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.
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
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.
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
Hence the AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION that established civil rights for them and other minorities. If you wanna have something that affects all states that isn't deemed a power granted to the legislative branch by the Constitution, try and get it amended! Otherwise, the states get to choose, or atleast should.
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
Mod up! No one seems to understand that if the constitution disagrees with something, you can not just write legislation and hope it is never challenged, you must amend the constitution if you don't like it.
There is this class of people who seem to think you can just pass any law you like, it is the supreme courts job exclusively to decide what is constitutional. This is immediately followed by everyone wondering why we suddenly have a huge executive branch and the PATRIOT act...
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Observation: Two wrongs do not make a right. Even if Africans had practiced the kind of slavery that plantation owners did, that does not absolve the United States of any wrongdoing in its benefit from the trade, nor does it mean that there was no duty to put an end to rampant discrimination that followed the freeing of the slaves, from the "black laws" of the Reconstruction South that barred freed slaves from voting, owning property, being on juries, etc. to the "softer" Jim Crow laws and segregation of the 20th century. The facts are that there were white slaves too, and black landowners/slaveowners/slavedrivers. Fact 2: White slavery was largely unknown by the time of the Revolutionary War. Even the indentured servant system recognized indentured servants as having significantly more rights than black slaves. Indentured servitude was not for life, and masters were expected to give their servants a starting package (by law) to help them found their own homes and families. Colonial Virginia, for example, required that white servants be given a rifle, some money, and some minimal provisions.
As for black slaveowners in America: Citation please. (i.e. I call B.S.) Even if true, two wrongs don't make a right, and only the most deluded or ignorant student of history would believe that there was anything resembling equality between whites & blacks in their status in society. The facts are that anybody currently alive in the US who feels that [the history is still a good reason for active debate and hatred against a group of people who have no way to change their forefathers actions] should get up and leave the country.
Do you need help buying a plane ticket to move to Africa? (See, it's that last comment that's going to burn me, but I'm still asking, and I'm still serious. I advocate changing the system, not blaming the great...great grandkids.) First of all, why do you assume that I'm of African descent myself just because I (like most Americans) feel some disgust for the horrible and degrading institutions of slavery & segregation?
Frankly, I think the fact that you feel you have to state that you're "not a racist" shows that you damned well know that supporting the right of states to engage in discrimination is something that most sane and patriotic Americans react to with disgust.
What honestly motivated you to write this whole "go back to Africa" diatribe in response to someone stating that the problem with letting states do as they wish is the historical tendency of states to oppress unpopular groups like black people? Can it really be anything other than knee-jerk racist resentment?
Next time, if you're going to go off the reservation and rant about how racial equality is such a put-upon for the current generation, at least try to get some of your historical facts straight. Not that I think reality has a firm grip on you as is.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
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.
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.
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.
Negatory there chief. "An Eye for an Eye" is an argument FOR justice and AGAINST escalation. As in, against the previous unchecked vigilantism. It's better phrased, "no more than an eye for an eye."
Yeah, you're probably right there, though. On the other hand, there's no compelling state interest in same-sex marriage. Perhaps we should evaluate whether there is a compelling state interest in marriage, at all.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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
That argument applies to everything we do. "The state knows best for you and society". Anybody who is for limited government should keep government out of marriage and any other "family values" issues.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"