Election 2012

[Super Dude]

Well, he is partially correct: Diocletian's currency policy did financially fuck the Roman Empire over for a considerable amount of time, and in some sense they never did truly recover from it. But the factors behind the fall are much, much more various in nature than simple economic policy.

[Super Dude]

In more positive news, RCP polls show Obama consistently tying with Romney if not in the lead. Romney is dropping off in the polls.

[TL]

A friend of mine pointed out one of those 'you can't un-see it' things today.
One of Romney's possible VP picks is Bob McDonnell. Now, it probably won't be him after the events of the past couple months, but it it were, the ticket would be Romney/McDonnell.

Don't see it?

[PraXis]

You gotta be fuckin' kidding me! You must have broccoli in your ears. Dr. Ron Paul absolutely annihilated that fucking douche, Krugman. It wasn't even close! It was a fucking rape!

[rumborak]

It's quite remarkable that each side hears what it wants to hear

What I heard in that interview was Paul just reiterating the same factually wrong assertions. He's consistent, for sure, but he's consistently wrong.
What you don't hear apparently is the rambling quality in all of his statements. It's almost like a tape recorder where someone hit the play button.

Oh btw, that "douche" has a Nobel prize in economics. Whatever you might think of him, he's worth listening to. For sure at least as much as a gynecologist's view on the subject, and I would argue a lot more in fact.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I'll just go ahead and leave this 'ere:

https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/06/us-usa-libertarians-idUSBRE8440BZ20120506

[Sigz]

Asked about gun control, he said, "I don't know about the rest of y'all, but you don't want to be crawling into my window after midnight."

Sigh.

[Super Dude]

PraXis's real life identity?

[jsem]

Asked about gun control, he said, "I don't know about the rest of y'all, but you don't want to be crawling into my window after midnight."

Sigh.

Lol, epic quote.

[kirksnosehair]

I alway find it amusing when people who are defending/supporting Ron Paul think that it somehow elevates his credibility to put "dr" in front of his name as if a guy who delivers babies is more qualified and/or knowledgeable on fiscal matters than a guy with a Nobel prize in that subject.

[rumborak]

Ooh, the Johnson nomination must burn for the RP campaign. It's a sign that even those guys don't see much point in voting for Paul.

rumborak

[antigoon]

Isn't Ron Paul still "trying" to get the GOP nomination, though? Like, was he even a candidate for that?

[rumborak]

Was he a candidate for the Libertarian party? No, I don't think so. But I'm pretty sure that there was an implicit agreement that the whole Libertarian bloc would vote for Paul if he gets the nomination through the GOP. The fact that the Libertarian Party went on now and announces its candidate I think sends a clear message: Paul is dead, let's find another guy.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

The latest electoral map from NYT:

https://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

I find it really interesting actually, as you get a real sense for the political geography of this country and the how and why of those factors by simply seeing where they are.

[TL]

Looking at polling over the past few months, putting Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia as 'tossups' is a bit laughable. Obama has a decent lead in all of those states right now, and has for a while.
Though it is in the best interest of any media outlet to keep the race 'close', so it's not surprising. I'd also say that North Carolina is currently more of a tossup than a GOP lean, but I wouldn't argue that one as much.

[ReaPsTA]

Asked about gun control, he said, "I don't know about the rest of y'all, but you don't want to be crawling into my window after midnight."

Sigh.

Why that reaction? 

[MondayMorningLunatic]

I alway find it amusing when people who are defending/supporting Ron Paul think that it somehow elevates his credibility to put "dr" in front of his name as if a guy who delivers babies is more qualified and/or knowledgeable on fiscal matters than a guy with a Nobel prize in that subject.

Keep in mind that Obama won a Nobel Prize, 12 days after assuming office no less. Who else has won a Nobel Prize? Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin… it's not some kind of gold standard. You wanna know why I trust Ron Paul on economics more than Krugman? Aside from his views on the Federal Reserve being correct, he predicted both the recession and the housing bubble. Krugman's predictions have been almost entirely wrong. Every time I see him on the news, he's espousing some kind of phony optimism about the economy, saying that we can just spend our way out of the recession.

People in this thread keep saying that Ron Paul is wrong about economics. I'm curious to hear what he's actually wrong about, because it seems like no one has brought up a specific example.

[Sigz]

Asked about gun control, he said, "I don't know about the rest of y'all, but you don't want to be crawling into my window after midnight."

Sigh.

Why that reaction? 

1) It says virtually nothing about his actual view on gun control policy, besides that he's presumably for personal ownership of guns in some sense. To take a page out of Barto's book, I could sleep with a bat'leth next to my bed and I'd bet anyone crawling through the window would be sorry. Doesn't mean I'm against gun control.

2) It only furthers the ridiculous rhetoric that always accompanies gun control discussions. Rather than just saying "I support personal ownership of guns" or "I think guns are an important aspect of defending yourself and your family", it's almost always focused on inflicting violence on others. I really don't need or want to hear a presidential candidate (or anyone for that matter) glorifying the hypothetical situation where they get to shoot someone who breaks into their house.

I mean, I'm not a hardcore gun control nut, and I think people should be allowed to own guns in some form. But the rhetoric that surrounds the debate is can be rather disheartening. His statement was pretty tame, but still very much along those lines.

[Super Dude]

I alway find it amusing when people who are defending/supporting Ron Paul think that it somehow elevates his credibility to put "dr" in front of his name as if a guy who delivers babies is more qualified and/or knowledgeable on fiscal matters than a guy with a Nobel prize in that subject.

Keep in mind that Obama won a Nobel Prize, 12 days after assuming office no less. Who else has won a Nobel Prize? Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin… it's not some kind of gold standard. You wanna know why I trust Ron Paul on economics more than Krugman? Aside from his views on the Federal Reserve being correct, he predicted both the recession and the housing bubble. Krugman's predictions have been almost entirely wrong. Every time I see him on the news, he's espousing some kind of phony optimism about the economy, saying that we can just spend our way out of the recession.

People in this thread keep saying that Ron Paul is wrong about economics. I'm curious to hear what he's actually wrong about, because it seems like no one has brought up a specific example.

I would hardly call saying "There will be a recession eventually" a prediction; anyone idiot can say something will happen some day and be right half the time. Unless you accept like I do the premise that all "predictions" are hoo-hah.

[ReaPsTA]

1) It says virtually nothing about his actual view on gun control policy, besides that he's presumably for personal ownership of guns in some sense. To take a page out of Barto's book, I could sleep with a bat'leth next to my bed and I'd bet anyone crawling through the window would be sorry. Doesn't mean I'm against gun control.

2) It only furthers the ridiculous rhetoric that always accompanies gun control discussions. Rather than just saying "I support personal ownership of guns" or "I think guns are an important aspect of defending yourself and your family", it's almost always focused on inflicting violence on others. I really don't need or want to hear a presidential candidate (or anyone for that matter) glorifying the hypothetical situation where they get to shoot someone who breaks into their house.

I agree with both these reasons.

[rumborak]

The only thing I rolled my eyes at was the "y'all" part.

rumborak

[jsem]

Was he a candidate for the Libertarian party? No, I don't think so. But I'm pretty sure that there was an implicit agreement that the whole Libertarian bloc would vote for Paul if he gets the nomination through the GOP. The fact that the Libertarian Party went on now and announces its candidate I think sends a clear message: Paul is dead, let's find another guy.

rumborak

Libertarian Party has always been around, and they were going to pick a candidate regardless of what Ron Paul did. Ron Paul is a strange figure for libertarians because he inspires a lot of people outside those who would normally vote LP, but they're probably not even going to vote third party anyway.

Then again, LP has never really seemed to try to go broad based, which is where Gary Johnson now comes in though and he has a broad appeal - he's not your typical minarchist.

But in a sense Paul is dead. He has a legendary legacy - he's just never going to become president and that run was really dead after the failure to win Iowa.

[rumborak]

He has achieved much for his cause in this election. But I can't help but wonder whether he isn't destroying at least some of it by "not getting the drift" so to speak. Santorum got out of the whole thing pretty unscathed and with lots of momentum left (he's in talks apparently with Romney), whereas Paul has zero of that left.

rumborak

[TL]

Santorum didn't have a whole lot of momentum left. He was stumbling near the end. Romney had outpaced him noticeably in states won, popular vote, and delegate count. Going forward, it was looking like Romney would beat Santorum in Pennsylvania, which for Santorum would have been a huge embarrassment.

[rumborak]

Oh I know, but in the public eye he left on a high note. That is, he didn't let himself get beaten to pulp like Paul did.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Oh I know, but in the public eye he left on a high note. That is, he didn't let himself get beaten to pulp like Paul did.

rumborak

Is Ron Paul even in the public eye? Doesn't matter if he's making more of a fool of himself, if no one's looking.

[jsem]

No one cares about RP anymore because the race has been over for the last 2 months really.

[kirksnosehair]

I alway find it amusing when people who are defending/supporting Ron Paul think that it somehow elevates his credibility to put "dr" in front of his name as if a guy who delivers babies is more qualified and/or knowledgeable on fiscal matters than a guy with a Nobel prize in that subject.

Keep in mind that Obama won a Nobel Prize, 12 days after assuming office no less. Who else has won a Nobel Prize? Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin… it's not some kind of gold standard. You wanna know why I trust Ron Paul on economics more than Krugman? Aside from his views on the Federal Reserve being correct, he predicted both the recession and the housing bubble. Krugman's predictions have been almost entirely wrong. Every time I see him on the news, he's espousing some kind of phony optimism about the economy, saying that we can just spend our way out of the recession.

People in this thread keep saying that Ron Paul is wrong about economics. I'm curious to hear what he's actually wrong about, because it seems like no one has brought up a specific example.

He's wrong because he wants to cut spending (in a ridiculously severe way) during a recession.  There are plenty of highly credentialed and learned economists who will tell you that deficit spending (yes, I wrote deficit spending) is how you stimulate an economy to end a recession.  One only need look at history to see how fiscal stimulus can help spark huge economic expansion. 

Even the non-partisan CBO reports that the Obama stimulus package was a major economic success.

So, yeah, Ron Paul is wrong.  Dead wrong.  And it's one of many reasons why he'll never be president.

[rumborak]

Had totally missed MML's post. Are you seriously dissing Krugman's Nobel Prize?
Especially in the light of RP supporters chanting "Dr. Paul" to transfer his degree in gynecology into credibility elsewhere.
Regarding Obama's Nobel Prize, the Peace Nobel Prize is a joke, everybody knows that. A Nobel Prize in Economics however is a major achievement.

rumborak

[antigoon]

You know shit is bad when Fareed Zakaria of all people starts speaking out against the national security state.

But of course, this issue won't be addressed in the upcoming months by anyone aside from whatsitsface, uh, Gary Johnson.

[slycordinator]

Especially in the light of RP supporters chanting "Dr. Paul" to transfer his degree in gynecology into credibility elsewhere.

FYI: There's no such thing as a degree in gynecology. Gynecology is a specialty for medical doctors (ie people who have a doctorate in medicine).

[rumborak]

There isn't, but I think it's important to draw a distinction between an internal medicine doctor, and someone doing research in systems biology. Both have a doctor in medicine, but I think one I would give more credence to his understanding of economics.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

Especially in the light of RP supporters chanting "Dr. Paul" to transfer his degree in gynecology into credibility elsewhere.

FYI: There's no such thing as a degree in gynecology. Gynecology is a specialty for medical doctors (ie people who have a doctorate in medicine).

That has nothing to do with the point being made about the term "doctor" being tossed around in this thread as if it makes Ron Paul a superior candidate for president.  In short, it doesn't.

[Progmetty]

kirksnosehair It is ridiculous I agree, but it's like saying DT fans are drunk metal head deadbeats. No, DT has a lot of drunk metal heads fans, pointing them out as the only DT fans is unfair. I never referred to the guy as Dr. Paul but I never saw others doing it as a sign of political superiority rather than respect, until you pointed that out.

[kirksnosehair]

I don't think *everyone* does it in an effort to project some sort of superiority, but I think *some* do.  The fact is, those credentials are -in and of themselves- impressive, but being a doctor of internal medicine doesn't necessarily make someone a superior politician or economist.  Ron Paul doesn't say too much different from other politicians of his ideological stripes.  "Smaller government, personal freedoms, etc, etc" is not some breathtaking breakthrough in political philosophy.   The way some people talk about this guy it's as if they think he's the second coming of Christ.  He sure does attract some devoted followers, though.  I'll give him that.