Paul "not electable"?

No, you don't oppose Islamic terrorism, because in your mind, we are to blame for it. That suggests a severe lack of understanding about what it is and why it is such a threat to us.

Feel free to look through history and see exactly what the fruits of Islamic supremacism and conquest has done to North Africa, the Middle East, Asia, even into Europe, where it would have conquered the entire continent if the Muslim army was not defeated at the Gate of Vienna.

Like Ron Paul, you believe that the Islamic world would be a perfectly peaceful place if it wasn't for the big bad Christian Imperialists protecting their interests in that part of the world. He doesn't have a clue about what is causing Islamic terrorism, and he would rather us blame ourselves for the whole mess. His thinking is not unlike Michael Moore's thinking on the subject.

Libertarians seem to be a catch-all political group that takes whatever liberal ideas don't fit into the typical "liberal" mold, and mixes it in with certain Conservative ideas. I have met many "Libertarians" who would be liberals if they didn't love drugs so much that they wanted them all legalized.

 

If you are referring to the Crusades, here's some good info.

 

This is the crap I'm talking about. He's said, repeatedly, over and over, that he thinks we should go back to the gold standard and link our currency to precious metals. I mean a lot. Good lord man.

The "free market of competing currencies" position is what he thinks he might be able to achieve in a shorter run and which will lead to a gradual shift to a gold standard as he believes the market will choose gold over the dollar.

He's no enemy to the banks in general. He's an enemy to the Federal Reserve. Granted with the Federal reserve gone banking would be different in that you might have pay them to hold your money instead of the opposite.

You know, since the percentages are so high, you could probably do a little study yourself.

Go find some people who aren't hardcore libertarians maybe around the coffee pot or lounge or whatever. Ask if they'd favor RP or Obama.

Then ask all the ones who favor RP to describe the basic principles of the austrian school of economics, minarchy, and RPs political positions.

Actually I'd suggest starting with some softballs like "Does RP favor a gold standard" and "Would RP work to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons".

I strongly predict even among fairly educated individuals they'll have no clue, and it'll go downhill from there.

Actually, maybe the first thing you should do is make sure you know his political positions. Clue in that other guy would you.

To clarify, I think that while right now 40+ percent of people might pick him over Obama, 99% don't really even know the man's political positions. But if RP is ever more than a joke they will hear about them. And that's when RP would go down.

 

dull minded tools of the globalists make me sick.
Don't be one.

 

The truth is not crap.

Nope. You're just confused. Skip ahead to 2:00:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0vU6dF2uvc"]Does Ron Paul Really Want a Gold Standard? - YouTube[/ame]

A common misconeption is that Ron Paul wants to return to a gold standard, which is monetary system were the government issues paper money redeemable in gold. That is not what Ron Paul wants; indeed, Ron Paul wants to abolish government-issued paper money altogether; what Ron Paul wants is a free market of competing currencies where individuals choose for themselves what medium of exchange to use. Of course, you could easily prove me wrong by finding a single recent quote from Ron Paul where he advocates returning to the gold standard. Go ahead. Try and find it.

You're very confused. You need to brush up on your monetary policy.

There is big difference between the market picking gold as the medium of exchange and a monetary system where the government issues paper currency redeemable in gold. HUGE difference.

He's an enemy to the central banking system, which would include the ostensibly private banks that are a part of said system. If Ron Paul had his way, the quasi-private banking cartels in this country would soon be out of business, and people's money would no longer be subject to the inflationary theft that they engage in.

Perhaps with some banks that would be the case, but with others it would not be the case. That's the thing about free markets. They offer you a wide array of choices.

Some people would probably choose banks that have a 100% reserve requirement, which would mean customers would probably have to pay to keep their money there. Other people would choose banks that employ fractional reserve banking, in which case, the banks would pay the depositors interest on their money for the opportunity to lend it.

Trust me buddy, I know what I'm talking about. I've been a Ron Paul guy for almost a decade now and monetary policy is probably my favorite topic to discuss.

 

That's ok, you're still cool for liking Simpsons

 

Defintely...

But I must say that I do have some reservations about his foreign policy views. Overall, though, I do like him. His domestic stances - fiscal, monetary, and social - are spot on.

 

First of all did you even listen to the rest of the video? A few seconds later he clarifies that he doesn't support going back to THE gold standard our country used because of the issues with linking gold and silver.

However not too many seconds later he's talking about eliminating paper money, fiat currencies, and having one non-fiat currency being used around the world, gold.

And he's fine with gold certificates, that should only take moments to find something on.

Here you go:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/13/gold-standard-fed-intelligent-investing-ron-paul.html

Actually I should probalby poke around onetheissues.org for this sort of thing
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010)


But this isn't like some little obscure side issue we're talking about with RP.

This is something he FREAKING WRITES BOOKS ABOUT!

http://www.ontheissues.org/gold_peace.htm

I suspect it shows up in all his books.

If you're a RP guy this long, how are we even having this discussion? It's like trying to explain to a Santorum supporter that, no, he doesn't want to legalize gay marriage.

That's more accurate. Although I don't know how you think this constitutes "sticking it to the corporations so they give more to the rest of us", which is the bit of mine you started posting banking stuff in response to.

Particularly since what he doesn't like are the government side of things. The banks would just need to shift their business model.

 

Actually, we're both wrong!

I did some research to confirm his stances and this is what I came up with:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moROt9yoQl8&feature=player_embedded"]Ron Paul: End the Fed, Legalize Competing Currencies! - YouTube[/ame]

Ron Paul supports both a gold standard (a gold coin standard, to be precise) and a free market of competing currencies. Essentially, IF the government is going to issue paper money it has to be redeemable in gold. Additionally, he supports the establishment of a free market of competing currencies that would exist concurrently with the government gold standard.

Well, if we abolished the central banking system and replaced it with a gold standard and a free market of competing currencies, the banking corporations would lose out and we would win. Their loss would be our gain, so, in a way, Ron Paul does want to "stick it to the corporations" and "give more to the rest of us", but I understand what you mean. In principle, Ron Paul is not against corporations, nor does he want to confiscate their wealth and redistribute it amongst the populace, which is what I think you were getting at.

 

Gallup and Rasmussen consistently slant Right. Just as Quinnepac and PPP veer Left. For example PPP's polls right now are:

Perry vs. Obama PPP (D) Obama 49, Perry 43 = Obama +6

Bachmann vs. Obama PPP (D) Obama 50, Bachmann 42 = Obama +8

Palin vs. Obama PPP (D) Obama 53, Palin 40 = Obama +13

From what I recall, the last time they included Paul, it was Obama +17 and since then, they haven't even bothered.

Are those polls accurate and objective? Of course not. No more than Gallup or Rasmussen.

 

Gallup has consistently slanted towards being a fairly accurate predictor of election results.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx

 

Those are the figures for the last poll they publish before the election, which I've noticed in the last two elections have varied quite a but from their polls, 3+ months prior. Same with PPP. They're always very close in their final poll, published just before the election.

But okay. If you don't think Gallup is slanted right, that's fine.

 

How does Gallup slant their polls to make conservative candidates look better?

 

The same way Quinniapac does. How do you feel about the fairness of these questions and their "pre-framing, as it is called:

1. Does it bother you that if Ron Paul were given his way, teen-agers would immediately have legal access to herion and methamphetiamine?

2. Does the fact that Ron Paul would undo all the legal protections that have been afforded women and minorities?

3. Based on what you now know about Ron Paul, would you consider him "electable"?

Are the questions accurate? Yes. AN 18 year old is a legal adult and if RP were given his way, they would do whatever drugs they wanted. He would repeal the CRA of '64 etc...

The other factor is the pollsters. Huge factor. But like I said, if you want to believe that there are no agendas among the polling companies, that's up to you. And MSNBC is not liberal ...

 

He has experience. If Obama has shown us one glaring problem with the presidency, it is there needs to be someone with experience. But this is where getting a great VP running mate would play into RP favor.

Most of the fiscal policies are the base for the TEA party. The social aspects are more in line with the left. The only social aspect that RP and the GOP are in agreement with is abortions, and that isn't because he is a "crazy Christian fundamentalist", he is a OB Dr.

He has no problem raising funds as of July 6th, and he raised another $1.6 mill this past weekend alone.

Agreed.

 

Of course, if that were true you'd be able to cite the slanted wording used in this poll directly instead of *assuming*. Be my guest; the wording of the question is directly above the results.

And really, it wouldn't matter if the poll *was* slanted. The comparison is between the Republican candidates. Paul polls in line with the rest of them, so the proclamation "unelectable" is completely unjustified.

 

Yep the fly in the ointment if you will.
　
Corporate money will determine who is electable (is that even a word?) and who isn’t!!

 

Well, he says the other competing options aren't consititutional and he doesn't seem to think the others would work out. But I don't see why he'd fundamentally be opposed, after an amendment, to something like a platinum backed currency floating around.

I see no reason why that would be the case. Inflation profits go to the government, and so the government might lose out. But the banks themselves would simply be doing the same thing with gold instead of digital greenbacks. Paying to hold currency, paying to physically transfer currency at least between banks, and paying more to create (mine) the currency represent new costs that make the consumer "lose".

But that's getting off topic of my point in this thread, which is how poorly RPs positions are known.

First of all I'm not sure what position you thought I'd taken that isn't consistent with the video. I didn't mean to imply that he wouldn't support people using silver coins, or Indium coins if those take the market's fancy. Simply that the man, flagrantly, supports a gold standard.

But in any case, I'm just a guy who was curious on his positions, and so I read his book recently and poked around online.

You're the guy whose been supporting Ron Paul for years and years, and you seem to not have heard of the position he takes for which he is perhaps the most famous. How certain are you of your understanding of the breadth and width of RPs positions?

Right. However this other RP supporter seemed to have gotten that idea in his head. Maybe because he'd seen RP railing about how big the bonuses of CEOs in bailed out companies were or something. I dunno.

But the point relevant to this thread is that one day someone thinking like that would be sitting around watching the TV and then some ominous music would start.

Images of crying babies and people in worn clothing sitting on the street flash by and a menacing voice starts talking about how RP supports eliminating or drastically reducing many corproate taxes and regulations, as well as taxes on the richest, and then slashing or eliminating social programs. Mixing in footage of Ron Paul overlaid with various relevant quotes of his.

Maybe it ends with something punchy like "Ron Paul thinks feeding this child is...unconstitutional. " Then fade to black on the sad little kids face.

And that RP supporter will flip.

Again, polls on RP support are virtually meaningless at this point in time, becuase so many people have no idea what his positions actually are.

 

I get a kick out you guys railing against Paul as "extreme", and decrying his advocacy for sound money...

How's the "elastic currency" given you by the Fed, i.e. the counterfitters of choice for the FedGov... how's that workin' out for ya???

Trillions in debt; a debauched currency; manipulated monetary policy; bailouts; $trillions in transfers between central banks; the ability to control policy and legislation; above the law unaccountability; on and on...

How's that working out for ya??? You guys saber rattle for that obvious criminal nonsense, and then have the gall to say Paul is some sort of nut???

Crank up the printing press!!! PARTY ON BIG GOVERNMENT!!! PARTY ON!!!

Sorry, but you guys are cheering on your own demise.

 

shows that the repubs and dems are alike, and they don't even realize it.

working great, that's why they're all on here whining, but just not ready to accept blame.

they don't want their favorite party to lose.

but at least they won't have "wasted their vote". Should bring them solace.

 

You're conflating government-issued currencies with privately issued currencies. If the government were to issue paper currency, it would have to be backed up by gold or silver. A privately issued currency, however, could be anything the market wants it to be - there is no Constitutional restriction on privately issued currencies. Ron Paul's monetary system would be a government gold standard AND a free market of competing currencies. That's what he explicitly said in the video.

He did not say that. Again, you're conflating government issued-currencies, which the Constitution says must be gold or silver, with privately issued currencies, upon which there is no Constitutional prohibition.

You would only require an Amendment for the government to issue platinum-backed currency. Under Ron Paul's monetary system, private entities would be at liberty to issue platinum-backed currency sans an Amendment.

At present, the banking system benefits from legal tender laws which effectively create a monetary monopoly. These banks do not have to compete with other forms of currency and credit as the dollar is the universal medium of exchange in our society. What's more, these banks can have their reserves increased at will by the central bank, which serves to devalue our dollars while increasing the amount of loanable funds available to the banks; more loanable funds means more profit, but more loanable funds means our dollars are devalued; in essence, it's larceny, and the banking system is able to engage in it because of legal tender laws which create a monetary monopoly. Abolishing this system would take away their ability to enrich themselves at our expense.

And where would they get this gold?

You would only have to pay for someone to hold your currency if that's what you wanted to do. There would be an array of new choices for consumers if the central banking system's monopoly were broken up. You could choose a bank that doesn't loan its deposits because it provides a safe haven for your assets, or you could choose a bank that employs fractional reserve banking and get interest on your deposit for the opportinity to loan. Under a free market system, your choices would only be limited by the creativity of the market, and no one could devalue your money without your consent. That is why we would gain and they would lose.

I agree that they are generally poorly understood.

You keep conflating government-issued currencies with privately issued currencies. You seem to think Ron Paul wants a free market of competing currencies as some kind of transitional mechanism between a FIAT monetary system and a gold standard. That is not the case.

I admit I made a mistake but it was a small one. I've always understood that Ron Paul wants to abolish FIAT money and return to physical coinage (gold and silver) as the Constitution stipulates, I was simply unaware that that too constitutes a "gold standard". I was under the misapprehension that a gold standard was limited to a system where the government issues paper currency redeemable in gold. Although that IS a gold standard, it is not the only kind of gold standard.

Very certain.

I agree.

 

This poll only shows that the nation is polarized.

Comparing Paul to Romney, you see a loss in support (despite the fact that Paul appeals to some leftists that don't really care to look into his views any further than "get out of wars"), meaning that he would get fewer votes against Obama than Romney.

This isn't enough to matter, because the population is so polarized that Republicans and conservatives will vote for anyone who isn't Obama.
Also foreign policy issues are on the backburner to economics at the moment; otherwise you'd see neo-cons and foreign policy realists flock to Obama if Paul was the opposition. Bill Kristol would change his tone in the National Review (now, there's no need to as Paul will not likely be the nominee).

So that's it really.
Because foreign policy doesn't matter to many people right now and because the culture war is full swing, any Republican would get in the high forties on a poll, provided he/she has name recognition. The fact that Bachmann is only a little below Paul (knowing that she has the opposite effect on left-leaning voters) further testifies to this.

Face it, guys.
The population really isn't that into Paul.
Everyone will be negative-voting this election.

 

Huh. I'm not sure I've had that happen before. Well, now that we agree on the lack of awareness on his position and lack of ability to measure his electability via polls, do you wanna discuss the gold standard or something?

Actually, I think you would see some of that. Right now I suspect a significant chunk of the conservative base only knows that Ron Paul isn't Obama or they think he's basically on board with the Republican plank except for liking gold more than the rest. But if he was ever taken seriously they'd find out otherwise.

Actually we've got a neoconish fellow here on AF that keeps referring to Ron Paul as a "hippy" because of that.

 

Give it time. Paul's followers are increasing exponentially because he speaks the truth.

 

New poll. this time from a "lefty" source.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_IA_0823424.pdf

Perry 22%, Romney 19%, Bachmann 18%, Paul 16%, Cain 7%, Gingrich 5%, Santorum 5%, Huntsman 3%