Paying Some Attention To Ron Paul

[dblack]

What GHook fails to mention is that Ron Paul votes against all appropriations bills on principle, including those with pork for his own district.

Right. He's implying Paul votes for pork and it isn't true. He fights to make sure his district get his share of the pork once it's been commited to by rest of congress (to do anything less would be blatantly fucking his constituents), but he tries to make sure it doesn't happen in the first place by voting against it.

 

[Ravi]

The Libertarians are shut out of the process (as are all third parties in the US). The only way to have any influence on the process is through one of the established parties. I've doubted Ron Paul's decision to run as a Republican in the past, but I can't deny it's given his ideas more exposure than they would have received if he'd run on the Libertarian ticket.

I'd rather see Ron Paul run as Libertarian myself, but he'll need a critical mass of popular support to make that effort wothwhile. It's my hope that he'll hang with the Republican charade to a peak - essentially around the time the Republicans begin to really unload on him - and then make a break for the Libertarians. He still won't win, but he might give the Libertarian Party enough momentum to make a meaningful challenge to the barriers that the Democrats and Republicans used to keep third parties off the radar.

He would easily have been reelected in his current seat if he had changed to Libertarian. By staying a Republican, while being a Libertarian, he makes Libertarians look like a fringe group that are nothing without Republicans.

Pure speculation on your part. Maybe he would, but maybe he wouldn't. Some people absolutely will not vote third party no matter who the candidate is.

You don't become a viable third party by hiding behind the Republican moniker.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He would easily have been reelected in his current seat if he had changed to Libertarian. By staying a Republican, while being a Libertarian, he makes Libertarians look like a fringe group that are nothing without Republicans.

Pure speculation on your part. Maybe he would, but maybe he wouldn't. Some people absolutely will not vote third party no matter who the candidate is.

You don't become a viable third party by hiding behind the Republican moniker.

Ron Paul isn't worried about becoming a viable third party.

 

[Ravi]

Pure speculation on your part. Maybe he would, but maybe he wouldn't. Some people absolutely will not vote third party no matter who the candidate is.

You don't become a viable third party by hiding behind the Republican moniker.

Ron Paul isn't worried about becoming a viable third party.

Obviously. He doesn't want to discard his faint hope of dipping into the GOP coffers.

 

[Dot Com]

He would easily have been reelected in his current seat if he had changed to Libertarian. By staying a Republican, while being a Libertarian, he makes Libertarians look like a fringe group that are nothing without Republicans.

Pure speculation on your part. Maybe he would, but maybe he wouldn't. Some people absolutely will not vote third party no matter who the candidate is.

You don't become a viable third party by hiding behind the Republican moniker.

Ravi, come on. You know that you have to run under an established party, whether you agree w/ them or not, to have any chance of election.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You don't become a viable third party by hiding behind the Republican moniker.

Ron Paul isn't worried about becoming a viable third party.

Obviously. He doesn't want to discard his faint hope of dipping into the GOP coffers.

 

[kwc57]

IMO, if he were really true to his ideals, he would have switched to and stayed belonging to the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party.

The Libertarians are shut out of the process (as are all third parties in the US). The only way to have any influence on the process is through one of the established parties. I've doubted Ron Paul's decision to run as a Republican in the past, but I can't deny it's given his ideas more exposure than they would have received if he'd run on the Libertarian ticket.

I'd rather see Ron Paul run as Libertarian myself, but he'll need a critical mass of popular support to make that effort wothwhile. It's my hope that he'll hang with the Republican charade to a peak - essentially around the time the Republicans begin to really unload on him - and then make a break for the Libertarians. He still won't win, but he might give the Libertarian Party enough momentum to make a meaningful challenge to the barriers that the Democrats and Republicans used to keep third parties off the radar.

He would easily have been reelected in his current seat if he had changed to Libertarian. By staying a Republican, while being a Libertarian, he makes Libertarians look like a fringe group that are nothing without Republicans.

Look, the Democrats are full of socialists and marxists because they know they can't get elected otherwise. We have a two party system and that is how the game is played.

 

[Ravi]

The Libertarians are shut out of the process (as are all third parties in the US). The only way to have any influence on the process is through one of the established parties. I've doubted Ron Paul's decision to run as a Republican in the past, but I can't deny it's given his ideas more exposure than they would have received if he'd run on the Libertarian ticket.

I'd rather see Ron Paul run as Libertarian myself, but he'll need a critical mass of popular support to make that effort wothwhile. It's my hope that he'll hang with the Republican charade to a peak - essentially around the time the Republicans begin to really unload on him - and then make a break for the Libertarians. He still won't win, but he might give the Libertarian Party enough momentum to make a meaningful challenge to the barriers that the Democrats and Republicans used to keep third parties off the radar.

He would easily have been reelected in his current seat if he had changed to Libertarian. By staying a Republican, while being a Libertarian, he makes Libertarians look like a fringe group that are nothing without Republicans.

Look, the Democrats are full of socialists and marxists because they know they can't get elected otherwise. We have a two party system and that is how the game is played.

As far as I know, there are no true socialists or marxists in the Democratic party.

Regardless, Ron Paul plays the same games the rest of the pols play. So he's no different.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He would easily have been reelected in his current seat if he had changed to Libertarian. By staying a Republican, while being a Libertarian, he makes Libertarians look like a fringe group that are nothing without Republicans.

Look, the Democrats are full of socialists and marxists because they know they can't get elected otherwise. We have a two party system and that is how the game is played.

As far as I know, there are no true socialists or marxists in the Democratic party.

Regardless, Ron Paul plays the same games the rest of the pols play. So he's no different.

What game is he playing?

 

[kwc57]

He would easily have been reelected in his current seat if he had changed to Libertarian. By staying a Republican, while being a Libertarian, he makes Libertarians look like a fringe group that are nothing without Republicans.

Look, the Democrats are full of socialists and marxists because they know they can't get elected otherwise. We have a two party system and that is how the game is played.

As far as I know, there are no true socialists or marxists in the Democratic party.

Regardless, Ron Paul plays the same games the rest of the pols play. So he's no different.

Have you always been this clueless?

From the mouth of Dear Leader. "I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." - Barack Obama (Dreams of My Father)

 

[dblack]

Regardless, Ron Paul plays the same games the rest of the pols play. So he's no different.

No offense, but that's just out of touch. There are many things you might knock Ron Paul for, but 'playing the game' isn't one of them.

 

[Ravi]

Look, the Democrats are full of socialists and marxists because they know they can't get elected otherwise. We have a two party system and that is how the game is played.

As far as I know, there are no true socialists or marxists in the Democratic party.

Regardless, Ron Paul plays the same games the rest of the pols play. So he's no different.

Have you always been this clueless?

From the mouth of Dear Leader. "I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." - Barack Obama (Dreams of My Father)

Not surprising that you chopped the quote and didn't provide context.

Dismissed.

 

[Ravi]

Regardless, Ron Paul plays the same games the rest of the pols play. So he's no different.

No offense, but that's just out of touch. There are many things you might knock Ron Paul for, but 'playing the game' isn't one of them.

Then he should stop aligning himself with and representing himself as a Republican. That is the game to which I refer.

 

[dblack]

Then he should stop aligning himself with and representing himself as a Republican. That is the game to which I refer.

Ahh.. well, if that's all you're referring to, then I suppose your statement is narrowly accurate. But in terms of political reality, it's the only game in town. So you're essentially suggesting that he drop out of politics.

I spoke up because you seemed to be making a broader statement - implying that he was just as duplicitous or as lacking in integrity as any other politician. I don't think you can make that case at all.

 

[Ravi]

Then he should stop aligning himself with and representing himself as a Republican. That is the game to which I refer.

Ahh.. well, if that's all you're referring to, then I suppose your statement is narrowly accurate. But in terms of political reality, it's the only game in town. So you're essentially suggesting that he drop out of politics.

I spoke up because you seemed to be making a broader statement - implying that he was just as duplicitous or as lacking in integrity as any other politician. I don't think you can make that case at all.

No, I'm saying that if Libertarians really want a viable third party they should act like a viable third party and not hide within one of the other two parties.

How about some honesty from politicians for a change.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Regardless, Ron Paul plays the same games the rest of the pols play. So he's no different.

No offense, but that's just out of touch. There are many things you might knock Ron Paul for, but 'playing the game' isn't one of them.

Then he should stop aligning himself with and representing himself as a Republican. That is the game to which I refer.

So he shouldn't run at all is what you're saying?

 

[Ravi]

No offense, but that's just out of touch. There are many things you might knock Ron Paul for, but 'playing the game' isn't one of them.

Then he should stop aligning himself with and representing himself as a Republican. That is the game to which I refer.

So he shouldn't run at all is what you're saying?

No. Why are you being so dense?

 

[dblack]

No, I'm saying that if Libertarians really want a viable third party they should act like a viable third party and not hide within one of the other two parties.

How about some honesty from politicians for a change.

Heh.. well, I can only agree with that. But the irony is, they are. Most libertarians are doing exactly as you suggest. And they are completely ignored. They're saying nothing different than Ron Paul is but the press pretends they don't exist. As bad as Paul is marginalized now, the Libertarians have it much worse. So, you can see the dilemma.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then he should stop aligning himself with and representing himself as a Republican. That is the game to which I refer.

Ahh.. well, if that's all you're referring to, then I suppose your statement is narrowly accurate. But in terms of political reality, it's the only game in town. So you're essentially suggesting that he drop out of politics.

I spoke up because you seemed to be making a broader statement - implying that he was just as duplicitous or as lacking in integrity as any other politician. I don't think you can make that case at all.

No, I'm saying that if Libertarians really want a viable third party they should act like a viable third party and not hide within one of the other two parties.

How about some honesty from politicians for a change.

Again you keep making this third party argument. The Libertarian Party is not hiding within the Republican Party. Ron Paul is a libertarian, but he's not a member of the Libertarian Party. The Republican Party claims to be for limited government, and Ron Paul certainly wants to limit the government, so why is it such a crime for Ron Paul to run as a Republican?

 

[Ravi]

Ahh.. well, if that's all you're referring to, then I suppose your statement is narrowly accurate. But in terms of political reality, it's the only game in town. So you're essentially suggesting that he drop out of politics.

I spoke up because you seemed to be making a broader statement - implying that he was just as duplicitous or as lacking in integrity as any other politician. I don't think you can make that case at all.

No, I'm saying that if Libertarians really want a viable third party they should act like a viable third party and not hide within one of the other two parties.

How about some honesty from politicians for a change.

Again you keep making this third party argument. The Libertarian Party is not hiding within the Republican Party. Ron Paul is a libertarian, but he's not a member of the Libertarian Party. The Republican Party claims to be for limited government, and Ron Paul certainly wants to limit the government, so why is it such a crime for Ron Paul to run as a Republican?

I think we both know that the Republican claim of being for limited government is a lie.