http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/ron-paul-herman-cain-fed-audit-gop-debate_n_1006228.html
He clearly did say that auditing the FED would be ridiculous and implied that it should not be audited. He certainly "didn't care one way or the other".
Cain: "I'm not worried about the fed...Jobs, Jobs, jobs"
Does Mr. Cain see no connection with the FED and the job market?
I lose more and more faith in Cain, especially with his Greenspan comment and his refusal to argue on issues and instead focusing on his 999.
Not that I really had too much faith to begin with...
Herman Cain has the right mix of Washington Outsider populism and dismissive clueless elitism and this allows the Tea Party to trip over themselves rushing to his campaign. Now granted I just called him a populist and an elitist which sounds oxymoronic, but that's kind of the point; the correlation between his words and what people think they are getting with him versus what he is actually saying is oxymoronic itself. Apparnetly he's a small-government conservative, but he says, "let's continue with the Fed policy (I was a Fed banker after all!), let's add a national sales tax (oh great, a different avenue for the government to raise revenue), Ron Paul is a crank, don't abolish the departments just fix them, and I don't know anything about foreign policy (I'll hire 'experts')."
I fail to see the appeal of Cain beyond the empty platitudes that he offers. Granted he has actually presented a cohesive tax plan unlike some other candidates who would rather talk about even emptier platitudes during these debates, but Cain isn't worth getting excited about, even for Tea Partiers. If you want Bush-lite, Cain is your guy.
Wheylous:I lose more and more faith in Cain, especially with his Greenspan comment and his refusal to argue on issues and instead focusing on his 999. Not that I really had too much faith to begin with...
Why in the world would you have any faith in Herman Cain?!
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Notice how Cain's the media's new boy. After this last debate Perry pretty much shut his own case, as for the 3rd (or 4th?) time he couldn't sound like he had a clue what he's talking about, let alone sound "presidential". Bachmann of course fizzled out almost as quickly as she became "top tier" after the Iowa straw poll. Remember in the two debates prior to the one yesterday, Huntsman got considerably more time (even more than Paul)...it was clear the media was hoping he would catch on. It's not like he's done anything to hurt himself, but he's just not appealing to people the way they'd like him to.
So when Cain won the Florida straw poll (which may be the most meaningless poll to win), the media jumped at the opportunity to have a new guy to talk about. He'll fizzle too. This is looking so good.
Total ownage:
I liked Cain when he first came out, then I heard him stumble over his thoughts about Affirmative Actions, then having supported portions of TARP, and although in a lot of ways he's better than the political hacks Perry and Romney, his lack of knowledge or opinion concerning foreign policy and leaving it in the hands of others while not wanting to end the federal imposition in everyone's lives is disturbing. Nevertheless, I do believe he would be better than Obama, although he would merely turn America in a better direction, not the right direction. I say Ron Paul would end so much socialism that the welfare rats' heads would pop.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
He also said the Federal Reserve mandate should be changed. In addition he said that the US should have never gone off the gold standard. The more I listen to Herman Cain, the more I realize I need to give him a chance to clarify his comments that I disagree with. He's as close to libertarian as I think we'll get.
I think people are putting to much faith in the powers of Ron Paul. They act as though he is going to slash domestic government (I think he can slash foreign policy because that is within presidental powers) when really that is a job of Congress.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Andrew Cain:I think people are putting to much faith in the powers of Ron Paul. They act as though he is going to slash domestic government (I think he can slash foreign policy because that is within presidental powers) when really that is a job of Congress.
Here we go again. Why am I not surprised it's coming from Mr. Sunshine.
No one ever said Ron Paul was a messiah.
Well I think your title "no one ever said" is misleading. I suspect there are Ron Paul supporters out there who do believe that once he gets to office there will be a paradigm shift. I just don't believe that is going to be the case. In the link you provided you believe that once he gets into office people will hear his message, believe his message and to some degree follow it because he is the president. I just find it bizaree that many Ron Paul supporters put their faith in the ability for the executive branch to influence the other two houses of government. On some level Constitutionalism believes in checks and balances in government power yet they seem to be portraying the idea that once Ron Paul gets into the White House, taxes will be slashed, abortion will become a state's right issue and government will drastically shrink as if this could be done by the president. They are basically applauding what they have been villifying for years which is the belief that governmental power ultimately resides in the presidency.
Now Ron Paul himself has been talking about this and he says how you have to change the minds of the people etc so I don't really have an issue with him. It just seems like his supporters are oversimplifying the process or disregarding it all together (I'm not saying this about you James). I think what makes Ron Paul so attractive to radical (and I'm using that in a value neutral sense) advocates is also what makes me think things aren't going to turn out like the supporters want. An example to better clarify: Ron Paul's budget cuts plan is slashing 5 government organizations, cutting overseas spending and reducing the size of the government workforce. Radicals like this plan but Ron Paul is the only one talking about this to such a degree and its that very situation that makes me think there will be no paradigm shift. He is the only one which is a double edge. It's great for radicals but again he is alone in that sentiment. Congress is talking about 10 year plan budget cuts. Ron Paul is a radical (again, value neutral) and Congress isn't. Ron Paul cannot make them create certain style bills and really, he shouldn't even if they were liberty-orientated because that is not the job of the president. He would be violating his own beliefs. He can veto bills and I suspect he will do a lot of that while in office but reacting isn't enough. One needs to be proactive in dissolving government. He can do that in the foreign arena which I totally think he would do but he can't do that in the domestic arena. Stopping wars is great. Even if that is all he did, I think his presidency would be a sucess. However, I feel like supporters who think he can do that in the domestic sphere need to have a bucket of cold water poured on their head. Either that or they should be told that Ron Paul isn't going to be doing everything he said he was going to about reducing the size of government. Ultimately it has to be the people but I don't think that many people get this. They still think reform through government is the only possible way. Some people do get this (I suspect James is one) but some don't and that makes me hesistant about the future if it is a Ron Paul presidency.
Andrew Cain:I just find it bizaree that many Ron Paul supporters put their faith in the ability for the executive branch to influence the other two houses of government. On some level Constitutionalism believes in checks and balances in government power yet they seem to be portraying the idea that once Ron Paul gets into the White House, taxes will be slashed, abortion will become a state's right issue and government will drastically shrink as if this could be done by the president. They are basically applauding what they have been villifying for years which is the belief that governmental power ultimately resides in the presidency.
Please show me where I did this.
Now Ron Paul himself has been talking about this and he says how you have to change the minds of the people etc so I don't really have an issue with him.
Then (since that's literally what I said), one would have to assume you don't have an issue with me, either. So what is the relevance of any of the above?
Ron Paul's budget cuts plan is slashing 5 government organizations, cutting overseas spending and reducing the size of the government workforce. Radicals like this plan but Ron Paul is the only one talking about this to such a degree and its that very situation that makes me think there will be no paradigm shift. He is the only one which is a double edge. It's great for radicals but again he is alone in that sentiment.
That makes no sense.
Ron Paul cannot make them create certain style bills and really, he shouldn't even if they were liberty-orientated because that is not the job of the president.
I basically said that. In fact my entire argument was how that's not the point. It's like you didn't even read the post. You're literally voicing the exact same refrain the whole post was refuting in the first place. I literally write a post talking about the flawed arguments of people who go "Ron Paul can't do much as president, he still has a Congress to deal with! I don't know why anyone thinks he can change anything! His whole philosophy is decreasing the power of the executive branch and you're talking as if he'd be a monarch...blah blah blah." And you come back with: "seem to be portraying the idea that once Ron Paul gets into the White House, taxes will be slashed, abortion will become a state's right issue and government will drastically shrink as if this could be done by the president."
I really don't know what to say to this. It's like I wrote a paper documenting how The Silent Spring was basically nothing but lies and Rachel Carson was full of crap, and DDT has not caused cancer and has in fact saved countless lives...and then you come back at me claiming how dangerous DDT is by citing The Silent Spring and Rachel Carson.
Cain: "I'm not worried about the fed...Jobs, Jobs, jobs" Does Mr. Cain see no connection with the FED and the job market?
Typical keynesian.
John James: Please show me where I did this
Please show me where I did this
Andrew Cain:Now Ron Paul himself has been talking about this and he says how you have to change the minds of the people etc so I don't really have an issue with him. It just seems like his supporters are oversimplifying the process or disregarding it all together (I'm not saying this about you James).
John James: That makes no sense
That makes no sense
Ok I will explain it differently. You know how people go around saying that Ron Paul is the one representative who sticks to his ideas? (I agree with this statement, just using it as an example) Well you know how a lot of people in Congress do not do the same thing? They flip-flop or are not radical. They talk about cutting X amount in 10 years or 8 years and never next year. That is the radicalism of Ron Paul. He does not flip-flop, he does not pander yet he is surrounded by people who do. That is the double edge of being a radical in Congress. You can come up with great ideas like cutting one trillion dollars, but your surrounded by people who won't follow through.
John James: I basically said that. In fact my entire argument was how that's not the point. It's like you didn't even read the post. You're literally voicing the exact same refrain the whole post was refuting in the first place. I literally write a post talking about the flawed arguments of people who go "Ron Paul can't do much as president, he still has a Congress to deal with! I don't know why anyone thinks he can change anything! His whole philosophy is decreasing the power of the executive branch and you're talking as if he'd be a monarch...blah blah blah." And you come back with: "seem to be portraying the idea that once Ron Paul gets into the White House, taxes will be slashed, abortion will become a state's right issue and government will drastically shrink as if this could be done by the president." I really don't know what to say to this. It's like I wrote a paper documenting how The Silent Spring was basically nothing but lies and Rachel Carson was full of crap, and DDT has not caused cancer and has in fact saved countless lives...and then you come back at me claiming how dangerous DDT is by citing The Silent Spring.
I really don't know what to say to this. It's like I wrote a paper documenting how The Silent Spring was basically nothing but lies and Rachel Carson was full of crap, and DDT has not caused cancer and has in fact saved countless lives...and then you come back at me claiming how dangerous DDT is by citing The Silent Spring.
Where did I say you were guilty of this? In fact I even said:
Either that or they should be told that Ron Paul isn't going to be doing everything he said he was going to about reducing the size of government. Ultimately it has to be the people but I don't think that many people get this. They still think reform through government is the only possible way. Some people do get this (I suspect James is one) but some don't and that makes me hesistant about the future if it is a Ron Paul presidency.
I specifically stated that you were one of the people who actually gets that Ron Paul isn't going to be wonderman if he gets to be president but you are not the only Ron Paul supporter. I think this applies to other people I have run across but not to you. It's not a mutally exclusive statement. Maybe I have been too implicit in my writing but I did explicitly state I didn't think you were guilty of the argument I was putting forth.
Andrew Cain:Ok I will explain it differently. You know how people go around saying that Ron Paul is the one representative who sticks to his ideas? (I agree with this statement, just using it as an example) Well you know how a lot of people in Congress do not do the same thing? They flip-flop or are not radical. They talk about cutting X amount in 10 years or 8 years and never next year. That is the radicalism of Ron Paul. He does not flip-flop, he does not pander yet he is surrounded by people who do. That is the double edge of being a radical in Congress. You can come up with great ideas like cutting one trillion dollars, but your surrounded by people who won't follow through.
That still doesn't make sense. When people talk about a "double edged sword" they're talking about something that could proactively work for or against you in the same context. All you're talking about is how there's "two sides to one coin" or "pros and cons". Ron Paul being radical and everyone else being flip-flopper doesn't ever give him an advantage in getting legislation passed. Being a flip-flopper is a double edged sword.
Where did I say you were guilty of this?
I wasn't accusing you of saying I was guilty of that. I was pointing out that you literally did precisely what I was originally saying was useless and irrelevant. In the original post I made the point that rambling on about how "people keep acting like Ron Paul can change the face of government and make it virtuous, but even a president can't do that, he still has a congress, blah blah blah" is completely irrelevant. The whole point of that post was to point out how doing that was a waste of time and a red herring. And you your response to it was to do just that.
"That still doesn't make sense. When people talk about a "double edged sword" they're talking about something that could proactively work for or against you in the same context. All you're talking about is how there's "two sides to one coin" or "pros and cons". Ron Paul being radical and everyone else being flip-flopper doesn't ever give him an advantage in getting legislation passed. Being a flip-flopper is a double edged sword."
It's a positive because people who like politicians who stick by their beliefs are going to vote for him. It's a negative because Washington politicians are not known for sticking to their beliefs. Therefore he could be elected because of his radicalism but he is going into an institution that isn't radical. Honestly, I can't explain it better then that. If you still don't understand it then have someone who does explain it to you.
"I wasn't accusing you of saying I was guilty of that. I was pointing out that you literally did precisely what I was originally saying was useless and irrelevant. In the original post I made the point that rambling on about how "people keep acting like Ron Paul can change the face of government and make it virtuous, but even a president can't do that, he still has a congress, blah blah blah" is completely irrelevant. The whole point of that post was to point out how doing that was a waste of time and a red herring. And you your response to it was to do just that."
Again, not every Ron Paul supporter is like you. Not every Ron Paul supporter reads your topics in this forum. What I was discussing was the sentiment the Ron Paul movement was projecting to me and you were not necessarily included in that projection. Now you are getting pissy because either I'm not talking about you or the fact that I am agreeing with you. I honestly can't tell but I know that its not something to be mad about.
Andrew Cain:It's a positive because people who like politicians who stick by their beliefs are going to vote for him. It's a negative because Washington politicians are not known for sticking to their beliefs. Therefore he could be elected because of his radicalism but he is going into an institution that isn't radical. Honestly, I can't explain it better then that. If you still don't understand it then have someone who does explain it to you.
I understand pros and cons just fine. It is you who does not understand the double edged sword analogy. Again, being a flip flopper would be a double edged sword.
Again, not every Ron Paul supporter is like you.
And again, that is irrelevant. That was my entire point.
Let me put it to you this way. Do you agree with my assessment about a Ron Paul presidency and why it would be so effective?
" I understand pros and cons just fine. It is you who does not understand the double edged sword analogy. Again, being a flip flopper would be a double edged sword."
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/double-edged+sword.html
Ron Paul's radical argument: Massively cut the size and scope of government
Helps him: Showing to voters that he is serious and sticks by his ideas.
Harms him: Congress is less likely to work with him because of his argument.
I think I am using the idiom correctly but honestly can we get off this bender of word usage?
"Let me put it to you this way. Do you agree with my assessment about a Ron Paul presidency and why it would be so effective?"
Well yes and no. Just to be sure you see what I mean I am going to post the section that I thought prevalent to what you are discussing:
John James: That's the thing I think a lot of people don't realize (or don't want to admit). Even some liberty-minded individuals like to try to rain on Paul's parade and claim there's really nothing he could do as President, he'd still have a Congress to deal with, blah blah blah. Some I think it's because they truly don't get it, others I think because they have a need to be contrarian and rag on people, and still others because they're narcissistic pricks who don't know how to constructively deal with their jealousy. Not only do I not think these people have a full appreciation for the power of the Executive Branch (especially in the hands of someone who is a voluntarist), but I also don't believe they fully see the big picture. Most people still don't even know who Ron Paul is other than possibly "that kooky Republican guy who wants to end the wars". And that's only if they're lucky. The minute that guy wins even the R nomination...let alone the Presidency...the whole game changes. Everything he says automatically becomes infinitely more legitimate, and heard by 100 times more people. The impact someone like that could have, not only on policy in a bully-pulpit sort of way, but on public opinion in a leader/teacher sort of way, is unimaginable. He talks about how he's not just trying to win an election, he's trying to change the course of history. I guarantee you, if that man becomes President, that's exactly what would happen. And not because of anything he'll do in government. He won't pass some law that will redefine the political system. He won't eliminate some department that history will call "the repeal that changed everything". He will affect change in the greatest, most important way possible...in the minds of people. Just imagine 4 whole years of that man talking...with the Presidential Seal hanging behind him. And as if that wasn't enough, times are going to get tougher...probably as tough as they've ever been, relatively. People will be ready, more than ever, to listen. You thought people were scared, hurting, ready for change, and looking for a leader with Obama...just wait.
That's the thing I think a lot of people don't realize (or don't want to admit). Even some liberty-minded individuals like to try to rain on Paul's parade and claim there's really nothing he could do as President, he'd still have a Congress to deal with, blah blah blah. Some I think it's because they truly don't get it, others I think because they have a need to be contrarian and rag on people, and still others because they're narcissistic pricks who don't know how to constructively deal with their jealousy. Not only do I not think these people have a full appreciation for the power of the Executive Branch (especially in the hands of someone who is a voluntarist), but I also don't believe they fully see the big picture. Most people still don't even know who Ron Paul is other than possibly "that kooky Republican guy who wants to end the wars". And that's only if they're lucky. The minute that guy wins even the R nomination...let alone the Presidency...the whole game changes. Everything he says automatically becomes infinitely more legitimate, and heard by 100 times more people. The impact someone like that could have, not only on policy in a bully-pulpit sort of way, but on public opinion in a leader/teacher sort of way, is unimaginable.
He talks about how he's not just trying to win an election, he's trying to change the course of history. I guarantee you, if that man becomes President, that's exactly what would happen. And not because of anything he'll do in government. He won't pass some law that will redefine the political system. He won't eliminate some department that history will call "the repeal that changed everything". He will affect change in the greatest, most important way possible...in the minds of people. Just imagine 4 whole years of that man talking...with the Presidential Seal hanging behind him. And as if that wasn't enough, times are going to get tougher...probably as tough as they've ever been, relatively. People will be ready, more than ever, to listen. You thought people were scared, hurting, ready for change, and looking for a leader with Obama...just wait.
Yes I agree that what Ron Paul is engaging in is a battle of ideas in order to change the minds of Americans. He has said this repeatedly in his interviews and debates. That is the yes part. This is the no part. No I don't think just because he is president, people are more apt to listen to him. Having a presidental seal behind your head does not validate your ideas. When Obama was elected, did Republicans watch tv saying "You know a lot of what he says is right! I'm becoming a Democrat now." If such a thing did happen, then I think it is an exception. The "whole game" doesn't change. Democrats will still be trying to advance welfare programs and strengthen the safety nets, Republicans may lighten to his economics but never to his foreign policy. The in house political fighting will still be around, the system of representation will still be around. Really the only thing I see changing is the foreign policy because Ron Paul can unilaterially control that. If you thought that was going to be the game changer and that alone then I would of fully agreed with you.
It might not get approval from the mainstream but people would be forced (for lack of a better word) to listen to what he was saying.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
"It might not get approval from the mainstream but people would be forced (for lack of a better word) to listen to what he was saying."
Televisions have power buttons, news articles can be glossed over. Just because they are constantly presented with liberty-orientated ideas does not infer they will somehow break from it and really is that what libertarians want? To beat the opposition by mere utterances of the arguments? By simple volume?
I'll take what I can get. Sure I'd love to have a national debate that everyone watches where austrian economists refute the free-market myth, accuse the Military Industrial Complex, reveal the expansion of executive powers, reveal the houses of Morgan and Rockefeller in American politics and economy, etc. This will likely not happen. Ron Paul is the best thing we have. I don't understand what you would want or expect to start changing people's minds. We've got good arguments here, with little volume. I guess that hasn't been very effective.