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."
It seems that he still wants to remain a Republican. This is actually good news for his sympathizers.
Whoever wins the Presidential election in November, it's clear that the Republicans are in a the midst of a deep identity crisis. This is a tremendous opportunity to swing one of the major parties in a new direction.
As they say, there is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. I think Dr. Paul is going to try to take the tide. It will be interesting to see where this leads.
whether or not anyone here agrees with his positions or thinks he is/n't right about anything, i think we can all agree that this represents a step towards what this country's political system needs most: diversity.
The Ronulans have always been trouble.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Paul's "We the People Act" was designed to overturn Lawrence v. Texas and gave express permission to states to forbid homosexual conduct.
Paul doesn't believe in limited government, just limited federal government. He has no problem with individual states violating human rights with no recourse whatsoever.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Oh, and I've got a link to the text of the We the People Act, too.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
I don't see why. They're one of the largest presences within the Beta Quadrant.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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.
for a serious third party candidacy, since the two major party candidates both appeal to independents, which is a rarity.
Had the two parties nominated Romney and Clinton, we might have seen any number of serious challengers, including Paul, Bloomberg, and Hagel. At least one of them would've taken 5-7 pct of the vote in November. As it is, I don't expect Barr or Nader to take even half of 1 pct between them.
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
Similar to the upcoming US election results
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
On what you learn in science class. (See question 4.)
More detail on that.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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
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.
Lincoln in his own words said he would have gladly kept the Union together if it merely meant allowing the South to keep their slaves. He only freed the slaves in the SOUTHERN states in the emancipation proclamation so they would revolt and help the North in their war effort. Slaves in the north were left enslaved.
Grandparent is correct. The Civil war was started over state's rights, not slavery (not directly at least, slavery was the key part of the state's rights issue). Lincoln made it a war directly about slavery only after the Emancipation Proclamation
Wonder what the public key field is for?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Before reagan, pubs wanted us to stay out of other nations (except covertly; nam was started covertly by Eisenhower),
Actually, Truman is the one who first sent troops to Vietnam, not Eisenhower.
[citation needed] Being creationist does not mean being anti-science. Being anti-"public"-school means getting government out of forcing one choice for free education, and allowing school vouchers means accountability for the (still-taxpayer-funded) schools, improving our education system.
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
It's not difficult at all to find substantial differences. At least one was all over the news today:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/06/fallout_from_the_gitmo_ruling.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/mccain-habeas-court/
We've recently discussed some substantial differences in tech policy and in advisor selection on slashdot.
I get it that to some extent, certain political realities force every mainstream candidate into certain positions. But it's wildly wrong to take the further step and equate all their positions, and furthermore, it's dangerous.
Tweet, tweet.
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
Why is this news on slashdot?
... only the most hard core Ron Paul fans would even know he still had a presidential campaign.
Many Slashdotters are strongly freedom-oriented. They tend to like free software and civil liberties, among other types of freedom. Ron Paul was the freedom-oriented candidate. How is this confusing?
Ron Paul was a fringe candidate
Wow, are you Big Media or do you just buy their story hook, line and sinker? The truth is he got between 3% and 24% in the various primaries and caucuses. That's a respectable showing for a candidate, and he did better than several candidates who Big Media deemed "worthy". Have a look at how the NYT covered him on my blog. This is a snapshot of race results when he came in second in Nevada. They refused to list Ron Paul because they were crusading against him and managing the perception you have. Funny, the Democrats' race added up to 100% but the Republicans had a big missing percentage of voters, where could they have gone?
Now, why would reporters now boldly in the tank for Obama have it in for Ron Paul and back a strong socialist for the Republican nomination? We'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
One more thing: I think it's especially interesting that this sentiment isn't just from supporters of Candidates like Paul (who is in fact starkly different from most candidates on several fronts). This portrayal of the general presidential election as one of small differences is actually apparently a mainstream media meme:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-obamacain8-2008jun08,0,543931.story
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aH8EMkkeMCtw&refer=politics
Not unanticipated, or without precedent:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/how-will-the-campaign-be-covered/
I think the question is: Why? Why, when there are easily locatable differences are there people who seem to like level them? I can understand why Paul looks different compared to Obama and McCain, but that's not even who we're talking about -- we're talking about a media that played up the heat of the contest between Obama and Clinton, but now appears to be playing down the much greater gulf.
Maybe it's because McCain appears to be a moderate if you average his positions:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14577.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15649.html
Or maybe it's some inner working of mainstream "journalism" that's just too mysterious for me.
Or maybe it's true what my acquaintances who've worked in the Senate have said: McCain's great in front of the cameras, assiduously cultivates one media image, but in private, he's at best a tyrant and quite possibly mentally instable (note: before you try to pass that off on partisan rancor, note that these acquaintances (plural) that I've received these opinions from were *Republican* Senate staff).
But that's a rumor, one you can't verify unless you also have the acquaintance of Senate staff, and I don't expect you to believe a random poster on the internet about this. Just whatever you do, don't fall for the line that McCain and Obama are somehow twins, that voting for either won't make a difference.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080528/pl_nm/usa_politics_issues_dc
Who you cast your vote for absolutely matters this fall. If you absolutely HAVE to -- vote for Ron Paul or your favorite third party candidate to send a message, sure. Everybody has that right and it's a legitimate use of a vote. But make sure you really understand who the candidates are before you cast your vote. If you genuinely think Obama and McCain are the same, you quite simply haven't done that yet, and your vote will be cast irresponsibly.
Tweet, tweet.
Having grown up in the South, I heard this all my life. The problem is that when you look at the actual politics of the day, the only "state's right" that the North was trying to restrict was the right to determine whether or not the citizens of the state could own slaves. Other issues of taxation and economics all led back to the taxation and economics of that "peculiar institution" of slavery. This is something that most "real historians" that I've read have acknowledged. It's the amateurs that get to "state's rights" and stop there without digging into just what rights the secessionists were talking about.
Politicians in the South emphasized the "state's rights" angle for two reasons:
1) To help convince the non-slave holding majority that war was justified.
2) To try to convince foreign powers that the war was not about slavery.
I have heard that statement so often that I am forced to the conclusion that people actually believe it. Such a statement, however, is nothing more than "newspeak." Creationism (and it's bastard offspring, "Intelligent design") is not only anti-science, it is blatantly anti-science. Those Creationists and IDers who actually know anything about science have one stratagem to propagate their ideas, as identified by William Benetta: "They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."
Please, regardless of whether you are aware of these lies, or if you repeat them in earnest good faith, do not waste my time by repeating them.
Being anti-"public"-school means getting government out of forcing one choice for free education and allowing school vouchers means accountability for the (still-taxpayer-funded) schools, improving our education system. I happen to advocate homeschooling and tax vouchers, so it is difficult to argue these two points. However, one must look to motives and results. Will this actually improve our education system, or will it further dilute scarce financial resources for education? Only time will tell--yet if we have not guessed correctly, the generation that deals with the "worse choice" will suffer.If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
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
Those sound like economic ideals, not moral. "Social conservatism" has to do with how you live morally, generally-- whereas what you seem to be advocating is just "economic conservatism", or "right-wing economics", "libertarian economics", etc. . One can be economically conservative, socially liberal (Libertarian), economically and socially conservative (stereotypical republican, but...), etc. . Social-conservative economic-liberals are considered fascist pig-dogs by everybody, of course. Point is, from your description I wouldn't call you a social conservative, but an economic conservative and/or social liberal. What you consider 'social conservatism' (the belief that one should make their own way in life) is not at all the definition normally used in American politics. Either the definition where you are from is different, you aren't describing something correctly, or your definition is flat-out wrong for your culture and context.
-Devin Jeanpierre
It's funny, as one of the pro-Paul arguments I heard a lot was "Sure, he disagrees with your views, but he believes the power should be held by the States, so he won't actually do anything you don't like!".
-Devin Jeanpierre
We can't all be obamamaniacs.
Hail OBAMA!
Hail the MESSIAH!
HE shall save us from our sins!
"Before reagan, pubs wanted us to stay out of other nations"
Unless they really wanted to build a new canal. Or just plain shoot at some Spaniards and their former subjects.
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 find it ironic that the Democratic party in the US is accused of being liberal when in fact they are social democrats. Ron Paul's policies are closer to true liberalism than either of the larger parties.
Z
Deleted
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.-Devin Jeanpierre
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
Well modded. To the cowardly parent, if you don't have the balls to sign your pseudonym (let alone your real name) why should I hive a zit about your offensive opinion?
Only the most hard core Ron Paul fans would even know he still had a presidential campaign.
I voted for him in the primary, and it's news to me. And I'm a nerd. Ergo, it's news for nerds (although since McCain has the delegates to win, it is no longer "stuff that matters").
This stuff belongs on your personal blog, not a site billed was "news for nerds".
Slashdot IS my personal blog, you insensitive clod!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Japan sent a letter to the government of the united states, declaring war.
Japan sent a giant fleet of war planes towards a military base, on foreign soil, in full view of the worlds' most advanced radar system in the world.
The declaration of war was ignored, the radar operators were told to shut up and turn off their equipement, and the attack was said to be a cowardly surprise attack on the united states, rather than the business-as-usual military action against a military target not on US soil.
I can't wait for the generations that bought into the propaganda of the "cowardly attack on the US" to die off. The truth shall set the rest of us free.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
Heck, they mentioned the declaration of war in that aweful Pearl Harbor movie, but that's no reason to watch it.
You can't take the sky from me...
Ron Paul is an isolationist, when measured against current American policies.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist. If "current American policies" don't allow for that distinction, then current American policies are seriously broken.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Typically, isolationism refers to a combined military and economic policy whereby military non-interventionism is combined with economic protectionism. In other words, an isolationist doesn't just believe the US would be better off not meddling in foreign wars and political matters, they also believe there is no need to have economic ties with other nations, or at least that they are more trouble than they are worth, and so advocate prohibiting imports and exports or at least very high tariffs in the interests of creating a sort of self-sufficient, isolated, nation. Non-interventionism, on the other hand, seeks only to eliminate military adventurism abroad while acknowledging the need for and in fact encouraging open, unfettered, trade with any and all other nations.