Ron Paul still may have a chance to beat Romney

[Guest Manny]

Sort of like spreading Santorum?

I know what you mean by santorum, but I don't get the relationship to Ron Paul. Pretty sure Paul has said he's not against gay marriage.

[bush_cheney2004]

He's already distanced himself from those media reports about him not liking black people, but the msm, and folks like yourself just keep bringing that one up. What else should he do about it?

Maybe he should wear a big ass Afro wig and kiss Al Sharpton on the lips.

[punked]

From what I can tell from twitter right now. In OK the Ron Paul people were outnumber so they waffled it. They waited for everyone to leave then they out numbered everyone and now they are trying to (and will remind you they are following the rules) renominate their own delegates now that have the numbers. The OK Romney people are trying to adjourn with out the votes and the Ron Paul people are freaking out. I guess punches might have been thrown. I really can't tell what is going on but it sounds like some good old fashion convention politics.

Edit. Looks like they lost the Hall due to time so the Ron Paul people are adamant you can't end the convention with out a vote. So now, and I kid you not this is what twitter is saying, they are taking the convention to "the parking lot"??? Weird.

Edited May 12, 2012 by punked

[bleeding heart]

He's already distanced himself from those media reports about him not liking black people, but the msm, and folks like yourself just keep bringing that one up. What else should he do about it?

A politician distancing himself from controversies surrounding himself is par for the course, and tells us precisely zero about what he actually thinks. Bill Clinton did indeed "have sexual relations with that woman," no matter what he said about it; Chretien did indeed involve Canadians in the Iraq War, and his stated opposition to the war changes that fact not one whit.

But still, and as I said, Paul might well be perfectly sincere on this....which means he is too incompetent to be aware of what is said in his name, and with his implicit approval all along until it became a controversy.

Stupid is preferable to racist, if that's your point; fine, I agree.

The "msm" doesn't "keep bringing it up," unless you have multiple citations to prove it.

And I personally don't "keep bringing it up," as this is exactly my first time mentioning it, ever, anywhere.

I would only approve of some of his ideas, not all of them, much like I would with any politician. Only a partisan fool agrees with everything a politician says.

Of course, and I agree completely.

Edited May 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Jack Weber]

It could be...there can be innocent libertarians who really believe in the perfectability of man through free market ideology.

The problem or one of them, is that almost every libertarian loves Ayn Rand...who is explicitly elitist, and proudly so.

And I can't believe that Doctor Ron Paul is unaware that his favoured philosophy is going to hurt the poor disproportioantely. By definition.

So I think he is an elitist. It's just that he thinks elitism is "the natural order."

I have run into more than few innocent libertarians who truly believe "The Free Market" is the only perfect thing in the world and all personal freedom is derived from it.Anything else is creeping socialism/Marxism...

And,you're right,many of these people hild a kook like Ayn Rand in high esteem...You can add Von Mises,Von Hayek,and,Uncle Milty to that list of "freedom loving deep thinkers" they seem to lionize.

That's the problem with thinking the "Free Market" will solve all the economic problems of the world.

It won't at all!

If Ron Paul got his way,we would have huge disparities in wealth,far worse than we have now.We would have massive levels of social displacement.We would have wealth,and more importantly POWER, concentrated into the hands of a very few elites at the top of the economic food chain.In that sense,Mr. Paul is an elitist,but I think an unwitting one because I think he truly believes that if everyone is left alone on thier personal freedom fiefdom,everything works out...

It's as completely infantile and cluelessly innocent as anything I've heared from any Marxist I've ever run into...

[bleeding heart]

If Ron Paul got his way,we would have huge disparities in wealth,far worse than we have now.We would have massive levels of social displacement.We would have wealth,and more importantly POWER, concentrated into the hands of a very few elites at the top of the economic food chain.In that sense,Mr. Paul is an elitist,but I think an unwitting one because I think he truly believes that if everyone is left alone on thier personal freedom fiefdom,everything works out...

Yeah, you could be right. And I agree with you about the concentrations of power funneling up in direct proportion to concentrations of wealth, especially since so many "free marketeers" wish for total or near-total deregulation on the poor, oppressed elites' economic (and industrial) behaviour.

It's odd to me that people who fear the potential for reckless and dangerous behaviour of "Big Government" see no possible danger to concentrating power in the hands of unelected, totally unrepresentative little groups.

Edited May 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Jack Weber]

Yeah, you could be right. And I agree with you about the concentrations of power funneling up in direct proportion to concentrations of wealth, especially since so many "free marketeers" wish for total or near-total deregulation on the poor, oppressed elites' economic (and industrial) behaviour.

It's odd to me that people who fear the potential for reckless and dangerous behaviour of "Big Government" see no possible danger to concentrating power in the hands of unelected, totally unrepresentative little groups.

That's because "personal freedom" is the disguise...Power through wealth concentration is the goal...

Why do you think so many of these types look to the Authoritarian Capitalism (see modern Fascism) of China as the perfect legislative vehicle to meet their economic goals???

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jack Weber

[Guest Manny]

A politician distancing himself from controversies surrounding himself is par for the course, and tells us precisely zero about what he actually thinks. Bill Clinton did indeed "have sexual relations with that woman," no matter what he said about it; Chretien did indeed involve Canadians in the Iraq War, and his stated opposition to the war changes that fact not one whit.

So then, we cannot believe anything any politician says as far as predicting what they might do if given the power to do so. What does that leave us with to talk about, really.

Let's face it, just about anyone can release something on the internet these days to slander or defame someone who's a celebrity. People like Ron Paul have all sorts of enemies who have an agenda, as agent provocateur to make them look bad. For example, those enemies who have money, power and media influence to promote stories into headlines and 30 second sound bites. It's as simple as that.

Some of this may be true, but the ironic thing is that we live in the age of information, and we have so much information now from differing views and agendas, we can no longer tell what's true and what's lies.

At the very least we should stick to discussing a politicians platform. At least it's one step removed from tabloid trash designed to distract people from the real issues.

[bleeding heart]

So then, we cannot believe anything any politician says as far as predicting what they might do if given the power to do so. What does that leave us with to talk about, really.

Sure, I get what youy're saying. But I was referring specifically to the racist newsletters, or whatever the heck they were, and which Paul claims had his official imprint, so to speak, but that he was unaware of the offending content.

Could well be true, as i also said; but he should be aware of any content that bears his name and signature.

Let's face it, just about anyone can release something on the internet these days to slander or defame someone who's a celebrity. People like Ron Paul have all sorts of enemies who have an agenda, as agent provocateur to make them look bad.

Very true, and all this gets pretty ugly, i agree. But we're talking about something that did happen; Paul isn't denying it, but only his personal culpability in it. Even if his enemies are responsible for it coming to light (and this seems likely) it in fact is a true allegation.

At the very least we should stick to discussing a politicians platform. At least it's one step removed from tabloid trash designed to distract people from the real issues.

Fair enough; like I said, part of his platform is an elitist medical system, profoundly different from the good system the Americans have now, and in which the impoverished and financially insecure can go screw themseselves, thank you very much.

In short, the often inaccurate caricature we hear about the American system is the one Paul really does want to implement.

[Guest Manny]

part of his platform is an elitist medical system, profoundly different from the good system the Americans have now, and in which the impoverished and financially insecure can go screw themseselves, thank you very much.

In short, the often inaccurate caricature we hear about the American system is the one Paul really does want to implement.

It's those parts of his platform I wouldn't agree with, if I was a voting American. That and the laissez faire capitalism that is part and parcel of his libertarian credentials. Sorry but I don't ave enough "faith" in humanity to not be greedy and not develop market strategies that give companies absolute power in a monopoly. There has to be certain protections to safeguard fairness in competition. That keeps the rabid elitist capitalists in check, and gives a reasonable chance to "small guy" up-and-coming businesses.

Same goes with regulations for environmental protection, another part of Pauls platform I don't agree with.

But the other things he talks about, personal freedom, yes I'm all for it. And stopping the wars of opportunity, which in fact seem to be draining on the public purse while creating big profits for some businesses.

That's why it's important that Paul remain an influence, but not necessarily w"in".

[bleeding heart]

It's those parts of his platform I wouldn't agree with, if I was a voting American. That and the laissez faire capitalism that is part and parcel of his libertarian credentials. Sorry but I don't ave enough "faith" in humanity to not be greedy and not develop market strategies that give companies absolute power in a monopoly. There has to be certain protections to safeguard fairness in competition. That keeps the rabid elitist capitalists in check, and gives a reasonable chance to "small guy" up-and-coming businesses.

Same goes with regulations for environmental protection, another part of Pauls platform I don't agree with.

But the other things he talks about, personal freedom, yes I'm all for it. And stopping the wars of opportunity, which in fact seem to be draining on the public purse while creating big profits for some businesses.

That's why it's important that Paul remain an influence, but not necessarily w"in".

His is a lone voice on a couple of important topics, granted, especially now that Kucinich is gone. So, sure, credit where it's due.

[dre]

If Ron Paul got his way,we would have huge disparities in wealth,far worse than we have now.

No this is absolutely wrong. Im not a big fan utopian libertarianism and a lot of Ron Pauls stuff is crazy but on this point you are absolutely wrong.

The ONLY reason that the disparity of wealth has exploded since the 70's is because of the modern banking system and the massive ammounts of monetary expansion. The banks created trillions apon trillions of dollars out of thin are and the wealthy got their hands on almost all of it for two reasons...

1. The money was loaned into existance and people with lots of wealth and income qualified to borrow way more of it than the other classes.

2. Wealthy people and people with high incomes had the infrastructure (investments, and businesses) to chase down and corral all that new money that was dumped into the system.

The modern banking system is the most regressive creation in the history of democracy. Under the gold standard the gap between the rich and poor steadily shrank and the middle class emerged. The ability of the government to fund itself through inflation and monetary expansion allowed governments to slash top bracket tax rates, and the wealthy used all this new money to effectively wrestle control of the government away from the people.

Basically what happened is that the middle and lower class has about the same ammount of money as they did in 1971... even a tiny bit more, which kept them from turning activist. But ALL of that new money created under the fiat system was essentially divided up amongst the wealthy thus the huge explosion in disparity.

Im not personally a gold standard bug like Mr Paul but the fact is that if Ron Paul had his way this disparity of wealth would have been physically impossible. The dollars simply would not exist. The wealthy could have only grown the "gap" by taking money directly from the lower classes and this would have immediately caused a huge fight that the wealthy would have lost.

[Michael Hardner]

The ONLY reason that the disparity of wealth has exploded since the 70's is because of the modern banking system and the massive ammounts of monetary expansion.

The ONLY reason ? Now you've really oversimplifying things. Too much.

[bush_cheney2004]

The ONLY reason ? Now you've really oversimplifying things. Too much.

Agreed...we can actually point to data that demonstrates closing income gaps and employment after 1971. But such data ruins the myth and easy fairy tale of Nixon and gold.

[dre]

The ONLY reason ? Now you've really oversimplifying things. Too much.

Its not the only reason but its the enabling factor behind the other reasons as well. The root cause if you will.

Lazy post by the way. I explained in pretty logical terms what happened and why, and you chose to respond to one single word instead of the hundreds of others I wrote. No rebuttal to a single point. No alternate hypothesis.

Edited May 14, 2012 by dre

[Guest Manny]

such data ruins the myth and easy fairy tale of Nixon and gold.

Nixon had das Reingold??

[dre]

Agreed...we can actually point to data that demonstrates closing income gaps and employment after 1971. But such data ruins the myth and easy fairy tale of Nixon and gold.

Only for students in kindergarten. The decoupling of money from value was not in itself an act of monetary expansion, so nobody with an elementary grasp of reason and logic would expect things to immediately change on that day. It just enabled what came later.

Edited May 14, 2012 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

..... It just enabled what came later.

Well that's a mighty flexible way to look at things since 1971. Just ignore the actual variations and multiple causes and announce one monolithic Nixonian theory. Well, at least you're very consistent....and consistently wrong.

[dre]

Well that's a mighty flexible way to look at things since 1971. Just ignore the actual variations and multiple causes and announce one monolithic Nixonian theory. Well, at least you're very consistent....and consistently wrong.

Its not a "Nixonian" theory. Fiat money has been around for thousands of years. And I actually went over some the "multiple causes". Im not wrong.

As for whether or not you yourself are "wrong" you would have to actually say something before we could figure that out, but you have not, and can not.

Well that's a mighty flexible way to look at things since 1971

Well thats just a fact. Decoupling money from gold didnt create new money, it just allowed future governments to create a completely arbitrary ammount of it. You still needed folks like Reagan and Trudeau to come along and fire up the printing presses.

[Michael Hardner]

I already posted this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png

Debt as a % of GDP peaked more than 20 years before Nixon.

[bush_cheney2004]

I already posted this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png

Debt as a % of GDP peaked more than 20 years before Nixon.

Canada's recent debt to GDP peaked in 1995 and has declined sharply. Income gap and employment rates also improved in Canada since the magic Nixonian shock of 1971. But some folks would rather ignore such facts just to pursue a "golden" agenda.

[Michael Hardner]

Canada's recent debt to GDP peaked in 1995 and has declined sharply. Income gap and employment rates also improved in Canada since the magic Nixonian shock of 1971. But some folks would rather ignore such facts just to pursue a "golden" agenda.

There are eerie similarities to the 'Free Silver' movement here.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/218360/Free-Silver-Movement

[bush_cheney2004]

There are eerie similarities to the 'Free Silver' movement here.

Another reason why Ron Paul's ideas shall remain in the nut jar where they belong. Far greater economic calamity was experienced in the 20th century while on the "gold standard", for unrelated reasons.

[Jack Weber]

No this is absolutely wrong. Im not a big fan utopian libertarianism and a lot of Ron Pauls stuff is crazy but on this point you are absolutely wrong.

The ONLY reason that the disparity of wealth has exploded since the 70's is because of the modern banking system and the massive ammounts of monetary expansion. The banks created trillions apon trillions of dollars out of thin are and the wealthy got their hands on almost all of it for two reasons...

1. The money was loaned into existance and people with lots of wealth and income qualified to borrow way more of it than the other classes.

2. Wealthy people and people with high incomes had the infrastructure (investments, and businesses) to chase down and corral all that new money that was dumped into the system.

The modern banking system is the most regressive creation in the history of democracy. Under the gold standard the gap between the rich and poor steadily shrank and the middle class emerged. The ability of the government to fund itself through inflation and monetary expansion allowed governments to slash top bracket tax rates, and the wealthy used all this new money to effectively wrestle control of the government away from the people.

Basically what happened is that the middle and lower class has about the same ammount of money as they did in 1971... even a tiny bit more, which kept them from turning activist. But ALL of that new money created under the fiat system was essentially divided up amongst the wealthy thus the huge explosion in disparity.

Im not personally a gold standard bug like Mr Paul but the fact is that if Ron Paul had his way this disparity of wealth would have been physically impossible. The dollars simply would not exist. The wealthy could have only grown the "gap" by taking money directly from the lower classes and this would have immediately caused a huge fight that the wealthy would have lost.

That may all be true...

Mr. Paul is also an unabashed supporter of Right to Work legislation.We know this is corporate driven legislated union busting to artificially keep wages and benefits down under the guise of "individual worker rights and freedom"..

He let it slip in one of the debates that he feels the US requires a national RTW strategy to "compete" with the low wages that are seen in places like China.That's not "freedom",that's corporate tyrrany!Especially when one delves into who is really behind Right to Work...

So,either Mr. Paul is truly naive in thinking RTW is really about individual workers rights and freedoms in the workplace (which means he's completely clueless and infantile) or,he's a mouthpiece for the scary people behind Right to Work legislation (which makes him an ignorant elitist)...

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jack Weber

[Michael Hardner]

So,either Mr. Paul is truly naive in thinking RTW is really about individual workers rights and freedoms in the workplace (which means he's completely clueless and infantile) or,he's a mouthpiece for the scary people behind Right to Work legislation (which makes him an ignorant elitist)...

His supporters will love him no matter what, especially because Nixon is to blame for our economic woes today. Ron will create a gold-standard for the economy and once the minimum wage is gone, all of our salaries will soar !