Am I Becoming a Paultard? [Amerikan Politics]

[Dreadnaught]

I'm finding myself in the weird position of having warmed up to Ron Paul in the last few debates. Specifically because he's said somethings very directly that the other candidates have not-

1) Health care costs and education costs have skyrocketed due to government intervention in those markets.

2) The welfare state fundamentally weakens our fisc.

3) He would cut $1 trillion from the budget. Obviously would never actually happen, but I wouldn't be opposed to successive 10% cuts.

I maintain that his foreign policy views are worthless, and I don't believe in libertarianism on the domestic front either. Plus Paul's racist newsletter history is either evidence of a really cynical politician or a really cynical businessman looking to sell newsletters.

But I seemingly can't escape this weird feeling that, were it not for the media inevitably pulling a John McCain on him, as a nominee he could sell ideas across both lines that are very clear, simple and (I believe) right.

WTF is wrong with me and how can I correct this derangement?

[agamemnus]

He's just refreshingly honest in a naive way.

But they all are honest, though. It's how they are honest that counts.

Gingrich is honest in a jerk-ish way.
Romney is honest in a rich jerk-ish way.
Santorum... I'm not really sure; he's not "funny enough" to be noticed now that Comedy Central has dropped their running gag on him.

[Loki]

Think about his ability to actually work with Congress to get any of his views implemented.

[agamemnus]

Think about his ability to actually work with Congress to get any of his views implemented.

That's already a mess, for whoever is President, anyway.

[Ominous Gamer]

[Steely Glint]

Are you ill?

[Ominous Gamer]

Short of breath from the laughing, and a slight headache trying to wrap my head around the OP, but I think it will pass.

[Steely Glint]

Either other people on the internet just laugh way harder at things than I do, or they just habitually react exaggerate their own reactions because the only thing I'd ever react to like that would probably some timeless masterpiece of stand up comedy.

[agamemnus]

Or there's something in the air near Ominous's computer.

[GGT]

I'm finding myself in the weird position of having warmed up to Ron Paul in the last few debates. Specifically because he's said somethings very directly that the other candidates have not-

1) Health care costs and education costs have skyrocketed due to government intervention in those markets.

2) The welfare state fundamentally weakens our fisc.

3) He would cut $1 trillion from the budget. Obviously would never actually happen, but I wouldn't be opposed to successive 10% cuts.

I maintain that his foreign policy views are worthless, and I don't believe in libertarianism on the domestic front either. Plus Paul's racist newsletter history is either evidence of a really cynical politician or a really cynical businessman looking to sell newsletters.

But I seemingly can't escape this weird feeling that, were it not for the media inevitably pulling a John McCain on him, as a nominee he could sell ideas across both lines that are very clear, simple and (I believe) right.

WTF is wrong with me and how can I correct this derangement?

There is nothing wrong with you, and you're not deranged. I find your post refreshingly honest. Short of you retracting all your Paulite and Paulnut criticisms from a few years ago, it's nice to see you admit that the "Ron Paul Revolution" wasn't as craaazy as you (and others) first made it out to be. Pretty much everyone agrees he'd never be the Republican party nominee, let alone win a Presidential election, but his message of Peace and Prosperity and ending combative-police-of-the-world resonates. He's genuine and consistent, he can't be bought by PACs or super-PACs, and he just keeps plugging along with a message that challenges the "Establishment".

Everyone can find something "wrong" with some of his ideas, but no one can deny he's made a huge impact in our political environment. College students boning up on monetary policy is a good thing. People weighing privacy against the TSA or police is a good thing. Voters asking why we're "nation building" in other countries, by funding militaries and weapons instead of diplomacy, while neglecting nation building at home are great questions to ask.

[Aimless]

I think you just cured Dread

[ImAnOgre]

I'd vote for Ron Paul if it weren't for his foreign policy, and the fact that being President would make him commander in chief of the military. I actually dig the guy.... although he did think SOPA was the stop Gambling act.

[GGT]

I'd vote for Ron Paul if it weren't for his foreign policy, and the fact that being President would make him commander in chief of the military. I actually dig the guy.... although he did think SOPA was the stop Gambling act.

One of his largest groups of supporters comes from the military. I can see why....since they've been engaged in non-declared warfare for the last 20 years, using a strictly volunteer force.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm finding myself in the weird position of having warmed up to Ron Paul in the last few debates. Specifically because he's said somethings very directly that the other candidates have not-

1) Health care costs and education costs have skyrocketed due to government intervention in those markets.

2) The welfare state fundamentally weakens our fisc.

3) He would cut $1 trillion from the budget. Obviously would never actually happen, but I wouldn't be opposed to successive 10% cuts.

I maintain that his foreign policy views are worthless, and I don't believe in libertarianism on the domestic front either. Plus Paul's racist newsletter history is either evidence of a really cynical politician or a really cynical businessman looking to sell newsletters.

But I seemingly can't escape this weird feeling that, were it not for the media inevitably pulling a John McCain on him, as a nominee he could sell ideas across both lines that are very clear, simple and (I believe) right.

WTF is wrong with me and how can I correct this derangement?

Just remind yourself. "Wants to go back to Bretton Woods."

[Loki]

One of his largest groups of supporters comes from the military. I can see why....since they've been engaged in non-declared warfare for the last 20 years, using a strictly volunteer force.

Do you not get tired of lying? There's absolutely no evidence to support your statement.

[GGT]

Do you not get tired of lying? There's absolutely no evidence to support your statement.

We established that factoid back in '07-'08. Dr. Paul also felt confident enough to state it again during the latest debates. I know he's not in the forefront, with fact-checkers trying to bust his statements, but if you disagree....then cite a source.

[Ominous Gamer]

Do you not get tired of lying? There's absolutely no evidence to support your statement.

I believe her statement dates back to this.
Sure, you're going to reply with your spin, your own reasons, maybe mentioning something about those that didn't list employment. But to claim something as strong as "absolutely" is your usual bullshit.

[Loki]

I believe her statement dates back to this.
Sure, you're going to reply with your spin, your own reasons, maybe mentioning something about those that didn't list employment. But to claim something as strong as "absolutely" is your usual bullshit.

That's not evidence. I want to see a single real poll that shows this relationship. If a Republican was making the same case with the same kind of "evidence", you'd be laughing at them. Your partisanship is frankly pathetic, and certainly no better than Lewk's. I don't know how you justify your persistent irrationality to yourself.

[Loki]

We established that factoid back in '07-'08. Dr. Paul also felt confident enough to state it again during the latest debates. I know he's not in the forefront, with fact-checkers trying to bust his statements, but if you disagree....then cite a source.

Martians support Paul. Please find a poll proving me wrong.

[Ominous Gamer]

That's not evidence. [...]
If a Republican was making the same case with the same kind of "evidence", you'd be laughing at them.

So financial reports that show the military members being his largest donation pool aren't evidence for his support
Maybe we you could go back and reread our old topics, don't remember laughing at donation numbers like you're claming. If anything we used to point out the influence of big business.

Or is your view of support narrow enough where "contributor" would have been a better word?

[GGT]

Martians support Paul. Please find a poll proving me wrong.

If you rely on polls, are you a populist? A reactionary? If you rely on a "single real poll".....what's that say about you? You certainly can't be an academic political scientist.


I've read the Stars and Stripes, and other military websites over the years. The voters that are "polled" within the military prefer Paul over any other. OG's link is just one of many that would prove that. That's not partisan or Republican or Martian, or whatever the hell you want to label it. It's just fact.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm definitely uneasy when people call "health care" and "education" a market - as if those areas would work in any way when subjected to the "glorious free market".

A free market only works if you're able to actually walk away from an offer or find a valid alternative. If I'm ill I don't have a choice, I have to subject myself to treatment of some kind. And if I'm critically and acutely ill I also don't have the time to "shop around" to find a cheaper hospital. Not to mention that my own life is per definition invaluable to myself - thus putting me at a disadvantage whenever my health is concerned.
Same is true to a minimally lesser extent in the area of education.

Thus I'd ask the people here to stop treating those two areas as if they were something you could treat like the financial markets (not that those are doing so great, mind).

[Aimless]

You can treat them as bad or broken markets

[wiggin]

I'm finding myself in the weird position of having warmed up to Ron Paul in the last few debates. Specifically because he's said somethings very directly that the other candidates have not-

1) Health care costs and education costs have skyrocketed due to government intervention in those markets.

2) The welfare state fundamentally weakens our fisc.

3) He would cut $1 trillion from the budget. Obviously would never actually happen, but I wouldn't be opposed to successive 10% cuts.

I maintain that his foreign policy views are worthless, and I don't believe in libertarianism on the domestic front either. Plus Paul's racist newsletter history is either evidence of a really cynical politician or a really cynical businessman looking to sell newsletters.

But I seemingly can't escape this weird feeling that, were it not for the media inevitably pulling a John McCain on him, as a nominee he could sell ideas across both lines that are very clear, simple and (I believe) right.

WTF is wrong with me and how can I correct this derangement?

I'm not sure where you're getting agreement on (1) from, public colleges are far cheaper than private ones. Subsidies for student loans can obviously be a driver of costs, but given that the state is also undercutting the private sector with cheap decent education, I don't really see it. Health care it's partially true for, but hardly the only driver of cost growth.

(2) is true but doesn't really militate for getting rid of the welfare state. Plenty of things fundamentally weaken our fiscal position - military spending in particular - but that doesn't mean I think we should get rid of them. We just have to balance the fiscal cost against other benefits.

(3) He can say this because he has no chance of being elected and so he can claim whatever he wants. I'm surprised you think an immediate $1 trillion cut is a good idea, anyways - it would certainly plunge us into another recession.

My problem with Paul is two-fold. First, he has plenty of nutty policies we've all enjoyed making fun of - his naive notions of monetary policy, his isolationist foreign policy, his slightly kooky way of dealing with most domestic issues. A lot of these stances are terrible ideas and easily make him unacceptable to me. But second, Paul isn't a serious candidate. He talks a lot of talk about these dramatic policy changes, but he (a) has no way of implementing them and (b) most of his fixes would be disastrous. He's more interested in his own ideological purity than in developing effective policy. I find this a fatal failing for a candidate, regardless of whether some of his critiques of our system are based in reality. His solutions are all bunk.

It's clear to me that Paul enters the race not as a serious candidate but because he wants to shape discourse on his ideas, and a presidential candidacy is a good platform for publicity. Since he doesn't give a damn, he can be refreshingly honest on any number of issues, even when they show him to be ridiculously wrong-headed, and it gives him some 'indie' appeal. I appreciate some of his antics at the debates as much as anyone (as much as I enjoyed seeing Kucinich in the Dem debates), but he's clearly just grandstanding for a national audience. It's pretty cynical, but I suppose I shouldn't expect more from a politician.

[Lebanese Dragon]

1) Health care costs and education costs have skyrocketed due to government intervention in those markets.

On Education the only reason it's increasing cost, is because it's increasing demand, which happens anyway if you want your populace to be educated. I think any society wishing to maintain a competitve edge would find that desirable, and a great positive externality government should spend. Only downside is those who abuse the system, and non-serious/non-completers who go to college. They will take some things away from college, whether it's the social blossoming, or the intellectually broadening horizons, but they don't take as much from it as, as those who work hard while there and do well. Obviously we want as much as our resources/our aid to go to the second group.

I find this a fatal failing for a candidate, regardless of whether some of his critiques of our system are based in reality. His solutions are all bunk.

I disagree his solutions are all bunk; however, I agree that he is very idealistic, which make him genuine candidate (as in not a sell-out); however, at the same time he then perhaps lacks compromise, sure with certain laws we encroach on our own rights, but perhaps it protects other rights. We need to weigh them carefully, and all changes we make need be slow.

I wouldn't mind him being president, because he won't be able to accomplish anything merely push our government in a direction I think is good. What I'd rather have in a president is somone serious about reform to end corruption, so we can have more free thinkers, instead of followers, and thus have more bipartisan support of ideas. (instead of part A, all denying for the sake of helping their party, and not the country).

"glorious free market".

They would work. I don't see how you imagine they wouldn't. It just may be in the government/societies intrest to subsidize for those who otherwise couldn't afford such things, and to place some regulations to speed up natural market equilibriums when it comes to various standards in regards to who is qualified to be a doctor and what is acceptable medical practices.

[Loki]

In one sentence you say he's too idealistic to compromise and in the next you say he'll push the country in the right direction: The only direction he'd push the country is off a giant cliff. Absolutely no law would pass under his watch, which is only good if you're a hard-core libertarian and actually want the government to cease functioning.

[Lebanese Dragon]

In one sentence you say he's too idealistic to compromise and in the next you say he'll push the country in the right direction: The only direction he'd push the country is off a giant cliff. Absolutely no law would pass under his watch, which is only good if you're a hard-core libertarian and actually want the government to cease functioning.

What I mean is he won't be able to reduce all foreign aid to 0, it won't happen, but I'd imagine he'd be able to reduce some foreign aid, I'm sure he'd realize it's a step by step process, he's not a dumb guy. He may be incorrect but everyone is incorrect relative to other people's metric. No one's going to find someone other than themselves they 100% agree with. And if you do, more than likely, it's because that person doesn't think for themselves.

Similarly he won't be able to take all our troops out of all their stations around the world, but I imagine he'll get the military to review some, to close some, and minimize others.

He won't be able to get rid of all of these regulations (this will be his toughest battle), but he'll be able to get rid of some which the market may be able to handle on it's own.

the standards we have on food today wouldn't have worked 200 years ago. It'd be like no one could produce food, because the standards we have now are way to high for that context. For the context we have now, they are reasonable, perhaps though they could use some review. I personally wold be fine, as long as properly labeled, if people wanted to undergo the risk of eating less safe food at a lower cost. As long as such information is accuratley disclosed to the public. And we'd have to have large fines and random audits to make sure companies are doing as they say they are doing.

He doesn't want the government to cease functioning, he wants to minimize it as much as humanly possible. I agree he's extreme, I agree that to the degree he wants things won't pass, but I do believe he'll be able to push some fronts towards what he wants, and I'm more happy with just pushing the country that way, and not actually doing what he says to the extent that he says.

[GGT]

I'm not sure where you're getting agreement on (1) from, public colleges are far cheaper than private ones. Subsidies for student loans can obviously be a driver of costs, but given that the state is also undercutting the private sector with cheap decent education, I don't really see it. Health care it's partially true for, but hardly the only driver of cost growth.

Dread was paraphrasing something Paul said in a debate---that whenever the gov't "intervenes" in a sector their costs go up. I assume he meant both mandates and subsidies, altering demand-supply instead of letting "market principles" work their ways. He's big on those freee, unfettered markets, de-regulation, and closing entire federal departments. I'm not sure if that's his uber-ideal for maximum personal liberty, or a libertarian laissez-faire economic philosophy, or both.

It's clear to me that Paul enters the race not as a serious candidate but because he wants to shape discourse on his ideas, and a presidential candidacy is a good platform for publicity.

Sound about right. He's always claimed to be mostly a messenger trying to spread a Libertarian philosophy and get it mainstream. I think that's why he stayed in the Republican party, instead of going Libertarian. He knows third party candidates aren't covered by media, and would never reach audiences like the televised debates. He wasn't "invited" to some of the debates last time around, because the GOP requires both X amount of campaign money and certain poll numbers. (That's why Roemer wasn't on the stage.)

[GGT]

I'm definitely uneasy when people call "health care" and "education" a market - as if those areas would work in any way when subjected to the "glorious free market".

A free market only works if you're able to actually walk away from an offer or find a valid alternative. If I'm ill I don't have a choice, I have to subject myself to treatment of some kind. And if I'm critically and acutely ill I also don't have the time to "shop around" to find a cheaper hospital. Not to mention that my own life is per definition invaluable to myself - thus putting me at a disadvantage whenever my health is concerned.
Same is true to a minimally lesser extent in the area of education.

Thus I'd ask the people here to stop treating those two areas as if they were something you could treat like the financial markets (not that those are doing so great, mind).

It makes me uncomfortable, too. But politicians, economists, financiers, and even business people frame health and education that way. They are sectors in a consumer market economy, both private and public, for-profit and non-profit...but the term "freee market" is thrown about so broadly, it ignores the societal purpose and value of health and education.

<That's where Ron Paul's libertarian purity becomes an unrealistic or utopian ideal to me. He often says things like

In the 60's, before we had Medicare or Medicaid, or any government involvement in healthcare, people were taken care of, and we didn't have people lying in the streets or anything like that.....

It's like a romanticized memory of our society in simpler times, when people could pay OOP for medical care, or might have a small insurance policy. Beggars and indigent were considered "charitable causes", and never turned away or denied care. It's almost a revisionist memory of our history, though. And a complete denial of medical technology advancements that happen to cost a lot of money! That kind of stuff falls in the Bachmann (or was it Sharon Angle?) WTF category....when poor people used to pay the doctor with a chicken>

[Aimless]

Chickendollar inflation has been rampant for the last few decades no doubt thanks to govt. intervention