Why Ron Paul Can't Win

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Here’s a chance for us to summarize all the reasons why Dr. Paul cannot win.

I’ll start.

I think his philosophy differs from the majority of American people. Most people don’t want to be self-reliant. They want to be cared for and to live a carefree existence, so long as they get to vote for whomever will administer the ‘goodies’.

People are also very short term thinkers: if you tell them that such policies have us promising 59 trillion dollars in benefits, they’re actually HAPPY because it sounds like paradise to them. They then go happily back to painting their toenails or listening to their I-pod.

In summary, Dr. Paul’s philosophy is designed for men (and women who are real women). The voters mostly have the minds of children.

2

…Somebody thinks Ron Paul can win? Since when?

3

The media isn’t giving him the time of day.

Fox News villifies him at every turn.

He wants to follow the constitution.

4

OMG I agree with Headhunter.

This is fucking crazy.

5

He also toasted himself the other day when he said the Civil War was unnecessary. The fact that other countries ended slavery by having governments buy the slaves and set them free, as Dr. Paul mentioned, will be ignored and his statements will be demagogued to make him look like an advocate of slavery.

Amazing how truth and politics are exclusionary of each other…

Sidenote: I’d be interested on his take as to if the Constitution gives states the right to secede. Since it says that all powers not delegated to the central government are reserved for the states, the power to secede seems to be a given.

Thunderbolt?

6

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
He also toasted himself the other day when he said the Civil War was unnecessary. The fact that other countries ended slavery by having governments buy the slaves and set them free, as Dr. Paul mentioned, will be ignored and his statements will be demagogued to make him look like an advocate of slavery.

Amazing how truth and politics are exclusionary of each other…

Sidenote: I’d be interested on his take as to if the Constitution gives states the right to secede. Since it says that all powers not delegated to the central government are reserved for the states, the power to secede seems to be a given.

Thunderbolt?[/quote]

What “fact?”
Can someone name the country that freed its slaves in this manner? Not Britain, not Canada, not Brazil in 1888…
A “fact,” like so many, pulled from Paul’s arse?The only “fact” here is that Paul is a proven looney, or an ignoramus.

Now, HH, our gullible friend, which are you, allowing that the constitutional question you raise (160 years after Henry Clay) was settled by the events of April 1865, and all that?

7

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
He also toasted himself the other day when he said the Civil War was unnecessary. The fact that other countries ended slavery by having governments buy the slaves and set them free, as Dr. Paul mentioned, will be ignored and his statements will be demagogued to make him look like an advocate of slavery.

Amazing how truth and politics are exclusionary of each other…

Sidenote: I’d be interested on his take as to if the Constitution gives states the right to secede. Since it says that all powers not delegated to the central government are reserved for the states, the power to secede seems to be a given.

Thunderbolt?

What “fact?”
Can someone name the country that freed its slaves in this manner? Not Britain, not Canada, not Brazil in 1888…
A “fact,” like so many, pulled from Paul’s arse?The only “fact” here is that Paul is a proven looney, or an ignoramus.

Now, HH, our gullible friend, which are you, allowing that the constitutional question you raise (160 years after Henry Clay) was settled by the events of April 1865, and all that?[/quote]

And you, HH, have something disparaging to say about “the minds of children?”

8

350×509 44.1 KB

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
He also toasted himself the other day when he said the Civil War was unnecessary. The fact that other countries ended slavery by having governments buy the slaves and set them free, as Dr. Paul mentioned, will be ignored and his statements will be demagogued to make him look like an advocate of slavery.

Amazing how truth and politics are exclusionary of each other…

Sidenote: I’d be interested on his take as to if the Constitution gives states the right to secede. Since it says that all powers not delegated to the central government are reserved for the states, the power to secede seems to be a given.

Thunderbolt?

What “fact?”
Can someone name the country that freed its slaves in this manner? Not Britain, not Canada, not Brazil in 1888…
A “fact,” like so many, pulled from Paul’s arse?The only “fact” here is that Paul is a proven looney, or an ignoramus.

[/quote]

Are you continuing to display your idiocy from our previous discussion, where you dropped out of sight?

From Wiki:

[edit] Nations and empires that ended slavery through compensated emancipation
Argentina
Bolivia
British Empire
Chile
Colombia
Danish colonies
Ecuador
French colonies
Mexico and Central America
Peru
Spanish Empire
Uruguay
Venezuela
United States (Washington, DC only)

Now, go back to reading your comix…

9

He’s doesn’t need to actually win, for me. I’d like to see him run as an independent after the primaries. I’m in a mood to punish the Republicans this election cycle. Hillary, or not.

Republicans need to be reminded that they can’t win without small government ideas. None of the liberal Republicans running are going to make much of an effort at scaling back entitlements, debt, and taxes. Hell, they have their own ideas about how the government could be doing more. I will not vote for those Republicans ever again.

10

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
He also toasted himself the other day when he said the Civil War was unnecessary. The fact that other countries ended slavery by having governments buy the slaves and set them free, as Dr. Paul mentioned, will be ignored and his statements will be demagogued to make him look like an advocate of slavery.

Amazing how truth and politics are exclusionary of each other…

Sidenote: I’d be interested on his take as to if the Constitution gives states the right to secede. Since it says that all powers not delegated to the central government are reserved for the states, the power to secede seems to be a given.

Thunderbolt?

What “fact?”
Can someone name the country that freed its slaves in this manner? Not Britain, not Canada, not Brazil in 1888…
A “fact,” like so many, pulled from Paul’s arse?The only “fact” here is that Paul is a proven looney, or an ignoramus.

Are you continuing to display your idiocy from our previous discussion, where you dropped out of sight?

From Wiki:

[edit] Nations and empires that ended slavery through compensated emancipation
Argentina
Bolivia
British Empire
Chile
Colombia
Danish colonies
Ecuador
French colonies
Mexico and Central America
Peru
Spanish Empire
Uruguay
Venezuela
United States (Washington, DC only)

Now, go back to reading your comix…

[/quote]

You do love those revisionist histories, don’t you? The wikipedia page you pasted is not vetted, is not accurate and is not “NPOV.” (“neutral point of view.”)

How about this piece of revisionism, regarding slavery in the Caribbean?

[i]"Abolition is also presented as being the result of a grand moral crusade that shook Western thought, whilst it was in fact the economic and political arguments that predominated, and it was the Blacks themselves who were the main players in the abolitionist struggle through their uprisings and escapes.

The revolutionaries who abolished slavery the first time round in France feared the secession, revolt and seizure of the plantations by the English above all. The Constituant Assembly’s 1793 decision followed the insurrection in Santo Domingo (which led to the independence of the colony in 1804 after the defeat of the Napoleonic troops sent to restore slavery; it then took its Amerindian name Haiti again). British emancipation followed the long slave rebellion in Jamaica (1831-32). [/i]

The list you offered is mixed-up and illogical. The British pressured the Spanish in 1811 to end slavery; “the Spanish Empire” abolished slave trade (except in the Caribbean), or by default when the empire dissolved, and often there were bribes (“compensation”) paid by the British to countries with which it held bilateral treaties to end slavery. (For example, after the 1815 Congress of Vienna through the 1840’s)

This is why I asked for an example in which slaves were “bought” by the government and freed. There were examples of bribes, compensation to plantation owners, etc., but the wholesale emancipation through purchase did not occur as Paul imagined it.

And one more word, HH: I drop out of a discussion in which my correspondent is a clueless oaf, such as this one; comix have more insight than some posters!

11

I like it when girls paint their toenails…

But I don’t like Ron Paul. Actually, I don’t like the people who support him. No, actually I don’t like the VOCAL majority of people who support him. Here’s why:

ME: “So why do you think I should vote for Ron Paul?”

RP supporter: “Man, cuz like he is a fukkin constitutionalist man!”

ME: “Do you even know what that means?”

RP supporter: “Man, like, it, uuuuuhhhhh, it like, uuuuhhhhhh, means that he is like, fucking a man, it means that he like, wants to uuuuuuuhhhhhh, follow the constitution and shit man!”

ME: “Wow… O.K. then, what about his economic policy?”

RP supporter: “Like Ron Paul is like for the gold standard man! He like wants to go on the uuuuuuhhhhhh, like the gold standard man!”

Me: “Okay… Do you even know what the gold standard is?”

RP supporter: “Man, it means that like, uuuuhhhh, fucking, uuuuhhhhh… Fucking shit man, you are in favor of the new world order you fucking chicken hawk! Like NAFTA, and CFR, and like PNAC, and NWA…”

Me: “…”

RP supporter: “Fucking shit man, open your eyes man! Ron Paul wants to give us the fucking second amendment, and he will make weed legal man, cuz like, it aint’ hurt no one man. Like fucking cigarettes kill more people man!”

Me: “Do you even know what you are talking about, or are you just parroting the same crap you see on all those stupid youtube videos?”

RP supporter: “Man, fuck you asshole! You are part of the new world order neocon war mongering illuminati 9-11 was an inside job federal reserve is a private bank skull and bones tin foil hats…”

Me: backs away slowly

RP supporter: “…haliburton mind control oil secret prisons cia assasination jfk rfk fbi…”

I think Ron Paul would be better served if he publicy denounces these people who support him, you know, the Alex Jones conspriacy kooks and the white power nazis and stuff. Cuz, like, you know, that is like, uuuuuhhhhh, fucking wrong man!

12

A couple of notes:

  1. I was actually waiting on someone to bring up Civil War stuff with Paul - and I didn’t realize Russert had until today. That said, Paul takes the predictable line and it damns his candidacy - or what is left of it.

I expect much hay to be made over his comments - and deservedly so.

  1. Paul says Lincoln killed 600,000 people needlessly to end slavery, and also mentioned that countless other countries had gotten rid of slavery without the bloodshed, so we should have done the same.

Newsflash, idiot - other countries got rid of slavery precisely the way Lincoln and the Republicans were advocating - by legislating it away. “Other countries” didn’t fight wars over the issue because “other countries” ultimately did away with it via the creation of new law. When nations ended slavery and provided compensation, they did so under prerogative of changing the law by the means respective to their countries - hey, what a fabulous idea…some anti-slavery party should have thought of that in 1860 and ran on a platform of legislating away slavery as a peaceful and effective means to getting rid of that horrid, what-should-be-contrary-to- all-libertarian-thought practice…

…oh wait.

  1. Paul should get his history straight - the Civil War was started by secessionists who were willing to fight to preserve slavery.

But then, asking looneytarians to grasp history is simply comic or tragic - no wait, tragicomic. They are as bad as and as much fun as Marxists - their ideological mirrors.

Paul has shown himself to be an absolute moron by opening his mouth on this issue, but it was to be expected. And I am glad for it - part of the political debate has to be exposing rank stupidity, and I, for one, am grateful Russert brought it up.

  1. The 10th Amendment does not permit secession - and suggesting so is a classic exercise in “begging the question”. The 10th Amendment states that powers not prohibited by the federal government are retained by the states. Whether or not the federal government and federal law prohibits states from seceding is the very question at issue - and saying that the 10th Amendment answers the question assumes the conclusion to the very question being debated.

If you find that the federal law prohibits secession, then the there is no state power to secede - per the wording of the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment doesn’t tell you if the federal law does or does not prohibit state secession - it only says that if the federal law doesn’t, states retain the power. It does nothing to answer the question “does federal law prohibit it?”

13

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A couple of notes:

  1. I was actually waiting on someone to bring up Civil War stuff with Paul - and I didn’t realize Russert had until today. That said, Paul takes the predictable line and it damns his candidacy - or what is left of it.

I expect much hay to be made over his comments - and deservedly so.

[/quote]

Several months ago, the first interview Ron Paul did on Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher attacked him on his civil war position and largely ignored every other stance Ron Paul had.

It didn’t really affect his candidacy to any degree then, but maybe it didn’t because it was so early in the race.

14

[quote]Magnate wrote:

Several months ago, the first interview Ron Paul did on Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher attacked him on his civil war position and largely ignored every other stance Ron Paul had.

It didn’t really affect his candidacy to any degree then, but maybe it didn’t because it was so early in the race…or the audience.[/quote]

Could be - but I only learned of his comments to Russert’s questions via blogs I read, so commentators are picking up on it?

Will it do much? Perhaps - a better question is, is there much left to do to his campaign? It may be the equivalent of poking a hole in a balloon lying on the ground.

My point was that mainstream Americans will have one more reason to dismiss Uncle Ron - but I think you are right, that may not matter much.

15

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

This is why I asked for an example in which slaves were “bought” by the government and freed. There were examples of bribes, compensation to plantation owners, etc., but the wholesale emancipation through purchase did not occur as Paul imagined it.

And one more word, HH: I drop out of a discussion in which my correspondent is a clueless oaf, such as this one; comix have more insight than some posters![/quote]

I refuted your assertion. Man up and quit being a Bill Clintonesque worm.

As regards your last paragraph, I posted a quote from Churchill in which he admits inducing German subs into attacking neutal (mainly US) shipping, to get us into WWI. You promptly vanished. If someone proves you wrong, you vanish.

So, wrt to the slavery compensation, don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

16

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A couple of notes:

  1. I was actually waiting on someone to bring up Civil War stuff with Paul - and I didn’t realize Russert had until today. That said, Paul takes the predictable line and it damns his candidacy - or what is left of it.

I expect much hay to be made over his comments - and deservedly so.

  1. Paul says Lincoln killed 600,000 people needlessly to end slavery, and also mentioned that countless other countries had gotten rid of slavery without the bloodshed, so we should have done the same.

Newsflash, idiot - other countries got rid of slavery precisely the way Lincoln and the Republicans were advocating - by legislating it away. “Other countries” didn’t fight wars over the issue because “other countries” ultimately did away with it via the creation of new law. When nations ended slavery and provided compensation, they did so under prerogative of changing the law by the means respective to their countries - hey, what a fabulous idea…some anti-slavery party should have thought of that in 1860 and ran on a platform of legislating away slavery as a peaceful and effective means to getting rid of that horrid, what-should-be-contrary-to- all-libertarian-thought practice…

…oh wait.

  1. Paul should get his history straight - the Civil War was started by secessionists who were willing to fight to preserve slavery.

But then, asking looneytarians to grasp history is simply comic or tragic - no wait, tragicomic. They are as bad as and as much fun as Marxists - their ideological mirrors.

Paul has shown himself to be an absolute moron by opening his mouth on this issue, but it was to be expected. And I am glad for it - part of the political debate has to be exposing rank stupidity, and I, for one, am grateful Russert brought it up.

  1. The 10th Amendment does not permit secession - and suggesting so is a classic exercise in “begging the question”. The 10th Amendment states that powers not prohibited by the federal government are retained by the states. Whether or not the federal government and federal law prohibits states from seceding is the very question at issue - and saying that the 10th Amendment answers the question assumes the conclusion to the very question being debated.

If you find that the federal law prohibits secession, then the there is no state power to secede - per the wording of the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment doesn’t tell you if the federal law does or does not prohibit state secession - it only says that if the federal law doesn’t, states retain the power. It does nothing to answer the question “does federal law prohibit it?”[/quote]

It seems that our standards have gotten pretty high. We want a scholar-president now, when we probably haven’t had one since Kennedy (unless we count Slick Willie and his Rhodes B.S.)

Dr. Paul is not an historian or a constitutional scholar. He’s a politician. I don’t love the guy but I’d bet he matches up intellectually against Hillary, Barack, Mitt, or the Huckster.

17

Admittedly, Ron Paul’s stance on the Civil war, and how slaves should have been freed, is controversial. But, does it make him a kook?

Walter Williams, generally held in high regard by mainstream conservatives, appears to be in the Ron Paul camp on this subject. The same Walter Williams who substitues on occasion for Rush Limbaugh, the supposed mainstream mouth-piece of conservatism. Is Walter Williams a kook? If conservatives on this board are unwilling to cast off Walter Williams for such a position, why Ron Paul?

18

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

It seems that our standards have gotten pretty high. We want a scholar-president now, when we probably haven’t had one since Kennedy (unless we count Slick Willie and his Rhodes B.S.)[/quote]

I don’t think so - most of what I referred doesn’t require anything other than a willingness to read.

Well, he may not be a constitutional scholar, but if he is a man that defines himself by lecturing everyone willing to listen about “what the Constitution is all about”, I damn well expect him get some basics under control.

And I hate to say it, but I think just about any of the above would run circles around him (except Huckabee, perhaps) - largely because Paul frankly does not come off as terribly bright: he sticks to a narrow script and doesn’t appear to handle anything outside his preferred worldview with comfortable counterarguments.

19

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Admittedly, Ron Paul’s stance on the Civil war, and how slaves should have been freed, is controversial. But, does it make him a kook?

Walter Williams, generally held in high regard by mainstream conservatives, appears to be in the Ron Paul camp on this subject. The same Walter Williams who substitues on occasion for Rush Limbaugh, the supposed mainstream mouth-piece of conservatism. Is Walter Williams a kook? If conservatives on this board are unwilling to cast off Walter Williams for such a position, why Ron Paul?[/quote]

I consider him a kook - on that issue, certainly. And such a view certainly hurts his credibility. And writing the foreword to one of those libertarian rags has hurt him.

That said, he occasionally comments well on other things. But he also isn’t running for President.

Conservatives don’t think Paul is a kook because he wants “limited government”, etc. - they think he is a kook because he is a kook, and as a matter of degree, his ideology goes too far.

20

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
they think he is a kook because he is a kook [/quote]

Yey! TB finally spells it out.