Slashdot Mirror
Paul Suspends Presidential Campaign, Forms New Org
JoeKuboj writes "Texas Rep. Ron Paul announced Thursday he is suspending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination to focus his time on building an organization to help recruit and elect 'limited government Republicans.' Paul's decision to leave the race is an acknowledgment he had no chance of winning the GOP nomination. But even in loss, Paul is one of a handful of candidates who walked away from this presidential contest a winner. His presidential campaign had a broad base of support that included traditionally fiscal and socially conservative Republicans to young people who were angry about the U.S. decision to wage war against Iraq."
Not sure if diversity is the problem. We've got an insanely divided party system as it is, with ultra-conservative republicans and moderate democrats (we need more liberals). We don't have a lack of diversity in ideology, no matter what these brats say about "all politicians are the same", we've got a lack of diversity in PARTIES. The most efficient forms of democratic government have lots of smaller parties in which none have enough power to filibuster each other. The english have a much more efficient government than we do, so do the Japanese. Of course, they're smaller countries, which has advantages too.
I guess what I'm saying is that there will always be corruption and payoffs, but the more parties there are, the more spread out those things become, and the more breathing room there actually is.
Ron Paul may have acted like a libertarian (a socially conservative libertarian), but by awknowledging the republican party, he made it clear that diversification of party power wasn't a main priority. I'll support (though maybe not agree with) a libertarian candidate, a green party candidate, or otherwise... but Ron Paul was just another republican to me, with more of a "get off my lawn" type of attitude.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
The thing about presidential campaigns in the US is that they, more than any other event, get people talking about public policy. Half of the stuff that gets debated really has nothing to do with the presidency - it is really more the job of congress. But it is these campaigns that frame the political conversation for the next 1-3 years to come. So if you want your ideas, and your issues to have a place in this media short-list, then you are best off if you can get them into discussion surrounding the presidential election.
That is really what "no-chance" third party runs are about. And the Ron-Paul campaign has succeeded in creating a lot of discussion that wouldn't have happened if it was just an activist group. Now that the primaries are over there is no more venue to do this. Neither he nor his cause has anything to gain from being an annoying thorn-in-the side at the GOP Convention. He knew from the beginning that he wasn't going to win the nomination, and stepping down gracefully is the best thing to do.
Furthermore, I don't think there is really anything to be gained from running as an independent. First off, for good or bad, Paul has decided to work within the Republican party. Secondly, I don't really know who his campaign would draw more voters from - McCain, Obama or the Libertarian candidate. Most importantly, Paul wants to return to his congressional seat which he would have to forfeit if he made a run for the presidency. He can do more good serving another term as congressman then he would by extending this campaign another half year.
I don't know if you've noticed, but this site is one of the first blogs, it just has a lot more readers than your average blog. Given that the founder PROPOSED on this site, I would say that makes it a lot more personal than, say, the WSJ. Therfore, shaddup. Besides, why am I replying to an AC? Guess I oughta not hit preview->submit
2^3 * 31 * 647
Sorry Quattro, but I agree with Hubbell here. The states were originally founded to each be sovereign, with a federal system to ensure interstate commerce and to protect the common borders (the oceans and the Canadian/Mexican borders as it stands todate). I don't know if you've noticed, but we've kinda given up any hope of only defending our own borders, as we'ld need to bring all our troops home from all the remote bases around the world. Then, we'ld need to, ya know, protect our own borders. That would be a real shame, eh?
As far as what that bill means, it doesn't mean that the Federal Gov't should say homosexuality is wrong, it says that the federal gov't should keep it's f*ing nose out of my bedroom. Now, once the federal gov't is gone, I'll deal with my state gov't. Mind you, I live in Texas, so I know what I'm talking about when I say I'll deal with the state once the feds are gone.
Plus, "it's like a whole other country here" and I'm getting to the point where I want my brethren in this region to think that way on a more regular basis. Seems there were a couple boys back in the 1800s that thought that way and went so far as to found a seperate nation between the US and Mexico, and the leaders only gave in when the populace wanted to join with the US, just in time for the Civil War. But for to be the only State in this here Union which was previously a successful country of it's own right, to me that's pretty decent. Don't you agree?
The civil war wasn't about the Union trying to tell the South that it couldn't secede, it was about the fact that the southerners didn't want to pay exorbitant taxes to the north for manufactured goods produced in the US. If you don't believe me, go ask a civil war historian (not some re-enactment fella, and not your kids civics class teacher. A real Historian) what the Civil War was started over, and they'll tell you it had nothing to do with Slavery. That was a battle cry that was picked up half-way through, and it made Lincoln look like a bastard to the south. Not only did they now half to pay exorbitant taxes, but they had invested all that money in slaves and now the investment was pissed away too.
You'll ignore this next sentence, I know.
NOT THAT I THINK SLAVERY WAS ALL THAT GOOD OF AN IDEA.
I mean, indentured servitude, sure that was good, because that was for a reason, and that was almost slavery. There weren't as many chains, but still.
Besides, I wasn't even going to go off about slavery or anything, I just wanted to mention the bit about how f*d up it is to have the federal gov't dictate what the individual states should do, any more than the fact that the fed'l gov't should not actively regulate interstate commerce. Yet, I also think that the fed'l gov't should quit asking for taxes in my state, just so they can dole them out in some other state, to a whole lot of freeloaders. And don't think they don't do just that.
Last riposte before I go. Do you know which was the last major democratic country to give a major economic stimulus to it's citizens when the economy was in a bad way? I'll give you a hint, you couldn't use a million marks to buy a loaf of bread. And now this gov't wants to give me an economic stimulus when my economy is going down the shitter? Oh great.
2^3 * 31 * 647
reagan beat Poppa Bush because of his promising everything to the religious right wingnuts. Prior to that, pubs NEVER gave into all the items that they now claim, but never back. Before reagan, pubs wanted us to stay out of other nations (except covertly; nam was started covertly by Eisenhower), balanced budget, pushed small gov, and wanted gov out of ppls lives. Now, they say all the above while waging war every couple of years, run up monster deficits, double the size of gov, push all sorts of legislation to control ppl, spy on us illegally, still ignore the promises that they made to religious right wingnuts except at election time, and are horribly corrupt.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain, once you get past the different tones they use to the actual meat of what they say they will do. Clearly, there is a large number of Americans that feel poorly represented by both candidates, and this leaves an opportunity for the formation of serious alternative political parties. When we factor in the revolution taking place in media distribution, it's quite possible that we are in for some serious changes in American politics.
Paul has a heavy economist and foreign relations background from the committees he's been a member of in Congress, combined with little hesitation to speak out without fear of ruffling feathers, and this has allowed him to articulate proposed radical technical changes to the structure of our country which get at the heart of the situation we currently find ourselves in. Those types of ideas would not have come from most party apparatchiks, and while it's easy to argue that they are impractical and beyond the scope of the powers granted a US president, they have illuminated some of the fundamental problems this country must wrestle with, and exposed a large number of people to some of the workings of our government, which is never a bad thing.
The fact that we're having discussions on monetary policy, the US's role in the world, and other serious issues often glanced over in most political debate is worth a great deal to this country, and anything that helps more people get involved in their government can only be to our advantage, regardless of ideology. Politics as usual as covered in classic media has been extremely shallow and limited up to this point, and we're witnessing a great shift as populism controls the distribution of information on the internet. If the Democratic and Republican parties can't tell which direction the wind is blowing, and fail to adjust their trajectory, then it is entirely possible that they might start losing support in favor of new groups.
Either way, with such a fundamental change in information distribution taking place at the national and global level, it's foolish to count on historical trends alone to predict future outcomes.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
I had really hoped he'd was going to continue his campaign though to the end. He could have done to McCain what Perot and Nader did in the 90's and 2000 elections. We need someone to keep some votes away from the third term of Bush.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
On my English Wikipedia user page, I state that I too approve of approval voting. Approval voting is a special case of range voting; placing the options at 0% (thumbs down) and 100% (thumbs up) simplifies things for voters below the median. In turn, plurality voting is a special case of approval voting that requires no more than one thumbs up per race. But is there anything in the United States Constitution or federal statute that specifies the method of voting in a way that excludes approval voting? For example, Amendment 17 specifies "two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof", but doesn't go into detail about how they are elected.
He believes in following the Constitution. The Constitution is constructed such that, if it were followed to the letter, states would have the power to do anything or regulate anything not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
If the states wanted to have uniform laws, then they should amend the Constitution to permit the federal government to have a say.
This system allows for diversity in such a large country, both in population and in geographic area. Some people might want it a certain way, and that's their right. States that don't agree would have the right to put economic pressure on states doing bad things, just like the US should be doing with foreign states (aka other countries to those who don't understand the nature of a "state").
Of course I don't agree with those who commit human rights violations. However, that doesn't give me the right to force my way upon them through outright aggression or legalized violence--that's just as much of a human rights violation to me. I can simply choose not to purchase their product or otherwise benefit them, and if enough people follow my lead, the violators' hand is forced: keep violating rights and run out of money, or stop violating rights and be in business.
This is a perfect world idea, one where everyone does what is right and within their limits of person, but if we can't dream and work toward such a thing, then we're just wasting our time.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
The majority of people in the country since its inception including the founders of the country could be summed up as mostly "socially conservative." In the old days, we just called these "cultural traditions."
Now days, only if you are non-white are you allowed to keep your culture, except for your religion, you cannot keep that unless you change it to be more politically correct and secular. Yes, we know that religion is what makes the core of any culture, but you cannot keep it.
Signed,
Big City slashdot Lib.
I'm an atheist and I consider myself to be a 'social conservative' in many ways. I'd call 'social conservatism' the belief that one should make their own way in life - you know - individual responsibility, individual achievement, etc. So, I really don't know how much weight your 'theonomy' take on 'social conservatism' carries, as I - and many like minded others - couldn't care less about any brand of 'biblical' principles.
I'm kinda bummed out about Ron Paul dropping out, but also excited by the hope that many of his supporters will choose to support Bob Barr now. Barr is currently the best hope for Freedom and Liberty among Presidential candidates.
Of course there are others of us running for various other offices who also adhere to the ideals of small government, rule of law and the principles Ron Paul has been advocating. My own campaign for Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina might be of interest to some of you, for example. http://www.philrhodes2008.com/
We can regain our Freedom, if we choose to.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
http://www.amazon.com/NYCs-African-Slaveowners-Material-American/dp/0815315368
is the first example that came up when I searched amazon, couldn't find the book I was looking for though, it's been awhile.
I remember hearing a talk a number of years ago by I believe John Hope Franklin who mentioned black slave owners in New Orleans in fairly substantial numbers (don't remember specifics though, sorry).
Ask black people.
Okay, but white people can feel free to answer too:
Slavery was once practiced in Vermont, in Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, in Connecticut, in Rhode Island, in New York and New Jersey, in New Hampshire... In each case it was ended because the state was allowed to "decide what they want do" without waiting for the entire country to support that decision. So my easy question is: should these states have been allowed to end slavery on their own, without fear that a majority vote on a national level could have overturned their decision? And the harder question is: if centralized decision making had been allowed to keep slavery from being prohibited one state at a time, how much longer would it have taken before abolitionism became the majority belief?
If compromising federalist principles hastened the release of the remaining slaves, I'll stipulate an "ends justify the means" on that one. But you can't pull out "States' rights are bad because a few states might do bad things" without stopping to consider that sometimes a few states might do good things too. The nice thing about letting each state make its own decisions is that, for questions where they don't all agree with each other, sometimes just comparing the effects of the different choices they make is enough to help people understand which decisions are bad and which are good.
Maybe because for Joe Sixpack what matters is "how well they reperesent _my_ point of view?" If the answer is "neither", in a sense, yes, they're both the same.
Essentially it's like having to choose between two women as your wife. (Assuming you're a guy.) One is cute, but is really a guy in drag, dumb as a brick and only talks about his/her hypochondriac imaginary diseases. The other is smart and has big tits, but weighs 300 pounds at 5 ft tall, is butt-ugly and is the stereotypical rabid man-hater. Which one, would you say, better represents your tastes in women?
And if you have an urge to say, "whoa, dude, that's a false dichotomy. There are more kinds of women than that!", congrats, then you get my point perfectly. It shouldn't be a dichotomy in the first place.
Way I see it, it's the same in two-party politics. You have to choose between two package deals, and you're lucky if one issue of each really represents your views.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I don't like Ron Paul, or even agree with libertarianism, but I agree with you 100%. Both of the hardcore idealist canidates in this election were screwed by the media, even before voting began. Kucinich, and Paul. They shouldn't be in the same sentence, I know, but they both must be doing something right based on their massive anti-fan-base.
Standing up for principles, perhaps?
The media painted both of them into being amusing monkeys, dancing to keep the debates amusing, while the "big boys" debated. I tend to read the "big boys" as synonymous with "bland, flavorless, oatmeal".
If I had my wish we'd have a Kucinich/Paul ticket, or visa versa, things would actually get done, and both of them are more honest than the political survivors.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The Confederate Constitution, adopted in March, 1861, predating the Emancipation Proclamation by nearly two years, predating even Virginia's secession, has some interesting differences from the original 1789 document it was trying to emulate:
- No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
- The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
- In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
But, oh no, it had nothing to do with slavery until 1863.Stable families are good for babies
Babies grow up, get jobs, and pay taxes.
The State runs on taxes.
Not only does the State have a compelling interest in marriage, the State has a compelling interest in figuring out how to lower the divorce rate.
*I mean marriage as in the legal contract between two people, not the religious ceremony.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
For example, in 2005 the Labour party won 35% of the vote but 55% of seats, making it the next government. The Conservative party got 32% of the vote and 31% of the seats, and the Liberal Democrats got 22% of the vote but only 10% of the seats. So the electoral system favours large parties and tends towards a two-party contest.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I'm sick and tired of morally weak people like you saying "that's their culture and that makes it alright".
No, it's not alright. If that's their culture, then their culture is a culture of evil, and it must be annihilated with extreme prejudice.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Slavery was the status quo when the Constitution was ratified. Slavery wasn't abolished in the Constitution at that time because it couldn't possibly have been done nationwide when support was so divided. If this country had been formed under the iron hand of perfectly centralised state control that it appears the OP desires (see how much you can infer from three words?), then slavery would have been strengthened and sympathizers would have been jailed... slavery was simply too important to the economies of most states, despite a vocal, passionate minority that felt it was ethically wrong. Slavery was eventually abolished nationwide because individual states had the freedom and authority to govern themselves, a few experimented with abolishing slavery and found it worked for them, and eventually more people were brought around to that point of view. Hell, even Massachusetts recognized slavery until 1783. Go ahead, ask black people. If the person you ask has a clue, he or she will tell you that, thanks to states rights, a radical minority opinion was allowed to become widespread enough that the country eventually erupted into war over it... thank God the right side won.
Since I'll bet the OP also happens to be a gun control advocate, I'd like to close with this: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can't be defended through legislation at the national level, no matter how hard we may try. That's why the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights tell us to arm ourselves so we can defend by force those points of view we feel are worth dying for. The second amendment wasn't written to defend against King George or wild animals or whatever the fuck glib response you hear from the left, it was meant so our own government wouldn't dare take the liberties with our money and freedom that it has been recently. Sad so many of us are begging the government to finish the job and take them all away.
I suppose you would say the same thing about Mike Munger, the Libertarian candidate for governor of North Carolina....who happens to be an economics professor at Duke University.