General

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

Eric080 — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 06:47:32 GMT

Yeah I understand debating Biden would not be hard. But Paul couldn't satisfactorily respond to the media questioning him why he had a sudden change of heart which would certainly be something he is questioned on during the debate. That works for people like Biden who attacked Obama in the 2008 primaries on minutiae only to change his tune on certain issues, because they understand that that is politics and that he's being a team player. With Paul, he built his brand loyalty based on principle and that he is fundamentally at odds with the Republican party platform. It would be a huge chink in his armor; that's what I meant by the media eating him alive in a debate setting.

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

Marko — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 04:01:43 GMT

Rockwell changing his tune back?...

Well, you never actually accused him of changing his tune in the first place, did you? Your assertion was that he was "flirting with making the case for defending a Ron Paul VP".

You didn't accuse him of defending a Ron Paul VP, or even of making the case for defending a Ron Paul VP. You accused him of flirting with making the case for defending a Ron Paul VP.

You accuse him of considering the idea of making the case that a case can be made for a Ron Paul VP. It doesn't sound a lot hinges on the verdict, then.

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

John James — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:08:35 GMT

More Rockwell sounding like normal Rockwell...

Romney Denies Talks With Paul Campaign

Posted on March 16, 2012 by Lew Rockwell

Normally, I'd believe nothing this State-worshipper says, but here I think he is telling the truth. Even if not, there is no way that Ron Paul is supporting this better-looking version of McCain. If Ron had been willing to trim just a bit as a congressman, he would have been chairman of the banking and then the financial services committee, a rich man, and a beloved figure to the MSM. But Ron Paul is not a trimmer, never has been, never will be. He sticks to his libertarian principles, even though they have blocked his advancement in the regime. But he has no power lust. That's why young people love him. That's why he's changing the future.

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

John James — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:07:41 GMT

Eric080:
Well just imagine if Paul did accept the nomination for VP. The first thing the media is asking him is how he can square his beliefs with Romney. Can you imagine Paul not calling Romney a warmonger in so many terms and not saying that he stands up for the economic status quo? If he flip flops, the media would be all over him.

...oh you mean like if he endorsed a warmongering statist...like, say, Mitt Romney?

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

Wibee — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 17:55:09 GMT

"In either scenario, wouldn't he get eaten alive at the VP debates?"

You realize he would be debating Biden? A box of rock stands a better chance debating Paul than Biden.

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

Eric080 — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 17:23:05 GMT

Well just imagine if Paul did accept the nomination for VP. The first thing the media is asking him is how he can square his beliefs with Romney. Can you imagine Paul not calling Romney a warmonger in so many terms and not saying that he stands up for the economic status quo? If he flip flops, the media would be all over him. If he remains true to his beliefs and criticizes Romney as not being very different from Obama, how would that reflect on the Romney campaign and why would they want him in the first place? Your running mate doesn't even support you? In either scenario, wouldn't he get eaten alive at the VP debates?

So this isn't going to work out any which way you slice it. Rand is more likely, but the same issues will apply to a Rand Paul VP.

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

Bert — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 17:17:17 GMT

In a simpler way, it's all a bunch of nonsense, and depending of which stripe of libertarian or conservative you ask you'll get different answers. For those who won't compromise principles or ethics, because we know exactly how it works and what affect it will or will not have on anything for our own "agenda" we know the whole thing is useless, it's only reputation and image after that. Is Ron Paul principled with his own ethics he follows? History shows that, it shows that he would not take a VP position, that's consenting to the establishment.

The difference is the type of people who'd support this. Last campaign my brother was a die hard Paul supporter, but some poking around can show he's not a libertarian, just a fiscal conservative. Suggesting that maybe Paul should hold back or not discuss certain matters because the older crowd may not understand, such as the war on drugs, or maybe not be so direct or take a different approach on being anti-war, etc. To quote Rorshach from the Watchmen, "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon." Thus, pick and choose what parts of Paul someone likes, edit what he has to say. Well, if that's the case than Paul is not the candidate for you, take it all in or leave it alone. People see Paul as this hard, stubborn, non-compromising libertarian, but some of the crowd may cave in, which they didn't really care - they aren't principled. (Someone like my brother was also quick to say "Paul/Cain 2012!" before Herman went to shit - something we all knew.)

I have my own bias against Paul, but when it comes to being president he's the only option, but that's the only decision, president or no? If it's anything else nevermind, I'm not going to half ass decentralizing things with a mock position of no power. Paul taking a VP slot is in a way the worst marketing possible.

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

SirTenenbaum — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:58:11 GMT

I doubt Romney will even approach Ron Paul for VP pick. Romney will probably want to placate the many members of the Republican base who are unhappy with him--choosing Ron Paul would not acheive that. Even if Romney did, I'm sure Ron Paul is smart enough to realize he would have better influence going on TV shows and making speeches rather than being VP. I think we're all worrying about nothing.

But the main issue is: Could Ron Paul be pardoned for accepting a VP slot? At worst, it's a stupid move on Ron Paul's part. I'm sure it wouldn't mean Paul would compromise on his principles. He would accept the position (wrongly) to advance the liberty movement. He wouldn't be a sell-out; he would simply be shortsighted. Again, I doubt we have to worry about this.

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

John James — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:28:57 GMT

Anenome:
rejecting VP means a further defeat of Paul's ideals

Um. What?

You don't usually win wars by demanding all or nothing victories. You edge towards victory, scratching out partial victories if need be.

You also don't win ideological wars by compromising the ideals you're promoting.

Should Paul really turn down the VP slot if he's offered it? Hell no. If that's the best he can get he should.

Sounds to me like you're saying "sometimes you gotta take one for the team"...that going against principle is worth it if you think it will further a supposed justified goal...

That the ends justify the means...no?

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

Anenome — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 10:28:36 GMT

If Paul backs Romney, he gains influence and the ability to moderate Romney.

If he doesn't, Romney gets someone just like him and maintains an echo chamber.

If Paul can't gain the nomination, his best move is to push for VP. Since rejecting VP means a further defeat of Paul's ideals and the loss of a significant podium for spreading libertarian ideas. He could lose the battle and win the war.

You don't usually win wars by demanding all or nothing victories. You edge towards victory, scratching out partial victories if need be. Until the time when you've gained enough power to make big moves.

Should Paul really turn down the VP slot if he's offered it? Hell no. If that's the best he can get he should.

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

John James — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:32:10 GMT

Rockwell changing his tune back?...

'Time' Predicts a Romney-Paul Alliance for 30 Pieces of Plastic

Posted on March 14, 2012 by Lew Rockwell

And the CIA's Time is all for it. But the idea of Ron Paul, of all people, backing a vicious and warmongering Keynesian police-statist and drug prohibitionist like Romney, let alone bringing his movement to support the McCain of 2012, is just silly.

Of Course, Ron Won't Back Romney

Posted on March 15, 2012 by Lew Rockwell

The father of Obamacare is a warmonger of the worst sort.

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

Eric080 — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:25:50 GMT

Paul isn't going to cause chaos (as fun as that sounds). He is going to take the high road as he always does and he'll just make a grand speech on the cause of liberty that, hopefully, will be as compelling as Goldwater's famous speech. The GOP is running scared and knows that they can't win any elections in the near future without the support of Paulians and the only way they can get the support of Paulians is to actually behave like Ron Paul. I think this will cause them to treat him with kiddie gloves after he drops out (and by "drop out" I mean when all the primaries and caucuses are over, I realize Paul isn't dropping out mid-election).

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

Aristophanes — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:35:17 GMT

Second thought.

Paul seems to have started saying, even at speeches, "If you have to have a war, at least declare it with the Congress," as an attempt to not paint himself into a corner with the voting righteous ones among us.

This will allow the U.S. government to really use force. Compared to that, the wars we see today will look like 'day care for terrorists'.

Paul, the anti-war, candidate might turn Iran into a much more swift and unilateral action. The international legal focus will go out the window if the Congress actually declares war...

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

NonAntiAnarchist — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:29:56 GMT

Romney will neither chose Paul, nor would Paul accept, even if he was offered. I think these things are pretty obvious, but what do I know?

Re: Ridiculous Ron Paul bias

Aristophanes — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:18:32 GMT

JJ, I think the chaos and uncertainty surrounding the convention and nomination is making driving people to think irrational things.

Paul will NOT be Romney's VP choice...

Frankly, Romney's camp probably wants Paul supporters to think these things because indirectly they are considering voting for him.

Either, Paul drops out before the nomination to AVOID having to endorse a candidate AND defend his honor OR he goes to the convention, is given a speaking slot and rambles on about how the people are voting for absurdity and completey destroys his GOP reputation and kills Rand's possible political future and hands the election to Obama.

I HOPE that Paul causes chaos at the GOP convention (because F*** the GOP, they deserve it), but you can guess what I THINK will happen.

EDIT: I cannot imagine Paul accepting a position of no power for four years. He would do nothing but miss his family as VP.