Why Ron Paul Can't Win

[quote]lixy wrote:

Yey! TB finally spells it out.[/quote]

I can’t take credit for “spelling out” what was self-evident.

And, what “limited government” conservatives are running? I don’t see any conservatives running. I do see moderate to liberal Republicans, though. And that, is my issue with the Republican party.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

And, what “limited government” conservatives are running? I don’t see any conservatives running. I do see moderate to liberal Republicans, though. And that, is my issue with the Republican party. [/quote]

Setting aside that I think Thompson fits the bill, and I also think a true conservative is a natural moderate (rejecting radical ideologies and “fixes”), I don’t blame you for your issues with the GOP.

I said here while back the GOP had frustrated me to the point I might be willing to have Independent on my voter card.

That said, Paul is not a solution, nor is he even a decent reminder for the GOP to get back to its principles - as I have noted, because of his extremism, the only thing Paul does is make garden variety left-liberalism look like the sane approach. That can’t possibly be good for those of interested in conservative principles.

We reject Paul so vehemently precisely because his campaign hurts regaining the “limited government in the real world” approach to policy.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

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

[/quote]

If they are picking up on it, his campaign is in worse shape than I thought.

I’m surprised nobody mentioned the man’s personality (if they did I didn’t see it). He’s way too timid, shakey, he always appears nervous - and it hasn’t gotten much better throughout the campaign. He rarely speaks well, and with as many debates as there have been this campaign season, his lack of improvement should be a red flag to supporters that his campaign is dead - despite the money you raise.

I just saw his comments to Russert on the Civil War. The man is either ignorant or deceptive.

Lincoln did not start a war to free the slaves. The South seceded so they could protect their right to own slaves. Lincoln fought a war to bring the South back into the Union.

I cannot believe how so many people pretend this man is any more honest or honorable than every other slimy politician.

I am also amused by the various stories out there about Paul trying to bring home the pork to his district but voting against those same bills because of pork for other districts. Phony two-faced politician. Even worse than the rest of them because some people are actually falling for his act.

I don’t think he’s going to win in this election, but he has inspired me like never before to take an interest in politics. I agree with him,and he is in no way a “kook” like people seem to want to make him sound like. I think he is actually the most rational candidate. Read his stance on the issues. They all follow the constitution.

What does that mean? I hear everyone and their grandma throw around these terms like, “Constitutionalist”, “Strict constructionalist”, “Originalist”, “True conservative”, “Founding fathers intent”, “Constitutionamentanarianismalistalution”…

I don’t think that a majority of people who use these terms really understand what they mean. That they are just parroting the same drivel they see on those “Bush did 9-11” videos on youtube.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Setting aside that I think Thompson fits the bill, and I also think a true conservative is a natural moderate (rejecting radical ideologies and “fixes”), I don’t blame you for your issues with the GOP.[/quote]

Duncan Hunter fits the bill as well, in fact I think Hunter is a better choice that Thompson, both whom are still among my top picks for president.

[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]

Fact is that not one of these countries needed a civil war to get rid of slavery which was his major point.

Paying all of them and setting them free would actually have been cheaper, just as a side note.

Who is the ignoramus?

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
What does that mean? I hear everyone and their grandma throw around these terms like, “Constitutionalist”, “Strict constructionalist”, “Originalist”, “True conservative”, “Founding fathers intent”, “Constitutionamentanarianismalistalution”…

I don’t think that a majority of people who use these terms really understand what they mean. That they are just parroting the same drivel they see on those “Bush did 9-11” videos on youtube.[/quote]

The fact remains that he’s raising more money from military personnel - whom took oaths to defend the constitution - than any other candidate.

[quote]orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Paying all of them and setting them free would actually have been cheaper, just as a side note.

Who is the ignoramus?

[/quote]

Summoning up some respect, Orion, I can forgive you your lack of understanding of American history, but the same I cannot do for HH. My points, better explained by thunderbolt23, are:

  1. “If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bicycle.”
    There was never any notion that the Federal Government, on or before 1861, was going to transfer money it did not have to Southern sates for the emancipation of slaves. It wasn’t a reality, wasn’t going to happen, it was never proposed seriously, and was far beyond the meager budget of even a dedicated abolitionist presidency. And Lincoln was not so inclined.
    To even suggest otherwise is to inflate the tires on my sainted Grandmother, the Bicycle.

  2. Lincoln’s primary objective was saving the union, not freeing slaves. (Thus summarizing 150 years of history.) Sorry, Orion, not even Stanton, to my understanding, proposed buying slaves to set them free wholesale. And if there were a few abolitionists who did so, they never proposed to manumit all slaves in such a fashion. The Southern plantation owners, since the time of Franklin Pierce, could not afford even compensated emancipation: the economy thrived only by slavery.
    The British, who financed and bribed many emancipation and abolitionist movements, were officially neutral or South-leaning for most of the Civil War, and were not about to send money to bribe or compensate the South to end slavery, or to end the war.

  3. Last, as others have pointed out, it was South Carolina’s actions which initiated the hot war. After April 1861, even if Lincoln or Stanton or Ron Paul would have proposed such nonsense, it was not going to happen.

Now, Orion, because you are serious reader, I would direct you to Lincoln’s second inaugural address; who does not understand this, does not understand the pain of 400 years of American history.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Paying all of them and setting them free would actually have been cheaper, just as a side note.

Who is the ignoramus?

Summoning up some respect, Orion, I can forgive you your lack of understanding of American history, but the same I cannot do for HH. My points, better explained by thunderbolt23, are:

  1. “If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bicycle.”
    There was never any notion that the Federal Government, on or before 1861, was going to transfer money it did not have to Southern sates for the emancipation of slaves. It wasn’t a reality, wasn’t going to happen, it was never proposed seriously, and was far beyond the meager budget of even a dedicated abolitionist presidency. And Lincoln was not so inclined.
    To even suggest otherwise is to inflate the tires on my sainted Grandmother, the Bicycle.

  2. Lincoln’s primary objective was saving the union, not freeing slaves. (Thus summarizing 150 years of history.) Sorry, Orion, not even Stanton, to my understanding, proposed buying slaves to set them free wholesale. And if there were a few abolitionists who did so, they never proposed to manumit all slaves in such a fashion. The Southern plantation owners, since the time of Franklin Pierce, could not afford even compensated emancipation: the economy thrived only by slavery.
    The British, who financed and bribed many emancipation and abolitionist movements, were officially neutral or South-leaning for most of the Civil War, and were not about to send money to bribe or compensate the South to end slavery, or to end the war.

  3. Last, as others have pointed out, it was South Carolina’s actions which initiated the hot war. After April 1861, even if Lincoln or Stanton or Ron Paul would have proposed such nonsense, it was not going to happen.

Now, Orion, because you are serious reader, I would direct you to Lincoln’s second inaugural address; who does not understand this, does not understand the pain of 400 years of American history.

[/quote]

What a con artist you are, plain and simple. You mix in a few historical references to embellish your discussion with an Austrian, who may not know our history. That is really shameful.

The reason compensation was not discussed in the US was because slavery was regional. Northerners would never pay to free slaves, partly because of extreme racism, partly because they feared free black people competing for jobs.

‘South Carolina’s actions which initiated the hot war’? Oh, you mean Lincoln maintaining a fort in the harbor of their main port city had nothing to do with it?

You, sir, are an idiot.

I’m now off to ski in Colorado until New Year’s Eve. Please stop shitting all over this forum while I’m gone. Jeeeezzzzz…

Incredibly brilliant - if only Dr. Ron Paul were in charge at the time with his magic wand and his packet of fairy dust he could have waved a couple of billion at the Slave Power (could the Federal government even meet payroll in 1860-early 61? they couldnt in 1859) and slavery could have become extinct forever. Of course, the Slave Power would have told him to go fuck himself, but whatever.

March 6 1862 Lincoln requests Congress to pass a joint resolution urging compensated emancipation.

March 10 1862 Lincoln meets with Border State congressmen about compensated emancipation.

May 10 1862 House passes resolution calling for cooperation and giving financial aid to any state which may adopt gradual emancipation of slavery.

July 12 1862 Lincoln meets with congressional representatives of border states to push for compensated emancipation.

July 14 1862 Lincoln proposes a bill for compensated emancipation.

December 2 1862 Lincolns annual message to Congress, and guess what? He pushes for compensated emancipation.

February 5 1865 Lincoln proposes to his cabinet a message to Congress for compensated emancipation.

I think headhunter may be right. If people don’t like Ron Paul it’s because they’d prefer to be dependent on the government.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What a con artist you are, plain and simple. You mix in a few historical references to embellish your discussion with an Austrian, who may not know our history. That is really shameful.[/quote]

There is nothing shameful about correcting Orion’s abysmal misunderstanding of the history - especially in light of the fact that Orion acts as though he knows the history.

Stop coloring Orion as some innocent foreign observer - he isn’t: he has chirped in with his false narrative of the Civil War in the past.

Doesn’t matter what the exact prescription was, compensation or something else - what matters is that there was, in fact, a political plan to do away with slavery without shedding a drop of blood. Orion’s false assertion - that a civil war was started to end slavery when it was unnecessary because alternatives existed - doesn’t make sense when you realize that Lincoln and the Republicans specifically - and I will bold it for emphasis - wanted to end slavery by legislation. That is what he ran on and got elected on. Critics keep whining that “all other countries ended slavery without war” - that is right, they ended slavery by way of changing the law and policy, which is exactly what Lincoln and the Republicans were prescribing as a way of getting rid of it.

Southern plantationists rejected a change in politics to end and we willing to take up arms in furtherance of that rejection - that doesn’t change the fact that a legislative remedy was presented, which looneytarian critics seem to forget, ignore, or otherwise whistle past.

[quote]‘South Carolina’s actions which initiated the hot war’? Oh, you mean Lincoln maintaining a fort in the harbor of their main port city had nothing to do with it?

You, sir, are an idiot.[/quote]

Dr. Skeptix is exactly right, and is no idiot - South Carolina initiated war with secession and firing on Fort Sumter. No amount of half-baked revisionism will change the fact.

And now the most brilliant part about all this:

In order to end slavery, sniff, Lincoln introduced slavery in the North in the form of the draft.

[quote]belligerent wrote:

I think headhunter may be right. If people don’t like Ron Paul it’s because they’d prefer to be dependent on the government.[/quote]

I think there is an inverse ratio at work - if we all adopted Ron Paul’s “law of the jungle” of raw, unalloyed self-reliance, my gut feeling is that a majority of the Paulnuts would be the first ones eaten in such a harsh world.

That, or they would become the property of bigger, brighter feudal lords - can you imagine? Paulnuts don’t exactly strike me as the big, master-of-all-I-survey types - perhaps they should be careful what kind of world they wish for.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

What a con artist you are, plain and simple. You mix in a few historical references to embellish your discussion with an Austrian, who may not know our history. That is really shameful.

There is nothing shameful about correcting Orion’s abysmal misunderstanding of the history - especially in light of the fact that Orion acts as though he knows the history.

Stop coloring Orion as some innocent foreign observer - he isn’t: he has chirped in with his false narrative of the Civil War in the past.

The reason compensation was not discussed in the US was because slavery was regional. Northerners would never pay to free slaves, partly because of extreme racism, partly because they feared free black people competing for jobs.

Doesn’t matter what the exact prescription was, compensation or something else - what matters is that there was, in fact, a political plan to do away with slavery without shedding a drop of blood. Orion’s false assertion - that a civil war was started to end slavery when it was unnecessary because alternatives existed - doesn’t make sense when you realize that Lincoln and the Republicans specifically - and I will bold it for emphasis - wanted to end slavery by legislation. That is what he ran on and got elected on. Critics keep whining that “all other countries ended slavery without war” - that is right, they ended slavery by way of changing the law and policy, which is exactly what Lincoln and the Republicans were prescribing as a way of getting rid of it.

Southern plantationists rejected a change in politics to end and we willing to take up arms in furtherance of that rejection - that doesn’t change the fact that a legislative remedy was presented, which looneytarian critics seem to forget, ignore, or otherwise whistle past.

‘South Carolina’s actions which initiated the hot war’? Oh, you mean Lincoln maintaining a fort in the harbor of their main port city had nothing to do with it?

You, sir, are an idiot.

Dr. Skeptix is exactly right, and is no idiot - South Carolina initiated war with secession and firing on Fort Sumter. No amount of half-baked revisionism will change the fact.[/quote]

To put all of this into context I had just seen this before posting and was in part reacting to it:

Preserving the Union was simply not the topic and though I recognize it as Lincolns prime concern I do not think it warranted a war.

[quote]orion wrote:

To put all of this into context I had just seen this before posting and was in part reacting to it:

[/quote]

So? Reacting to what? The fact that the talking heads were exactly right on all counts - how dumb it is for Paul to bring this up now (as in, he should have punted on an answer), how dumb it is on the merits, and how he just can’t help himself from alienating voters who might just be in agreement with him on some issues?

The clip of Paul talking was useful, though - I hadn’t seen it. Everyone should have a look at it to realize Paul hasn’t a chance.

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Incredibly brilliant - if only Dr. Ron Paul were in charge at the time with his magic wand and his packet of fairy dust he could have waved a couple of billion at the Slave Power (could the Federal government even meet payroll in 1860-early 61? they couldnt in 1859) and slavery could have become extinct forever. Of course, the Slave Power would have told him to go fuck himself, but whatever.

March 6 1862 Lincoln requests Congress to pass a joint resolution urging compensated emancipation.

March 10 1862 Lincoln meets with Border State congressmen about compensated emancipation.

May 10 1862 House passes resolution calling for cooperation and giving financial aid to any state which may adopt gradual emancipation of slavery.

July 12 1862 Lincoln meets with congressional representatives of border states to push for compensated emancipation.

July 14 1862 Lincoln proposes a bill for compensated emancipation.

December 2 1862 Lincolns annual message to Congress, and guess what? He pushes for compensated emancipation.

February 5 1865 Lincoln proposes to his cabinet a message to Congress for compensated emancipation. [/quote]

Thank you!

Now…this IS helpful, and new info for me. I would like to know the source you site so that I may learn more.

BUt what is missing is the following: despite his “theater”–and Lincoln was a master politician–there was no action; there was no money no tax, and nowilling Congressional majority to act on this issue. Lincoln had to wait unitl 1863, and a mjor battle, to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, to be exercised in the “freed states.” (I suspect that the Feb 1865 proposal in cabinet was meant to extend compensation to slaveholders–not purchase of slaves–to the remaining terrtiories of the Confederacy. )

What recourse did Lincoln, or Stanton, have? Jack Dempsey has answered for us.

Of course, now the Paulnuts will want Ron Paul to succeed James Buchanan as President…