Santorum drops out.

[ClaytonB]

Is this supposed to be a joke? The notion of “how high taxes should be” wasn’t even part of the discussion.

I’m a dork - this reply went to the completely wrong thread.

*sigh

Clayton -

[MMMark]

Sat. 12/04/14 00:35 EDT
.post #148

[url=Santorum drops out. - #60 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]No, you typed (abridged): “a Romney/Rand Paul ticket, with a cabinet appointment to Ron, would be far less attractive to Ron Paul supporters than Ron as the GOP presidential nominee.”

Well no kidding. People who are supporting Ron Paul for President would actually prefer him being the GOP nominee for President over him being appointed to a Cabinet and Mitt Romney being the nominee for President. I think we can place that safely in the “no shit” category.

Good. So therefore, they might be less likely to vote for such a ticket. Therefore, it’s not at all clear that Romney/Rand Paul would beat Obama/Biden, which is what I originally said. If Romney/Paul wouldn’t beat Obama, the alliance helps neither Romney nor Paul.

What this alliance does (potentially) do is effectively remove any further threat Paul and his supporters pose to a Romney nomination. Then, a significantly large percentage of Paul’s supporters will either not vote, or vote Libertarian.

I’d favor Romney losing to Obama without the support of Ron Paul over Romney losing to Obama with the support of Ron Paul. It’s the Republican Party that needs Ron Paul, not vice versa, and a Romney loss without Paul’s support would, finally, make that obvious.

So, unlike Ron Holland, neither Romney’s pledges nor his “… naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment …” would get my “attention.” What such a scenario would get is my reiteration of Sidney Schanberg’s judicious admonition.

[url=Santorum drops out. - #59 by MMMark]

@MMMark

[/url]I think neocon Levin is perfectly happy with neocon Obama

[url=Santorum drops out. - #60 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]I think that’s a gross mischaracterization of Obama.

Please elaborate.

[url=Santorum drops out. - #42 by MMMark]

@MMMark

[/url]Perhaps “the plan” is another four years of Obama, which is why Romney is the “chosen one”: He’d lose. It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He’d win.

[url=Santorum drops out. - #43 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because “he’d win”.

[url=Santorum drops out. - #46 by MMMark]

@MMMark

[/url]Do you mean you don’t think Paul would beat Obama, or do you mean that there is “no one” who would hate to see that happen?

[url=Santorum drops out. - #48 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]I mean the idea of Paul winning is not the reason people hate him. I know millions of Americans who would elated regardless of who won, so long as he has an “R” by his name.

[url=Santorum drops out. - #50 by MMMark]

@MMMark

[/url]I don’t argue with what you just said, but recall, I didn’t say “people” or “millions of Americans” hate Ron Paul. I said “It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He’d win.” So, certain people hate Ron Paul, i.e., the people to whom Ron Paul, and especially a Ron Paul win, is “dangerous.”

[url=Santorum drops out. - #56 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]First of all, if you don’t think "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB " = “people” or “millions of Americans”, I’m not sure what to say.

First of all, since I don’t think, didn’t say, and didn’t even imply that, you need not say anything.

@John James

Second, my argument is not who hates Ron Paul, …

Second, neither is mine.

@John James

… but why they hate him.

And third, so is mine: They hate him because he’d win (keeping in mind that “they” means “the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB”).

And fourth, where in this thread is your “argument … why they hate (Ron Paul)”?

[url=Santorum drops out. - #56 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]My entire point was the simple fact that Ron Paul could win is not why they hate him. Your statement suggested it was. That is all.

Well if “that is all,” then instead of

• saying my statement “makes absolutely no sense,” then
• telling me you’re “not sure what to say” about something I never said, then
• telling me what your argument is not, then
• telling me what your “argument is” (but not where it is), then
• telling me what your “entire point was” versus what “(my) statement suggested,”

you should have just said “I disagree,” then explained why.

You still can, and I’d be interested in reading what you have to say. You could follow that up by explaining how or why your argument renders my original statement worthy of the dismissal “That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because ‘he’d win’.”

[url=Santorum drops out. - #59 by MMMark]

@MMMark

[/url]Well, this is going to happen anyway. Come August 27, 2012 (and probably well before), Paul will be pressured to “endorse Romney.” If he refuses outright, or even if he’s anything less than fully conciliatory, he’ll be branded “a traitor to his party”

[url=Santorum drops out. - #60 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]“The truth of that assumption is not obvious to me.” Gary North doesn’t seem to think so.

Thanks! Here is the relevant passage:

Ron Paul sat out the 2008 debacle. He did not get blamed. If Romney loses without his endorsement, he will not be blamed.

Well, we’ll see. Ron Paul is a far greater threat this time around, although that hasn’t been “officially” acknowledged. A brokered convention will force that acknowledgement. If Ron refuses to endorse, he’ll be vilified. That’s my prediction.

[John_James]

@MMMark

therefore, they might be less likely to vote for such a ticket. […] If Romney/Paul wouldn’t beat Obama, the alliance helps neither Romney nor Paul.

I’m not arguing that Rand should join Romney, but I do love how “might be less likely” turns into “wouldn’t beat” in less than two sentences.

Then, a significantly large percentage of Paul’s supporters will either not vote, or vote Libertarian.

“The truth of that assumption is not obvious to me.”

I’d favor Romney losing to Obama without the support of Ron Paul over Romney losing to Obama with the support of Ron Paul. It’s the Republican Party that needs Ron Paul, not vice versa, and a Romney loss without Paul’s support would, finally, make that obvious.

I’m the one who said that. This is what I mean about you pretending to offer opposition but ending up offering nothing more than an echo of what I and the article already said. You’re the one who said:

“If he refuses outright [to endorse Romney], or even if he’s anything less than fully conciliatory, he’ll be branded “a traitor to his party” - ESPECIALLY if Romney is nominated and subsequently loses to Obama (which I think he will). And I don’t expect Paul to be ‘fully conciliatory.’”

In fact you said that in the post right before this latest one. You said whether Paul runs 3rd party or not it doesn’t matter…if he doesn’t endorse Romney, the same thing will happen. Now in your very next post you’re telling me that it would be better for Paul to not support Romney.

So, unlike Ron Holland, neither Romney’s pledges nor his “… naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment …” would get my “attention.” What such a scenario would get is my reiteration of Sidney Schanberg’s judicious admonition.

Fine. I fail to see what any of this has to do with the main topic of the article, and what we are discussing here. (The 3rd party question…in case you haven’t noticed.)

@MMMark

I think neocon Levin is perfectly happy with neocon Obama

@John James

I think that’s a gross mischaracterization of Obama.

Please elaborate.

“Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets.”^[1]

Barack Obama does not generally display ideaology of “traditional conservatism”, nor does he really offer even “qualified” endorsements of free markets. There are much better (i.e. more accurate) labels to saddle him with.

@MMMark

I don’t argue with what you just said, but recall, I didn’t say “people” or “millions of Americans” hate Ron Paul. I said "It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul[…]

@John James

if you don’t think "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB " = “people” or “millions of Americans”, I’m not sure what to say.

First of all, since I don’t think, didn’t say, and didn’t even imply that

@John James

Second, my argument is not who hates Ron Paul, …

Second, neither is mine.

Uh…then why are you bothering to focus on who you said hates Ron Paul? If who hates him isn’t the issue, then why the hell did you bother trying to correct me and say “I didn’t say “people” or “millions of Americans” hate Ron Paul […] I said the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul”? (as if there was a difference between those things. i.e. that “the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB” are not “people” or “millions of Americans”. Because fyi, they are.)

@John James

And fourth, where in this thread is your “argument … why they hate (Ron Paul)”?

Sigh. Look right below. You just quoted it right after you asked this question.

@John James

My entire point was the simple fact that Ron Paul could win is not why they hate him. Your statement suggested it was. That is all.

Well if “that is all,” then instead of

• saying my statement “makes absolutely no sense,” then
• telling me you’re “not sure what to say” about something I never said, then
• telling me what your argument is not, then
• telling me what your “argument is” (but not where it is), then
• telling me what your “entire point was” versus what “(my) statement suggested,”

you should have just said “I disagree,” then explained why.

double sigh. I honestly don’t know how to make you understand this. I’m going to type this one more time and then I’m done with it, because either you cannot get it, or don’t get it, or are pretending not to get it.

You: “the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul because he would win.”

Me: “That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because “he’d win”.” (i.e., the reason people hate him is not that “he would win.”)

You: “I didn’t say “people” or “millions of Americans” hate Ron Paul. I said the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul”

Me: What’s the difference? Are “the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB” not “people”? Or “millions of Americans”? If you don’t think they are, I don’t know what to say.

You: I never said I didn’t think “the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB” were not “people” or “millions of Americans”.

Implicitly, you did. You are the one who brought up and distinguished the fact that you didn’t say “people” or “millions of Americans”…that you said “the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB”…as if they were something other than “people” or “millions of Americans”. If you didn’t think they were something different, then why the hell would you bother trying to make a distinction between the two? I don’t even know why you introduced that. It makes no sense.

The whole point I was making was:

You: They hate Ron Paul because he’d win.

Me: That’s not why they hate him.

And instead of trying to argue your assertion (that, yes, the simple notion of winning something is the reason people hate the guy…as in, his ideology and what he would do in that position of power and influence has virtually nothing to do with it), you change the subject and try to argue who “they” is by telling me “I didn’t say ‘people’, I said ‘the GOP and the media’.”

If you cannot follow this now, there’s probably no way I can help you. Apologies.

@MMMark

If Ron refuses to endorse, he’ll be vilified. That’s my prediction.

I don’t doubt there will be people who will be looking for any way to place blame for a Romney loss somewhere, and that one of the easiest targets would be Ron Paul. This would be not unlike the way Democrats blamed everything on Bush. But that won’t hold. It certainly won’t be something to hurt Paul supporters and their success and momentum in the Republican Party, and even less in hurting a Rand Paul run years from now.

A 3rd party run would. People would remember that. But after 4 years, there will not be any significant number of Republicans who would try to blame a simple lack of endorsement on a Romney loss. By that time it would seem petty and really reaching…like the deserate pleadings of a bitter loser. But if Paul actually ran against Romney in the general election, and there were actual numbers to point to of the actual votes he “took away from Romney”, a lot more people would feel a lot more justified (and would therefore have a much easier time) blaming Paul…because it is almost guaranteed if you were to add Paul votes to Romney votes, it would be more than Obama. (And even though it would certainly not be true that 100% of Paul votes would have otherwise gone to Romney, Republicans wouldn’t care.)

Which again, goes back to my whole point from the very beginning of all of this: Ron Paul running in a 3rd party for the 2012 Presidential election is a terrible idea.

Now if you actually want to debate that, I would suggest you get on with it because you’ve taken this whole page essentially pretending to disagree with the premise, and yet haven’t really offered a single argument against it.