Ron Paul Raised $1M in 1 Day For 2012 Campaign

Miscellaneous General
21

Yes, because my whole position relies on me being better than everybody else. To hell with those who arent anarchists or do not think like me!!! I mostly got a laugh at the last sentence from your quote above (in bold) because that is exactly what you are doing, i guess, just in a different way… Let me ask you what you get from bashing my position? I was clearly not bashing on Libertyandlife’s position, just simply trying to understand his position a little better and critiquing it from my point of view. There is no need to take this debate personally… This actually reminds me of some Bill O’Reiley debates where if his opponet disagrees with him, he goes ape shit..

Ha, I guess it doesnt help me by saying that I love existentialist philosophy. But seriously, I am just holding to what I believe is right according to me. I am not shitting on anyone else, if people choose to accept what I have to say, great, if not, great. The purpose of these threads is to have discussions on these topics and to see what people have to say about it…the purpose of these threads are not to have one sided agreements to issues all the time, so sorry if I am not one to agree with you. You are the one that is, in fact, shitting on my ideals… why? because I do not think like you on this issue?

Yay, more assertions about me! Fantastic :slight_smile:

Wow, what a very libertarian thing to say! Your whole post is a bunch of assertions about me, which is why I am not taking it too seriously…Now if you do not mind, I was talking to Libertyandlife, who is a bit more civil in debate :slight_smile:

22

@Eric:

Let me clarify; I am just saying I see no reason to get down on anyone enthusiastic about Paul, or getting involved with the campaign. And if in the odd chance he happens to win, at least there is a chance that something good could come out of it.

23

“Because it pulls people into libertarianism, influences the political sphere, and makes us look less crazy.”

No, a Ron Paul candidacy is great, he might have done more for liberty in his single candidacy than anyone else in the last two decades, but he’s getting legitimately way too likely to win for comfort. I’m saying what good could come out of his presidency than the total destruction of libertarianism in the public eye. If he was elected what is it that he could do?

As William said he would pull out overseas, now god forbid that there’s a terrorist attack during Paul’s presidency because you can imagine what the idiots will say and want to do, they’ll say it was all because troops were pulled out so they couldn’t keep us safe, the United States would become even more militant and even if there was no terrorist strike the chances are that the next president would just move right back in to other nations

Possible long term loss, short term gain, long term at least indifferent

Now let’s get into what would really destroy him. Let’s say that he wants to actually deal with the debt. How is he going to go about this? He will save some, but not enough from the military savings. So he tries to cut social programs which will just grow in expense in the next few years. Now either millions of poor people on welfare with Medicaid, or thousands of old people on social security get royally pissed off, they are legitimately worse off than they otherwise would be and the nation can see that and feel their plight. In either situation Paul is discredited and kicked out of office next term.

Huge Loss for libertarianism.

Ron Paul legalizes marijuana, he gains support from many democrats, loses a good deal from those who voted for him, conservatives

Next term loss for libertarians, overall probably victory

Ron Paul tries to legalize some other more serious drug, it almost certainly fails

He loses all around support, probably not reelected

Ron Paul Ends the patriot act

Victory, gains support from democrats

Ron Paul cracks down on immigration

Looses support from democrats, hurts American economy, loses face with libertarians, gets Hispanic vote fiercely against him, large libertarian loss

Ron Paul Repeals healthcare bill

Healthcare remains crappy, looses major support from dems. People further blame republicans and libertarians libertarian loss.

Even if he reformed the tax problems that promote health insurance this is a long term, not a short term fix, and any gains he makes in this area will almost certainly be screwed up by the next guy

Ron Paul cuts taxes

Huge increase in debt and deficit , increase in short term prosperity, increase in the interest rate which harms long term investment and growth. Who can tell the total outcome, but the debt itself will probably make it negative

Libertarian loss, makes libertarians look extremely irresponsible

Ron Paul ends the fed

Significant short run financial problems, huge anger among intellectuals and economists, foreign exchange issues, banks begin to engage in risky lending practices as the reality of the free market has not caught up to them yet, deflation occurs which is very negative because people are not used with how to deal with it, real tax rates increase and the debt starts to appreciate in value each year.

Major libertarian loss

So tell me, what good can come of the 45th president of The United States of America, Mr. President Ron Ernest Paul?

24

I honestly don’t think any bad could come out of Ron Paul being elected. I just don’t think he will.

25

Why?

26

I had to type this 3 times cause of this forum software.

He won’t win because either not enough people vote for him, or the powers that be, the government and it’s cronies, will find some way around him winning.

If he does get elected though, I can’t see anything bad coming out him being elected. You have to remember, even if has policies which may look like turn people off, if enough people had supported him, that means a majority of people have supported freedom. Just look at Obama:

A majority voted for him. Nevertheless, for all the crap he’s done, a good portion of the public still support him. Also Paul has not been elected. We shouldn’t shoot ourselves in the foot so early.

27

"Ron Paul legalizes marijuana, he gains support from many democrats, loses a good deal from those who voted for him, conservatives

Next term loss for libertarians, overall probably victory"

Hmm what matters more here? Reelection or actually doing something good like ending the drug war? Let’s think real, real hard…

28

“overall probably victory”

“Hmm what matters more here? Reelection or actually doing something good like ending the drug war? Let’s think real, real hard…”

I agree. You quoted me agreeing. I don’t care that you disagree with me but that you quoted me agreeing with you. Let’s think really hard, what’s more important, bringing more to the ranks of libertarians until theres a large enough group of us to actually make a big societal change, or a handful of good things and a lot of short run bad things many of which on both sides will just be reversed and which will destroy the name of libertarianism?

29

Libertarianism as it is, has no brand. It has no name. It is whatever people want it to be in their heads. I’m talking the value of libertarianism, I think what libertarianism is, is quite explicit, although many cowards will try to argue otherwise.

That said, you’re expressing values, and what one party values may not be what another party values. There is no libertarian class interest except more liberty. What liberties those might be are completely subjective.

30

“Libertarianism as it is, has no brand. It has no name. It is whatever people want it to be in their heads. I’m talking the value of libertarianism, I think what libertarianism is, is quite explicit, although many cowards will try to argue otherwise.”

I agree

“That said, you’re expressing values, and what one party values may not be what another party values. There is no libertarian class interest except more liberty. What liberties those might be are completely subjective.”

Yes, but I doubt that most libertarians would sacrifice a larger chance at a libertarian future for the repeal of the patriot act, a short run decrease in foreign intervention and the legalization of marijuana, I could be wrong, but even if I am not I know I do not prefer this eventuality, and I will try to convince others of this as well.

31

This is the the main idea. Paul has made it clear and said it many times: nothing will really change until people reconsider the role of government in their lives. It doesn’t matter if he wins, if the majority of the people don’t believe in the message of liberty he wont win and even if he does he won’t last long.

Unfortunately most Americans are not libertarians. The message needs to be spread and more people need to agree with it before any real change will happen. As others have noted support has been rising but it’s still pretty small in the grand scheme of things.

32

You extrapolate (predict) linearly, while ideas spread non-linearly. Even if Ron Paul affected no laws during his campaign or eventual presidency, the mere presence of such issues in debates, media, and congress would be a tremendous achievement towards educating the majority about the concept and benefits of freedom. Even the longest journey starts with a small first step.

33

It’s all about education people. We know Ron Paul will not win. All that matters is exposure. When is the last time the US had a genuine liberty candidate? When is the last time the US had a presidential candidate with any grasp of economics, let alone not being a Keynesian ape? When is the last time the US had a presidential candidate who didn’t pine to etch their name in history with the blood and wealth of their “countrymen”?

I was a Neocon before 2007. Now I’m a market anarchist. Most people I know who support Ron Paul have a similar story and at the very least become minarchists. There is value in his candidacy.

What if the planets should align and the hell freeze over for a Ron Paul presidential victory? It would be brilliant, not because Ron Paul would be able to “accomplish much”, but it would mean that a very large portion of the US agrees with his positions and is willing to try them. Ron Paul wouldn’t be able to repeal laws, no. SO WHAT?

If laws mattered, the USA wouldn’t have even a quarter of its problems. The executive controls the military, all enforcement agencies, and just about all bereaucracies. The legislative branch is largely just theatre and has been for many years. A Ron Paul presidency would mean wars ended, perpetual government “snow days”, bad laws not enforced, the Fed getting roasted, and bad laws getting vetoed.

Some people will hate these kinds of actions, but if a figure like Ron Paul should get elected, just as many if not more should approve of them and eventually learn their wisdom through the exposure that their previous political and economic realities were total lies. At worst, libertarianism goes from being a fringe ideology to a publically “discredited” ideology–as if credibility matters anyway. Look at the 20th century, then ask why young people still cling, flock, and convert to communism?

Tu ne cede malis people. A Ron Paul candidacy win or lose embraces this concept.

34

I agree, and, this is more beneficial than pushing libertarian law before people are exposed to the message. Otherwise people will get the wrong idea and it could backfire.

35

Well let me give you a piece of advice in Persuasion 101. You’re not going to pull people toward your way of thinking by being a negative prick.

36

Was I being a negative prick?

37

[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
Yes, because my whole position relies on me being better than everybody else. To hell with those who arent anarchists or do not think like me!!! I mostly got a laugh at the last sentence from your quote above (in bold) because that is exactly what you are doing, i guess, just in a different way… Let me ask you what you get from bashing my position?
[/quote]

As North said (in an article directly related to this topic, actually) “My attitude is that you should treat big-mouth dolts as big-mouth dolts”. Along those same lines, I think it is worth it to address people who do what I’m talking about and presence it…calling it out for what it is. What I get from it is the audience (and possibly the person doing it) are given a dose of reality as to what is really going on, so that at least others are made aware that they aren’t listening to anything other than self-preservation negativity.

I wasn’t personally offended, I just think it’s ridiculous. You weren’t trying understand anything. The question asked was “what good could a President Ron Paul do?” And you went into a series of posts talking belittling the idea, and finishing it off with a condescending “support him how”? You weren’t looking for an answer to that question. You were looking for something else to attack.

How the hell does the fact that people are free to choose whether they accept what you have to say mean you’re not shitting on anyone else?

No one said the purpose was for total agreement. It’s not the fact that you disagree, it’s that you’re not trying to have a discussion. Maybe I read the tone of that last post of yours wrong, but it sound to me like you were doing what a lot of other people around here are doing: just trying to be a prick.

It was more a description of people who do what it sounded like you were doing. If you really weren’t doing it then perhaps you just need to work on your conversation skills.

I’m assuming that was sarcasm, so I’d like to know what exactly is “non-libertarian” about suggesting you not get in the way of people who want to make libertarian ideas more popular.

38

A lot of times you can be.

39

Can you give one example from those “lot of times”?

40

You’re looking pretty hard if you have to go back to month old threads JJ. Still want to claim I am a negative prick when you can’t easily point to one instance of it?

I think you owe a couple of us an apology for you being making claims you can’t back up. That would be the responsible thing for you to do.