Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

20Cent

lagente wrote: »

Paul has not got a hope in hell, unless the country pretty much collapses, which it won't. He won't get more than 10% of the candidate vote for the republicans. Why? Here is One reason, he appeals to people who research a lot/ have a bit of intelligence (enough to look beyond the advertising campaign banners), and America is perhaps the most stupid country.

This is a common argument made by libertarians that people are to stupid, conditioned or scared to support it. The fact that most people find libertarianism abhorrent doesn't seem to register.

matthew8

lagente wrote: »

Paul has not got a hope in hell, unless the country pretty much collapses, which it won't. He won't get more than 10% of the candidate vote for the republicans. Why? Here is One reason, he appeals to people who research a lot/ have a bit of intelligence (enough to look beyond the advertising campaign banners), and America is perhaps the most stupid country.

I wouldn't say they're the most stupid country, because if they are extremely stupid they must have been very very lucky to be that rich. I think that they have the same proportion of idiots (look at ourselves and the people voting for parish pump politicians and FF) but it's on a larger scale.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

This is a common argument made by libertarians that people are to stupid, conditioned or scared to support it. The fact that most people find libertarianism abhorrent doesn't seem to register.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

The libertarian parties election results.


Results in US presidential elections
Year Candidate Popular Votes Percentage Electoral Votes
1972 John Hospers 3,674 <0.1% 1
1976 Roger MacBride 172,553 0.21% 0
1980 Ed Clark 921,128 1.1% 0
1984 David Bergland 228,111 0.3% 0
1988 Ron Paul 431,750 0.5% 0
1992 Andre Marrou 290,087 0.3% 0
1996 Harry Browne 485,759 0.5% 0
2000 Harry Browne 384,431 0.4% 0
2004 Michael Badnarik 397,265 0.32% 0
2008 Bob Barr 523,686 0.4% 0

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

The libertarian parties election results.

So all people find taking action to protect the environment abhorrent in Ireland? That's what their election result says. You know it's a 2 party system over there and most libertarians vote either democratic or republican. Also, simply not voting for someone doesn't make you abhorrent to them. The vast majority of Americans have some libertarian sympathies.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

So all people find taking action to protect the environment abhorrent in Ireland? That's what their election result says. You know it's a 2 party system over there and libertarians vote either democratic or republican.

So even Libertarians don't even vote for the libertarian party thats encouraging.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

So all people find taking action to protect the environment abhorrent in Ireland? That's what their election result says. You know it's a 2 party system over there and most libertarians vote either democratic or republican. Also, simply not voting for someone doesn't make you abhorrent to them. The vast majority of Americans have some libertarian sympathies.

I have libertarian sympathies, still wouldn't vote for them though.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

So even Libertarians don't even vote for the libertarian party thats encouraging.

It's pointless trying to engage with you, you know how people vote over there and that the most prominent libertarians are republicans.

Masked Man

20Cent wrote: »

The libertarian parties election results.

There is just no logic in this post.

lagente

matthew8 wrote: »

I wouldn't say they're the most stupid country, because if they are extremely stupid they must have been very very lucky to be that rich. I think that they have the same proportion of idiots (look at ourselves and the people voting for parish pump politicians and FF) but it's on a larger scale.

They we're lucky. They we're not attacked big time in ww2, so they we're the epicenter of wealth after it. Thing is they didn't establish a decent education system. We have bad politicians, but these guys voted BUSH twice. TWICE! The 2nd after the weapons of mass destruction lie.

20Cent

Masked Man wrote: »

There is just no logic in this post.

How is it logical for libertarians to ignore their own party and vote for another party?

Masked Man

20Cent wrote: »

How is it logical for libertarians to ignore their own party and vote for another party?

Why are you trying to change what you said?

20Cent wrote: »

This is a common argument made by libertarians that people are to stupid, conditioned or scared to support it. The fact that most people find libertarianism abhorrent doesn't seem to register.

matthew8 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

20Cent wrote: »

The libertarian parties election results.


Results in US presidential elections
Year Candidate Popular Votes Percentage Electoral Votes
1972 John Hospers 3,674 <0.1% 1
1976 Roger MacBride 172,553 0.21% 0
1980 Ed Clark 921,128 1.1% 0
1984 David Bergland 228,111 0.3% 0
1988 Ron Paul 431,750 0.5% 0
1992 Andre Marrou 290,087 0.3% 0
1996 Harry Browne 485,759 0.5% 0
2000 Harry Browne 384,431 0.4% 0
2004 Michael Badnarik 397,265 0.32% 0
2008 Bob Barr 523,686 0.4% 0

20Cent

Masked Man wrote: »

Why are you trying to change what you said?

I'm afraid you'll have to explain the point you're trying to make, too subtle for me.

matthew8

lagente wrote: »

They we're lucky. They we're not attacked big time in ww2, so they we're the epicenter of wealth after it. Thing is they didn't establish a decent education system. We have bad politicians, but these guys voted BUSH twice. TWICE! The 2nd after the weapons of mass destruction lie.

We voted Ahern, Britain voted Blair, Frenchies voted Sarkozy, Greeks voted Papandreou, we all make bad decisions. George Bush was a highly intelligent and was charismatic when he needed to be, he was smarter than John Kerry and Al Gore really should've been elected.

America has had a history of positive immigration and economic development and by 1918 they were unquestionably the biggest power in the world with empires decimated. The history of avoiding major foreign wars and imperialism allowed them to focus on the economy. Their economic dominance is shown by how badly affected Germany was by the stock market crash and great depression.

I don't think education has anything to do with voting Bush in. They had a decent education system whereby student numbers in private schools were rapidly increasing towards the end of the 19th century and they did fine with a 7% top tax rate.

20Cent wrote: »

How is it logical for libertarians to ignore their own party and vote for another party?

The notion of their vote making a difference to the result and not splitting the economically right wing vote, however, if a neo-conservative stands it's the social liberal vote that they don't want to split. Bush ran on humble foreign policy in 2000 and got libertarians, many left him when John Kerry stood but Kerry was quite economically left so he kept a few libertarians. Libertarians went for Obama in 2008 becuase it was 2 similar economic policies and a choice between "bring the troops home" and "1000 years war".

If you're a libertarian it's a Hobson's choice really when voting.

Masked Man

20Cent wrote: »

I'm afraid you'll have to explain the point you're trying to make, too subtle for me.

You said most people find Libertarian views "abhorrent" and your evidence for this was the Libertarian Party's election results. This makes no sense because you ignore every other reason why people might not vote for the Libertarian Party and assume that you know why people vote a certain way.

I pointed this out and you said something about libertarian's not voting for the Libertarian Party, which had nothing to do with the post I quoted and was a separate point you were arguing.

You also completely contradict yourself later just to argue.

20Cent wrote: »

I have libertarian sympathies, still wouldn't vote for them though.

lagente

matthew8 wrote: »

We voted Ahern, Britain voted Blair, Frenchies went Sarkozy, Greeks went Papandreou, we all make bad decisions. George Bush was a highly intelligent and was charismatic when he needed to be, he was smarter than John Kerry and Al Gore really should've been elected.

Yes , I think that Bush was faking simplicity too. Further reason not to elect him, but yet they did. As for the above politicians? yep, messed up, the lot of them except Papandreou, who i know nothing about, but greek economy is based on fantasy, so you are probably right there too.

matthew8 wrote: »

I don't think education has anything to do with voting Bush in. They had a decent education system whereby student numbers in private schools were rapidly increasing towards the end of the 19th century and they did fine with a 7% top tax rate.

Anything? Come on.
19th century? we need statistics A LITTLE more recent than then

Asides from this, Do you really think Paul can be elected? How come the republicans did not focus on him last time around? He dosen't seem well liked in that party. Obama's support would also crush him.

matthew8

lagente wrote: »

Yes , I think that Bush was faking simplicity too. Further reason not to elect him, but yet they did. As for the above politicians? yep, messed up, the lot of them except Papandreou, who i know nothing about, but greek economy is based on fantasy, so you are probably right there too.


Anything? Come on.
19th century? we need statistics A LITTLE more recent than then

Asides from this, Do you really think Paul can be elected? How come the republicans did not focus on him last time around? He dosen't seem well liked in that party. Obama's support would also crush him.

I would heavily favour Ron Paul to beat Obama in the GE because not only would he capture the obvious GOP vote, but he would take all libertarians and he is held in very high regard by many on the far left.

For getting the republican nod, the party elite don't like him, but no one cares what the party elite say any more (Mitch McConnell endorsed a primary candidate in his own state and a tea partier beat the candidate handily) but the problem is that he is downright ignored with MSNBC and CNN while Fox News make it clear that most don't like him (Though he's endorsed by Glenn Beck and I suspect John Stossel) but he gets coverage there.

To win the nomination one of a few things must happen:
1. Palin quits, endorses Paul, it makes no sense to me but on American political forums they discuss the possibility.

2. Snow. Heavy snow in the primaries and primaries being held in Winter (incl. some being moved up) is a possibility and will favour Paul no end because his suppporters will show up.

3. He captures the Bachmann anti-establishment vote, grows his own vote and reaches 25% nationally while other candidates scrap it out. He won't need to win NH this way.

4. He captures Iowa (I think 25-30% is in the bag for him because it's a caucus and I think 30% will win it) and wins NH and gets momentum though the media headlines if he won both would be something like:
Perry 2nd, Romney 3rd in caucus result
Bachmann loses New Hampshire
The media decides who has momentum and he needs the media to be even slightly favourable to him. They ignored his result at the Iowa straw poll.

lagente

matthew8 wrote: »

Are you Irish matthew8? Where did you get all this information?

matthew8

lagente wrote: »

Are you Irish matthew8? Where did you get all this information?

I am Irish.

I post on an American forum dedicated to elections and there is a thread on Paul's path to the nomination, the snow one isn't insider information, Palin quitting and endorsing Paul, I don't buy it but others do so I posted it. I talked about taking the Bachmann votes because they are one of the few anti-establishment votes he can take, while simply winning Iowa/NH is the conventional approach. No insider information.

20Cent

Masked Man wrote: »

You said most people find Libertarian views "abhorrent" and your evidence for this was the Libertarian Party's election results. This makes no sense because you ignore every other reason why people might not vote for the Libertarian Party and assume that you know why people vote a certain way.

I pointed this out and you said something about libertarian's not voting for the Libertarian Party, which had nothing to do with the post I quoted and was a separate point you were arguing.

You also completely contradict yourself later just to argue.

To find out the popularity of a party the logical thing to do would be to look at their election results. The claim is that libertarians mostly vote democrat and republican instead of libertarian because the libertarian party have so little support contradicts the argument that libertarianism is popular. Can you name any more prominent libertarians besides Ron Paul? If its such a popular ideology then there should be loads surely?

I think a lot of people like the whole "do what you want so long as it doesn't harm others" bit and also the less gov meddling idea. But having no regulations to keep companies in check, no social welfare and legalising drugs probably turns a lot of people off.

sarumite

lagente wrote: »

Paul has not got a hope in hell, unless the country pretty much collapses, which it won't. He won't get more than 10% of the candidate vote for the republicans. Why? Here is One reason, he appeals to SOME OF the people who research a lot/ have a bit of intelligence (enough to look beyond the advertising campaign banners), and America is perhaps the most stupid country.

I can only assume from that comment that you have never actually spent an extended period of time living in America. America is no less or more stupid than Ireland. Yes, they have stupid people like Sarah Palin, but then Ireland has Jackie Healy Ray....saying that america is the most stupid country is well...stupid.

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

A business can't just click its fingers and take in more money. On balance I would not decrease tax revenue because I would close many tax loopholes.

I think it is more just give out less money than to confiscate more money.

Nor can a business click its fingures and eleminate costs. A business needs to look at ways where it can increase revinues and decrease operating costs for long term sustainability. Both sides of the equation need to be addressed. Certainly they need to "give out less money"...but they also need money to operate. Taxes, or "confiscating money", is as old as civilisation itself. They are a necessary evil.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

To find out the popularity of a party the logical thing to do would be to look at their election results. The claim is that libertarians mostly vote democrat and republican instead of libertarian because the libertarian party have so little support contradicts the argument that libertarianism is popular. Can you name any more prominent libertarians besides Ron Paul? If its such a popular ideology then there should be loads surely?

I think a lot of people like the whole "do what you want so long as it doesn't harm others" bit and also the less gov meddling idea. But having no regulations to keep companies in check, no social welfare and legalising drugs probably turns a lot of people off.

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul and Bob Barr would be the prominent libertarians. I would say Dennis Kucinich is a socialist-libertarian if that counts. Legalising drugs wouldn't turn people off any more.

lagente

sarumite wrote: »

I can only assume from that comment that you have never actually spent an extended period of time living in America. America is no less or more stupid than Ireland. Yes, they have stupid people like Sarah Palin, but then Ireland has Jackie Healy Ray....saying that america is the most stupid country is well...stupid.

Is it? With all the wealth they had, they don't have as good an education system as half of Europe. But i didnt say that, i used the word probably before it. It's hard to measure stupidity, who is more stupid etc.

sarumite

lagente wrote: »

Is it? With all the wealth they had, they don't have as good an education system as half of Europe.

Depends on how you measure an education system. Their univeristies are superior.

But i didnt say that, i used the word probably before it. It's hard to measure stupidity, who is more stupid etc.

Here is what you said

lagente wrote: »

Paul has not got a hope in hell, unless the country pretty much collapses, which it won't. He won't get more than 10% of the candidate vote for the republicans. Why? Here is One reason, he appeals to SOME OF the people who research a lot/ have a bit of intelligence (enough to look beyond the advertising campaign banners), and America is perhaps the most stupid country.

Putting 'perhaps' doesn't exactly detract from the (false) message you were trying to relay. If it is hard to "measure stupidity" then why did you say they were "perhaps the most stupid country". Its perhaps ignorant to label 330 million people stupid, especially when you consider their achievements in business, technology, science and engineering.

matthew8

sarumite wrote: »

Depends on how you measure an education system. Their univeristies are superior.



Here is what you said



Putting 'perhaps' doesn't exactly detract from the (false) message you were trying to relay. If it is hard to "measure stupidity" then why did you say they were "perhaps the most stupid country". Its perhaps ignorant to label 330 million people stupid, especially when you consider their achievements in business, technology, science and engineering.

Their universities are superior but far more expensive. Though I think you can have too many university graduates. Someone has to do the jobs that are "below" university grads after all.

The system is letting the people down, they should abolish the department of education and leave it to the states. Some states will get it right by chance and some will do poorly, the states will emulate the systems of those that got it right and avoid emulating the failures.

lagente

sarumite wrote: »

Depends on how you measure an education system. Their univeristies are superior.

A handful are, MIT etc, to be expected when the worlds wealth was based there.
but in large no, they are not. They also charge students through the roof, so the students HAVE to come from at least middle class families, there are feck all exceptions.

sarumite wrote: »

Its perhaps ignorant to label 330 million people stupid, especially when you consider

I didnt, except in a general way. Hey, some countries have to be more stupid than others, that's a given. USA, its WELL up there. I used to think otherwise, and feel it would be smallminded to say such things, but really it's neccessary.



What are Pauls proposals on changing these ridiculous college fees?

matthew8

lagente wrote: »

A handful are, MIT etc, to be expected when the worlds wealth was based there.
but in large no, they are not. They also charge students through the roof, so the students HAVE to come from at least middle class families, there are feck all exceptions.


I didnt, except in a general way. Hey, some countries have to be more stupid than others, that's a given. USA, its WELL up there. I used to think otherwise, and feel it would be smallminded to say such things, but really it's neccessary.



What are Pauls proposals on changing these ridiculous college fees?

I haven't heard his take on it though I'd say he'd just let the states decide or something.

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

Their universities are superior but far more expensive. Though I think you can have too many university graduates. Someone has to do the jobs that are "below" university grads after all.

The system is letting the people down, they should abolish the department of education and leave it to the states. Some states will get it right by chance and some will do poorly, the states will emulate the systems of those that got it right and avoid emulating the failures.

Agreed they are more expensive. Though we have university graduates coming out of universities with experience on 10 year old, out of date instrumentation, whereas in the US (even in state Universities.) they work with modern top of the range instruments. An Irish Science graduates skills are already obsolete before they have even graduated. In Europe we do quantity, whereas in America they do quality.

I am certainly not saying they have a perfect education system, but neither does Ireland (or europe). I personally don't believe the department of education is the problem, local politics is the problem. Two many people wanting to place too much emphasis on their preferences and thus diluting the funding and the focus.

sarumite

lagente wrote: »

A handful are, MIT etc, to be expected when the worlds wealth was based there.
but in large no, they are not. They also charge students through the roof, so the students HAVE to come from at least middle class families, there are feck all exceptions.

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010

Check out the top 20....13 from the USA, 5 from Europe. The top Irish university (Trinity) place 52nd.

I didnt, except in a general way. Hey, some countries have to be more stupid than others, that's a given. USA, its WELL up there. I used to think otherwise, and feel it would be smallminded to say such things, but really it's neccessary.

I don't necessarily agree that some countries have to be more stupid than others. Perhaps less educated, but certainly not stupid. The USA is neither. It's not small minded, merely shallow to say such things.