• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why did no one back Ron Paul?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Simple example. A corporation dumps toxic waste. That restricts your freedom of movement and use of lands, and if it makes you sick, it further restricts your mobility and choices. Yet if the government tells the corporation that they can't dump the toxic waste or will be subject to fines and penalties, the libertarians screams that the corporation's liberty is being taken away. That is because libertarian ideology is premised on the false assumption that only the state can impair liberty.
I don't know where you got the idea that libertarians oppose laws against pollution, but it's not the case. Libertarians do believe in certain valid roles for government; they are not anarchists.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
yeah- especially this part- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwnZYY-CDXo&feature=player_detailpage#t=768s

looks like republicans have been the same for decades.
Ayn Rand was literally Emma Goldman with a major sociopathic trip from her bad experience with Russia.


Rand lost it and retreated into self delusion and apathy. A dark isolationist nihilism. IMO.

I think Moonie would say her her heart had gone dark or something instead of growing personally.

The more knocks in life Emma took -the more she fought back and grew stronger and learned more of being a anarchist. She never gave up.

An amazing dangerous woman though.

The US Pacific fleet would hide when she visited San Francisco.

The whole US government was scared shitless of one old rabble rousing lady. Gotta love Emma lol
 
Last edited:

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Getting out of the ME is a great idea, my issue with it is that it goes to the point of being isolationist.
Being isolationist in an increasing global world will only hurt America in the long run.


Wouldn't really call Paul an isolationist for not wanting to spend trillions of dollars overseas getting involved in conflicts that are none of our business and causing obscene amounts of death and destruction. Arguably he's far less isolationist than most other public officials out there because he doesn't support economic sanctions (whose sole purpose, remember, is to force countries to give in to US/UN demands by *isolating* them from the rest of the world) against Iran, North Korea, Iraq before we invaded them, etc. He realizes that diplomacy and free trade benefits the people of these countries (and us as well, trade is mutually beneficial), whereas sanctions just make them poorer, hungrier, and even more resentful of the US. Economic sanctions in Iraq, for example, were estimated to have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Stuff like that just pisses Muslims off and doesn't exactly make them want to be friends with the US, Britain, etc. They do more harm than good IMO.

Also supports getting rid of the isolationist embargo against Cuba, which is LONG overdue.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
Libertarians do believe in certain valid roles for government; they are not anarchists.
This is a slur from the 20th century.

Anarchism does not mean no government, it means no power structures over worker self organization in a freely associative society.

Anarchist were literally deported and written out of history by fascism/capitalist/stalinist-leninist societies since the 1920s.

They actually are real people. Have had countries, fought wars, even have a flag.

Most people dont even know this. US society has been very thorough in erasing the word even to mean "barbarian".

Even the term "libertarian" was co-opted by followers of Ayn Rand and John Birchers around the 1950s which muddles things even more historically in this country.

I know this is splitting hairs in 2012, just sayin.
 
Last edited:

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Do you really think Saddam would have stopped at Kuwait if the US and other nations hadn't intervened?
Are you for real? Kuwait was the only country his horrible military could conquer, he pissed off the Iranians (who were his enemy btw), Kuwait (obviously), Saudi Arabia, and even Osama Bin Laden. OBL went to the Saudis willing to fight a jihad and die for Kuwait but was told to kick rocks.

Do you even know what Blowback is? I mean really do you honest to god believe that America can shove its dick into the Middle East without question and not piss off people?
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
I don't know where you got the idea that libertarians oppose laws against pollution, but it's not the case. Libertarians do believe in certain valid roles for government; they are not anarchists.
Ron Paul supports elimination the only constitution protection we have against state run religions, school prayer, a women's right to choose, segregation, jury trials, and so much more. Ron Paul doesn't give a damn about the people right.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Basically because he's a simpleton who tries to apply silly, childish solutions to a complex world. It makes for great speeches but terrible policy, so he is mostly ignored.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
0
0
Steeplerot, I'm not asking for an organized violent revolution. I'm not even suggesting one be undertook by those that feel wronged. I'm simply stating the option is there and it is always there. Not to mention why does one need to be organized or have a group behind him in order to have his own revolution? I believe I'm my own revolution unto myself and if I felt required to act I would do so without organizing others to my cause. If my death is the result, oh well at least I lived true to myself.
Thats about as real as it gets in a good mans shoes.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
This is just a bunch of nonsense.

Ron Paul would have allowed for:

The return of school prayer
The overturning of Roe V Wade
The return of segregation
The elimination of jury trials

In Ron Pauls mind if states wanted to do these things they should have a right to, he pushed for the eliminations of the people protection of these things.
Have you read Freedom Under Siege?

(http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Under-.../dp/B000XG4ZGQ)

Specifically Trial by Jury? He quotes Lysander Spooner's "Essay on the Trial by Jury" which specifically goes into detail about what the founders original intent was and he himself brings very solid arguments on why the jury system is totally broken. (pg. 23 btw)

Most of the other tidbits are just a state rights issue and "The Return to Segregation" won't happen, this is not the 1960's. The whites in the South are not going to start shooting them black folks and banishing them from their business unless they want to go out of business or have an insane amount of negative media attention.


Ron Paul supports elimination the only constitution protection we have against state run religions, school prayer, a women's right to choose, segregation, jury trials, and so much more. Ron Paul doesn't give a damn about the people right.
So should States just basically be big ass counties with a Democracy instead of a Republic?

EDIT: We are basically already there but who really cares.
 
Last edited:

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
100
106
RP's greatest strength is that he seems Honest and Genuine. His greatest weakness is what he is Honest and Genuine about.
Very well put. Ron Paul is very sincere about his beliefs, which certainly set him apart from the rest of the Republican primary field. Problem is he is fvcking nuts, and so are his followers. I have yet to meet a rabid Ron Paul supporter who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together. I think Ron Paul excels at making intellectually inferior people feel like they have a grasp of complex policy issues. People getting behind the gold standard who have no damn clue about modern economics and fiat currency systems is a perfect example.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,652
3,134
126
If elections were won by campaigns and debates this man would have won in a landslide. His campaigns were pure gold. His agenda was to keep the government out of individual lives, end affirmative action (thank god), and voted against the Patriot act! Just to name a few.

Now, yes he wanted to cut departments like Education, Social Security, the CIA, etc. But when you read deeper. He doesn't want to eliminate those services, but the cabinets and departments that govern them because they are out of control.

Just looking for everyone's 2 cents. Please don't flame me, I'm merely trying to educate myself on why America wouldn't side with this guy.

Why no love for Paul?
Ron who????
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
Ron Paul is a true believer, an incorruptable man. That is not what big business wants in the white house. Thus, Mitt Romney.
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
2
0
i dont think ron paul is part of the illuminati bloodline either... so as far as him getting elected president it wont happen
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Very well put. Ron Paul is very sincere about his beliefs, which certainly set him apart from the rest of the Republican primary field. Problem is he is fvcking nuts, and so are his followers. I have yet to meet a rabid Ron Paul supporter who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together. I think Ron Paul excels at making intellectually inferior people feel like they have a grasp of complex policy issues. People getting behind the gold standard who have no damn clue about modern economics and fiat currency systems is a perfect example.
You know Paul has stated gold would be nigh impossible to go back to right? He advocates hard currencies gold or not gold.

Complex policy matters has worked out extremely well honestly, if we double down maybe we can hit 25 trillion instead of the measly 20 trillion by 2020. Maybe we can be involved in Iran, Syria, and more and more countries ignoring our own countries serious issues.

It's pretty simple really, when his supporters say Obama and Romney are the same they are obviously pointing out the most serious issues facing our nation of which neither of them will change.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
I love how the Paulbots always blame a main street media blackout conspiracy for the reason Ron Paul did so poorly. He drew huge crowds in his public appearances and appeared in every episode of the reality show that was the GOP debates. I'm sure he has high name recognition with the general public. The fact is that some of his ideas are appealing in a superficial manner but anyone with a lick of common sense knows his ideas are either unworkable or would result in total disaster. And that doesn't even touch on the not-small portion of the electorate that view his efforts to move power from the feds to states as non-libertarian at its root, and an apparent cover to reinstitute jim corw laws and the like.

Not a surprise to me that Ron Paul is roundly ignored by the general public. He's the crazy uncle of politicians.
It comes down to the fact Mr Paul's agenda is not popular. If he had done better in the 2011-2012 primaries the media would have been running over their mothers to put him in the headlines. The fact is with a GOP base that is dominated by the Tea Party, Religious Right, Guns over alles, the Southern Strategy, anti-abortionist, and the federal government is evil factions he did not win a single primary.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Wrong, its not the place for liberal big government idiotic policies
Then you don't have anything to worry about. The Democrats are middle/right and the republicans are fringe right. One socialist int he Senate has no power. Dodged a bullet there!
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
yeah i dont think people hear everything he says. they just hear "weed will be legal" and they love him.
What about all of the talking points the other candidates in the primary stole from him? Guess they were too crazy coming from his mouth but not from theirs?

Get real. Some of you people simply don't want to hear the truth.

Ron Paul was the only candidate w\ his own agenda and own talking points. The rest were simply recycling the same old say anything the dopes ( like yourselves ) want to hear.

I don't see anybody else talking about real things like the federal reserve clearly blowing up the dollar.

Quantatative easing 3... you mean... they're going to just print out endless amounts of money? YEP... where does Romney stand on this? OH, he likely has no stance on it because he doesn't fucking care if the dollar turns into the peso.

Ron Paul cares though.> But caring about things like the dollar being hyper inflated is FUCKING NUTS, right? We better stick to talking about hypothetical cases of abortion and other shit that doesn't effect the country as a whole.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
This message is hidden because Londo_Jowo is on your ignore list.
Sorry bub... Got tired of you thinking you have to get a word in regardless of what is posted. Got tired of you being yet another fool that simply looks at facts posted and changes the subject or says b..b...b...but that's not illegal! as opposed to simply admitting to agreeing.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
It comes down to the fact Mr Paul's agenda is not popular. If he had done better in the 2011-2012 primaries the media would have been running over their mothers to put him in the headlines. The fact is with a GOP base that is dominated by the Tea Party, Religious Right, Guns over alles, the Southern Strategy, anti-abortionist, and the federal government is evil factions he did not win a single primary.
Yep, and that is why the MSM pretty much downplayed and criticized Paul to all hell after his remarkable finish in Iowa and New Hampshire .....

They outright said that if Paul won Iowa the entire system is broken, so please spare us that line of bullshit thinking.

He drew 10x the amount of people that Romney ever did and not a damn was given in the media, zero coverage was televised or written.
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
2
0
What about all of the talking points the other candidates in the primary stole from him? Guess they were too crazy coming from his mouth but not from theirs?

Get real. Some of you people simply don't want to hear the truth.

Ron Paul was the only candidate w\ his own agenda and own talking points. The rest were simply recycling the same old say anything the dopes ( like yourselves ) want to hear.

I don't see anybody else talking about real things like the federal reserve clearly blowing up the dollar.

Quantatative easing 3... you mean... they're going to just print out endless amounts of money? YEP... where does Romney stand on this? OH, he likely has no stance on it because he doesn't fucking care if the dollar turns into the peso.

Ron Paul cares though.> But caring about things like the dollar being hyper inflated is FUCKING NUTS, right? We better stick to talking about hypothetical cases of abortion and other shit that doesn't effect the country as a whole.

ron paul has had his ideas for decades. every election he does a great job and gets totally snuffed by the political machine. if you honestly think these elections arent completely rigged then you need to open your eyes. whatever hidden group of people is in charge of selecting our presidential candidates simply does not want ron paul elected, so he will never even get the chance.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY