-01-2011 1:44am

Het-Field wrote: »

No.

The zeitgeist which surrounded Paul in 2007/2008 has morphed and has been changed. The Tea Party have taken center stage, and have bastardised Paul's original message. It is a sad fact that the likes of Sarah Palin, and Crhistine O Donnell are spoken of in the same breath as Paul.

First, Paul remains persona non grata in many ranks of the Republican Party. He does carry a group of Republicans, but not nearly enough to sustain a significant push for the white house.

Second, the likes of Arubio, Huntsman, Christie, Jindal, Barbour, and Romney are in more prominant positions then Paul, and enjoy greater exposure.

Finally, the social conservativism which Paul espouses turns off the floating voter.

In short, Paul will never see the Oval Office.

IMO even his son Rand has bastardised the message.

Permabear · 11-01-2011 1:49am

This post has been deleted.

Einhard · 11-01-2011 12:47pm

Not a chance. He's far too principled to tailor his message to a wider electorate, and engage in the type of compromise that wins elections. Good thing too. I admire him for his convictions, but I don't necessarily agree with many of them.

Overheal · 12-01-2011 1:20am

He's also very eccentric for many Americans. An oddball character, if you will, in his personality. A bit strange.

People think of Ron Paul as a social conservative because he opposes abortion. However, he also voted against the federal marriage amendment, which would have amended the constitution to limit marriage to a union of one man and one woman and effectively made gay marriage unconstitutional.

Thats being a Libertarian. He might personally dislike Abortion and Gay Marriage and Pot Smoking but its the freedom of the individuals to make these choices. In the case of Abortion, it can of course still be argued theres a choice of the child to be involved.

Permabear · 12-01-2011 1:50am

This post has been deleted.

steelcityblues · 12-01-2011 3:57pm

Ron Paul is, and will always be, about substance over style.

Given how the American media and many braindead American voters don't value these things, then he will never get elected as President.

Mjollnir · 12-01-2011 4:27pm

He might win a door prize, but that's about it.

InTheTrees · 12-01-2011 4:47pm

RockinRolla wrote: »

I think the world is worried and define him as the only one on Earth that can change things. If he wins, Earth, as we know it, will change forever with his libertarianism.

Thoughts?

Libertarianism is about as practical in our everyday life as scientology. Hubbard and Rand were sub-par scifi writers and appeal to the easily confused.

Your grandiose language reflects this fantasy.

(Hopefully you're just being sarcastic right?)

Belfast · 14-01-2011 6:50pm

RockinRolla wrote: »

I think the world is worried and define him as the only one on Earth that can change things. If he wins, Earth, as we know it, will change forever with his libertarianism.

Thoughts?

Even if he won not sure how much he could do, could not see many of his bill get thought congress and almost every lobby group would be out get him.

He would need a lot more that being President to change things.

GuanYin · 14-01-2011 6:56pm

He needs the nomination first, that isn't going to happen.

InTheTrees · 14-01-2011 7:07pm

Het-Field wrote: »

The Tea Party have taken center stage, and have bastardised Paul's original message.

I dont spare a lot of thought for ron paul but I hadnt thought of that.

He had the whole libertarian schtick going long before palin and the T's showed up. And now they've taken it and are trampling into the dirt.

Its really testament to the intellectual capacity of the right wing. Its very like the new t-party label they're using on themselves "constitutionalists".

Overheal · 14-01-2011 10:23pm

GuanYin wrote: »

He needs the nomination first, that isn't going to happen.

He could always run Independent?

GuanYin · 14-01-2011 10:50pm

Overheal wrote: »

He could always run Independent?

Oh yeah, sorry, my bad, I thought we were talking about if he wanted to be president.

Kang wrote:

Go ahead, throw your vote away

Overheal · 15-01-2011 1:48am

GuanYin wrote: »

Oh yeah, sorry, my bad, I thought we were talking about if he wanted to be president.

Why do you have to stamp on my hopes and dreams that we can free ourselves from this asinine 2-party system.

Permabear · 15-01-2011 2:09am

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 15-01-2011 3:16pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Libertarianism is about as practical in our everyday life as scientology. Hubbard and Rand were sub-par scifi writers and appeal to the easily confused.

Could you explain how Rand only appeals to the easily confused? Is it because they eschew the mixed-economy dogma her opponents so often profess? Have you read any of Rand's novels? Unfortunately most people are so opposed to their inchoate ideas of Rand prior to actually reading anything by her that when they do, it is with the express intent of being able to cast it off as vacuously as "sub-par sci-fi" afterwards.

As pointed out above, Rand is, in a very definite sense, not a libertarian, not even remotely. I can point you to some interviews with Rand where she criticises the libertarian movement quite strongly if you would like to see them.

GuanYin · 16-01-2011 1:53am

Overheal wrote: »

Why do you have to stamp on my hopes and dreams that we can free ourselves from this asinine 2-party system.

this is what I was looking for

http://www.flickr.com/photos/giddygirlie/2987270819/

autonomy · 03-06-2011 12:06am

Kennedy got elected, he wanted to bring troops home from vietnam, weaken the federal reserve, very similar to Ron Paul! If American voters woke up, there is every chance he will get elected!

Memnoch · 03-06-2011 8:57am

There isn't a chance he get's the republican party nomination. He just isn't insane enough or corrupt enough.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 03-06-2011 5:27pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He doesn't seem to mind letting states tell people what to do though.

Memnoch · 04-06-2011 2:06am

I never bought into the whole conservative/libertarian philosophy of 'not telling people what to do,' most of the time it just masks 'telling people to do what we want them to instead of what them liberals want.'

From the point of view of an individual I don't see how being limited in their freedoms by the state is any better or more desirable than being limited in their freedoms by the nation.

20Cent · 04-06-2011 11:12pm

Ron or Rand have zero chance of even being nominated. Ron seems to actually believe what he says so I respect him for that. Rand is a shill for sale.

The nomination debates would be entertaining though.

Denerick · 05-06-2011 1:26am

Memnoch wrote: »

I never bought into the whole conservative/libertarian philosophy of 'not telling people what to do,' most of the time it just masks 'telling people to do what we want them to instead of what them liberals want.'

From the point of view of an individual I don't see how being limited in their freedoms by the state is any better or more desirable than being limited in their freedoms by the nation.

Conservatism and Libertarianism are not equatable. You can have personally conservative views but believe it is inappropriate to impose those views on others (Making you a political libertarian) or you can have conservative views and believe it is appropriate to impose those views on others (Making you a conservative)

I don't get your second paragraph at all, it doesn't make much sense. Are you talking about state freedoms and federal restrictions? The second paragraph isn't logical at all.

Memnoch · 05-06-2011 8:48am

Denerick wrote: »

Conservatism and Libertarianism are not equatable. You can have personally conservative views but believe it is inappropriate to impose those views on others (Making you a political libertarian) or you can have conservative views and believe it is appropriate to impose those views on others (Making you a conservative)

I understand the theory of what the difference is, but thanks for explaining it anyway. What I'm trying to say is that in practice, libertarianism in American politics seems to be primarily used by people to push conservative ideology, but it racism (we should be free to not allow blacks into our restaurants/shops) or abortion/gay rights etc.

I don't get your second paragraph at all, it doesn't make much sense. Are you talking about state freedoms and federal restrictions? The second paragraph isn't logical at all.

As above. If a STATE decides it's okay to discriminate against black people, but Federal law says it cannot do so, by saying that states should be free to do whatever they want and make their own laws, your still not really mandating for individual freedom. The state is still imposing its values on the individuals in that state, but this is somehow more acceptable than such decisions being taken collectively by the nation. Even though the state is just action like a mini-nation in that instance.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 05-06-2011 11:28am

Memnoch wrote: »

I understand the theory of what the difference is, but thanks for explaining it anyway. What I'm trying to say is that in practice, libertarianism in American politics seems to be primarily used by people to push conservative ideology, but it racism (we should be free to not allow blacks into our restaurants/shops) or abortion/gay rights etc.

I wouldn't agree that Libertarianism is used to puch racist views but I do believe that Libertarians are often more concerned with low taxes and the free market, than with being socially liberal, this being displayed by the greater links between Libertarians and Republicans than with Democrats.

irishh_bob · 05-06-2011 8:47pm

Memnoch wrote: »

There isn't a chance he get's the republican party nomination. He just isn't insane enough or corrupt enough.

the main reason he wont get the nomination is that hes far too isolationist , republicans subscribe to the notion that american intervention overseas is both good for america and the world , paul doesnt believe its good for either

FreudianSlippers · 09-06-2011 1:41pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

the main reason he wont get the nomination is that hes far too isolationist , republicans subscribe to the notion that american intervention overseas is both good for america and the world , paul doesnt believe its good for either

Which is totally ironic because conservatives are the first ones to say "what would our founding fathers do?" when it suits them

matthew8 · 10-06-2011 8:54pm

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that Libertarianism is used to puch racist views but I do believe that Libertarians are often more concerned with low taxes and the free market, than with being socially liberal, this being displayed by the greater links between Libertarians and Republicans than with Democrats.

Democrats tend to be free-speech hating "liberals" (That word has been bastardized so much it means the opposite of what it meant 100 years ago) rather than truly about personal freedom.

Overheal · 11-06-2011 2:02pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Democrats tend to be free-speech hating "liberals" (That word has been bastardized so much it means the opposite of what it meant 100 years ago) rather than truly about personal freedom.

You realize that Free Speech and Personal Freedom aren't mutually inclusive right? You realize free speech can come into conflict with the Personal Freedom of others?

matthew8 · 12-06-2011 1:41am

Overheal wrote: »

You realize that Free Speech and Personal Freedom aren't mutually inclusive right? You realize free speech can come into conflict with the Personal Freedom of others?

If someone calls me a racist how does that diminish my freedom? It is ridiculous that Geert Wilders can end up in a court of law for saying the whole truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth about muslims but it goes unchecked when he actually takes away their freedom.

How can words take away freedom?

Permabear · 12-06-2011 2:22am

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees · 12-06-2011 2:49am

matthew8 wrote: »

How can words take away freedom?

Well its not about taking away freedoms, its about interferring with others.

You've never heard the test about crying fire in a crowded theatre?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

InTheTrees · 12-06-2011 3:03am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Holy crap. I'd never heard that before. thats the creepiest thing I've heard in US politics since... since... david duke...

Why do you think there would be LESS antagonism amongst the states? When the minority refugees start moving north out of the racist southern states what makes you think it'll all be sweetness and love between the various states?

His proposal is that everyone should up and move to the state with the political system of their choice? Wtf? What if I'm a liberal and i live in Alabama and I happen to f'ing like living in Alabama? Ron Paul would want me to move to Massachusetts? Fcuk him.

Absolute lunacy. No wonder he doesnt stand a chance in hell of being elected to anything.

Overheal · 12-06-2011 3:14am

matthew8 wrote: »

If someone calls me a racist how does that diminish my freedom?

What about if someone calls you a N*****? Or a F*****? does that infringe on your freedom?

It is ridiculous that Geert Wilders can end up in a court of law for saying the whole truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth about muslims but it goes unchecked when he actually takes away their freedom.

How can words take away freedom?

Actually, it didn't go unchecked. He's been in and out of courts numerous times for incitement to hatred. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

matthew8 · 12-06-2011 3:44am

Overheal wrote: »

What about if someone calls you a N*****? Or a F*****? does that infringe on your freedom?

Actually, it didn't go unchecked. He's been in and out of courts numerous times for incitement to hatred. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ridiculous by you. I don't care what I'm called, it doesn't infringe on my freedom, tell me how being called a F***** or N***** infringes on my freedom.

His laws went unchecked but he was in court for his free speech which was exactly what I said.

You have failed to answer my question about how free speech takes away freedom.

Overheal · 12-06-2011 4:21am

matthew8 wrote: »

Ridiculous by you.

Perhaps you're confusing my quotation of something you said for something I said. In this example, I never used the word ridiculous.

I don't care what I'm called, it doesn't infringe on my freedom, tell me how being called a F***** or N***** infringes on my freedom.

His laws went unchecked but he was in court for his free speech which was exactly what I said.

You have failed to answer my question about how free speech takes away freedom.

I have no comment about his laws. I am not a follower of Dutch politics. I have no ready way of knowing how true or false your claims are that his laws were both unchecked and/or unlawful. This is the US Politics forum.

When you call your neighbor a N*****, etc. you are creating nothing but contempt and prejudice. What typically can result is that hate speech becomes hate crime. Then we hear about middle aged men using their SUV to run down women for being black (link). So to get back on the subject, Democrats/Liberals are not "Free Speech Hating" because they support laws which place certain limitations on the freedom of speech. That's like saying the NRA is a gun-hating organization because they promote weapon safety.

Permabear · 12-06-2011 5:27am

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 12-06-2011 8:59am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If the local gov decide that white only shops or areas are ok then it would be a bad thing.

matthew8 · 12-06-2011 12:32pm

20Cent wrote: »

If the local gov decide that white only shops or areas are ok then it would be a bad thing.

Anyone that puts up a sign that says "no blacks allowed" would be stupid and would go out of business. Ron Paul said this himself when talking to Chris Matthews on MSNBC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHgq0qGbe8 . It's their property so they should be allowed decide who gets to go on it.

Overheal wrote: »

Perhaps you're confusing my quotation of something you said for something I said. In this example, I never used the word ridiculous.

I have no comment about his laws. I am not a follower of Dutch politics. I have no ready way of knowing how true or false your claims are that his laws were both unchecked and/or unlawful. This is the US Politics forum.

When you call your neighbor a N*****, etc. you are creating nothing but contempt and prejudice. What typically can result is that hate speech becomes hate crime. Then we hear about middle aged men using their SUV to run down women for being black (link). So to get back on the subject, Democrats/Liberals are not "Free Speech Hating" because they support laws which place certain limitations on the freedom of speech. That's like saying the NRA is a gun-hating organization because they promote weapon safety.

You are confusing saying something with actually doing it. Calling someone a N***** has nothing to do with running them down. If you say "I'm going to run you down with my jeep you F****** N*****" then that could be perceived as a threat but saying someone is a N***** has nothing to do with killing them. How would you describe liberals attitude towards free speech?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 12-06-2011 1:08pm

I'm wary of the 'states rights' argument as its been attached to some dubious causes in the past.

Overheal · 12-06-2011 3:11pm

matthew8 wrote: »

You are confusing saying something with actually doing it. Calling someone a N***** has nothing to do with running them down. If you say "I'm going to run you down with my jeep you F****** N*****" then that could be perceived as a threat but saying someone is a N***** has nothing to do with killing them. How would you describe liberals attitude towards free speech?

I've already explained it to you. If you don't accept that there is a link between hate speech and hate crime that's entirely your problem. It has nothing to do with Ron Paul's election odds.

InTheTrees · 12-06-2011 3:19pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Huh?

You said that ron paul says (I like how you distance yourself from him) that if you dont like the political system where you live you're free to move.

Does he not realise we can do that already without ron paul...

InTheTrees · 12-06-2011 3:27pm

matthew8 wrote: »

You are confusing saying something with actually doing it. Calling someone a N***** has nothing to do with running them down. If you say "I'm going to run you down with my jeep you F****** N*****" then that could be perceived as a threat but saying someone is a N***** has nothing to do with killing them. How would you describe liberals attitude towards free speech?

The Glen Back school of Rhetoric...

If the question is difficult, start accusing "liberals" of being far worse. "yea ron paul wants to put minorities in refugee camps but Liberals hate america??"

Sure, sonny, i'm sure you have all the answers about what ron paul believes "liberals" feel about "free speech.

But your easy dismissals of our questions has endeared us so much to your point of view that I cant really be bothered anymore. I'm sure it works wonder in getting new supporters too.

InTheTrees · 12-06-2011 3:29pm

20Cent wrote: »

If the local gov decide that white only shops or areas are ok then it would be a bad thing.

Ron Paul thinks...

White people discriminating against black people is just a way of exercising your free choice.

How come you hate america? You must be a (gasp) liberal?

:eek:

InTheTrees · 12-06-2011 3:33pm

Ron Paul thinks...

If you beat up someone weaker than you are and take all their possessions...

They are exercising their free choice not to defend themselves adequately. And I would be exercising my free choice to beat them up and take their stuff.

Praise the lord! Its an American libertarian Utopia!

(if you dont agree you're a liberal and therefore hate america and choice).

Overheal · 12-06-2011 3:38pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Huh?

You said that ron paul says (I like how you distance yourself from him) that if you dont like the political system where you live you're free to move.

Does he not realise we can do that already without ron paul...

Yes... He does. That's probably why he said it. Not everything a politician says is a future-tense campaign promise.

Ron Paul thinks...

White people discriminating against black people is just a way of exercising your free choice.

When did he ever suggest that??

20Cent · 12-06-2011 3:54pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Anyone that puts up a sign that says "no blacks allowed" would be stupid and would go out of business. Ron Paul said this himself when talking to Chris Matthews on MSNBC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHgq0qGbe8 . It's their property so they should be allowed decide who gets to go on it.

The old "markets will solve everything argument". Doesn't exist in reality though. A white only store would do very well in many places.

matthew8 · 12-06-2011 4:19pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Glen Back school of Rhetoric...

If the question is difficult, start accusing "liberals" of being far worse. "yea ron paul wants to put minorities in refugee camps but Liberals hate america??"

Sure, sonny, i'm sure you have all the answers about what ron paul believes "liberals" feel about "free speech.

But your easy dismissals of our questions has endeared us so much to your point of view that I cant really be bothered anymore. I'm sure it works wonder in getting new supporters too.

Personally I prefer Gary Johnson to Ron Paul based on abortion and tax policy. The liberal movement used to be about freedom. It has been hijacked and changed so much it has no connection with what it used to be.

You fail to distinguish between calling someone a N***** and racist murder. I'm sorry if I generalise about liberals but liberals do it all the time wih conservatives and libertarians. Why should someone end up in a court of law for saying something about a group of people that has nothing to do with their actions? If I issued a press release saying that islam is a sexist, violent and intolerant religion based around a rapist who was a "prophet" (all fact by the way) I will appear in a court of law yet no one cares if I decide to place dress restrictions on them.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Ron Paul thinks...

White people discriminating against black people is just a way of exercising your free choice.

How come you hate america? You must be a (gasp) liberal?

:eek:

In the same way that blacks discriminating against whites is a way of exercising your free choice. But no one cares when blacks do that, it only matters if white people do it. If I own property it's my property and I have the right to do what I want with it. I can prosecute trespassers and burglars if they are not welcome in my house so I should be allowed show people that they are not welcome in my shop.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Ron Paul thinks...

If you beat up someone weaker than you are and take all their possessions...

They are exercising their free choice not to defend themselves adequately. And I would be exercising my free choice to beat them up and take their stuff.

Praise the lord! Its an American libertarian Utopia!

(if you dont agree you're a liberal and therefore hate america and choice).

When did he say this?

20Cent wrote: »

The old "markets will solve everything argument". Doesn't exist in reality though. A white only store would do very well in many places.

There's a thing called property rights. Blacks only stores could also appear. It is a shop's own loss if they won't allow blacks in.

Overheal · 12-06-2011 4:23pm

You fail to distinguish between calling someone a N***** and racist murder. I'm sorry if I generalise about liberals but liberals do it all the time wih conservatives and libertarians. Why should someone end up in a court of law for saying something about a group of people that has nothing to do with their actions? If I issued a press release saying that islam is a sexist, violent and intolerant religion based around a rapist who was a "prophet" (all fact by the way) I will appear in a court of law yet no one cares if I decide to place dress restrictions on them.

Why are you still dragging Dutch Politics into a discussion about a Libertarian US Presidential candidate?

Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

Comments