Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bachmann wins, Paul in close second

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Looks like Bachman wins the Iowa Straw Poll; Ron Paul in a close second (200 vote margin). Meanwhile, Gotham City Mayor Mitt Romney is an epic fail.

What do you all think of these results? Obviously, Paul is not square with Objectivist ideals, but what does it mean that a candidate running on a "pro-capitalist" platform (and I think he's genuine in his sentiment, unlike the others) nearly took the straw poll? Nothing? Something? Who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it pretty well recorded that the straw poll here doesn't mean anything? That is to say, the process behind it completely removes its predictive capabilities.

I suppose I got taken in by it. I just find watching them squirm onstage refreshing; as for the results, I'm not really sure. At the very least it was a show case of crazies, but the mock vote won't predict which turd will float to the top.

Worthless thread, in hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say this thread is worthless. While the Iowa straw poll is certainly not the end-all, be-all of the election, I think this means that Paul has more of a chance than I had initially suspected. Although there are many, many things wrong with Paul, he is the best Republican in the field so far (apart, perhaps, from Gary Johnson, but he has seemingly even less chance of winning).

Ayn Rand herself enthusiastically encouraged Objectivists to vote for Nixon in his second term as the much lesser of two evils (she called her movement the "Anti-Nixonites for Nixon"); Paul is a no-brainer by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bachmann is popular in the Republican party because of her ties to the Tea Party. Also Romney was the governor of Massachusetts when it passed its own healthcare law, not the mayor of Gotham City (you have him confused with Giuliani, perhaps?).

No, he looks like a corrupt mayor ripped straight from a Batman comic. I'm I the only one who feels this guy oozing villain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he looks like a corrupt mayor ripped straight from a Batman comic. I'm I the only one who feels this guy oozing villain?

No you aren't. Romney strikes me as someone who is some kind of terrible hybrid of Bush and Obama. He has a venear of folksy down-home charm that is polished to perfection, superficially like a Bush. But a disturbing, cold and unflinching kind of quality that feels like putting on an act like Obama or Pelosi. Pawlenty criticized his healthcare to his face and he ghoulishly stared right back with his frozen cartoon grin. Very Pelosi-like IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoftwareNerd,

Nobody seems to want to give Perry even a sliver of good credit, but I maintain that his decision to cut from Texas' education budget to balance the state's deficit was a grand one.

That said, I don't like the guy or his ridiculous stance on immigration, Iran, and selling public highways. Also, I agree that he has a grinning complex of sorts.

I think that, from an Objectivist viewpoint, Gary Johnson is the best candidate for President, but (and I hate to have a loser's attitude about this) he just doesn't stand a chance.

Ron Paul is on the same wavelength with Objectivists when it comes to the economy, the debt crisis, and our senseless military occupation of the sovereign state of everywhere. While he has a decidedly anti-liberty stance on abortion (I myself think that abortion in the second or third trimester is in fact murder, and I realize that I disagree with conventional Objectivism on this point) and gay marriage, he's still the best viable option. Plus, even with three years in the White House, Obama hasn't done anything to further gay marriage in the U.S. so it's foolish to think that electing a "pro-gay marriage" President is a sure-fire way to change anything in that regard.

I'm throwing my support fully behind Ron Paul for President in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

www.google.com

His newsletters have been floating around for awhile now. You can also find pictures of him with Stormfront founder Don Black.

If someone asks you for an example of someone's racism, it'd be wise of you not to link people to google.com. Basically what you said is "Go back up my claim for me". It can also be construed as an insult, as I'm sure people aren't foreign to the concept of using a search engine. The burden of proof is on you when making a claim. :)

Also, associating with Stormfronters doesn't inherently make someone racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I already googled "Ron Paul Racism (or Racist, cant remember which)". I saw some out of context quotes regarding black rioting. Nothing I saw (even in the out-of-context versions) would lead me to damn him unless I chose to be careless. And being seen with a racist guy does not make him a racist. So, again, what has Ron Paul done that's racist?

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that Ron Paul's biggest flaws were heavily on display this debate.

He would use almost any excuse to segue into talking about war. During the debate he maintained his stance that foreign aggression is the fault of the U.S. for its interventionist policies. Specifically saying that Iran is justified to oppose America because it installed the Shah in the 50's. As well as saying that Iran naturally should seek nuclear weapons because it would gain more respect, and would want them as its surrounded by nuclear capable countries (China, America, India, Pakistan, etc.).

I think that Ron Paul gets a lot of support here for some good reasons. People see the state of the "War on Terror" and it's a failed mess. They want it over. So it's likely he appeals to that kind of mood right about now. At the same time however his actual stance is more than just ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's actually more of a pacifist (as long as it's the U.S. doing the warring). So there's also a contingent of old school hippy pacifist support in his ranks.

His view of Iran I think is not even naive, and frankly suicidal. Rick Santorum rebuked him pretty harshly and appropriately on Iran. Mentioning how Iran is a massive violator of woman's rights, and gay rights (before Santorum later went on to answer questions about how he opposes gay marriage lol). Santorum is not admirable but he was right to point out Paul's stupidity on Iran.

Ron Paul also likes to punt massive rights violations to the states in a typically Libertarian fashion. He maintained that embryos are people who deserve a shot at life, but that it's not right for the Federal level to decide. But if mob rule decides at the state level then it is super. Similarly his stance on gay marriage is that the government should just not have a say in the legality of marriage, but he himself thinks marriage is only one man with one woman.

And then of course he is still essentially a Christian who believes that rights come "from our Creator".

I definitely understand why some people are prepared to vote for Ron Paul so enthusiastically; he's a small breathe of fresh air in the bits he gets right. But with that there's an awful lot he gets wrong. What worries me is considering if this guy really got put into office, what would those 4 years look like?

Would his presidency result in an America being better off and delayed on it's road to statism? Or would his inherent Christianity, pacifism, and anti-government ideas (as opposed to pro-capitalist) wind up besmirching the progress of individual rights and laissez faire Capitalism for years? (If not even worse, wind up emboldening a nuclear Iran to destroy Isreal or attack the U.S).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ron-paul-blast-em.jpg

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal

(W)e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such"

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/ The full content of the newsletter is at the bottom of that page.

He's both taken responsibility, denied writing, and denied knowing of their existence in the last 15 years. Now, this could be a case of my being raised in a generation where the term 'racist' means nothing and everything, where a hint of the word means political death. Once again, I'm waking up to the point where I realize when I've been taken in, but is this being taken in or justified in questioning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that Ron Paul's biggest flaws were heavily on display this debate.

Let me first caveat this response by noting that I'm a Canadian living in the Caribbean... so my interest is more of a concerned observer of US politics as they inevitably impact the rest of the world.

Your objections/comments seem to focus primarily on Ron Paul's position on US Foreign Policy with a few additional points about his expressed opinions on some domestic "hot-button" issues (ie: embryos, marriage, etc.).

On US Foreign Policy:

I disagree that Ron Paul is a pacifist of any kind. Rather, he rightly points out that a proper limited government has no business interfering - for any reason - in the affairs of other nations. The military serves one "just" purpose, and that is the defense of the lives and property of a nation's citizens against force from foreign aggressors. To pursue such a policy, Ron Paul is a big advocate of a well funded, heavily armed and technologically advanced military that is capable of crushing any opponent.

Whether a nation like Iran abuses women's and gay's rights (irrelevant notions, in my opinion - as you could simply characterize these violations as a failure to consistently uphold individual rights) is irrelevant to a free nation's foreign policy. If some individuals in the US feel the need to assist Iran - they are free to raise raise funds and establish a para-military organization outside of the US, to carry out their personal crusade against foreign tyranny... but that is a matter of personal preference... not the State. We do not ask our young men and women to volunteer for the military so that we may risk their lives for any purpose other than the defense of ours, and their, inalienable rights.

Similarly, if US citizens object to Iran's abuse of individual rights, they can voluntarily vote with their wallets and avoid any economic interactions with Iranian companies, or boycott those companies that do business in Iran.

In my opinion, where the line must be drawn with Iran - is a full court press of its population, to make them aware that the US will pull out, avoid any further interference either directly, or by proxy - but that any aggression will be met not with "proportionate response" but rather total annihilation of their military industrial complex and their ability to continue posing at threat. Just my opinion of course - but one that Ron Paul supports as detailed in his many essays over the years on the subject.

The point I'm trying to make here is that a non-interventionist US Foreign policy is - to my understanding - the only positioned supported by a free nation that fully protects individual rights.

On Domestic issues:

I agree with you that some of Ron Paul's personal opinions on matters of marriage and embryo "personhood" are particularly disappointing. However, I believe that these opinions are expressed with very carefully selected language and within a context that still leaves the door wide open for him to extricate the government from any "prescribed morality" that would violate individual rights (such as gay marriage). I believe he is being suitably "Machiavellian" in this regard - though I could be mistaken.

While you didn't bring it up, aside from his just opposition to US Foreign policy - he is the only candidate speaking the truth about the current US financial status and the corrupt (both practically and theoretically) monetary system that makes wars of aggression and deficit spending politically viable to begin with.

With respect to his opinion on the source of individual rights being "from our Creator" - I disagree and reference his 1987 essay on the subject here. I could be misinterpreting, but in the opening paragraphs he makes the point that whether you ascribe the basic inalienable rights to human nature (natural rights) or god-given gifts - you get the same conclusion of properly limited government.

I agree that it's not perfect - and illogical to make such an equivocation - but we're dealing with a politician seeking to unite people that believe heavily in a deity. I certainly won't begrudge the man some political gamesmanship if it reinvigorates the long forgotten principles of classical liberalism in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the statements that came from the newsletter sure are concerning and worth investigating. Based on the article and comments in the linked website, Ron Paul's position seems to be this: Other people were writing his newsletter (this is supported by the fact that the "Blast 'Em" column is attributed to a man named James B Powell, as seen on the PDF pics of the newsletter). Paul claims that it was also managed by others and that he didn't micromanage it. Some guy (Padactor Roger) in the comments section explains that Paul's lack of comment on the newsletter is due to the advice of his campaign committee. Random-internet-commenter says that the committee thought a full explanation would be too confusing to the public. Seems plausible, but I haven't verified any of it.

Unless there is more to this story it'll be hard to say whether or not Paul really is a racist. I'd say the best way to judge him would be to look at his legislative record and public statements he himself made. As far as I can tell, racism seems to be uncharacteristic of Ron Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, who the hell cares if he is a racist. He supports liberty to a very large degree, including in the area of freedom of association and property rights. So, even if he were a secret racist, he's a secret racist that supports individual rights. He at least wrote an article on racism , which largely imitates Rand's essay, stating that he isn't a racist and he considers it collectivism.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that Ron Paul is a pacifist of any kind. Rather, he rightly points out that a proper limited government has no business interfering - for any reason - in the affairs of other nations. The military serves one "just" purpose, and that is the defense of the lives and property of a nation's citizens against force from foreign aggressors.

Just to be clear, are you ruling out entering war on behalf, or in support, of an ally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the statements that came from the newsletter sure are concerning and worth investigating. Based on the article and comments in the linked website, Ron Paul's position seems to be this: Other people were writing his newsletter (this is supported by the fact that the "Blast 'Em" column is attributed to a man named James B Powell, as seen on the PDF pics of the newsletter). Paul claims that it was also managed by others and that he didn't micromanage it. Some guy (Padactor Roger) in the comments section explains that Paul's lack of comment on the newsletter is due to the advice of his campaign committee. Random-internet-commenter says that the committee thought a full explanation would be too confusing to the public. Seems plausible, but I haven't verified any of it.

Unless there is more to this story it'll be hard to say whether or not Paul really is a racist. I'd say the best way to judge him would be to look at his legislative record and public statements he himself made. As far as I can tell, racism seems to be uncharacteristic of Ron Paul.

True, after my preliminary judgement of the man, he seems clean other than these inexplicable articles. My only problem is that he should take credit for the contents of a paper to which he lends his name and prints. Gail Wynand was ultimately responsible for the content of his papers.

But apart from this one-off conflict, I haven't seen anything else that would lead me to believe he's racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your objections/comments seem to focus primarily on Ron Paul's position on US Foreign Policy with a few additional points about his expressed opinions on some domestic "hot-button" issues (ie: embryos, marriage, etc.).

I brought up those points because those were the the main things he discussed at this debate.

On US Foreign Policy:

I disagree that Ron Paul is a pacifist of any kind. Rather, he rightly points out that a proper limited government has no business interfering - for any reason - in the affairs of other nations. The military serves one "just" purpose, and that is the defense of the lives and property of a nation's citizens against force from foreign aggressors. To pursue such a policy, Ron Paul is a big advocate of a well funded, heavily armed and technologically advanced military that is capable of crushing any opponent.

Has Ron Paul said he is open to the idea of going to war with nations that act as an aggressor to the U.S.? I don't follow him much, but I have yet to run into him take this kind of position.

Whether a nation like Iran abuses women's and gay's rights (irrelevant notions, in my opinion - as you could simply characterize these violations as a failure to consistently uphold individual rights) is irrelevant to a free nation's foreign policy.

I understand and agree with that. I stated it in that way because that is how Rick Santorum spoke of Iran. It was just worth pointing out how Santorum is recognizing a right to married homosexuals one moment in the context of religious authoritarians. While the next moment he is proud of his very own religiously authoritarian refusal to recognize those rights to a homosexual marriage.

Similarly, if US citizens object to Iran's abuse of individual rights, they can voluntarily vote with their wallets and avoid any economic interactions with Iranian companies, or boycott those companies that do business in Iran.

This reminds me of one criticism I forgot about. Ron Paul also seems to believe that sanctions are a type of initiation of force. In his mind refusing to trade with Iran is an improper national policy because it restricts citizens rights to trade freely, and justifiably makes the Iranians upset with us.

With respect to his opinion on the source of individual rights being "from our Creator" - I disagree and reference his 1987 essay on the subject here. I could be misinterpreting, but in the opening paragraphs he makes the point that whether you ascribe the basic inalienable rights to human nature (natural rights) or god-given gifts - you get the same conclusion of properly limited government.

The point is that he thinks rights come from "nature" or the "Creator" at all. Which he said during this debate. He doesn't seem to get that individual rights are an expression of the essential features of being human and using your mind.

I certainly won't begrudge the man some political gamesmanship if it reinvigorates the long forgotten principles of classical liberalism in America.

But that's the question; would it? Or would his particular ideas put into practice only lead to more confusion and a setback to the goal of individual rights and Capitalism? (or worse)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, are you ruling out entering war on behalf, or in support, of an ally?

To be fair, I haven't considered it.

I suppose I'll fall back on "it depends" for now and look into it. On the assumption that two nations, both protecting individual rights and only differing in their desire to retain their traditional languages and national identities, engage in a military alliance to defend each other against foreign aggressors on the basis that their individual citizens are so intertwined economically... then maybe? I don't know.

Sorry to be a flake - it's a great question, and I can't do it any justice without some proper consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...