What makes Ron Paul, Ron Paul.

[Oliver]

Yet again, Oliver alluding to a system that would be antithetical to Paul's platform and firm beliefs.

The media is entitled to cover whomever they want, however they like. It's called freedom of press and Paul gets more free press than anyone on the internet. As I have previously explained, groups of Paul supporters have actually conspired to manipulate social news sites such as Digg to promote their guy while systematically burying all other candidates. I find it annoying and ultimately not in their self interest, but I'll begrudgingly give them credit for organization and crafty exploitation of mob mentality. The hype and sensationalism behind Paul is beginning to peter out in the final stretch thanks to gadflies that have turned off far more undecided Republican primary voters than they have drawn in. It's important to remember that Paul is running for the Republican nommination here, no registered Dems, Libertarians and Constitutionalist , no independents and certainly no German citizens will be voting.

Paul is a still a long shot and he's too old to run again next cycle. He gave the primary campaign season a little more flavor and honestly did make the other Republican candidates look foolish on foreign policy. And, that's really about it. You would be better served advocating libertarianism in Germany rather than continuing with this bizarre fantasy...just a thought. If you love the man so much why don't you look for a German politician with similar beliefs and do some campaigning?

Well, we call it "Freedom of Equality" that the Media has to
promote the same amount of time to all political Ad's. I think
this is the more democratic way.

And I disagree with the Idea that the Ron Paul Grassroots are
well organized. They had some success, but they're far away
from pulling on the same strings or promoting Paul outside the
internet as much as needed.

We don't have a Ron Paul over here - and I have to blame
Paul's Grandfather for emigrating to the US for that.
But anyway: My main concern is peace and as such: diplomacy.
And I don't have a problem with Germany's foreign policies at
all. Why should I?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yeah, Ron Paul has no real support - this animated graphic proves it.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017546.html

How is the number of people who used Meet-up representative of the number of total supporters he has? Why should I trust that measure better than polling that had a scientific methodology?

 

[ZenFountain]

Well, we call it "Freedom of Equality" that the Media has to
promote the same amount of time to all political Ad's. I think
this is the more democratic way.

How is forcing media outlets to give the same amount of time to political adds freedom of equality? Who decides who's in and who's out for time rationing?

You are categorically failing to understand political parties in America. The Democratic and Republican parties are not institutions of government. By all means they do not need to have primary elections. The party delegates from each state could simply vote how they wished at the party convention with no prior vote by party members in their respective state to determine how the delegates would vote. In fact, that's how it worked in the old days before political parties became quasi institutions.

Furthermore, if we actually followed the constitution to the letter there would be no general election for President and Vice President.

Article II, Section I: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.

Twelfth Amendment: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as the President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The United States Constitution is not democratic at all when it comes to electing the President and Vice President. If Ron Paul was truly a constitutionalist he wouldn't even be running for President because the entire system is not in the spirit of what the founding fathers designed. Anyway, your entire argument is little more than the typical whining from Paul supporters about how the system is gamed against them.

 

[Oliver]

How is forcing media outlets to give the same amount of time to political adds freedom of equality? Who decides who's in and who's out for time rationing?

You are categorically failing to understand political parties in America. The Democratic and Republican parties are not institutions of government. By all means they do not need to have primary elections. The party delegates from each state could simply vote how they wished at the party convention with no prior vote by party members in their respective state to determine how the delegates would vote. In fact, that's how it worked in the old days before political parties became quasi institutions.

Furthermore, if we actually followed the constitution to the letter there would be no general election for President and Vice President.

Article II, Section I: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.

Twelfth Amendment: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as the President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The United States Constitution is not democratic at all when it comes to electing the President and Vice President. If Ron Paul was truly a constitutionalist he wouldn't even be running for President because the entire system is not in the spirit of what the founding fathers designed. Anyway, your entire argument is little more than the typical whining from Paul supporters about how the system is gamed against them.

It is "Freedom of Equality" if the Media has to promote everyone fairly
and present all the available Ideas in the same way.

In the US, if Fox doesn't like a Democrat's presidential candidates
stance, they can bash them all day long or simply ignore them. Same
goes to Republicans MSNBC doesn't like - for example.

The whole election system is completely different to the one we
have over here. We don't elect the head of the state - we vote
for the Party and the way they want to go.

This means that we don't argue 2 years long about elections and
there is no need to raise money. The parties campaigns are sponsored
by Tax-Money without any fund raising whatsoever.

Now one might argue that this also isn't the perfect solution, but
it certainly avoids all the stupid mudslinging about the most hip
Haircut and if some candidate doesn't wear a "US-Flag-Pin".
You know what I mean by that, don't you?

Also: Since the German Constitution is about equality of all people,
including the Parties efforts to promote their Ideas, I tend to think
that this is the more democratic way since you actually learn about
third parties Ideas as well.

In the US, there are Dem's and Rep's. When was the last time
you heard the green Parties - or the libertarian Ideas from their
own mouths in ads? ...

Fact is that there are no "Libertarian Debates" or "Green Party
debates". It's all about Dem and Rep - and you should acknowledge
that this is wiping third opinions off the table - so you might have
a hard time to argue that there are third parties.

Sure there are - but they don't matter for the "Freedom of Press"-
Media. So how is this positive or even democratic for "you, the
people?". It isn't.

Concerning the argument that Paul shouldn't even run according
to the Constitution: What's your solution - sit and wait for an
angel flying out of the "common sense"-peoples asses???

 

[Pardalis]

Your last post is just ghastly to read Oliver, it almost makes no sense at all.

Maybe you could put less emphasis on your strawmen (and your "formulas") and focus more on what you want to say.

 

[ZenFountain]

It is "Freedom of Equality" if the Media has to promote everyone fairly
and present all the available Ideas in the same way.

What you just described literally is the fairness doctrine, which Paul said he was against as recently as September. Don't try to repackage bad policy as freedom when there is nothing free about it.

In the US, if Fox doesn't like a Democrat's presidential candidates
stance, they can bash them all day long or simply ignore them. Same
goes to Republicans MSNBC doesn't like - for example.

It's a good thing I don't have to watch Fox news all day, or any cable news for that matter.

The whole election system is completely different to the one we
have over here. We don't elect the head of the state - we vote
for the Party and the way they want to go.

This means that we don't argue 2 years long about elections and
there is no need to raise money. The parties campaigns are sponsored
by Tax-Money without any fund raising whatsoever.

Public financing is avaliable here too. It's the peoples fault for relying on 30 second TV ads to get their information on candidates, not a problem inherent to the system.

Now one might argue that this also isn't the perfect solution, but
it certainly avoids all the stupid mudslinging about the most hip
Haircut and if some candidate doesn't wear a "US-Flag-Pin".
You know what I mean by that, don't you?

I would be elated if cable news would stop stirring up frivolous debate and sensationalism, but it doesn't end until the people switch off and take interest in the future of their country. Government doesn't need to step in and tell people TV is ****.

Also: Since the German Constitution is about equality of all people,
including the Parties efforts to promote their Ideas, I tend to think
that this is the more democratic way since you actually learn about
third parties Ideas as well.

One click of a button and I can access information about any political party in America. Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalist plus parties smaller yet. Why should the government be the institution that promotes parties? Isn't that in of itself undemocratic? Public schools and libraries have internet access avaliable to anyone who may not have it at home as well.

In the US, there are Dem's and Rep's. When was the last time
you heard the green Parties - or the libertarian Ideas from their
own mouths in ads?

I actually see our system as more honest than parliamentary systems that have proportional representation. Such systems still have to form a majority government to govern and the people have no say in what kind of majority government is ultimately formed. The landscape of the US Congress is much the same way, Republican or Democrat does not force someone to vote a particular way. There are conservative Democrats and Republicans that border on progressive.

Fact is that there are no "Libertarian Debates" or "Green Party
debates". It's all about Dem and Rep - and you should acknowledge
that this is wiping third opinions off the table - so you might have
a hard time to argue that there are third parties.

Sure there are - but they don't matter for the "Freedom of Press"-
Media. So how is this positive or even democratic for "you, the
people?". It isn't.

I believe those parties actually do have debates and they certainly do have conventions, however they are not sponsored or covered by cable news. If you want to talk about undemocratic talk about the red tape third parties have to cut through to even get on the ballot, not promotion.

Concerning the argument that Paul shouldn't even run according
to the Constitution: What's your solution - sit and wait for an
angel flying out of the "common sense"-peoples asses???

No, I'm saying if you are going to spat constitution and founding fathers in every other sentence, walk the talk when the chips don't fall your way.

 

[andyandy]

Yes, this pretty much sums it up how fair&balanced the US-Media
is, thanks for confirming my suspicion.

hmmm....sorry to ruin the "all US media is conspiring against Ron Paul" narrative you seem keen to buy into, but The Telegraph is a UK paper. Perhaps you shouldn't be quite so eager to have your "suspicions" confirmed....

 

[Darth Rotor]

What makes Ron Paul, Ron Paul?

Seven letters, and the willingness to use them.

DR

 

[SDC]

Here's a question. Sincere. I'm not trying to make a special point about anyone. But representatives from (I think) Germany and Australia on this thread have both referred to national requirements that every party get equal time in the media. Really? How is a "party" defined? In the US, at least, there are quite a few, running the gamut from Reps and Dems, to Conservatives and Liberals (only in NY, I think), Right to Life, various Marxist parties, the LaRouchees (sp?), those guys in Texas who think that their state is an independent Republic, some Youpers [Youper = resident of the Upper Peninsula] in northern Michigan who are trying to secede to create a 51st state... You get the drift.

I suppose that the equivalents exist in Germany or Australia, though it will be somewhat different everywhere. (Very few Youpers in Germany, I bet. Perhaps the equivalent would be Schleswig-Holstein secessionists, but only those who want their own Land, not those who want to join Denmark.) Do all the groups get equal time in the media? Is there a cut-off point?

Gack. What a prospect. The blood runs cold.

 

[Ryokan]

But representatives from (I think) Germany and Australia on this thread have both referred to national requirements that every party get equal time in the media. Really? How is a "party" defined?

Can't speak for Germany or Australia, but in Norway it's all the parties currently in parliament (Currently there are seven of them.).

There's no 'requirement' by law, though, except for the state-owned Norwegian Broadcasting Channel.

If similar 'requirements' were enforced in the US, it wouldn't really be that much different from now

I bet even Germany and Australia have a ton of parties that are not allowed to represent themselves in debates, because of their size, just like there is in Norway and the USA. Although seeing the Natural Law Party participate in a national political debate would be a lot of fun

 

[SDC]

Can't speak for Germany or Australia, but in Norway it's all the parties currently in parliament (Currently there are seven of them.).

There's no 'requirement' by law, though, except for the state-owned Norwegian Broadcasting Channel.

If similar 'requirements' were enforced in the US, it wouldn't really be that much different from now

I bet even Germany and Australia have a ton of parties that are not allowed to represent themselves in debates, because of their size, just like there is in Norway and the USA. Although seeing the Natural Law Party participate in a national political debate would be a lot of fun

Europeans -- forgive me for this -- often fail to understand the federal system and the importance of the individual states. For example, in New York (state, not just city), the Conservative and Liberal parties, small ones, have some influence and can influence elections. Right to Life is weaker as a party but not to be discounted.

Other parties are stronger in other states. I would guess, for example, that Right to Lifers are stronger in, say, Missouri. Oliver talks about the media... Which ones? R to L has a lot of influence in some states and next to none in others. Should the media in Missouri provide certain levels of coverage to them, but not in New York, where other parties would get more coverage? But the major media centers in Missouri are actually smack next door to other states -- St Louis is on the Illinois border, Kansas City on the Kansas border -- these media outlets often cover Illinois or Kansas politics. And NY media are prominent nation wide.

The state-based nature of US politics makes it far too complex to consider, on local scales, balancing media coverage.

In Congress, meanwhile, almost everyone is Rep or Dem. But there are, I think at least 2 independents, both well known: Lieberman from CT, and Sanders of VT. OK, who determines their level of media coverage?

I'm going to get kicked for this one, but y'know, from where I sit (in an office in NYC), Germany is a pretty small country, with little in the way of political complexity. Australia is not small, but its population is.

What I appreciate in the American political system is precisely its disorder. Or if you prefer, the multiple levels at which one can find a political home, whether local, county, state, region, or national. I don't claim it is pure or beautiful, but over 220 yrs since the ratification of the constitution, it has lasted pretty well. We have our W's, but we also have our... in my mind, and more relevant my parents', FDR was pretty good.

 

[SDC]

In a fair situation, would the US mainstream media have to provide equal coverage to David Duke? Or let's say at least provide coverage in Louisiana, where I believe he has won an election or two. (But would neighboring states then, where he has never won anything, be allowed somehow to block the Duke coverage?)

I'm not trying to bait anyone. I regard this as a legitimate question. Advocates of "equal coverage" need to address it, and the general question of the scale and complexity of the matter, or be written off as people who are ill-informed about US politics.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Ron has to earn his coverage just like everyone else, and gets a bump whenever he does something like raising $4M in one day. The attention quickly fades. It isn't a conspiracy, it's just an attitude that someone with Paul's positions doesn't stand a chance, so why bother to cover him? Journalists are a lazy and timid folk, they're not going to go out on a limb if there's a chance they'll be embarassed later.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Snip
The media is entitled to cover whomever they want, however they like. It's called freedom of press and Paul gets more free press than anyone on the internet. As I have previously explained, groups of Paul supporters have actually conspired to manipulate social news sites such as Digg to promote their guy while systematically burying all other candidates. I find it annoying and ultimately not in their self interest, but I'll begrudgingly give them credit for organization and crafty exploitation of mob mentality. The hype and sensationalism behind Paul is beginning to peter out in the final stretch thanks to gadflies that have turned off far more undecided Republican primary voters than they have drawn in. It's important to remember that Paul is running for the Republican nommination here, no registered Dems, Libertarians and Constitutionalist , no independents and certainly no German citizens will be voting.
Snip

You give too much credit. Ron Paul supporters are barely organized at all in any meaningful sense. They're just enthusiastic about their candidate and spontaneously seek him out on the web, comment about him on blogs, and plant signs about him all over the place. They're about as crafty as a pack of loyal beagles. If they were subject to control I'm sure Paul would stop the more extremely enthusiastic ones from peeing on everything in sight.

 

[Matteo Martini]

- there is no terror threat

In many countries ( Indonesia, Irak, Chile, Iran, .. ) the terror threat is/was the U.S.....

1. That U.S. Government and US business leaders have
maintained a general strategy in Southeast Asia that
neglects the needs and interests of the peoples of the
region and views the region almost entirely as a source
of raw materials and/or cheap labor,
2. That as a consequence of this strategy, the US played a
major role in destabilizing and eventually overthrowing
the progressive, anti-imperialist government of Presi*
dent Sukarno of Indonesia and helped to install the
military regime of General Suharto which is primarily
responsible for crimes against the people of East Timor,

http://www.questia.com/googleSchola...P4nQYqLwdTVD5ygZwqn!1632551680?docId=97732845

 

[WildCat]

2. That as a consequence of this strategy, the US played a
major role in destabilizing and eventually overthrowing
the progressive, anti-imperialist government of Presi*
dent Sukarno of Indonesia

Hmmm...

Sukarno also established government control over media and book publishing as well as laws discriminating against Chinese Indonesian residents. On July 5, 1959 he reestablished the 1945 constitution by presidential edict. It established a presidential system which he believed would make it easier to implement the principles of guided democracy. He called the system Manifesto Politik or Manipol--but was actually government by decree. He sent his opponents to internal exile.
In March 1960 Sukarno dissolved the elected Assembly and replaced it with an appointed Assembly--the Gotong Royong Parliament--and in August he broke off diplomatic relations with the Netherlands over Dutch New Guinea (West Papua.) After West Papua declared itself independent in December of 1961, Sukarno ordered raids on West Irian (Dutch New Guinea). There were more assassination attempts when he visited Sulawesi in 1962. West Irian was brought under Indonesian authority in May 1963 under the Bunker Plan. In July of the same year he had himself proclaimed President for Life by the Assembly.

Yeah, nothing says "progressive" like an official policy of discrimination against ethnic minorities, eliminating press freedom, exiling of political opponents, dissolving an elected Assembly and replacing it with your appointed cronies, and having yourself proclaimed President for Life.

Perhaps you wrote "progressive" accidentally instead of "tyrannical"?

 

[gtc]

Hello,

That is a good question about political party broadcasts.

This is a research paper put together by the Australian parliament on the topic. It mentions the situation in Australia, UK, NZ and Canada.

We seem to be discussing three different things.
1) General media coverage. This would include news and opinion pieces. There is no requirement for privately owned media companies to present 'balanced' coverage; they can openly back a particular party. However, in general the two government owned radio and TV networks are expected to be balanced and independent.

2) Political advertising. Anyone can buy political advertising - not just political parties. Most parties can afford some advertising.

3) Political broadcasts. I honestly do not know how these work and can't find the details on line. I do know that some were scheduled on one of the two government networks during the last campaign. I am not sure that I support such broadcasts but I don't think many people watched them. They probably had no effect on the election!

About political parties.

You do not have to be part of a registered political party to participate in a federal election. However, you do have to be part of a registered political party if you want the name of your party to appear beside your name on the ballot. The details are here. To be registered you need 500 members or a federal politician.

The process for registering a party for state or local elections is fairly similar but varies by state. New South Wales needs 750 members and a $2000 application fee.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Hmmm...

Yeah, nothing says "progressive" like an official policy of discrimination against ethnic minorities, eliminating press freedom, exiling of political opponents, dissolving an elected Assembly and replacing it with your appointed cronies, and having yourself proclaimed President for Life.

Perhaps you wrote "progressive" accidentally instead of "tyrannical"?

No problem, fortunately the good US guys took over the bad Communist Sukarno, who eliminated press freedom, and replaced him with a nice and liberal guy..

Between 300,000 and one million Indonesians were killed in the mass-killings following the arrest of PKI members in Suharto's cabinet on October 6, 1965. Both the military and auxiliaries from conservative Muslim, Catholic, Hindu and secular nationalist militias conducted the killings. Though most communists were identified by locals, the CIA is known to have supplied the Indonesian military with a list of 10,000 suspected communists. Ironically, a CIA study of the events in Indonesia assessed that "In terms of the numbers killed the anti-PKI massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century..".[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto#Political_purges

 

[Oliver]

What makes Ron Paul, Ron Paul?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/rongrandkids.jpg
http://revmark.org/forumfiles/paul/pgk.jpg
http://www.seniorsforronpaul.com/Ron and Carol Paul.jpg

 

[Zep]

He hasn't a prayer...