Talk Elections

Some in Iowa think so (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70674.html). I think it may be a bit paranoid myself, but this is kind of the paranoid season these days. If that paranoia leads to killing the caucus circus however, that is the kind of paranoia I like!  :)

On the latter point, the more I find out about the way caucuses work, the more disgusted I become. Primaries are bad enough.

I think it's more liberals/Democrats (who clearly don't know any of Ron Paul's positions, but I digress) saying they'll vote for him based on, uh, weed? And stuff?

I'm not so sure Paul's crossover support will actually bother turning out, but we'll see. I do agree with you that anything that gets rid of the stupid caucus system is a good thing.

I think OWS would try a "Operation Chaos" method on us with Roemer. He might get 4-5% one of these days, but the day before, he would only be at 1%. I don't think the Obama machine would support Paul or Huntsman to cause chaos, as both of them could do well in the general.

I doubt it would be a good idea so far as mischief goes. Paul winning Iowa leads to either a Romney nomination or a Paul nomination, both of whom are far more dangerous to Obama than Perry, Gingrich, etc.

His foreign policy stance and possibly drug wars/immigration stances almost certainly help, though.

If it is, it just proves the point that open caucuses/primaries are very stupid and easily susceptible to party raiding.

Very doubtful. Maybe somebody somewhere is being a troll, but people, by and large, aren't that strategic. Face it, the GOP doesn't know what they want. Other than money. About that, they're quite certain.

The equivalent of Operation Chaos would be Democrats voting for Gingrich or Perry since the original was Limbaugh encouraging crossover voting to lift Obama by people who despised him but thought was the weaker nominee and then modified to lift Hillary by conservatives who didn't support her to try to extend the primary.

OWS and Roemer, despite some differences, actually have the same core message so that's not really the same as Operation Chaos.  Nor is the crossover support for Ron Paul strategic mischief rather than just his departures from the Republican platform genuinely appealing to liberals who lack a caucus of their own and are available to support Paul.

Because everyone on the other side just spits at money, right? But I'm not talking about this tangent here.

God,

Some people just cant believe that Ron Paul has a following in the GOP itself. If you watch Fox, they treat Paul like some kind of interloper. Paul is for limited government and non-intervention. This is very old school Republicanism.

Ron Paul supports withdrawal from the UN, doesn't he? If he were elected President, the results would be catastrophic.

I agree.  The best thing for Obama is a Gingrich win in Iowa.  I don't know why anyone on the left would want to mess with that.

How would that be catastrophic?  And can the president withdraw us from the UN without approval of Congress?

If nothing else it's refreshing to see paranoia directed at Paul's supporters instead of coming from them.

You mean like in the 1930's, when the GOP was keeping refugees from Europe out and insisting that Japan and Germany were not a threat?

Yeah, I'll agree with that. Since the early 1950's, though, he's as much an aberration on foreign policy as Lyndon LaRouche for the Democrats.

There are two Republican FP camps - the Reagan/GWB strong interventionist model, and the Nixon/GHWB pragmatic interventionist model. Noninterventionism is anathema to most Republicans.

Wasn't Robert Taft a Non-Interventionist?

Republicans don't understand the monster they've created.

30 years of ''government is the problem, starve the beast''.

They've created a class of voters who views government as tyrannical, and think only drastic cuts to everything can restore some mythical freedom.

And then they run Romney and Gingrich who both have, no surprise, used government to accomplish things. And voters recoil.

And now they're terrified that voters are beginning to believe the crap they've been spewing, and might actually vote on it.

He was, not to the extent of Paul though (supported NATO and the Marshall Plan). But in many ways he was the last of a breed, dying in 1953.

I can even extend my model backwards, with the pragmatists being represented by Ike and Vandenberg, and the hawks by Dulles and Goldwater.

But then, Democrats were divided in much the same way at the time. The 1950s was not a good time to be a noninterventionist. The advent of ICBMs, nukes, and space flight, combined with the failure of appeasement, WWII and the beginning of the Cold War, was enough to convince Americans as a whole that two great oceans were no longer a perfect defense against the troubles of the planet.

Note I did say VERY old school Republicanism, but after Bush/Cheney neo-conservativism has become less popular in the party, the non-interventionist view has risen again. Many see how foreign entanglements are expensive and dont get the results as predicted. And has been noted, Ron Paul is the original Tea Partier as he takes the argument against big government to its logical conclusion.

And in IA there is an additional factor in that Paul has been making a strong appeal to evangelicals with his pro-life messages and commercials with him talking about how many babies he has brought into the world and talking about being affected by seeing fetuses thrown into the trash. With evangelicals having no single standard bearer like Huckabee, Paul is also cutting into that vote too. Thusly he is able to break past the 20% mark.

Bottom line is that Republicans cant pretend that his message resonates with portions of the party, especially the more conservative IA Caucus going population.

This.

A simplistic fantasy sold to the dim witted.  If government is the problem then who paved the road to my work?  Who kept the poo poo out of my drinking water?  Who kept the rat feces out of my lunch meat?  I guess it was big benevolent corporations and the evil government didn't have anything to do with that.

What do you mean "a bit"?

Not surprised you like this kind of paranoia, but wonder what other forms of that malady you "like"?

If the Democrats are half as money hungry as the Republicans, they have a very strange way of showing it....

I'm sorry CARL, but your post makes zero sense to me. The last bit was just a bon mot. Get used to them - I do them a lot. :)

Yeah, for hypothetical example: A religion on the sleeve group joins a liberty loving party... let's call them the Elephant Party. Then they try to purge out the liberty elements of the Elephants in the social, economic, and foreign relations spheres. It's a good thing that never happened.

Torie,

Let me try another example.

One plus one equals two. 

That assertions probably makes "zero sense" to you!

A Paul win could be good for Romney. Romney would probably still win NH. He'd get the votes of some voters who aren't thrilled about Romney but really don't like Paul. Meanwhile there'd be some anti-Romney & Paul candidate so Paul wouldn't get all of the anti-Romney support. The more opponents, the better for Romney. 

If Paul wins Iowa, and Romney is 2nd, buy Romney.

I think a lot of the Obama people (or ex-Obama people) supporting him there find him legitimately charming.

Thing is, supporting Obama and Paul makes no sense whatsoever. Their policies are mutually exclusive. But people are fools, so whatever.

I don't agree.  There are definitely areas of overlap.  Frankly there are a lot of areas of overlap between a lot of Democrats and Republicans if you take the partisan hype out of the equation.

Ron Paul is for legalizing drugs and prostitution.  He believes the government should get out of the marriage business.  Actually his views on that are to the left of Obama!  I know I know Obama's views are "evolving."  Come to think of it Ron Paul's views on drug legalization and prostitution are also to the left of Obama.  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

Right. Obama and Paul don't agree. That's my whole point. Supporting both makes no sense.

You voted for Obama in '08 because of all the candidates offered up he was the one that would tell the justice department to lay off Cali.  If they want to sell medical marijuana don't get in a huff and prosecute them.  Three years later Paul comes along.  He takes some Obama policies to the next level, but he is unelectable.  So you like Paul but you vote for the guy that can actually get elected... Obama.

I actually really like some of Paul's views.  I recognize a lot of his views are interesting in an academic sense but unworkable in real life.  On the other hand I find some of his proposals anything from amusing to disturbing.  I support him because he adds a unique voice to the conversation.  I don't think he can or should be president though.

Ok, I see what you're saying. Marijuana laws are dumb (for a number of reasons). And while nobody expected Obama to turn into Cheech once he was elected, it was reasonable to expect him to be more chill around the edges (like with the medical stuff) that he has been or the mainstream Republicans have been. And it's kind of cool that in this age of polling and cynicism that somebody like Ron Paul comes along, and he doesn't really care that's its politically unpopular to oppose marijuana laws. He really does stand for what he believes in. He has principles in contrast to most politicians. And that's great and I give him credit for that.
All that said, you have to look at a candidate in aggregate. I think it's awesome that he opposes marijuna laws. However.
1. He opposes Medicare.
2. He wants to let younger workers opt of out Social Security, which would, in the real world, completely defund and destroy this most vital government program.
3. He wants the US to leave the United Nations.
4. He voted to put a wall up between Mexico and the United States.
5. He wants to abolish the income tax and fund the government through tariffs and excise taxes.
6.  He introduced personhood legislation that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception, something even people in MS rejected.
7.He supports don't ask don't tell.
8. He is a climate change denier.
9. He has opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
10. He would like to see prayer back in schools.
11. He voted for Bush's anti-gay marriage amendment.
12. He doesn't think citizens should have the right to elect their Senators.
So, once again, it's great that he's honest when most politicians are not. And it's cool that he thinks we shouldn't be locking up people on drugs. I think I could find things I agree on with most people. However, in aggregate Paul's positions are a heaping pile of sh!t. And I think any Obama voter should be able to see that. But maybe they can't.

Excellent post. This is why I always find it strange that people insist Paul would win Democratic support in the general election.

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

When the last time somebody was raped because of marijuana? I believe alcohol is the more typical drug men use to get women to sleep with them.

Errr... I'm pretty sure perfectly legal alchohol has been implicated in a lot more date rape situtions than Rohypnol.  Where do you guys get this hyperbolic nonsense?

Beat me by about 40 seconds.  That was a guaranteed sh-t starter.  To be fair alcohol has been used by fat chicks to get otherwise sensible guys to do things they later regret on a much more epic scale ;)

Never denied this.

...Pot. lol.

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Now, you are free to argue that since alcohol is legal, and marijuana is readily available we just have to conclude that the horse if out of the barn, and Pandora is out of her box. so we might as well let men buy Rohypnol with legal impunity.

Is that your argument?

Umm, women, generally, know when they are drinking alcohol. Rohypnol is colorless, tasteless, and odorless.

Again, you are free to argue that since thousands of women may very well be raped, annually, after [voluntarily] consuming alcohol we just have to throw our hands up and state that since, "The horse is out of the barn. Pandora is out of the box. And, the Rubicon has been crossed" on date rape we should turn a blind eye to men buying Rohypnol.

Is that your argument?

Rohypnol is one drug.  I personally have never considered date rape a huge problem as far as illicit drug use in America.  But then again I don't watch many ABC after school specials.

Guns are used in murders and robberies.  Do you think all of them should be banned?

Get a grip.

Why does it matter if you know what you are drinking?  Gee I got raped but since I know what I was drinking that makes it a lot better!

Where do you get this stuff?

Well logic appeals to people like me a lot more than right wing "morals."  If you step back and look at it you can make a pretty good case that in and of itself the piss poor American diet does more harm to the country than illicit drugs especially if you eliminate a lot of the ill effects brought on by Reagan's dumb @$$ war on drugs.

Fact #1 the majority of adults in America are overweight or obese.
Fact #2 the majority of women and men have not been date raped using Rohypnol.

The right wing bogeymen that your masters use to keep you servile don't impress me.  I know what the real threats are.

Putting any kind of frug on somebody's drink is a completely different thing than choosing it for yourself. That said, anybody know what chemicals McDonalds has been putting in your food? It's not a pretty question.

Impressive rebuttal...

Well, we were talking about drugs versus fast food, and, you decided to interject alcohol. Your point was, again?

Curious, are you claiming "left wing 'morals'" do assert a moral equivalence between regulating french fries and Rohypnol?



Is this your argument for legalizing the sale of Rohypnol between any willing buyer and seller? [Something along the lines of, "Since more women are date raped by other means, such as raw force, it doesn't matter than some lesser number of women are drugged and raped with Rohypnol."]

If "[my] masters" are attempting to keep me "servile," I would only note that they are doing a very bad job. In case you have forgotten, like folks in the Teaparty, I advocate a hostile takeover of the Republican party by conservatives.

Why do you support the legalization of guns? People get SHOT by guns!

Your question makes no sense. Gun ownership is legal. I can only "legalize" something that isn't legal in the first place.

Not where I am, but anyway, do you support making guns illegal? After all, they kill people just like date rape drugs rape people.

Cutting to the chase, guns have legitimate uses, such as self-defense, and participating in the Militia, and, improper uses, such as armed robbery, and murder.

Would you care to explain what the legitimate uses of Rohypnol would be?

Insomnia treatment. Also, suicide.

Meanwhile,


Self defense with a gun generally implies murder at some point.

There are people called "doctors" who write "prescriptions" for folks with insomnia.There are no legitimate uses for Rohypnol.


No, it does not. Murder is "unlawful" killing, while killing in self-defense is lawful.

There are people called "Police" who "arrest" people who commit murder. There are no legitimate uses for guns.


Again, suicide. Anyway, no "legitimate uses" could be used to ban a variety of drugs. Who defines what "legitimate" is?

Lol.

The chemicals added to food that most likely cause trouble are insecticides and weed-killers (enough said) that have been washed off vegetables, pollutants that ended up in fish, and the more insidious growth hormones and antibiotics fed to livestock and poultry. The antibiotics stimulate the resistance of disease germs; the growth hormones promote early puberty in children. Those end up in the food supply long before the food gets to any restaurant or grocery store.

Of course the heavy use of frying puts much fat into our diets... if we eat the high-fat foods.

Anyone who introduces a date-rate drug into someone's drink is a literal poisoner and should be subject to a prison term for assault.   

You can't seriously be saying that all killings are morally equivalent. That would mean that an accidental killing, a self-defense killing, heat-of-passion manslaughter, and capital murder are indistinguishable.

When did anyone, ever, advocate for the legalization of rohypnol?  It's not a recreational substance.

Tell that to women whom otherwise would be raped.


Reasonable people acting in good faith.

Just about every so-called "libertarian" I have met. Their ideology doesn't specify the legalization of "recreational drugs." Their ideology rejects, on principle, any government regulation of any drugs.

If the government took their platitudes seriously, we'd see epidemics of parents giving their children performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids.

Oh, please, stop crying.

Funny, reasonable people acting in good faith are also often in favour of banning guns.

Remind me, does the rohypnol rape people, or do rapists rape people?


Like who? Please, provide a list for me.

I was unaware that no government controls on something stupid results in people doing aforementioned stupid things.

Its a good thing the people in Washington are so much wiser and better than us mere mortals!

The thing is, on foreign policy everyone besides Paul, Huntsman and Johnson are of the more hawkish wing. than Reagan. And Huntsman and Johnson are not considered in a place like Iowa. And so plenty of people who wouldn't go as far as Paul in his non-interventionism find him relatively closer to their point of view.  Plus you have the Constitution Party types and Buchanan supporters who will go for Paul. The anti-interventionist/anti-globalist sentiment among social conservatives (esp. fundamentalists) shouldn't be underestimated.