Should Ron Paul run as a third party?

[Axiom_Blade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

George W. Bush - 50,456,002 - 47.87%
Al Gore - 50,999,897 - 48.38%
Ralph Nader - 882,955 - 2.74%

If you can convince me that most Nader voters would have voted for Bush, I'll concede the point. I really, really doubt Nader voters would have voted for Bush.

That's the popular vote, though. Presidents aren't elected simply by popular vote. Nader has always claimed that "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."

If you're looking purely at ideology, there's no way that somebody who would vote for Bush would vote for Nader. But we're not purely ideological voters. Many of us vote for somebody we despise, because we hate the other guy more.

Regardless, that ignores the real problem. When your country makes something as ridiculous as "spoiling" possible, that's a broken democracy. The Democrats don't care that our political system is broken, and third party candidates don't have a chance. Of course not, because it is a system that favors them. So, instead they worked extra-hard in 2004 to get Nader kicked off as many ballots as possible. I think there are still on-going court cases between Nader and the Democratic Party. For that reason, I will never be a Democrat. They tried to take away my right to vote for my candidate.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Was there any TPC throughout history that actually won the American presidential election?

Only one I can think of. Some dude named Abraham Lincoln.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Only one I can think of. Some dude named Abraham Lincoln.

Wasn't third party.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

The gold standard was always nuts. It should never have existed in the first place. Fixing your currency to a commodity leaves you open to extreme boom bust cycles that are not good for establishing stability.

But fiat currency has also had boom and bust as we are now seeing. Maybe there are pros and cons to both fiat and the gold standard, but to say that the gold standard is insane seems to be an extremist view.

Free trade requires someone to be doing the intervention. If you think the Middle East is a mess now wait for the cluster **** it would become when there are no longer American carrier battle groups on constant patrol in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. What do want as the over/under for the death toll when the Arab states try to exterminate the Israelis again?

Or is the plan to scurry away and hope that China rises up and provides the military force to keep the world in line and free trade smooth?

You talk about the death toll in your hypothetical scenario, I will remind you that the Iraq war has already provided a colossal death toll. I would also suggest that attempting to invade/destroy a nuclear armed Israel is suicidal.

 

[Bill Thompson]

From what I have seen, I like Ron Paul. I hope he gets the Republican nominataion.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Wasn't third party.

Lincoln was a Republican, which at that point was a "third party", in opposition to the dominant Whig and Democratic parties.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

I'm pretty sure it's both of them, along with Ron Paul's wife as executive secretary.

Got any evidence that Ron Paul runs his own medical accrediting organisation for the purpose of accrediting himself?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

From what I have seen, I like Ron Paul. I hope he gets the Republican nominataion.

This is what I don't like about him (well, okay, one of the many things):
These are direct quotes from Ron Paul (emphases are mine).

No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.

Also!

There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910)...We continue to suffer from these changes which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.
We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Lincoln was a Republican, which at that point was a "third party", in opposition to the dominant Whig and Democratic parties.

The Whig party ceased to exist in 1856 to 1858.

 

[Bill Thompson]

This is what I don't like about him (well, okay, one of the many things):
These are direct quotes from Ron Paul (emphases are mine).


Also!

I should say I like him more than the others running for the GOP nomination. Anyone can find something to dislike about anyone.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I should say I like him more than the others running for the GOP nomination.

Sure, I might give him that. He's still got a long way to go before he gets my vote, though.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

The Whig party ceased to exist in 1856 to 1858.

And the Republican Party began in 1854. Lincoln (who was a former Whig, by the way) was elected in 1861.
That sounds like a third party to me.

 

[Bill Thompson]

@Axiom_Blade

No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.

OK, so the part about "...endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property" is a little unusual. But the first part is bascially a fact. It is a simple fact that no one has a right to medical care. It is not a right. It is not written in the constitution that people have a right to see a doctor if they are hurt or injured. That is not really a right. Ron Paul is telling the truth.

So, what am I missing? What do you dislike about this?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

And the Republican Party began in 1854. Lincoln (who was a former Whig, by the way) was elected in 1861.
That sounds like a third party to me.

.. But it really isn't since the two main parties in the 1860 election were Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

It is not a right.

Okay, so you think that the rich have more of a right to life than the poor. If you are poor, and can't get medical care because of money issues, you should be sick, and possibly even die. You see the world differently than I do, and there's nothing I can argue here.

It is not written in the constitution that people have a right to see a doctor if they are hurt or injured. That is not really a right. Ron Paul is telling the truth.

Do you think that we get our rights from the Constitution?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

To be fair, it's not a right. It does however follow from the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and should really not be restricted to only the rich (in effect)

 

[Bill Thompson]

Ah, I get it. Ron Paul is smarter than all of us. He is correct.

If medical care was made a "right" by the government, then a doctor could easily abuse that system. He could inforce a patient's survival against the patient's wishes and the wishes of the patient's family and as a result take all of their money or all of the government's money -- which is all of our money. There would be no limit on the cost or what the doctor could charge because the care of the patient is a basic right.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Okay, so you think that the rich have more of a right to life than the poor. If you are poor, and can't get medical care because of money issues, you should be sick, and possibly even die. You see the world differently than I do, and there's nothing I can argue here.



Do you think that we get our rights from the Constitution?

No. We don't get rights to medicine or medical care under the Constitution.

You don't get it. It is not a right. Even the rich don't have a "right" to medical care. That is not the word "right" means in this context.

It is not a rich or poor thing. Life is always going to be unfair and it is not the government's job to make the world DisneyLand.

It is nonsense to say that people have a right to medical care. If an ambulance did not get to a person in time, did the ambulance deny that person his rights? It does not make any sense. Someone is living in a fantasy world, in my opinion, if they consider this a basic human right. To say, "Huricane Katrina denied people their rights" is absurd!

The world is unfair and horrible. Passing absurd laws to make it all equal and ballanced looks great on paper but it will not work and will most likely make things much worse. Communism looks great in theory but you put it into practice and it creates an unlivable reality.

The reality is that modern medicine is a miracle of technolgy, not a "right".

We would all love to live forever, never get sick, never grow old. But the real world is still harsh cruel and unjust. The role of government is not to make everything perfect that cannot be made perfect.

No. We don't get the rights to medicine or medical care under the Constitution.

My father-in-law died of pancriatic cancer much to young. The technology does not exist to detect this kind of cancer until it is too late. Modern science is not yet advance enough to grant him his right to health.

 

[leftysergeant]

It is a simple fact that no one has a right to medical care. It is not a right.

Cow cookies. I keep hearing republicon blathermeisters telling me that we do not get our rights from the constitution, but from God. To a great extent, this is true. I assume that there is a creator, and that the Creator left imbedded in the Creation clues to how we should act and by what sort of natural laws we were bound. This is why the Creator used natural processes to create the Creation, including evolution to shape man. The fossil record shows that part of becoming human is to accept and act wisely upon the responsibility to protect and give aid to the disable and disadvantaged. Just look at the bones of all the early hominids found to date. More than half of them show debilitating injuries or infirmities. Had the fellows of these poor individuals lived up to the responsibility to provide for the suffering individuals among them, they would have been hyena chow. Since nothing can happen without the leave of the Creator, it seems to me that these fossils exist and were revealed to us so that, as we achieve greater maturity as a species, we do not forget that we are bound, each to another, with mutual responsibilities concerning each other's and the collective's well-being.

It is not written in the constitution that people have a right to see a doctor if they are hurt or injured.

This is ony a partial truth. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits our establishing such infrastructure that makes these services available to all. That is not really a right in any legal sense, but it is pretty obvious that it is a good idea to act as though it were. If there truly be a God we are negligent in our obedience to Him not to do so.

Ron Paul is telling the truth.

This is not to say that he is inexcuseably callous in his atitude toward his fellow citizens.

So, what am I missing?

A fully human soul, perhaps.

 

[leftysergeant]

Ah, I get it. Ron Paul is smarter than all of us. He is correct.

Arguing from facts not in evidence.

If medical care was made a "right" by the government, then a doctor could easily abuse that system. He could inforce a patient's survival against the patient's wishes and the wishes of the patient's family and as a result take all of their money or all of the government's money -- which is all of our money.

No.

There would be no limit on the cost or what the doctor could charge because the care of the patient is a basic right.

Horse feathers. The patient has a right to refuse service.