5 ms·

I supported Paul last time around and was disappointed to discover he wasn't really serious about (or maybe simply not prepared for) winning the primary or havi

I supported Paul last time around and was disappointed to discover he wasn't really serious about (or maybe simply not prepared for) winning the primary or having a significant impact on US politics at the expense of his political party. I got the feeling he was perfectly content to let his r3volution get hijacked by the Tea Party and used to suit the purposes of various politicians. The money I donated was not used to mount a serious campaign, but was instead appropriated for other use once the campaign was conceded. I ended up having to vote for Bob Barr. Bob Barr! Fool me twice, you're not gonna fool me again. Paul seems like a good guy, but he's doing more harm than good squandering all these resources that might be better spent on someone who's actually serious about running a viable campaign.

luriel 14y ago
I think the issues with the Paul campaign were more due to incompetence than malice. His management style is very hands off, and that means some of the people around him which are some times rather clueless or nutty end making a bit of a mess of things.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  To me, it seems like he's along for the ride rather than leading anything. He's simply coasting on the momentum of his immutable ethos, and then riding the break from successive waves of the world crashing into it until each is expired. Money given to someone like that is probably wasted; Ron Paul is just going to keep being Ron Paul no matter how much money you throw at him.
nextparadigms 14y ago
His movement has quite a big impact in GOP right now. They are replacing people in local GOP parties with their own. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win now, whoever will be their candidate in 2016 or even for the next Congress elections, will have a very high chance of winning. You may or may not like the libertarian views, but I'd say they'd be a huge improvement to the current religious conservatives, the neo-conservatives who want more wars and bigger military budgets, and the general corruption within GOP.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  I think all that stuff is great, and that's why I supported him last time, but then he also has some less good platforms, like wanting to bring back a gold-backed currency [1], and a perhaps controversial stance on the legality of abortion. He's a mixed bag to me, and on top of that, he just comes off as not being sure why he's even in the race. [1] Hard currency is deflationary rather than inflationary, which takes away much of the incentive for holders of wealth to place their holdings in relatively risky placements such as seed funding and venture capital funds (a consequence HN readers would surely realize the distateful meaning of). This decreases social mobility, which is anathema to the American Way. Inflation, to a point, is the lubricant for social mobility.
  - TDL 14y ago
    Contrary to your point, the 19th century was a deflationary period and there was massive wealth creation and innovation. Inflation is not and was never a lubricant for social mobility.
    - WiseWeasel 14y ago
      There was tremendous wealth concentration, ultimately leading to the New Deal and Federal Reserve.
      - TDL 14y ago
        The New Deal had absolutely nothing to do with the late Victorian period (or the 19th century.) The New Deal was a reaction to the Great Depression. There was indeed great wealth concentration in the 19th century, but there was also a massive amount of wealth creation that benefited more than just the very wealthy. The Federal Reserve had little to do with the concentration of wealth. The Federal Reserve was the culmination of decades of lobbying to bring back a central bank the U.S.
WildUtah 14y ago
Ron Paul will never be president. And he was never going to be president. It's not just that he's too intellectual and not suave and good-looking enough. It's that he actually wants to run the government. The bureaucracy, the intellectuals, the press, and monied business interests don't want to see a more innovative, more free, and more forward-looking country. They like preserving the power they have just fine, thank you. And the press, the academy, and big business have enough influence over public opinion to prohibit anyone they really don't like from winning power. The purpose of sending money to Ron Paul and voting for Ron Paul is to move the Overton Window. [1] The day that someone like Ron Paul can win the presidency, there will be dozens like him running and he won't seem like a special shining light. The thing that does make Paul special is that he is running when it's impossible to win but still possible for things to change. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  Meh. If he's not in it to win, I don't see the point. Sure, nothing gets handed to you on a silver platter, positive national media coverage in particular, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means you need a very creative strategy. Paul doesn't have that.
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  I'd like to see libertarians admit that most people simply don't like Ron Paul and his policy platform, rather than try and claim it as a conspiracy of the political elite to keep him out. The political elite, like most of America, don't give two shits about Ron Paul. They're not afraid of him; they ignore him. He's easy to ignore, because he will never be a threat. He will never be president, not just because he doesn't have the charisma to win an election, but because his policies are actively off-putting. Paul fans like to claim that there are things to ling about him from all sides of the political spectrum. This is true. As a liberal, I like his stance on civil liberties, drug policy, and the like. However, I hate his economic policies, which appear to be crafted under the illusion that the world stopped turning in the 1920s. So while I like some things about him, I would never vote for him. Likewise for social conservatives: while they might like his tax policies, they hate his social ones. Ron Paul is a perennial also-ran because his policies actively repulse the vast majority of Americans. Deal with it, and stop blaming it on some conspiracy of the political elite.
tomjen3 14y ago
You have understand something if you are to understand Ron Pauls actions from the last election. He is OLD and has been running for this forever. He has always been an outsider. Always. And he never ever expected to win. He ran to get some discussion, to shake the political system up a bit. What Ron Paul didn't expect was the massive boost he would get from the internet. The first generation to grow up with the internet had come of voting age and quite frankly we were sick and tired of George Bush and many of us didn't believe in Obama either (and, by the god I don't believe in, were we ever right) and then, seemingly out of nowhere, comes this politician who have something that we would never expect to see -- honestly and fucking integrity. In a politician? So basically you have a man how is used to being ignored and people who are used to ignore politicians. So he meets the supporters never expecting anything to happen and suddenly the money bombs starts to go of, soldiers overseas donate massively to his campaign and he is making more progress than he had done all the years before. Basically he was nowhere near ready for the onslaught that came his ways -- much like the shops in west Berlin had no idea what was about to happen when the wall came down -- and really, I can't fault the guy. How could he possibly know that this time it was different? Heck I couldn't have predicted it and I almost live on the internet. And by the way he has one additional trick up his sleeve that is about to go of in a month or two. It may be worth sticking around to watch.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  I still don't think he's ready, and that ship has likely sailed in any case. I'll save my cash for the next guy.

luriel 14y ago

I think the issues with the Paul campaign were more due to incompetence than malice. His management style is very hands off, and that means some of the people around him which are some times rather clueless or nutty end making a bit of a mess of things.

WiseWeasel 14y ago
To me, it seems like he's along for the ride rather than leading anything. He's simply coasting on the momentum of his immutable ethos, and then riding the break from successive waves of the world crashing into it until each is expired. Money given to someone like that is probably wasted; Ron Paul is just going to keep being Ron Paul no matter how much money you throw at him.

nextparadigms 14y ago

His movement has quite a big impact in GOP right now. They are replacing people in local GOP parties with their own. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win now, whoever will be their candidate in 2016 or even for the next Congress elections, will have a very high chance of winning. You may or may not like the libertarian views, but I'd say they'd be a huge improvement to the current religious conservatives, the neo-conservatives who want more wars and bigger military budgets, and the general corruption within GOP.

WiseWeasel 14y ago
I think all that stuff is great, and that's why I supported him last time, but then he also has some less good platforms, like wanting to bring back a gold-backed currency [1], and a perhaps controversial stance on the legality of abortion. He's a mixed bag to me, and on top of that, he just comes off as not being sure why he's even in the race. [1] Hard currency is deflationary rather than inflationary, which takes away much of the incentive for holders of wealth to place their holdings in relatively risky placements such as seed funding and venture capital funds (a consequence HN readers would surely realize the distateful meaning of). This decreases social mobility, which is anathema to the American Way. Inflation, to a point, is the lubricant for social mobility.
- TDL 14y ago
  Contrary to your point, the 19th century was a deflationary period and there was massive wealth creation and innovation. Inflation is not and was never a lubricant for social mobility.
  - WiseWeasel 14y ago
    There was tremendous wealth concentration, ultimately leading to the New Deal and Federal Reserve.
    - TDL 14y ago
      The New Deal had absolutely nothing to do with the late Victorian period (or the 19th century.) The New Deal was a reaction to the Great Depression. There was indeed great wealth concentration in the 19th century, but there was also a massive amount of wealth creation that benefited more than just the very wealthy. The Federal Reserve had little to do with the concentration of wealth. The Federal Reserve was the culmination of decades of lobbying to bring back a central bank the U.S.

WildUtah 14y ago

Ron Paul will never be president. And he was never going to be president. It's not just that he's too intellectual and not suave and good-looking enough. It's that he actually wants to run the government. The bureaucracy, the intellectuals, the press, and monied business interests don't want to see a more innovative, more free, and more forward-looking country. They like preserving the power they have just fine, thank you. And the press, the academy, and big business have enough influence over public opinion to prohibit anyone they really don't like from winning power. The purpose of sending money to Ron Paul and voting for Ron Paul is to move the Overton Window. [1] The day that someone like Ron Paul can win the presidency, there will be dozens like him running and he won't seem like a special shining light. The thing that does make Paul special is that he is running when it's impossible to win but still possible for things to change. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

WiseWeasel 14y ago
Meh. If he's not in it to win, I don't see the point. Sure, nothing gets handed to you on a silver platter, positive national media coverage in particular, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means you need a very creative strategy. Paul doesn't have that.
redthrowaway 14y ago
I'd like to see libertarians admit that most people simply don't like Ron Paul and his policy platform, rather than try and claim it as a conspiracy of the political elite to keep him out. The political elite, like most of America, don't give two shits about Ron Paul. They're not afraid of him; they ignore him. He's easy to ignore, because he will never be a threat. He will never be president, not just because he doesn't have the charisma to win an election, but because his policies are actively off-putting. Paul fans like to claim that there are things to ling about him from all sides of the political spectrum. This is true. As a liberal, I like his stance on civil liberties, drug policy, and the like. However, I hate his economic policies, which appear to be crafted under the illusion that the world stopped turning in the 1920s. So while I like some things about him, I would never vote for him. Likewise for social conservatives: while they might like his tax policies, they hate his social ones. Ron Paul is a perennial also-ran because his policies actively repulse the vast majority of Americans. Deal with it, and stop blaming it on some conspiracy of the political elite.

tomjen3 14y ago

You have understand something if you are to understand Ron Pauls actions from the last election. He is OLD and has been running for this forever. He has always been an outsider. Always. And he never ever expected to win. He ran to get some discussion, to shake the political system up a bit. What Ron Paul didn't expect was the massive boost he would get from the internet. The first generation to grow up with the internet had come of voting age and quite frankly we were sick and tired of George Bush and many of us didn't believe in Obama either (and, by the god I don't believe in, were we ever right) and then, seemingly out of nowhere, comes this politician who have something that we would never expect to see -- honestly and fucking integrity. In a politician? So basically you have a man how is used to being ignored and people who are used to ignore politicians. So he meets the supporters never expecting anything to happen and suddenly the money bombs starts to go of, soldiers overseas donate massively to his campaign and he is making more progress than he had done all the years before. Basically he was nowhere near ready for the onslaught that came his ways -- much like the shops in west Berlin had no idea what was about to happen when the wall came down -- and really, I can't fault the guy. How could he possibly know that this time it was different? Heck I couldn't have predicted it and I almost live on the internet. And by the way he has one additional trick up his sleeve that is about to go of in a month or two. It may be worth sticking around to watch.

WiseWeasel 14y ago
I still don't think he's ready, and that ship has likely sailed in any case. I'll save my cash for the next guy.