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."
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
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
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"
He is the only candidate that talks truth, which of course makes him unelectable.
No one ever wants to vote for reality.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
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 have a choice between a democrat devil or a republican devil who thinks he has superman underwear
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
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."
Randians and reality are utterly unacquainted with each other.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
>>> 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"
I'm still planning on voting for him.
I think that the two party system we have is inherently broken. Do I think Paul would be the best president? not by a long shot. Do I think he would shake things up enough? hopefully.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Yeah, it has nothing to do with Paul's extremely unpopular opinions on most topics and crazy old man demeanor. People "just can't handle the truth".
He is the only candidate that talks truth, which of course makes him unelectable.
i am not familiar with this strange new kind of "truth: you are referring to. ron paul's ideas would bring great opportunity for a very select and small number of people and oppression and misery for many, many, more. on top of that, much of it requires him to do things that are not within the power granted to the president.
No one ever wants to vote for reality.
no paullower would recognize reality if it bit them in the ass.
and yes, that was my comment. but because i have pissed off the slashdot paullowers i am not allowed to post more than twice a day under my own name on slashdot..
If you hate a machine and don't know what to do, throw a monkey wrench at it. At the very least, the grinding of gears will make for a change of pace.
VOTE RON PAUL!
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Do I think Paul would be the best president? not by a long shot. Do I think he would shake things up enough? hopefully.
... and that's why the House of Reps needs him exactly where he is. He does a great job putting what brakes he can on legislative excess before things get out of the committees he's on. People who want him to run for President don't often think of how well he does keep things shaken up. His positions fit his current position just right.
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 */
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.
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?
The problem is that for every truth he speaks, he also speaks a dozen absurdities. He's ignorant of history, economics and governance. He'd make the worst kind of leader; the kind that blindly pushes through on purely ideological grounds. Beware the fanatic.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
goldbuggery
Yeah that's right. Tell me, what has had value for thousands of years. I guess that preferring a metal that has had value for thousands of years and will have value as far as we can tell for thousands more, over a piece of paper that politicians can print pretty much at will, makes hima loon.
nativism and xenophobia
TY, I learned a new word. He thinks that we have laws for immigration that should be followed and that the current immigration process should be streamlined. I guess that's xenophobia? lol
extreme isolationism
So you walk around neighbourhood with a fully loaded M16, and occasionally march into random people's houses and order them around with a gun to their faces? No? well then you must be an extreme isolationist!
cult-of-personality
Anyone who says that ron paul has a cult of personality is just beyond eliousonal about him. He is uncharismatic, he runs on sentences, he jumps around in his statements. If there's a ron paul cult, it's because he's spent 30 years or so in public office, standing by his principles while everyone mocks him.
yeah, tell me how voting for the lesser of two evils thing has been working out?
You like Ron Paul because he "talks truth", we like spazdor for the same reason.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
I actually don't like Ron Paul.
I just don't like assholes, blowhards, and fanboys. Whether they are arguing from a position I agree with or not.
There is absolutely no objective measure by which spazdor's comment is insightful. You would have to already agree with it, not mention being totally okay with stereotyping an ill-defined group of people and insulting them, and in that case it's not truly insightful - you already accept it as fact.
Some people are stupidly invest in some things or people. Guess what: the both of you are too, the irony is that you put it on display while making fun of others for doing the same thing.
i am not familiar with this strange new kind of "truth: you are referring to. ron paul's ideas would bring great opportunity for a very select and small number of people and oppression and misery for many, many, more
Except that the country's current course, with the utterly corrupt people currently in charge, is already bringing great opportunity for a very select and small number of politically-connected people and big corporations, and misery for many, many more. I don't see how having Paul in charge would be any worse. Instead, it'd probably be better, though not ideal: at least we'd get: 1) an end to the War on Some Drugs, along with all the federal spending on that, plus all the destructive effects it's having (creating a whole class of people who can't work and are forced into a life of crime), 2) an end to most of the foreign wars and empire-building and military bases overseas, along with a huge reduction in military spending, 3) for the liberals, gay marriage in some form, or at least no federal prohibitions on it, and 4) no more totally useless and insanely costly "stimulus" packages which give $22k Cisco routers to every puny little school in West Virginia. With all these cutback of things that are really hurting the economy and nation, then after Paul's gone we could get back to restoring additional government services that actually help instead of hurt. Effectively, having Paul in office would be like hitting the "reset" button on the government, something it desperately needs at this point.
However, as is obvious now, he's not going to be elected, and we're either going to get Romney or Obama (most likely Romney, though in practice there won't be any real difference between the two). So our nation is going to continue to go out of control until the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.
Yeah, that's another good comparison.
The problem with these guys is that they have forceful personalities conductive to a cult-of-personality campaign and organization style. So they say a few things that make sense (in a "blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while" sense) and then certain people are willing to jump on board with everything else they say without considering what's being said because "this guy started out making sense."
Consider the guy above you: "Tell me, what has had value for thousands of years. I guess that preferring a metal that has had value for thousands of years and will have value as far as we can tell for thousands more, over a piece of paper that politicians can print pretty much at will, makes hima loon."
Actually, the problem with goldbuggery is that it cannot work in the modern economic system for two reasons:
#1 - Most of the gold in the world is being used for industrial applications.
#2 - Even absent #1, there is not remotely enough gold in the world for even one major nation to create a "backing" system to allow people to trade in their currency for raw gold.
Additionally, even if that did exist, gold puts immense downward pressures on currency and economics. So much so that even at the beginning of the US, we actually existed on a silver standard, and only created a silver-to-gold exchange ratio in 1792 due to a shortage of enough silver to back the currency. The 1792 expansion was - tadahh! - the government instantly creating money by adding another so-called precious metal to the currency base.
Historically, goldbuggery and silverbuggery were pretty much at odds, and there was constant changing and exchanging of the two metals with other countries that were engaging in the same foolishness and setting their own silver-to-gold exchange rates. The Independent Treasury Act of 1848 caused a lot of gold to migrate to the British due to a skewed exchange rate; this also caused the gold rush of 1849, because gold was so overvalued by law. Constant changes in the availability of one metal or the other - due to finding of new veins for mining - would cause devaluation or overvaluation in one locality or another.
In short: hitching your finances to goldbuggery and silverbuggery is insanity. And it seems the only people who can't figure that out (the "never learned history so they're doomed to repeat it" crowd) tend to be on the Ron Paul side of the political spectrum.
if he's ignorant of economics, what would you say about the rest of the politcritters? He's rather well versed in economic theory but he sticks to the oldschool. I bet 90% of capitol hill doesn't know what 'keynesian' means. Same with history, he knows well who started the whole middle east mess with Iran and shit (CIA 1953), i wouldn't be so sure your average D.C. dweller knows that.
Because all of our problems are caused by the fed and none of those racist newsletters with his name on it are his.
Seriously. We're in serious trouble. We need serious people. We need serious economists and policy wonks.
Tearing it all down because of ideological purity isn't serious. It isn't even close. It's childish and stupid.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I bet 90% of capitol hill doesn't know what 'keynesian' means.
Not true. Roughly 50% of Congress knows it means "socialist."
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
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.
Apparently you're referring to the notion that Ron Paul is a great admirer of Ayn Rand and/or follows her philosophy. I hadn't heard that before, and a brief search turned up no real support for that view*. Your post is at best woefully incomplete and at worst simply irrelevant. How you got so many up-mods is beyond me.
* One site implies that Ron Paul's son Rand Paul was named in Ayn's honor, but his actual name is Randal and his wife shortened it to Rand from Randy. Another article says "Dr. Paul has said he is a great admirer of Ayn Rand", though I was unable to locate any direct quote to support this statement. This article is similar. I was unable to locate anything short of a few fringe views. Libertarians and libertarianism was apparently influenced by Ayn, but by no means exclusively.
goldbuggery
Yeah that's right. Tell me, what has had value for thousands of years. I guess that preferring a metal that has had value for thousands of years and will have value as far as we can tell for thousands more, over a piece of paper that politicians can print pretty much at will, makes hima loon.
Inflation is necessary for the proper functioning of the economy. You may be scared to death of inflation, but if it did not exist, peoples' natural tendency to save would act like brakes to slow down commerce activity. Nobody thinks that hyperinflation is a good idea, and the federal reserve does a really good job of preventing it. But inflation that varies between 0% - 5% per annum helps to encourage people to invest now rather than sit on piles of money that do nobody any good.
How can you be sure this is correct? A pile of money sitting on the ground all year long does nobody any good. Its net value to the economy is zero. Whether that money is paper or gold, it accomplishes nothing. On the other hand, a pile of money that is used as tender to exchange value between people lots of times generates tons of activity; it enables people to work, to feed their families, to buy entertainment, to do pretty much anything. Part of the reason the American economy is so huge and other countries' economies are so small is that America has lots of transactions that multiply the value of the currency that is in circulation.
Don't be scared of "politicians printing money". You should be much more scared about what will happen when people realize that gold is getting scarce and they should just buy it and sit on it and never spend it.
nativism and xenophobia
TY, I learned a new word. He thinks that we have laws for immigration that should be followed and that the current immigration process should be streamlined. I guess that's xenophobia? lol
America's immigration laws are self-defined. We wrote them, so we decide what is legal and what is illegal. It's purely a farce to say "This kind of immigration is illegal so they shouldn't do it." The opposite is true: we didn't want it to happen, so we made it illegal. Laws preventing people from migrating to America are a recent invention, and frankly they're doing more harm than good.
There are tons of talented people all around the world who wish they could live in America and start businesses and buy houses. We have lots of unemployed people who would love to work for a talented Chinese scientist or Indian doctor. We have tons of empty houses and it would be really neat if enterprising Latin Americans bought these homes and occupied them. Why aren't we willing to change our immigration laws to encourage people to immigrate?
I guess that preferring a metal that has had value for thousands of years and will have value as far as we can tell for thousands more, over a piece of paper that politicians can print pretty much at will, makes hima loon.
Gold's value swung wildly throughout history, causing massive short-term inflation and deflation. That is far more damaging than long-term inflation, which is easily avoided by not sitting on a pile of cash, which should be treated like a barter stand-in and not a gold equivalent.
Further, the same limited quantities that give gold the value you desire also make it too scarce for a growing economy.
And then there is the inability to "print" money. Ron Paul would probably put this in the "plus" column, but I think that governments will spend recklessly whether they can print money or not. Most of modern Europe is evidence that governments will borrow heavily even if they have no ability to print money. World history is chock-full of "Greeces", well before the federal reserve system was invented. In the US, we had plenty of bank failures, financial panics, and major recessions while on the gold standard. The federal reserve system gives the government more tools than it had prior to it's invention.
So in short, the main thrust of the pro-gold argument is that people who stuff their mattresses full of cash would be better off in the long run. No argument there. Of course they could be buying gold and stuffing that in their mattresses right now, so I'm frankly at a loss as to why we should give up all the advantages of the federal reserve system for such people.
Which gets me to the reason we tend to dismiss Ron Paul as a crazy person. What I wrote isn't remotely controversial. Banking has been a mess since it was invented - one of the core issues of our young country involved banking. We tried several national models, all of which had at least one spectacular failure. I'm under no delusion that the current Federal Reserve is the ultimate solution, but it seems to work better than it's predesessors. Ron Paul seems like a really intelligent guy, and he's also pretty well educated. So it really seems... odd... that he comes to the conclusions that he does on this matter. My conclusion is that his mind works in a way that is very different from my own. I could be the crazy one, but from my perspective he is the one drawing irrational conclusions.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Why does gold have value, though? For the exact same reason the US Dollar, or any other currency has value. Because we say it does.
Well, in 2000, it would have meant that we'd probably have Gore and not Bush.
But I gave Jeng's comment exactly the response it deserved.
You spat out a sweeping generalization based on your personal prejudice. Have you actually ever met any "Randians" or Libertarians, or does all you know of them come from /. forum discussions? Assume I'm one of them. We've never met, yet you presume you can read my mind? That's chutzpah. You know a lot less than you think you know.
Are you aware that Ron Paul once (?) ran as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate? Are you aware that Rand disagreed vicerally with many Libertarian points of view?
Yeah, you gave it exactly the response it deserved, eh?
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Um... How would there be oppression and misery? Somehow having a coherent foreign policy of free trade and not ZOMG BOMB EVERYTHING!!!1!11!1!1 is oppressive? Somehow opposing the unconstitutional detaining of American citizens is oppressive?
Very little that he wants to do is beyond the power of the president. If you want to talk about going beyond the power of the president how about you talk to Obama (and Bush) for starting wars without congress's approval and in the case of Obama ordering the execution of an American citizen without trial or due process via a drone strike.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Yeah, a lot of the candidates lately have been pretty similar.
Bush I and Clinton were nearly indistinguishable from an economic perspective. Dole would not have rocked the Clinton boat too much. Bush II was pretty different from Gore, but even he kind of surprised everyone out of the gate by greatly expanding Medicare. Again, Kerry seems like he would have been different - but then again, Obama seemed different as well, and where has that gotten him? He followed the Bush timeline to leave Iraq, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, continues to push record levels of illegal immigrants out of the country, kept Guantanamo open, kept the Bush financial bailout rolling, renewed the Patriot Act, and of course greatly expanded Medicare. I'll grant you that McCain would have never dusted off and passed the old Republican Heartland Institute health care plan. And on social issues, it is unlikely that he would have ended don't ask, don't tell.
But wow, get away from the largely symbolic "wedge issues" and the parties don't really have much differentiation.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
We have "serious people" Bernake is the most serious of academic economists, of course he is running the country into the ground. The educated economists that caused the hyperinflation in Germany, Zimbabwe, Hungary, etc. were "serious people" often the best in their fields. What then do you propose? Keynesian economics have failed. The collapse of the European economy and the ongoing collapse of the American economy is proof of that.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Congratulations You have just won an award in question begging.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
When the government can print money or borrow without practical limit, we have a great depression or the morass we're in now.
Actually, at the time of the Great Depression the US was still on the gold standard.
Paulians: they never let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Dr. Paul's ideas would be fine for certain countries of Europe, like maybe Norway, Sweden, Finland, or Switzerland.
You must be living in the US... It shows, I'm sorry to mention, because of your comment's utter display in geopolitical illiteracy.
With respect to Scandinavia, you presumably ignore that they enjoy some of the highest standards of living, best education, best healthcare and best pensions in the world. Along with one of the highest tax rates. That's not exactly Ron Paul material, but they're quite happy with it.
As for Switzerland, you might be unaware that there's a rampant and growing "screw rich foreigners, they deserve to get taxed more" sentiment. As in an über-tax the blasted creeps who buy Swiss Francs as a store of wealth, screwing exports in the process kind of sentiment. Not precisely Ron Paul material either.
The truth is closer to this: one of Ron Paul's biggest fans in Europe in France's xenophobic extreme-right wing National Front leader Marine Lepen. And the poor curmedgeon desperately sought --and failed-- to avoid her when she visited the US a few months back.
Some commentators on this side of the pond are in line with Paul's ideas, mind you. They've been continually arguing in the past years that his views ought to be applied almost verbatim in Greece. But then, the Greeks recently had an election, and they'll likely do a new election shortly, from lack of a government majority. These may very well bring "screw the banksters, and the rich, we'll just default, expropriate and hang them" extreme-left wings to power, with "screw the banksters, and the foreigners, we'll just default, expropriate and shoot them" neo-nazis as one of the opposing parliament groups.
It's not a pretty sight...
Food for thought.
When you write "power", I assume you mean "legal power". Exceeding the legal power of the president has been an almost monotonically increasing function for over 200 years, and Obama has so outrageously flouted the law that his actions bear no resemblance to the legal limits. It is precisely Ron Paul's greatest value that he will prevent this abuse by withdrawing previous illegal executive orders, vetoing illegal laws, and refusing to make new illegal actions.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Well, this could quickly turn into a novel. (And and Ayn Rand has shown us, a novel is the "perfect" vehicle for a political manifesto!)
I'm multitasking at work at the moment but I promise to come back to this thread tonight and give you something more substantial. My claim is not, as you've characterized it below, that supporting Ron Paul is completely untenable without self-deception, but that the Randian-Libertarian philosophy taken as a whole is.
There are certainly individual issues on which Paul is totally correct, and that's why I suggested downthread that under some circumstances he might make a great VP. But those individual issues, to me, don't nearly outweigh the issues he's wrong about - and more pertinently, I don't think those issues are the real reason for his 'underground' popularity - even among many of the people who cite them. You might conceivably disagree with me on whether the good outweighs the bad, and on that basis you might indeed be a perfectly intellectually honest Paul supporter. But the Randian Libertarian movement in the USA is not predominantly made up of that kind of supporter. The reasons why I think that, are what could turn this comment into a novel.
Same as it ever was. :)
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
While on the Gold Standard, the banks were still under the Federal Reserve, who dictated monetary policy rather than let "the market" figure it out. I don't know if the end result would have been better or worse, but part of what Ron Paul and other gold-buggers rail on is the lack of accountability and the "legislation" of our monetary supply/demand. Give the banks the ability to create their own money and let the consumers decide which to use. (and yes, while competing currencies would be very inconvenient for the consumers, I can hazard a guess that fiat, paper-money would be ditched almost wholesale to be replaced with precious metals and/or redeemable certificates for precious metals.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
You what now?
If our money were backed by gold and silver, people couldn’t just sit in some fancy building and push a button to create new money. They would have to engage in honest trade with another party that already has some gold in their possession. Alternatively, they would have to risk their lives and assets to find a suitable spot to build a gold mine, then get dirty and sweaty and actually dig up the gold. Not something I can imagine our “money elves” at the Fed getting down to whenever they feel like playing God with the economy.
Paulians don't even know what they're talking about when they claim to be quoting Ron Paul. If that isn't evidence of a cult of personality disorder, I don't know what is.
Ayn Rand (Anna Rosenbaum was her real name I think) was certainly a Libertarian in her political beliefs. What would now be considered a pretty standard Limited Government Libertarian. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged no doubt have influenced some people toward Libertarian ideas. Perhaps Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has as well.
I don't believe the connection between Ayn Rand and Libertarians is unfair. Randians will almost certainly be Libertarians, but Libertarians are not necessarily Randians. I am a Libertarian despite the fact that I at least somewhat disagree with Rand's position on ethics. Rand also stressed a kind of pacifism where force can only be justified in defending yourself from harm. An idea which I think resonates quite well with many Libertarians as a principle behind their belief in political freedom.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I disagree. A President doesn't have the power to DO a lot of things without help from Congress, however he certainly has the power to NOT DO a lot of things, no matter what Congress thinks. Paul has been called "Dr. No" for a good reason.
Can he abolish Federal agencies? No. But he can force everyone to go home and not do their jobs. Can he unilaterally cut the defense budget? No, but he can make everyone go home; he is the Commander-in-Chief, after all. He can order all the troops to come home and bake cookies for their enlistment terms if he wants. Can he change marijuana law unilaterally? No, but he can direct the DEA to stop enforcing that law and allow states to do what they want while he's in the White House. He can also pardon everyone convicted of a marijuana-related crime, making federal and state efforts all useless. Finally, he can also put a quick stop to the TSA's shenanigans.
Nixon officially ended the US gold standard in 1972
That's only sort-of true. He actually just killed the Bretton Woods reincarnation of it, which wasn't really gold-backed currency but an agreement to hold the price of gold to $35 per ounce. Since much of the world was pegged to the dollar, this acted a lot like a gold standard.
In the decades since, with the federal reserve corporation fully in control of monetary supply, the common American has seen their income stagnate for the past three decades while the top 10%
Wait a minute... are you blaming wage stagnation on a single factor?
Income disparity has never been greater in America than now. Is that a mark of success?
First of all, that is not true - we are back to the income disparity levels seen in the first half of the 20th century. Second, no I don't consider it a mark of success. Care to explain how the gold standard will erase that disparity? Clearly we've seen that kind of disparity prior to the ending of the gold standard.
I for one side with great Americans such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson that central banking is vile and contrary to Republican principle.
I'm an Alexander Hamilton fan myself... well, maybe not his politicians-for-life opinions :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
How is a bank that is 100% controlled by the federal government, with all profits returned to the US Treasury, a "private" bank?
Some people get really hung up on semantics.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The guys who wrote the constitution were mostly what we would call Libertarians today. That is, their political views are practically identical to the views of the majority of people who consider themselves to be Libertarians.
Well, modern Libertarians are a lot more consistent in their support for freedom. I've never met a Libertarian who would support slavery for instance. Any person who honestly researches the views of the Founders will quickly see what I am talking about.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Keynesian economics have failed. The collapse of the European economy and the ongoing collapse of the American economy is proof of that.
You clearly have no clue what Keynesian economists actually want to do, because the European countries that are currently in massive trouble did exactly the opposite of what Keynes advised: They cut government spending drastically during a recession trying to keep their budgets balanced. It didn't work for Herbert Hoover either.
You probably never studied actual Keynesian economics, but simply understood it to mean "spend lots of money the government doesn't have under all circumstances". That's not what Keynesians actually advocate - they instead argue that government should spend more money during recessions and then save money / pay down debt during booms. And yes, that's different than the Democratic Party line.
I am officially gone from
1) Fiat currencies have been destroyed by hyperinflation a thousand times over. Their values regularly go to zero. Gold doesn't.
So don't try to hold large amounts of fiat currency. Use it as a barter replacement and move on. If gold is so great, buy gold.
2) The notion that it is easy to avoid the punishing effects of inflation are so short sighted and ignorant it's hard to fully comprehend.
Which is why I didn't suggest that. Short-term inflation and deflation is horrible and destructive. I was referring to long-term deflation.
Telling people on a limited or fixed income that the solution to inflationary pressures is to just throw money into the stock market - the only thing with a chance of beating our current 6 to 7% inflation rate - is really no different.
Since you picked the 6-7% inflation number, you are obviously including energy and food. Care to explain how a gold standard will make oil less scarce or finite?
Europe is printing at warp speed via the ECB. They do not have a gold standard.
Europe is not printing - at least not like we did - that is the crux of the argument going on over there. Germany is terrified of inflation and will not print their way out of the crisis. Just this week, the elections changed the equation of power over there and I believe they have agreed to basically emulate the "quantitative easing" that the US did. Anyway, Greece can't print their own currency, which is forcing them to live within their means, which is killing their economy. This is what happens during a cash crunch under a gold standard as well, which is why I pointed to Greece as an example. True, QE will eventually cause inflation, but I maintain that long-term, predictable pain is better than the short-term shock the Greeks are going through.
The stated policy of the Federal Reserve is that the TBTF banks will be given infinite money if needed. Little people and even little banks? Screwed.
So what is your proposal? I have a feeling it isn't "learn lessons from the last fiscal crises and tweak the central bank", but rather, return to some era you have decided is the golden age. Am I right? People 200 years ago were not happy with the banking system, which is why they changed it in the first place.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Dude, your name itself is a troll and/or flamebait. -ronpaulisanidiotisanidiot
A short term swing in the value of gold is one of the things that make crashes and bubbles short and self-limiting.
Please read up on the history of financial panics and recessions and the Great Depression and then re-read your reply. I'm not asking for a lot of your time - perhaps an hour. We had many really terrible financial situations in the US while on the gold standard. As usual, someone was nice enough to compile a list over at Wikipedia.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
And I can hazard a guess that spacemen will drop out of the sky and host a tea party in my living room - doesn't mean it's remotely likely.
Half of America basically refuses to use PAPER money, choosing instead to be subject to the horrors of modern banking for the convenience of debit cards. You think people are going to put up with direct gold/certificate exchange if given a choice?
And the US founders predate Rand by centuries. And as a philosopher John Locke also predates Rand by centuries. The Founders were most certainly Libertarians. So, I don't agree that Libertarians are necessarily Randians. Ayn Rand had an entire philosophy. Not just politics, but ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics too. The name 'Libertarian' refers to only a political philosophy, which Miss Rand most certainly did not start. Although she may have revitalized it. Nice try at a straw man. You don't seem to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
right wing suffers from a collective mental disorder characterized by faulty logic and an inability to understand history.
The left wing does the same thing... at an extreme look at Venezuela. Whatever your feelings about Chavez in particular, it's probably not a great idea to create a dictator position no matter how much you like the guy currently in power.
In the US, the left's default position is to let the government fix a problem, just as the right's default position is to remove the government to fix a problem. In reality, problems are each different and you can't just blindly apply an ideology to fix them all in the same way. Sometimes tight government regulation is worth the drawbacks, and sometimes you don't want to live with all extra corruption, graft, and inefficiency that so often invades government involvement.
Anyway, you are right - banks should be banks... nominally, big safe places to pile cash. Humans have a very low tolerance for loss, so risky investments trigger panics, which is not what you want in your core banking system.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
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.