Huffington Post article: Ron Paul Can Win...

[GALTGULCH8]

http://tinyurl.com/c4mwepj

<<<"Ron Paul Can Win On Arithmetic, Not Just Philosophy

Robin Koerner | 7 Hours Ago

Please read the article by using the tinyurl above. In it a case is made that Ron Paul has sufficient appeal and his supporters come from all corners and have a kind of "stickiness" once they find him that they don't leave! He can attract a sufficient number to outvote Obama.

[Selene]

What happens if he runs third party Gulch?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/18/ron_paul_warns_gop_not_to_capitulate_on_taxes_wont_rule_out_indy_bid.html

Ron Paul with Sean Hannity discussing the economy and the election. Paul talks about the lack of attention he receives, if he is not ignored altogether. Paul says he and his staff were "annoyed" by the fact that he only received 89 seconds to speak at the last Republican debate.

Paul warned his Republican colleagues in the Congress that they better keep their pledge to not raise taxes. He says if they do "capitulate" on taxes then people will make them pay.

"I have no intention of doing that," Paul says of a third-party run if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. However, when asked several times by Hannity to rule out an independent bid, he would not.

[Reidy]

Let's agree to revisit the Huffington Post article after the election is over and see how good a prediction it was.

[GALTGULCH8]

As I write this I am listening to Ron Paul being interviewed on Face The Nation as shown this morning, Nov 20th. I am seeing it on dailypaul.com.

Ron Paul does have supporters all over the country. I imagine that in general they are more enlightened about the issues than the general public because they tend to read the books which Ron Paul has written and recommended. For example Ron Paul mentions the Austrian School of Economics during the debates which may mean nothing to most listeners. But his supporters have probably read some of the essays of Ludwig von Mises which are available for free at www.mises.org where they will also encounter the works of Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard. When I attend libertarian get togethers or websites I encourage others to keep reading Ayn Rand, von Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek, Bastiat, Rothbard, Tom Woods, G. Edward Griffin and others.

My point is that his supporters are better armed intellectually to persuade others they encounter. I know that within the Ron Paul campaign there is a move for volunteers to phone people in Iowa, New Hampshire and other primary states. Polls have shown greater contact with the Ron Paul campaign among the residents of Iowa and New Hampshire than other candidates.

There is certainly no unconditional guarantee that Ron Paul will be chosen as the Republican Party nominee. But if his supporters work hard enough to make others aware of just why Ron Paul would be a superior president who will do practical things to strengthen the dollar, reduce government impediments to business which would increase employment, bring home troops who are stationed in the 900 plus military bases around the world which would reduce expenses by one trillion dollars a year, etc.

If they work hard enough it is within the realm of possibility that Ron Paul would emerge as the best candidate to beat Obama, repeal Obamacare, audit and abolish the Federal Reserve, restore sound money and do all the things necessary to restore our limited government.

This country is in far deeper trouble than the powers that be are willing to acknowledge. The unfunded liabilities are closer to over 60 trillion not just the 15 trillion we hear as the national debt. Unemployment is well over the 9% they admit to. We are closer to other wars given the direction of countries like Libya, Egypt, Iran and China.

My pointy there is that it is crucial that the next president do the right things. I think that Ron Paul would be most likely to rescue us although I would prefer Gary Johnson on the pro choice abortion issue. I doubt that the likes of Romney or Cain or Perry would deal effectively with the Fed, or the tax issue, although they might help reduce the government spending and interventions in the marketplace.

I will take advantage of every opportunity in my daily life, especially when shopping, to mention Ron Paul to people with whom I do business or make a purchase from. It is conceivable that if enough of Ron Paul supporters do pass the torch that more people will appreciate Ron Paul and vote for him.

Remains to be seen. No guarantee of success but there is a great deal at stake, especially for the younger generations.

I don't think of the writer of the article on the arithmetic associated with Ron Paul's numbers as making a prediction rather pointing out the plausibility of success. It can be done no matter how unlikely. The public schools have succeeded in keeping the youth well indoctrinated and misinformed. It is our job to correct this egregious manifestation of government intervention.

[Selene]

What happens if he runs third party Gulch?

This is a serious question.

As to the Republican nomination, if he goes in with between 100 and 200 delegates because of the proportional representation system this cycle AND the convention is badly deadlocked, he may have a chance of being the nominee.

Ptoblem is that it would be like the Goldwater San Francisco convention. This time, I think, because of the racist in the White House, [oops did I say that] even the establishment Republicans will show up, I sure hope so anyway.

Adam

[GALTGULCH8]

WSJ article today suggests that O may resign and let Hillary Clinton run for president instead. Polls show she would beat Romney and Perry by a large margin.

[Selene]

WSJ article today suggests that O may resign and let Hillary Clinton run for president instead. Polls show she would beat Romney and Perry by a large margin.

Shoen is a Clinton pollster, an honest man, I have worked with him.

Caddel is a Carter guy, I believe, and also ah honest man.

We discussed this on the Run Hillary Run thread http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10151&st=20 see post #23.

I repeat my question to you Gulch...what happens if Dr. Paul runs third party?

Adam

[GALTGULCH8]

Here is a link to an article on Prison Planet, Alex Jones site which features a WashingtonPost article "Ron Paul is for real in Iowa. Seriously."

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-is-for-real-in-iowa-seriously/

Ron Paul has taken a new poll at twenty percent behind only Cain at 25%.

http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2011/nov/ISUpoll

I expect that Ron Paul's troops will advance his cause between now and the Caucus in January by talking him up among their acquaintances. Most people have little knowledge about him and if his troops do their job right his appealing attributes might just inspire others!

To answer your persistent question, I think that Ron Paul has said he is in this race to win within the Republican Party and will not consider third party run.

Have you read G. Edward Griffin's book, The Creature From Jekyll Island yet? If you do you will realize the enemy within which is rotting our dollar and appreciate that only Ron Paul will deal directly with this issue of auditing and then abolishing the Fed. If it is not done expeditiously with no tim e to lose, the dollar is doomed with hell to pay in terms of economic collapse, inflationary depression, massive unemployment, civil unrest with all that entails. Load up on ammunition while you still can! The "normalcy bias" reigns so that it is virtually inconceivable to most Americans just how bad things can get. Ron Paul has got to win this or the chances are that all hell will break loose.

[Selene]

Gulch:

Yes I have read the book.

Dr. Paul has stated that he will not rule out a run as a third party candidate, so you are laboring under a misconception.

Finally, let us assume that Dr. Paul gets the nomination and gets elected to the Presidency of the United States.

How does he go about abolishing the Fed?

By an act of Congress?

By executive order?

What say you Gulch?

Adam

[GALTGULCH8]

If we assume that Ron Paul has sufficient support and that during the months of the election process his minions succeed in enlightening the populace regarding the nature of the Fed and how it has reduced the purchasing power of the dollar by over 95% since its inception in 1913, it might be feasible for the Tea Party Republicans to retake control of the Senate and retain control of the House.

I understand that G. Edward Griffin's book The Creature From Jekyll Island is being widely read. You say you have read it so surely you realize how eye opening it is regarding the nature of central banking and the evils of inflating the currency which are discussed in detail.

To answer your question I think that once a full audit of the Fed occurs and is made known to the public that it would be a matter of repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and any subsequent Acts which have kept the beast alive since then.

You must admit that no other aspirant to the presidency shares the understanding and conviction of Ron Paul and his supporters to accomplish this feat.

But that might be my own notion of what might happen. I believe that Ron Paul has advocated that legislation to allow competing sound money alternative currencies to be created. IF the legal tender laws were repealed as well, the Federal Reserve Notes could be replaced by market action as sound money takes its place.

[Selene]

This is the kind of stupid infighting that will re-elect the marxist pig in the White House:

[Jerry Biggers]

If that Youtube attack on Gingrich by the Ron Paul campaign is any indication, just imagine what the MSM and the Democrats will have in store for Gingrich if he gets the nomination! Unfortunately (or, fortunately, depending on one's analysis of Newt), Gingrich has left himself open to these kinds of criticisms, and this "baggage" will cause voters to shy away from voting for him.

Last night, I wasted a whole hour watching Sean Hannity "interviewing" Gingrich with questions so "softball" that it would have made even Larry King blush.

Example: (this is a paraphrase, see the text or watch the whole interview. It's even worse!)

HANNITY: What is your position on the causes of "global warming?"

GINGRICH: I don't think we know yet the answer to that.

HANNITY: Oh. OK.. (That's it! End of discussion on that issue, even though Hannity had brought up Gingrich's support, with Nancy Pelosi, on the human causes of "global warming" on many of his prior radio and TV shows!.)..

[Selene]

If that Youtube attack on Gingrich by the Ron Paul campaign is any indication, just imagine what the MSM and the Democrats will have in store for Gingrich if he gets the nomination! Unfortunately (or, fortunately, depending on one's analysis of Newt), Gingrich has left himself open to these kinds of criticisms, and this "baggage" will cause voters to shy away from voting for him.

Last night, I wasted a whole hour watching Sean Hannity "interviewing" Gingrich with questions so "softball" that it would have made even Larry King blush.

Example: (this is a paraphrase, see the text or watch the whole interview. It's even worse!)

HANNITY: What is your position on the causes of "global warming?"

GINGRICH: I don't think we know yet the answer to that.

HANNITY: Oh. OK.. (That's it! End of discussion on that issue, even though Hannity had brought up Gingrich's support, with Nancy Pelosi, on the human causes of "global warming" on many of his prior radio and TV shows!.)..

Jerry:

I do not watch much TV at all, and although Sean is a nice guy, he has gotten completely tedious and predictable, so I am not surprised by what you report.

As to Newt's baggage, if it is not [gagging] Romney as the nominee, can be turned into a plus. For example, I think that folks are scared enough that all the baggage talk will not stick.

Newt will be sold as this country's Winston Churchill. A flawed man who has risen to meet this crisis in history. His intellect is beyond reproach. He has been lecturing at the War College for some twenty years and they do not invite you back there because of your good looks which he does not have.

His answers on Iran in that last debate were clear, concise and made rational sense. All delivered in about two (2) minutes. Compare that to Romney's answer which was we should indict Akmadenijad for genocide...really? Mitt has absolutely no hands on, first person knowlege of a coherent foreign policy.

Mitt is a manager. Gingrich is a leader and a brilliant man.

Adam

[Martin Radwin]

If that Youtube attack on Gingrich by the Ron Paul campaign is any indication, just imagine what the MSM and the Democrats will have in store for Gingrich if he gets the nomination! Unfortunately (or, fortunately, depending on one's analysis of Newt), Gingrich has left himself open to these kinds of criticisms, and this "baggage" will cause voters to shy away from voting for him.

Last night, I wasted a whole hour watching Sean Hannity "interviewing" Gingrich with questions so "softball" that it would have made even Larry King blush.

Example: (this is a paraphrase, see the text or watch the whole interview. It's even worse!)

HANNITY: What is your position on the causes of "global warming?"

GINGRICH: I don't think we know yet the answer to that.

HANNITY: Oh. OK.. (That's it! End of discussion on that issue, even though Hannity had brought up Gingrich's support, with Nancy Pelosi, on the human causes of "global warming" on many of his prior radio and TV shows!.)..

Jerry:

I do not watch much TV at all, and although Sean is a nice guy, he has gotten completely tedious and predictable, so I am not surprised by what you report.

As to Newt's baggage, if it is not [gagging] Romney as the nominee, can be turned into a plus. For example, I think that folks are scared enough that all the baggage talk will not stick.

Newt will be sold as this country's Winston Churchill. A flawed man who has risen to meet this crisis in history. His intellect is beyond reproach. He has been lecturing at the War College for some twenty years and they do not invite you back there because of your good looks which he does not have.

His answers on Iran in that last debate were clear, concise and made rational sense. All delivered in about two (2) minutes. Compare that to Romney's answer which was we should indict Akmadenijad for genocide...really? Mitt has absolutely no hands on, first person knowlege of a coherent foreign policy.

Mitt is a manager. Gingrich is a leader and a brilliant man.

Adam

A leader and a brilliant man? When a crooked, lieing, slimy bastard like Gingrich is held up as a paragon of intelligence and leadership, all under the aegis of objectivism, perhaps it's time to put a fork in modern day objectivism. It's dead.

http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2011/11/21/newt-gingrich-2/

Martin

[Jerry Biggers]

Maybe I've missed something (or was that just a rhetorical question?). What does Gingrich's candidacy have to do with Objectivism? He certainly is not one, having declared himself "renewed in Christ" (for the nth time), and apparently taking multiple, often conflicting, positions on practically every issue, as pointed out in the article that you referenced, and in the Ron Paul campaign spot listed above, and practically everywhere else.

Of course, you can find something to agree on with Newt on some issues. Until he changes positions. When this is pointed out to him, he gives the most facile of excuses, denies he said that, or tries to re-interpret what he said to mean its opposite.

But, if one does not look at the "whole Newt," many of his comments sound quite good. Until you compare with his previous stances, or his next pronouncements. I would agree that he can be quite articulate (compared with some of the other GOP candidates). And many people have liked the way he has talked back to the various media moderators in the debates. That tactic is somewhat reminiscent of Rand's method of not accepting the implicit premises of the questioner, but instead pointing out what those premises mean (what she used to call a "package deal."). Unfortunately, he is not Rand, but is a model of political expediency.

I cannot imagine any prominent Objectivist, "open" or ARIan, endorsing him.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[Selene]

Maybe I've missed something (or was that just a rhetorical question?). What does Gingrich's candidacy have to do with Objectivism?

I cannot imagine any prominent Objectivist, "open" or ARIan, endorsing him.

Jerry:

Of course you are correct. He is not an Objectivist. He is, in this rather incredible nexus of history, a serious contender for the nomination.

He is brilliant. He is a leader. He is also a political pragmatist who is a strong conservative. He is not a "principled idealougue" like Dr. Paul. He has been on different sides of certain issues depending on the temper of the moment. He is also someone who knows how to get a deal done in Washington and in Congress. Most importantly, he is a lot closer to espousing a free economic model than the marxist in the White House.

Now, if it is a choice between Newt and O'biwan, to me, it is a no brainer. Not voting or voting third party is not an option this time, at least for me.

Anyone but Mitt and anyone but O'biwan which means Mitt.

It is that simple.

However, I fully respect anyone choosing not to vote, voting third party, or writing in Dr. Paul's name.

Adam

Post Script: Martin, I am fully aware that Newt is reprehensible to you, as I am sure O'bama is. However, to deny his intelligence is just inaccurate.

[Martin Radwin]

Maybe I've missed something (or was that just a rhetorical question?). What does Gingrich's candidacy have to do with Objectivism?

I cannot imagine any prominent Objectivist, "open" or ARIan, endorsing him.

Jerry:

Of course you are correct. He is not an Objectivist. He is, in this rather incredible nexus of history, a serious contender for the nomination.

He is brilliant. He is a leader. He is also a political pragmatist who is a strong conservative. He is not a "principled idealougue" like Dr. Paul. He has been on different sides of certain issues depending on the temper of the moment. He is also someone who knows how to get a deal done in Washington and in Congress. Most importantly, he is a lot closer to espousing a free economic model than the marxist in the White House.

Now, if it is a choice between Newt and O'biwan, to me, it is a no brainer. Not voting or voting third party is not an option this time, at least for me.

Anyone but Mitt and anyone but O'biwan which means Mitt.

It is that simple.

However, I fully respect anyone choosing not to vote, voting third party, or writing in Dr. Paul's name.

Adam

Post Script: Martin, I am fully aware that Newt is reprehensible to you, as I am sure O'bama is. However, to deny his intelligence is just inaccurate.

Obama was also thought to be highly intelligent, being a professor of constitutional law at an ivy league university, especially as contrasted with the language-challenged idiot who preceded him. Whether Obama is actually intelligent or not, he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents of the last hundred years. He is a murderous war criminal who is doing everything he can to accelerate the degeneration of the U.S. into a militarized police state.

Intelligence in the hands of a murderous sociopath is most likely not a good thing. And, make no mistake about it, every one of the republican presidential candidates is a sociopath, with the exception of Ron Paul. Naturally, as a result, Ron Paul was the object of a vicious attack by TAS, which considers an actual advocate of stopping the slaughter abroad and ending the wars and occupations to be far more dangerous than any of the sociopaths who advocate endless war forever. The office of president of the United States is the most powerful position in the entire world, a position which grants the recipient the power of life or death over billions of people around the entire planet. No psychologically normal person would ever seek such power. The lure of such ultimate power is guaranteed to attract noone but power-lusting sociopaths.

We are heading for a presidential dictatorship, and none of the presidential candidates seems particularly interested in stopping this, being as they would get to be the dictator.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/29/setting-the-trap/

"Buried in the annual defense appropriations bill is a provision that would give the President the power to use the military to intern anyone – including American citizens – indefinitely, and hold them without charges or trial, anywhere in the world, including on American soil. The provision essentially repeals the longstanding Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the military from engaging in law enforcement on US territory – the greatest fear of the Founders. Approved by a Senate subcommittee in secret hearings, the provisions open the road to a military dictatorship in this country – and for that we can thank Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, who introduced the measure. Both the FBI and the Pentagon came out against the Levin-McCain monstrosity, and Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) introduced an amendment striking the provision: the amendment was defeated in the Senate, 37-61."

Does it give you any comfort, imagining that Newt Gingrich rather than Barack Obama will have the power to lock up anyone indefinitely, without charges or trial, forever? Is this the kind of choice that should provide inspiration for objectivists? Does the idea that Gingrich will be a really intelligent presidential dictator make you feel any better?

Martin

[Selene]

Obama was also thought to be highly intelligent, being a professor of constitutional law at an ivy league university, especially as contrasted with the language-challenged idiot who preceded him.

Martin:

A simple correction. O'Bama was merely an adjunct professor. His course on "constitutional law," upon information and belief, taught a very bizarre theory of the subject matter. However, we seem to have no objective information on the course, for example, the course description, the book list, the classes syllabus, or any students testimony as to what he taught.

As to your evaluation of the candidates, we are never going to see eye to eye on voting for any of your self described "murderous sociopaths."

As to the provision that is referenced in the article, we agree completely. This is a major step towards centralized tyranny.

Adam