Paul would have had a 20-30% chance

[ZenFountain]

Congressman Ron Paul's decision to essentially suspend his presidential campaign and focus instead on safeguarding his Congressional seat will confuse and disappoint many of his supporters, while delighting establishment media debunkers, but the truth of how far we have progressed and the reality of the battles that lie ahead show that the campaign has made a shrewd decision.

After months of media censorship, smear attacks and dirty tricks, Ron Paul was essentially left with four choices.

....(option two)

-Drop out of the Republican race and run as a third party candidate. Up against Hillary and McCain, Paul would have had a 20-30% chance of success but would have immediately endangered his Congressional seat.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020908_ron_paul.htm

I wonder what Alex will do now that the 9/11 troof movement and Ron Paul have died, the man will probably burst into flames without legions of zombies kissing his feet and stroking his ego. Why not just come right out and say it, Paul is right where he began, a congressman with a loyal following of kooks that is otherwise unimportant in the landscape of American politics.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

:dl:

[Bob Klase]

Up against Hillary and McCain, Paul would have had a 20-30% chance of success

I'd like to see the math on that 20-30%. He's averaged 4.5% of the vote in the primaries. Maybe that means Hillary has a 300-400% chance of success?

[NeoRicen]

He can't even get double digits in the Republican primaries, and his views are pure Conservatism, he'd probably get LESS in the actual election.

[Puppycow]

Clearly if "success" is supposed to mean actually winning the election, this is laughable. But actually, I've been been wondering whether an anti-war protest candidate might enter the mix at some point, which could potentially siphon off some support for the Democratic nominee and swing the election like Nader did for Bush in 2000.

[SezMe]

There's a Hillary/McCain ticket? News bulletin for me.

[timhau]

He would have had a 20-30 % chance of survival. But there is only a 7% chance of that.

[leftysergeant]

Now, this has me scratching my head. RP got 21% of the caucus in Washington State.

A state that tries to live up to the nickname that the FDR people gave us: "The Soviet of Washington." The state where the military voters keep liberals like Norm Dicks and Patty Murray in Congress. The home of William O. Douglas.

We're different out here.

I didn't realize we were that bloody different.

And we still haven't heard from most of the "fly-over" states, where the vote of a total moron outweigh those of three PhDs in Seattle, come the general elections.

And Huckabee didn't come out far behind McCain, either.

Don't rule anybody out, just yet. RP may actually turn out to be a power broker, if Huckabbee can hold on to the last vote.

[Tricky]

Maybe that "20-30%" chance referred to the possibility of him winning a single state. That's pushing it, IMO, but not outside the range of possibilities, what with Republican dissatisfaction with McCain. Of course, it would just hand the election to the Democrats and destroy any hope of Paul ever being considered for a Republican office again.

In fact, even right now, Paul is fighting for his congressional life against an opponant who has more funds for the local election than Paul does (http://lonestartimes.com/2008/02/01/chronically-incompetent/). It is quite possible that Paul's exposure as a loony-enabler could mean losing his heavily conservative district. So this is undoubtedly a pragmatic move on his part. I hope all his internet supporters didn't really need all that money they flushed down the drain to support him.

[Richard Masters]

Maybe that "20-30%" chance referred to the possibility of him winning a single state. That's pushing it, IMO, but not outside the range of possibilities, what with Republican dissatisfaction with McCain. Of course, it would just hand the election to the Democrats and destroy any hope of Paul ever being considered for a Republican office again.

In fact, even right now, Paul is fighting for his congressional life against an opponant who has more funds for the local election than Paul does (http://lonestartimes.com/2008/02/01/chronically-incompetent/). It is quite possible that Paul's exposure as a loony-enabler could mean losing his heavily conservative district. So this is undoubtedly a pragmatic move on his part. I hope all his internet supporters didn't really need all that money they flushed down the drain to support him.

The average donation per person for Ron Paul has been 100 dollars. Compare to the average donation for the other candidates.

[remirol]

The average donation per person for Ron Paul has been 100 dollars. Compare to the average donation for the other candidates.

I wonder how many of those donations _for each candidate_ came from people who could trivially afford the amount of their donation?

[Mister Agenda]

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020908_ron_paul.htm

I wonder what Alex will do now that the 9/11 troof movement and Ron Paul have died, the man will probably burst into flames without legions of zombies kissing his feet and stroking his ego. Why not just come right out and say it, Paul is right where he began, a congressman with a loyal following of kooks that is otherwise unimportant in the landscape of American politics.

I think he can manage to avoid spontaneous human combustion. :rolleyes:

At 72 he can probably get over a few months of rock star treatment.

He's not QUITE where he began. A lot MORE kooks know about him now. And he's got a mailing list worth 20 million dollars to the right candidate.

[NoZed Avenger]

Now, this has me scratching my head. RP got 21% of the caucus in Washington State.

A state that tries to live up to the nickname that the FDR people gave us: "The Soviet of Washington." The state where the military voters keep liberals like Norm Dicks and Patty Murray in Congress. The home of William O. Douglas.

We're different out here.

I didn't realize we were that bloody different.

And we still haven't heard from most of the "fly-over" states, where the vote of a total moron outweigh those of three PhDs in Seattle, come the general elections.



Well, if a 21% vote for Ron Paul is an example of Washington's super-intelligent Ph.D.'s versus us poor morons here in fly-over country, then *Thank Ed*. We morons will get on with our drooling and crayons, and y'all's mega-geniuses can get back to curing world hunder and getting us back to the gold standard. Let us know how that all works out -- but you'd better use small words, you know how easily we can get confused or distrac- HEY, A SHINY NICKEL!!!

[Richard Masters]

I wonder how many of those donations _for each candidate_ came from people who could trivially afford the amount of their donation?

I wonder, too. I don't think that data is available, though.

[Richard Masters]

Well, if a 21% vote for Ron Paul is an example of Washington's super-intelligent Ph.D.'s versus us poor morons here in fly-over country, then *Thank Ed*. We morons will get on with our drooling and crayons, and y'all's mega-geniuses can get back to curing world hunder and getting us back to the gold standard. Let us know how that all works out -- but you'd better use small words, you know how easily we can get confused or distrac- HEY, A SHINY NICKEL!!!

Let me know how sending people to die in Iraq for irrational reasons works out for you.

[dudalb]

It's not often that we in California can laugh at another state for being way out there.

[Suddenly]

I can see him getting 20%-30% against Hillary in a two way race.

I could say the same about Carrot Top and Flavor Flav though....

[dudalb]

Let me know how sending people to die in Iraq for irrational reasons works out for you.

Paul might be right about Iraq but he is hopelessly wrong about so much else.
That is why the infatuation with Paul that some on the Left has early on was puzzling to me. It's Single Issue politics at it's most irrational.

[dudalb]

Maybe if Paul would have made SOME effort to distance himself from the wackjobs like Alex Jones he might have had a better chance.
Instead he embaraced them,and in Politics people do judge you by the company you keep.
Guilt by Association is wrong in judging whether somebody is gulty of a crime,but it's silly to pretend that the people you hang out with does not tell a lot about you .

[remirol]

The average donation per person for Ron Paul has been 100 dollars. Compare to the average donation for the other candidates.
I wonder how many of those donations _for each candidate_ came from people who could trivially afford the amount of their donation?
I wonder, too. I don't think that data is available, though.

I can't imagine that it would be. While I believe donors' names must be a matter of public record to satisfy various campaign finance regulations, their financial status or any other significant demographic information certainly should not be (and likely isn't).

[Tricky]

I can see him getting 20%-30% against Hillary in a two way race.

I could say the same about Carrot Top and Flavor Flav though....
What have you got against Carrot Top?:a2:

[dudalb]

What have you got against Carrot Top?:a2:


Other then that Carrot Top is a Tool Of Satan and his sucess a sign that Armageddon Is Upon Us,nothing.
Also,he could never get a laugh out of a laughing Hyena.

[Richard Masters]

Paul might be right about Iraq but he is hopelessly wrong about so much else.
That is why the infatuation with Paul that some on the Left has early on was puzzling to me. It's Single Issue politics at it's most irrational.

Or maybe you just don't get it.

Do you understand what the role of the President of the United States is?

His main role is as commander-in-chief. His main role is to determine what actions we take, diplomatically or militarily, in response to the rest of the world.

He gets to propose and veto legislation.

Most likely he will simply veto legislation. He would probably weaken or dissolve the Department of Homeland Security, admonish the DEA, veto any attempts to expand the PATRIOT ACT or REAL ID implementations.

As for your trivial worries about religion and abortion, or even the gold standard, there is little to nothing he can do to influence those.

The result you get in decreased government spending (as a result of vetoes) and a more humble foreign policy.

So, again, what single issue?

[Richard Masters]

Maybe if Paul would have made SOME effort to distance himself from the wackjobs like Alex Jones he might have had a better chance.
Instead he embaraced them,and in Politics people do judge you by the company you keep.
Guilt by Association is wrong in judging whether somebody is gulty of a crime,but it's silly to pretend that the people you hang out with does not tell a lot about you .

I agree.

[Spindrift]

As for your trivial worries about religion and abortion, or even the gold standard, there is little to nothing he can do to influence those.



Then why is returning to the gold standard even mentioned?

[Richard Masters]

Then why is returning to the gold standard even mentioned?

It rarely is mentioned.

[Spindrift]

It rarely is mentioned.

Why is it even mentioned once? It's a patently dumb idea and if someone could have an idea that dumb, it really doesn't matter what else they have to say. Anyone who would seriously consider returning to the gold standard isn't worth listening to for anything else.

It's like if a candidate thought bestiality wasn't such bad thing. Even if that candidate could balance the budget without raising taxes and invent a car that runs on tap water, no one would ever hear about those things, because the bestiality thing is so dumb.

[ZenFountain]

It rarely is mentioned.

http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Peace-Prosperity-Ron-Paul/dp/B000XG6SAM

So rarely he wrote a book on it? It's getting old beating down Paul but a spade is a spade.

On the original topic, what struck me most about the AJ article (and why I posted it) was the hilarity in the "20-30% chance" statistic. I'm glad that AJ is back to inventing reality as he types, for a moment he almost looked mainstream. Now that his buddy is packing up he can go back to the usual rations of crazy.

[Richard Masters]

Why is it even mentioned once? It's a patently dumb idea and if someone could have an idea that dumb, it really doesn't matter what else they have to say.

More fallacious thinking?


Anyone who would seriously consider returning to the gold standard isn't worth listening to for anything else.

Where have I heard this fallacious cliché before...?oh yeah... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3305825#post3305825)

It's like if a candidate thought bestiality wasn't such bad thing. Even if that candidate could balance the budget without raising taxes and invent a car that runs on tap water, no one would ever hear about those things, because the bestiality thing is so dumb.

Right. Promoting bestiality is like promoting better monetary policy.

[Richard Masters]

http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Peace-Prosperity-Ron-Paul/dp/B000XG6SAM

So rarely he wrote a book on it? It's getting old beating down Paul but a spade is a spade.

If Obama writes about about his drug experiences, does that mean he promotes drug use in his campaign?

I'm talking about Ron Paul's mention of a gold standard in his campaign.

He has hardly done so. He mentioned legalizing gold as tender, per the Constitution.

[Spindrift]

More fallacious thinking?
Where have I heard this fallacious cliché before...?oh yeah... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3305825#post3305825)

No, that's the real world of politics. You have one really bad idea and you're competition will hammer you to death on it. Is it far? Probably not but it is the way it works.


Right. Promoting bestiality is like promoting better monetary policy.
Of course not, especially since returning to a gold standard is anything but a "better monetary policy".

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The average donation per person for Ron Paul has been 100 dollars. Compare to the average donation for the other candidates.

Proving what, exactly?

[Spindrift]

If Obama writes about about his drug experiences, does that mean he promotes drug use in his campaign?

I'm talking about Ron Paul's mention of a gold standard in his campaign.

He has hardly done so. He mentioned legalizing gold as tender, per the Constitution.

If Obama wrote a book about promoting drug use for everyone last year, then it would be an issue in this campaign.

"Hardly" done so. That means he has mentioned it, doesn't it? Guess what he only has to mention it once for it to be taken as part of his campaign unless he flat out disavows it as a mistake.

[Thorn]

If Obama wrote a book about promoting drug use for everyone last year, then it would be an issue in this campaign.

"Hardly" done so. That means he has mentioned it, doesn't it? Guess what he only has to mention it once for it to be taken as part of his campaign unless he flat out disavows it as a mistake.

Or claims it was ghost written...:rolleyes:

By the way, RP isn't even right about the war, nobody can convince me that spontaneous removal not only from the middle east, but the entire world is a good idea. So he knows pretty well why the war was started, and that it was wrong to start it, it does not mean he has a good idea when it comes to it, and certainly not one that would be satisfactory to the conservative party.

[Richard Masters]

Proving what, exactly?

Doesn't really prove anything, but you can make a few inferences.

(1) More people per dollar spent on Ron Paul than other candidates.

(2) The money was spread out across more people, perhaps reducing the burden on each individual (which is directly relevant the post I responded to.)

(3) Lower percentage of money from lobbyists compared to other candidates.

[Richard Masters]

If Obama wrote a book about promoting drug use for everyone last year, then it would be an issue in this campaign.

He did write about his drug use.

[dudalb]

He can't even get double digits in the Republican primaries, and his views are pure Conservatism, he'd probably get LESS in the actual election.

Not really. Paul is pure Conservatism in the same way that Fidel Castro is pure Liberalism.

[Spindrift]

He did write about his drug use.

But he didn't write about promoting drug use. RP promotes returning to the gold standard. There's a vast difference there.

[ZenFountain]

So basically what you're saying Richard is that Paul has had to distance himself from past preachings the same way other politicians have had to obscure past bad behavior, including drug use?


He has hardly done so. He mentioned legalizing gold as tender, per the Constitution.

Where in the constitution are gold and silver monetized? The Coinage Act of 1792 created the dollar and monetized gold and silver, not the constitution. Paul knows this and yet he has continually blabbed about this being an issue of constitutionality, going so far as to write a book about it. Paleoconservatives don't care about constitutional intent or the actual merit of gold and silver coin though, their only care is that they are perceived as an unbreakable noose on government spending. The idea that it would bring prosperity and end inflation is window dressing designed to sucker the easily convinced into their way of thinking.

[Richard Masters]

So basically what you're saying Richard is that Paul has had to distance himself from past preachings the same way other politicians have had to obscure past bad behavior, including drug use?

No. And why exactly, is drug use bad behavior?

Where in the constitution are gold and silver monetized? The Coinage Act of 1792 created the dollar and monetized gold and silver, not the constitution. Paul knows this and yet he has continually blabbed about this being an issue of constitutionality, going so far as to write a book about it.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Secti on_10

[Bob Klase]

Quote:
Where in the constitution are gold and silver monetized? The Coinage Act of 1792 created the dollar and monetized gold and silver, not the constitution.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Secti on_10

I take it you're referring to:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

Which clearly sets limits on what states (not the federal government) may do. Or are you also claiming that all the provisions of that paragraph apply to the federal government and that congress can not approve treaties or coin money (which in itself would render the gold standard useless since there would be no money for the gold to back)?

[Kopji]

On the original topic...
Boeing Corp does not have a lot of love for John McCain, he came down on them hard over corruption. Boeing has a large presence in both Kansas and Washington St.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Secti on_10

Sounds like we have another forum Libertarian who doesn't understand the Constitution. Do you know Shanek?

[Richard Masters]

Sounds like we have another forum Libertarian who doesn't understand the Constitution. Do you know Shanek?

No. I'm also not a Libertarian.

[Richard Masters]

I take it you're referring to:



Which clearly sets limits on what states (not the federal government) may do. Or are you also claiming that all the provisions of that paragraph apply to the federal government and that congress can not approve treaties or coin money (which in itself would render the gold standard useless since there would be no money for the gold to back)?

No.

[Bob Klase]

No.

So we're clear then. The link you posted: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consti...ica#Section_10

in response to the question:

Where in the constitution are gold and silver monetized?

really has nothing to do with the question and you have no answer to that question.

[Richard Masters]

So we're clear then. The link you posted: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consti...ica#Section_10

in response to the question:



really has nothing to do with the question and you have no answer to that question.

No. What I'm saying is that your reduction ad absurdum is also a straw man. I never claimed that Congress was not allowed to make treaties or issue fiat money. I simply pointed out that States are by law to issue nothing but gold and silver in the repayment of debts.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Except that's clearly meant to mean that states must use federal currency to pay debts off. And in those times, paper money was worthless. Not anymore, though.

[Richard Masters]

Except that's clearly meant to mean that states must use federal currency to pay debts off. And in those times, paper money was worthless. Not anymore, though.

Clearly?

Maybe it was meant to mean that states ought to use gold and silver to pay debts off.

[Spindrift]

Clearly?

Maybe it was meant to mean that states ought to use gold and silver to pay debts off.

No. It means that the states can't demand payment in anything but gold and silver, but they can accept payment in any form they want.

[Suddenly]

No. It means that the states can't demand payment in anything but gold and silver, but they can accept payment in any form they want.

taking the last three statements together:

coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

...seems to simply put the state out of the money business in language that would make sense at the time.

They can't coin money.
They can emit paper that says they owe the holder something, which would be more or less a form of paper currency.
They can't require the acceptence of anything but gold and silver coin as payment for a debt. For example a law requiring people to accept whiskey or beads or whatever in to create a medium of exchange within the state.

The status of our currency and coin as a legal tender is set by federal law.

[Bob Klase]

Maybe it was meant to mean that states ought to use gold and silver to pay debts off.

You're now adding a "maybe" to your claim? Then you have to also consider, Maybe not.

[ZenFountain]

@Richard Masters

Under the articles of confederation there were no provisions regulating money and currency. State governments printed their up their own fiat currencies and coined their own money which caused many problems in interstate trade. It's one of the reasons the confederation was a convoluted mess and a failed experiment. That's why in the constitution an enumerated power (article 1, section 8) of congress is:

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures

Article 1, section 10 on limiting the states is just what it says it is, limits not powers. The argument you're looking for here is that the constitution says that the congress shall coin money, coining money implies making money (gold and silver coin) not debt instruments (reserve notes).

[Richard Masters]

You're now adding a "maybe" to your claim? Then you have to also consider, Maybe not.

I added "maybe" in jest, to suggest precisely what you have written above.

[Richard Masters]

@Richard Masters

Under the articles of confederation there were no provisions regulating money and currency. State governments printed their up their own fiat currencies and coined their own money which caused many problems in interstate trade. It's one of the reasons the confederation was a convoluted mess and a failed experiment. That's why in the constitution an enumerated power (article 1, section 8) of congress is:

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures

Article 1, section 10 on limiting the states is just what it says it is, limits not powers. The argument you're looking for here is that the constitution says that the congress shall coin money, coining money implies making money (gold and silver coin) not debt instruments (reserve notes).

Ideally, but I was well aware that it is a limit and not a power.

[OneShotKi11]

Now, this has me scratching my head. RP got 21% of the caucus in Washington State.

A state that tries to live up to the nickname that the FDR people gave us: "The Soviet of Washington." The state where the military voters keep liberals like Norm Dicks and Patty Murray in Congress. The home of William O. Douglas.

We're different out here.

I didn't realize we were that bloody different.

And we still haven't heard from most of the "fly-over" states, where the vote of a total moron outweigh those of three PhDs in Seattle, come the general elections.

And Huckabee didn't come out far behind McCain, either.

Don't rule anybody out, just yet. RP may actually turn out to be a power broker, if Huckabbee can hold on to the last vote.

IQ of 90 or IQ 210 a votes a vote and as an American citizen you have a right to express who you want to win, and everyones vote should be equal.