The best candidate to challenge Barack Obama in 2012 is Ron Paul

[Chronos]

Okay, sanctions are going to kill many many innocent people in Iran. Sanctions are the first step to war. We had sanctions on Iraq throughout the 90s which lead to the invasion in 2003. Over a million Iraqi women and children died due to those sanctions. History is repeating itself. Why on earth can’t Iran have a nuclear weapon? They are surrounded by nuclear capable nations. Plus they have never been found to be in violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. What gives us the authority to put sanctions on a nation that has done nothing wrong?

First of all, the sanctions on Iraq were what made the war unnecessary. Unfortunately, we still went to war even though we didn’t actually need to. Second, Iran is not in violation of the NPT precisely by virtue of the fact that they don’t yet have nukes. If we want them to continue to abide by the NPT, that means we want them to continue to not have nukes.

On the larger issue: Opponents of Paul keep on pointing out how and why his ideas are bad, and you keep on just repeating “Paul is great, he’s really smart, the people love him”, and so on. How about you address the ideas? Tell us why, for instance, it makes more sense to base our economy on gold rather than the “fiat money” system we have now, and how it is that gold is not just as “fiat”.

[Simplicio]

I’ve already addressed this point. Ron Paul is not a racist and those are not his views. In fact they weren’t racist newsletters. They were newsletters were the editor hired a few individuals who participated in race baiting tactics. Ron Paul never knew them and didn’t know until after the fact.

If they weren’t his views, then he certainly must’ve immedietly decried and disavowed them when confronted with them in public? Is that what he did? And certainly he would’ve outted the person who wrote such scandalous things in his name? Did he do that?

[Chronos]

Sorry, this wasn’t there when I posted:

I have read tons of this literature. I actually watch the Fed hearings. The idea that the Gold Standard, or backing our currency with some tangible asset to maintain stability of our financial system and protect against runaway government spending and deficits is crazy is insulting to all the great economists and thinkers throughout the centuries.

Backing our currency with a tangible, stable asset is a great idea. What’s crazy is the idea that gold is a tangible, stable asset.

[jrodefeld]

@fluiddruid

Ron Paul is a candidate that just falls apart on close examination. There is no way he would withstand a Republican primary, let alone being the Republican nominee.

At first, as a liberal Democrat with libertarian leanings (especially in social policy), I thought: “Hey, a libertarian candidate! A fiscal conservative. Great! I’d love to cut military spending and stop the war in Iraq. Though I don’t agree with all of his cutbacks, I’d love to have a candidate who actually is willing to stand up to the warhawks. Maybe I could vote for a Republican candidate after all.” I like a lot of things that he has to say, like stopping the trade embargo with Cuba.

But then you start looking deeper. Letters of marque? Seriously? The gold standard? Elimination of all income taxes… well, that’s going to be hard to manage. Oh, we can possibly replace it with a national sales tax? How delightfully regressive. He supports tax dodgers as resisting a law they don’t support, but wants to end birthright citizenship because it promotes illegal behavior. Uh, that doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. And sorry, but we do need some oversight of businesses; we can’t leave it all up to the free market to just magically work things out. And of course, he’s very much pro-life, which doesn’t really jibe with my sense of libertarianism.

He’s what the girls in Clueless would call a Monet: “It’s like a painting, see? From far away, it’s OK, but up close, it’s a big old mess.”

Well, I think you are not examining his positions closely enough. A liberal like yourself could support Ron Paul considering that he would never be able to do everything he would want to do. What if he was elected and ended the wars, slashed the military budget, audited the Federal Reserve, ended the war on drugs and balanced the budget (or got us on our way to a balanced budget)? That would be a pretty successful presidency as far as I am concerned. If that worked out well, people would be willing to think about the rest of his long term agenda, like considering a society without an Income Tax and Medicare and Social Security. But hes not going to do that during a term in office.

[Simplicio]

@jrodefeld

The Gold Standard and Its Future, by T.E. Gregory, Professor of Economics in the University of London

Published in 1932.

Honest Money: The Biblical Blueprint for Money and Banking, by Gary North

The reference to the bible appears to not be a metaphor. Glancing at the authors website, it appears to be by an author who is one of the founders of “Christian Economics”, basing economic thought on the bible. So published relatively recently, but based on a two-thousand year old religious text.

Ludwig von Mises on Money and Inflation, A Synthesis of Several Lectures, by Ludwig von Mises

based on lecture given in the sixties

Money: Its Connexion With Rising And Falling Prices by Edwin Cannan, Emeritus Professor of Political Economy in the University of London

Second edition came out in 1920, can’t find out when it was first published.
I’m gonna pass on the suggested reading list. I feel your knowledge of economics might be a little…dated. That you can find economists that supported the gold standard back when many countries were still on the gold standard is not particularly impressive.

[jrodefeld]

@FinnAgain

Ron Paul has a slightly worse chance of actually being elected than an openly gay, Muslim, transsexual.

Which is really too bad, because a presidency run by that loon would provide better comedy than the Bush terms.

Again, more name calling without substance. Okay, he’s a “loon”. According to your logic, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayak, the Austrian School economists, advocates of peace and defenders of the Constitution are also loons.

Are you willing to go there? Let me test your knowledge of the issues for a second:

Do you know what a Collateralized Debt Obligation is?

Do you know what Fractional Reserve Banking is?

Do you know about the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle?

Do you know what happens when a nation experiences hyperinflation?

Do you know how wealth is created?

Do you know how the Federal Reserve encourages moral hazard?

Do you know how inflation continually destroys the middle class?

Do you know why the gap between rich and poor has expanded?

Do you know why some things, like health care and education, the prices go up exponentially, while in others, like computers and televisions, the prices come down, despite inflation? Do you understand that this is a monetary phenomenon?
No, you probably don’t know any of this. You are too busy sticking your head in the sand, ignoring the reality around you. People like Ron Paul and the great economists and intellectuals of the past century have been trying to wake us up to the consequences of this destructive path that we are on. The fact that they have been validated by history means nothing to you. Its actually painful to see ignorance like what you have just displayed.

[Czarcasm]

@jrodefeld

Well, I think you are not examining his positions closely enough. A liberal like yourself could support Ron Paul considering that he would never be able to do everything he would want to do. What if he was elected and ended the wars, slashed the military budget, audited the Federal Reserve, ended the war on drugs and balanced the budget (or got us on our way to a balanced budget)? That would be a pretty successful presidency as far as I am concerned. If that worked out well, people would be willing to think about the rest of his long term agenda, like considering a society without an Income Tax and Medicare and Social Security. But hes not going to do that during a term in office.

This isn’t politics-this is religion.

[XT]

@jrodefeld

Okay, I’ve heard a lot of this nonsense about how the Gold Standard is a crazy idea and its nuts to even consider. If you believe that, please carefully read through these links and tell me, point by point why they are wrong:

Thanks for the links, but I’ve read through similar crazy stuff before and I remain unconvinced. A gold standard is a Bad Idea™, and anyone advocating it (regardless of their supposed economic creds) is either a nut, out of touch or has some other agenda. I think Ron Paul would safely belong in the first category (possibly the first two).

I don’t want to hijack this thread, so if you want to talk about a gold standard and why you think it would be a good idea (and the myriad reasons it would be a really, REALLY bad idea) then you should start a separate thread on that topic.

Read a little more, before disparaging something you know nothing about.

You sound almost exactly like a 9/11 Truther telling me to read more of the crazy before pointing out why your theory is insane. I HAVE read plenty on the subject, thanks. What I suggest is that you read less of the fringe, nutbar websites and loony right wing libertarian BS, and ground yourself more in solid economic theory…but then I know you won’t do so, will you? As I said, if you want to talk about a gold standard then I suggest you either look up one of the myriad threads on the subject on this board, or start a new thread and lay out your arguments in something other than a series of links.

-XT

[jrodefeld]

@Czarcasm

Telling us that the other systems are bad doesn’t automatically make the gold system good. Why do you think the gold system will work?

Its not necessarily about “going back” to what we had in the late 19th century and it doesn’t even have to be gold. But it is important to back our currency with something to restrain government spending and encourage savings. The founders knew this. What hope do we have for a balanced budget if the politicians can simply monetize the debt if they get into trouble? Inflation is the most regressive tax there is.

The argument against the gold standard is always that the transition will be difficult, and that is true to an extent. They never say that once we transition, it won’t work well.

You know throughout history all fiat currencies collapse and civilizations fall based on the quality of their money. We have been operating under a fiat currency for longer than any other nation in history. But it will collapse. What do you think will happen if China rejects the dollar? Then this whole thing will collapse.

Temporarily, we could repeal legal tender laws and allow people to save their money in gold. We could allow competing currencies to circulate. Then the people would be protected.

Look through some of the links I have posted in this thread about the gold standard. You will find all the answers there.

[jrodefeld]

@FinnAgain

A fraud whose support is mostly made up of credophiles. conspiracy nuts and woo-believers?
You may have a point…

No, smartass, hes made prediction after prediction that have come true. You know what I meant.

[Czarcasm]

@jrodefeld

No, smartass, hes made prediction after prediction that have come true. You know what I meant.

Now that I know what your standards of evidence are, I don’t think I will be asking for cites in the future.

[jrodefeld]

@Captain_Amazing

And, btw, it’s not like Hayek was in love with the gold standard, anyway. Even near the end of his life, when he was at his most radical and playing with the idea of getting rid of government issued money (he floated the idea of replacing it with private currency and introducing competing currencies), he said in an interview in 1984:

Well, he may or may not have been wrong about the gold standard. In fact, abolishing the Federal Reserve and replacing it with private currency and competing currencies in my mind would probably be superior to a government gold standard. His ideas go farther than a gold standard would. He says he wishes we could have a gold standard, thats not being against a gold standard.

But, what do you think about abolishing the Federal Reserve and have all private money like Hayek proposed?

[Algorithm]

@jrodefeld

Okay, I’ve heard a lot of this nonsense about how the Gold Standard is a crazy idea and its nuts to even consider. If you believe that, please carefully read through these links and tell me, point by point why they are wrong

Why don’t you make some of your own points instead of gish galloping all over the board?

If you want to be taken seriously, you’ll use your own words and sentences to form a cogent argument of your own.

[jrodefeld]

@Marley23

jrodefeld, I suggest you tone it down. Personal attacks aren’t allowed here. If people want to call Ron Paul or his ideas kooky, they’re allowed to do so. Your comments to Sage Rat were personal and that stuff belongs in The BBQ Pit.

Sure. Sorry about that. Although your taking the other side on this issue, its frustrating to see people who know nothing about economics or history simply dismiss views outright without even understanding them.

[Ravenman]

@jrodefeld

Do you know what a Collateralized Debt Obligation is?

Do you know what Fractional Reserve Banking is?

Do you know about the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle?

Do you know what happens when a nation experiences hyperinflation?

Do you know how wealth is created?

Do you know how the Federal Reserve encourages moral hazard?

Do you know how inflation continually destroys the middle class?

Do you know why the gap between rich and poor has expanded?

Do you know why some things, like health care and education, the prices go up exponentially, while in others, like computers and televisions, the prices come down, despite inflation? Do you understand that this is a monetary phenomenon?
No, you probably don’t know any of this.

Do you have any YouTube videos you can link to which explain the answers to these questions, and more?

[FinnAgain]

@jrodefeld

Again, more name calling without substance.

The substance is that Ron Paul is a lunatic who poses an actual danger to the health and safety of the nation in a very real and tangible sense by opposing vaccination and he’s a conspiracy mongering wackjob by courting a 9/11 Troof ‘philosophy’. Were I you, I’d not try to extrapolate what you mistakenly view as the logic behind the facts of Paul’s lunacy to Thomas Jefferson et al.

Not that your assertion that anybody who doesn’t idolize Paul must not understand his ideas isn’t terribly convincing…

@jrodefeld

The fact that they have been validated by history means nothing to you.

Except, as pointed out to you several times, they’re wrong and have not been validated. And unless I missed it, you still haven’t responded to Ravenman’s request for a citation of your claims about Paul. You can sing his praises all day long, but as of yet the only cite to his vast economic experience are your unsubstantiated claims of his brilliance.

You are engaging in the same sort of fallacious logic that Creationists tend to, they try to find a problem with a current theory and then say that because that hole is there (or at least they can argue it is) that we have to accept their ideas, in toto. Even if our modern economic system is broken, that doesn’t then prove that relying on shiny metal as the grand arbiter of value is a better way of doing things. The only choices are not A and B, we might even be able to deal with C, D, E, F, G, H, …

@jrodefeld

Its actually painful to see ignorance like what you have just displayed.

Painful? You might want to get that checked out.
Anyways, it’s interesting that I started, correctly, that Paul hasn’t got a chance in hell of being elected, and that he’s a comedic goldmine. And in response to those correct statements, made in a grand total of two lines, you posted a rant about economics and Paul’s epic brilliance.

Despite your best efforts, Paul is unelectable. His ideas themselves are dangerous, paranoid and/or simply wrong. Even if people didn’t know that fact, the fact that he published vile racist nonsense under his endorsement and written in the first person so as to give the suggestion that he wrote them, would doom his political hopes. Most of the electorate, you’ll find, will not happily excuse racism posted in someone’s personal newsletter. No, not even if they claim utter incompetence as the reason that someone else took over their newsletter.

@jrodefeld

hes made prediction after prediction that have come true.

Except no, he didn’t. In fact, neither one did. Nostradamus was a fraud and Paul, as has been pointed out to you, has simply been a long-term doomsayer. Repeating warnings of doom will sooner or later be ‘proven’ true, because on a long enough time line bad shit will happen. Reminds me of another Great Economist who predicted a stock market crash and was proven right… except he predicted that it would crash ‘next year’ every year for decades.

[jrodefeld]

You know I’ve done this before, right?

From his web site, on border security:

There are issues I agree with Paul, and you, about. But this is crazy talk. There is no North American Union on the way. There is not going to be an Amero. Or a Superhighway. It’s paranoia.

Well, I think that page overstates Paul’s position on border security a little bit. I am more for open borders myself (legal, permissive immigration). I don’t think illegal immigrants should be entitled to welfare benefits. How can you endorse that?

If you are talking about the prospects of a North American Union, how do you know that plans don’t exist for this? I think Ron Paul would know more than you do. You can be skeptical, but don’t be unaware of the possibilities. I have done a bit of research on this myself and I know there are globalists in Washington who always like to consolidate power. It is certainly not a crazy idea.

Anyway, whether or not Ron Paul chooses to believe in the possibility of what you would consider a conspiracy theory or not is really beside the point. Would you base your vote on something this minor?

I think you’re kidding yourself on this one. He had a small but enthusiastic base of support in 2008. Some of them are probably still with him, but that was his moment in the sun. Now other candidates are trying to peel off those voters and tap into larger waves of national discontent. Those aren’t just Paul voters anymore.

No, but to do so they will in effect have to start sounding like Ron Paul. Maybe I am overestimating Ron Paul’s potential support. But the fact that the whole country appears to have shifted in his direction over the last two years is a victory for him.

[FinnAgain]

@jrodefeld

Well, I think that page overstates Paul’s position on border security a little bit.

So now not only is his own newsletter not his concern, but his own website stating his own views “overstates” his own position? That is a particularly weaksauce apologia.

@jrodefeld

If you are talking about the prospects of a North American Union, how do you know that plans don’t exist for this?

I would like to sell you my Magic Dragon Repelling Rock. I’ll cut you a deal, because I like you.

@jrodefeld

I have done a bit of research on this myself and I know there are globalists in Washington who always like to consolidate power. It is certainly not a crazy idea.

1. Please provide a cite and document this research.
2. So your claim that that there are (nameless) people in Washington who want to consolidate power, and in order to consolidate it, they will share it with Canada and Mexico. I don’t think these shadowy conspirators have a firm handle on the concept of consolidation.

@jrodefeld

Anyway, whether or not Ron Paul chooses to believe in the possibility of what you would consider a conspiracy theory or not is really beside the point. Would you base your vote on something this minor?

That’s pretty major, actually. We tend not to want to elect crazy people to the most powerful political position in the nation.
I know, how weird is that?

@jrodefeld

Maybe I am overestimating Ron Paul’s potential support. But the fact that the whole country appears to have shifted in his direction over the last two years is a victory for him.

Yes, maybe he can bring back Polio. Victory is nigh!

[jrodefeld]

@astorian

the OP made exactly one important, undeniable point: the Republican field for 2012 looks VERY weak.

Barack Obama SHOULD be extremely vulnerable, but I don’t see a single likely candidate who’d be favored to beat him. If Obama is facing a ticket of Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty (not unlikely), well, just who’s supposed to get excited about that?

But Ron Paul is no solution. He has ZERO chance of winning the GOP nomination. And the more people learn about him, the less they’ll like him. I don’t say Paul himself is a racist or anti-semite, but there’s no doubt that a HUGE percentage of his followers are, and that doesn’t seem to bother him. He’s a loony fringe candidate on a wide varierty of issues, and that will only become more apparent if he ever gets the media exposure his followers think he deserves.

I think Obama is looking at the same situation Bill Clinton was in around 1994. His policies are unpopular, and that will cost his party dearly in Congress… but Obama himself will probably be re-elected handily, because his opponent is likely to be as stiff and unsellable as Bob Dole.

You think a “huge” percentage of Ron Paul supporters are racist? Thats ridiculous. How can you claim that? I know a lot of people who support Ron Paul and I attended some rallies and fundraising events for Ron Paul in 2008. The thing is, his supporters are young, open minded, antiwar, inclusive, and tolerant. Exactly how many Ron Paul supporters do you know?

Again, tell me why his solutions won’t work. He may be, according to you, “loony”, “fringe”, and dangerous, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t right.

[jrodefeld]

@Simplicio

The US has had sanctions against Iran for thirty years. If they’re leading us to war, they’re not doing so very quickly.

And the global prohibition against buying Iraqi oil is considerably harsher then anything thats been inflicted or is likely to be inflicted on Iran.

You’re dodging the issue. Why are we doing this in the first place? Why should we be placing sanctions on any country? Why shouldn’t the Iranians be allowed to have a nuclear weapon? Why do we have the authority to determine who has nuclear weapons and who doesn’t? How would that make you feel if you were an Iranian?