T Nation

The Demise of Ron Paul

http://bushtheidiot.com/new1/?p=1452

I know it’s a bit late in the game, but this tells it like it is.

Ron Paul did have a chance…and he (or his campaign staffers) blew that chance.

It is inaccurate to say that RP was never a factor in this election. He had great momentum until the Russert interview in December.

His supporters weren’t wrong about his chances. Nobody could have known that his campaign staffers would drop the ball.

And that’s the final word.

Good article. I think it’s a bit much to say his supporters weren’t wrong about his chance (in that he had one to win) but he certainly could have made a bigger impact than he did if he had been prepared for it.

That was a reasonably fair article when one discounts the main idea that Paul ever had a chance. Iraqis are better prepared to be free men than Americans so Paul’s message does not resonate here. This is a nation of blissful idiots and cowards being ideologically propped up by the few Republicans and Libertarians among us with brains and balls.

Paul failed on several counts:

1)He sounded like a screechy old man.
2)His supporters were asshole jacobins and actively pissed off everyone.
3)He didn’t know when to shut his mouth on Iraq (which he was arguably wrong about).

All that said, now I know why those asshats still have their Kerry/Edwards stickers on their cars, since my Ron Paul sticker will be on my Dodge for many years to come.

As I have said before, Bush sucks…hard. But he was light years ahead of the entire primary field except for Paul and Thompson.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
That was a reasonably fair article when one discounts the main idea that Paul ever had a chance. Iraqis are better prepared to be free men than Americans so Paul’s message does not resonate here. This is a nation of blissful idiots and cowards being ideologically propped up by the few Republicans and Libertarians among us with brains and balls.

Paul failed on several counts:

1)He sounded like a screechy old man.
2)His supporters were asshole jacobins and actively pissed off everyone.
3)He didn’t know when to shut his mouth on Iraq (which he was arguably wrong about).

All that said, now I know why those asshats still have their Kerry/Edwards stickers on their cars, since my Ron Paul sticker will be on my Dodge for many years to come.

As I have said before, Bush sucks…hard. But he was light years ahead of the entire primary field except for Paul and Thompson.

mike[/quote]

I don’t understand how you can support Ron Paul but still say that he was arguably wrong about Iraq.

If you disagree with his stance on Iraq then surely you must disagree with his entire outlook on foreign policy.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
That was a reasonably fair article when one discounts the main idea that Paul ever had a chance. Iraqis are better prepared to be free men than Americans so Paul’s message does not resonate here. This is a nation of blissful idiots and cowards being ideologically propped up by the few Republicans and Libertarians among us with brains and balls. [/quote]

If people like start giving up, the world is doomed. Doomed I tell you.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Paul failed on several counts:

1)He sounded like a screechy old man.
2)His supporters were asshole jacobins and actively pissed off everyone.
3)He didn’t know when to shut his mouth on Iraq (which he was arguably wrong about).

mike[/quote]

I second this. Especially about his supporters. I remember saying that if Paul doesn’t get the nomination it wont be because of him, it will be because of his supporters effectively turning everyone else away from his message.

The true story is:

  1. Ron Paul never had a chance to win the nomination or a national election, and anyone who thinks so is being dishonest - don’t confuse wishful thinking with objective analysis

  2. Paul’s image outsized his actual impact, a la Howard Dean, for largely the same reasons - his primary base was comprised of young people who just wanted to be angry at the Man, and there was no coherent political movement within it (“but he had 70% of the vote on Facebook!!!”)

  3. Ron Paul is either a racist piece of trash or he associated himself with folks who were for political advantage, and then the honest, straight-talkin’ Ron Paul dissembled like a spineless weasel when challenged on it

  4. Al Shades/NP is a racist piece of trash who has shamed himself beyond repair in these forums - and it is no wonder he was such a fan of the guy

Ron Paul came too late. Of course, America was doomed from the start anyway. The founding fathers knew this, knew that you can’t have a government that conflicts with the basic philosophy (Altruism) of the citizens. Eventually, the citizens recreate the government into an altruistic monstrosity, which we have today.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The true story is:

  1. Ron Paul never had a chance to win the nomination or a national election, and anyone who thinks so is being dishonest - don’t confuse wishful thinking with objective analysis

  2. Paul’s image outsized his actual impact, a la Howard Dean, for largely the same reasons - his primary base was comprised of young people who just wanted to be angry at the Man, and there was no coherent political movement within it (“but he had 70% of the vote on Facebook!!!”)

  3. Ron Paul is either a racist piece of trash or he associated himself with folks who were for political advantage, and then the honest, straight-talkin’ Ron Paul dissembled like a spineless weasel when challenged on it

  4. Al Shades/NP is a racist piece of trash who has shamed himself beyond repair in these forums - and it is no wonder he was such a fan of the guy[/quote]

That sums it up.

Although Paul said a lot of things that are easy to agree with he is not a good man and his positions do not stand up to much scrutiny.

He never had a prayer and unfortunately I think he sets back the cause for smaller government. He was the wrong man to lead the charge.

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:

I don’t understand how you can support Ron Paul but still say that he was arguably wrong about Iraq.

If you disagree with his stance on Iraq then surely you must disagree with his entire outlook on foreign policy.

[/quote]

I’ll pop in here with a disagreement if I may. I voted for Paul (and yes, I’m fully aware that makes me an uninformed, angry basement-dwelling, chewbacca-suit-wearing, poll-spamming, mouth-frothing, racist idiot, and all those other bad things.), and his position on Iraq was that we should immediately leave the country. That part I do NOT agree with, as it would leave a chaotic and dangerous situation that the Iraqis do not deserve. I’m of the opinion that if we broke it, we bought it.

But his stance on Foriegn Policy as a whole, I would tend to agree with: that is, America should keep their hands to themselves unless and until they are asked for help, or they are actually threatened. (And yes, I know that makes me a stupid “isolationist” throwback or whatever, thanks.) Iraq wasn’t in a position to threaten anyone outside it’s borders, much less America. No, I’m not one of the idiot conpiracy theorists who claim that “9-11 was an inside job!” or “There were NEVER any WMD’s in Iraq!” or any of that other bullshit. But the fact is that Iraq was pretty much in check before we decided to blow it up. Does our war over there make me safer over here? I have no idea.

What I do know is that 9/11 was perpetrated by a handful (20+) of guys who had been in this country for quite a while, who were just waiting for someone to give them the go-ahead. Are there still people like that in the country right now? I’d say that it’s very likely, and they probably don’t care much about what’s going on in Iraq, and they certainly aren’t going to change their plans and rush over there just for the chance to shoot it out with US Armed Forces, they’re going to pretend to be normal citizens until someone tells them what to do, and then they’re going to do it. Keeping us safe from terrorism is a job that’s accomplished over here, not over there.

I think that’s what Paul’s stance is as well. Blowing up countries where bad guys might live doesn’t really do much to keep me safe over here, and yes, believe it or not, if someone came over here and blew up my country, I might get mad and look for a chance to get revenge. (And yes, I know, that makes me a dumbass “blowback-theory”-spouting, blame-America-first, pinko commie bastard.)

I’m really getting deep into TL;DR territory, so I’ll shut up. The short summary of that longass diatribe is that I disagree with Paul on some points, but I still think that his basic message is pure, distilled conservative goodness: ‘Keep the power decentralized’, and ‘keep our country safe without stomping all over someone else’s.’

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ron Paul is either a racist piece of trash or he associated himself with folks who were for political advantage, and then the honest, straight-talkin’ Ron Paul dissembled like a spineless weasel when challenged on it
[/quote]

You associate with no one you disagree with philosophically?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ron Paul is either a racist piece of trash or he associated himself with folks who were for political advantage, and then the honest, straight-talkin’ Ron Paul dissembled like a spineless weasel when challenged on it

You associate with no one you disagree with philosophically?[/quote]

I would assume he does not publish their racist views under his name. Quite a difference.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I would assume he does not publish their racist views under his name. Quite a difference.[/quote]

There wasn’t anything racist that was written.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I would assume he does not publish their racist views under his name. Quite a difference.

There wasn’t anything racist that was written.[/quote]

Spare me.

[i]

�??[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists�??and they can be identified by the color of their skin.�??

�??I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.�??

�??We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.�??

[/i]

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php

There is too much more to bother with any further.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Spare me.[/quote]

You get what you give.

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

I don’t understand how you can support Ron Paul but still say that he was arguably wrong about Iraq.

If you disagree with his stance on Iraq then surely you must disagree with his entire outlook on foreign policy.

I’ll pop in here with a disagreement if I may. I voted for Paul (and yes, I’m fully aware that makes me an uninformed, angry basement-dwelling, chewbacca-suit-wearing, poll-spamming, mouth-frothing, racist idiot, and all those other bad things.), and his position on Iraq was that we should immediately leave the country. That part I do NOT agree with, as it would leave a chaotic and dangerous situation that the Iraqis do not deserve. I’m of the opinion that if we broke it, we bought it.

But his stance on Foriegn Policy as a whole, I would tend to agree with: that is, America should keep their hands to themselves unless and until they are asked for help, or they are actually threatened. (And yes, I know that makes me a stupid “isolationist” throwback or whatever, thanks.) Iraq wasn’t in a position to threaten anyone outside it’s borders, much less America. No, I’m not one of the idiot conpiracy theorists who claim that “9-11 was an inside job!” or “There were NEVER any WMD’s in Iraq!” or any of that other bullshit. But the fact is that Iraq was pretty much in check before we decided to blow it up. Does our war over there make me safer over here? I have no idea.

What I do know is that 9/11 was perpetrated by a handful (20+) of guys who had been in this country for quite a while, who were just waiting for someone to give them the go-ahead. Are there still people like that in the country right now? I’d say that it’s very likely, and they probably don’t care much about what’s going on in Iraq, and they certainly aren’t going to change their plans and rush over there just for the chance to shoot it out with US Armed Forces, they’re going to pretend to be normal citizens until someone tells them what to do, and then they’re going to do it. Keeping us safe from terrorism is a job that’s accomplished over here, not over there.

I think that’s what Paul’s stance is as well. Blowing up countries where bad guys might live doesn’t really do much to keep me safe over here, and yes, believe it or not, if someone came over here and blew up my country, I might get mad and look for a chance to get revenge. (And yes, I know, that makes me a dumbass “blowback-theory”-spouting, blame-America-first, pinko commie bastard.)

I’m really getting deep into TL;DR territory, so I’ll shut up. The short summary of that longass diatribe is that I disagree with Paul on some points, but I still think that his basic message is pure, distilled conservative goodness: ‘Keep the power decentralized’, and ‘keep our country safe without stomping all over someone else’s.’
[/quote]

Great post. Agree with all of it, I voted and felt the same way.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I would assume he does not publish their racist views under his name. Quite a difference.

There wasn’t anything racist that was written.

Spare me.

[i]

�??[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists�??and they can be identified by the color of their skin.�??

�??I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.�??

�??We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.�??

[/i]

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php

There is too much more to bother with any further.[/quote]

I would call these statements politically incorrect but not racist. Racism attempts to categorize/classify people by their race which none of these statements do.

  1. it is not racist to identify people by the color of their skin.

  2. “95% of black males in Washington D.C. are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” is just a statistic – that at best may have been incorrect when it was stated. It isn’t racist. A racist statement would generalize more definitely; for example, “all black people are criminals”. Classifying a race in a particular location cannot be considered racist by definition.

  3. Being afraid of black people isn’t racism. It must be a specific classification of black people in order to be racist.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I would assume he does not publish their racist views under his name. Quite a difference.

There wasn’t anything racist that was written.

Spare me.

[i]

�??[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists�??and they can be identified by the color of their skin.�??

�??I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.�??

�??We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.�??

[/i]

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php

There is too much more to bother with any further.

I would call these statements politically incorrect but not racist. Racism attempts to categorize/classify people by their race which none of these statements do.

  1. it is not racist to identify people by the color of their skin.

[/quote] He is calling black people actual or potential terrorists. That is not identifying them, that is insulting them!

A phony statistic used to insult black men. Seems to fit the definition of racism pretty well.

[quote]
3) Being afraid of black people isn’t racism. It must be a specific classification of black people in order to be racist.[/quote]

Since 95% are criminals and all are terrorists or potential terrorists he has already classified them.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You associate with no one you disagree with philosophically?[/quote]

This, of course, has nothing to do with what I posted. But not surprising.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This, of course, has nothing to do with what I posted. But not surprising.
[/quote]

It refutes the exact point you were attempting to make. Guilt by association is not guilt.