Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[Regret$]

MD, respectfully, they are taking the money now and spending to enrich themselves. It is not physically possible for them to have less money taxing us than if they don't get any of our money at all...

[SL__72]

Originally Posted by MissileDog

They spend that money to cause the gridlock, what do you think it goes towards? Gridlock isn't free... it takes millions and millions of $$$ to generate and maintain.

Basically the richest people win these elections over 90% of the time. And those are simple majority rules elections. When it takes a super-majority, that richest peoples winning percentage goes up directly, as the percentage of the voters they need to propagandize goes down directly.

Like I've said, we've been seeing this effect in California for about 20 years now. This same effect has been demonstrated empirically.

http://www.amazon.com/Gridlock-Econo.../dp/0465029167

/end turbo posting.

[Regret$]

Prison Song - System of a Down

[Huehuecoyotl]

Originally Posted by SL__72

If you're going to make the case that gay people should fear RP, that he said sodomy laws are ridiculous and favors a strong interpretation of the 4th amendment are both relevant points.



1. His supporters of course like a lot more than 2 of his policies, monetary reform maybe even being the biggest. Those are just talked about the most (especially here) because they are the two huge issues where he sides with liberals.
2. My point was that everyone does that, not everyone but RP supporters. If you think they are unique in that sense, though, you probably live under a rock (or, more likely, in the libertarian dominated 2+2 politics forum).

I dont think the point is that Ron Paul supports are like supporters from every other candidates, it's that for the longest time RP thought they were different than any other supporter. When Suzzer said he would vote for Obama in spite of his reservations about Obama he was hounded, but pointing out that Ron Paul is trying to shortcut the checks and balances in the Constitution or correcting his statements on the Civil War, or who he pals around with was considered trolling by a some of posters. Maybe it was the style of posting that caught the trolling bug
( i agree) but still getting someone to recognize what RP said vs. what they think he said is pretty hard.

[timotheeeee]

Can someone give me his actual stance on privacy?

[Jerok]

And Doug Wead interview near the end

[Case Closed]

Originally Posted by Regret$

How in God's name is not signing a crappy budget when not signing was exactly what you were elected for grounds for impeachment?





Why is this a bad thing? How high does the rake need to before you guys will stop playing the game?????

You understand what happens here right? The guys with the best rakeback deal are the only ones who can beat the game. The same guys who lobbied for all of the crap to begin with.

BP and Exxon thank you for your donations to their foreign policy.

Blue cross thanks your for your donations to their business model.

Budweiser thanks you for your donations to their business model.

WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH????

Don't get me wrong. I agree on the problems. I just don't think RP as president is the solution to our problems.

Originally Posted by SL__72

Replace anything in the bottom half of the paragraph with "unknowns" and sign and you've graduated from ever having to post in this thread again.

I have a feeling I am going to post in the thread a couple more times. Nothing could include all those people dying still. If RP is elected president that does not mean the means by which is implements his plans are going to work. Libertarians have a good understanding of the federal government beast. You should appreciate that this monster will not go down easily or without a fight. If RP gets hypothetically elected do you also assume he gets a monstrous mandate to do whatever he pleases?

Also, I think it's fair to take into consideration the fact that RP has no shot at winning. So, if we are going to talk about candidates with ostensibly a zero percent chance of wining I am going to throw my internet support behind much better, and equally unelectable, candidates.

[Regret$]

Originally Posted by Case Closed

Don't get me wrong. I agree on the problems. I just don't think RP as president is the solution to our problems.

Are you going to vote 3rd party like me (assuming RP doesn't get the nom)?

[MissileDog]

Originally Posted by Regret$

MD, respectfully, they are taking the money now and spending to enrich themselves. It is not physically possible for them to have less money taxing us than if they don't get any of our money at all...

Yeah but its their system, its their status-quo. They are spending their money to gridlock any change in their system. If they are able to create a situation where it needs a super-majority to change their system instead of a majority, they have just made it that much harder to do the things you want to do.

It is not politically possible for them to have less money taxing us if they make it harder for us to stop* them with super-majorities.

I mean, ZOMG, if the King was oppressing you, giving the King more power to stop you from changing his system, isn't going to help you make him stop oppressing you, now is it?

I mean, ZOMG, if the richest people are oppressing you, giving the richest people more power to stop you from changing their system, isn't going to help you make them stop oppressing you, DUCY?

I mean think it through, if the richest people were able to create a situation where a 99.9% super-majority was effectively necessary, they would be able to veto any changes at all in their system. They would have all the power, and you would have none. And then you couldn't stop them from oppressing you at all.

The bigger the super-majority needed, the more power the richest people have, and the harder it is for you to change their system. This is just common sense, is it not?

Or have I run into another nugget of "Austrian" logic here?

Spoiler:

* of course political action never words anyway, but I'm playing along here on that issue.

[rjoefish]

Originally Posted by Jerok

And Doug Wead interview near the end

I've posted about this before but it keeps coming up. If Paul were to get EVERY unbound delegate allocated (outside of party officials) it only adds up to ~350. You need ~1150 for the nomination.

He can try to work the system all he wants to get votes the people didn't think he deserved but at the end of the day if he can't compete in the winner take all states (or really any non caucus state where the actual vote matters) he has no shot at winning.

[Case Closed]

Originally Posted by Jerok

And Doug Wead interview near the end

This plan will never get him a victory. For one, it's terrible and completely undemocratic. It's like if the electoral college decided to vote for whoever they wanted. People would rightfully pitch a fit. Secondly it's going to be corrected before the convention imo. Unless it's still four people in the race until the convention, then ****'s gonna get real imo.

Originally Posted by Regret$

Are you going to vote 3rd party like me (assuming RP doesn't get the nom)?

Yeah. I always vote third party. But I do live in Illinois. Zero percent chance that Obama loses this state. Electoral college ftl imo.

[Regret$]

MD,

The problem with your logic is that RP is saying don't use the federal government to oppress people.

And people cannot oppress themselves because they can spend their money as they choose.

If we agree that state and local governments are oppressive, then we can still agree there is less oppression without the Federal government unless we think the Federal government is protecting people. The Federal government isn't for protecting people from oppression the most part, or at at a minimum it is preventing less than it is actively participating in the oppression. JMO ofc.

[TomCollins]

Originally Posted by Regret$

MD,

The problem with your logic is that RP is saying don't use the federal government to oppress people.

And people cannot oppress themselves because they can spend their money as they choose.

If we agree that state and local governments are oppressive, then we can still agree there is less oppression without the Federal government unless we think the Federal government is protecting people. The Federal government isn't for protecting people from oppression the most part, or at at a minimum it is preventing less than it is actively participating in the oppression. JMO ofc.

You are forgetting that MD's word for oppression means freedom, and slavery means freedom. The government protecting property rights = oppression. Letting people control themselves = slavery. Preventing people from doing things = freedom.

[Regret$]

Originally Posted by TomCollins

You are forgetting that MD's word for oppression means freedom, and slavery means freedom. The government protecting property rights = oppression. Letting people control themselves = slavery. Preventing people from doing things = freedom.

Please don't slur other people's opinions when talking to me. No offence meant.

MD and I just disagree that's all.

[Regret$]

Originally Posted by Case Closed

Yeah. I always vote third party. But I do live in Illinois. Zero percent chance that Obama loses this state. Electoral college ftl imo.

I can respect that. If they want our votes, they can be reasonable and come and support policies to get our votes.