"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Mandark]

oh boy, it's really too late for me to break this down to you, google is your friend, i guess

if you're not hip to that you probably also don't know that Rick Perry killed little girls with forced inoculations, doesn't sound very electable to me, but i don't know maybe i'm just weird or something

If you're talking about the HPV vaccine, I'm gonna lol.

[drew]

If you're talking about the HPV vaccine, I'm gonna lol.

why in the world would you want to laugh at that?

[Fresh Prince]

Didn't you bring up concerns on why Ron Paul wasn't getting media exposure?

[Fresh Prince]

Okay I guess you're off the list.

[Phoenix Dark]

oh boy, it's really too late for me to break this down to you, google is your friend, i guess

if you're not hip to that you probably also don't know that Rick Perry killed little girls with forced inoculations, doesn't sound very electable to me, but i don't know maybe i'm just weird or something

I'm going to assume you're trolling and just not respond

[Mandark]

If you're talking about the HPV vaccine, I'm gonna lol.

why in the world would you want to laugh at that?

Because your take on politics is so damned gnostic.

[Dickie Dee]

kiss of death here folks

[Dickie Dee]

Funny how anybody with a semblance of being well adjusted in society abhours anything and all Paul stands for, but like all cultists you take any hint of criticism as persecution and proof you're on some righteous path or something.

Carry on, I need some lolz today.

[Dickie Dee]

Google Translate can't parse any of that.


Where is the DURP DURP filter?

Try here

[ShogunOfFear]

Maybe ignoring Paul will backfire.  Some are picking up on it and calling the media out.

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]
[youtube=560,345][/youtube]
[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

[Brehvolution]

It's a complete joke. Paul comes in second and you hear more about Rick Ferry who wasn't even there.

[benjipwns]

If you're allowed to view it, a better version of The Daily Show clip is on the site: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier

I'm "on board," and I don't think there's been a better candidate in decades.

What about Gary?

[Mupepe]

Ron Paul is unelectable for multiple reasons.  Not because the media isn't paying attention to him.  Anyone who thinks "legalizing drugs" is an issue that the average American will take lightly is incredibly misinformed. 

and wait til economists start slamming him daily in the papers for his gold standard stance (does anyone remember what that did to the economy in the 1870's??? it was called the long depression, dammit). 

For all the good things he stands for (non intervention foreign policy, even drugs) he's unelectable for the extremely controversial shit he says.  Wait til minorities hear he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act. 

And LOL at drew talking about the fed.  Why is your excuse always to say "google it"?  Is it because you watched a video that explained it neatly and you don't really understand what you're talking about?  Or is it that you're feigning so much anger over it but don't really care enough to type about it?  Because that is pretty much your answer for anything when you're pressed for a real breakdown of your opinion.

[Phoenix Dark]

It's a complete joke. Paul comes in second and you hear more about Rick Ferry who wasn't even there.

Paul bussed in a shit ton of college students to inflate his numbers. It's standard procedure at Ames, and Bachman did it too; although some of the folks she paid ended up voting for other candidates. So Paul's second place finish is irrelevant. But I do agree the media is unjustly ignoring the man; if Hermain fucking Cain can be on television daily, why can't Paul

[Mupepe]

Calling any candidate unelectable is bullshit.

Some would say voting for Ron Paul is a waste of a vote; I say if you're not voting for who you believe should win, that's wasting a vote. You're all free to believe as you will, so am I.

I'll write his name in if that's what it is.

I agree completely.  But I also believe he's unelectable because of the way the system is set up and the current mentality of Americans. 

"Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs.  He doesn't think African Americans should have the same rights as other Americans.  He wants to make America defenseless"

In this current climate, it's pretty much impossible.  Both of the current parties would tear him apart and the average American will eat it up as "Oh, Ron. You so crazy."

[Mupepe]

If you approach his position on civil rights act and actually listen to his reasoning it makes sense. He's not saying he hates distinguished black fellows. The man is consistent with his ideology, find me another politician that's been in the game as long as he has with that kind of consistency.

But that's not what we're getting at.  Look at the spin that can easily be put on it, regardless of the proper interpretation of his statement.  The average American will never hear the full story.  That is what assures he will never get elected to President.

[Himu]

If you approach his position on civil rights act and actually listen to his reasoning it makes sense. He's not saying he hates distinguished black fellows. The man is consistent with his ideology, find me another politician that's been in the game as long as he has with that kind of consistency.

What does he say about it then? What's a solution over the Civil Rights Act? What would he do better?

[Mupepe]

If you approach his position on civil rights act and actually listen to his reasoning it makes sense. He's not saying he hates distinguished black fellows. The man is consistent with his ideology, find me another politician that's been in the game as long as he has with that kind of consistency.

What does he say about it then? What's a solution over the Civil Rights Act? What would he do better?

IIRC correctly it imposed on civil liberties by forcing integration instead of actually improving race relations.  It imposed federal powers of businesses regarding hiring, customers, etc. 

Edit: According to Paul of course.

Double Edit: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html here's his statement on it. 

[benjipwns]

I believe both Rand and Ron Paul are fine with all of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 EXCEPT for Title II. Ron might go a bit farther, but that's Rand's stated position anyway and generally the libertarian one.

and wait til economists start slamming him daily in the papers for his gold standard stance (does anyone remember what that did to the economy in the 1870's??? it was called the long depression, dammit). 

Ron Paul isn't in favor of the gold standard exactly, any commodity will do, he just uses gold or silver or both as examples because of their history with our currency. IIRC he most commonly says his personal preference is the "basket of commodities" idea but that anything is better than the current system.

I don't know if I would blame the 1870s entirely on the the dropping of silver for gold alone. That downturn was a long time coming in part because of all sorts of global meddling with the value and relevance of silver in the prior decades that wound up being exacerbated by the Civil War (or War of Southern Independence/Northern Aggression if Thomas Woods is a member here) and Franco-Prussian War.

EDIT: However, I agree that Ron Paul will never win a major party nomination or the Presidency. Sorry. Didn't mean to quibble but it was my Masters in Political Science and History coming out. /more-than-beyond-worthless-elitist-credentials

[Fresh Prince]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

I think the problem with Ron Paul is the opposite and the msm. He is boring on tv despite his positions. I can see the 'romance' of him though and to be fair what he seems to be arguing (from what I gather) is less federal government and possibly more state government something I can sort of agree with.

[benjipwns]

He is boring on tv despite his positions.

BORING? BORING???

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

They're so insanely over the top. (And then he comes in with his voice to approve it. ) All candidates should make ads like these.

[close]

[Mupepe]

I believe both Rand and Ron Paul are fine with all of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 EXCEPT for Title II. Ron might go a bit farther, but that's Rand's stated position anyway and generally the libertarian one.

and wait til economists start slamming him daily in the papers for his gold standard stance (does anyone remember what that did to the economy in the 1870's??? it was called the long depression, dammit). 

Ron Paul isn't in favor of the gold standard exactly, any commodity will do, he just uses gold or silver or both as examples because of their history with our currency. IIRC he most commonly says his personal preference is the "basket of commodities" idea but that anything is better than the current system.

I don't know if I would blame the 1870s entirely on the the dropping of silver for gold alone. That downturn was a long time coming in part because of all sorts of global meddling with the value and relevance of silver in the prior decades that wound up being exacerbated by the Civil War (or War of Southern Independence/Northern Aggression if Thomas Woods is a member here) and Franco-Prussian War.

EDIT: However, I agree that Ron Paul will never win a major party nomination or the Presidency. Sorry. Didn't mean to quibble but it was my Masters in Political Science and History coming out. /more-than-beyond-worthless-elitist-credentials

I just meant that's how the media is going to spin it.  CNN will devote an entire segment to experts stating that Ron Paul wants the gold standard and how in the 1870's we reverted to the gold standard and the economy crashed regardless of facts (France reparations, collapse of the railroad boom, 1873 panic in Vienna, fall of Jay Cooke and Company etc).

And Mupepe you're basically saying people wouldn't vote for him because they don't understand him. Wouldn't the logical conclusion be to enlighten the people instead of declaring him unelectable? All I'm saying is just because the average citizen is too fucking dense to get to the truth of a statement shouldn't open up a candidate to be simply brushed aside.

I am not brushing him aside.  But unfortunately because of the way the media operates (knee jerk, sensationalist reactions) he will be laughed off the national stage and there is no initiative from the average voter to look deeper.  Again, I'm not labeling him unelectable because of his views but by the way his views can be easily turned around in 30 second tv ads that Americans get their information from.  It's just too easy.  

[Phoenix Dark]

If you approach his position on civil rights act and actually listen to his reasoning it makes sense. He's not saying he hates distinguished black fellows. The man is consistent with his ideology, find me another politician that's been in the game as long as he has with that kind of consistency.

Please, justify this

Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it was unconstitutional and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society"

Reduced individual liberty...of white business owners to not serve blacks.

[Himu]

He's talking about racial quotas? In 1964, for the most part, you'd be lucky to be both a. a minority (women included) and b. NOT working a dead end job. In order for my grandma to get a job as a teacher, she had to pretend she was white, and dyed her hair blonde. Thankfully she was light enough to pull it off. Yes, affirmative action is an evil, it causes people first hand to notice people's skin color or gender, but those are things people would notice anyways. Only a pure heart glazed in naivete would be unable to understand why AA is necessary in a world that isn't color blind. Why? Because we'll likely never BE color blind and the mere suggestion is just stupid utopia thinking. If you say that when you look at a black man or woman or a hispanic or asian and that you don't notice their physical features you're batshit insane distinguished mentally-challenged and it always puzzles me when it's some middle or upper class white male talking about living in a "color blind" society, which just doesn't exist.

[Fresh Prince]

I'm not disagreeing with you String but I think it Ron Paul's free market, meritocracy world people would hire the best worker regardless of ethnicity or sex.

[benjipwns]

I just meant that's how the media is going to spin it.  CNN will devote an entire segment to experts stating that Ron Paul wants the gold standard and how in the 1870's we reverted to the gold standard and the economy crashed regardless of facts (France reparations, collapse of the railroad boom, 1873 panic in Vienna, fall of Jay Cooke and Company etc).

Yeah, I realized that after I already rambled for a bit. Apologies again.

I am not brushing him aside.  But unfortunately because of the way the media operates (knee jerk, sensationalist reactions) he will be laughed off the national stage and there is no initiative from the average voter to look deeper.  Again, I'm not labeling him unelectable because of his views but by the way his views can be easily turned around in 30 second tv ads that Americans get their information from.  It's just too easy.  

I agree fully with this and I'll probably end up voting for him in the open Republican primary we have here. (Since I doubt Gary Johnson will still be in. And the Dem race is very unlikely to even exist.) I don't really get this positivism in the libertarian camps over Ron and how this is his year. But I guess that existed in 2008 as well. His doing solidly and getting real money and ads like I posted above are helping the delusion train roll on. And I think he'll do better than then and possibly win a couple primaries but I don't see how he can win the nomination.

[Himu]

Yes, but Ron Paul's free market is an utopia that just doesn't exist

[Phoenix Dark]

That's the full quote on Paul's wikipedia. I'm not saying he's racist, anymore than I'd argue he supports gay marriage because he's fine with gays getting married. His worldview is extremely warped

[Fresh Prince]

Yes, but Ron Paul's free market is an utopia that just doesn't exist

Pretty much because despite evidence to contrary he believes people will not 'vote' against their self interests but that's something he shares with a lot of liberals.

[Phoenix Dark]

The full quote is about quotas as well as property rights, which is why Paul is against it in the first place. His position is that while racism is bad, eventually the market will correct itself without government intervention; in other words, a business not serving blacks in the 60s would have gone out of business eventually. That's utterly ridiculous.

[benjipwns]

Please, justify this

Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it was unconstitutional and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society"

Reduced individual liberty...of white business owners to not serve blacks.

You have to approach it from the libertarian principles for it to be "justified" and if you reject those it can't be. Private actors not serving blacks or gays or muslims or left handed people or hipsters. Well, that's just too bad. It sucks, moral people will boycott those businesses. Hopefully they will fail. Hopefully those people will be shunned from polite society and ruined financially.

However, any government attempts to "correct things" will fail and just cause greater problems in the end because of the law of unintended consequences. (Plus Bastiat broken windows, Hayek's fatal conceit, and so on.) Public actors of course must treat all people equally or they are committing horrific injustices and the governments of the past such as in the Jim Crow era were actively enforcing a racist coercion where if a lunch counter wanted to serve blacks they couldn't because the government would either bring down hell or look the other way as the racists in town did so.

And he expands on that in the second half of the statement. We don't have racial harmony, we don't have a color-blind society and he likely would argue further that government attempting to impose "racial harmony" will likely just backfire and that it will be minorities that are harmed even more by this.

Further, I don't think Ron Paul would ever actually say it, let alone any politician, (Gary Johnson doesn't and he is one of the biggest "the drug war is a disaster" politicians) but a lot of libertarians consider the War on Drugs to be the replacement outlet of racism. The passive acquiescence to it being far worse than the injustices of the 1950s and 1960s which saw active protest from cross-racial and cross-political groups to fight.

EDIT: Oops, forgot to check replies. You already essentially replied PD.

[Phoenix Dark]

The existence of affirmative action is not to blame for our lack of a colorblind society, it's a symptom.

Spencer: I'm having a conversation about Ron Paul, as is everyone else on this page

[Fresh Prince]

I sort of see his rationale as 'if you don't like the rules in this state move to another state' which I guess already happens in a sense.

benjipwns master's degree

[benjipwns]

The existence of affirmative action is not to blame for our lack of a colorblind society, it's a symptom.

I can't actually speak further to Ron Paul's exact positions to respond to this but I can speak to a number of the standard libertarian arguments many of which Paul ascribes to, so please forgive me for hopping tracks slightly.

But, I think there would be no disagreement with that statement. The argument would be that yes, there's racism and it's shitty. But private sector government enforced affirmative action will not solve it and has far greater potential to make things worse. If the private sector wishes to undertake diversity programs or affirmative action or even quotas on its own, bully! It is just not the role of the government to interfere in the private actors affairs in such a manner.

As for the government, it should treat all people equally. And if it's being a racist dick it needs to get its shit kicked in and people thrown in jail. And its power reduced so it can't do that stuff anymore.

[Phoenix Dark]

On a side note, I don't support racial AA although I recognize at one time it was necessary. And while there's still an all white, good ole boys club ceiling in many parts of the corporate and business world, things aren't nearly as bad as they once were.

I support AA based on income, especially with regard to college admissions.

[Fresh Prince]

I get what benjipwns and Spencer are saying. However government wouldn't have quota's either in Ron Paul's world just the best candidates regardless of sex and ethnicity. The whole downfall of the Libertarian ideal is the 'accident of birth'.

[benjipwns]

I apologize if I came off as saying otherwise. I don't believe that a libertarian government (any, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Matt Welch, John Stossell, Penn Jillette, whoever) would be made up of percentages that reflected the population as a whole. Its goal (stated if you wish) would be in the equal application of laws, not equal demographic distribution of political positions. And in any regard would be stripped back so far in what it did that quotas would be almost irrelevant anyway. But that gets us back to the standard critique.

PD, I (to offer my own direct opinion) agree that socioeconomic affirmative action should be the path forward. I've also seen a good amount of support for this in libertarian circles. In some cases (not just libertarian) I've seen socioeconomics with some form of geographical effects, so if you come out of inner Baltimore you are awarded even if you managed to get vouchered or scholarshipped into a private school or something similar. I'd be surprised if such a system or anything like it came into being nationwide before Sandra Day's deadline though. We're in a new era of deadlock like the 1850s probably.

[Himu]

I don't think Ron Paul is racist. I just think that he has idealized in his own mind his own utopian naive world, that permeates just about every part of his rhetoric.

But that's a symptom of libertarian ideology as a whole which is why it appeals to so many goddamned college kids.

I support AA based on race, gender and economic status. The thing about AA is that people always bring race into it, when it's just one factor of AA. That tells me that race really DOES bother them. They never bring up that white women are the biggest benefactor of AA, not people of other races.

Double standards.

[Fresh Prince]

PD, I (to offer my own direct opinion) agree that socioeconomic affirmative action should be the path forward. I've also seen a good amount of support for this in libertarian circles. In some cases (not just libertarian) I've seen socioeconomics with some form of geographical effects, so if you come out of inner Baltimore you are awarded even if you managed to get vouchered or scholarshipped into a private school or something similar. I'd be surprised if such a system or anything like it came into being nationwide before Sandra Day's deadline though. We're in a new era of deadlock like the 1850s probably.

So there is such a thing as small 'l' libertarians? Would the AA be up to the control of the college or put into law?

[benjipwns]

I suppose you could say I'm a Ron Paul supporter since as noted he'll likely get my primary vote, and I doubt he's a racist, but I think it's fair game to criticize him for the at least borderline racist (if not outright) articles published in his newsletter. His position on Civil Rights is philosophically consistent (if we accept he is truthful in his ideological beliefs), those articles are not.

As for libertarianism and utopian nativity.

There's really two core camps of them like most any political sect.

There's the people who think if we just implement this overnight everything will be perfect forever and this is really our moment! The people are behind us!

And then there's the people who decided everything else is abject failure, will continue to be abject failure, and this is the least worst option. To be fair, this groups drifts towards the anarchy wing rather than the minarchist wing.

Jeez, sorry guys for so much libertarian related rambling on this page. Ideological critiques is one of my areas or research (along with elections, the U.S. Constitution and other boring junk) and I lean towards the individualist wing (anarchism, libertarianism, etc.) if only because there's already so much socialist/Marxist/etc. attention. And we were talking about Ron Paul and such. Not that you give a shit about any of that stuff. I'm just sorta bored mainly, and you guys are less rabid and more laid back than many places.

So there is such a thing as small 'l' libertarians? Would the AA be up to the control of the college or put into law?

Well, yeah, there are. It's a much smaller group than the "lesser of two evils" libertarians from my estimate. But you can find them.

From a libertarian standpoint, and I am somewhat painting with a broad brush, I would say that if the colleges were private that would obviously be up to them. But of course, in a "true" libertarian system there would be no public colleges. From what I referenced, I don't want to say it was most, but a good amount would have essentially in a more practical situation allowed the public colleges to decide on their own. But since many boards are often appointed or elected I would imagine there would be at least likely be some kind of statewide standards. It's really more of a incremental position, in terms of "we want only private colleges, we will have public colleges, this is a step in the right direction" more than a hard-line ideological position.

[Mandark]

[It] not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife

God damn, but that's super-disingenuous of the good doctor.  He acts like the only part of the CRA was Title VII, and that his only objection is practical.  Let's not forget that the other big objection from libertarians was the prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations.  Paul's position is that restaurants, theatres, hotels, etc. should have been allowed to continue "Whites Only" policies if they so chose.

No, scratch that.  His position is that racist shopkeepers are entitled to the services of taxpayer-funded police, who would forcibly remove black would-be customers and arrest them for trespass.

If anyone wants to compare racial strife in 2011 with 1963, be my guest.

[Fresh Prince]

On the contrary I like your well thought out positions since you're a junior you haven't got caught up with the personality clashes JayDubya and drew have.

[Mandark]

Dr. Paul, in one of your newsletters, it said that black teenagers are "unbelievably fleet of foot."  Would you care to elaborate?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   \
                                    \
                                     \
                                      \
                                       \
                                        \
                                         \



I see.  Interesting.

[Fresh Prince]

In his interview with CNN, Paul said that's language he would never use. "People who know me, nobody is going to believe this," he said. "That's just not my language. It's not my life."

He added, "Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, they're the heroes [of my life]."

Matt Welch, the editor-in-chief of "Reason" magazine who shares some of Paul's beliefs on big government, says he has never heard the congressman make racist comments like those in the newsletters.

"What I think some people are looking for him to do is to say, 'OK, who wrote that?' I mean, there's 20 years, give or take, worth of newsletters there," Welch said.

Paul said the editor of publications "is responsible for daily activities." But he also cited "transition" and "changes" and said that some people were hired to write stories "but I didn't know their names."

The presidential hopeful described the newsletter revelations as a "rehash" of old material dug up by his opponents because he is gaining ground with black voters due to his stance against the war in Iraq and the war on drugs.

"I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said.

"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."

So basically "Ron Paul is a racist' has already been brought up, he has denied any knowledge and a lolworthy last quote.

[benjipwns]

The unofficial claim from the Ron Paul camp four years ago was that basically he had nothing to do with the newsletter but "left" his name on it and that it was more or less Lew Rockwell people who were writing it. (If you don't know about some of these types, basically the summary is that at one point they argued from a base historical perspective that the Civil War was unconstitutional and that Lincoln had no power to keep states in the Union (a potentially valid argument!), and well you know who that started to attract (you see how this went downhill!), then some other anarchists got in and well, they're still better than the Objectivist cult so they have that going for them!)

Essentially his defense is: "I started the newsletter under my name and ignored it for like 20 years" which we can all agree is airtight and that no politicians would ever care about things being written with their name attached.

But this is like Mupepe and others were talking about. His statement about libertarianism and racism and collectivism make sense if you get the core of libertarianism as a philosophy. It doesn't answer the charge in any clear way though. I mean he could easily say something like "those were written by staffers/whoever, upon learning about them they were dismissed and I condemn those words" and then go into how his principles reject racism and individualism blah blah blah. Then it gets reported as "Paul rejects racist articles" instead of "Paul published racist articles" and then on the fifth paragraph "Paul hates racism because he's a wacko who thinks people are individuals." But instead he just does the principles thing and the "proper defense" (define as you will) was all done in anonymous sources.

To be fair to Ron, it's not as bad as the John Edwards thing last time around. 

[Fresh Prince]

Yeah I guess Ron Paul is operating in a world of pure theories rather than experience hence his 'clarifications'.

[benjipwns]

That is part of his appeal though.

Gary Johnson is more or less Ron Paul with "practical" and incremental policies. Plus being pro-choice and more favorable to the federal government defending liberties that Paul may leave to the states.

Further Disclosure: I endorse and will vote for Gary Johnson if he still is around when the time comes, even though the vote is worthless.

Blatant spamming from a while back, an example of why: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/07/johnson.legalize.pot/
http://reason.com/archives/1999/12/01/general-consternation
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/20/magazine/he-just-said-no-to-the-drug-war.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Sorry for the links, I don't just endorse him because of drugs, but I think those pieces speak to his overall philosophy. Hope this isn't a big deal, just thought I'd disclose again who my "guy" is.

[Fresh Prince]

Yeah I think I understand. He sort of has the 'hope' thing Barack Obama had. Instead of the messy compromises of the Republicans and Democrats he gives people a clean worldview where self-interest garners mutual benefit. Solitaire et de la Solidarité as the French say. 

[benjipwns]

Yeah I think I understand. He sort of has the 'hope' thing Barack Obama had. Instead of the messy compromises of the Republicans and Democrats he gives people a clean worldview where self-interest garners mutual benefit. Solitaire et de la Solidarité as the French say. 

I agree but maybe not in the way you may think (I honestly don't know, my opinion only follows) but I felt (and feel in most elections) that people ascribe a lot of their views to a candidate even if they differ. Just for example back in 2004 I knew this Kerry fanatic (yes, it was even strange back then) who was convinced he would immediately end the wars and the Patriot Act even though Kerry voted for both and was campaigning on winning the war on terror harder. (Obviously a campaign ploy, but we can only speculate as to what he'd have done.) I think there was a lot of that, at least in the media and in the people I knew about Obama. And there is also that about Paul.

Even people I talk to who agree that Paul is great (however that may be defined) they reject and get upset when I mention that he should just be seen as a veto machine as that's all he'll get. Republican or Democratic Congress. I heard similar stuff from Obama supporters. I don't mean that youtube clip of the woman who said he'd pay for her gas and everything. But there were otherwise smart people who seriously thought he would be some kind of generational change policy wise.

That said, there is to Paul, and there was to Obama, a bit of a sense that, these people are rejecting the status quo that we hate!
Crappy examples:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

I think a legitimate third party run would do well in the next few elections. Like Perot, had he not dropped out and claimed a conspiracy.

But there's really nobody to do that third party run. 

[Phoenix Dark]

So Paul supporters, if Paul became president you honestly think he could govern? Both parties wouldn't support his agenda. He'd be able to do things that don't involve congress, like pull troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan/stop bombing Libya/etc which would rock, but much of his domestic agenda would not be viable. Unless he was willing to compromise, which he hasn't done over the last what, 30 years?

You guys would be like us Obama semi-supporters, upset with bipartisan deals and shit

[Phoenix Dark]

I don't regret voting for him, and will vote for him again. But his presidency has been a massive disappointment, and if the republican party wasn't insane I'd have few problems with him losing.

[benjipwns]

his presidency has been a massive disappointment

I don't regret voting for him, and will vote for him again

Why?

[Phoenix Dark]

his presidency has been a massive disappointment

I don't regret voting for him, and will vote for him again

Why?

Because he's the only viable, sane candidate in the race; Romney used to be rather sensible, and I think he wouldn't be too offensive as president with a divided government BUT he's being advised by Robert fucking Bork. I'd rather have Obama choosing SC justices than Romney or (especially) Perry.

I think purging the party of blue dogs and corporate democrats is more important to 2012 than supporting Obama. He can raise his billion dollars without my help.

[benjipwns]

Then why bother to vote?

[drew]

i agree, please don't

[Barry Egan]

Then why bother to vote?

Because he's the only viable, sane candidate in the race

 

[benjipwns]

I agree, just pick randomly, it won't matter.

[Phoenix Dark]

Then why bother to vote?

Because it's a right too many people died for to take lightly?

Obama has done some things I like, I'm not saying he has done nothing I approve of. And I recognize congress has neutered much of what he has done and can do in the future. While I don't think he can magically change things with a speech, I simply would have liked a president more willing to fight and take stands, even ones that *gasp* are unpopular or hard. I know Mandark and others disagree with that assessment but I stand by that.

[Fresh Prince]

I can hear it now, 'Obama more of the same' or 'Back to Barack'

[Positive Touch]

the conversations about ron paul re: race always make me lol because paul supporters constantly chastize others for not being better informed and yet they show that they lack BASIC knowledge about u.s. history