Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Comparing Ron Paul to the "Serious" Candidates (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/127367-comparing-ron-paul-serious-candidates.html)

sprocket 12-17-2007 05:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux

So he got 25,000 donors today and 25,000+ in the first money bomb. Do you really believe 50,000+ votes nationally is significant....assuming all donors can vote in Republican primaries.
No, but it certainly says something, when he has more individual contributers, than any other candidate. But I'm sure its just because every single one of his few, but fanatical supporters donated:rolleyes:

Quote:
Why would "mainstream" (Bush types) pro-war, pro-wiretapping/eavesdropping Republicans vote for him? Why would Independents whose beliefs are opposite his on many other issues vote for him?
I don't think there as many of these as you think. Looked at Bush's and Congresses approval ratings lately? If it looks like republicans overwhelmingly support Bush, its because they drove many out of the party all together. The party as a whole, shrank, and it is mostly the fringe remained. For the record, I am one of those independents. I will be registering republican to vote for RP in the primaries, here in NC.

Quote:
His problem is that he has not demonstrated any capacity to attract either group (Bush republicans or more centrist independents) in significant numbers. The added publicity is likely to make that even more evident.
I don't think his ability to attract "mainstream" voters has been put to the test yet. No one has heard of him (outside of internet news junkie land), largely due to lack of media exposure. Now he's got the budget to blow some money and we'll get to see what effect that has.

I keep thinking of the old time story... Tortoise and the Hare.

PS. Actually, he should have 25,001 new contributers... I missed the money bomb by 10 minutes :). First time ever in my life, donating to a political campaign.

dc_dux 12-17-2007 05:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprocket
No, but it certainly says something, when he has more contributions from individual contributers, than any other candidate. But I'm sure its just because every single one of his few, but fanatical supporters donated:rolleyes:

I don't think there as many of these as you think. Looked at Bush's and Congresses approval ratings lately? If it looks like republicans overwhelmingly support Bush, its because they drove many out of the party all together. The party as a whole, shrank, and it is mostly the fringe remained. For the record, I am one of those independents. I will be registering republican to vote for RP in the primaries, here in NC.

I don't think his ability to attract "mainstream" voters has been put to the test yet. No one has heard of him (outside of internet news junkie land), largely due to lack of media exposure (aside from the internet). Now he's got the budget to blow some money and we'll get to see what effect that has.

I keep thinking of the old time story... Tortoise and the Hare.
Actually, Barack Obama has the most contributions from individual contributors.

I agree that BUsh drove many out of the republican party, not through his war record, but rather through his spending record.

The fact remains that Paul needs Republican voters to win the Republican primaries and the majority of Republicans who have not abandoned the party and/or Bush are pro "stay the course" and pro Patriot Act (national security/terrorism) as their most important issue. These will not be Ron Paul voters.

Now that he has money, he needs to attract Independents. You believe he can with his positions, I dont agree, as I stated earlier...while majority of Independents agree with his Iraq war/no Patriot Act positions, they disagree with Paul on other issues that are important to them (abortion rights, social services, government regulatory role, etc)

The tortuise better hurry up....time is running out. The primaries start in less then three weeks and will effectively be over by mid-Feb (after Cali, NY, FL).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgelito
Maybe, maybe not. host could be onto something that all the candidates are on the fringe. Huckabee was sitting at 3% I think for quite some time before spiking recently. It's quite possible that Ron Paul could as well.

I don't think you can paint all Ron Paul supporters with the same brush as obsessed money-raisers.

Howard Dean and his Deaniacs had this problem too.

Awesome chart DC, please keep them coming. Do you have a larger one or maybe a link? My eyes aren't that great; the detail is a bit fuzzy.
Jorgelito, the chart is from Pollster.com and represent aggregates of the major national polls (click the table to enlarge). You can also find polls for the state primaries.

I think the Huckabee surge can be directly attributed to the tanking of Fred Thompson. Thompson was presumed to be the social conservative candidate, but his campaign has been lazy and ineffective... Follow the blue and green lines..as Thomspson dropped, Huckabee went up..as the new hope of social conservatives :)


And, I think the Paul "army" is similar to the Deaniacs in another way that spells doom for the campaign...and that is relying on an army of young "outsiders" to spread the gospel of their candidate.

Put yourself in the place of a middle age undecided religious conservate couple in Iowa (the steretypical profile). Who is likely to influence your vote more...a neighbor who attends your church, shares your values and is trying to convince you that Huckabee is the best candidate or a young stranger from Chicago (or Kansas City or even Des Moines) who was bused in to promote the Paul candidacy?

The same applies in NH. Paul campaign is busing in hundreds of volunteers, but do you think NH voters want to be told how to vote by young guns from NYC or Boston?

And whats with the blimp? A nice gimmick, but IMO, not a very effective campaign tool.

Campaigns are won and lost on personal connections, either directly between candidate and voter or through surrogates with whom voters can relate...not money bombs, buses of young outsiders or blimps.

samcol 12-17-2007 06:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Actually, Barack Obama has the most contributions from individual contributors.

I agree that BUsh drove many out of the republican party, not through his war record, but rather through his spending record.

The fact remains that Paul needs Republican voters to win the Republican primaries and the majority of Republicans who have not abandoned the party and/or Bush are pro "stay the course" and pro Patriot Act (national security/terrorism) as their most important issue. These will not be Ron Paul voters.

Now that he has money, he needs to attract Independents. You believe he can with his positions, I dont agree, as I stated earlier...while majority of Independents agree with his Iraq war/no Patriot Act positions, they disagree with Paul on other issues that are important to them (abortion rights, social services, government regulatory role, etc)

The tortuise better hurry up....time is running out. The primaries start in less then three weeks and will effectively be over by mid-Feb (after Cali, NY, FL).


Jorgelito, the chart is from Pollster.com and represent aggregates of the major national polls (click the table to enlarge). You can also find polls for the state primaries.

I think the Huckabee surge can be directly attributed to the tanking of Fred Thompson. Thompson was presumed to be the social conservative candidate, but his campaign has been lazy and ineffective... Follow the blue and green lines..as Thomspson dropped, Huckabee went up..as the new hope of social conservatives :)


And, I think the Paul "army" is similar to the Deaniacs in another way that spells doom for the campaign...and that is relying on an army of young "outsiders" to spread the gospel of their candidate.

Put yourself in the place of a middle age undecided religious conservate couple in Iowa (the steretypical profile). Who is likely to influence your vote more...a neighbor who attends your church, shares your values and is trying to convince you that Huckabee is the best candidate or a young stranger from Chicago (or Kansas City or even Des Moines) who was bused in to promote the Paul candidacy?

The same applies in NH. Paul campaign is busing in hundreds of volunteers, but do you think NH voters want to be told how to vote by young guns from NYC or Boston?

And whats with the blimp? A nice gimmick, but IMO, not a very effective campaign tool.

Campaigns are won and lost on personal connections, either directly between candidate and voter or through surrogates with whom voters can relate...not money bombs, buses of young outsiders or blimps.
I don't understand what you're wanting us to do. Do you think we should just stop going to meetup groups stop taking polls, stop raising money? I'm sure that's what you would like.

Should we just wait around for the media to give us a fair shake or continue emailing and calling media outlets like crazy? We don't get free reign at the media like other candidates. McCain just got endorsed by Lieberman, is that really a bigger story than raising 6.3 million in one day? You wouldn think so from the headlines and pundits.

This campaign has taken a huge internet following and converted it into a real presence in the streets with signs and rallys, not to mention huge amounts of money raised.

Oh, and the blimp it's not even a campaign tool. It has nothing to do with the campaign. It was a total grassroots effort raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a huge Ron Paul ad in the air.

dc_dux 12-17-2007 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
I don't understand what you're wanting us to do. Do you think we should just stop going to meetup groups stop taking polls, stop raising money? I'm sure that's what you would like.
Hey....this has nothing to do with what "I want you to do".

The question in the OP was about "serious" or "mainstream" candidates and whether Ron Paul fits that description. I have simply been offering my opinion on the topic and correcting what I believe are misrepresentations about polls v SLOP surveys or misrepresentations of poilitical positions as I see them. I would do the same on a thread about other specific candidates.

I hope you continue in your quest because I want to see more people engaged in the political process :thumbsup:

I also hope you do so with an open mind when Paul does not win. Dont cop out and blame it all on media bias, sabotage by the republican party establishment, etc.

IMO and from my understanding of the current attitudes/positions of the American electorate, he is likely to stay in the single digits (percentage) when the votes are cast because he is not "mainstream" and most Americans dont share his views.

It seems to me that you guys dont want to discuss the issues I raised in post #94.
- the majority are pro-choice, Paul is not
- the majority support a social safety net role for the federal government (Soc Security/Medicare), Paul does not
- the majority support federal R&D in alternative energy, medicine, science and technology, etc.....Paul does not
- the majority support a federal role in regulating the environment, consumer products, food/drugs, etc.....Paul does not
- many benefit from federal programs that Paul wants to eliminate.
- many probably dont know or care much about the Federal Reserve and Paul's obsession to abolish it
What makes you think I am mischaracterzing these postions/issues?

Public attitudes may change in time, but there is no evidence that it has or will for the 2008 election.

sprocket 12-17-2007 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
It seems to me that you guys dont want to discuss the issues I raised in post #94.
- the majority are pro-choice, Paul is not


Its very dismaying that people actually still vote for presidential candidates based on their stance over abortion. The president simply doesnt have any power to do a damn thing about it, except to attempt to stack the courts, and hope they get an opportunity to overturn roe v wade. Then theres still a chance they wont actually will overturn it, given the opportunity. That being said, if his message on states rights on the issue can be properly explained and sold, I think its a compromise many would be willing to make. While it abortion is a show stopper issue for many voters on either side of the isle, its just not that important to a hell of a lot of people, myself included.

Quote:
- the majority support a social safety net role for the federal government (Soc Security/Medicare), Paul does not
- the majority support federal R&D in alternative energy, medicine, science and technology, etc.....Paul does not
- the majority support a federal role in regulating the environment, consumer products, food/drugs, etc.....Paul does not
- many benefit from federal programs that Paul wants to eliminate.
- many probably dont know or care much about the Federal Reserve and Paul's obsession to abolish it
Again, Paul has never advocated stripping people of entitlements and benefits they currently receive. He doesnt want to take medicare from seniors. Thats where his stance always seems to get mischaracterized the most. I admit, its easy to demonize him on these points, because fear of losing entitlements can bring out the vote like nothing else. Its going to be a hard sell, even though he doesnt want to strip entitlements from anyone.

He's also always expressed a willingness to work and even compromise with congress. Yes, he is in favor of removing the fed all together, but from what I gather, would settle for more oversight, if congress wasnt willing to go all the way and remove it.

Quote:
What makes you think I am mischaracterzing these postions/issues?

Public attitudes may change in time, but there is no evidence that it has or will for the 2008 election.
Because you keep postulating these black and white, all or nothing scenarios about his policies.

dc_dux 12-17-2007 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprocket
Because you keep postulating these black and white, all or nothing scenarios about his policies.
Because his record and his votes in Congress has always been black and white.

He never demonstrated a willngness to compromise in Congress and I have heard no such talk of compromise in any of his appearances I have seen on tv or youtube.

I dont think I mischaracterized anything.

Its absolutely a FACT that he want to end Medicare and Social Security, not for current recipients, but for future recipients like you and me. Where is the support for that among the general electorate?

Its absolutely a FACT that he wants to end federal regulatory role and replace it with states rights or industry self-regulation. Where is the support for that among the general electorate?

Its absolutely a FACT that he wants the federal government out of all R&D and left to the free market. Where is the support for that among the general electorate?

jorgelito 12-17-2007 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
jorgelito, since you asked.... I thought the following opinions of David Sirota explained what might be happening with Huckabee's increasing popularity, and I already knew his take on Edwards.

Edwards is flawed in that his reputation is maligned because of his background as an "ambulance chasing" "trial lawyer", a vain, out of touch consumer of $400 haircuts, and a hypocrite because of his newly constructed $6 million, 28,000 square feet home and out buildings. The people who are put off by those things weren't planning to vote for him, anyway. In addition to his populist concerns, Edwards is against the war, apologized for voting for the Oct., 2002 authorization that gave Bush the authority to do what he thought was best, militarily, in Iraq, and he described the "War on terror" as a "bumper sticker" slogan. Edwards is not against women's right to choose, he isn't influenced by christian evangelicals, and he grew up in a southern middle middle class home. He's lost a teenage son to sudden accidental death.

No other candidate in either party brings all of that and also even has the slightest chance of winning their party's nomination. Huckabee is too tied to evangelical beliefs and politics and has political views that come with those ties. He has the problem of the convict he helped free from jail who subsequently killed again, and he inaccurately dodged responsibility for his role in that controversy. He would, unlike Ron Paul, continue to waste US soldiers and assets on the Bush war on terror, as would Hillary Clinton.

If Huckabee's populism could be combined with Ron Paul's military and foreign policy ideas, republicans would have a stronger candidate. If one can only vote for a republican, I guess Huckabee would be the choice because he has a chance to win the nomination, and Ron Paul would be the principled choice, if one can accept his criminalization of abortion and dis mantling of government regulatory oversight and enforcement, and his tax and "free market" capitalism that gives advantage to those already most advantaged.
Host, thanks for your reply and responding to my questions. I enjoyed your analysis and look forward to future ones. I do not have anything to add at the moment as I am thinking and processing but I appreciated your post.

DC et al, we will find out soon enough in the next few months.

samcol 12-18-2007 05:19 PM
Just listened to the Glen Beck interview of Ron Paul and I was pleasently suprised. It was a much fairer interview than I was expecting. This is the kind of media coverage that the Ron Paul movement has earned/deserved and has not gotten.

Beck did ask a few loaded questions like implying Ron Paul is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and that his followers threaten Beck, but Ron was allowed enough time to respond. (Granted there are probably extremists who have threatend Beck, but I'm sure that comes with the territory and is not uncommon to mainstream political pundits and politicians. Even Paul admitted he has received such threats and insinuations.)

sprocket 12-18-2007 09:03 PM
Here are the glenn beck clips if anyone is interested.

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8:

telekinetic 12-19-2007 11:10 AM
From the end of clip #5 and beginning of #6, just transcribed by me, a great commentary on his views about pulling out of iraq quickly and completely:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Paul
You have to put it in perspective, you're talking about several hundred people, maybe now thousands, since we've been over there, Al Qaeda's been recruiting, but they don't have an Army....we stood down the Soviets, they had 40,000 nuclear weapons, we had Khruschev pounding on the desk saying "We will bury you!"-he was capable of doing it! The Al Qaeda does not have an army, they don't have a Navy, they don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles, they don't have weapons of mass destruction, they don't have a country--they're very very weak people in that sense. But they have determination, and the determination comes from being provoked, and they have to have some reason to galvenize enough hatred to come here and do what they have done, so no, if I bring the troops home over night, it's not going to eliminate what has been going on for quite a few decades, but I'll tell you what--it's going to be a lot better, and if we think they just come here because we are free and prosperous, we will never solve this problem....

Willravel 12-19-2007 11:17 AM
While I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, I was glad to see that this interview was very complete and respectful. While nothing new was discussed, at least he wasn't marginalized.

When can Kucinich have such an interview?

dc_dux 12-20-2007 05:19 AM
The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll provides some interesting demographic breakdowns - gender, region, age, income....:
Quote:
Two weeks before the Iowa caucus, the race for president, while tightening among Democrats, is wide open on the Republican side, highlighting the unusual fluidity of the first campaign for the White House in over a half-century that doesn't include an incumbent president or vice president.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1198..._us_whats_news
See the interactive demographic charts.

host 12-21-2007 11:27 AM
I documented Huckabee's "shortcomings" in a post on the "afraid of the candidates thread". Rudy's exposure as a corrupt "two-timin'" whack job has sent his polling numbers into freefall. Now, Romney comes apart as drunk on his own pandering, rhetoric. Iowa is Jan. 3, and New Hampshire's primary is on Jan. 8. Paul is now clearly the least "fringe" republican offering, but he seems unelectable. Is this a crisis for the home team, in 2008?
Quote:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...on_king_march/
By Michael Levenson
Globe Staff / December 21, 2007

Mitt Romney acknowledged yesterday that he never saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. as he asserted in a nationally televised speech this month, and historical evidence shows that Michigan's Governor George Romney and the civil rights leader never did march together.

Romney said his father had told him he had marched with King and that he had been using the word "saw" in a "figurative sense."

"If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I've described," Romney told reporters in Iowa. "It's a figure of speech and very familiar, and it's very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort."

But historical evidence, including news accounts at the time, shows that George Romney never marched with King, though he supported King's agenda.

Susan Englander, assistant edi tor of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, who is editing the King papers from that era, told the Globe yesterday: "I researched this question, and indeed it is untrue that George Romney marched with Martin Luther King."

She said that when he was governor of Michigan, George Romney issued a proclamation in June 1963 in support of King's march in Detroit, but declined to attend, saying he did not participate in political events on Sundays. A New York Times story from the time confirms Englander's account.

A few days after that march, George Romney joined a civil rights march through the Detroit suburb of Grosse Pointe, but King did not attend, Englander said. A report in the New York Times confirms Englander's account of that second march, mentioning George Romney's attendance but making no mention of King.

Romney has repeated the story of his father marching with King in some of his most prominent presidential campaign appearances, including the "Tonight" show with Jay Leno in May, his address on faith and politics Dec. 6 in Texas, and on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday, when he was questioned about the Mormon Church's ban on full participation by black members. He said that he had cried in his car in 1978 when he heard the ban had ended, and added, "My father marched with Martin Luther King."

Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: <h3>"My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."

Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. "Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King," </h3>he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe....
Quote:
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste...I drove a tank, held a General's rank....pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name!......"<br>- Rolling Stones

Halx 12-23-2007 10:01 PM
Watched his interview on Meet The Press. Was impressed with his views, but he doesn't seem electable. By that I mean he is going to get short-changed by his very blunt take on things. He doesn't dress it up, and people don't appreciate nudity.

dc_dux 12-23-2007 10:07 PM
It was a good interview as far as it went...but I would like to have seen Russert ask Paul to explain his position supporting industry as self-regulators as opposed to federal government regulation...or why he is opposed to any federal R&D in the areas of medicine, science and technology

The telling point for me was that he couldnt explain how ANY goverment services would be provided outside of defense and entitlements (social security, medicare for current seniors) once he eliminates the IRS and the income tax, particularly because he doesnt want to replace it with a flat tax or any type consumption or sales tax.

IMO, that explains why he is not electable.

The video is here:

host 12-24-2007 06:39 PM
The choice is clear....or is it???

Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122302071.html
By Peter Wehner
Monday, December 24, 2007; Page A15

Some of us -- in my case, a political conservative and evangelical Christian -- are getting a queasy feeling when it comes to the presidential campaign of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and much of it has to do with his use of faith in this political campaign.

Many who don't know Huckabee were initially impressed with him, me included. He comes across as authentic and likable, humorous and self-deprecating. He is an excellent debater and a first-rate speaker. But if you look closely, a disturbing pattern emerges.

In Iowa, Huckabee advertised himself as a "Christian leader." A few months ago, when speaking to a large gathering of social conservatives in Washington, he told them, "I think it's important that the language of Zion is a mother tongue and not a recently acquired second language." When asked to explain his surge in the polls, he answered, "There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."...

.....This is a man who, in 1998, when explaining to a Baptist pastors conference why he got involved in politics, answered, "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. . . . I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

Now isn't that odd -- a former pastor who leaves his ministry so he can get involved in politics because he "knew government didn't have the real answers.",,,,
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/page/4/
‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 23, 2007
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), John Harwood and Chuck Todd

......MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...

REP. PAUL: So it's...

MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.....
Did Ron Paul have any of the history of the start of the American Civil War close to what actually happened? Can you tell Huckabee apart from the Iranian president? Iowa is on Jan. 3, and New Hampshire's primary is on Jan. 8. Is Paul more squared away than Huckabee?

loquitur 12-28-2007 10:03 AM
Here's another Ron Paul beaut: <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php">his views on evolution</A>. Believe it or not, this man is a medical doctor.

sprocket 12-30-2007 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Here's another Ron Paul beaut: <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php">his views on evolution</A>. Believe it or not, this man is a medical doctor.
Wow, thats pretty shocking, to be honest.

As a doctor, who should be obviously well versed in science, he should understand what a "theory" is... that video makes it look like he doesnt have the faintest clue.

joshbaumgartner 01-02-2008 12:56 PM
Ron Paul on media consolidation
 
Another Ron Paul note...

I was in the car today and caught some of his interview with Ed Schultz. Ed asked him about Fox keeping Paul out of the debate, and Ron stated that there was a 99% chance that it was because Fox was unwilling to air his views, in particular, those on the war.

After essentially painting Fox as a pro-war shill, Ed followed up by questioning his view on media consolidation. Republicans have been rather mum on this one, so I was interested to hear his response, and a bit blown away.

Ron Paul stated that he was unhappy with media consolidation and the like. He blamed it however, on the fact that the public owns the airwaves leading to government interference. His solution was to privatize the airwaves themselves, allowing companies to buy up the frequencies themselves!

Ed followed up by pointing out that there was no way anyone but the rich could own them, and Ron Paul dismissed this by saying that didn't matter since they could just use the internet instead.

Wow.

Ustwo 01-02-2008 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Here's another Ron Paul beaut: <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php">his views on evolution</A>. Believe it or not, this man is a medical doctor.
I like Ron Paul in a sort of observer sort of way.

He contains so many good ideas along with some of the lefts and rights wacky ideas.

I get the feeling he trying to be a character more than a candidate.

Willravel 01-02-2008 01:46 PM
Evolution isn't in the Constitution, so RP doesn't believe in it.

skier 01-02-2008 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprocket
Wow, thats pretty shocking, to be honest.

As a doctor, who should be obviously well versed in science, he should understand what a "theory" is... that video makes it look like he doesnt have the faintest clue.
Another of his views i'm surprised to hear about from him, considering he's a doctor, is that he believes the health care industry should be all privatized. Profit-motivated health care is hard to see as anything but disastrous. There would have to be tremendous social responsibility on the part of the corporations and they just don't have a good track record for that.

I had thought that Dr. Paul's views would be more like Kucinich's, and was a little surprised that his views as a libertarian superseded his views as a doctor.

Ustwo 01-02-2008 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier
I had thought that Dr. Paul's views would be more like Kucinich's, and was a little surprised that his views as a libertarian superseded his views as a doctor.
You would think a Libertarian would have a communistic view on health care because he was a doctor?

Why is that?

skier 01-03-2008 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You would think a Libertarian would have a communistic view on health care because he was a doctor?

Why is that?
I would think a doctor would have a communistic view on health care despite being a libertarian.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Dr. Paul is pretty absolute on his other views- they stay in line with his understanding of the constitution and his libertarian beliefs.

I understand that there are people who disagree with my position on health care but so far the doctors i've talked to have made clear two points on the public vs. private argument:

1. Public health care benefits everyone.
2. Private health care benefits me. (as a doctor)

It also came across as a basic sort of understanding about how the two systems functioned, and was presented as fact/foundation for further debate on the finer details.

Just from my experience I had thought Paul would have softer views on private health care because he was a doctor, but it looks like he's a libertarian first.

Ustwo 01-03-2008 06:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier
I would think a doctor would have a communistic view on health care despite being a libertarian.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Dr. Paul is pretty absolute on his other views- they stay in line with his understanding of the constitution and his libertarian beliefs.

I understand that there are people who disagree with my position on health care but so far the doctors i've talked to have made clear two points on the public vs. private argument:

1. Public health care benefits everyone.
2. Private health care benefits me. (as a doctor)

It also came across as a basic sort of understanding about how the two systems functioned, and was presented as fact/foundation for further debate on the finer details.

Just from my experience I had thought Paul would have softer views on private health care because he was a doctor, but it looks like he's a libertarian first.
You don't know many doctors. Its not about just me as a doctor, its about working conditions, its about quality of care, its about not being part of a bureaucracy.

Socialized medicine has a lot more baggage than just who pays, and while many doctors would love to see the lower middle class (mind you not the poor they are covered) get some insurance help, thats a far cry from the government taking over 1/5th of the economy and becoming a civil servant.

skier 01-03-2008 01:28 PM
I know plenty of doctors. It may be that it's a Canadian perspective.

I respect that you believe that a profit motivated health care system would be good for the states, but I really doubt you'll be able to convince me of it's worth. While it is hard to pinpoint even rough estimates of a country's average payout for health care, i've yet to see a single professional estimate that shows the average American citizen is paying less for health care than citizens in other countries are paying.

I'm just saying that from the doctors I know and my father knows, that I expected a softer position on health care than 100% private from Dr. Paul.

samcol 01-16-2008 09:10 PM
I find it interesting that Ron Paul has gotten more votes than a couple supposed front runners (ghouliani and thompson). Why is he still being shutout and slandered by the media?

Total votes cast IA, NH, MI - 1,219,208

Romney- 443,139- 36.35%
McCain- 361,546- 29.65%
Huckabee- 207,308- 17%
Paul- 84,554- 6.94%
Thompson- 50,925- 4.18%
Giuliani- 49,198- 4.04%
Uncommitted- 17,971- 1.47%
Hunter- 4567- 0.37%

Considering he still has plenty of money to follow through strong for Super Tuesday, while the Giuliani campaign is working for free this month, how can he not be considered a 'serious candidate'?

dc_dux 01-17-2008 03:57 PM
Ron Paul will be considered "serious" if he can come to the Republican National Convention with a meaningful number of delegates in his pocket....and the delegate race is close between two of the top contenders.

He currently has two and the Republican party still has "winner take all" states (the Democrats do not).

Guiliani's strategy was to bypass the first few states, hope that different candidates win in those states (exactly what transpired), and focus his attention and resources on winning Florida and all of its 57 delegates to jump start his campaign going into Super Tuesday. We'll see if that was a good strategy or not.

Either way, if Pau's trend of getting 10% or less of the vote continues, he wont be going to the convention with many delegates and his presence will have no impact....much to the chagrin of his supporters.

jorgelito 01-17-2008 04:26 PM
That's interesting. I did not know about the whole delegates thing and that the Republicans have a "winner take all" rule. Hmmm...maybe Ron Paul should have run as a Democrat then. If you look at delegates, then Ron Paul has been utterly ineffectual. But in terms of percentage or campaigning, I feel he has done a good job.

samcol 01-24-2008 01:05 PM
It appears Ron Paul has gotten second in both Nevada and Louisiana recently. I think Nevada was winner take all but he did get delegates in LA if I'm not mistaken.

This is encouraging considering he was able to raise another 2 million on MLK day and still has millions more in the bank, while huck and rudy's campaigns are working for free.

Plus Hunter and Thompson are out.

I expect another great debate performance from the doctor tonight.

dc_dux 01-24-2008 02:59 PM
You forgot to mention the 5th place showing in SC with 4%.

The only remaining question is if Paul can demonstrate a capacity to get more than 10% on a consistent basis...particularly with other candidates dropping out and with most of the remaining primaries being closed (where Independents cant vote).

I dont think so...but we will see in Florida and the Super Tuesday states where he is still polling at an average of about 5%.

The question I have is what do the Paul supporters do next unless you still seriously think he has a chance to win the Republican nomination.

Should he run as an Independent or as the Libertarian candidate and sacrifice his position in the Republican party, squander all that money and still lose?

Or should he invest all that money in a longer term strategy to build a new third party or attempt to transform the Republican party?

sprocket 01-24-2008 07:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
You forgot to mention the 5th place showing in SC with 4%.

The only remaining question is if Paul can demonstrate a capacity to get more than 10% on a consistent basis...particularly with other candidates dropping out and with most of the remaining primaries being closed (where Independents cant vote).

I dont think so...but we will see in Florida and the Super Tuesday states where he is still polling at an average of about 5%.

The question I have is what do the Paul supporters do next unless you still seriously think he has a chance to win the Republican nomination.

Should he run as an Independent or as the Libertarian candidate and sacrifice his position in the Republican party, squander all that money and still lose?

Or should he invest all that money in a longer term strategy to build a new third party or attempt to transform the Republican party?
He needs to go back to congress, and try and build himself a coalition, instead of making a career out of protest votes.

dc_dux 01-24-2008 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprocket
He needs to go back to congress, and try and build himself a coalition, instead of making a career out of protest votes.
I'm the farthest thing from a Paul supporter in TFP, but I agree.

The forces behind his candidacy who share his political views and values must recognize that they represent a very small percentage of the electorate at present.

To have an impact on national politics and see their vision gain acceptance and credibility, they need to build the "movement" from the ground up. They will never elect a president until they are represented in state houses and Congress with a track record of successful, viable candidates.

Paul has the money from his supporters to lay the foundation for such a movement. The question is whether he has the interest and whether his supporters have the staying power to see it through...because it wont happen overnight, but will be a generational effort.

Willravel 06-12-2008 04:57 PM
Ron Paul has officially dropped out.
Will this finally free up Digg and Reddit for people who are obsessed with Obama? Probably not.

guyy 06-12-2008 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Paul has the money from his supporters to lay the foundation for such a movement. The question is whether he has the interest and whether his supporters have the staying power to see it through...because it wont happen overnight, but will be a generational effort.
Their time has come and gone. The great reaction to the New Deal is waning. With that considered, i think his strategy is fairly rational.

dksuddeth 06-13-2008 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Ron Paul has officially dropped out.
Will this finally free up Digg and Reddit for people who are obsessed with Obama? Probably not.
Obviously, most people in this country are not ready to be in charge of their country again. a pity.

dc_dux 06-13-2008 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Obviously, most people in this country are not ready to be in charge of their country again. a pity.
Or perhaps most Americans just dont believe in the libertarian approach to government.

I certainly dont see that as a pity.

I do think the fact that Paul has nothing good to say about McCain and wont endorse him and, at the same time, praises Bob Barr and comes as close as he probably will to endorsing Barr might have an impact on the campaign:
Quote:
“[Barr] talks our language, so I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message.”

Echoing the principals he based his own presidential run on, the Texas congressman said Americans’ voices will be heard with Barr, and he “gives everybody a choice in the matter.”

...

Paul, who has made it clear in past interviews he will not support John McCain because of their differing views, said again Thursday he disagrees with the Arizona senator on foreign policy and economic relief.

“I would say [McCain] does not represent limited government values, and the republicans deserve to hear the other side of the story.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...nce-with-barr/

sprocket 06-15-2008 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Or perhaps most Americans just dont believe in the libertarian approach to government.
I'm not sure what to make of the 'typical' present day conservative who is nearly nothing more than a big government nanny state liberal when it comes to social/moral issues and domestic surveillance.

Why is so much to ask to want a smaller less powerful federal government not just when it comes to taxes and entitlement programs but these other areas as well?

It's always a neat trick to make a conservative sound like a left-winger.. all you have to do is get them talking about the war on drugs, abortion etc, and they sound like a lefty arguing for more gun control.

rlbond86 06-15-2008 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Or perhaps most Americans just dont believe in the libertarian approach to government.

I certainly dont see that as a pity.
Agreed. In fact, most Ron Paul supporters seem to have a very arrogant view of themselves. They don't realize that some of us don't want the things he's talking about. I personally feel that libertarianism is cruel to the less fortunate, promotes social darwinism, and opens the door for abuse by corporations. While I feel the executive branch of this administration has overstepped its bounds by a wide margin, I don't feel that public goods and corporate regulations need to be thrown by the wayside.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:09 PM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360