Dr. Ron Paul - The People Choice?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ummm, it was exactly like that it Missouri. Badnarik got 0.32% nationally and 0.36% in Missouri. Source.

And both figures, for those keeping score at home, round to 0%. A simple math concept that Shanek and other(?) Libertarians can't seem to grasp. And far less than the 10% that Oakheart claimed.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

See he did much better in Missouri! He would have done even better if people had been willing to cast their votes along with what they believe in rather than allowing their fears to get them to vote against one candidate or another.

How do you know that people didn't cast their votes based on what they believe in rather than allowing their fears to get them to vote against one candidate or another?

Just because they didn't vote for your nutjob, doesn't mean they allowed their "fears" to sway their vote.

 

[PixyMisa]

He doesn't think that throwing more government money (our money) at a problem with solve the problem.

That's fine.

He would like to prevent the government from just printing more money when they run short. (I don't think the gold standard is the answer but...)

But this isn't. He's not just promoting fiscal prudence, he's promoting a return to the gold standard. That's cargo-cult economics.

He votes against bills that are unconstitutional or contain pork. (Bad reasons according to some posters here)

The problem there is, his copy of the constitution appears to have quite a number of clauses that aren't present in the one most people have read.

He believes that basic government services are essential ie defense, trade, border control sewers, water, roads and such. (despite what some of the posters here would have you believe he doesn't want to do away with public utilities or sewers and the like.)

Well, I disagree with him there.

He believes in American control over our own corporations rather than the current view to let them run the world. (see NAFTA highway which is Gulianni's baby, see WTO, see various other Sovereignty destroying ideas)

And this is where he charges off into conspirazoid territory, and loses whatever support he might have gained on the other points.

Still all in all he has principals (see 9/10s of other candidates) and he has identified and offered solutions to many of the problems facing this country.

Principles are all well and good, but in a head of state I would rather have someone who will act rationally out of their own self interest.

 

[Lemastre]

And if everyone could synthesize gold, why do it?

 

[billydkid]

Why would you say something like that? I mean, you gotta know that when Paul finally bows out or gets his ass whooped in the polls, this thread's gonna be bumped and you are going to feel really stupid.

In other threads I made my position on going out on a limb and being wrong very clear. It is not something that scares me particularly. I might feel really wrong, but I won't feel really stupid. Also, I am confident that Ron Paul will do much better than many people think. Somebody said something about him being the perenial candidate - well, yes, for the House and he has served, what, 4?, 5 terms?

 

[WildCat]

Somebody said something about him being the perenial candidate - well, yes, for the House and he has served, what, 4?, 5 terms?

How long has Kucinich served in the House? All that proves is that there's a lid for every pot.

 

[PixyMisa]

And Ron Paul might be a good congressman. Same goes for Kucinich. But that's because, as part of a huge and slow-moving legislative body, they can't act on their kooky ideas.

There's a huge gulf between being a good congressman and being a good president, and a matching gulf in how people vote, in both primaries and the general election.

 

[Oakheart]

You can't round to zero and I case our good friend who barely weighs in on the actual conversation didn't notice good ole Ron is a Republican not a Libertarian a distinction he doesn't seem to want to admit. How did the republican candidate do in the 2004 elections? humm

 

[Oakheart]

Principles are all well and good, but in a head of state I would rather have someone who will act rationally out of their own self interest.

This might be the most telling statement

 

[Oakheart]

How do you know that people didn't cast their votes based on what they believe in rather than allowing their fears to get them to vote against one candidate or another?

Just because they didn't vote for your nutjob, doesn't mean they allowed their "fears" to sway their vote.

I am glad that you can resort to personal attack of anyone who doesn't share all you views.

I was speaking of people that actually told me about who and why they voted some voted Republican (gun owners) and some voted Dem (personal freedom) but all of them would have voted nutjob if they weren't scared that the other party would win instead.

You see being someone who follows the issues rather than some imaginary party line I tend to be able to maintain friendships with lots different people.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well, who's being unambitious now?

"We'll never break the sound barrier." (In an aircraft) (Bullets already had)

DR

 

[Cleon]

You can't round to zero

Eh? Of course you can.

In an election where 300,000,000 people vote, if the Garden Gnome Liberation Party (Marxist-Leninist) only gets 3 votes, it's statistically the same as if they got zero.

and I case our good friend who barely weighs in on the actual conversation didn't notice good ole Ron is a Republican not a Libertarian a distinction he doesn't seem to want to admit.

You're being disingenuous. Ron Paul is most definitely a member of the Libertarian Party, he ran for President on their ticket in 1988 and was the keynote at their national convention in 2004.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Eh? Of course you can.

In an election where 300,000,000 people vote, if the Garden Gnome Liberation Party (Marxist-Leninist) only gets 3 votes, it's statistically the same as if they got zero.



You're being disingenuous. Ron Paul is most definitely a member of the Libertarian Party, he ran for President on their ticket in 1988 and was the keynote at their national convention in 2004.

It's kind of funny. The rhetoric of the Reagan Republican crowd is an appeal to less government, or at least part of it was. If the Democrats could successfully make the appeal, or sell it, for less intrusive government, I suspect a Ron Paul would look to move there in order to stay in the game.

I don't see a "smaller government" Democratic platform coming over the horizon, but it could evolve in time. When the Democrats successfully posit a populist position, they'll get the trifecta: White House, House, Senate.

They may get that anyway due to GOP foot shooting.

DR

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You can't round to zero...

Sure you can. I just did.

/Libertarian Math quiz:

What is .32 rounded to the nearest integer?

/

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I am glad that you can resort to personal attack of anyone who doesn't share all you views.

If you can show me where I attacked anyone who "doesn't share all you (sic) views", I will pay you $100.

I was speaking of people that actually told me about who and why they voted some voted Republican (gun owners) and some voted Dem (personal freedom) but all of them would have voted nutjob if they weren't scared that the other party would win instead.

I see. Anecdotal evidence. So you talk to a few people and apply their rational to every voter? This is a skeptics board. I really wonder if you should be here.

You see being someone who follows the issues rather than some imaginary party line I tend to be able to maintain friendships with lots different people.

Same here.