Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul Effectively Ending Presidential Campaign
New submitter Dainsanefh sends this quote from the LA Times:
"Ron Paul, Mitt Romney's lone remaining rival for the Republican presidential nomination, announced Monday that he would stop spending money on the party's 11 remaining primaries, in effect suspending his campaign. ... Apart from President Obama and Romney, Paul has raised more money than any other White House contender this year – more than $36 million. His calls for strict adherence to the Constitution and his no-nonsense manner have spawned a vocal and well organized group of followers, but not enough to give him a realistic shot at the presidency."
ron paul still has a dedicated nationwide cult of devoted followers. they will happily lay down their jobs, their money, and their lives to spread the gospel of ron paul. this changes nothing.
three comments and I am forever at terrible karma
He is no longer seeking primary votes, and is instead focusing 100% on taking delegate positions. This race is not over.
He's trying to put like minded people in as state GOP officers, and to amass delegates. And he'll keep doing that until all the primaries and caucuses are over this summer.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
He is not actively campaigning in the primaries because he is focused on the delegate process. He has a plurality of delegates in more than 5 states, so he will be on the ballot at the convention. If he stops Romney from getting the majority, then 2nd round of delegates can all vote for whoever they want to.
He stopped spending money on ads, and is diverting the money to the state conventions (where he's winning). It seems a logical stance to take if his goal is to win the delegate vote.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Saw him give a speech in Idaho, it was a fantastic experience. Just thought it was odd the local organizers that got on the mic to introduce him first gave a speech espousing the ideals of the christian nation and a strong military budget. While when Paul actually got on stage he said exactly the opposite. Limited foreign involvement, liberty as an ideal for the inclusion of all beliefs, etc., etc. Maybe he would of had a better shot if he wasn't surrounded by people spouting the same old tired right wing talking points.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
NO, he doesn't. He says, anything I Ron Paul agree with is constitutional, and anything I don't is not... I feel really sad that people are taken in by this guy eg, if Texas wants to enact a law saying gays and blacks have to sit at the back of the bus, thats OK with R Paul (although, come to think of it, that is Obama's posistion to; I wonder how many liberals praising Obama for being for gay marriage by state would praise obama if he saidn miscegenation laws should be left up to the states.)
Ron Paul already has 1000% of the delegates, so what's the point?
He is a very spendthrift man, let the Democrats run Fake Republicans to force primaries if they want.
They can pay for them.
Wait, wait you mean that's what Republicans do? Oh dear, guess they'll need some sponsors. Poor Democrats.
Government just got a tiny bit smaller!
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Anyone else see that as a scathing social commentary regarding American political priorities?
Doesn't matter, voting for him anyway.
Hey, it could be worse: I could be planning to vote for one of the candidates owned by Goldman Sach's.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
>Runs out of money
>Stops spending money
And, thusly, the hopes and the dreams of half of Slashdot's libertarian kook fringe, have been dashed...
Come on, all together now:
AAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!
I'd like a citation from the articles where Paul or his manager say We are "ending" the campaign. Please.
IF you're going to act like FAUX News with distortions
THEN I'd like you to back up that distortion with direct-linked quotes
ELSE retract. Thank you.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
What vested interest decided to totally ignore Ron Pauls campaign. "Paul came in third in the Iowa Republican Caucus held on January 3, 2012", despite a total media blackout. Faux News even had to dub-in some boos when he won some vote. I guess the main problem with Paul is he hasn't been bought-and-paid-for unlike the rest of the candidates.
AccountKiller
Dr. Paul's ideas would be fine for certain countries of Europe, like maybe Norway, Sweden, Finland, or Switzerland.
Not for the US. The US economy depends on continuous access to trade partners around the world, especially for fossil fuels, and that requires massive military resources and commitment on a global scale. You can't get that with the kind of isolationism that Dr. Paul advocates. In fact, the US is one of the few countries for which his foreign policy ideas make no sense (Israel, China, and Russia would be among the others).
I think most centralist will side with Paul on many issues. Who wants the leader of the free world to look like a Treasure troll who's losing his hair right? But since the invention of TV, the prettier candidate has always won since JFK. Gore vs. Bush was probably the only exception. But who knows what really happened with Florida right?
I think Rand Paul will be a serious contender for the GOP ticket in 2016. He'll have many of the views that make Ron popular, but better looking and be serious considered for the ticket.
I'm from the UK and so have no vested interest but I am a bit of a Ron Paul fan and this article smacks of the same shit that saw him completely ignored in almost every single MSM news piece and article on the GOP nomination race.
In space no-one can hear your vuvuzela.
You see, you have a government and that's the problem. With me, RP, you get rid of that pesky government and if you don't have a government then how can you have a problem?!
You're completely brainwashed and you don't even know it.
Look at the guy's voting history. That says it all. Stop hating just because you fear REAL change.
Good post. I'd say he's the best of three evils. I didn't think so before but I do now.
That's okay, if he's not on the ballot come November I'll write in his name anyway.
I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of stances, including most of his core ones. However, of all the politicians I've followed for any kind of time (which is only a few dozen), he has been the most steadfast in his ideals (i.e. he doesn't change with the direction of the wind) and he'll tell it like it is. I also completely agree with his States' Rights stance. While I think he would make a terrible President, I think he makes a great candidate since his participation usually calls out the other guys on something or other, and he at least questions the status quo. I will write him in because I want to encourage him to continue running for President (but never win.)
Also because the other choices don't interest me in the least.
And nothing of value was lost.
you have a choice between a democrat devil or a republican devil who thinks he has superman underwear
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
He says, anything I Ron Paul agree with is constitutional, and anything I don't is not... I feel really sad that people are taken in by this guy eg, if Texas wants to enact a law saying gays and blacks have to sit at the back of the bus, thats OK with R Paul
What he is saying is that it's not okay with him as a person, but that he would not be able to support it in good conscience as a president, if elected.
The Paul campaign is redirecting their attention to the delegate strategy---which is turning out to be very successful. This is being discussed at The Daily Paul. They predicted that the media would intentionally misrepresent this as Ron Paul ending his campaign, and they were right.
Liberty in your lifetime
You must not be familiar with Celine's Third Law: "An honest politician is a national calamity."
Sounds crazy until you start thinking of politicians who weren't sellouts, then it suddenly makes a lot of sense.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Amusing that so many people claim the Constitution as their banner and claim it represents their precise political views, when it predates basically all modern political discourse and their own views are so reprehensible. Amusing that the Libertarians might claim to be the same party as the Democratic-Republican Party, or the Federalist Party, and claim all sides of the First Party System as themselves.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
The problem with RP's thinking is that we already did exactly as he spouts. The result were robber barons, Standard Oil, most US citizens living in squalor except for a few like Carnegie and Frick, health insurance being your rosary, food quality being as good as the sausage from "The Jungle", and zero economic growth until things got so bad in the early 1930s that the nation nearly had a revolution, as starving people don't give a care about much else.
The politicians have drilled it into our heads that the people born during the 1950s were the only Americans in history who had honor a work ethic, and gave a squatting shit about the country, but do we have to run the country into the ground ever deeper with each passing election year? It wasn't that long ago where you could go to college with any major, get a decent job, and have a family. Now, there are very few majors that are marketable at all, so a college grad either joints the military as a PVC, or they join O* and enjoy the hospitality of the private prison system.
RP thinking will mean that nations that have zero scruples will be the ones dictating the rules and owning the resources. Think oil is bad now? Pull all the US troops out, and it will be just a happy dream once the PLA gets its garrisons around the world. RP has zero clue about the importance of international politics... but he plays to the dumbest of the dumb, which seem to be an ever-increasing voting bloc these days.
Dr. Paul has enough primary votes that he officially qualifies for the Republican convention stage. He's now saving resources. Dr. Paul applies the same strategy to government. We should spend what we need to get the effects we desire but no more.
Romney by contrast is wasteful and arrogant attempting to buy victory without any strategy besides big spending. Romney acts just like Bush Jr.
Ron Paul is a lunatic. The 20% of his potentially useful commentary is ruined by the 80 % of his lunatic rants such as :
1 The gold in the U.S. Treasury is not 99 percent fine but only 96 percent.
2. Eliminate the Department of Education ( Thanks for contributing to U.S. illiteracy and innumeracy )
3. The U.S. should return to the Gold standard ( You forgot something, the WORLD dropped the gold standard ).
Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout, C.I.O.
P.S.: Ron Paul's agenda is further the political career of his nutjob son, Rand Paul. I'll this wacko for a later essay.
At least he tries to stick to his interpretation of it rather than just doing whatever the fuck he wants. I'm pretty sure if you had a good enough argument about why his views on the constitutionality of a matter were incorrect, he would at least consider it. The Constitution isn't perfect, which is why there's still a lot of debate on some ambiguous matters, but there are plenty of politicians who blatantly ignore it. I'd rather have someone who is at least interested in following the Constitution, even if I disagree with his or her interpretations of it. It's better than someone who has no respect for it and will do whatever they please with utter disregard for the Constitutional legality of it.
>>> if Texas wants to enact a law saying gays and blacks have to sit at the back of the bus, thats OK with R Paul
Um no. The Supreme Court already ruled that segregation is a violation of the equality amendment. (14? 16? I forget). As for Obama's position: Marriage licenses are not granted by the Congress. They are granted by the People and their Legislatures. The U.S. has no authority to overrule what local people desire, anymore than the E.U. has the authority to force the Greeks or Poles or Spaniards to issue gay marriage licenses.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
why the fuck is this on slashdot?
I've pretty much decided to vote for the lesser evil this year. Pretty sad to think that Cthulhu is the lesser evil when compared to Mickey Mouse.
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
He's just focusing on the state conventions instead of the popular votes, which is a completely healthy and viable strategy.
For instance, he lost the Nevada Primary: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/04/nevada-caucus-results-2012_n_1254069.html
Only to win almost all the actual delegates later on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-wins-majority-of-nevada-delegates/2012/05/06/gIQA1An15T_blog.html
This is not a campaign in decline, just one that's only spending money where it counts, instead of wasting it on beauty contests.
Actually, I don't think he would consider it, or more importantly, wouldn't consider the real fix. Constitutional revision to improve our system of government's foundational principles would enable a lot of impediments to be fiedx, or at least foster some discussion on how we really want to run things.
Instead, we have people like Ron Paul who puffs out his tune, and closes of his ears.
He doesn't want discussion. He's not open to it. He puts up a flat wall of rhetoric that offers no opening.
Maybe to you he sounds principle, to me he seems dogmatic.
I thought his "popularity" was due to his anti-war, pro-drug, and pro-racism stances. Although generally not all 3 in the same Paulite.
He states that the government doesn't have the right to tell people how to think. If someone is racist and murders a black person for being black he's not going to say that man should get away with it. The man should be condemned for murder still. Why would anyone think the government knows best for how I think. BTW I'm Native American (something that makes me laugh about the illegal immigrants woe's) and my people were raped, murdered, then condemned to true ghetto's. It's wrong to discriminate, but it's far more wrong for the government to tell me how I think is wrong. As long as I don't impede on others rights I should be able to consume what I like, say what I like, do what I like.
Always remember you supposedly have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those who forget that don't belong here, and that goes for most of our current politicians. Note, I also mostly vote typically democratic, as I believe "Obamacare" falls under the right to life, and both parties disagree with my right to liberty. One win is better than none.
TL;DR Summary: Ron Paul believes in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the government doesn't have the right to tell a man how to think.
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
What tha fuck does this have to do with a slash and a dot? or a pound and bang for that matter? WTF?? How the fuck is this news for nerds? What the fuck is happening to Slashdot lately? Useless unrelated political crap and Google bashing is about all you find these days.
Lately? You must be new here.
bump on the 'how the fuck is this news for nerds'
I know how brainy people can have a wide range of interests,
but that's not what this site is for. It's for a narrow/deep range
of interests that geeks as a whole, respond to. Politics, is
not one of those subjects. Electronic Voting is. Zimmerman
is not. Electronic gun countermeasures are.
Any tonic diluted enough will eventually just be water.
News for nerds, stuff that matters... oh woe the comma.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
She'll do it for racists. She'll do it for gays. She'll probably put out for just about any position you send her way.
I'm writing him in in November no matter what happens.
When Obama was born, the marriage of his parents would have been illegal in a good chunk of the United States. The Supreme Court put a stop to that in 1967. The Fourteenth amendment gives the Federal Government a tremendous amount of power to overrule what local people desire, because so many local peoples desired that severely tanned individuals not be citizens. Ironically enough the very states that Obama would leave those decisions to were forced by the federal government to allow marriages like that of his parents within his lifetime. I wonder if the irony is lost on him. He's a constitutional scholar, so you'd think he'd be aware of that.
I'd like to see someone ask Romney how he feels about interracial marriage. And whether his great-grandfather was right to run off to Mexico to be a polygamist. I'm sure his response would be amusing.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What tha fuck does this have to do with a slash and a dot? or a pound and bang for that matter? WTF?? How the fuck is this news for nerds? What the fuck is happening to Slashdot lately? Useless unrelated political crap and Google bashing is about all you find these days.
Yeah, so you really should stop reading the articles. And posting about them, especially stop posting about them.
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
His calls for strict adherence to a rather peculiar and narrow interpretation of the Constitution that more closely resembles the thinking of the Antifederalists that were against the US Constitution rather than the thinking of the Federalists who ratified it.
Arsenic vs Nicotine. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! ;-)
Any good choices are marginalized as being fruitcakes.
It is fitting that Obama smokes.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Pretty bad example.
The EU court of human rights would have the force to stop the Greeks, Poles and Spaniards to stop discriminating against gay citizens if a case came before it and it found in favour.
Actually, many people are following your advice. Slashdot's rapidly-declining traffic over the years is evidence to that effect. The real question is what the cause/effect relationship is. Are people leaving because Slashdot has begun posting entirely worthless non-news-for-nerds articles, or is Slashdot posting this garbage in a desperate effort to recruit more readers?
The VP has a tiebreaking vote in the Senate.
Actually, the VP can preside over the Senate all the time, but usually leaves that to the Senate's president pro tempore for routine business
That's the legal power, others have spoken on the political power.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Does that mean he's doing a good efficient job of ending it all? Because I don't think 'stop' is in the RonPaul vocabulary
It turns out that the Republican National Committee has inadvertently disqualified Mitt Romney -- either that or they open themselves to a class action law suit which would require them to cough up tens of millions of dollars to Ron Paul supporters.
On 4/25/2012 the RNC made this statement:
"Governor Romney's strong performance and delegate count at this stage of the primary process has made him our party's presumptive nominee," Mr. Priebus said. "In order to maximize our efforts I have directed my staff at the R.N.C. to open lines of communication with the Romney campaign."
and
"It's my intention to have a seamless and complete merger between the presumptive nominee and the Republican National Committee," Mr. Priebus said. "That means political, communications, fund-raising, research and the chairman's office, along with the governor's main operational team, are completely merged."
The RNC's rule number 11 ( which can be found on page 13 here http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf ) States:
"(a) The Republican National Committee shall not, without the prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee from the state involved, contribute money or in-kind aid to any candidate for any public or party office except the nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is unopposed in the Republican primary after the filing
deadline for that office."
(b) ... No person nominated in violation of this rule shall be recognized by the Republican National Committee as the nominee of the Republican Party from that state."
That the Republican Party is a "private" organization with its own rules doesn't permit it to defraud the public -- not even if that public is its own members. People have joined the Republican Party and made monetary donations on the reasonable presumption that the RNC would follow its own rules IT HAS ADVERTISED TO THE PUBLIC. The damages are actual and the fraud deliberate. Triple damages are due to all who have contributed to Republican candidates for President and the RNC is liable.
Seastead this.
You knew Ron Paul would drop out the day he announced he was running. While he has some good ideas, he is weak. You know it, I know it and the GOP knows it which is why they ignore him. Ron Paul doesn't have the balls to form a viable third party and he doesn't have the balls to run as an independent. Either of those choices would give him some real leverage, but he's to much of a pussy to do either of them.
The game is all about the nonsense. The nonsense is the funding and more importantly the publicity.
What bugs me the most is the people who vote and why. Often times they want to "vote for the winner." They think this is a sport where they are choosing who they think will win. WTF?! Also, people don't vote for who they think will not win. Are they under some illusion they are placing a bet and will win something? People are so hung up on "losing" or "being wrong" that they forget they are actually participating in something that actually plays a role in setting directions and making changes.
There are a LOT of people who like Ron Paul but will not vote for him because they think he can't win. I wonder how people get these strange ideas into their heads. They say things like "unelectable." I can't for certain say what that's supposed to mean, but when it comes from news media, it definitely means "your vote is 'wasted' on him!" Really? What's a wasted vote? The only wasted vote is one which is not cast.
I get the psychology. I totally get it. I just don't like that people are REALLY that stupid. If people think of it like a sport, they are forgetting that they ARE PLAYERS in the sport. It's like "I'm not going to try to score because I think the other players on my team suck." Well guess what? You suck because you're not playing right!
Ron Paul... he wouldn't have been effective. But the next one to follow him would have been. We have a system of "good ole boys" that needs to be purged and reformed in a big way.
This is a really sad day but he hung in there to just about the bitter end. He really is the only viable candidate to be the next president of the United States. I was proud to cast my vote for Ron Paul in the primary. If Mitt Romney were smart, he'd reach out to Ron Paul to be his Vice President. Somehow, I don't think Romney will, but he should.
Ron Paul has been frozen out by the mainstream media for decades, from Faux News to the liberal media. His rising popularity shows that people are waking up, albeit, late. Too bad, he could have saved us a few trillion in waste, crimes and losses.
I don't know, I'd say the kind that blindly pushes through on purely campaign donation grounds is even worse, and far more common. At least when you put a bunch of competing idealists in a room they tend to argue themselves to a standstill, and anything they do agree on is likely to be at least somewhat reasonable. Put a bunch of fund chaser's in the same room and they'll all realize they were all bought by a small handful of moneyed interests, and whatever they agree on will almost certainly not be good for the common ma.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The articles being posted here are becoming more inaccurate and sensational by the day.
I mean, he's a "conservative," (kind of, but also not really - certainly not in any way mainstream and not really a social conservative at all; maybe more libertarian-fiscal-conservative-Constitutionalist to the extreme), but a total whack-job, a racist, a bizarre eugenicist, a trained MD with a whole heaping helping of nutty fringe ideas going on in his head and he gets a lot of natural play from geeks who tend to think in a similar manner, completely anti-Conservative (basically liberal but sort of interested in libertarianism), anti-religion, anti-Christian, anti-Fox (anything) but sort of sitting at the feet of a master at the whole over-the-edge fringe libertarian mindset. He's successful at raising money but there is virtually zero chance of Paul selling himself on the national stage. At the opposite extreme, the same is true of someone like Sarah Palin - she wouldn't sell on the national stage, but the media reacts to her because she is something they truly hate: female and conservative Christian (and pretty much dumb, too, but that's not really it ultimately; the "you betcha" homilies were a distraction and fodder for SNL - it's the conservative Christian thing that set the blogosphere, MSM ablaze when she was up for Veep and sent every cub reporter up in an airplane to Alaska to dig through her trash). She was already and would certainly be eviscerated by the media if she tried to run for President, certainly more so than Paul has been or would be because Paul isn't and never has been an actual threat to the Democrat/Republican political power base and duopoly. He's a curiosity, talks funny, and is "too smart" for the plebes. He's likable, got interesting ideas, is articulate about them, even when they're completely nutty, but there's also this sense that he's just effing weird and really, really off internally, like he's brilliant but isn't dealing with a full deck. This naturally appeals to geeks and socially-retarded geniuses who jerk their gerks on to their keyboards and erect Mountain Dew Tower of Babels because it's like hey Paul is a guy who has "made it" and they want him, really, really bad to make it to the Presidency - where, with the extreme political logjam that would ensue because of his ideological intransigence, he'd ultimately be another Jimmy Carter, or lame-duck President for the four very long years he'd spend in office. Nerds should just get over their enchantment with the guy and move along or just be content that he's a curiosity and stop trying to oversell and troll Paul on any message board or comment on the global Interwebs that counteracts their received Paulian wisdom, like they were Scientologists or something.
where are the amendments, you know, the legit way to fix problems? pretty much all of the last century was about the Supreme Court piling politically convenient shit upon more shit which led to a situation where the federal government can do anything the fuck they want, eg use interstate commerce clause to bust you for a plant that never left your house.
I can't comprehend how all these ridiculous interpretations can fly considering explicit, black-on-white 'federal govt is limited' in the constitution.
idiotic troll post modded informative? lol nice try.
I'm sure we'll see you again next Presidential cycle Ron or perhaps you can do what your sleazy scumbag son did regarding his physician's license-
http://allbleedingstops.blogspot.com/2010/06/rand-paul-self-certified-physician.html
and self-certify yourself as President:
You know he would if he could .
All the posts that were not Paulbot suck-ups got modded "Troll" 2-3 times in the last 5 minutes.
I wonder how many fake accounts the Paulbots have?
Fox News is neither conservative nor liberal; they are all about ratings and will say damn near anything or support any position that is controversial and draws viewers to increase advertising revenue. They're not above even fabricating stories (see the moniker Faux News) or wiretapping in order to increase viewership.
I don't trust any of the news channels, really, except CSPAN (which really isn't news, per se, but public affairs coverage so bias is less likely). I'll view multiple sources, consider the sources and the intent, and arrive at my own conclusions. The truth usually lies somewhere between Faux News' spin and MSNBC's and CNN's. The unfortunate thing is that journalistic integrity ceased to exist long before most of us were born.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The Paul campaign is concentrating on the delegate races, not the primaries. The campaign continues, and there will be plenty of Ron Paul supporters at the convention in Tampa, just as we've been seeing in the state caucuses and conventions to date.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Um no. The Supreme Court already ruled that segregation is a violation of the equality amendment.
Ron Paul disagrees with this ruling ("activist court," etc.) and would push for a constitutional amendment undoing that ruling.
Please god tell me you are not my bus driver. Or work on intensive care. Or a nuclear plant. Well, pretty much anywhere. Please tell me you are sitting in your mothers basement with nothing more dangerous around you then a tool to access all the knowledge in the world and a unhinged mind... OH FUCK!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Negative, the story is all BS. Ron Paul has refuted this story...
Posting to undo accidental mod point
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
In 2008, you could make a plausible case that the media didn't pay attention to him, but this time you're dead wrong. He was in all the debates and got plenty of face time with major news outlets. He was even the center of his own news cycle when the racist newsletters came up again, a reminder that media attention cuts both ways.
The ticket to win 538 electoral votes.
New Economic Perspectives
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/05/14/ron-paul-has-not-suspended-his-campaign/
yeah.
I bet Ron Paul could fare better as Democrat honestly, just reduce his most extreme conservative positions, ignore Obamacare, go hardcore pot legalization, anti-war, anti-contractor-fraud, etc. He'd beat any other democrat in all the red states, so the democrats would simply roll over and try calling him a centrist compromise. There aren't many Republicans with any sanity, but they'd all be forced to vote for him in the general election.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Hard to recall seeing a /. headline that got the story so wrong.
See you in Tampa!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
While the federal reserve was still held to maintaining parity with gold (their failure here brought on the rush to the banks) the gold standard in effect was simply theoretical gold represented by federal reserve notes. Ron Paul's brother talks about the debt problem pretty effectively in his video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4gPPdlisMQ
Your identification of bad debt within a so-called gold standard is equivalent to the precious metals market today and "paper silver" that you can see with its massive naked short selling. Even in a system that is "based" on precious metals one must do their homework. That's why Ron Paul advocates eliminating the Fed through stopping the taxes of precious metal sales.
http://timreichhart.com/ronpaul.php Ron Paul is NOT 'effectively ending his campaign' He is putting the money to better use than smear ads and bullcrap.
His rising popularity is "vocal internet nerds who at one time would have supported LaRouche."
If Romney wins the general election, RAND Paul won't be able to run for president until 2020! at the soonest. If you really believe in Ron Paul's message, I recommend a vote for Obama this time around just so we can have another shot at real freedom in 2016. Even if you hate Obama, it's better to vote for him and live with it for another 4 years if it means we can vote for RAND Paul in 2016. If Romney wins, Rand Paul can't run until 2020! . . . ugh.
He doesn't want discussion. He's not open to it. He puts up a flat wall of rhetoric that offers no opening.
I want to imagine that's vision. I also suspect he's already heard every argument you could put to him. He knows/thinks he knows what you need/want, and knows that's what's gone on so far isn't working, so he wants to try it his way. What've you got to lose? What you're doing now isn't working.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
He is the only candidate that talks truth, which of course makes him unelectable.
No one ever wants to vote for reality.
'I don't think there's any need to advocate selfishness amongst human beings. I don't know what your impression has been, but some things do not need reinforcement'
--Christopher Hitchens on Ayn Rand, 'no-positivism' in "The Moral Necessity of Atheism"
You think that CSPAN is trustworthy? This happened yesterday. Take a look. It's only 18 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pots7T4vOT8
BTW I'm Native American (something that makes me laugh about the illegal immigrants woe's) and my people were raped, murdered, then condemned to true ghetto's.
Your people went to reservations not ghettos. Maybe they turned into something like ghettos but that's not our fault. Might have made something of them if you didn't just sit around on your asses pissing, moaning, and drinking firewater.
I was so hoping Ron Paul would cause Mitt Romney as much trouble as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum combined.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
No idea why they're moding you down, because you're 100% right.
+1
-wmbetts
if I had 36 million in donations, I would probably keep it. I mean, even if I win and I win and I win, who wants to be President as a Republican?
Correct, but getting Ron Paul's follower's support is key #1 to the Republican strategy.
One has to ask, in the light of reports, what kind of supporters these are.
I don't like my choices, and I sympathize with some small 'L' libertarian positions, but Paul has not carried a single state in the primaries. He has won a few delegates from proportional states, and lost all the 'winner takes all' states. I put in a honest protest vote for Paul as a statement in hopes that it would force the mainstream party to consider catering more to policies I care about, but I knew it was almost an absolute certainty that Romney would carry my state, and he did.
Being a moderate libertarian that voted for Paul, looking at the big picture of the election, it is over. Paul does not have a chance - you can debate the specifics why all day, but he did not have a chance. The Paulbots are so active on the internet, and claim so righteously that Paul has popular support of the majority and is the man of our time, but when it came down to the vote, he didn't win a single state. That is a fact. There is no getting around that, and to continue to claim otherwise is to cross the line into delusional irrationality that borders on preaching condescendingly to the great unwashed. You don't win more support by talking down to people that way. The shrillness discredits the positions that the Paulbots claim to support by alienating the mainstream - this is such a stupid disservice to the cause of libertarianism that it is to the point where I wonder if operatives of the establishment wings of both parties are trolling as Paulbots just to further discredit the little support it has left. So what is the point to continue shrilly calling for Paul in 2012? How is that constructive at all?
Given how things are going, I know how to vote my conscience when the time comes.
Fully expecting the Paulbots to downrate this into oblivion, but I said my piece. Good day.
How is this even remotely SlashDot newsworthy?
or is Slashdot posting this garbage in a desperate effort to recruit more readers?
Like the History Channel, which no longer has shows about actual history and instead has "Ancient Aliens", "Swamp People", "Ice Road Truckers", "Axe Men" and other such crap?
Do you trust government more than gold, or do you trust gold more than government? History trusts gold.
The beginning of the end for America. Romney v. Obama is a joke. Let the American landslide begin...or continue.
Maybe you aren't being targeted by a small handful of zealots... maybe it's just that a whole bunch of regular people think you're kind of a dick?
And hey, maybe it's both.
Personally, I have no tolerance for Libertarians, they seem to come in only two flavors: Those woefully (or willfully) ignorant of history and ideologues. Regulation didn't spring from Zeus' head fully formed for no reason. It was a response to real abuses and real crises. The Federal Reserve was created as a response to a SERIES of economic shocks and bubbles and has largely, though certainly imperfectly succeeded in at least reducing the frequency and severity of these shocks. Libertarians tend to get upset because this 'interferes' with the the market. It does, and deservedly so, the market's nature is a destructive cycle of boom and bust. If you look at the actual evidence and statistics. The actions of the fed have been a net plus.
Libertarians also seem to believe in the purely competitive marketplace. Any economist will tell you that this condition only exists in immature markets. Mature markets always tend toward monopoly or oligopoly, neither of which is good for consumers. THAT is why anti-trust laws were put in place. To increase, not decrease competitive pressures on business. Things were BAD when J.P Morgan and the other robber barons controlled things and as anti-trust laws have been relaxed they have started to get bad once again. Human nature doesn't change.
Second there is the pervasive belief among them that this nation was founded on the principle of capitalism, It wasn't. Capitalism didn't exist. More to the point the founding fathers seem to have been somewhat divided on the topic. Thomas Paine said "It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal.". Similarly, Thomas Jefferson expressed some views that would seem socialistic these days. The United States was a country of small farmers and craftsmen, not large multinationals. In fact the Mercantile system (which we fought against in the form of the British Empire) was probably closer to our corporate system than anything else. So on the whole, no I don't necessarily think that the founding fathers would have liked the corporate system that exists today.
So yeah, I generally find that most Libertarians either don't know this stuff or don't care and simply feel that ideology should trump the practicalities. Personally, I'd rather not go (back) there.
Moderators, emergency! Mod kdawson up!
I find it's the Libertarians of the Ron Paul kind who exhibit a lot of persecution complex. They seem to think that the country and the system are full of corruption and everybody who disagrees with them is part of the corruption, so they're besieged from all sides as the only sane voice fighting an uphill battle against the eeeevil empire
This is juxtaposed to all the pleas for people (who they have little trouble calling sheep or shills or... "dick"... if they disagree with Libertarians) to support them.
The day he announced his plan to run for president.
What I don't understand is why does Ron Paul seem to focus exclusively on the presidency.
Why not gather a bunch of like-minded people, who would pledge to uphold his ideals, and try to get them into Congress?
Granted, I don't follow US politics closely so I may be missing something.
Joe Biden brought the RIAA/MPAA/BSA copyright mafia to the Whitehouse. The George Cloony record fundraiser was no fluke.
If the United States doesn't want to be led by a decent man then send him to Canada.
We could use one here.
>>>Ron Paul would push for a constitutional amendment
You couldn't be any more wrong than if your name was Wrong Wrongenstein. When an Anti-gay marriage amendment was voted on, Congressman Paul voted "no". It's funny watching you people make false claims.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
It depends on your view whether a fetus is considered "life". It isn't completely irrational to take that stance. It is much the same as whether or not those in long-term comas should be considered a "life".
Why are computer geeks so into Ron Paul? I mean, he gets his own article on Slashdot when he suspends his campaign.
He has been frozen out because he is a minor nutball candidate that only a small minority of idiots would actually like to see in power
When an Anti-gay marriage amendment was voted on, Congressman Paul voted "no".
For exactly the same reasons: he feels that discrimination should be dealt with at the state level at worst, and preferably by "the market."
The Republican National Committee called me. I told them under no circumstances would I vote for Romney. They used the angle that "We must get Obama out of the White House...." Seems they completely brushed aside the "under no circumstances" of my earlier statement. And I won't.
Regardless of how the Repubs try to remove the leopard spots from Romney, he is a VERY good friend of the large financial institutions and big business. I'm weary of the borderline legal/illegal financial corruption going on in the large investment banks, They are doing the U.S. people and economy no favors. Ron Paul would have won Idaho had the Republicans not instituted a caucus system that made it a huge burden to vote for most folks. Only the Mormons showed up in force to support Romney. The elderly were essentially excluded.
I want to vote for a fiscal conservative, moral conservative, and pro small business candidate. Guess I'll be voting independent, and I'm content wait and see what candidates the parties come up with for the next election.
America is rapidly reaching the realization that not only is Obama NOT the president (he's put there to give you the illusion of office), but also that Romney is little more than a presidential sibling with few substantial differences (other than Mitt's wife is beautiful, and OB's wife is downright scary!) Americans who pay taxes are getting worn a little thin on things now. The difficulty is that Liberals have a terrible time with things like "change", "Facts", or personal responsibility. Liberals are like christian fundamentalists who have "read a few pages" and now feel qualified to go out and preach the word. At the root of Liberalism is corruption. At the root of corrupt Repulicanism... is closet Liberalism. The Mayans may have been right about the end of 2012. America has one move left in this game. If you get it wrong, you are F***ked. Ron Paul is the only winning move.
Question: what happens to the unspent campaign contributions?
oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
Well, he sounds like he's responding to "soulskill", but he's actually responding to "Zero__Kelvin". He went all DIAF in his subject line, to someone who probably wasn't even listening. Unless Zero__Kelvin is a soulskill sockpuppet, kdawson is engaging in ad-hominem warfare with an empty battlefield. The argument wouldn't be convincing even if it were directed to the right person. It's at best flamebait and adds nothing to the discussion. If I had mod points (and he weren't already at -1) I'd mod him down, too.
See: http://youtu.be/SiJQURoKuiQ
Do not believe the MSM !
An interesting concept but thats still a finite amount of gold, even when it's amount seems astronomical in surface value. Consider what was the cost to acquire this haul? moving that much mass in gold from space would cost a fortune in itself so I am not sure that that "small" and limited amount of inflation would vastly effect the perceived value of gold long term any more then finding a mother lode. While the amount of value stealing inflation from running a printing press at little to no cost for nearly a hundred years is far more shattering then your scenario.
When a government with a finite amount of money requires more money for what ever reason (perhaps one the public is not in favour of such as going to war?) they need to ask for more money through direct taxes to the people. When they have a federal reserve system they just get the bank to run off some more money (inflation), and pass the debt for the no value paper money back to the people, who then have to create something of value to pay for the debt of the money that never had any value of it's own. Inflation is stealing.
Also there is interest on this no value money. Consider that it is illegal to charge unreasonable interest rates for a loan. charging any interest on money that does not truly exist or have it's own value seems unreasonable to me.
I can understand that some of Paul's stated goals are attractive to people.
But what I can't understand is how anyone who considers themselves even remotely scientifically minded, would choose to support someone who is purely ideologically driven.
Why aren't we trying to support candidates that actually look at studies, facts, policies that have been field tested around the world, and then make decisions on those things instead of an ideology? It seems to me that unwavering ideology is just as dangerous as unwavering religious beliefs when it comes to policy decisions.
. The U.S. has no authority to overrule what local people desire
Which is what Obama said.
"The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own."
Posting AC so that everyone doesn't know what a dumbass you really are?
The NA's were consistently pushed off of good, arable lands to places that would barely support animal life above the size of insects. The were ripped from their cultural underpinnings which would allow them to fend for themselves, and shoved into a culture of government dependencies. Education was non-existent or a joke.
Reservation. Ghetto. Tomaeto. Tomahto. Either way, you're an idiot.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
No he does NOT think states should discriminate. He lived through the segregation as a doctor, and yet still treated blacks in direct violation of the law.
Where the hell do you people come-up with this "Paul is racist" stuff? Probably the same place you invented the idea that Obama is not a citizen. For the record, the former NAACP Chair said, "The charge is ridiculous. I have known Congressman Paul for many years and he is in no way prejudiced against black persons."
As for individuals YES they have the right to discriminate. It's called freedom. It is why the Supreme Court has said the KKK, as onerous as that group is, has a right to exist. Vice-versa blacks have a right to discriminate too... such as excluding whites from attending their churches, or businesses, or homes. I may not agree with that stance, but I do think people have the freedom to choose that path in life.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Joe Biden's contribution to this presidency hasn't been in the form of policy decisions, it's been mainly as a public speaker and ideological mouthpiece. And in that capacity, he's arguably done a fantastic job - just look at how the gay-marriage thing played out last week.
That ain't nothin. Last week his Freudian slip referring to President Romney was especially insightful.
No he does NOT think states should discriminate.
"Should" and "should be allowed to" are two different concepts. Even ignoring his stance on discrimination in and of itself, his priority is "states' rights." Ron Paul's politics view the Fourteenth Amendment as federal overreach, and whatever his views of the ends, for him they do not justify the means.
For the record, the former NAACP Chair said, "The charge is ridiculous. I have known Congressman Paul for many years and he is in no way prejudiced against black persons."
[citation needed]
a right to discriminate too... such as excluding (...) attending their churches, or businesses, or homes. I may not agree with that stance, but I do think people have the freedom to choose that path in life.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. You insist that private business has the right to do whatever it wills regardless of whether it operates a public space or not. I imagine you feel the same way about building codes.
I've been telling Republicans to use their own brains and vote for Paul because with Paul you get:
1. The Republican votes you get with any Republican.
2. The Libertarian vote - probably more Libertarians (note the big L) like myself would vote for Paul instead of our own candidate because we know he'll have a better chance of winning and he's one of us.
3. Lots of independents.
4. Lots of other third party votes.
5. Blue Democrats.
With Romney they get:
1. The Republican votes you get with any Republican.
Sure Romney can beat Paul when all you consider is Republicans, but Paul beats Romney AND Obama when you consider everyone. The Republicans might win with Romney, but it's going to be a difficult race. Paul would have made it close to a sure thing. Now it's time for dirt digging and mud slinging.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
You either believe in freedom, or you don't. If a black person is allowed to keep whites from attending his restaurant, church, or home, then he is a freeman. If a black person is not allowed to do that, and forced to let whites into his private buildings, then he is just a serf to the government.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I'd like to see citation on his vote, I know he is personally very religious, but he does believe in separation of church and state.
He's right semantically ghetto doesn't work if we're working with a 17th century dictionary. These days Websters even calls a place of rabid poverty. Go to the residential area of a reservation, and see it. It makes tribal lands in Africa look rich.
restaurant, church, or home
At least one of those doesn't belong in that list. Most people do not solicit the general public to freely enter their home.
then he is just a serf to the government.
You can cook for yourself and eat whatever you choose, but if you try to serve the food you prepare to the general public, you are expected to adhere to health regulations. Does that make you a "serf to the government?"
You can build whatever kind of structure on your property and live in it however you choose, but if you use the building as a storefront, you are expected to adhere to building and fire codes. Does that make you a "serf to the government?"
One parasitic austerity ghoul down, a shit load left to get rid of.
Thet title alone is more propaganda.
He is suspending his bid for the GOP nomination, not the race to be president.