Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies

[Gigaliel]

What, Gigaliel, do you think that if I'd read the article I would suddenly become a Ron Paul supporter?

Not really. That's not even the point of the article, but you understood that in a later post so no reason to comment.

Weighing the two sets of consequences against each other, I have to make my decision as an American citizen who wants my country to not collapse or suffer huge recessions, and who is conscious of just how much something like a depression really costs in surplus mortality and lost opportunities for useful labor.

And from that perspective, Ron Paul would make a terrible president and I would never consider voting for him.

Frankly the economic argument is silly as Obama already approves of austerity measures, SS and medicare cuts, no financial regulations, and so on and so forth. Dismantling of federal departments IS valid as it is a thing the President could actually do without too much interference from congress.

Ron Paul is the optimum conservative/GOP candidate is either A) impossible to get by Congress or B) already shared by the other candidates (as somewhat established by Elfdart's post.)

Paul vs. Obama is a more interesting as there is an actual choice. More than anything it highlights how Obama is an awful president and that it is hilarious that the the Republican candidate is more "liberal" on key progressive issues than he is.
---
Third Party discussion:

People tried that in 2000 with Ralph Nader and we all know how wonderful THAT ended for America.

Here's some numbers dispelling this sadly common myth:

The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa.

In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points.

In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger. For example, in nine successive surveys in which Nader pulled only 2 or 3 points, Gore's total varied by 7 points. As late as two weeks before the election, Gore was ahead by as much as 7-10 points.

also:

The point is they ARE changing the Republicans, they voted out moderates and moved in more and more nutcases. You want to change the way things are? Then do the same. Get active, get angery, vote in the primaries for people who arn't wussy or spinless and you may just begin to change things.

This is what the Democratic establishment thinks of primary challenges (Daily Kos quoting things]:

As Sam Seder tweeted:

and when Blanche loses? MT @benpolitico Sr. WH Official: Labor just flushed 10 mil of its members $ down the toilet in a pointless exercise

Also corporate money has Zero benefit from supporting leftist candidates versus the Tea Party has some overlap with their interest. It's going to be a bit difficult.

This post is getting a little long and quote heavy so I'm going to summarize my positions a little:

1.) There will be no liberal victory in 2012. Paul will probably lose when the GOP is scared enough and starts to rally. The primary difference will be that the GOP is fairly honest about their beliefs. I mean do I really have to post the evidence of Obama contradicting nearly every liberal position he has ever said he held? Also Obama will probably win because the GOP candidates are pretty awful but that doesn't really matter.

2.) Following from 1.) it is my personal belief that every left leaning person needs both and not vote Democrat. Also not Republican but that's kinda obvious. I am personally voting Green but socialist or whatever is fine too.

I think a few people in this thread share this opinion or lean towards it? And that is a major point of discussion in the thread? Maybe?

P.S.
I'm not really sure what I'd do if, miracle of miracles, Ron Paul actually won the GOP candidacy. Presumably I would be dead as my head had exploded, but you never know!

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, it is about time I jump in.

I will say it right now. I hate Obama. I think his record on human and civil rights and due process is nothing short of an abomination against the Enlightenment. And he is a constitutional lawyer. He should know better. There is Zero excuse.

I am also voting Green in the election. However, the only reason I can do that is because I live in a state guaranteed to go to the Republicans in the presidential election. I can afford to indulge my conscience. I think it would be best in the long term if we all indulged our consciences if the likes of Romney or Huntsman were nominated. If Ron Paul is nominated, it still wont matter how I vote because I can afford it statistically thanks to the electoral college. But the country cannot afford this.

On one hand, we have a guy with some personal beliefs that you dislike, and an economic policy that isn't ideal, but at least wants to end wars and end domestic spying.

No he does not. He wants to end FEDERAL domestic spying. He would remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the bill of rights, which he does not think applies to state law. It would become perfectly fine, under his presidency, for the state of Alabama to visit the inquisition upon homosexuals and muslims should the state so wish. The press could be burdened with prior restraint, so long as the state wished. Utah would transform overnight into a mormon theocracy. Once this sort of shit is passed by legislation, it will be hard to undo, as removing these things from the jurisdiction of courts would take an act of congress. One which could pass with a tea party congress.

On the other hand, we have someone who ACTIVELY TORTURES AND MURDERS PEOPLE.

And you dont think the state of Alabama or Georgia would not go back to Jim Crow, at least in some parts, if they could get away with it? You dont think that Joe Arpaio, only restrained in his monstrous depravity by the federal courts would not put prisoners on the strapaddo? Because he has been more than willing to kill prisoners already, and keep them in conditions at least as deplorable as abu ghraib

You guys talk about the 14th amendment, but what about the 4th amendment? Or the 5th? Or the 6th? Or the 8th?

Will no longer be in the jurisdiction of the federal courts if Ron Paul gets his way.

Realistically, Ron Paul would leave him the hell alone because "state's rights." I'm sorry, D-XIII, but the man is simply not clean on civil rights, however hard you try to pretend he is. He is, at best, differently dirty, with less flash and boom and more quiet tolerance of filthy little murders in the dark.

It is just as deplorable to knowingly permit an atrocity you have the power to stop as it is to order it yourself.

Devolving people's Civil Rights back down to the State level? We all know what would happen to homosexuals if that were to happen.

And atheists. Oh, and Muslims too. All of the sudden, it would be illegal for me to exist in at least 11 states, because those laws are still on the damn books.

Removing the EPA or FDA would literally kill people (and don't claim it wont happen, this would have significant support within the Republican party).

Yeah... a LOT of people would die. All of the sudden, there would be no restrictions on the disposal of various forms of toxic waste, and if you think that drug companies have lax standards now....

[Patrick Degan]

I think, at least, Republican obstruction will lose a bit of focus after the 2012 elections, if Obama wins; they'll have failed in their agenda to make Obama a one-term president, and obstructionism will no longer have the same power to sway people against the democrats when failures cannot be tied to the face of the person running.

Or, they could go the other way and start hunting up an excuse for impeachment. Fanaticism knows no bounds.

Lessen up on obstructionism? Against the Socialist Muslim Nazi Kenyan Commernist?

More seriously, the whole conservative project is to make government as ineffective as possible, in order to break the faith of the common people in the efficacy of free democratic government so as to drive the mass of the American people into cynicism and apathy. A people thus broken and inured to the idea that democracy does no good will no longer attempt to pester government for services or redress of grievances, and fewer people will bother to vote or even pay attention to what the government does. Such an environment of civic disengagement clears the way for the rising and perpetuation of private power. The political destruction of Barack Obama is aimed at achieving this end and it will not let up as a result of an Obama victory in 2012. If anything, it will intensify.

[Simon_Jester]

Frankly the economic argument is silly as Obama already approves of austerity measures, SS and medicare cuts, no financial regulations, and so on and so forth. Dismantling of federal departments IS valid as it is a thing the President could actually do without too much interference from congress.

It is valid in the sense of "he could do that," but it is not valid in the sense of "it would be incredibly stupid."

If I hand you a gun, you can shoot yourself in both feet. It is physically possible and therefore "valid" in the sense that you use it. But it's such a colossally bad idea that, if I knew you were going to do it, I would never ever hand you that gun. Even if the other choice was a guy who promised to fire the gun wildly into the air in a drunken haze until the magazine ran dry.

Paul vs. Obama is a more interesting as there is an actual choice. More than anything it highlights how Obama is an awful president and that it is hilarious that the the Republican candidate is more "liberal" on key progressive issues than he is.

Paul is more "liberal" on about two issues, tops, while being less "liberal" on basically all the other issues there are. You would have to be a complete fool to vote for Paul on the grounds that he has better progressive credentials. It would be like voting for him on the grounds that his last name begins with an R.

The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa.

In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points.

This is a silly argument.

It is a matter of empirical fact that Gore lost Florida by a margin of less than one thousand votes. Had even one percent of the Nader voters chosen instead, purely as a tactical matter, to vote for Gore instead, we might well have had President Al Gore sworn in in January 2001. Had five percent of the Nader voters done so, his victory would have been a sure thing. I suspect that if you polled the nearly 100 thousand people who voted for Nader in 2000, it would not be hard to find a group of a few thousand out of those myriads who, in hindsight, wish they'd changed their vote.

None of this is a moral judgment on Nader or his supporters- it is simply a matter of arithmetic. Bush won 2,912,790 votes in Florida. Gore won 2,912,253. 2,912,790 is more than 2,912,253. On the other hand, 2,912,253 plus a few thousand is more than 2,912,790. A few thousand people who were willing to grit their teeth and vote for Gore would no doubt have been forthcoming if the Greens had known in advance that the election would be so close.

Alas, they did not know that. And so we got President George Bush instead of President Al Gore. Such is life in the American political system. You can deal with it, you can struggle to change it (a form of dealing with it), or you can move to another country with a different system. It's all one to me which you choose.

1.) There will be no liberal victory in 2012. Paul will probably lose when the GOP is scared enough and starts to rally. The primary difference will be that the GOP is fairly honest about their beliefs. I mean do I really have to post the evidence of Obama contradicting nearly every liberal position he has ever said he held? Also Obama will probably win because the GOP candidates are pretty awful but that doesn't really matter.

It doesn't matter unless you consider averting disaster to be good. Which I do, and apparently you don't.

2.) Following from 1.) it is my personal belief that every left leaning person needs both and not vote Democrat. Also not Republican but that's kinda obvious. I am personally voting Green but socialist or whatever is fine too.

I think a few people in this thread share this opinion or lean towards it? And that is a major point of discussion in the thread? Maybe?

What opinion? That's not even grammatical. "Every left leaning person needs both and not vote Democrat." What is that?

Look, I know damn well Barack Obama is not the left's dream candidate. He's not even an adequate candidate, from the point of view of the left. But Ron Paul is even less of the left's dream candidate. He is actively worse in almost every possible way, and only better in a few ways. He is likely to cause great harm in many ways, while averting only small harm in a few ways.

This is not rocket science. This is about on par with "don't play with matches" level of analytical thought.

Realistically, Ron Paul would leave him the hell alone because "state's rights." I'm sorry, D-XIII, but the man is simply not clean on civil rights, however hard you try to pretend he is. He is, at best, differently dirty, with less flash and boom and more quiet tolerance of filthy little murders in the dark.

It is just as deplorable to knowingly permit an atrocity you have the power to stop as it is to order it yourself.

I am the source of this quote, Alyrium, and I submit that that is my point- Ron Paul is differently dirty than Barack Obama on matters of civil rights. He would promote far more violations of civil rights at home, and fewer abroad... and frankly, if I have to choose between a violation of my rights that would probably require me to travel to Yemen, versus a violation of my rights that could happen right here at my desk, I'm going to take the former. I wasn't all that attached to traveling to Yemen anyway.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am the source of this quote, Alyrium, and I submit that that is my point- Ron Paul is differently dirty than Barack Obama on matters of civil rights. He would promote far more violations of civil rights at home, and fewer abroad... and frankly, if I have to choose between a violation of my rights that would probably require me to travel to Yemen, versus a violation of my rights that could happen right here at my desk, I'm going to take the former. I wasn't all that attached to traveling to Yemen anyway.

I know. I was just clarifying for the terminally stupid.

Paul vs. Obama is a more interesting as there is an actual choice. More than anything it highlights how Obama is an awful president and that it is hilarious that the the Republican candidate is more "liberal" on key progressive issues than he is.

And what issues would these be, exactly? The guy has come out publicly in favor of permitting the states to set up theocracies. So what would these be? Drugs? Actually no. He would end he war on drugs and let states make their own laws. That changes matters in only a few states. Gays? He would take such things out of the jurisdiction of federal courts, which makes being gay illegal in 11 states. Worse, as the federal courts would no longer prevent the states from openly becoming theocracies. I can think of at least 1 state that would immediately become Mormoncrat.

Is this a superior choice? How does this make him more progressive than a sleezeball centrist?

[Simon_Jester]

I know. I was just clarifying for the terminally stupid.

Sorry; wasn't sure if the quote authorship had gotten lost in the shuffle or something.

[Rogue 9]

The Arizona state constitution has it's own copy of the bill of rights. When it was written, it was not yet established that the Federal bill of rights applies to the states!

Yes it was. Arizona didn't become a state until after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not just your financial well-being on the line. Its the financial well-being of all the people who would be effected by what passes for economic policy for Ron Paul.

[Alyrium Denryle]

To take a page from the "at least he's not X" playbook, it would also be perfectly fine, under his presidency, for the state of New York to legalize gay marriage.

Of course, that's already happened, and it happened in the New York legislature, not the courts. California is a different story, though, and I am disappointed by that.

But, note: Ron Paul has voted NO to constitutional amendments to define marriage.

Yes, lets compare multiple states with completely different political and religious demographics.

Keep in mind that laws are passed and repealed by Congress, including environmental laws. The President isn't a despot.

I love it when someone does not know how regulation works. Congress is not responsible for every single regulation. The regulatory agency is given broad authority by congress to do its thing. Even were that not the case, federal laws in this case are toothless without the enforcement arm of the agencies. Get rid of them either de facto by directing them to do nothing, or by simply disbanding them (not sure if the president can do that alone), and there is no meaningful regulation.

[Bakustra]

Quick note: DEd was part of the larger Department of Health, Education, and Welfare before Carter and non-cabinet federal education offices and departments go back to the Civil War. But that speaks to the essential hilarity of this- people grant Paul unlimited power for ill yet pretend "realism" whenever anybody points out the many failures of Barack Obama.

[Phantasee]

Your points have made me reconsider Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate. I've dismissed him before as a crazy unelectable loon but more and more I've seen he's sidelined by the media and the 'mainstream' political game (who are a bunch of corporatist whores) and actually has some sensible positions (and some wishful thinking).

However I have a hard time believing Finns believe that nonsense about "Real winners do not compete." Mika Hakkinen, Keke Rosberg, Jari Kurri, Miikka Kiprusoff, and Teemu Selanne (for example) show the Finns can be just as competitive as any other people.

[Simon_Jester]

But that speaks to the essential hilarity of this- people grant Paul unlimited power for ill yet pretend "realism" whenever anybody points out the many failures of Barack Obama.

Uh, no. People point out that Paul has outright said he will do all sorts of things that are bad, and a few things that are good. Obama said he'd do all sorts of things that are good, and not do bad things.

Obama didn't do a lot of the good things he said he would. He did some others halfheartedly. Other people were trying to stop him from doing the good things, which sure didn't help. And he did some bad things he said he wouldn't do.

Now, if Ron Paul is honest, then he will try to do all the bad and good things on his list. Since there are a lot of bad things on his to-do list, and not enough good things to cancel them out, that would be bad. Fortunately, some of the worst things he said he'd do, he wouldn't be able to do, because other people would stop him.

But why are we talking about electing a man when the best thing he has going for him is "other people would stop him before he did the stupid things he wants to do?" Why not just elect someone who wouldn't try?

Again, I would not hand a gun to a person who had sworn to shoot themselves in the foot, even if the alternative was to hand it to someone who had sworn to fire it wildly into the air. Limited irresponsibility is better than unlimited irresponsibility.

"Realism" does not justify everything Obama has done or not done. And "realism" doesn't justify voting for Ron Paul when I think half his policies are foolish on the grounds that he won't actually try to do the things he says he'll do, because he'd run into too much opposition. It's bad enough voting for the lesser evil; voting for the greater evil because "he wouldn't dare" to do what he says he'll do is ridiculous.

Your points have made me reconsider Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate. I've dismissed him before as a crazy unelectable loon but more and more I've seen he's sidelined by the media and the 'mainstream' political game (who are a bunch of corporatist whores) and actually has some sensible positions (and some wishful thinking).

There's some sense in there, but if he were given unlimited power to reshape the country to be the way he thinks, it would not change America for the better.

As I've said before, there are legitimate places I think it would be fine for Ron Paul to occupy in politics. It's just that the Oval Office isn't one of them- too much responsibility for a man prone to radicalism and extremism of that stripe.

[Eleas]

Your points have made me reconsider Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate. I've dismissed him before as a crazy unelectable loon but more and more I've seen he's sidelined by the media and the 'mainstream' political game (who are a bunch of corporatist whores) and actually has some sensible positions (and some wishful thinking).

Perhaps he does have some sensible positions. Those still pale against the obvious fact that he, not just as president but as a president known to Stick to his Guns, will give moral authority to virtually ensure a number of truly monstrous acts happen.

Plus, there's the fact that while he may be resistant to corporate pandering, the deregulatory nonsense Paul espouses is in fact a golden opportunity for companies wishing to engage in rampant profiteering at the expense of the poor. This should be enough to worry anyone.

However I have a hard time believing Finns believe that nonsense about "Real winners do not compete." Mika Hakkinen, Keke Rosberg, Jari Kurri, Miikka Kiprusoff, and Teemu Selanne (for example) show the Finns can be just as competitive as any other people.

This is just strange. Firstly, Finns aren't a homogeneous unit. Second, the context isn't blanket competition, it's competition among students, something that clearly can be deleterious to learning.

[SirNitram]

Please try to understand this.

Please try to burn in hell. You're insufferably arrogant and condescending.

To pretend that "some policies you don't like" is the sum total of the issue with Ron Paul entirely misses the point.

That's all Nitram actually talked about though. Actually, that's giving him too much credit still: aside from the gold standard thing, all he listed was personal attacks. He didn't say "Congressman Paul would limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to nullify Roe v Wade" - a policy issue - he just said "virulently anti-woman" - a personal attack.

I assumed, for a fraction of a second, you are capable of distinguishing between a direct, scathing statement judging his actions and an Ad Hominem. I see I was mistaken, and you are blazingly incompotent.

Let's see the REAL Ron Paul's thoughts on abortion, not your wishy-washy 'limit the scope' lie. Sancity Of Life Act, Life Begins At Conception, introduced by him in 05, 07, 09, 11. Voted for bans on 'Partial Birth Abortions' in 2000 and 03. And of course, his HR 4379 which would simply remove the SCOTUS from any ruling on abortion, BIRTH CONTROL, definition of Marriage, and homosexuality.

This is what 'virulently anti-woman' was about, you ignoramous. Must I deconstruct each part for the primitive splotch of protoplasm in your cranial cavity, or can you try to conceive your views might not be automatically right?

Realistically, Ron Paul would leave him the hell alone because "state's rights." I'm sorry, D-XIII, but the man is simply not clean on civil rights, however hard you try to pretend he is.

This isn't that big of a deal. The Federal President presides over the.... Federal government, and the fed gov is doing the worst offenses right now, including murdering people.

So how many people are okay if it's Ron Paul's indirect actions? From industries abusing lack of an EPA, or from an economic crash from his precious-metal looney-tunes, or from women dying for the sake of not getting an abortion?

The Arizona state constitution has it's own copy of the bill of rights. When it was written, it was not yet established that the Federal bill of rights applies to the states!

1868, Gitlow v. New York establishes the Federal Bill Of Rights applies to states. Arizona begins it's constitutional convention 1910. Bzzzzt.

So, yes, Joe Arpaio sucks, and maybe Ron Paul wouldn't intervene (again, you're provided no evidence for this. I expect you're thinking of something like his "We The People Act", which sets a pattern, but applied to some of his pet issues, not criminal justice, where he's on record being pro-rights).

Yes, it's not like his 2012 site trots out the same nonsense as everyone else in the GOP hate-a-thon, like no path to citizenship, revoking the Constitutionally mandated birthright citizenship, and actively calls any reform allowing '60 million' new citizens 'insanity'. Oh wait. It's all on his website.

The thing is: that's a state problem. The state of Arizona could be and should be enforcing their own laws and constitution, whether it's Barack Obama or anyone else in Washington.

Supremacy Clause, immigration is Federal jurisdiction, not States. Again, you fail.

[Edi]

However I have a hard time believing Finns believe that nonsense about "Real winners do not compete." Mika Hakkinen, Keke Rosberg, Jari Kurri, Miikka Kiprusoff, and Teemu Selanne (for example) show the Finns can be just as competitive as any other people.

This misses the entire point of the article, because with regard to educational policy, competitiveness (between students and between schools and school districts) is out of the picture except perhaps in an unofficial "We're better than [school next door], so nyah!" sort of way, not the kind of serious win at all costs attitude.

EDIT: Holy crap, I just noticed that the picture in DestructionatorXIII's linked article from the Atlantic was taken at my old elementary school, the Kaisaniemi Elementary School in the center of Helsinki.

[Elfdart]

Quick note: DEd was part of the larger Department of Health, Education, and Welfare before Carter and non-cabinet federal education offices and departments go back to the Civil War. But that speaks to the essential hilarity of this- people grant Paul unlimited power for ill yet pretend "realism" whenever anybody points out the many failures of Barack Obama.

No kidding!

Maybe Obama's fanwhores deep down are admitting just how feckless and weak he is, and assume that even a fringe candidate like Paul would actually push his agenda through.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Even so, that's pro-life, not anti-woman. I'm sure you believe they are exactly the same thing, that everyone who says "babies have a right to life" actually mean "women are my sex slaves", but that's simply not accurate.

Not for every individual, but as a movement, yes. Listen to the rhetoric sometime. "Abortion as birth control for loose women", "women should take responsibility for their behavior" etc. Most make exceptions for rape, which they would not do if they actually cared about the fetus. Additionally, most pro-lifers are pro-death penalty (barring catholics), and oppose government assistance to single mothers. In effect, it is evident that they do not, as a whole (exceptions exist) really give a shit about the baby that ends up being born. They want to punish women for spreading their legs.

But, here's a fun fact: the law that struck down was never really enforced anyway, and that was over a century ago. Times have changed since then toward more sexual freedom. Do we really need the federal courts to protect liberty in these cases?

Yes. Because some states are retrograde shit holes. The official platform of the Texas GOP for example is to make homosexuality a crime again. Utah is already a de facto mormon theocracy, held in check only by federal law and the federal courts. Same with AZ, where the legislature is a coalition of conservative mormons and catholics. Do you think they will hesitate for a moment to propose a constitutional amendment with an exception for say, homosexuality, to equal protection if the federal government was out of the picture? They would not. I know this because it was my legislature for over a decade. The Dakotas would ban abortion in a heartbeat, and probably put crazy restrictions on birth control.

I'm willing to place a bet that the damage done by all that is less than the damage done by unrestricted, perpetual war.

Millions will die if the EPA goes. It may not be instant death, but a massive increase in cancer and crippling birth defects. The EPA may suck, but it is still better than no EPA. There are at least SOME restrictions on how much radioactive waste can be released from coal power plants. Some restrictions on toxic emissions and ground water contamination. You speak, having no idea what chemicals exist and what they do. You speak, without knowing how expensive it is to do water treatment properly to remove things like cryptosporidium that can infect entire cities. Or how about the long term effects of mercury poisoning? Or lead?

At least with the FDA, there is some minimum standard for medication safety that cannot be gotten around. Without it, the profit margins are higher for settling lawsuits and forgoing safety and efficacy testing than they are for testing new drugs within anything even resembling rigor. And then there is food. Read The Jungle and get back to me.

I actually did talk about the demographics of Alabama and Georgia, although in the context of Jim Crow.

And race is a different issue from sexuality, where multiple states still want my existence to be illegal, including the one I live in.

But the important point with the New York example is the state system actually works. There hasn't been a Supreme Court case on gay marriage (though it looks like prop hate - clever name btw - might get there pretty soon), but the issue is gaining a lot of traction state by state.

But there HAVE been cases on discrimination, gay being a crime etc. The only thing keeping TX from re-criminalizing my existence is Lawrence v. Texas.

There's a whole shitload of legislation from Congress on directing the EPA. No president can unilaterally change or ignore all that without violating the law.

But there is a lot of shit that can be ignored. The specific rules and regulations a regulatory agency adopts are done by themselves, barring occasional congressional intervention such as with DDT. A president can simply order them to raise certain limits into irrelevancy, not put new species on the ESA... things like that. There are a lot of ways a president can render regulatory agencies moot or nearly moot without ever dealing with congress.

More realistically, he'd pressure Congress to roll back it's responsibility and budget gradually. And, he'd almost certainly face a lot of resistance on this, same as with the monetary policy.

No. He would not. It almost happened during this past budget crisis. One of the GOPs big policy amendments was to defund the EPA. In general, neutering regulatory agencies is on the GOPs to-do list, especially with the Tea Party in play.

[Vendetta]

The nice thing about decentralized power is moving to another state is an option; you can vote with your feet. Movement between the states is still easy.

As long as you're not one of those icky poor folks...

[Gigaliel]

Frankly the economic argument is silly as Obama already approves of austerity measures, SS and medicare cuts, no financial regulations, and so on and so forth. Dismantling of federal departments IS valid as it is a thing the President could actually do without too much interference from congress.

It is valid in the sense of "he could do that," but it is not valid in the sense of "it would be incredibly stupid."

What are you even talking about here? The point is that Obama's economic policy is also awful and will just make things worse. Ron Paul's main downside is his excessive state's rights position. And even that would have benefits, such as ending the federal War on Drugs.

If I hand you a gun, you can shoot yourself in both feet. It is physically possible and therefore "valid" in the sense that you use it. But it's such a colossally bad idea that, if I knew you were going to do it, I would never ever hand you that gun. Even if the other choice was a guy who promised to fire the gun wildly into the air in a drunken haze until the magazine ran dry.

Is this man in a crowd because it's a pretty good analogy if he is.

Paul vs. Obama is a more interesting as there is an actual choice. More than anything it highlights how Obama is an awful president and that it is hilarious that the the Republican candidate is more "liberal" on key progressive issues than he is.

Paul is more "liberal" on about two issues, tops, while being less "liberal" on basically all the other issues there are. You would have to be a complete fool to vote for Paul on the grounds that he has better progressive credentials. It would be like voting for him on the grounds that his last name begins with an R.

That is just an outright lie.

Ron Paul is: antiwar, anti-indefinite detention, anti-Drug War (this counts as like 20 issues really), anti-National Security State (also broad), and whole bunch of other things liberals like to think they care about.

The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa.

In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points.

This is a silly argument.

It is a matter of empirical fact that Gore lost Florida by a margin of less than one thousand votes. Had even one percent of the Nader voters chosen instead, purely as a tactical matter, to vote for Gore instead, we might well have had President Al Gore sworn in in January 2001. Had five percent of the Nader voters done so, his victory would have been a sure thing. I suspect that if you polled the nearly 100 thousand people who voted for Nader in 2000, it would not be hard to find a group of a few thousand out of those myriads who, in hindsight, wish they'd changed their vote.

None of this is a moral judgment on Nader or his supporters- it is simply a matter of arithmetic. Bush won 2,912,790 votes in Florida. Gore won 2,912,253. 2,912,790 is more than 2,912,253. On the other hand, 2,912,253 plus a few thousand is more than 2,912,790. A few thousand people who were willing to grit their teeth and vote for Gore would no doubt have been forthcoming if the Greens had known in advance that the election would be so close.

Alas, they did not know that. And so we got President George Bush instead of President Al Gore. Such is life in the American political system. You can deal with it, you can struggle to change it (a form of dealing with it), or you can move to another country with a different system. It's all one to me which you choose.

I suppose I should just start posting the whole thing instead of samples and assuming people will click it and read it?

Your scenario is a massive simplification. The amount of Democrats who voted for Nader is the same as the Republicans who did. Nader being a Democratic spoiler is just a myth. His voters were also filled with numerous independents and first time voters. If Nader was removed from the race, Bush would have still won.

You can't just say "oh well if a few decided to vote for Gore it would be totally different!" because then a few would have also decided to vote for Bush.

This a pointless tangent and I won't bother debating it unless you feel a MIGHTY URGE to start a new thread or something.

1.) There will be no liberal victory in 2012. Paul will probably lose when the GOP is scared enough and starts to rally. The primary difference will be that the GOP is fairly honest about their beliefs. I mean do I really have to post the evidence of Obama contradicting nearly every liberal position he has ever said he held? Also Obama will probably win because the GOP candidates are pretty awful but that doesn't really matter.

It doesn't matter unless you consider averting disaster to be good. Which I do, and apparently you don't.

Could you just start calling me an ignorant fucker or something because your smug douche routine is a little annoying.

2.) Following from 1.) it is my personal belief that every left leaning person needs both to vote and not vote Democrat. Also not Republican but that's kinda obvious. I am personally voting Green but socialist or whatever is fine too.

I think a few people in this thread share this opinion or lean towards it? And that is a major point of discussion in the thread? Maybe?

What opinion? That's not even grammatical. "Every left leaning person needs both to vote and not vote Democrat." What is that?

Man I thought we were going to be polite here but sure feel free to take cheap shots at grammar.

Look, I know damn well Barack Obama is not the left's dream candidate. He's not even an adequate candidate, from the point of view of the left. But Ron Paul is even less of the left's dream candidate. He is actively worse in almost every possible way, and only better in a few ways. He is likely to cause great harm in many ways, while averting only small harm in a few ways.

This is not rocket science. This is about on par with "don't play with matches" level of analytical thought.

Well if by "small harm" you mean daily deaths of innocent civilians in drone attacks, countless wars (currently 6), caring about the rule of law, and, you know, war crimes and stuff like that.

I can respect the view that Obama is the lesser evil. However it is wrong and frankly morally repugnant to say that Obama's downsides are "minor" compared to Paul's.
---

Alyrium you seem to know a lot about this subject so I'd like your opinion: what stopped Bush from rampaging through the federal government like your say Paul will? Bush's rhetoric and the GOP consensus doesn't seem that different than Paul's deregulation ideas and its not like Bush exercised restraint.

edit: what the is with this missing words

[Panzersharkcat]

Millions will die if the EPA goes. It may not be instant death, but a massive increase in cancer and crippling birth defects. The EPA may suck, but it is still better than no EPA. There are at least SOME restrictions on how much radioactive waste can be released from coal power plants. Some restrictions on toxic emissions and ground water contamination. You speak, having no idea what chemicals exist and what they do. You speak, without knowing how expensive it is to do water treatment properly to remove things like cryptosporidium that can infect entire cities. Or how about the long term effects of mercury poisoning? Or lead?

At least with the FDA, there is some minimum standard for medication safety that cannot be gotten around. Without it, the profit margins are higher for settling lawsuits and forgoing safety and efficacy testing than they are for testing new drugs within anything even resembling rigor. And then there is food. Read The Jungle and get back to me.

Well, as far as pollution goes, if Ron Paul had his way, he'd likely replace it with a system as detailed by Rothbard in Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution. It's been a year and a half since I last read this so the TL;DR version* from what I remember is that air pollution, and by extension other types of pollution, would be considered property damage of those affected and the victims have every right to sue the pants off of the perpetrators. That was how it used to be done until corporations and the government got rid of those protections as a way to "promote industrialization." As far as the FDA goes, I will have to get back to you on that as I can't find the article about how many drugs the FDA refused to approve even though they could have saved lives and were proven in other countries.

*I'd understand if nobody bothered to read it. It's a long fucking document that took me more than an hour to read in one sitting.

Yea, decentralized government certainly isn't without it's faults!

Yeah, I agree. Still, when you're dealing with something as dangerous as political power, it tends to be that the more decentralized, the better. Better that some people be able to escape than not at all.

Man I thought we were going to be polite here but sure feel free to take cheap shots at grammar.

Oh, quit whining.

[Ryan Thunder]

The nice thing about decentralized power is moving to another state is an option; you can vote with your feet. Movement between the states is still easy.

Ah, ok, so you're alright with forcing people to flee their home state so long as there's mob rule. Are you fucking retarded?

[Crossroads Inc.]

While I wish to stay out of this conversation for the most part, I do have this to say.

One of the core bits of propaganda we keep hearing from Paul Apologists is that, in a Libertarian Utopia, people will "vote with their feet"

Sexually abused at work? Leave and find a better place!
Upset a company is abusing it's workforce? Boycott the company!
Concerned about the barrels of Toxic waste in the river? Leave the state for a better one!
Worried that your kids schools have gone to hell? Leave for a new one!

Basically... The key tenet that is being preached, is that, in a Libertarian world that has dispensed with all regulations from a central government, that any evil person who abuses this world free of EPA, or NEA, or Work or Civil Rights regulations... That people will "Punish" these people by leaving and going elsewhere.

This is however assuming that "better" places even exist, that the whole country has not become a free for all of non regulated industries.
But more to the point, what it says about the Core of Libertarians is that "We don't Care"

We don't care if a company dumps toxic waste in the water, we don't care if a company is sexually harassing people, we don't care if gays are criminalized...

A society should be about making lives for EVERYONE better...

So far in this thread, the supporters of Ron Paul have basically been saying "These things will never happen, because they are too extreme."and thus largely side stepping the issue.

They are basically saying "Ron Paul would... If he could, bring about the total and ultimate end of the Economical World for America and regress Civili Rights back to the turn of the century... but that would never happen so I don't care that he believes it

The problem is he STILL BELIEVES IN IT.

IThe supporters of Paul must address these issues.
You cannot keep saying "Well he believes in something that will destroy America, but thats ok, because people wouldn't implement that" it doesn't change that the man fundamentally believes in something that will destroy America.

Any "Good points" he believes in are rendered moot and null.

[Gigaliel]

Man I thought we were going to be polite here but sure feel free to take cheap shots at grammar.

Oh, quit whining.

Pfft that was borderline ad hominem in that context >:|
---

IThe supporters of Paul must address these issues.
You cannot keep saying "Well he believes in something that will destroy America, but thats ok, because people wouldn't implement that" it doesn't change that the man fundamentally believes in something that will destroy America.

You do realize every single "apologist" has been making repeated comparison to Obama's policies? Ron Paul is kind of a shitty candidate when directly compared to progressive ideals.

Obama's policies are already destroying the rule of law, any pretenses of private/public sector separation, and blahblah you already know this and DXIII types faster than me.

Also saying Ron Paul's crazier things will be obstructed is perfectly valid if we look at Obama's entire presidency

[bobalot]

The nice thing about decentralized power is moving to another state is an option; you can vote with your feet. Movement between the states is still easy.

Ah, ok, so you're alright with forcing people to flee their home state so long as there's mob rule. Are you fucking retarded?

I find it hard to believe that Destructionator XIII has no idea that moving can simply be too expensive or not feasible for many people.

[Panzersharkcat]

You do realize every single "apologist" has been making repeated comparison to Obama's policies? Ron Paul is kind of a shitty candidate when directly compared to progressive ideals.

Obama's policies are already destroying the rule of law, any pretenses of private/public sector separation, and blahblah you already know this and DXIII types faster than me.

Also saying Ron Paul's crazier things will be obstructed is perfectly valid if we look at Obama's entire presidency

Plus, he also ignored what I wrote about what Paul would like to replace the EPA with. In any case, being an actual libertarian, I actually agree with most of what Ron Paul says. I just don't feel like arguing the points about some of his more radical views. I'd likely be relatively happy if a liberal like Dennis Kucinich were to run again, though, since, like DXIII says, he's one of the few dedicated to ending the wars and torture. I'd be content to stop talks of gradually doing away with a bunch of departments if we libertarians and the left were to be able to get together on war, torture, and executive power.